text:
Talk:U.S. Route 521

Mileage and exit numbers
Need up-to-date mileage after the truncation. --Gooday.1 01:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Updated. --WashuOtaku (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just curious about why there is an exit column. When I converted the table to templates, I retained it, but if there are no numbered exits, it should be removed. To remove it:
 * 1) Remove the  from all of the templates and optionally remove the   from each template.
 * 2) If there are exits, but they are all unnumbered, add  to the jcttop which will add the "All exits are unnumbered." note above the table.

If there are numbered exits along this highway, please add the missing numbers. If there are a mix of numbered and unnumbered exits, the unnumbered ones can have an em dash (—) entered for the missing number, leaving the non-exits to have blank cells in the table.  Imzadi 1979  →   07:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I believe it I put it there at the time in case there were exit numbers, but this highway never exhibits a freeway behavior, so it can be removed. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

US521 CONN does not exist
Sometime prior to 2009, the section marked as "US521 CONN" in Sumter became the main route, rather than the route thru downtown. See SCDoT highway map for 2009 (and years following). This means the table is incorrect for the section thru Sumter, and probably all the mileages are wrong. Note that Google Maps is also wrong (one has to assume the SC Dept of Transportation is more accurate than Google...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.220.37 (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So it can just be marked as a former route. Either way, I'm going to split off the bannered routes onto another article. -User:DanTD (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Something else I noticed; Google Street View actually has another branch of US 521 going in a short multiplex with US 15 until it reaches US BUS 76 (although it shows the route as mainline US 76). I already have an official SC Map that has the Sumter insert, so I know you're right. My current issue is with Lancaster, South Carolina; A lot of conflicting info on Google Maps/Street View. -User:DanTD (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Lancaster, SC Business Loop
The issue over the routing of U.S. Route 521 Business (Lancaster, South Carolina) still lingers. The Google Maps and Satellites indicate that the route still follows Main Street northwest of Market Street, but the Street View indicates that it runs along Market Street right up to East Barr Street and then turns on Main Street. When did this rerouting take place? These facts will be important for my splitting of the bannered routes section. -User:DanTD (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

 * I don't know when the change happened, since SCDOT doesn't keep logs online like NCDOT does, but on their city map of the Lancaster Metro Area it shows US 521 Business along Market Street to Barr Street than back onto Main Street. So yea, the routing needs to be updated, but I don't know when that change occurred, that is research for another day. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:U.S. Route 521


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

title: User:Billdorr/sub0


text:
File:RF-D-front.jpg

Summary
Kraftwerk: Ralf und Florian, German version front cover, Philips Records 1973

title: File:RF-D-front.jpg


text:
Talk:Muslim flat-earth theories

In Arabic the Qur'anic verse says "wajada" which means "it appeared to" Dhul Qarnayn. It was his perspective and it appeared to him that it was setting in murky waters... There have been many articles that talk about this. Check out the debate between Zakir Naik and William Champbell here: http://www.aswatalislam.net/DisplayFilesP.aspx?TitleID=50027&TitleName=Zakir_Naik called "Qur'an And Bible In The Light Of Science Vs Campbell".

Since Yuber put the replacement Dhul-Qarnayn article up, I figured it was incumbent upon me to put up the Islam and flat earth article I promised. This is a quick draft and I haven't transferred all the references from the old Dhul-Qarnayn article and talk page. I will work on it as I can, but would appreciate help. Zora 04:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Zora. I did some copyediting. I believe this article would be a good one. -- Svest 17:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Regarding 36:40.. there is more than one interpritation of that Ayat. Kabbani uses it as an example of a miracle of the Quran, citing how it speaks of the Sun haing it's own orbit, something scientists didn't fully comprehend till the 1970's. --Irishpunktom\talk 18:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Produce your proof for the Earth being flat in ISLAM. Meaning, cite your sources from the Quran and sayings of Muhammad. Don't say some people think, who are also Muslim. I may have to vote this article for deletion as it provides no proof and seems to be just a hate article.--HaRpRiT

 * Harprit, doing what you say to do would be original research (see No original research). A synthesis of our arguments for whether Islam views the earth as flat or not would be our original research.  This aritlce is not saying that Islam believes the earth is flat.  No wikipedia article should be saying that Islam as an entity believes anything since Muslims have the free right to interpret their religion as they see fit.  This is about the view of some Muslims who have argued that the world is flat -- and some of them have been very prominent.  There is no problem in providing a counterbalance to show that not all Muslims believed this because this really is not an attempt to say that Islam is not compatible with science or that Muslims are backwards.  However, as with some Christians, some Muslims believe things that go against scientific theories.  It's just a fact and we're portraying this fact, not arguing from Qur'an and hadith as to what we think Islam says, because that would go against wikipedia policy.  I do invite you to vote this for deletion so that you will see how the community feels about this article.  So, by all means put this up on WP:AFD which will give us a definitive view instead of just having this be a war of threats.  Also using ~ to sign posts would post the time you placed your message. gren グレン 19:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Harprit, the article is not a final version. Sources must be needed or otherwise statements would be considered to be removed from there. For now, we have to work to make the article a good and neutral. -- Svest 19:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * What is this garbage: "It has been said that at least one influential modern Saudi jurist, Ibn Baz, the former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, claimed that the earth is flat and that anyone who denies this is considered as an unbeliever. The Wahabbi or Salafi tradition that he espoused was already known for its fierce insistence on the letter of the Qur'an, to the point that they interpreted references to God's hand or face as references to a divine body."

 * This looks like an anti-Saudi/Wahabi article full of lies. Bin Baz never said the earth was flat, and he never went to the extent of calling one a disbeliever for disbeliving something so trivial.  I will not remove what is said about the other people on this list before I look in to their beliefs, but for Bin Baz, I know for a fact he didn't make these accusitions placed on him --Bera7m 20:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The article is actually rather careful to say that it isn't clear whether or not he made all the remarks attributed to him. It's a widely reported episode and you can't just wish it out of existence. Zora 20:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's start from sources
I didn't want to comment on the contents as I tried to be patient or maybe someone would be an expert on the topic. What I notice in the article is that nothing suggests that Islam believed in the flat-earth theory!! At the opposite the only reference we have there is about arguing for the round-flat theory.

I wonder with a lot of amazement about the purpose of such an article w/o sources and even categorized in Category:Obsolete scientific theories while Christianity is much more notable in supporting the theory. No article about that topic exists!!! I do doubt about the creation of this article now. I believe Muslim readers would be amazed as they always believed in the round theory and finding unsourced stuff here.

Zora, the article should be named the opposite. Why? Because of God's sake, Muslims believe in the opposite!!! It is for opponents to bring sources and not the opposite. -- Svest 20:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that the article lacks references. I didn't bring over all the references from the Dhul-Qarnayn article because I was writing in a hurry. I said so at the top of this page! I have no doubt that the controversy existed, and I'll spend some time later today pulling up the references.

 * However, it seems to me that you miss the point when you say that Islam teaches this or that. Various Muslims have had various opinions about flat-earth/round-earth. Until Ibn Baz' fatwa (which may or may not have happened) none of them were claiming that those who thought differently were heretics. It's just a difference of opinion within the Muslim community, one that reflects conflicting views in the world at large. See the Flat earth article for more info -- it's actually quite a good article. Indeed, there's something to be said for merging this article into that one. Zora 20:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for mentioning Flat earth. I wasn't aware of its existance. Merging this with that sounds a perfect idea as the theory doesn't deal only with the Islamic view.
 * The problem with Ibn Baz is that it looks as if the article is dedicated to his view (this is in case it was true that he issued a Fatwa). I now that you are still working on it but what I said above is that for the time being the article(especially w/ its title) suggests clearly (except a simple mention about the round theory view) that Islam believes in FET. Good luck to all. -- Cheers Svest 20:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I picked the title in a hurry (forced to act quickly because of Yuber's action at Dhul-Qarnayn) and I'm not going to defend it with my life. Perhaps we can have a general discussion as to whether or not this should all be moved to Flat earth (it might unbalance the article as it exists now) or whether this article should have a new title.

It would also be nice if someone worked on the Ibn Baz article, which right now is a Salafi panegyric of the gentleman. I don't think that the world at large was quite that fawning. Oh, and while I'm thinking of it -- Salafi hands have been at work on Sunni Islam and the kalam section is now full of praise for the Hanbali position. Needs fixing. Zora 21:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I remember Yuber doing that yesterday, lol. However, I didn't want to be involoved waiting for the reaction.
 * For this article, I support of course that it got to be merged w/ Flat earth for the reasons mentioned above.
 * The problem again with Mr Baz, is that there are no resources available to work on! I'll try again and see.
 * I'll also check what's going on at the rest of the articles you mentioned. -- Svest 21:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™

This article may need renaming... but, I don't think I like how it's being seen as an attack on Islam... I really don't think it's meant to be that. I thought it was title this because it was talking about flat earth... I suppose we could have Islam and earth circumference or area or uhhh. I don't think this is to make an argument if most Muslims believe that the world is round or flat? It's just a part of Muslim history. O_O gren グレン 03:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Well Gren. Yes I agree but do you remember the raison d'être of Dhul-Qarnayn and why this article had to be an oubreak? Wasn't Zeno who was pushing the speed to the limit to apply his stance? Now Dhul-Qarnayn is fine though it needs a simple revision especially with copyvios introduced by Bera7m and fixed by Zora. So I expect this article to be a baby simulating the same ideas behind Dhul Qarnayn. That's why I asked about a renaming. It would be NPOV if there was a parallel Islam and round-earth theories. Indeed, if most Muslims are believing in the round stuff than why the rush to create an article about the flat stuff before having the round one? -- Svest 03:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™

 * The reason for the rush was playing fair with Zeno. I said that the Dhul-Qarnayn article didn't need all the flat earth stuff AND promised to find another home for it when I took it out. That's why it seems a bit slanted, because it originally comes from Zeno. I started the darn thing, but I don't have all that much attachment to it. I'd really like to find out whether or not Ibn Baz issued a fatwa, however. Zora 04:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Ibn Baz
I am into his official website now. The Arabic version is more complete. The guy got 13 volumes of Fatwas and opinions. I'll update you with what I found. -- Cheers -- Svest 04:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * What I found is plenty of advices and fatwas (from women driving cars to his opinions about dying your beard). Nothing found about the flat stuff. In contrast, this is what I found very interesting, revoking all allegations and claims about the flat stuff.

 * Ibn Baz official rebuttal and reply to the allegation (in Arabic).
 * An english version from a blog. -- Svest 05:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)  Our problem is solved

The problem is ... we can't trust the official collected volumes, or the website. The editors would want to make Ibn Baz look good, so it's possible that they'd suppress anything embarrassing. It seems to come down to some article that appeared in Egypt. If we could get a verifiable copy of THAT, we might be able to judge whether or not the article was based on anything solid. If we can't confirm anything in the article, then we have to assume that the authors were fabricating. Zora 05:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Never heard you asking about a copy of a reference before!!!
 * This is what he replied:
 * ...As for what the magazine, as-Siyasah (a former Kuweiti daily) has published about me quoting from the statement that was written by the writers of at-Tajamu’ at-Taqadumi in Egypt in regards to me denying the landing of man on the moon and me making takfir [to declare a person a disbeliever] of the one who says it or says that the earth is round or rotates - then it is a pure lie; it has no basis of authenticity. And perhaps the one who quoted it did not intend the lie but failed to verify the quote.

 * My statement is published and distributed and I explained the response to the one who denies the landing of man on the moon and the kufr [disbelief] of one who says it. Furthermore, I clarified that it is an obligation on the one who does not have knowledge to withhold and not to affirm or deny until some knowledge is attained which necessitate affirmation or denial.

 * Also, I affirm in the statement what I have quoted from the Allamah Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy upon him, that which proves the affirmation of the roundness of the earth.

 * As far as its rotation, then I have denied it and explained the evidences denying it. However, I did not declare kufr upon the one who upholds it. I only declared kufr upon the one who says that the sun is stationary and does not run on a course because this statement collides with the clarity of the Noble Qur’an and the pure authentic Sunnah which both prove that the sun and the moon both run on a course...

The letter is signed and dated. خطاب صدر من مكتب سماحته برقم 2925/1 في 7/11/1397. The ref number 1/1925. -- Svest 06:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC) Me again

Rewrite
It's not clear whether or not this article will be merged. In the meantime, it might as well be as correct as we can make it.

I'm somewhat distressed the Ibn Baz' supporters seem to have declared the case closed, as obvious slander. The critics gave some convincing-looking references. Are those completely made-up?

So I did the usual Wikipedia thing of stating both sides of the issue. On the one hand, references (which cannot be confirmed). On the other hand, a denial and a claim to have been misquoted. I myself do not know which is true. Zora 13:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Zora, sometimes you surprise me with your oppeness! ;-) I agree about giving the story 2 voices. I, myself, am not sure of who is right and who is wrong. However, I had to make some superficial changes regarding some journalistic style editing, not to make anyone happy but to keep Wikipedia clean.

 * Such arguments would seem to belong completely in the past. In this age of photos from space, who could doubt that the earth is round?
 * It was a funny story, to anyone save the Saudis. -- Svest 18:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Was Ibn Baz the only one?
Fayssal amended the latest version to read that all Muslims accept that the earth is round and revolves around the sun. This claim is too broad. First of all, there may be Third World Muslim peasants, living in impoverished countries, who may believe that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. Unlikely, in these days when movies and TV reach everywhere, but possible. Second, Ibn Baz was the Grand Mufti and must have had some influence over his subordinates. Perhaps they were just going along with him out of respect, or fear, or calculation, but it's also possible that some of them shared his beliefs. I don't think it's any shame to Muslims to say that MOST of them accept modern scientific theories. If some Muslims are anti-scientific, well, so are some Christians and some Hindus and some Jews ... Zora 20:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The claim is not "too broad"! It has been well sourced through the Muslim history, while you did not bring any sigle scholar that says otherwise! --Islamic 05:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, just to explain my self: I am talking about Muslim religious scholars during medieval period, not all Muslims at all ages. Also I don't deny that there are still few Muslims that think the earth is flat. --Islamic 07:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * This claim is too broad: Yes, it is. You are right. It is indeed just as saying that the world population believe that the earth is round. If there are still some peasants than same everywhere in the rest of the world. No difference. Same also as there are still educated people maybe believing in the flat-earth stuff. The Flat Earth Society. Saying that most muslims easily believe that the earth is round is derogative. So I removed that stuff. The point here is that was implying that some other muslims (including scholars) may still believe the earth is flat. We have to be very careful here or otherwise some newspaper would refer to WP telling its readers that there are still some peasants or scholars thinking that.
 * Ibn Baz was the Grand Mufti: His influence was restricted to the Wahhabis and nothing outside KSA, not even including the Shi'as there. The Grand in Grand Mufti doesn't mean he was the Pope. Indeed, we are still not sure if he did say that anyway. -- Cheers Svest 21:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed it to "the vast majority of Muslims believe ...". Is that both accurate and non-derogatory? Zora 23:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed Zora. Thanks and also agree with the additions regarding Dhul Qarnayn. -- Cheers Svest 23:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

POV
Millions of English speakers say the "the sun rises", does this imply that the Earth is flat and the world geocentric?

As far as I can see, the "Qur'anic texts taken by some" sections are misleading. The MuslimHope reference only shows how one Christian scholar interprets the Qur'an. I suppose this author is the "some" refered to in the above mentioned sections. I don't see how it qualifies. Are there any sources from Muslims explaining their position?

I think this article should be deleted and the Ibn Baz cotroversy merged into an Ibn Baz section in the Flat Earth article, except for the entire "Why would Ibn Baz deny" section, which isn't neutral and looks more like original research. --Yodakii 14:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Deleting
Isnt this a bit to much?--Striver 21:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * If you're referring to the removal of the section "Why would Ibn Baz deny that the earth revolves around the sun?" that strikes me as an appropriate deletion, since it is original research. Find citations, keep it in, if not: remove it or at least remove it to the talk page.  The article as a whole has a lot of weasel words and lacks citations for all of its claims.  It's interesting, though. Esquizombi 01:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that most of the relevant material is in Arabic and unavailable, so we're having to go with second-hand versions that we can cite, but that we aren't quite sure are accurate. That's why it sounds weaselly.

As for the whole bit re Quranic literalism -- I feel strongly that we need some explanation of why Ibn Baz would be moved to say that the earth is flat. Finding published commentary is hard. Citations for anthropomorphism is easy, Quranic literalism is harder, and flat earth theories is hard to link. I'll see what I can do. But Zora 01:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Scholar?
It should be noted that Abdul Wahhab was NOT a scholar. He didnt even complete the madrasa. I understand that he was the leader of a movement within the deen that is very close to the hearts of his followers, but a scholar he was not. And he CERTAINLY does not deserve comparison with Ibn Taymiyya.

Change the title, please. It's misleading.
I think that the title of this article "Muslim flat earth theories" is inappropriate because one, it gives the wrong impression that Muslims believe the earth is flat, and two, the article actually mentions round earth theories as well. Therefore, I propose that the title be changed to something like "Muslim views of geodesy". More NPOV, don't you think?

 * Most people don't know what geodesy is. In fact, I had to pause a moment to parse the word. How about Muslims and flat-earth theories? Just putting an "and" into indicates that Muslims and flat-earth theories are two different things, which may be related in numerous ways. Zora 06:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I think the title "Muslim views on the shape of earth", would be nice and simple (if anuybody was looking from simplicity). However, "Muslim views of geodesy" is good too. (I know that geodesy is a difficult word, but wikipedia shouldn't exactly cater to those want easy and simple answers to difficult questions).128.100.36.236 20:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Major change
I have done a major change on the article. I have removed most but not all unsourced claims - if you have any reliable source then bring it on. I think the article is in a better shape now. Please provide your comments. --Islamic 08:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Islami, you emasculated the article. You removed ANYTHING that could be construed as critical of Islam, Ibn Baz, or Salafism. In fact, you removed all reference to the accusations that swept the world, re Ibn Baz and the flat earth fatwa. The accusations are well-documented. You may think that they are wrong, but you should not remove all evidence of controversy. That is not right.

 * I won't just revert, because you added new material, but now I'm going to have to mix the old material with the new. Plase do not do this sort of thing! That's censorship. Zora 09:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Zora, I don't think I have removed any reference to Ibn Baz fatwa. I have merged two paragraphs that says the same thing. I don't mind if you undo that. The two paragraphs are: Between 1993 and 1995, various newspapers and magazines published accounts of a modern Islamic cleric, Ibn Baz, the former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, who is said to have claimed that "the earth is flat and that anyone who denies this is considered an unbeliever" . Later, Ibn Baz issued a rebuttal, claiming that his statements had been misinterpreted . He is also said to have issued a religious ruling in the early 1990s stating "the earth is flat and that anyone who denies this is considered as an unbeliever". They say that in 1993, Ibn Baz issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, declaring that "The Earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment."
 * --Islamic 14:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

How could they have not known the earth was spherical?
greeks knew it for centuries and the single largest contribution from Islam to Science was in the area of Astronomy. Astronomy and Medicine (Avicenna) were pretty much the two big areas contributed by Muslims. I dunno how a seafaring people with a great knowledge of celestial bodies could miss that slight detail. Get real. --Street Scholar 08:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you please go and research the name "Galileo", then find religious references to it. He was accused of heresy by the catholic church, and put on trial in 1633 for putting forward the round earth theory, and was not pardonned until Pope John Paul II did it in 1992! (Now, consider that Magellan's expedition circumnavigated (Sailed all the way around the "Flat" earth) between 1519 - 1522, Galileo was denounced by the church some 111 years AFTER the church's theory was proven WRONG, and not pardonned for a further 359 years AFTER the church's theory was proved wrong) _I_ dont know how by the twentieth century "all knowing" and "wise" religious leaders could still completely deny what people had known as absolute fact by science and travel for hundreds of years. Its not the article writer that needs to get real sir. Also, nothing in this article or talk pages appears to be biased, or intentionally insulting to muslims. FACT- there ARE muslims that hold to the theory that the world is flat. FACT - There ARE ALSO CHRISTIANS that still believe this, as im sure there are people from many backwards religions that believe this. FACT - Highly orthodox religious types and/or not so well educated people tend to believe what they are being told by their religious or community leaders, and a lot of religious scripture completely flies in the face of proven science, and a lot of the time when it doesnt, it doesnt through sheer dumb luck. FACT - that no matter how much you hate a proven truth, no matter what truth might be, it doesnt change it.I wasnt going to enter into this debate but im sick to death of reading reverse racism. Just because people CRY racism/bias against a religion/nation/sect/cult/whatever, doesnt mean its actually there. --Squad'nLeedah 03:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

merge
this article may be safely merged with Flat Earth (notice how it's not called "Christian flat-earth theories"? Medieval Muslim astronomy was, if anything, more aware of the earth's sphericity (and even Christian astronomy was perfectly aware of it). If people like Suyuti or Ibn Baz really supported a flat earth (not in the literal sense, of course:) that should first and foremost be mentioned on their own articles, which at present isn't the case for Suyuti, nor for Al-Ahbash. After that is done, these may be mentioned with some context over at Flat Earth. dab (ᛏ) 09:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I concur wholeheartedly. Those few religious figures who have demonstrably supported the idea of a flat Earth may be mentioned in a section in the Flat Earth article - together with their counterparts from other religions. There is no reason to have a separate article for "Muslim" flat-earth theories.--Thomas Arelatensis 18:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Add me to this wagoon! We've had hard times here arguing about this but it seemed a pain in the a**!!! -- Szvest 18:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
 * Ditto. --Irishpunktom\talk 20:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamic mathematicians contributed greatly to spherical trigonometry... in order to calculate the positions of stars... this "flat-earth" nonsense needs to stop. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  11:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Um, some Muslims were well aware that the earth is round, and others believed that it was flat. The original version of the article, before it was pruned and emended by various people, said that both strands of thought co-existed. You folks are talking as if all Muslims believed the same thing, so that any mention of flat-earth Muslims is therefore a slur on all Muslims. This is a gross over-simplification. It's exactly the same for Christians; both strands of thought co-existed.

 * I just haven't had the time or energy to restore all the comments re the Bin Baz controversy that were expunged by zealous editors. At one point there was a verifiable published quote from Bin Baz saying that while he believed that the earth was round, the Qur'an said that the celestial bodies revolved around the earth, so therefore they did. It's not clear to me whether or not he ever believed that the earth is flat. I'd have to be able to read Arabic and have access to all of Bin Baz' published writings to determine that. Various people have quoted him as saying so, but the quotes are generally third-hand.

 * The Bin Baz controversy was the start of this whole article. I'd be OK with moving the Bin Baz part to his article, and merging the rest into the flat-earth article. As long as it doesn't involve sweeping anything under the rug. Or having anything critical of Bin Baz deleted. Zora 09:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Support merge. The information here would be a good addition to the flat earth article, which at the moment is very Euro-centric (except that a spherical Earth has no centre:-) ). Itsmejudith 07:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Support merge. There seems to be information here that is relevant to the history of science, but not so much that a split from Flat Earth is mandated. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 19:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Support merge. Its not just some muslims that believe it. There are plenty of people from many religions, and many NON religious people that believe this. For my arguments read the "I cant believe its not but.... " i mean the "How could they have not known the earth was spherical?" section. --Squad'nLeedah 03:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should note how the article isn't about flat earth, despite the misleading title. Most paragraphs discuss that how Muslims thought the earth was round.128.100.36.236 20:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Please see the discussion at Talk:Flat Earth
 * --SteveMcCluskey 18:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The Fatwa by Bin Baaz (Raheemahullaah) on The World Being Flat
Thursday, 06 January 2011 18:13 AbuAbdullah

As’salaamu3laykum Wa Rahmatullaahee Wa Barakaatuhu Bismillaah, As you already know there are rumors going around from those who oppose the Ahlu-Sunnah wa Jumm’aah by attacking and trying to belittle the Scholars, such as al-Albaanee, al-Uthaymeen and their favorite Shaykh ibn Baaz ((May Allaah have mercy on all of their souls)).

You might have heard from those who hate the dawatul Salafiyyah regarding the ((so called)) fatwa from bin Baaz stating that the world is Flat. Some who don’t know that this is an obvious lie try to make excuses for him by saying ((the shaykh was blind)) and so on. At least they tried to defend the shaykh, but overlooked the knowledge and wisdom this man had possessed. He was not only a Scholar, he was the Grande Mufti of Saudi Arabia, President of Medinah University, Head of the Senior Scholars ((The Permanent Committee)) and other great and highly valued responsibilities. May Allaah Have Mercy on his soul and reward him greatly for all the work he has done and tried to do for the Ummaah. Aameen.

Here is the ((real)) Fatwa from Shaykh bin Baaz ((Raheemahullaah)) regarding if the Earth is Flat or Round.

The following is the English translation, I have also included the link where you can hear him being asked the question and him answering it in Arabic.

Allaah Azza Wa Jall continues to show the truth to those who He guides, wal Alhamdulillaahee Rabbil 3lameen.

http://binbaz.org.sa/RecDisplay.asp?f=n-04-1407-0300007.htm

Introduction

The following letter reached the program (broadcast program) from Kenya, sent by our brother, the student, Ibraheem Muhammad Al-Awwal. The brother says, "I heard the program Nurun 'alad-Darb (A Light upon the Path) and I benefited greatly from it. Therefore, I wanted to send these questions to you all because their topics are very perplexing to me. The first is: Is the earth round or flat?"

The Shaikh: According to the people knowledge (scholars of Islaam) the earth is round, for indeed Ibn Hazim and a group of other scholars mentioned that there is a consensus (unanimous agreement, Ijmaa') among the people of knowledge that it is round. This means that all of it is connected together thus making the form of the entire planet like a ball. However, Allaah has spread out surface for us and He has placed firm mountains upon it and placed the animals and the seas upon it as a mercy for us. For this reason, Allaah said:

"And (do they not look) at the Earth, how it was made FLAT (Sutihat)." [Al-Ghaashiyyah (88):20]

Therefore, it (the Earth) has been made flat for us in regards to its surface, so that people can live on it and so that people can be comfortable upon it. The fact that it is round does not prevent that its surface has been made flat. This is because something that is round and very large, if it is made flat (its surface), then its surface will become very vast or broad (i.e. having a flat appearance). Yes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.226.92.153 (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Muslim flat-earth theories


text:
Template talk:Family law

NPOV? Incest
I'm not sure the framing of Incest on this template is entirely NPOV. While I appreciate the effort to organise matters, incest isn't considered a crime (or even wrong) in all cultures, so having a big "family law - crimes" template at the top of the page isn't entirely neutral. Perhaps we could split out the incest-with-childeren-in-modern-cultures section and only put the template on that? --fvw *  04:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Virtually all cultures condemn some kinds of incest (e.g. mother/son) even between consenting adults - just as virtually all cultures permit unfettered relationships with blood relatives outside a certain degree of separation (condemndation of "incest" between, say, 5th cousins twice removed, would be inconceivable). So long as this is developed in the incest article, which I believe it is, then I think the template link is fine. BD2412  talk 05:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * in many cultures incest it's legal. And in even more cultures adultery it's not a crime. This kinf of language is far from neutral, and extremly offensive.
 * As a compromise position, I've titled the section "Areas of possible legal concern" - which they most definitely are. Even if adultery is not a crime, it is grounds for a divorce (and hence a legal concern) throughout the U.S., Canada, the UK, China, India, Australia, and probably most other countries. Similarly, there are many jurisdictions where a bigamous or incestuous marriage may be annulled, even though no criminal prosecution would follow. BD2412  T 17:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Cohabitation
Cohabitation probably should be referenced - not sure where. -- Paul foord 10:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Cheers! bd2412  T 14:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Template topics
I'm wholly unfamiliar with WP policies and best practices surrounding editing templates and, as such, will assume that they are similar to those with respect to articles (hopefully someone better informed can correct me if I'm wrong.)

Looking over this template, I think it could use some revisions. The "issues affecting children" section has:

Paternity · Legitimacy · Adoption Legal guardian · Foster care Ward · Emancipation of minors Grandparent visitation Child Protective Services (United States) Parental responsibility Contact (including visitation) Parenting plan · Residence in UK Custody · Child support Parenting Coordinator

I don't think "Parenting Coordinator" is really a very big issue in family law generally (at least not yet.) Likewise "Grandparent visitation" is probably completely subsumed by the other section "Contact (including visitation)" anyway. Also "Residence in UK" and "CPS (US)" are both regional issues and, at least at first blush, don't appear to merit inclusion in the generic family law sidebar.--Cybermud (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm not suggesting remaking the template as a sideways one, it was just easier to make this template to show suggested changes than type out a huge list.

Mostly renamed some links and resorted them into a "Family Law" type theme. "Issues" can mean anything from social to behavior. --West Horizon (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * seems like a useful alternative. I moved the template to the sandbox to make it clear this is a demonstration of an alternative format for this template. Frietjes (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

 * I split the "Issues affecting children" section into parent and child legal sections. As a "Family Law" template I did not see a generic (global) non-married / unwed family law page to start the parent section with, 20-50% of families depending on what stats you look at. --West Horizon (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Family law


text:
Talk:Daniel (given name)

Disambiguation
This is really a disambiguation page -- it's even marked as such -- it should be merged with the standard disambiguation page. An article called "Daniel_(name)" should probably be an etymological discussion of the name. --Delius1967 19:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this page should contain a discussion of the etymology of the name, and perhaps someone will add one. In that case, it would not be good to combine the pages. The "name" pages - Daniel (name), Anita, etc. - seem to often contain an etymology and a list of people with that name. I think it would not be a bad thing to just have the "Daniel" disambiguation page refer to the Daniel (name) page for a list of people with the first or last name of Daniel.

The problem is, whatever you do, people will start adding names onto the other article. And if you combine them, it will have to contain the etymology and other text on the name as well as the disambiguation part. You can't win...

I have been moving all the "name" pages to Category:Given names from Category:Names, so that they will all be in one spot.--Brianyoumans 04:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The MoS for dab pages indicates moving such information to "List of people named [X]", so this has been moved here (List of people named Daniel). If desired, Daniel (name) can now be an etymology of Daniel, of course. ENeville 00:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Craig
Anyone gonna add Daniel Craig to the famous people list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyChaos23 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Categorization of surnames
In the "Daniel as a first name" section, wisely or not, the names are split into categories--should the same be done for the "Daniel as a surname" section, given that it is quite long. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.125.212.120 (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't think splitting the list by profession is a good idea, as it makes things complicated when a person is notable for than one profession they have had during their lifetime, such as an actor-turned-politician or a person who is an actor and a musician. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Splitting the list by profession is a good idea. And it is done on other articles about common names. Where a person is known for more than one thing, they would best be listed according to their primary area of notability. If there are cases where the primary area of notability is not obvious, the name could be listed in more than once section.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Move page?
Perhaps move this to "List of notable people named Daniel"? --HappyCamper 01:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If they are on this list, then by definition they are notable, as per Wikipedia standards. --DLand TALK 02:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... --HappyCamper 02:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is not only a list, it also gives info about the name, hence the current name of the article is correct. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But the article also seems to contain a very long list of people named Daniel (or some variation of Daniel), and doesn't contain very much else. It is unclear whether it is attempting to list everyone who is mentioned on Wikipedia who is named Daniel, and if not, who should be listed and who should not. This seems like a basically undesirable situation. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sentence in the lead about finding in English roots in American countries
The lead contained a sentence saying "Daniel is commonly found in English roots in American countries." To me this sentence seemed strange in several ways. Rather than listing the various ways it seemed strange, I have simply deleted it. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Split article
Should the article be split into Daniel (given name) and Daniel (surname)?

 * Support - this is the practice with many articles such as John. This page should be a disambiguation page. StAnselm (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Splitting the article does not mean that there is an absence of a primary topic. Census reports alone show that "Daniel" is far more prevalent as a given name than as a surname, with the surname generally being derived from the given name as a patronymic anyway. bd2412  T 01:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support in any case, but we should also get rid of the silly primarytopic claim and make Daniel the disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, keep the article, but do spinout both: List of people with the given name Daniel and List of people with the surname Daniel.  Note that neither are encylopedic, but may serve as navigation aids, may be better as categories, or may be made redundant by new navigation features.   Neither does this list content sit well in this article.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 February 2015

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. No consensus on whether the proposed moves are a good idea. Number  5  7  21:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

– In the recently closed RM, it was not clear whether Daniel should be reassigned to the names page or the disambig page, as people had suggested both and the closer chose the partially disambiguated alternative; and the names page is being split (it looks like) into surname and given name pages. It makes sense to do more like John and make Daniel be the disambiguation page, with the given name, surname, biblical figure, and other meanings needing to be disambiguated. Dicklyon (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Daniel → Daniel (given name)
 * Daniel (disambiguation) → Daniel

Something like this:

Daniel is a common name and surname:
 * Daniel (given name)
 * Daniel (surname), including a list of people so named
 * Daniel (biblical figure), perhaps the best-known Daniel

Daniel may also refer to: ...
 * Places
 * Daniel, Utah, a town in Utah

Survey and Discussion

 * Support as nom. Dicklyon (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose A result either way is not particularly significant as there is precedent for either as the primary article. However, there is a tendency for names that also have other meanings (e.g. mark, john, bob) to have the disambiguation page as the main page, but generally the name is the primary article for words that are only used as a proper noun (e.g. Michael, Chris, Joseph).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: This is also the name of a biblical book, like Mark and John, and unlike the Michael, Chris, and Joseph mentioned above. StAnselm (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But so are Luke and Micah. And the book of Daniel is linked in the first sentence of the name article anyway.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have just initiated a discussion at Luke to bring it in line with Matthew, Mark, and John. As you can imagine, I think Micah should be changed as well' but I will wait to see what happens with the other discussions first. StAnselm (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The words 'mark' and 'john' have uses other than as proper nouns. Matthew should probably be brought in line with other names that are only proper nouns. But it's not the end of the world either way. The claim that names that are also titles of books of the Bible are different to other names is essentially an invented arbitrary distinction.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose, the page was just moved here. Let's give it a few months to see how the page views settle out before rushing to another move. Also, given that Mark and John are two of the books in the Jesus narrative, they are likely to be substantially more significant historically than the Book of Daniel. The Biblical book may be the origin of the name, but see Boston, Lincolnshire and Boston. bd2412  T 03:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Move Review was just closed on the basis of having this RM discussion as an alternative. One would not say that because a mistake was just made it would be too soon to talk about fixing it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * One might say, however, that we should give this arrangement some time to shake out to see if a change in pageviews suggest that this is indeed the primary topic sought by readers. bd2412  T 04:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since page views are always biased toward the base name, spending time to look at such numbers wouldn't really tell us much useful. Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The biblical book isn't the origin of the name, though it contributes to its popularity. The character in the book of Daniel is neither the only nor the first person with that name even in the Bible. Daniel, the son of David, predates the character in the book of Daniel. However, the name originates from the name Danel from at least 1400 BCE. That character is also mentioned in the book of Ezekiel, but is often misinterpreted as referring to the Daniel of the biblical book instead, even though the spelling in the original text of Ezekiel is different and the context alludes to an ancient character).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We agree for a change.  But maybe this comment is not where you intended it?  Bit of a non-sequitur here. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I was responding to bd2412's suggestion that the biblical book may be the origin of the name.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I have just contacted User talk:PaleAqua to request a review the procedural close. It seems logical to start with whether the original move was a good one according to consensus, and then to come back here. StAnselm (talk) 04:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I predict you'll not make progress with a review of a close of a review of a close of an RM discussion that left the results ambiguous and up to the closer. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, this last closure was a procedural one, and had nothing to do with assessing consensus. StAnselm (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I don't think I will get anywhere along that line. StAnselm (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment: Anyway, back the the matter at hand - eight of the top ten results in Google Books are for the Book of Daniel. If there was a primary topic, it would be that book; it's certainly not the personal name. StAnselm (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion about the biblical figure has been closed, and there has been no suggestion of the book being made the primary subject.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think he is saying that the book should be primarytopic; just that the name should not be. Dicklyon (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support in lieu of what is probably the best solution, which is to make the book the redirect's location (or just bring it over here). Red Slash 05:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as I think there is a propensity for the over elevation of Judeo-Christian frames over broader cultural conceptualities.  Only a fifth of the globe hews to the Bible, but a far larger proportion likely knows or knows of a "Daniel." .... DeistCosmos (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There are plenty of articles about names of people where the main article is about the name, even though they have disambiguation pages that typically refer to towns, works of art, literature, music and so on. But as soon as there's something about 'the Bible', suddenly it's supposed to be the dominant subject by fiat?! There has been no claim that books of the Bible are not notable, but they are not more notable than other subjects.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How is this a rationale to oppose putting the disambig page at the base name? Did DeistCosmos misunderstand the proposal?  Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The proposal specifically asserts that the disambiguation page should be the main page on the basis of giving prominence to the article about the biblical subject. You don't seem to be suggesting that the disambiguation page for other articles about non-biblical names be made the main article.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. It says "It makes sense to do more like John and make Daniel be the disambiguation page, with the given name, surname, biblical figure, and other meanings needing to be disambiguated."  Exactly how the biblical character is treated on the disambig page is not the issue here. Dicklyon (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If anything is a certainty it is that Daniel is no John. No. No, I think that the widely given human name Daniel holds the ground here. But nice patronization there!! DeistCosmos (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support. Per the information above, the biblical character or their book in the Bible are just as notable as the given name, if not more, given that the given name's strong connection to the biblical figure. Steel1943  (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Support per WP:NOT, i.e. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the name (with its DICDEFish "article") itself is not the primary encyclopedia topic. —  AjaxSmack   01:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Given names have incredible long-term significance, and it is quite reasonable to think that someone entering just a given name in the search box is expecting to find an article about that name. And Daniel isn't just any name, it's consistently been one of the most popular, and not just in one place, but many. When it comes to names, the most thorough stats come from the US, where it was the 10th most popular boys' name of 2013, has been as high as 5th (1985, 1990, 2007, 2008), within the top 15 every year since 1972, the top 20 every year since 1952, and has never been lower than 55 as far back as these statistics go - to 1880. Other countries' data is much less detailed and doesn't go back nearly as far, but the name still has an impressive showing in, for example: England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland, British Columbia, New South Wales... there's a list of them here. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, don't move any articles, but as per my comment in Talk:Daniel, the lists of people so surnamed or first names should be spunout, leaving this page like a DABCONCEPT, detailing the meaning, origin, popularity, etc. Keep the dab page separate.  "Daniel" the name is the PrimaryTopic, but this PrimaryTopic is not a list of Daniels.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Danel?
I feel perhaps some mention of Danel should be made here. 180.43.40.229 (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done.  Staszek Lem (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"Other surnames derived from "Daniel" include McDaniel and Danielson"
Much more likely that McDaniels and O'Daniels and Some Danielson are just Anglicizations of the name Donal/Donald/Domhnall which is Gaelic for world ruler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.195.39 (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2022
change Daniel is a unisex given name and a surname of Hebrew origin to Daniel is a masculine given name and a surname of Hebrew origin StolzenJaeger (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aaron Liu (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The original (very recent) change was made without any reference to sources, so I've reverted it. Elizium23 (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2022
In "Related names", remove Ukrainian from Danilo line. Instead, add another line with the correct transliteration: Данило (Danylo) (Ukrainian) (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danylo) Add 2 more Russian variants to the name - Данил(Danil), and Данила(Danila). (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danil and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danila_(given_name)) 109.108.94.6 (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Danil" is not cited in the corresponding source in the article and has not been added. I've added "Danylo" to the corresponding line since the two words are just the same word except one of them is in the cryllic alphabet. Everything else has been added. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Article that I've linked previously (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danil), established the connection of "Danil" to "Daniel" and has the accepted source for it: https://xanim.az/gozel-muselman-adlari-ve-menalari-16614
 * Alternatively, see https://www.familyeducation.com/baby-names/name-meaning/daniel for "Danil" appearing in variations.
 * It is a rarer Russian form therefore doesn't appear in the original source. Nonetheless, it is clearly a form that exists and so should be added. 109.108.94.6 (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

 * ✅ Of the universe (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 26 November 2023

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

– The pageview statistics are now much clearer than they were in 2015: Daniel (biblical figure) and Book of Daniel each get more than twice the pageviews of the given name at Daniel. People arguing that the name is still primary thus have an extremely high hill to climb, and long-term significance doesn't get us over it: the biblical meanings (one of which was the pre-2015 primary topic) are emininently encyclopedic and have a great deal of enduring notability and educational value, arguably more than the name and certainly not enough to overcome the pageview gap. I don't see a primary topic here, and if there is one, it's definitely not the name. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Daniel → Daniel (given name)
 * Daniel (disambiguation) → Daniel

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Daniel indicates that in October there were 12.2k views of Daniel, which led to 3.1k identified outgoing clickstreams, to 27 destinations, where the biblical figure got 901 (~7.4%), List of people named Daniel got 693 (~5.7%), Book of Daniel 471 (~3.9%), and the hatnote 303 (~2.5%), followed by a smattering of others. With both the biblical figure and the Book of Daniel linked in the short lead section, and the hatnote being on top, I'm not sure what the argument is for saying the navigation is bad with respect to these particular destinations. A more straightforward list would significantly raise the amount of people who click those links from the current ~13.8%? That seems possible, but it seems doubtful that the change would be significant, because the same links are quite prominent already. In fact one could say that the anthroponymy lists, split out per WP:NAMELIST, are less obvious being two sections down, yet readers do find them and visit them at a comparable level. Indeed, if we listed some of those people here, instead of requiring another click, they'd probably attract much more reader interest, something I've discussed before at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 55. Now does this mean we shouldn't change to a simpler list format? Not sure, but I'd be more comfortable saying "tell people 'Daniel' is a generic word and not just a name, have a look at all these meanings" if we actually had non-name-related meanings that were attracting a lot of interest. --Joy (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support the given name is likely to be what most people think of when they here "Daniel" but the biblical figure has 23,573 views, the book has 23,009 and the Elton John song has 4,647 compared with only 7,614[] for the name. The name also comes from the biblical figure which points to the the biblical figure also having long-term significance.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Crouch, Swale please don't link views statistics from just the latest 20 days and compare those numbers without any rounding. With WikiNav, we only have a month or two of data rendered, but with mass views you can easily see years worth of stats. --Joy (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 20 days is the default so if you think that's not generally appropriate I'd suggest you get it changed. Unless recentism is likely a major factor 20 days is normally fine.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:16, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, this is confusing for me. Are you saying that we need to have WP:DPT actually say "don't use the smallest available statistics period" for that to be the default for us, the sentient humans tasked with interpreting these machine-generated statistics? :) --Joy (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW the mass views software defaults are probably short because one doesn't want to encourage making expensive long-term queries by default on a website open to the whole world. It should have no bearing to how we act here. --Joy (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The given name is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (if anything, that would be the biblical figure). StAnselm (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @StAnselm the biblical figure is barely attracting the same amount of interest from readers as the navigation elements for the human names, so it's hardly a primary topic by usage. --Joy (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. With pageviews favoring other topics, and a comparable level of long-term significance, it's clear that – at a minimum – the given name is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. My view has changed since the discussion eight years ago. While I continue to believe the given name is the most significant topic under this title, the number of other topics with this name tilts it into disambiguation territory. BD2412  T 22:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2024
Would like to add a Lithuanian version of the name "Daniel" - Danielius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvisockas (talk • contribs) 14:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Daniel (given name)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinco de Ocho

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 02:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Cinco de Ocho
If we can cite a source that shows Jesus delivered pistolas to the Frito Bandito, I'll post a picture on my user page of myself wearing nothing but a toga made of corn chips. brenneman (t) (c) 04:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Racist garbage. Delete with extreme prejudice.  User:Zoe|(talk) 04:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not delete for extreme prejudice? brenneman (t) (c)  04:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hoax and a half. Delete. RasputinAXP   talk  *  contribs  04:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't understand with what substancial evidence you back up your disrespectful and ineffectual qualms... I would be very interested to see what (if any) evidence demonstrates a lack of cogent content. For a holiday that I have several times participated in (and know my town is not the only), I find it disgraceful that you would throw such rag-tag nonsense about. The claim that this is a hoax is not just false, it's disrespectful and insulting. Mastab
 * Source Mexican Immigration & Popular Culture by David Maciel cites Cinco de Ocho, I believe... I am sorry I cannot provide a page Mastab
 * Both of these are unsigned edits by User:Mastab, whose edit history primarily includes promoting the Cinco de Ocho holiday and having his edits reverted (though, to be fair, most of said RVs were undertaken by Aaron Brenneman). Aforementioned book does exist, but Googling for "cinco de ocho" brings up nothing useful.  Delete badfaith hoax but willing to change mind if presented with solid evidence.  Marblespire 05:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I will attempt to do so [by which I mean provide solid factual evidence]. I apologize for not making more official posts.  I am still fairly new to the wikipedia community.  How might I go about posting additional comments while including my Username as you guys have previously? Mastab  <- My wanna-be tag
 * Delete unverifiable nonsense --Anetode 05:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment At least give me some time to provide further evidence. The information provided in the article is a conglomeration of various beliefs, myths, and traditions observed by people both in my town and about the wider global community.  I have provided this article with the best intentions, and would appreciate it if people could be a little more lenient in their rulings... as soon as a find a chance to investigate more in depth, I will do so.  I plan to make a trip to my local library early tomorrow morning so as to provide you all with verifiable quotes from assorted texts.  I hope you all have the patience and maturity to act rashionally, as you have thus far.  - Mastab   Will someone please tell me how to set a Tag!?
 * Dash (-) followed by four tildes (~). Like so... -Parallel or Together? 12:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, silly hoax. --Angr/undefined 07:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as obvious hoax. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonsense hoax. Mastab, do you really think that you are going to convince anyone that there is a holiday in Mexican mythology based upon the Frito Bandito?  --Metropolitan90 16:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Quite possibly yes. By the way, it is not a holiday in Mexican mythology as you have stated, though it now marks a new occurence within the mythological realm.  I concur, that would be nonsensical garbage, as the Frito bandito wasn't around until the 1960's.  However, it is a "holiday" that is celebrated every October the 13th in various homes across the country and in the wider global community in protest to the discontinuation of Frito Bandito.  The mythological story that comes along with the holiday may be infactual, however, I don't see anyone providing better.  As I have stated before, the contents of the pages "is a conglomeration of various beliefs, myths, and traditions observed by people both in my town and about the wider global community".  I am now off to the library to gather about further resources to support my claim.  I cannot believe I am spending so much time defending an article who's deletion would not affect me, but rather thoughs who feel they may gain something from the information provided.  I will return shortly. Thanks by the way for the advice Anetode. Mastab 16:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Throwing my vote in for hoax hoax hoax hoax hoax kill it with fire. DS 18:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Seven of Nine. What? Oh, sorry, delete as preposterous hoax, and let's keep an eye on this author's edits. MCB 23:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have nominated the two other related nonsense articles for Afd:
 * Articles_for_deletion/Pistolas
 * Articles_for_deletion/Pistolos
 * Delete Me vale madre! Es un chiste! Yo vivo en Tampico, en el norte de Mexico. Aqui, no hay 'Dia del Cinco de Ocho' - este es una chinga de mierda! Eddie.willers 04:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nonsense hoax. *drew 05:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Excellent candidate for WP:BJAODN or Uncyclopedia. --Clay Collier 06:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Thanks for the Contribution Seniore Eddie Willers of Tampico Mexico. I ecspecially appreciate your statement.. of este es una chinga de mierda.   Spanish or not, that translates to "this is a 'fuck of shit' ".  I do not believe that kind of language and disrespect is in order in this setting. Regardless of the dialect in which it is spoken.  I will cease posting/editing further articles to comply with the many complaints I have recieved as a result of my first (and last) contribution to Wikipedia.  If you guys cannot appreciate the practices of another generation, then it's your loss.  Whether it's a matter of faith or morals, the fact that you people would dare to critisize these practices is undermining to our society and the common good of the people (minority or not).  Thanks. Mastab 06:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You refer (several entries above) to "Mexican Immigration & Popular Culture" by David Maciel as your source which cites this holiday. This appears to be a reference to the book "Culture Across Borders: Mexican Immigration & Popular Culture" edited by David R. Maciel and María Herrera-Sobek (Amazon.com finds no other similarly titled work by this or any similarly named author).  Fortunately, Amazon.com makes available online the entire index to this book.  There is no entry in the index for "Cinco de Ocho" .  By the way, the article under discussion claims that "The crisis hit rock-bottom when, at one point, four out of every three Mexicans was a bandito" (emphasis added). Pardon me if I find it hard to believe this. --Metropolitan90 09:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not even good enough for BJAODN.  Rossami (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I bet the only reason we didn't speedy this is because the article was actually written, spelled and formatted properly. ~Mbsp
 * Comment Also not mentioned in the index is Cinco de Mayo, a celebration into which the book delves substantially. As the saying goes... don't judge a book by it's cover... Don't judge it by its index either.  Agreed the four out of every three Mexicans is unrealistic... a sentence structure mistake.  Forgive me for my crime against humanity, that will be corrected to as it should be... 3 out of 4.  Keep throwin the hardball...  Mastab 16:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: We now also have Cinco de Neuve, created by a username that attempted to vandalize the AfD discussion at Articles for deletion/Pistolos. I'm attempting to get it speedied. --Clay Collier 22:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you. It is really frustrating when additional articles pop up in order to mock and degrade my own. I fully support any actions you take. Mastab 23:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. This page was vandalized by User:Amdahlj who removed some votes and changed others from Delete to Keep .  I have since reverted his changes and reinstated the changes made after his vandalism; please review this page to make sure your votes say what they were intended to say. --Metropolitan90 23:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Amdahlj is the critter that pulled the same trick on the Pistolos discussion. He's already been warned once about vandalising AfD discussions.  He should be blocked as a vandal if this continues. --Clay Collier 01:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete crap --Rogerd 04:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ElNacho

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 15:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

ElNacho
Seems to be a vanity page.  Molotov    (talk)

 * Userfy and delete. RasputinAXP   talk  *  contribs  04:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. - Gimboid13 11:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   13:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Optichan 17:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity --Rogerd 03:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ElNacho


text:
User:Lordsutch

For now: my blog should tell you all you need to know (and a lot you probably don't)!

title: User:Lordsutch


text:
User talk:CltFn/Archive 1

Note: This user edits as User:CltFn (talk • contribs), User:Diglewop (talk • contribs)
 * And this is allowed per Sock_puppet --CltFn 23:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * So long as they're not used to violate policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * That is right, and that is the parameters I intend to keep.--CltFn 23:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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! SlimVirgin (talk) 01:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

this irishtom guy is turning every article into an ad for islam

 * Yes that seems to be the case with a bunch of similar minded editors.--CltFn 23:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes
Hi CltFn, I noticed your edits to the above. As you're new, you may not have realized that we don't insert lists of books into articles; we always have those at the end of the page. Also, if you're going to make a major change, as you did, you must describe it accurately in the edit summary, and not say "wikify etc," which sounds like a minor change; and on a page about a controversial figure (or really, any subject), major changes should be discussed on the talk page first, or they're likely to be reverted. I hope this helps some. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Please don't do that again. See the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:10, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Problems with your edits
I've taken a look through your contribs. It might help if you were to read No original research, Neutral point of view, and Cite sources before you edit any further. We're not allowed to write up commercials for books, or pages that reflect only one point of view. We're also not allowed to remove NPOV tags that other editors insert, and we're expected to address editors' reasonable queries either on the article talk page, or on a user talk page. If you continue to add material that doesn't meet our policies, you may find yourself being blocked from editing for disruption or vandalism (as your repeated insertion of a list of books into articles might constitute), or being taken through the dispute resolution process. I hope you'll give this some consideration. If there's any way I can help you settle in, or anything further I can explain, please drop me a note on my talk page. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 05:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, I have read those references now . Incidentaly I am not writing commercial for books in book pages, as matter of fact , I even avoid inserting  a description in my own words , I mainly quote the authors description of the book or some text from the book. They are mostly stubs which other editors will in time add to.
 * In some cases I have removed NPOV tags when it seemed innapropriate, but I have let other users reinsert them if they doggedly felt that it belonged there. Though i have not seen a wide enforcement of the NPOV tag rule , since I see many editors add and remove them like any other edit they may chose to make.
 * How would it follow that entering a list of the author's books into an article is vandalism?
 * Would you kindly undo the redirects of the book pages you did today, as I do not believe there is a wikipolicy against it, as a matter of fact this  wiki cite sources comment on book pages  would support this assertion.

--CltFn 22:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template messages are your friends
e.g.   ←Humus sapiens←Talk 09:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Book pages
Thanks for your note. There is nothing wrong with having pages about books, but you're not writing them in an NPOV way - in fact, as you have written them, they're commercials, which could have been written by the publishers, and we're not here to given free advertising. The problem with saying that other editors should do that work is that people may not want to, or have time to. Each editor has a responsibility to adhere to the policies. You're creating pages that only list the chapters, for example, and have enormous photographs of the book covers. If there weren't such political books, perhaps it wouldn't matter quite so much, but you've chosen to do this with books by Ann Coulter, Daniel Pipes, and others who criticize Islam, and it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to allow controversial points of view to take up a whole page without any balancing statements. If you want to rewrite those pages to include criticism, then I see no problem with them existing (though without the giant book covers and lists of chapters). As for inserting book lists into articles instead of introductions, I'm sure you can see how inappropriate this is, especially after you had been asked not to do it. The point is that we can't promote any person, or any set of ideas, and anything that smacks of promotion is against policy. See What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:21, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Slim, Please do not confuse a book stub which I have created as a start of a book page with the later content that will be develloped. It takes a lot of work to gather the material for book pages , and the skeleton you see is simply meant to be a stub. I go on the assumption that a book page will contain an intro , a thumbed book cover , which is not a giant book cover , general remarks, perhaps some quotes from the author about the book and a list of chapters is often useful. What is wrong with a list of chapters, or more pertinently what is the wikipolicy on a list of chapters?
 * In all fairness, I am not required to insert criticism on the book page , but simply to present the information in an NPOV fashion. Often this includes presenting the POV of the author in their own words and that is fair game. (Many wiki articles are strewn with quotes from authors including the Daniel Pipes article).
 * Are you going to undo the redirects of the book pages I created or are you going to leave it to me to do that?--CltFn 23:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, you are required to insert criticism of conversial political books if you want them to be NPOV. Repeating the publishers' blurb and listing the chapter titles is not NPOV. If you want to expand the pages, please do so, rather than creating new stubs, each of which is POV. I've protected some of the redirects so you can't undo them, and if you undo any of the others, I'll protect them too. If you want to continue to write these pages in an NPOV way as regular articles and not book commercials, there's no problem, but I repeat: we're not here to give free advertising and Wikipedia must not be used to promote any person or set of ideas. If you want me to see your messages in future, you should post them to my talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll unprotect one of them so you can work on it, so let me know which one you'd like to start with. I doubt there's an explicit rule forbidding chapter lists, but it looks bad, it's commercial, and it's potentially POV depending on what the chapter titles are. The point is that the page should be encyclopedic. This isn't a book fair, and we're not acting on behalf of publishers. If you can write a truly encyclopedic article on these books (even if it's short), there will be no problem. It mustn't promote the book, and it mustn't unfairly disparage it. If it's a controversial book, and there has been reasonable criticism from credible sources, that should be included, or at least reference should be made to it, depending on the length of the other parts of the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:37, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Follow these closely and you'll be fine: Neutral point of view, No original research, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, What Wikipedia is not, and Cite your sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * This one The Sword of the Prophet, for example, is okay, because it contains some criticism, and doesn't contain too much publishers' blurb, or all the chapter titles. Let me know which one you want unlocked. I'll only unlock one to start with. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:01, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * CltFn, I've already spent a lot of time discussing this with you, but we're going round in circles. A good, encyclopedic article about a book does not consist of the publisher's blurb, a list of chapter titles, and a book cover. If you want me to unlock one so you can work on it, I will. If you don't, that's fine. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:36, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

One problem with just listing a TOC is that it really amounts to a copyright violation. You can't call it "derivative work" or "fair use" if you are doing nothing more than just presenting a list taken right out of the book. Applicable policies include those which address copyright issues, ad-spam, and the idea of a "data dump". Unless you add content, it's a problem. In addition, it is not sufficient, with regards to NPOV simply to report one side. These books are controvertial - only to present the author's view (even if you do so accurately) is not NPOV because it ignores the opposing view. In addition, you can always set up "temp" pages to work on these articles - that way you can take your time and create balanced NPOV article about these books. Guettarda 03:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hope this helps to clarify things. Guettarda 04:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The "data dump" idea is a common interpretation of a section of the "What Wikipedia is not" article.
 * The idea that NPOV should provide both sides of controvertial topics is found in a section of the NPOV policy
 * As for what constitutes "fair use", I am not a lawyer, but there is a lot of material and discussion regarding the use of copyright material. As I understand it, in order to use copyright material you need to somehow add to it.  You can quote from other works, but you can't simply reproduce a quote and call it "fair use" or a "derivative work".  You need to add substantial "value".  When you lift the TOC of a book you are reproducing copyright material.  If it were incorporated into a broader article which was new material, then it would constitue "fair use" of this material.  It's something of a "signal to noise" issue.  The TOC of the book would be fine if each chapter listing were followed by an analysis of the chapter (an NPOV analysis, from referenced, reputable sources, including both pro- and con, since it's a highly controvertial topic) - then it would be fine.  But without some further use of the material it runs the risk of being a copyvio.

 * Guettarda's idea of you working on these pages in your user subspace is a good one. I'd be happy to transfer them for you. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:52, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

3-hour block
Please take this time to think over your participation in this project. Consider the advice SlimVirgin has given you. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 01:10, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * And do not accuse admins of slander and biased edits, when they are explaining site policy to you.

Your edits
There is no "vendetta" against you. What you're noticing is that several editors are having to follow your edits in order to correct your spelling and grammar mistakes, your unencyclopedic writing, and your anti-Islam bias. You claim you have consensus for your editing, but I assure you do not: read the comments on the VfD. You have no consensus whatsoever for including the chapter titles and these will continue to be deleted unless balanced by criticism of the work. If you start writing in accordance with Neutral point of view and No original research, you'll find that people will stop following you around. Regarding your use of sockpuppets — User:CltFn (talk • contribs), User:Diglewop (talk • contribs), and User:81.15.233.3 (talk • contribs) — another way you could stop drawing attention to yourself is to choose one user account and stick to it. I warn you again that if you make any more personal attacks on Muslim editors (or anyone else), you may be blocked from editing. Also, please read Three revert rule. SlimVirgin (talk) June 30, 2005 21:24 (UTC)

User accounts
Could you clarify, please, whether you're also editing as User:Urchid (talk • contribs)? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 18:22 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your reply, in which you say you're not user:Urchid. In the interests of being absolutely clear about that, can I ask whether you made this edit?

 * Also, I must warn you that if you continue to make personal attacks against other editors, such as "I know that you just cannot help yourself, lying through your teeth is your religion and you do nothing else but lie and that sadly is your incurable disease," you may be blocked for disruption and are likely to end up before the arbitration committee. SlimVirgin (talk) July 3, 2005 12:05 (UTC)

Poisoning the well
It is not Poisoning the well, because it relates directly to the nature of the book. Do you think that the "well" has been poisoned in the indrotuctory paragraph of Did Six Million Really Die??. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:02, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

SIIEG
please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG --Zeno of Elea 08:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

al-Kindī
Please stop adding the ludicrous claim that al-Kindi was Christian; even the evidence that you provide makes it clear that you've made a mistake. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

 * In the face of almost 100% agreement that al-Kindi was unequivocally Muslim (aside from anything else, his writings demonstrate it), I don't see any ground for doubt. The only evidence the other way is the text of dubious provenance to which you linked, which itself states that the author isn't the famous philosopher al-Kindi. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Nomani
We should use the name she writes under, but if anyone checks under the other name, they'll find her, because it's a redirect. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:27, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I would assume that they'd be allowed to be pasted as long as they were cited that they were hers. When you said you... did you want me to do it? or... you plural? In any case, I'm not sure if it matters being a click away or on that page. gren グレン 16:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:CltFn/Archive 1


text: User talk:168.103.91.9

title: User talk:168.103.91.9


text:
Charlotte Lucas

Charlotte Lucas (born 29 May 1976) is an English actress. She is best known for her roles as Dr Kingsley in Not Going Out, EastEnders as Yvonne and Bad Girls as Selena Geeson.

Early life and education
Born into an acting family, Lucas is the daughter of actress Susan Travers and photographer Cornel Lucas. Her grandmother was actress Linden Travers and her great-uncle was Bill Travers.

Lucas attended drama and theatre studies at Birmingham University, before concluding her studies at Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (RADA) in London.

Career
She is best known for her role as Selena Geeson in Bad Girls. She also starred in the 2003 film Oh Marbella!, as well as a number of other TV roles including EastEnders, Midsomer Murders, Doctors, Not Going Out, and an episode of Adventure Inc. when filming transferred to the UK for four episodes. Lucas played the role of Mrs Bassat in BBC One's 2014 adaptation of Daphne du Maurier's novel Jamaica Inn.

In 2017, she appeared in the third series of Broadchurch.

title: Charlotte Lucas


text:
New England Air Museum

The New England Air Museum (NEAM) is an American aerospace museum located adjacent to Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks, Connecticut. The museum consists of three display hangars with additional storage and restoration hangars. Its collections include aircraft ranging from early flying machines to supersonic jets, as well as engines, and other pieces of flight-related equipment. Significant aircraft include

 * the Silas Brooks balloon basket - the oldest surviving American-built aircraft
 * the Sikorsky VS-44A - the sole remaining American-built commercial trans-oceanic four-engine flying boat
 * the Goodyear ZNPK-28 Blimp Control Car - one of only two surviving K-class control cars in the world.

The museum library has approximately 6,000 aviation books, approximately 20,000 periodicals, approximately 10,000 technical manuals, approximately 21,000 photographs, nearly 8,000 slides, over 200 pieces of artwork, over 1,200 prints, and approximately 500 engineering drawing and blueprints.

The mission of the New England Air Museum is to present the story of aviation, the human genius that made it possible and the profound effects that it has had on the way in which we live.

History
The museum began when a group of Pratt & Whitney employees formed the Connecticut Aeronautical Historical Association to save a biplane built by Louis Bancroft. While the airplane would later be destroyed in a fire, the group continued. The first display building, an inflatable dome, was erected in 1967.

In 1981, the first current building was built after a tornado destroyed the museum's previous location by Route 75 in 1979. The museum has since added a restoration hangar in 1989, a storage building in 1991, a military hangar in 1992, a 58th Bomb Wing Hangar in 2003, and a storage hangar in 2010.

The museum was renovated in 2017 with the addition of a mezzanine in two of the hangars to provide views of the aircraft from above. At the same time, a new heating and air conditioning system and LED lighting were installed.

In June 2023, the museum opened a new exhibit about the Tuskegee Airmen and received a grant to build a recording studio. The following month it hired a new curator and collections manager.

In early 2024, the museum announced plans for a new 35,000 sqft hangar that will include a Challenger Learning Center and a digital dome to be used as a planetarium.

Exhibits

Exhibits include the history of Sikorsky Aircraft, computer-based flight simulators, and the 58th Bombardment Wing Memorial with the centerpiece being a restored B-29A. Additionally, there are exhibits on early French aviation, the Tuskegee Airmen, the Kosciuszko Squadron, New England Women in Aviation, and the 57th Fighter Group.

Aircraft on display

 * AeroVelo Atlas – Partial section
 * Bell AH-1S Cobra
 * Bell UH-1B Iroquois 62-02550
 * Blériot XI
 * Boeing B-29A Superfortress 44-61975 Jack’s Hack
 * Burnelli CBY-3 Loadmaster
 * Chanute Herring Glider – Replica
 * Chance Vought XF4U-4 Corsair 80759
 * Curtiss Model D – Replica
 * de Havilland C-7 Caribou 62-4188
 * Doman LZ-5
 * Douglas A-3B Skywarrior 142246
 * Douglas A-26C Invader 43-22499 Reida Rae
 * Douglas DC-3
 * Goodyear ZNP-K blimp control car
 * Gee Bee Model R replica
 * Grumman E-1B Tracer 147217
 * Eastern FM-2 Wildcat 74120
 * Grumman F6F-5K Hellcat 79192
 * Grumman HU-16E Albatross 7228
 * Heath LNB-4 Parasol
 * Kaman HH-43F Huskie
 * Kaman K-16B
 * Kaman K-225 N401A
 * Kaman SH-2F Seasprite 161905
 * Laird LC-DW 300 'Solution'
 * Lazor-Rautenstrauch LR-1A
 * Lockheed Model 10-A Electra 1052
 * Lockheed F-104C Starfighter 56-901
 * Marcoux-Bromberg R-3 Special
 * Martin RB-57A Canberra 52-1488
 * McDonnell Douglas F-4D Phantom II 66-0269
 * Nixon Special
 * North American B-25H Mitchell 43-4999 Dog Daze
 * North American F-100A Super Sabre 52-5761
 * North American P-51D Mustang 44-72400 – Racer configuration
 * Northrop F-89J Scorpion 52-1896
 * Pioneer Flightstar MC
 * Pratt-Read LNE-1
 * Republic P-47D Thunderbolt 45-49458 Norma
 * Republic RC-3 Seabee
 * Rutan Quickie
 * Sikorsky R-4B Hoverfly 43-46503
 * Doman LZ-1A 43-45480
 * Sikorsky S-39B
 * Sikorsky S-51 9602
 * Sikorsky XH-39
 * Sikorsky HH-52A Seaguard 1428
 * Sikorsky CH-54B Tarhe 69-18465
 * Sikorsky VS-44A Excambian

Under restoration

 * Douglas DC-3
 * Fairchild-Republic A-10A Thunderbolt II
 * Lockheed TV-2 Shooting Star 138048
 * Kaman HOK-1

title: New England Air Museum


text:
Blown plate glass

Blown plate is a hand-blown glass. There is a record of blown plate being produced in London in 1620.

Production
Blown plate was made by hand-grinding broad sheet glass. As the process was labour-intensive, and expensive, blown plate was mainly used for carriages and mirrors rather than in windows for buildings. Other methods for making hand-blown glass included: broad sheet, crown glass, polished plate and cylinder blown sheet. These methods of manufacture lasted at least until the end of the 19th century. The early 20th century marked the move away from hand-blown to machine manufactured glass such as rolled plate, machine drawn cylinder sheet, flat drawn sheet, single and twin ground polished plate and float glass.

title: Blown plate glass