text:
Talk:Nationality

SORRY
I edited this article and deleted half of it yesterday and out in place of it the sentence.."I can change anything I want on Wikipedia". I did this to show a friend that one could instantly alter most anything on Wikipedia. I am a huge advocate of Wikipedia and I told him it was because people are in control of the information not some hiarchy that is at the whim of somebody else. He said that no you cannot change anything you want that there were people whom have to review what you want to change first then the chnge will be implemented if need be. I did this on several articles but I copied andc pasted the information so I could easily fix whta I changed. However I lost somehow what I copied on this article. Again I appologize for the screw up. Ronald pant GZUS96

Nationalities a government position?
"Vladimir Lenin was elected chairman and other appointments included leading Bolsheviks such as Leon Trotsky (Foreign Affairs) Alexei Rykov (Internal Affairs), Anatoli Lunacharsky (Education) and Joseph Stalin (Nationalities). "

What was Stalins position? To reconcile ethnic differences within the state?

-G
 * As a Georgian and a member of a minority group who had written about the problems of non-Russian peoples living under the Tsar, Stalin was seen as the obvious choice as Commissar of Nationalities. It was a job that gave Stalin tremendous power for nearly half the country's population fell into the category of non-Russian. Stalin now had the responsibility of dealing with 65 million Ukrainians, Georgians, Byelorussians, Tadzhiks, Buriats and Yakuts.

Problem with current article's organization
The current article gives a legal definition of the word "nationality", then goes on to give something the author(s) called an "alternate usage". Basically, we have multiple accepted meanings for a word. I don't think there is any rational way in which we could state that one is the "default" and the other is "alternalte".

I believe the article should be reshaped to reflect the fact that most of the article deals with the usage of the word nationality in the field of law alone. The original meaning of the word in English, a meaning that is still in usage in various other fields (social science and philosophy) certainly isn't just an "alternate" phenomenon. -- Mathieugp 14:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

 * This is a consistent problem where a word has multiple meanings. This page was originally drafted to fit into the legal classification and the secondary usage was later added. As and when those interested in sociology, philosophy, and politics write their own pages, we can disambiguate between all the specialised meanings. Until then, we have this unsatisfactory situation which applies on hundreds of other pages. You could help by writing another page and begin the disambiguation process. David91 09:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I see we agree on the nature of the problem. I guess you are right: this is not really an issue of the organization of the article. I would certainly like to start the disambiguation process, unfortunately, my "field" (if I have one) is history. That's why I noted the different uses of the word at different points in time. That being said, my "expertise" is neither in law, politics, sociology nor philosophy. I am just a generalist who likes to complain a lot. ;-) -- Mathieugp 19:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree: complaining is good therapy rather than bottling it all up and getting frustrated. History of nationality sounds interesting, showing how nationalism was used to unify disparate groups of people during nation-building. David91 05:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

what natoinality am I
I was born in London England and I consider myself to be English but members of my family and friends insist that I am British

A petty concern you might think

Sylvi

This is what the article fails to mention, you say you're English and your family say you should be British. Each individual resident in every country and even unofficial unrecognised country (ie. rebel held zones - even in war a system of some kind exists), has the right to choose their nationality and this need have no correlation with race, skin colour or ethnicity (the latter I don't believe truely exists). There does not have to be an existing country for you to say you're such and such a national (eg. Kurd), hence Britain recognises 193 independent countries and the number of languages is close to 6,000, so not every nation has a state; so it must be said that your nationality is what you personally declare yourself, and this can change census by census and you can personally call yourself something different every day. The reason that the census is important is because what you generally write will be published, and if enough people give the same name for a fictional nation you have created, say 2%, then that's how it will stand in atlases, encyclopaedias etc. The CIA World Factbook recognises hundreds of nations you would never have believed could exist as such: common to independent Caribbean countries is the declaration black written entirely lower-case, this may precede the next biggest group which is British and so on. Meanwhile in the UK, it is generally accepted (and must in any democratic society be accepted) that English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish (for Belfast) are individual nationalities even if the residents are all British citizens. This is your dispute. Your family have no right to tell you (you are British, not English), that is your choice. Nationality is largely ones affiliation to another group of people, be it on linguistic, religious or proposed ethnic grounds, or anything else they so choose collectively. In the former Yugoslav republics, around 1% of the people from all six republics declare themselves Yugoslav, as do a tiny (but significant) number of people scattered thoughout the world descending from the former Yugoslav diaspora - this must also be respected as ones choice. Over the centuries, nationalities and names of nations have come and gone, all together, there is nothing concrete about nationality entire of itself - citizenship and life in ones homeland are the important factors. Evlekis 11:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.
 * It is not that the CIA Factbook recognises different nationalities as lower case black but a case of Nationality being interpreted differently with each country, society, and dare I say it - nation. In the UK and the USA, they ask you for your Ethnic Group, an answer to which might be more along the lines of "what is your race?" so people respond, White, Black etc. then they will add European, Asian or something. Then they "code" it. So people like you and me from the former Yugoslavia will be carved up into one single group "citizens from the former republics" or something, they do it with the USSR expatriots too. You see despite world politics, individuals themselves mean very little. It should also be noted that in many countries, UK included - nationality is synonymous with citizenship. It means you are expected by be classed as British IF you are a British citizen no matter what your ethnic background. Ragusan 23 Sep 2006 Blocked sock:Moroccan Spaniard.
 * True but it still causes problems. If nobody from country to country can agree on exactly what constitutes nationality then there will always be conflicting arguements. Apart from the fact that there should be a universal approach (even if it means that Frenchman, White Ethnic from UK and Sardinian {nationals of whom embedded within greater country} are accepted as nationalities), it needs to be remembered that it is the individual who chooses his/her national affiliation and not other people, least of all society (ie. you come from Country A, you speak Language B, You are of Religion C, you are from D-class, you are from the E-cast, and you support basketball team F, that means your nationality is XYZ and not ABC as you claim.) According to the Canadian census, there are those who declare themselves British, and those English or Scottish etc. I say it is perfectly all right and non-offensive to consider yourself English and not British; the wretched system known as political correctness is the factor which aims to encourage people to use the latter. I say, it is not as if people classing themselves Scottish or Cornish or even Cumbrian will ever make a serious bid for independence, just as many stable countries thoughout the world are multi-ethnic. Evlekis 11:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Евлекис Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Evlekis - neither race, ethnicity or 'personal choice' determine your Nationality. Your nationality is determined by which Polity has (ultimate) legal jurisdiction over you. The term Nationality is very often used incorrectly. You can be of any ethnic group or racial type but if a Law passed in the Westminster Parliament applies to you then you are of British nationality .( 'British' is not a race or ethnic group it is a political unit or Polity ) Lejon Monday 13 Nov.06
 * That is how the term is defined in Britain. The pure fact is that nationality is rendered differently by each society. It is correct that the British Home Office accepts an Austrian-born man with a Turkish father and South African mother as having British nationality once he has naturalised. That though is citizenship. If nationality were to do with legal system then there could only be 193 nationalities in the whole world because that is as many countries as the UK recognises. Match that with around 6,000 languages spoken on Earth. Nations are imagined communities, I accept that, but whatever you personally choose is your own nationality. See the Canadian census for a good example. Evlekis 09:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Evlekis there is in fact a significant difference between Nationality and citizenship .Very briefly - Nationality relates to the Polity you owe your allegience to and the Polity which owes you its protection. While citizenship relates to the 'rights and responsibilities' you may or may not have within that Polity or Nation. Sylvi is ' ethnicaly ' English but is a British National. lejon 16 Nov 06
 * You have more or less said what I have been trying to say, I know that there is a big difference between citizenship and nationality. I was getting at how the terms are defined in Britain. Often, official forms request your nationality when what they really want is your citizenship. It is the citizenship which grants you the rights to services offered by the state, even if the Home Office calls British Citizens by the title "nationals". Your Sylvi is English because she so chooses to be affiliated to English people only. Her neighbour may be a relation and choose to be British, in that she invites the Scottish, Welsh and Irish to embrace the nationality. In truth, they need not be from Scotland or Wales etc. They may come from another country but choose to identify as British as some do, the problem is whether the bulk of the British accept them but it makes no difference to what they choose. So, here now is a brief description of "Citizen" & "Citizenship" from the OED: Definition of a citizen: a native registered or naturalised member of state or political community. Citizenship: condition/status of citizen including rights and duties. Now for 'Nationality': 1. The status of belonging to a particular nation; 2. An ethnic group forming a part of one or more political nations. Now I personally class ethnicity with the race and not the individual for advanced technical reasons which I won't explain just yet, though if this British view were to be universally accepted, then there would be no Kurdish nation (all homeland Kurds would be Iraqi, Turkish, Iranian, Syrian or Armenian by so-called nationality here) and there would be no Basque nationality for similar reasons. However, Basques and Kurds are obvious cases. What about dissident communities in countries who identify by older national names or sometimes newly developed ones since falling within present day borders? My family region of the Balkans is a fine example, there you have more nationalities than you do people. Do you know that in Italy, most Sardinians register as having Sardinian nationality. In smaller numbers, you get this from Sicilians, Piedmontese, Venetians, Genoans, Ligurians etc. That doesn't stop some people from Sardinia however as claiming to be Italian either, it is the choice of the person. Poland is itself made up of various subgroups who have one thing in common, Slavic ancestry and being Slavophones living in prolonged proximity. Even so, most people today like to be Polish but down south, the Silesians still cry for greater rights in the name of Silesia and its region still has a Silesian ethnic majority with Poles coming in second. But Pomeranians (from Gdansk) have no greater Polish nationality than these Silesians. The list grows, the examples become more and more complex. If you want to try out an experiment Lejon, here is one: how do you define a citizen of France who has Greek nationality? To be more precise, what are his connections to France and to the French, and what does he have with the Greeks and Greece (given that a Greek state does exist). I look forward to your response. Evlekis 16:35, 16 November 2006 Евлекис  Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Evlekis, a citizen of France is no longer a Greek. S/he is a French National of Greek extraction or ethnicity. I live in Australia where there are approximately 150 different ethnic groups from all over the world - we are a ' multi-cultural ' country but all citizens are Australian Nationals. There are no Kurdish or Basque nations they are ethnic groups with strong nationalist movements. I believe there are some countries that never allow their nationals to actualy renounce thier citizenship / nationality - that only becomes a problem if for instance our hypothetical Greek Frenchman actualy leaves France and returns to Greece whereupon the Greek Government could insist that s/he carries out certain ( Greek ) citizenship responsibilities - for instance military service. However while in France our Greek is a French National ! Most of the minority ethnic groups you mention do not have the attributes of Nations for example- Sovereign independance and international recognition. lejon 19 Nov 06
 * Well Lejon, I now see exactly what is inspiring your theory. "A citizen of France is no longer a Greek" and "Citizenship & Nationality are two different things", you said in your previous statements. You imply that citizenship and nationality are BOTH legal standings recognised by the government in question and yet it is impossible to split them apart by having one of the first and another of the second. In other words, you see nationality and citizenship as being the same; ie.a legal status offering rights and priveleges to services offered by country. It is absolutely correct that not every status happens to be that of "citizenship", you can for example be a "British Subject" never becoming a citizen. Now I will tell you that becoming a British Subject for anyone is a walk in the park (little beaurocracy involved), but becoming a British citizen is a long task which for many is unsuccessful. Nationality however has nothing to do with this; your theory of it is based on its misguided usage by Australian and British authorities. I am not mad on preserving old language, though you may find this interesting: The British Passport, to my disgust has the caption: Nationality to which the response printed by the Home Office is British Citizen. Check any passport and you'll find this. It seems that even they don't even know the difference. Passports relate to citizens; there is no ceremony or ritual in any state which formally inaugurates Mr.Q as now having a certain nationality giving him certain priveleges but not those of a full citizen. Suffice it to say, that this status does not exist and if it did, "nationality" would not be the right term, and difinitely not universally accepted. If you look at a standard Bulgarian passport, it says "Гражданство" (transliterated as Grazhdanstvo) to which the responce is "Bulgarian" but the English translation (on the Bulgarian document) does just happen to call it "Nationality". Do you know why? Because whoever was commissioned to sit and work with the Bulgarian authorities herself clearly had no idea about the usage; the Bulgarian must have explained what in Bulgarian Grazhdanstvo is, and the primary English speaker thought "oh that is nationality". Is it? We'll see: The English word Citizen is based on the root "City" just as Bulgarian Grazhdanstvo is based on "Grad" (city). The Bulgarian word for nation however is "Narod" - (lit. on birth), and Nation too derives from Latin Nacio - "of common birth", hence Eng.Nationality = Bulg.Narodnost not Grazhdanstvo. Now, as for ethnicity. If you click on Ethnicity, you may now have seen that it goes straight to Ethnic group. This is the section in which the UK government (and I now assume, Australian too) allow the person to choose his ethnic affiliation. These start off simple: white, black etc. then they become more sophisticated, White Asian, South American etc. until they finally knock on the door of the modern countries such as "Black South African" etc. Many of those from the former Yugoslavia will be annoyed to see that they are tarred with the same brush - "ethnic group: white from Former Yugoslav Republics", this is how it was in 2001, time will tell if it will be modified by 2011. Even this Lejon, shows Briatin's reluctancy to take a keen interest in what the actual person thinks of him/herself. If you ask me, it is complete nonsense. The word "ethnic" is nothing more than the Greek variant of "National" hence "Ethnikos Aerolimenas" are National Airlines. I personally don't think the word is needed in English beyond enriching the language with terms such as "down ethnic lines", or "ethnic discrimination". In both these cases, "national" would have sufficed. After all, the two words come from different languages meaning the same thing (ie. Greek uses ethnikos where English uses both Ethnic and National and it causes no ambiguity, in the Slavic languages we use Narodno and it too fits the bill). The fact is Lejon, that true ethnicity does not come into it. One identifies as being Greek, or English because that is how he feels, normally in accordance with his upbringing. Your wife Sylvi was surely conditioned by society to be British but saw that many Scots and Welsh rejected this and so she is quite right to feel English. Ethnicity means nothing, MOST of Scotland's population is Anglo-Scottish and they seem aware of this. Only a small percentage is Highland or Ulster Scotts, supposedly descended from the earlier settlers, they use language as a form of identity. This means that all the Scots whom you know are blood related to Sylvi, but try to explain to them that this should make you a single nation without upsetting them! Family of mine who lived in Greece identifed as Macedonian Slavs. Subsequently those who insisted on this were expelled by the Metaxas regime and those who chose to stay were forcefully dissimilated, and a Greek name and identity was officially instilled. In that time, many who knew of their Slavic past and still spoke the language began to accept the Greek identity, so infact, today we still have some people in Greece born before 1945 who have no knowledge of Greek ancestry but automaticly inherit Greek history from having denounced their own, this is acceptable, so when one of these people settles in France or Australia, he is just as Greek by nationality as he was the day before he left, even if he has acquired Australian citizenship. Ethnicity is irrelevant, nationality does not have to conform to a country and citizenship is a legal status. Basques and Kurds ARE nations. The Kurds are of the same ethnic background as one of their subjugators, Iran (Persian, from the same ancestors), and their language is testemony of this. Furthermore, whatever you or I may think, Basques and Kurds are universally accepted as being nations and Kurdish IS the nationality of Jalal Talabani. He himself identifies so. As for ethnic groups with strong nationalist movements? These can emerge at any time just as they can disolve. One century ago, the people of Macedonia (Slavs) were split between being Bulgarian or Serbian prompting conflict between Bulgarians and Serbs based at their respective pivots. Thus was created the VMRO and the Macedonian Slav nation was born, suppressed by Serbs during the interwar period, and embraced by Bulgarians during the same time (with their different approach) as a means to state that they may still be Macedonian BUT a Bulgarian subgroup at that, and neither could prevent todays Republic in south-eastern Europe existing. National ideas arise, nationality is born, a country is created, the citizenship comes into effect, and dreams are realised. Alternatively it could go the other way, many nationalities existed in earlier years which no longer do because the population bowed to the pressure of neighbouring nations who promised to take care of them, as such we no longer have Slavonians, only Croatians, even though history witnessed a Croatia-Slavonia crownwloand in Austria-Hungary with its respective residents identifying as such. Of course, it is not through choice that Basques live under French or Spanish rule, nobody asked them if they'd like a state of their own. Sylvi calls herself English, and I fully accept that English is what she is, forget ethnicity sand stuff legal citizenship. Her affiliates are other English who have no private alleagiance to the wider British community. British or Australian may be her citizenships and that is how far national naming goes: one nationality, your choice, even if you are the only one, and however many citizenships you need which are allowed by the concerned states. Evlekis 16:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Евлекис Blocked sock:Evlekis.

Evlekis, thanks for the history lesson. I can see that we will never agree on this issue .Just a couple of small notes - first ' Sylvi ' is not my wife .And secondly if I claim that I am a member of the Sioux Nation does that mean that as I do not come under the jurisdiction of the Australian Nation I therefore do not have to pay tax to the Australian Government ? Sounds good to me !...... I wish all dissident communities the best of luck .lejon 19 November 06.
 * All right, may I first apologise for assuming Sylvi was your wife; quite how I concluded that I don't know but no offence intended. It appears that I went off the rails on my previous statement and I admit that even in the space of 24 hours I have learnt a little something. Neither of us are wrong in what we mean and much of the disparity is because of the conflict within the term "nationality" itself. You take the term purely as a legal issue and you are not completely wrong. Citizenship, or so it appears is just one type of status according to British Nationality Law, for that is what it is called. Since there are many different statuses created for various communities, the term "Nationality" has been chosen as a superlative to which in legal terms, "Citizenship", is merely a single branch. The article explains clearly that the cognate of the word is rendered differently in each country and by every strand of society. So, when an institution or establishment asks on an application form for "Nationality", my passport gives the appropriate response when listing "British Citizen" when infact it could just as easily be: "British Subject", "British Protected Person" or sometimes "British Overseas Territories Citizen." From a list of about half a dozen types, Full Citizenship offers maximum protection and rights to participate. Passports and Travel Documents are issued accordingly; where does this leave us? It seems that if British (N)ationality (with upper case N) has various types, so do others and therefore the appropriate answer would be one in full like those I have mentioned. In so far as a one word answer in the shape of an adjective goes (ie. British or English), it would appear that the applicant is responding to ethnic/national affiliation, and this perpetually goes unnoticed everywhere. It would be a lot easier if the term "Nationality" was replaced by the more appropriate "Legal Status" and (n)ationality (lower case n) return to its original form "status of belong to particular nation", which can only respond to the declaration as chosen by the person regardless of pedigree. Either way, it would be inconsistent and somewhat folly to demand "what type of British...?" whilst accepting "Nicaraguan" on its own. In the meantime, if you declare yourself one of the Sioux and you avoid tax, good luck. I doubt it will work because Australia calls upon all residents to pay tax, and those 150 so-called "nations" they recognise are just names of countries. If the Australian government have classified that it is Nationality that is on their minds and not nationality, then they too can look forward to thousands upon thousands of unintelligible items of literature from the people of India, Spain, China and most of the world who have accepted the wider and older definition. I hope that we stand closer on this now. One more small thing, slight change of subject but maybe useful for your avoiding tax: if Australia recognises 150 "Nationalities", what about the other 43? Australia recognises 193 countries and has as many embassies or consulates. I'd personally opt for naturalisation into one of those "nations" and you might be better off! Who knows! Evlekis 03:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)  Blocked sock:Evlekis.

No offence taken regarding Sylvi - I just thought I had better clear that up in case Sylvi is following this discussion. ' Nationality ' must be one of the most complicated concepts there is. You have certainly given me a different perspective on the term ' ethnic ' - in Australia it is commonly used to describe groups that are culturaly different from the prevailing 'British'(English/Irish/Scottish )culture. But in its true sense you are right it does actualy mean 'nationality'. Australia is described as a 'multi-cultural' ( not multi-ethnic/national )country but there is only one Nation - Australia. All cultural groups come under the legal jurisdiction of the Australian Parliament .Which is why ( in my view at least ) our hypothetical 'Greek 'with French citizenship is a French National. His/her possible Greek nationality is a separate issue. I have just noticed that you have said that there is no Greek State ? The 1975 Greek Constitution describes Greece as a ' presidential parliamentary Republic' with a President who is the ' Head of State '. Greece is also a member of the European Union ( Wikipedia )and since 1945 has been a member of the United Nations. I am of English / Irish extraction and was born a British subject ( in Australia ) and was required to state that my Nationality as British on our census forms until about 1970 .I always personaly considered myself to be an Australian ( National ) but the legal fact is that I was a British National until the Australia Acts 1986 described Australia as a Sovereign Independant Nation and severed all legal ties with Britain. Australia is now a Sovereign Independant Nation and no longer a British Dominion but the point of separation is hotly disputed and even the Australian High Court has stated that the exact point of separation may never be precisely identifiable .The sticking point is in trying to come to an exact definition of the term Nation ( and Nationality ). Lejon Tuesday 21 Nov 06

Independent Australia

 * You're right, there is a small sticking point; quite how we define "nation" also directly affects what we see as "national", "nationality" and even "native" as these are all derivatives of the same source. I think that Australia's government encourages people of various backgrounds to unite as a single nation (no quotations here, I meant nation), bringing with them all their attributes from life in other countries. There is no harm in that, this is why the USA is so culturally and ethnicly diverse with millions identifying as proud Americans. If you, Lejon, have decided to remain in Australia, maybe a few generations down the line, after our time, one of your descendants will find himself from a long line of people originating from Australia but with an origin not only in English and Irish, but whatever else will bond with future offsprings to produce tomorrows people. As you rightfully say, people from 150 countries means a lot more than 150 cultures. The number is sure to be in its thousands as most countries are multi-ethnic anyhow. But I do fully accept that when ones life develops in a country, s/he has the right to call her/himself by that national name even if s/he never applies for legal status of any kind. All I can say at this stage regading nationality is that the best way not to offend people and to be appreciated is to accept them as they wish to be seen: of course, I don't accuse you of having done opposite!! People identify by a multitude of national names most of which do not have nation states. There are countless reasons for this: they may be descendants of earlier tribes who are reducing in number as a result of assimilation of bigger more powerful neighbouring nations, or they may be big enough in number but unfortunate not to be included in the constitutions of the countries occupying their homeland (ie. fully occupied and not forming a part of the country), or all 100% of the named nation might live as a diaspora accross the entire globe as a result of earlier events: this is how the Jews were for so long before Israel was craeted, and is today still the case for the Roma (whose postulated homeland, modern India, does not list them as a principle nationality). Anyhow, did I really say that Greece was not a state? I promise you that I never meant that! How that came about I don't know but I will read back; I know Greece is independent! EU since 1981, Nato since before, monarchy overthrown in 1973/74 and republic ever since! My father's home town in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Bitola) is less than 10 kilometres from the Greek border! I should have known Greece is no longer occupied by Ottomans! :-) Evlekis 14:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.

one suggestion!
Nationality by Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia : ''nationality, in political theory, the quality of belonging to a nation, in the sense of a group united by various strong ties. Among the usual ties are membership in the same general community, common customs, culture, tradition, history, and language. While no one of these factors is essential, some must be present for cohesion to be strong enough to justify the term nationality. Used in this sense, nationality does not necessarily denote membership within a specific political state. There are many examples of nations divided between several states and of states composed of several nations and parts of nations. Thus not all Albanians live in Albania, and, on the other hand, Switzerland has citizens whose native languages are German, French, Italian, and Romansh. In political theory the belief that a state should be identical with a nation is called the "principle of nationalities," or, more commonly, "self-determination." This view is a typical expression of nationalism; it was advanced partly as a means of solving the problem of the national minority after World War I. Nationality in its specific legal sense is a very different concept; it is attachment to a state by a tie of allegiance. Nationals in this sense are fundamentally distinguished from aliens (see alien) and in most, but not all, countries are identical with citizens. Nationality gives the state the right to impose certain duties, especially military service. Some states will punish their nationals for crimes wherever committed; the United States, however, punishes only those crimes, except treason, that are committed within American territorial jurisdiction. States may tax the income and other assets of their nationals regardless of whether they reside abroad. The national owes duties to his government but is also entitled to diplomatic protection when in a foreign country. Such protection includes the assistance of consular officials when the national is accused of crime and the offering of refuge in emergencies. In many instances certain persons, particularly those who have undergone naturalization, will be regarded as nationals by two states at once. Such problems of dual nationality have been a frequent cause of international diplomatic disputes.

See P. Weis, Nationality and Statelessness in International Law (1956); B. Akzin, States and Nations (1966); C. Joseph, Nationality and Diplomatic Protection (1969). ''--GillesV 00:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is highly flawed in pretending that the word "nationality" exclusively or even predominantly means "citizenship" or is a reference to which sovereign state one is a member of. Sure, a government official might insist on legal British nationality monopolizing the meaning of the word, but most people in, say, Scotland, will tell you that their nationality is Scottish or Scottish and British. No one meaning is correct with the other wrong, since both are used, but the article as it stands is simply leading people astray. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship and nationality guideline
Hello everyone. I would like to draw your attention to a proposed guideline on the use of the terms 'citizenship' and 'nationality' in the Infobox Person template. At present, the term 'nationality' is used to indicate both nationality and citizenship, and the purpose of the proposal is to put an end to that practice. The 'nutshell' description of the guideline is as follows:

"The terms 'citizenship' and 'nationality' are sometimes used interchangeably, but differ in important ways. In most circumstances, citizenship is easier to determine than nationality, and should be given priority. Nationality should be listed only in addition to citizenship, and only in cases where it is relevant to the article."

Your comments on the proposal's talk page would be appreciated! – SJL 19:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

 * The above editor's concerns are correct, even if the comment is ten years old. A quick glance through the article highlights some glaring mistakes caused by trying to pretend that nationality and citizenship always mean the same. Some of the citations used have been mis-interpretated and as such have been used incorrectly to try to justify an incorrect statement. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Section removed for lack of sources
To help attempt to locate sources, I replicate the section removed by Dougweller below: {{quote|

Nationality versus citizenship
In some countries, the cognate word for nationality in local language may be understood as a synonym of ethnicity. To determine citizenship, the nations in these areas of the world follow the principle of jus sanguinis rather than jus soli. But even then these countries would determine one's nationality by their ethnicity, rather than their citizenship.

In several areas of the world, the term nationality can be defined based on ethnicity, as well as cultural and family-based self-determination rather than on relations with a state or current government. For example, there are people who would say that they are Kurds, i.e., of Kurdish nationality, even though no such Kurdish sovereign state exists at least at this time in history. In the context of former Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia, nationality is often used as translation of the Russian nacional'nost'  and Serbo-Croatian narodnost terms used for ethnic groups and local affiliations within those (former) states.

Even today the Russian Federation, as an example, consists of various people whose nationality is other than Russian, but who are considered to be Russian subjects and comply with the laws of the federation. Similarly, the term "nationalities of China" refers to cultural groups in China. Spain is one nation, made out by nationalities, which are not politically recognized as nations (state), but can be considered smaller nations within the Spanish nation.

In a number of countries, nationality is legally a distinct concept from citizenship, or nationality is a necessary but not sufficient condition to exercise full political rights. United States nationality law defines some persons born in U.S. outlying possessions as U.S. nationals but not citizens. British nationality law defines six classes of British national, among which "British citizen" is one class (and the only one having the right of abode in the United Kingdom). Similarly, in the Republic of China on Taiwan, the status of national without household registration refers to a person who has Republic of China nationality, but does not have an automatic entitlement to enter or reside in the Taiwan Area, and does not qualify for civic rights and duties there. }} Mark Hurd (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Univ. Declaration of Human Rights ambiguous
If I understand the paragraph on the UDHR uses the word nationality in the citizenship sense. If this is the case it should be specified, particularly as in the preceding sentence it's used in the nation sense. 65.95.12.188 (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We would need reliable sources on that. Nationality, especially in the context of 1948, was not universally regarded as the same as citizenship and for example in the USSR a great many nationalities were formally recognised even all were citizens of the USSR - indeed Ukraine and Byelorussia as it then was were members of the UN even though they were constituent parts of the USSR.--AJHingston (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits
I have reverted this] edit because in Wikipedia we don't change sourced text for any reason, including for the convenience of making it fit an article's title. The body of the article needs to reflect the title and if it doesn't, then the article needs to be expanded to reflect the title. Mercy11 (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Mercy11, 24.130.149.55's comment to the last revert is valid, I'm therefore undoing your edits. If the cited text does not comply with consensus we can dispense with it altogether, we're also allowed to remove irrelevant passages in that text and change it to comply with copyright laws. If you so strongly feel that the body of the article needs to reflect the title, then you are welcome to expand it to reflect the title. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

montana
Describe the people who live in Montana there nationalities traditions and etc.

community ..... what is community — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.152.239 (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Citizenship or nationality
Is here considered the citizenship of a person or his nationality (nation, nazi), as an ethnos or an ethnic group? More like citizenship... The article more reveals the issue of statehood or of citizenship, not nationality. --Cherusk (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nationality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141226230108/http://eudo-citizenship.eu/InternationalDB/docs/Convention%20on%20certain%20questions%20relating%20to%20the%20conflict%20of%20nationality%20laws%20FULL%20TEXT.pdf to http://eudo-citizenship.eu/InternationalDB/docs/Convention%20on%20certain%20questions%20relating%20to%20the%20conflict%20of%20nationality%20laws%20FULL%20TEXT.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Article incomplete. Table formats need work.
I happened to look at this article today and was struck by its incompleteness. I added an entry for the United States in the Americas table, but there I was struck by the table constraints -- particularly the Women able to confer nationality on spouses column; for the U.S., neither men not women are able to confer nationality on spouses. It looks like this article needs work. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I am an Australian citizen, but not allowed to vote
In this article it is mentioned that citizenship has to do with the right to vote. In my case that doesn't seem true. I am an Australian citizen, heck I received a "Certificate of Citizenship" from the Australian state! However, since I haven't lived overseas since a couple of years, I am not allowed anymore to enrol on the electoral roll... I have carefully read this article and still don't get it, it seems there is no universal agreement of the difference between nationality and citizenship, mostly just local M Killian (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)historical associations.
 * This isn't the place to discuss this (see WP:TPG), but the Nationality article says in part:

"Nationality differs technically and legally from citizenship, which is a different legal relationship between a person and a country. The noun national can include both citizens and non-citizens. The most common distinguishing feature of citizenship is that citizens have the right to participate in the political life of the state, such as by voting or standing for election. However, in most modern countries all nationals are citizens of the state, and full citizens are always nationals of the state."

 * Re specifics related to individual enfranchisement in Australia, see the Commonwealth Franchise Act 1902 article and the text of that Act. You might also see the Australian Electoral Commission article or contact them for further information; they have a website at https://www.aec.gov.au Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Citizens, nationals, voting
This edit caught my eye. Subsequent to the edit, the edited paragraph reads:

"In some countries the nationality differs technically and legally from citizenship, which is a different legal relationship between a person and a country. The noun national can include both citizens and non-citizens. The most common distinguishing feature of citizenship is that citizens have the right to participate in the political life of the state, such as by voting or standing for election. However, in most modern countries all nationals are citizens of the state, and full citizens are always nationals of the state."

After reading that, I re-read the paragraph a couple of times and I'm still not sure exactly what it is trying to say.

Then, I noticed that two sources sources cited in support are, Dual Nationality in the European Union: A Study on Changing Norms in Public and Private International Law and in the Municipal Laws of Four EU Member States (p. 19-20) and European Fundamental Rights and Freedoms -- Part V: Citizenship Rights in Europe (pp. 547-548, in a section titled European Citizenship Rights). As a citizen of the U.S., which distinguishes citizenship from nationality, those sources don't strike me as being particularly comprehensive.

Looking back at the lead paragraph of the article, I see that the third of the three sentences there reads: "What these rights and duties are varies from state to state.", although the first two sentences had not mentioned any rights or duties.

It looks to me as if the lead section of this article could use some attention. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

 * I agree that the lead does not establish comprehensively the range of use of the term, as well as relation to citizenship. It should be clearer that the term is often too limited to understand nationality in different states, especially in states that define nationality not in english (see for example China). Nsae Comp (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Off the top of my head and from my own limited understanding and experience, I have the sense that nationality mostly goes to concerns involving interactions which other states might have with an individual which a particular state considers to be one of its nationals and, on the other hand, citizenship mostly goes to defining a class of persons to or upon which which a state might afford privileges or impose restrictions. That implies disagreement with the lead sentence -- that sense implies that nationality would afford protection and citizenship would afford jurisdiction. I don't know to what extent that sense I have is correct or supportable, but it is the sense I have. It may be demonstrably incorrect if, for example, the U.S. considers that individual Samoans and others who are U.S. nationals but not U.S. citizens are subject to U.S. federal law. I haven't looked into this much, but I see this, which describes citizenship as a narrower concept than nationality rather than as a somewhat different concept. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)(UTC)
 * It is true that nominally, historically nationality always had a larger and deeper meaning, but nowadays legally it is equal with your citizenship, the country and it's "nation" you are belong to apart from ethnicity, religion or adherence to any nation (-> personal declaration) etc. Just because the U.S. has it's institution for a separate category, it is not common the rest of the world, so the U.S. example may be mentioned as something especially applied by the U.S., but not in general.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC))
 * I think that my sense that the concepts not being equivalent goes beyond the case of the U.S. I haven't spent much time on it but some quick googling turned up, , , , . I haven't more than glanced at those, but they all seem to say that the concepts are not equivalent and that the differences are not limited to the case of the U.S. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your short googling did not tell anything new, but basically demonstrated the historical concept of the meaning, which I share as well, but in modern times almost they are treated equivalent, legally.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC))

 * I think if the article would be centered around "nationality" being a term most relevant for international law (and basically means state membership), then we could get some basic clarity. Maybe even stating the Human Rights Article 15 in the lead, as a sort of definition. From there it could be explained that many countries have no legal distinction between nationality (not in the sense of ethnicity) and citizenship, its both the state membership, hence the synonymous use in international law. But note that there are special cases.

 * Second important meaning of nationality is ethnicity. In my opinion that meaning should be dealt by and refered to the article of ethnicity and not confuse the article and lead with this particular case of understanding of nationality.

 * This two fold differentiation would be the simple basic structure I would draw.

 * From this fundament you can start laying out the different incarnations of nationality. Its a very, very, very loaded term, just look for example at the problems of translating "nation" in and out of Chinese. In my motherlanguage german, nationality in international law is translated as citizenship.

 * If the meaning of nationality as ethnicity is forwarded to the dedicated article it might also be easier to then discuss and differentiate "nationality" in the sense of state membership between ethnicity based-state membership and civic-state membership, but also culture based, citizenship based, etc.. But here it gets difficult a cases based approach is probably easiest. Because its for example not clear if French state membership can be called civic- or cultural-state membership/nationality. Or that US nationality is a civic one, but at the same time is not the same as citizenship, unlike for example in Switzerland. ...etc. ... I also have been collecting texts to find my way in the contradicting uses of the term. Here another case (UK) that establishes a first distinction, between civic- and ethnic-nationality (even if it lacks for example culture or citizenship based ones, given you dont see them as a mix of those two or just a version of civic nationality) []. The term ethnic nationality might though bring back the confusion with ethnicity, thats why I alltogether would advocate to speak of state membership alltogether.

 * PS: I once read somewhere that the United Nations is not called United States because of the apparent similarity to the USA. I would be interested if that was also the reason why the Human Rights Article 15 doesnt simply state "sovreign state membership" instead of "nationality". If you have sources regarding this I would be very greatful. Nsae Comp (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

 * PPS: Another confusing case is nationality and citizenship in the EU. EU citizenship is not a nationality in the sense of international law, despite the use of citizenship in especially western Europe synonymously with nationality (state membership). Sorry for the additional example. Nsae Comp (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

 * PPPS: as another example, if you want to find out the state membership of a person from the US or Isreal you would have to ask for the persons nationality and citizenship respectively. Because if you ask the person from Isreal for his nationality they would answer Jewish or Arab. If you ask the person from the US for their citizenship, they might answer Samoan. That being said, it would be correct from an international legal point to ask the person from Isreal for their nationality and get the answer Israel, and asking for their ethnicity, answered with Arab. I strongly think if the term nationality is mainly understood in an international context then much clarity can be gained and an easier distiction to ethnicity and citizenship is possible. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Added a proposal-edit to the first sentance to focus further editing. Curious what you think? Nsae Comp (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

 * The current structure of the article is since 2012 (here the edit introducing the current structure ). Before this the lead was a list of two points what nationality can mean (ethnicity and citizenship). Nsae Comp (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Basically your collection here is a good summarization of the concept and it's various interpretations and evolution, however the end result is quite the same I outlined. The fact in German they use Staatsanhörigkeit recently is as well the by product of the aftermath of WWII, i.e. in Hungarian naturally "nemzetiség", "nemzet" would mean "nationality", "nation", though nowadays állampolgárság is identical with citizenship that is translated in the passport as nationality, naturally assuming you share the nationality of the nation you are citizen of, of course it is historically conflating of what is today "ethnicity", that would be as well translated as nemzetiség, but with more modern words as etnikum. All in all, historically meaning nationality and ethnicity was meant and assumed the same, that nowdays we separate, the latter is discretely hidden as legally, officially all citizen as equal member of the nation, thus they hold the same nationality...(KIENGIR (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC))

 * ,, , on Wikidata, there is a property proposal for nationality as a cultural identity, in contrast to citizenship and ethnicity (though they obviously overlap). Given the thoughtful discussion here, I wanted to encourage you to comment on that proposal, if you'd like. Thanks! Qono (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is too narrow
Lead sentence is "Nationality is a legal identification of a person in international law...." Yes, but nationality is so much more, like a person's cultural identity. When someone says "I'm Dutch" they don't usually mean "I am entitled, in international law, to certain privileges and immunities granted to me by the Kingdom of the Netherlands." They mean "I'm from the Netherlands." This article should be expanded to reflect the broader use of the term. Thoughts? mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 15:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The last sentence of the lead expresses, I think, what you have in mind: "Nationality is also employed as a term for national identity". Debresser (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree there is a big problem. But I see the simplest solution as changing some article titles rather than massively expanding this article. See Talk:National identity. —Michael Z. 21:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:National identity which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nationality


text:
Smoothfm

smoothfm is an Australian commercial radio network owned and operated by NOVA Entertainment. From original launch in 2012, The format was focused on providing 'more music and less talk' along with an eclectic easy-listening playlist, usually featuring ballads. From Valentine’s Day in February 2020, the station revised genres when the primary channel became an adult contemporary radio station.

Vega
Vega launched in 2005 to target the baby boomer market of listeners in the 40 to 60 age bracket, with a mix of talk and music from the 1960s to the 2000s. The positioning statement for the network was "On your wavelength" with a blue squiggle and sign wave as the logo.

The network first launched in August 2005 in Sydney and September 2005 in Melbourne along with announcers Angela Catterns, Denise Scott, Shaun Micallef, Beverley O'Connor, Wendy Harmer, Francis Leach, Wilbur Wilde, Tony Squires, Rebecca Wilson and Mike Perso.

To coincide with the station's positioning statement the first song played at the launch was Van Morrison's Wavelength.

Vega's stations had failed to attract a significant audience with the Sydney station reaching a 1.8 percent audience share, and the Melbourne station gained a 1.2 percent share, placing it second last (ahead only of ABC NewsRadio) and last out of surveyed stations in each market, respectively. However, station management state that the slow take-up was to be expected, claiming the target audience will be slower than some audience groups to try a new station.

In June 2006 the Sydney and Melbourne stations stopped sharing programmes. Both stations dropped their "40 years of music" slogan and moved drive-time hosts Rebecca Wilson and Tony Squires to share the Sydney breakfast slot with former host Angela Catterns. The changes were slow to grow market share, with the Sydney audience falling to 1.7% in Sydney (No. 6, 2006, but climbing slowly to 1.8% in Melbourne, which, at the time, was their highest audience share to date in Melbourne.

By the end of 2006, Vega had increased their ratings share in both cities and the Sydney station reached 2.8%, while the Melbourne station reached 3%.

In January 2007, Vega expanded its "Vega Variety" positioner to include "the '70s, and '80s and the best new songs", and also put out advertisements in the form of billboards and on the side of buses, based around that expanded positioner. It was hoped that this would encourage more listeners to sample the station.

In the first radio survey of 2007, Vega in Sydney and Melbourne again both had small increases, with the Sydney station reaching 3% and the Melbourne station reaching 3.3%. The station's best demographic performer on both stations in that survey, is the 25–39 age group.

By the 4th radio survey of 2007, Vega in Sydney and Melbourne had gone over the 4% mark, with the Sydney station rating 4.6% and the Melbourne station rating 4.4%. In the 40–54 age group, Vega in Sydney was the second highest rating FM station in that age group after classic hits station WS-FM, who, traditionally, have been the highest rating FM station in that age group.

In the 5th radio survey of 2008, Vega in Sydney had surpassed the 5% mark for the first time, rating very closely behind main rival FM stations Triple M & WS-FM. Included during 2008 was the Sunday Session with Mark Gable as host. The station also became the highest rating FM station in the 40–54 age group, knocking WS-FM off that position.

On the 6th radio survey of 2009, Vega in Sydney and Melbourne reached up to 6% mark in the 55+ age group.

Classic Rock
In March 2010, Vega was rebranded under the name Classic Rock after failing to gain a significant audience low ratings. The rebrand occurred on Friday 12 March 2010 with the station competing against rivals Gold 104.3/101.7 WSFM and Triple M.

Classic Rock was a minimalist announcer station which featured local Breakfast programs with Maroon in Sydney and Ian "Dicko" Dickson and Dave O'Neil in Melbourne and music orientated programs Cover to Cover with Barry Bissell and the American Nights with Alice Cooper.

In July 2010, Dickson and O'Neil were fired from the ailing station due to cost-cutting measures and Classic Rock just played continuous classic rock music with regular news, weather and sport updates.

smoothfm
On 21 May 2012, the network relaunched as smoothfm in Sydney and Melbourne, with Michael Bublé as the face of the network.

In February 2013, smoothfm extended broadcasting nationally on DAB+ to Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide.

In April 2018, it was announced that Sam Smith would replace Michael Bublé as the face of the network.

In 2019, smoothfm launched two new digital only stations: Smooth Relax and Smooth Chill.

On 16 February 2020, smoothfm was relaunched as an adult contemporary station for their primary channels with a revised playlist shown as a result the network’s motto ‘your easy place to relax‘ becomes ‘your feel good station’, with Robbie Williams as the new face of the network.

In September 2022, smoothfm extended live and local content in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth. Breakfast will be hosted by broadcasters, Kate Mac in Perth, Nick Michaels in Brisbane and Kelly Golding in Adelaide, providing local connection and content for listeners in these states. Smooth also Rebranded Smooth Chill with Smooth Vintage, Playing the Classic Hits of the 60’s and 70’s while Smooth 80’s Plays 80’s Music and Smooth Relax remains with a Soft Adult Contemporary Format.

Announcers
Weekday Breakfast
 * Bogart Torelli (smoothfm 95.3)
 * Mike Perso (smoothfm 91.5)
 * Nick Michaels (smooth Brisbane)
 * Kelly Golding (smooth Adelaide)
 * Kate Mac (smooth Perth)

Weekdays
 * Ty Frost (Mornings)
 * Simon Diaz (Afternoons)
 * Byron Webb (Drive)
 * Cameron Daddo (Nights)

Weekends
 * Melissa Doyle (Breakfast)
 * Richard Wilkins (Mornings)
 * David Campbell (Afternoons)
 * Kim Wilde smooth 80s Show (Saturday Late Drive)
 * Cameron Daddo (Nights)

TV Channel
Foxtel Smooth (formerly Smooth) was an 18 hour (originally 24 hours) Australian pay television music channel available via Foxtel satellite and cable services. It launched on 3 December 2013, dedicated to easy listening adult contemporary music. The channel ceased broadcasting on 1 July 2020.

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

title: Smoothfm


text:
Talk:Nayanars

Untitled
Along with my comments on Alvars and South India's 75 Apostles of Bhakti, I think this one could do with a bit of a makeover also. While it has been linked sensibly with the rest of the Hinduism topics, it needs far more improvement. Basically, it reads like an ad and not an article. We need to add more information and structure. - shash 13:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

More to do
There's plenty more that needs to be added to this article, especially the impact of having the 63 Nayanars grouped, its influence on Saivism on the Bhakti movement and Hindu culture. Information as to how they are presented in temples is also needed beyond just the one general website. Are there rules as to how they are to be displayed or portrayed when in this group? Are there national or regional holidays and events that are devoted to the 63? -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Nayanmar
Rvxgbhjjlfxcbjugv 122.172.83.220 (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

63 Nayanars as Being Copied Off the 63 Shalaka Purushas (Illustrious Persons) of Jainism
Jainism was once one of the dominant religions of South Asia and especially of South India. As shown in the Hindu BASAVA PURANA as well as in the PENIYA PURANA, the Shaiva Hindus saw the Jains as evil competitors for converts. This led to a gruesome combination of vitriol against the Jains plus appropriation of Jain ideas. In this light, the 63 Nayanars of Shaivism seem likely to be an attempt at appropriating the concept of the 63 Shalaka Purushas of Jainism. There is not a precise one-to-one relationship between the two concepts but the Shaiva insistence on the number 63 seems to be an appropriation from Jainism. 24.206.78.54 (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nayanars


text:
Wikipedia:Good articles

Click any of the topics above for a list of good articles on that topic, or View the entire list of all good articles.

title: Wikipedia:Good articles


text:
Talk:As Above...

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on As Above.... Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050208061404/http://www.intravenous.de/home/musik/artikel/island1.html to http://www.intravenous.de/home/musik/artikel/island1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051202035636/http://www.islandia.is/gko/ to http://www.islandia.is/gko/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050910030656/http://www.smekkleysa.net/sigtryggur/ to http://www.smekkleysa.net/sigtryggur

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:As Above...


text:
Talk:American Revolutionary War/to do

Related articles needing attention:
 * Copyedit France in the American Revolutionary War
 * Expand Military leadership in the American Revolutionary War
 * Expand Spain in the American Revolutionary War
 * Create The Netherlands in the American Revolutionary War -- or maybe that's the same as the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War, which needs a lot of work.
 * Develop the articles on the various campaigns listed below.
 * Create Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War, which should cover a lot of things: Franco-American relations, Franco-Spanish relations, Staten Island Peace Conference, Carlisle Peace Commission, League of Armed Neutrality, Native American diplomacy, etc. There is a ton of essential information which is nowhere on Wikipedia.
 * Expand Intelligence in the American Revolutionary War to cover the use of intelligence by all nations involved.
 * Expand Second Anglo-Mysore War with better context concerning the wider war.
 * Expand on the ships used by both the Americans and British.

title: Talk:American Revolutionary War/to do


text:
Bye Bye Baby

Bye Bye Baby may refer to:

Songs

 * "Bye Bye Baby", a song from the 1949 Broadway musical Gentlemen Prefer Blondes
 * "Bye Bye Baby", a song written by American Frank McNulty and sung by Australian Col Joye in 1959
 * "Bye Bye Baby" (Mary Wells song), 1960 debut single by Motown singer Mary Wells
 * Bye Bye Baby I Don't Want to Take a Chance, her 1961 album
 * "Bye, Bye, Baby (Baby Goodbye)", a 1965 song performed by The Four Seasons and later covered by the Bay City Rollers
 * "Bye, Bye Baby", from the eponymous 1966 Big Brother and the Holding Company (album), featuring Janis Joplin
 * "Bye Bye Baby", a song from the 1978 Pain Killer
 * "Bye Bye Baby", a song written by Joey Ramone for the 1987 Ramones album Halfway to Sanity and later covered by Ronnie Spector
 * "Bye Bye Baby", a song by Social Distortion from their 1992 album Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell
 * "Bye Bye Baby" (Madonna song), a song from 1992 album Erotica
 * "Bye Bye Baby" (CatCat song), 1994 Finnish Eurovision Song Contest entry
 * "Bye Bye Baby", a song by G. Love & Special Sauce from the 1995 album Coast to Coast Motel
 * "Bye Bye Baby", a song by TQ from the 1998 album They Never Saw Me Coming
 * "Bye Bye Baby", a song by OK Go from the 2002 OK Go
 * "Bye Bye Baby", a song by Saves the Day from the 2007 album Under the Boards
 * "Bye Bye Baby", a song by Noname from the 2016 mixtape Telefone
 * "Bye Bye Baby", a song by Kanye West originally meant to appear on Yandhi, the album that became Jesus Is King (2019)
 * "Bye Bye Baby", a song by Dagny from the 2020 album Strangers / Lovers
 * "Bye Bye Baby", a song by Taylor Swift from the 2021 album Fearless (Taylor's Version)

Other uses

 * Bye Bye Baby (film), a 1989 film starring Brigitte Nielsen and Carol Alt
 * "Bye-Bye, Baby!", signature home run call of Russ Hodges of the San Francisco Giants baseball team

title: Bye Bye Baby


text:
An Sgùrr

An Sgùrr is a generic Scottish Gaelic word for a rocky peak. There are at least two hills called An Sgùrr in Scotland:

 * An Sgùrr (Eigg)
 * An Sgùrr (Lochcarron)

title: An Sgùrr


text:
User talk:Longfoot

User blocked indefinitely for vandalism. Rama 13:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Longfoot


text:
User:Longfoot

User blocked indefinitely for vandalism. Rama 13:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User:Longfoot


text:
Caledonian Railway 439 Class

The Caledonian Railway 439 Class is a class of 0-4-4T steam locomotive. It was a development of earlier Caledonian Railway 0-4-4T locomotives, including the 19 Class and 92 Class, and predecessor of the 431 Class. The 439 Class was introduced by John F. McIntosh in 1900 and a modified version was introduced by William Pickersgill in 1915.

Introduction
Ninety-two engines of the class were built between 1900 and 1925, a few under LMS auspices. Seventy-four Class 439s passed into British Railways ownership in 1948 and they were numbered 55159-55236 (with gaps).

Earlier versions

 * 19 Class Introduced 1895
 * 92 Class Introduced 1897, developed from 29 Class 0-6-0T

The 19 and 92 Classes were originally fitted with condensing apparatus for use on Glasgow Central Low Level lines. Twenty-four of them passed into British Railways ownership and they were numbered 55119-55146 (with gaps).

Later versions
In 1922 Pickersgill introduced the 431 Class with larger cylinders and cast-iron front buffer beam for banking. The idea was, presumably, to move the centre of gravity forwards and put more weight on the driving wheels. However, it seems strange to use a large-wheeled 0-4-4T (rather than a small-wheeled 0-6-0T) for banking. The 431 Class was numbered 431–434 by the Caledonian, 15237–15240 by the LMS, and 55237–55240 by British Railways.

In 1925 the LMS introduced their own version of the 439 Class and these were numbered 55260–55269 by British Railways.

In the 431 and LMS classes, the cylinder bore was increased to 18¼" and this increased the tractive effort to 19200 lbf.

Preservation
One example, CR 419, (later LMS number 15189, BR 55189) has been preserved and is the flagship locomotive of the Scottish Railway Preservation Society.

title: Caledonian Railway 439 Class


text: Template:Linguist-stub

title: Template:Linguist-stub


text:
Geography of Vojvodina

Vojvodina is an autonomous region within Serbia located in the Pannonian plain, a region of central Europe. It shares borders with Romania in the east, Hungary in the north, Croatia in the west, and Bosnia and Herzegovina in the southwest. The southern border is administrative line to Šumadija and Western Serbia, Belgrade, and Southern and Eastern Serbia.

Geographical regions of Vojvodina

 * Bačka
 * Šajkaška
 * Telečka
 * Gornji Breg
 * Paorija
 * Banat
 * Veliki Rit
 * Gornje Livade
 * Dištrikt
 * Gornjani
 * Poljadija
 * Krašovani
 * Ere
 * Srem
 * Podlužje
 * Fruška Gora
 * Mačva
 * Podunavlje
 * Posavina
 * Potisje
 * Pomorišje

Mountains and hills

 * Fruška Gora
 * Titelski Breg
 * Vršački Breg
 * Zagajička Brda

Sands

 * Deliblatska Peščara
 * Subotičko-Horgoška Peščara

Rivers

 * Danube
 * Tisa
 * Sava
 * Begej
 * Tamiš
 * Karaš
 * Zlatica
 * Nera
 * Bosut
 * Krivaja
 * Čik
 * Mostonga
 * Plazović

Canals

 * Canal Danube-Tisa-Danube, and some larger canals part of DTD system:
 * Begej canal
 * Jegrička canal
 * Jarčina canal

Lakes and bogs

 * Palićko lake
 * Ludoško lake
 * Ledinačko lake
 * Rusanda lake
 * Obedska bog

title: Geography of Vojvodina


text:
Cloone

Cloone is a village in County Leitrim, Ireland. The village is located in the south of the county, just off the R201 road; its nearest town is Mohill. Its name is an anglicised version of the Irish-language word cluain, meaning 'meadow'. The village is in a townland and civil parish of the same name.

History
The Justinian plague of Mohill barony badly affected the Cloone area in the 6th century. Bernard Kilrane who died in 1900 AD aged 111 years at Tawnymore near Cloone, was perhaps the oldest recorded Irishman. Throughout at least the 19th and 20th centuries, an impressive number of annual fairs were held at Cloone on - 12 February, 5 April, 26 May, 13 June (or 14th), 10 July, 26 August, 29 September, 2 November and 20 December.

Historian Guy Beiner has called attention to a curious apocryphal incident remembered in local folk memory, whereby it was believed that during the rebellion of 1798, the chains that were used by the insurgents to draw the cannons of the French invasion army led by General Humbert were allegedly stolen during a night stopover at Cloone and it was claimed that this theft resulted in the defeat of the rebels at the Battle of Ballinamuck. Local tradition has it that the French soldiers camped in a field in the centre of the village, still in existence, and known as the 'camp field'.

A monastery was founded at Cloone in 570, by Saint Fraoch. Stone archaeological evidence, including fragments of a celtic high cross and the monastery, have been found and placed on display in a local cemetery where the monastery used to be.

An Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) barracks was occupied until 1920 in the village. The building that used to be the barracks was later demolished during the construction of the present day Catholic church.

Back in 1925, Cloone village comprised 22 houses, 7 being licensed to sell alcohol. In recent years housing stock has been added to by the creation of the local authority Lakeview Housing Estate at the centre of the village.

Village shops which have closed in recent times include Doherty's, Tiernan's and Mitchell's. A petrol pump used to exist in front of McKeon's Bar and Lounge. The village no longer has a post office.

World War I casualties from Cloone
A total of eleven men from Cloone Village and the surrounding area are known to have died whilst on active service during the Great War (1914–1918), having given the locality as their place of birth or permanent domicile at the time of their enlistment. Those bodies recovered and identified were interred in various military cemeteries administered by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in Belgium (La Laiterie Military Cemetery), France (Cabaret-Rouge British Cemetery, Cuinchy Communal Cemetery, Philosophe British Cemetery & Savy British Cemetery), Israel (Beersheba War Cemetery) and Turkey (Lala Baba Cemetery). However, those men who lost their lives at the Battle of the Somme with no known graves have their names recorded on the 'Thiepval Memorial to the Missing of the Somme' in France.

Geography
Cloone is located in south Co Leitrim. It is in the Barony in Mohill and in the parish of Cloone. It is a small village with a population of 600 according to the 2006 census. Nearby urban areas include, among others, Mohill (7.6 km), Ballinamore (12.4 km) and Aughavas (7.6 km).

Amenities
The village has two public houses, namely Creegans Pub & McKeons Bar and Lounge. It has a grocery shop called O'Higgins (to the side of which is a public telephone kiosk).

In 2013, the 'Bóthar Na Naomh' (translation: 'Saints Road') recreational, sports, heritage and nature trail was developed in the environs of Annaghmaconway lake. The facility is popular for various individual and organised activities for running, walking, horse riding, kayaking and fishing.

In 2020, 'Cloone Garden of Remembrance' was completed adjacent to the bell tower of St James's Church of Ireland. The garden contains information boards along a pathway about local history and a rest area with a water feature.

Keeldra lake is about 3 kilometres away from Cloone and has picnic tables and changing facilities for swimmers. Swimming lessons have been held there for many years during the summer months. The lake is also popular with divers and boating enthusiasts. In 2019, a walking trail was opened which encircles the lake.

Other amenities include a community centre, a Catholic church, a funeral director and a national school.

Events
Every year, on the August Bank Holiday Monday, Cloone Agricultural Show is held on the outskirts of the village, after originally being held on the grounds of the village primary school. Usually in the show there are displays of cattle, bouncy castles, rides, stalls, food, music and competitions. It was first held in 1988. The show was not held in 2020.

Buildings, structures and monuments
Prominent building structures in the area include St Mary's Catholic Church (1971), the old Catholic church (1837) foundations in the older Catholic graveyard ground, and Fatima National School (1963).

A statue of the Virgin Mary (1993), and a monument (1983) to Irish cultural nationalist Fr. Peter Conefrey are prominently located in front of the entrances to the graveyards at the Cloone to Ballinamore road side of the village.

Cloone has participated in the Tidy Towns Competition, and a plaque has been erected, also at the Cloone to Ballinamore road side of the village commemorating its receipt in 1998 of an Endeavour Award.

In 1963 Fatima national school (building extended in 1999) replaced an older school (1903), which now stands empty also at the Cloone to Ballinamore road side of the village. Prior to the opening of the current community centre (1987), the old school acted as a location for community events such as school plays.

At the Mohill road side of the village there are two factory/industrial buildings (early 1980s).

The bell tower of St James's Church of Ireland is all that is left of a building that was erected by the Board of First Fruits in 1822. The tower was restored in the mid-1990s and a clock installed, which was manufactured by Samuel Elliott of Dublin. It is a local landmark and can be seen off the Cloone to Ballinamore Road.

Cloone formerly had a Garda station but it has closed and was sold in 2014.

Sports
Cloone have a local GAA team who play Gaelic football and hurling. Their grounds (St. Marys, opened in 1980) are located approximately 1 kilometer outside the village, beside the Mohill road and comes equipped with a covered stand, sports lighting, electronic scoreboard and a gym. A tarmacked track encircles the playing field which has a variety of uses including running, walking or cycling. The club won eleven Leitrim Senior Football Championships, most recently in 1980.

People

 * Fr. Peter Conefrey, born in Mohill, was a prominent Irish cultural nationalist who was pastor of Cloone.
 * Shane Kelly, successful horse racing jockey from Cloone.
 * John McDonald, a 19th-century poet who was born in Cloone parish.
 * Pat Quinn, founder of Quinnsworth (now Tesco Ireland), was from Cloone.

title: Cloone


text:
User talk:Fox1/schiavoarchive

Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work
 Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work '

 * Generic Updates Message to other participants: I have imitated Uncle Ed's Q & A method and tried to augment it, and I have declared a tentative (minor) success on the first of seven questions I've presented, thanks to teamwork of many of you in the past, some named in that question. Most of all of other six "Vote on these" items are valid concerns, shared by all, even if we don't agree to the answers. So, I'm asking you all to review and vote on the lingering issues. Also, Wagon has suggested we get both guidelines and examples (role model was the term he used). We all know the rules, but I found one example of a controversial topic that simply shared the facts in a cold, dry method: The Slavery article neither supports nor opposes slavery: It is "just the facts." Thus, I hope the answers I gave to the questions I proposed were correct and just the facts, without an appearance of POV. "Have faith in me," I say (imitating Uncle Ed's similar claim), and I haven't failed yet -the one time I tried: In the http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion and http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion, I brought peace, so I expect my method will work here too. So, get on over to The Mediation Voting Center, and vote, for Gordon's sake: I have voted, and so can you.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Schiavo
Thanks for your comment, Fox. That's my perception of FuelWagon based on looking at his contribs. It's hard to be sure because he's concentrated his edits on just three articles. Whatever the POV is, the vociferous nature of the editing is inappropriate, and it's the POV pushing that's the problem, not the particular POV. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

still alive
Fox! holy crap, you're still alive! Duckecho and Neuroscientist both took off in disgust. Mia-cle hasn't returned. professer ninja is gone. I thought you were MIA too. Glad to see a familiar name. FuelWagon 18:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Fox. I read your version at Fox1/terri (at least up to your double-line marker). I personally would support your version of the intro. But certain parties kept changing the article to say "this was about euthanasia", and I'd end up using up my 3 "revert bullets" in a day and then run out of ammo. There's nothing I could do about it without getting blocked. The only thing I could do was put in the other points of view around whether this was euthanasia or not. I look at it like the whole "Carla Iyer" affidavit thing. All the schindler-pushers kept quoting Iyer's affidavit saying Michael kept asking her "when't that bitch gonna die", and I kept pushing to get it removed as nonsense. They'd push it back in again. The only solution I could see was to put in mention of her affidavit, but then put in the court's comments on it that it was basically a moron with a conspiracy theory and tossed it, and mention all the logical flaws in her claims. Yeah, it sucks that every accusation has to be put in the article no matter how nonsensical it is, but at least if the accusation is in there, it makes the schindler pushers happy, and if the countering views are there to show it's complete bullshit, then that should make the reality-based folks happy. The only problem is the article length is huge. Well, we are talking about 15 years of medical and legal battles. dozens and dozens of cases and motions and decisions, medical exams, arm chair diagnosis, video diagnosis, enough affidavits to choke a horse, three guardian ad litem reports, 4 trips to the supreme court that were turned away, state laws, governor intervention, congressional laws, and a subpeona for terri to testify before congress as an attempt to invoke "witness protection" on her. Just in the events directly relating to Terri, her parents, and Michael, there's no way I can see to make this much smaller. The idea of breaking it up into sub-articles was good. the political stuff, public opinion stuff, all that makes for good sub-articles. But the way I see it, if we leave out something like Iyer's "Bitch gonna die" comment, someone will eventually push to put it in. This way, we have it in, we have all the countering responses, and maybe, just fucking maybe, I could spend my wikipedia time on another article, rather than always fighting the bullshit over here. (can you tell I'm just a bit burned out, just a bit cynical, and just a bit pissed off about this whole article?)

The only way I see we could ever shorten this article without having a hoard of winged fucking monkeys suddenly attacking us would be to find some good way to split off pieces into more sub articles and have an "overview" for those pieces in the main article. But I'm too burned out to try it now. It would take some time to write the overview pieces, and then there'd be arguments as to what got left out and what is neutral.

As for a technical comment on your version, I do think the article is better after I took the random chunks of information in the oddball sections (example, the section titled "Michael Schiavo" was a holding pen for all sorts of bits of information about Michael) and put them into chronological order. But I think chronologically. I was one of teh editors who did a lot of work on the original terri schiavo timeline article. So I know I'm biased that way, and am willing to hear counter arguments.

If you look at the chronology, there are a couple of major "eras" that could be condensed into an overview piece somehow, and then have all the details in a subpage.

 * 1) initial crisis: Terri collapsed. went into a coma, entered PVS
 * 2) first three years: Michael is guardian. Schindlers and he get along. Michael tries implant. lawsuit.
 * 3) first dispute: Michael wins lawsuit. Terri diagnosed PVS. Michael stops therapy. Schindlers challenge his guardianship. truce is reached by no one doing anything.
 * 4) Michael petitions to discontinue life support: Schindlers challenge. Guardian ad litem says terri is PVS, but says Michael has a conflict of interest, so he alone cannot be used to determine terri's end of life wishes.
 * 5) end of life wishes case: testimony heard. Court rules that Terri really would not want to be kept alive on a machine with no hope of recovery.
 * 6) Schindlers change tactics and challenge the PVS diagnosis itself. 5 doctors give opinion in court. Court rules Terri PVS.
 * 7) Terri's law. Governor Bush intervenes at the state level, forces feeding tube reinserted in Terri. Guardian ad litem Wolfson is appointed to report. He reports to Bush: She is PVS, she said she wouldn't want to be kept on a machine, this is all within the rule of law.
 * 8) Schindlers use every avenue to challenge decision. Accuse Michael of abuse, challenge guardianship, bone scan report, "bitch gonna die" accusations. Continue to challenge diagnosis, affidavits from speech therapists, doctors, most based on 4.5 minutes of video. Challenge feeding "by natural means". Media campaign. Appeal to president bush and congress. several cases brought to supreme court but denied.
 * 9) terri dies. Autopsy consistent with PVS.

Right there, you're looking at 9 distinct stages in this story. It's no wonder this thing is so long. At the moment, I just don't have the energy to do anything significant to the article. I'm burned out and I'm feeling stuck because I don't know how to fix it. I was hoping the peer review might bring in some suggestions for improvement, and maybe get some kudos for a decent job. Plus it would give me some time to take a breather. Gordon's and Patsw's insistence on putting "euthanasia" in the intro sort of killed of my enthusiasm for thinking maybe we were close to a final version. Now, I'm just trying to contain the damage.

Wow, this was a long post. I'm partly rambling in a way that reflects how I feel about the whole thing: directionless, no enthusiasm, and no real end in sight. Anyway, since I've got no better place to stop, might as well be here. FuelWagon 16:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

 * "Gordon's and Patsw's insistence on putting "euthanasia" in the intro sort of killed of my enthusiasm for thinking maybe we were close to a final version." Fox1, I left a note on the talk page -in response to similar concerns Wagon brought: Namely that I thought the current version at the time was OK to leave alone, and only had minor concerns about the intro length. However, if it makes anyone feel any better, I think this is as good as you can get for a "final version," and I personally think the article should be frozen solid and protected with a deep freeze page lock, not counting any new developments of stupid typos, or something. That would offer stability in my opinion. Maybe the article can be featured as a featured article candidate or whatever that Neutrality had mentioned on one peer review a long time ago. That's my take on it, but I'm posting here in case you didn't see my post in talk.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:56, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Deleting comment?
I'm sorry, Fox1, if I deleted anything, it wasn't on purpose. Let me take a look at the history. Do you know what comment it was? I'm sorry if I did anything unintentionally! Stanselmdoc 15:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ooo, I found it I think. I'm sorry, I don't know what happened. But I replaced it, and I hope it's in the right place. If it's not, I'm sorry again! Stanselmdoc

reply and apologies
In case you didn't see it on the Schiavo "talk" page, here it is (below) again -with indenting adjusted to make it fit easier.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Vote against it, do you, Fox ?? Are you saying the Chinese AND the Hispanic wikis AND myself AND Pastw AND Ann AND Stanselmdoc AND Google.com ALL wrong? Yeah, right! Delusions and dream on...are  ALL  stupid? Yeah, they/we are all stupid, and you're right. If you believe that, then guess who 'really'' has the delusions of grandeur.--GordonWattsDotCom 20:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Gordon, I was addressing your individual method of discourse on this page, don't try and make this an 'us vs. them' thing, because it has nothing to do with Pat, Ann, etc. As far as you being 'wrong,' I didn't say you were wrong, I said I disagree... since this isn't a factual issue, it's an issue of style, formatting and editorial priorities.
 * Additionally, I never called anyone 'stupid' or used any even vaguely equivalent term and I would appreciate if you turned the level of bombast down significantly.
 * Fox1 13:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * "Gordon, I was addressing your individual method of discourse on this page...As far as you being 'wrong,' I didn't say you were wrong, I said I disagree... since this isn't a factual issue, it's an issue of style..." I am sorry that I misunderstood that on which you were voting. "Additionally, I never called anyone 'stupid' or used any even vaguely equivalent term..." Well, I didn't exactly say you did, but I am sorry if I incorrectly implied this; MY method to think this was the thought that "actions" (e.g., your "vote" against whatever) speaks louder than your words. "...and I would appreciate if you turned the level of bombast down significantly." OK, I'm sorry if I shouted or jumped up and down, but I simply was happy (overjoyed actually) that both the Chinese and the Hispanic wikimasters (and numerous fellow editors, current and past) had agreed with me on a point (including mention of "euthanasia" debate") on which I thought I was (stylistically) right. However, other than the slight "length" problem, I think this matter has become moot. I give my "STAMP of APROVAL" on the current version of the page, having noted that most participants on various sides of the issue (myself included) are happy with it.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

new intro
Hey Fox, it isn't exactly your version, but the Terri Schiavo article has a new intro that is pretty damn short. I think it might actually meet policy guidelines even. FuelWagon 14:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

thx, but we need your help...
heard whispers & echoes of your positive feedback in re my (maybe selfish?) efforts.

Thx, but we are in almost a tie deadheat, and the Fac for Terri may bite the dust without your help.

See e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Terri_Schiavo

--GordonWattsDotCom 13:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Shiavo, again
Consider the fox signal flare lit. 23 should clarify (Gordon is inserting weasel words on court actions)
 * Textbook "dictionary" definitions. See talk page.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

24 typically only legally (more weasel words) 25 STAY OF EXECUTION (an interesting choice of link name)
 * Those were the judge's own words, not mine. See talk.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

26 Vanity links (he's pushing his websites again)
 * No, I allowed the edit removal of my links --this time, --as there were other reporters who covered this issue -albeit not as well. See Schiavo's talk page for details, El Ptimo Fox0.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon 04:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

 * PS: What's with "23" "23" "25" and "26?" -- huh? to what do they refer?--GordonWattsDotCom 05:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

No need...
...to be embarassed. It was actually sort of weird it wouldn't leave. You have the history--there's some discussion on the main Terri Schiavo page of maybe trying a new version again so it can be used. --Marskell 18:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

vote
Fox, could you take a look at this and weigh in on this. If we get some sort of consensus, then we can get this page unlocked (done at Gordon's request because he wasn't getting to keep his version in the article) and fix the article. FuelWagon 13:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The admin who locked the Terri Schiavo page has put in an article RFC. I've tried to write down a brief description of the content issues here. FuelWagon 13:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

schiavo, again
Fox, I'm getting really sick of this, but the Terri Schiavo article has just undergone major churning. Basically, Gordon submitted the article for "Featured Article" status, and pretty much everyone objected as being too long. In an effort to do anything to satisfy these complaints, Gordon deleted the entire legal history from the article and put it in a subarticle. The terri schiavo article now has NOTHING that explains the various court cases and the various points of view. Some new editors have come along and have decided to enforce an edit-limit truce because Gordon has had a couple of bouts of edit-itis where he does like two or three dozen edits to the article and massive posts on the talk page. (except that Gordon would only agree to a two-edit per day limit if it applied to everyone, now I'm limited to 2 edits a day as well. Nice, eh?) At least one of the new editors supports the idea of a separate court-case article for Schiavo. In the meantime, the article now has nothing to fill the hole. He says to write a "summary" to replace it, but he doesn't seem to get how contentious teh topic is or how difficult it will be to write a summary that is short, covers the topics, hits all teh points of view, and will make everyone happy. But now the possibility of featured article status has overrun reason and I'm getting sick of it. Since you're familiar with the article and all teh pain involved in getting somethign that makes everyone happy, maybe you could chime in and provide the voice fo experience around this. I'm too disgusted right now to be of much use. Plus I used up my two edits today already. FuelWagon 19:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fox1/schiavoarchive


text:
Super Hydlide

Super Hydlide is an action role-playing game for the Sega Genesis/Mega Drive. It was originally released in 1987 in Japan only under the title Hydlide 3: The Space Memories (ハイドライド３ 異次元の思い出) for the MSX, MSX2, and PC-8801mkII SR. It's the third game in the Hydlide series. Ports were also released for the X1, Famicom, X68000, Microsoft Windows, and Nintendo Switch. The game was developed by Hydlide series veterans T&E Soft and released worldwide on the Sega Genesis / Mega Drive on October 6, 1989, in Japan, early 1990 in the United States, and 1991 in Europe. This remake evidences substantial graphical upgrades to the original Hydlide 3, though the gameplay remains largely identical. Before its release, it was called Hollo Fighter in some Sega advertising material and was one of the first third party published titles to be released in the U.S, the other being Air Diver.

Story
Many years after the events of Hydlide II, an explosion of flames appeared near The City of the Woods. After that, monsters spread throughout the world. A young man is chosen to find the source of the evil.

Gameplay
The game incorporates a 'good/evil character' morality/alignment system. Like its predecessor Hydlide II: Shine of Darkness (1985), the player has a morality meter that can be aligned with either Justice, Normal, or Evil. The game has both good and evil monsters. Evil monsters attack the player character on sight, while good monsters only attack if the player character attacks them first. Killing any monster, good or evil, results in a reward of experience points, money, and occasionally a piece of equipment. However, if the player kills a good monster, points are lost from a statistic called "MF" (Moral Fiber). If the player's MF stat drops to zero, frequent traps will appear across the world. If the player manages to keep it over 100, rewards appear in the form of random items found around Fairyland. Unlike Hydlide II, the morality meter no longer affects the way in which the townsfolk react to the player.

The game also features an in-game clock setting day-night cycles, where the character must eat two times a day and sleep regularly. If the characters stay up late or fail to eat regularly, their HP and attack power gradually drop. Every item in the game (including money) has weight. If the total weight of items the player character carries exceeds their "Load Capacity" (LC), they will move slowly. The game uses cut scenes for its opening and ending sequences, a combat system similar to Ys, a choice between four distinct character classes, and a wide variety of equipment and spells.

Reception
GamePro gave a positive review, citing the varied experiences offered by the different playable characters, the morality system, and the inclusion of four save slots.

Computer and Video Games scored it 81%, stating that, like Phantasy Star II, "this is a huge role-playing game", and that it is "a very tough game" in which requires a strategy. They criticized the graphics and sound, but were positive to the gameplay. They recommended it to those who like games with steady pace and puzzles despite lacking the action.

Legacy
In 2007, Alex Lucard of Diehard GameFan listed Super Hydlide at number 27 in his list of top 30 RPGs. He cited the realism instilled by gameplay mechanics such as the encumbrance system, banks, the 24-hour clock, and the need to eat and sleep, and described the game as "Morrowind before there was Morrowind".

During production of Scalebound, PlatinumGames director Hideki Kamiya said he was inspired by Hydlide 3 on the PC-8801 MA as well as Sorcerian. He said Hydlide 3 was one of the first games he played on a PC and was inspirational because it had a hardcore game design that no one was doing on consoles at the time.

title: Super Hydlide


text:
Arthur Atkins

Arthur Atkins may refer to:

 * Arthur Atkins (painter) (1873–1899), tonalist landscape painter
 * Arthur Atkins (footballer) (1925–1988), English footballer

title: Arthur Atkins


text: Category:Linguist stubs

title: Category:Linguist stubs


text:
User talk:Runner Bean

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Demiurge 13:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Runner Bean


text:
Chicago XXX

Chicago XXX is the twentieth studio album, and thirtieth album overall, by the American band Chicago, released on March 21, 2006. It was Chicago's first album of entirely new material since 1991's Twenty 1.

Background
The album was recorded in Nashville, Tennessee with horn sessions in Los Angeles, California over the summer of 2005. Production duties were handled by Jay DeMarcus of the country group Rascal Flatts, who came to the project through a friendship with Chicago's bassist-singer Jason Scheff. DeMarcus used several session players for the album.

Chicago XXX peaked at number 41 in the US during a brief chart stay, spawning minor hits "Feel" and "Love Will Come Back." This would be the last studio recording with long-time vocalist and keyboardist Bill Champlin, as he departed Chicago in August 2009.

Chicago

 * Robert Lamm – vocals, acoustic piano, Wurlitzer electric piano, Hammond B3 organ, horn arrangements (10)
 * Lee Loughnane – trumpet, flugelhorn, piccolo trumpet
 * James Pankow – trombone, horn arrangements (2–9, 11–13)
 * Walt Parazaider – saxophones, flutes
 * Bill Champlin – vocals, Hammond B3 organ, acoustic piano, Fender Rhodes, BGV arrangements
 * Jason Scheff – vocals, bass, BGV arrangements
 * Tris Imboden – drums (1, 5, 7–13)
 * Keith Howland – guitars

Additional musicians

 * Jay DeMarcus – keyboards, guitars, loops, programming, acoustic piano (2), arrangements
 * James Matchack – keyboards, loops, sequencing, arrangements
 * Tom Bukovac – acoustic guitar, electric guitar
 * Dann Huff – guitars (3–5, 7, 9, 11)
 * Jack Kincaid – guitars (6)
 * Yankton Mingua – guitars (6)
 * Dean DeLeo – guitars (12)
 * John Brockman – drums (2, 6)
 * Steve Brewster – drums (3, 4)
 * Lee Thornburg – trumpet
 * Joseph Williams – additional backing vocals (2)
 * Bobby Kimball – additional backing vocals (3)
 * Shelly Fairchild – lead vocal (4)
 * Rascal Flatts (Gary LeVox, Jay DeMarcus and Joe Don Rooney) – guest vocals (5)

Production

 * Produced by Jay DeMarcus
 * Production Coordinator – Mike "Frog" Griffith
 * Recorded by Jeff Balding, Ben Fowler, James Matchack, Sean Neff and Chas Sanford.
 * Assistant Engineers – David Frick Jay Goin, Jed Hackett, Jody Sappington, Aaron Walk and Tony Zeller.
 * Tracks #1, 2 & 7–13 mixed by Jeff Balding, assisted by Jed Hackett.
 * Tracks #3–6 mixed by James Matchack
 * Digital Editing – Jed Hackett and Sean Neff
 * Mastered by Bob Ludwig at Gateway Mastering (Portland, ME).
 * Photography by Jimmy Katz and Hugh Brown, assisted by Andy Strauss.
 * Design by Hugh Brown, assisted by Andy Strauss.

Charts
Album - Billboard (United States)

Singles - Billboard (United States)

title: Chicago XXX


text: User:Moondyne/awards

title: User:Moondyne/awards


text: User talk:69.251.8.21

title: User talk:69.251.8.21