text:
Talk:Brotherhood of Mutants

The L Word
Mystique and Destiny WERE lovers; they were always written as lovers by Chris Claremont. It was just never outright stated that they were lovers because Jim Shooter had a "no gay characters" policy at Marvel during the 1980s.

Only in the most recent years, in X-Men Forever and Xtreme X-Men, has Marvel relaxed enough to let writers outright state what was quite apparent subtextwise, that Destiny and Mystique were lovers. [[BakerBaker]

 * Being that it was never outright stated or even implied in past years, is reason enough not to mention it. It is sort of like the recent outing of one of the "Harry Potter" characters for no apparent reason by the book's author.

MPA 17:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 * ...except that Destiny and Mystique were outed inside the script of the comics, and it was strongly implied in past years. Nobody knew Dumbledore was gay until the series was over, and (at least in the first few books) there was no implication that he might be gay. It's not really a valid comparison. Claremont actually has one character mention that Destiny is Mystique's leman, which I guess went unnoticed by the gay police because the word is so obscure. (Check Uncanny X-Men #265 if you don't believe me.) There's also some pretty blatant implications in
 * Uncanny X-Men #177 - A comfort scene. Destiny refers to Mystique as "my Raven".
 * Marvel Fanfare #40 - Mystique thinks about her relationship with Destiny, and the two talk about it. It's pretty vague (they "care" about each other, that sort of thing), but Mystique explictly mentions that Irene is "as beautiful today as when first [they] met". They then proceed to waltz together, Mystique in the form of an oldish man.
 * IIRC, all three comics were published late 80s/early 90s. --64.180.207.196 (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Current status
The current Superteambox lists status as active but that there are no members. That seems a pseudo-contradiction at best.

BakerBaker: There are no active incarnation of the Brotherhood at the moment, hence the lack of members.

Ultimate Brotherhood
What about a listing of the members of the Ultimate universe version, as well some more details about them?

- Do we need this? It just clutters up the page.--DrBat 01:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Original lineup

 * Magneto. Founder in Uncanny X-Men #4 (March, 1964).
 * Astra. Retconned as the first recruit. Resigned prior to their first mission.
 * Toad (served in several later incarnations). Second recruit in Uncanny X-Men #4 (March, 1964).
 * Quicksilver. Third recruit, alongside the Scarlet Witch, in Uncanny X-Men #4 (March, 1964).
 * Scarlet Witch. Fourth recruit, alongside Quicksilver, in Uncanny X-Men #4 (March, 1964).
 * Mastermind. First seen as a member in Uncanny X-Men #4 (March, 1964).
 * Blob (served in several later incarnations). Joined in Amazing Adventures vol. 2 #12 (May, 1972).
 * Unus the Untouchable. Joined in Amazing Adventures vol. 2 #12 (May, 1972).
 * Lorelei. Joined in ''Defenders vol. 1 #15 (September, 1974).
 * Vanisher. Associate member in Champions of Los Angeles #17 (January, 1978).

Second lineup
Founded by Magneto in Captain America Annual #4 (1977). Later known as the Mutant Force and the Resistants.

 * Burner (Byron Calley). Later changed codename to "Crucible".
 * Lifter (Ned Lathrop). Later chanded codename to "Meteorite".
 * Peeper (Peter Quinn). Later changed codename to "Occult".
 * Shocker (Randall Darby). Later changed codename to "Paralyzer".
 * Slither (Aaron Salomon).
 * Quill. Joined in Captain America vol. 1 #343 (July, 1988).
 * Mist Mistress. Joined in Captain America vol. 1 #346 (October, 1988).
 * Mentallo (Marvin Flumm). Joined in Captain America vol. 1 #346 (October, 1988) under the codename "Think Tank".
 * Rust. Joined in Captain America vol. 1 #350 (February, 1989).

Third lineup
First appeared in Uncanny X-Men #141 (January, 1981). Later became known as Freedom Force). Included the veteran member Blob.

 * Mystique (served in several later incarnations). Co-founder and leader.
 * Destiny. Co-founder and second-in-command.
 * Avalanche (served in several later incarnations). Co-founder.
 * Pyro. Co-founder.
 * Rogue. Joined in Avengers Annual #10 (1981). Later defected to the X-Men.
 * Spiral (first non mutant member of Freedom Force). Joined in Uncanny X-Men #199 (November, 1985).
 * Spider-Woman (second non mutant member of Freedom Force). Joined in Uncanny X-Men #206 (June, 1986).
 * Crimson Commando (third non mutant member of Freedom Force). Joined in Uncanny X-Men #223 (November, 1987).
 * Stonewall (fourth non mutant member of Freedom Force). Joined in Uncanny X-Men #223 (November, 1987).
 * Super Sabre (fifth non mutant member of Freedom Force). Joined in Uncanny X-Men #223 (November, 1987).

Fourth lineup
Founded in X-Force #5 (December, 1991. Included veteran members Blob, Pyro and Toad.

 * Phantazia.
 * Sauron.

Fifth lineup
Founded in X-Factor #112 (July, 1995).

 * Dark Beast. Founder and leader.
 * Fatale. First recruit.
 * Random. Associate member in X-Factor #114 (September, 1995).
 * Havok. Defector from X-Factor. Joined in X-Factor #125 (August, 1996). Final leader of this incarnation.
 * Ever. Joined in Uncanny X-Men #339 (December, 1996).
 * X-Man. Joined in X-Man #26 (April, 1997).
 * Aurora. Joined in X-Man #27 (May, 1997).

Sixth lineup
Founded in Uncanny X-Men #363 (January, 1999). Included veteran members Blob and Toad. Following the departure of Professor X they became mercenaries and were hired by Mystique.

 * Professor X. Founder and first leader of this incarnation.
 * Mimic. Co-founder.
 * Post. Co-founder.

Seventh lineup
Founded in X-Men #106 (November, 2000). Included veteran members Avalanche, Blob, Mystique, Post and Toad.

 * Crimson Commando II. A female successor to the original. (Chris Claremont forgot to name her in the issue but did so in an interview). Co-founder.
 * Sabre. A successor to former member Super Sabre. Co-founder.
 * Sabretooth. Joined in Uncanny X-Men #388 (December, 2000; also member of ninth line-up).
 * Mastermind II. A daughter of the original. Joined in Cable #87 (January, 2001).

Eighth lineup
Founded in New X-Men vol. 1 #146 (October, 2003). Included the veteran member Toad.

 * Magneto. Co-founder and leader; later retconned as being Xorn
 * Basilisk VI.
 * Beak. Co-founder.
 * Ernst. Co-founder.
 * Esme of the Stepford Cuckoos. Co-founder.
 * Martha Johansson. Co-founder.
 * Angel Salvatore. Co-founder.

Ninth lineup
Founded in X-Men #161 (November, 2004). Included veteran members Avalanche and Sabretooth.

 * Exodus. Leader and co-founder of this group.
 * Black Tom Cassidy. Co-founder.
 * Juggernaut (mole working for X-Men). Co-founder.
 * Mammomax. Co-founder.
 * Nocturne (mole working for X-Men). Co-founder.

Suggest merge of List of Brotherhood of Mutants members into Brotherhood of Evil Mutants
Suggest merge of List of Brotherhood of Mutants members into Brotherhood of Evil Mutants. The main article is much better than the list article, which is just a table. --John Nagle 01:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

how do i nominate this article as a good one?
I was very impressed by the information available in this article. How can I nominate it as a good article? --Mr Vain 19:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I decided not to nominate this article after all because I noticed that in the manual of style (writing about fiction) WP:WAF, it says that fiction needs verifiable 3rd party citations. A large portion of the article does rely on the issues in question as citation and I don't see any citation of other works in the article itself.  I really do enjoy this article, but I just don't think it would be accepted as a good article per wikipedia guidelines.  Just thought you would want to know why I didn't nominate it. --Mr Vain 15:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Name
I like the fact that this article goes on to mention that many authors are trying to move the Brotherhood's name away from having the word evil in it because the members don't see themselves as evil. Perhaps it should mention that even Stan Lee regrets the fact that he named them with evil, and goes on to say that to state that even he can make a mistake. This was contained in a limited edition comic that came with certain editions of X-men: The Last Stand.

I think it gets even better than that: I'm reading the Marvel Masterworks: X-Men volumes, and I believe the team doesn't refer to itself as 'The BROTHERHOOD of Evil Mutants'. The X-Men call them 'the Evil Mutants' or 'Magneto's Evil Mutants'. 'The Brotherhood of Evil Mutants' is the title of Uncanny X-Men issue 4, and when the team garnered a reputation as a respectable band of supervillains, the name of the issue was remembered, and the team was named 'BROTHERHOOD of Evil Mutants'. I'm guessing the name first appeared somewhere between Magneto's defeat in Avengers #53 and his fiasco with Mutant Alpha. But I'm no expert. 62.163.11.134 13:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

 * No, in, like, Uncanny X-Men #27 or something, Quicksilver says: 'The X-Men... well do I remember our epic battles against them when we were still unwilling pawns of Magneto and his Brotherhood.' So, a Brotherhood reference before Avengers #53. 194.171.56.2 15:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The Brotherhood
How about collecting up all the minor characters from The Brotherhood limited series and putting them all together in one article? It seems like a waste to have each one or two sentence summary on its own page. Noclevername 01:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Brotherhood (comic)
This stub should probably be merged here unless it's expanded. I don't edit comics. PrimeHunter 14:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The Brotherhood=Egypt's Brotherhood?
It is quite possible that Stan Lee equated and used the name of these evil mutants as a passive aggressive stance against the enemies of Israel. Stan is jewish by the way. The entire premise of the Xmen is a metaphor for the oppressed Jews against the (NAZIs) who discriminate against them and the Evil Mutant (Arabs) who want to kill them.MPA 17:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Brotherhoodkrby.png
Image:Brotherhoodkrby.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Evil Mutants.jpg
Image:Evil Mutants.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Dark Beast's Brothrhood
Why is the section titled Dark Beast's brotherhood if Havok led this. I do not have the issues, so I'm just pointing out something I was confused by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.180.124 (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required
This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project
As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit WikiProject_Comics/Assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Unknown Brotherhood Member/s
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.147.29.187 (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge "Brotherhood of Mutants (X-Men (TV series)" into this article?
It seems unlikely that the Brotherhood of Mutants (X-Men (TV series)) article will become more fleshed out. I suggest merging it here. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of the Brotherhood of Mutants (X-Men (TV series)) article, seems to be identical to the information located at Brotherhood of Mutants and List of X-Men: The Animated Series characters. I think that the information in the TV series article would be better integrated into the character descriptions at List of X-Men: The Animated Series characters. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Since there were no other opinions offered, that's what I have done. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Amazing Spider-Man: Renew Your Vows
"In Amazing Spider-Man: Renew Your Vows, the Brotherhood of Mutants consists of Magneto, Blob, Toad, Mist Mistress, Jubilee, and an unnamed mutant that resembles Crucible. " I haven't read this, but given that this is a BoM variant and that Mist Mistress is a member, I wonder if this is supposed to refer to Crucible instead of the Enclave operative it is currently linked to. Figured I'd bring my questions here so that someone who HAS read the thing can look into it. --Khajidha (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. Did some checking around and found images, that's definitely not based on Burner/Crucible. --Khajidha (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Other versions
Is the "Other versions" section just random? The entries aren't in chronological order or alphabetical order or any other order I can figure out. --Khajidha (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Changed it to alphabetical.--Khajidha (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

's First Brotherhood, Second Brotherhood, etc
How are we distinguishing these? Historically Marvel has called the version of the Brotherhood that became Mutant Force (and, later, the Resistance) Magneto's second Brotherhood. However, we seem to have rolled this into the same incarnation as the one with Scarlet Witch, Toad, etc. Aside from Magneto there is no overlap in membership. The groups labelled Mystique's Second and Third Brotherhoods have a large overlap in membership, but seem to be counted separately for reasons that aren't made clear. (Maybe because of the intervening existence of the Brotherhood from the comic of the same name? But that one was rarely talked about in relation to the X-Men books in general.) And the groups labelled Magneto's Second and Third Brotherhoods occur so close in time with so little activity from the first, that I'm not sure if these are truly separate teams or a single team that quickly replaced many members. And the incarnations as given on the List of Brotherhood of Mutants members page doesn't match the lineups given here. --Khajidha (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * PS - "Magneto's Third Brotherhood" (as listed here) is apparently actually "Joseph's Second Brotherhood", as it was organized by a disguised Joseph (see Uncanny X-Men v5 n16). --Khajidha (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Brotherhood of Mutants


text:
User talk:ShinyHubCaps

Welcome from Spinboy
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Spinboy 01:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Commercial use of Image:Oden.PNG
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Oden.PNG, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Oden.PNG is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only" or "used with permission for use on Wikipedia only" which was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19 or is not used in any articles (CSD I3).

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-2.5 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Oden.PNG itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. If you have any questions about what to do next or why your image was nominated for speedy deletion please ask at Media copyright questions. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Michael Redd
Hi, could you please direct me to the guideline in Wikipedia which states you don't need to cite as you claim in the summary of this edit and this edit?

It seems to me that you think that because you see the lax application of the rules in practice, you believe they somehow need little or no adherance and therefore do not need to be followed. Instead of chastising people for doing the right thing, go and read the citation and verifiability guidelines and think again. Bye. --Downwards 12:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Haha isn't this guy awful? I'm trying to picture what he looks like, not a pretty sight I imagine. I've tried being reasonable, but as you can tell from the 100+ comments on his page that doesn't work so I decided to kick it up a notch and really let him have it. Somebody's gotta let him know, if I had the free time he does i'd revert everything he did and leave more condescending remarks back at him but unfortunately I have a life in the real world. KatoABJV 20:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Explanation for reverting talk page
Hi, the reason why I continually removed the message of the troll on your talk page is because it was not worth you nor I replying to and therefore didn't deem it suitable for your talk page (see WP:No personal attacks). I am trying not to drawn you in to a personal attack caused by a disruptive individual. He is grandstanding; please ignore it, as I currently am. (But if you want to have it on your talk page, I can't stop you.) Thanks :) ... --Downwards 07:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I'm sorry about that, I just saw that it kept saying I had new messages so I reverted to the oldest thing I could remember. Even when you undid edits, I think it said I had new messages. I appreciate both of you for continuing your efforts to keep Wikipedia in order. I would love to make some allies here, but what I don't appreciate is when people go overboard with reverts and "undoing" edits without giving reasons, and the personal wars that breed from such. Downwards, if you check this again (as I don't want to write it on your page for the chance of it being lost in the shuffle), I want to start over and compromise with you on the citations dispute. KatoABJV mentioned that you are so deep into the letter of Wikipedian law that you miss part of the spirit, in which anyone can make edits. For the two or three people in the Michael Redd article making edits and having them inexplicably vanish at your hand, I took that personally as that has happened countless times to me as done by others. I would like to compromise, and that may include taking down the citations in the infobox and leaving them in the Trivia. We can talk about this.

 * I believe the way I talked to you was rude and condescending, and for that, I apologize. It is very frustrating to get across a point when the other will not listen. And I am sorry for the personal attacks as, like everything, you have a relevant Wikipedia article on the matter. You are very good at citations, but I still believe I was right (an ironic example of being both right and wrong in the same moment: right in theory and thought, wrong in action); I want to compromise on this issue, and I wish to resolve the dispute between us. At the same time, it seems the other users have backed down in their back-and-forth on the Michael Redd page, so I suppose it worked out. Please respond to work out an agreement, and hopefully we can clean up the talk pages just like we were all trying to do with our respective articles. ShinyHubCaps 22:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Hi, Yeah, that's cool. I think potentially dubious info such as nicknames need to be cited, ideally, whereas nationality is almost never in dispute, hence you are right in saying not all "facts" should be cited. But you must anticipate when you insert information that the reader(s) deserves supporting evidence (i.e. what's to prevent editors from putting in obscure info such as made-up nicknames?) this is what I was trying to uphold. Thanks for understanding. --Downwards 01:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Well that seems to be a fair explanation, and that is why I thought that removing the citations and re-inserting the info into the trivia section would be ideal. Somebody had already done that, so I thought that citations might not be necessary in the info box. Essentially, information would not be questioned by those who read the whole article, since the information would still exist in the Trivia section (a just-as-adequate place for it, plus the inclusion of citations), and the info box could act as more of an overview of the article. People access the whole article, and I believe that the info box could just be an overview, with the "further reading," such as longer phrasing and citations, could all reside elsewhere in the article.
 * Having said that, would it be all right if I remove the citations? Keep in mind that they will still be there, just not in the info box. And I will certainly keep in mind your warning of "dubious info" for future edits. ShinyHubCaps 21:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

 * OK, thanks for clearing it up. Although what is the purpose of removing citations? In keeping in line with the Wikipedia policy about "verifiability being the threshold", it would be prudent to allow the references to be seen. Having citations absent from Infoboxes is a recipe for disaster - it allows for potentially erroneous information leeking into not just Michael Redd's article, but countless others. For example, what is to stop editors inserting obscure, arbitrary nicknames that they have conjured up thenselves, or equally worse, "heard on TV"? It gets turned into somewhat of a practice in anecdotal documentation, which is what should be avoided.

Also there is no policy sanctioning the obviating of citations from Infoboxes, in fact, I've seen it on a number of articles, e.g. Pashtun people. Also your recent edit on Michael Redd removed the primary "jockbio" reference, which in turn adversely affected the other "jockbio" citation it was relying upon. Please compare the "References" section on your edit with its prior revision. Thanks.. --Downwards 02:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

 * You are a very smart Wikipedian, sir Downwards, and I apologize for mismanaging the reference link. Having said that, you also used a bad link the first 1025 times you reverted, because the reference on "Red-Hot Redd" did not mention it anywhere on the page. We all make mistakes, and for that, I am sorry.

 * Now, as for the matter at hand: You are correct in saying that there is no rule against citations in the info box. However, I believe in uniformity for these articles. It is like the U.S. states: The info box for Alabama is the same for Wyoming, and everything in between. I believe that nicknames are NOT dubious information. However, if you believe that they are, then a reference link should be available, and I believe that the problem was solved in adding it to the Trivia section. At a glance, the trivia section contains numerous references, making it really the place for new references to exist.

 * I am afraid that as of now, we are more at a stand-off than actually caring about the good of the article. You could easily cite every sentence, or even every word if you wanted to, with non-facts maybe citing the dictionary definition. Citations are great when used correctly. However, while you clearly understand the rules for them, you almost avoid the point of them. They are meant to direct you to the resolution of fact, and constantly undoing or reverting one's edits may give an individual the wrong idea about Wikipedia and discourage their return visit. Now a nickname is not as standard as date of birth, draft position, or nationality, and that is why the reference still exists. I am just trying to clean it up and make it look presentable.

 * Also, I never meant that it is fact "because I heard it on TV." However, it was fact before it was said on TV, then I heard it, then I verified it and added it, with those being possibly reversed in order. The fact is that these are facts, and not necessarily of the encyclopedic kind, but they add to the article and to the persona of the individual involved. And if the reason for your revert was one against my affecting the link, then by all means, help fix the link without reverting content. Any help is fully appreciated. I do not mean to sound stingy, and I do appreciate help when the user's heart is in the right place. I believe that this is a fair resolution for the issue, and if you disagree, please contact me on my talk page before making your edits. ShinyHubCaps 02:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are you accusing me of vandalism?
How is this vandalism? What specific guidelines were breached by me in that instance? Do you even understand what vandalism is?

And why are you re-instating uncited material?--Downwards (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

 * It's not necessarily vandalism (although negotiable, see below), but I knew it would get your attention.

 * 1.) You need to post reasons for your edits, especially if you are reverting the edits made by others. Anyone can change Wikipedia; you do not own Wikipedia or the means by which it operates. If you undo somebody's work, you must say why.

 * 2.) We have discussed the nickname citations before on your talk page and resolved that it should remain the way it is, without citations. I was very hospitable, and we did hammer out a conclusion. About a week later, however, you went ahead and changed it again, claiming that a citation was "blocked up," despite the fact that the citation you reverted to had nothing to do with the point it was supposed to validate.

 * 3.) The article was locked because of this edit war. It was lifted presuming that you had relented, and then you came back anyway. Didn't you notice that it was locked at one point?

 * 4.) Every time I undo your edits with those useless, clutterful links, I tell you to check the discussion page. Have you ever, even once, checked there? I have my rationale listed in point form, so anyone can understand. That fact that you ask "And why are you re-instating uncited material," tells me that out of the million times I have directed you to the discussion page, you have never checked it.

 * 5.) I do know what vandalism is, and I believe that reversing useful information is vandalism. In your last edit, you undid two interesting items from the Trivia section. If I went and undid all of the work that you did in any given page, that would be vandalism because I would be tearing down established material and, if I were like you, I wouldn't give a reason.

 * I will post this again in your talk page so you might see it. Sorry to sound harsh, but that's the way it is. It does not need a citation for the reasons I have stated in the discussion page, and a moderator has agreed with me in this instance although not in all instances, so it is not a general rule. As I have mentioned before, the spirit of Wikipedia is more important than the letter because, in theory, you could cite every sentence and maybe every word in an article, but nobody expects you to because of the vague "debatable" guideline. Everything is potentially dubious and debatable, so do we cite everything? I think I explained it better in the discussion page... please consult. ShinyHubCaps (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you see
Downwards was blocked for 6 months —Preceding unsigned comment added by KatoABJV (talk • contribs) 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Oden.PNG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Oden.PNG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Nv8200p talk 16:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

My Name is Earl
Hi. The List of My Name Is Earl episodes was just moved to its own article as was Earl's list but it was deleted at Articles for deletion/Earl's list. The problem, of course, is that it needs WP:Reliable sources. Cheers! Double Blue (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Name_Is_Earl&oldid=213245807 This is how the article looked just before I removed the sections from the main article. As you can see, the sub-articles on episodes and Earl's list already existed at this time and this main article looked pretty horrible. I simply removed the sections from the main article and added the links to the sub-articles to a new See also section. Double Blue (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Undefeated in NBA Finals
If you have a source, then please feel free to restore your edit to include the Chicago Bulls. While all the teams you listed have a perfect record, the tendency of this article would be to isolate the team with the most wins from that list (if you'd rather retain all members of the list, you should probably bring it up on the talk page to reach a consensus). Realize also that the list that you (and your source) provided is incomplete. The defunct Baltimore Bullets (original) (not to be confused with the current Washington Wizards organization, which also once were known as the Baltimore Bullets) is also 1-0 in Finals appearances. At the time, the league was known as the BAA, but all BAA records are recognized by the NBA since they're the same league (just a name change following the NBL merger). The omission of this team led me to believe that you had conducted WP:OR, but apparently, your source was just careless in its compilation. — Myasuda (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:ShinyHubCaps


text:
Talk:Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railway

Untitled

 * Chicago and Calumet River Railroad?
 * Chicago and Lake Huron Railroad (trackage rights)
 * Cincinnati, Richmond and Fort Wayne Railroad (trackage rights)
 * Englewood Connecting Railway?
 * Findlay, Fort Wayne and Western Railway (trackage rights)
 * Grand Rapids and Indiana Railroad (operated in connection)
 * Grand Rapids and Indiana Railway (trackage rights)
 * Indianapolis and St. Louis Railroad?
 * Lake Erie and Western Railroad (trackage rights)
 * Mansfield, Coldwater and Lake Michigan Railroad (trackage rights)
 * North-western Ohio Railway (trackage rights)
 * Ohio Connecting Railway?
 * Pittsburgh, Allegheny and McKees Rocks Railroad?
 * Pittsburgh, Mount Vernon, Columbus and New London Railroad?
 * Pittsburgh, Youngstown and Ashtabula Railroad (trackage rights)
 * St. Louis, Alton and Terre Haute Railroad?
 * Toledo, Walhonding Valley and Ohio Railroad (trackage rights)

 * Fort Wayne and Chicago Railroad (1856)
 * Ohio and Indiana Railroad (1856)
 * Ohio and Pennsylvania Railroad (1856)
 * Cleveland and Pittsburgh Railroad (1862)
 * Akron Branch of the Cleveland and Pittsburgh Railroad (1864)
 * Cleveland, Mount Vernon and Delaware Railroad (1864)
 * Akron Branch of the Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railroad (1865)
 * Cleveland, Zanesville and Cincinnati Railroad (1865)
 * New Castle and Beaver Valley Railroad (1865)
 * Lawrence Railroad (1869)
 * Massillon and Cleveland Railroad (1869)
 * Toledo, Cincinnati and St. Louis Railroad?? (1887)


text:
Susannah Harker

Susannah Harker (born Susannah Owens; 26 April 1965) is an English film, television, and theatre actress. She was nominated for a BAFTA TV Award in 1990 for her role as Mattie Storin in House of Cards. She played Jane Bennet in the 1995 TV adaptation of Pride and Prejudice.

Early life and education
Harker was born in London. She is the daughter of actor Richard Owens and actress, Polly Adams. She and her younger sister, Caroline, were brought up as Catholics and educated at an independent convent boarding school run by nuns in Sussex, and at the Central School of Speech and Drama in North London.

Acting career
Harker has acted in both contemporary and classic works, on stage, in movies and in TV series. In 1990–91 she appeared alongside Clive Owen in Chancer, and as the journalist Mattie Storin in the original House of Cards. She later played Dinah Morris in the 1991 adaptation of Adam Bede. She starred as Jane Bennet in the 1995 TV adaptation of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. She is featured as Emma Fitzgerald, the love interest of Superintendent Tyburn (Trevor Eve) in the BBC TV series, Heat of the Sun (1998). In 2003 she played Clare Keightley in the audio version of the Doctor Who adventure Shada, alongside Paul McGann.

On stage in 2005, she appeared in Simon Stephens's play On the Shore of the Wide World at the Royal National Theatre. In 2008, she played Gwendoline in Charles Wood's Jingo at the Finborough Theatre, where the London Evening Standard reviewed her performance, saying "Susannah Harker, an actress who should appear more often in our major playhouses, is in beautifully crisp form as Gwendoline."

She played Sapphire in Big Finish Productions' audio revival of Sapphire & Steel, in three series of plays released on CD between 2005 and 2008. In December 2011 Harker appeared in the BBC drama Young James Herriot. In 2012 she returned to the stage, playing the role of Sue in a London production of Mike Leigh's Abigail's Party. During early 2014 she starred in the Gate Theatre, Dublin production of The Vortex by Noël Coward.

She has also worked in radio. In 2015, she played Miss Ella Rentheim in a BBC Radio 4 production of Ibsen's John Gabriel Borkman. She played Kris in Radio 4’s 2021 drama Barred written by Thandi Lubimbi and Richard Kurti.

Personal life
Harker is a great-great-granddaughter of Joseph Harker, an artist and theatrical scene designer.

She was married to Iain Glen from 1993 to 2004; they have one son. She was later in a relationship with Paul McGann from 2006 to 2008.

Harker's sisters, Nelly Harker and Caroline Harker, are also actresses.

title: Susannah Harker


text:
Jayna

Jayna is a female given name. It may refer to:

 * Jayna Altman, a U.S. beauty queen
 * Jayna Hefford (born 1977) a Canadian women's ice hockey player
 * Jayna Murray (died 2011) a murder victim killed by a coworker at a Lululemon store in Bethesda, Maryland, USA

Fictional characters

 * Jayna, a DC Comics female superhero, member of the Wonder Twins
 * Jayna-Zod, Jayna of the House of Zod, a DC Comics Metaverse character, female soldier from the TV series Krypton
 * Jaynah, a character from Lona and Lapa

title: Jayna


text:
Thiruvattar

Thiruvattar is a panchayat town in Kanyakumari district in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu.

About the town
This town is situated 6 km north-east of Marthandam and 30 km north-west of Nagercoil. The two main rivers Pahrali River and Kothai surround the village and join in Moovattumugam, giving the name Thiru (sacred)+ vatta (surround)+ aru (river). This village, where the famous Sri Adikesavaperumal Temple is located, is one of the 108 Divya Desams. Thiruvattar has been mentioned as Adi Keshava kshetra by Madhva sect saint Shri Vadiraja Tirtha in his pilgrimage travelogue Tirtha Prabandha written in sixteenth century.

Demographics
India census, Thiruvattaru had a population of 18,404. Males constitute 49% of the population and females 51%. Thiruvattaru has an average literacy rate of 77%, higher than the national average of 59.5%: male literacy is 78%, and female literacy is 75%. In Thiruvattaru, 10% of the population is under 6 years of age.

Politics
Thiruvattar assembly constituency is part of Nagercoil (Lok Sabha constituency).

As per the latest restructuring, the Thiruvattar assembly constituency has been split and merged with nearby constituencies.

title: Thiruvattar


text:
User talk:Mickey670

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- MicahMN | Talk 01:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I just want to let you know that I've alerted an administrator (on WP:AIV), and you will be blocked if you do not stop right now. -- MicahMN | Talk 01:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. JRM · Talk 01:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. JRM · Talk 01:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I have permanently blocked you for being a Mickey. Redwolf24 02:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mickey670


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lambda Sigma Upsilon

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

The result of the debate was dealt with as copyvio. No consensus otherwise. JYolkowski // talk 16:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Lambda Sigma Upsilon
Just a copyvio, no other info, no activity for nearly a month Wiffle0rz 01:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: ther's no need to bring it here if it's a copyvio, it will be duly dealt with at WP:CP. Flowerparty  talk 02:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vacuous content. Hamster Sandwich 02:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete obvious copyvio ≈ jossi ≈ 03:29, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Lorentz group/Archive

Proper Group
We read: Lorentz transformations which ... preserve orientation are called proper, and as linear transformations they have determinant +1.. It is unclear whether the "proper" transformations are those of the restricted group, whch preserve orientation, or those of the restricted group plus those which reverse orientation and time, which have determinant +1. 87.240.241.192 (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

ToDo
To do: add section on Lie algebra, and one on representations of the Lorentz group. Discuss relationship of the Lorentz group to special and general relativity. -- Fropuff 16:45, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Connectedness
It is a 6-dimensional noncompact Lie group which is neither connected, nor simply connected.

Can something be simply connected without being connected? Josh Cherry 04:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Technically speaking, no. What is meant is that the connected components of the Lorentz group are themselves not simply connected. We could say this instead but it's a little more wordy. -- Fropuff 06:21, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

 * I've changed this. Maybe it's just me, but what was there left me scratching my head, much as though someone had said this number is neither an integer, nor an even integer. Josh Cherry 23:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Elaboration in Progress
Hi all, I added a bunch of improvements to this article yesterday, but unfortunately the server lost all my work! I am trying again today.

I plan to
 * improve the introduction, placing the Lorentz group and restricted Lorentz group in a clearer context mathematically and physically,
 * add section on conjugacy classes (maybe eventually adding some illustrations of the flow lines typical of elliptical, hyperbolic, parabolic, and loxodromic one-parameter subgroups),
 * add section on the Lie algebra, giving two nice generating sets,
 * add section on appearance of the night sky, explaining the isomorphism between restricted Lorentz group and Moebius group, and its physical consequences,
 * add section on subalgebras of the Lie algebra, eventually adding a lattice diagram showing their relations, and discussing some of the more important homogeneous spaces (coset spaces) and their physical signficance.

Because of the close connection with Möbius transformations, I plan to also improve the article on Möbius transformations, putting the more mathematical material in the latter article, and putting more of the physical interpreation in this one.

At present, Wikipedia lacks a suitable discussion of Eventually, I hope to repair this gap by writing new articles and revising more old ones as appropriate.---CH (talk) 2 July 2005 22:09 (UTC)
 * bivectors
 * point symmetry group of an (ordinary or partial) differential equation, or system of same

OK, I've pretty much carried out the above plans. I still need to add a figure showing the lattice of subalgebras (up to conjugacy).

I also need to create figures showing the flow lines of parabolic, elliptic, hyperbolic, and loxodromic flow lines. I think I see how to create .png images, but does anyone know how to create an animated picture which can be used on Wiki, say using Maple? Are anitmated .gif images acceptable?--CH (talk) 3 July 2005 04:05 (UTC)

Misc statements
Article states:

 * ...For example, it arises as the point symmetry group of a certain ordinary differential equation...

Perchance the diff eq you are looking for is the Picard-Fuchs equation? or are you looking for the hypergeometric differential equation? By point symmetry group, do you mean the monodromy group? The Mobius transforms are the monodromy group of this differential equation.

 * In pure mathematics, the restricted Lorentz group arises as the Möbius group, which is the symmetry group of conformal geometry on the Riemann sphere. In even more sophisticated language, it is the group of holomorphisms of the complex projective line.

I think this is incorrect, I think its not the group of holomorphisms but the monodromy action which are the Mobius transforms. I started to try to write this up in Riemann's differential equation, (scroll to the bottom, fractional linear transformations), and the cluster of related articles (e.g.the bottom of the article hypergeometric differential equation), but got distracted. I mean to come back later and finish this. -- linas 3 July 2005 18:11 (UTC)

 * Hi, Linas. If the pun was intentional, I wouldn't say those were misstatements.  It's a terrible gap that there is nothing in Wikipedia yet on point symmetries of differential equations, but bye and bye I'll try to supply the gap and then everything I said will become clear.  I meant the fundamental invariant of the Lorentz group.  (See the books by Peter J. Olver).  Right now I am not sure about the relation (if any) with monodromy.  Information about geometric invariant theory wrt Lorentz seems hard to come by (or else I am not looking in the right place).  As for holomorphisms, at that point in the article, I struggled somewhat for words to express clearly and concisely what Penrose said about this, because appropriate articles to link to are not yet available in Wikipedia. Penrose's claim is that the Riemann sphere can be viewed as an analytic complex closed curve, and then the Möbius group is the group of self transformations preserving this structure.  These are usually called holomorphisms, agreed?  But if you still think what I said is misleading, I can just remove that sentence (probably best to let me do the edits right now to avoid that nasty edit conflict problem) --CH  (talk) 3 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)

 * OK. Well, I was just trying to point out that the links that I think you are fishing for were appearing in the the articles on the hypergeometric equation, wherein I was starting to describe the symmetries of the Riemann sphere. I have not heard of the fundamental invariant of the Lorentz group (I have not heard of a lot of things). Are you looking for invariant theory or invariant polynomial? . linas 6 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)

 * The only use of point symmetry group that I know of in physics is that of crystallographic point group; is that the link you are looking for? For general Lie groups, we have the article lattice (group), which is not very deep. But if you are thinking specifically in terms of SL(2,C), we have the articles Fuchsian group and Fuchsian model. We also have articles on fundamental region, which is a kind of generalization of the Brillouin zone to general Lie groups; the picture illustrates the fundamental region for SL(2,Z). I'm planning on writing an article on the Dirichlet polygon real soon now; we already have fundamental polygon. But these are not directly relevant to the Riemann sphere; the sphere is very special. The only other directly relevant point-symmetry link I can think of is the fact that the Riemann sphere can be tiled with triangles; all of which are  special cases of triangle groups.  These show up as the Schwarz maps in the theory of hypergeometric functions, which are those mappings of the Riemann sphere that are described by SL(2,C).  So when you say "holomorphic mappings of Riemann sphere", the only related topic that pops into mind is "hypergeometric function".  But this is all very very far from where most physicists live and think when faced with the Lorentz group.  I once read chapter 1 and 2 of Penrose's twistor theory book, I'm pretty sure he didn't mention any of the above topics.  However, I'm told that string theory has breathed new life into twistor theory, I've heard that even Ed Witten himself said so, so maybe this is what physicists think about these days :-/  linas 6 July 2005 03:20 (UTC)

 * Another "fundamental" thingy that is SL(2,C)-related is the j-invariant of elliptic curves. Another sl(2,whatever) algebra topic with the word "fundamental" in it are the fundamental Weyl chambers of Lie groups. Finally, there is something called a relative invariant, which is a polynomial that transforms as the character of a group element. The ratio of these again are Schwarz maps or something like that; I'm not clear on this. I'm only learning this stuff now. linas 6 July 2005 03:41 (UTC)

 * As far as I know, we have close to nothing about point symmetries of differential equations in Wikipedia. There is something at Noether's theorem, but that article is, uhm, not the best we have. I hope somebody will be able to fill this gap sometime. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Linas, Jitse is correct. Point symmetry groups in the sense of Lie's theory of symmetry of differential equations are a completely different concept from the isotropy groups of crystallographic groups, and despite their huge importance both for theory and applications, as far as I know there is so far nothing about them in Wikipedia.  (But crystallographic groups are related to root lattices, which are related to the Coxeter groups which came up in the Baez posts I tried to point you at.  And Coxeter groups involve Dynkin diagrams, and from E. B. Dynkin I learned about the Möbius group, in a course on complex variables.  And the editor who once chided me for a late report regarding an article related to crystallographic groups was H. S. M. Coxeter.  No wonder mathematicians are paranoid.  But could you please trust me on this anyway?)
 * Re monodromy, see the book by Jones and Singerman. (I already tried to point you at Baez's more recent posts on modular forms.) Ultimately, everything is related, and mathematics forms an organic whole, but you may need to restrain your enthusiasm just long enough to learn what people really mean by topic X before you try to connect X to Y.
 * Since you, Linas, seem to be fighting tooth and nail, I am removing the offending reference to complex closed curve until I can write the articles which clarify this. It's gratifying in a way that you are impatient to learn what I'm talking about--- see for example the book Applications of Lie Groups to Differential Equations by Peter J. Olver.  In general, I know you're trying to help, but when I mention a term I try to look for existing links, and I don't agree that the articles you mentioned explain the connections I have in mind, OK?---CH  (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Representations and Invariants
Hmm... I seem to already be over the recommended size limit, but haven't even mentioned the irreps or invariants. (These are important in physics as well as math, so there is a case that they should be mentioned in this article.) I think there should be at least short sections briefly indicating at least some of the most basic results. How serious is it that the article seems to be over 30 KB? I'll stop adding more until someone let's me know about this.--CH (talk) 3 July 2005 19:29 (UTC)

 * It's not serious; the problem is that the article may grow too long to read in one go, which may happen if the article grows over 30 kB (excluding mark-up commands). The usual solution is to split the article up, as Fropuff is suggesting below. You can read a bit more at Article size and Summary style. I hope that answers your questions, but whatever you do, don't stop writing; you can always have others worrying about proper organization. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Quibbles over Terminology: Complex Closed Curve, Bianchi Group, Kleinian Group
Whoever changed complex closed curve to complex projective line, I don't think you are helping, since existing articles will only confuse readers if they go there from this article. My idea was to leave red links until improved articles can be written. The red links might encourage some of you to write the missing articles! If you disagree, maybe we should discuss this here before you make more apparently minor changes of wording? If you guess wrong about my intentions, you could change a correct statement into an incorrect one--CH (talk) 3 July 2005 19:45 (UTC)

 * That was me. Sorry; change it back. Since you were talking about symmetries of the sphere, I assumed you meant Riemann sphere aka the complex projective line, and were unaware of the WP article on this. I guess I don't know what a complex closed curve is, then. linas 6 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)

P.S. To mention some specific red links I'd like to leave red for the present: I intend to write articles on Bianchi group (this should even be a category with separate articles for each group) and Kleinian geometry. Someone else can write one on deformation retracts. Can the well intentioned but misleading redirect for complex closed curve be removed? Possibly someone can write a proper article on twistor theory and then this "controversy" can be cleared up by having this article refer to that one.--CH (talk) 3 July 2005 19:51 (UTC)

 * Re Kleinian geometry, perhaps this should be a redirect to Kleinian model? We also have articles on Kleinian group and hyperbolic 3-manifold; I don't think it makes sense to write a fourth article on what is, (I assume must surely be) more-or-less the same topic; so it seems to me that Kleinian geometry should redirect to one of these three. linas 6 July 2005 01:35 (UTC)

 * Re Bianchi group, I assume you mean SL(2,O_K) for the ring of integers O_K It seems we do not have any articles on the ring of integers. and the nest of Galois group articles are shallow.  We don't have any articles on real places and imaginary places.  linas 6 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)

 * Hi, Linas-- Yes, CP1 is a complex closed curve, but I dislike emphasis of that article. No, Kleinian geometry is a completely different concept from Kleinian group and Kleinian model of Hn, although they are related concepts.  For example, Kleinian model is the ball model of Hn, while Poincare model is upper half space model; either way, Hn is an example of a Kleinian geometry.  A Kleinian geometry is a homogeneous space, but the emphasis is sufficiently different that the concept deserves an article of its own.  As for Bianchi group, this term refers to Bianchi's classification up to Lie group isomorphism of the three dimensional real Lie groups and it is a standard term in both math and physics.  SL(2,R) or Bianchi VIII and SO(3) or Bianchi IX are two of the nine classes.  The group UT(3) of three by three upper triangular matrices with ones on diagonal is Bianchi II, and so forth.  These are beautiful and important examples of Kleinian geometries and they well illustrate the close connections with the ideas of Lie and Klein on symmetry groups, particularly symmetries of differential equations.  This is lovely stuff; I can't do it justice here, hope to do a decent job when I find time to write the planned articles---CH  (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

FYI, be aware that here at UT Austin, the math dept calls SL(2,O_K) the Bianchi group. See and  and  Perhaps you should call it Bianchi classification? For upper triangular matrices, we have the article Borel subgroup. linas 17:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Huh, never heard that before. If you search gr-qc section of ArXiv, or look in gtr books in library, you will find that "Bianchi groups" (plural) is a standard term to refer to the 9 isomorphism classes in Bianchi's classification.  But yeah, it would make sense to call the article Bianchi classification, but because Bianchi group is more common, there should be a disambiguation page. ---CH 19:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Just looked up the definition you have in mind. Linas, your Bianchi groups are generalizations of the modular group PSL(2,Z), which incidentally came up in my dissertation in connection with simple continued fractions.  Specifically, $$\Gamma_d = PSL(2,F)$$ where $$F = O_d$$ is the ring of algebraic integers for a quadratic extension of the rational numbers.  But my Bianchi groups are, as I said, the nine isomorphism classes of three dimensional real Lie groups, which is clearly a completely different concept.---CH  (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * P.S. Linas, you would get a kick out of several consecutive This Week in Mathematical Physics articles in which John Baez discussed parabolic subgroups, Coxeter groups, cohomology, and many other things. This might help give you a sense of why subalgebras and Kleinian geometries are important, but even this is only the tip of the iceberg.  One thing I'd like to write up in a much more reader-friendly way is the connection between material he discussed and topics in algebraic geometry such as Schubert calculus. Re UT Austin: are you in the math or physics department?  Do you know Charles Radin?  Speaking of low dimensional Lie groups, he's worked with John Horton Conway on quaquaversal tilings, if you know what those are.  He is a tireless proponent of the ergodic theory viewpoint in math---CH  (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Split?
This article is getting a little long, even though more needs to be said. Perhaps we should split off the Lie algebra stuff to its own article (e.g Lie algebra of the Lorentz group). We should probably also start an article on representations of the Lorentz group. -- Fropuff 8 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)

 * Hi, Fropuff, I don't like the first idea at all! I know I raised the issue of length myself, but as I continue to read more and more pages in the Wikipedia, my confidence has grown in asserting that the persons who objected about length, technicality, or lack of boxed material in some of the articles I have written (or, as here, very extensively rewritten) were proposing a cure worse than the alleged disease.  At least in its present state article isn't really so long, and I worked hard to make it well organized.

 * As for the second idea, if you think you can add a few clear and concise paragraphs at the end of this article about representations of the Lorentz group (maybe just giving a brief overview and the list of possibilities, with a good citation, perhaps to Fulton and Harris), by all means give it a whirl. Or, if you have in mind a long article just on representations of the Lorentz group, well, this is probably the one topic which might really deserve it's own article, so if you want, go ahead and write that and I'll eventually write a concise summary as a section at the end of this article.

 * But please, whatever you do, do not split off the subalgebra stuff. If you don't appreciate the importance of that discussion, that's only because you haven't read the same books and papers I have, where this is essential!

 * Another space consideration to bear in mind: when I (or someone else) gets around to writing a proper math article explaining the connection between flows (local R actions) on smooth manifolds, first order linear differential operators, and vector fields, the paragraph beginning "perhaps it might be useful" can be replaced with a suitable link. This will partly make up for the proposed section to be added at the end on representations.

 * About the proper goals of this article: I write a lot of relativity related stuff and read even more, so I think I stand upon solid ground in saying that a really useful survey of the Lorentz group has been sorely lacking (on the arXiv, for example). Various papers collect bits and pieces, but none offers anything approaching concise coverage of all the aspects of the Lorentz group which come up most frequently in contemporary math/physics.  Similar comments apply to chapters in books such as the one by Hall.  I worked hard to make this article a balanced but reasonably comprehensive survey, while keeping things concise.  My goal is to have every important aspect of the Lorentz group discussed clearly and concisely in one place.  (The citations give more detail on various points I mentioned.)  I recongize that assessments of relative "importance" may be subjective, but at least my judgement is based on much reading and computational experience.

 * Actually, in terms of the topics covered, I view this article as something of a model for other articles on other specific Lie groups of great importance. Such topics as subalgebras, invariants, Kleinian geometries, point symmetry groups, bundle structure, as well as representations, are all very important both historically and for contemporary math/physics.  Some of these topics tend to be harder for graduate students to appreciate because they are so interdisciplinary, but the value of this material will ultimately become clear to those who continue to work with Lie groups. In my proposed articles on the nine isomorphism classes in the Bianchi classification (of all three dimensional real Lie groups), I intend to discuss similar topics (ten articles, one for the classification, with helpful tables, and nine for each of the classes; as I already said in some talk page, these are sufficiently interesting and important in math/physics to deserve their own articles).

 * Just to clarify something else: as I read more widely in the math/physics pages, I see there is widespread agreement that the Wikipedia can be both a general purpose encyclopedia and a specialized one, as well as source of up to the hour information on topics of unusual interest. I certainly try to bear in mind the needs of all readers, and I've read the tutorials which suggest for example a "broad to narrow stroke" approach, and I think I've followed these imperatives in this article about as well as anything else I've seen elsewhere on Wikipedia (so far).

 * Let me ask for feedback on something--- in the introduction, I added a pedantic comment in anticipation of an objection which would not be unfair but which now seems fussy and distracting. Now I think that comment should probably be moved to (the top of) this page.  Does anyone want to keep that remark where it is?---CH  (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, just a suggestion. I was actually thinking more in terms of readablity then length. The length doesn't really bother me. Certainly, a little more needs to be said about the Lie algebra. Although you object to Linas's notation for the Pauli matrices (see below), I think it is wrong not to include mention of the matrices themselves in this article. The fact that $$\{\sigma_k, i\sigma_k\}$$ generate the Lorentz algebra is both important and useful. For the math student who hasn't seen these before, it takes only 10 seconds to look at the definition and be satisfied.

Regarding the introductory pedantic comment, I have no objections to removing it. I think it adds very little. -- Fropuff 03:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi, Fropuff, I have made both changes (adding and subtracting one paragraph for no net gain in length, hurrah!)---CH (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Non-standard treatment?
I am somewhat surprised on skimming the new article that no mention is made of the spinor component notation. These are the Pauli matrices
 * $$\sigma^\mu_{\;\;\dot{a}a}$$

with the vector index μ running from 0..3 and the spinor indeces a and $$\dot{a}$$ running from 1,2. Thus a four-vector $$x_\mu$$ could be represented by a pair of spinors by making the contraction
 * $$x_\mu\sigma^\mu_{\;\;\dot{a}a}$$

and likewise a pair of spinors could be made into a vector. I really liked this notation, as it made very clear that there are two distinct reps, a complex 2-D and a real 4-D rep, and that it was the isomorphism of lorentz to SL(2,C) is actually given by $$4=\overline{2}\otimes 2$$. It also makes clear how SU(2) is a double covering of SO(3). It also provides a bridge to the reps of SU(3) via $$\overline{3}\otimes 3=8\oplus 1$$ which is important to quark physicists. Back when I was learning supersymmetry, the vector-spinor-index notation was de-rigeur. So I am somewhat surprised to not see this in this article. All in all, coming from an old-fashioned physics background, this article, as currently structured, comes off as a very non-standard treatment of the Lorentz group that would leave many practicing physicists scratching thier heads.

Let me put it another way: the intro mentions Maxwell eqns, special rel, and Dirac eqn. None of these require any knowledge of the parabolic/elliptic/etc. distinctions. Nor do these need the the Bianchi subgroup bits or talk about stabilizers. The third requires the spinor algebra notation, but little else. So the article promises to talk about physics, but then does anything but. The night-sky null-vector bit is interesting, but would normally be considered a curiosity ... yet it gets prominent billing in the article. This is confusing. linas 01:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Let me put it a third way: physicists are usually insterested only in the spin-1/2, the spin-1, the spin 3/2 (the supersymetric -ino/gauge ghost things) and spin-2 (the GR tensor). The current article fails to distinguish spin 1/2 from spin-1 and makes no mention of the other two. linas 02:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Sigh... Linas, the adjectives "standard" and "important" are somewhat subjective or even "cultural". In this article, I have been trying to bring together concepts from the math and physics worlds which would be better understood by everyone if it were not for certain artificial notational barriers.  Trust me, by no means every math student ever takes a physics course at all, and therefore by no means does every math student ever encounter even a mention of Pauli matrices.  If you modified my notation to use Pauli matrices, you would exclude all those people.  Please don't do that.  On the other hand, every math student encounters Möbius transformations, and I think physics students are more likely to have seen these, say in a complex variables course, than math students are to have seen Pauli matrices.

 * Some of us also want to promote more modern notations, especially where this goal is consistent with making an article as accessible as possible to a wide audience. I think you might be underestimating the thought I put into the organization and notation of this article in its present form.

 * Please trust me, the night sky stuff is not at all uninteresting to the majority of students. To the contrary, in my experience, most students find this the most fascinating topic of all.  It's great that you are fascinated about Fuchsian groups and all that, and this is not unimportant, but I wish you would trust my own experience and judgement a bit more than you seem inclined to do.

 * You are obviously very eager to jump in and contribute to the article, but we have very different viewpoints. For example, I am trying to stick close to matrix groups, which I think will appeal to the widest possible audience for this article.  But many others prefer notations using Clifford algebras or Pauli matrices, especially when discussing representations.  Also, for some purposes real representations are more important than complex ones.

 * You are right that the Pauli matrix notation is very common, and at the present time it is fairly standard in physics, so it should be explained someplace in Wikiepedia. So how about this: would you agree to leave this article alone, and to write your own article on Representations of the Lorentz group, which I will agree to leave alone?  You can write that using the notation preferred by physicists (and by many mathematicians who have taken lots of physics courses, or who talk to physicists a lot), Pauli matrices.  I'll write a short summary for this article avoiding that notation (which I believe would be harmful to my goal of helping math and physics students talk to one another about the Lorentz group).--CH  (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Sorry, I was not trying to question your experience or judgement. This is not its not a bad article;  seems you did a good job. But you deeply misunderstand what I'm interested in and where I'm coming from; I have absolutely no desire whatsoever in writing about the Lorentz group; my interests lie elsewhere; this conversation is a pleasent distraction with a newcomer to wikipedia. I applaud your work; I'm glad you're here; I was merely trying make helpful comments.

However, I am under the impression that most math students couldn't care less about the Lorentz group; they study other things. The people who really care about the Lorentz group are physicists. There are two classes of physicists: those who need a text-book style treatment so that they can design particle accelerators or teach Maxwell and Dirac equations. For them, a clear statement of representation theory matters, and this article is currently lacking clear talk about representations. The other class of physicists are the string theorists, who are interested in Riemann surfaces and Fuchsian groups and the like; but thier level of needs and understanding are a few light-years beyond this article. Its not clear that either group is very well served by the current article. Don't get me wrong, if I was back in school hitting this for the first time, I would find it absolutely fascinating. Its a good article. But if I was in school, I'd also be concerned at how little it overlapped my textbooks. OK, now for the hard knocks: the current treatment is very different from e.g. the Moshe Carmeli treatment or chapters 10,11 of Fulton & Harris. There are standard names for the generators of the algebra, these aren't even named in this article.

I would have been happier if the effort put into conjugacy classes had been put into the article on the Mobius transforms instead, which duplicates a lot of this material. The treatment of the Lie algebra is also unusual; a more standard treatment talks about the structure constants and the generators. The bit about subgroups, covering groups and topology could indeed be moved to another article. To conclude, let me be clear: this is a good article. But as to culture and subjectiveness, WP readers are seeped in culture; I won't be the first or last to think or say what I just said. Although I've already said far far too much.

OK, in fact, I write really bad articles, but that's me :) I hold everyone else up to a higher standard. So yes, I live in the proverbial glass house, and yet I'm chunking rocks.  Really, glad to have you here. Please take this kindly. linas 04:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Linas, it's all very well for you to suddenly say
 * you have absolutely no desire to write about the Lorentz group (?!),
 * this discussion has merely been a distraction for you (gosh, what about me?),
 * but given the many strong opinions which you've expressed on this page about what topics you think should be covered in an article on Lorentz groups, what notation should be used, and so forth, I rather think you have acquired an obligation to write the suggested companion article on Representations of the Lorentz Group according to the vision which you have rather passionately expressed on this page. In fact, I'm calling on you to do just that, and I hope others will speak up here to echo this.  I've already said I think you have made some valid criticisms, but clearly I cannot write the article you want so much to see; ultimately, only you can do that.  You say you write "really bad articles", but even if that is true, there's only one way to improve your expository skills.---CH  (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, well, I'll think about it. linas 14:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Not good enough. If you want to talk to me again, you'll do it---CH  (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Help!
I've only been participating in Wikipedia for month or so. It's horrible that I am already involved in some kind of edit war.

A few weeks ago I completely reorganized and added much, much new material to this article. I thought hard about what to say, how to say it and in what order, what notation to use, etc. I worked really hard on this article. My goal was to collect and clearly present the most generally useful facts (for a broad audience) about the Lorentz group in the most elementary way possible. For example, I conciously attempted to remain as far as possible in the world of matrix Lie groups, because most undergraduates are far more likely to grasp matrices and systems of ordinary differential equations than more abstract concepts from graduate level Lie theory courses or string theory courses which I feel belongs in companion special topics articles written to address the needs of more sophisticated audiences.

A user called Linas seems to have a very very different ideas about the goals of an article on the Lorentz group. For example he complained above that in this article I've ignored the needs of students of string theory. Likewise, he has every different ideas about what topics should be emphasized. In particular, he wants to see in this article much, much more about representations, including infinite dimensional representations(!), than I do. As should be clear from the above, I too would in fact like to see at least one companion article on a special topic which is very important but too complicated to discuss in this article without unbalancing it. Accordingly I proposed what I feel is very reasonable procedure which I would hope could make everyone happy:

 * I link to a new article called Representations of the Lorentz Group, in which he can summarize the first six chapters of the book he cited, the book by Serge Lang, or whatever else he wants,
 * he writes that article as he sees fit, and I will leave it entirely alone,
 * he leaves this one alone.

I even said I was going to add a few paragraphs on representations to this article, giving my own very brief summary of the basic facts, which I am confident I can do in a way which fits in gracefully with the rest of this article.

Unfortunately, it seems that Linas wants to delete material which I worked hard to include and to explain in an elementary way, in favor of much more advanced material which he wants to add. However, adding this material in my view would
 * unbalance the present article,
 * break up the flow of the exposition which I worked so hard on.

Is it really too much to ask that Linas adhere to my request above, given that I've worked very hard on this and given that he and I seem to have completely different visions about what to say and how to say it? Is there someway to appeal to the Wiki maintainers to mediate this dispute? Unfortunately, by now I am so disgusted by my interactions with Linas that I want nothing to do with him ever again, but perhaps someone who "knows" us both (on Wiki) can relay my request as above.

Again, I stress that I myself believe that there is a great deal one could legitimately say about the Lorentz group, and I conciously chose not to attempt to say very much in this article about some important topics, particuarly representations. After all, the Lorentz group and its closest relatives, particularly SL(2,C) has been the subject of entire books from various points of view, books which string theorists must perhaps master. So I think that breaking up articles into an elementary one (this article) and the more elaborate one focusing on the needs of string theory students, which Linas outlined above, is a very reasonable solution.

Does anyone other than Linas really think that my proposal is unreasonable?

Is there some formal appeals process for mediating this dispute?

Thanks!---CH (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I think you are being a little prickly about this, actually. An article on the Lorentz group should at least mention the representation theory. One of the basic principles of Wikipedia articles is to aim for completeness; and to indicate, at least, what else there might be to say. That is, we don't really recognise 'closure' of articles. The representation theory is not just used in string theory, surely: it goes back 60 years or more in quantum theory. Charles Matthews 05:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Also I think the NPOV tag is not appropriate here. Is anyone really saying that the current content is not 'written from a neutral point of view'? I don't think so. That tag should not be used just because there is some discussion about the extent of the article content. Charles Matthews 05:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Charles, please, this is really getting frustrating. I don't know how I could possibly have made it clearer that I feel that the basic facts about representations of Lorentz group should be briefly described in an elementary way in this article. I even said that I intend to do this. The dispute with Linas is what I said it is above: whether to remove the material I added (see the history page) and replace it with high level material on representations, which I think inappropriate, or to have Linas write a companion article.

Give me a chance, OK--- I have other pans in the fire, and I didn't get to it 20 minutes after writing the above. Just wait and see what I do in the next few days, OK?

As for NPOV tag, well, one of the pans I just mentioned was searching for information about dispute tags. The proposed "inclusion" template would have been perfect, but apparently that proposal was rejected long ago.

Thanks for your comments, but you failed to say whether you agree with my proposal? If so, what don't you like about it? (Maybe you should reread the entire page above to make sure you have a reasonable idea of what issues I have in mind, which have already been discussed, such as length.) And can you help me with my question about how to resolve this dispute? I am trying to avoid an edit war with Linas.---CH (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I think the content matter can be dealt with, and not so far from your suggestion(s): mention here with a short section, and perhaps have a dedicated page to which that section links (I'm not too clear right now about how much is already out there, for example in relation to the Poincaré group, in some of the theoretical physics articles). I'm aiming to get some basics understood: this is not an 'edit war' by WP standards, just a content discussion based mostly on a possible distribution of content over more than one page. Linas is entirely within his rights to add to this page, and put his view on its development. Your reference to Wiki maintainers seems to show some misconception as to how things are done. There a mediation avenue, but this discussion hardly merits invoking it, at the stage where we are still exploring a couple of conceptions and how the content might fit with other pages. And, let me say, length is not (any longer) a fundamental constraint to articles, so that there is no particular need to see this in terms of one topic pushing out another. I appreciate the work you have done on this page; I am going over these points explicitly, since you might be more comfortable working here with a fuller view of the typical modus operandi. Charles Matthews 08:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Charles, thanks. I don't really disagree with anything you say, but given the concerns on my talk page I have concluded that I am not after all cut out to contribute to Wikipedia. (I've tried to explain this at some length on my user page.)

title: Talk:Lorentz group/Archive


text:
Swan Transit

Swan Transit is an Australian bus company operating Transperth bus services under contract to the Public Transport Authority. It is a subsidiary of Transit Systems.

History
On 21 January 1996, Swan Transit commenced operating services in the Midland area with 43 buses.

On 29 September 1996, Swan Transit commenced operating services in the Canning Vale and Southern River areas from depots in Canning Vale and Southern River with 119 Mercedes-Benz and Renault buses.

In January 1998, Swan Transit gained further services in the Armadale South and Kalamunda areas on 5 July 1998.

In September 2002, Swan Transit purchased the Perth operations of Connex WA, resulting services gain in Claremont and Belmont areas. It initially traded as Swan Transit Riverside. Connex (now Transdev) would re-enter the market in September 2004 when it purchased Southern Coast Transit from National Express.

In May 2011, Swan Transit commenced an eight-year contract to operate services in the Marmion contract area. The Marmion contract area includes Karrinyup depot which was operated by Path Transit. However, Swan Transit did not retain the Kalamunda contract, which was taken over by Path Transit in October 2012.

As of April 2019, Swan Transit operates the Canning, Claremont, Marmion, Midland and Southern River area contracts.

In October 2019, Swan Transit was successful in retaining its Marmion and Claremont contracts, as well as gaining the Joondalup contract, taking over the Joondalup operations from Transdev WA on 19 January 2020. The three contracts will run for 10 years and expire in January 2030.

TransBunbury & TransBusselton
In January 2015, Swan Transit commenced operating 10 year contracts to operate services in Bunbury and Busselton under the TransBunbury and TransBusselton brands, taking over from South West Coach Lines.

TransAlbany
In July 2017, Swan Transit commenced operating 10 year contracts to operate services in Albany under the TransAlbany brand, taking over from Love's Bus Service.

Depots
As of January 2020, Swan Transit operates 13 depots for its Transperth operations:

 * Beckenham
 * Canning Vale
 * Ellenbrook
 * Mount Claremont
 * Karrinyup
 * Midvale
 * Shenton Park
 * Champion Lakes (Southern River)
 * Craigie (Beenyup)
 * Mundaring
 * Joondalup
 * Wangara
 * Ridgewood (Nowergup)

Outside Perth, Swan Transit operates four depots, Albany, Bunbury, Busselton and Kalgoorlie, for its TransAlbany, TransBunbury, TransBusselton and TransGoldfields operations respectively.

title: Swan Transit


text:
David Farrar (actor)

David Farrar (21 August 1908 – 31 August 1995) was an English stage and film actor.

His film roles include as the male lead in the Powell and Pressburger films Black Narcissus (1947), The Small Back Room (1949) and Gone to Earth (1950). According to one obituary, "He was particularly adept at conveying the weaknesses and human qualities in figures of authority and intelligence ... and he could be considered an early exponent of 'anti-hero' roles." In 1949, exhibitors voted him the ninth-most popular British star.

Director Michael Powell once spoke of his handsome appearance and distinctive "violet eyes", and his exceptional timing in films. Powell also stated that had Farrar been more interested in cinema and cared more about his career, he could have been a much more high-profile actor, as successful as any.

Career
Farrar was born in Forest Gate, Essex (now in the London Borough of Newham). He joined the Morning Advertiser on leaving school at 14 and worked as a journalist for a number of years. He became an assistant editor at 17 and earned a BA through night school when 19 whilst becoming increasingly interested in amateur theatricals.

Early years
In 1932 Farrar received an offer to tour with a repertory company at £7 a week. He quit his job and went on tour for 18 months. He ran a repertory company with his wife for 18 months until 1937, then went on tour again.

He was seen in a play by an employee of the American RKO studio who was interested in Farrar's potential as a film actor. His first film role was in the Jessie Matthews musical Head Over Heels (1937). He also had small roles in Return of a Stranger (1937), Silver Top (1938), and A Royal Divorce (1938). He played agent Granite Grant in Sexton Blake and the Hooded Terror (1938) and had a small role in Q Planes (1939).

Farrar returned to the stage and performed in a production of the Wandering Jew for seven months. However, after a bomb damaged the theatre he decided to try films again.

Leading man
Farrar had his first leading role in Danny Boy (1941), which he followed with Sheepdog of the Hills (1941) and Suspected Person (1942). These were "B" movies but Farrar had a good role in an "A", Went the Day Well? (1942), as a villainous German.

He had strong roles in The Dark Tower (1943) and They Met in the Dark (1943), as well as the leads in Headline (1943) and The Night Invader (1944). He was a heroic commander of an air-sea rescue unit in For Those in Peril (1944), an accountant in The Hundred Pound Window (1944), and a pilot in The World Owes Me a Living (1945).

Farrar starred as Sexton Blake in two films, Meet Sexton Blake (1945) and The Echo Murders (1945), and was an intelligence officer in Lisbon Story (1946). These low-budget thrillers were enormously popular in their day. By 1945 he was receiving 800 fan letters a week.

Stardom
Farrar was transformed into a star when he was cast as the British agent Mr. Dean in Black Narcissus (1947) who arouses the passions of the nuns played by Deborah Kerr and Kathleen Byron. Made by the team of Powell and Pressburger, the movie was popular and has since come to be regarded as one of the finest films in British cinema.

Farrar followed it up by playing the officer who brings home a German wife (Mai Zetterling) in Frieda (1947), directed by Basil Dearden; it was the ninth biggest film in Britain of the year.

Farrar played a charismatic school teacher in Mr. Perrin and Mr. Traill (1948) and was then reunited with Powell and Pressburger for The Small Back Room (1949) in which he played an alcoholic bomb disposal expert. According to his obituary, "Farrar was given a true star's entrance in the film, the camera tracking along a bar of customers until coming to rest upon the actor's back. His character's name is called and he turns to face the camera in full close-up."

Gainsborough Pictures next gave him the lead of a "British Western" shot in South Africa, Diamond City (1949), playing Stafford Parker, but the film was a flop. He reunited with Dearden for Cage of Gold (1950) and Powell and Pressburger for Gone to Earth (1950), another box office disappointment. Farrar would later cite his three films for Powell and Pressburger, and Cage of Gold, as the artistic highlights of his career. However Farrar's stardom soon lost momentum with the low-key films The Late Edwina Black (1951), and Night Without Stars (1951).

Hollywood
He was offered an heroic part in The Golden Horde (1951), at Universal with Ann Blyth, and the film was a minor hit. He was in I Vinti (1953) in Italy, then played villains in Hollywood films such as Duel in the Jungle (1954), and The Black Shield of Falworth (1954). He supported Anna Neagle in Lilacs in the Spring (1955) and was a supporting actor in Escape to Burma (1955), The Sea Chase (1955), and Pearl of the South Pacific (1956). Farrar returned to the UK for the lead in Lost (1956), and then was back to supporting parts in I Accuse! (1958), The Son of Robin Hood (1958), Watusi (1959), John Paul Jones (1959), and Solomon and Sheba (1959).

Final films
He returned to Britain for Beat Girl (1960), and The Webster Boy (1962), but following his role as Xerxes in The 300 Spartans (1962) he retired from the screen. Farrar later admitted, "I'd always been the upstanding young man and I was afraid of the parts that were being hinted at for uncles or for the girl's father instead of her lover! I just felt 'the hell with it all' and walked out into the sunset."

Personal life
Farrar and Irene emigrated to Amanzimtoti, South Africa, in January 1970 to be closer to their daughter, Barbara. Barbara (with the surname Layne) was later the subject of the artist Tretchikoff's painting, Barbara in the Bath.

Irene died in 1976. Farrar died on 31 August 1995 in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, 10 days after his 87th birthday.

Filmography

 * Return of a Stranger (1937) – Dr. Young (uncredited)
 * Silver Top (1938) – Babe
 * A Royal Divorce (1938) – Louis Bonaparte
 * Sexton Blake and the Hooded Terror (1938) – Granite Grant
 * Q Planes (1939) – Viking Bo'sun (uncredited)
 * Danny Boy (1941) – Harold Martin
 * Sheepdog of the Hills (1941) – Reverend Michael Varney
 * Penn of Pennsylvania (1941) – (uncredited)
 * Suspected Person (1942) – Inspector Thompson
 * Went the Day Well? (1942) – Lieut. Jung
 * The Dark Tower (1943) – Tom Danton
 * They Met in the Dark (1943) – Commander Lippinscott
 * Headline (1943) – 'Brookie ' Brooks
 * The Night Invader (1943) – Dick Marlow
 * For Those in Peril (1944) – Flt.Lt. Murray
 * The Hundred Pound Window (1944) – George Graham
 * The World Owes Me a Living (1945) – Paul Collyer
 * Meet Sexton Blake (1945) – Sexton Blake
 * The Echo Murders (1945) – Sexton Blake
 * Lisbon Story (1946) – David Warren
 * The Trojan Brothers (1946) – Sid Nichols
 * Black Narcissus (1947) – Mr. Dean
 * Frieda (1947) – Robert
 * Mr. Perrin and Mr. Traill (1948) – David Traill
 * The Small Back Room (1949) – Sammy Rice
 * Diamond City (1949) – Stafford Parker
 * Cage of Gold (1950) – Bill
 * Gone to Earth (1950) (aka 'The Wild Heart') – Jack Reddin
 * The Late Edwina Black (1951) – Gregory Black
 * Night Without Stars (1951) – Giles Gordon
 * The Golden Horde (1951) – Sir Guy of Devon
 * I Vinti (1953)
 * Duel in the Jungle (1954) – Perry Henderson / Arthur Henderson
 * The Black Shield of Falworth (1954) – Gilbert Blunt, Earl of Alban
 * Lilacs in the Spring (1954) – Charles King / King Charles II
 * Escape to Burma (1955) – Cardigan
 * The Sea Chase (1955) – Commander Jeff Napier
 * Pearl of the South Pacific (1955) – Bully Hague
 * Lost (1956) – Det. Insp. Craig
 * The Battle of the River Plate (1956) – Narrator
 * I Accuse! (1958) – Mathieu Dreyfus
 * The Son of Robin Hood (1958) – Des Roches
 * Watusi (1959) – Rick Cobb
 * John Paul Jones (1959) – John Wilkes
 * Solomon and Sheba (1959) – Pharaoh
 * Beat Girl (1960) – Paul Linden
 * The Webster Boy (1962) – Paul Webster
 * The 300 Spartans (1962) – Xerxes (final film role)

title: David Farrar (actor)


text:
Talk:Connie Stevens

Connie Stevens real surname
A google search revealed to me that her real surname is more likely to be INGOLIA, rather than 'Ingoglia' as written in the main article. Can anyone enlighten us further ?

Derek R Bullamore 14:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Not likely. Though I'm sure the name has become corrupted over the years because many non-Italian speakers find it hard to get that the second "G" is silent. Ingoglia - Southern Italian: from Goglia, with the addition of the southern prefix in- ‘belonging to the family of’ (see Imbimbo).  --Danindenver (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"and often was guest on the Dean Martin Celebrity Roast a few times..." Well, which is it? Often or few? Gspong 04:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Connie Stevens. 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/20100809055423/http://www.foreverspring.com/aboutConnie.htm to http://www.foreverspring.com/aboutconnie.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091231100933/http://newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Connie_Stevens.php to http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Connie_Stevens.php

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) 12:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Connie Stevens


text:
Aglio e Olio (EP)

Aglio e Olio is an EP by the Beastie Boys, released in 1995. The EP showcases a return to the band's hardcore punk roots.

Recording and release
The EP was released after the band realized that it had written too many hardcore punk songs for its next record. Michael "Mike D" Diamond later said, "When we first started working on Hello Nasty in New York, Amery "Awol" Smith was around helping us get set up. Along with the usual bunch of experimental jamming/sampling etc., we started playing a bunch of hardcore, putting song arrangements together really quickly. Then I started writing vocals. Soon we realized that we had way too many hardcore songs to possibly put on the next album, so we decided to release them all together as an EP."

"Aglio e Olio" means "Garlic and Oil" in Italian, a reference to one of the simplest pasta dressings used in Italy. According to Mike D, the title was chosen "to let the kids know, it's eight songs but only ten minutes. It's important to let the people know". All but one of the songs contained on the EP are under two minutes in length; each song is played quickly in the style of punk rock. This made Aglio e Olio the first Beastie Boys release since 1982's Polly Wog Stew EP to feature entirely hardcore punk songs. Initial pressings of the CD and vinyl release came with a small adhesive label affixed with the following warning to music buyers: "Only 8 songs, Only 11 minutes, Only cheap $."

The EP was released to digital streaming services in 2020. A 180-gram clear vinyl reissue with two added bonus tracks, "Soba Violence" and a cover of "Light My Fire,"  was released for Record Store Day on July 17, 2021.

Critical reception
Despite the EP only being about 10 minutes in length, the record received mostly positive reviews. Punknews.org complimented the EP, saying that Aglio e Olio is "a testament to times when hardcore was about attitude, not drop D tuning, playing really fast, and listening to too much Pantera." Similarly, Randy Silver, Amazon.com said, "[t]here are better hardcore albums out there, and there are better Beastie Boys discs, but fans will still enjoy Aglio E Olio." Jam! Showbiz Music Reviews stated that the EP, and the song "Deal with It" in particular, "is entirely representative of the faster-louder sound, which makes the Ramones seem like restless experimentalists by comparison."

AllMusic awarded the EP two out of five stars, but did not publish a review.

title: Aglio e Olio (EP)


text:
Nasal release

In phonetics, a nasal release is the release of a stop consonant into a nasal. Such sounds are transcribed in the International Phonetic Alphabet with superscript nasal letters, for example as in English catnip. In English words such as sudden in which historically the tongue made separate contacts with the alveolar ridge for the and, , many speakers today make only one contact. That is, the is released directly into the :. Although this is a minor phonetic detail in English (in fact, it is commonly transcribed as having no audible release:, ), nasal release is more important in some other languages.

Prestopped nasals
In some languages, such consonants may occur before vowels and are called prestopped nasals.

Prestopped nasals and prenasalized stops occur when the oral cavity is closed and the nasal cavity is opened by lowering the velum, but the timing of both events does not coincide. A prenasalized stop starts out with a lowered velum that raises during the occlusion, much like the [nd] in candy. A postnasalized stop or prestopped nasal begins with a raised velum that lowers during the occlusion. That causes an audible nasal release, as in English sudden.

The Slavic languages are most famous for having (non-phonemic) prestopped nasals. That can be seen in place names such as the Dniester River. The Russian word for "day", for example, is inflected день, дня, дни, дней, "day, day's, days, days'".

Prestopped nasals area also found in Australia. Eastern Arrernte has both prenasalized stops and prestopped nasals, but it does not have word-initial consonant clusters. Compare "good" (with nasal stop),  "make" (with prenasalized stop),  "coolamon" (with prestopped nasal).

There is little or no phonetic difference between a "prenasalized stop" and a cluster. It is similar for prestopped nasals. The difference is essentially one of phonological analysis. For example, languages with word-initial (or ) but no other word-initial clusters, will often be analyzed as having a unitary prenasalized stop rather than a cluster of nasal + stop. For some languages, it is claimed that a difference exists (often medially) between and. Even in such cases, however, alternative analyses are possible. Ladefoged and Maddieson investigated one such claimed case and concluded that the two sounds were better analyzed as /nd/ and /nnd/, respectively.

Final consonants with nasal release
However, some languages such as Vietnamese and Malay, which are generally described as having no audible release in final stops, actually have a short nasal release in such cases. Since all final stops in these two languages are voiceless, the nasal release is voiceless as well.

Although the difference is commonly chalked up to aspiration, final nasal release is contrastive in Wolof:

 * {| class=wikitable

!colspan=2|Nasal release!!colspan=2|Aspirated release
 * +Contrasting releases in Wolof
 * 'to drown'||||'to be thin'
 * 'bridle rope'||||'white chalk'
 * }
 * 'bridle rope'||||'white chalk'
 * }

title: Nasal release


text:
Talk:George Karageorgevich

Splitting
I agree with the person who put the 'split article' notice on this article. The article talks about two very different people, and should be split up. Any thoughts? --JB Adder | Talk 01:58, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Split I agree, it is about two people, one born in 1887's, the other one born in 1984!  Someone made a boo-boo when updating this page!     --Guest--71.193.33.236 06:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:George Karageorgevich