text:
Villano III

Arturo Díaz Mendoza (March 23, 1952 – August 21, 2018) was a Mexican professional wrestler who performed under the ring name Villano III (in Spanish Villano Tercero). Díaz was a second-generation wrestler, son of luchador Ray Mendoza and the father of professional wrestlers Villano III Jr. and El Hijo del Villano III himself. All five of the Díaz brothers used the Villano name; José de Jesús (Villano I), José Alfredo (Villano II), Tomás (Villano IV) and Raymundo (Villano V). Of the five Villanos, Arturo was considered the most successful in terms of championship and Lucha de Apuesta (bet match) wins as well as the most talented luchador in the family. He retired from wrestling in 2015 due to health issues stemming from wrestling. A few days after his death, he was inducted in the AAA Hall of Fame.

During his 35-year career, Arturo Díaz was one of the featured performers for the Universal Wrestling Association, and for all the all major Mexican wrestling promotions such as Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre and AAA as well as numerous notable smaller Mexican promotions like International Wrestling Revolution Group. Díaz was an enmascarado, or masked wrestler, up until 2000 where he lost to Atlantis and had to unmask as a result. The match against Atlantis was later voted "Match of the Year" in the Wrestling Observer Newsletter year-end awards. In contrast one of his last matches ever, at Triplemanía XXIII was voted the "worst match of the year" in 2015.

Professional wrestling career
Arturo Díaz was born into a wrestling family; his father, Ray Mendoza, became a successful luchador when Arturo was very young. His two older brothers, José de Jesús and José Alfredo, had begun wrestling in early 1969 when Arturo was just 17 years old. Arturo was trained both by his father and by Felipe Ham Lee, a family friend, while also getting a degree in physical education in case professional wrestling did not work out for him. His debut was on January 29, 1970, earlier than expected as he was asked to replace someone who did not show up for a match. For the first match he was billed as "Ray Rosas" (Ray after his father and "Rosas" after the color of his wrestling attire) and worked without a mask.

After his initial match he began wrestling under various enmascarado (masked) characters such as Pulpo Blanco (Spanish for "White Octopus") and Mancha Roja ("Red Stain"), in part to not reveal that he was the son of Ray Mendoza. At one point he competed under the name "Búfalo Salvaje" ("Savage Buffalo"), a name also used by his older brothers early in their careers when they worked as Búfalo Salvaje I and II. After several short-lived names, Arturo began wrestling as Rokambole, a name he would use for several years. The name Rokambole would later be used by his younger brother Raymundo as well. In late 1970 or early 1971, his older brothers began wrestling as Villano I and Villano II and soon established that as their permanent identity, creating what would later turn into a family tradition.

Universal Wrestling Association (1973–1994)

In 1973 Arturo's father and older brothers finally deemed him experienced enough to use the Villano name, taking the name Villano III (Villano Tercero). In 1975 Arturo's father joined with wrestling promoter Francisco Flores and investor Benjamín Mora Jr. to form a new wrestling promotion called Universal Wrestling Association, which was in direct competition with the company Ray Mendoza and Flores had worked for up until that point, Empresa Mexicana de Lucha Libre (EMLL). One of the reasons behind the split was that Mendoza felt that EMLL was not giving his sons enough opportunities in the ring. All three Villanos followed their father to the newly formed UWA. While his brothers worked as a tag team, Villano III became a singles competitor and was pushed as one of its top stars, due to his father's influence and Vilano being the Vilanos' most talented wrestler. On December 14, 1975, Villano III became the first ever UWA World Welterweight Champion by winning a tournament. Over the next couple of years, Villano III defended the championship in several high-profile, main event matches, earning favorable reviews from both fans and reporters. His run with the welterweight title lasted until May 29, 1977, where he lost to El Solar. Following the title loss, Villano III moved from the welterweight division (with a maximum weight of 78 kg) to the light heavyweight division (with a maximum of 97 kg). On March 1, 1981, he defeated Fishman to win the UWA World Light Heavyweight Championship, a title his father had won previously as well. Villano III lost the title back to Fishman 140 days later, ending the first of his two reigns with that championship.

In 1982 Villano III started a storyline feud against Los Misioneros de la Muerte ("The Missionaries of Death"; El Signo, El Texano and Negro Navarro), that would lead to Villano III becoming a tecnico (a face, those that portray the good guys in wrestling). As Villano III became more and more popular with the fans and the UWA officials decided to make him a "technico", using the hated Los Misioneros trio to that end. After his "tecnico" turn Villano III joined up with El Solitario and Aníbal to form a trio called Los Tres Caballeros ("The Three Gentlemen"), who would go on to main event a series of sold-out UWA shows. His first major opponent after the turn was Perro Aguayo, starting a long-running, intense feud over the WWF Light Heavyweight Championship that the UWA promoted at the time. On March 20, 1983, Villano III defeated Aguayo to win the WWF Light Heavyweight Championship, beginning the first of seven reigns for Villano III, tied with Aguayo for most reigns with that title. His first reign lasted 140 days before Aguayo regained the title. The feud between the two also saw Villano III defeat Aguayo in a Lucha de Apuesta, hair vs. mask match, on August 21, 1983.

In 1985 Villano III defeated Gran Hamada to win the WWF Light Heavyweight Title for a second time. Villano III's second title reign lasted 826 days, which is the longest of any WWF Light Heavyweight Champion in its history. During the mid-1980s his two younger brothers began using the names "Villano IV" and "Villano V", often teaming with Villano I. Over the following years, Villano III traded the WWF Light Heavyweight Championship with Perro Aguayo, Rambo, and, Sangre Chicana. In 1991 Villano III began working against a young Canadian known as Pegasus Kid, sent to Mexico by New Japan Pro-Wrestling (NJPW) to train and gain experience. Villano III and Pegasus Kid had a series of matches throughout 1991, including Pegasus Kid winning the WWF Light Heavyweight Title on March 3, 1991. By late 1991. Pegasus Kid's learning excursion to Mexico came to an end, but not before Villano III defeated him in a Lucha de Apuesta match, forcing him to unmask and reveal his real name: Chris Benoit. Villano III's seventh and last reign with the WWF Light Heavyweight Championship began on July 18, 1994, when he defeated El Signo. He held the title until January 1995 when the UWA closed and Villano III vacated the title with which he had been closely associated for more than ten years.

AAA (1995–1998)
In 1995 the UWA was forced to close down, leaving Los Villanos without a home base for the first time in their careers. The brothers soon signed with Antonio Peña's AAA and began working for the promotion as a trios group, marking Villano III's transition from being primarily a singles wrestler to working more trios matches. In March 1996 Los Villanos defeated Cien Caras, Heavy Metal, and Latin Lover to become the inaugural holders of the AAA Americas Trios Championship, a title created by Peña specifically for Los Villanos as AAA did not have an active trios championship before. The team held the championship until November 19, 1996, when they lost to Los Oficiales (Guardia, Oficial, and Vigilante), but regained the championship less than two months later. Los Villanos also became the first ever Mexican National Atómicos Champions, teaming with Pierroth Jr. to win the four-man team exclusive championship. By mid-1996, Villano IV and Villano V had begun working for the US-based World Championship Wrestling (WCW). In 1997 most of the wrestlers that worked for WCW split off from AAA to form Promo Azteca, which included the Villano brothers. By leaving AAA Los Villanos vacated both the Americas Trios title and the Mexican National Atómicos Championship.

World Wrestling Council / Independent circuit (1997–1998)
After leaving AAA, Villano III toured Puerto Rico several times in 1997 and 1998, working for the World Wrestling Council (WWC). On November 27, 1997, Villano III defeated Ricky Santana to win the WWC Puerto Rican Championship to start his tour with WWC. Two days later Santana regained the championship before Villano III regained it on December 21. Villano did not work in Puerto Rico between January and April, only returning to the island to lose the Puerto Rican championship to Glamour Boy Shane on WWC's 25th Anniversary Show.

Villano III also worked on the independent circuit after leaving AAA, as well as making sporadic appearances for both Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) and Promo Azteca at the time. On July 18, 1998, Villano III was one of 32 wrestlers putting their masks on the line in a Ruleta de la Muerte ("Roulette of death") tournament where the losing teams advance and in the end the final team would face off in a Lucha de Apuestas match. Villano III and his partner Shocker lost to Rayo de Jalisco Jr. and Mil Máscaras in the first round, but defeated El Hijo del Santo and Guerrero del Futuro in the second round to preserve their masks.

Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (1999–2002)
In late 1998 Villano III began working almost exclusively for CMLL. On December 25, 1999, Villano III and Super Astro teamed up to wrestle against Lizmark and Fishman in a Relevos Suicidas. When Villano III and Super Astro lost they were forced to wrestle against each other in a Lucha de Apuesta match. In the end, Villano III won yet another Apuesta match, forcing Super Astro to unmask.

On November 22, 1999, Villano III defeated Atlantis to win the CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship. The title change was just one of the highlights of a long-running feud between Atlantis and Villano III, a feud that also included III's younger brothers Villano IV and Villano V who no longer worked for WCW. On March 17, 2000, at CMLL's 2000 Juicio Final event, Atlantis won his biggest Apuesta victory to date as he defeated and then unmasked Villano III in a match that was voted the Wrestling Observer 2000 Match of the Year. In 2010 Súper Luchas Magazine suggested that this may have been the lucha libre match of the decade for the 2000s.

Unmasked
A few months later Villano III, IV, and V defeated Escuadron de la Muerte ("The Death Squadron"; Cyborg Cop, Maniac Cop, and Vader Cop) to win the IWRG Intercontinental Trios Championship. Los Villano still worked for CMLL but they had a talent sharing arrangement with International Wrestling Revolution Group (IWRG) that allowed Los Villanos to work for IWRG as well. Villano III's CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship reign ended on September 7, 2001, when he was pinned by Shocker. Following the title loss, Los Villanos worked more infrequently for CMLL, taking bookings both in IWRG and on the Mexican independent circuit as well. On March 21, 2002, Villano III's last title reign ended when Los Villanos were stripped of the IWRG Trios title as Villano V was injured and unable to defend the title. On July 30, 2005, Villano III teamed up with rookie wrestler Gallo Tapado Jr. for IWRG's La Copa Black Shadow tournament. The duo defeated El Matemático and Black Man Jr. and then the team of Rambo and Bobby Lee Jr.; Brazo de Plata Jr. and Brazo de Oro to win the tournament.

In the latter half of the 2000s, Villano IV and V worked for CMLL on a regular basis, while Villano III's CMLL appearances were more sporadic, wrestling mainly on the independent circuit. Villano III frequently appeared in Lucha de Apuesta matches, having won the hair of Scorpio Jr. (twice), Brazo de Oro, Brazo de Platino and El Cobarde II during that time period, only losing one Apuesta match; losing his hair to L.A. Park in a multi-man match on May 5, 2007. Around 2010, Díaz's wrestling appearances were reduced as he was dealing with both age and ring related ailments and worked a much lighter schedule. 2013 saw him work 11 confirmed matches, and 2014 he only competed in 7.

In May 2015, Arturo Díaz announced that he would retire from active competition due to several knee injuries and diminishing eyesight leaving him unable to compete competitively. Afterward Díaz agreed to another match, teaming with his younger brothers to take on Los Psycho Circus (Psycho Clown, Monster Clown and Murder Clown) at Triplemanía XXIII, AAA's biggest show of the year, promoting it as Villano III's retirement match after a 45-year career. While Los Villanos won the match, the age of the Villanos and deteriorating health of Villano III and V led to many mistakes in a heavily criticized match, that was voted the "worst match of 2015" by the readers of the Wrestling Observer. Despite his retirement announcements and ailing health Díaz did work one match in both 2016 and 2017.

Personal life
Arturo Díaz Mendoza was the third son and third child overall of José Díaz Velazquez and Guadalupe Mendoza. His brothers, like himself all became wrestlers: José de Jesús (Villano I), José Alfredo (Villano II),  Arturo, Raymundo Mendoza Jr. (Villano V),  and Tomás (Villano IV). Lupita Mendoza died in 1986, his second oldest brother José Alfredo died in 1989, his oldest brother José de Jesús died in 2002, and his father José Diaz died on April 16, 2003. Díaz was adamant that his sons get a good education instead of becoming wrestlers, wishing that they become lawyers or doctors as he wanted to spare them his own physical suffering. Once he realized that his two oldest sons had begun wrestling under masks he agreed to train them and aid in their careers. He was also instrumental in training the rest of his sons, although he insisted they both get college degrees before they were allowed to begin wrestling. Since his youngest son Tomás finished his education first he became known as "Villano IV" while Raymundo, the second youngest son, became "Villano V".

Díaz was married to Luz Lorena Velarde Murillo, who was a professional wrestler for many years, working under the name "La Infernal". Together they have at least two children, two sons who wrestle under the names Villano III Jr. and El Hijo del Villano III. His nephews (sons of Raymundo) are also wrestlers, known as Rokambole Jr. and Villano V Jr. On March 17, 2017, CMLL honored Villano III as part of their annual Homenaje a Dos Leyendas ("Homage to two legends") show, their version of the Hall of Fame.

Arturo Díaz died of a cerebral infarction on August 21, 2018, after dealing with health issues, including complications from a stroke earlier in the year. Four days later, at Triplemanía XXVI, AAA inducted Arturo Díaz into the AAA Hall of Fame, honoring his career and his legacy with his sons El Hijo del Villano III and Villano III Jr. accepting the honor on his father's behalf. CMLL also paid tribute to Villano III during their first Super Viernes show after Díaz's death, with Villano IV, V, El Hijo del Villano III and Villano III Jr. all acknowledged and honored during the show as wrestlers Mephisto and L.A. Park both wearing wrestling tights/mask resembling what Villano III wore during his career.

Professional wrestling persona and style
In the 1970s and 1980s, Villano III was one of the top box office draws for the UWA, and has been referred to as one of the biggest stars in the history of lucha libre. A testament to his in-ring talent was the fact that he was often selected as the opponent for various top light heavyweight wrestlers from around the world. The 2000 Lucha de Apuestas match against Atlantis was voted the "Match of the Year" in the Wrestling Observer Newsletter year-end awards by the readers, the only Mexican match to ever earn this distinction.

Villano III's in-ring style focused more on fast action and explosive moves that looked realistic over the high flying style normally associated with light heavyweight wrestlers, although he would perform dives out of the ring and off the top rope. His in-ring speed helped make his La magistral cradle so effective, he was able to apply it to an opponent instantly. Over the years he often used a DDT (where he would drive the opponent's head into the mat) and then swiftly transition into locking his " Media Cerrajera" submission hold (a Standing figure-four leglock, Chickenwing submission) to win matches. In a May 2008 article on Villano III he claimed to have won approximately 140 masks. and 100 hair in his career, with the article itself outlining details for 77 Luchas de Apuestas matches. The Wrestling Observer stated that he had 58 successful Apuestas matches prior to his mask loss.

Arturo, as well as all other Díaz family members who have used the "Villano" name, have all worn the same distinctive mask. Originally on a black base with a red "X" across the face and golden outlines around the eye holes, similar to "bandit mask" worn by criminals in cartoons. Over the years, Los Villanos have changed their color schemes, such as red, blue, purple and most noticeably pink versions of the mask and tights. The pink color scheme earned Villano III the nickname "Pantera Rosa", or "Pink Panther" with the fans, leading to Villano III often using The Pink Panther Theme by Henry Mancini as his entrance music.

Championships and accomplishments

 * AAA / Lucha Libre AAA Worldwide
 * AAA Americas Trios Championship (2 time) – with Villano IV and Villano V
 * Mexican National Atómicos Championship (1 time) – with Villano IV, Villano V and Pierroth Jr.
 * AAA Hall of Fame (Class of 2018)
 * Arena Naucalpan
 * Arena Naucalpan Light Heavyweight Championship (1 time)
 * Arena Naucalpan Middleweight Championship (1 time)
 * Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre
 * CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship (1 time)
 * Mexican National Trios Championship (1 time) – with Dos Caras and Villano IV
 * International Wrestling Revolution Group
 * IWRG Intercontinental Trios Championship (1 time) – with Villano IV and Villano V
 * La Copa Black Shadow – with Gallo Tapado Jr.
 * Pro Wrestling Illustrated
 * PWI ranked him #64 of the 500 best singles wrestlers of the PWI 500 in 2001
 * PWI ranked him #215 of the top 500 singles wrestlers of the PWI Years in 2003
 * Universal Wrestling Association
 * UWA World Junior Heavyweight Championship (1 time)
 * UWA World Junior Light Heavyweight Championship (1 time)
 * UWA World Light Heavyweight Championship (2 times)
 * UWA World Welterweight Championship (1 time)
 * WWF Light Heavyweight Championship (7 times)
 * World Wrestling Council
 * WWC Puerto Rico Heavyweight Championship (2 time)
 * World Wrestling Association
 * WWA World Trios Championship (1 time) – with Villano IV and Villano V
 * Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards
 * Match of the Year (2000) vs. Atlantis in Mexico City on March 17
 * Worst Match of the Year (2015) with Villano IV and Villano V vs. Monster Clown, Murder Clown and Psycho Clown on August 9
 * Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame (Class of 2019)
 * Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame (Class of 2022)

title: Villano III


text:
Roleplay simulation

Roleplay simulation is an experiential learning method in which either amateur or professional roleplayers (also called interactors) improvise with learners as part of a simulated scenario. Roleplay is designed primarily to build first-person experience in a safe and supportive environment. Roleplay is widely acknowledged as a powerful technique across multiple avenues of training and education.

History
Howard Barrows invented the model for medical patient role-playing in 1963 at University of Southern California. This program allowed doctors practice taking medical histories and conducting physical examinations by participating in a one-on-one scenario with a role-player. The role-players (called Standardized Patients or SP) were also trained on providing performance evaluations after the fiction of the scenario was complete. Barrows continued to evolve this model, eventually bringing it to other physicians in the 1970s, and into the academic world in the 1980s. Today, many hospitals and medical universities have their own standardized patient programs that employ part-time role-players trained to specific standards of interaction. The Association of Standardized Patient Educators has members from six different continents.

An industry of professional skills training emerged in the late 1990s, primarily in the United Kingdom. Companies began hiring acting professionals to create situational dramas to be overcome by learners as part of an experiential learning methodology. Today, there are more than twenty companies in the UK that specialize in providing role-players for workplace simulations.

Professional military role-players have been employed by the US Military since 2001, primarily as a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States. Preparation requirements for the resulting War in Afghanistan created a need for cultural role-players skilled in languages and customs of current theaters of war to populate simulated villages and urban environments.

Medical training
Medical role-players typically fall under the category of Standardized Patients (SP). SPs are extensively used in medical and nursing education to allow students to practice and improve their clinical and conversational skills for an actual patient encounter. SPs commonly provide feedback after such encounters. They are also useful to train students to learn professional conduct in potentially embarrassing situations such as pelvic or breast exams. SPs are also used extensively in testing of clinical skills of students, usually as a part of an objective structured clinical examination. Typically, the SP will use a checklist to record the details of the encounter.

Role-players can engage with medical learners in one of two ways: Medical role-players can also be used to portray distraught or bereaved family members of patients in emergency medicine scenarios, giving the learners practice in handling emotionally difficult or distracting situations.
 * 1) As part of a simulation wherein both learner and role-player are aware of the fiction, and have established rules and boundaries (i.e. the "fiction contract").
 * 2) Surreptitiously, for purposes of healthcare provider evaluation or health informatics research.

Military training
Role-players in military simulations can portray various types of interactive characters:

Opposing force (OPFOR)
Role-players are trained to accurately emulate real-life enemies in order to provide a more realistic experience for military personnel. To avoid the diplomatic ramifications of naming a real nation as a likely enemy, training scenarios often use fictional countries with similar military characteristics to the expected real-world foes.

Civilians on the battlefield (COB)
Some COB role-players are expatriates of foreign countries who have the looks, language skills, and cultural familiarity needed to accurately portray key points of interaction in a military scenario. Others are locals who may be unskilled as actors, and primarily serve to populate a particular area of operations within a military scenario so that soldiers can be challenged with problems of crowd control, or situational awareness.

Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TC3)
Field medical training, or Tactical Combat Casualty Care training utilizes role-players to portray wounded soldiers and civilians on the battlefield. Role-players will often scream in pain, convulse, and panic to create extreme emotional conditions under which battle medics must operate proficiently. It is not uncommon for TC3 scenarios to employee amputees as role-players. These role-players are fitted with realistic prosthetic wounds that can gush synthetic blood or other bodily fluids in order to heighten the emotional intensity of a simulation. It is expected that trainees who are routinely exposed to such intense situations in simulations will eventually experience a level of "stress-inoculation" that will provide life-saving advantages in real battle situations.

Law Enforcement Training
Role-players are often hired by law enforcement agencies to portray criminals or victims of crimes in scenarios that simulate typical law enforcement situations. These can range from a response to a domestic violence call to an "active shooter" scenario. Role-players are advantageous over video-based police simulations in that they can escalate or de-escalate a confrontational situation in response to the words, body language, and tone of voice of the trainee. This becomes key in effective use-of-force training.

Law enforcement scenarios use role-players for scenarios such as interrogation, hostage negotiation, and witness interviews. Recently, law enforcement agencies have begun to introduce the identification of human trafficking victims into their role-player curriculum.

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center at Glynco, Georgia, is the largest employer of non-military role-players in the United States.

Business Leadership Training
Role-players are used by businesses to equip their leadership with experience in handling interpersonal conflict, negotiations, interviews, performance reviews, customer service, workplace safety, and ethical dilemmas. A role-player may also simulate difficult and sensitive conversations such as layoffs, or reports of sexual harassment. This gives leaders a chance to make mistakes in a safe environment, rather than learn from a mistake in the real world, which could lead to costly litigation.

Mediation and Facilitation Training
Role-playing is used to equip future practitioners with experience in using diverse skills, structures, and methods to handle various mediation and facilitation scenarios. These roleplays usually have students roleplaying both the mediation-facilitation and client-sides of the interactions; however, more intense or complicated scenarios can be explored with more experienced or professional role-players. The interactions are usually scaffolded; with various key features of the participants and situation defined, but much of the roleplay is improvised. The practice of roleplay in this context promotes several important factors, beyond basic skill-building. It fosters the capacity for multiperspectival thinking. It helps mediators and facilitators cultivate empathy and compassion for their clients, this cultivation can be critical for achieving better outcomes.

Forecasting
Role-play also has applications in forecasting. One forecasting method is to simulate the condition(s) being studied. Some experts in forecasting have found that role-thinking for produces less accurate forecasts than when groups act as protagonists in their interactions with one another.

Learning advantages
The use of skilled role-players in a simulation has several benefits over using unskilled confederates:
 * When untrained fellow learners are asked to serve as role-players in a simulation, the resulting learning experience tends to be ineffective due to embarrassment, intimidation, or unrealistic performances.
 * Skilled role-players also help ensure the conditions for an effective simulation are intact. These conditions include maintaining a safe environment, and dynamically adjusting difficulty, complexity, and intensity to the capabilities and experience level of the learner.
 * Since role-players improvise each interaction, predictability is taken out of the simulation. Predictable scenarios limit the development of decision-making skills.
 * Role-player providers can typically offer broader coverage of demographic representation than is possible by using in-house staff to portray characters.

Limitations
Role-players can be expensive to organizations with limited training resources. Role-player fees are typically contingent upon skill and level of specialized knowledge, and can range from minimum wage to more than US$100 per hour.

Certain types of training that require objectively quantifiable measures of success can be incompatible with the variability of using a human-in-the-loop.

The Diamond Age (novel)
Interactors feature prominently in Neal Stephenson's novel, The Diamond Age: Or, A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer.

Set in the near-future, artificial intelligence is depicted in the novel as having failed in its goal of creating software capable of passing the Turing Test, therefore it is renamed "pseudo-intelligence". As a result, virtual reality entertainments are augmented by role-players skilled in the use of digital puppetry who don motion capture suits and perform as interactive avatars within virtual environments. These human-in-the-loop simulations are known as "ractives" (an abbreviation of "interactives"), and the performers who drive them are called "ractors" (an abbreviation of "interactors").

The Game (film)
Ubiquitous and surreptitious role-players are the primary plot drivers of the 1997 film, The Game, directed by David Fincher. The protagonist agrees to participate in a vaguely defined game hosted by a high-end entertainment company called Consumer Recreation Services. He later ends up being manipulated by dozens of CSR role-players who psychologically torment him to the brink of suicide.

The Magus (novel)
In the John Fowles' novel, The Magus, an eccentric and wealthy recluse uses surreptitious role-players to manipulate the protagonist. The novel never fully clarifies which characters are "real", and which are being portrayed by actors. Additionally, there are role-players who engage with the protagonist as multiple different characters. He eventually loses the ability to distinguish artifice from reality, and realizes that he has become a fictionalized version of himself in the simulation of his own life.

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

title: Roleplay simulation


text:
Mulgrave, New South Wales

Mulgrave is a suburb in the north west of Sydney in New South Wales, Australia. It is a predominantly industrial and commercial area.

History
The district was settled in the period between 1794 and 1800. Lieutenant-Governor Grose named the locality 'Mulgrave Place' honouring Constantine Phipps, the second Baron Mulgrave, who had died in 1792. Baron Mulgrave had been an English naval officer and statesman and a colleague and friend of Joseph Banks.

Transport
Mulgrave railway station is on the Richmond railway line. It is four stations from the terminus station at Richmond. Mulgrave station is 53 km from Sydney's Central Station, which takes approximately 1 hour 6 minutes to travel by train during peak hour. The station along with the arrival of a steam train features in The Seekers at Home TV special, 1968. Filmed as the setting for the song "Angeline is always Friday", steam hauled services ceased to operate shortly afterwards.

Demographics
Mulgrave's population is 92 (Census 2016). It had a median weekly household income of A$2,062, which is 143.4% above the national average.

title: Mulgrave, New South Wales


text:
Konowata

Konowata is a kind of shiokara (fermented salted seafood), made from sea cucumber intestines. Along with sea urchin and karasumi, it is one of Japan's three Chinmi (rare taste).

The Noto Peninsula, Ise Bay, and Mikawa Bay have long been known as production centers, but today it is manufactured in various regions, including the Seto Inland Sea.

Ko is Japanese for sea cucumber, no indicates the genitive case, and wata means internal organs.

Method of manufacture
Sea cucumbers are used as the source of konowata; Apostichopus japonicus is considered delicious.

First, the sea cucumbers are left in a fish tank set up in the sea near the work site for about two days until some of the food residue and feces inside their intestinal tracts are excreted. Rip the ventral side near the mouth with a small knife about 5–6 cm in length, turn it upside down, and pull out the internal organs by inserting fingers through the cut while draining the internal body fluid.

The intestines are squeezed out with fingertips to squeeze out the remaining sand inside, and then separated into three parts: the intestinal tract, respiratory tree (called "the second part of the sea squirt intestine"), and gonads, as well as sandy mud. Gonads and the sea cucumber itself are used as separate ingredients.

Rinse the intestines well in seawater, drain in a colander, and put into a container and mix with salt. Use a little more than 10% salt by weight to the intestines. It will be ready for eating in two to three days.

Eating and Nutritional Value
Konowata is often eaten as a knob of liquor. It is often served on top of freshly cooked hot rice. At restaurants and inns, a small amount is placed in a small bowl and sometimes with a Japanese quail's egg. It is sometimes made into konowata-zake, which is hot sake with a small amount of konowata added.

The konowata-jiru, or "konowata soup," in which konowata is cut into small pieces with a knife and added to thin soup stock or miso soup, is also often eaten.

History
In the Engishiki, which was established in 927, "One koku of sea squirt intestine" is listed among the tribute imposed by the central government on Noto Province.

The 15th-century Ninagawa Chikamoto Diary also mentions that Hatakeyama Yoshimune presented Ashikaga Yoshimasa with "one hundred tubs of sea gut" as a gift, as well as "one hundred tubs of konohata" for Hino Tomiko and "fifty tubs of konohata" for Yoshimoto's parents. Some believe that this "tub" is a small container with a diameter of about 6 cm.

The recipe for making konowata is described as a secret recipe in the cookbook Shijoryu-Houchou-sho (四条流庖丁書) from around 1489.

There is also a description of konowata in the Hoko Kakugo No Koto (Preparedness for Service), thought to have been written in the late 15th century, which states that "konowata is eaten with chopsticks with a tub."

In 1522, Ashikaga Yoshiharu, the twelfth shōgun of the Ashikaga shogunate, ate konowata when he went to the Gion Festival.

The Diary of Odachi Joko (大舘常興日記) states that in 1539, warlord Hatakeyama Yoshifusa of Noto Province gave konowata as a gift for the New Year.

In 1583, konowata is provided in the Kaiseki issued by Sen no Rikyū to Araki Murashige.

The Muromachi-dono Diary (室町殿日記,) completed around the beginning of the 17th century, contains the following regarding Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who ruled Japan at the end of the 15th century.
 * When Toyotomi Hideyoshi invited his friends over for a chat, one of the lords presented him with three items: oysters, moon shell, and konowata. Hideyoshi ordered Hosokawa Yusai, who was there, to compose a waka poem reading this gift. Hideyoshi praised the poem and everyone enjoyed eating the gift.

In 1603, at the beginning of the modern period, it was recorded in Nippo Jisho (Japanese-Portuguese dictionary) as cono vata.

In the Oyudono-no-ue-no-Nikki (御湯殿上日記) of 1603, there is an account of Tokugawa Ieyasu, who had just become a Shogun, presenting a konowata to the Kyoto Imperial Palace.

In 1635, konowata was served for breakfast when Date Masamune entertained Shogun Tokugawa Iemitsu at the Ninomaru of Edo Castle.

There is also a description of konowata in Shokumotsu-honzo (食物本草) published in 1671, which explains the medicinal and toxic properties of food.

There is also a description of konowata in Suisho zakki (遂生雑記,) a manual of food ingredients published in 1682.

The 'Honcho-Shokkan (本朝食鑑) established in 1697 also includes a commentary on konowata. According to it,
 * The process involves washing the intestines of fresh sea cucumbers in seawater until there is no more sand or dirty juice. After that, it can be done by mixing it with salt and preserving it. If done well, it will be yellow, similar to amber. The inferior ones have black or white foreign matter mixed in there. It is also tasty when mixed with egg yolks. In the old days, the country of Noto was considered the place of origin, and it is listed in the Engishiki. Currently, Owari and Mikawa products are the best, followed by those from Musashi Province. Many regions take sea cucumbers, but do not produce konowata. This is because few people prefer konowata. In the past, there was a monk in Mikawa who was very good at making konowata, which is why Mikawa became famous for konowata. Later, this monk moved to Owari, which also became famous for konowata.

In the Edo period, the lord of the Maeda clan, which ruled the Kaga Domain, declared processed sea cucumbers a government monopoly and prohibited their production outside of the places designated by the lord. In a 1757 instruction on thrift by Maeda Shigemichi, the 9th daimyō of Kaga Domain, it is written that sea cucumbers and konowata may be served as a New Year's dish to entertain guests.

The "Wakan sansai tukai" also includes a section on "sea squirts" in Millennium No. 51 (Fish), and also mentions this fish guts

In the Wakan Sansai Zue, konowata is described as follows,
 * konowata is made by fermenting the three intestines of sea cucumbers in salt. It is fragrant and a perfect snack for winter and spring. After New Year's, it becomes too salty to eat.

The Owari meisho zue, published in the 19th century, contains illustrations of the monks featured in the aforementioned Honcho-Shokkan.

In 1811, Kurimoto Masayoshi wrote the following in his Senchufu (千蟲譜):
 * Although we call it namako today, it was called ko once upon a time, and this is why the snack that goes well with sake, made from the intestines of namako (sea cucumber), is called konowata.

The 19th century Japanese poet Rai San'yō wrote that he composed a poem in gratitude for the gift of konowata.

title: Konowata


text: User talk:70.242.105.26

title: User talk:70.242.105.26


text:
Talk:List of military occupations of Latvia

Request for Comment: Noncompliant
Does the article contain in your opinion any violations of WP:NPOV ,WP:Verifiability, WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:OR?!! 08:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments by User:Novickas
Responding to request for comments at WP:Lith.

The article as written looks NPOV to me. Only 1 citation needed tag is in it; the German occupation section does need some inline citations.

The title could be considered POV, and hence problematic, because a significant minority - the Russian government - objects to the term "occupation". Their acknowlegment of that word would open the door to discussing reparations to this and other former Soviet republics. Citation needed, but shouldn't be too hard to find, and would add a valuable perspective.

The majority of the article covers Latvia during WWII, so I would vote for that name - with a good-sized aftermath section. More could be put into other articles, and the lead would have to be rewritten (which is of course not a trivial task). It does seem customary for historians to divide the 20th century into WWI, interwar, WWII, and post-war eras - that would also accomodate the expansions that will come to Latvian history on WP.

It would be a loss if this were to be derailed from Good Article over the title - so much good work and references. I completely understand the wish to link the series of occupations together - one long nightmare - but also think readers will find the events dreadful no matter how it's titled.

Hope this all works out. I would be happy to help when the dust settles a bit. Novickas 15:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

PS The pictures are definitely POV unless they can be balanced with pictures of Latvians in the concentration camps - a well-referenced event - and those pictures are nonexistent. Novickas 15:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments by User:Vecrumba
The article has not been allowed to develop because of ceasless attacks and diversion of editing resources into these endless disputes. Absolutely  zero  evidence has been produced from any reputable source by any editor opposing the article title or content to support the official Russian position, therefore it is noted appropriately but not dealt with as an "equal but opposing viewpoint." It is merely a "version" of history. The article is specifically NOT just about WWII, it only appears to be that way currently because, in fact, only the very first section regarding the initial Soviet occupation (prior to Nazi invasion/occupation) has been completed. I expect we'll have the usual accusations of tenditious editing, allegations of Nazi hate speech, denouncements of equating of Soviet liberation of Eastern Europe with the Holocaust, accusations of Holocaust denial, representation of the majority of Latvians being all to eager for Nazi guns so they could shoot Jews... I believe I've covered them all. Now that I've put the stake in the ground, yet again, I'm hoping to sit out this round of RfCs. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as we're at it, I have not seen it pop up yet in both categories. If we're going to get the widest audience, let's make sure we get one. Hope springs eternal. I wish Termer luck in this venture, the last editor from the oppose-those-who-oppose-occupation camp who tried to bring things to a head eventually gave up and abandoned Wikipedia. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments by User:Termer
For now I'm just going to continue counting on Encyclopædia Britannica as the reliable Encyclopædia instead of WP. The Encyclopædia that is widely considered to be the most scholarly of encyclopedias. The encyclopedia that has an article:Latvia The Soviet occupation and incorporation, the article this one here is based on including the events from 1940, from July 1941 to October 1944. The article that in Encyclopædia Britannica includes A national renaissance developed in the late 1980s in connection with the Soviet campaigns for glasnost (“openness”) and perestroika + ''Soviet efforts to restore the earlier situation culminated in violent incidents in Riga in January 1991. After a failed coup in Moscow in August, the Latvian legislature declared full independence, which was recognized by the Soviet Union on September 6.''. Thanks!--Termer 18:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected
I have tried to suggest why certain objections to certain proposals were not founded in policy, but rather were matters of editorial judgement that should be discussed. Now I find edit-warring over the disputed tag. I said originally I would give you a week and then reconsider banning some editors under the probation, and I'll stick to that and give you a chance. However, don't assume you can safely predict who will be banned. Thatcher131 17:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Let me get this straight: you're telling us that we have to hold a discussion, but to not use arguments you don't like? Digwuren 20:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 * This article is under probation. "Any editor may be banned from it, or from other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research."  An enforcement request was made (by you as it happens).  I am now in the process of observing the article and the talk page to determine what action, if any, should be taken.  "Disruptive edits" is not a well-defined term and is a judgement call.  It might be, for example, that someone who says "Bad Article" but never offers constructive criticisms could be considered disruptive.  It could also be that mis-stating policy and claiming "Policy forbids X" and refusing to discuss it further, when X is not forbidden by policy but is a matter for discussion and consensus, could be considered disruptive.  Edit-warring over a dispute tag is definitely disruptive. Thatcher131 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Then observe that for every Baltic and Eastern European country there are is largely a separate set of motivated, knowledgeable, editors who bring plenty of sources which document irrefutable fact. Then observe perhaps one editor opposing "Soviet occupation" who just sticks to disrupting a specific country's article, plus then there is the floating cabal of anti-"Soviet occupation" editors, e.g., Petri, who inserts his accusations of Nazi hate speech and Holocaust denial, always unsourced, in all. (At least each one I've visited so far...) And, of course, always accompanied by conspiracy theories seeking to blacklist editors, as in Irpen's latest lobbying on your own talk page. Not seeking to sway? Then why not discuss accusations and characterizations of editors' behavior in the open? I should mention Ghirla is also a particular fan of conspiracy theory accusations . —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Is the "Soviet occupation of Latvia 1944 - 1991" one of those "irrefutable facts"? -- Petri Krohn 03:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes it is. More to the point, regarding the opposing "viewpoint" which would constitute the supposed "debate," I am still patiently waiting for the first reference to be provided by anyone indicating the basis for the Russian Duma's official proclamation that Latvia joined the Soviet Union legally according to international law, which is the basis for the contention that Latvia was not occupied . I was hoping Vlad Fedorov with his multiple degrees and specialization in international law would be able to help out, but after some interesting debates (all involving WP:OR on his side, and, sadly, he didn't have basic facts straight even about what treaties the Soviets had signed), it seems he's been banned for a year for disruptive behavior. And that after I went to the trouble of adding to the Occupation of Baltic States article a complete compendium of all treaties signed and in force between Bolshevist Russia/Soviet Union, and Latvia and the Baltics, so he could easily cite them. ¡Qué lástima! At least he quoted something from a real book on international law along the way, which is more than I can say for the quality of sources the opposition has brought to bear to support their contentions here. As I recall, your best shot was that an encyclopedia article which described the Baltics as "part of the Soviet Union" proved they could not have been "occupied," that amid your additional (repeated) contention that portrayals of the Soviet presence in the Baltics and Eastern Europe as occupation are a post-Soviet phenomenon born of Eastern European vindictiveness (unsourced). — Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Don't forget Stalin's first occupation, I assume leaving it out was an oversight. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * re: m (Protected Occupations of Latvia: you have got to be kidding me [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 17:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC))) All that has been asked for is citation of reputable sources with regards to non-occupation. I believe I have already addressed the need for "Occupied Latvia" versus "Occupation 1, Occupation 2, Occupation 3,.. of Latvia" in multiple articles. Anyone specializing in Baltic studies (whether of Baltic origin or not) will support this editorial "judgement," viz. sources that have been cited here.
 * You've only been here, what, not even a week and you're already frustrated? Consider the rest of us who have been dealing far longer with unsubstantiated propaganda and personal credos regarding Nazi hate speech. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. For my part, I was just curious to see who would be next to revert me and what they would say. If you've reviewed any of the above, you would know that I couldn't resist reminding Irpen, yet once more, that sources are preferable to uncited (they never specify a source) emotive tags. His revert edit comment ("are you kidding?") was an open invitation. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Since we won't be updating for a while longer, you might consider visiting the Soviet occupation of Romania for more examples of casus I don't like it. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. "Invasion" apparently is a POV weasel-word according to Ghirla and Irpen and Grafikm_fr (further down) as well. Just ran across this completely by accident. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest to replace the tag, that is absolutely irrelevant with one that would make more sense. Thanks --Termer 06:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

POV

 * That would certainly be an improvment on the present situation. It more accurately reflects the whole infected debate over this article, without necessarily being partisan. In short, it is a more NPOV tag. And experience shows that articles can happily exist and develop for a long time with a POV tag ... — Zalktis 08:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The problem with the article is not that it is merely not neutral but in that the article under this specific combination of title and scope cannot possibly be compliant. We have several events/periods/topics, connected but separate. Those are (best naming for individual events aside): The latter is a separate issue that well deserves an article. It should be Occupation of Latvia (term) which I would prefer to be merged with other states where similar arguments apply, like Occupation of Baltic States (term).
 * 1940 Soviet occupation
 * German occupation,
 * Soviet return
 * Latvia under Soviets
 * Elaboration on sources that state how and why term "occupation" is justified for the period when Latvia was a Soviet Republic.

The other periods/events are well article-worthy in themselves and some of the articles already exist. There is absolutely no reason to fork these event articles by creating a new one that is nothing but a pasting of the others.

Well, there may be one legitimate reason to put together several events over an extended period of time into one article. That is if this is a history article we are talking about. In such case, the article's title should be neutral and devoid of judgment, even sourced one. Such title could be  History of Latvia (1940-1991 . Check the History of Poland series. It is divided into such articles. Partitioned Poland is a redirect to History of Poland (1795–1918). "Poland under Soviet domination" is not an article and the period is called History of Poland (1945–1989) and the latter "mundane" name did not prevent the article from being an FA.

The ''History of..." name won't imply that Latvia in fact was not "occupied". Neither it would imply that the Soviet Latvia was "liberated". These issues need to be explained in the text and not be stamped in the titles. --Irpen 10:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is certainly the best proposition I have seen yet on this tedious page. When it comes to dividing  History of Latvia  into subarticles, my proposition is:  History of Latvia (1918-1940 ,  History of Latvia (1940-1945 ,  History of Latvia (1945-1991  and  History of Latvia (1991-present . Philaweb   T - C  11:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Yours and Irpen's suggestion is inappropriate for a number of reasons:
 * "Occupation" is specifically to deal with the occupations and aspects thereof.
 * "History of" deals with everything that happened during the time period in question, I have absolutely no objection to "History of" articles, but they are not "occupation" articles.
 * Unless of course Irpen and yourself are advocating that for the entire period of Soviet occupation, discussing aspects of the occupation to the exclusion of all else constitutes a full and representative "history" of the period in question--is that what you suggest?
 * And, once again, "occupation" needs to be dealt with as a totality to adequately cover one of the most important aspects, which is how the Nazis and Soviets exploited each other's occupations across occupations. Again, I don't object to splitting for more detailed discussion, but this "parent" article is essential.
 * Finally, "less POV" based on what reputable source? No source has been presented to back up the Russian position Soviet presence in and annexation of Latvia was "legal according to international law." Produce a reputable source and we can discuss "POV", otherwise yours and Irpen's objections to using the word "occupation" are more WP:IDONTLIKEIT: effectively becoming nothing more than whitewashing attempts in the guise of "neutrality." The title should reflect the topic. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as I see it, an article called  History of Latvia (1940-1945)  is all about wartime occupation(s), an article called  History of Latvia (1945-1991)  is all about peace time occupation, which naturally needs mentioning in the articles. Philaweb   T - C  22:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll bite. So, the reason to not call 1940-1945 an occupation would be? The reason to not call the 1945-1991 Soviet occupation (recall, not a single contrary source has been produced in all the arbitrations/mediations/et al. over this topic) an occupation would be? And what would be the purpose of mixing, say, the repressive purge of the nationalists in the 1950's with, for example, exploits of "Soviet" Latvian athletes in the Olympics, which would be part of a "history" of the period? Will an extensive section entitled "Soviet occupation" in such an article elicit the same howls of nationalistic bias? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia based on non-WP:OR sources. We have yet to have a single source produced to support the "liberation+ legal presence " camp. Frankly, mixing a detailed accounting of Soviet occupation with, say, pork belly production, is inappropriate.
 * I should mention that puppet government aside, Poland after WWII still counted as sovereign, the Baltics did not, so Irpen's title comparison is completely inapplicable. The title comparison that is suitable is Soviet Occupation of Romania, where this exact same Wiki-schmutz of editors with no sources (purporting to be neutral and inoffensive) disputing editors with comprehensive sources (accused of being biased nationalists) is being played out. I see no reason to not call something what it is, I see no editorial benefit to mixing occupation with unrelated matters (nor, based on the past actions of editors involved, any guarantee that coverage of "Soviet occupation" under such an article's sub-titled section will not continue to be disputed), and I see no reason to change a title when nothing has been produced from any reputable source by anyone to indicate otherwise. This is an encyclopedia compiled from scholarly sources, not from personal credos. Has Jimmy Wales announced some change in policy now requiring editorial conformity to unsubstantiated Russian Federation proclamation correctness as the new definition of neutrality?
 * Finally, what is more offensive: a title that describes a period of Soviet despotism and the wiping out of Latvian sovereignty on Latvian soil as an "occupation", or not titling an article about exactly that as an "occupation" because editors with no sources to back their position and POV taggings simply object to it because they wish to persuade Wikipedia readers that "occupation" is one of two equally valid "opinions" and that "occupation" is, in fact, a nationalistic Nazi-hate-speech Holocaust-denying Russo-phobic weasel-word? This isn't even a debate--that would require sources produced by the opposition. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The reason why I would not use the word occupation in the article title is because it is not NPOV. It is really that simple. It should be possible to write articles from a neutral point of view - citing all parties. The main problem with this discussion is the missing acceptance of the other part. Missing acceptance of Latvians who had seen many years of hard work and sovereignty being squashed and radically changed allmost over night, but also Soviet immigrants in large numbers who had fought under very hard conditions for their country against the nazis. Perhaps it is possible to get all sides represented? Philaweb   T - C  23:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * And, finally, are you suggesting we establish the precedent that according to Wikipedia, the Soviets occupied no one in the post-war era? Because that is what dilution of the article title (along with carving it into inappropriate parts getting rid of the whole) will do--after all, if the articles on the Baltics don't say occupation, and they have an IRON CLAD case, then no other article should use the word "occupation" either. Either someone produces concrete reputable evidence for the Russian contention the Soviets were there completely legally or the title stays. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * With postscriptum to Irpen, re: "this specific combination of title and scope cannot possibly be compliant" Compliant to what? A viewpoint, sorry-- version --of history that has yet to have produced in its support a single reputable source? The article is certainly compliant with reputable sources, and will continue to be if allowed to develop instead of the endless attacks cloaked in the mantle of seeking "neutrality." — Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd suggest to go for a compromise, removal of the tag would motivate editors to work on it. Until the dispute over the title is not over, the article is not going to move anywhere. Therefore, even though I don't agree with any of the opinions that mentioning of Occupation in the title is a POV, since evidence on WP Occupied Japan etc. speak of exact opposite. Therefore I think I'd have the entire basis I'd need to accuse the opponents here in applying double standards and political bias towards this article. However, it’s more important in my opinion to put an end to this nonsense and go for a compromise, go for a title for now that is acceptable by all the parties involved and in the end, if it takes 3 or 5 or why not 50 years, that is as long it took to end the soviet occupation of Latvia, we can return to the title issues once we have a good article put together here. I'm not going to return to this article until the issue is solved. Thanks--Termer 19:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * In other words, Wikipedia has just made a big step towards losing another top-notch editor who has found that the wikistress caused by ideological obstructionism just isn't worth it. Digwuren 20:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The article Occupied Japan is really misplaced in this context - Japan surrendered unconditionally with an instrument of surrender. The difference between the Axis powers of World War II and the Baltic States is, that the Axis powers were aggressors who lost the war, the Baltic States were overrun by "liberators" without being involved with aggression themselves. Philaweb   T - C  22:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Consider whether you wish to establish a precedent in compliance with not ever calling Soviet actions "invasions" or "occupations" because that's "POV." That is what is being lobbied for here. Irpen (and others) dispute "invasion" and "occupation" with reference to Soviet actions everywhere. Neutrality does not require placing unsourced contentions on the same level as reputably sourced facts. If you've gone through the history here or looked at exactly the same issue all over numerous Eastern European articles, this pattern of "objection" becomes absolutely clear. The objections have nothing to do with this article in particular. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I am sorry, but I really think you are being stūrgalvis (pigheaded) in this case. Whether the word occupation is in the article title or in a header within the article is really of less importance. Main thing is that people are able to google for "Occupation of Latvia". Naturally, the occupants did not perceive themselves as occupiers, hence the POV accusations back and forth. I do think it is possible to write a NPOV article with all sides represented if we could at least keep the article title NPOV. How about a POV article on "Liberations of Latvia"? Philaweb   T - C  22:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * There's already a battle for Latvia article somewhere, that should do for covering the Nazi-Soviet conflict. Alas, Philaweb, you completely mistake and mischaracterize my objections to the opposition wishing a change in title. All I have said is:
 * The reason the Russian Federation gives for Latvia not being "occupied" is that its joining to the Soviet Union was completely legal under international law.
 * To present this as a "debate" / "differing viewpoint" / etc., please produce a reputable source showing how the Russian Federation interprets Soviet historical actions based on the Soviet Union's treaty commitments that can be taken as a possible interpretation supporting the Russian Federation position/Duma proclamation. Otherwise we will simply continue to note that the Russian Federation contends otherwise. I myself inserted that note into the article, which previously did not even mention official Russia differing with the West/Latvia in its portrayal of historical events. Hardly "pig-headed."
 * This is so totally and completely and absolutely NOT about my "perception" that Latvia was occupied, or a personal opinion of mine that I don't agree with the "perception" that the Soviet Union liberated Latvia. This is ONLY about reputable sources and absolutely nothing else. Un par to es esmu stūrgalvīgs? On the contrary, all I am asking for is intellectual integrity . You (rhetorical you, not you personally) advocate an editorial position in support of the Russian Federation proclamation? Produce the sources.
 * If the Russian Duma had not issued an official proclamation in this regard, the issue might not be as clear. But, in fact, thanks to the official proclamation of the parliament of the Russian Federation we have complete clarity. The Russian legislature says non-occupation is a "legal fact" (i.e., not an opinion or viewpoint). So, let's see it. I see no incentive to change the article before some shred of evidence is produced.
 * BTW, have you read the article and talk for Soviet occupation of Romania? You might also consider perusing the following editor skirmishes:
 * Ghirlandajo (RfC)
 * Durova (Mediation)
 * Piotrus (RfC)
 * Piotrus+Ghirlandajo (RfA)
 * Molobo (RfC)
 * Piotrus (RfA) — note ruling of editor amnesty
 * Irpen (RfC)
 * Halibutt (RfC)
 * Irpen (checkuser)
 * Petri Krohn (RfC)
 * and then consider how "pig-headed" I'm being. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * You are being pigheaded in my opinion because you are expecting the impossible of your "adversaries". You know perfectly well there are no sources, if there were they have probably been produced to the occasion. I do not advocate an editorial position in favor of the Russian Federation. I also do not advocate an editorial position in favor of the rightious "we-sure-know-what-is-facts-and-we-are-not-partial-in-any-case". I support an editorial position that takes more than "clinical facts" to account. No matter how you turn this issue there are two opposing parties to this arbitration, who both uses the term POV about their opposition. I hope, but see the difficulties in hoping so, that both parties would be satisfied if an article had a NPOV title with all sides to the issue represented in the text. This article could then be updated once the two political powers involved comes to a lasting compromise - The EU (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) on one side and Russia on the other side. Philaweb   T - C  15:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Using offensive language at the ArbCom's probational article
A narrow comment on Vecrumba's entry above. Calling your opponents ''"this exact same Wiki-schmutz of editors..." '' in general, and especially on the talk page placed on the probation by the explicit decision of ArbCom, is a very ill-advised decision. It may get you banned from the page. I suggest you give it a thought. --Irpen 23:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I have only asked for sources. Advocating a position with no sources is intellectual dishonesty. Your accusing me of behavior meriting banning from this page is quite timely, given my response to Philaweb.
 * It's unfortunate you only threaten, accuse of collusion/etc., people who disagree with your position. I see "Nazi" and "Holocaust denier" pass with narry a comment from you. I would contend that "schmutz" (primary definition, "MUD") is not offensive in that context. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

 * P.S. I was unaware you now speak for Thatcher131. Do you not tire of endlessly threatening editors? Attack the editor, never actually answer the request for reputable sources (at least where occupation/non-occupation is concerned, and not just with reference to Soviet might in Latvia).<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I explained multiple times that it is perfectly possible to write a perfectly sourced tendentious article. Sourcing is not the only requirement of the academic integrity. Even nonsense can be sourced. Now, I do not remember anyone calling you here a Nazi or a Holocaust denier at this page lately, at least not since it was put at the ArbCom probation. Someone may have a position that the "occupation POV" is equal to Nazi-POV, the idea that I do not share, but this is not quite the same as calling the editors schumtz. I did not see here statements that Vecrumba is a Nazi, at least I have not seen such language at this page lately for sure. I simply told you do withdraw your offensive language and stop calling other editors schmutz, which is "mud" as you acknowledge. Your refusal and stating that you stand by your characterization is an indication of bad conduct in this content dispute. --Irpen 00:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Petri has not, for example, dragged out Nazi hate speech lately?
 * I will assume good faith in your misquoting and misrepresenting my comment, let me repeat:
 * "where this [QUANTITY 1: exact same Wiki-schmutz] [QUANTITY 2: of editors with no sources (purporting to be neutral and inoffensive) disputing editors with comprehensive sources (accused of being biased nationalists)] [QUANTITY 3: is being played out.] "
 * Calling this whole engagement here a repeat of prior mud-wrestling is not an attack on any editor, it is deploring the situation that has once again developed. The only difference is this time the article has been fully sourced (what's done so far), but that would appear to be irrelevent as you would have us believe that the article takes facts (now with citations) and intentionally chains them together in a way which no longer reflects the facts, but pushes a POV denigration of the Soviet Union because there is lack of unanimity on the U.S.S.R.'s role in history.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 * P.S. For microcosm of said mud-wrestling, read this section again.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to this entry by Petri as I see no other at this page you may be alluding to. There is nothing here even remotely accusing you of being a Nazi or a Holocaust denier. This is a comment not even about the editors but about sources. You, however, repeatedly called other editors Shmutz right above as well as even earlier at the Arbcom and now repeatedly say that such characterization of yours is valid. And I never said anything about "POV denigration of the Soviet Union". Your pulling of the offensive language combined with putting things in my mouth amounts is nothing but disruption of this page that is explicitly addressed by ArbCom. I suggest that you moderate your entries. --Irpen 00:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I have not called other editors schmutz. Situations, absolutely. Situations require participants from both sides, so I am part of that same schmutz, and most certainly here, since I'm still here while other editors have thrown in the towel and left in disgust. (And perhaps you missed my "microcosm" comment?) You believe I'm insulting you. I'm sorry to disappoint you, this is not about you. At least you exhibited enough principle to accuse me of "offensive language" here instead of lobbying behind editors' backs directly on ArbCom's talk page, then insisting you're not trying to sway them.
 * If you say that anything is possible with tenditious editing (creating a false situation out of a biased and selective editing of facts, you like the phrase "cherry-picking"), and represent that there is a difference of interpretation of events which merits retitling the article away from "occupation" (in the complete absence of sources which might explain the official Russian position, and absence of sources of any kind), and you appear to have a pattern supporting the (unsourced) disputing of the use of "occupation" and "invasion" with regard to this and other articles when it comes to characterizing Soviet actions, what should I or other editors conclude instead? The quotes are meant as a summation of your position based on the sum total history of these sorts of actions on the Latvia article and elsewhere that I am aware of, as empirically perceived.
 * Ghirla, you, Grafikm_fr (and others) have a demonstrated history of objecting to "occupation" and "invasion" without offering sources. Thereby tying up entire groups of editors as they deal with the dispute, meanwhile terminating all work on the article in question.
 * That said, this whole situation has nothing to do with you or I as an individual editors. It has everything to do with how far Wikipedia will continue to exhibit laissez-faire with regard to the tagging of articles, disputing titles, et al. as POV by editors who cite not one source in the act of that tagging. Perhaps WP will once again back out of this by saying, "Sorry, we don't get involved in content disputes. We recommend constructive behavior on the part of editors." As I've indicated, "disputes" require sources. Alleged disputes where one side produces no sources is not a dispute.
 * It's a sad day that decrying the repeated development of such situations (editors embroiled in controversies but with no sources to discuss, just allegations) is offensive. <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Today's time capsule: Evidence page from occupation of Latvia request for arbitration seven months ago And changes since then? Baltic editors (Constanz) have left in disgust and new ones (Termer) are disgusted enough to not contribute until this ["offensive" word self-censored] is dealt with.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 * And past accusations of bad faith (perhaps my personal ethics were dysfunctional) by Irpen . <span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 * And, apologies, left this off the earlier sample list, the current Irpen-initiated RfA Digwuren.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias
In response to Termer's comment about Britannica, here's what Encarta has to say about that period: "On August 23, 1939, about a week before World War II broke out, Germany and the USSR signed the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact. The treaty contained a secret protocol that sanctioned the USSR to annex Latvia and its Baltic neighbors. Latvia adopted a neutral position after the outbreak of the war. However, in June 1940 the USSR accused Latvia of forming a secret anti-Soviet military alliance with neighboring Estonia and forced the Latvian government to resign. The same month Soviet forces occupied Latvia. Latvian elections were held under Soviet supervision (only one Soviet-appointed candidate was allowed to run for each position), and a communist regime was installed. In August Latvia officially became the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) within the USSR (a federation, or union, of Soviet republics)." So this puts an another reliable published source on the table. Reinistalk 19:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Status
Suva has stopped summarising the status. I'll try to do it for him, them.
 * Thatcher131 protected the article.
 * More sources, not all of them currently represented in the article, have been presented regarding the occupations.
 * Importantly, all of the sources further presented indicate that reputable historians have classified all three occupations as occupations, and frequently treat them together.

 * Neither Irpen nor Grafikm_fr has presented any contradicting WP:RS, instead apparently trying to justify the split-up by original arguments.
 * Vecrumba, Reinis and others have provided further discussion.
 * Neither Irpen nor Grafikm_fr has answered to the discussion. The only significant response has been Irpen's mock offence over Vecrumba using a German word when referring to mud-wrestling.
 * However, both Irpen and Grafikm_fr have attempted to expand this "dispute" to another article, Soviet occupation . In neither case, arguments on the discussion page were made.

Digwuren 13:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Termer, well recognised for his feracious neutrality and thorough source-checking, has announced he will leave the article due to disgust over the empty wikipolitics.

 * Reason why I stopped summarizing is the same as of Termers. I am sad if they split up the article, or delete it as a whole. But talking is not really helpful if nobody listens. And wikipedia policies REALLY support Opinion over facts. We can talk as long as we want, it's enough when ONE editor says: "I don't like it" and the whole discussion is wasted. I stand back from editing this article and being involved from any discussion in it's talk page. Suva 14:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hellooo! There is no need to make a drama queen out of me. The only thing I've said, we don't have a WP:DEADLINE, therefore whatever it takes, split it up, call the first one Occupation that is clearly not disputed by anyone, the second goes into Nazi occupation, the third occupation under Latvian SSR. Or rename the article. Since we don't have a deadline, we can return to the subject or the title and put everything together again in 50 years if necessary. Meanwhile everybody who wants can read the whole story at the same place from Encyclopedia Britannica. So what's the big deal with this, I'm not getting it! --Termer 06:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, you haven't been around for the previous wailing and gnashing of teeth... as I've said, the article should not be split because it needs to include/focus on how the Nazis and Soviets exploited each other's atrocities for political gain, used and abused the Baltics, and perpetuated fallacies which still survive as fact today. The notion that Balts were eager to murder Jews with no need for prompting from the Nazis (as has been maintained by members of the "opposition") is, in fact, directly traceable to documented Nazi lies.
 * This would (likely) become more of a summary article over time, with details of each occupation in a dedicated article--so that this article can focus on themes associated with the entire thread. In terms of historical understanding, that's far more important than, say, just insisting it should be one article because Latvia was never in a state of not being occupied during the period.
 * As far as I'm concerned, it's more important to keep the title and discuss the topic properly than to dismember it to "solve" a title "dispute" to appease a side which brings nary a source in defense of their contentions. I would rather the title AND the tag stay than slice and dice what needs to be a continuous narrative into pieces.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats cool Pēters J. Vecrumba! I agree with all your points and therefore I support your positions in general, even though in my opinion 3 articles would give an opportunity to tell the same story 3 times all over again by using prefaces and aftermath sections etc.--Termer 04:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And get three more places where to battle with other editors. Suva 04:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * and get more than enough evidence of Disruptive_editing and Gaming the system. Please read the links and let me know if this looks familiar. Thanks--Termer 07:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Termer, I believe I have a minor correction. With this remaining as the parent article and (more detailed) WWII and post-WWII eventually broken out (based on growing article size) by war/post-war occupier, my math totals to a minimum of five articles. Of course it could be that my ignorance in arithmetic is as "legendary" as my "ignorance in international law"!<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Who occupied whom?
I've come across this objective, verifiable, scholarly source (it has a bibliography!) that proves that Latvia has always been Russian. Download and read it yourselves here. Ergo the USSR could not have occupied Latvia. If anything, Latvians occupied this ancient Slavic land... The whole content of this article is thus completely backward, and needs to be rewritten to reflect historical reality. (Enjoy the book; I certainly found it amusing.) — Zalktis 15:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 * In light of this new data, I propose that this article is moved to Liberations of Latvia. Reinistalk 17:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I support renaming the article Liberations of Latvia. Then the only thing that needs to be specified in the text would be the backward Latvian and American and European POV, the backward POV of the European court of human rights etc. saying that the Republic of Latvia was liberated from it's Sovereignty in 1940, liberated from the Soviets by the Nazis and then again, liberated by the soviets from the previous liberators. I think that would make a good NPOV article that would be compliant with the content policies of Wikipedia!--Termer 21:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I also support the rename to liberate the article from evil POV! Suva 21:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Navbox
I have prepared the navbox of but am unable to attach it to the article as it is protected. Please add the navbox to this article. Digwuren 16:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal views versus referenced reliable sources
With regards to (allegedly) insulting editors, besides asking him in more than one Eastern European discussion, I Emailed Petri (quite some time ago) asking him the basis of his charges of Nazism, hate speech, Holocaust denial,... more than most I certainly understand that the personal experiences of family and friends influences one's view of the world—experiences which may not be not congruous with general historical realities. If Latvians have wronged him in any way, I most sincerely apologize—and certainly don't insult him. Everyone would like to hold their own personal views sacrosanct. But this is an encyclopedia, a compendium of verified information based on prior existing reputable scholarly sources, not a compendium of everyone's personal views equally presented as valid encyclopedic accountings on topics and issues. But here, one side brings no reputable sources at all, none whatsoever. Take for example this classic (recent) comment on another Eastern European page: "You want me to show you a source saying: 'Romania was not occupied between 1944 and 1958'? We both know that's impossible to find. Real historians write about thing that happened, only fiction writers find the need to emphasize that something didn't happen." On Transnistria, I debated over sources with an editor eventually banned for sockpuppetry and, by all accounts, being a paid mouthpiece for the regime currently in power there. His POV was blatant. But as long as he produced sources, I could debate him on the validity of his interpretations (quoting obscure sources out of context and drawing unsupported conclusions was his specialty). I have yet to be given the luxury—no, the right as an editor—to debate or discuss a source brought forward by the opposition here. The conflict here and elsewhere in Wikipedia regarding Soviet power in the Baltics and Eastern Europe is demonstrably not about achieving a consensus on a balanced portrayal of information from reputable sources. It is about attaining a specific goal, in this case, renaming the article in order to scrub the words "occupation" and "invasion" from the Wiki-headlines (titles) where it comes to relating factual accountings of acts of the former Soviet Union. It is a place where personal quests for truth in the portrayal of the past are denounced as inflammatory, see Grafikm_fr's accusations against me and my response. And here, thankfully, an uninvolved editor makes a point of defending my edits, countering Irpen's charges against my editorialship (contending who am I to make powerful conclusions based on "simply ridiculous" assertions). An encyclopedia must be based on reputable, verifiable sources. Titles should reflect the topic of their article, not be renamed or inappropriately morphed into something else in order to bury historical truths. Wikipedia does not exist to serve and defend the fictional aspects of Soviet legacy—of which there are many—against Baltic and Eastern European barbarians at the Wiki-gate.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I propose archiving this entire sorry affair and moving forward with a fresh talk page—with the ground-rule that all proposed edits to the article, and all debates regarding existing or proposed edits, be based on verified reputable scholarly sources. I also (again) fully endorse the proposed rename to "Occupied Latvia." The age of unsourced WP:IDONTLIKEIT being indulged to run rampant attacking reputable sources and editors who have taken on the mantle to verifiably and objectively debunk Soviet fiction must come to an end.<span style="font-size:9pt; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> — Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Occupied Latvia (1940-1941)
Ok, the article is split up according to the suggestions. Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany 1941-1944 and Second Soviet occupation 1944-1991 make the Aftermath section of the split up Occupied Latvia (1940-1941). Hope everybody is happy with the suggested solution and everything is in accordance with the WP content policies. Thanks!--Termer 07:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry, apart from Irpen's suggestion, there was no concensus for this split on this talk page. Martintg 10:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Termer, Irpen agrees with your idea because it lets him say that Soviet occupation ended in 1941. That is something people and sources do not agree with. It is a controversial split and your unilateral decision to split here is not appreciated.--Alexia Death the Grey 11:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That was the middle ground, and the most supported also by third parties, therefore it's a consensus all right. Since it doesn't make any difference, and the "split up" article clearly speaks of when the occupation(s) ended, I have no idea what you guys are after here.--Termer 15:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


text:
Mount Pritchard

Mount Pritchard is a suburb of Sydney, in the state of New South Wales, Australia 34 kilometres south-west of the Sydney central business district, in the local government areas of the City of Fairfield and the City of Liverpool, and is part of the South-western Sydney region.

History
Mount Pritchard was originally home to the Cabrogal people who occupied much of the greater Fairfield area. In the early 19th century, the land was granted to a number of ex-convicts for farming. Later it was made part of the Male Orphan School Estate. In 1913, land west of Cabramatta Creek and Orange Grove Road previously owned by the Bull family was subdivided into smaller residential lots by a real estate property salesman named Hugh Pritchard, who named it the Cabramatta Park Estate. From 1919, to honour Mr Pritchard's releasing from debt of a number of landowners whom he'd financed, the estate was renamed Mount Pritchard. The local electoral polling place followed suit in 1924. From the early settler days the general area had been known unofficially as Mount Misery, originally because of a story of one of the early settlers and his family camping there whilst travelling, losing their bullocks, and for three weeks remaining in misery until starvation compelled them to beat a retreat, minus bullocks and dray.

Demographics
At the 2016 Australian census, Mount Pritchard had a population of 9,955. 50.6% of people were born in Australia. The next most common countries of birth were Vietnam 12.7%, Cambodia 2.5%, New Zealand 2.4%, Iraq 2.2% and Lebanon 2.0%. 36.0% of people spoke only English at home. Other languages spoken at home included Vietnamese 19.2%, Arabic 7.6%, Serbian 5.0%, Italian 2.7% and Khmer 2.6%. The most common responses for religion were Catholic 25.7%, Buddhism 16.8% and No Religion 13.5%.

The median household income of $1,191 per week was well below the national average of $1,438 while the average mortgage repayment of $1,883 per month was above the national average of $1,755 placing the suburb firmly in mortgage belt territory.

Transport
Transit Systems Sydney has three bus route servicing Mount Pritchard:-
 * Route 808 from Fairfield to Liverpool.
 * Route 815 from Mount Pritchard to Cabramatta.
 * Route 816 from Greenfield Park (via Meadows Road, Mount Pritchard) to Cabramatta.

The closest train stations are the Cabramatta, Liverpool and Warwick Farm stations.

Education
Mount Pritchard has two government primary schools: Mount Pritchard Public and Mount Pritchard East Public School. There is also the Les Powell School for students with severe intellectual and multiple disabilities.

Sport and recreation
The Mounties Club in Meadows Road, Mount Pritchard supports a number of local teams in various sports, including the Mounties rugby league team in the NSW Cup and the Mounties Wanderers in the National Premier Leagues NSW 2.

Mount Pritchard also has an oval, Mount Pritchard Oval, for the rugby league and football team.

Lions Lookout is a scenic spot that features panoramic views of western Sydney, including the Sydney skyline.

title: Mount Pritchard


text:
User talk:Mr. cool

hellllllloooooo every body

hi mr. cool
hi mr. cool

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. - Lucky 6.9 05:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You should know that if you continue with the weird edits, you're going to be permanently banned. Please don't mess around. Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 05:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

sorry
im so sorry lucky 6.9 i diddn't know i was vandalising anything so can u tell me what i was doing wrong i would apoligise on your talk page but my computer wont let me

No problem. The standard new user greeting will help with some of the things you should read if you'd like to contribute. Best advice I can give you is not to just "free form" an article but rather format it kind of like a school report. Here ya go:

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place   on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - Lucky 6.9 05:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Your messages
Report vandalism or threats of vandalism to Vandalism in progress. You already are an editor as you contribute to Wikipedia. I actually spent months trying to get my home page the way I like. Only way I could advise you is to maybe learn a few WikiCodes to get you home page the way you would desire.  V.   Molotov     15:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I second that. Threats are frowned upon here and if anyone threatens you or vandalizes your personal spaces, let an administrator know. Molotov and I each happen to be one. A couple of keystrokes...poof. No more vandal. Kind of fun, actually. :) - Lucky 6.9 17:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

testing
just testing something Mr. cool

Copyright
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Pieter Nuyts, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! .

Just saying "hi."
So "hi," already. :) Seriously, the best ways to get someone to leave a message here is to actively edit articles or leave word on someone else's talk page first like you did on mine.  See how easy it is?  BTW, since we're now on each other's pages, how are things going for you here and are you still getting hit with vandalism?  Yell back at me. - Lucky 6.9 22:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Semi-automated template substitution

 * This page was modified to semi-automatically substitute templates using Pathoschild's template list. // Rory 0 96 03:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mr. cool


text:
Empress Dowager Longyu

Yehe Nara Jingfen (靜芬; 28 January 1868 – 22 February 1913), of the Manchu Bordered Yellow Banner Yehe Nara clan, was the wife and empress consort of Zaitian, the Guangxu Emperor. She was empress consort of Qing from 1889 until her husband's death in 1908, after which she was honoured as Empress Dowager Longyu. She was posthumously honoured with the title Empress Xiaodingjing.

She became regent during the minority of Puyi, the Xuantong Emperor from 1908 until 1912. On behalf of the Emperor, she signed the letter of abdication, effectively ending two thousand years of imperial Chinese history.

Family background

 * Father: Guixiang (桂祥; 1849–1913), served as first rank military official (都統), and held the title of a third class duke (三等公)
 * Paternal grandfather: Huizheng (惠徵; 1805–1853), held the title of a third class duke (三等公)
 * Paternal grandmother: Lady Fuca
 * Paternal aunt: Empress Xiaoqinxian (1835–1908), the mother of the Tongzhi Emperor (1856–1875)
 * Paternal aunt: Wanzhen (1841–1896), the mother of the Guangxu Emperor (1871–1908)
 * Mother: Lady Aisin Gioro
 * Two brothers
 * One elder sister, Jingrong (Yehenara) (1866-1933), and one younger sister, Yehenara Jingfang

Tongzhi era
Jingfen was born on the fourth day of the first lunar month in the seventh year of the reign of the Tongzhi Emperor, which translates to 28 January 1868 in the Gregorian calendar.

Guangxu era

In 1889, Cixi, who served as regent during the Guangxu Emperor's minority, decided that the emperor had to marry before he could formally take over the reins of power. She chose her niece, Guixiang's daughter, to be the primary wife of the Guangxu Emperor because she wanted to strengthen the influence of the Yehe Nara clan within the imperial family.

Jingfen married the Guangxu Emperor on 26 February 1889, and became his empress directly after the wedding. The wedding ceremony was an extremely extravagant and spectacular occasion. On 16 January 1889, the Forbidden City had caught fire, and the Gate of Supreme Harmony burnt down. According to imperial traditions, the route of the Emperor's wedding procession had to pass through the Gate of Supreme Harmony, which was completely destroyed. As a result, many people believed that this incident was a bad omen.

Because the reconstruction of the gate would be extremely time-consuming, and the wedding date of the Emperor could not be postponed once decided, Cixi ordered the construction of a tent resembling the gate. The artisans used paper and wood to build it, and after it was done, the tent had exactly the same height and width as the original gate, with ornamentation extremely similar to the original. At first, even people who regularly walked through the inner palace could not tell the difference between the original gate and the temporary tent.

After their marriage, the Empress was detested and ignored by the Guangxu Emperor, who favoured Consort Zhen of the Tatara clan. At first, Cixi regarded Zhen favourably, but after finding out she had overspent her allowance, she demoted her. Cixi eventually grew more hostile to Zhen, and placed her in the "cold palace".

As she firmly opposed the Guangxu Emperor's 1898 Hundred Days' Reform programme, Cixi had the emperor placed under house arrest in the Summer Palace. The Empress frequently spied on the Guangxu Emperor and reported his every action to Cixi. In 1900, during the Boxer Rebellion, the Empress fled with Cixi and the Guangxu Emperor to Xi'an when Beijing was occupied by the forces of the Eight-Nation Alliance.

Both Yu Deling and Katherine Carl, who spent time in Cixi's court following the Boxer Rebellion, recalled Empress Jingfen as a gracious and pleasant figure.

Xuantong era
The Guangxu Emperor and Cixi died one day apart in 1908, after which Jingfen was promoted to empress dowager, with the honorary name "Longyu", meaning "auspicious and prosperous".

Immediately after the Guangxu Emperor's death, Cixi appointed Puyi, a nephew of the Guangxu Emperor, as the new emperor. As Empress Dowager Longyu did not have any children with the Guangxu Emperor, she adopted the infant Puyi as her child. Although Cixi had decreed before her death that the Qing imperial court would never again allow women to serve as regents, Longyu remained the leading figure in the Qing government and was consulted on all major decisions. But because she was inexperienced in politics, in the first few years of Puyi's reign, the emperor's biological father, Zaifeng (Prince Chun), served as Puyi's regent alongside General Yuan Shikai.

On Yuan Shikai's advice in the fall of 1911, Empress Dowager Longyu agreed to sign an abdication on behalf of five-year-old Puyi. She agreed only if the imperial family were allowed to keep its titles. Other agreements were these:
 * The imperial family could keep their possessions.
 * They could stay in the Forbidden City temporarily, then would eventually move to the Summer Palace.
 * They would receive an annual stipend of four million silver taels.
 * The imperial mausoleums would be protected and looked after.
 * The new government would pay for the Guangxu Emperor's funeral and the construction of his tomb.

Republican era

The Qing dynasty came to an end in 1912 and was replaced by the Republic of China. Within a few months after the fall of the Qing dynasty, on 22 February 1913, Empress Dowager Longyu died in Beijing after an illness. She was 45 years old, and was the only Chinese empress whose coffin was transported from the Forbidden City to her tomb by train. At her funeral, the Vice President of the Republic of China, Li Yuanhong, praised her for being "most excellent among women". She was buried in the Chong Mausoleum of the Western Qing tombs with the Guangxu Emperor.

Titles

 * During the reign of the Tongzhi Emperor (r. 1861–1875):
 * Lady Yehe Nara (from 28 January 1868)
 * During the reign of the Guangxu Emperor (r. 1875–1908):
 * Empress (皇后; from 26 February 1889 )
 * During the reign of the Xuantong Emperor (r. 1908–1912):
 * Empress Dowager Longyu (隆裕皇太后; from 14 November 1908 )
 * During the years of the Republic of China (1912–1949):
 * Empress Xiaodingjing (孝定景皇后; from 1913)

In fiction and popular culture

 * Portrayed by Lin Jing in Sorrows of the Forbidden City (1948)
 * Portrayed by Ivy Ling Po in The Empress Dowager (1975) and The Last Tempest (1976)
 * Portrayed by Liang Yuejun in The Last Emperor (1987)
 * Portrayed by Gong Lijun in Li Lianying: The Imperial Eunuch (1991)
 * Portrayed by Suet Lei in The Rise and Fall of Qing Dynasty (1992)
 * Portrayed by Jiang Nan in Towards the Republic (2003)
 * Portrayed by Yan Zi in Princess Der Ling (2006)
 * Portrayed by Fan Bingbing in The Founding of a Party (2011)
 * Portrayed by Joan Chen in 1911 (2011)
 * Portrayed by Li Sheng in The First President (2011)
 * Portrayed by Kara Wai in Legend of the Last Emperor (2014)
 * Portrayed by Pauline Chow in The Last Healer in Forbidden City (2016)
 * Portrayed by Zhao Ziqi in The Master of Cheongsam (2021)

title: Empress Dowager Longyu