text:
Type generalization

Type generalization is a technique commonly used in refactoring. The idea is to draw on the benefits of object-orientation and make more-generalized types, thus enabling more code sharing, leading to better maintainability as there is less code to write. Too-general code can, however, become completely useless, leading to spaghetti code doing effectively nothing.

Type generalization refers to making more general or more abstract some subset of the traits of a specific type. A superclass has wider use than a specific subclass, and so is more 'general'.

An example of generalizing a type would be moving a method from a child to a parent class for common use by all the parent class' children, not just the original child.

Another example, in the Java programming language, would be access to an object via an interface which isn't tied into a specific implementation of that interface.

title: Type generalization


text: Category:Government of France

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

title: Category:Government of France


text:
User talk:Nuhouse

Image Tagging Image:Norwich City FC.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:Norwich City FC.PNG. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use .)  See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Linnea 09:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, Image:Image:Norwich City Badge.PNG

Nolan Batman trilogy
Hey, Thanks,
 * 1) IMDb is not considered a reliable source. It should not be used to try to ram a nationality onto a film.
 * 2) Nationalities with films can be contentious. It is best to discus such changes on the article talk pages and getting consensus before making the change.
 * 3) As per WP:BRD, you have been bold, you have bee reverted, now you need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, not just revert to what you want.

- J Greb (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nuhouse


text:
Ramsay Gilderdale

Ramsey Wilson Gilderdale (born 5 August 1962 ), professionally known as Ramsay Gilderdale, is an English actor, best known for playing Guy of Gisbourne in BBC children's television comedy Maid Marian and Her Merry Men from 1990 to 1994. He also appeared in Rumpole of the Bailey and Blackadder's Christmas Carol.

As a screenwriter, he has also worked on Barbara and ChuckleVision. He was a storyliner on the Cuthbert Lilly sketches for ZZZap!.

He is also a director of Modicasa, an Italian company specialising in "sales, holiday rentals and property management and services" in and around Modica in southern Sicily.

Ramsay is a graduate of the University of Nottingham. During his time there he was active in the Student Drama Society ("Dramsoc") and appeared in a production of The Changeling (Middleton and Rowley).

title: Ramsay Gilderdale


text:
Roy Arden

Roy Arden (born 1957) is an artist who is a member of the Vancouver School. He creates sculpture from found objects, oil paintings, graphite drawings and collage, and curates and writes on contemporary art.

Career
Arden graduated from Emily Carr College of Art and Design with a bachelor's degree in photography and interdisciplinary studies in 1982 and with an M.A. from the University of British Columbia in 1990. In the early part of his career, Arden made straightforward Cibachrome images of the contemporary urban scene which he called "Fragments", then made what he called "meta-photography", archival image diptychs. In the 1990s, he made colour photographs of what he termed the "landscape of economy" that depicted the city of Vancouver and its rapid growth.

Around 1999, Arden changed from colour to black-and-white photography, focusing again on the urban wasteland in Vancouver. In 2000, he began to produce videos.

His videos, Juggernaut (2000), Citizen (2000), and Supernatural (2006), were shown at Ikon Gallery, Birmingham in 2006 in his solo exhibition there, along with his photographs from 1985 on. His project "The World as Will and Representation – Archive (2007)", a slide show of his archive of 28,000 images Internet-based, can be viewed at www.royarden.com.

Arden has been exhibiting since the late 1970S. He has had solo exhibitions at the Ikon Gallery, Birmingham (2006); Galerie Tanit, Munich (2005 and 2006); and a mid-career show at the Vancouver Art Gallery (2007). His work has also had been included in exhibitions at the Kunstmuseum Basel, and the Museum of Modern Art, Antwerp (Museum van Hedendaagse Kunst). It is in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art, New York – it was featured in their inaugural exhibition after their expansion in 2005 - besides being included in the collections of major museums in Canada, Europe and the U.S.A. such as the Centre Pompidou in Paris, the Hammer Museum in Los Angeles, the Musée d'art contemporain de Montréal, the Museu d'Art Contemporani de Barcelona, the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo the Art Gallery of Ontario and the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa. He is represented by Monte Clark Gallery in Vancouver.

He has been an instructor in the photography studio department at the Emily Carr University of Art and Design and the University of British Columbia. He has also been a guest teacher at art academies in Finland, Germany, and Switzerland. Arden has also been involved in curating as a curator - he curated a show on photography at Monte Clark Gallery in 1999 - and as a collaborator and published critical texts on contemporary art for catalogues and art magazines.

Selected exhibitions

 * 2006 - Roy Arden, Ikon Gallery, Birmingham, United Kingdom
 * 2007 - Fragments, Vancouver Art Gallery, Vancouver, Canada
 * 2009 - People of British Columbia, Monte Clark Gallery, Vancouver, Canada
 * 2011 - From Here On, Rencontres d'Arles, Arles, France
 * 2012 - Vox, Monte Clark Gallery, Vancouver, Canada
 * 2015 - Roy Arden Exhibition, Le Mois De La Photo, Montreal, Quebec

title: Roy Arden


text:
User talk:Leitch1

Image:Leitchjapee.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Leitchjapee.JPG, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 12:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of Campbells Bay Primary School for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Campbells Bay Primary School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Campbells Bay Primary School& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  // Timothy ::  talk  05:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:Leitch1


text:
Anthony Suau

Anthony Suau is an American photojournalist and documentary filmmaker, based in New York City.

Life and work
Suau was born in Peoria, Illinois. He worked for the Chicago Sun-Times, and The Denver Post, was a contract photographer for Time from 1991 to 2009, and has produced a number of stories for National Geographic magazine. He has dedicated his life and career to documenting the effects of international events on the lives of people around the world.

Suau has published five books, including Beyond the Fall, a ten-year photography project portraying the transition of the Eastern bloc starting from the fall of the Berlin Wall, and Fear This, with American journalist and author Chris Hedges and blurbs by Howard Zinn and P. J. O'Rourke, about the war of images and slogans being played out in the US whilst the country was at war in Iraq.

His work has appeared in National Geographic, Paris Match, Stern, The New York Times Magazine, The Sunday Times Magazine, Life, and elsewhere.

In 2009 he co-founded the nonprofit collective "Facing Change: Documenting America", with a group of socially-minded photographers and writers to document the issues facing the United States during a time of economic uncertainty. As the project president he was able to negotiate and sign agreements with the Library of Congress, Leica Camera, National Geographic, GEO, Le Monde, Open Society Foundations, and PhotoShelter. Six months after a negligent board of directors took control of the company's management, in June 2013, he resigned from the organization to work on a number of developing projects.

Suau directed his first feature documentary, Organic Rising, which examines the rise of the organic farming movement across the American agricultural landscape. The film's executive producer is Deepak Chopra, the production company is Goldcrest Films. Elizabeth Kucinich, the wife of former U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, also is a producer on the film. The film was slated for release in 2019.

Publications

 * On a Deux Yeux de Trop: Avec les Réfugiés Rwandais, Goma, Zaïre, 1994. Arles, France: Actes Sud, 1995. ISBN 978-2742705641. On the genocide in Rwanda.
 * Dans les Montagnes où Vivent les Aigles: Grozny, Tchétchénie, Janvier 1995. Arles, France: Actes Sud, 1995. ISBN 978-2-7427-0565-8. On the war in Chechnya.
 * Beyond the Fall: The Former Soviet Bloc in Transition, 1989-99. Network Photographers, 2000. ISBN 978-0953675609.
 * Fear This: A Nation at War. New York: Aperture, 2004. ISBN 978-1931788533.

Awards

 * 1984: Pulitzer Prize for Feature Photography for his photographs of the famine in Ethiopia
 * 1987: World Press Photo of the Year, from World Press Photo, Amsterdam, for a photograph taken during a demonstration in South Korea
 * 1995: Robert Capa Gold Medal for his photographs from Chechnya
 * 2008: World Press Photo of the Year for a photograph taken in Cleveland, Ohio, depicting an officer securing a home under foreclosure at gun-point
 * 2008: Infinity Award from the International Center of Photography, New York City
 * 2010: Emmy, 31st News & Documentary Emmy Awards, New Approaches to News and Documentary Programming: Arts, Lifestyle and Culture category, for a web documentary on his images taken during the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989

title: Anthony Suau


text:
Wayne Morris

Wayne Morris (born Bert DeWayne Morris Jr. February 17, 1914 – September 14, 1959) was an American film and television actor, as well as a decorated World War II fighter ace. He appeared in many films, including Paths of Glory (1957), The Bushwackers (1952), and the title role of Kid Galahad (1937).

Early life and career
Morris was born in Los Angeles County, California to Bert DeWayne Morris and Anna Lorea Morris ( Fitzgerald). He attended Los Angeles City College and was a fullback on that school's varsity football team. He gained acting experience through his work at the Pasadena Playhouse.

His film debut came in China Clipper (1936). He played the title character of Kid Galahad (1937), a story of a young prizefighter that featured some of Hollywood's biggest stars, Bette Davis, Edward G. Robinson and Humphrey Bogart. His career flourished in films like Brother Rat, which starred Ronald Reagan, and in Bogart's only horror film, The Return of Doctor X (1939).

Military service
While filming Flight Angels (1940), Morris became interested in flying and became a pilot. With war in the wind, he joined the United States Naval Reserve and became a United States Navy aviator in 1942, leaving his film career behind for the duration of World War II.

Morris was considered by the Navy as physically 'too big' to fly fighters. After being turned down several times as a fighter pilot, he went to his uncle-in-law, Commander David McCampbell, imploring him for the chance to fly fighters. McCampbell said "Give me a letter." He flew the F6F Hellcat off the aircraft carrier USS Essex (CV-9) with Fighter Squadron 15 (VF-15), the famed "McCampbell Heroes."

A December 15, 1944, Associated Press news story reported that Morris was "credited with 57 aerial sorties, shooting down seven Japanese Zeros, sinking an escort vessel and an antiaircraft gunboat and helping sink a submarine and damage a heavy cruiser and a minelayer." He was awarded four Distinguished Flying Crosses and two Air Medals.

Later career
After the war, Morris returned to films, but his nearly four-year absence had cost him his burgeoning stardom. He continued to act in movies, but the pictures, for the most part, sank in quality. Losing his boyish looks but not demeanor, Morris spent much of the 1950s in low-budget westerns, but also appeared as the cowardly Lieutenant Roget, one of the main characters, in Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory (1957).

In 1957, Morris made his Broadway debut as a washed-up boxing champ in William Saroyan's The Cave Dwellers.

On television, Morris starred in a 1956 episode of Science Fiction Theater, "Beam of Fire". In 1958, Morris appeared in Gunsmoke as "Nat", a groom almost shot to death. Wayne Morris played "Captain Hathaway" in 1959 on The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet (in the episode "The Sea Captain"), and posthumously as Sheriff Sam Cloggett in 1960 on New Comedy Showcase (in the episode "They Went Thataway").

Personal life
Morris was first married to tobacco heiress Leonora (Bubbles) Schinasi; the couple later divorced. Eighteen months later, Morris married the 19-year-old Patricia Ann O'Rourke at the Long Beach, California Naval Air Base February 25, 1942. He had two daughters and a son.

Death
Aged 45, Morris died of a coronary occlusion on September 14, 1959, aboard the attack aircraft carrier USS Bon Homme Richard (CV-31).

Awards and decorations
During his naval service, Morris earned the following decorations:

Filmography

 * China Clipper (1936) as Navigator on Clipper
 * Here Comes Carter (1936) as Bill
 * Polo Joe (1936) as Spectator (uncredited)
 * King of Hockey (1936) as Bill 'Jumbo' Mullins
 * Smart Blonde (1937) as Railroad Information Clerk (uncredited)
 * Once a Doctor (1937) as Sailor on 'Nirvana' (uncredited)
 * Land Beyond the Law (1937) as Dave Massey (Credits) / Dave Seymour
 * Kid Galahad (1937) as Ward Guisenberry / Kid Galahad
 * Submarine D-1 (1937) as 'Sock' McGillis
 * The Kid Comes Back (1938) as Rush Conway
 * Love, Honor and Behave (1938) as Ted Painter
 * Men Are Such Fools (1938) as Jimmy Hall
 * Valley of the Giants (1938) as Bill Cardigan
 * Brother Rat (1938) as Billy Randolph
 * The Kid from Kokomo (1939) as Homer Baston
 * The Return of Doctor X (1939) as Walter Garrett
 * Brother Rat and a Baby (1940) as Billy Randolph
 * Double Alibi (1940) as Stephen Wayne
 * An Angel from Texas (1940) as Mac McClure
 * Flight Angels (1940) as Artie Dixon
 * Gambling on the High Seas (1940) as Jim Carter
 * Ladies Must Live (1940) as Corey Lake
 * The Quarterback (1940) as Jimmy Jones and Billy Jones
 * I Wanted Wings (1941) as Tom Cassidy
 * Badmen of Missouri (1941) as Bob Younger
 * Three Sons o' Guns (1941) as Charley Patterson
 * The Smiling Ghost (1941) as Lucky Downing
 * Deep Valley (1947) as Jeff Barker
 * The Voice of the Turtle (1947) as Comm. Ned Burling
 * The Time of Your Life (1948) as Tom (Joe's stooge and friend)
 * The Big Punch (1948) as Chris Thorgenson
 * John Loves Mary (1949) as Lieutenant Victor O'Leary
 * A Kiss in the Dark (1949) as Bruce Arnold
 * The Younger Brothers (1949) as Cole Younger
 * Task Force (1949) as McKinney
 * The House Across the Street (1949) as Dave Joslin
 * Johnny One-Eye (1950) as Dane Cory
 * The Tougher They Come (1950) as Bill Shaw
 * Stage to Tucson (1951) as Barney Broderick
 * Sierra Passage (1950) as Johnny Yorke
 * The Big Gusher (1951) as Kenny Blake
 * The Bushwhackers (1951) as Marshal John Harding
 * Yellow Fin (1951) as Mike Donovan
 * Desert Pursuit (1952) as Ford Smith
 * Arctic Flight (1952) as Mike Wien
 * Star of Texas (1953) as Texas Ranger Ed Ryan / Robert Larkin
 * The Marksman (1953) as Deputy Marshal Mike Martin
 * The Fighting Lawman (1953) as Deputy Marshal Jim Burke
 * Texas Bad Man (1953) as Walt
 * Riding Shotgun (1954) as Deputy Sheriff Tub Murphy
 * The Desperado (1954) as Sam Garrett
 *  The Master Plan (1954) as Major Thomas Brent
 * Two Guns and a Badge (1954) as Deputy Jim Blake
 *  The Green Carnation (1954) as Gary Holden
 * Port of Hell (1954) as Stanley Povich
 * Lord of the Jungle (1955) as Jeff Wood
 * The Lonesome Trail (1955) as Dandy Dayton
 * Cross Channel (1955) as Tex Parker
 * The Gelignite Gang (1956) as Jimmy Baxter
 * The Crooked Sky (1957) as Mike Conlin
 * Paths of Glory (1957) as Lieutenant Roget
 * Plunder Road (1957) as Commando Munson
 * Official Detective (1958, Episode: "The Cover-Up") as Holmes
 * Alfred Hitchcock Presents (1959) (Season 4 Episode 15: "A Personal Matter") as Bret Johnson
 * New Comedy Showcase (1960) (Season 1 Episode 3: "They Went Thataway") as Sheriff Sam Cloggett
 * Buffalo Gun (1961) as Roche (final film role)

title: Wayne Morris


text:
Stolz–Cesàro theorem

In mathematics, the Stolz–Cesàro theorem is a criterion for proving the convergence of a sequence. It is named after mathematicians Otto Stolz and Ernesto Cesàro, who stated and proved it for the first time.

The Stolz–Cesàro theorem can be viewed as a generalization of the Cesàro mean, but also as a l'Hôpital's rule for sequences.

Statement of the theorem for the $$ case
Let $$(a_n)_{n \geq 1}$$ and  $$(b_n)_{n \geq 1}$$ be two sequences of real numbers. Assume that $$(b_n)_{n \geq 1}$$ is a strictly monotone and divergent sequence (i.e. strictly increasing and approaching $$ + \infty $$, or strictly decreasing and approaching $$ - \infty $$) and the following limit exists:
 * $$ \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{a_{n+1}-a_n}{b_{n+1}-b_n}=l.\ $$

Then, the limit
 * $$ \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{a_n}{b_n}=l.\ $$

Statement of the theorem for the $0/0$ case
Let $$(a_n)_{n \geq 1}$$ and  $$(b_n)_{n \geq 1}$$ be two sequences of real numbers. Assume now that $$(a_n)\to 0$$ and $$(b_n)\to 0$$ while $$(b_n)_{n \geq 1}$$ is  strictly decreasing. If
 * $$ \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{a_{n+1}-a_n}{b_{n+1}-b_n}=l,\ $$

then
 * $$ \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{a_n}{b_n}=l.\ $$

Proof of the theorem for the $$ case
Case 1: suppose $$(b_n)$$ strictly increasing and divergent to $$+\infty$$, and $$-\infty 0$$ there exists $$\nu > 0$$ such that $$\forall n > \nu$$
 * $$\left|\,\frac{a_{n+1}-a_n}{b_{n+1}-b_n}-l\,\right| < \frac{\epsilon}{2},$$

which is to say
 * $$l-\epsilon/2<\frac{a_{n+1}-a_n}{b_{n+1}-b_n} \nu.$$

Since $$(b_n)$$ is strictly increasing, $$b_{n+1}-b_n>0$$, and the following holds
 * $$(l-\epsilon/2)(b_{n+1}-b_n) \nu$$.

Next we notice that
 * $$a_n = [(a_n-a_{n-1})+\dots+(a_{\nu+2}-a_{\nu+1})]+a_{\nu+1}$$

thus, by applying the above inequality to each of the terms in the square brackets, we obtain
 * $$\begin{align}

&(l-\epsilon/2)(b_n-b_{\nu+1})+a_{\nu+1}=(l-\epsilon/2)[(b_n-b_{n-1})+\dots+(b_{\nu+2}-b_{\nu+1})]+a_{\nu+1}0$$ such that $$b_n>0$$ for all $$n>n_0$$, and we can divide the two inequalities by $$b_n$$ for all $$n>\max\{\nu,n_0\}$$
 * $$(l-\epsilon/2)+\frac{a_{\nu+1}-b_{\nu+1}(l-\epsilon/2)}{b_n}<\frac{a_n}{b_n}<(l+\epsilon/2)+\frac{a_{\nu+1}-b_{\nu+1}(l+\epsilon/2)}{b_n}.$$

The two sequences (which are only defined for $$n>n_0$$ as there could be an $$N\leq n_0$$ such that $$b_N=0$$)
 * $$c^{\pm}_n:=\frac{a_{\nu+1}-b_{\nu+1}(l\pm\epsilon/2)}{b_n}$$

are infinitesimal since $$b_n\to+\infty$$ and the numerator is a constant number, hence for all $$\epsilon/2>0$$ there exists $$n_{\pm}>n_0>0$$, such that
 * $$\begin{align}

&|c^+_n|<\epsilon/2,\quad\forall n > n_+,\\ &|c^-_n|<\epsilon/2,\quad\forall n > n_-, \end{align}$$ therefore
 * $$l-\epsilon < l-\epsilon/2+c^-_n < \frac{a_n}{b_n} < l+\epsilon/2+c^+_n \max\lbrace\nu,n_{\pm}\rbrace =: N > 0,$$

which concludes the proof. The case with $$(b_n)$$ strictly decreasing and divergent to $$-\infty$$, and $$l<\infty$$ is similar.

Case 2: we assume $$(b_n)$$ strictly increasing and divergent to $$+\infty$$, and $$l=+\infty$$. Proceeding as before, for all $$2M > 0$$ there exists $$\nu > 0$$ such that for all $$n > \nu$$
 * $$\frac{a_{n+1}-a_n}{b_{n+1}-b_n} > 2M.$$

Again, by applying the above inequality to each of the terms inside the square brackets we obtain
 * $$a_n > 2M(b_n-b_{\nu+1}) + a_{\nu+1},\quad\forall n > \nu,$$

and
 * $$\frac{a_n}{b_n} > 2M + \frac{a_{\nu+1}-2M b_{\nu+1}}{b_n},\quad\forall n > \max\{\nu,n_0\}.$$

The sequence $$(c_n)_{n>n_0}$$ defined by
 * $$c_n := \frac{a_{\nu+1}-2M b_{\nu+1}}{b_n}$$

is infinitesimal, thus
 * $$\forall M > 0\,\exists \bar{n}>n_0>0 \text{ such that } -M < c_n < M,\,\forall n > \bar{n},$$

combining this inequality with the previous one we conclude
 * $$\frac{a_n}{b_n} > 2M + c_n > M,\quad\forall n > \max\{\nu,\bar{n}\} =: N.$$

The proofs of the other cases with $$(b_n)$$ strictly increasing or decreasing and approaching $$+\infty$$ or $$-\infty$$ respectively and $$l=\pm\infty$$ all proceed in this same way.

Proof of the theorem for the $0/0$ case
Case 1: we first consider the case with $$l < \infty$$ and $$(b_n)$$ strictly decreasing. This time, for each $$\nu > 0$$, we can write
 * $$a_n = (a_n-a_{n+1})+\dots+(a_{n+\nu-1}-a_{n+\nu})+a_{n+\nu},$$

and for any $$\epsilon/2>0,$$ $$\exist n_0$$ such that for all $$n>n_0$$ we have
 * $$\begin{align}

&(l-\epsilon/2)(b_n-b_{n+\nu})+a_{n+\nu} = (l-\epsilon/2)[(b_n-b_{n+1})+\dots+(b_{n+\nu-1}-b_{n+\nu})]+a_{n+\nu} < a_n\\ &a_n < (l+\epsilon/2)[(b_n-b_{n+1})+\dots+(b_{n+\nu-1}-b_{n+\nu})]+a_{n+\nu} = (l+\epsilon/2)(b_n-b_{n+\nu})+a_{n+\nu}.\end{align}$$ The two sequences
 * $$c^{\pm}_\nu := \frac{a_{n+\nu}-b_{n+\nu}(l\pm\epsilon/2)}{b_n}$$

are infinitesimal since by hypothesis $$a_{n+\nu},b_{n+\nu} \to 0$$ as $$\nu\to\infty$$, thus for all $$\epsilon/2 > 0$$ there are $$\nu_{\pm} > 0$$ such that
 * $$\begin{align}

&|c^+_\nu| < \epsilon/2,\quad\forall \nu>\nu_+,\\ &|c^-_\nu| < \epsilon/2,\quad\forall \nu>\nu_-, \end{align}$$ thus, choosing $$\nu$$ appropriately (which is to say, taking the limit with respect to $$\nu$$) we obtain
 * $$l-\epsilon < l-\epsilon/2+c^-_\nu < \frac{a_n}{b_n} < l+\epsilon/2+c^+_\nu < l+\epsilon,\quad\forall n > n_0 $$

which concludes the proof.

Case 2: we assume $$l=+\infty$$ and $$(b_n)$$ strictly decreasing. For all $$2M > 0$$ there exists $$n_0 > 0$$ such that for all $$n > n_0,$$
 * $$\frac{a_{n+1}-a_n}{b_{n+1}-b_n} > 2M \implies a_n-a_{n+1} > 2M(b_n-b_{n+1}).$$

Therefore, for each $$\nu > 0,$$
 * $$\frac{a_n}{b_n} > 2M + \frac{a_{n+\nu}-2M b_{n+\nu}}{b_n},\quad\forall n > n_0.$$

The sequence
 * $$c_{\nu} := \frac{a_{n+\nu}-2M b_{n+\nu}}{b_n}$$

converges to $$0$$ (keeping $$n$$ fixed). Hence
 * $$\forall M > 0\,~\exists \bar{\nu} > 0 $$ such that $$-M < c_\nu < M,\,\forall \nu > \bar{\nu},$$

and, choosing $$\nu$$ conveniently, we conclude the proof
 * $$\frac{a_n}{b_n} > 2M + c_\nu > M,\quad\forall n > n_0. $$

Applications and examples
The theorem concerning the $∞/∞$ case has a few notable consequences which are useful in the computation of limits.

Arithmetic mean
Let $$(x_n)$$ be a sequence of real numbers which converges to $$l$$, define
 * $$a_n:=\sum_{m=1}^nx_m=x_1+\dots+x_n,\quad b_n:=n$$

then $$(b_n)$$ is strictly increasing and diverges to $$+\infty$$. We compute
 * $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{a_{n+1}-a_n}{b_{n+1}-b_n}=\lim_{n\to\infty} x_{n+1}=\lim_{n\to\infty} x_n=l$$

therefore
 * $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{x_1+\dots+ x_n}{n}=\lim_{n\to\infty}x_n.$$

Given any sequence $$(x_n)_{n\geq 1}$$ of real numbers, suppose that
 * $$\lim_{n\to\infty}x_n$$

exists (finite or infinite), then
 * $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{x_1+\dots+x_n}{n}=\lim_{n\to\infty}x_n.$$

Geometric mean
Let $$(x_n)$$ be a sequence of positive real numbers converging to $$l$$ and define
 * $$a_n:=\log(x_1\cdots x_n),\quad b_n:=n,$$

again we compute
 * $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{a_{n+1}-a_n}{b_{n+1}-b_n}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\log\Big(\frac{x_1\cdots x_{n+1}}{x_1\cdots x_n}\Big)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\log(x_{n+1})=\lim_{n\to\infty}\log(x_n)=\log(l),$$

where we used the fact that the logarithm is continuous. Thus
 * $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log(x_1\cdots x_n)}{n}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\log\Big((x_1\cdots x_n)^{\frac{1}{n}}\Big)=\log(l),$$

since the logarithm is both continuous and injective we can conclude that
 * $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\sqrt[n]{x_1\cdots x_n}=\lim_{n\to\infty}x_n$$.

Given any sequence $$(x_n)_{n\geq 1}$$ of (strictly) positive real numbers, suppose that
 * $$\lim_{n\to\infty}x_n$$

exists (finite or infinite), then
 * $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\sqrt[n]{x_1\cdots x_n}=\lim_{n\to\infty}x_n.$$

Suppose we are given a sequence $$(y_n)_{n\geq1}$$ and we are asked to compute
 * $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\sqrt[n]{y_n},$$

defining $$y_0=1$$ and $$x_n=y_n/y_{n-1}$$ we obtain
 * $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\sqrt[n]{x_1\dots x_n}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\sqrt[n]{\frac{y_1\dots y_{n}}{y_0\cdot y_1\dots y_{n-1}}}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\sqrt[n]{y_n},$$

if we apply the property above
 * $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\sqrt[n]{y_n}=\lim_{n\to\infty} x_n=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{y_n}{y_{n-1}}.$$

This last form is usually the most useful to compute limits Given any sequence $$(y_n)_{n\geq 1}$$ of (strictly) positive real numbers, suppose that
 * $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{y_{n+1}}{y_{n}}$$

exists (finite or infinite), then
 * $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\sqrt[n]{y_n}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{y_{n+1}}{y_{n}}.$$

Example 1

 * $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\sqrt[n]{n}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{n+1}{n}=1.$$

Example 2

 * $$\begin{align}

\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\sqrt[n]{n!}}{n}&=\lim_ {n\to\infty}\frac{(n+1)!(n^n)}{n!(n+1)^{n+1}}\\ &=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{n^n}{(n+1)^n}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{(1+\frac{1}{n})^n}=\frac{1}{e} \end{align}$$ where we used the representation of $$e$$ as the limit of a sequence.

History
The ∞/∞ case is stated and proved on pages 173—175 of Stolz's 1885 book and also on page 54 of Cesàro's 1888 article.

It appears as Problem 70 in Pólya and Szegő (1925).

Statement
The general form of the Stolz–Cesàro theorem is the following: If $$ (a_n)_{n\geq 1}$$ and $$ (b_n)_{n\geq 1}$$ are two sequences such that $$(b_n)_{n \geq 1}$$ is monotone and unbounded, then:
 * $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{a_{n+1}-a_n}{b_{n+1}-b_n}\leq \liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{a_n}{b_n}\leq\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{a_n}{b_n}\leq\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{a_{n+1}-a_n}{b_{n+1}-b_n}.$$

Proof
Instead of proving the previous statement, we shall prove a slightly different one; first we introduce a notation: let $$(a_n)_{n\geq1}$$ be any sequence, its partial sum will be denoted by $$A_n:=\sum_{m\geq1}^na_m$$. The equivalent statement we shall prove is: Let $$(a_n)_{n\geq1},(b_n)_{\geq1}$$ be any two sequences of real numbers such that then
 * $$ b_n > 0, \quad \forall n\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{>0}$$,
 * $$\lim_{n\to\infty}B_n=+\infty$$,
 * $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{a_n}{b_n}\leq\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{A_n}{B_n}\leq\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{A_n}{B_n}\leq\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{a_n}{b_n}.$$

Proof of the equivalent statement
First we notice that: Therefore we need only to show that $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{A_n}{B_n}\leq\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{a_n}{b_n}$$. If $$L:=\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{a_n}{b_n}=+\infty$$ there is nothing to prove, hence we can assume $$L<+\infty$$ (it can be either finite or $$-\infty$$). By definition of $$\limsup$$, for all $$l > L$$ there is a natural number $$\nu>0$$ such that
 * $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{A_n}{B_n}\leq\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{A_n}{B_n}$$ holds by definition of limit superior and limit inferior;
 * $$\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{a_n}{b_n}\leq\liminf_{n\to\infty}\frac{A_n}{B_n}$$ holds if and only if $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{A_n}{B_n}\leq\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{a_n}{b_n}$$ because $$\liminf_{n\to\infty} x_n=-\limsup_{n\to\infty}(-x_n)$$ for any sequence $$(x_n)_{n\geq1}$$.
 * $$ \frac{a_n}{b_n}\nu.$$

We can use this inequality so as to write
 * $$A_n = A_\nu + a_{\nu + 1} + \dots + a_n < A_\nu + l(B_n - B_\nu), \quad\forall n > \nu,$$

Because $$b_n>0$$, we also have $$B_n>0$$ and we can divide by $$B_n$$ to get
 * $$\frac{A_n}{B_n} < \frac{A_\nu - lB_\nu}{B_n} + l, \quad \forall n > \nu.$$

Since $$B_n\to+\infty$$ as $$n\to+\infty$$, the sequence
 * $$\frac{A_{\nu}-lB_{\nu}}{B_n}\to0\text{ as } n\to+\infty \text{ (keeping }\nu\text{ fixed)},$$

and we obtain
 * $$\limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac{A_n}{B_n} \le l, \quad\forall l > L,$$

By definition of least upper bound, this precisely means that
 * $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{A_n}{B_n}\leq L=\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{a_n}{b_n},$$

and we are done.

Proof of the original statement
Now, take $$(a_n),(b_n)$$ as in the statement of the general form of the Stolz-Cesàro theorem and define
 * $$\alpha_1=a_1,\alpha_k=a_k-a_{k-1},\,\forall k>1\quad\beta_1=b_1,\beta_k=b_k-b_{k-1}\,\forall k>1$$

since $$(b_n)$$ is strictly monotone (we can assume strictly increasing for example), $$\beta_n>0$$ for all $$n$$ and since $$b_n\to+\infty$$ also $$\Beta_n=b_1+(b_2-b_1)+\dots+(b_n-b_{n-1})=b_n\to+\infty$$, thus we can apply the theorem we have just proved to $$(\alpha_n),(\beta_n)$$ (and their partial sums $$(\Alpha_n),(\Beta_n)$$)
 * $$\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{a_n}{b_{n}}=\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{\Alpha_n}{\Beta_n}\leq\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{\alpha_n}{\beta_n}=\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{a_n-a_{n-1}}{b_n-b_{n-1}},$$

which is exactly what we wanted to prove.

title: Stolz–Cesàro theorem


text:
Severin of Cologne

Severin of Cologne (Severinus) was the third Bishop of Cologne, living in the later 4th century.

Life
Severin is said in 376 to have founded a monastery in the then Colonia Agrippina in honour of the martyrs Cornelius and Cyprian, from which developed the later Basilica of St. Severin. Severin is notable as a prominent opponent of Arianism.

According to legend, Severinus was taking a walk in a field while still a priest when he heard a voice tell him he would one day be bishop of Cologne. When he asked when that would happen, he was told when his staff buds and flowers. Immediately, he stuck his staff into the ground, it budded and he was called to Cologne.

Veneration
Severin was highly venerated in Cologne early on. His bones are today preserved in a gold shrine in the choir of St Severin's Church in Cologne. That seen today is a reconstruction of 1819, as the medieval shrine was melted down for the gold in the period of French rule, c. 1795–98. Its opening in 1999 corroborated the documented transfer of the bones of bishop Wigfried of Cologne (924–953), as it was possible to date the old inner wooden shrine by the latest dendrochronological techniques to the year 948. An ancient cloth, probably Byzantine, was also discovered, with which the wooden box was lined. The saint's feast day is 23 October.

Severin of Cologne is also venerated as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

As a name
The Scandinavian name "Søren" is derived from Saint Severin.

title: Severin of Cologne


text:
Mark Ward (footballer, born 1962)

Mark William Ward (born 10 October 1962) is an English former footballer.

Playing career
Ward was born in Huyton, Lancashire, on 10 October 1962, the second eldest of seven children born to Billy and Irene Ward. His father's family originated from County Cork in Ireland. His father was a casual labourer and an accomplished sportsman, and had played reserve team football for Liverpool in the 1953–54 season. Ward was spotted by Everton at an early age, and joined the club's youth team before signing schoolboy forms in 1977. He then signed apprentice forms in 1979. He developed sciatica, but recovered and managed to score the winning goal against PSV Eindhoven in the final of the under-19 youth tournament in Groningen; he was also voted as the player-of-the-tournament. His success in the competition won him a professional contract with Everton. However, he was released without ever playing a first team game at Goodison Park after manager Gordon Lee told him he was too small to play top-flight football; Lee was sacked by Everton just hours after releasing Ward.

Ward signed a two-year contract with Northwich Victoria of the Alliance Premier League after impressing in a trial game, and the club also found him a job in a bakery. He established himself in the first team and scored the winning goal against Football League side Chester City in the first round of the FA Cup at Drill Field in the 1982–83 season. He also scored the winning goal past Dagenham in the semi-finals of the FA Trophy, to book John King's "Vics" a place at Wembley Stadium in the final. They lost 2–1 to Telford United in the final, and Ward spent most of the game as little more than a spectator after being taken out by left-back Tony Turner in the opening stages of the match.

He signed with Second Division club Oldham Athletic, with manager Joe Royle authorising an initial £9,500 transfer fee that would rise to £34,500 after Ward played 25 games for Oldham. He made his debut against Brighton & Hove Albion at Boundary Park on the opening day of the 1983–84 season on 27 August and scored the only goal of the game with a diving header. He went on to feature in the "Latics" every game of the 1983–84 and 1984–85 seasons, scoring 12 goals in 92 league and cup appearances.

Ward was signed by West Ham United manager John Lyall for a £250,000 fee in August 1985. He was signed to replace Paul Allen, who had been sold to Tottenham Hotspur for £400,000 earlier in the summer. He was ever-present on the right wing in his first season, as they finished third in the First Division. However, in subsequent seasons, star strikers Frank McAvennie and Tony Cottee left and West Ham were relegated at the end of 1988–89.

In December 1989, Ward signed for newly promoted Manchester City, who had just appointed Howard Kendall as manager after falling into the relegation zone. Ian Bishop and Trevor Morley signed for West Ham in exchange. Bizarrely, Ward's first six games for City included four against Millwall. City beat them in the league on 30 December 1989 but drew twice with them in the FA Cup before losing the second replay on 15 January 1990. City rose to finish 14th, with Ward scoring his first three goals for City in consecutive games in April.

Playing mainly on the left wing, Ward only missed two games in 1990–91, scoring 13 league and cup goals as City finished fifth. He scored both goals when City beat Sheffield United in the league on 19 January 1991, and then repeated the feat three days later to knock Sheffield United out of the Full Members Cup.

In the summer of 1991, he signed for Everton, rejoining Kendall who had moved in November 1990. Ward stayed for three seasons before moving down the divisions to play for Birmingham City (where he was a player-coach), Huddersfield Town, Ayr United, Wigan Athletic, Dundee, Valur, Altrincham, and Leigh RMI. Whilst at Birmingham he was part of the side that won the 1995 Football League Trophy Final.

Imprisonment
After the end of his football career, he became involved in the supply of cocaine in Liverpool. He was arrested after 4.0 kg of cocaine were found during a raid at a house in Prescot, Merseyside, in May 2005. In October 2005, he was jailed for eight years. He was released from HM Prison Kirkham in May 2009, having served four years in Kirkham and in HM Prison Liverpool.

Personal life
Ward married Jane Spruce in January 1983. They have one daughter.

Statistics
Source:

Honours

 * Northwich Victoria
 * FA Trophy runner-up: 1982–83

 * Birmingham City
 * Football League Trophy: 1994–95

Individual
 * PFA Team of the Year: 1994–95 Second Division

title: Mark Ward (footballer, born 1962)


text:
Talk:Joanie Loves Chachi

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series
I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 16:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

False urban legend
The cited source, snopes.com, clearly states that the urban legend attached to the Korean broadcast is false. I merely noted that for the reader's convenience. Also, the linguistic comment was inserted by an IP and is not included in the cited source, it is not verifiable, and cannot be included in the article due to Wikipedia policy. Please do not restore. 72.201.104.140 (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Joanie Loves Chachi


text:
Mike Edmonds

Mike Edmonds (born 13 January 1944) is an English actor with achondroplasia (dwarfism), known for his role as Little Ron in the children's television show Maid Marian and Her Merry Men.

Edmonds has appeared in several films, including Flash Gordon (1980), The Dark Crystal (1982), and Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988). He played the role of Og in the Terry Gilliam film Time Bandits (1981). In Return of the Jedi, (1983) he performed as the Ewok Logray as well as the operator for Jabba the Hutt's tail.

Edmonds can be seen dancing in the Men Without Hats music video "The Safety Dance" as a dwarf jester, wearing a shirt for their Rhythm of Youth album.

With the death of Malcolm Dixon in 2020, Edmonds became the last surviving actor to have played one of the titular Time Bandits.

Filmography

 * Black Jack (1979) – Tom Thumb's Army
 * Flash Gordon (1980) – Dwarf
 * The Empire Strikes Back (1980) – Ugnaught (uncredited)
 * Time Bandits (1981) – Og
 * The Dark Crystal (1982) – Aughra
 * I Remember Nelson (1982) - Portrait Seller
 * Philip Marlowe, Private Eye (1983) - Page Boy
 * Safety Dance (music video), Men Without Hats (1983) Jester
 * St Ursula's In Danger (1983) - Gypsy
 * Return of the Jedi (1983) – Logray (Ewok)
 * Cell 151 (music video), Steve Hackett (1983) - Dream Apparition
 * Sword of the Valiant (1984) – Tiny Man
 * The Master of Ballantrae (1984) - Pirate
 * They Came From Somewhere Else (1984) - Dwarf
 * Legend (1985) – Tic (uncredited)
 * Lost Empires (1986) - Barney
 * Treasures of the Mindlord (1986) - To-lor
 * Snow White (1987) – Biddy
 * Salome's Last Dance (1988) – 1st Jew
 * Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988) – Stretch
 * The Storyteller (1988) - Tiny Tailor
 * Maid Marian and Her Merry Men (1989–1994) – Little Ron
 * The Silver Chair (1990) - Second Owl
 * Preacher Man (music video, Bananarama (1990) - Shaman
 * The 10th Kingdom (2000) - Dwarf Librarian
 * Fun at the Funeral Parlour (2001) - Pablo
 * Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001) – Goblin (uncredited)
 * Starhyke (2009) - Logan
 * Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011) – Goblin (uncredited)
 * An Accidental Studio (2019) - Self
 * Under the Radar: The Mike Edmonds Story (2019) - Self

title: Mike Edmonds


text:
Licensed conveyancer

A licensed conveyancer is a specialist legal professional in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia or South Africa who has been trained to deal with all aspects of property law.

Typically, their tasks might include:
 * 1) Taking instructions from a client in relation to the sale or purchase of land or property
 * 2) Conducting searches in relation to the property with local authorities
 * 3) Advising clients of any incurred costs such as stamp duty land tax and legal fees
 * 4) Drafting contracts setting out the terms of the sale of a property
 * 5) Liaising with mortgage lenders (banks and building societies) to ensure they have all the relevant information
 * 6) Paying costs on behalf of the client such as stamp duty and estate agent fees

Their role is very similar to that of a solicitor dealing with a property transaction.

However, rather than being qualified as a solicitor, they will have completed all of the examinations and practical training provided by a regulatory body for Licensed Conveyancers.

Licensed Conveyancers in England and Wales
The regulatory body for Licensed Conveyancers in England and Wales is the Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC), established by the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to maintain consistent standards of professionalism and conduct among persons who practice as Licensed Conveyancers. Licensed Conveyancers are also answerable to the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board.

To become a licensed conveyancer, you are required to complete the examinations and practical training provided by the CLC. In addition to this, you must be at least 21 years of age and be considered by the CLC to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

They may be employed by firms of solicitors or other institutions such as banks and property developers. Alternatively, after holding three consecutive annual (limited) licences and being employed for at least three years, they may apply for a full licence and practise on their own or in a partnership.

A Licensed Conveyancer holding a limited licence is required to complete eight hours of professional training each year (CPD - Continuing Professional Development training). Licensed Conveyancers with a full licence must complete 12 hours of professional training each year. A large part of this training must relate to property law and practice.

Like solicitors and barristers, Licensed Conveyancers are also Commissioners for Oaths. A Commissioner for Oaths is a person appointed by the Lord Chancellor with power to administer oaths or take affidavits.

Licensed Conveyancers in Australia
Conveyancing work may be performed by lawyers and/or licensed conveyancers (people who are not lawyers, but are licensed under the Conveyancers Act 2006 (VIC).

In Australia, licensed conveyancers are governed by consumer protection legislations and regulators of the various States. Each State and Territory has different legislation governing Licensed Conveyancers.

 * In Victoria, a conveyancer must be licensed and are regulated by the Business Licensing Authority (BLA), a division of Consumer Affairs Victoria. Licensed conveyancers must also comply with all requirements pursuant to under the Conveyancers Act 2006 (Victoria).

 * In New South Wales (NSW), a conveyancer must hold a license issued by the NSW Fair Trading body. They are regulated by the Conveyancers Licensing Act 2003 and the Conveyancers Licensing Regulation 2015.

To become a licensed conveyancer, you are required to complete a Diploma or Advanced Diploma in Conveyancing, as well as practical training under the supervision of an Australian Legal Practitioner. Moreover, you must be 18 years of age and considered able to perform conveyancing tasks. You cannot be insolvent, under administration, a represented person under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 and not currently disqualified from holding a conveyancing license.

To be issued with a license, applicants must be approved by the BLA body after application checks and record checks are made.

Conveyancers may be employed by law firms, solicitors, conveyancing firms, banks and property developers. A conveyancer can also obtain a license to run their own licensed conveyancing business.

title: Licensed conveyancer


text:
Talk:Akrasia

Comments
Oh lord, it hurts my heart again and again to see how stupid philosophers are! The situation is quite clear: You have the choice between a immediate reward that will result in a worse situation in the long term, and a better longterm situation that will however not yield the reward in the immediate future. This is known as the ability to "postpone gratification".

 * I think you misunderstand what Akrasia is exactly. Maybe the article is unclear, but it's basically when we want to do X but end up actually doing not-X.  For instance, really desiring not to eat food (for weight loss, etc.) but ending up eating anyway.  This has been traditionally understood as weakness and subordination to fleshly desires.
 * What you said about postponing gratification (what is also called prudence) definitely plays into akrasia, so you're on the right track. All this is a subject more complicated than it looks. --FranksValli 08:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The question is WHY people sometimes can't postpone gratification. It's no good asserting that the situation is "quite clear" if you can't explain why some people are better at this than others. Of course, you can explain it, but in so doing you'll come right back to "weakness of the will" or "acting against one's better judgement"... Evercat 18:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe talking about Moore's Paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_paradox would help address this issue? Mike 04:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slxpluvs (talk • contribs)

This idea is inherently flawed; most people simply act logically, without complicating thoughts with "gratification" or other nonsense that has been discussed here. Ergo, the (fictional) Vulcan race would have infinite delay of gratification, and nothing prevents every human from doing so as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.67.157 (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Akrasia since Freud?
I was thinking about this today - did Freud address akrasia at all? It would seem to fit into his idea of the unconscious, and would explain why we are pulled in two different directions (i.e. our conscious self being pulled one way and our unconscious self being pulled another way). --FranksValli 08:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Moral Incontinence
Today was the first time I ever heard the word "akratically" mentioned, which led me to look up this article, and what struck me was that this sounds closely parallel to the discussion of moral incontinence in Aristotle. Does anyone know what word is being translated as "incontinence"? Is it possible akrasia? If so, then Aristotle's proposed solution certainly deserves mention here, and it should be noted that akrasia is also discussed as moral incontinence (especially since presently, the mention of moral incontinence on the incontinence disambiguation page only links to the article on morals, which doesn't mention incontinence at all). If I'm wrong about this, incontinence probably still deserves mention on the page as a related issue, but it really seems too closely connected for this not to be a single discourse on the problem of moral failure. --Anthony Mohen 17:05, 21 January 2006 (EST)

 * Akrasia is often translated as incontinence or weakness of will, but I'm just a philosopher, not an Aristotle scholar. KSchutte 04:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I believe that Aristotle treats akrasia and incontinence differently. Akrasia is when someone can act morally but won't - this implies a weakness of will.  Will, in this context, is the ability to delay gratification.

In contrast, incontinence is when someone cannot act morally. If I used the word handicap to describe incontinence, it would have to be used very loosely and selectively but it is better than other words I know.Mike Fox 06:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slxpluvs (talk • contribs)

Eudamonia
Eudamonia is the crowning moral virtue. Akrasia is vice, along with reason, that balances the "intellectual virtue" of knowledge. Akrasia is like an opinion, but even more episodically based. For example, it is general knowledge that Santa Claus is bogus. If you are telling your 3-year old nephew about Santa and forget Santa is actually false, that is akrasic. Akrasia is the failure to connect long term, rational thoughts (morals) with short term, rational thoughts (intellect) AND the intellect winning out. Someone who has an akratic personality might be rational, but they would seem inconsistent in their conclusions. Mike 04:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slxpluvs (talk • contribs)

Wouldnt Akrasia make more sense if it was discussed in relation to the concept of Eudamonia... Its been a while, but im pretty sure that when someone lapsed from living a eudamonic life - this was akrasia... doing something that they know isnt a good decision in the long term, based on the fact that the short term gain is too tempting... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.218.32.92 (talk • contribs).

Translation needed
I've requested that the German article be translated to assist this page. 24.126.199.129 21:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation.
Is it a-KRAY-zee-ah or a-KRAH-see-ah or which? Does anyone have the IPA skills to add a proper pronunciation? says "akrásia", but that doesn't exactly help either. grendel|khan 02:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

 * There are two aspects to this question:
 * (1) Is it being pronounced as a Greek word?: then, following the example of the similar term abulia, which is pronounced something rather like ah-BOOO-leeer, it would be pronounced something like ah-KRASSS-eeeer.

 * (2) Is it being pronounced as an English word?
 * The question here being "Is it a foreign word?" (as in the case, for example, of application of the Latin word index, where the plural is indices (as in mathematical indices), whilst the English word index has the plural indexes (as in the indexes of books)).

 * And if it is not considered to be a "foreign word", but is now to be treated as if it is an English loan word taken from a Greek source, akrasia would be would be pronounced something rather like a-CRAZIER (using the a-BOOOL-YA model of the "English" word abulia).

 * Then, having resolved this issue, there would also be the question of whether it is to be pronounced in standard English, or pronounced according to US usage — my own feeling is that, in the senses to which the term is applied in this article, the term remains a Greek word.
 * However, nothing can be done about the pronunciation issue until the "Wiki position" on this word is determined. Lindsay658 06:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

 * The two pronunciations Grendelkahn gives are both commonly used; the OED gives both. If it were pronounced like the (ancient) Greek - and given English standards of pronouncing Greek - it would be pronounced like the second, a-KRAH-see-ah, since alpha is AH rather than AY (also not '-eeer' as Lindsay suggests, since ia (ee-ah) is not a diphthong). I would plump for the the former, which I think is more common. Dast 10:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The "a"s are all short. The "s" is unvoiced. Esedowns (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Removed "delayed gratification" comment
I removed the following invisible comment because it did not appear to refer to a nearby paragraph — at least, the phrase "delayed gratification" didn't appear elsewhere in the article.

If its author still believes that a paragraph needs removing, [gender-neutral pronoun] is free to do so, or to float the idea here first. $$\sim$$ Lenoxus " * " 20:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Richard Holton's view
I just fixed the section that talks about Richard Holton's view (the "Weakness of Will" section). His view is about weakness of will involves revising one's intentions, not judgments about what is best. Read his paper or check Stroud's SEP entry on weakness of will. There were also some other major errors in the "Weakness of Will" section that I went ahead and fixed. -- Jaymay (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Akrasia. 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 tag to http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/~rholton/Weakness.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031110153/http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/ to http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~wegner/

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) 04:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Psychology suggestion/question?
The psychology section of a article so vast as "lack of willpower" is such a stub, ideally someone could expand more topics onto this or define how limited this article ought to be... Averagepcuser (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Connection to ADHD?
Has there been any scholarship on the relationship between this and ADHD? Many of the symptoms overlap. Marc Mywords (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Akrasia


text:
USD (disambiguation)

USD is an abbreviation for the United States dollar, the official currency of the United States.

USD may also refer to:
 * Ultrasonic Silent Drive, Tamron lens designation
 * Under Secretary of Defense, United States
 * Unified school district
 * Unité spéciale de détention (USD), the French name of the Special Handling Unit (SHU) at the Regional Reception Centre, a Canadian prison
 * Sanata Dharma University (Universitas Sanata Dharma), Indonesia
 * University of San Diego, San Diego, California, United States
 * University of South Dakota, Vermillion, South Dakota, United States
 * Universal Scene Description, an open-source graphics framework by Pixar, and associated .usd file format
 * The Upside Down, Houdini's term for the Chinese Water Torture Cell
 * Upside-down motorcycle fork

title: USD (disambiguation)


text:
User talk:Gt1234~enwiki

Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to AutrijusTang. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked this account indefinitely. The vandalism commited was so vile and obnoxious that I don't think it can be called a newbie test. I think the account is an abusive sockpuppet. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Gt1234. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Gt1234~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gt1234~enwiki


text:
William Smith (South Carolina politician, born 1762)

William Smith (c. 1762 – June 26, 1840) was an American politician from the state of South Carolina. He served two terms as a Senator in the United States Senate, the first from 1816 to 1823 and the second from 1826 to 1831. During his life Smith was one of the most prominent political leaders in the state of South Carolina. He formed an intense rivalry with John C. Calhoun, arguing against Calhoun's nationalist views, and advocating for states' rights.

Early life and career
Smith was born c. 1762 in either North Carolina or York County, South Carolina. Not much is known about his early life outside of his education. He first attended a school named Bullock's Creek, where he befriended classmates Andrew Jackson and William H. Crawford. Then, he attended Mt. Zion College in Winnsboro, South Carolina, which was the first preparatory school in the region. He once stated to a friend stated that his life could be described as "wild, reckless, intemperate, rude and boisterous, yet resolute and determined." To that same friend he also credited all of his success to a promise he once made to his wife, Margaret Duff, to forego alcohol.

Smith's law career began on January 6, 1784 when he was admitted to the bar. In one notable case, his client who had been charged for killing a horse failed to appear before the court. Smith did not see the man for a number of years until he ran into him in the Hall of the House of Representatives. The man, known to Smith by the surname "Elchinor", now went by the name John Alexander and was a Representative for the state of Ohio. Smith ensured that Representative Alexander paid him for his previous services.

Political career
Smith became a member of the South Carolina Senate in the early 1800s and ended his career in that body as Senate President. In 1808 he became a judge. As a jurist his temperament was considered "tyranical but fair." Then In 1816, Smith was elected a United States Senator, after defeating Charles D. Pringle for the seat. Shortly after taking office, Smith began a political feud with John C. Calhoun which would last the duration of his political career in South Carolina.

The feud between Calhoun and Smith resided in their different political philosophies, when Smith joined the Senate, Calhoun was still a nationalist who believed in internal infrastructure improvements and a "broad construction" of the Constitution, two concepts which Smith found repugnant. In response to Calhoun's growing popularity, Smith formed a coalition of States' Rights allies which included Thomas Cooper, Stephen Decatur Miller, Josiah J. Evans, and David Rogerson Williams. The South Carolina nationalists led by Calhoun "favored a few national roads because of national military necessity", they repudiated small-scale local appropriations. But, to the Smith faction, even roads for purported military use would instead be used to bolster the economy of other states. This concept of South Carolina in competition with the nation for economic prosperity was common at the time in the South Carolina elite.

A member of the planter class, Smith owned several plantations and at least 71 slaves. Smith was one of the first Southerners to argue, at the time of the Missouri Compromise in 1820, that American slavery was a "positive good", arguing that the enslaved were "so domesticated, or so kindly treated by their masters, and their situations so improved" that few would express discontent with their condition. In 1828, seven electors from Georgia chose him for vice president, instead of Calhoun, the Democratic nominee. He was also a splinter candidate for vice president in 1836: Virginia refused to accept Richard Mentor Johnson as the Democratic vice presidential candidate, and voted for the ticket of Martin Van Buren and William Smith, putting Johnson one electoral vote short of a majority; the Senate went on to elect Johnson.

In 1832, he moved to Louisiana, having lost his political base in South Carolina. In 1836, he moved on to Huntsville, Alabama, and was elected to the Alabama House of Representatives for Madison County from August 1, 1836, holding that seat for the rest of his life.

On March 3, 1837, outgoing President Andrew Jackson nominated Smith to the Supreme Court. Five days later, the newly seated Senate of the 25th Congress confirmed Smith's nomination by a vote of 23–18. However, Smith declined the appointment and did not serve.


text: File:Those who tell the truth shall die.jpg


text:
Akenham

Akenham is a village and civil parish in the Mid Suffolk district of Suffolk in the East of England. Located on the north-western edge of Ipswich, in 2005 it had an estimated population of 60. At the 2011 Census the population remained less than 100 and was included in the civil parish of Whitton.

Archaeological finds
A number of archaeological items have been found in Akenham including metal fragments from the Bronze Age and Iron Age, a Saxon coin and Bronze disc.

Romano-British pottery has been unearthed in fields across the parish. A Middle Saxon gilded bronze pendant or brooch has also been found. A silver penny of the Saxon king Aethelred II was also found nearby as well as bronze fragments thought to represent the Bigod family.

Middle Ages
Its place name is derived the Old English for 'Ac(c)a's homestead or village'. It was known as Acheham in the Domesday Book which records the population in 1086 to be 50 households made up 48 freemen and 2 smallholders along with 12 acres of meadow, 2 cobs, 7 cattle, and 6 pigs.

19th and 20th centuries
In 1901 the population was 104, and the parish covered 1 016 acres.

The abandoned St Mary's church suffered bomb damage during World War II and is maintained by the organisation Friends of Friendless Churches. The church was the scene of one of the great ecclesiastical scandals of the 19th century, which occupied the national press for a year or more, which reached the high court, and which ultimately led to the Burial Laws Amendment Act 1880.

Notable buildings
Rise Hall near the church is a late Georgian building on the site of an ancient manor house, formerly the residence of the Le Ruse or Rous family in the 13th century. To the south of Rise Hall here is a small moated site with a central island 14.0m across and 0.3m high. The ditch is water-filled on the W side and parts of the N and S sides; the remainder is merely marshy. There are traces of a causeway in the middle of the E side. On the lower W side there are small fragments of a probable retaining wall for the moat. The site lies just S of Rise Hall and it is likely that this moat accommodated a timber-framed dovecote. This could be a precursor site for Rise Hall. A moat might protect the dovecot from poachers but would be expensive to build and maintain. On the other hand, reusing an existing moat would make sense. The mound is small and there is no attached bailey, Rise Hall being about 50m to the north, in an oval enclosure partly defined by ponds. Mottes slightly separate from baileys do occasionally occur but make no sense as defensive features.

Akenham Hall is an 18th-century former manor house with a Gothic facade.

A pair of 6th-century cruciform brooches were found ante 1911 at Akenham Hall, which possibly indicates an inhumation site.

There are a few small businesses operating out of former agricultural buildings, including Stealth Electronics, which specialises in security equipment, based at Akenham Hall Farm. Chives Montessori School is located in the parish. The school was established in 1989, and is a community school serving local needs.

Geography
The parish is bordered by the parish of Whitton to the south, Claydon to the west, Henley to the north and Westerfield to the east.

Culture
Reproduction First World War trenches at Trench Farm in Akenham are used by theatre and re-enactment groups, and have featured in Downton Abbey and Journey's End.

title: Akenham


text:
Talk:Jack Tripper

Character Age
The info panel about the character of Jack Tripper has his age at 34 years old. If we could step into the fictional realm here: Jack Tripper (Not John Ritter) was 34 when he moved in with Janet and Chrissy which would put his date of birth at year 1943, yet the panel has his date of birth in 1951. Could anyone advise on this? --SaturdayNightSpecial (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning somewhere
That, in one of Ritter's later roles, as Paul Hennessey in 8 simple rules, he has a nightmare where the entire premise is basically a rip-off of Ritter's character here? I'm just not sure what page is most appropriate (here, the John Ritter page, or the 8 simple rules page.) Gurkha 00:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

boxer
Also that Jack was a fair boxer and boxed in the Navy. This was used a few times in the series. --24.7.204.182 08:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I just had a question that I was hoping someone might be able to answer. On this page, it shows that Jack Tripper appeared in 171 episodes of the show. Three's Company had a total of 172 episodes. I was wondering if anyone knew what episode Jack did not appear in. I just can't seem to figure it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stallion15 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He appeared in all episodes, not sure why there is that discrepancy here. Maybe it has something to do with episodes that are broken into two halves in re-runs, or episodes of The Ropers aired in reruns?TrevorLSciAct (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jack Tripper


text: User:Xiphon/South Africa

title: User:Xiphon/South Africa


text:
Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. 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/20090117061420/http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020412-1.html to http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020412-1.html

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) 07:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-NPOV article.
This article is very bad. It reads like it is from the lips of the american 'state department' than a website that aims towards a neutral point of view. It really seems deep within this article. I would like advice to how to go about fixing this article.

Thanks. x. SP00KY  talk  15:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Some examples, all in Wikipedia's voice:
 * Chávez used a strategy of polarization in Venezuela, a them against us situation, in order to single out those who stood in the way of his progress. He would insult and use name calling against original supporters that would question him; the media, business leaders, the Catholic Church and the middle class.
 * Chávez fired ... members of the PDVSA board of directors on his Aló Presidente program, mocking each worker by name and used a referee whistle, as if to expel them from a soccer match
 * There is no consensus as to who was responsible for the deaths on that day, and this remains a very controversial issue (see MOS:CONTROVERSIAL)
 * ... media owners down to reporters feeling threatened with Chávez even calling out individual journalists by name in speeches
 * A quick improvement would be to attribute all claims in prose: "According to Carroll Rory, Chávez used a strategy ..."However, I agree that fundamentally more non-American sources need to be used. Whether true or not (I don't know), it is concerning that we are referencing claims like Cabello [stated] the media would be "responsible for the blood that will be shed" to the United States Department of State. Given the U.S. state's lengthy history of invasions, coups and economic and military intervention in Latin America, it is clear that sources from the U.S. Department of State have limitations and issues of provenance.American media and individual American experts can differ, of course, from the U.S. government's conflicts of interests, but it seems to me that the article represents a limited range of views. I've added a Systemic bias tag with the aim of drawing more edits to the article. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I will try to spend some time working on this article, i will go through the citations also to see what is being used and where claims are being sourced from. My worry is that if i put the time in to doing so that they will just get reverted, as these kinds of biases are seemingly systemic within the wikipedia project, so i appreciate another user adding the bias tag and so on and being in support. Cheers. :) SP00KY  talk  15:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know the feeling. You can never be guaranteed that your edits won't be reverted, but I agree that you've identified a problem with the article. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey. I noticed that ' The Miami Herald is used in this article a lot. And whilst often what it is saying is in quotes and so on, the paper seems to be a news service that essentially (on the quick research i just did) just an outlet for the most hawkish of american policy in south/central america. Even just to skim their headlines it is funny to see everyone who is not the most grovelling american ally or compradore state leaders in latam being pointedly referred to as 'dictator', and backing every regime change government, (ex: laughably even supporting the Áñez coup in Bolivia) and so on. I personally do not think this is a good newspaper to be used at all, but i realize it may be controversial to delete everything that is 'miami herald' in the article, do you have any suggestions as to how i should approach this.   SP00KY'  talk  22:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is generally a reliable source and is particularly esteemed in its number of Pulitzer Prizes. I think it is fine to use here and there—it's important to cover the views of American policy—but it doesn't seem like due weight for a regional paper, not even the largest in Florida, to be a dominant source in the article. Do they have investigative reporters in Venezuela? — Bilorv ( talk ) 06:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What various Venezuelan critical journalists have written is something I am yet to look in to. I am trying to immerse myself in the material a little in english, it is a long time since all this happened it feels like a lifetime ago! Currently I am trying to rely on investigative reporters instead of the kind of news reports this article replies heavily on, which is often not to be rude to them but lazy and/or reciprocatively-journalism. I am currently reading 'The Chávez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela - by Golinger, Eva' and Gregory Wilper t's 'Changing Venezuela by Taking Power: The History and Policies of the Chavez Government', both are by I believe internationally critically accepted journalists. I am still very suspicious of The Miami Herald having more of a look on how it reports against latam but also i have to admit my own strong general bias against american media here (although, both i linked are amerian, both worked extensively in Venezuela with Eva Golinger being Venezuelan-American), i agree to make their takes less dominant in the article and contextualize them with what other journalists are saying. It would be great if could get some input by others for fresh (to the article) sources, too. Cheers. :)  SP00KY  talk  16:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: I meant "do The Miami Herald have investigative reporters in Venezuela?", not "are there investigative reporters in Venezuela?", but you've answered that question.Claims from these books will need attribution in prose but are, I think, generally usable. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to point out that Golinger and Wilper are known supporters of Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution, which affects not only the neutrality of the sources but its reliability as well. Golinger being American and Wilper German, it won't help with the current issue of overrepresatation of English sources. I'd recommend El Acertijo de Abril by Alfredo Meza and Las balas de abril by Francisco Olivares as books to start with, and Margarita López Maya or Inés Quintero as scholars. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you expand a bit on how it affects reliability? Neutrality, yes, which is why I recommended attribution in prose. But every source has a provenance. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayal, I've been meaning to respond. To put as an example, there are many issues with Wilper's work, but focusing on the main topic here, the most important one is that Wilper states as a fact that the coup was planned beforehand, which is something that has been debunked by journalists that covered the events and as been repeated several times by the Chávez government. The latter point brings up also another important issue, which is that Wilper uses government sources several times, and which in turn also brings up the question of independence.
 * At the same time, omission also affects reliability. Explaining the coup, Wilper ignores many important factors that led up to it, such as the dismissal of the PDVSA board of directors with a referee whistle, on national television, the activation of Plan Ávila, and that Chávez would later admit that he deliberately provoked a crisis. Most of the issues that I have mentioned here also happen with Golinger's work. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. I am aware of the positions of the authors. This choice in reading was intentional on my part, as i already have a pretty good idea of what the narrative from the 'other side of the isle' is (as it is over-represented in the sources of this article), and @BilorvBiorv has already made clear as to how anything from said authors should be added. I do not think it is a good reason to not use them, the issue is how sources are used. which i think we all here are mature enough to understand and use responsibly. I will put the other books on my list and I appreciate the recs a lot, Thank You @NoonIcarus. :) SP00KY  talk  22:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Two wrongs don't make a right, though. If you're aware that there's a side that has a significant bias, which is common with controversial topics, this should allow you to recognize authors that discuss the issues independently, taking the arguments from both sides. I heartily hope that you enjoy these readings. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The article's title is not NPOV
On April 11th, 2002, there was NOT an attempt to do a coup d'état in Venezuela. What transpired was a peaceful march to the presidential palace, which was met with gunfire and as a result, president Chávez resigned. That is NOT a coup d'état. However, when Chávez was reinstated on April 13th by a military action led by general Baduel, THAT is something that can rightly be called a coup d'état. In summary, the article's name should be changed, e.g. to "The events of April 11, 2002, in Venezuela" 104.61.71.9 (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits... with more to go(?)
As stated in my edit summaries, I've made some structural changes to make things clearer and added some content from existing sources. There's probably more to go, both because, 1. the article's content seems lacking on the subject of advanced planning of the coup given that topic's importance, and 2. I pulled some info from the "US alleged role" section to place it earlier in the article, so I'll get to that to avoid redundancy. That whole section should just really be limited to things that after the coup, since it is the "Aftermath" section, after all. For ex., I'm under the impression Chavez sort of tried to weaponize the idea that the U.S. was behind the coup later on for political purposes, so that's the kind of thing that could go there.

I also think the sections on the 11 April march should be moved into the overall "Coup" section given that's when it all got rolling. There's also some redundancy in content regarding the bridge shootings that would be more easily dealt with. Thoughts? Mbinebri (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Your gut feeling is right. Chávez and his early communication system pushed forward as much as possible of the involvement of the media, the United States and opponents in the coup to act against them. Care should be taken to distinguish preexisting tension with the coup itself, which was precipitated with the deaths in the Llaguno Overpass. I have made some initial changes to reflect this. I also support an expansion in the Aftermath section for these reasons. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree a bit. The opposition narrative has always been that the coup was a spontaneous event after the overpass violence, but sources make it pretty clear the coup was being planned in advance—participants openly admit this and the CIA report really hammers it in by calling out in advance exactly what went on to happen.  So it's not really just an instance of rising tension, and then a coup just kind of happened.  I already think the article pushes this narrative too much via undue weight.  I returned the info on who the plotters were and that they were openly plotting to the lead.  They're critical points for NPOV balance and I don't think it was correct to remove it based on the source being a primary source (which I don't think documentaries are).  Mbinebri (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It really depends on which events you are focusing on. While there was a willingness to remove Chávez from power (including by peaceful means, as the whole purpose of the 11 April march was to ask for Chávez resignation), many others happened over the course in those days. Chavismo usually argues that the pronunciamiento by the military high command was planned or recorded beforehand, but the journalists present dismiss this version, and the Carmona Decree that dissolved much of the Chávez era institutions was drafted the day after Chávez was removed. While documentaries may not be described as primary sources, but interviews definitely are, so I would like to ask which part is quoted that supports the added statements, specially given that the other two sources cannot be accessed. At any rate, at just a 9 minutes length, I don't think the Aljazeera video can be considered a documentary as much as a video report. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I also forgot to mention the participants: the fact that the military was divided and a part of it planned Chávez removal does not mean that businesses, unions, church leaders or other social actors were part of these plans. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's see how brief I can keep this... probably not very!

 * In your recent edits, you removed info again, claiming failed verification because you couldn't access the two cited articles. I think this was inappropriate, as WP:SOURCEACCESS states that verifiability does not require cited sources to be available online.  You also question what "openly plotting" even means, which kind of surprises me, but the Miami Herald—one of these cited articles—perhaps clears that up later in the article: "The rumors of a coup to oust Chávez", noted The Miami Herald, "were being whispered, if not shouted, for months before the revolt."  The coup wasn't a secret.  As for the Al Jazeera video, I would call it a secondary source.  The issue with a straight-up interview being used on Wikipedia is that there's no editorial oversight.  People can just blurt whatever they want!  In a documentary/report/whatever, the filmmakers have discretion to pick and choose what clips of an interview they conducted to then include in the film, which seems like the equivalent of editorial oversight to me.

 * That all said, this is probably irrelevant anyway. I wanted to make a good faith effort to address your concerns, so I reworded the content to omit the "openly plotted" language and swapped the three refs for a very-much verifiable book already being used as a citation.  I also added some more info from the book to note the country's increasing polarization.  Mbinebri (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Thank you kindly for your last changes, I think there are definitely an improvement in reflecting the overall situation, particularly with the mention of the frequent demonstrations that took place before the coup. Please let me know if likewise any of my edits are objectionable. Regarding my question of "openly plotting", I did not mean to ask specifically for its meaning, but rather for more details, and how it was taken place in theory. By saying that these leaders declared that the reportedly had support, it is specific.

 * I found this document that is apparently the conclusions of the National Assembly fact finding comission, that specifically mention Articles 68 and 332 of the constitution has reportedly being violated, although these are more related to the right of assembly and demonstration. I can also see Article 328 quoted, which states that the Armed Forces must be impartial and without a political affiliation.

 * Would you like me to help with any other aspect? I would love to continue giving a hand in any other way I can. Best regards --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Note: In a recent edit, I tried to clarify—while removing some redundancy—in what sense Plan Avila was unconstitutional and all I could find was Nelson's own website explaining it's an issue of a National Guard vs Army kind of thing. I accidentally lost the link but included the content anyway with a "citation needed" since it seems important.  I'd search my history for the link again but it's a self-published source anyway and we should try for something secondary.  Anyone got one?  Mbinebri (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Terrible article
As have pointed out in previous discussions, this article is very biased and heavily based on one source; Nelson. Nelson is the only source listed in the bibliography and is used in Wikivoice about 60 times. Nelson actually received US government funding to write Silence and the Scorpion through the Fulbright Program of the United States Cultural Exchange Programs. He is also not a political or historical professional, he is a creative writer specialized in fiction that was formerly a stockbroker and automotive systems engineer. He does have a bachelor's degree in international relations, but that wasn't his main "focus" (he admits that he could not focus on what he wanted to do with his life at the time). So we have a creative writer of fiction with no former professional history related to the topic funded by the US being sent to Venezuela in 2002 to write about the coup attempt... Nelson is not someone who should be contributing nearly as much information to the article as they are.

We also have dozens of citations from the United States Department of State. While I'm not going to put on tinfoil hat here, it is obvious why they should not be cited for any controversial information. As for anything non-controversial, that information should be provided by a more reliable third party source.

Regarding, your edits are confusing since you defend your removal of material in some articles, yet you oppose similar edits that involve the deletion of material by other users. For example at Venezuelan opposition, Venezuelan presidential crisis and Operation Gideon (2020), you defended the removal of information that was provided by a single source, justifying the removal as "undue" or something similar. You also removed information from three scholars, saying that it was "opinion." So, why should we be accepting the "opinion" of former engineer and stockbroker Nelson (who is not a subject-matter expert per WP:SELFPUB as he did not have "work in the relevant field [that] has previously been published by reliable, independent publications") while you attempt to erase information from scholars? Your WP:SOFIXIT claims are not valid since according to WP:ONUS "responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content".

Overall, much of this article is POV and heavily sourced from Nelson. We need some more sources and verification to support many of the bold claims. WMrapids (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

 * All of this is a huge ad-hominem argument, failing to address the substance of the problems with the sentences and arguing points as far-fetched that Nelson was funded by the United States government because he received a public scholarship.

 * if the problem is using an editorial voice, then use attribution (which at any rate you apparently have done already). If there is any reason why the stated facts should be questioned, say why. Don't say vaguely that we should doubt all of said sourced statements just because it is a specific author.

 * The difference with the edits you're referring to is that Nelson has been cited in this article for over eight years now, I have not been the editor to include him. The content that you have added, on the other hand, have been cherrypicked references mostly to support opinions or analyses, contrary to facts. Don't repeat these cleanups just blindly to "justify that you're right". --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not an ad hominem, this is analyzing a source who has contributed to the majority of this article. Nelson studied fictional writing and we are supposed to take his word for the majority of this article? You say, "if the problem is using an editorial voice, then use attribution", ignoring that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, especially when it is as undue as having sixty claims made by Nelson that were presented in Wikivoice. We could use more sources to support what Nelson is claiming.
 * You seem to be justifying the inappropriate use of WP:STABLE again, which I have already told you can lead to a block. Just because the information was present for so long does not mean it is not undue or possibly inaccurate. already raised concerns that there were too many citations from the US State Department. You seem to have countered Burrobert's edits with the inappropriate "stable version" argument too. In addition, you inappropriately removed Bart Jones and other sources, citing the essay you mainly crafted, WP:VENRS. WMrapids (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not analyzing the source, you're describing and criticizing the author. You remain to explain why statements should be questioned, including those that seem pretty much matter-of-factly:
 * In 2000, the pro-Chávez National Assembly granted President Chávez emergency powers and the ability to rule by decree through an enabling act to tend to the poor state of the economy.
 * On 13 November 2001, Chávez passed a package of 49 laws, using the enabling act which was set to expire the following day such as rearranging public ministries while also changing major laws in the government, oil businesses and land usage without approval of the National Assembly.
 * National Assembly Deputy Juan Barreto told loyalists through the media covering the situation, "The call is to Miraflores! Everyone to Miraflores to defend your revolution! Don't let them through!"
 * By 12:30 pm, thousands of government supporters were gathered around the palace blocking all routes to Miraflores except for the Llaguno Overpass, which was where the Bolivarian Circles had gathered to overlook the route.
 * Pro-opposition police and chavistas entered a gun battle and few demonstrators began to follow behind them with pings of gunfire heard on the police armored vehicles, though the marchers fled shortly after as the violence grew.
 * --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Things that may seem "matter of fact" to you (you've been active on English Wikipedia since the 2014 Venezuelan protests), but readers and the project overall need to have additional sources provided for accuracy and verifiability. WMrapids (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, please focus on the question at hand: Why are you questioning the statements veracity? Why do you believe additional sources are needed?
 * Is there a reason to believe that this information is wrong? Or are you only concerned on reliance on a single sources? Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And while simply skimming through the talk page so far and opening the conclusions of the National Assembly's fact finding commission (that I provided above), literally the first section states clearly that Chávez did activate the Plan Ávila, and that Manuel Rosendo opposed this. I have already replaced one of the State Department's sources, but most of the statements are uncontroversial. This is just but one example of why WP:SOFIXIT applies here and this tagging, without any substance analysis, is disruptive. . --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a better source? The link you shared appears to be from an opposition activist website. Also, we would need a secondary source for such information. WMrapids (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right, the question is though. What do we do about it?
 * I feel some guilt at doing nothing i said i would for this article but as well as a lot of things happening in my personal life as well as the usual thoughts and feelings around such articles that any changes towards neutrality will be an uphill battle with the so called people who inhabit this space like it is every time NPOV clashes with american foreign policy interests and worldviews, all stresses that make it more often than not simply - to me at least, i am sure to others too though - not worth attempting.
 * So yes, HOW do we improve this article? How do we account for and work around the kind of disingenuous editing and reverts and arguments that will come along with it? SP00KY  talk  17:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Your reply is greatly appreciated. Achieving neutrality, especially in controversial articles like this one, is vital for Wikipedia and it requires the participation of every user involved. While the edits, reversions and discussions can be tiresome, it is important because through this struggle, agreements can be made. The important thing with such editing is not to take anything personal; this includes the edits/reverts of other users and also your own interpretation on being responsible for Wikipedia content.
 * Now regarding improvements, the main improvements we can make is having additional sources and a variety of viewpoints present with proper weight provided. This is an issue with Nelson in this current article; we have a fictional creative writer who was provided a grant from the United States to write about the 2002 coup events. Again, not promoting some crackpot conspiracy about Nelson being a CIA operative or the like, but that if we can have a larger variety of sources, then more details and less doubts of reliability come into play.
 * In addition, the lack of source variety plagues multiple Venezuelan articles where the views of the government are completely wiped from existence. I get it, government propaganda exists, but this makes Venezuelan articles written from the POV of the Venezuelan opposition, especially when there are users editing articles that were apparently involved in the protests themselves.
 * , I also didn't want to get involved in such topics either since I was immediately barraged with reverts and threats of blocks, but I saw a need and had to fill it. Overall, we need more participation on Venezuelan articles because they are very controversial and have some fairly blatant POV issues. If we have a larger amount of viewpoints present, the trajectory of varying views will point articles in a more NPOV direction instead of a few bold editors hammering away with arguments. WMrapids (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 * SP00KY listed their specific concerns with the article (some of which I believe were addressed) but you haven't. Unless there's a discussion about substance, there probably will be little progress. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have listed my concerns but you are not listening. The majority of this article was written by Nelson, a fiction writer who had little professional background on the subject. In addition, you have consistently removed information provided by other topic experts without explanation, creating issues with balance. WMrapids (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are far more optimistic than I.
 * I have followed closely enough to be confident to make edits about even things I think I know and do not have the time to do the reading in a larger sense. I find it very hard to see a lot of stuff in good faith... Maybe i am more 'tinfoil hat' than you guys but I tend to think that organizations rather than actual people direct the tenor of these kind of articles.. I have never once ever in my life met anyone who with a straight face cite US State Department sources on any such event as Article, that whole concept does not seem believable..
 * A large part of me thinks it is imply easier to not engage than have to do the self-defeating routine of engaging sincerely with someone you are certain is not in good faith and the inevitable repercussions of that (,and I think it's very clear who administrators preference on this website..). Having stated my extreme pessimism and or dejection I very much would still like to make an attempt, although I think a rule for myself I have made is that I would rather accept be reverted than having to have conversations with editors I have no faith in and as per my lack of at all lengthily knowledge. SP00KY  talk  23:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

It's true the article heavily uses Brian A Nelson, but in this congested talk page I can't really see any issues raised with him apart from that he was a Fulbright Scholar (not normally used as evidence of being a poor source) and that he used to be a stockbroker. He wrote the Britannica article on Chavez, and seems to have some relevant academic publications. His book has a decent number of citations. Are there scholarly or journalistic critiques of his take that you can point us to WMrapids? BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turner Disputes

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Turner Disputes
vague conspiracy theory of little substance Scott Davis Talk 09:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.    -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator. - Scott Davis Talk 09:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I've edited it a bit to make it a bit less vague, but its still scrappy and probably needs a proper do over. Problem is its a vague topic, but its still an important one . Daniel Quinlan 10:32, Oct 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverifiable. Ambi 13:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nonsense, hoax, unverifiable, non-notable, truly awful. Quale 19:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as all of the above plus incomprehensible due to total lack of context. Is this something from the real world, or a fictional universe? Did these events happen recently, or is this a historical article? I followed the links to learn that is this apparently has something to do with some town in Australia, and the Australian intellgence agency, but beyond that I'm scratching my head. MCB 01:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Snottygobble | Talk 02:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Absolutely no coherant information on the subject matter. Shame since it could be interesting after a structed rewrite. James Pinnell 02:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete no verification found elsewhere --DarbyAsh 09:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.