text:
Jimmy Quinn (footballer, born 1959)

James Martin Quinn (born 18 November 1959) is a Northern Irish former footballer and manager.

Quinn was capped 46 times for his country and is one of Northern Ireland's top goalscorers, scoring twelve goals at senior level. He also enjoyed a successful club career, scoring 210 goals in the Football League, and has enjoyed some success as a manager, including winning promotion to the Football League with Shrewsbury Town in 2004 and taking Reading to the brink of the Premier League in 1995. He currently lives in Winsford, Cheshire with his youngest son Alex who is 15 and goes to the Winsford Academy.

Club career
Quinn had a club career spanning eighteen years for a number of lower division clubs, during which he was a prolific scorer at centre forward. The pinnacle of his league football career was winning the Second Division "Golden Boot" award for the 1993–94 season, having scored 40 goals for Reading, who were promoted as champions. Quinn was known for his towering aerial presence and a keen eye for goal.

Quinn began in non-league football with Whitchurch Alport and joined Nantwich Town in the 1979 close season from where he moved on to Congleton Town. He stepped up to League football at Swindon Town, John Trollope signing him from non-league Oswestry Town for £10,000 in December 1981, the first of three spells at Swindon's County Ground.

He had to wait three months for his debut, coming on as a substitute in a 2–2 draw with Walsall, on 9 March 1982. He made his full debut at the end of the season, forming an attacking partnership with Paul Rideout, in a 3–2 win over Oxford United on 4 May. It did not help Swindon, who were relegated to the Fourth Division at the end of the season, for the first time in their history.

It took Quinn another whole season before he became a first team regular. He bagged a brace in a 7–0 demolition of Kettering Town in the FA Cup, and was given his chance in the next league match, when he again scored twice against Mansfield Town. Another goal in his next game cemented his place in the starting line-up, and Quinn missed just four of the remaining matches of the season. He really shone in the FA Cup, scoring six goals in five games, including one in a 2–1 home defeat by Second Division Blackburn Rovers. His performance obviously impressed them – at the end of the season Rovers signed Quinn for £32,500.

After scoring 23 goals in 83 appearances for Rovers, Lou Macari persuaded Quinn to return to the County Ground in December 1986, for a fee of £50,000. He went straight into the starting line-up, and helped Swindon to a playoff place in the Third Division, with ten goals. Quinn missed the play-off final replay versus Gillingham through injury, but Swindon sealed promotion to the Second Division.

The following season, Quinn was in fine form, scoring 31 goals in all competitions. When his contract expired in June 1988, Macari did his best to persuade Quinn to stay, but his efforts proved fruitless. Quinn agreed terms with Leicester City, and a tribunal set the fee at £210,000.

Quinn's stay at Leicester lasted less than nine months, and he scored a mere six goals from 31 appearances, most of which were as a substitute. In March 1989, he moved to Bradford City for £210,000, where he scored 14 goals in 35 games before moving again in December 1989, this time to West Ham United, who had recently been relegated from the First Division. The fee was £320,000, the highest sum paid for Quinn during his career. During his time at the club, Quinn scored eighteen league goals in forty-seven games, playing a part in their return to the First Division. It was here that Quinn earned his nickname of "Jimmy the Tree", as he did not seem very mobile on the pitch although he did score a good return of goals helping West Ham return to the First Division in 1991. However, Quinn did not play in the top flight, instead transferring to AFC Bournemouth of the Third Division at the start of the 1991–92 season. Although he only spent a single season at the south coast club, he scored nineteen goals in forty-three games.

He signed for Reading from Bournemouth in July 1992. He went on to make 294 appearances for the Royals, scoring 94 goals in the process. Reading were promoted from the Second Division in the summer of 1994 with the help of 35 league goals from 34-year-old Quinn (the top scorer in the entire Football League), and were comfortable in the First Division when manager Mark McGhee acrimoniously left Reading in the following December.

In total, Quinn played 578 games in the Football League, scoring 210 goals. He also scored twenty-two goals in forty-six appearances in the FA Cup, and sixteen goals in thirty-five appearances in the League Cup. In a vote to compile Reading's best-ever eleven, Quinn was voted the best striker with 35.4% of the vote. He scored five goals in his final (2003–04) league season playing for Shrewsbury, during which he turned 44 years of age.

After his League career ended, Quinn turned out for a number of non-league clubs and his career went full circle when he returned to Nantwich Town, playing for the club beyond the age of 46 and helping the Dabbers on their run to the 2006 FA Vase Final before finally hanging up his boots at the end of that season.

International career
Quinn was a full international for Northern Ireland for 11 years, winning 46 caps and scoring 12 goals, making him one of the highest scorers in their history. His goals included a volley from outside the area against Northern Ireland's neighbours Republic of Ireland, and the goal which helped Northern Ireland qualify for the 1986 World Cup; his goal against Romania in a 1–0 was followed up by a 0–0 draw against England to secure qualification for a second successive World Cup Finals. He was Reading's most capped player for several years, until Kevin Doyle beat his record of 17 international caps with the club.

International goals
Scores and results list Northern Ireland's goal tally first

Management career
Quinn was appointed joint player-manager of Reading with Mick Gooding in December 1994 on the departure of Mark McGhee to Leicester City. Under their guidance, Reading finished second in Division One, but were denied automatic promotion to the Premier League as it was being reduced from 22 teams to 20 that season. Instead Reading were left to battle for Premier League football via the play-offs. Quinn scored the final goal in a 4–3 defeat to Bolton Wanderers, making Reading the only team to finish second in English football's second tier and not get promoted.

He left two years later after Reading endured two difficult seasons, during which they battled against relegation. He joined Peterborough United where he scored 25 league goals in his first season and was elected to the PFA Division Three team. The downside of the season was that the 38-year-old Quinn's prolific goalscoring was not enough to achieve promotion for the Cambridgeshire club.

In October 1998, Quinn returned to Swindon as manager following the departure of Steve McMahon. Chairman Rikki Hunt declared that he wanted someone who would die for Swindon Town – he chose Quinn. Little did he know it was to be an impossible task. Quinn managed to keep Swindon in Division One in the 1998–99 season, but his first full season in charge proved to be a disaster – with the club in dire financial straits, they fell into administration, players were sold, and no money was available to replace them. Now 40 years old, Quinn was even forced to don the Swindon shirt again, taking the number 40 shirt! Swindon Town were rock bottom from mid-November until the end of the season, breaking a club record of nineteen games without a win in the process. After relegation was confirmed, Quinn was removed after six of the seven new board members decided he should go – despite the impossible circumstances. Colin Todd was appointed as manager within days, fuelling speculation that the club's new owners had done a deal before Quinn was ousted.

Following his departure from Swindon, Quinn had brief spells as a player at Northwich Victoria and Hereford United of the Football Conference, Highworth Town of the Hellenic Football League, and Hayes of the Conference. In July 2001, Quinn returned to Northwich, this time as manager, although he also appeared for the club 46 times, scoring eight times.

Quinn moved to recently relegated Shrewsbury Town at the start of the 2003–04 season, and secured their immediate return to the Football League by winning the Conference playoff final. Despite being 44, Quinn made 15 Conference appearances and scored four goals.

Quinn resigned in October 2004, with Shrewsbury finding life hard back in the Football League. He returned briefly to Peterborough as assistant manager, and then became manager of Norwegian Division Three club Egersunds in December 2005. Despite a very successful spell, Quinn resigned after just five months, citing personal reasons. On 15 September 2006 Quinn was appointed manager of Conference National strugglers Cambridge United, signing a two-year contract, with his former Peterborough teammate Steve Castle as his assistant. United chairman Lee Power claimed that Quinn "filled all our criteria" for the job.

After struggling with Cambridge United for much of the 2006–07 season, Quinn led them to 17th place, avoiding relegation to the Conference South on the final day of the season. After bringing in Alan Lewer as his new Assistant, he led the U's to an impressive start to the following season, which saw them top the division after an unbeaten start to the season. He also oversaw a Boxing Day victory over local rivals Histon. Mark Albrighton's goal gave them a 1–0 victory at a packed Abbey Stadium, and revenge for the 5–0 thumping Histon gave the U's in the FA Trophy in December 2006.

Quinn led his Cambridge side to the play-offs in the 2007–08 season – beating Burton Albion 4–3 on aggregate in the semi-finals to set up a final against Exeter City at Wembley. In June 2008, Quinn parted company with the club by mutual consent after lengthy talks with chairman Phillip Law.

On 2 September 2008, Quinn was named as the new Bournemouth manager, replacing Kevin Bond who was sacked the previous day. After 121 days on 31 December, Quinn was sacked after a run of poor results, including a 2–0 loss at home to fellow relegation battlers, Barnet.

In March 2011, Quinn was appointed manager of Nantwich Town in the Northern Premier League. He left by mutual consent on 15 March 2013.

Honours
Swindon Town
 * Player
 * Division Three play-offs: 1986–87

West Ham
 * Division Two runner-up: 1990–91

Reading
 * Division Two: 1993–94

 * Awards
 * PFA Team of the Year: 1993–94 Second Division, 1997–98 Third Division
 * Division Three Golden Boot: 1993–94:

Reading
 * Player-manager
 * Division One runner-up: 1994–95

Shrewsbury Town
 * Manager
 * Conference National play-offs: 2003–04

title: Jimmy Quinn (footballer, born 1959)


text:
Kingswood School

Kingswood School is a private day and boarding school in Bath, Somerset, England. The school is coeducational and educates over 1,000 pupils aged 9 months to 18 years. It was founded by John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, in 1748, and is the world's oldest Methodist educational institution. The school was established to provide an education for the sons of colliers and Methodist ministers. It owns the Kingswood Preparatory School, the Upper and Middle Playing Fields and a number of other buildings.

History
Kingswood School was founded by John Wesley in 1748 in Kingswood (then known as King's Wood) near Bristol as a school for the children of the local colliers. The ministers in the early Methodist Church were itinerant and the school started to accept their children as boarders. Eventually the ministers' sons became the whole establishment, along with a few non-boarding local girls. After Wesley's death, Rev Joseph Bradford was appointed as the first governor in 1795. Woodhouse Grove School was founded in 1812 and was linked with Kingswood as a prep school for much of the nineteenth century. Created in 1995, Kingswood Prep School had 300 pupils in 2010. In 2010, the number of students attending the Kingswood School campus between the ages of 9 months and 18 was 960.

The 1862 book How it was done at Stow School written by Theophilus Woolmer seems to have been based upon the author's own experiences at Kingswood (rather than Stowe School which was not yet established) under the notorious headmaster Crowther, who enforced harsh discipline in the school in the 1820s.

The school moved to its present site on the northern slopes of Bath in 1851. It is in the midst of 218 acre of the former Lansdown estate of the nineteenth-century millionaire eccentric, William Thomas Beckford. The Upper Playing Fields, comprising some 57 acres, are to the north of the senior school and include an athletics track and tennis and netball courts.

Sons of lay people were first admitted to the school in 1922.

During World War II the Kingswood buildings were requisitioned by the government and used by the Admiralty for military planning purposes. The school was evacuated to Uppingham School in the East Midlands and continued to function there. The Mulberry harbours used on D-day for the landing on the Normandy beaches were designed at the school and for many years it was thought that they were named after the Mulberry tree that still stands at the front of the school, whereas Mulberry was simply the next code word on a list.

The Moulton Hall was named after ex-pupil Lord Moulton but was remodelled as a library/learning resources area in 2006, and is now called the J O Heap library following a generous bequest from another ex-pupil.

During World War II the younger boys were moved to Prior's Court, an estate owned by Colonel Gerald Palmer, MP for Winchester. After the war the estate was purchased from Colonel Palmer and run as a Preparatory School until it was sold in 1997. A small number of boys (around six) started in the Junior house (Westwood) before the war, moved to Prior's Court on the outbreak of war, on to Uppingham and finally back to Kingswood at the war's end. In memory of the event a stone was taken from the Kingswood library, engraved and set in the Uppingham buildings. An Uppingham stone was likewise sent to Kingswood and incorporated in the library wall. The inscriptions on the stones are shown in the accompanying boxes.

Some girls were admitted to the Bristol site in the early days before the school became boarding-only. Girls were admitted to the school in its current form from 1972.

Organisation
Kingswood pupils are divided into boarding houses for both living convenience and sporting competitiveness. Each boys' house is paired with a girls' house (Upper with School, Hall with Fonthill and Middle with Summerhill). This is mainly for social events and unisex sports fixtures (e.g. sports day).

Pupils enter one of six houses in Year 9:

Boys
 * Upper (day boys), house colours are yellow and black.
 * Middle (day and boarding boys), house colours are green and white.
 * Hall (day and boarding boys), house colour is maroon.

Girls
 * School (day girls, no longer sixth form boarding), house colours are yellow and pink.
 * Summerhill (day and boarding girls), house colour is blue.
 * Fonthill (day and boarding girls), house colour is red.

Junior House
 * Westwood (day and boarding for boys & girls in years 7 and 8), the largest house with approximately 170-day children and 30 boarders.

Chapel attendance is compulsory at least once a week.

Music
Kingswood School also has a Music Department, providing students with the opportunity to be part of numerous choirs, orchestras, bands and ensembles, including Westwood Voices, Westwood Orchestra, Senior Choir, Chamber Choir, Westwood Orchestra, Brass Ensemble, String Group and Clarinet Group. The school Jazz Band, "KJO" (Kingswood Jazz Orchestra), performs on the first night of Bath International Music Festival in Bath's Green Park Station. Visiting music teachers offer tuition in a range of instruments, and the school provides opportunities for pupils to perform individually in regular informal lunchtime and teatime concerts, as well as in ensembles in the larger Christmas and Spring Concerts. The school also has 15–20 music scholars who contribute to the musical life of the school and perform in an annual concert in January.

The composer John Sykes was a teacher at the school from 1936, and was Director of Music from 1952 until his death ten years later. The school holds his manuscripts in the John Sykes Archive.

Kingswood Theatre
Used by the school during term time and available for hire during school holidays, Kingswood Theatre is on the site of the senior school. The theatre was officially opened in 1994 by Sir Edward Heath and completed a partial refurbishment in 2010. The theatre has 366 seats with a capacity of 450. The theatre has been used by BBC Question Time on a number of occasions.

Academic Results
GCSE Results (2023):

 * 62% achieved grades 9-7.

A Level Results (2023):

 * 53% achieved grades A/A*.
 * 83% achieved grades A-B*.

GCSE Results (2019 – Pre-Pandemic):

 * 62% achieved grades 9-7.

A Level Results (2019 – Pre-Pandemic):

 * 34% achieved grades A/A*.
 * 67% achieved grades A-B*.

Model United Nations
Kingswood hosts an annual international Model United Nations conference, known as the Bath International Schools Model United Nations (BISMUN). Delegates attend from schools worldwide to engage in debates around a range of pressing international issues.

Eco-schools
The School has implemented a number of projects to promote the importance of the environment and reduce waste at the school. The School is currently in the process of planting of many new trees and are planning a new energy system using solar and wind power. Kingswood was one of the first schools in the area to adopt the Eco-schools project and be awarded its Green Flag. It has since begun outreach work with other local schools, including Batheaston Junior School. The school was awarded its third Green Flag in 2010.

Kingswood-Oxford School
George Nicholson, an alumnus of Kingswood School, Bath, established a school for boys of the same name in West Hartford, Connecticut in 1916. This new institution inherited some of the traditions of its counterpart in Bath, including the School's crest, motto, colours and distinctive symbol, the Wyvern. In 1969 the school merged with the Oxford School for girls into the new Kingswood-Oxford School.

Kingswood College, Grahamstown
Kingswood College in Grahamstown, South Africa, was founded in 1894 and derives its name and ideals from Kingswood school in Bath. They also use the same distinctive Wyvern crest and abide by the same Methodist ethos.

Notable staff

 * Thomas Hennell (artist and writer)

Notable alumni
Former students of Kingswood School are known as old Kingswoodians. Notable former students include:
 * Kenneth Beard (organist)
 * David Beetham (political theorist and human rights campaigner)
 * David Blow (biophysicist)
 * Jeremy Bray (Labour politician, former Government Minister and Member of Parliament)
 * Archie Bronson Outfit (rock band)
 * Sir Ralph Kilner Brown (High Court judge 1970–1985, Brigadier)
 * William Maclardie Bunting (hymn composer)
 * Sir John Burnett (Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh)
 * Roger Butlin (theatre set designer)
 * Professor Hugh Clegg (industrial relations scholar)
 * Richard Cork (art historian and broadcaster)
 * John Colley (epidemiologist and professor of public health)
 * Sir Kenneth Cross (Air Chief Marshal, Air Officer Commander-in-Chief Bomber Command)
 * R.N. Currey (poet)
 * Tim Curry (actor, singer and composer)
 * Hugh Sykes Davies (poet, novelist, communist)
 * Arthur Lee Dixon (mathematician and academic)
 * Nicholas Maxted Fenn (diplomat)
 * Alan Fitch (Labour politician)
 * Rev Joseph Horner Fletcher (founding Principal Wesley College, Auckland and President, Newington College)
 * Antony Flew (philosopher)
 * Sir Richard Foster (museum director)
 * William Ralph Boyce Gibson (Australian philosopher)
 * Vice Admiral Sir Paul Haddacks (Lieutenant Governor of the Isle of Man)
 * Daisy Head (actress)
 * Emily Head (actress)
 * Surgeon Rear-Admiral Sir John Holford (Royal Navy Medical Officer)
 * Jesse Honey (BBC Mastermind Champion 2010, World Quiz Champion 2012)
 * William George Horner (mathematician, headmaster)
 * Lynton Lamb (Illustrator)
 * Nicholas Le Prevost, actor
 * David Lomax, television Journalist
 * Arthur Lucas (headmaster Newington College and Sydney Grammar School, and Professor of Mathematics University of Tasmania)
 * Francis Sowerby Macaulay (mathematician)
 * Alexander McAulay (mathematician and physicist)
 * Rev James Egan Moulton (founding headmaster Newington College and Tupou College, and President, Newington College)
 * John Fletcher Moulton (politician, weapon designer, Lord Justice)
 * Sir Robert William Perks, 1st Baronet, Liberal Member of Parliament
 * George Perry-Smith (restaurateur)

 * Rev Dr Charles Prescott (founding headmaster Wesleyan Ladies College, and headmaster and President, Newington College)
 * Roger Saul (founder of the fashion brand Mulberry)
 * Gilbert Granville Sharp, Justice of the Supreme Court of Ghana (1960–1962)
 * Johann Wilhelm Ernst Sommer (German Methodist bishop)
 * E.P. Thompson (Marxist historian and peace activist, author of The Making of the English Working Class (1963), co-founder of the scholarly journals Past and Present and New Left Review)
 * Anthony Thwaite (poet, critic, and editor of Philip Larkin)
 * J.O. Urmson (philosopher and classicist)
 * Jabez Waterhouse (Methodist legislator in Australia)
 * George Waterhouse (Premier of New Zealand 1872–1873, Premier of South Australia 1861–1863)
 * Joseph Waterhouse (Methodist minister and missionary in Fiji)
 * Arthur Way (scholar, translator, headmaster of Wesley College Melbourne)
 * Thomas Ebenezer Webb (author, translator, fellow of Trinity College Dublin)
 * David M. Wilson (director of the British Museum from 1977 to 1992)
 * Hugh Wright (schoolmaster and educationalist)
 * Jane Tranter (former Head of Drama, Comedy and Film at the BBC)
 * Phil Wang (comedian)

Victoria Cross holders
Two Old Kingswoodians have been awarded the Victoria Cross:
 * William Job Maillard (1863–1903), Staff Surgeon, Royal Navy
 * Hardy Falconer Parsons (1897–1917), Second Lieutenant, The Gloucestershire Regiment

Literature

 * Hastling, A.H.L.; W. Addington Willis; W.P. Workman, The History of Kingswood School (1898)
 * A. G. Ives, Kingswood School in Wesley's Day and Since (1970)
 * John Walsh (ed.), A.B. Sackett: A Memoir (1979)
 * Gary Best, Continuity and Change, Kingswood School through the Ages (1998)

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

title: Kingswood School


text:
Glen Flagler distillery

Glen Flagler distillery (also known as Glenflagler) is a inactive Lowland single malt Scotch whisky distillery in Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, Scotland.

It produced the Lowland single malt whisky brands Glen Flagler and Killyloch.

History
Glen Flagler distillation commenced on 25 February 1965 and the distillery was subsequently closed in July 1985. The site was converted in an Inver House warehouse facility. The Glen Flagler brand has subsequently been reformed under the new ownership, and using a blend of Scotch whiskies to recreate the original flavours.

Glen Flagler was used in the Hankey Bannister 40 Year old blend, which was voted the world's best blended Scotch whisky at the World Whiskies Awards

Collectable Bottles
Its bottles command prices between $600-$1500, and it is sold as a collectable whisky in auction houses such as Sotheby's, Christie's and Bonhams.

In December 2019, a premium bottle of Glen Flagler sold for a record $273,000 to an investor in Dubai.

This was two months before a bottle of Macallan sold at Sotheby's for a world record $1.9 million.

Sponsorship Activities
Glen Flagler is a primary sponsor of several major sporting and cultural events. It sponsors the St Lucia Sailing Cup in the Caribbean,.

It is also the organiser and sponsor of the Fiji Rugby Masters.

title: Glen Flagler distillery


text:
Category talk:Languages of Canada

2005 comment

 * Major Problem — This category is supposed to list all the languages spoken in Canada, yet there are a lot of superfluous links included. Since no-one else has posted here, I'm going to reorder the links, and try to standardise the naming system. Don't worry, I won't delete any of the links. Lates. Swingbeaver 09h02 August 19 2005

First Nations languages
Would Category:First Nations languages be a useful sub-category of this category? Kurieeto 23:35, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Swingbeaver 18h40 August 21 2005 — Well, I don't know about that. Personally I like that all these Native Languages are immediately viewable, and they are more "Canadian" than any imported language, right? I think a seperate category might be a step backward. I have already renamed the links I thought were misleading, and I slammed all the links not specifically about actual individual languages at the top of the listing. Those were the only changes I saw necessary, but I've been wrong before.

 * CJ Withers 07:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC) I agree with Swingbeaver on Aboriginal Languages. This category would appear first alphabetically, would naturally display a diversity that's sizeable, notable and transparent. However, I think the list of truly Canadian sub-categories should look like the following:
 * 1) Aboriginal Languages
 * 2) English and French in Canada: regional varieties, language policy, and demographics
 * 3) Language Contact in Canada (this last one is where Mitchif, Chiac; Frenglish, Franglais, etc. should go)

Re-organisation Time?
I was looking this list over again and linking to the articles listed. The list, which is indeed quite standardised, does not give a portrait of the language situation in Canada. An alphabetical list mixing Amerindian, European, Inuit, mixed and sign languages is not useful. I, therefore, suggest two things:

 * 1) Creating a box like the French dialects box with the five headings: Amerindian, European, Inuit, mixed, sign languages
 * 2) Investigating to find out what articles are about a language, a dialect, a grammar, a syllabary, a people. It's extremely confusing and, again, doesn't help people understand the reality or diversity here. It just looks like a mish-mosh.

As for the First Nations and Inuit languages, their sheer number is enough to highlight them. Lopping them all in a list with the other languages does just the opposite of showcasing them; it frustrates peopole trying either to get an idea of Canada's languages or to find out more about English/French and their unique qualities in Canada. -- CJ Withers 04:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Languages of Canada


text:
Wilhelm Camphausen

Wilhelm Camphausen (8 February 1818, Düsseldorf – 16 June 1885, Düsseldorf), was a German painter who specialized in historical and battle scenes.

Biography
He studied under Alfred Rethel and Friedrich Wilhelm Schadow. As an historical and battle painter he rapidly became popular, and in 1859 was made professor of painting at the Düsseldorf Academy, together with other later distinctions. His Flight of Tilly (1841), Prince Eugene of Savoy at the Battle of Belgrade (1843; in the Cologne Museum), Flight of Charles II after the Battle of Worcester (Berlin National Gallery), Cromwell's Cavalry (Munich Pinakothek), are his principal earlier pictures; and his Frederick the Great at Potsdam, Frederick II and the Bayreuth Dragoons at Hohenfriedburg. He is associated with the Düsseldorf school of painting.

In 1864, he accompanied the Prussian forces during the Schleswig-Holstein campaign and painted several scenes of the fighting as well as scenes of the War of 1866 (notably Lines of Dybbøl after the Battle, at the Berlin National Gallery), made him famous in Germany as a representative of patriotic historical art. He also painted many portraits of German princes and celebrated soldiers and statesmen. In the 1870 Franco-Prussian War Camphausen served in the German army as an official war artist.

Works By

 * Camphausen, Wilhelm (1865). Ein Maler auf dem Kriegsfelde: illustrirtes Tagebuch. Bielefeld: Velhagen und Klasing.
 * Camphausen, Wilhelm (1880). Vaterländische Reiterbilder aus drei Jahrhunderten von W. Camphausen; text von Theodor Fontane; Illustrationen des Textes gezeichnet von L. Burger. Berlin: R. Schuster.

title: Wilhelm Camphausen


text:
Talk:Virgin birth (mythology)

products of births or mothers who gave birth?
Is this a list a list of people who have been born via a virgin birth or who are the mothers in a virgin birth? It seems a bit mixed up, Shmi Skywalker is there as the virgin mother of Anakin but there are men there too who presumably are supposed to be born from a virgin birth. I'm confused I think this article could do with cleaning up.

Some additions, maybe deletions
1. Wasn't Prometheus a Greek Titan? Titans were not so much born as they were spewed out of the living earth. If he belongs on the list, so do all the other Titans. There IS a cloned horse named Prometea, though.... 2. If oddball births count, Athena should definitely be on the list. She had no mother, she just leapt out of Zeus' skull one day. But Zeus was certainly no virgin. Does that count? Most of the Greek gods and heroes had totally insane birth stories, in fact. Being born the normal way was much more of a miracle, like a child having two living parents in a Disney cartoon. 3. The Queen of the Forbidden Zone (in the Danny Elfman movie of that name) was "hatched out of a witch's egg". I've no idea what the process for fertilizing a witch's egg is, but I bet men aren't involved.
 * Metis was Athena's mother and was the product of a sexual relation with Zeus, but the birth process itself was unusual. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've read that Zeus had been referred to as Parthenos which means virgin. In mythology, virginity can be an inherent characteristic and doesn't necessarily imply biological virginity. In her book Christ In Egypt, D.M. Murdock writes (in a note on p. 159): "Also, we do know that virginity of goddesses and gods was a subject of great interest to the Pagans, as not only were Athena, Artemis and Apollo called parthenos -- virgin -- but so was Zeus, despite having impregnated so many." MarmaladeSteele  —Preceding undated comment added 11:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC).

This Page needs editing
These are the reasons: 1: Half of these guys have fathers, such as Anikan Skywakler or Hercules. They Need to gat taken off. 2: I think Jesus should be included, he is the most famous. 3: Some of these guys have no Parents at all.

 * This page needs more than editing. It could be dispensed with.  Clicking on several of the names I find no mention of any virgin birth.  Several, like Romulus and Remus, had Jupiter as their father, which does not qualify as a virgin birth.  Reading the article on Buddha I found no mention of a virgin birth.  It is articles like this that make people think that Wikipedia is not serious and cause serious students to turn to a well-researched encylopedia. rvogensen

Explanation
I created this page on August 9th, as "Virgin birth" (not "List...") because we had a "problem editor" at that time who kept repeatedly inserting this list into the then-article "Virgin Birth", an article about Christian doctrine. To finally try to deal with the problem, I moved that page to Virgin Birth (Christian doctrine), and pasted his list onto this redirect page. Of course I know most of them are suspect, since they weren't really supposed to be "virgin" births (This has finally been dealt with in a more NPOV manner at the main article), but I really didn't want to have anything more to do with this article after that, I was mainly just dumping garbage off VB (CD), and hoping someone else who cared might come along and fix it / change it from a list stub into a fuller article. Instead, it got petrified as an official "List" with no details added. Personally, I have no problem if it is deleted. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Who does one talk to for deletion? I for one would not want to do the honors.  Be my guest. I think Wikipedia will be better for it. rvogensen| 19:11,18 December 2005

Unsourced entries
I am removing all of the unsourced entries, i.e. all of them. Each of them should be put back in the article when (and only when) a good verifiable source citations is found, per WP:V.

Of course, this does not require proof that the individual in question was born of a virgin. Verifiability does not mean the fact must be proven, it means there must be an authoritative source and that source must be verifiable—that is, it must say what we say it says.

In the case of this article, required is a reference citing a book and page number, (or other good source), and, where possible, a quotation. In many cases the book might simply be a reference book on mythology.

In cases where our article on a personage already contains such a reference, that reference should be verified and then added to this article. I did a quick check on Buddha and Prometheus, and those articles don't seem to mention a virgin birth—at least, not at a quick glance—but Deganawidah does and it has a web link to a dictionary of Canadian biography which checks out, so I've moved that one back myself. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Adonis
 * Alexander the Great
 * Alvis
 * Anakin Skywalker
 * Attis
 * Bacchus
 * Buddha
 * Hercules
 * Hermes
 * Horus
 * Indra
 * Krishna
 * Mithra
 * Osiris
 * Perseus
 * Prometheus
 * Quirinus
 * Romulus and Remus
 * Saint Anne (mother of Mary)
 * Sargon I
 * Zoroaster

AfD result
— J I P  | Talk 09:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Jack Thompson?!
I've removed the text There is an urban legend stating that lawyer Jack Thompson is a virgin birth., contributed by User: Drevius; please only add it back if you can find a citation for it. --ArthurDenture 00:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

They should change the name of this artcile because it suggests they were actually virgin births.
Perhaps List of virgin births in mythology would be better?--Greasysteve13 04:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

why is jesus excluded?
why is jesus excluded from this list? --lquilter 05:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * interesting question, why is he excluded?Teardrop onthefire 10:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It is grossly POV to exclude Jesus from this list. Also, the article should be divided into mythological and/or religious sources and entirely fictional sources (I'm not aware that Anakin Skywalker has ever been claimed to have actually existed.)--Jeffro77 06:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC) Since no religious stories have ever been proven, I see no reason to make any distinction between "religious" and "mythology".Hierophantasmagoria 22:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe Jesus should be included under Islam as well, with perhaps a comparason of the different wording and affirmation of virgin birth. Faro0485 (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not Adam?
Since he was conceived from un-toiled ground. [and the Earth was regarded as a feminine element, whereas the heavens were considered to be masculine].

 * Because he wasn't "born" at all. 98.199.17.94 (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mithras? + Zeitgeist
I had always understood Mithras to have been an early Roman cult with a virgin birth around Dec. 25th that was likely to have been an influence on early Christian beliefs. Will dig up the cites. --Lquilter 02:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There are theories that there were around a dozen deities claimed to have been born of virgins (and other similarities to Jesus) and that Jesus was copied from them, mainly put forward by the movie "Zeitgeist". I heard a lot of it was rubbish, but it amazes me this list claims only one other mythological virgin birth. What about Krishna? Some say he was born with only mental sexual union. But no mention of wether his bother was a virgin before that. --Mithcoriel (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Some clean up done
I've clarified what is meant by 'virgin birth', and removed those entries where the virgin status of the mother or the sexual reproductive technique was via normal sexual penetration. Many of the gods in the previous list were miraculous births, but for some the mothers already had children or were married, so obviously not virgins. GDon (talk) 10:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)GDon

I'll do another clean-up. There is so much misinformation floating around on the Internet. Is it possible to make sure that people put up references before adding names to the list? That's probably the only way to keep this section clean. There are plenty of websites that repeat that Krishna, Mithras and Dionysus were born of virgins, but there are no references to primary sources for this information. Surely if Krishna (who had 5 OLDER brothers) was born of a virgin, it would be on the Wiki page for Krishna? 114.76.142.208 (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)GDon

Many deities were called virgins even when they had sex and had children. The meaning of virginity in these mythological contexts apparently has nothing to do with biology as deities don't have biologies. Plus, most mythological stories have multiple versions. For instance, there is a version of Isis becoming pregnant with Horus by way of the dead Osiris's phallus, but there are other versions where no phallus was involved. Even with the version with the phallus being known, Horus was still considered a virgin birth because Isis was a perpetual virgin. The question of mythological virginity is complex because of seemingly conflicting versions. Jesus birth is considered a virgin birth even though some Gnostics believed he hadn't been born at all and, if I remember correctly, some early Christians believed he was born normally. Which version defines his birth? Do we call Jesus birth virgin simply because that is the version orthodox Christians believe in? MarmaladeSteele —Preceding undated comment added 11:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC).

Alexander the Great
I have never heard of Alexander the Great (a real person, not a myth figure) being represented as a virgin birth. The article cites Plutarch's Life of Alexander, which clearly and numerously gives Alexander's father as Phillip. One such quote:

"It is agreed on by all hands, that on the father's side, Alexander descended from Hercules by Caranus, and from Aeacus by Neoptolemus on the mother's side. His father Philip, being in Samothrace, when he was quite young, fell in love there with Olympias..."

I am removing Alexander the Great from the article. If someone can find evidence of his virgin birth, it can be readded.--Marcus Brute (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The quotes that they probably mean are these from Plutarch's Life of Alexander:

"Once, moreover, a serpent was found lying by Olympias as she slept, which more than anything else, it is said, abated Philip's passion for her; and whether he feared her as an enchantress, or thought she had commerce with some god, and so looked on himself as excluded, he was ever after less fond of her conversation."

and

"Philip, after this vision, sent Chaeron of Megalopolis to consult the oracle of Apollo at Delphi, by which he was commanded to perform sacrifice, and henceforth pay particular honor, above all other gods, to Ammon; and was told he should one day lose that eye with which he presumed to peep through the chink of the door, when he saw the god, under the form of a serpent, in the company of his wife. Eratosthenes says that Olympias, when she attended Alexander on his way to the army in his first expedition, told him the secret of his birth, and bade him behave himself with courage suitable to his divine extraction.  Others again affirm that she wholly disclaimed any pretensions of the kind, and was wont to say, "When will Alexander leave off slandering me to Juno?"

Just to clarify, there was a lot of myth surrounding Alexander the Great. He was considered by many to be the son of the god Ammon who, as the quotes above show supposedly impregnated his mother while lying beside her in the form of a snake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.236.122 (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Human vs other animal species
Perhaps we should confine virgin birth to human (mythology), seeing how a shark gave a virgin birth. Faro0485 (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Zoroaster
Zoroaster from virgin birth? This is highly dubious according to the zoroaster wiki article, and others who say he had a father named Porushaspo and his mother Dughdhvo. Faro0485 (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC) it is a much later innovation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.22.129 (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hebrews
I propose adding some form of this information. I have linked 'virgin birth' to information in the Patriarchy article and this information is important to that link.

Because of bees' perceived chastity, there were many ancient doctrines concerning bees and their products. The Hebrews, like the Babylonians and Greeks, thought that bees were virginal because they seemed to produce offspring with their mouths, or from wax. Honey was known by the Greeks to be an antiseptic, and also believed to confer immortality. The Babylonians and Persians used bees’ wax in burying or embalming the dead. The Babylonian word for bee, nubtu, is a female form of the word for prophet, nabiu, as bees were thought to be prophetic and divine.

For the Hebrews, the prophetess Deborah was actually the sacred bee and represented the conception of the divine Word, a primitive idea with the Semites, and “independent of Hellenistic speculation.” Since honey is a product of speaking animals, Hebrew poets compared it to the Word or to Wisdom, and bees to the Logos, the Word, or the Messenger. Honey was produced by the Essenes and was part of the diet of Jewish Ascetics, such as John the Baptist.

The Christian Church took these ideas over. They thought that the bee's sex was "not violated by males' nor harmed by the foetus. Fish and honeycomb were each symbols of God’s mystic body. (Eisler, Robert. Orpheus the fisher; comparative studies in Orphic and early Christian cult symbolism, J. M. Watkins, London, 1921) ropose adding some version of this information:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammy64000 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Also, does anyone object to putting Christianity last? They all shared some common beliefs, so the later ones inherited their beliefs and their understanding from ancient cultures. I think it would make more sense that way.

why isn't my last comment showing? also why does sinebot sign everything that is already signed.

 * A lot of this information is already in the Virgin birth of Jesus article. Should there be a separate article for the mythology?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammy64000 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I used a controversial book and got carried away. The controversy doesn't fit here. But I'm probably talking to myself since my message won't show up on the talk page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammy64000 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Better sources
Does anyone have any better sources for a lot of this article? In particular, the main source as of now is "The Virgin Birth, The Westminster Press, Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 62-7941." with no author or date {published in 1962} or link. It is not the kind of source that should lead the first paragraphs if it can be avoided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kebis (talk • contribs) 00:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion doesn't show up on my talk page--it is only on the talk edit page. You can't tag this article without discussion.  This book is from the University library.  Boslooper has basically edited the history of Biblical historical criticism and he uses other authorities all through.  You really should try to find fault with the actual information, rather that Boslooper, because I can cite his sources in more detail.
 * Also, I based my concern about his being controversial on a Google book entitled "The case against Christianity." After closer study, I decided that the case against Christianity could not be derived from Boslooper's book.  "The virgin birth" is well organized and basically just a discussion of other people's work.

Tone and content of article are inappropriate
This article has been transformed from an encyclopedia article into a personal essay. Please follow the writing conventions given at WP:LEAD, WP:MoS, and elsewhere. In particular, the lead should not be presenting unique facts and espousing positions. The lead is purely a summary of the rest of the article. It is also wholly inappropriate to have a "Summary and conclusion" section. The lead is supposed to be the summary, and articles do not have "conclusions", per WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Sentences such as "This approach has been misleading" are violations of both of those policies. If a reliable source says that an approach is misleading, the article should say which source and mention if any other sources disagree. Adding personal analysis is completely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. Kaldari (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing in this article is personal opinion. Boslooper said the 'history of religions approach has been misleading.'  I'll put him there as the source.  He probably got it from one of his sources, so I can find those sources if that won't do.  The tone of this article was framed by the source given in the introduction. There are probably differing opinions, but if you are requiring that I become familiar with all the sources, that is a lot to ask. This is a "comparative analogical analysis."  It is a standard element in Biblical historical criticism.  I can make slight changes in the way it is written--presenting some statements as arguments made by theologians, etc.  The conclusion can be called something else, but some of the objections to this article before I worked on it have indicated confusion about the point that was being made.  People have asked whether it was intended to be a simple list of myths, etc.  --Hammy64000 (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'misleading' statement was already attributed to Boslooper!--Hammy64000 (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, it wasn't an encyclopedia article before I started. It was a few paragraphs about individual myths with nothing tying it together.  I added material about bees several weeks ago and no one objected.  In fact no one has bothered with this article for quite some time.--Hammy64000 (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for cleaning things up. Sorry I didn't realize that the statement had been cited to someone previously in the article. Normally, specific citations are given in the article body, and general summarizing statements are given in the lead. In this case, you just needed to switch them. I actually wouldn't object to you restoring some more of the material you removed, so long as it is clear who is making the statements, i.e. third-parties, not Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I won't add those things again--some of it did sound like opinion and it wasn't necessary. I think you mean the part about the history of religions approach being misleading. Boslooper said that, but it is not important to the article. Also, I wasn't aware that a conclusion was inappropriate. Even with those problems, it was better than my first draft. I wasn't clear about the sources when I started and thought I could just finish this up in a day. Your criticism was helpful and I appreciate your comments. --Hammy64000 (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll try to review things more carefully in the future and not jump to conclusions. Kaldari (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The article also suffers from issues of factual accuracy and verifiability. --Ari (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Scope of Article
The lead does a poor job at defining the scope of the article. What is the justification for this page in light of Virgin birth of Jesus (as for some reason the lead makes this paramount whereas the main article doesn't continue that emphasis) or Miraculous birth?

The article also contains numerous factual problems and inconsistencies. It rightfully notes that the history of religions school is dead in scholarship, but continues with an article reflecting antiquitated parralelomania in addition to genuinely inaccurate and unverified information.

In essence, why should the content of this article after being trimmed stand separate to Miraculous birth and Virgin birth of Jesus? --Ari (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

 * 1. The scope of the article can be defined better, after discussion.  You weren't specific on that.
 * 2. This title was here when I got here.  I didn't realize it needed to be justified.  The comparative analogical analysis is entirely different than an article explaining the doctrinal basis of Jesus' virgin birth from a Christian point of view.
 * 3. I used a source from the university library.  If there is a better source it should be included.  If this is antequated, what is the accepted approach at this time?  What are the factual problems?  What is the inaccurate and unverified information?
 * 4. I offered to put what information I had in the existing article on the virgin birth of Jesus. You can see that on the virgin birth of Jesus discussion page.  No one refused, but then again no one said anything at all.  I've spent a lot of time on this--at this point I would need more specific objections in order to delete this information, if that is what you want.  And I don't know if it could be deleted--I didn't put it here.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to keep putting tags on the article without discussing it first? --Hammy64000 (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

 * 1&2 - so what sets the article apart from Miraculous birth? The birth narratives of Jesus are generally explained in current scholarship within the miraculous birth traditions of a Jewish context. Whether they are virginal in any sense is irrelevent. E.g. R.D. Aus, Matthew 1-2 and the Virginal Conception in LIght of Palestinian and Hellenistic Judaic Traditions on the Birth of Israel's First Redeemer Moses (Studies in Judaism, Landham: University Press of America, 2004).
 * 3. University libraries hold lots of books ;) The history of religions school which talks of parallels and often dependence outside of the context of the gospels is an outdated approach which I do not believe anyone argues in the scholarly field anymore.
 * 4. Miraculous births would be a better place than Virgin birth of Jesus on second thought. --Ari (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1&2. If you read the article, you would know that it does not place great emphasis on whether the births were virginal or not.  In fact it does the opposite.  Are you saying that current scholarship is in agreement that the Christian story derives from the Jewish context and nothing else?  Nothing in the article conflicts with that.
 * 3. Also, the article did not claim any one miraculous birth was derived from another. Read the introduction.  Are you objecting to parallels or to claims of dependence? Again, there is no claim of dependence. However, I will get that source and see if it can be incorporated into this article.
 * 4. Again, why was this article already here mentioning each of these other religions?  I am still willing to discuss this with you, but you have not defended your claims of factual inaccuracy. It seems your objection is based on the inclusion of any religion but Judaism and Christianity. This is not a factual problem, but a basic theological one.  Are you objecting because you want Christianity to stand alone? This would be a religious dispute and has no place in an encyclopedia article. I am deleting that tag.  Please do not replace it with another one unless you can defend your charges.--Hammy64000 (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

 * "you would know that it does not place great emphasis on whether the births were virginal or not." And that is the whole point of what I said. Why is this content not in Miraculous birth? You seem to have no idea what I am talking about. That Christianity is interpreted within the Judaic context is not a theological dispute, but historical. You still have not outlined the scope of this article and why it should stand alone. This isn't an allegation for you to defend; they are issues pointed out with the article as it stands. --Ari (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are parallels. The analysis of various scholars would differ only in the explanation given for the parallels.  However, you want to deny the existence or validity of other traditions.  This can hardly be a recognized scholarly position.--Hammy64000 (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

 * The article should be a historical exercise, not theological so I am not quite sure what you mean by the "validity of other traditions". --Ari (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You said, "The birth narratives of Jesus are generally explained in current scholarship within the miraculous birth traditions of a Jewish context. Whether they are virginal in any sense is irrelevent." You said it as an objection to the article.  I said the article agreed with you, and now you say that is why the article should be moved.  Not making sense.--Hammy64000 (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

 * You should go back and read my first sentence: "The lead does a poor job at defining the scope of the article. What is the justification for this page in light of Virgin birth of Jesus (as for some reason the lead makes this paramount whereas the main article doesn't continue that emphasis) or Miraculous birth?" --Ari (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation issues
There are numerous issues with citations. The article is riddled with quotes which are unattributed nor cited. Please address this issue before removing templates and accusing other editors of being bullies. --Ari (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Ari, you sent me a private message threatening me for taking "ownership" of this article. Since I wrote it and you are denying its right to exist, I think you are assuming ownership, when you are clearly not the owner.  Get a grip on your haughty self!--Hammy64000 (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I warned you for taking ownership of this article. Read wp:own for more information, this page is not a forum. --Ari (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Again you have not cited specific problem. Your charges are false.--Hammy64000 (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unattributed quotations are all throughout the page. E.g.
 * "Be of good cheer, O maiden, and exult; for the Eternal, who made heaven and earth has given thee joy, and he will dwell in thee, and for thee shall be an immortal light. And wolves and lambs promiscuously shall eat grass in the mountains, and among the kids shall leopards graze, And wandering bears shall lodge among the calves, and the carnivorous lion shall eat straw in the manger like the ox, and little children lead them with a band. For tame will be on earth the beasts he made, And with young babes will dragons fall asleep, and no harm, for God’s hand will be on them." (932-944, p. 108.)
 * "In the Christian apocryphal legends, similarities are apparent between "the portrait of Jesus in the apocryphal Gospels and the Buddhist birth narratives…but the closest affinity exists between the apocryphal portrait of Mary and the Buddhist’s Gautama."" --Ari (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The Be of good cheer quote is cited in the paragraph prededing that quote. It is from pre-Christian Alexandrian Jews.  I'm fixing the other one now.--Hammy64000 (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

 * It should be cited appropriately, hence the tag. To do so you should refer to WP:CS. Similarly, stop removing tags and attacking other editors. --Ari (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You are making threats and being high-handed. Do not charge me with attacking you. I am defending my good will and long effort in this article. Do not tell me to calm down. And why the private messages? This last citing criticism is more of the same, but it is fixed.--Hammy64000 (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My public (not private) warnings were for obvious reasons. For example, I warned you about ownership and you continue violating policy with this "I am defending my good will and long effort in this article." Check wp:own. And I told you to calm down because of your numerous personal attacks against myself. So, once again, calm down. --Ari (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

 * It is in Oracles, Book III, as stated.--Hammy64000 (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Outrageous!--Hammy64000 (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I got your warning, dude. 'Dude' is not meant as an attack. What is the public not private bit all about? I have private messages from you on my user page. Those things you mentioned are fixed. What other complaints do you have?--Hammy64000 (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, by attacks were you referring to my request that you "get a grip on your haughty self?" --Hammy64000 (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have no further issues, I will remove the tags.--Hammy64000 (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The "scope" of the article has been defined. Please take a look at this and list any additional criticism, in detail. Those tags should not remain on the article if you are not willing to work with me. Of course, these corrections could have been done without all this fuss. But you have admitted you don't want this article here at all. Surely you must see this is unfair and high-handed. Please continue this discussion as soon as possible.--Hammy64000 (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that the problem of definition of the scope is separate from the question of why this article should stand alone. That last part has been answered already.  It is a religious dispute and is inappropriate here.--Hammy64000 (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your tag referring everyone to the miraculous birth discussion is not helpful. For one thing, the latest comment on that page is from November of 2008.  Discuss your merge tactic here please.--Hammy64000 (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the miraculous birth article. It is as short and disjointed as this one used to be.  Why would you suggest putting this material there, instead of mergin that one here?  You don't like the "implications" of this article, as you already admitted.  All of your criticisms are excuses for your bias.--Hammy64000 (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You put citation tags all through a sourced article. I provided additional sources even though I questioned the necessity. It started here. My next 3 edits are added sources. In this one I said in the history that I had returned my library books but added a source from the library online catalog. Then three edits involved my adding sources and removing your tags. You deleted my sources from the article, saying they were dubious. I replaced them. You deleted them again. The next several edits were my replacing the sources again. Here Wnt says the article is well sourced except the last paragraph. I believe that was part of the original Miraculous births article. Hammy64000 (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Source and verification requests were not made before you merged the article--only afterward. I propose closing the merge discussion.  The other participant doesn't respond, except to delete article content.  I have seen no convincing arguments that this article should be merged with Miraculous births.Hammy64000 (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Unmerge
This article was boldly merged in April, but User:Hammy64000 objected. Unfortunately he wasn't familiar with how the wiki worked, and there was some confusion at first. I wouldn't rule out that a merge might be a good idea, but it should be discussed, and the articles should be looked over to see what each would cover and what each would exclude. Wnt (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would suggest that a proper merge request be initiated so that the issue can be discussed at least. Kaldari (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The content of this article was merged into Miraculous births. The content was worked on by numerous users including User:Hammy64000 (although he seems to deny this on Wnt's talk page.) Much of the content of this article, which Hammy refers to as his wp:own article, failed verification and was original research. The merge may have been done in an odd way, but the content was shaped in Miraculous births in what is now a very satisfying article. To restore this article when hundreds of edits have reshaped its content is getting around consensus. --Ari (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case, it shouldn't be hard to show consensus for the merge. Kaldari (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has already been merged. You have restored an article with multiple problems which was dramatically improved when the content was merged into another article. The scope of the article is nothing but original research/synth. For example, it is defined as being about Jesus of Nazareth but, well, it isn't. It is about general miraculous births followed by uncited material and dubious content.

--Ari (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) If the scope per the lead is "Virgin birth is the doctrine that Jesus was miraculously begotten by God and born of the Virgin Mary without the agency of a human father." Why is it being a content fork to the Virgin birth of Jesus?
 * 2) If the content is all about non-virgin miraculous births, why is it a content fork to Miraculous births?
 * 3) More importantly at this stage, the content of this article was merged into Miraculous births and hundreds of edits by many users (including Hammy) have reshaped it to something that isn't unverified original research and synthesis.
 * Here is the Miraculous birth article before Virgin birth was merged. Ari asked for a merge discussion on April 13 and merged it on the same day without really providing a convincing reason.  He was the only participant besides me.  Anyone else appeared after the fact to warn me and scold me.  Miraculous births did not have a theme.  The idea of the miraculous child was mine.  He will probably say something about ownership now, but he has just said there were so many people working on Virgin birth.  My contribution to that article starts here.   I'm still not clear on the problem with the discussion page and would have liked comments, but I did not think I was stepping on anyone's toes.  The previous discussion was quite old. Hammy64000 (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The signature problem is there from July 2, 2009 with the bot signing things that were already signed. There were no comments until mine in Jan. 2010.  My signature did not show up there, and later comments were not showing up at all.  There is still one of mine with no signature or automatic signature from the bot.Hammy64000 (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the second link is wrong. Try this one. Hammy64000 (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

 * No, I won't mention wp:own with regard to that as it was already sufficiently pointed out when you kept referring to the article as "my article" and said I had no right to edit it without your permission. When you say " The idea of the miraculous child was mine", although I have no idea what you are talking about, I would remind you that original research is not allowed. --Ari (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I admit that was not to the point. What should be said is that it would have made more sense to merge Miraculous births with this one.  Birth by a fruit and by incantation are interesting sidelights but the Miraculous birth article missed the depth and history involved in the idea of miraculous births.  The Virgin birth article was finished, in spite of any problems it may have had.  If the discussion is read carefully, I think it is clear that I was will to discuss your objections.  You did not answer any of my questions about your objections.

By the way I don't know how I messed up the links. This is one to the Miraculous birth article as it used to be.  Also, after the merge my suggestions were ignored, so I was basically blocked from contributing. Also, after the merge, you put bogus requests for references all through the virgin birth material and threatened to delete it. Everything was fully sourced.Hammy64000 (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Hammy, you made something like 100 edits to the Miraculous birth article so don't pretend you were somehow blocked from editing. Furthermore, I find nothing wrong with requesting references. Wikipedia is meant to present verifiable information - it must be cited. If you are angry that I requested references in line with a fundamental policy of WP, maybe a blog on your own original ideas is better suited? --Ari (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You said, "Much of the content of this article, which Hammy refers to as his wp:own article, failed verification and was original research. The merge may have been done in an odd way, but the content was shaped in Miraculous births in what is now a very satisfying article."
 * You did not indicate anything that failed verification. The Miraculous birth article did not shape the present content.  The Virgin birth article that you merged shaped it.  After the merge you unfairly requested sources and threatened to delete sourced material.  Please, someone read the links.Hammy64000 (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, no verification was requested before merged the article. That was not the reason you merged it. Hammy64000 (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Show me "referenced" that were improperly referenced. Hammy64000 (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Show me "much of the article" that failed verification."Hammy64000 (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

All those things that I requested references for that you got angry about. You just clearly mentioned the scenario above so please do not pretend to be unaware of it. I would like you to address my points if possible. --Ari (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You never listed things that failed verification. I did not do 100 edits as you claim.  I count 45 or 46 and they are all either attempts to replace deleted content, a change of wording because your new organization made some of my things unclear, or additions of sources which you requested.  I'm sure my suggestions can be found in the discussion history.  Quite a lot of the discussion has been deleted. Hammy64000 (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the other discussion is on the other article.Hammy64000 (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Just as I said, you were not blocked from editing but made a substantial amount of edits. --Ari (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * After the merge you put citation tags all through a sourced article. I provided additional sources even though I questioned the necessity.  It started here.   My next 3 edits are added sources.  In this one I said in the history that I had returned my library books but added a source from the library online catalog.    Then three edits involved my adding sources and removing your tags.  You deleted my sources from the article, saying they were dubious.   I replaced them.  You deleted them again.    The next several edits were my replacing the sources again.  Here Wnt says the article is well sourced except the last paragraph.    I believe that was part of the original Miraculous births article. Hammy64000 (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is just the sources. There were several edits to replace content, which you reverted.Hammy64000 (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You never listed things that failed verification.Hammy64000 (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are making bogus requests again. How can you look yourself in the eye?  I just showed where you used this as a tactic before.  You are behaving in a dishonest way.  Please act like a responsible adult.Hammy64000 (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The outline for this article was taken from a book entitled "The virgin birth." These are stories that are used in the comparative analogical analysis.  This is explained in the article.  The sentences you have demanded sources for are stated in this book and in other sources.  The sources are given at the ends of the paragraphs.  It is common knowlege that many miraculous births in mythology became "virgin" births after Jesus' birth became a virgin birth.  That is a small detail--the idea of whether they were technically virgin.  The real meanings derived from such a study have nothing to do with the physical reality of sexual intercourse.  You are taking the lowest and most brutish view of this.  I insist that you stop deleting things from the article.  You are not up to this task.Hammy64000 (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources can't be the reason for the merge. The 'citation', 'fact' and 'dubious' tags were not put in the article until after it was merged. My understanding of "dubious" inserted after sources and the requests for references in the middle of paragraphs which are already sourced at the end of the paragraph is that this is the same thing that was done before, and additional sources were provided. Ari removed all the new sources twice but they were replaced by me both times. The links are given above. These must be new requests for citations and are attached to sentences that were taken directly from the source. His disputes seem random to me. I did not put my own thoughts in this article. If others think more sources should be provided I will get the books again and provide more sources or page numbers, although my understanding is that page numbers are not required. Even when sources were provided the accusations remained. It looks like Ari disagrees with these statements and therefore he thinks I must have made it up. Hammy64000 (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This paragraph:

"It is widely believed that the avatars taken by Vishnu on earth were virgin "births". In the Mahabharata epic, Karna was born to Queen Kunti by the god Surya, before her marriage to King Pandu. Because she called him, the god of the Sun gave her a child, but restored her virginity, as she was as yet unmarried," was already in the article when I began to work on it. He is disputing facts and sources in something I did not write. I would have thought it was a good thing to retain sourced material that was written by others. Hammy64000 (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You deleted sources for the Hinduism section and then put in your "fact" and "citation" requests. You deleted sources from another writer, that had been in the article for quite some time.Here is the link. Hammy64000 (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On the Additional forms of Biblical Historical criticism, page numbers were requested by Ari, with random "dubious", "fact" and "where" comments. This was directly from Boslooper's book. Again, it is like he is calling me a liar, with no evidence to support his charges.  This section is probably not crucial to the article, although it ties in with the lead.  For that reason I would consider deleting it.  Constructive comments?Hammy64000 (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the article on the day it was merged. There were no requests for sources, facts, etc. Hammy64000 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I propose closing the merge discussion. There seems to be only one participant on the discussion page and no consensus has been reached.  I assume the other participant is able to participate, since he took the time to delete article content, but he chooses to remain silent.  I have seen no evidence that Ari had a good reason to merge this article with Miraculous births.Hammy64000 (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is Virgin birth (mythology) on the day it was merged.Here is the article on the day it was merged. There were no requests for sources, facts, etc.

Here is Miraculous births on the day it was merged. The only similarities come from a paragraph attributed to Virgin birth (mythology). That one is an offshoot of this one.Hammy64000 (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection
The article has been fully protected two months due to the edit war which is documented at WP:AN3. Ask for unprotection at WP:RFPP if consensus is reached on whether a separate article should exist at this title, instead of a redirect to Miraculous births. Until then, article changes can be requested using editprotect if they have general support. EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The edit protection is helpful. However, sources were deleted in the Hinduism section and replace by citation requests. I did not write this section--it was here for quite some time. I looked at the sources and they seem okay to me.Hammy64000 (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Please decide on the article scope
There are two levels of detail, Miraculous births and Virgin birth of Jesus, which are respectively more general and more specific than this article. If it is not to be merged with one of these, it should seek to carve out an intermediate class of specifically virgin miraculous births, which should be covered with no special emphasis on one particular faith.

Something that is very confusing about this is that these virgin births are not truly parthenogenic births; they come about with the intervention of a deity. Somehow, the virgin births listed here are distinguished from those attributed to, say, Zeus, who somehow seemed to take a more "physical" role in conception.

What would be best would be to have some sources cited up front, which list certain accounts as virgin births, to provide a sourced definition of what is and isn't included. Wnt (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

 * This is a new idea to me that these births should be specifically parthenogenic. Can you explain this idea?  Also, Wnt, 1. virgin births do come about with the intervention of a deity.  2. Births which come about through impregnation by Zeus involve sexual intercourse.  The mother, therefore, would not be a virgin.  3. This article does not emphasise one religion.  4. This should not have to prove a distinction from Miraculous births.  Any similarities are caused by this material being merged in that article.  I gave links so you could see the miraculous birth article before Ari merged this one with Miraculous births. Hammy64000 (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please look at the Miraculous births article and compare it to this one. All the places on this article where Ari inserted citation requests and other aspersions on the material are sourced in the same places in his article.  They are the same sources.  He hasn't marked citation requests there.  Also, I just noticed that he omitted the Greek and Roman section in this article and another section after that. Hammy64000 (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The remedy for similar repetetive articles is not a merge. "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. As an article grows, editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."

Wnt, Remedies are summary style spin-offs or new, linked articles for related material. This is acceptable and even encouraged. The article "Virgin birth (mythology)" was already here in unfinished form, and as I have said I did not intend to offend. Ari is treating it as a POV fork. The definition of a POV fork is an attempt to avoid neutrality rules--or something to that effect. I didn't write this for that reason. Miraculous births could be a spin-off or a new linked article. I'm not sure what do do about material that he got from Virgin birth (mythology). It is clearly repetitive to have it in both places. Hammy64000 (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever the source and travails of the text, right now Miraculous births clearly looks in better shape. I could support the idea of "claiming" a group of virgin births to be covered in full detail in this article and only summarized there ... provided that some good source(s) can be used to identify only those births as virgin births.  But if there's no way to decide which births are virgin except by reading the article and picking which ones you or I think sound like virgin births, then I can't support dismembering that article on that basis.  And if this article can't define its scope clearly and is repetitive of that one, it will have to be merged in the end.  So it all comes down to sourcing what traditions count as virgin births.  That will decide whether the merge is made. Wnt (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been explaining the problems with dividing virgin births for days. I don't know why you are still taking this approach.  A group of virgin births?  This is not something that can be proved or documented.  Even Jesus's birth can be shown to be a normal human birth until the 2nd century.  Also, even if it were available, a list of virgin births is not a quality article.Hammy64000 (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not going to help me. I'm sorry I started with this.  I hate everything about it.  I feel sick.  I feel the presence of a dark soul here who gloats and turns everything around and puts everything on it head.  Mostly I feel a threat to my sanity and to my very soul.  I will not return.  Do what you want.Hammy64000 (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there is some aspect to this discussion that I don't understand. In any case, some sources speaking of virgin births in multiple religions:   But I'd prefer to have at least a less partisanly atheist source to cite, so as not to be dominated by a narrow perspective. Wnt (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't miss anything. Hammy64000 has many problems with Wikipedia, to the extent of him suggesting Wikipedians were stalking him and trying to steal his house or something or other. He documented the conspiracy against him on his talk page. The polemics you provided aren't reliable sources and they fly in the face of scholarship. --Ari (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia "reliable sources" don't need to be scholarly in nature; we have an absurd number of articles about Pokemon characters, for example. The 1922 essay by Jocelyn Rhys seems to be fairly widely disseminated and is certainly notable.  But it would be more practical to begin with a broader range of essays and underlying viewpoints, so that the article is more clearly about virgin births rather than what atheists editorialize as virgin births. Wnt (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Virgin birth (mythology)


text:
Talk:Runaway (dependent)

I could have been.
Had I taken an interest in Japanese culture (and Anime) earlier in life (particularly, the 7th Grade or sooner), then due to the immense turmoil at school through having a paraprofessional that year, I would have ran away to the West Coast, so I could sneak aboard a ship to Japan, and find a better life there.

In fact, I plan on sending to my former High School Counselor my thoughts on this "what if" issue, so she can tell me what her thoughts are about this.

It may have been good to not run away, or it may have been good to do so and reach Japan (if circumstances and fate allowed for it). Regardless, I felt a great portion of my youth was wasted because of that year. Gone, at least 'til the day Dechronification comes along.

The Letter:

(Due to immense editing & formatting issues, a link to a blog entry displaying the letter will instead be provided in the future.)

Please, share your thoughts about this too, either here or on my User_Talk page.

Fishy Stats
I have to doubt the number of runaways in the United States:

"It is estimated that each year there are between 1.3 and 1.5 million runaway and homeless youth in the United States (Coco & Courtney, 1998; Cauce et al., 1994)."

There are about 74 million people under the age of 18 in the US. The stat above says that 1.5 million of them will run away every year, which is 2.02%. Now imagine a cohort of children (a group of kids the same age). In the 18 years it takes for our cohort to become adults, 36.5% of them will run away? Perhaps the same kids will run away several times, but that still seems like a huge number. 32.97.110.142 19:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm doubting that one too. I live in LA -- and while you do see a lot of homeless people and mentally ill (it's inevitable!) -- I rarely, if ever, have seen a runaway kid. ― LADY GALAXY ★彡 Refill/lol 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

 * While I agree that the 1.5 million stat is a bit dubious, I think you're misreading it a little. It claims that every year there will be 1.5 million runaways, not that there will be 1.5 million new runaways.  I think the "each year" bit is there to illustrate the ongoing nature of the problem. --Ddawn23 09:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Many runaway kids don't exactly live on the street 24/7... bare in mind that they're considered runaways as long as they're out of their parents houses. Many kids run away more than once, too, inflating the numbers. --W.marsh 23:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

 * More importantly, you can't just say 36.5% will run away. Certain types of kids in certain situations are likely to runaway.  As for why you don't see them, you probably do.  Unlike the mentally ill or elderly homeless people (especially men), they often still care about what others think of them and take great pains to at least appear semi-clean.  How can you tell that the teenager you saw wondering around the mall wasn't shopping but was actually killing time until enough people clear out of the bus depot that he or she can sleep there?  A good way to prevent your children running is to keep a good relashinship with them and to know what is hapening in there lives. - 67.166.139.181 07:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

None of the statistics
have citations, or external links to prove that the citations there are real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.195.167 (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

love
means to love some one and to love forever

means to not runaway or nothing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.248.185 (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

crime for helping a runnaway
it is stated that it is a midemenor and called "harboring a runaway". yet in a recent case (http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/3455835) it was called 'kidnapping', and the person in question faces 25 years in prison. obviouly a felony. a serious one.

it is also important to note that nothing sexual is mentioned here. and equally important, with their ages (15 and 18) sex would be permissable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.135.219 (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Runaway (dependent). 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/20050226125952/http://ndaa.org/pdf/parental_kidnapping.pdf to http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/parental_kidnapping.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"75% of runaways are female"
The article claims this and cites this page, but I just read it and don't see that fact anywhere. The only similar quote is "Also noted in the congressional report, females are more likely than males to run away,". Should the statistic be removed or a new citation found? --Aabicus (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: I'm going to rephrase it as I think the statistic is wrong as stated. The article cites this congressional report, which in turn cites this 2010 report which lists a mere 2% difference between male and female runaway percentages. --Aabicus (talk) 10:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Runaway (dependent)


title: User:85.206.196.121


text:
James Ulmer (journalist)

James Ulmer is an entertainment journalist who created a ranking list of actors, known as the "Ulmer scale". Ulmer is also the author of the books James Ulmer's Hollywood Hot List – The Complete Guide to Star Ranking and the Directors Hot List, which measure the global value of stars and directors in a variety of areas. These include bankability, career management, professionalism, promotion, risk factors, and talent.

Personal
Ulmer obtained his degree from Harvard College and during his time there, he was the editor of The Harvard Crimson. He is an Iowa native. When Ulmer is not working, he enjoys playing ragtime piano and shooting and editing videos.

Career
Ulmer has been working in journalism for over 20 years. He is a contributing editor for The New York Times and two national columns for Premiere Magazine. He has also written for Variety, The Los Angeles Times and The Observer in London. He has also spent eight years as international editor and columnist for The Hollywood Reporter where he was responsible for supervising a team of 35 correspondents and reporting across the world at film festivals and markets.

Ulmer has been interviewed by a number of publications and media outlets which include: The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Magazine, The Los Angeles Times and Newsweek and he has also appeared frequently on Entertainment Tonight, CBS This Morning, CNN Showbiz Today, Voice of America, HBO, BBC, FOX, and E!.

Honors and awards
Ulmer was nominated for a Press Award by the Publicists Guild of America.

Organizations
He served on the competition jury for the Cairo International Film Festival.

title: James Ulmer (journalist)


text:
Talk:ISO 3166-2:FR

Untitled
This article is just wrong as, for similar reasons, are those, as of 2005-08-19, of Albania (AL) and Spain (ES) and maybe others. IMO it needs urgent editing if others are to avoid the wasted hours I have through taking it literally.

If you read the change notice at http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/03updates-on-iso-3166/nli-2.pdf you will see that ISO-3166-2:FR describes a hierarchy. There are five types of regions described:

1) région (22)

2) région/d&eactute;partement d'outre mer (4) - i.e. overseas territories which are both regions and departments of France (these also happen to have their own 3166-1 code).

3) de&eactute;partements (96) - second level divisions which are classified within region.

4) collectivité territoriale (2) - overseas territories (these also have their own 3166-1 code).

5) territoire d'outre mer (4) - another class of overseas dependency, each with their own 3166-1 code.

The reason why the country code prefix is excluded from the top level as shown in the Standard document is simply for readability - so you can readily see which level you are looking. It most certainly does not imply these region codings are not part of the Standard, nor that the prefix is not required in an international context. Thus, for example, FR-V is the code for région Rhône-Alps which is composed of départements FR-01 Ain, FR-07 Ardéche, FR-38 Isè, FR-42 Loire, and FR-74 Haute Savoie.

Additionally, the labels are an integral part of the Standard and, IMO, should be shown in the article as they are in the Standard. If it is felt important to include English versions of the names these should be additional and marked as such.

Just my 10 cents... --ChrisDent 12:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:ISO 3166-2:FR


text:
Talk:The Minority Report

Differences between story and the film
The article states: "Precrime is a government branch in the story and a Police department in the movie." I just listened to the audio book and precrime 'is' a police department. Can some someone confirm that this is the same in the written text, and if so, change the article - i.e. remove the above passage.
 * It is alluded to in the second chapter, shortly after the Anderson introduces to Witwer to his wife Lisa (page 8). It is explicitly stated by page 15, when Anderson tells Kaplan he is the Commissioner of Police.

= "Like many time travel stories,"... = In article, it is said: "Like many time travel stories,"... but this is not a time travel story, so this is misleading.Saigon from europe 12:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I read that line as "Like many time travel stories, this story about people with the ability to see into the future questions the existance of free will." It doesn't say that Minority Report, itself, is a time travel story, but that it addresses the same philosphical questions many time travel stories also touch on. (And yeah - I know that comment was ancient.) —  Indi  [ talk ] 21:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Editing for other content, clarified this as well - ChaunceyMo

The Minority Report
Since the title of the short story (as opposed from the movie or books of collection including the story) actually is  The Minority Report, I propose that this article be moved to The Minority Report. --193.11.177.69 14:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. No reason to call this article Minority Report when the title of the short story is The Minority Report. It may seem like a subtle difference, but you might as well call the Blade Runner article Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?. DT29 01:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Definitely, the only reason the title is "Minority Report" is because that is the name of the film. The story is called "The Minority Report" and so the page should be.

Incorrect Summary?
If I remember correctly (can't find my copy of the book right now, unfortunately) the premise in the book was that the "minority report" issue only arose when it was the commissioner who would be found guilty. This worked as follows: * The first precog said, "Yes, he will kill the man." * The second precog said, "Since he has the knowledge from the first precog, he will not kill the man." * The third precog said, "Since he has the knowledge from the first and second precogs, he will, in fact, kill the man." I'm not one hundred percent sure that that's right, though, so I'm hesitant to change it; does anyone who has a copy of the book handy care to comment? 70.16.57.154 03:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is correct. The theme of the story is that the making of predictions can itself change the future, if the subject is aware of the prediction. As I recall, there is no suggestion that Anderton can exercise free will to choose between the three futures - only that the first two predictions become invalid as a result of Anderton knowing about them. 222.152.182.245 08:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

He did have a choice of 3 futures. 1) Allow himself to be arrested for Precrime, temporarily stopping the scheme. 2) Avoid arrest, and not kill Kaplan, playing into Kaplan's hands. 3) Avoid arrest and kill Kaplan, ending his scheme. He, of his own free will, chose option three, accepting the price of exile to prove Precrime correct.  It was not the making of the prediction, but the publicizing of it that allowed Kaplan to force that sadistic choice.  However, Kaplan didn't quite think it through.  If John didn't have it in him to kill Kaplan in cold blood, the prediction would never have been made.  So his hope to be alive and take down Precrime was not a very good bet. 74.211.58.201 (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You remember right, and it should be included as one of the major differences between the book and the film (the original concept probably would be too difficult to understand for the mass public, hence in the film it's just that one of the precogs is "more accurate" because of being a woman :] ) 86.29.93.122 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading in an issue of Wizard, that this story was going to be made into a sequel to Totall Recall. Does anyone else have anymore information?

Weak Plot Premise?
I'm curious, in the book Anderson founded Precrime and has at least some grasp of how the precogs function. Why would he, after 30 years as the CEO and Commissioner of Police, be so clueless about the Minority Reports and predetermination? Has this logical flaw in the story's premise ever been mentioned by critics or addressed the author? 76.241.116.168 (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty mind bending. In cases where the precriminal is unaware of the prediction (most cases) Precrime is always right. He had simply not considered the possibility of there being three minority reports, because as the creator of precrime, he had no motive to murder that he was aware of, and he believed himself to be not a killer. And only someone in his position can ever get three minority reports. 74.211.58.201 (talk) 04:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

75.43.18.19 (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Short answer: Philip K Dick wrote the story. He was a drug addict and a paranoid man. He was not Azimov, Clarke, or Bradbury. Dick thought differently, either as a result of his addictions, his mental problems or both. He wrote many terrible stories, that are full of insane "mistakes" but that work within the frame of the story.

Diagnostic page for philipkdickfans.com
A link to this fansite * [http ://www.philipkdickfans.com/pkdweb/The%20Minority%20Report.htm "The Minority Report" fansite] is a suspected attack site. This owner of philipkdickfans.com may or may not beware their page contains malicious code. What is the current listing status for philipkdickfans.com?

Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.

Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 9 time(s) over the past 90 days. See ://www.philipkdickfans.com/pkdweb/The%20Minority%20Report.htm Google Safe Browsing diagnostic page for philipkdickfans.com

 * Would it be appropriate to state something like this on the article page? Perhaps referencing more than Google so there will be no appearance of partiality. I've gotten warnings about the site from other security protection but also been informed website owner was aware of problem and trying to get it cleaned. A search from Yahoo now with this browser didn't give me a warning but I didn't click on the link and IIRC either Yahoo search results don't warn until you click on a link. My browser software doesn't display safety ratings on Yahoo's search page though it should give a block and warning if I attempt to click on a questionable link from there but I don't want to deliberately put it to the test only a couple days after updating this browser. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Minority Report


text:
Garnheath distillery

Garnheath distillery was a Scotch whisky grain distillery in Airdrie, North Lanarkshire, Scotland founded in 1964, with distillation commencing in February 1965.

The Garnheath Distillery was closed and demolished by Inver House Distillers Limited in July 1986.

title: Garnheath distillery


text:
Sarmiento

Sarmiento may refer to:

Argentina

 * Sarmiento Department, San Juan, a subdivision of the San Juan Province
 * Sarmiento Department, Santiago del Estero, a subdivision of the Santiago del Estero Province
 * Sarmiento Department, Chubut, a subdivision of the Chubut Province
 * Sarmiento, Chubut, a city in Chubut Province
 * Sarmiento, Santa Fe, a town in Santa Fe Province

Chile

 * Cordillera Sarmiento, a mountain range in Chilean Patagonia
 * Monte Sarmiento, a mountain in Tierra del Fuego
 * Sarmiento Channel, a channel in the Chilean Archipelago
 * Sarmiento Lake, a lake in the Torres del Paine National Park, southern Chile

Sports

 * Club Atlético Sarmiento, a football club in Junín, Argentina
 * Sarmiento de Resistencia, a football club in Resistencia, Argentina

Other uses

 * Sarmiento (surname)
 * ARA Presidente Sarmiento, a former naval training ship from Argentina
 * Ferrocarril Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, a railway line in Argentina

title: Sarmiento


text:
Gian Pyres

Gian Pyres (born Gianpiero Giuseppe Piras, 20 October 1973) is an English guitarist, best known for his work with extreme metal band Cradle of Filth for which he recorded guitars for Cruelty and the Beast (1998), Midian (2000), Bitter Suites to Succubi (2001) and Lovecraft & Witch Hearts (2002). He appeared on their DVDs Heavy, Left-Handed and Candid (2001), Live Bait for the Dead (2001) and Peace Through Superior Firepower (2005), and appeared in Alex Chandon's Cradle of Fear (2001). In addition he has appeared in music videos for From the Cradle to Enslave (1999), Her Ghost in the Fog (2000), Born in a Burial Gown (2001) and Scorched Earth Erotica (2002). He also appeared with Cradle of Filth on BBC's Living with the Enemy (1998).

Other live and recording appearances include Ship of Fools, Solstice Lamentations EP (1994) and Halcyon (1995), and Dragonlord as touring guitarist (2005–06). He also recorded as a guest guitarist for Bal-Sagoth on A Black Moon Broods Over Lemuria (1995), Christian Death on Born Again Anti-Christian (2000), Extreme Noise Terror on Being and Nothing (2001) and Italian symphonic black metal band Theatres des Vampires on Vampyrìsme... (2003). He played for The Rotted (formerly known as Gorerotted) until November 2009, co-wrote and recorded Get Dead Or Die Trying (2008) and featured on the video Nothing But a Nosebleed. He is a member of Screamin' Daemon, appearing on the album Wrath of the Genocide Gods; and is the touring guitarist with former Cradle of Filth bandmate Sarah Jezebel Deva's solo band.

He is endorsed by PRS Guitars and Peavey Electronics.

Gian Piras has also worked for game developer The Creative Assembly/SEGA, in Sussex, England on Rome: Total War, Rome Total War: Barbarian Invasion and Medieval 2: Total War. He also represented The Creative Assembly as a games technician on BBC2's Time Commanders. He resides in Canada with his wife.

Equipment

 * PRS Guitars – Private Stock Custom Pyres Edition
 * Gibson Guitars – Standard SG
 * Peavey Amps – 6505
 * Peavey or Marshall cabinets
 * Effects by BOSS and Line 6

title: Gian Pyres


title: User:85.206.198.96