text:
Storm Warning (Lackey novel)

Storm Warning is a 1994 fantasy novel by American author Mercedes Lackey. Storm Warning tracks three characters as a major disaster looms over the world of Valdemar.

Plot summary
When Storm Warning begins, Emperor Charliss, the Eastern Emperor (first mentioned in Winds of Fury) knows he is dying and must name a successor. Grand Duke Tremane, a Commander in the Army, is currently his favorite choice. Tremane is sent to Hardorn, a country the Imperial Army recently invaded after the Hardornen King, Ancar, was killed by a group of assassins from Valdemar. Tremane understands that he must succeed in this mission or he will be killed.

Meanwhile, in Haven, the capital city of Valdemar, An'desha shena Jor'ethan, a young Shin'a'in Adept, is feeling lonely. While Adept Firesong k'Treva, his lover, is perfectly at home in Haven, An'desha feels left out and alien. He spends almost all of his time in Firesong's ekele, an environment something like a cross between a sukkah and a treehouse and something like the flets of the elves in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, where he meditates and tends the plants in the garden. However, he has been having premonitions of approaching doom. Neither he nor Firesong can explain these premonitions. Also, An'desha has an Adept-class (the highest level of ability of magic) potential, but refuses to be trained, believing his powers to be tainted by Falconsbane, by whom An'desha was earlier possessed.

Ambassador Ulrich of Karse has been sent with his assistant, Karal Austreben, a novice Sun-priest, to negotiate peace between Karse and Valdemar. At the border, a single escort arrives, who seems to Karal to be some sort of Court official dressed in white and mounted on a white stallion; he later discovers this man is a Herald. As they ride north, Karal examines himself and his attitudes towards the people of Valdemar and the Heralds. Karsites are taught to fear the Heralds and Mages, who are said to have "witch powers".

On their arrival in Haven they are greeted by the Seneschal, Lord Palinor, Kyril, the Seneschal's Herald, and Prince-Consort Daren. Karel is glad of the rest, but as the weeks pass, begins to feel lonely. Talia, the Queen's Own Herald, introduces him to An'desha. Karal and Ulrich, much to Firesong's chagrin and jealousy, help An'desha to become less afraid of his power, as well as to become more independent.

title: Storm Warning (Lackey novel)


text:
Central Overland California and Pikes Peak Express Company

The Central Overland California and Pike's Peak Express Company was a stagecoach line that operated in the American West in the early 1860s, but it is most well known as the parent company of the Pony Express. It was formed as a subsidiary of the freighting company Russell, Majors, and Waddell, after the latter two partners bought out Russell's stage line, the Leavenworth and Pikes Peak Express Company. The stage line had made its first journey from Westport, Missouri, to Denver on March 9, 1859.

Its stage lines ran from St. Joseph, Missouri, to Denver and Salt Lake City and it succeeded the George Chorpenning contract for mail service from Utah to California in May 1860. In an attempt to win a more lucrative contract with the United States government, it started an express mail service between St. Joseph and San Francisco on April 3, 1860, known as the Pony Express.

Maintenance of frequent stage service and heavy losses from the Pony Express brought embarrassment to the C. O. C. & P. P. Express. When the Pony Express became obsolete upon completion of the Transcontinental Telegraph, the business ran out of cash and was sold to Ben Holladay for $100,000.

Russell, Majors and Waddell
As the United States expanded westward in the early 19th century, the military erected forts and supply depots to protect and support this expansion. Initially the federal government contracted individuals or small companies to supply each post independently, but as the number of military posts continued to grow this system became increasingly time-consuming and inefficient. In 1854, Quartermaster General Thomas Jesup decided to change the system and implemented a single two-year contract to supply most of the posts west of the Missouri River. This consolidated contract was worth a lot of money and required more resources than many of the previous suppliers possessed.

Alexander Majors was one of the individuals contracted by the United States government to supply military forts prior to 1854. He hauled freight along the Santa Fe Trail and had a reputation for success. William Waddell was a store owner in Lexington, Missouri, who was described as "phlegmatic, stoical, ... a cautious penny-pincher, and unable to reach a decision without ponderous deliberation." In 1852 Waddell partnered in a wholesale trading firm with William Hepburn Russell, a good-looking entrepreneur of mixed success with social ambitions. In 1855, Waddell and Russell brought on Majors to go after the new military supply contract. Three months after forming their partnership, the firm of Russell, Majors, and Waddell received a two-year contract to supply all the military posts west of the Mississippi River.

The three partners divided the labor based on the skills that each member brought to the firm. William Waddell managed the finances and made sure that their business activities ran smoothly. William Russell was the company salesman, generating contracts with the government and others as well as dealing with bankers to secure financing. Alexander Major oversaw the freighting operations which included hiring labor, supervising the loading and transport of freight, and making sure the trains were operating on time. The relationship between the three men were generally fine; Majors and Waddell had a similar conservative temperament and though Russell was the opposite, he was often on the East Coast seeking new contracts and investments. With a virtual monopoly on all western freighting contracting Russell, Majors, and Waddell became the largest freighting company in western Missouri.

The new contract with the War Department required a great deal of investment. Warehouses, stables, corrals, and wagon shops needed to be built and maintained; Wagon masters, freight handlers, herders and teamsters needed to be hired, housed, and paid; Oxen, wagons, and other equipment had to be acquired, stored, and moved about. The division of labor between the three partners of Russell, Majors, and Waddell was an important component in their success and the experience gained in organizing and managing the freighting enterprise served them well in their future endeavors. Between 1855 and 1856, the first two years of their government contract, business prospered and the firm made a profit of $300,000. Russell, Majors, and Waddell diversified, buying land and opening new stores. The success of the firm in handling the War Department's freighting naturally made them the choice for the next round and in February 1857 they signed the second contract.

In May 1857, the firm's wagon trains had been on the road for over a month when the Utah War broke out between the Mormons and the United States government. The government assembled 2,500 troops to send to Utah and required Russell, Majors, and Waddell to gather additional "wagons to transport two and half to three million pounds of military freight" to send with them. The company financed the new expedition by taking out large loans and leaning heavily on their credit. Over the course of the Utah War three wagon trains, worth more than $125,000 at the time, were lost. Having already maxed out their credit the company could not find new financiers and was practically bankrupt. Adding to their difficulties was the fact that Congress was unhappy with the war and did not pass the usual funding bill for the War Department which delayed payment for the 1857 contract. Despite this, the War Department required supplies and John B. Floyd, the Secretary of War, personally guaranteed the 1857 contract. Though an unusual situation, this allowed Russell, Majors, and Waddell to secure more credit and finance new supply trains.

Leavenworth City & Pike's Peak Express Company
In July 1858, Green Russell and Sam Bates found a small amount of gold in Little Dry Creek, the first significant gold discovery in the Rocky Mountain region. This discovery signaled the start of the Pike's Peak Gold Rush. William H. Russell was in Leavenworth, Kansas, when he heard that gold had been found in the Rocky Mountains. Believing that this gold rush was the start of heavy emigration to the region, Russell, together with John S. Jones a former freighting partner, gathered new investors, borrowed money, and organized a stage and express line to run to Denver. The new service was called the Leavenworth City & Pike's Peak Express Company and transported "passengers, mail, freight, and gold" to and from the Pike's Peak area on a trail between the Republican and Smoky Hill forks of the Kansas River.

The new firm surveyed and laid out a 687-mile route, built twenty seven stations, bought new coaches and mules, and hired enough men to tend to all their holdings. The first trip occurred in March 1859 and took nineteen days, during which they finished constructing the route. Subsequent trips took as little as six days and cost $100.00 for a passenger ticket, $1.00 a pound for express packages, and 25¢ for each letter carried. The town of Denver had donated 53 lots to the Leavenworth City & Pike's Peak Express Company and celebrated the first arrival with an "extra" published by the Rocky Mountain News. The returning coach to Leavenworth brought with it $3,500 worth of gold and was celebrated with speeches and music.

While many people came to the Pike's Peak region, few could afford the cost of the stagecoach and instead traveled on foot or horseback. Russell and Jones wanted to make up the difference by securing a contract to deliver mail for the United States government. On May 11, 1859, the Leavenworth City & Pike's Peak Express Company purchased Hockaday & Company the firm that owned the postal contract between St. Joseph, Missouri, and Salt Lake City. Hockaday & Company consisted of only a few light stagecoaches and used only seven stations along the route from Missouri to Salt Lake City. The postal contract ran until November 1860 and had been profitable until the post office reduced the frequency of trips and payments for delivery.

After consolidating the two companies, Russell and Jones redirected their Denver coaches to Hockaday's more northern route, having run on their original route for less than six weeks. The new route of Leavenworth City & Pike's Peak Express traveled north to Fort Kearney and then turned south toward Denver at Julesburg, while the Salt Lake City traffic continued on via Fort Laramie and Fort Bridger. The route was divided into three sections; the first section ran from St. Joseph, Missouri, to where the lines split at Julesburg and contained nineteen stations. The second section consisted of the route from Julesburg to South Pass, while the third section ran from South Pass to Salt Lake City. The firm constructed new stations along the route, sixteen to forty miles apart, providing rooms and food for passengers and barns for mule teams. The construction of the new stations and the abandonment of the stations on the original route, were a financial burden on the company.

By the fall of 1859, the Leavenworth City & Pike's Peak Express Company's debts were threatening to collapse the firm. Employees were not being paid, stations ran low on feed, and the firm's creditors were owed more than $525,000. William H. Russell did not partner with Alexander Majors or William Waddell in the Leavenworth City & Pike's Peak Express Company; they thought it was too early to know whether the emigration would be sustained or merely a passing fad. That, however, did not stop Russell from using the reputation of Russell, Majors, and Waddell to secure credit for the Leavenworth City & Pike's Peak Express Company. This put a strain on the relationship of the three men especially since they had so recently avoided financial disaster with their War Department contracts.

Nevertheless, Majors and Waddell knew that if the Leavenworth City & Pike's Peak Express Company failed, it could bring down Russell, Majors, and Waddell as well. On October 28, 1859, the three men entered into a new partnership which assumed the assets and debts of the Leavenworth City & Pike's Peak Express Company. Less than a month later, and likely without consulting his partners, Russell named the new firm the Central Overland California & Pike's Peak Express Company or C.O.C. & P.P Express Co. The new name reflected his hope of securing a daily mail route to California along a central route through the Rocky Mountains. (The Southern Route traveled from St. Louis, Missouri, through El Paso, Texas, to San Francisco, California.) Russell headed back to New York in December to raise funds and hold off creditors. On January 27, 1860, he wrote his son: "Have determined to establish a Pony Express to Sacramento, California, commencing 3rd of April. Time ten days."

Organizing the Pony Express
The specifics of who conceived of the idea of a pony express and when are under dispute, but it was Russell, Majors, and Waddell who made the plan work. Russell wanted the Pony Express up and running in a little more than two months after announcing the formation of the Central Overland California & Pike's Peak Express. The firm used their considerable organizational expertise to construct stations, build roads, supply horses and equipment and hire stationmasters, mail agents, and riders in order to open the route from St. Joseph, Missouri, to Sacramento, California, on time. St Joseph was the logical choice for an eastern terminus as the Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad line ended there enabling fast communication with the east.

The route was divided into five divisions, St. Joseph to Fort Kearny, Fort Kearny to Horseshoe station, Horseshoe Station to Salt Lake City, Salt Lake City to Roberts Creek, and Roberts Creek to Sacramento, each with its own superintendent. While the route followed the same roads as the Leavenworth City & Pike's Peak Express stage line many had to be repaired or upgraded to accommodate the new traffic. Many of the existing stations were re-purposed for the Pony Express but some additional stations were constructed in order to reduce the distance between stations to around 10 miles.

Whereas the trail between St. Joseph and Salt Lake City was well known to the firm, the trail from Salt Lake City to Sacramento was almost entirely unknown. At the time George Chorpenning held a federal mail contract between California and Utah which brought in $130,000 per year. His semimonthly service received mail in San Francisco which had been brought in by ship, and freighted it to Salt Lake City. Not willing to share his resources with a competitor, the C.O.C. & P.P. Express Co. was forced to build its own roads and stations to use. The company started building along the Humboldt River in northern Nevada, but when the United States Topographical Engineers surveyed a new route across central Nevada to Genoa they switched routes. The new trail shortened the distance between Utah and California by about 150 miles, and by December 1859 both Ceorge Chorpenning and the C.O.C. & P.P. Express Co. were building stations along the route.

The Central Overland California & Pike's Peak Express Company spared no expense in building and equipping these new stations considering the financial strain the company was in at the time. Between 400 and 500 horses were acquired and close to 200 stationmasters and 80 riders were hired to work the route. Home stations, where a rider would rest before returning the other direction, were placed every 75 to 100 miles apart. In April 1860, when the Pony Express made its first run, source state that between 119 and 153 stations were active.

The company's headquarters in San Francisco was at 601 Montgomery Street and is now California Historical Landmark No. 696. The company also set up central offices in major eastern cities, such as New York City and Washington D.C., where mail could be given to a company agent to be delivered to California. On March 17, 1860, an advertisement in the San Francisco Bulletin announced "PONY EXPRESS — NINE DAYS FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO NEW YORK." Announcements followed in New York and St. Louis. It is estimated that the total investment in the enterprise, including construction, equipment, and provisions, was over $70,000 at the time and that the monthly expenses would be about $5,000.

The first run of the Pony Express was scheduled for April 3, 1860. The mail pouch bound for the west, carrying "49 letters, 5 private telegrams, and some papers for San Francisco and intermediate points", had missed a train connection and the superintendent of the Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad had to order a special locomotive dispatched to deliver the pouch to St. Joseph. The mail arrived two hours late and, after a number of speeches were recited, set off for Sacramento. It took seventy-five ponies to make the first trip from Missouri to California. Each major city along the way celebrated as the Pony Express rider passed through. On April 14, 1860, at about 1 a.m., the Pony Express from St. Joseph arrived in San Francisco. The east-bound rider left San Francisco April 3 and made it to St. Josephs on April 13. The Pony Express was active.

In the first month of existence, the Pony Express riders experienced violent weather, harsh terrain, and the physical hardship of being in a saddle for up to 100 miles a day. Despite this, operations ran smoothly. Although the number of letters being sent were not enough to offset the company's expenses, many communities along the line found the service valuable for the news the riders brought and there was talk of rival express operations in the planning stages. On May 11, 1860, Postmaster General Joseph Holt, cancelled the existing mail contract with George Chorpenning and offered it to the C.O.C. & P.P. Express Co instead. The contract paid about $260,000 per year, enough to cover the cost of running the Pony Express.

In early May 1860, the Pyramid Lake War started after an incident at the Williams Station along the Pony Express route. For more than three months skirmishes and raids occurred between the white settlers and local Paiute. Pony Express stations were generally easy targets for raids, often in remote locations with ample supplies and few residents. Due to lost personnel, stations, and horses the Pony Express was forced to suspend operations between Carson Valley and Salt Lake City through the end of June. The C.O.C. & P.P. Express Co. rebuilt the destroyed stations and posted up to five guards at each one along this portion of the route. The Pony Express recommenced service at the end of June, though hostilities between the Paiute and settlers didn't cease until August.

During the almost two-month disruption, the Pony Express continued to ride between Salt Lake City and St. Joseph. However this route brought in little money. The C.O.C. & P.P. Express Co. had spent upwards of $75,000 to reopen the route to California, much of the money went to fortifying the stations and hiring armed guards. With the company running low on funds a bill was brought before Congress to subsidize the Pony Express for weekly or semi-weekly trips, but it failed to pass. As raids on Pony Express stations continued, Russell, Majors, and Waddell decided that if Congress did not subsidize the route, they would end the enterprise in January 1861. The Post Office Department renewed their St. Joseph to Salt Lake City contract on October 28 and usage of the Pony Express continued to rise through the end of the year. With increasing revenue the firm decided to continue running the Pony Express, albeit at a reduced schedule over the winter.

Decline of the Central Overland California and Pikes Peak Express Company
As the owners and operators of the Central Overland California and Pikes Peak Express Company, Russell, Majors, and Waddell were involved in all aspects of setting up and running both the stagecoach lines and the Pony Express. At the same time they continued to run their freighting firm which had been contracted to deliver supplies to the US Army forts scattered around the region. In late 1860 Russell, Majors, and Waddell still had not been paid for their 1857 contract, but with Secretary of War John B. Floyd's personal assurances that they would be paid, they had taken on over $5,000,000 in debt. This debt was on top of the separate debt incurred to set up and run the C.O.C. & P.P. Express Co.

In March 1860, Russell, Majors, and Waddell had outfitted a caravan to take supplies to the Army. Due to a number of unforeseen circumstances the caravan was unable to leave until late August. The cost of this delay was high; the men still needed to be paid, the wagon and supplies housed, and the mules and horses fed. Much of the firm's debt came due in mid-summer and they had expected to pay it off with the proceeds from the supply run, but the War Department would only pay upon receipt of goods. The company had to take out more loans to cover the previous debt and further damaged their credit. If the company could secure a government contract for mail, worth $600,000 to $900,000 a year, their financial issues would be solved.

With the success of the Pony Express and the fact that the ocean service was set to expire in June 1860, a contract looked promising. However, Congress adjourned without passing a bill for a central overland mail route. William Russell, after an unsuccessful trip to New York to raise more funds, met with Godard Bailey, a relative of Secretary Floyd. Bailey, perhaps fearing that Floyd, as a guarantor of some of Russell, Majors, and Waddell's debt, would be forced to resign if the firm went bankrupt, agreed to help Russell raise money. Bailey let Russell borrow security bonds from the Indian Trust Fund, which Russell used as collateral for more loans. Bailey was not the owner of the bonds and Russell offered a note in their place that he knew was worth nothing; he had committed embezzlement. Russell went back three times to borrow from the Indian Trust Fund. Eventually Bailey's conscience forced him to confess to his part in the scheme and both men were arrested.

The outbreak of the Civil War saved the men from prosecution and they were freed on a technicality. The bond scandal had ruined the reputation of Russell, Majors, and Waddell and their freighting firm soon collapsed into bankruptcy. Though Russell, Majors, and Waddell failed, the Central Overland California and Pikes Peak Express Company was a separate entity and it continued to operate.

When Texas seceded from the Union in 1861, they destroyed the Butterfield Overland Mail line and effectively cut off communication from California to the east over land. The postmaster general could not simply cancel the contract with the Overland Mail Company and so Congress transferred the route north to keep the mail moving through the Union. The C.O.C. & P.P. Express Co. supported this move for a number of reasons. The first reason was that the government would subsidize the Pony Express so it could continue to run until the telegraph reached California. The second reason was that the company couldn't afford to run the line alone in its present state, and neither could Overland Mail; therefore the two companies reached an agreement where the C.O.C. & P.P. Express Co. would subcontract to run the mail from St Joseph to Salt Lake City and Overland Mail would run from Salt Lake City to California using C.O.C. & P.P. Express Co's facilities. Considering the state of the company at the beginning of the year this was a favorable development.

With the Civil War begun, the Pony Express was the fastest way to transmit information from east to west and thus found itself in high demand. But the telegraph was catching up quickly, moving east from California and west from Nebraska. By mid August news telegraphed to San Francisco arrived two days before the Pony Express riders. Despite this, the volume of express mail continued to rise. However once the Pony Express stopped receiving government subsidies upon completion of the transcontinental telegraph, the business ran out of cash. Employees dubbed it "Clean Out of Cash and Poor Pay".

On April 26, 1861, Bela M. Hughes was chosen as president and general counsel of the company. The Central Overland California and Pikes Peak Express Company continued to deliver mail from St. Joseph to Salt Lake City for the Overland Mail Company until their contract expired in 1862. At that point Overland Mail put the contract up for bid and it was won by Ben Holladay. On March 21, 1862, Holladay purchased the holdings of the C. O. C. & P. P. Express at public sale for $100,000 and incorporated it into his firm the Overland Stage Company. With the company out of business its facilities in the West Bottoms of Kansas City, Missouri, eventually became the Kansas City Stockyards.

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


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tavis Stanley

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, so keep. -Splash 23:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Tavis Stanley
Does not meet notability guidelines set in WP:NMG. --Howcheng 16:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete — ciphergoth 16:20, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Member of notable Canadian band Thornley.  Needs a rewrite, though. Crypticfirefly 18:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Member of notable band; rewrite but keep. Bearcat 00:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Kathe Koja

Kathe Koja (born 1960) is an American writer. She was initially known for her intense speculative fiction for adults, but has written young adult novels, the historical fiction Under the Poppy trilogy, and a fictional biography of Christopher Marlowe.

Koja is also a prolific author of short stories, including many in collaboration with Barry N. Malzberg. Koja has also collaborated with Carter Scholz. Most of her short fiction remains uncollected. Koja's novels and short stories frequently concern characters who have been in some way marginalized by society, often focusing on the transcendence and/or disintegration which proceeds from this social isolation (as in The Cipher, Bad Brains, "Teratisms," The Blue Mirror, etc.). Koja won the Bram Stoker Award and the Locus Award for her first novel The Cipher, and a Deathrealm Award for Strange Angels. Her prose has been described as "stunning". Author Mike Thorn described her novel Dark Factory as "a daring work of multisensory immersion."

Koja was born in Detroit, Michigan, the second of two sisters. She began writing when very young, but only became serious about it after attending a Clarion workshop.

Koja's literary works have been recognized and highlighted at Michigan State University in their Michigan Writers Series.

Works
In regard to her earlier works, Koja says that the fundamental question at the heart of her stories deals with the philosophy of transcendence. Koja said, in an interview with Dark Echo, “When we will to be more than we are, what do we do? How do we choose what then to become, and how accomplish that becoming? And after transformation -- what?”.

This theme of transcendence applies to The Cipher, Bad Brains, Strange Angels, Skin, and Kink. Koja says that this transformative transcendence is explored in each of these novels either through a fundamental change of character experienced by a character, or, through the interaction with an actual presence such as the “funhole” in The Cipher.

Koja’s first novel, The Cipher, was originally entitled The Funhole. Editor Jeanne Cavelos published Koja’s novel through the Dell Abyss line. Dell rejected the original title.

On writing for young adults, Koja states that she loves the young adult genre for the fact that as an author, she is granted the ability to re-examine that aspect of life, including the highs and lows of adolescence. Koja describes this period of life as a place where change is inevitable and almost anything can happen, and to Koja that is exciting. In Koja’s stories, the characters themselves have a close relationship with art. Koja does this because in her personal life and travels, she encounters other writers who use their art as a place of shelter. The art of these individuals, in Koja’s eyes, are a reflection of themselves. Their art is likened to a mirror.

Koja's work is influenced by Shirley Jackson, Flannery O'Connor, Carter Scholz, and Sylvia Plath. The film Night of the Living Dead also was a big influence.

Awards
Koja won the Bram Stoker Award and the Locus Award in 1992 for her first novel The Cipher, which was also nominated for the Philip K. Dick Award. She also won a Deathrealm Award for Strange Angels.

In 2002, Koja was also awarded the Humane Society's Kids in Nature’s Defense honor, and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' Henry Bergh Award, for her novel Straydog. Koja is also the 2004 recipient of the International Reading Association's Children’s Book Award and the Society of Midland Authors' Children’s Fiction Award, for her novel Buddha Boy.

Koja’s first novel in 2002, Straydog, received positive reviews and awards. Paula Rohrlick, writing in Kliatt, praised Straydog as a "short, swift read … packed full of emotion." A critic for Kirkus Reviews added that "fans of tales about teen writers, or stories with animal themes, will pant after this." A contributor to Publishers Weekly described Straydog as a "solid if sometimes familiar tale of a high school misfit" that presents teen readers with a "compelling and sympathetic" protagonist in Rachel. Farida S. Dowler, writing in School Library Journal, noted that Koja's presentation of Rachel's growing "friendship with Griffin has romantic tension, but transcends high-school stereotypes," while in The Horn Book Jennifer M. Brabander concluded that the novel is a "fast but semi-sophisticated read for teens who haven't outgrown dog stories."

Praising The Blue Mirror as an "eerie, psychologically gripping urban tale" similar to the work of author Francesca Lia Block, a Publishers Weekly reviewer added that in her story "Koja explores the confusion between infatuation and real love—in all its cruelty and its redemptive powers." In The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, a reviewer gave special note to Koja's protagonist, noting that "Maggy's voice is articulate, controlled, and self-aware, which makes for intriguing reading." Of the novel, Koja noted on her website: "The Blue Mirror is concerned with vision, the way we see—or sometimes refuse to see—what's right in front of us, and what can happen when we open our eyes."

Koja's 2020 story collection "Velocities" was a finalist for a 2021 World Fantasy Award Best Collection.

Personal life
Koja lives near Detroit, Michigan and is married to the illustrator Rick Lieder, who often does her book jackets. They have one son.

She is founding director of nerve, a Detroit-based immersive theatre company. Koja is a Democrat and a supporter of Mercy for Animals, PETA, and the Michigan Anti-Cruelty Society.

Adult

 * The Cipher (1991)
 * Bad Brains (1992)
 * Skin (1993)
 * Strange Angels (1994)
 * Kink (1996)
 * Extremities (1997) (collection)
 * Under the Poppy (2010)
 * The Mercury Waltz (2014)
 * The Bastards' Paradise (2015)
 * Christopher Wild (2017)
 * Velo/Cities (2020) (collection)
 * Dark Factory (2022)
 * Dark Park (2023)

Young adult

 * Straydog (2002)
 * Buddha Boy (2003)
 * The Blue Mirror (2004)
 * Talk (2005)
 * Going Under (2006)
 * Kissing the Bee (2007)
 * Headlong (2008)

Short stories

 * Happy Birthday, Kim White (1987)
 * Professional Image (1988)
 * Distances (1988)
 * Skin Deep (1989)
 * The Energies of Love (1989)
 * Illusions in Relief (1990)
 * True Colors (1990)
 * Reckoning (1990)
 * Command Performance (1990)
 * Angels in Love (1991)
 * Angels' Moon (1991)
 * Teratisms (1991)
 * The Prince of Nox (1992)
 * By the Mirror of My Youth (1992)
 * Letting Go (1992) (Pulphouse A Fiction Magazine Issue 9, June 1992)
 * The Company of Storms (1992)
 * Persephone (1992)
 * Ballad of Spanish Civil Guard (1993) (collected in Mike Resnick's anthology Alternate Warriors)
 * I Shall Do Thee Mischief in the Wood (1993)
 * Leavings (1993) (co-written with Barry N. Malzberg)
 * Rex Tremandae Majestatis (1993) (co-written with Barry N. Malzberg)
 * The High Ground (1993) (co-written with Barry N. Malzberg)
 * The Timbrel Sound of Darkness (1993) (co-written with Barry N. Malzberg)
 * Metal Fatigue (1993)
 * Arrangement for Invisible Voices (1993)
 * In the Greenhouse (1994) (co-written with Barry N. Malzberg)
 * Modern Romance (1994) (co-written with Barry N. Malzberg)
 * The Careful Geometry of Love (1994) (co-written with Barry N. Malzberg)
 * The Disquieting Muse (1994)
 * Queen of Angels (1994)
 * Literary Lives (1994) (co-written with Barry N. Malzberg and collected in Mike Resnick's alternate history anthology Alternate Outlaws)
 * Buyer's Remorse (1995) (co-written with Barry N. Malzberg)
 * Girl's Night Out (1995) (co-written with Barry N. Malzberg)
 * Jubilee (1995)
 * Mysterious Elisions, Riotous Thrusts (1995) (co-written with Barry N. Malzberg)
 * Pas de Deux (1995)
 * The Unbolted (1995) (co-written with Barry N. Malzberg)
 * Waking the Prince (1995)
 * The Witches of Delight (1995) (co-written with Barry N. Malzberg)
 * DMZ (1995)
 * The Unchained (1995) (co-written with Barry N. Malzberg)
 * Three Portraits from Heisenberg (1995) (co-written with Barry N. Malzberg)
 * Homage to Custom (1996) (co-written with Barry N. Malzberg)
 * Ursus Traid Later (1996) (co-written with Barry N. Malzberg)
 * Orleans Rheims, Friction: Fire (1997) (co-written with Barry N. Malzberg)
 * In The Last Chamber (1997) (co-written with Barry N. Malzberg and collected in Mike Resnick's alternate history anthology Alternate Tyrants)
 * Bondage (1998)
 * Becoming Charise (2000)
 * Jackson's Novelties (2000)
 * The Doctrine of Color (2000)
 * At Eventide (2000)
 * What We Did That Summer (2001) (co-written with Barry N. Malzberg)
 * Road Trip (2002)
 * Remnants (2002)
 * Lupe (2003)
 * Velocity (2003)
 * Anna Lee (2004)
 * Ruby Tuesday (2005)
 * Fireflies (2006)
 * Myths & Legends (2006)
 * Far & We (2008)
 * Clod Pebble (2010)
 * Toujours (2011)
 * La Reine D'Enfer (2013)
 * KIT: Some Assembly Required (2016)

title: Kathe Koja


text:
Yellow Dog River

The Yellow Dog River flows through Marquette County in the Upper Peninsula of the U.S. state of Michigan. It is 31.6 mi in length, with about 85 mi of tributaries. The main branch begins at the outflow from Bulldog Lake in the Ottawa National Forest on the boundary between Baraga and Marquette counties. The river's mouth is on Lake Independence, near Big Bay, Michigan, and is part of the Lake Superior watershed.

Early maps record the name of this river in French either as "Rivière Saint Jean" (St. John River) or as "Rivière Chien Jaune" (Yellow Dog River), both a near homophone to each other. However, the river's historical name in Ojibwe is Zhaagawaagaminaang-ziibi (recorded as "Shaw gha wah gume nong Sibie", meaning "River to the oblong water",or Zhooshowaagamiing-ziibi (recorded as "Soo soo wa ga me", "Soo soo wa ga ming", etc., meaning "Agitated-waters River"). The current name for this river in Ojibwe is either Ozaawasimong-ziibi (River by the Yellow Dog) or Wezaawaagamig-ziibi (Yellowed-waters River).

A section of the Yellow Dog River is a National Wild and Scenic River. The first 4 mi of the river, from its origin to the national forest boundary, was designated on March 3, 1992.

The Yellow Dog River drops sharply through numerous outcrops and cascades within the 17000 acre McCormick Wilderness. Vegetation consists of large eastern white pine, eastern hemlock, sugar maple, northern red oak, and other old-growth northern hardwood species.

The river runs through the Yellow Dog Plains, a remote and virtually untouched wilderness, aside from large scale logging operations. There are many beautiful waterfalls along its length.

The river is the subject of a book titled The Yellow Dog River-Magical Dialog of a Woodland Stream, by David Richarde.

Wildlife

 * Native: brook trout
 * Introduced: brown and rainbow trout
 * Fish are stocked every May by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources

title: Yellow Dog River


text:
User talk:Xe0n

I'm interested in...

Social Network Applications that are a platform for:

 * Political Reform
 * Education Reform
 * Community Revitalization
 * Nation Building

ISSUES of a New West Citizen
Rebuilding a Garden social recommendations for the rebuilding of New Orleans

New West Citizen

title: User talk:Xe0n


text:
User talk:Tribulation~enwiki

Welcome
Hello , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Psy guy (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Tribulation. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Tribulation~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 03:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tribulation~enwiki


text:
Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 5

Need a separate section on her Racist Views
There needs to be a separate section for her racist views against Muslims, blacks, and Hispanics

 * What racist views? Ann simply opposes the politically correct victicrat mentality perpetrated by their self-appointed spokespeople.

One doesn't need to be a genius to know about her racist views. She repeatedly supports racial profiling, which only affect Muslims, hispanics, and blacks. Calling her "politically incorrect" is a nice way of saying that she is a racist.

What about Asians? It's tiring how many Asian-Americans are just passed off as the passive, "controllable" (ie. "harmless" and "nerdy", and keep to themselves) minority. Being of Asian descent, I actually took it as a compliment- and take great pride!- that I got thoroughly checked and screened at the Dulles airport in Washington a few years back. Le Anh-Huy 07:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Re-arranging talk page
Would anyone object if I were to categorize some of the discussions on this page to make them easier to follow? --Ben 3 July 2005 20:53 (UTC)

 * I don't object, but can you archive any non-active discussions first? --kizzle July 3, 2005 21:07 (UTC)

 * Ok done, but you or someone else would probably know better than me which ones are still active or unresolved, so I'll leave that for someone else to do. The sections are in no particular order (change as need be), but all the talk within is still in order of date. --24.57.157.81 4 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)

If there is any question of the bias of this article, read the wikipedia article on Al Franken. There is no section in it discrediting him or dedicated to his critics. Al Franken and Ann Coulter are essentcially the same just in different political parties

 * Um, no - Al Franken is a partisan, Ann Counter is a nutcase. Slight difference.  Every second word out of his mouth isn't a lie.  Guettarda 7 July 2005 14:43 (UTC)

 * Yes. Big difference. Al Franken uses self-effacing humor and facts to persuade. Coulter uses harsh invective, lies, and distortions. Coulter's mendacity has been thoroughly documented, and only the relentlessly lazy or ill-informed could be unaware of that fact.  People of both sides of the political spectrum have complained about her shrillness, even Bill O'Reilly!  There ARE left-wing counterparts to Coulter, but Franken is not one of them.  Poor example. 68.110.199.122 12:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * While I agree with Guettarda, I'll encourage you to add a criticism section to his article. I don't agree with him either and would be happy to help ;) --Tothebarricades July 9, 2005 04:20 (UTC)

status of quotations
There are two different ways to interpret the above poll results (currently 11/10 in favor of keeping the quotations): I believe that we must adopt the latter interpretation, because if we apply the former rule in a utilitarianist sense, we will face several unwanted consequences:
 * One can see no concensus and from this justify removing the information since it didn't reach concensus.
 * The other interpretation is that one can see no concensus to change what currently exists, and thus justify keeping the information in.
 * any passage in any article at any time could be questioned and removed given that it does not meet a significant concensus.
 * endless challenges, as what is to prevent us from simply re-polling to bring back the information in. Given the exact same results in a hypothetical subsequent vote on including the quotes on this page, we would be justified in including the information, as one could interpret that there isn't concensus to keep the info out, of which this process could be repeated ad inifinitum.

Given a tie, the direction of a poll should favor keeping information previously existing for some time the same rather than removing/changing information. --kizzle 03:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I have reached my 3 revert limit today, thus I plead with others to follow the above guideline. --kizzle 03:24, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

There is only one way to interpret an 11/10 vote on Wikipedia: there is no consensus. This isn't a democracy, we don't use votes to make decisions. The close tie tells us that we don't agree. The content of the page does not command consensus. We must therefore edit the page until we have consensus. I still don't understand why we have to have that bald list-of-quotes in the first place. Coulter is famous for her bizarre neanderthal conservatism, let's write about that and use the quotes to illustrate it. Just plating a braindump into an article doesn't cut it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * That's exactly my point. I can equally say that there is no concensus to remove the information. In other words, while "the content of the page does not command concensus", neither does its removal. --kizzle 03:40, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

You are a nice reverter, but I think people may be at this awhile. '''If something is on Wiki and it is entirely POV as it is, then it either get removed or editors change it to be NPOV. I think the burden is on those who want the quotations to write an appropriate paragraph and stick it in there.''' In that way, the context can be added that make it NPOV. I don't think that is too much to ask. --Noitall 03:37, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Would you like to respond to any of my points addressing necessary consequences assuming a system where a tied votes yields change rather than no change? --kizzle 03:40, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't have much a response to the consensus argument. I did not ask for consensus and see that there is none.  If there is no consensus, then I do as I see best to make the article better, following the principles that I stated.  --Noitall 03:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes but what do you say of the consequences in adopting your viewpoint that the default in a tied poll rests upon including the information rather than removing it? What do you say of the interpretation that there is no concensus to remove this information which has existed on the page for some time now? --kizzle 03:50, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

-->That is not the default. NPOV is the default. '''Removing the quotes is inherently NPOV. Including the quotes without context and without a written paragraph is POV'''. --Noitall 03:59, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Umm, once again, how is quoting coulter POV? And you haven't answered the question:  in a tied poll, what preference should we give that we can apply universally, changing previously existing information or removing information?  NPOV is not the default, it is the standard, of which including quotes has nothing to do with. --kizzle 04:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * I bolded my entire statement since you only read (or understood) part of it. --Noitall 04:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * If you feel any of these quotes are taken out of context, what is preventing you from adding the context instead of simply crying POV?--kizzle 04:58, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * I bolded my statements I previously made that address your point, both above and below. --Noitall 05:31, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * So that means your content to simply cry POV due to a lack of context but you want other people to add the context. --kizzle 05:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * My statements speak for themselves. No, there is no requirement to add the context.  You have an alternative:  you can delete the quote entirely.  But if you think these quotes are so necessary to make a point, you must write a proper Wiki article, which is not a collection of unrelated out of context quotes.  --Noitall 06:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * for the love of god, what exactly is POV about quoting the woman? if coulter were here, she would no doubt want more quotes like these.  i can see tony's argument that quotes aren't encyclopedic, though i disagree for the case of a polemicist. but POV entirely escapes me.  what POV do you think is being expressed here?  these are illustrations of her style & that's exactly why she's well known -- it's certainly not for her intellect.  she's proud of these; conservatives are amused by them; i'm horrified by them -- but including the quotes furthers no point of view that i can see. Derex 06:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Below copied here from user talk pages:

The quote section has been there quite a while, and has been debated at length before -- see archive 1. Full disclosure: I went under the name Wolfman in that debate. Given the previous participation of many editors & long-standing debate, it doesn't seem to me that the default should be to remove the section given an essentially tied poll now. If you feel strongly about removing the quotes (and apparently you do), perhaps the best way forward would be to post an RFC. Regards, Derex 03:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It doesn't quite work that way. There is no "default".  Either a page is stable or it is not.  When there is consensus and someone calls a vote, for instance, you tend to see most people stacking up on one side and one or two opposing it.  This hasn't happened here (although I opposed calling the vote for the very reason that I perceive no consensus).  In the absence of consensus there is no "default".  We'll go on arguing about it until someone rewrites it to the satisfaction of all. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you recognize it, there is a "default." In a hung poll, a decision must still be reached whether to include the information or not. --kizzle 03:56, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it's never going to be to the satisfaction of all. But, I do recall that I brokered a compromise back around September.  This had two parts.  First, a 'disclaimer' which appears to be intact.  Second, I reduced the number of quotes by selecting those most illustrative of her style.  I think that got it down to 8 or so quotes.  That compromise was pretty stable for quite a while.  Apparently, there has been quite a 'quote creep' in the meantime.  The best way forward might be a discussion of which quotes contribute most rather than whether there should be any quotes. Regards, Derex 03:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Along with that, the discussion suggests that the article might be enhanced by a paragraph or two describing different aspects of her style, and incorporating quotations within the text to illustrate the points made. I think the list of quotations is better than nothing, because it provides some information, but it would be more useful to the reader to have that kind of summary, and it would satisfy the editors who don't want a long collection of simple quotations.  Of course, it would also be more work, and, no, I'm not volunteering to do it. JamesMLane 04:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You have accurately captured the problem. Certain people want the quotes but don't want to do the work that it takes to write a proper article to get them in. There are no shortcuts, someone who wants to do the work can get them in.  --Noitall 04:50, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * I really take issue with this view. The quotes have existed here for some time.  Now you don't like them, so you threaten deletion if those who want the quotes don't modify them into paragraph form, without even a concensus to remove this previously existing info?  If you don't like how the quotes are, why don't you modify it yourself instead of holding it hostage via threats of deletion?--kizzle 17:15, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with kizzle. The paragraph form would be more helpful to the reader than the simple collection of quotations, but, until someone writes the paragraph, having a selection of quotations in the article is better than forcing the reader to switch over to Wikiquote. JamesMLane 17:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * what sort of content do you think would be appropriate for paragraph form? to me, the current lead-in paragraph to the quotes section sort of says it all.  i worry that providing 'context' will really turn into an opportunity (and battleground) to provide a point of view.  i do think that the list of quotes ought to be pruned quite a bit, because it goes way beyond what is necessary to give a flavor of her style & her issues. Derex 18:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't mind shortening the amount of quotes, my ideal range would be 5-10. --kizzle 20:54, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * I guess the POVers don't understand it until we turn the situation around. How about adding a whole section of quotes in the President William J. Clinton page without any context and no paragraphs and no way of addressing any issue.  It would, of course, include:

 * 1.  I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I have changed government policy solely because of a contribution.

 * 2. I tried marijuana once. I did not inhale.

 * 3. If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

 * 4. One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.

 * 5. The 22nd Amendment should probably be modified to say two consecutive terms instead of two terms for a lifetime.

 * 6. You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president.

 * 7. It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is.

 * 8. It depends on how you define alone.

 * 9. There were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were.

 * 10. What's a man got to do to get in the top fifty?

 * 11. When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn't like it. I didn't inhale and never tried it again.

 * 12. Politics gives guys so much power that they tend to behave badly around women. And I hope I never get into that.

 * 13. It was a real sort of Southern deal. I had AstroTurf in the back. You don't want to know why, but I did.

 * 14. You know, if I were a single man, I might ask that mummy out. That's a good-looking mummy.

 * 15. Last year, the vice president launched a new effort to help make communities more liberal.

 * 16. Usually briefs.

 * 17. It wasn't my finest hour. It wasn't even my finest hour and a half.

 * 18. You'd think he was running for First Lady.

 * 19. I may not have been the greatest president, but I've had the most fun eight years.

 * 20. I've said I've never broken the drug laws of my country, and that is the absolute truth.

 * 21. The road to tyranny, we must remember, begins with the destruction of the truth.

 * 22. The other thing we have to do is to take seriously the role in this problem of...older men who prey on underage women...There are consequences to decisions and...one way or the other, people always wind up being held accountable.

 * 23. I tried to walk a line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely, but I now realize that I did not fully accomplish that goal.

 * 24. I did not have sex with that woman.

--Noitall 21:51, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * No, I believe that you are missing the point. Coulter is a polemicist.  That is why she is known.  I imagine that Clinton finds these embarassing.  Coulter does not.  They are her craft.  They are the very essence of her notability.  Clinton is notable because he was the most powerful man on the planet for 8 years.  Coulter is notable because she is rhetorically flamboyant (at least that's why she is successful as a pundit).  You act as if she ought to be embarassed by these quotes, well I do agree with that.  But, she & most of her supporters revel in them.  I ask again: What POV is supposedly being pushed here?  You call me POV pusher, I'd at least like to know which POV you think I'm pushing. Derex 22:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Unlike Coulter, Clinton is known for slightly more than his words. --kizzle 22:04, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * By all means Noitall, go add some quotes to Molly Ivins or Jim Hightower or Al Franken or Joe Conason. I think it would be absolutely fabulous for someone to add a few quotes illustrating their respective styles.  Derex 22:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * POV, POV, POV. Hypocrite, Hypocrite, Hypocrite. But for consistency, because you have argued so strenuously that quotations cannot be POV because they are accurate, I instituted your Quotation policy here:  William J. Clinton.  --Noitall 22:13, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Gotta love those ad hominem attacks. --kizzle 22:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * WHAT POV? Tell me.  I've asked twice before.  What point of view am I pushing?  Where am I being inconsistent?  Where is the hypocrisy?  I just said I think you should enhance the articles on  liberal polemicists in exactly the same way.  Do you even know what POV or hypocrite mean? Derex 22:25, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * No one can help the willfully deaf, dumb and blind. If you can't see it now, you never will. --Noitall 22:32, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not being in the least willful. If you don't care to explain your position, then that's your business. But then don't pretend that I'm the recalcitrant one.  I can't very well debate or even understand someone who won't even specify the complaint. Derex 22:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Someone who won't specify their own position just sounds like an idiot calling someone else willfully deaf, dumb, and blind. --kizzle 22:40, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Excuse me, I have written books on this page. No one has ever accused me of not forcefully making my point.  Just because you can't or refuse to read and understand, well, it only supports my willfully deaf, dumb and blind statement.  --Noitall 22:49, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I have asked you the most basic posssible question three times in a row. You have refused to answer, yet you accuse me of being deaf & blind.  I'm more than happy to talk (though I have to leave in a minute, so I'm not dumb either).  You are choosing to be dumb though.  So, I will ask you for a 4th time: what "point of view" is being advanced by including examples of her rhetorical style.  If you would answer that, then I might understand your position, and then we might be able to find some common ground.  Apparently, you are so convinced that I am pushing POV that you find it beneath yourself to explain what that POV is.  At least 3 possiblities spring to mind, but I'm not going to sit here & speculate on what's going on in your mind.  Either state your position clearly, or quit wasting my time & calling me names. Derex 23:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Because I have answered it 4 to 5 times on this page. Wake up.  This "discussion" has been going on for some time now.  If you don't want to read, I can't make you.  --Noitall 23:05, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Where? Provide a link.  Wouldn't that be a lot simpler than repeatedly refusing to answer?  Or god forbid, write a new sentence.  Yes, this discussion has been going on for quite a while, see Archive 1.  I was discussing this back in August.  That was a bit less maddening because at least Rex would answer my questions.  So, at least that actually was a "discussion", and because of that we reached a compromise. Derex 23:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Haha, as Derex pointed out, that was my first post on Wikipedia. Geezus, after a compromise with Rex of all people, can't believe we're going through this again. --kizzle 23:35, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

PAGE PROTECTED
Folks, the page has been protected while you work things out here. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 03:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Quote section poll(s), take two
Okay, it seems pretty clear that there is no real consensus on whether to keep or to remove the quote section. That just means we need to buckle down and find a compromise that everyone is relatively happy with.

There are some underlying issues that I think need to be addressed first: crazyeddie 05:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this an NPOV issue?
Some people are throwing around the notion that the quote section is inherently POV. It seems to me (assuming that the quotes aren't selected in order to support one POV or the other), that a quote section is absolutely NPOV. I think we might be seeing an example of the hostile media effect here. To see, let's have a strawpoll on this issue, and, in the spirit of scientific inquiry, let's also state our individual POVs on the subject of Ann Coulter. For the record, let me point out that "NPOV" doesn't stand for no point of view. NPOV is achieved through fairly and accurately representing all POVs. If you think Mrs. Coulter is Evil Incarnate, say (anti-). If you think she's the greatest thing since sliced bread, say (pro-). If you truly think you're neutral, or you don't wish to show your hand at this time, say (undisclosed). I'll start off.

Also, in case I haven't made it clear, let's consider this question independently of whether or not to keep the quote section. For example, I don't think this is an NPOV issue, but I do think the quote section should be removed, or at least severly prunned, for aesthetic reasons. crazyeddie 05:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the inclusion or removal of the quote section is an NPOV issue.

 * Yep, quotes without context illustrate little but can contribute to a POV. Quotes that show how outrageous or provocative one is can be helpful in giving a full picture, but the selection of quotes is bound to be fraught. DavidH 04:34, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

No, the inclusion or removal of the quote section is not an NPOV issue.

 * 1) No. (anti-) crazyeddie
 * 2) er.. anti.... I think including quotes can't be NPOV, as long as they are correct and not taken out of context, and that deleting them is mostly POV. What does that come under? Gzuckier 05:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that counts as "No", I took the liberty of moving your comment. Go ahead and put it where you want if you disagree. crazyeddie 05:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

NOT PARTICIPATE

 * There has been one poll and it did not resolve anything except that there is no consensus. I have written about the POV and hypocracy here and on the William J. Clinton page.  In all my effort, however, I can not make the blind see.  --Noitall 05:29, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fuzheado | Talk 05:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC) - it's not clear what this poll will prove
 * Not much, but hopefully it will settle the issue of whether or not this issue is a NPOV matter, which might demuddy the watters a little. We can move on to more actionable things later.crazyeddie 05:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Tony's proposal
A while back, Tony proposed that we make an extra effort to use Coulter's quotes in the main text of the article, in order to provide evidence for or against the POVs under question. For example, we could provide a quote for each bullet point in the "stated views" list in the criticism section. He suggested it as an alternative to the quote section, but let's consider this proposal independent of whether or not we keep a seperate quote section for now. crazyeddie 05:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Tony's proposal sounds like a good idea.

 * 1) Yes. crazyeddie 05:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Maybe. I don't totally understand it, but if I read into it, it seems to be what I have advocated.  --Noitall 05:37, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh, you're assuming I understand it. Or even read it for that matter :-) If we decide the basic idea is sound, we can bang out the details later. crazyeddie 05:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe
I'm interested in seeing a sandbox version of such a proposal before I vote either way. --kizzle 05:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * ditto, i'm not really clear on what the proposal is. i'm also think that we should avoid providing an interpretation of the various quotes, other than as examples of her style.  i suppose a few of the comments have received quite widespread media attention, especially the 'kill all the muslims' kind of quotes. so those might deserve a place in the text with some context.Derex 06:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Old issues
I'd encourage folks to take a look back at Talk:Ann_Coulter/Archive_1 as there is very little new here that wasn't argued last year. (In fact, I had to do a double take to make sure it wasn't simply cut and pasted.) Fuzheado | Talk 05:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * it's like deja vu all over again :) --kizzle 18:43, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as there is no concensus to either keep or remove the info, for purposes of un-protecting the page, the quotes will stay in for now. I think whatever Tony's proposal is might be interesting, if it can be done in a neutral fashion. If he would like to delve into his proposal and show us a sandbox version of a few of the quotes, I think it would be very productive for this page. --kizzle 06:14, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Don't limit it to Tony. Why not let anybody who wants to take a swing at it? crazyeddie 06:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Cause I'm not sure exactly what Tony's proposal looks like. Maybe someone else who does? --kizzle 06:28, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd settle for something Tony-esque. Doesn't have to follow his proposal exactly. Just something that integrates Ann's polemical voice into the text of the article. crazyeddie 06:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

After looking over the article, I've had a thought: Why not break out the "stated views" subsection out of the criticism section, and make it a section in its own right? That way, we could use the quotes to demonstrate her views. This might also be a good opportunity for some NPOV discussion about whether or not her views are being misrepresented or something. Use quotes for that as well. Then we could open up the Criticism section with something along the lines of "In addition to her often controversial views, many people criticise Ann Coulter because... yada yada yada". crazyeddie 06:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Nazi Picture
There is no reason why that picture should be up. For crying out loud, if you can't put your bitter hate aside as well as your idiocy, DON'T COME HERE!

No reason or purpose for it. Quit being an asshole. Whoever put that up ought to be banned.

 * Nazi pic? What Nazi pic? Guettarda 23:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts on quotes
Sorry to jump in so late, but I thought i'd add another voice to this.

I believe the quotes should stay. Quotes are as NPOV as you can ever get provided they are accurate and in context. If they are not accurate then they should be corrected, if they lack context then context should be added. There's no need to delete them.

Yes, a point could be reached where an article has too many quotes, and this article does have a lot of them, but I do not find them excessive because each them contributes to understanding what Coulter is all about and it does so in her own words.

As for the quotes being very negative, that's simply a result of Coulter saying a lot of negative things. She makes her living criticing Democrats and the media and others whom she disagrees with and there's nothing wrong with that. It is simply here style and the quote section is naturally going to reflect that. Still if people feel that the quote section should include more positive or uplifting sentiments from Coulter then the solution seems to me to to add some "positive" quotes, not to remove the ones that are there now.--Heathcliff 22:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * OTOH I notice that the Al Franken quote section has been moved to Wikiquote and the most potentially offensive one has been deleted so I guess if liberal editors have to sanatize the controversial comments of of liberal commentators then it's only fair that conservative commentators do the same. sigh Wikipedia is doomed.--Heathcliff 22:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Not in the least, Heathcliff. I'm not sure as to what quote you're talking about, but I think you should re-instate this offensive quote that you speak of.  Parity should be reached, we just shouldn't reach parity through the lowest common denominator. --kizzle 22:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

If you want to include quotes, then build them into the text as sources and provide links to verify. Simple. - jredmond 22:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I will be looking forward to seeing your edits on this matter. --kizzle 22:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * How many encyclopedias offer a "quotation" section in an article as large as this one? A few quotes works, an entire section dedicated to the quotes doesn't give it the feel of an encyclopedia.  There's already a large criticism section.  Put some "shocking" quotes in there.  There's already a large non-criticism section.  Put some "not shocking" quotes in there.  But the section is pointless and NOT encyclopedic and is only put in there "to demonstrate" how she writes.  You can demonstrate how she writes WHILE being encylopedic.  Fair, balanced, and informational.  That's what I think.Stanselmdoc 21:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I look forward to your expanding these quotes into paragraphs. --kizzle 21:47, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * Kizzle, no offense, but what's your point? Clearly I can't edit anything, since the page is protected.  And I wouldn't want to just change anything without discussing it on the talk page first, so that there's a consensus.  And if you read my paragraph, I never said let's expand the quotes into paragraphs.  I said remove a lot of them, and work a few others into other paragraphs in the article.  What other article on wiki has such an extensive quote section?  Does it apply to authors?  If quite a few authors have an extensive quote section in their articles, by all means have a quote section in Ann's.  She IS an author.  But as far as I know, quote sections are dedicated wikiquote, which most authors have links to in their articles.  Coulter's quote section is uncalled for, because it's not that hard to point a little mouse to the wikiquote link and click on it to get a picture of how Ann Coulter writes.Stanselmdoc 16:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to make my point, pages of authors that don't have extensive quote sections -

 * Robert Frost
 * William Shakespeare
 * Emily Dickinson
 * Walt Whitman
 * Mark Twain
 * Charles Dickens
 * Michael Savage
 * Michael Moore
 * Joyce Carol Oates
 * Willa Cather
 * Albert Camus
 * Edgar Allan Poe
 * Frederick Douglass
 * Aristotle
 * Noam Chomsky
 * John Locke
 * John Stuart Mill
 * Tom Brokaw
 * Virginia Woolf
 * Joseph Epstein
 * Samuel Johnson
 * E.B. White
 * Ernest Hemingway
 * Alexander Hamilton
 * Stephen Ambrose
 * Stephen Jay Gould
 * Carl Sagan

Authors with quote sections I have found:
 * George Orwell - 8 quotes
 * Ralph Waldo Emerson - 8 quotes
 * William Hazlitt - 4 quotes
 * Katherine Ann Porter - 2 quotes
 * Isaac Asimov - 12 quotes
 * Voltaire - 19 quotes

In the case of Asimov and Voltaire, I propose removing some of their quotes as well. But I put them on this list to show everyone that I'm not trying to be POV. I'm being honest and showing the authors I've found.Stanselmdoc 15:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Stanselmdoc, you get the NPOV award and the award for Wiki common sense. Unfortunately, they will not do you much good on this page.  I could not agree with you more.  --Noitall 21:32, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting
This is one of a number of articles that I'm unprotecting today because they've all been protected for a ridiculously long time. I won't be involved in editing here for a while because that would lead to a conflict of interest. --Tony Sidaway Talk 18:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Length
NPOV or not, at 42K the article is too darned long. Is there some reason the quotes haven't been moved to Wikiquote? That isn't enough but it would be a start. Tualha (Talk) 01:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No one offered an objection to my entry, and because of length and lack of defense, I removed a vast amount of the quote section, and directed the article to Coulter's wikiquote. Six quotes is still a large amount, but I hope I picked out enough from her own writings and enough to demonstrate her way of writing so that everyone will get over the tragic loss. I dare say it might be difficult to do...you know...dragging that little mouse over to the wikiquote link...Stanselmdoc 16:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Again, for reasons of length and consistency, I tried to shorten the article. I removed a lot, and tried to copyedit as much as I could (there were a whole lot of "which"s in the article).  I especially removed large amounts from the Al Franken section, because if people want an extensive explanation of his commentary on Coulter, they can check out the article for his book.  This article is on Ann Coulter, not on her critics.  I also removed some paragraphs that I felt didn't need to be in there, because it was basically reiterating statements that could be made in about two sentences.  I was aiming for concise, removal of bias, and still NPOV.  If someone has a question about the removals, I'm more than willing to discuss.Stanselmdoc 13:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyone Mind This Being at Least Re-Named?
What's the deal with this Canada/Vietnam War section? At the very least, the way it's written is certainly not "criticism" of Coulter. It's more like "controversy". And from my point of view, it doesn't seem to prove any point of serve much of a purpose, nor do I really think it had any lasting impact on Coulter. What does it prove? That she's been wrong before? Well, I think we can all agree she's been wrong at least once before. So my question to everyone is, can I remove it, or at the very least, move it out of the "Criticism" section and into a different one, like the Paula Jones 'controversy'? They both seem to be controversy, not criticism. Thanks!Stanselmdoc 13:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, originally the statement about her being accused by critics of being just plain wrong about an easily verifiable fact was supported with a few examples; for instance that the new york times didn't print anything about dale earnhardt's death until a week later. But they all got chipped away as being too trivial too mention. For whatever reason, rather than chip away at her "blame Canada" statement, somebody decided to argue the case. Now it has a life of its own, without any connection to the rest of the article. Gzuckier 14:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverted a few 66.215.152.129 changes
I took out the bit about blowing up the New York Times because it appears at least two other times in the article, including later in the same paragraph. I removed '(supposed)' because there is no supposition involved. The sentence says that Coulter has stated this. She has. I removed '(jokingly)' because it is a POV opinion and the passage already specifically says that some claim Coulter is only joking with these comments... that BELIEF is included and should not then be re-inserted as 'fact' in the conflicting opinion. Finally, I removed 'their leaders' because while Coulter DID only advocate killing Muslim leaders she suggested converting ALL of them to Christianity. As written the sentence indicates she wanted to kill some muslims and convert others... true. As revised it had indicated that she wanted to kill some muslim leaders and convert others... false - she said to kill them all. --CBDunkerson 10:36:44, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
 * Gee, isn't it too bad we can't insert the actual quotes here for the readers to see for themselves, instead of trying to describe the quotes accurately but using other words. (Note: not aimed at you, CB) Gzuckier 15:05, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Photos, photos, and more photos, please
There are not NEARLY enough photos of Coulter on this page. Don't you people read Free Republic? Many leggy photos of Ann are obligatory whenever and whereever she is discussed.

Fix, please.

Paul Klenk 21:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Conservative vs. Right Wing
The conservatism page says "This article currently excludes conservatism in the United States and Canada, where the term can be taken to mean something different. For those countries see American Conservatism.". I don't think that anyone would consider Coulter "conservative" in the literal meaning of the word (radical would be more apt). Linking to "right-wing politics" or to "C. in North America" would be ok, but just linking the word "conservative" would probably not be apt. Also, Wikipedia is not US-pedia - we need to use language that is accessible to speakers of english around the world. Guettarda 16:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly. "Right-wing" should be used. Shem(talk) 20:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I am charitably assuming that you are joking. If so, yes it is quite funny to propose such POV terms here on Wiki.  --Noitall 20:08, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Why is "conservative" NPOV while "right-wing" is POV? They are both legitiamte terms to describe political viewpoints. -Willmcw 20:39, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Noitall Please review the policy on Neutral Points of View. It will prevent some of your edits from being reverted, thank you. (Cathytreks(talk) 00:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC))

Responding to Willmcw (Cathyleftwing obviously needs to read up on NPOV, or at least attempt to understand it), the label is a conclusion that is entirely POV. The issue is entirely relative to where you start from, issue based. You are correct that "conservative" generally fits into the same POV category, but in this case dealing with one person, I think it reasonable to label her that. As for "right wing", it has perjorative connotations (that is why the attempt is being made by left wing POVers). Why not "right of center"? (we know why). --Noitall 00:40, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Can you provide a source which establishes the POVness of "right-wing"? Also, out of curiousity, do you believe that "left-wing" is similarly POV? Thanks, -Willmcw 00:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not certain why some people have such difficulty with POVness. First, define what "right wing" means, including its perjorative connotation.  My rationale is always consistent, and "left wing" is just as POV.  Even if I wrote article about Cathyleftwing, I would not state it as so in the article.  Labels are POV depending on who is doing the labeling, especially when a term has a perjorative connotation.  --Noitall 01:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * We can't figure it out because we're not as smart as you. "Conservative" has perjorative connotations too. Please explain the difference. And who is "Cathyleftwing"? Thanks, -Willmcw 01:07, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * "Conservative" is ambiguous. "Right-of-Centre" is inaccurate - right-of-centre would describe the pro-business wing of the Dems - Clinton and the DLC.  Tony Blair is right of centre, Ann Coulter is not (and would probably be offended to be thus described).  Guettarda 01:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I am Cathy and am not a "left-wing" at all as our good Noitall here has asserted and sadly and prematurely mocked me on... for you see I accedently made a reply to him on his "User Page" ....rather than on his "Talk Page" and it seems that I am now forever in the proverbial "dog house" with him now. (though I have apologised to him both on his his talk page and mine.) I do stand on Wiki's Neutral Point of View in my edits regarding Ms. Coulter in that she is a openly Right-Wing participant, and have found the many ignorant comments and sweeping generalitys of her agenda to be an offense to both the Republican party, (of which I am a proud member!) and to The United States of America, as a whole! I can only wish that Ronald Wilson Reagan were still alive and well.. Shalom! (Cathytreks 03:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC))

 * I don't hold anything against Cathy except for reactionary reverts. I guess this is the problem when any old editors (obviously more than Cathy) can edit Wiki and they can't comprehend encyclopedic writing or what NPOV means (except when it does not  correspond to their POV). Even worse when editors do not read prior posts or take time to think about them.  I respect Cathy's right to think what she thinks or to think that Anne Coulter is evil or to think she is the greatest thing.  And it is fine to say so on this talk page. But it has no relevance to what should be on the article.  The fact that she thinks or anyone thinks that Coulter is right or left wing is irrelevant.  Let me go back to what I said several times, putting a label on anyone requires a POV, so by definition it violates the standard.  And I am not making an argument for the label "conservative" as Willmcw keeps wanting me to do.  It is also problematic, and, yes, perjorative in some limited cases, but far less so than "right wing."  And genius Guettarda has his own labels for everyone.  Perhaps we should get rid of the NPOV policy and make it an GPOV policy (Guettarda POV).  He can separate out everyone.  How?  Because he knows.  Ok, I admit, this is getting rediculous, but so is not understanding NPOV.  --Noitall 04:28, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah yes, the sign of a truly superior intellect - when the conversation gets too complicated for you, resort to name-calling. That always impresses people.  Guettarda 11:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I still haven't heard any concrete reason for the demand that Coulter be described as "conservative" rather than "right-wing". If "right-wing" is more accurate, then it doesn't matter if the term is perjorative. -Willmcw 06:24, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on right-wing to which the coulter reference is linked is not particularly pejorative, and seems to me more accurate. Joe Lieberman is conservative; Ann Coulter is rightwing. Her rightwingitude is not what people mainly take her to task about; it's her style. Gzuckier 14:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Noitall I'm thankful to you for forgiving my honest mistake in posting on your User Page. But yes it is true, I am "new" around here but I am not new to life, or to the politics of our great nation, the fact of the matter is I am a "compassionate" Republican who has voted in every election since 1976 and am one who feels strongly in revealing "the truth"....wherever that may lead or be...good or bad. Saying that Ann Coulter is Right-Wing is no great insult to her, it is merely revealing a rather "ho-hum" fact, given her outlandishly ignorant comments she has made in her writings and television appearences over the years, her "over the top", reactionary comments have done more harm than good to those truly conservative Republicans and a large number of sensible Democratic's across the aisle, such as Joe Lieberman for one, for anyone to call me "reactionary" to my measuredly calm and thoughfully placed edit(s) on Ann Coulter, does an injustice to my intelligence, in the years since I graduatuated Yale I have had a wonderful exsperience as a teacher at a small college in New England. I do not need to be coddled or lead about by the nose on a ring...in having a open roundtable discussion here on these important edits I always try to maintain a NPOV (and I do understand what that means here on Wikipedia all too well, now) and never resort to name calling, for what good does that ever do?, and that brings me back to the point of this paragragh, from a NPOV Ann Coulter is not a Conservative, she is a Right-Wing reactionary commentator, and shes proud of it!, well good for her I say, but it doesnt mean that I think ..."shes evil"... just a little far our there from the rest of us in GOP or sensible Democrats, and yes from all of the majority of moderate Americans citizens who truly care about our country and who have the eyes and brains to see the exstremists for who and what they are on both sides of the aisle. Shalom! (Cathytreks 15:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC))

"Conservative" is the most commonly used term for Coulter, and the most NPOV. "Right-wing" is often used frivolously and pejoratively, and hence is less encyclopedic.69.217.124.190 23:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Please read this section, we've addressed each of those issues. Namely, "conservative" is pejorative, and "right wing" is apparently more accurate. Further, on what basis do you say that "conservative" is the most commonly used term for Coulter? Is being common the same as being correct? -Willmcw 00:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I read the section first. "Right wing" is inherently POV-pushing and a less encyclopedic term.69.209.232.89 03:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * What POV does the use of "right wing" push? Is "conservative" a POV-free term? -Willmcw 04:34, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * We have addressed these issues and they were entirely misstated by Willmcw. They both require a judgment based on an editor's POV -- and we see what POV Willmcw has. "Right wing" is worse because it is intentionally POV.  "Conservative" is not usually intended to be POV, but the only way to label someone with a one word label, is to make it also POV. And to answer the POV definition question, the term "right wing" is always used to denote an extremist, the reason the POV pushers are intending to label this subject. Note their objection to the term "right of center" above -- it does not allow them to insert their POV --Noitall 04:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe you should change the Right-wing politics article if you believe that you have an accurate understanding of things. Left-wing and right-wing convey far more information than "conservative"...from Conservativism "In western democracies, 'conservative' and 'right-wing' are often used interchangeably, as near-synonyms. That is not always accurate, but it has more than incidental validity. Certainly the enemy is in both cases the same: the political left. (Although left-wing groups and individuals may have conservative social and cultural attitudes, they are not generally accepted, by self-identified conservatives, as part of the same movement). On economic policy and the economic system, conservatives and the right generally support the free market, although less so in Europe than in other places. Attitudes on some ethical and bio-ethical issues - such as opposition to abortion - are accurately described as either 'right-wing' or 'conservative'."  But a term which can lump Coutler with environmentalists and Russians longing for the days of Lenin...is a term that may be overly broad, and in the interest of clear communication should probably not be used.  So yes, I have a POV - my POV is that clear accurate communication should be paramount in an encyclopaedia.  If this is something that you are opposed to, maybe you are in the wrong place.  Guettarda 16:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts, Coulter probably does not mind being called "right-wing". I don't think it is such a POV term. Why does it matter if she is called "conservative" or "right-wing"? Both are accurate, and both are going to be seen as POV by someone (see: "Liberal" v. "Progressive", etc.) --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 16:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 5


text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Sean Wright

Considering YOU - Connor Wolf - began the Sean Wright page on Wikipedia, I find your argument rather hollow and confused. As can be seen from the list of edits and discussions, this article has developed in the spirit of neutrality. Sean Wright

Right, once and for all you blithering idiot, I did not begin the Sean Wright page on Wikipedia. The page was created by an anonymous user; I don't know who. I simply maintained the page, restoring it to its original form because I thought it better than your (vastly) illerate attempt at patting your own back. I admit I read the reviews and found them to be bloody hilarious. Anyway, even while it's obvious you can't write, I never would have thought that you can't read either. I've repeatedly said that I did not create this article. I'm honest, in that respect. More honesty in my little finger than you could claim. I'm not Dan Briggs or the other guy, John, I think his name was, and they have no affiliation with Connor Wolf. I only know you through the British Fantasy Society website, specifically its thread on whether your publishing company was legitimate or not. I'm quite capable of doing my own investigation without your paranoias running riot. Connor Wolf 15:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


text: User talk:83.131.182.3

title: User talk:83.131.182.3


text:
Richard Fromberg

Richard James Fromberg (born 28 April 1970) is a former professional tennis player from Australia.

Tennis career
Fromberg began playing tennis at the age of 10. He was an Australian Institute of Sport scholarship holder. In 1987, he reached the Australian Open Junior finals in both singles and doubles. He turned professional in 1988. In 1990, he won his first top-level singles title in at Bologna, and his first tour doubles title in Schenectady, New York.

Fromberg played for Australia in two Davis Cup finals during his career. In 1990 he was part of the team which lost 3–2 in the final to the United States (winning one singles rubber against Michael Chang, and losing another in five sets to Andre Agassi). In 1993 he was on the team which lost 4–1 in the final to Germany (winning one singles match-up against Marc-Kevin Goellner, and losing the other to Michael Stich). He had an 11–4 career Davis Cup record (10–4 in singles and 1–0 in doubles).

Fromberg's best performances at Grand Slam events came in reaching the fourth round of the Australian Open in 1993 and 1998.

During his career, Fromberg won four singles titles and two doubles titles. His career-high singles ranking was World No. 24 (in 1990). His career prize money totalled US$2605740.

title: Richard Fromberg


text:
Jetta Goudal

Jetta Goudal (, born Julie Henriette Goudeket; July 12, 1891 – January 14, 1985) was a Dutch-American actress, successful in Hollywood films of the silent film era.

Early life
Goudal was born on July 12, 1891, the daughter of Geertruida (née Warradijn; 1866–1920) and Wolf Mozes Goudeket (1860–1942), a wealthy diamond cutter, in Amsterdam. Her parents were both Jewish, and her father was Orthodox. She had an older sister, Bertha (1888–1945), and a younger brother, Willem, who died when he was 4 months old in 1896. Her father remarried in 1929 to Rosette Citroen (1882–1943). Her father was murdered at the Sobibor extermination camp, at age 82. Almost all of her Dutch-Jewish relatives met the same fate. Only the daughter of her sister Bertha survived The Holocaust.

Tall and regal in appearance, she began her acting career on stage, traveling across Europe with various theater companies. In 1918, she left World War I-era devastated Europe to settle in New York City in the United States, where she hid her Dutch Jewish ancestry, generally describing herself as a "Parisienne" and on an information sheet for the Paramount Public Department she wrote that she was born at Versailles on July 12, 1901 (shaving 10 years off her age as well), the daughter of a fictional Maurice Guillaume Goudal, a lawyer.

Career
She first appeared on Broadway in 1921, using the stage name Jetta Goudal. After meeting director Sidney Olcott, who encouraged her venture into film acting, she accepted a bit part in his 1922 film production Timothy's Quest. Convinced to move to the West Coast of the United States, Goudal appeared in two more Olcott films in the ensuing three years.

Goudal's first role in motion pictures came in The Bright Shawl (1923). She quickly earned praise for her film work, especially for her performance in 1925's Salome of the Tenements, a currently (2022) lost film based on the Anzia Yezierska novel about life in New York's Jewish Lower East Side. Goudal then worked in the Adolph Zukor and Jesse L. Lasky co-production of The Spaniard and her growing fame brought her to the attention of producer/director Cecil B. DeMille.

Goudal appeared in several highly successful and acclaimed films for DeMille and became one of the top box-office draws of the late 1920s. DeMille later claimed that Goudal was so difficult to work with that he eventually fired her and cancelled their contract. Goudal filed a lawsuit for breach of contract against him and DeMille Pictures Corporation. Although DeMille claimed her conduct had caused numerous and costly production delays, Goudal won the suit in a landmark ruling when DeMille was unwilling to provide his studio's financial records to support his claim of financial losses.

Goudal appeared in 1928's The Cardboard Lover, produced by William Randolph Hearst and Marion Davies. In 1929, she starred in Lady of the Pavements, directed by D.W. Griffith, and in 1930, Jacques Feyder directed Goudal in her only French-language film, a made-in-Hollywood production titled Le Spectre vert.

Later career
Because of her audaciousness in suing DeMille and her high-profile activism in the Actors' Equity Association campaign for the theatre and film industry to accept a closed shop, some of the Hollywood studios refused to employ Goudal. In 1932, at age forty-one, she made her last screen appearance in a sound movie, co-starring with Will Rogers in the Fox Film Corporation production of Business and Pleasure.

Personal life and death
In 1930, she married Harold Grieve, an art director and founding member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. When her film career ended, she joined Grieve in running a successful interior design business. They remained married until her death in 1985 in Los Angeles. She is interred next to her husband in a private room at the Great Mausoleum, Sanctuary of the Angels, at Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetery in Glendale, California.

In 1960, for recognition of Goudal's contribution to the motion picture industry, she was honored with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame at 6333 Hollywood Blvd.

On April 19, 2019, the city council of Amsterdam renamed bridge 771, previously without a name, the Jetta Goudalbridge. In early 2020, the name tag was installed.

Holocaust
Jetta Goudal lost nearly all her relatives in the Holocaust. Her sister Bertha died in 1945 in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, and Bertha's husband Nathan Beffie died at the same place in 1944. Jetta's nephew Eduard Beffie (Berta's son) was killed at Sobibór extermination camp. Jetta Goudal's stepmother, Rosette Citroen, was also killed at Sobibor in 1943. Only Bertha's daughter, Geertruida (Truus) Beffie survived the war and died in 2013 in Pennsylvania, United States.

title: Jetta Goudal


text:
Avidemux

Avidemux is a free and open-source software application for non-linear video editing and transcoding multimedia files. The developers intend it as "a simple tool for simple video processing tasks" and to allow users "to do elementary things in a very straightforward way". It is written in C++ and uses Qt for its graphical user interface, and FFmpeg for its multimedia functions. Starting with version 2.4, Avidemux also offers a command-line interface, and since version 2.6, the original GTK port has not been maintained and is now discontinued.

Avidemux is developed for Linux, macOS, and Windows. Unofficial builds are also available for FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD.

Features
Avidemux is capable of non-linear video editing, applying visual effects (called "Filters" by Avidemux) to video, and transcoding video into various formats. Some of the filters were ported from MPlayer and Avisynth. Avidemux can also insert audio streams into a video file (an action known as multiplexing or "muxing") or extract audio streams from video files (an action known as "demuxing").

An integral and important part of the design of the program is its project system, which uses the SpiderMonkey JavaScript engine. Whole projects with all options, configurations, selections, and preferences can be saved into a project file. Like VirtualDub's VCF scripting capabilities, Avidemux has advanced scripting available for it both in its GUI and command line modes. It also supports a non-project system just like VirtualDub, where users can simply create all of their configurations and save the video directly without making a project file. A project queue system is also available.

Avidemux has built-in subtitle processing, both for optical character recognition of DVD subtitles and for rendering hard subtitles. Avidemux supports various subtitle formats, including MicroDVD (.SUB), SubStation Alpha (.SSA), Advanced SubStation Alpha (.ASS) and SubRip (.SRT).

Components
Avidemux was written from scratch, but additional code from FFmpeg, MPlayer, Transcode and Avisynth has been used on occasion as well. Nonetheless, it is a completely standalone program that does not require any other programs to read, decode, or encode other than itself. The built-in libavcodec library from the FFmpeg project is used for decoding and encoding various audio and video formats, such as MPEG-4 ASP.

The primary (though not the only) Avidemux programmer uses the nickname 'Mean' on the Avidemux forum.

Multithreading
Multithreading has been implemented in the following areas of Avidemux (some partially through libavcodec):
 * Encoding
 * MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 (using libavcodec)
 * MPEG-4 Part 2 SP/ASP (using libavcodec or Xvid)
 * Earlier versions of Xvid are not compatible with this feature.
 * H.264/MPEG-4 Part 10 AVC (using x264)
 * H.265/HEVC (using x265)
 * Decoding
 * MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 (using libavcodec)
 * MPEG-4 Part 2 SP/ASP (using libavcodec)

Supported formats
Avidemux supports following file formats:

title: Avidemux