text:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 25

'Aluminium'
I'd like some opinions on this. You see, the word is aluminium here at Wikipedia, despite that most English speaking people (Alright, so we're all Americans and we just outnumber the rest) pronounce it 'aluminum'. The numbers favor 'aluminum', but the Manual of Style does not - it favors the official version, which is 'aluminium'. Admittedly, somebody's going to wind up in the cold, but which would be better: the official version, or the version more people use? Everyone on Talk:Aluminum - including me - is so entrenched in their own opinions that it really isn't possible to get anywhere with this anymore. -Litefantastic 23:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I am British and believe that the official spelling of the word should be conserved as I have personally never heard of the apparently more popular pronunciation. Simply because some people pronounce the word differently than how it is intended to be pronounced should not warrant changing its spelling in order to adapt to the expectations of people oblivious of it. At most, make aluminum a redirection to the aluminium article. Grumpy Troll (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC).
 * Actually, "how it is intended to be pronounced" is related to how it is spelled, and there's an interesting story involved. (It's explained in the article under "spelling".) Apparently the person who named it originally did call it aluminum (and then changed his mind). Personally, I feel that it is apppropriate to use aluminium in scientific contexts, since it is technically a scientific standard, but in other contexts it should be left to the editor to choose, like other words that are spelled differently in different varieties of English. (To talk about "aluminium cans" in an article about recycling the United States would be as strange as talking about the "United States Department of Defence".) But if it's an article about chemistry, let the chemists decide. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 00:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Given IUPAC's preference for aluminium (altho aluminum is an officially accepted variant) chemistry articles would be best written using the second 'i' in my opinion. Outside that usage, the spelling preferred by the subject of the article should predominate following the usual Wikipedia mixed spelling conventions. Caerwine 00:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * IUPAC's preferences shall have no bearing on Wikipedia policy. We are beholden to no external entity dictating how to spell ordinary things like aluminum. The only policy that applies is the one that makes articles consistent within the national writing style used for that article, which is based primarily on the subject matter, but if that is not sufficient to decide the national style, then the style used by the first major contributor shall be used. I don't see any valid reason or justification for preferring the IUPAC spelling because IUPAC prefers it. They hold no jurisdiction over the spelling of an ordinary word, even in scientific articles. Nohat 02:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's awfully harsh. Certainly, Wikipedia should not be bound by any external medium. However, I think it is logical that if we wish to claim scientific credibility, the article on the element should be located at the spelling as used in the scientific community. That the 'i' spelling is also used in the ROW can't hurt either. Same goes for sulfur. However, like Aranel, I don't necessarily see a problem with the national variants (ie, US "aluminum" and ROW "sulphur") being used outside the actual element's article. When used in a scientific context though, the internationally accepted form should be used.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 02:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur with Cyberjunkie. I think we should go the status quo: aluminium for the article on the element, and for any other article discussing it in a scientific context, and aluminum for articles on ordinary objects using the metal, where the articles were first created by Americans (like aluminum can).
 * It's not as though the entire scientific community uses the aluminium spelling exclusively. The vast majority of American chemists, and there are many of them, do use the spelling aluminum. There is no reason that articles they were the first primary contributor to should have the non-American spelling imposed upon them. Furthermore, IUPAC explicitly permits the spelling aluminum, so it's not like the spelling aluminum is in any way "wrong", it's just not "preferred" (whatever that means) by IUPAC. Nohat 03:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Let's cut the misleading nonsense such as "as used in the scientific community" as if aluminium were universal in the scientific community. Just Google "aluminum site:iupac.org" 220 hits, and for example, and "aluminum site:nist.gov" 31,300 hits. Aluminum is an official IUPAC spelling too.
 * Furthermore, aluminum is one of those commodities in which the "scientific community" usage is a minority of the overall usage. Gene Nygaard 12:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I want to note to GrumpyTroll that there is no such thing as an "official English spelling" of anything, and if there were, the British would have no more claim to deciding what it is than anyone else. The spelling and pronunciation of aluminum is just as valid as that for aluminium. The fact that IUPAC prefers the latter over the former is of zero import to Wikipedia's policies. Nohat 03:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not state there was an "official English spelling" of the word, albeit I took the term given by the question's submitter (i.e. "official version"). I pointed out that I was British to explain not having heard the apparently more popular pronunciation. Grumpy Troll (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC).
 * Red flags get raised that there is a misunderstanding of how language works when I read statements like "how it is intended to be pronounced", as though words have intention. A plurality of English speakers are American, and the spelling and pronunciation aluminum is standard (for "standard" read "conventional" not "correct") in American English. I don't necessarily advocate changing all "aluminium" to "aluminum", just that the American spelling is perfectly legitimate, and there is no reason to show intolerance towards it, as long as it is used within existing Wikipedia policies. Nohat 04:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please excuse me, for I was hitherto oblivious of the existence of aluminium being pronounced aluminum, let alone being spelt aluminum. Grumpy Troll (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC).

For chemistry articles, WP has decided, after long discussions, to compromise on IUPAC spellings. For example, although our chemistry articles use the Commonwealth English forms "aluminium" and "caesium", they also use the distinctly American "sulfur". And in this regard, IUPAC spellings are relevant. This style choice only applies in practice to chemistry-related articles - in other articles a spelling appropriate to the style of the article should be used, jguk 05:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Jguk, and (as a NZer) I haven't heard of "aluminum" except from Americans. I think it's fair in chemistry to follow official spelling, remember that this is still an encyclopedia whichever way looked at, and in non-science articles to follow the of-the-first-major-contributor convention. That makes perfect sense. Neonumbers 11:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, the first-major-contributor convention is a bit of a non-guideline. The MoS says to consider using it as a last resort - but, of course, you never get to the last resort, or alternatively, if you disagree with it, consider it and decide, after that consideration, that it isn't appropriate in that case. Besides, we should be writing with our readers in mind (our potential readers being anyone searching the web for information in English, and our actual readers being a broad subset of that), meaning that the question to be asked is "What is best for our readers?" rather than "What do the editors, or the first editor, want?", jguk 18:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Calling it a "non-guideline" is a bit disingenuous. The only other criterion to determine what dialect an article should be written in is whether the topic is inherently related to one English-speaking nation in a particular way. The vast majority of topics are not inherently related to a single country, so the only way to determine what dialect spellings should use is to look at what the first major contributor did. I'm not sure in what cases where "inherently-related to one English speaking nation" doesn't apply that one shouldn't necessarily apply the "first major contributor" criterion. Can you give an example where someone could "disagree with it, consider it and decide, after that consideration, that it isn't appropriate in that case"? Nohat 08:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

 * There are plenty of reasons why the "first major contributor" guideline is effectively meaningless.

 * 1. You only use it as a last resort - the circumstances that lead to even discussing the point are likely to be contentious. That means that there must be arguments for at least two different styles taking priority. They will have conflicting merits - and the disputants will expect the issue to be decided on its merits.

 * 2. You would then have to decide who was the "first major contributor" to an article - something which is often far from clear.

 * 3. Next is to decide what style the first major contributor used. In most cases this may be difficult if not impossible. Despite all these arguments we keep having on this page and elsewhere, the vast majority of WP articles are not in any one particular form of English. For example, my comments in this somewhat long post read equally well in American, British, Australian and Indian English.

 * 4. An article often has many editors who most often contribute in the style of English to which they are accustomed. This can make articles all higgledy-piggledy - not through any malice, just through the normal editing process. When an article has developed like this, do we really care that the first major contributor in one instance twelve months ago wrote "color" rather than "colour" - especially when it so easily could have been a typo?

 * 5. It is extremely difficult to copyedit to a style to which you are unaccustomed. OK, we can all see that "color" is North American and "colour" not and copyedit the odd word to a style to which we are unaccustomed. But it's very difficult if you have a reasonbly large article written by lots and lots of editors from different backgrounds and which now has lots of inconsistent styles. It's better for WP (as it will create a much better flow for the article) if the article is copyedited so that it reads better. If we have a willing volunteer, let's welcome them, not damn them for apparently changing the article to something different from which a "first major contributor" chose.

 * 6. Do we really want a trouble-maker who has found out that an article which is stable and is consistent in its style now, two years ago used a different style, to be allowed to come in and change it to their preferred style? Isn't it more to the point that if an article is already consistent, we should leave it as is?

 * There are other problems too, both with the practical side of things and the theoretical side of things. On the theory side, we are all warned that our articles will be edited mercilessly, and we all know that no-one owns any article. Giving the first contributor a veto say in how an article develops (even to a minor extent) goes against this.

 * It would be far better to restate the whole section along the lines of (1) put the readers first - use a style that they will like; (2) don't change style without good reason. Of course, as we all know, unfortunately on WP, if you ask people just to use common sense you soon end up finding someone who has none:) jguk 19:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, sulfur is now the official UK spelling (the Royal Society of Chemistry made the change a few years back, after the IUPAC agreement, and an exam board followed, with quite some hoo-ha surrounding it). Frankly, I don't see why we can't just split the difference. I guess the issue is that this affects pronunciation, not just spelling. \\ Wooster

If I may summarise jguk's suggestion as "follow the relevant authority where one exists", then I can support that whole-heartedly. Thus: chemistry articles follow IUPAC style (Aluminium); industry and other non-national articles also follow IUPAC style (Deville process); American articles follow American style (Charles Martin Hall); and Commonwealth articles follow Commonwealth style (can't think of any examples). Wooster 17:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * (It would seem we must be careful using this word "official". A particular spelling cannot really become "official" in any variant of English. English, and language at large, doesn't work like that; not even the académie française can force a change to popular spelling. So I doubt very much that "sulfur" is now THE spelling in the UK. But, I stray too far...)--Cyberjunkie | Talk 17:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the requirement to follow IUPAC style in industry and other non-national styles. By all means stick with IUPAC for chemistry-related articles, but don't let the prescriptivism spread, jguk 17:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Cyberjunkie: Fair enough, sort of.  "Official", really, was being used to mean "in government and educational documents", which is about as "official" as one gets.  : )
 * jguk: I guess my "principal principle" is consistency -- so that a reader reading up on the various processes for the manufacture of aluminium isn't being bombarded with changes in style and spelling all the time, make all articles fitting into a broad category follow a broadly similar policy.  That suggestion just seemed the most appropriate.  I would apply that for all chemicals, including aluminium sulfate, which I note exists, both chemically and encyclopaedically.  : D
 * In any case, Litefantastic's original question could even be a non-choice -- here's an heretical thought: what if Commonwealth English speakers (remember Africa...) outnumbered American English speakers? Wooster 17:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

On a practical level, WP:Chem has enough trouble keeping to IUPAC style in chemistry-related articles, without trying to impose the prescripivism elsewhere. When I remember, I do check "what links here" for these articles, and have changed some spellings, but I agree that it would be incongrous to have "aluminium" in an article which is obviously US-styled. In those cases I leave the US spelling: there are redirects from alternative spellings to the relevant chemistry articles. Physchim62 08:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

My problem with this is that if you go aluminum, then it is plain wrong for British speaking, whereas if you go aluminium it is correct, so you can have a spelling which is correct in both languages. Wikipedia does not seem to have resolved the basic language issue - it is not an American encyclopedia nor a British encyclopedia. However, there are some terribly American-centric and Anglo-centric articles (or at least POVs) in there. I don't think you can resolve this unless there is a better policy on: Having just been considering the double quote article in which apparently American authors assert an American POV on how the British use the language this does become an irritation to the British reader. There clearly is an underlying tendency on both sides to try and claim the language in some posts - the assumption by various posters that either American view or British view is right. The answer is that they are both right, and sometimes they are adequate for both views, sometimes they are wrong. I think it would be agreed that two versions would not be productive, but I don't think that there is yet a sensible rule on how to co-habit. If we try and co-habit, then if there is a reasonable common term then surely that should be preferred, in spite of national preferences. Spenny 15:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * American
 * British
 * World view
 * Variants

 * I'm not sure the observation at the beginning is accurate. "Aluminium" is just as "wrong" to Americans as "Aluminum" is to the British. Nohat 16:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Fair enough, technically correct, but in common usage wrong - does that put it better? I would still say that alumimium would be found in a pure American dictionary whereas Aluminum would not be found in a pure British English dictionary (it only comes in the one I have with an American tag). I am happy to be wrong on this, but hopefully you see the underlying point. Petty though the spelling point is, it ought to establish what the fundamental principle is. So basically, both versions need to be there because for one group of people or another it will be wrong. I don't think a "I started it, so that is how it should be" rule fits. That is only good enough for general text rather than the technical detail of an article. So we can say color or colour and not have edit wars, but automobile would be wrong in the UK to describe a motor car, it just is not British Englsih, and even after years of American films, would be considered very odd indeed.

 * There are tons of examples around: in the UK gramophone is so old fashioned as to be really obsolete, it really only means an old wind-up player and trying to use it as an encyclopedia entry is like insisting on horseless carriage for automobiles, yet we gain the impression that gramophone is current usage from Wikipedia. Is the view from the talk pages that Gramophone would be considered current usage for a record player/stereo? From the UK perspective, it leads the articles to read as oddly rooted in the past. Spenny 17:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No. "Fair enough, technically correct, but in common usage wrong - does that put it better?" is not correct. Aluminium is not a spelling used at all in American English. It just is not American Englsih, and even after years of British films, would be considered very odd indeed. Rmhermen 17:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * All American dictionaries label "aluminium" as chiefly British or similar: American Heritage Dictionary Merriam-Webster Random House Encarta Dictionary, etc.

 * As far as I know, there are redirects for all dialectically-named articles from the other names, and the articles should (and most do) mention all the names used to describe a thing. For the actual title of an article, I think everyone just has to get used to some articles having slightly odd names because for many topics there is no one single name that is equally ordinary for all speakers of English. Yoghurt and anapaest and abseil and Caesium all look funny to me, but I just accept them because this is an international project and that is what those articles are called, and it clearly gives the spelling/word I'm familiar with at the top of all those articles. I'm not sure what you mean with "gramophone"; the title of the article in question is phonograph. Nohat 17:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Firstly, that gramophone was indeed phonograph, and I have to say that off the top of my head it was the archaic word I recalled. Phonograph is equally archaic in British English and is not a word that would ever come to mind to describe a record player (and I don't know enough American to know if phonograph is archaic in American and record player is a sensible term which is less archaic). To me it seems that someone was worried that record player was casual or informal and therefore wanted to use a complicated word to try and be techincally correct. With the language barrier I cannot tell.

 * The point in this context is that it is not just a title issue, it is that potentially the article is in a foreign language and is unhelpful - use it for school work and you will loose marks - you could write an article which was not in your native language, and blaming Wiki is not a sound excuse. Aluminium is a simple case as the word is similar and once this has been established one can get over it, it is a simple mental find/replace. However, the principle remains: if Wikipedia is to be a reference work for both American English speakers and British English speakers, then it does not seem to be correct to get by, the reference is misleading to one party or another. Put another way, we can debate this because we know: how does an uninformed reader cope? I found the phonograph article unsatisfactory as it was fairly technical and the differing (to me, obsolete) technical terms pervaded the article. Elsewhere there are pedantic arguments over getting minute detail correct, yet an issue which leads a number of articles to be substantially incorrect to one group or another is left in the too tricky heap.

 * I am sure this has been debated thoroughly before and I am sure we are rehashing old ground, but I think that this will continue to resurface unless a better solution which resolves the "wrongness" of articles is found, even if it is only by having a standard banner to highlight significant problem pages. Spenny 10:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * My intuition is that yes, it is true that "phonograph" is archaic-sounding compard to "record player", but I don't think it's quite as old-fashioned as you think. Consider that most audio input jacks for record players are still to this day labeled "phono"—short for "phonograph". Additionally, a quick Google search shows that "phonograph" gets more results than "record player". On the other hand, when one restricts the search to "site:.uk", "record player" gets more hits, so maybe there is a dialectical difference at play here vis a vis "phonograph" vs. "record player". Regardless, I think the term "turntable" is in fact the most common name used for these devices, and this intuition is borne out by Google: "turntable" get almost double the results for "phonograph", and when restricted to "site:.uk", almost ten times as many results!. The article should probably be renamed. If that article has other weaknesses you think need addressing, just bring it up on the talk page there and improve the article. I don't think that the article's weaknesses have anything to do with dialectical differences.

 * I don't think it is a good idea to describe American and British English as separate languages—we have no difficulty at all understanding each other's writing, and that is because we are writing in the same language. There are different dialects, yes, and there are differences between the dialects, but I'm not sure what else there is to be done other than noting in the articles where there are multiple spellings, and which dialects, if any in specific, are associated with each spelling. This is already done—for example, aluminium has an extended section on the history of the various spellings. I don't think that describing the usage of forms that differ by dialect as "wrong" is a particularly helpful approach either. A reasonable person wouldn't describe prose that contains the spelling "aluminum" as wrong if it is understood that the prose is written in American English—it's just written in a different dialect. The only "solution" is to expose people to writing in dialects with which the are not familiar so they become aware of the differences between dialects and can better appreciate the diversity of their language.

 * There have been proposals (from me even!) to provide a way to set a preference for dialect and automatically "translate" articles from one set of spellings to the other, but they have been generally rejected by the community in favor of accepting and embracing diversity instead of trying to hide it. Nohat 16:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Decapitalisation
Shouldn't this page be properly named Manual of style? Phaunt 09:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Added later: I wrote this based on Naming conventions (capitalization). It seems odd that the manual of style doesn't conform to what it preaches. Phaunt 13:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more; let's lose the old typewriter mind-set, please. Computers, and the numerous devices for highlighting titles, have been around for long enough. Tony 09:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * This page has long been here. As with Main Page it's just best kept as it is, jguk 14:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hhmm, I know the line can sometimes be fuzzy between proper nouns and regular nouns, but I feel like the Manual of Style is enough of a specific thing to merit being a proper noun. The title describes what the page is not just what's on it (i.e. "This page is the Manual of Style"). Similarly,  Naming conventions (capitalization) isn't so much describing what the page is as what's on it (i.e. you wouldn't say "this page is the Naming Conventions (Capitalization)", you would instead say "this page describes/contains the naming conventions (capitalization)").
 * Frankly the same holds true for the Main Page. That title is not being used to describe/define what main pages are in general, nor is it being used purely descriptively - its the Main Page.
 * Just thought of an example: If I gave you a copy of the New York Times, I might tell you to turn to page three. But if I gave you a copy of the The Sun, I would tell you to turn to Page Three. Chuck 21:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

My reasoning behind the capitalization in the article title is that in most cases a Manual of Style would be a book. Although the Wikipedia MOS is not a book, it was created as an equivalent to, or replacement for, a book MOS. Blank Verse  ∅ 18:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization of link lists
Manual_of_Style states that lists of links like the See also sections should be lowercased (with the exception of proper nouns). This Manual of Style section is clearly against the common use - I have never ever seen this being done on Wikipedia before. Moreover, lowercase link lists look very ugly :-) Therefore I suggest to change this paragraph so that lists of links should be capitalized. Cacycle 23:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * That Manual_of_Style paragraph references to Lists where it says "as a matter of style, do not capitalize list items". However, this has never been discussed on the talk page Wikipedia_talk:Lists and is not even followed in the article itself. Cacycle 23:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It is often done on Wikipedia (as are capitalized lists). I like it, and think it should be the rule.  That gives us information we cannot get from the title of the article, with initial capitalization still turned on.  But the ugliest thing is when some are one way and some the other.  Gene Nygaard 09:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * There might indeed be a few lowercase lists out there, but I have yet to find them:
 * NONE of 116 checked random articles contained only lowercased list entries, 5 contained mixed style, 48 contained only capitalized list entries starting with non-proper nouns.
 * NONE of about 40 checked Navigational templates contained lowercased lists.
 * NONE of about 50 checked List of ... articles contained lowercased lists.
 * The link lists on the Wikipedia user interface are ALL capitalized.
 * The Manual_of_Style and the Lists guidelines clearly have to be changed to accomodate for this overwhelming consensus.
 * Cacycle 22:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Here are a few for you:
 * British thermal unit
 * competition (one miscapitalized)
 * compiler
 * crime
 * gamma ray
 * gold prospecting
 * ice
 * intermediate-mass black hole
 * invariant mass
 * kerosene
 * manifold
 * mathematics
 * measurement
 * newton
 * semantics
 * society
 * Gene Nygaard 04:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The new lowercasing rule on Manual_of_Style was invented by Lowellian August 16 2005 without any discussion before and after. The new lowercasing rule on Wikipedia:Lists was invented by Patrick March 23 2005 without any discussion before and after. Cacycle 22:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Your claim is false. I did not "invent" some new rule. The rule already existed on Lists, and furthermore, the rule matched the example already given on Manual of Style. —Lowellian (reply) 07:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I wrote down what was already customary in Wikipedia, and what I think makes most sense. Note that that is about capitalization in arbitrary lists, which is a separate discussion. However, also in "see also" lists I am in favor of not capitalizing, but, again, except if a list item is accompanied by one or more full sentences.--Patrick 08:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't we just follow typical lowercase/uppercase rules used elsewhere:

 * See also: flaming, fire, Internet troll

or

Basically, everything is lowercase unless its the first letter in a sentence, the first letter in a bullet, or the first letter of any word of a proper noun (except for a, an, of, etc.).

Looking at the Lists page, I can't for the life of me figure out why that is the guidance on that page. I'm making a suggestion over there that we change it. Chuck 22:36, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we please leave the typewriter era behind? Computers can highlight and format so easily that we just don't need to capitalise and underline any more. The layer of meaning conveyed by upper-case letters should be preserved in lists, rather than covered by overusing upper-case, word-initial letters. Tony 22:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see what this has to do with a typewriter. Among the things that the Wikipedia is not is a a forum for advocacy. There is no reason it should be the vehicle for your crusade to change the conventions of written English. (You really should see someone about your hatred of typewriters ... I kid.) Chuck 23:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You personalise it, but at issue is a significant change in formatting culture wrought by the replacement of typewriters with computers. With a typewriter, highlighting could be achieved in a severely limited number of ways, i.e., by capitalising and/or underlining. These methods reduce a level of meaning, and are hard to read and ugly, respectively. Their use is now declining because computers allow a much wider range of highlighting techniques that do not have these disadvantages. And this is precisely the forum where this issue should be raised. Tony 00:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Again, the Wikipedia is not a medium to advocate changing the conventions of written English, it is a reference source. Hard to read and ugly is subjective, anyway. I find it ugly and hard to read to have a list switch from capitalized to uncapitalized. Also, title caps and capitalizations in lists predate typewriters. This has nothing to do with changing technology. Here is one example and another.  Chuck 01:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with just about everything you say. 'Hard to read and ugly is subjective, anyway.'—Everything's subjective, isn't it? Pre-typewriter capitalisation served the same ends in the absence of the computer's rich highlighting resources. It has everything to do with changing technology. Tony 02:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, "everything" is not subjective. There's plenty of things that are not subjective. I'll give you just a few examples of non-subjective points that I've seen used in recent MoS discussions: ß is not a letter used in English. Even though ß is not used in English, it is a member of the same broader Latin alphabet that English is. Johann Strauss spelled his name Strauß. Some early browsers show a square instead of curly quotes. The current version of Firefox shows curly quotes correctly.
 * Did you even look at those links I attached? The first uses no fewer than 11 different typefaces (different shape, size, style or weight) and the second uses no fewer than 10. (And that doesn't even include places such as the word "Illustrated" where they could have gotten away with just making that one word in one cast, rather than doing a whole font.) I don't think they were starving for "rich highlighting resources". They already use a separate typeface for chapter titles, for example, but still use title caps. Chuck 03:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

One more comment. Even our table of contents (the one automatically generated for pages with multiple sections) capitalizes each item. There is nothing special about that table, it is merely an automatically generated list. Chuck 04:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't lie. It does not automatically capitalize them, it prints the lines in the table of contents just the way they appear in the section headers. Gene Nygaard 14:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Being wrong and lying are two different things, jackass. Regardless, the result is that the most common form of table in articles uses leading caps. Chuck 18:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Moreover, the Wikipedia Main Page contains ONLY capitalized link lists. Cacycle 19:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The list of lowercase examples above provided by Gene Nygaard is very interesting. Several of the mentioned lists have been lowercased by Gene Nygaard himself! Others are left-overs from editing comma-separated See also sentences or they are mixed lists. In some articles the See also list is the only lowercased list beside 8 or 10 capitalized lists in the article!

The diff-links obove clearly show that a small group of users including Gene Nygaard and especially Eequor is actively engaged in lowercasing See also sections. The contributions of Eequor and the contributions of Gene Nygaard are impressing in this respect... Cacycle 19:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

If nobody (rationally) objects I will make the appropriate changes to the Manual of Style. Cacycle 10:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * At least four people, User:Gene Nygaard, User:Eequor, User:Tony1, and me, object to you changing the Manual of Style. There is no consensus to make such a change. —Lowellian (reply) 07:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The rantings and trickeries of some of these four users stand against the overwhelming consensus of the Wikipedia community. While we have collected tons of argument for uppercasing link lists above, you and your friends did not provide a single rational argument to this discussion. Moreover, you are the person who has arbitrarily sneaked in that contentious issue into the Manual of Style without any previous discussion. So you are really in a very, very bad position to object. Cacycle 23:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm with you, Cacycle. Change it back! —Wahoofive (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "Change it back"? You are trying to force some new rule on the community, and you are calling it "chang[ing] it back"? —Lowellian (reply) 04:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * And what "overwhelming consensus" is there? You keep using words like that without showing any such "overwhelming consensus". Calling an argument not "rational" is not a counterargument; it just shows lack of a counterargument. —Lowellian (reply) 04:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


text:
Intercept method

In astronomical navigation, the intercept method, also known as Marcq St. Hilaire method, is a method of calculating an observer's position on Earth (geopositioning). It was originally called the azimuth intercept method because the process involves drawing a line which intercepts the azimuth line. This name was shortened to intercept method and the intercept distance was shortened to 'intercept'.

The method yields a line of position (LOP) on which the observer is situated. The intersection of two or more such lines will define the observer's position, called a "fix". Sights may be taken at short intervals, usually during hours of twilight, or they may be taken at an interval of an hour or more (as in observing the Sun during the day). In either case, the lines of position, if taken at different times, must be advanced or retired to correct for the movement of the ship during the interval between observations. If observations are taken at short intervals, a few minutes at most, the corrected lines of position by convention yield a "fix". If the lines of position must be advanced or retired by an hour or more, convention dictates that the result is referred to as a "running fix".

Summary
The intercept method is based on the following principle. The actual distance from the observer to the geographical position (GP) of a celestial body (that is, the point where it is directly overhead) is "measured" using a sextant. The observer has already estimated his position by dead reckoning and calculated the distance from the estimated position to the body's GP; the difference between the "measured" and calculated distances is called the intercept. The diagram on the right shows why the zenith distance of a celestial body is equal to the angular distance of its GP from the observer's position.

The rays of light from a celestial body are assumed to be parallel (unless the observer is looking at the moon, which is too close for such a simplification). The angle at the centre of the Earth that the ray of light passing through the body's GP makes with the line running from the observer's zenith is the same as the zenith distance. This is because they are corresponding angles. In practice it is not necessary to use zenith distances, which are 90° minus altitude, as the calculations can be done using observed altitude and calculated altitude.

Taking a sight using the intercept method consists of the following process:
 * Observe the altitude above the horizon Ho of a celestial body and note the time of the observation.
 * Assume a certain geographical position (lat., lon.), it does not matter which one so long as it is within, say, 50 NM of the actual position (or even 100 NM would not introduce too much error). Compute the altitude Hc and azimuth Zn with which an observer situated at that assumed position would observe the body.
 * If the actual observed altitude Ho is smaller than the computed altitude Hc this means the observer is farther away from the body than the observer at the assumed position, and vice versa. For each minute of arc the distance is one NM and the difference between Hc and Ho expressed in minutes of arc (which equal NM) is termed the "intercept". The navigator now has computed the intercept and azimuth of the body.
 * On the chart he marks the assumed position AP and draws a line in the direction of the azimuth Zn. He then measures the intercept distance along this azimuth line, towards the body if Ho>Hc and away from it if Ho<Hc. At this new point he draws a perpendicular to the azimuth line and that is the line of position LOP at the moment of the observation.
 * The reason that the chosen AP is not important (within limits) is that if a position closer to the body is chosen then Hc will be greater but the distance will be measured from the new AP which is closer to the body and the end resulting LOP will be the same.

Methodology
Suitable bodies for celestial sights are selected, often using a Rude Star Finder. Using a sextant, an altitude is obtained of the Sun, the Moon, a star or a planet. The name of the body and the precise time of the sight in UTC is recorded. Then the sextant is read and the altitude (Hs) of the body is recorded. Once all sights are taken and recorded, the navigator is ready to start the process of sight reduction and plotting.

The first step in sight reduction is to correct the sextant altitude for various errors and corrections. The instrument may have an error, IC or index correction (see article on adjusting a sextant). Refraction by the atmosphere is corrected for with the aid of a table or calculation and the observer's height of eye above sea level results in a "dip" correction (as the observer's eye is raised the horizon dips below the horizontal). If the Sun or Moon was observed, a semidiameter correction is also applied to find the centre of the object. The resulting value is "observed altitude" (Ho).

Next, using an accurate clock, the observed celestial object's geographic position (GP) is looked up in an almanac. That's the point on the Earth's surface directly below it (where the object is in the zenith). The latitude of the geographic position is called declination, and the longitude is usually called the hour angle.

Next, the altitude and azimuth of the celestial body are computed for a selected position (assumed position or AP). This involves resolving a spherical triangle. Given the three magnitudes: local hour angle (LHA), observed body's declination (dec), and assumed latitude (lat), the altitude Hc and azimuth Zn must be computed. The local hour angle, LHA, is the difference between the AP longitude and the hour angle of the observed object. It is always measured in a westerly direction from the assumed position.

The relevant formulas (derived using the spherical trigonometric identities) are:

 * $$\sin(Hc) = \sin(lat) \cdot \sin(dec) + \cos(lat) \cdot \cos(dec) \cdot \cos(LHA) $$

 * $$\begin{align}

\tan(Zn) = \tan(Zn \pm 180) &= \frac{\sin(LHA)}{\sin(lat) \cdot \cos(LHA) - \cos(lat) \cdot \tan(dec)} \triangleq tanZ \\ Z &= arctan(tanZ) \text{  } \in [-90,+90] \\ Zn &= \begin{cases} Z    & \text{if }LHA \in [0,90] \\ Z+180 & \text{if }LHA \in [90,270]\\ Z+360 & \text{if }LHA \in [270,360] && \equiv \text{ mod 360}\\ \end{cases} \\ \end{align}$$

 * The adjustment from Z to Zn (which is in $$[0,360]$$, and measured from North) has two reasons:
 * (1)The angles in [0,360] with the same $$\tan$$ is not unique (since $$\tan(X) = tan (X \pm 180)$$), but $$\arctan$$ is defined only in $$[-90,90]$$.
 * (2)The negative angle must be adjusted to positive angle.

or, alternatively,

 * $$\begin{align}

\cos(\pm Zn) &= \frac{\sin(dec) - \sin(lat) \cdot \sin(Hc)}{\cos(lat) \cdot \cos(Hc)} \triangleq cosZ \\ Z & = \arccos(cosZ) \text {  } \in [0,180] \\ Zn &= \begin{cases} +Z    & \text{if }LHA \in [180,360] \\ -Z+360 & \text{if }LHA \in [0,180] \\ \end{cases} \\ \end{align}$$
 * The adjustment for disambiguating $$\cos$$ values has similar reasons.

Where

 * Hc = Computed altitude
 * Zn = Computed azimuth (Zn=0 at North)
 * Z = preliminary result for Zn (in some nautical almanacs)
 * lat = Latitude
 * dec = Declination
 * LHA = Local Hour Angle

These computations can be done easily using electronic calculators or computers but traditionally there were methods which used logarithm or haversine tables. Some of these methods were H.O. 211 (Ageton), Davies, haversine, etc. The relevant haversine formula for Hc is

 * $$\operatorname{hav}(\overline{Hc}) = \operatorname{hav}(LHA) \cdot cos(lat) \cdot cos(dec) + \operatorname{hav}(lat \pm dec) $$

Where $\overline{Hc}$ is the zenith distance, or complement of Hc.

$\overline{Hc}$ = 90° - Hc.

The relevant formula for Zn is

 * $$ \operatorname{hav}(Zn) = \frac{ \cos(lat - Hc) - \sin(dec)}{2 \cdot \cos(lat) \cdot \cos(Hc)}$$

When using such tables or a computer or scientific calculator, the navigation triangle is solved directly, so any assumed position can be used. Often the dead reckoning DR position is used. This simplifies plotting and also reduces any slight error caused by plotting a segment of a circle as a straight line.

With the use of astral navigation for air navigation, faster methods needed to be developed and tables of precomputed triangles were developed. When using precomputed sight reduction tables, selection of the assumed position is one of the trickier steps for the fledgling navigator to master. Sight reduction tables provide solutions for navigation triangles of integral degree values. When using precomputed sight reduction tables, such as H.O. 229, the assumed position must be selected to yield integer degree values for LHA (local hour angle) and latitude. West longitudes are subtracted and east longitudes are added to GHA to derive LHA, so AP's must be selected accordingly. When using precomputed sight reduction tables each observation and each body will require a different assumed position.

Professional navigators are divided in usage between sight reduction tables on the one hand, and handheld computers or scientific calculators on the other. The methods are equally accurate. It is simply a matter of personal preference which method is used. An experienced navigator can reduce a sight from start to finish in about five minutes using nautical tables or a scientific calculator.

The precise location of the assumed position has no great impact on the result, as long as it is reasonably close to the observer's actual position. An assumed position within 1 degree of arc of the observer's actual position is usually considered acceptable.

The calculated altitude (Hc) is compared to the observed altitude (Ho, sextant altitude (Hs) corrected for various errors). The difference between Hc and Ho is called "intercept" and is the observer's distance from the assumed position. The resulting line of position (LOP) is a small segment of the circle of equal altitude, and is represented by a straight line perpendicular to the azimuth of the celestial body. When plotting the small segment of this circle on a chart it is drawn as a straight line, the resulting tiny errors are too small to be significant.

Navigators use the memory aid "computed greater away" to determine whether the observer is farther from the body's geographic position (measure intercept from Hc away from the azimuth). If the Hc is less than Ho, then the observer is closer to the body's geographic position, and intercept is measured from the AP toward the azimuth direction.

The last step in the process is to plot the lines of position LOP and determine the vessel's location. Each assumed position is plotted first. Best practise is to then advance or retire the assumed positions to correct for vessel motion during the interval between sights. Each LOP is then constructed from its associated AP by striking off the azimuth to the body, measuring intercept toward or away from the azimuth, and constructing the perpendicular line of position.

To obtain a fix (a position) this LOP must be crossed with another LOP either from another sight or from elsewhere e.g. a bearing of a point of land or crossing a depth contour such as the 200 metre depth line on a chart.

Sights
Until the age of satellite navigation ships usually took sights at dawn, during the forenoon, at noon (meridian transit of the Sun) and dusk. The morning and evening sights were taken during twilight while the horizon was visible and the stars, planets and/or Moon were visible, at least through the telescope of a sextant. Two observations are always required to give a position accurate to within a mile under favourable conditions. Three are always sufficient.

Running fix
A fix is called a running fix when one or more of the LOPs used to obtain it is an LOP advanced or retrieved over time. In order to get a fix the LOP must cross at an angle, the closer to 90° the better. This means the observations must have different azimuths. During the day, if only the Sun is visible, it is possible to get an LOP from the observation but not a fix as another LOP is needed. What may be done is take a first sight which yields one LOP and, some hours later, when the Sun's azimuth has changed substantially, take a second sight which yields a second LOP. Knowing the distance and course sailed in the interval, the first LOP can be advanced to its new position and the intersection with the second LOP yields a running fix.

Any sight can be advanced and used to obtain a running fix. It may be that the navigator due to weather conditions could only obtain a single sight at dawn. The resulting LOP can then be advanced when, later in the morning, a Sun observation becomes possible. The precision of a running fix depends on the error in distance and course so, naturally, a running fix tends to be less precise than an unqualified fix and the navigator must take into account his confidence in the exactitude of distance and course to estimate the resulting error in the running fix.

Determining a fix by crossing LOPs and advancing LOPs to get running fixes are not specific to the intercept method and can be used with any sight reduction method or with LOPs obtained by any other method (bearings, etc.).

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

title: Intercept method


text:
User talk:DubGeeza

Permanently blocked - another Willy on Wheels vandal. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:DubGeeza


text:
User talk:Sourav choudhury

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Qaz  ( talk ) 11:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Sourav choudhury


title: User:Enni84


text:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 26

Proposed use of "U.S." when referring specifically to language in U.S.
This brings up a different issue than those mentioned in the discussion in Manual of Style archive ("U.S." or "American") in that it refers specifically to the name of the language spoken in the U.S., not the use of the language to name things other than itself.

Because the word "American" has multiple uses, referring to either the U.S. exclusively or to what is pertinent to cultures/peoples in either the Americas (North, Central, and South) or North America, its use on pages dealing with language is not transparent because it cannot be immediately interpreted. There are distinctions between American (North American) English and British English. This is a different matter than the differences between U.S. English and British English and Canadian English.

Canadian English (which is distinct on a number of counts from British English and has certain elements in common with U.S. English) is, in a certain sense, "American English," and though the article explains its exclusion, a change of title would remove the need to make this distinction. Since "Canadian English" is a distinct article, one would think that the parallel for the country just south would bear that country's name, not a name that can also refer to the continent.

So, arguably, the article currently called "American and British English Differences" should be titled "U.S. and British English Differences" (and any parallel changes in other articles made) in order to disambiguate the meaning of the word "American" with reference to the English language. This would allow the ability to distinguish without confusion or need for explanation between U.S. English usage and usage that extends to multiple countries in the Americas or the other country in North America, which would be useful given the realities of language use.

I put this note on the "American and British English Differences" talk page first. That was the first time I ever posted here, and I haven't been able to find a guideline about multiple postings about the same issue. I'm not sure if it was correct to post in both places, but I didn't know that this page existed at that time. I apologize if this is not the way things are done.

Emme 13:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * !American" means "of or pertaining to the United States of America". There's no need to complicate the issue, jguk 18:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * My understanding is that "American English" is the standard form to refer to the language. Also, I believe "U.S. English" is an organization. Maurreen (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nobody talks about "North American English". There is no need to talk about "North American English". Canadian English is a different thing entirely (we don't tend to lump it together with the English spoken in the United States, that is) and Mexico is Spanish-speaking. South America rarely enters into discussions of English dialect, so there is really no need to talk about "(North and South) American English" There is not really a whole lot of potential for confusion. -Aranel ( Sarah ) 18:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm. "Nobody talks about "North American English". Rmhermen 17:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"Diacritic" is being used inconsistently
In the article Diacritic, there is a very clear explanation:

"A diacritical mark can appear above or below the letter to which it is added, or in some other position; however, note that not all such marks are diacritical. For example, in English, the tittle (dot) on the letters i and j is not a diacritical mark, but rather part of the letter itself. Further, a mark may be diacritical in one language, but not in another . . ."

However, the article is driven to using the heading "Non-diacritic usage" for the inclusion of such marks within letters. If there is a term for markings on letters other that "diacritical mark" or "accent" this would help. Possibly because no such term has been introduced (does it exist?), this careful distinction is not being followed in all language/alphabet articles, with the result that what is a letter, collated and counted among letters, and what is a letter with a diacritical mark is not discussed with clarity, and could be improved.

This issue arises in, for example, Latvian alphabet ("the remaining 11 [letters] are obtained from Latin letters by using diacritic marks"); Polish alphabet ("It is based on the Latin alphabet but uses diacritics such as kreska . . ."), Romanian alphabet ("Five of the above letters have diacritical marks . . ."), Slovak language ("The Slovak language . . . uses four types of diacritical marks"), Sorbian alphabet ("The Sorbian alphabet is based on the Latin alphbet but uses diacritics . . . "), Vietnamese alphabet "The many diacritcis, often two on the same letter, makes written Vietnamese easily recognizable." - this example is particularly confusing because some of these markings referred to are proper to the letters themselves, while others are true diacritics), etc.

Possible approaches:

Use "letters with/including marks" (to avoid using the term diacritic of a mark that is part of a letter)

When possible, name the mark (as is done in Diacritic to refer to "u with a breve" in speaking of non-diacritic use in Esperanto, for example).

Anybody know of a standard term for this language element?

Emme 13:53, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't believe that there is a real problem using the word diacritic to refer to modifying marks beyond the general set of Latin characters. The use of the word is the boundary of a number of linguistic fields. For example, one might say that the letter ö as employed in German is the letter o with a diacritic. However, this letter is a distinct phoneme in that language. To be strict one should use the word diacritic only to refer to marks used to distinguish homographs and supersegmental signs. However, in practice, one uses the term more loosly to refer to any letter that receives a modifying mark. Gareth Hughes 14:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization of ethnic group/race metaphors
Here's a thorny thing the MOS is pretty much mute on: Is it Black man or black man to refer to an African-American? Our article on Black (people) seems to use primarily a capitalized version. In academic text I have often seen the capitalized version used as a method of conveying that this title is no longer one of just color metaphor (the man's skin color is not actually black, it is a variety of pigmentations, and so labeling him a black man would be incorrect, so the reasoning goes), and to convey respect (or at least to be consistent to how we deal with country names -- French man -- or "ethnic group" names -- Hispanic man). After this -- what about White man/white man? Please also note that answering "African-American should be used whenever possible" is not really a valid response to the question, as not only are there a number of times in which "Black" is more appropriate as a signal of an ethnic designation (esp. in a historical context, when it was a distinction specifically written into laws and had little to do with "actual" biological origins), and anyway there are articles like Black (people) which can't just be ignored away or dealt with in any other way. Thoughts? My vote is for capitalization of both Black and White when used in an ethnic/racial context; there are no "respect" issues and it also makes it clear that this is not a literal color category. --Fastfission 11:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Aren't races and ethnicities proper nouns? Skin color isn't necessarily, unless its being used to identify someone with a group.
 * "Morgan Freeman is Black."
 * "Morgan Freeman is a Black man.
 * "George Hamilton is so tan, he looks almost Black." - if you mean he could pass for a member of the Black race. ("race" may not be the best word, but I needed something)
 * "George Hamilton is so tan, he looks almost black." - if you just mean his skin has turned a very dark color. Chuck 12:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * My concern would be that although there is precedent in other print sources for capitalizing Black when referring to the race (rather than the colour) there doesn't seem to be much usage of a capitalized White. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but the context where I usually see a capitalized White race is in exhortations to build a noble Aryan nation. Whether it's 'fair' or not to capitalize, I'm worried that there might be connotations attached to a capitalized White that we don't want.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's true, and a worthwhile consideration. That's actually pretty much what The American Heritage Book of English Usage says on the topic. --Fastfission 13:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I symathize with the issue, but we certainly can't cater to every group that doesn't like what is written here, or how it is capitalized. Chuck 16:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't about "every ground", this is about finding an appropriate style guide. This isn't some obscure issue; most style guides have a note about this particular question. --Fastfission 22:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't the lowercase form still the more common in the English language as it is actually written? Wikipedia isn't about deciding what the style ought to be. -Aranel ( Sarah ) 18:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, grammatical style is not so much about what is more "common", though I do agree that Wikipedia is not the place to try and make changes. We should figure out what is correct style to adopt, and we can take a clue from other stylebooks if need be. --Fastfission 22:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion about what is more common. Why can't we just rely on whether or not something is a proper noun? We don't have to make exceptions just because some people are a little sensitive about it. Can't we just keep it simple? Chuck 06:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"Black" and "white" are not proper nouns. Lowercase is standard. Maurreen (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's just about proper nouns, though. Hispanic is not a proper noun, but it is usually capitalized, yes? --Fastfission 22:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

A short google news survey of mainstream U.S. press shows "black" is almost universally used. The 1996 American Heritage Book of English Usage says on the subject:
 * capitalization of black
 * Black is sometimes capitalized in its racial sense, especially in the black press, though the lowercase form is still widely used by authors of all races. The capitalization of Black does raise ancillary problems for the treatment of the term white. Orthographic evenhandedness would seem to require the use of uppercase White, but this form might be taken to imply that whites constitute a single ethnic group, an issue that is certainly debatable. Uppercase White is also sometimes associated with the writings of Uppercase White is also sometimes associated with the writings of white supremacist groups, which for many people would of itself be sufficient reason to dismiss it. On the other hand, the use of lowercase white in the same context as uppercase Black will obviously raise questions as to how and why the writer has distinguished between the two groups. There is no entirely happy solution to this problem. In all likelihood, uncertainty as to the mode of styling of white has dissuaded many publications from adopting the capitalized form Black.

I think that's a pretty good argument for using a lower-case "black". --Fastfission 22:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This is immaterial to a publication aspiring to NPOV. We should treat all names of races/ethinicities similarly. Chuck 16:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Abbreviating United States more than once
Should:

 * When including the United States in a list of countries, do not abbreviate the United States. (for example "France and the United States", not "France and the U.S.").

be changed to:

 * When including the United States in a list of countries, do not abbreviate the United States. (for example "France and the United States", not "France and the U.S."), unless mentioning it more than once (for example "France and the United States consume lots of cheese, while Germany and the U.S. consume the most sausages.".

? Andy Mabbett 08:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The point is not prescribing against that. It is stating that in a list of cheese consumption by country, one would list as follows:

 * 1) France
 * 2) United States
 * 3) Germany

Not:
 * 1) France
 * 2) U.S.
 * 3) Germany

Your example is not a list but rather usage within an article. Hope that helps. Hiding talk 08:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Indent reset
My example is an expansion of the example in the MoS; however, consider:

Contries which consume cheese
 * France
 * United States

Contries which consume sausages
 * Germany
 * U.S.

Contries which consume beer
 * United Kingdom
 * U.S.

Andy Mabbett 08:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It should definitely remain 'United States' when in a list. Proto t c 12:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Lists are not repetitive in presenting information the way a body of text is.  Also, the example in the manual of style is making the point regarding lists, therefore the example presented is in the context of lists.  Your example is not in the context of a list, and so is a different usage.  Hiding  talk 19:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

To be pedantic as the "United States" is an abbreviation for the county's full name, what does it matter which is used if a link is put in for those who do not know what US is? Why single out the US for special reference in the MOS when the same is not done for other countries which are often referenced by a common acronym like NZ and the UK. (And before anyone goes there NO I don't want the MOS to subscribe to putting the full name for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland every time I want to write the UK) -- Philip Baird Shearer 13:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Exclusion of vowels when referring to deities
User:Unfocused has proposed adding to the section on capitalization: "Certain religious sects practice exclusion of vowels when referring to deities, such as G-d, the L-rd, or Yhwh. Vowels are not excluded in Wikipedia except when quoting directly from a source document that uses this convention." It seems to me this deserves discussion before being promulgated. It seems to me that when writing about a particular religious group, we should follow their practice in spelling. In particular the vowelization of the Tetragrammaton is very controversial and MoS is not the place to settle the question. --agr 20:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd add W-d-n and M-rs to that incomplete list. Let's not omit M-thr-s either. --Wetman 20:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Very funny. Did the followers of those dieties use this convention? As far as i know it is unique to Judiasim and groups with traditions influenced by Judiasim, including some Christian groups. DES (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm 100% willing to be reverted in favor of discussion. I thought that it would be uncontroversial to spell the names of deities in common language when writing in the common language style of an encyclopedia in our role as encyclopedia editors, yet still defer to the conventions of the authors and publishers when citing specific source documents. Again, please feel free to revert my change pending further discussion.
 * When citing sources documents, always cite exactly. You can't fool with material you're quoting directly. That's the universal rule, and it has nothing to do with Arthur G-dfrey or slenderizing "followers of dieties" as above --Wetman 04:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I am a little ambivalent about my own inclusion of "Yhwh" in the list; this has been the convention for so many years that I feel that it has virtually become a proper name of the Hebrew deity, if not in actuality, then in practice in the English language. Perhaps exclusion of this example would remove the controversy? Or better yet, how about a counter-example of how words translated from other languages without their vowels intact are a legitimate time to leave the vowels excluded?
 * Where does that capital Y you're using in that "Yhwh" come in, then? That's not part of the convention you're straining so greatly to follow. There are no capital letters in Hebrew. "Yhwh" [sic] is a perfect example of a showy ambition to be correct that is a little affectation we must all try to rid ourselves of. --Wetman 04:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The capital Y came from my own ignorance of the Hebrew letter set. There is no "straining so greatly to follow" any convention.  I believe your words "perfect example of showy ambition" is simply an example of forgetting to assume good faith.   Un  focused  22:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding who does this, I know that some strict Judaic sects, Jehovah's Witnesses and other Judeo-Christian groups do. I am uncertain about shamanistic religions or conventions regarding evil deities in various pantheistic religions througout history. (Along the theme of "The one who must not be named.") Un  focused  21:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "J-h-v-h's Witnesses" write their name without vowels. I don't think so. --Wetman 04:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Some Jehovah's Witnesses use "G-d" instead of "God", at least the ones I've known personally have. From their website, it appears that the national organization doesn't.   Un  focused  15:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

 * of course in the case of "Yhwh" there is no clear and NPOV agreement on just which vowels should be inserted. The vowels were ommitted for so long that it is not at all clear what they originally were, and as far as I know there is no modern convention on what the "proper" vowels are. To the best of my knowledge, all other cases of "vowel exclusion" are more or less directly derived from this one. The use of epithets or euphimisims (e.g. "the kindly ones" for The furies) is similar, but not quite the same thing, IMO. DES (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The idea that Jews are in disagreement "on just which vowels should be inserted" is just zaniness. Do speak to any observant Jew of your acquaintance. --Wetman 04:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am a reasonably knowlegable and somewhat observant Jew. I wrote a bit hurriedly and unclearly above. i did not mean that there was dispute on what vowels should be curently used by a Jew, there is clear agreement that the Name should not be pronounced in any way at all, but rather other terms (most often "Adonai") should be substituted. What I should have said was something more like "There is no agreement on what the vowels originally were, and thus how to spell the word if a writer were trying to indicate an NPOV by inserting the missing vowels." (Note the use of the subjunbctive.) Does that strike you as less "zany"? I hope it does. DES (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I should not have included "YHWH" in my original list of examples. After reading the Tetragrammaton article, I changed "YHWH" to a counter-example of when not to insert vowels.  I should have researched that one first.  I hope I've made the change respectfully and gracefully.  Please advise.   Un  focused  21:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Vowels are often included in Yahweh/Jehovah in English. Gene Nygaard 08:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Wouldn't you agree that it's not appropriate to insert the vowels into "YHWH" when writing of the Judaic YHWH, yet fine to use the term "Yahweh" when writing of other groups where "Yahweh" is the common usage? I think the current solution is to consider "YHWH" and "Yahweh" as two independent terms, based on which tradition you're writing about.   Un  focused  16:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * No. Gene Nygaard 02:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It seems to me that if you're seeking consensus in good faith, you should explain your answer a little further so we can look for common ground. Please expand your reply.  Are you saying YHWH isn't appropriate when writing about Hebrew traditions, or that Yahweh isn't OK when writing about modern Christianity, or something else entirely?  Un  focused  06:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

 * You are the one seeking, and failing to find, consensus—not me. And you didn't even bother to seek it in the first instance.
 * Problem Number One: Instruction creep.  ("Instruction creep occurs when a well-meaning user thinks "Hrm ... this page would be better if everyone was supposed to do this" and adds more requirements.")
 * Other than that, you are looking for a simplistic answer to complicated questions, and as agr says don't belong here.
 * There is nothing different from normal rules for direct quotes.
 * You misrepresented the fact that vowels are often used in English.
 * "YHWH" and "Yahweh" are not two different terms.
 * Your restatement here isn't equivalent to what I replied to above. But it doesn't matter much.
 * I don't buy the assumption that encyclopedic coverage is going to be the usage of some particular group.
 * It's a lot like what you said about the use of "L ORD ": "an expression of reverence beyond simple respect that is out of place in an NPOV encyclopedia." Gene Nygaard 13:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

<reset indent.

First, regarding instruction creep, I've considered that possibility myself. However, the Manual of Style page itself clearly states it's use as a guideline and not a rule at the top of the page. See also the quote from The Chicago Manual of Style. I don't think any instructions found on that page could ever qualify as instruction creep, so this is not an issue as far as I'm concerned.

Regarding YHWH and Yahweh, what or which are you objecting to? When a previous editor has written YHWH, it's probably in a Hebrew-related article and shouldn't be changed. When a previous editor has written Yahweh, it probably isn't in a Hebrew-related article, so it probably doesn't need to be changed. However, if "Yahweh" was found in a Hebrew-related article, I think replacement with YHWH would usually be a valid correction. I've not claimed that "YHWH" and "Yahweh" are two different terms, but only in practical use they may be treated as such if we want.

What I'm seeking here is not a stick to beat editors with, but simplistic guideline that covers most cases, just as the introduction section at the top of the Manual of Style states. If the YHWH and Yahweh issue cannot be brought down to a simplistic guideline, we just leave it out, or further soften the instruction.

So far, you've given no objections regarding the "correction" of G-d to God or L-rd to Lord in ordinary text. Do you agree that G-d should be changed to God when found in ordinary text, that is, NOT part of a direct quote of a source document? I haven't seen objections to corrections from "G-d" to "God" outside of direct quotes from anyone yet. Un focused  15:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

One related issue --- certain Bible translations in English use "LORD" or "L ORD " to translate the divine Name; and "Lord" without caps or small caps to translate Adonai. This is an attempt to reproduce the usage of the source text. I would propose that these spellings be retained whenever these sources are being quoted or discussed. Smerdis of Tlön 16:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I am, and have always been, against altering source documents when quoting directly. However, I think common language usage is the rule when used outside the quote marks.  Feel free to disagree, but I think that use of "LORD" or "L ORD " rather than "Lord" is an expression of reverence beyond simple respect that is out of place in an NPOV encyclopedia.  I welcome further comment, after all, I was initially very wrong regarding the Tetragrammaton.   Un  focused  20:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think this needs separate rules. In quotes, do it exactly as the orginial, or as closely as possible. So "L ORD " might end up "LORD", but "G-d" shouldn't be changed to "God". As far as regular article text, we use standard English spelling: "Lord", "God", etc. Similarly, we capitalize per convention: "God" for proper noun used for the monotheistic god, "god" for the general term. Chuck 15:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

 * If we truly have a clear, agreed upon style for any use of deity names, we should go ahead and post it in the style manual. That's why there is a style guide.  I've seen instances of people looking to the Manual of Style for guidance on what to do when they encounter G-d and L-rd in the ordinary text of an article and finding none.  I had hoped we'd come to rapid agreement on this, or at least a part of this because I find the presence of G-d and L-rd in ordinary text of an article to violate NPOV.  Violation of NPOV isn't my style.  ;)    Un  focused  17:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You missed my point. We do not have style guidance specifically for deity names because we don't need it. The guidance for nouns in general suffices perfectly well. There is clear guidance for what to do with G-d and L-rd, as well. We leave quotes exactly how they were written. We use standard English spellings otherwise. Chuck 18:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Technically, the use of LORD and L ORD in these source texts is not primarily a sign of respect; these are usually older Biblical translations, or more recent translations heavily influenced by their predecessors. These works speak of the Lord and of lords, and the use of a capital is needed to distinguish the use of the word referring to God, as opposed to an earthly ruler.  Without the convention, quotations like "The L ORD said unto my lord, Sit thou at my right hand. . ." (Ps. 110:1) would be ambiguous.  More recent translations may handle this differently; the Jerusalem Bible gives "Yahweh's oracle to you, my Lord: Sit at my right hand. . ."  The point is, the convention is not merely for reverence, and keeping it in older sources is not necessarily POV.  Smerdis of Tlön 19:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Chuck, you also missed my point. I edited the Manual of Style not because I wanted to stir up trouble, but because I saw instances of where editors were wondering whether it is proper to add vowels into L-rd and G-d and had already checked the Manual of Style and found no assistance.  This is why I think, even if we don't include YHWH or Yahweh, we should definitely include an edit similar to what I originally added.   Un  focused  02:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't miss your point at all. We don't need to address every special case. "G-d" and "L-rd" are generally not considered the correct spelling of those words. The MoS already says "If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to any other word or phrase that might be regarded as incorrect." We don't need anything more than that. Chuck 19:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The name of deities is a special case that calls for a degree of respect for the faiths of other people that ordinary words don't require. This is why we have specific capitalization instructions for deities when the general rules could also apply instead.  There are several editors who have sought specific instruction regarding G-d and L-rd.  Since some people of certain faiths DO consider these the ONLY proper spelling of the words, I added specific instructions for use in Wikipedia.   Specific needs call for specific instructions.  I didn't invent this out of the blue; there were editors literally asking for direction who had already read the Manual of Style and found it lacking.   Un  focused  19:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "some people of certain faiths DO consider these the ONLY proper spelling of the words": We are not debating the "proper" spelling of words. That term is fundamentally POV. We are debating the generally recognized spelling of words -- which in this case is "God" and "Lord". If people are having problems with the MoS, maybe you should point them to the sentence I quoted, and then point them to the section on NPOV. There is no further need to clutter this page. Chuck 20:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Rather than refer to you, User:Chuckstar, as Wikipedia's expert and reference a sentence you've written somewhere above in a talk page that is certain to be archived sooner or later, I would rather form consensus to put instructions in the place where people look for instructions.
 * I'll keep your opinion in mind and watch for further objections from you or others.
 * However, I remain in favor of giving people who are looking for answers the answers they seek in the most logical location. That is the purpose of the Manual of Style, it's very reason for existing!  What purpose do you intend the Manual of Style to serve if not to instruct those looking for specific instructions on specific style issues?   Un  focused  21:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Rather than live up to your user name, why don't you read what I actually wrote before you make smart-ass comments. I did not write "refer them to my sentence". What I wrote was "refer them to the sentence I quoted". There is a perfectly clear sentence in the MoS that reads "If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to any other word or phrase that might be regarded as incorrect." That sentence is right here. The MoS is not necessarily here to provide a compendium of every tiny possible usage issue. What is the matter with using the more generally accepted spelling? Chuck 23:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * First, my apologies. They are due.  Please choose a Wikipedia article and I will make a good-faith, content contributing, referenced, properly cited edit to demonstrate my sincerity.
 * Second, the primary issue still remains and the point I was trying to make is still valid: People who are looking for instructions of how to handle "G-d" and "L-rd" are supposed to look to the Manual of Style to help themselves. They have already done so, and found it wanting.  What you propose keeps them dependent on kindly third parties to notice and follow up their inquiries and point out an individual sentence located in a very large guide.  I'd much rather add a sentence or two that clarifies the issue and lets them find the answer themselves when they look in the appropriate place.  Again, why require them to appeal to someone else's expertise when a simple clarification removes the dependency?    Un  focused  01:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

"...point out an individual sentence located in a very large guide..." And your solution is to make it larger? And they still have to find one sentence within it. And yes, sometimes people make edits that don't conform to the MoS, and someone later comes along and points it out -- clarifying the MoS for them. Seems silly to expand the MoS to provide guidance that is already there, especially if (as you say) people are already having trouble finding things. Chuck 02:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The guidance isn't already there. An inference is there, but obviously it's being overlooked since I've seen the question of whether G-d should be changed to God asked at least twice, and the most recent person specifically said there wasn't guidance in the MoS .  Personally, I think it's silly to tell someone "it's there, you just didn't read it right" rather than add a single sentence or two for clarity.   I originally posted a brief note under "# 3.2 Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents" but a similar note under "# 10 Usage and spelling" would be much better.  Personally, I'd rather be helpful than obtuse.  Un  focused  03:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "...recent person specifically said there wasn't guidance in the MoS ..." -- that person was wrong. What's so hard about that? The MoS isn't there to specifically address every tiny issue so that no one ever has to think and/or ask someone else what they think. Its there to provide guidance in a useful form. It will not be useful if a "sentence or two" is added to address every specific issue, so that no one has to exercise judgement. Chuck 05:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Did I say to address "every tiny issue"? No.  Put your straw man away.  This is a legitimate case where editors were seeking guidance.  And I don't consider the spelling of references to deities to be a tiny issue, especially among the faithful.  I prefer to help them when they seek help, in the place where they seek it.  I think it's rather unwelcoming and therefore incorrect to refuse to post answers where people are actively looking for them.  I'm done discussing this until I have time to solicit other opinions.   Un  focused  05:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't say you wanted to address "every tiny issue". You only said you wanted to address the tiny issue that you feel is important. There are plenty of other tiny issues that someone else thinks is important. How many of them should we put in the MoS? Chuck 07:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The issue I added was not tiny, and the answer to your question is simple: we should include as many as we have editors regularly searching for that a general rule can be written about.  Un  focused  13:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Unfocused here. It is better to be explicit than implicit, clear rather than obscure, and this is not an unimportant matter, and if multiple people ahve been in need of guidance on it in the past, and the guidleine is not in debate but merely whether it is redundant with a more general guideline, let's put it in. DES (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


text:
Signal (band)

Signal (Сигнал) is a Bulgarian rock band, most popular in the 1980s and 1990s.

History
The band was established in 1978 in Sofia by: Yordan Karadzhov(vocal), Georgi Kokalov – drums, Rumen Spasov – guitar and Hristo Lambrev – piano.

Members

 * Yordan Karadzhov (Йордан Караджов) – vocals, bass guitar
 * Vladimir Zahariev (Владимир Захариев) – drums
 * Alexander Marinovsky (Александър Мариновски) – guitar
 * Georgi Yanakiev (Георги Янакиев) – bass guitar

title: Signal (band)


text:
User talk:TaiwanRepublic

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.--Jiang 11:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC) This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.--Jiang 12:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC) I agree. Electionworld 13:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

File source problem with File:TaiwanRepublic.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:TaiwanRepublic.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 04:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:TaiwanRepublic


text:
Talk:San Roque, Spain

Edit wars
We seen to have achieved a nice article which has some genuine content and is not the Gibraltar bashing original - can we keep it that way ? I even took away the protection header to see if the vandals are asleep. Don't awaken them with propaganda. --Gibnews

I agree that the article is NPOV and I have nothing against your recent edits. Our only point of conflict, as you know, is not related to this article.--Burgas00 02:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest you leave it until that's resolved. As regards democracy, I watched it start in Spain - we had it already, and greatly enjoyed watching Tejero on TVE giving his advice to parliament. Someone gave me the CCTV footage on DVD recently. --Gibnews 09:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Coat of Arms
I think the one shown on the page is wrong, and it should be

The crown is separate from the shield and the key faces to the right, that looks like the ones I've seen in San Roque. The one on the page although beautifully drawn is simply a steal of the current Gibraltar flag. --Gibnews (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Excessive Detail
The article seemed to focus unduly on the details of the Gibraltar capture, which is of tangential relevance to this article. I see this as a classic example of WP:COATRACK and so I have removed excessive detail, retaining what is essential for this article. Regards, Justin talk 12:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on San Roque, Cádiz. 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 http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20081022151725/http%3A//www.cepsa.com/refinerias/gibraltar/pages/refgi_1.htm to http://www.cepsa.com/refinerias/gibraltar/pages/refgi_1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070816061309/http://www.esg-gib.net/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=1 to http://www.esg-gib.net/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=1

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) 20:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:San Roque, Spain


text:
Barkha Dutt

Barkha Dutt is an Indian television journalist and author. She has been a reporter and news anchor at NDTV and Tiranga TV. She currently runs her own digital news channel called 'MoJo Story'.

Dutt was part of NDTV's team for 21 years, until she left the channel in January 2017. She emerged as a prominent figure after her frontline war reporting on the Kargil Conflict between India and Pakistan in 1999. Dutt has won many national and international awards, including the Padma Shri, India's fourth highest civilian honour. Dutt was one of the journalists taped in the Radia tapes controversy.

Personal life
She was born in New Delhi to S. P. Dutt, an Air India official, and Prabha Dutt, who was a well-known journalist with the Hindustan Times. Dutt credits her journalistic skills to her mother, a pioneer among women journalists in India. Her younger sister, Bahar Dutt, is also a television journalist working for CNN IBN.

Career
Dutt graduated from St. Stephen's College, Delhi with a degree in English literature. She received a Master's in Mass Communications from Jamia Millia Islamia Mass Communication Research Center, New Delhi. She started her journalism career with NDTV and later rose to head the English news wing of the organisation. She also obtained a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, New York assisted by an Inlaks Shivdasani Foundation scholarship. Her reporting of the Kargil conflict in 1999, including an interview with Captain Vikram Batra, brought her to prominence in India. She has since covered conflicts in Kashmir, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq.

While covering the events of 2002 Gujarat violence, Dutt identified attackers and victims of a riot as "Hindus" and "Muslims" on television, flouting the guidelines of the Press Council of India. She has received negative reception for some of her work. For 2008 Mumbai attacks, she was blamed for sensationalising the events, putting lives at risk and causing deaths by identifying on live television where the hotel guests might be located. Britta Ohm wrote in 2011 that Dutt is criticised for "secular shrillness", betraying the cause of Kashmiri Pandits, over-the-top nationalism in the reporting of Kargil conflict, and for soft-pedalling Hindutva.

Dutt, who was group editor of NDTV, moved to the role of consulting editor in February 2015 and after 21 years, left in January 2017. She has also written columns for international newspapers, such as The Washington Post.

During the COVID-19 Migration Crisis, her extensive on-road coverage documented the difficulties faced by migrant workers all over North India.

2010 Radia tapes controversy
In November 2010, the magazines OPEN and Outlook published transcripts of some telephone conversations between Nira Radia with some senior journalists, politicians, and corporates. The Central Bureau of Investigation announced that they had 5,851 recordings of phone conversations by Radia, some of which outline Radia's attempts to broker deals in relation to the 2G spectrum sale. Dutt's conversations with Radia were reported and Dutt became the face of the tapes scandal. On 30 November 2010, Dutt defended herself before a jury of her peers in a televised program on NDTV. Dutt apologised over the issue saying it was "an error of judgement" on her part, but said that she had not indulged in any wrongdoing. Magazine editor Hartosh Singh Bal said that "proximity of NDTV and Tehelka are concerned, their closeness to the Congress is no secret. Dutt’s role in the Radia Tapes did not seem to point to an individual act but an institutional malaise."

Tiranga TV controversy
Barkha Dutt served as an anchor and consulting editor at Tiranga TV from 26 January to 13 July 2019. Her show was titled Democracy Live. In July 2019, reports emerged that she was sacked by the Tiranga TV owners Kapil Sibal and his wife Promila Sibal on 'disciplinary grounds'. Dutt disputed this version of events by Sibals, claimed she was sacked for speaking out in internal emails against the treatment of other staffers, and vowed to sue the channel owners in court.

Awards and honours
Dutt's Sunday talk show has won the most awards out of any show on Indian television, winning the Indian Television Academy award for Best Talk Show five years in a row. In 2012, the Association for International Broadcasting awarded Dutt the title of "TV Personality of the year" with the following citation: "a reporter of considerable stretch and depth, still passionate and fearless in bringing the issues closer to her viewers." Dutt was the recipient of the C H Mohammed Koya National Journalism Award in 2009. In 2008, Dutt received the Indian News Broadcasting Award for the Most Intelligent News Show Host. Dutt received the Commonwealth Broadcasting Association award for Journalist of the Year, 2007. She was awarded "Best TV News Anchor (English) for her programme "We the people" at the first Indian News Television Awards in 2007.

In 2008, the Indian government headed by Manmohan Singh awarded Dutt the Padma Shri, a civilian honour, for her coverage of the 2004 tsunami.

She has twice been named on the list of 100 "Global Leaders of Tomorrow" compiled by the World Economic Forum (2001, 2008). In 2005, she was among 50 Indians who were 35 or younger and listed for their achievements and impact on society.

In 2010, she was appointed as a member of India's National Integration Council. She was named an Asia Society Fellow in 2006 and serves on the International Advisory Council of the Asia Society.

Dutt was awarded the Chameli Devi Jain Award for Outstanding Women Mediapersons in 2000.

In popular culture
As per movie reviewers and critics, Dutt has been a model for the portrayal of journalist characters in several Hindi movies. Some of these are –
 * In the 2004 movie Lakshya, Preity Zinta played a female journalist reporting on the 1999 Kargil Conflict.
 * In the 2006 Malayalam Movie Keerthi Chakra, one of the journalist character was based on Dutt. The protagonist Mohanlal gets angry for taking pictures in a sensitive war area. In an earlier incident because of the flash photography by the journalist one of the soldiers was killed.
 * In the 2008 movie Firaaq, a TV viewer is shown responding to Dutt's commentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots as "They [English speaking news reporters] all tell lies ... where were they when the Hindus were being killed".
 * In the 2010 satire Peepli Live, the character of the news anchor was modelled on Sagarika Ghose or Barkha Dutt, according to movie critic Raja Sen. Sen wrote that in the movie, the news anchor only cared about TRPs and "squealed inexplicably in English" even when her subject was Hindi-speaking central India.
 * In the 2011 movie No One Killed Jessica, Rani Mukerji played a news reporter who is first seen in the movie reporting on the 1999 Kargil Conflict is portraying Dutt's character.
 * In the 2014 movie Singham Returns, Ashwini Kalsekar played a TV journalist role inspired by Dutt.
 * Dutt was the model for the protagonist in Anand Kurian's novel The Peddler of Soaps.

Publications

 * Dutt co-authored the chapter "'Nothing new?': Women as Victims" in the 2002 book Gujarat: The Making of a Tragedy.
 * This Unquiet Land: Stories from India's Fault Lines (2016).
 * To Hell and Back: Humans of Covid (2022)

title: Barkha Dutt


text:
Talk:Father Wolf

Where is the name 'Rama' used for Father Wolf? I have seen that 'Alexander' is used as name for Father Wolf in a translation of a Japanese version of the Jungle Book. -- Is 'Rama' used somewhere in the Disney movie (1967) maybe? (--80.126.97.171 11:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC))

title: Talk:Father Wolf


text:
Talk:Epi Taione

Untitled
I don't know what is going on with this page. Somebody changed 'Epi' to 'Epeli' so I presumed that that was his full name. Now that change has been reverted. For all I know 'Epeli' means 'dickhead' in Tongan. Could anybody explain what it's all about?GordyB 11:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC) His full name is Epeli but Epi is his shortened name —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercameron (talk • contribs) 12:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Epi Taione. 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/20080427201715/http://www.dispatch.co.za:80/article.aspx?id=196791 to http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=196791

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) 02:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Epi Taione


text:
Rilhac-Treignac

Rilhac-Treignac (Rilhac de Trainhac) is a commune in the Corrèze department in the Nouvelle-Aquitaine region in central France.

The closest neighboring communes are Chamberet (8 km), Treignac (12 km), and Uzerche (18 km).

title: Rilhac-Treignac