text:
Jim Mooney

James Noel Mooney (August 13, 1919 – March 30, 2008) was an American comics artist best known for his long tenure at DC Comics and as the signature artist of Supergirl, as well as a Marvel Comics inker and Spider-Man artist, both during what comics historians and fans call the Silver Age of Comic Books and what is known as the Bronze Age of Comic Books. He sometimes inked under the pseudonym Jay Noel.

Early life and career
Jim Mooney was born in New York City and raised in Los Angeles. Friends with pulp-fiction author Henry Kuttner and Californian science-fiction fans such as Forrest J. Ackerman, he drew the cover for the first issue of Imagination, an Ackerman fanzine that included Ray Bradbury's first published story, "Hollerbochen's Dilemma". Kuttner encouraged the teenaged Mooney to submit art to Farnsworth Wright, the editor of the pulp magazine for which Kuttner was writing, Weird Tales. Mooney's first professional sale was an illustration for one of Kuttner's stories in that magazine. During this period, Mooney also met future comic-book editors Mort Weisinger and Julius Schwartz, who had come to the area to meet Kuttner.

After attending art school and working as a parking valet and other odd jobs for nightclubs, Mooney went to New York City in 1940 to enter the fledgling comic-book field. Following his first assignment, the new feature "The Moth" in Fox Publications' Mystery Men Comics #9–12 (April–July 1940), Mooney worked for the comic book packager Eisner & Iger, one of the studios that would supply outsourced comics to publishers testing the waters of the new medium. He left voluntarily after two weeks: "I was just absolutely crestfallen when I looked at some of the guys’ work. Lou Fine was working there, Nick Cardy ... and Eisner himself. I was beginning to feel that I was way, way in beyond my depth...." Mooney went on staff at Fiction House for approximately nine months, working on features including "Camilla" and "Suicide Smith" and becoming friends with colleagues George Tuska, Ruben Moreira, and Cardy. He began freelancing for Timely Comics, the 1940s predecessor of Marvel, working on that company's "animation" line of talking animal and movie-cartoon tie-in comics.

As Mooney describes his being hired by editor-in-chief and art director Stan Lee:

"I met Stan the first time when I was looking for work at Timely. . . . I came in, being somewhat young and cocky at the time, and Stan asked me what I did. I said I penciled; he said, 'What else?' I said I inked. He said, 'What else?' I said, 'Color.' 'Do anything else?' I said, 'Yeah, I letter, too.' He said, 'Do you print the damn books, too?' I guess he was about two or three years my junior at that point. I think I was about 21 or 22."

Mooney also wrote and drew a talking animal feature, "Perky Penguin and Booby Bear", in 1946 and 1947 for Treasure Chest, the Catholic-oriented comic book distributed in parochial schools.

Supergirl and DC
In 1946, Mooney began a 22-year association with the company that would evolve into DC. He began with the series Batman as a ghost artist for credited artist Bob Kane. As Mooney recalled of coming to DC, "[T]he funny animal stuff was no longer in demand, and an awful lot of us were scurrying around looking for work . . . and I heard on the grapevine that they were looking for an artist to do Batman. So I buzzed up there to DC, talked to them and showed them my stuff, and even though they weren't so sure because of my funny-animal background, they gave me a shot at it. I brought the work in, and [editor] Whitney Ellsworth said, 'OK, you're on'. . . . [I]t was ghosting. [Prominent Batman ghost-artist] Dick Sprang [had] taken off and wanted to do something else. So Dick took off for Arizona, and DC was looking for someone to fill in. So, that's where I fit in, and I stayed on Batman for quite a few years. . .."

Writer Bill Finger and Mooney introduced the Catman character in Detective Comics #311 (Jan. 1963). Mooney branched out to the series Superboy, and such features as "Dial H for Hero" in House of Mystery, and Tommy Tomorrow in both Action Comics and World's Finest Comics. He also contributed to Atlas Comics, the 1950s iteration of Marvel, on at least a handful of 1953-54 issues of Lorna the Jungle Queen.

Most notably, Mooney drew the backup feature "Supergirl" in Action Comics from 1959 to 1968. For much of this run on his signature character, Mooney lived in Los Angeles, managing an antiquarian book store on Hollywood Boulevard and sometimes hiring art students to work in the store and ink backgrounds on his pencilled pages. By 1968, he had moved back to New York, where DC, he recalled, was

"... getting into the illustrative type of art then, primarily Neal Adams, and they wanted to go in that direction. Towards the end there I picked up on it and I think my later 'Supergirl' was quite illustrative, but not quite what they wanted. I knew the handwriting was on the wall, so I was looking around.... The reason I hadn't worked at Marvel for all those years was because they didn't pay as well as DC. ... I think at that time [it] was $30 [a page] when I was getting closer to $50 at DC"."

Spider-Man and Marvel
By now, however, the rates were closer, and Mooney left DC. Marvel editor Stan Lee had him work with The Amazing Spider-Man penciler John Romita. Mooney first worked on Spider-Man by inking The Spectacular Spider-Man magazine's two issues. Mooney would go on to ink a run of Amazing Spider-Man (#65, 67-88; Oct. 1968, Dec. 1968 - Sept. 1970), which he recalled as "finalising it over John’s layouts". Among the new characters introduced during Mooney's run on the title were Randy Robertson as a member of the supporting cast in issue #67 (Dec. 1968) and the Prowler in #78 (Nov. 1969). Mooney also embellished John Buscema's pencils on many issues of The Mighty Thor.

As a penciler, Mooney did several issues of Peter Parker, the Spectacular Spider-Man, as well as Spider-Man stories in Marvel Team-Up, and he both penciled and inked issues of writer Steve Gerber's Man-Thing and the entire 10-issue run of Gerber's cult-hit Omega the Unknown, among many other titles. Mooney named his collaborations with Gerber as being among his personal favorites. In 2010, Comics Bulletin ranked Gerber and Mooney's run on Omega the Unknown tenth on its list of the "Top 10 1970s Marvels". Carrion debuted in The Spectacular Spider-Man #25 (Dec. 1978) by Bill Mantlo and Mooney. Writer Ralph Macchio and Mooney introduced the Rapier in The Spectacular Spider-Man Annual #2 (1980).

Mooney also worked on Marvel-related coloring books, for the child-oriented Spidey Super Stories, and for a Spider-Man feature in a children's-magazine spin-off of the PBS educational series The Electric Company, which included segments featuring Spider-Man. On the other end of the spectrum, he drew in the late 1960s and early 1970s for Marvel publisher Martin Goodman's bawdy men's-adventure magazines comics feature entitled "Pussycat. The feature appeared in "Men's Annual," "Male Annual" and "Stag" magazines. A one shot reprint of those stories appeared in 1968's "The Adventures of Pussycat": "Stan [Lee] wrote the first one I did, and then his brother Larry [Lieber] wrote the ones that came later". Stan Lee was not the editor of this reprint, Goodman's son Chip was.

In 1975, Mooney, wanting to move to Florida, negotiated a 10-year contract with Marvel to supply artwork from there. "It was a good deal. The money wasn't too great, but I was paid every couple of weeks, I had insurance, and I had a lot of security that most freelancers never had". That same year, Mooney and his wife, Anne, had a daughter, Nolle.

Harris, Claypool and DC
In Florida, Mooney co-created Adventure Publications' Star Rangers with writer Mark Ellis, and worked on Superboy for DC Comics, Anne Rice's The Mummy for Millennium Publications, and the Creepy miniseries for Harris Comics.

When Harris editor Richard Howell left to co-found Claypool Comics in 1993, Mooney produced many stories for the 166-issue run of Elvira, Mistress of the Dark and became the regular inker on writer Peter David's Soulsearchers and Company, over the pencils of Amanda Conner, Neil Vokes, John Heebink, and mostly Dave Cockrum. Mooney also inked four covers of Howell's Deadbeats series. He continued to work for Claypool until July 2006 when the company announced that the print end of its published line would cease. Mooney's other later work included the sole issue of writer Mark Evanier's Flaxen, over Howell pencils; abd a retro "Lady Supreme" story for Awesome Entertainment.

In 1996, Mooney was one of the many creators who contributed to the Superman: The Wedding Album one-shot wherein the title character married Lois Lane.

Commissions, Retirement, and Death
Throughout his later years, Mooney kept busy creating commissioned art pieces for fans.

His wife Anne died in 2005. Mooney died March 30, 2008, in Florida after an extended illness.

DC Comics

 * Action Comics (Tommy Tomorrow) #172–196, 199–251; (Supergirl) #253–342, 344–350, 353–358, 360–373 (1952–1969); (Superman) #667 (among other artists) (1991)
 * Adventure Comics #91, 284 (1944–1961); (Legion of Super-Heroes) #328–331, 361 (1965–1967)
 * Adventures of Superboy (based on TV Series) #18–20 (1991)
 * The Adventures of Superman #480 (among other artists) (1991)
 * Batman #38, 41, 43–44, 48–49, 53–54, 56, 59–60, 72, 76, 148, 150 (1946–1962)
 * Detective Comics #126, 132, 134, 143, 163, 181, 296, 299, 311, 318 (1947–1963)
 * The Flash vol. 2 #19 (1988)
 * House of Mystery #2, 5–6, 10, 20, 23–24, 27, 30, 32–35, 39–40, 46–47, 49, 51, 56, 70, 83, 85, 156–170, 178 (1952–1969)
 * House of Secrets #1, 3–4, 9 (1956–1958)
 * Star Spangled Comics (Robin) #74, 76–95, 97–130 (1947–1952)
 * Superboy The Comic Book (based on TV series) #1–8 (1990)
 * Superman #185 (1966)
 * Superman's Pal Jimmy Olsen #92 (1966)
 * Superman: The Wedding Album (among other artists) (1996)
 * Tales of the Unexpected #10, 17–19, 23–25, 28, 32–33, 35–37, 39–46, 48–49, 53 (1957–1960)
 * World's Finest Comics (Batman) #27, 37, 39–40, 42, 44; (Tommy Tomorrow) #102–120; (Superman and Batman) #121–130, 132–134, 136–140 (1947–1964)

Marvel Comics

 * The Amazing Spider-Man #65, 67–82, 84–88, 116–118, 126, 173–175, 178, 189–190, 192–193, 196–202, 205, 211–219, 221–222, 226–227, 229–233 (1968–1982)
 * The Avengers #86, 88, 105 (as inker); 179–180 (as penciler) (1971–1979)
 * Battlestar Galactica #14 (1980)
 * Crypt of Shadows #3, 5, 16 (1973–1975)
 * Ghost Rider #2–9 (1973–1974)
 * The Incredible Hulk vol. 2 #230 (1978)
 * Invaders #16 (1977)
 * Journey into Mystery vol. 2 #8 (1973)
 * Man-Thing #17–22 (1975)
 * Man-Thing vol. 2 #1–3 (1979–1980)
 * Marvel Comics Presents #16, 73 (1989–1991)
 * Marvel Spotlight #14–17, 27 (1974–1976)
 * Marvel Team-Up #2, 7–8, 10–11, 16, 24–31, 72, 93 (1973–1978)
 * Ms. Marvel #4–8, 13, 15–18 (1977–1978)
 * Omega the Unknown #1–10 (1976–1977)
 * Solarman #1 (1989)
 * Son of Satan #1 (1975)
 * The Spectacular Spider-Man #7, 11, 21, 23, 25–26, 29–34, 36–37, 39, 41–42, 49–57, 59–63, 65–66, 68, 71, 73–79, 81–83, 85–99, 102, 125, Annual #1–2 (1977–1987)
 * The Spectacular Spider-Man magazine #1–2 (1968)
 * Spider-Man, Firestar and Iceman at the Dallas Ballet Nutcracker (1983)
 * Sub-Mariner #25, #65–66 (1970, 1973)
 * Thor #188, 201, 204, 214–216, 218, 322, 324–325, 327 (1971–1983)
 * Thundercats #1–6, 19 (1985–1988)
 * Web of Spider-Man #1–3, 5–6, 10 (1985–1986)

title: Jim Mooney


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rube Chat

 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 Speedied (again) --Doc (?) 08:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Rube Chat
Non-notable forum/chat room/channel. Almost empty, almost nonsense, but not quite.Jkelly 02:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC) Keep it up. Rube chat is a community that has a life unto its own. While its roots are in MN, the fanbase is spreading. It may not be notable to those without a grasping of sports or who do not live in the Twin Cities metro area, to others it is a great source of fun and camaraderie. mech_e from Rube Chat
 * Speedy delete as nonsense. Ilmari Karonen 02:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy - nonsense / vandal - Hahnchen 02:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedied as patent nonsense/vandaism --Doc (?) 08:13, 30 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.

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


text: Category:Communications in the Cayman Islands


text:
Talk:Pound hug

Nominated for deletion
This should NOT be deleted. I first read the article, and detected a large amount of racism, which is why it should have been deleted with its horrible tasteless discription, however I have edited the page to disclude the poor depiction of an otherwise normal greeting between any two males of any race.

The "Hip-Hop Hug", with it's origins in hip hop culture, is practiced by males all across western society and as a white male myself, I know that to leave this article out of Wikipedia would defeat the purpose of the value of Wikipedia in the first place.

Please re-read the article and allow it to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.226.106 (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2005

 * I am always amused when a white guy gets incensed over "racist" comments in which black people discuss other black people. Let's not censor that black professor's comments on this custom, just because it makes us uncomfortable. Haiduc 02:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

...original research?
Surely "hip-hop hug" is not a technical (or even correct) term? --FuriousFreddy 05:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Do hugs have technical terms somewhere? This seems to be the popular (and only) name that this gesture goes by, when it does have a name at all. At least, doing a search on it will fish up items of relevance. I'll be interested to see what elese you can fish up on it - I had no luck. Haiduc 10:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I know for a verifiable fact that it's not called a "hip-hop hug." Everyone I've shown this page to is laughing themselves silly over this title. It doesn't have a name: it's just a type of greeting used primarily by black males. Bu that doesn't mean you go making up one, especially one as silly as this. --FuriousFreddy 16:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I get 183 hits on Google for "hip hop hug." But male hug is ok too, as long as both names are worked into the article. Haiduc 17:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Considering the widespread use of the hug, 183 Google hits is hardly enough of an argument for using that name. However, you suggest a decent compromise. --FuriousFreddy 19:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * You cannot take a practice engaged in by a negligible proportion of all the males who live or have ever lived on this planet and imply that this is what men do everywhere. I have looked around and the other options I have encountered is "bachelor hug" which is both very rare and nonsensical, and "pound hug" which makes a lot more sense and seems about as popular as hip hop hug. As long as we mention both in the article I would have no problem with "Pound hug". By the way, why did my redirect fail? I was going to append an explanation but the servers were soooo slow I ran out of time and had to run to an appointment. Haiduc 01:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not all men prositute, so why is there such a term as "male prositution"? You can't redirect to an article that doesn't exist. And, no, this should not be moved back to any "hip-hop hug" name. "Pound hug" is acceptable. --FuriousFreddy 01:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Pound SHAKE actually...
this greeting is known as a "pound shake" (though i'm sure "pound hug" is just as efficient), and is commonly used by some of indie Hiphop's most prestigious emcees such as Main Flow, Canibus, and underground sensation Jedi Mind Tricks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wu rebel 07 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 30 September 2005

Obama does "Pound Shake"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG7lSlHxvm8 That's pretty much it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.237.35.233 (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Jump almost to the end, time 1:00. – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pound hug


text:
Talk:U Make Me Wanna (Blue song)

This is a Jadakiss song featuring Mariah Carey as a guest, but the article is written as if it were Mariah's own song. Also, the article fails to establish notablility other than the fact that song was a Top 30 hit. --FuriousFreddy 02:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Who cares? The song would have had no success if it weren't for Mariah's appearance anyways! Although Jadakiss does have the main part, Carey does say "K I S S Me" throughout the entire song, making it just as much her song as his. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.179.243.42 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 15 October 2005

 * This is a Jadakiss single, so it seems very odd to mention Mariah Carey first. Anyway, I've tidied it up a little and removed some of the POV. Extraordinary Machine 22:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The infobox should mention both artists, so Ive fixed that up. Agreed with EM and Fred. This is a Jadakiss single first, a Mariah single second. Ive add more Jadakiss info and done some tidying too. I think the POV should be gone nowOmegaWikipedia 23:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:U Make Me Wanna (Blue song)


text:
Betrayal

Betrayal is the breaking or violation of a presumptive contract, trust, or confidence that produces moral and psychological conflict within a relationship amongst individuals, between organizations or between individuals and organizations. Often betrayal is the act of supporting a rival group, or it is a complete break from previously decided upon or presumed norms by one party from the others. Someone who betrays others is commonly known as a traitor or betrayer.

Betrayal is a commonly used story element in fiction, sometimes used as a plot twist.

Definition
Philosophers Judith Shklar and Peter Johnson, authors of The Ambiguities of Betrayal and Frames of Deceit, respectively, contend that while no clear definition of betrayal is available, betrayal is more effectively understood through literature.

Theoretical and practical needs
Rodger L. Jackson explains why a clear definition is needed: "Betrayal is both a 'people' problem and a philosopher's problem. Philosophers should be able to clarify the concept of betrayal, compare and contrast it with other moral concepts, and critically assess betrayal situations. At the practical level people should be able to make honest sense of betrayal and also to temper its consequences: to handle it, not be assaulted by it. What we need is a conceptually clear account of betrayal that differentiates between genuine and merely perceived betrayal, and which also provides systematic guidance for the assessment of alleged betrayal in real life."

Ben-Yehuda's 2001 work ("Betrayals and Treason Violations of Trust and Loyalty" Westview Press) framed all forms of betrayals and treason under a unifying analytical framework using loyalty, trust and moral boundaries as explanatory tools.

Signature and consequences
An act of betrayal creates a constellation of negative behaviours, thoughts, and feelings in both its victims and its perpetrators. The interactions are complex. The victims exhibit anger and confusion, and demand atonement from the perpetrator, who in turn may experience guilt or shame, and exhibit remorse. If, after the perpetrator has exhibited remorse or apologized, the victim continues to express anger, this may in turn cause the perpetrator to become defensive, and angry in turn. Acceptance of betrayal can be exhibited if victims forgo the demands of atonement and retribution; but is only demonstrated if the victims do not continue to demand apologies, repeatedly remind the perpetrator or perpetrators of the original act, or ceaselessly review the incident over and over again.

If no true apology, atonement, real remorse and plan to change one's behaviors are present, then the one who was betrayed can accept that it happened, and that the perpetrator is unwilling or unable to change. No real change means they can do it again. Lack of validation from the perpetrator can be been described as a "second assault," which can exacerbate the effects of the initial trauma incurred. Accepting the betrayal and going no contact is the best route forward. The alternative is to stay in connection and realize the trespass can happen again, and may choose to avoid doing certain things to decrease severity. For example, if a person gossips, do not tell them your secrets.

Betrayal trauma
Betrayal trauma has symptoms similar to posttraumatic stress disorder, although the element of amnesia and dissociation is likely to be greater.

The key difference between traditional posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and betrayal trauma is that the former is historically seen as being caused primarily by fear, whereas betrayal trauma is a response to extreme anger. Another key difference is that betrayal trauma involves an individual experiencing a violation of trust between a trusted individual or institution, whereas posttraumatic stress disorder does not involve a violation from a trusted source.

In romantic relationships
John Gottman's What Makes Love Last? describes betrayal as "a noxious invader, arriving with great stealth" that undermines seemingly stable romances and lies at the heart of every failing relationship, even if the couple is unaware of it. Gottman computed a betrayal metric by calculating how unwilling each partner was to sacrifice for the other and the relationship. A consistently elevated betrayal metric served as an indicator that the couple was at risk for infidelity or another serious disloyalty. Some types of betrayal in romantic relationships include sexual infidelity, conditional commitment, a nonsexual affair, lying, forming a coalition against the partner, absenteeism, disrespect, unfairness, selfishness, and breaking promises.

Double cross
Double cross is a phrase meaning to deceive by double-dealing.

Origin
The phrase originates from the use of the word cross in the sense of foul play: deliberate collusion to cause someone to lose a contest of some kind.

It has also been suggested that the term was inspired by the practice of 18th-century British thief taker and criminal Jonathan Wild, who kept a ledger of his transactions and is said to have placed two crosses by the names of persons who had cheated him in some way. This folk etymology is almost certainly incorrect, but there is documentary evidence that the term did exist in the 19th century.

More recently, the phrase was used to refer to either of two possible situations:
 * 1) A competitor participating in the fix who has agreed to throw their game instead competes as usual, against the original intention of their collaborators – one "cross" against another.
 * 2) Two opposing parties are approached, urging them to throw the game and back the other. Both parties lose out, and the perpetrators benefit by backing a third, winning party.

This use has passed into common parlance, so that, for example, in World War II, British Military Intelligence used the Double Cross System to release captured Nazis and have them transmit to Germany false information.

Betrayal blindness
Betrayal blindness is the unawareness, not-knowing, and forgetting exhibited by people towards betrayal.

The term "betrayal blindness" was introduced in 1996 by Freyd, and expanded in 1999 by Freyd and then again in 2013 by Freyd and Birrell through the Betrayal Trauma Theory. This betrayal blindness may extend to betrayals that are not considered traditional traumas, such as adultery, and inequities. Betrayal blindness is not exclusive to victims. Perpetrators, and witnesses may also display betrayal blindness in order to preserve personal relationships, their relationships with institutions, and social systems upon which they depend.

The term "Institutional Betrayal" refers to wrongdoings perpetrated by an institution upon individuals dependent on that institution. This includes failure to prevent or respond supportively to wrongdoings by individuals (e.g. sexual assault) committed within the context of the institution.

Bibliography for references

 * Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55,5, 469–480.
 * Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
 * Freyd, J. J. (1994). Betrayal-trauma: Traumatic amnesia as an adaptive response to childhood abuse. Ethics & Behavior, 4, 307–329.
 * Freyd, J. J. (1996). Betrayal trauma: The logic of forgetting childhood abuse. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
 * Freyd, J. J., & Birrell, P. J. (2013). Blind to Betrayal: Why we fool ourselves we aren't being fooled . Somerset, NJ:  Wiley.
 * Freyd, J. J ., Klest, B., & Allard, C. B. (2005) Betrayal trauma: Relationship to physical health, psychological distress, and a written disclosure intervention. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 6(3), 83-104.
 * Hensley, A. L. (2004). Why good people go bad: A psychoanalytic and behavioral assessment of the Abu Ghraib Detention Facility staff. An unpublished courts-martial defense strategy presented to the Area Defense Counsel in Washington DC on December 10, 2004.
 * Hensley, A. L. (2007). Why good people go bad: A case study of the Abu Ghraib Courts-Martials. In G. W. Dougherty, Proceedings of the 5th annual proceedings of the Rocky Mountain Region Disaster Mental Health Conference. Ann Arbor, MI: Loving Healing Press.
 * Hensley, A. L. (2009a). Gender, personality, and coping: Unraveling gender in military post-deployment wellbeing (preliminary results). In G. Dougherty (Ed.). Return to equilibrium: Proceedings of the 7th Rocky Mountain Region Disaster Mental Health Conference (pp. 105–148). Ann Arbor, MI: Loving Healing Press.
 * Hensley, A. L. (2009b). Gender, personality and coping: Unraveling gender in military post-deployment physical and mental wellness. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest UMI.
 * Hensley, A. L. (2009c). Betrayal trauma: Insidious purveyor of PTSD. In G. Dougherty (Ed.). Return to equilibrium: Proceedings of the 7th Rocky Mountain Region Disaster Mental Health Conference (pp. 105–148). Ann Arbor, MI: Loving Healing Press.
 * Hersey, B. & Buhl, M.(January/February 1990). The Betrayal of Date Rape. InView.
 * Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 * Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
 * McNulty, F. (1980). The burning bed. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
 * Musen, K. & Zimbardo, P. G. (1991). Quiet rage: The Stanford prison study. Videorecording. Stanford, CA: Psychology Dept., Stanford University.
 * McNulty, F. (1980). The burning bed. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
 * Musen, K. & Zimbardo, P. G. (1991). Quiet rage: The Stanford prison study. Videorecording. Stanford, CA: Psychology Dept., Stanford University.

title: Betrayal


text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01/Workshop

Valid historical documents
This recent dispute has somewhat sidetracked me; I was hoping to write articles on the historical method and other aspects of historiography, but perhaps they may be spun off from this attack upon the integrity of valid primary source documents. Please see Using documents in historical research, some easy pointers, but it is putting the cart before the horse because some understanding of the method and process of identifying a valid historical document should be known before attempting to use it in research. I welcome any assistance in collaboration. Thank you. nobs 02:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Damn, I see somebody else created the historical method article 5 weeks ago; I've been meaning to do it for months. Perhaps we can draw upon it. nobs 02:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft

Deletion of VanGrunsven RV-2
Folks here might like to weigh in on this AfD. If it does go, I'll be sad: I certainly learned something about a Van's design that I didn't know about before! Maybe someone here with more knowledge of this designer could dig out another source or two? --Rlandmann (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Twin canopy aircraft?
Another new category, Category:Twin canopy aircraft. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  20:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What evidence is there that this is a defining characteristic? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have the same concern and I was already contemplating CfD'ing it. There are numerous past CfD's about various other non-defining aircraft characteristics and how this can lead to absurd category bloat (e.g., Category:Aircraft with red stripes). Carguychris (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is not a defining feature. We might as well have Category:Aircraft with Phillips screws if we're going to keep this. -  ZLEA  T \ C 20:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It would inevitably have subjective edge cases too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can think of one. - ZLEA  T \ C 23:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was thinking of that one too. And then there are oddballs like two-seat Spitfire conversions, or the prone Meteor, where even if the category applies, it is only to individual aircraft. And is a glazed nose a pilot sits in a canopy? Depending on your answer, a He 111Z either has two canopies, or none at all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was debating that too A-37Dragonfly (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm abivalent but lean towards "no" as a not particularly useful or unambiguous characteristic. Aside: our "characteristic" categories are probably due for an overhaul for consistency! —-Rlandmann (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I’m not in favour of having number of canopies as the basis for categorisation.Dolphin ( t ) 01:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 * It'd be a little better changing it to "Category:Multiple canopy aircraft" or some other general wording. However, the number involved should still be limited. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 * We had Category:Nose-mounted intake jet fighter in March. Sorry I didn't write anything after the first post in this thread, it would have been a negative rant! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  08:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely a candidate for CfD. No significance at all. We have far too many such pointless Cats as it is. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nominated for deletion at Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 14, the Sea Vixen has one canopy and a sheet of mostly flat perspex over the 'coal hole'. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  14:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I see the issues with my category, I don't object I guess A-37Dragonfly (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Avia
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Avia that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 08:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Albatros C.II
The Albatros C.II article’s text describes a pusher biplane. The picture shows a tractor biplane. The Idflieg no. given in the articles text is C 27/15 however in the book “German Aircraft of the First a World War by Peter Grey and Owen Thetford” (cited in the text) the Idflieg number given for the sole C.II pusher is given as 27/16. Adding to the confusion there were two prototypes from Albatros that shared the C.II designation. It’s not clear to me which aircraft the article is meant to be about. I would request a member of the group with access to sources on WW1 German aircraft reviews the article. As things stand the text and picture combo is a glaring error. --Stivushka (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

 * You could ask the editor who added the pusher text for clarification, there is nothing on the article talk page. Following the article history it looks like the infobox image has been added and removed several times. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  17:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

 * This appears to be the aircraft type covered by the article . The aircraft in the infobox is a homebuilt fuselage with Tiger Moth wings, on the French register as a 'C2', various other images describe it as a C.I. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  17:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought this also.  The problem is that that the Albatros C.II pusher aircraft has the serial number 27/16 and the article specifies 27/15. The serial number was changed in 2019 by an anonymous user who also changed the configuration from Tractor to Pusher.

 * German WW1 Aircraft are outside my wheelhouse and this one is tricky as historically there was a Albatros pusher prototype built in Germany and a tractor prototype built by Albatros in Austria. Both aircraft were given the C.II designation. It would be best if somebody with a copy of the Albatros C.II specs from a published source checked this over as I suspect the current article may be an amalgamation.Stivushka (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

 * The book that will probably have the answers would be by Jack Herris 978-1935881476, £40 used in the UK. The first version of the article by MilborneOne clearly states it was a pusher aircraft and mentioned the tail configuration (needed for pusher types). Other editors have added their unsourced thoughts, changing the configuration. A lot can be learned by browsing the history. The source linked above (which is not an RS for wiki use) says it was built and flown in 1916, that is where the 16 comes from in the serial number, later in the same source 15 is mentioned, probably an error. If a number value has changed by one it is worth checking the history for vandalism as that is one of their subtle tricks though in this case it looks like a genuine edit. A non-free image could be uploaded, having an image of a pusher aircraft in the infobox might deter the tractor fans. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  09:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems to me we have two design on our hands, both of which are probably notable enough to describe. I'd suggest we split the article into two main sections, each dealing with one of them, with a short lead explaining the ambiguous designation. Once that has shaped up and confirmed coverage of each, we can then consider splitting the article into two separate ones. The last thing we want is two editorial camps warring against each other's edits. I'd also suggest that temporarily, during this process, we break the usual rule and allow each design its own infobox and specification, on the local consensus that these templates are helpful, while choosing between designs is unhelpful. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft/Archive 3

Old talk archived at:
 * Pre Mar 04 talk archived thematically
 * /General
 * /Strategy
 * /Table History
 * /Aircraft lists
 * /Data Table Standards
 * /Other Tables
 * /Footer
 * Airbox
 * Series

 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft Archive 1 (Mar 04-Aug 04)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft Archive 2 (Aug 04)

Forum Use
I'm not sure how well our forum experiment has worked out... I think it's been less than successful, particularly as of late. We probably ought to go back to using the normal wiki talk pages. Opinions?

-eric 22:11, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think it worked very well whilst thrashing out the finer points of the data table issue, but now that things are quieter, yeah - it's probably better to move back. --Rlandmann 01:31, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I find that the problem is that the two places I check for "new stuff" are my email account and Special:Watchlist. I don't check forums. —Morven 19:09, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * I was less keen on the forum, for the same reasons as Morven and other reasons.Bobblewik (talk) 19:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I think it had its good points, but I agree with Rlandmann that maybe it's time to move back seeing as though things are pretty quiet now. I also found myself tending to forget to check it. Impi 12:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I have to agree that the biggest weakness of the forum was that it is harder to watch than normal articles. I also support moving back.   •  →  Iñgólemo  ←•  21:24, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

X-20 Dyna-Soar
I recently happened upon this one and converted it to the inline standard in passing... and I saw today that not only has it been reverted to the old table format, but this has occured in a most bizarre fashion. A user seems to have taken a screenshot of the old table and inserted it as an image on the right side of the article, shoving everything all over the place and causing a lower image to overlap a bunch of text. I've reverted it back to the current format and removed the NOTOC tag so that perhaps it's easier to tell that specs weren't just removed. -eric 18:47, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * Errr.... weird :) --Rlandmann 22:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

B-29 FAC issue
I recently nominated the article B-29 Superfortress to featured article status. One of the objections to its nomination so far has been the duplication of the old blue data table in the subsection that follows current standards. I figured I would experimentally delete the data table. Not to my surprise, another user reverted the change in less than five minutes.

Thus, we are still stuck with the fact that the blue data table exists extraneously, preventing the B-29 article from being featured. If we can agree to update the B-29 to our new data standard, that will clear one major hurdle. • →  Iñgólemo  ←•  23:04, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
 * removal of blue data table supported and encouraged. explain the change and link to the standard in your edit summary, that will probably help. -eric 09:11, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

A template thought
What if we created a transclusion template for aircraft articles (airticles?) like . It would provide a sort of backbone for articles, but still be readily editable. Thus in creating a new article, the article framework and specifications formatting, in addition to navigation through designation are available. Anyone else interested in this? →Iñgólemo←  (talk)  17:25, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

 * I think this is a great idea and would help standardization greatly. -Lommer 02:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * i see to remember this being mentioned on the forum - i don't know how it would work, or if it would always work, but anything to streamline and/or standardize a majority of articles would be good by me. -eric 17:30, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that it's either practical or desirable for a template to be used to provide "the article framework". There are simply far too many variables in the type, quantity and quality of information that we have for various aircraft.

The idea of using a template for the specifications section was raised on the forum, and it's quite attractive at face value. We would need something like a dozen slightly different versions of it to replicate the current system, but those would then easily cover 99% of our articles. The big downside (a showstopper, IMHO) is its inherent user-unfriendliness - these templates are not accessible or intuitive to use for new editors (or, truth be told, probably most of the Wikipedia community. What they really need is a form interface...).

Finally, as I see it, our designation sequence line is not practical to template - most of the sequences are far too long (hence the three-forward-three-back convention) and most of the ones that are short enough apply to so few aircraft that they're not worth creating a template for. --Rlandmann 22:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I think your raise many good points, but I think that they may be (at least partially) unfounded. I really don't think a dozen or so versions are necessary, because most people with a rudimentary knowledge of aircraft can edit out the inapplicable information and stuff like that.  As to them being accessible, I also have to disagree.  I really don't think that something like  is difficult to use.   →Iñgólemo←   (talk)  02:33, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

My apologies - I didn't understand what you were suggesting. My comments apply to the use of parametrised templates, and are irrelevant to your idea. Now that we're on the same wavelength, I can't see any real disadvantage to their creation. And no, if we're not using parameters, then we don't need a dozen - probably only: Fixed-wing (metric), Fixed-wing (imperial), Rotary-wing (metric), and Rotary-wing (imperial). They probably only need to cover the Specifications and Related content sections. --Rlandmann 07:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I have made much worse mistakes. Don't be embarassed.  →Iñgólemo←   (talk)  04:30, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Naming of certain aircraft
I read somewhere, (I can't remember where), that articles such as B-29 Superfortress and Douglas XB-19 were ambiguous as to what their articles talked about. Might we fix this by changing to B-29 Superfortress bomber and Douglas XB-19 bomber. Frankly, it isn't that much of a problem, in my opinion. I'm just throwing out stuff for others to think about. →Iñgólemo←  (talk)  04:30, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC) (alias: Mr Bomber-obsessive)

Specifications
I was just converting F-82 Twin Mustang over to the new standards when I realized that it had table entries like "role", "first flight", "entered service/production", and "manufacturer". I think these are useful things and that they should be added to the specifications templates. Thoughts? Comments? -Lommer 02:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I have also felt that the new format leaves out some important data in excluding that information.  →Iñgólemo←   (talk)  03:55, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)
 * Care to mention specifically what information? -Lommer 22:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The same as you noticed.  →Iñgólemo←   (talk)  03:35, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

All those pieces of data are indeed very important, and should all feature prominently in the article. In particular, the role and manufacturer should figure in the very first sentence of the article's text. I don't think there's any need to re-iterate this material in the specifications section. --Rlandmann 06:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see your point, and will revise the article to that standard. Just out of curiosity, how agressively are "we" converting to the new specifications format? Just because I still see a lot of aircraft tables out there, even (often) in the most prominent articles.-Lommer 22:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * just to second rlandmann, that's the kind of information that needs to be in an article, not in a data section. if it's a stub, then use that information as the foundation for a more detailed article. -eric 03:39, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Not as quickly as we should be! I've been attacking the List of aircraft from both ends - updating articles as I hit them in my slow crawl forwards (where I'm also writing new articles), and making a systematic attempt to work backwards through the list (where I'm not). Every article from 3XTrim up to Aerocomp is to the current standard, and everything after Tupolev is as well (I'm halfway through Tupolev). Things slowed down a bit for the last 6 weeks or so when I haven't had as much time to spend here, but that's changing back now. I haven't seen any other systematic attempt to update article formats.

The project currently has a mixture of articles with: It's because of this mess that I'm very reluctant to see yet another standard developed. Any and every standard we settle on is always going to be a purely arbitrary one, and is equally liable to someone coming along in another few months and suggesting we change it. Since accommodating every suggestion that comes along is not possible nor probably even desirable, I believe we should all invest greater effort in cleaning up the mess that we have now, rather than shifting the goalposts again and creating a whole new group of obsolete articles. Please no-one take that personally - just the janitor venting a little! --Rlandmann 23:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * some version of the original (lime green) data table
 * some version of the revised (blue) table, still html coded
 * some version of the revised-revised blue table that introduced the wiki table code (probably now second-most common; there was a concerted effort to roll this out once it was agreed on)
 * the new text format (about 400 out of 1,400 - probably now single most common)
 * no specifications
 * some other way of describing specifications
 * some combination of the above! (yes, some articles have a data table and text specifications)

 * Personally as far as the coversion process goes, I think we should get all the pages on one standard no matter which one before we even think about discussing a standards change. Then in future if there are standards changes all the pages can be relatively quickly converted using a robot/spider. I think having bot/spider convertable standards will go a long way towards keeping this project standardized. BTW, sort of offtopic, but has anyone attempted (or even thought about) making a bot to ease the conversion to text specs? It's not that hard to do manually but it certainly could be faster. I'm sure having multiple table formats doesn't help either :-) -Lommer 19:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry if this is taboo, but perhaps the question of parameterised templates for specifications should be revisited. They could surely be easily maintained by a bot -- a bot could be used to automate unit conversion (where units are missing) and for adding or removing parameters if the standard changes.  You are no longer tied to one presentation (text or table).  Plus you automatically know which articles are updated by checking what links to the template.  Personally I don't think a well-worded template is any less friendly than doing it in Wiki-syntax by hand, plus if/when the Wiki software supports forms, the template is ready to go.  Using a template ensures that the standard is enforced -- an editor can't arbitrarily decide to add, say, a "cost" field to the spec.  (I am assuming that enforcing a standard is desirable.) Geoff/Gsl 22:24, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, than I can answer that there already are parameterised templates:   for imperial measurment and    for metric.   →Iñgólemo←   (talk)  06:19, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
 * i had no clue! i'll keep that in mind for sure next time i contrib. -eric 06:23, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Those templates are for substitution, not parameterisation (there are no parameters in those templates). Parameterised templates wouldn't have section for the text content, only the specs. Geoff/Gsl 23:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Multiple use planes ? Which info to include?
Hi,

I'm new here and hope you guys (girls) can provide some direction/guidence.

In writing one of my pages, I had linked to the Cessna AT-17 and found out it didn't exist. So for me the next logical thing to do was create an AT-17 page.

Well, hmm.. what to have the main page called? I researched the plane and found Cessna produced its first T-50 light transport for the civil market in 1939. The U.S. Army Air Corps purchased they type as the AT-8 Bobcat as an multi-engine advanced trainer. With an engine change, the Bobcat was then redesignated the AT-17. In 1942, the U.S. Army Air Force started using the Bobcat as a light personal transport and changed the designation to UC-78.

So... multiple engines, the body was modified on some models, varying roles.

Do I make the main page Cessna T-50 since that is the original designator. Or as most planes do, do I use the most common designation the Cessna AT-17? Or....do I create a few different pages :)

Thanks!

(oh..take a look at my first try at an aircraft page Curtiss AT-9)

Mikeb 18:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm no authority, but I think you'd want to use the original variant as the main article - after all, it is the basis for the other developments - and provide redirects from the other names and designations. -eric 20:01, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Most of the time, the name for the article should be clear-cut, but this is one example where it's not, and where there's two conflicting principles - to name as generally as possible (Cessna T-50), and to use the most familiar names for things (Cessna AT-17). You'll have to use your judgement here! --Rlandmann 21:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Categories
The aircraft category system is currently under debate on Categories for deletion (you'll find it under the "US vs U.S." heading). Comments are invited. --Rlandmann 06:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Consensus was to change "US" to "U.S." -- Beland 02:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Categorisation thoughts
I spend a lot of time thinking about how to properly categorise certain articles. Just now, one of the ones I thought about was those in Category:U.S. bomber aircraft 1940-1949. Currently, the articles in this category are just alphabetised. But I got to thinking, if we were to sort them in a different way, how would we go about it? Here is my proposal, for this particular type (military aircraft of the United States): Anyone else interested in this scheme? →Iñgōlemo← (talk) 23:35, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
 * 1) Experimental aircraft (XN-number) are all placed under the X heading
 * 2) Service test aircraft (YN-number) are all placed under the Y heading
 * 3) Aircraft that entered operation (N-number) are sorted according to the first number in their designation (written here as number). This system would have to be tweaked a bit for the C (cargo) and P/F (pursuit/fighter) series, since the Army Air Force sequence for these go over a hundred (see List of military aircraft of the United States).

 * I like it - it makes much more sense to categorize military aircraft by their designation than anything else. -Lommer | talk 01:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I like it too, but there's the problem of changing prefixes - F used to be photorecon rather than fighter, for example - and duplicate designations, such as the F-5 recon plane (P-38) and the F-5 Tiger fighter. How do we resolve these? How do we keep them from sitting right next to each other?
 * Also, what about Navy aircraft? -eric 05:10, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

 * In the case of confusion between Fotorecon (mispelling deliberate) and Fighter, I don't think we need to worry. IMHO, it is safe to say that we won't have Fotorecon planes in the same category as Fighters.  If there are any categories in which this would occur, I find it doubtful that my alphabetisation system would be the one employed.  In the case of F-5 recon and F-5 tiger, the former would be placed in Category:U.S. reconnaissance aircraft 1930-1939, but the latter in Category:U.S. fighter aircraft 1960-1969 or whenever it was introduced.  As you can see, overlap is unlikely.   →Iñgōlemo←  (talk) 06:18, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

 * As to Navy aircraft, I'm not sure. I don't know the designation system used by the navy well enough to come up with a good one.   →Iñgōlemo←  (talk) 06:18, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Is this what you mean? Yes, seems logical to pipe the articles so that they sort in sequence in the category view. US Navy prior to 1962 used a system of role code/number/manufacturer code, so the FF was the first fighter by Grumman, followed by the F2F and the F3F; the AD was the first attack aircraft by Douglas, followed by the A2D and the A3D. In the example category above, I piped XF5U to FU5 and F7U to FU7. Does that seem reasonable? --Rlandmann 10:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have just completed reorganising the articles in Category:U.S._bomber_aircraft_1930-1939. If your interested in how the classification scheme suggested here appears in practice, that is a good place to look. (I did not categorise the A-20, since it is not a bomber, though it could be used as one. Instead, I left it alone). →Iñgōlemo← (talk) 05:07, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

On another note, I think that the proposal for Naval alphabetisation made by Rlandmann should work quite well. →Iñgōlemo← (talk) 05:07, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

 * Hrm, I actually like the way Rlandmann did it better - it's more intuitive and you have them all classified under one heading instead of (potentially) 10. I think we should go with the way he did it.-Lommer | talk 05:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * P.S. Is the A-20 a bomber or attack? should it be moved to attack? -Lommer | talk 05:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think that Rlandmann actually did anything to alphabetise this category (in other words, I don't think "the way Rlandmann did it" exists). Maybe I'm wrong, but so far as I know, this category was not piped in any way before I tested the changes.   →Iñgōlemo←  (talk) 03:46, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

 * Just simply placing all production bombers under the B heading might also be considered as an alternative solution. (Though it sort of knaws at my mind, because they all are bombers—that's the whole point of the category.  Oh well.  Its not very important anyway.)   →Iñgōlemo←  (talk) 04:01, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

 * Did you see Rlandmann's link in his post above to Category:U.S. fighter aircraft 1940-1949? That's what I was referring to. -Lommer | talk 04:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I saw it, but I didn't understand what he meant. (wince wince)  I think that that scheme will work fine, but I still maintaint that experimental (XN-) and service test (YN-) should be placed under the headings X and Y, respectively, rather than under N.   →Iñgōlemo←  (talk) 05:27, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

 * Note that when used as a prefix rather than as a code in its own right, X designates prototype, not experimental. I'm very much opposed to these being separated out, since doing so runs deliberately contra to the way the designation sequence actually works. Furthermore, our article naming conventions are purely arbitrary anyway and I don't see why we should be privileging this arbitrariness over the way that the numbers are "supposed" to run. Finally, while most bombers are prefixed B-, there are exceptions here and there, and that's not even taking into consideration our convention of sometimes sticking manufacturers' names in front of designations. I don't think that any category is so large that grouping by N, (rather than B- or F- or P- etc) is necessary or even desirable. --Rlandmann 09:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, let's all group them under their shared mission designation. (When referring to this designation, I usually use N- in my posts here, as a variable, for which can be substituted any code, such as B-, F-, A-, et cetera).  Given the objections raised to other systems, that implemented by Rlandmann in Category:U.S. fighter aircraft 1940-1949 should probably be the one we use.   →Iñgōlemo←  (talk) 03:48, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

 * Grouping by number does, however, make sense in German categories of the 30s and 40s. --Rlandmann 12:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * trying this out, i've edited german fighters of the 40s by number; it's not as clean as i think i'd like should we permanently adopt this system. not only is it difficult at best to locate by manufacturer, but it's not even entirely properly sorted. 40 should come before 190, yet it's after 335 instead. this might not be our best option for german aircraft. -eric 22:22, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * About locating by manufacturer: either we sort by designation or by manufacturer. We can't sort by both without using separate categories.  Unless we decide to list each plane twice, by designation and manufacturer, it won't happen.  However, my general impression has been that we prefer not to list by manufacturer, since there aren't even categories like Category:Boeing aircraft or whatever.  The fluke with the Blohm & Voss BV 40 will be really easy to fix: all you have to do is use 040 instead of 40.  I am executing this change now.   →Iñgōlemo←   talk 05:05, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

 * Actually, there are a few manufacturer categories out there - eg AEG, Saab, Yakovlev. I think these are useful and interesting and hope to see this more widespread over time. --Rlandmann 04:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The A-20 is one of those troublesome birds that fits least clearly into the categorisation schema. Designed as an attack aircraft, it was first ordered and flown as a Bomber (by the French), then ordered as a bomber but used as a heavy/night fighter (by the British) before the US adopted it in its originally intended role. Soon however, they too were operating it as a tactical bomber, leading to its eventual re-designation as B-20 (even though this designation had already been used for another earlier aircraft). The F-111 and F-117 are two other cases where the US military's designation doesn't really reflect what the aircraft ended up doing...

In response to Lommer's question on my talk page about other navigational templates that I've implemented amongst aircraft categories, I've maintained a list here. I think that's all of them I've worked on so far... --Rlandmann 12:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article merger
Recently, I was going through some of the articles I've edited, and I discovered something. Several early bombers made by Huff-Daland/Keystone Aircraft Corporation are essentially the same aircraft with different engines. These include: All of them have the same dimensions, and about the same empty weight. Several are post-production engine modifications of other designations. The Keystone LB-5 is the root of every design. It led to the LB-6, but its wingspan is shorter than that of the planes listed above, so it's probably not legitimately the same.
 * Keystone LB-6 (no article yet)
 * Keystone LB-7 (no article yet)
 * Keystone LB-8 (no article yet)
 * Keystone LB-9 (no article yet)
 * Keystone LB-10 (no article yet)
 * Keystone LB-13 (no article yet)
 * Keystone LB-14 (no article yet)
 * Keystone B-3
 * Keystone B-4
 * Keystone B-5
 * Keystone B-6

The two questions: should these planes be all in the same article? And if they are, then what on earth should it be called? →Iñgōlemo←  talk  donate  04:36, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

 * maybe take the most common model(s) and turn that(those) into articles; the rest can be sections+redirects to the aircraft they derived from? that would make the most sense to me. -eric 06:10, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * There's a pair of assumptions implicit in the vast majority of aircraft articles ever contributed here; that "different designation=different aircraft" and that "different aircraft=worthy of own article". I think that's quite a reasonable set of assumptions to work from, in particular because it neatly side-steps us having to make our own judgement about whether a new designation reflects a new aircraft, or simply a variant of an existing aircraft. In effect, we are simply reporting the decision that a manufacturer/government aviation ministry/air force has made on that question.

 * In this particular case, I think that each of the aircraft listed above should be the subject of its own article, since (a) that sits better with the general practice just described, and (b) there's certainly enough to say about each of these to merit its own article - if Joe Baugher could do it, so can we. --Rlandmann 22:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I actually see nothing wrong with wikipedia editors making judgements on whether a new designation reflects a new aircraft or not. As well, I think that if a lot of information would be repeated, or if articles on the variants were to be just stubs, then it would make more sense to combine multiple variants into one article (quicker to read, digest info, and grasp the bigger picture). Thus I think we should go with eric's suggestion. -Lommer | talk 02:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The main reason that I brought it up is because they are all almost completely identical. So far as I can tell, the only difference between them (designwise) is their engines.  User:Ingoolemo 05:16, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

 * Apart from the engines, armament and tailplane arrangement also varied. However, the real differences are in the stories behind these aircraft, (see Baugher). At the very least, those that were produced (or converted) in series should remain separate. There's plenty of precedence elsewhere for one-off conversions to redirect to their main designations (at least until enough material can be accumulated to branch them out on their own). For the LB- series, the LB-5, LB-6, and LB-7 should remain separate - LB-10 and LB-11 would redirect to LB-6 and LB-8, LB-9, and LB-12 would redirect to LB-7. For the B- series, there's ample material for separate articles for each (the weakest example being the B-5). --Rlandmann 01:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


text:
User:Rt66lt/Missouri stub

James River Freeway is a fourteen mile-long freeway located largely on the south side of Springfield, Missouri. Its western terminus is at Interstate 44 north of Brookline and its eastern terminus is at U.S. Route 65 in southeastern Springfield. It is named for James River which passes near the highway, at the freeway's eastern terminus. A total of four highways (and one business route) are routed on the highway: Missouri State Highway 360, U.S. Route 60, U.S. Route 160, Missouri State Highway 13, and Business U.S. Route 65. A railroad (low-volume) crosses the freeway a few hundred feet west of the US 65 intersection. James River Freeway is part of a proposed Interstate 66 across southern Missouri.

History
As Springfield began to expand to the south, traffic began to grow rapidly on Missouri Supplemental Route M (known locally as Republic Road) causing significant traffic problems. A proposal for a new highway on the south side (Interstate 44 in on the north, and US 65, also a freeway, is on the east) had been around for some time. By the early 1990s, the road was under construction. It opened in four sections:

Section 1
The first section connected US 160 (Campbell Avenue) with US 65. It took over a slightly reworked Glenstone Avenue which had been around previously and built not-quite to freeway standards. When the original highway had turned, an interchange was built and Glenstone Avenue turned west to become Republic Road. The new south outer road (east of the interchange) now became Glenstone Avenue. Republic Road became a brief also crossed over the same interchange and continued east. At this point, SSR M was routed down the freeway and Republic Road became a city street.

Section 2
The second section was a relatively short section connecting Kansas Expressway and Campbell Avenue. Shortly after the road was opened, US 60 was rerouted so that it turned south on Kansas Expressway (previously, a city street), then joined the James River Freeway, continuing on east past Glenstone where the road originally joined the freeway.

Section 3
The third section connected US 60 with Kansas Expressway. At the same time it was opened, West Bypass (which previously ended at Sunshine Street to the north, then US 60) was extended south and provided access to west Battlefield Road. US 60 was re-routed down the new stretch of freeway at this time and US 160 was rerouted down West Bypass, joining the freeway for a few miles before turning off again at Campbell Ave.

Section 4
The final section connected Interstate 44 with US 60. SSR MM had long served as a bypass on the west side of the city, running through the former town of Brookline. A two-lane road that was over capacity for its traffic. The final section served to connect these two roads, also provide traffic relief for US 65 on the east side of the city by providing a direct path from Interstate 44 on the west side of Springfield with US 60, a major east-west road on the south side of the state east of the city (much traffic had had to travel to US 65 and head south to US 60).

Control cities
Between I-44 and US 60: Between US 60 and US 65: At US 65:
 * "To Route 60"
 * "To Interstate 44"
 * Republic
 * Rogersville
 * Springfield
 * Cabool

List of exits (west to east)

 * Interstate 44 – Tulsa, Oklahoma; Springfield
 * Missouri Supplemental Route (SSR) MM – Brookline
 * U.S. Route 60 (west), Missouri State Highway 413 – Springfield, Republic
 * U.S. Route 160 (west), SSR FF – Battlefield
 * Missouri State Highway 13 (north) – Kansas Expressway
 * U.S. Route 160 (east), Missouri 13 (south) – Campbell Avenue, Nixa
 * National Avenue
 * Business U.S. Route 65 (north) – Glenstone Avenue, Republic Road
 * U.S. Route 65 – Buffalo, Branson

Glenstone Avenue interchange
Due to increased commercial development on Glenstone Avenue near the freeway, MoDOT has proposed redoing the interchange to remove the current traffic lights, possibly including a loop to carry traffic to eastbound US 60 from Glenstone. Additionally, a new overpass for Republic Road (which can only cross over the freeway by using the Glenstone overpass) would also relieve traffic on Glenstone.

US 60 & US 65
The current cloverleaf interchange has been the source of many accidents due to the development of Branson several miles to the south. Also, the railroad crossing (which crosses not only the freeway itself, but one of the ramps) has also resulted in numerous accidents from vehicles (such as buses and trucks carrying hazardous materials which were required to stop whether a train was present or not). The current highway east of Glenstone, curves to and then travels downhill to the crossing, the interchange with US 65, and crosses James River, before curving due east and going uphill. A proposed plan is to completely tear out the old road and build a long viaduct between the two hills (which would remove the railroad intersection) and new fly-over ramps for the interchange at US 65. This may not happened for ten years or more.

West of Interstate 44
Suggestions have also been made to continue the freeway west and north of I-44 to the Springfield-Branson Regional Airport, though no decision has been made. This would likely involve interchanges for Missouri State Highway 266 and SSR EE.

title: User:Rt66lt/Missouri stub


text:
File:Julieta Venegas Si.jpg

Summary
Low-res album cover of Sí, by Julieta Venegas, from an Amazon image repository. Presumed to be fair use given the precedent set by use of other album cover images (e.g. Late for the Sky and many others).

Fair use in Sí (Julieta Venegas)
Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
 * 1) It illustrates the article about the album from which the cover illustration was taken.
 * 2) The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic.
 * 3) The use of the cover will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original. In particular, copies of the image could not be used to make illegal copies of the album artwork on another CD.
 * 4) It is a low resolution image.
 * 5) The image is only a small portion of the commercial product.
 * 6) It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image of comparable educational value.

Fair use in Sí (Edición Especial)
See above. The articles cover essentially identical topics and are suggested for merging.

title: File:Julieta Venegas Si.jpg


text:
Talk:TASIS England

Untitled
Having attended The American School in London i'd hardly say it feels like a public school.

The current article is certainly an advert having been written, I'd presume, by the TASIS administrators. Wikipedia is not a place for adverts - it is for information. - A TASIS Student

Agreed - this seems to be a PR piece, and not impartial. It also contridicts itself - mentions private ownership AND being non-profit, which would require it only be overseen by a board here in the UK. Needs citations, and reformatting.

"Contrary to popular belief, The American School in London is not the only American non-profit school in England, as TASIS is also." - dude, how petty is this? this article seems weird. - TASSIS student.

So fix it!!!! Victuallers 15:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on American School in England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927212815/http://england.tasis.com/pages/sitepage.cfm?page=56499 to http://england.tasis.com/pages/sitepage.cfm?page=56499
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927195648/http://files.schoolyard.com/tasisengland/PDF/AcademicProfile2006_07.pdf to http://files.schoolyard.com/tasisengland/PDF/AcademicProfile2006_07.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on American School in England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070816183737/http://england.tasis.com/pages/sitepage.cfm?page=56542 to http://england.tasis.com/pages/sitepage.cfm?page=56542

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Some proposed changes
Information to be removed: The school is also inspected by Ofsted, the Office for Standards in Education of the UK government. An Ofsted inspection carried out in May 2016, rated the school as "inadequate" in eight of ten categories assessed.[5] While a follow-up Ofsted inspection carried out in December 2016 found some improvements, the school still did not meet all of the independent school standards and national minimum standards for residential provision that were checked during this inspection.[6] A further Ofsted inspection in September 2017 found that the school had improved and was meeting all of the independent school standards and national minimum standards for residential provision.[7]

Information to be added: The school is also inspected by the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI). An inspection carried out in May 2019 [5] concluded that the School is fully compliant in all respects with the rigorous regulations and standards set by the Department for Education and, further, makes no recommendations for improvement. ISI is the body approved by the UK Department for Education for the purpose of inspecting schools belonging to Independent Schools Council Associations and reporting on compliance with independent school regulations. The May 2019 Report from the Independent Schools Inspectorate is available for download here.

Explanation of issue: The UK Government requires the school to publish on the school website and on all the channels the latest inspection report. We are also not inspected anymore by Ofsted. We are inspected now by ISI, Independent Schools Inspectorate.

References supporting change: The report issued by ISI, Independent schools Inspectorate, can be found here, https://www.tasisengland.org/uploaded/documents/ISI_2019/TASIS_RCI_Report_v5_2019-06-06_LS.pdf. It is also published on our website, https://www.tasisengland.org/page.cfm?p=2643

Information to be removed: In 2007, 97% of TASIS graduates were either accepted into three or four-year universities, or chose to pursue a gap year before making university plans. While many TASIS graduates go to American universities, some go to the UK, Japan, Spain, Germany, Switzerland and Canada.[9]

''Information to be added: TASIS England graduates attend universities and colleges from all over the world. The Class of 2019 will attend universities and colleges in United States (50% of the graduates), United Kingdom (30% of the graduates), and the rest of the world(20%). The rest of the world includes countries like Switzerland, Canada, Spain, among others. The 2019 TASIS England graduates received 78 scholarship offers in 5 countries.

Explanation of issue: The information about University is from 2007, quite outdated.

Thank you, Angel Lozano — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malozanog (talk • contribs) 09:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Reply 12-JUN-2019
Regards, Spintendo  14:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The information concerning the favorable ISI inspection needs to be integrated along with the previous "inadequate" inspection conducted by Ofsted in 2016. The current proposal removes all mention of it.
 * 2) The information on TASIS graduates does not contain  tagged references.
 * 3) When ready to proceed with your request, please be sure to place a new  template at the bottom of this talk page along with your revised proposal containing the missing information. Thank you!

Some proposed changes
Information to be removed:

The Council of International Schools (CIS), the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), and the International Baccalaureate Organisation have all accredited TASIS England. The school is also inspected by Ofsted, the Office for Standards in Education of the UK government. An Ofsted inspection carried out in May 2016, rated the school as "inadequate" in eight of ten categories assessed. While a follow-up Ofsted inspection carried out in December 2016 found some improvements, the school still did not meet all of the independent school standards and national minimum standards for residential provision that were checked during this inspection. A further Ofsted inspection in September 2017 found that the school had improved and was meeting all of the independent school standards and national minimum standards for residential provision.

Information to be added:

The Council of International Schools (CIS), the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), and the International Baccalaureate Organisation have all accredited TASIS England. As a member of the Independent Schools Association, the school is also inspected by the Independent Schools’ Inspectorate (ISI). The last inspection (May 2019) confirmed that the school is fully compliant in all respects with the rigorous regulations and standards set by the UK Department for Education. The May 2019 Report makes no recommendations for improvement and there is no further action which the school must take.

TASIS England was previously inspected by Ofsted, the Office for Standards in Education of the UK government. An Ofsted inspection carried out in May 2016, rated the school as "inadequate" in eight of ten categories assessed.[5] While a follow-up Ofsted inspection carried out in December 2016 found some improvements, the school still did not meet all of the independent school standards and national minimum standards for residential provision that were checked during this inspection.[6] A further Ofsted inspection in September 2017 found that the school had improved and was meeting all of the independent school standards and national minimum standards for residential provision.[7] The school is no longer subject to inspection by Ofsted. All future inspections will be carried out by ISI.

Explanation of issue: Updating old information.

References supporting change: Already included in the text.

The Council of International Schools (CIS), the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), and the International Baccalaureate Organisation have all accredited TASIS England. The school is also inspected by Ofsted, the Office for Standards in Education of the UK government. An Ofsted inspection carried out in May 2016, rated the school as "inadequate" in eight of ten categories assessed. While a follow-up Ofsted inspection carried out in December 2016 found some improvements, the school still did not meet all of the independent school standards and national minimum standards for residential provision that were checked during this inspection. A further Ofsted inspection in September 2017 found that the school had improved and was meeting all of the independent school standards and national minimum standards for residential provision.

CIS and NEASC inspected TASIS England in March 2016, and their report lists areas needing improvement, while also calling the school "a forward-thinking school, developing new programs to meet the demands of a 21st century education and … [the School] benefits from strong and collaborative leadership."

University admissions
Information to be removed:

In 2007, 97% of TASIS graduates were either accepted into three or four-year universities, or chose to pursue a gap year before making university plans. While many TASIS graduates go to American universities, some go to the UK, Japan, Spain, Germany, Switzerland and Canada.

Information to be added:

Year on year, most TASIS graduates attend universities and colleges in the US or the UK. However, each year approximately 20% go on to higher education at institutions around the world.

Explanation of issue: Updating a very old information from 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malozanog (talk • contribs) 14:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply 05-JUL-2019

 * Thank you for your request. Unfortunately the request cannot be reviewed because the proposal contains stray text (placed in what I'll call "section two" - shown in blue in the included image to the right) whereupon directions for what to do with this text have not been included in the request. This text is placed after the reasoning is given for the first part of the request (what I'll call "section one" - shown in red in the image to the right). In section one, directions clearly indicate which text is to be added and which text is to be deleted. Likewise, in "section three" (university admissions, shown in green in the image to the right) the text is given the appropriate directions. However, at the beginning of section two, there are no directions for what to do with this text. This stray text from section two is shown below:

 * Kindly include directions for the stray text from the previously mentioned "section two" shown above (and shown in blue in the image to the right) and place those directions in a new edit request along with the completed directions already provided for "section one" and "section three" (university admissions). Regards, Spintendo  16:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 29 March 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist Wear a mask to protect everyone 07:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

American School in England → TASIS England – TASIS England is by far the WP:CommonName; "American School in England" is a hugely ambiguous title, as there are dozens of american schools throughout England. The school is also part of the TASIS group, which utilizes that naming and branding across all its schools. Current title is too misleading. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:TASIS England


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betrayal

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent 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 KEEP. -Splash talk 21:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Betrayal
Wikitionary entry ≈ jossi ≈ 02:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, the psychology of betrayal is encycylopedic. Kappa 06:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. The article has just been created (9/29) and may grow into something useful, though I'm skeptical. It can be deleted later. -- Kjkolb 09:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: This article reminds me of belligerency and belligerent. Actually, belligerency was an Encyclopedia Britannica entry that was missing by the same name here. Likewise, I think Betrayal also has a lot of potential to grow, albeit in a different style and context. --Bhadani 14:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Only 3 minutes passed after the article's creation before User:Jossifresco stamped an template on the article. Whatever happened to AfD etiquette? Adraeus 20:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This article already goes well beyond a dicdef. It has the potential to grow into something quite useful. Denni ☯ 02:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like it will develop into a "psychology of betrayal" article.  Actively being expanded.  Jkelly 23:57, 1 October 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: Category:Society of Iceland

title: Category:Society of Iceland


text: User talk:69.173.67.81

title: User talk:69.173.67.81


text:
Iota Apodis

Iota Apodis (ι Aps, ι Apodis) is the Bayer designation for a binary star system in the southern circumpolar constellation of Apus. It is a faint target at an apparent visual magnitude of 5.41, but still visible to the naked eye from suitably dark skies. The distance to this star can be roughly gauged from parallax measurements, yielding an estimate of 1,300 ly with a 20% margin of error.

Both stars are B-type main sequence stars, which indicates they shine with a blue-white hue. The brighter component has a stellar classification of B9 V and an apparent magnitude 5.90, while the second member is a B9.5 V star with a magnitude of 6.46. The pair have an angular separation of 0.091 arcseconds with an estimated orbital period of 59.32 years. They are about 3.89 and 3.45 times as massive as the Sun.

Naming
In Chinese caused by adaptation of the European southern hemisphere constellations into the Chinese system, 異雀 (Yì Què), meaning Exotic Bird, refers to an asterism consisting of ι Apodis, ζ Apodis, β Apodis, γ Apodis, δ Octantis, δ1 Apodis, η Apodis, α Apodis and ε Apodis. Consequently, ι Apodis itself is known as 異雀二 (Yì Què èr, the Second Star of Exotic Bird.)

title: Iota Apodis


text:
Galmi Hospital

Galmi Hospital is a 184-bed mission hospital administered by SIM (Serving In Mission) in the Nigerien village of Galmi. Galmi Hospital is staffed by doctors and nurses from all over the world, as well as locally trained medical personnel. Patients travel from surrounding villages and countries to receive medical attention. The hospital also has a working HIV Program as well as Nutritional Rehabilitation.

title: Galmi Hospital


text:
Talk:The Secret Life of Bees (novel)

Plot

 * what happens in the end of this book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.168.127 (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * she stays with the sisters Airline 03:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 * she overcomes "the plight of womanhood" and (surprise, surpirse) developes a forbidden realtionship with a black man whos being "put down by the man" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.193.208 (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I basically only skimmed the book, but I don't remember any sex change operations. --DocumentN (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is a complete mess: 83.253.234.217 (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Themes should not be part of the synopsis and instead have a section of their own OR be included in symbols (Symbols and Themes). The synopsis should include a summary of the novel and its plot. I haven't finished this book yet as I merely went to look for information. Otherwise, I would have fixed it myself.
 * Influence quote does not include a reference. If you wish to include a quote in an article, a reference is a MUST,
 * There is a MOVIE review, copied directly from New York Times (http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/movies/17bees.html?partner=Rotten%20Tomatoes&ei=5083) in the notes. This should be removed for it is not only on the wrong section, but it also violates copyright.

Movie
I read in a newspaper that the book has been optioned as a movie. Does anyone have more information on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.139 (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It is set to be release in 2007, and no casting has taken place. They are still writing the first draft of the script. For more details check it out at imdb.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.163.120.151 (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sure... here

Dakota Fanning will be playing Lily, Fox Studios has taken on the harrowing task of transforming this "strong-woman-fights-her-way-out-of-some-circumstance-while-gaining-insight-and-growing-emotionally-while-developing-a-forbidden-love-interest" cliche of a book into a profitable movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.193.208 (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone was saying this was over saturated with "symbolism" yet I find that it was undersaturated, it was a great book. The reviews were great, and the story was overall just wonderful. I found nothing wrong with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.231.2 (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

book is amazing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.219.149.127 (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Study guide for students
There's this great study guide made by Year 10 Australian students for this book. -- can be found at []

includes: Introduction, Themes, Summary of the plot, Key turning points, Author information, Quotes, page references, Characters, Settings, Historical context, Chapter summaries, Structure, Symbols, Practice Essay Questions --Msmarmalade (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Publication date
Observation: The infobox currently says the book was published in January 2003, while the main article says 2002. --DocumentN (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Themes and Symbols
I attempted to add a section on themes and symbols but was informed that my contribution constituted "original research" "commentary" and "Personal analysis" To continue this discussion, I am posting what has been said so far here, where it makes the most sence. And were others can add to the discussion.

[edit] Unsourced POV Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to The Secret Life of Bees. The content has been removed. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to The Secret Life of Bees. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This webpage that you cited as a source has nothing about themes and symbols. Please do not add the information again without a proper source. Continuing to add it without a proper source is considered vandalism. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Here is the quote from the page:

"In this New York Times bestseller, a young girl's search for the truth about her mother leads her to three beekeeping sisters who take her into their mesmerizing world of bees and honey and of a mysterious Black Madonna. A novel about mothers and daughters and the women in our lives who become our true mothers. A story about the divine power of women and the transforming power of love."

Although the webpage does not explicitly use the words THEMES and SYMBOLS it states that this is what the book is about. A theme of a book is a larger idea expressed ("A novel about mothers and daughters... A story about the transforming power of love"). The quote also showes some of the symbols used to express the theme: bees, honey, Black Madonna.

It is not an incorrect summery to express and summerized this information as "themes and symbols". Personally, I think you are being overly pedantic, but would it prevent you from deleting the material if I changed the heading to "See Also"?

I have to admit, I am frustrated. It is not original reserch. It is not commentary. Saying "One of the themes of this story is motherhood using bees as symbolism" is another way of saying, "This is a story about motherhood and involving bees." Original reserch or commentary would be if I started writing about my own ideas of what the bees were symbols for. The fact that they were the tools that the author used to tell a story about motherhood is clear from the source. amyanda (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Amyanda2000" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyanda2000 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

 * What if I quoted a source that said, A, B, and C are the things that happen in this book? Would I be wrong to put A, B, and C under the heading of PLOT, even though the original did not use the exact word "plot"? Basic knowlege of what constitutes plot, symbols, and themes is not original reserch. What if the article says, "By Sue Monk Kidd" -- is it original reserch to rever to Sue Monk Kidd as the AUTHOR, even though the word "author" was not used in the work cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyanda2000 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is what was added by Amyanda2000 in the section "Themes and Symbols"
 * According to Sue Monk Kidd's website, some of the important themes of the novel are included below.Sue Monk Kidd.
 * Motherhood
 * Mothers and Daughters
 * Women
 * Bees
 * Honey
 * Black Madonna
 * Racism
 * Interracial relationship
 * Coming of Age
 * Civil Rights Movement
 * 1960's
 * Love

Here is my response on Amyanda2000 talk page after she made the edit :
 * It is synthesis of research to reach your own conclusions, also not allowed. If you find published reliable sources that discuss themes and symbols, you might be able to summarize that in the article. But you are taking a few bits and pieces of information and imposing your own interpretation. That, indeed, is original research. It's one thing for you to state that the author describes the book as being about "motherhood and involving bees". It's quite another thing for you to come to your own conclusion that the not what happenz nothing about some of the "themes" or "symbols" you identified, making the stretch into your own interpretations even more pronounced. To state a book is "about" something is not equivalent to stating that those things are "themes" or "symbols". I could come up with a dozen or so different "themes and symbols". For example, I could use the fact that a jail is discussed at least twice in the book and then add my own interpretion that the novel has a theme of "the atrocities of our penal system", but then I have stepped over the line into my own interpretion. Other editors might come up with hundreds more. If we allowed that the article would be nothing more than an overbloated list of "themes and symbols", all of it original or synthesized research. Now, if I find a reliable source that discusses how a theme in the novel relates to our penal system, then it might be appropriate to summarize that.
 * Sorry you're frustrated, but we have rules and guidelines. Wikipedia has no professional editorial oversight. It relies on editors to maintain its policies. Without that, this would not be an encyclopedia; it would be a huge mess of opinions. I have had to fight this battle many times on different articles. It is based on clear and unequivocal Wikipedia policy. If you disagree, I suggest that you raise the issues on the article's talk page, but don't add the information again without a clear consensus to do so, or with some solid, reliable sources that are unambiguous so that you don't add your own interpretations. For ideas on how to use published research to write about themes, look at articles identified as good articles on books or films. An example that comes to mind is Pulp Fiction (film); there are others. Ward3001 (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Amyanda2000's additional comments here:
 * Basic knowlege of what constitutes plot, symbols, and themes is not original reserch: Basic knowledge of plot is not original research because the book itself is the source for the plot. Discussion of symbols and themes is original research if it is not cited to a reliable source which discusses it as a theme or symbol and not just a plot summary. As I noted earlier, the author (or anyone else) stating that a book is "about" something (e.g., bees) is not equivalent to stating that something (bees) is a theme.
 * What if the article says, "By Sue Monk Kidd" -- is it original reserch to rever to Sue Monk Kidd as the AUTHOR, even though the word "author" was not used in the work cited: Kidd is already identified as the author, so there's no need to refer to her in the plot summary. If you are referring to "themes and symbols", however, you need to cite a reliable source (whether Kidd or anyone else) that specifically addresses the issues of themes or symbols. To extrapolate from a point in a plot summary (e.g., "the book is about bees") to an interpretation of a theme or symbol ("bees is a theme in the book" or "bees are a symbol of ...") clearly is original research. Ward3001 (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality of Writing
I don't have the time or inclination to fix it, but this article, or at least the plot summary, was (quite hilariously) clearly written by an eight year old. Might want to go through and edit it. GRHooked (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary
The very thorough synopsis was deleted by a vandal a few years ago and has since not been corrected. I am going to combine what was there with the shorter version currently posted. --Roseclearfield (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the current synopsis is pulled directly from the | introduction of the book. Here is what it said (clearly not NPOV):
 * "Isolated on a South Carolina peach farm with a neglectful and harsh father, fourteen-year-old Lily Owens has spent much of her life longing for her mother, Deborah, who died amid mysterious circumstances when Lily was four years old. To make matters worse, her father, T. Ray, tells Lily that she accidentally killed her mother.

 * Lily is raised by Rosaleen, her proud and outspoken African-American nanny. In the summer of 1964, when Rosaleen attempts to exercise her newly won right to vote, she is attacked by the three worst racists in town and is thrown into jail. Lily is determined to save Rosaleen and finally escape her own father as well. Seizing the moment, she springs Rosaleen from jail, and the two set out across South Carolina in search of a new life.

 * Their destination is Tiburon, South Carolina—a town they know nothing about except that in a box of Lily's mother's belongings there is a cryptic picture of a black Virgin Mary with the words "Tiburon, South Carolina" written on the back. There they are taken in by three black beekeeping sisters who worship the Black Virgin Mary. It is here, surrounded by the strength of the Virgin Mary, the hum of bees, and a circle of wise and quite colorful women, that Lily makes her passage to wholeness and a new life." --Roseclearfield (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Secret Life of Bees (novel)


text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lim Peh Oh

This article is non-verifiable, with no credible links provided.

I live in Singapore, and I've never heard of this person, the Galaxy Awards or the films that were mentioned. A search on Google yielded no credible results.

To top it off, his supposed real name "Oh Yee Toh, Simplified Chinese: 胡一刀" is a fictional character from a popular swordfighting series (both print and celluloid).

This article should be deleted. The affiliated article Cheng_sai_mun is equally dubious, created on the same day and making similar references to fictitious awards and movies.


text:
Cinnamon bird

The cinnamon bird, also known as Cinnamologus, Cinomolgus, or Cynnamolgus is a mythical creature described in various bestiaries as a giant bird that collected cinnamon to build its nests.

According to Herodotus
According to Herodotus in his The History, the cinnamon bird inhabited Arabia, the only country known to produce cinnamon at the time. The giant cinnamon birds collected the cinnamon sticks from an unknown land where the cinnamon trees grew, and used them to construct their nests, fastened to sheer cliffs. The Arabians employed a trick to obtain the cinnamon. They cut oxen and other beasts of burden into pieces, laid them near the birds' nests and withdrew to a distance; the birds were then tempted down to carry the chunks of meat back to their nests, where the weight of the carcasses broke them from the cliffs, leaving the Arabians to collect the fallen cinnamon.

According to Aristotle
In Aristotle's Historia Animalium (History of Animals), one of his works of natural history, he explains that the cinnamon bird brought the cinnamon from unknown locations to build its nest on the slender branches in the tops of high trees. The inhabitants of the bird's home attached leaden weights to their arrow tips to topple the nests, collecting the cinnamon sticks within. Aristotle referred to the bird as kinnamômon orneon.

According to Pliny the Elder
Pliny the Elder adopted a more skeptical view of the cinnamon bird, erroneously named cinnamolgus. He discredited Herodotus specifically and antiquity in general in his Naturalis historia (Natural History) by asserting that the tales were invented by the natives to raise the price of their commodities.

Other appearances in classical literature

 * De Natura Animalium (On Animals) by Claudius Aelianus
 * Solinus' Collectanea Rerum Memorabilium (Collection of Remarkable Facts)
 * Physiologus, a collection of moralized animal tales expanded upon over 1000 years
 * A Latin prose bestiary from the 12th century with Aristotle's version of the cinnamon bird
 * How We Visited the Land of Satin from Gargantua and Pantagruel by François Rabelais, referred to as cinnamologi

title: Cinnamon bird