text:
Johnnie Morton

Johnnie James Morton, Jr. (born October 7, 1971) is an American former professional football player who was a wide receiver in the National Football League (NFL) during the 1990s and 2000s. He played college football for the USC Trojans, earning recognition as an All-American in 1993. Selected by the Detroit Lions in the first round in the 1994 NFL draft, he also played professionally for the Kansas City Chiefs and San Francisco 49ers of the NFL. Morton also had a brief career in mixed martial arts fighting in 2007.

Early life
Morton was born in Torrance, California. He attended South High School in Torrance, California and played for the South High Spartans high school football team.

College career
While attending the University of Southern California, Morton played for the USC Trojans football team from 1990 to 1993. He broke twelve USC team and Pacific-10 Conference records for receptions and receiving yards. Morton was nicknamed "Big Play Morton" by Tom Kelly, and "Johnnie Hero" by USC broadcaster Pete Arbogast, thanks to a game-winning touchdown pass Morton caught in the 1990 USC-UCLA rivalry game—a 23-yard strike from Trojans quarterback Todd Marinovich with 16 seconds left that gave the Trojans a 45-42 come-from-behind victory.

Professional career
Detroit selected Morton in the first round (21st overall pick) of the 1994 NFL Draft, and he played for the Lions from 1994 to 2001. He would go on to achieve an important secondary role on a deep Lions' receiving corps that also featured Pro Bowl flanker Herman Moore and veteran Brett Perriman. After learning the ropes as a rookie in 1994, Morton became Detroit's featured slot receiver in 1995 and a key contributor on special teams as a kickoff/punt returner. Morton was part of one of the most prolific offenses in Detroit history that year, as the Lions would rack up 436 total points (second highest in the NFL) and end up with ten victories - appearing in the playoffs for the third straight season. He contributed 44 receptions on that team for 590 yards and 8 touchdowns. Perhaps his most memorable game occurred that same season during a classic Thanksgiving Day game in Detroit against the Minnesota Vikings. Moore (127 yards), Perriman (153), and Johnnie Morton (102) all eclipsed the 100-yard receiving mark, and Hall of Fame running back Barry Sanders rushed for 138 yards, and quarterback Scott Mitchell passed for 410 yards in a 44-38 Lions' shootout victory.

After the departure of Perriman, Morton became more of a featured receiver in Detroit's offense in the ensuing years. His best season statistically was during the 1999 season when he had 80 receptions for 1129 yards on a surprising Lions team that made the playoffs that year, despite the unexpected retirement of Barry Sanders. All told, Morton finished his pro career with 624 receptions for 8719 yards and 43 touchdowns. He currently ranks third on Detroit's all-time list in both receptions and yards-receiving, with 469 and 6,499, respectively.

NFL career statistics
Receiving Stats

Personal life
Morton's older half-brother, Michael Morton, played at UNLV and younger brother, Chad Morton played at USC. The Morton family is of African American and Japanese ethnicity.

Morton had a brief cameo appearance in the movie Jerry Maguire and the television series Moesha.

During the 2001 season, comedian Jay Leno had been poking fun at the Lions' 0-12 record. After the Lions won their first game of the season 27-24 over the Minnesota Vikings, Morton announced that he wanted Leno to "kiss my ass." The following week, Morton appeared as a guest on Leno's Tonight Show.

title: Johnnie Morton


text:
Dorma (character)

Dorma is a character appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. Created by writer and artist Bill Everett, the character first appeared in Marvel Comics #1 (October 1939). She debuted when Marvel Comics was known as Timely Comics. Dorma is a native aristocrat of the undersea kingdom of Atlantis. She initially was Namor the Sub-Mariner's cousin, and is depicted as his close confidant and childhood friend through several rewrites. Dorma was reintroduced in the late 1960s and early 1970s as Namor's lover and wife-to-be, before her death. She is also known under the codename Lady Dorma.

1930s
Dorma debuted in Marvel Comics #1 (October 1939), the first comic book by Timely Comics, predecessor of Marvel, created by Bill Everett. She appeared in the 1950 Tales to Astonish series, the 1961 Fantastic Four series, the 1963 Fantastic Four Annual series, marking her first Silver Age appearance, and the 1968 Sub-Mariner series. Dorma was the beloved of Namor, Prince of Atlantis. In Sub-Mariner #36 (April 1971), Namor married Dorma — and discovered that the woman that he married was actually his disguised enemy Llyra, who murdered the real Dorma by bringing the water-breathing bride to the surface and causing her to suffocate in the open air. Writer Roy Thomas said that he decided to do away with Lady Dorma because "he felt that Sub-Mariner should be a lone wolf, and he didn't like the idea of his having such a stable home, a Lois Lane situation."

2000s
Dorma appeared in the 2021 King in Black: Namor series.

Fictional character biography
Dorma, daughter of Wa-Than, belongs to the Atlantean nobility. She is the cousin of Namor, heir to the Atlantean throne. Despite her initial hostility against her cousin, she eventually developed love for Namor as an adult. In an effort to win him over, Dorma helped her cousin attack the Cape Anna Lighthouse. She supported him when Atlantis was attacked by Luther Robinson and Lynne Harris, who assaulted their country in revenge, after a series of conflicts between Atlantis and the people of the surface. Dorma also fought alongside Namor against the Nazis.

Later, Dorma and Namor started a relationship, which was interrupted when Atlantis was attacked by a telepath named Paul Destine, who killed several inhabitants, with Namor suffering from amnesia. Dorma and Namor were subsequently reunited when Namor remembered his true identity. However, after Namor saved the life of Susan Storm / Invisible Girl, Dorma became jealous. She helped Attuma attack Atlantis out of vengeance. Namor later forgave her actions.

Dorma was engaged to be married to Namor when she was kidnapped by Llyra, who assumed her identity and tricked Namor into marrying her instead. However, according to Atlantean law, Dorma was now Namor's wife, not Llyra, despite her absence from the wedding ceremony. Furious, Llyra fled to the surface world, followed by an equally enraged Namor. Llyra returned to the imprisoned Dorma and smashed Dorma's water-filled prison. Unable to breathe out of water, Dorma suffocated, but not before she struck down Llyra and saved her husband's life.

Powers and abilities
Dorma possesses an Atlantean physiology that grants her several abilities. She can breathe underwater and resist extreme water pressures and temperatures.

Civil War: House of M
An alternate version of Dorma appears in the House of M reality. Lady Dorma appears as the Queen of Atlantis.

Heroes Reborn
An alternate version of Dorma appears on a duplicate Earth that was the setting of the Heroes Reborn story arc. Her counterpart was the Queen of the Atlanteans. In contrast to the demurely elegant aristocrat on the original Earth, this alternate version of Dorma was a fierce warrior-woman.

Television

 * Lady Dorma appears in the "Namor" segment of The Marvel Super Heroes, voiced by Vita Linder.
 * Lady Dorma appears in the Fantastic Four (1967) episode "Danger in the Depths," voiced by Janet Waldo. This version is depicted as originating from the underwater city of Pacifica due to Grantray-Lawrence Animation owning the rights to Namor at the time.
 * Lady Dorma appears in the Fantastic Four (1994) episode "Now Comes the Sub-Mariner," voiced by Jane Carr. This version is Namor's girlfriend who is also pursued by his advisor Krang.

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

title: Dorma (character)


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 18

Category:Wikipedians by generation (from Aug 18)
Okay, this I can see the point of, however it subdivides 'pedians into "baby boomers" "millenials", "gen X / gen Y" and "teenagers", which is a pretty weird scheme. Propose renaming all of it to "Wikipedians by birth year" (or by decade, I suppose). Radiant_ >|< 09:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)  (given the way this vote is headed, I would have no objection to deleting them) Radiant_ >|<  10:25, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all A waste of scarce server resources. Wikipedia is not a social club. CalJW 17:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this and other useless and distracting categorisation listed above. Pavel Vozenilek 23:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Check out the CfD talk page so we can make some guidelines regarding deleting wikipedians categories.  -Seth Mahoney 01:18, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all, these serve no purpose. -Splash 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The scheme makes sense from a pop-culture standpoint, but it would be better to use the suggested "by decade" scheme. Courtland 02:37, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is painfully stupid. Nandesuka 03:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or rename on basis of decade. Do not delete; what's the harm? CDThieme 05:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep all but Category:Millennial Wikipedians and Category:Teenage Wikipedians. See Generations (book) and Generation. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-21 T 05:03:24 Z
 * Why not those, specifically? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I like most of the Wikipedian cats, but this one is pointless.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  07:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: I agree with Who. Jonathunder 02:07, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
 * Delete all Irrelevant. Osomec 00:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * NOTE: The subcats that aren't empty were not tagged for deletion, so I'm keeping them open for a few more days. --Kbdank71 15:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:Baby boomer Wikipedians
 * Category:Millennial Wikipedians
 * Keep. I don't care if this is refactored, but I have put Category:Baby boomer Wikipedians on my own page; I think it can at times be useful, because there is certain information where generation is the key to tracking down a person liable to know. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:18, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I believe further user categorization can't be anything but helpful to the community at large. I know that I've encountered other young Wikipedians through the category. I agree with Jmabel's observations. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * [Keep. BlankVerse ∅  10:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Kbdank71 13:55, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. What Jmabel said. -JCarriker 19:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jmabel. If deleted, a "Wikipedians by birth decade" or similar scheme would be really nice. Even if it strikes you as useless, where's the harm if people want to put it on their page? These are in use. N (t/c) 21:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename to specific decades. With just "Millenial Wikipedians" or "Teenage Wikipedians" there might be confusion with Wikipedians of the year 3000, for example. --Maru 21:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Presumably, we should have removed ourselves from the list by then. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 21:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralish - Since wikipedians by generation was deleted, I don't see a use in having these anymore. I would agree with a system by decade instead of this, but I don't see any harm in it. Wikipedians in the year 3000? We have 995 years to fix that. ;) --Phroziac (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, or at most change the schema. It may be useful for an user to classify himself as a certain age group. Yes, it does create server load, but if the problem is only this, we could replace it with a list instead of a category. (And there are much dumber categories which waste as much or more server load.) As for the schemata, I personally like more the current one, but I wouldn't object to change to one organized by decades if this is what most people want.--Army1987 22:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per my vote at . N (t/c) 22:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and organize by decade. --Merovingian (t) (c) 23:23, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Category:Millennial Wikipedians as per my vote - User:Vaikunda Raja:Vaikunda Raja
 * Keep. I think changing to a decade system is a good idea, but I also think that e.g. Category:Baby boomer Wikipedians is valuable as well. Maybe there should be some templates that transform a given year into one or two categories, one being the decade and the other (if applicable) being the qualitative category (assuming a user wants to be so categorized). I'm only beginning to learn about templates, but I bet it would take dozens of them to implement. But then, so does the Babel project. Is this also worth the resources? Hmm, anyone who doesn't think this is crazy (it probably is) please comment on my talk page. Ddawson 15:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, there is no harm in this category. Meanwhile to answer the agruement about Wikipedians in the year 3000, I imagine by then we'll have a better name for the generation than "Millenial Generation," since that seems to come in retrospect. I think it's worth keeping because it matches up with the article then. Also, I vote this way on an altered interpreation of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist. Mred64 05:36, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. More egotistical, cliquish, adolescent and age-ist nonsense. 12.73.198.218 03:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Living philosophers

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 13:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Difficult to maintain, largely redundant with Category:20th century philosophers. Insofar as it is not, rename Category:21st century philosophers.Septentrionalis 22:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Question: what do we do with those that lived in both centuries? Is "living" and "dead" easier, with "dead" a parent to the by-century-of-life categories? -Splash 01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we can fairly assign many philosophers to the century they worked in; I do not think Wittgenstein can be counted a 19th century philosopher. For others, use two cats, just as Turkey and Russia should be in Category:European countries and Category:Asian countries. This is no worse than the present situation, and easier to maintain. Septentrionalis 16:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. Rename to 21st century as above and below. Personally, I prefer the hyphen, but since cat redirects don't work and it would make it harder to find, I suppose I will live without one. -Splash 23:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename Category:21st century philosophers. I don't see how "living" is a useful distinction—by natural extension would we need, say, Category:Alive or Category:Living people. In fact, after checking several dozen categories of Category:People_by_occupation I couldn't find a single other instance. -choster 03:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or rename to Category:21st-century philosophers. The trouble with dividing things up by the essentially arbitrary matter of centuries, though, comes with straddlers; are William James, Charles Peirce, Ernst Mach, Gottlob Frege, et al., 19th or 20th century? A quick check shows that Wikipedia thinks that James (d.1910) & Frege (d.1925) are, but Mach (d.1916) isn't (Peirce (d.1914) doesn't get a century at all). That's a clear problem at this stage of the 21st century. At least "living" is clear and unambiguous. (Category:21st-century philosophers was deleted a while back, I think.) --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Mel Etitis had pointed to structural flaw with this kind of categorisation. Perhaps different structuring of philosophers should be used. E.g. painters are structured as Category:Painters by period. Pavel Vozenilek 02:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Rename to 21st century. Categorizing people as "living" or "dead" is kind of silly. We have the century-border problem with every century, so with this one as well. I believe a philosopher can conceivably be both. Date of birth and death should be irrelevant; date of release of any famous manuscripts should be the criterion. Radiant_ >|< 15:27, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Volcanoes of the United Kingdom

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 02:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

All the volcanoes in this category are not in the United Kingdom, but in the UK's overseas territories. I think it would be much more useful to categorise the current contents under Category:Volcanoes of the Atlantic Ocean. Worldtraveller 21:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. siafu 23:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC) Well, now the name fits the cat, per Grutness. siafu 22:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - it simply needed populating, that's all. Grutness...  wha?  01:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * comment - There has been no volcanic activity in the United Kingdom for millions of years - might be a bit difficult to populate!! Worldtraveller 08:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nor in Germany, nor Belgium - yet these long dead volcanoes are in the respective "Volcanoes of" categories. Similarly, Otago Harbour is in the New Zealand category, and that had better not go off (for the first time in 20 million years), since I live in the crater! Grutness...  wha?  01:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Grutness, but observe that some entries do still need removing. I think. -Splash 01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: Many features are classified by country; I don't know how much interest London has in this but those with an interest in one UK island may be interested in neighboring ones. (SEWilco 06:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Keep. Renaming to f.e. "Volcanoes of the overseas territories of the United Kingdom" would be quite difficult. :) -- Darwinek 16:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, then all the ones that are not in the United Kingdom will have to come out. Overseas territories of the United Kingdom are simply not in the United Kingdom, any more than India was in England when it was part of the British Empire. Osomec 00:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and split those in overseas territories (and crown territories as well, if there's any) to (a) separate category/ies. — Instantnood 13:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - there are other countries where a volcanic eruption hasn't occurred for millions of years, and yet these have "Volcanoes of ..." categories. The active volcanoes may not be in Great Britain or Northern Ireland per se, but are still technically in United Kingdom territory. Andrew 00:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Honolulu, Hawaii

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 02:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Move Category:Honolulu to Category:Honolulu, Hawaii so as to follow pattern of "CITY, STATE" visible in members of Category:Cities in the United States. Creator of latter category. (SEWilco 16:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Merge per nom. -Splash 01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge non-controversial change. Courtland 02:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also see CFD:,  (SEWilco 01:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC))

 * Merge per nom. ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  18:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

category:British cultural landmarks

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Landmarks in the United Kingdom. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 02:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Created 14 August. Someone's personal list of buildings and structures they think represent the UK. Belongs in a guidebook. Delete. CalJW 15:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I tend to agree, it seems POV, however, when I see those particular items, I do think of the UK. Same goes for Category:British cultural icons. It may serve some encyclopedic value for research, but not really sure.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  16:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Would it be a good idea to merge these two lists? We still need to satisfy WP:NOR to not delete the result, however. siafu 17:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Definitely don't merge. The icons category is a useful way of categorising things that would otherwise clutter up the main category, but the other one is redundant was we have all the necessary buildings categories for the UK. CalJW 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Landmarks in the United Kingdom. It is a fact, not a POV, that some things are landmarks. Whether an article should go in this cat (or what should be it's several geographical subcats) will be determined by VfD in the marginal cases. -Splash 01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename per Splash; inclusion criterion is POV. I'd also be interested to learn what a "cultural icon" is exactly, shouldn't that be "British celebrities"? Radiant_ >|< 15:41, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment "Cultural icon" is a well known phrase, and not the same as "celebrity" at all. CalJW 12:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Political and economic thinktanks of the United Kingdom to Category:Political and economic think tanks of the United Kingdom

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 13:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) Rename to match previous Cfr
 * 2) Although it varies in dictionary terms, Wikipedia has think tank, which think-tank redirects to.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  15:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. Regardless of whether or not the hyphen is preferred, the current spelling is clearly not. siafu 17:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename, but prefer a hyphen. -Splash 01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename, absolutely no hyphen, for consistency with article think tank as well as most common usage (Googling reveals most common usage of term is without hyphen). —Lowellian (reply) 19:42, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Systemic bias. British English (or at least my English English) would prefer the hyphen. Not important, though. -Splash 23:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually kind of agree with you, but I commented on the previous Cfr about its variations. Google even converts to non-hyphenated version. I just want to standardize, reguardless of the hyphen. The last one didnt use it, so may as well not use it here either.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  07:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Hundreds of Dalia

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 02:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty, marked for deletion by User:Fred chessplayer on Aug 15, not listed here. --Kbdank71 15:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Empty.  I can't fathom what this was meant to refer to. siafu 17:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Possibly to a fictional nation called Dalia which had the old English Hundred as a local division? David | Talk 22:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That does clear things up. Still, my vote stays the same as it's empty and redundant. siafu 02:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete empty cat — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete David | Talk 22:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and populate - Dalia (now Dalsland) was one of the traditional regions of Sweden, which were further divided into hundreds. Grutness...  wha?  01:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay - I understand now. The nominator emptied this category of its five articles and started to create the more correctly named, but didn't finish the job (the category link was red-lined). I've completed the task by creating the new category. , which uses the Latin name for the province, should be deleted. Grutness...  wha?  01:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment the article referenced above Hundred (division) explains it all. the term "hundreds" was used in the past to designate some areas in the United States (perhaps also England? and elsewhere) where land was parceled into a particular set of measured lots. I don't know the details, but there are many real geographical areas that are historically "Hundreds of Xxxx" or "Xxxx Hundreds". Courtland 02:54, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Business and finance in the United Kingdom to Category:Economy of the United Kingdom

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 13:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

This is the United Kingdom economy category, with Economy of the United Kingdom as its head article, so it should be renamed to the standard category:Economy of the United Kingdom. CalJW 14:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. No argument. siafu 17:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment, not everything in the cat is economics: it includes some companies and things. Still, with those moved elsewhere, this rename could go ahead. -Splash 01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Economy does not imply economics. Oftentimes they seem to work independent of each other :). UK companies are certainly part of the UK economy. - choster 22:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a misunderstanding. It is not called "Economics in the United Kingdom". It serves the same purpose as the other National Economy categories. This should be a totally non-controversial change. Anyone who is opposed to it is saying all the others are wrong too. Osomec 00:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to match article.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  07:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Several United Kingdom politics categories

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge all as nominated --Kbdank71 13:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

An ISP address joined us for a few hours on the 13th August and made a frightful mess of the main United Kingdom menu in the rather unusual cause of publicising the Scottish independence movement and the Welsh independence movement and the English independence movement. (S)he created duplicate categories, made categories parent-categories of their own parents, and overpromoted just about every article and subcategory related to these issues to the main UK menu. I have started sorting out this mess. There are two duplicate categories that need merging:
 * category:English politics merge into category:Politics of England and delete
 * category:Scottish politics merge into category:Politics of Scotland and delete

The user also created three categories "independence" categories which I believe are pov. They are certainly redundant as they contain the same contents as the matching politics categories, though I have already started to deal with this. They should be merged and deleted:

CalJW 14:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:Scottish independence: merge into category:Politics of Scotland and delete.
 * Category:English independence: merge into category:Politics of England and delete.
 * Category:Welsh independence: merge into category:Politics of Wales and delete.

 * Merge all. --Kbdank71 14:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge all -> delete ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  14:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge all and Delete per nom. siafu 17:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete per nom. My personal POV on this issue would lead me to abolish the parliaments and assemblies and merge the cats in Category:Politics of the United Kingdom. But I won't suggest that. -Splash 01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete the following: English Politics into Politics of England / Scottish Politics in to Politics of Scotland. Keep Scottish/Welsh/English independence categories. --Colin Angus Mackay 12:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC).
 * I should add that I think the creation of the Scottish, Welsh and English Independence categories is acceptable as a subcategory of the appropriate Politics of X category (although I was previously unaware that England wanted independence) --Colin Angus Mackay 12:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are saying that this category has made you "aware" that England wants independence (which is the view of only a tiny minority, though I happen to be sympathetic with it myself, so I'm not trying to suppress views I disagree with here), shows exactly why it is an inappropriate biased pov category. Could the closing admin please take this evidence of the anti-neutrality effect of the name into account. Thank you. CalJW 12:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete as per proposer --Doc (?) 16:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete all as above. Osomec 00:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Georgia dams

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 02:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Georgia dams emptied by Trilobite; new replacement category Category:Dams in Georgia (U.S. state) created. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 11:57, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Kbdank71 14:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I thought this looked familiar, I guess that's one way of getting consensus :) Oh well, I am for the dam cat's anyways.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  15:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No argument. siafu 17:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:New York City, New York

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Empty cat that duplicates Category:New York City. —Lowellian (reply) 11:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC) Furthermore, inconsistent with article name New York City. —Lowellian (reply) 19:40, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. —Lowellian (reply) 11:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete duplicate category.--Pharos 12:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to ask, what is the standard? I see both uses in Category:Cities in New York, and some other states have the same cat schema: Category:Cities in Florida, Category:Cities in Tennessee, and Category:Cities in Nevada. I am sure the rest are the same. I propose, to keep consistency, do a reverse merge. Even though Category:New York City was created first, it's not the standard anymore.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  15:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * reverse merge: As mentioned below in, Category:New York City, New York follows existing pattern of "CITY, STATE" visible in members of Category:Cities in the United States. Creator of listed category. (SEWilco 16:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC))
 * To the best of my knowledge, "CITY, STATE" (or "CITY, PROVINCE") is usually a dab where there's some possibility of confusion (e.g. Category:London vs. Category:London, Ontario). It's not a necessary format for a city's category name. Really, what other New York City is anyone going to confuse this category with? Bearcat 08:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge in reverse per SEWilco. I would prefer to just have "New York City", but consensus seems to indicate the need for CITY, STATE. siafu 17:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment.There has been massive and long-standing consensus on the New York City article (see the archives of Talk:New York City) to keep the article and category at just "New York City".--Pharos 21:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Categories are used differently than articles. The New York City article discussion has been about the article title; search the discussions for "category".  (SEWilco 21:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Comment. There is no good reason for the category name to be different from the article name here.  Category:New York City is not even in Category:Cities in the United States but in Category:Cities in New York where ", New York" is hardly extra-useful.  The article and category should always have the same name unless there is a compelling reason otherwise; if you really want to change the article title please put that at requested moves, where it would get proper exposure.--Pharos 01:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Category:New York City is in Category:Cities in the United States as a consequence of being in Category:Cities in New York. That's how sub-categorization works. Courtland 02:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Obviously, my point is that it's not listed next to cities in other U.S. states where someone might construe that ", New York" might be informative (which it wouldn't be anyway).--Pharos 02:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The link to Category:Cities in the United States was given to show the pattern used for city names, not that a city name should point to that category. Pick a state category to see names (ie, Category:Cities in California).  Or the smaller Category:Images of cities of the United States which contains names of cities.  (SEWilco 06:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Comment: Having a name ("New York City") which is dependent upon being viewed within another category ("New York") violates Categorization#General naming conventions: "Choose category names that are able to stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories.". (SEWilco 06:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Comment. "Category:New York City" completely stands alone, which is why it's the consensus name for the article.  There is absolutely no ", New York" context needed.--Pharos 07:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The shorter and simpler Category:New York City is better. - SimonP 16:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete; the "CITY, STATE" naming format is not the convention for all city-related categories; it's the convention for city-related categories that need to be disambiguated from other city-related categories. That need isn't applicable here. Bearcat 17:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I must have missed that convention. Where is it described?  Or is it only used for major cities?  Trying without testing: Category:London, Category:Paris, Category:Rome, Category:Bombay, Category:Tokyo, Category:Rio de Janeiro  (SEWilco 01:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC))
 * THat's category Mumbai, not Bombay. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:38, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also see CFD:, Honolulu, Hawaii (SEWilco 01:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC))

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Users by OS

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (no change) --Kbdank71 14:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:GNU/Linux users, Category:BSD users, Category:Linux users, and Category:Wikipedians by operating system

Needless categorization. I shudder to think how large the cat:Wikipedian Windows users would be. Same argument as the above, plus it's overcategorization into tiny details. What's next, "Wikipedians who own a laptop"? Radiant_ >|< 09:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Hey, I wanted to be in "Wikipedians who own a laptop" ;)   ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  10:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. —Lowellian (reply) 11:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment I think there should be an article (or a few articles) about Wikipedians by insert quality here. There would be a lot of different qualities in one article.CanadaGirl 10:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * keep there ARE a tonne of lists, they are unwieldy and as such User categorisation was started to convert them into categoires. Granted the project currently focust mostly on the lists by nationality as they are by far the biggest, but the plan seems to be to move on to the "Wikipedians by interest" list once that is done. Personaly I find this one harmles, and slightly interesing. Besides FAR from everyone will bother adding themselves to such categories so bloat should not be a major issue. This one have been around for a while and still no Windows uers in sight. Anyway IMHO these categories should be "judged" by the same standard as user pages, and I don't often see user pages up for deletion based on vanity or such. --Sherool 13:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. --Kbdank71 14:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep all. If people want to categorize themselves this way, who are you to say they shouldn't? There are dozens of people in these categories. You're really going to edit all their user pages to remove them from their own categories, in which they chose to be? This is ridiculous. — <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 • 2005-08-18 17:21
 * Delete He's a user with as much right to express his opinion as you. Wikipedia is not a social club and its scarce resources (editing is a nightmare at the moment) should only be used for things that contribute to the improvement of its content. A bot will do the edits. CalJW 17:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. More feedback from the wikiproject would help resolve this ongoing issue, though the analogy made to user pages is specious. siafu 17:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This one is directly useful in solving the recurrent "Your symbol doesn't show up on my browser" discussion Septentrionalis 21:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please explain how this (sparsely populated) category can be of help in solving the issue? Such an issue should require a simple FAQ some place in the Wiki; it is irrelevant with which users precisely it occurs. Radiant_ >|< 10:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete ALL categories by OS, by age, by browser, by sexual habits, by whatever other garbage. I am in favor of banning /all/ categories that apply only to Wikipedia editors and do not contribute to quality of articles, the other way is what I see now and here. Pavel Vozenilek 23:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm getting tired of this.  Discussion started on CfD talk page.  -Seth Mahoney 01:13, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all, these serve no purpose. -Splash 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. With a few rare exceptions, encyclopedia editors are not encyclopedic enough to deserve their own category. Nandesuka 03:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Potentially very useful for finding other editors about technical issues related to using wikipedia. For example, lately there is a push to introduce "smart quotes" to editing. If those who have an issue with this come from simular platforms, that is usable info. Do not delete. CDThieme 05:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Sherool. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-21 T 05:14:05 Z
 * Keep for the good reasons given above. Agree that it would be helpful in discussing and solving technical issues related to reading and editing wikipedia. Jonathunder 04:56, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedians by web browser
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (no change) --Kbdank71 14:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by web browser, Category:Konqueror users, Category:Camino users, Category:Firefox users, Category:Lynx users, and Category:Opera users

Another needless category scheme. Listify if you must, but per WP:VAIN wikipedians should not create a bunch of arbitrary categories to add more tags to their user pages. Radiant_ >|< 09:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep why not? Again I ask what possible "problem" does such categories in the User: namespace cause? And I respectfully disagree that lists are better than categories for things like this. Disclaimer: I created this particular "umbrella" a couple of weeks back, so my bias to keep is obvious. --Sherool 12:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all It contributes to the huge problem with server capacity. Editing is once again a nightmare. Wikipedia's overstretched resources should only be used to improve the encyclopedia. CalJW 17:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Server capacity is fine, the "problem" is probably the number of concurent users, and no amount of deletions will solve that. Besides last I checked official policy was that "Wikipedia is not paper" (ergo space concerns alone are no reason to delete). --Sherool 18:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. --Kbdank71 14:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep all. If people want to categorize themselves this way, who are you to say they shouldn't? There are dozens of people in these categories. You're really going to edit all their user pages to remove them from their own categories, in which they chose to be? This is ridiculous.
 * Comment. We should probably have a wider discussion on the issue of wikipedian categories. siafu 17:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. These categories are getting out of control, IMHO. K1Bond007 21:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please write my talk page if you start one. Septentrionalis 21:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This one is directly useful in solving the recurrent "Your symbol doesn't show up on my browser" discussion Septentrionalis 21:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. What's with today's move against letting people categorize themselves if they want to?  Regardless, this one could, as noted above, solve some issues, and could also result in some interesting statistical data.  -Seth Mahoney 01:12, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all, these serve no purpose. -Splash 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Convert to Lists. Useful information from a useability standpoint, allowing users to be recruited for cross-browser testing at times when new WikiMedia software releases are pending. Courtland 02:48, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete with prejudice. This is complete vanity and is not of interest to the users of an encyclopedia.
 * Keep. Potentially very useful for finding other editors about technical issues related to using wikipedia. For example, lately there is a push to introduce "smart quotes" to editing. If those who have an issue with this come from simular platforms, that is usable info. Knowing which browsers a fellow editor has access to may help immensely in discussing and solving technical issues or in getting opinions on how symbols, page layout, and other edits look across platforms. Do not delete. CDThieme 05:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Septentrionalis and CDThieme. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-21 T 05:08:13 Z
 * Keep for the very good reasons given above. Jonathunder 04:53, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

LGBT Wikipedians
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as per nomination --Kbdank71 14:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Queer Wikipedians and Category:Bisexual Wikipedians

Propose merging/renaming to " GBLT LGBT Wikipedians" for consistency, NPOV etc. Radiant_ >|< 09:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Keep the current name which is much more easy to understand; if it were to change, then it should be to 'LGBT Wikipedians' as this order is the usual one, but I still think it an ugly acronym while queer is a fabulous word. I also object to merging the categories of Queer Wikipedians and Bisexual Wikipedians as they are not the same thing. David | Talk 10:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I meant LGBT, oops. Note that the vast majority of queer-related categories in Wikipedia use 'LGBT'. Also note that 'Bisexual Wikipedians' is empty. Radiant_ >|< 11:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename Queer to LGBT, delete Bisexual as empty. --Kbdank71 14:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of these were created by the same user, three days ago - which may explain why they're empty or almost empty. --carlb 17:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete It is not constructive to divide contributors up into camps on controversial issues. I don't want to be told about users' political affliations either, and ideally all their edits would be so neutral that it would be impossible to guess them. CalJW 16:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You don't appear to have understood the nature of the category. It's not a category of Wikipedians who support a particular issue, it's a category of Wikipedians who share a sexual orientation. The issue here is not that this is an organisation of Wikipedians by POV (the POV is on whether the word 'queer' is an acceptable term and to be preferred to 'LGBT'), and there is no comparison to be made with 'political opinions'. David | Talk 17:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Moreover, it's entirely voluntary. No one is forced to declare their sexual orientation or political affiliation, and no one is forced to investigate the sexual orientations or political affiliations of those who have declared by looking at this category. siafu 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand the issue perfectly well and my vote stands. This is also a waste of scarce server resources. Wikipedia is not a dating club. CalJW 17:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Excuse me but I consider that last comment highly offensive. I hope you will withdraw it. David | Talk 21:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nobody thinks it is a dating club, and the server resources issue is not related to storage capacity. Bearcat 17:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge per nom. siafu 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to LGBT. The basic question is why we would want Wikipedians to voluntarily put ourselves in categories which may seem arbitrary or POV.  I can think of several reasons.  One is that we can be recruited to work on articles and meet others with similar interests.  An LGBT person might be interested in working on an LGBT article, etc.  But the best reason I can think of is that it tells other Wikipedians that we have a potential to be biased.  I am of the gereration that bristles when I hear the word "queer", so I haven't listed myself in this category.  If renamed to LGBT, I will put myself in the category.  People editing articles who get to my user page will know of my potential bias, just as I would like to know of theirs.  By putting myself in the category I am saying "this is who I am, I will try to edit fairly and in a NPOV way, but let me know if I slip up." -- Samuel Wantman 20:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm also agreeable to keeping and adding LGBT as a new category. (I assume "queer" would be a subcategory?) -- Samuel Wantman 08:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose People have added themselfes to a cat named "Queer" and LGBT is not quite the same thing. This is an identity issue, and renaming this cat would mean imposing an identity on people. How about, say, intersex people, or pansexual or genderqueer ones? All not necessarily covered by "LGBT". -- AlexR 23:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * New proposal: Since we're talking about a category of wikipedians, not articles, why not just create Category:LGBT Wikipedians and let it live alongside Category:Queer Wikipedians in whatever way the wikipedians who use it want?  -Seth Mahoney 00:59, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all, these serve no purpose. -Splash 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename Queer to LGBT and delete bi-sexual as included in LGBT. Courtland 02:44, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that this was originally created in part because some Wikipedians insisted on adding their userpages to Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people (and refused to remove them when asked). I don't really see any harm in having dedicated categories within Wikipedia namespace for user pages and such; I do see the harm in filing user pages within article namespace categories. If this were deleted, I would not be the least bit surprised to see people start filing their userpages in the article category again — there's still a userpage sitting in Category:LGBT rights activists, frex.) I don't see why it's worth debating — many people on Wikipedia have a pretty strong preference for using categories to note personal affiliations and interests, and I'd much rather see dedicated Wikipedian categories than userpages cluttering up article categories. And it's a voluntary category in which, by definition, a person can't be filed unless they want to be, which means that the most common objection to the GLB people category has no application here. Keep (or rename if necessary) as not really harming anyone or anything. I also wouldn't object to a separate category for people who want to be in an LGBT Wikipedians category but aren't comfortable with the word "queer". Bearcat 17:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or rename to GLBT Wikipedians. Do not delete. CDThieme 05:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment:No objection to adding an extra category for LGBT or whatever, but if any non-blank categories are deleted (or replaced with something else), would it be too much to ask that the category tag be simply removed from the affected userpages, not replaced with some other/new tag unless the user specifically wants (or adds) that new tag there? There are many subtle differences in meaning here and this topic is a hot potato. --carlb 17:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to LGBT WP for reasons given above. Jonathunder 04:52, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  07:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedians by sexual orientation
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete all. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 02:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by sexual orientation, Category:Asexual Wikipedians, Category:Homophobic heterosexual Wikipedians, Category:Tolerant heterosexual Wikipedians

This, however, is a joke and this entire category tree should go. Very strange categorization, to say the least. Radiant_ >|< 09:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. --Kbdank71 14:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. No benefit in this sort of controversial categorisation. (And I don't see much in any Wikipedian categories).CalJW 16:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Category:Homophobic heterosexual Wikipedians and Category:Tolerant heterosexual Wikipedians. Defer the others to broader discussion, if possible. siafu 17:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all, these serve no purpose. -Splash 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. CDThieme 05:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per siafu. I don't mind the Category:Wikipedians by sexual orientation, as I think its a matter of pride/community, but the other two are quite offensive IMHO.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  18:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to something more suitable. I am personally opposed to the politics of the third category, but I believe in letting both sides have a voice. However, I believe it should be renamed. -<b style="color:yellow;">Sun</b>glasses <small style="color:black;">at night 07:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedians by handedness
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete all. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 02:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by handedness, Category:Left-handed Wikipedians and Category:Right-handed Wikipedians

Ludicrous category. Listify if you really must, but not every physical or mental attribute requires a cat, and certainly not for our users. Radiant_ >|< 09:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. --Kbdank71 14:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all Pointless. CalJW 16:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I started a discussion about wikipedians categories on the talk page.  Throw in your two cents.  -Seth Mahoney 01:16, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all, these serve no purpose. -Splash 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notable attribute? Sometimes, but not when applied in this manner. Courtland 02:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity, non-notable. Nandesuka 11:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This one's just a forum for left-handers to show off. Flowerparty  talk 00:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ohmygosh, you mean this is a sinister plot? lulz --carlb 17:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I like most of the Wikipedian cats, but these are frivolous. ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  07:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Nerds
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 02:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Derogatory, POV, OR. Also, only used by a heavily self-promoting Wikipedian to list himself. Radiant_ >|< 09:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, frivolous K1Bond007 21:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, vandalism — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Besides, it was created by a blocked user - User:Wikinerd — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedians categories discussion has begun on the talk page.  Two cents welcome.  -Seth Mahoney 01:17, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all, these serve no purpose. -Splash 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per objections above. Courtland 02:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. vandalism. Nandesuka 04:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Washington, D.C. related categories
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (no change) --Kbdank71 15:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Because "Washington, D.C." is the more common name than "District of Columbia" (in fact District of Columbia does redirect to Washington, D.C.), I propose the following deletions or renaming:
 * Category:District of Columbia and Category:Washington, District of Columbia
 * Redundant to Category:Washington, D.C.
 * Category:Images of District of Columbia and Category:Images of Washington, District of Columbia --> Category:Images of Washington, D.C.
 * Category:Cities in District of Columbia
 * Seems to be redundant to Category:Washington, D.C. neighborhoods
 * Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Reverse merge: Washington, District of Columbia follows standard patterns and it should absorb the older category. Categories are not article names. Also per Naming conventions#States: "Always write these out in full".
 * Category:District of Columbia fits Category:Subdivisions of the United States better than the city name. Category:Washington, District of Columbia follows existing pattern of "CITY, STATE" visible in members of Category:Cities in the United States.
 * Category:Images of Washington, District of Columbia fits Category:Images of cities of the United States pattern.
 * The District of Columbia happens to only have a single city, and neighborhoods are a different category.
 * Creator of listed categories. (SEWilco 07:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC))
 * A poll at Category titles expressed a strong opinion towards not using abbreviations in category titles. So oppose. Radiant_ >|< 09:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge in reverse per SEWilco. siafu 17:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP Category:District of Columbia, it is not equivalent to Washington DC, as the part that was DC in Virginia was never Washington, and it should house this information, and the push for statehood. It's not the city that's pushing for statehood, but the district. ETC... 132.205.3.20 20:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Urgh, I don't what the debate is or which proposal to vote "per". So I vote to expand the acronym and take the relevant consequential action, unless someone points out something wrong with that. -Splash 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Washington, D.C.. Personally I prefer Category:District of Columbia but this form is at least well-understood. Category:Washington, District of Columbia is the worst of both worlds, long, uncommon, pedantic. Next week you will find me on the losing side of the proposal to rename Category:Los Angeles, California to Category:El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de la Porciúncula, California to rid ourselves of another terrifyingly ambiguous abbreviation. - choster 03:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Also see CFD:,

 * Merge to Category:District of Columbia, since that can include articles about historical places which were part of the district but not part of Washington (such as Georgetown). CDThieme 05:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Gather under Category:District of Columbia for reasons given above. Jonathunder 04:47, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
 * Merge all "District of Columbia" categories into relevant "Washington, D.C." or "Washington, District of Columbia" category. They have been identical for over a century and "Washington, D.C." is much more common in English. --Polynova 01:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * They may have been covered the same area for over a century, but the category will group historical entries before that date, or areas such as Alexandria which were never part of Washington. And even for more contemporary entries, there is a logical distinction between the City and the District. As said above, it is not the City that seeks statehood, it is the District. Jonathunder 02:12, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
 * Actually, the city and the District both seek statehood, though I find it odd to talk about them as if they are seperate things; they aren't. "District of Columbia" redirects to Washington, D.C. as it should. My personal view is that categories should reflect current realities, hence Arlington, Virginia should only be in the Virginia category, not D.C. as this would be misleading. Similary New Orleans should not be in Category:France or Category:Spain. The articles for Arlington, Virginia and Alexandria, Virginia both adequately explain their historical connection to the District. --Polynova 15:50, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Washington, D.C., for same reasons as Choster. And for all practical purposes, the District and the city are the same. --Mairi

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Rathfarnham Pubs
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 02:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

One article was on VfD, which decided to merge to Rathfarnham article. So I merged them all, and the category is now empty. -Splash 00:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete now. Pavel Vozenilek 00:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete don't see much point in the cat to begin with. Unless its some famous strip of pubs, and they all have articles, other than that pointless.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  05:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Radiant_ >|< 09:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No argument. siafu 17:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Insert non-formatted text here


text:
Talk:Solomon Adler

Two Sol Adlers
An article in the November 17, 2014 issue of _New York Magazine_ relates hat one Sol Adler (not the economist) had been Executive Director of the 92nd Street Y in New York for 25 years.

Mao works translation
This article seems seriously flawed to me. Just two small points:

 * Why is he called "Schlomer" in the article? I don't think that his name was ever spelled like that. Is that an anti-semitic jibe?
 * I doubt that Adler, Coe and Rittenberg were translating Mao's works into English. (But in the eyes of an anti-communist westerner, what else should a foreigner do in China?) What are the sources for that claim? (Far Loon Goon?)

It is also weird that his family background, wife and children are not mentioned at all. Babelfisch 00:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The "Schlomer" is a direct reference as per the FBI investigation, which link to the FBI file should be available on the articles' main page pgs. 44-47 PDF format). Other pertenant biographical material is welcome.  (Please note, in these espionage cases, all known names, code names, previous names, aliases, cover names, CPUSA code names and cover names, cryptonyms, foreign spellings, and maiden names, are included).  Thank you for your interest and participation.  nobs 01:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As per the citation of Adler translating Mao, see John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, Yale University Press (1999), pgs. 144-145, text as follows,
 * Sidney Rittenberg, another American Communist who emigrated to China, wrote in a memoir that in 1960 Adler, Coe, and he were working together on translating Mao's writings into English. In 1983 a Chinese Communist journal identified Adler as having worked for twenty years for the Chinese Communist party's Central External Liaison Department, an agency that included among its duties foreign espionage. He also appeared in a photograph in a memoir published in China as a colleague of Henshen Chen, a senior official in Mao's government who had worked as an intelligence operative in the United States from the late 1930s until the Communist victory in China in 1949.

footnote reads as follows,
 * Sidney Rittenberg and Amanda Bennett, The Man Who Stayed Behind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993), 251; Selected Shanghai Culture and History Materials (in Chinese), issue 43, April 1983, Shanghai People's Press; Henshen Chen, Sige shidai de wo (My life during four ages, in Chinese) (Beijing: Chinese Culture and History Press, 1988). The authors thank Professor Maochun Yu for calling our attention to the latter two Chinese sources. When the United States established diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China, Adler petitioned for and received restoration of his American citizenship. (pgs 412-413). nobs 02:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"all known names, code names, previous names, aliases, cover names, CPUSA code names and cover names, cryptonyms, foreign spellings, and maiden names", not to mention spelling mistakes ... But in a Wikipedia article, those should be clearly distinguished, so I've changed "Schlomer" to "Salomon".

The book you mention may be published by Yale, but the way it quotes its sources is poor. "A Chinese communist journal" - that's a weird description, and the quotation is dubious - the authors obviously don't read Chinese at all. The man they call "Henshen Chen" is in fact Chen Hansheng 陈翰笙. Two spelling mistakes in one name - well done! Did they get that from Professor Yu Maochun over the phone? The fact that Adler is seen on a photograph next to Chen Hansheng proofs nothing, of course, and it isn't mentioned whether he is referred to in the text of Chen Hansheng's book - probably not. That book by Haynes and Klehr is a rather dubious source, at least in this case. Babelfisch 10:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Here is another source, the Adolphe Berle notes of 1939; will get full text and citation by name sometime today I hope. nobs 16:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Adolf Berle notes "Underground Espionage Agent" (1939), reprinted in the Interlocking Subversion in Government Departments, 6 May 1953, part 6, 329–330. nobs 19:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Adler's work on the English translation of Mao's work is questioned below as well as here, but there are verifiable references for this in both English and Chinese. A good English reference is the one mentioned above, S. Rittenberg and A. Bennett "The Man Who Stayed Behind" (Simon & Schuster, 1993, p. 250-256). This is Rittenberg's autobiography, and gives a detailed description of the translation process for the English translation of the fourth volume of Mao's selected works. According to Rittenberg, he, Adler, V. Frank Coe, Michael Shapiro, and Israel Epstein were the five foreign members of the "Finalizing Group". There were nine Chinese members as well, including officials such as Ji Chaoding and his brother, Ji Chaozhu. As Rittenberg explains, Adler's lack of Chinese language skills was not an obstacle:
 * We weren't the original translators. The Chinese team that did the basic translation worked apart from us in a guest house in a Beijing suburb.  They were the best available ... But we outranked them.  We were polishers, called the Finalizing Group.  We had the last word on the style, accuracy, clarity, and fidelity of the translation.  We could challenge anything and change anything.  Some of our members, like [C. Y. W.] Meng, Tang [Mingzhao], and Ji [Chaoding] were minister-level officials.

A second English reference is in Ji Chaozhu's autobiography, "The Man on Mao's Right" (Random House, 2008, p. 267), which also identifies Adler as one of the translators. Describing a reception held by Zhou Enlai for "international friends", Ji says: "While translating Mao's work into English in the early 1960's, I had worked with some of them, including Americans such as Sol Adler and Frank Coe." Interesting to note, Ji also says that "all the attendees had been Communists."

As for Chen Hansheng, according to Rittenberg, Chen was also a member of the finalizing group. The picture of Adler and Chen mentioned above shows Adler and his wife talking with Chen; this is not a group photo as Babelfisch suggests. All of them are quite old, so the picture was probably taken in the 1980s. The caption says "Chen Hansheng and international friend Adler and his wife." Skimming through the book, I did not immediately find any references to Adler in the text. Rgr09 (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Two more English sources for Adler participating in the official translation of Mao's writing:

 * Israel Epstein (2005) My China Eye: Memoirs of a Jew and Journalist. San Francisco: Long River Press. Illus 53 is a photo of Mao with three foreigners and three Chinese; the description on pg. 357 states: “Mao Zedong with translators and editors of the English version of Selections from Mao Zedong (1964).  Tang Mingzao [sic] (first left), myself (third left), Frank Coe (first right), and Sol Adler (fourth right).”

 * Adler's obituary in the New York Times ("Sol Adler, 85, dies; ex-u.S. China aide." (1994, Aug 5). New York Times, p. B6.) This source also says: "Sol Adler, the United States Treasury representative to China in World War II and a translator of Mao Zedong's works..." (However, much of the rest of the information in the obituary is wrong.)

For Chinese references, I found one article by Xu Yongying's (徐永煐) son which originally appeared in Renwu magazine. I also found the text of a memo from Xu to C.Y.W. Meng and Zhang Hanfu from 1962 stating that Adler had primary responsibility for reviewing the draft translations.

Since three of the finalizing group participants claim Adler played an important part in the translation group and there is documentary and secondary evidence, I take this point as well established.Rgr09 (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Name
Once again: His name is Solomon Adler. He also called himself "Sol". Names given to him by the CIA, FBI and other agencies can or even should be mentioned, but clearly marked. I've deleted "Schlomer" once again.

This declassified FBI document mentions his name as "Schlomer Adler" in the section heading and once in an indirect quote of Whittaker Chambers, and repeats that name once again, but all the other references in the text are to "Solomon Adler" (eight times, including the paragraph with the title "Results of Investigation") and "Sol Adler" (four times). It's not clear at all why they call him "Schlomer" in these three instances. — Babelfisch 03:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

citizenship
The article says he 'emigrated' fron Britain to China. Did he become a Chinese citizen? When? Thanks Hmains 16:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Errors of Fact
This article contains a number of factual errors.

For example, Adler did not start working for Treasury until 1941. Previously he taught at a well-known U.S. university.

Adler did not move back to China until 1961 (or 62?), not "the 50s." He was invited by Zhou Enlai, whom he knew from Chongqing in the 40s, to work as an advisor on international economic issues.

The nature of Adler's employment in Peking is a matter of dispute. Adler's knowledge of Chinese was rudimentary, and he certainly could not read Chinese well enough to translate Mao.

The idea that Adler worked for the CCP's liason department is laughable. While there's no doubt that Peking took pains to extract as much information out of Adler as they possibly could--as is their habit with all "foreign experts"--Adler told me that they were mostly interested in his views on what was going on with international trade and global macroeconomic conditions. Moreover, the thought that a "big nose" would be allowed to work in such a sensitive party office is simply not credible. Adler was assigned to a think tank (Institute for World Economics) that served as his official "work unit" for much of the time he worked in Peking.

Looking beyond the factual errors, it's clear that the purpose of this article as it's written is to slam Adler for his involvement in communist espionage. Adler made no secret of the fact that he was a die-hard Marxist economist and fellow traveler. Seems to me the least Wikiworld can do is tell his story straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.238.1 (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

 * B"H
 * My father was a first cousin of Sol Adler and they had opportunity to talk to each other at length when both were in NYC and when both were in Washington DC- 8 decades ago.  I met and spoke with Sol Adler twice -- once in NYC with my father and other family in 1972 -- when he was traveling alone -- and once alone -in NYC in the summer of 1986 -- when he was visiting the US with his wife Pat.  His much older brother was Prof. Shaul Adler.  Most of the US Government Personnel records for Sol Adler are now available to be seen by the public-- after 70 years.  Some of his friends called him Shleimie -- which is a common  "familiar/friendly " Yiddish version of the name Solomon.  He is named after his grandfather, R. Shlemeh[ normal Yiddish Pronunciation]  Adler of KLetzk -[ a small town known at that time for its outstanding Yeshiva.]  R. Shlemeh Adler was the 8th in a line of Rabbis from father to son. Solomon Adler would have been the tenth.   His father, R. Sinai Adler, was a leading person in the religious Jewish community of Leeds, England.  One of Sinai's younger brothers was R Yoseph Adler -- who founded one of the outstanding Yeshivas in the US - MTJ in NYC - with is own money -- and put it on a sound financial basis in the early years of the great depression. Sol had a cousin of almost the same age named after the same grandfather -- and with the same first name -- Sol.  This was Sol Funaroff -- the poet.   The custom of our family - like the sages of the Talmud -- was not to make money as a rabbinical functionary.  I hope that you will get those personnel records and publish them -- then you will have a better idea of what kind of person you are writing about. There is an article in Wikipedia "The Dragon's Pearl" autobiography written by Sirin Phathanothai .  She was the adopted daughter of Sol and Pat Adler.  She has much in her book about them -- tho I have not read the book. As of this hour she appears to be alive and well.  I live in Jerusalem and can be reached by email at avshadler@yahoo.com   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEwQPlzkcUk 132.64.101.129 (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources and “original research”
What are the sources for the allegation that Adler was a Soviet spy? Which source exactly says “Sol Adler was a Soviet spy”? I can’t find it. Looking at the footnotes to me this looks very much like “original research” (or slander, actually). —Gregor Kneussel (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The sources for the allegation are now more prominently displayed at the beginning of the article, and supplemented in a new section. There is nothing here as far as I can tell that meets the definition of "original research." This page was apparently started as part of a project to create entries for all of the participants in the Ware, Silvermaster, and Perlo espionage groups, hence much normal biographical information was left out. This needs fixing; I have tried to make clear where the claims of espionage came from in the intro, added some basic bio info, rearranged the structure to make things clearer, and chopped out a reference to Chen Hansheng, which I don't think belongs here. (Proof of Adler's espionage doesn't depend on a picture). Discussion of Adler's role in the gold loan is also confused and needs rewriting. More references for for Adler's work at the liason department are needed. Will apply for removal of NPOV and original research tags when done. Rgr09 (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite
This was a difficult entry to fix, especially since it seems to have been controversial. I've restructured to put biography first, espionage material second. Espionage material is highlighted to emphasize where various claims come from. Most of the original citations were to pdf files of senate hearings or fbi files. I feel this is not appropriate and does give the impression of original research. There are plenty of secondary sources to cite. Finally, I changed the description at the beginning from "Soviet spy" to "Soviet intelligence source." This is not attributing my views to others, but is the common description of Adler; thus Kathryn Olmstead in her biography of Elizabeth Bennett, Red Spy Queen, says "Soviet documents confirm that Adler was indeed a Soviet source." (214 n.52) Rgr09 (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

misinformed about China
Characterizations of the "Central External Liaison Department" in this article are inaccurate. The correct English term for this office is the International Department of the Communist Party of the PRC. See the wikipedia article on the Ministry of State Security of the People's Republic of China for a factual presentation of China's intelligence services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.202.100 (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Central External Liaison Department
Two points are made in a comment above: 1) the English name of the CELD is supposedly incorrectly translated, and 2) the nature of the CELD is incorrectly described; apparently the commenter does not believe that it is a Chinese intelligence unit

1) The Chinese name of this unit (zhongyang duiwai lianluo bu) is still often translated as Central External Liaison Department; this is a word for word translation and I have seen recent FBIS translations still using this name. The Chinese Communist Party began translating it as International Liaison Department sometimes in the 1980s, then changed it to the International Department in 1995. These are all English variations, the Chinese name has not changed since the department was created in 1921 (according to David Shambaugh, see below).  Since the source material cited in the article uses the term Central External Liaison Dept, and since Adler's service apparently dates from the early 1960s to the early 1980s, predating these terms, it seems perverse to insist on using the name "International Department" here.

2) China's intelligence services are diverse and complex. To offer the scanty Wikipedia entry on the Ministry of State Security as an introduction to all of China's intelligence services is completely inadequate. Although the Department has done different things at different times, intelligence collection and analysis have always been important parts of its work. There is a booklength study available: The Chinese Secret Service by Richard Deacon, rev. ed. Grafton Books 1989, which has some information about the Department's intelligence functions (pp. 253-254), but of course this is quite out of date. There is a relatively recent article on the Department by David Shambaugh: "China's 'Quiet Diplomacy': The International Department of the Chinese Communist Party" in "China: An International Journal" 5:1 (March 2007), 26-54.  This article deals mostly with more recent functions the Department has taken on, but does note that even today intelligence collection remains one of its functions.

All details of Adler's work in the Department are unknown, at least to me. That he worked there as a regular staff member seems certain, otherwise why did he live in Department housing? More to the point of the article, Adler must certainly have been a well-regarded CCP member to have worked for the Department. Rgr09 (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Adler and Venona
The following statement was recently added to the lead: Adler was confirmed as a Soviet agent by the Venona Project as a member of the Sound/Myrna Group. However, Adler was not identified directly in the Venona material. The Venona decryptions included a message from an agent using the cryptonyn 'Sachs'. 'Sachs' was later identified in Alexander Vassiliev's material as Adler. This is explained later in the article, with proper sourcing; there is no need to move this complicated issue into the lead. It is also confusing to refer to the Golos - Bentley network as Sound/Myrna without any other references. Please leave a note here if you see problems with this.

I have also revised the description of the Central External Liaison Department in the lead; for my comments on this organ, and the translation of the name, see earlier on the talk page. To my embarrassment, the Richard Deacon reference is by no means a reliable source; Shambaugh, however, is. Rgr09 (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Rgr09 (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Solomon Adler


text:
Wikipedia:Peer review/HIV/archive1

HIV
It is factually accurate and concise without missing the major points of HIV. Grcampbell 00:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Could do with better referencing, e.g. of the molecular biology and clinical expression of HIV infection. Some paragraphs are rather long. JFW | T@lk  01:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Will add in some references. Looking for this article to become FA status. --Grcampbell 18:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I've just gone through the opening few sections and made numerous changes on the clause level. I'll do the rest over the next few days. It's going to be a very good article, worthy of promotion to FA status. I hate the map of the world: can you change the gaudy green/blue colours? The pie graphs are unclear in the application—does the one on the left apply to South and North America? Needs a re-think. Tony 14:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for the English changes, though some of them did confuse the science. I have redone the map of the world using softer tones. --Grcampbell 21:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Please consider mentioning the symptoms in the opening paragraph; this would be a good way to engage the non-specialist at the outset.
 * The symptoms are now included at the beginning of the article. It would be hard to put many sympyoms in this area, and are more aptly discussed in WHO Disease Staging System for HIV Infection and Disease and the CDC Classification System for HIV Infection. --Grcampbell 23:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Who, I wonder, is your audience? It would be valuable if an article such as this were accessible to a range of readers, including:
 * non-specialist medical practitioners (many of whom need to become more acquainted with HIV, particular those in isolated areas who may be presented with just one or several HIV patients);
 * specialist medical practitioners who need to remind themselves of the mechanics of HIV infection;
 * highly educated patients; and
 * policy makers and administrators in the area of HIV.

In the light of this, the complicated lexicon presents a serious problem in this article. It's wholly necessary, but at present is not user-friendly. Please consider the following measures, which might help to walk the non-specialist reader through the text.
 * Number the figures and refer to them a few times in the main text.
 * Done--Grcampbell 21:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Refer the reader at the top of the text to a glossary; if there isn't one on Wikipedia, create one!
 * Most terms that are used and are complicated have links to articles explaining what they are. --Grcampbell 23:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Gloss more of the terms on their first appearance, although I realise that this can overly interrupt the flow—a decision must be made on a case-by-case basis, and/or provide a few links to articles on particular terms, and/or provide internal links down to the section that defines them.
 * I don't understand the term gloss. --Grcampbell 21:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * At a certain point, refer the reader to the sections that explain the terms referring to particles.
 * Done --Grcampbell 21:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest that you aim the text at junior medical or science undergraduates? Tony 01:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought Wikipedia was for everyone, which is why I haven't gone into detail on much of this article, it brushes over the surface mainly. I did another article in which I was more technical, and it got labelled too technical... --Grcampbell 23:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I'll bother doing any more on this article; no response, and some of my suggestions ignored without comment. We'll deal with it when it comes up for consideration for FA status. Tony 23:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay, the Watchlist didn't update for this page --Grcampbell 23:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Peer review/HIV/archive1


text:
1108 Demeter

1108 Demeter, provisional designation, is a dark asteroid from the inner regions of the asteroid belt, approximately 27 km in diameter. It was discovered on 31 May 1929, by German astronomer Karl Reinmuth at the Heidelberg-Königstuhl State Observatory near Heidelberg, Germany. The asteroid was named after Demeter, the Greek goddess of fruitful soil and agriculture. It has a rotation period of 9.846 hours.

Orbit and classification
Demeter is a non-family asteroid of the main belt's background population when applying the hierarchical clustering method to its proper orbital elements. Based on osculating Keplerian orbital elements, it has also been classified as a member of the Phocaea family (701), a large family of stony asteroids, different to Demeter spectral type (see below).

It orbits the Sun in the inner main-belt at a distance of 1.8–3.1 AU once every 3 years and 9 months (1,381 days; semi-major axis of 2.43 AU). Its orbit has an eccentricity of 0.26 and an inclination of 25° with respect to the ecliptic. The asteroid was first observed at the Italian Observatory of Turin, three days prior to its official discovery observation at Heidelberg. The body's observation arc begins at Yerkes Observatory in December 1930.

Physical characteristics
In the Tholen classification, Demeter spectral type is ambiguous, closest to a carbonaceous C-type and somewhat similar to an X-type asteroid.

Rotation period
In June 2016, a rotational lightcurve of Demeter was obtained from photometric observations by American astronomers Tom Polakis and Brian Skiff at the Command Module Observatory in Tempe, Arizona. Lightcurve analysis gave a rotation period of 9.846 hours with an amplitude of 0.12 magnitude (U=3). Observations by the Spanish OBAS group, also taken during the 2016-opposition, gave a concurring period of 9.870 hours and a brightness variation of 0.11 magnitude (U=3-). The results supersede previous observations by Robert Stephens, Olivier Thizy, René Roy and Stéphane Charbonnel from July 2001, which gave a period of 9.70 and 9.701 hours with an amplitude of 0.12 and 0.14 magnitude, respectively.

Diameter and albedo
According to the surveys carried out by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite IRAS, the Japanese Akari satellite and the NEOWISE mission of NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, Demeter measures between 25.285 and 31.33 kilometers in diameter and its surface has a low albedo between 0.0229 and 0.05.

The Collaborative Asteroid Lightcurve Link adopts the results obtained by IRAS, that is, an albedo of 0.0464 and a diameter of 25.61 kilometers based on an absolute magnitude of 11.91.

Naming
This minor planet was named from Greek mythology after Demeter, the goddess of fruitful soil and agriculture. The official naming citation was mentioned in The Names of the Minor Planets by Paul Herget in 1955 (H 104).

Conflict with Ceres
Demeter is the Greek equivalent of the Roman goddess Ceres. When main-belt asteroid and dwarf planet 1 Ceres was named, the Greeks called it "Demeter" effectively translating the name into Greek, rather than using the Latin Ceres or the original Italian Cerere. However, this created a problem when asteroid Demeter was named. The Greeks resolved this by using the classical form of the name, Δημήτηρ Dēmêtēr, for the new asteroid, distinguishing it from the Modern Greek form Δήμητρα Dêmētra that had been used for 1 Ceres. This conflict did not occur in Greek-influenced Slavic languages such as Russian, which had adopted Cerera for 1 Ceres, and were thus free to use the modern Greek form Demetra for the asteroid Demeter.

title: 1108 Demeter


text:
Talk:Sabzevar

Untitled
There is also a Sabzevar in Afghanistan, in the province Herat. The Pashto name for the city is "Shindand", and it is being used as a military base for the US army right now. -213.39.141.243 00:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

درختی با بیش از 1000 سال عمر
در یکی از روستاهای این شهرستان به نام کیذقان درخت چناری با بیش از 1000 سال عمر وجود دارد که در فهرست تاریخی این شهرستان نیز می باشد

Bin Laden
A Kuwaiti newspaper is currently claiming this is Bin Laden's current hiding spot, the insinuation of which has massive political implications. It would be worth keeping an eye on. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/06/08/Bin-Laden-said-to-be-in-Iran/UPI-68711276014380/ http://www.debka.com/article/8841/ Of course, if he actually was there, he won't be there now that the accusation is in print. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.235.172 (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sabzevar