text:
Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (AG)

Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (AG), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court held that in order to determine if a breach of section 2(b) had occurred one first had to determine whether the conduct constituted non violent activity which attempted to convey meaning. This changed the law of the constitution of Quebec. The next step was to consider whether the effect or purpose of the legislation was to restrict freedom of expression. Applying the analysis, the Court held that a Quebec law that restricted advertising directed to children was valid law which violated section 2(b) but could be justified under section 1.

Background
The province of Quebec passed legislation that prohibited "commercial advertising directed at persons under thirteen years of age." The law was challenged on the basis that it violated the freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter.

Reasons of the court
Chief Justice Dickson, Justice Lamer, and Justice Wilson wrote the decision of the majority.

Expression
The Justices considered the rationale of the freedom of expression provision and enumerated three grounds:
 * 1) seeking and attaining the truth is an inherently good activity;
 * 2) participation in social and political decision-making is to be fostered and encouraged; and
 * 3) the diversity in forms of individual self-fulfillment and human flourishing ought to be cultivated in an essentially tolerant, indeed welcoming, environment not only for the sake of those who convey a meaning, but also for the sake of those to whom it is conveyed.

The Justices then considered the scope of expression. They defined it broadly as any activity that "attempts to convey meaning". The Court used the example of unlawful parking to illustrate the breadth of the right. If an individual parks against the rules in order to protest rule or policy, their action will count as expression. However, it excluded activities that are "purely physical and [do] not convey or attempt to convey meaning" as well as activities that are of a violent form.

The majority re-affirmed the decision of Ford v. Quebec (1988) by finding that freedom of expression included advertising. Accordingly, they found that the Quebec law violated section 2(b).

Justified limitation
The Justices then considered whether the law was justified under section 1. They dismissed the argument that the law was not prescribed by law. A law only needed to have an "intelligible standard" which the Quebec law satisfied.

On the inquiry into minimal impairment the Court held that when the government attempts to justify the necessity of a complete ban, courts will not be restrictive to social sciences, however, the government must establish a "sound evidentiary basis" for their conclusions.

The Court was unsympathetic to the harm to Irwin. The effects of the ban, said the Court, were not so severe as to override the objective of the ban. The advertisers would always be able to direct ads to adults or use other means to sell children's products.

title: Irwin Toy Ltd v Quebec (AG)


text:
Gul Lasht Zom

Gul Lasht Zom is a snowy pinnacle easily visible from any vantage point on the Tirich Glacier from the Shagroom side. It lies in the Hindu Raj range of Pakistan. It offers easy climbing and was first climbed by Kurt Diemberger of Austria.

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

title: Gul Lasht Zom


text: User talk:206.208.223.1

title: User talk:206.208.223.1


text: User talk:86.129.75.92

title: User talk:86.129.75.92


text:
File:Mandelset source.png

Summary
Original 2-bit source image for en:Image:Mandelset_hires.png, without the axes.

By User:Connelly.

title: File:Mandelset source.png


text:
Lysaker

Lysaker is an area in Bærum Municipality, Akershus County, Norway. Lysaker is the easternmost part of Bærum and borders Oslo proper. Lysaker was initially a farming community, later becoming a residential area. Today it is primarily known as a business and trade area, and a public transport hub. It is considered part of Stor-Oslo (Greater Oslo), and is home to offices of numerous domestic and international businesses.

Geographical location
Lysaker is located where a stream, Lysakerelva, empties into Lysakerfjorden—a branch of the Oslofjorden. This stream is the western border of Oslo proper.

To the south-east Lysaker is bordered by the fjord. To the south-west is the Fornebu area, where one of Oslos two airports were located until Oslo Airport, Gardermoen, was expanded in order to handle all the traffic alone. To the west and north are the primarily residential areas of Stabekk and Jar. To the east is Sollerud and Lilleaker in Ullern borough.

History
Lysaker, meaning "bright acres" was originally the name of a farm. Although it is more commonly believed that its name comes from "light sledging" due to the sleigh building industry in the area. Its buildings were located along the fjord on the western bank of the river, where today there are business headquarters. In 1624, with the establishment of the Kongsberg Sølvverk (Kongsberg Silver Mines) a road was built through the area, leading directly to central Oslo, and a bridge was built over the stream approximately where today's bridge is located. This led to economic development and increased settlement for in area.

In 1872 the railroad to Drammen was built, passing through the Lysaker area and crossing the stream, where a station was built. This led to further increase in business and settlement and was the beginnings of Lysaker as a transport hub.

By the 1900s Lysaker was a primarily residential area, and its main claim to fame was that the polar explorer Fridtjof Nansen took up residence there. He built a house he called Polhøgda, and lived there until his death in 1930, upon which he was buried on the grounds. Today Polhøgda houses the Fridtjof Nansen Institute, and tours of the premises are available. Simultaneously, Lysaker was home to "Lysakerkretsen" (The Lysaker Circle), a name coined for a group of artists and intellectuals who resided there in the early 1900s.

The most notable industry at the time was Granfos Brug, a major timber refining and paper manufacturing company established in 1869. Timber was floated down the Lysakerelva to the factory, where it was refined and shipped out to national and international customers by way of the fjord. Granfos Brug was closed in 1981, and the factory buildings are now an office park.

After World War II Oslo developed rapidly and so land became more scarce and expensive, eventually forcing big businesses in need of large plots of land to look at the surrounding areas. During the 1970s Lysaker became attractive due to its location between, and good transport connections with, the affluent residential areas of Bærum, Oslo proper, and Fornebu Airport. During the 1980s the old, polluted industrial sites and central residential areas became the subjects of major developments, eventually forming Lysaker into the commercial hub of today.

As more workplaces were added, so the need for transport and other services increased and businesses such as the CC Vest shopping centre were established. Unfortunately, much land in central Lysaker was occupied by motorway intersections, rails and the stream. Accordingly, in the late 1990s and 2000s large concrete "lids" were placed over the stream and motorway intersections. Thus, space was made for more buildings, as well as a major expansion of the railway station. Accordingly, the Lysaker of today is quite unrecognizable as compared to 30 years ago, with much of the central part and the railways elevated above ground level.

One architectural feature worth noting is that the characteristic round shape of the Klaveness building (belonging to the shipping company Torvald Klaveness) has become a recurring theme in newer office structures built around it. Also, the area around the stream before it goes "underground" in central Lysaker has been set aside and developed as a public park, with new or renovated bridges from Lysaker to the Lilleaker area in Oslo.

Economy
Lysaker is home to numerous businesses, and several companies have international headquarters there. Among the more notable are the shipping company Wilh. Wilhelmsen, seismic technology company Petroleum Geo-Services, energy company Statkraft and airline Widerøe.

Amongst the numerous companies that have national headquarters in Lysaker are frozen foods maker Findus, insurance companies Storebrand and If, communications company Nokia and IT-companies Oracle, Microsoft and Cisco Systems.

Transport
Lysaker serves as the major transport hub in the western part of Greater Oslo. Norway's busiest motorway, the E18 between Oslo and Drammen, cuts through the area – as well as the main railway line from Oslo to southern and western Norway.

Lysaker is served by numerous local and regional bus lines and railway lines, as well as a ferry service crossing the Oslo Fjord. This makes Lysaker a very busy commuter exchange.

Notable people

 * Ingrid Bjerkås (d. 1980), the first female priest (Norway), grew up in Lysaker

title: Lysaker


text:
Talk:Tiksi Airport

Untitled
I am developing and fine-tuning this page to get the templates and layout optimized before I upload the entire series of Soviet air bases to Wikipedia. -Timvasquez 22:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Reversion with no substantive explanation
A user, @Jan olieslagers, just reverted my recent edit with no explanation (on my page, his or her page, or the article's talk page) about why the new edits were incorrect or why the older version was superior (clearer, more encyclopedic tone, more standard usage for formal writing, etc.). The user appears not to be a native English speaker, so that may explain the level of familiarity with nuances of editing for formal writing, but it doesn't excuse a wholesale reversion with no explanation and a snarky comment. I will be happy to participate in a substantive discussion about why all the changes should have been reverted with no comment. Holy (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The explanation was given as a comment to the reverting edit: "Please do not correct what is not incorrect" (also known as "if it isn't broken, don't fix it"). Indeed I do not see any improvement in this modification. Feel free to discuss, either here or on our talk pages or wherever. Kindly, Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Do not correct what is not incorrect" is absolutely NOT a Wikipedia standard for editing. Furthermore, you and I seem to disagree about what is "incorrect," and you made no effort to discuss this before you reverted. Your comment was snarky, not a substantive explanation. WP:EP has many good points relevant to this discussion, including
 * WP:IMPERFECT explains that users should be encouraged to make incremental improvements to articles in several areas, such as sourcing, formatting, and improving and guarding against substandard writing.
 * WP:HANDLE says, "The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts." That certainly runs contrary to your philosophy of reverting an edit that doesn't seem to you to fix an obvious problem.
 * WP:EPTALK starts with, "Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. Nobody owns articles. If you see a problem that you can fix, do so."
 * As for the change itself: ". . . due to the runway being unsafe and needing repair work . . ." is clunky syntax at best, considered nonstandard by many. "Due to" as an adverbial phrase has indeed made its way into much published writing, but this sentence is a great example of its overuse. ("Due," as an adjective, needs a noun to modify.) "Due to" makes for an unclear connection between cause and effect, and "the runway being" is a mash-up (arguably nonstandard) of a noun adjunct and a gerund. The entire sentence can easily be made clearer and less awkward. ". . . because the runway was unsafe and needed repair work" shows a clear causal connection (with "because") between the events, and it uses straightforward syntax using indicative phrases that are easy to read and parse. Holy (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds like you are much upset, which was not my purpose or intention, at the contrary. Still I can see only subjective arguments: "clunky syntax" - who says? "considered non-standard by many" - by whom? " "the runway being" is a mash-up" - no, at the contrary it is standard English. None of these have any factual reference to go by. Could it be that you are closer to North-American phraseology, while I am nearer to the English of England? Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tiksi Airport


text:
Silvestre Varela

Silvestre Manuel Gonçalves Varela (born 2 February 1985) is a Portuguese former professional footballer who played as a winger.

He represented mainly Porto during his career, amassing Primeira Liga totals of 268 matches and 47 goals over 12 seasons and winning 11 major titles, including three national championships and the 2011 Europa League. He also competed professionally in Spain, England, Italy and Turkey.

Varela appeared for Portugal at Euro 2012 and the 2014 World Cup, scoring in both tournaments.

Sporting CP
Born in Almada, Setúbal District and of Cape Verdean descent, Varela was product of Sporting CP's youth system, being loaned to Casa Pia A.C. and Vitória F.C. in his early years as a professional. Despite being a regular with the Portugal under-21s and having enjoyed a decent form in various tournaments, he was not able to secure a place in the Lions' first team, only managing two substitute appearances in the 2005–06 season.

In 2007–08, Varela, alongside former Sporting players Beto and Carlos Martins, joined Recreativo de Huelva in Spain (Varela on loan again). After a disappointing campaign despite having received playing time in La Liga, he returned to Sporting in July 2008 only to be immediately sold to C.F. Estrela da Amadora.

Porto
Before the season was over, in March 2009, courtesy of his solid performances at Estrela, only relegated from the Primeira Liga off the field, Varela signed a five-year agreement with champions FC Porto on a free transfer, starting in July. He made his debut on 9 August by starting in the Supertaça Cândido de Oliveira, a 2–0 win against F.C. Paços de Ferreira. In his first year he ranked second in overall goals in the squad, only behind Radamel Falcao; in March 2010, however, he broke his fibula in training, being lost for the remainder of the campaign as the team finished third. He missed the conclusion of their conquest of the Taça de Portugal, though he scored in the 5–2 home victory over Sporting in the quarter-finals.

Varela scored a career-best 13 goals in 44 games in 2010–11 as Porto won the supercup, league, cup and UEFA Europa League. In the final of the third, he scored in a 6–2 defeat of Vitória de Guimarães.

In the 2011–12 season, under new manager Vítor Pereira, Varela – as practically all Portuguese players (the roster was composed of three nationals) – lost his importance. On 16 February 2012, in a rare start, he put his team ahead against Manchester City in the round of 32 of the Europa League, in an eventual 1–2 home loss. In September, he extended his contract to 2016.

Varela moved to Premier League side West Bromwich Albion on 24 August 2014, in a season-long loan deal. Having arrived whilst still recovering from injury, he made his official debut on 2 December, replacing Craig Gardner midway through the second half of a 1–2 home defeat to West Ham United. He scored his first goal for the Baggies on the 20th, but in a 3–2 loss at Queens Park Rangers.

On 20 January 2015, still owned by Porto, Varela joined Parma F.C. until June. He scored his first goal on 8 April – after the club had been declared bankrupt – as the only one of a home win against Udinese Calcio. In the final two Serie A games of the campaign, his goals earned 2–2 draws against Hellas Verona FC and UC Sampdoria, though the team from the Stadio Ennio Tardini finished dead last. Following his loan, he extended his Porto contract for three more years.

Kayserispor
Having made only seven appearances for Porto during the season, Varela, who was by then the club's longest serving player, ended his seven-and-a-half-year link on 20 January 2017 by signing for Turkey's Kayserispor. He and fellow veteran Asamoah Gyan were told at the end of their contracts in June 2018 that they would only be retained if they signed performance-based deals, due to their injury record.

B-SAD
On 8 October 2019, having been a free agent, Varela returned to his country's top-flight by joining B-SAD until the end of the campaign. The following July, he signed for another season and was made captain.

Return to Porto
Varela returned to Porto on 20 July 2021; the 36-year-old was brought to pass on experience and knowledge to the young players in the reserves, who competed in the Liga Portugal 2. He scored in his very first match in the competition, a 2–2 home draw against newly promoted C.D. Trofense.

In June 2022, Varela agreed to a one-year extension. He then retired.

International career
Due to his Porto performances, Varela earned his first full cap for the Portugal national team on 3 March 2010, appearing in the second half of the 2–0 friendly win over China in a match played in Coimbra. His first goal came on 26 March 2011 in a 1–1 friendly draw with Chile, in Leiria.

Varela was selected by manager Paulo Bento for the 23-man squad that competed in UEFA Euro 2012. He played ten minutes in the group stage opener against Germany, in an eventual 1–0 loss. Again coming from the bench for Raul Meireles, he scored an 88th-minute 3–2 winner over Denmark in the following game.

On 19 May 2014, Varela was picked for the 2014 FIFA World Cup. On 23 June, again after having replaced Meireles, he headed home in the 94th minute to earn his team a 2–2 draw against the United States in the group phase.

Personal life
Varela's nephew Nilton is also a footballer, playing in defence. The pair were teammates at B-SAD and Porto B.

International

 * Scores and results list Portugal's goal tally first, score column indicates score after each Varela goal.

Honours
Porto
 * Primeira Liga: 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13
 * Taça de Portugal: 2009–10, 2010–11
 * Supertaça Cândido de Oliveira: 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
 * UEFA Europa League: 2010–11

Individual
 * SJPF Young Player of the Month: January 2007, February 2007

title: Silvestre Varela


text:
Talk:Tabula rasa

Untitled
Why is the ancient philosophy section only going to Aristotle? Aristotle's teacher, Plato, has the Wax Tablet metaphor in the Theaetetus, an essay with the subtitle "On knowledge (ἐπιστήμη)"

John Money Reference and Tabula Rasa is No Innate Knowledge!
I don't know who added the bit on John Money, but it is not only not appropriate, the guy's work was largely thrown in the trash over the Reimer incident. Gender as a social construction is a theory, but in the article it is written as dogma. Should be stroked out.

Also a general comment, tabula rasa means no innate 'knowledge'. The last word is the most important and I'm not seeing the distinction made. No one argues that human beings are born as ghosts, without biological influences (there are no 0% nature, 100% nurture arguers). We are born with propensities, temperaments, preferences; tabula rasa argues we are not born with knowledge! Ie. not born with ideas or content, such as what my name is, where I live, what a shoe is, who my parents are, (but now more interestingly), that I'm human, that I have 2 arms, that I can crawl eventually, walk eventually, even ideas about gravity or expectations of object behavior (cause and effect). Now the latter 2 ideas are disputed because of developmental psych habituation studies seem to suggest very young children do have some expectations about how objects should behave. Whether this would do away with a tabula rasa idea depends on if we accept this expectation of object permanence, gravity, cause and effect is knowledge. Was it evolutionary beneficial to hard-wire these ideas in the human brain? On the flipside, could a coherent ordered universe/existence be any other way (ie. the nature of cause & effect, gravity ~ mass, could these relationships as we know them be any other way and at the same time permit human existence?)

99.249.132.81 (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC) ATR

Initial Statement
I might remove the second assertion, that "all their knowledge comes from sensory experience" because it doesn't seem to me to be the key, but a derivative of it. Also it's redundant. The OED defines knowledge as "Facts, information and skills acquired by a person through experience or education." Knowledge is defined as that which is learned through experience, so saying it comes from experience is unnecessary. What do you think of "Tabula rasa (Latin: blank slate) is the epistemological thesis that individuals are born without ideas."? (216.70.134.34 (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

 * Someone with better English knowledge than me may make a reference to the fact that in Latin-speaking countries the term is synonym with "nothing", "dumb" etc. This was the initial meaning that Romans used for. We (Romanians) same as Italians and French people, use it novadays in expressions like "he is tabula rasa" meaning that "his knowledge in this domain are close to nothing", or "he is stupid/dumb", or "when I arrived there - tabula rasa", meaning that I did not find what I was expecting to find, or I found nothing. Latin "tabula" refers also to a small piece of furniture used for sitting or eating, the expression has a larger semantic, related also to scarcity of food, for example in English you have the word "table" which come from the latin "tabula", I can't find a good example right now. LaurV 05:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Last two links
Are the links to playtr.com and bcpalternative.blogspot.com appropriate? JemeL 07:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed the link to playtr.com that remained, as it already existed on the article specific to that topic: Tabula Rasa. jareha 16:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

er, incidental musings?
cute, but not encyclopedic. ... aa:talk 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Add to references?
The most simple of references on this and any suject should be your own instincts and intuition, the knowing, without knowing. Which happens to disprove the entire basis of the theory of tabula rasa. If humans were born without ANY content a baby would know to hold its breath under water, a baby deer would not automatically stand up and follow its mother, nor where to locate the spot of the entire body of the mother, where to find food. It would seem that in every single species that there is at least a rudimentary set of instructions coded into the very DNA of every species, varied by the species in extent, but measurable in all none the less. The scientific community would desire this theory of tabula rasa to prove true, if for no other reason than to suck the joy and wonder of life's mysteries out of the equation for everyone else. Their most likely motivation however is to continue the illusion that the scientific community understands the nature of reality, this is about far more than whether or not a species is born with knowledge. If that were the case the over whelming self evident predominance of fact on this matter would have disproven this theory a great long time ago. Even today after all, relativity is still just a theory, as is Darwinian evolution. While they are both excellent theories, they are just that, theories, educated guesses based upon observed phenomenon. nlike relativity however, tabula rasa should have not made it past the drawing board of the theorist. It is self evident that any creature that exhibits any knowledge of any thing after simply being born, has not had any time to acquire experience or to witness these things which it knows upon exiting the womb. Even the very act of standing up is something the baby deer does almost immediately, even before it has seen its mother perform that task it is aware fo how to do it. Much of the talk below doesn't seem to even address the topic, this does, so it should remain in tact, and not be edited. These foundations of natural law are something I have built a career upon.

--Robert D. Johnson, Author of Sui Juris The Law of Full Age — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.38.240 (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A band called Sinch actually has a song titled "Tabula Rasa". To confirm, check Sinch (album). --Skudd 01:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

 * There's also an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer called "Tabula Rasa". It's from the show's sixth season, and in it, a spell is cast that causes the characters to lose all memory of their identities (for instance, Buffy forgets she's the Slayer, and decides that she's named "Joan"). E.g. their mental slates are wiped nearly clean (I say "nearly" because they can still walk, etc., and are still able to speak in fluent English, and seeing as language is a learned thing...). The episode's relatively famous in the fandom and is definitely a reference to the psychological philosophy of Aquinas and Aristotle, so it might be well worth noting here. However, you wouldn't want to put it in "References", as that's where key sources typically go. :) Perhaps a brief pop culture references section? Runa27 19:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I added the Buffy and Lost episodes to this article as long ago as April 2005, and since then the entries have been removed added again (by other people) ... and then removed once more. People who watch these series feel compelled to add them, and those who think that an encyclopedia can manage without them will remove them.  Personally, I wouldn't mind a popular culture section.  A discussion is needed here first so that a consensus can be reached – either to ensure that such a section is maintained and not removed, or to ensure that such a section is removed should anyone try to add such entries.  Thanks.   — Lee J Haywood 20:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a popular culture section is a good idea here, if so in the tv show "Dollhouse" the resting state of the actives is called the tabula rasa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.200.65.239 (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I am not going to fix it because it contributes to the stupidity of the idea, but saying that sexual identity is due to experience is utter nonsense. See David Reimer for a horror story as well as John Money. Keith Henson 23:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement under History section, "In Eastern philosophy, the notion of tabula rasa is not explicitly mentioned, though there are many reasons to consider that it is a much relied upon idea.[citation needed]", needs to be removed since this is not true. Eastern philosophy has long believed that a person is reborn and carries "impressions" from his previous life into the present one. There are references to this fact, but it is not the topic here. The "blank slate" is clearly the western philosophy.

A propensity to "manage" society, where the real power must be if people are born blank.
What does that mean? 1Z 19:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

potential straw-man / generalization
"Proponents of tabula rasa favor "nurture" in the nature versus nurture debate." Well, as far as I know, one can yet favor "nurture" on this debate and be far from a proponent of tabula rasa. Is not the actual tabula rasa a very radical position that nearly implies that humans have some sort of "immaterial" "soul" that is independent of everything material except learning during life?

I've seen people saying things such as "mendelism is bourgeoisie science", arguing that language is not an instinct or innate ability of the species, and once, while discussing the subject, someone tried to be sarcastic with me saying that perhaps he was irritated because of too much testosterone in his organism, actually impling that hormones have nothing to do with mood - I was the one arguing for a "not-so-blank" slate. This sort of things form what I know to be "tabula rasa". However, I would say myself that the bulk of human behavioral differences between groups, sexes, individuals and during the lifetime of an individual (mostly on adulthood, not so much in childhood and adolescence) are due to several levels of individual or collective experiences. And yet I do acknowledge that hormones, brains and genes have their roles, most evidently on anomalities, and that there's human nature, such as language instincts, built on our brains, made by our genes.

So, am I a blank slater withouth knowing (despite of being accused to be a "biological determinist" by some people), or the term has a much narrower meaning as I think it has? --Extremophile 01:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed parts which were extremely biased, implying that the thesis of tabula rasa shows that sexuality is guided by nurture (with a citation that attempted to debunk the genetic basis of homosexuality). Such language should not be inserted. There is no contradiction in supporting the idea of tabula rasa and believing that homosexuality has a genetic basis as a sexual attraction. --Revolución hablar ver 23:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Rousseau?
I see Aristotle, and Aquinas, and Locke...but no Rousseau. Maybe I'm mixing up Locke and Rousseau (as usual) but didn't Rousseau also use the idea of a 'tabula rasa' (possibly inspired by Locke)? A philosopher or historian who could clarify this would be great. ^^ Michelle (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.24.135 (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Aristotle?
In De Anima, Aristotle writes variously that "Soul is in a way all things," "The understanding must be unmixed so that it may master all things... anything foreign would obstruct it." However, no one with any understanding of Aristotle could read in this an early instantiation of tabula rasa, or even its beginnings. In the Parva Naturalia and elsewhere, he offers speculations as to which physiognomy is better suited to memorization, and which is the cause of quickness of wit. In De Anima itself, he'll claim that the intellectual prowess of humans beings generally and men specifically, shows itself in the sensitivity of the skin. He writes in the ethics that judgments are perceived; in the physics, that all our thoughts, and even our desires, are determined by the periechon, by what "holds around" us, or our environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.130.30 (talk) 06:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is Aristotle listed in this article? This commenter is correct: there is no tabula rasa in the de Anima. This article has become a source of great errors for philosophy students - that's how I found it, in fact (trying to figure out why my students all think Aristotle holds this view which he does not hold) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.253.0.133 (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Cartesian architecture
I've removed this from the architecture section - "Paradoxically, and because of misunderstandings, the tabula rasa may be associated in architectural circles with ideas about Cartesian space and the Cartesian subject rather than with the term's use by Locke.".

The first paragraph is fine relating to the 'blank slate' idea - this is in a widespread lexicon of architectural discourse, the above is not - and as it's unsourced, I've removed it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Computer science "rejects" Tabula Rasa
The section on computer science mumbles too much – computer science in general disregard Tabula Rasa as erroneous, no defences. One simply doesn't start a program without initial data, and one doesn't start a program without code.  Said: Rursus   ☻   08:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And that said: the computer science need not by necessity be true in this. Being a philosopher, thinking: "now let us regard this state as a tabula rasa, what if ..." (etc.). The computer science is very intent on initial states and development therefrom, so computer science has its specific bias.  Said: Rursus   ☻   08:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Revisited: Now, very well formulated, but still we need some citation if such can be found. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Descartes
Locke and the empiricists used the idea of tabula rasa to counter rationalism of Descartes, should this be mentioned in the article? Wandering Courier (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * locke was a strong proponent of rational self-interest. i'm more interested in people using the tabula rasa against locke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.24.135 (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Politics
This section reads: -- Generally speaking, one can never decide whether a theory is true or not simply by examining what political or philosophical implications it might have (see: Moralistic fallacy). Nevertheless, some have been attracted to, or repulsed by, the notion of the "blank slate" for such reasons. On the one hand, the theory of a "blank slate" is attractive to some since it supposes that drastic innate mental differences between normal human beings do not and cannot exist; therefore, making racism and sexism illogical. On the other hand, the theory means there are no inherent limits to how society can shape human psychology. The opposing view is that human nature is innate at birth and that differences arise from genetics. -- Sorry, but that is mostly gibberish. It needs massive cleanup. I suggest deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.151.38 (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

John Locke
Does this really belong in the John Locke series, seeing as he only accounts for a very small part of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.222.95.70 (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree, especially because Locke never used the term "Tabula rasa"-- Logicalgregory 03:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Literature Section
I feel the literature section of this article is particularly weak. Having read Lord of the Flies, I don't think the section is well written or its content particularly relevant. Without citations it is in poor taste to speak for William Golding, whether or not the information is true about his intentions in writing the book. Also I don't think if there were to be one work in the literature section that it should be "Lord of the Flies", which is not primarily concerning the subject matter of the article, tabula rasa. It might be more appropriate to call the section "References in Literature" or something along those lines. Zyzda (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Steven Pinker might not be the best guide for this
There might be a confusion of innate ideas and instincts, or structures. I don't think Aristotle was a believer in the "black slate" - I thought he believed in "essences" of things, which come into fruition with the development of the thing.

Anyways, I think this is a very poor article and it needs some people to clarify this politically painted idea. (I don't believe in the "blank slate" myself, but this is no reason to contaminate articles with questionable assertions.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.66.117 (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No tabula rasa in Locke's Essay
I can find no reference to "tabula rasa" in Locke's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding". He does says that there are "no innate ideas". While I would agree that "no innate ideas" entails a tabula rasa, Locke did not actually say this. Indeed, Locke was one of the first people to write about epistemology in plain English, thus avoiding the Latin verbiage of scholasticism.

If anybody can find a reference to tabula rasa in the essay, please let me know. Otherwise this entry will need a considerable re-write. It is absurd to say, without qualification, our modern idea of the tabula rasa comes from Locke when he never used the term.-- Logicalgregory 05:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Some philosophers believed that Locke used the term Tabula rasa. In the Dictionary of Philosophy edited by the eminent Anthony Flew (Pan Books, 1979, London) We find: “Tabula rasa: … A phrase used by Locke to describe the state of the human mind a birth”. Not only did Locke not use the term Tabula rasa he also believed that children have ideas before they are born (see below). This dictionary entry suggests (but does not strictly imply) that Locke originated the Tabula Rasa theory.

That Locke originated the Tabula rasa theory seems to have become something of an urban legend. I think the Wikipedia can clarify the situation by making it clear that Locke did not use the term.-- Logicalgregory 07:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

 * The exact term used by Locke is not tabula rasa but white paper as in the following quote :
 * "2. All ideas come from sensation or reflection. Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas:- How comes it to be furnished? Whence comes it by that vast store which the busy and boundless fancy of man has painted on it with an almost endless variety? Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? (Essay, II, 1, I, § 2)"
 * I agree though that Locke doesn't seem to think that there are no ideas at all in the mind of a child. In his Thoughts Concerning Education he even makes some clear statements as the following one :
 * "God has stamp'd certain characters upon men's minds, which like their shapes, may perhaps be a little mended, but can hardly be totally alter'd and transform'd into the contrary. (Some Thoughts, V, section 66, § 2)"
 * It is then strictly false to affirm that for him "Each individual was free to define the content of his or her character - but his or her basic identity as a member of the human species cannot be so altered.", for he says that it's the individual and not the species who bears certains characters of his/her own.

 * However, the use of these quotes to affirm that Locke was against abortion - as suggested in your other message - seems to me a lotta more questionable, for in his times of patriarchy it was still indisputable that a woman should keep and raise its child even if she was forced to give birth to it against her desire. It is also notable that Locke's philosophy was used to reject patriarchalism which is the political translation of patriarchy. --VentDuNord (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Meanings in other countries
Someone with better English knowledge than me may make a reference to the fact that in Latin-speaking countries the term is synonym with "nothing", "dumb" etc. This was the initial meaning that Romans used for. We (Romanians) same as Italians and French people, use it novadays in expressions like "he is tabula rasa" meaning that "his knowledge in this domain are close to nothing", or "he is stupid/dumb", or "when I arrived there - tabula rasa", meaning that I did not find what I was expecting to find, or I found nothing. Latin "tabula" refers also to a small piece of furniture used for sitting or eating, the expression has a larger semantic, related also to scarcity of food, for example in English you have the word "table" which come from the latin "tabula", I can't find a good example right now. LaurV talk 05:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a template/link to tabula rasa which could also benefit from additional definitions/usages. (and in your case, you might also like to add it to the Romanian wiktionary.)
 * The definition for tabula might also need expansion, if what you say is historically accurate; as currently there is no mention of any kind of furniture, under the Latin definition.
 * Just noting all that, as a random passing editor, not an expert. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello LaurV, would the correct translation of Tabula rasa, therefore be, "bare table" not "blank slate"?-- Logicalgregory 03:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean in modern usage, "scraped tablet" would seem to be the correct etymological translation.-- Logicalgregory 05:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know really, our language keeps a strong latin root, for which we are very proud, and in our language we call "tabla" the thing you call "blackboard" in classrooms. The main meaning may be the one related to a small board to write on it, which Romans used like a notebook, the laptops of that time :D LaurV —Preceding undated comment added 07:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC) re: bare table, Latins used many words for "empty" or "bare", like "vacuus" (empty inside, void, from which English "vacuum"), "nudus" (empty outside, bare, nude), "inanis" (void in content, like a phrase, etc, semantic, or futile, from which the English "inane") etc. But "rasa" does not mean "bare", it is more implying the "cleaning", "erosion", (from which the English "razor" and "erase"). Therefore "tabula rasa" is in its concrete meaning only about a "just wiped blackboard". But the evolution of the meaning is more complex, out of my expertise. (hey, I just learned today how to sign my wiki posts with four tildes! yeah) LaurV (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Locke admitted ideas before birth
The current entry states: “In Locke's philosophy, Tabula rasa was the theory that the (human) mind is at birth a "blank slate"”

This is quite wrong, what Locke said was:

Children, though they may have Ideas in the Womb, have none innate. Therefore I doubt not but children, by the exercise of their senses about objects that affect them in the womb receive some few ideas before they are born, … (Essay Book II Chap 9 Sect 5).

From what Locke said some people might want to infer that Locke was implying that the mind is a blank slate at conception, but this is quite a different thing from being a blank slate at birth.

One can imagine how this might impact on the abortion debate that is currently raging in the USA. -- Logicalgregory 07:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sweeping claims in last paragraph
The last paragraph claims:

 * 'The tabula rasa concept became popular in social sciences in the 20th century. Early ideas of eugenics posited that human intelligence correlated strongly with social class, but these ideas were rejected, and the idea that genes (or simply "blood") determined a person's character became regarded as racist'.

 * There are various problems here. Firstly, this is desperately 'pop', implying wrongly that all (or just about all) scientists (social - and natural?) followed this route in the 20th century. Secondly, the correlation between (measured) human intelligence and social class is uncontroversial. The controversy surrounds attempted explanations. Thirdly, the view that character is genetically determined is not necessarily seen as racist. All in all, a bit of a dog's dinner! Norvo (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

godwin, kropotkin, anarchism
i think something should be said about the tabula rasa being used against models of "human nature" and rational self-interest, such as that produced by locke. there's a lot of questioning on this page about the lockean use; i wouldn't consider locke a proponent of the tabula rasa in the way it's used in normal, modern discourse. rather, he produced a sort of an out there discussion of human souls that really has nothing to do with the way the term is used today. he rejected a tabula rasa for human behaviour, arguing we're inherently rational/self-interested. locke is actually one of the architects of what we call 'human nature'; the thrust of this article is really incoherent.

it was various socialists, anarchists and proto-anarchists that rejected a fixed human nature that constructed the modern idea of the tabula rasa as a way around liberal assumptions of self-interest, and the logical conclusion that a state is necessary to maintain order. the whole educational thrust of the left is really rooted in this idea.

also, the section on brain function is sort of confusing. the existence of a programmed cortex does not imply a fixed human nature if it builds memories and interpretations through (subconsciously) analyzing human experience; that implies that the nature of the responses is malleable, and not pre-determined. tabula rasa doesn't suggest we are born without brains; it modern terms, it suggests plasticity. as the section cites pinker, it's sort of unclear what it means to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.24.135 (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Psychology and neurobiology section
I appreciate the author's attempt to cogently express what are relatively complex concepts in these two sentences: Critically, multivariate studies show that the distinct faculties of the mind such as memory and reason fractionate along genetic boundaries. Cultural universals such as emotion and the relative resilience of psychological adaptation to accidental biological changes (for instance the David Reimer case of gender reassignment following an accident) also support basic biological mechanisms in the mind.

...but, I worry that most readers will not comprehend what the author intended. Part of the problem involves phrases with ambiguous meaning, e.g., "cultural universals" (perhaps take that out and start the sentence with "Emotion..."?) and "relative resilience of psychological adaptation" (perhaps something like, "the psyche's ability to adapt to sudden and fundamental changes to one's understanding of self, e.g., the David Reimer case of..." - undoubtedly there's a better way to phrase that than what I just wrote, but I want to at least suggest a direction).

The David Reimer case needs a citation. And it would be groovy if the reference contained a brief description of the case, to further illustrate the point.

References 6 and 7, at least on the surface, seem to support the tabula rasa theory, but they are cited in support of the opposite. For example, Le Bé & Markram (2006) write in their abstract, "The local microcircuitry of the neocortex is structurally a tabula rasa...." And Kalisman, et al. (2004) state, "These data provide the first direct experimental evidence for a tabula rasa-like structural matrix between neocortical pyramidal neurons...."

By the way, I love this sentence in the Kalisman, et al. (2004) article: "... we found that axons of layer V neocortical pyramidal neurons do not preferentially project toward the dendrites of particular neighboring pyramidal neurons; instead, axons promiscuously touch all neighboring dendrites without any bias." Those naughty neurons. ;^]

Finally, in the last sentence, I don't believe the examples provide evidence for "basic biological mechanisms in the mind." Bring it back to the subject at hand. Maybe something like, "provide evidence that several mental processes are 'built-in' rather than learned." [although some caveat here about neuroplasticity is probably in order... complex topic!].

I did not make any of the above suggested changes because a) I do not have a strong background in philosophy or neuroscience, so I might be missing some crucial point or misunderstanding a fundamental concept and don't want to muck things up as a result; and b) I'm hoping that another editor can articulate these points with greater coherence and clarity than yours truly.  Mark D Worthen PsyD  22:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't see how biology suggesting that IQ (.80 at the very highest reasonable estimate) or memory is genetic, goes against the tabula rasa. The notion is with respect to 'knowledge', not 'intellect'. But just assuming an equivalence between IQ and intelligence, is problematic, itself - intelligence theories are not modeled to assume that gaining specific knowledge increases are intelligence in some way. They are (tautologically) designed, against the that notion that a gain in specific knowledge, is a gain in intellectual potential. Therefore the claim that IQ tests are in some way, evidence against that tabula rasa, is tautological. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.238.115.40 (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Neuropsychology reporting
RE above - read the section again. Part of the science behind the arguments against tabula rasa are due to underlying cognitive mechanisms that prime the brain for learning and cognition. If you are trying to disassociate 'knowledge' from 'intellect' when trying to apply psychological constructs to tabula rasa, you cannot argue that there is some form of knowledge that IQ is completely distinct from. There is nothing tautological about whether the nature of the knowledge acquired from experience or perception is either crystal or fluid, emotional or rational. Under your argument the observable effects of the science and statistics behind the IQ-test constructs would be a different matter to any known theories of human intelligence altogether.

I changed wording of parts of the article. Neurology and psychology are sciences, not philosophical debates. When you read scientific literature you are reading a study that shows evidence, not a person who is putting forth an argument. You assess the validity and reliability of evidence, not the views of the author. Evidence is either strong or tentative, but it is still evidence and not a viewpoint.

Overall Review
This concept is something that was briefly covered in my college history class when the Enlightenment period during the 17th and 18th centuries was happening. The concept by John Locke stating that nurture plays a more prevalent role in an individual's fate in life than nature does stood out to me, and it is what brought me to review this article. People generally have heard of the phrase "Nature versus Nurture", but I never knew where the concept truly originated from. After reading the article and the Talk Page, it seems as if there was much more to tabula rasa than I ever anticipated. I found this topic to be very informative and done in great detail. I never would have guessed the centuries that the concept goes back before Locke's book in 1690 discussed the relevance of it towards society. Learning about the history of this concept helped me understand what exactly John Locke was talking about when the philosophes of the Enlightenment period were introducing these texts throughout Europe.

I am very new to Wikipedia, but reviewing the in depth Talk Page shows that many people have weighed in on this topic. All of the editing has made this article and topic very well done in my opinion. The neutrality of the article seems very strong throughout every topic discussed. As I become more proficient at reviewing articles I am sure my opinions could possibly change on this topic, but I enjoyed what I learned about this concept. MikeMorland (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Stoics do not propound a 'blank state' idea
Hi, in this article it says " Stoic epistemology emphasizes that the mind starts blank, but acquires knowledge as the outside world is impressed upon it"

But in "The Discourses of Epictetus" it says:

 * "For we come into the world with no natural notion of a right-angled triangle, or of a diesis, or of a half tone; but we learn each of these things by a certain transmission according to art; and for this reason those who do not know them, do not think that they know them. But as to good and evil, and beautiful and ugly, and becoming and unbecoming, and happiness and misfortune, and proper and improper, and what we ought to do and what we ought not to do, whoever came into the world without having an innate idea of them? "

(https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/e/epictetus/e65d/book2.html#B2.11)

This is a direct contradiction to the idea that the stoics have a 'blank state' idea, since he specifically says that for some things, people are born with "an innate idea of them".

Unless Epictetus' ideas differed from other Stoics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:181B:8A00:C9D5:3D82:32B0:5433 (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

How about a "criticism" section?
The idea of the blank slate has been strongly criticized in Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate", for example, and has been debunked to my satisfaction. Arctic Gazelle (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

 * How about the myriad criticisms of Pinker's alleged "debunking," as also with twin studies? Even non-scientist scholars, such as Jesse Prinz, have provided ample evidence to the contrary of the claim that social pre-wiring is demonstrably true. See, for example, Beyond Human nature (2012). 128.198.99.192 (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tabula rasa


text:
Talk:1980 Atlantic hurricane season

Untitled
Allen reached 190mph. The storm details say it reached Cat 5 three times. So why does the introduction say "at Category 4 strength or stronger"? Is this a disputed landfall strength as opposed to peak strength or something?

Also ACE page says season had 11/9/2. Which was the other major hurricane? Only Ivan indicates Cat 2; none of the other storms say anything about their peak strength. I think this leaves the impression they are all Cat 1. crandles 13:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Added Frances's peak windspeed of 115mph. crandles 17:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Images for each storm

 * Hurricane Bonnie
 * Hurricane Charley
 * Tropical Storm Danielle
 * Hurricane Earl
 * Hurricane Frances
 * Hurricane Georges
 * Tropical Storm Hermine
 * Hurricane Ivan
 * Hurricane Jeanne
 * Hurricane Karl

 * Wow, I got lucky. I didn't think the MWR had all of them. Well, there you go, another year down. Hurricanehink 14:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Finished juan andrés 01:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good work. I uploaded 1978 as well. Hurricanehink 01:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've noticed it. Maybe I will do it tomorrow. juan andrés 02:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

 * By the way, are there any pictures of Allen other than the radar one that can be accepted? I found this one in the same report as the others. It has Allen before its peak intensity. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Hurricane_Allen.JPG Jake52

 * Sure. Personally, I don't like infrared at all. Hurricanehink 02:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Depressions
This information is for general use, and is not reference-able. Happy hunting. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 8970 7/17/1980 M= 5  1 SNBR= 143            XING=0   TD1
 * 8980 7/17*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*250 900  20    0*252 904  25    0*
 * 8990 7/18*254 909  25    0*257 912  30    0*260 918  30    0*262 921  30    0*
 * 9000 7/19*264 927  30    0*268 930  30    0*270 935  30    0*274 940  30    0*
 * 9010 7/20*278 945  30    0*280 949  30    0*285 952  30    0*290 957  25    0*
 * 9020 7/21*295 957  25    0*300 955  25    0*305 950   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
 * 9030 TD
 * 9180 8/13/1980 M= 5  4 SNBR= 146            XING=0   TD4
 * 9190 8/13*150 210  20    0*152 225  25    0*158 242  25    0*167 259  30    0*
 * 9200 8/14*178 271  30    0*188 287  30    0*200 300  30    0*210 317  30    0*
 * 9210 8/15*220 330  30    0*232 343  30    0*248 359  30    0*273 372  30    0*
 * 9220 8/16*300 366  30    0*321 344  25    0*338 319  25    0*352 290  25    0*
 * 9230 8/17*367 262  20    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
 * 9240 TD
 * 9250 8/25/1980 M= 5  5 SNBR= 147            XING=0   TD6
 * 9260 8/25*159 316  20    0*158 340  25    0*157 353  25    0*156 369  25    0*
 * 9270 8/26*155 383  25    0*154 398  25    0*154 410  25    0*153 430  30    0*
 * 9280 8/27*154 449  30    0*158 468  30    0*160 488  30    0*167 508  30    0*
 * 9290 8/28*178 527  30    0*190 543  30    0*205 560  25    0*220 580  25    0*
 * 9300 8/29*225 600  20    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*
 * 9310 TD
 * 9370 11/12/1980 M= 7 7 SNBR= 149            XING=0   TD14
 * 9380 11/12* 0   0   0    0*  0   0   0    0*130 800  20    0*134 807  20    0*
 * 9390 11/13*140 812 25    0*144 819  25    0*150 824  30    0*159 830  30    0*
 * 9400 11/14*164 835 30    0*171 838  30    0*180 839  30    0*188 838  30    0*
 * 9410 11/15*194 836 30    0*200 833  30    0*207 830  30    0*211 829  30    0*
 * 9420 11/16*217 828 25    0*222 827  25    0*229 828  25    0*239 829  30    0*
 * 9430 11/17*244 830 30    0*252 832  30    0*260 835  30    0*272 832  25    0*
 * 9440 11/18*280 830 25    0*290 820  20    0*300 810  20    0*  0   0   0    0*
 * 9450 TD
 * I think at least one must be missing. Hurricane Frances should be the 10th tropical depression, so another one must be between that and Allen. Potapych (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, wait. Maybe not. Potapych (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Three additional depressions are noted in the NOAA's records - two before Allen (in addition to TD 1) and one between Ivan and Jeanne. These should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.203.187 (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Timeline?
The timeline is the only article that's holding up this from becoming a good topic. Does anyone plan on working on that? Would anyone mind if it gets merged? There's barely additional content in the timeline article, and it doesn't seem like a good fit for this season (not too many storms, few concurrent storms). Any thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1980 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923101618/http://www.emdat.be/disaster-list to http://www.emdat.be/disaster-list

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Hurricane Karl (1980) into 1980 Atlantic hurricane season
Fails WP:NWX since there was no damage or impact. Not really a meteorological reason for the article to exist either. The records mentioned could be summarized within the season article. Noah, AATalk 14:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak keep the records are a bit numerous to fully describe in the article, tho 1989 was a quiet season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.19.68.110 (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * None of the records are substantive, more like distinctions really, and can easily be described in the season article. Drdpw (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support merge – This hurricane stayed over open waters and did not have any effects on land. Nor was it covered by the media in any appreciable manner. Additionally, the article is very thin on substance. Therefore, it would be better to cover the hurricane as part of the season article rather than as a standalone article. Drdpw (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support - there isn't much more in the Karl article than what's already in the section in the season article. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:1980 Atlantic hurricane season


text:
Talk:1978 Atlantic hurricane season

Images for each storm

 * Tropical Storm Bess
 * Hurricane Cora
 * Tropical Storm Debra
 * Hurricane Flossie
 * Tropical Storm Hope
 * Tropical Storm Irma
 * Tropical Storm Juliet
 * Hurricane Kendra

 * Amelia and Greta are in their articles. Ella and Subtropical Storm One are on the article already. This year is done. Hurricanehink 18:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't do the work since there are not the track maps juan andrés 01:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC).
 * Ooh, sorry to hear. Hopefully Jdorje will be back soon. Where's he been for so long? Hurricanehink 02:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Have you heard about hurricane Cindy? Really impressive news. juan andrés 02:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Yea, I did hear about Cindy, and was quite pleased as well. I had a feeling, and can only wait until Emily's comes out. Hurricanehink 03:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Finally done! juan andrés 04:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Strongest storm
Greta is the strongest storm, at 947 mbar. Ella achieved slightly higher wind, but much higher pressure (958 mbar). Pressure data on Ella is complete; Greta's data is incomplete but the 947 mbar is from peak strength. — jdorje (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Todo
Unlike most 1950-2004 articles I don't think this one has enough content to be B-class. A little more detail per storm would be desirable. — jdorje (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.thehurricanearchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=106090245_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=1&currentPage=0
 * In 1978 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-06-07 00:22:16, 404 Not Found
 * In 1978 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-06-24 05:05:09, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancies between HURDAT and individual storm/season summaries for Hope and Irma
I am hoping this issue will be addressed when the updated HURDAT info from 1931-1935 is released next month. It appears to be a simple oversight, as the season summary was the last of these items released, which shows the ST track portions. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The change has been approved, so the Hope/Irma issue should be fixed the next time HURDAT is updated. As should Ella's missing final point.  Thegreatdr (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Awesome :) I gotta say, I'm really glad they're willing to fix certain issues before they get to those storms, like Beryl 82 oddly having non-divisible by 5 knots. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is simple and does not involve re-analysis, the committee is quick to fix items like these. However, if I were to ask for most of Amy (1975)'s track to become ST outside of two days, as the storm report actually reads, that would probably have to wait until the hurricane reanalysis reaches that year.  I could always write it up whenever...but it will be years until it is looked at by the committee in that case.  The changes/additions I've proposed for the 1950s were written up eight years ago, in 2004.  And so it goes.  Thegreatdr (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, or calling Debbie 61 extratropical per its report. If you don't mind me asking (and I know it's rather off-topic, but I don't think people will mind too much), what sort of proposed 1950s changes were there? Anything major/interesting? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You've seen them already. They're in the 1944-1953 writeup that went online a year or two ago, by Hagen.  Thegreatdr (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooh, ok! That makes sense. Any estimate when they'll get to the 44-53 era? Think they'd do 36-40 by next year, 41-45 by 2014, and then the rest by 2015? Or what? I'm always interested in your behind-the-scenes info. You should start a blog :P --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I know nothing for sure, but the recent pattern suggests 5 years per year would be tackled. They're planning to go all the way to the current day, so at this pace, it would still take another 18 years.  Thegreatdr (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on 1978 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131227224215/http://www.westover.afrc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-131211-018.pdf to http://www.westover.afrc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-131211-018.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/orders/IPS/IPS-B8263CF8-57A6-48D4-9042-DE2DDAEE0D6F.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:1978 Atlantic hurricane season


text:
Talk:1977 Atlantic hurricane season

Images of each storm

 * Tropical Storm Babe- I know its a hurricane, but couldn't get one of it at peak intensity. Hurricanehink
 * Hurricane Clara
 * Hurricane Dorothy
 * Hurricane Evelyn
 * Tropical Storm Frieda

 * Another year down. Hurricanehink 03:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1977? Pretty impressive your work! But I can't do it today because I'm busy in real life. juan andrés 04:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yea, aint real life a bitch? I know the feeling. Hurricanehink 04:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, I'd advise not to use fowl language, there are other people using this talk page you know ( I've alredy warned user John about that.)Storm05 16:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It's fine as long as it is in the talk pages. I'm sorry if I offended you. Hurricanehink 17:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It didn't offended me, people who is right never offend me juan andrés 02:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And it's finally ready!juan andrés 05:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

TOC + clear
Someone added a TOC + clear at the beginning of the article. I don't think this is a good idea. In most cases it's better to let formatting issues take care of themselves rather than using TOC, and having a huge blank below the intro looks even worse than having a slightly misplaced first storm. To improve the formatting, however, a "storm summary" section could be added at the top of the article. — jdorje (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.thehurricanearchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=79892577_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=1&currentPage=0
 * In 1977 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-06-06 21:47:20, 404 Not Found
 * In 1977 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-06-24 04:54:13, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Fewest since 1965?
Re the statement in the lead "the fewest named storm since the 1965 season, with only six systems reaching tropical storm status" - what about 1972 Atlantic hurricane season with just four? -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1972 had 3 named subtropical storms though. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Subtropical storms are strange. They seem to have been named in only two years - 1972/73 - for 1974 on, they got numbers; and up to 1971, don't get a mention at all. Those in 1972/73 got phonetic names (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta), so since these were not "girls names" like the tropical storms and hurricanes of 1953-78, do they really count as named storms? -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Subtropical storms are considered named storms. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  00:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, given that they have names (of a sort), let's consider the second part of the sentence - "with only six systems reaching tropical storm status" - do subtropical storms have tropical storm status? If they do, there's a problem both here and at 1972 Atlantic hurricane season which states "only four fully tropical named storms – the fewest since 1930". It seems to me that the criteria for "fewest" should be consistent between the years. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Subtropical cyclones are not fully tropical, but they usually have tropical storm-frock winds, hence, tropical storm status. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  17:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the wording. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:1977 Atlantic hurricane season


text:
Talk:Death of a Ladies' Man (album)

Odd sentence
"Among the seven unknown outtakes is probably "Do I Have to Dance All Night"" <- what does this mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.162.119 (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Putting poeple off
"Produced by the storied Phil Spector, it was a surprise to some fans when the typically minimalist Cohen was surrounded completely by Spector's Wall of Sound."
 * Did this album "put people off?" I have heard many fans were dissapointed by the sound. I can compare it with the sort of surprise the Bob Dylan fans got with Dylan's own double album Self Portrait.

 * It's an acquired taste. I do wish the sound were better, though. – Hattrem 23:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

By coinsidence (or conspiricy, I'm not sure which) this album has backing vocals by Bob Dylan, which I didn't know about until it was added to the Bob Johnston article. I wish the wailing sax solos to be replace by more pleasent harmonica solos on future remixes.

Outtakes
There seem to be at least seven outakes from this album, if these had not been edited out of the abum, it could have been Leonard Cohen's first double album, how unfortunate they were taken off (by double album I mean any album that takes up two LP records, even if it can be set on one compact disc).144.139.87.127

 * I am not sure about these outakes, there's only one mention of them - "Cohen and Spector wrote fifteen songs in three weeks, with Spector setting Cohen's lyrics to music". (Stephen Holden, "Leonard Cohen Obscured... A Haunting by Spector", Rolling Stone, January 26 1978. - ) - but I am not sure does that mean they actually recorded it?
 * Also, "Do I Have To Dance All Night?" was already released in 1976 as a single for France and Portugal (taken live in Paris 1976), with Cohen's *own* music, and Spector wrote all music for DOALM without Cohen's influence. So, "Do I Have..." was *probably* one pf outtakes, but it's sure it was an outtake from 1979' Recent Songs. One source confirms it was studio version with choir and brass, the version taken with Lewy during Recent Songs sessions, while Devlin mentioned studio version recorded in Munich in 1976, but replaced with live version from Paris for its 1976 single release. Devlin also confirms Cohen wanted to release free bonus single with Recent Songs, which would contain two outtakes, "Misty Blue" and "Do I Have To Dance All Night", but Columbia rejected the idea. - Tomsak 09:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, unless the Recent Songs outtake with choir and brass is the 1976 recording.
 * Like you, I also wonder whether the seven remaining songs for Death of a Ladies' Man were recorded or not. (While Spector is indeed supposed to have composed all the music, Cohen has told a story about them sitting down at the piano together and writing songs.) – Hattrem 04:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Mike Randal - 'My music Loves me (even if I dont)
I wanted to bring attention to a album by Mike Randal called "My Music Loves Me (even if I don't)" http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,1006187,00.html

The album art is a direct homage to the Death of a Ladies Man album cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.206.124 (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A strange link
Why is "Death of a Ladies' Man" in the second paragraph redirected to "promiscuity"? I do realize that "ladies' man" is used to refer to male promiscuity, but the way this information presents itself is really confusing right now. Keith Galveston (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Remastered version?
Is the current CD edition remastered, as is the case for most of L.C.'s pre-1990 albums? --109.193.211.159 (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Reception
The Reception section says the album received negative reviews during its release. The reviews in the review box seem to contrast from that statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.251.142 (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The reviews with links are most likely more recent reviews (with the exception of the review by Christgau). More recent reviewers have much kinder in their assessment of the album than the reviews that came out upon the album's release. Allmusic.com gives the album particularly high praise. But Christgau's review is much more ambiguous. Though he gave the album a B grade, he called it "bad music."Jpcohen (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Phil Spector quote
"Listen Phil, if you're goin' to kill me, kill me, " Leonard remarked dryly, "but don't fuck with me ears. I need 'em."

I was surprised to see this being attributed to Leonard Cohen, I always heard it being attributed to John Lennon (and a quick check online shows multiple examples where this is the case).

Lennon / Leonard? Anyone have the book in question so we can verify this? David T Tokyo (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Death of a Ladies' Man (album)


text:
Talk:1976 Atlantic hurricane season

Indirect?
If Emmy caused a plane to crash, shouldn't those be direct deaths? Or did the plane crash because it was evacuating, but not directly because of the storm's winds? — jdorje (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * IIRC, the plane crashed during an attempt to emergency land in the Azores. I think that's indirect. Hurricanehink 13:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Referring to talk page
Im going to remove the expand request banner if no one discusses about adding more info in the seasonal article. Storm05 17:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Huh? It doesn't need discussion.  It needs to be expanded. — jdorje (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Season button bar
Can I add a season button bar to this page and the Belle article? It's located here. Icelandic Hurricane #12 22:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I definetely wouldnt mind. Tutmosis 22:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

TDs
I found out there were quite a few depressions this season, but I can't find out how many and when they formed? Thw WMR is so confusing. Icelandic Hurricane #12 21:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

 * That might be misleading. 25 TD's seems like a lot for such an inactive year. Hurricanehink 00:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly think that the depression should not have their own sections, given that the only info available is formation, dissipation, and location. I propose they have their own section, perhaps being listed in a table format listing formation, dissipation, winds, and locations affected (if any). Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Well they are gone for now. Would it matter if i kept the storm histories in a other storms section?Mitchazenia 20:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The problem is that there are no storm histories. That's why I proposed the table. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The high number of TDs is probably because they had just started identifying them, and many of them were really either tropical storms or (more likely) waves or non-tropical systems that they couldn't really tell apart. CrazyC83 00:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are the non-developing TDs from 1976 from the TC reanalysis spreadsheet Thegreatdr (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * June 06-10, Western Atlantic
 * June 10-13, Western Atlantic, 1008 mb low
 * July 05-09, Central Atlantic
 * July 19-23, Western Atlantic, 1018 mb low
 * July 22-25, Ern Trop Atlantic
 * Sept 03-06, Western Atlantic
 * Sept 05-08, Gulf of Mexico
 * Sept 19-30, Tropical Atlantic
 * Sept 21-25, Gulf of Mexico
 * Sept 25-29, Central Trop Atl
 * Oct. 02-13, Wrn Trop Atl/Caribbean, large 1003 mb low
 * Oct. 11-16, Central Trop Atl
 * Oct. 30-Nov. 4, West Central Atlantic

 * Should the table be updated with this information? Could you add a refernce (it doesn't have to be online). There are lots of citation templates to choose from. I'm going to take them out of the button bar, which is missing the July 5 one anyway.Potapych (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For citations, use the MWR article on Atlantic tropical systems that year. That will likely add to the list above, but the list above is from a file that even NHC mentions should be used with caution.  Thegreatdr (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Six years on - these have been moved to the Seasonal effects chart since they are now in HURDAT. When HURDAT is updated i suspect we will be waving goodbye to several of these systems but thats at least two years away imo.Jason Rees (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Captions
The images posted with the tracks for Emmy and Frances aren't satellite images as their captions claim, although there is a satellite image of them between. --Patteroast 13:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I personally don't like the cloud images. I vote we get rid of them. They don't really add that much. Hurricanehink 13:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Hink-you said you couldn't find a picture for most storms <1980. I found mostly the best that i could.Google also has a Bob (1979) sattilite but its a .bmp file,(I never got a reply for the other 2 and they were removed from Google oddly).HurricaneCraze32 20:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

 * They aren't satellite iamges, they are clouds. If anyone wants to, they can split up the pic of Emmy and Frances for the storm pics. Do you have a link to the Bob file? Also, you never gave a parent link for those files. With only the picture, nothing is known about them. Do you have the website that they are from? Hurricanehink 20:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

 * NVM Bob-now that i look its one of the 1991 hurricane...The 2 old ones: www.marciawoodgallery.com -HurricaneCraze32 20:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Hink, these are false color visible satellite pictures from a geostationary satellite. Thegreatdr 20:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Could you be a little more specific? If they are paintings, then they can't be used. Hurricanehink 20:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

 * One is a photo,one is a painting-the flooding is photo.HurricaneCraze32 20:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I mean, where on the site do I go for the picture? Which artist is it under? Chances are, it's not fair use. Hurricanehink 20:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually-i couldn't find them on there-you try your luck.HurricaneCraze32 20:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.thehurricanearchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=54992309_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=0&currentPage=0
 * In 1976 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-06-06 21:25:42, 404 Not Found
 * In 1976 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-06-24 04:48:48, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 1976 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150611111832/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/hurdat2-1851-2014-050515.txt to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/hurdat2-1851-2014-050515.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 1976 Atlantic hurricane season
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 1976 Atlantic hurricane season's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "TCR2": From 1975 Atlantic hurricane season:  From Tropical Storm Dottie:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:1976 Atlantic hurricane season


text:
Talk:1975 Atlantic hurricane season

Untitled
Removed last message by myself, maybe one think this was in bad faith. Congratulating Jdorge for working so hard (noting that he added maps to almost all years) afterhis wikivacations juan andrés 00:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC). Phew, much better! juan andrés 05:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I found a pic for Caroline but i cant upload it
I need this for my Caroline article at the LNBS.Its from the NHC.http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/flight/images/big/fly00176.jpg

Can someone help me upload it? And: Emmy & Frances:1976.HurricaneCraze32 23:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

 * What is LNBS? — jdorje (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

 * My less notable hurricane articles.LNBS

HurricaneCraze32 12:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0493/107/4/pdf/i1520-0493-107-4-477.pdf
 * In 1975 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-05-25 04:39:10, 404 Not Found
 * In 1975 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-06-06 21:05:51, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ltAMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=W18DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5734,3081519&dq=hurricane+faye+1975
 * In 1975 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-05-25 04:39:09, 404 Not Found
 * In 1975 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-06-06 21:06:01, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.thehurricanearchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=16188159_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=2&currentPage=0
 * In 1975 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-06-06 21:06:10, 404 Not Found
 * In 1975 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-06-24 04:42:34, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1975 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061218105454/http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2006/dec2006/ to http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2006/dec2006/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Numbering issues?
The numbering appears messed up from TD Eight onwards since HURDAT2 lists Doris as AL081975, TD Eight as AL091975, et cetera. The graphical timeline also has just 22 systems when HURDAT2 and the infobox list 23. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:1975 Atlantic hurricane season


text:
Talk:1974 Atlantic hurricane season

Tropical Depression Seventeen Missing + Wrong Data
A quick glance at the data seems to suggest that either the timeline or the dates for the individual storms are wrong and don't match up. 76.181.244.197 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.thehurricanearchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=93175374_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=1&currentPage=0
 * In 1974 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-06-06 20:46:24, 404 Not Found
 * In 1974 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-06-24 04:36:10, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 1974 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007015627/https://www.aoml.noaa.gov:80/hrd/hurdat/easyread-2011.html to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/easyread-2011.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:1974 Atlantic hurricane season


text:
Talk:1973 Atlantic hurricane season

Atlantic Tropical Storm Names for 1973
The list of names for the 1973 Atlantic hurricane season comes from a book titled Hurricanes: Monster Storms from the Sea by Ruth Brindze (1975). The information is also contained in wiki article here. --65.24.223.243 08:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The name Hilda (as opposed to Helen) is on the name list for the 1973 hurricane season according to The World Almanac and Book of Facts in its 1973 book. The name can be read at the Meteorology section. It might be noted that since an almanac is publish the year before the designated year or at the start of the year, the name might have been change before the official start of the 1973 hurricane season but that's just a guess. May 10, 2006

 * According to the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), "hurricane" is a term used to refer to "tropical cyclones". The current "H" name for Atlantic tropical cyclones is "Helene, not "Helen". It is scheduled to be used in 2006, then again in 2012; there are six permanent lists of names that rotate. See the NOAA's Worldwide Tropical Cyclone Names website. This doesn't mean it wasn't Helen in 1973; the permanent lists weren't established until 1979.
 * "Hilda" is currently on the list of names for Eastern North Pacific tropical cyclones, rather than the Atlantic list; it was retired from the Atlantic list in 1964. It is highly unlikely that it was "unretired" for use in 1973; so much for Almanacs as reference sources. See Retired Hurricane Names 1954–2005. The list is for the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico storms.

 * I'm still searching for a list from the NOAA of names that were actually used in past years; I'll add another comment here if I find one. So far, I've just found the lists for current and upcoming years, along with retired names. — Chidom   talk   21:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

On our Wikipedia website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_previous_tropical_cyclone_names#Names_effective_1971-1978 It says "Helen" not "Hilda" or "Helene". so basically there is nothing really much to argue about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Miracle55star (talk • contribs).
 * I'm not so sure our sources are correct. We never had an online source to verify it by (which would be nice given that none of can see the source). Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ginger or Christine?
Please see Talk:1967 Atlantic hurricane season.  Jamie | C 12:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Alpha or Alfa
HURDAT says Alpha. Which is correct?Potapych (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Alt text
I've added it to most of the images, but it's rough around the edges. – Juliancolton  | Talk 03:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.thehurricanearchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=82937522_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=9&currentPage=50
 * In 1973 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-06-06 15:29:19, 404 Not Found
 * In 1973 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-06-06 20:32:15, 404 Not Found
 * In 1973 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-06-24 04:30:26, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose merging Hurricane Fran (1973) into 1973 Atlantic hurricane season since it has no claim to notability.''Flux55'' (talk) ''Flux55'' (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * support merge – had an unremarkable trek across the ocean and had minimal impact. Pertinent information from this article could easily be folded into the season article. Drdpw (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support See no reason not to merge. Seems to fail on notability grounds. Noah, AATalk 14:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Support, there's little in the article that's not in the season article. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:1973 Atlantic hurricane season


text:
Talk:1972 Atlantic hurricane season

Button bar up
Ones in italics are subtrop.HurricaneCraze32 20:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Number of storms
The Sand box says there were 7 when their were 8 according to the infomation contained on the page and so i am going to edit it to say 8 any problems with this? Jason Rees 19:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, I have a problem with that. There were 4 tropical storms and three subtropical storms, though one of those tropical storms was once a subtropical storm. That might be where the confusion is. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

ive just been doing some research on Google and Subtropical storm Bravo became Hurricanne Betty

my source is the candian hurricanne center - http://www.ns.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/storm72.html Jason Rees 20:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Yea, there are 7 according to the page. It says it in Hurricane Betty's section that it was named Bravo, though Betty's naming as a tropical system superceded the name Bravo. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

18 Nondeveloping tropical depressions of 1972
Thegreatdr 16:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Jun 18-21     Western Atlantic  Called T.D. #4 when it formed east of Agnes
 * Jun 22-29     Central Atlantic
 * Jul 9-13       Western Atlantic  Winds 35 mph gusting to 45 mph at Frying Pan Shoals
 * Jul 15-23     North Atlantic
 * Jul 20-24     North Atlantic
 * Jul 30-Aug 4 Western Atlantic  1012 mb low
 * Aug 5-8        Ern Trop Atlantic
 * Aug 11-16     Western Atlantic
 * Aug 16-18     Ern Trop Atlantic
 * Sep 1-3        Western Atlantic
 * Sep 2-6        Central Atlantic
 * Sep 15-18     East of Bermuda  1010 mb low
 * Sep 19-25     Cntrl Trop Atl
 * Sep 28-Oct 1 Central Atlantic
 * Sep 30-Oct 3 Central Atlantic
 * Oct 4-16       Atlantic
 * Oct 15-25     Ern Trop Atlantic
 * Oct 21-24     West Cntrl Atlantic

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

 * http://www.thehurricanearchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=7084045_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=4&currentPage=0
 * In 1972 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-06-06 15:09:42, 404 Not Found
 * In 1972 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-06-24 04:20:51, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:1972 Atlantic hurricane season


text:
Talk:1970 Atlantic hurricane season

Tropical Storm Felice
I went through tons of old reports and all pictures of Felice available were of it over Texas/Oklahoma. Jake52 My talk

 * Here's a PDF on how the storm redeveloped over southeastern Oklahoma, similar to Erin this year. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Atlantic tropical systems of 1970
This is the breakdown of the various TD assignments for 1970. Depending on how you count them, there are between 17 and 23 tropical systems that year. You can see the complications. The original numbering system included the Eastern Pacific, so there are gaps in the numbering. NHC found additional systems after the fact, which were never in the original numbering scheme. For some unknown reason, TDs were left out after the fact, though there is no documentation down there concerning this curiosity. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

1970 Hurricane Season in Fiction
I've recently come across a crime thriller entitled Summer of Storms by Judith Kelman.

It opens with a description of a fictional category 5 Hurricane called Queenie striking New York city on the 4th of August 1970. The fury of the storm covers up a murder.

The author also describes the Hurricane season Queenie is part of. Prior to Queenie there had been 16 Tropical Storms. 12 of them became Hurricanes, of those 6 were above category 3.

I'm not sure if this should be mentioned as a section of this article or if it should form part of the article on Tropical cyclones in popular culture.Graham1973 (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 1970 Atlantic hurricane season
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 1970 Atlantic hurricane season's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "mwr": From Tropical Depression Nineteen (1970):  From Hurricane Able (1951):  From List of retired Atlantic hurricane names: 1979 Monthly Weather Review From Tropical Storm Felice:

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Tropical Depression Counts in 1970
Tropical Depression 19 is considered one of the worst disasters. It occurred during the 1970 Atlantic Hurricane season. This season curiously only included 10 storms that made it to depression including two unnamed hurricanes (nine and ten) that occurred later. Where do the total numbers for depression, hurricanes, etc come from? This single piece of evidence argues they are made up. Autkm (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I got it. The number came from here. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1970 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061218105454/http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2006/dec2006/ to http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2006/dec2006/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Page move discussion for the former TD 15 at Talk:Hurricane Fifteen (1970)
Please see Talk:Hurricane Fifteen (1970) for a discussion on moving the article for the storm that caused floods in Puerto Rico and later redeveloped into a hurricane near the Azores. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:1970 Atlantic hurricane season


text:
Talk:1967 Atlantic hurricane season

Todo
Fix sections. Jdorje 01:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Beulah
I've expanded the section on Hurricane Beulah using some information from the article itself. It still might need some work though. -Tcwd | Talk 15:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Good job. That looks fine. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ginger or Christine?
This article claims that Ginger was the easternmost forming tropical cyclone, whereas 1973 Atlantic hurricane season says the same thing about Christine. Which is correct?  Jamie | C 12:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The more recent storm article/reference, of course. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:1967 Atlantic hurricane season