text:
Talk:Nature (journal)

nature as a "sex appeal" journal
In my experience in astronomy/physical cosmology, people publish a Letter in Nature when they have a neat result and feel like they need some publicity, but AFAIK nobody (in these fields) really takes Nature seriously for proper research articles. The small size of the Letter format means that a lot of work goes in to compressing the paper, and people who disagree or are sceptical about something don't have access to the full calculations and discussions. Maybe in biology Nature is taken more serioiusly, but not in astro/cosmo. Of course, it's still good for your cv, so people still send articles there, and unfortunately, mainstream media access is still important for getting jobs etc or sometimes even for persuading colleagues that your work is useful - as the wikipedia articles states. So Nature will still hang around for some time yet... Boud 12:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, this comment/opinion is totally outdated. Any backing? Zero. Closing, because we're in 2021 now.✅

NATURE THE JOURNAL THE REALITY TODAY ''' Nature had the reputation of being the finest and relatively impartial journal. The one of its kind if not perfect yet great. Lately unfortunately Nature (due to political reasons) has started to publish mediocre and mainly technical data from Mainland China. Besides it is no secret that China, Israel and the Jewish lobby are are strong and open allies. Most Israeli institutes such as Weizmann, Technion, etc. have branches in China directing the Chinese. Recently Prof. Lieber of Harvard was starred for passing on sensitive data to China. Much earlier Bernard Schwartz of Loral of California was investigated for passing on space technology. In fact Mr. Pompeo warned Israel not to transfer U.S. technology to China.'''   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.9.67 (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia
BBC NEWS: 10. Wikipedia, the free online encyclopaedia that is compiled and updated by volunteers and has frequently had its accuracy called into question, is about as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica, according to a study by Nature. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4520854.stm)

'''NATURE AS OF NOW It was surely undoubtedly the top most journal on this planet. But is losing its shine. Has started to publish technical mediocre data from China quite routinely. Also as is well established that China is a strong ally of the Jewish lobby. Most Israeli institutes have branches in China and Israeli scientists are directing Chinese scientists. Moreover, recently Prof. Lieber of Harvard was arrested for giving sensitive data to China.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1500:FEE:C91D:2DDD:D6F5:8BC (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

What about that? --Zhengfu 12:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Here's an update. Turns out the Nature information was fabricated.
 * That claim was made by people with a financial interest in denigrating the results and was rejected by Nature. --CalJW 11:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What a load of crap CalJW. Nature made a claim against a company and they defended themselves.  The fact is, they didn't "claim" that Nature had done wrong, they provided a huge amount of evidence to back their assertion that Nature had come up with a load of crap.  Nature fabricated some evidence (the fact that the owners of Britannica pointed this out doesn't make that any less true, no matter how much they earn from the company), accused Britannica of being wrong about things it didn't even contain, claimed that the differing opinions of their chosen experts were proof of errors and inaccuracies - instead of what they were: just differing opinions - and refused to provide all of their data or even the identities of most of their "experts" (how scientific, and how typical of Nature given their history on peer reviewing and publishing dodgy reports).  Incidentally, if Britannic's opinion is invalid on this, then surely one could say "well of course Nature rejected this accusation; they have a financial interest in defending their work"!  Right?  There is more than enough evidence in this document that the Nature analysis is at best dodgy, at worst downright untrustworthy: http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/refute.pdf  Now I know what you want to say now, so I will pre-empt you: the location of this file is utterly irrelevant to its contents.  86.17.211.148 (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Operation "Brownbeard"
Come on, guys. We are allowed a lit bit of fun...

"Wikipedia has already responded with a blitzkrieg code-name "Operation Brownbeard" to correct all reported errors before old man Christmas neutralizes their numerically supperior and ultra-loyal army of encyclopedists. "Nature error" casualities will be counted, compiled, aggregated, folded, spindled and mutilated and then reported here with all deliberate speed. Not since the advent of the Napoleonic code has the civilized (see WP:CIV) seen an assault and disorder and ignorance of this magnitude.  Bots are already said to be rolling up the typographyical errors in army group "A to G" while army group "Q to Z" seems to have gotten bogged down in the massive area of "S". -- Fplay 16:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

 * That's complete unnecessary. --  Zanimum 12:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia article
I am going to remove the section (again). It has gotten silly. Nature is one of the oldest and most notable scholarly journals in existence. None of it's countless individual articles deserves a mention really at all, except for ones that were news events in their own right. This is nowhere near that, and it is clear self-indulgence and self-reference. Now not only is there an entire paragraph of the stuff (oozing with pride), it has apparently supplanted the article's intro...? This is completely unacceptable, and really quite silly. And there's no way this is a current event. It comes out with new articles every week. This isn't notable to the journal itself (self-reference aside) and is way POV. Dmcdevit·t 20:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it has no place here. Bartimaeus 21:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (Cross-posted to Fplay's talk page) Still not quite satisfied with having that notice at the top. The point is that this has no place in an article about Nature. It's in the Wikipedia article, and that's where it belongs. How is the fact that it reviewed wikipedia notable at all to it? Nature has a more than a century-long history of scientific breakthroughs published. This story, sadly, is not that. In fact, the article about analyzing the mammoth's DNA recently made big news, much bigger news than this. This is just any other article. It's mentioned in Wikipedia, good, but it has no place in Nature (journal). If some publication with an article here published a review of EB (as I'm sure loads have), would you mention it in that publication's article? No way. What it amounts to is shameless self-promotion. Dmcdevit·t 09:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the notice. It has no place there, and putting it in a "selfref" tag doesn't help. Putting that link at the top of the article on Nature does not improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Instead it degrades it, by making it appear self-absorbed and more interested in touting its own merits than in recording knowledge in a fair and unbiased manner. It's much like the NPOV policy. Articles must be written in a neutral, unbiased tone not just to avoid argument, but because that is the style in which encyclopedias are written. Putting a a note like that at the top of the article on Nature gives the article a tone that is inappropriate for a serious encyclopedia.--Srleffler 00:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, sure, fine. My whole motivation was driven by an early vesion of the template that only pointed to "Nature (journal)".  It got updated to ponit to the appropriate Wikipedia: page (although I still find it a little hard to read and recognize the link) so now the any reader of the 38 marked articles-with-errors has somewhere to go to find out what is going on. -- Fplay 01:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed 12/20:
 * Recently it has been reported (Internet encyclopaedias go head to head) by a Nature investigation that Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries.

This is good text, but unfortunately still violates the guideline to avoid self-references. A good encyclopedia does not blow its own horn, and as others have pointed out this article is not significant to the journal Nature''. --Srleffler 07:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's an update. Turns out the Nature information was fabricated.
 * Turns out your update is from Andrew Orlowski of the Register, a regular Wikipedia basher (this isn't an exaggeration). I would suggest bypassing his crap and read Britannica's actual report. Also, Nature has already written a response to Britannica's report. Both are worth reading. — 0918 BRIAN • 2006-03-24 06:08

Important third party input
User friendly has weighed in on Nature vs. Encyclopedia Brittanica here. (Warning, sense of humor needed.) -- llywrch 15:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Hi, it's 2021... sense of humor changed. Insert on user friendliness again in real if you wish. Otherwise calling this done.✅

Incorrect articles
Just a comment - the section Famous Nature papers that were fraudulent or incorrect referring to the physicist Jan Hendrik Schön implies that hisis the only major work to be retracted from nature.

While this was a major scandal, Nature does in fact retract many papers; it seems like the RNAi field in particular is rife with either fraudulent results or those that cannot be replicated. Dr Aaron 14:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

weekly / fortnightly?
Would be great if someone could add the periodicity of publication to the box in the right hand side of the top of the page, indeed to all articles about magazines
 * Hi, no signature, no date. Reviewing this as done. You can do it if still missing.✅

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
I'm changing PNAS to Proceedings of the Royal Society, since PNAS in US, and PRS is UK and more relevant to Nature. Science (journal) will remain, since it is probably Nature's major competitor. If there are any objections, note them, but I'll have changed it before I can read them.--Superluser 03:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that PNAS is a better choice, because a) it has a much higher impact factor (in the same league as Nature and considerably above PRSoc, although admittedly way below Nat and Sci); b) PRSoc is *not* pan disciplinary- it is actually two journals, A and B, which specialise in the physical and life sciences respectively. PNAS is a single journal that covers the full gamut of physical and life sciences, and some mathematics and social sciences as well. However, it's certainly not a big deal either way. Badgerpatrol 10:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * However, it's certainly not a big deal either way. Agreed.  You've got some good reasons for your view.  I happen to still disagree and think that it would be better to have a UK publication there, but I'm not going to get into a revert war over this.  If someone else has a strong opinion, I'm willing to listen, but either way is fine, in my opinion.  It's just that my fine way is better.--Superluser 03:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nature is not a UK journal. It is an international journal, published in the UK. Of this week's articles and letters, only 2 out of the 14 were by UK-based first authors. The news stories have a similarly international flavour.I certainly would not support altering this article for purely nationalistic reasons. PRSoc A and B, eminent though though they are, are not in the same class as Nature impact-wise (PNAS pretty much is, or at least up there anyway) and PRSoc is not in the same format as Nature either (PRSoc is not a single, pan-discipline journal). I'm glad we can agree to disagree however. All the best, Badgerpatrol 09:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Article comments
Not a review, per se, just a few comments re. your GA effort.

Firstly to say that this is an excellent article and on the whole a pleasure to read - I've always struggled to think of anything to write for articles about journals!

However, there are a few improvements that I imagine a GA reviewer might suggest to be made before they passed it.

 * Firstly, you may consider having a look at WP:LEDE for guidelines on the introductory paragraphs. I think some of this content could be moved to the main article.

 * I also wonder whether "nature podcast" has enough content to merit a page of its own. It's customary to include a short description under a "see also" link so the reader has an idea why they want follow the link; in this case, the description would be a similar length to the article. I'd propose merging the podcast into the main article.

 * Lists: e.g. Landmark papers, nature family: See WP:LIST. These need incorporating into the article or removing, as they are not encyclopaedic content.

 * Consider merging the Notes and References sections.

 * Keep focussed - there's perhaps too much text regarding other journals around during the early days of Nature. Remember this is an article about Nature; a list of other publications is not overly informative on this subject; statements such as "Nature was similar to many other journals around at the time, but was the only one to last more than 20 years" (although obviously better written) would probably suffice.
 * There's probably more grounds for including a mention of notable editors, certainly Gregory - but a reader is not getting much out of reading just the names and timeframes of editors.

 * Important events: reads a lot like a list: could be a lot more concise. For example, you could replace other branches opened in New York, Tokyo, Munich, Paris, San Francisco, and Boston in 1985, 1987, 1987, 1989, 2001, and 2004, respectively with other branches opened worldwide from 1985 or some such.

 * Context: The average reader won't understand what an impact factor of 29 is. Perhaps a sentence to explain an put the magnitude of the number into context, to avoid forcing the user to click the blue link, would be of benefit.

 * Brackets - try to avoid, replacement with commas ought to work.

 * Peer review: Avoid over-abundant section headings. Incorporate into "Publishing in nature"?

 * Links - avoid duplicating the content of the infobox.

Verisimilus  T  09:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Wow! Thanks for the detailed feedback, that will help loads in improving this article!  I'm unclear on two points however.  Per WP:EL I believe that it's appropriate to link to an official Web site in the infobox and in external links.  In fact, a quick survey of articles, including Wednesday's FA Slayer shows that linking in both places is standard practice.  Secondly, per WP:EMBED, lists within an article are not always unencyclopedic and in fact sometimes encouraged.  I would argue that this is the case with both Nature Family and landmark papers.  It would make little sense to remove links to the other Nature publications and it would similarly make little sense to rewrite this as prose.  Per WP:EMBED this is dealt with appropriately.  The other points, however, are excellent and I will work to incorporate that guidance. --JayHenry 04:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

More comments
GB 12:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) How, then, was Nature able to outlast other scientific journals created at the same time in England and become arguably one of the most prestigious scientific journals in modern society? sounds more like an essay than an encyclopedia.
 * 2) (along with other weekly journals such as Science and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) interrupts the flow of the sentence—it would be better in a separate sentence.
 * 3) created in 1869 is mentioned several times, perhaps more than necessary.
 * 4) Perhaps it was in part its scientific liberality that made Nature a longer-lasting success than its predecessors. sounds like a point of view or original research, so should have a citation to support it.
 * 5) There was some talk about free online publication, Nature does publish some material freely online, and don't some or all of the old articles appear free of charge? They also have email alerts, and news updates.
 * 6) There could be some mention of who the audience and readership is, and the wide availablility in libraries, and what the circulation figures are. There could be some talk about the contents or how the magazine is organised.  Has it always been published weekly?  How many pages are typical, and what size is it?  Are any special technologies used to produce or print it?
 * 7) The images are either fair use or public domain.

 * Very good points, GB, especially about those essayish sentences. I'm very busy today, but I plan on addressing these concerns tonight (and the remaining concerns from Verisimilus), so please don't fail the GA yet because I think that after I've made a handful of adjustments this will be in really good shape. --JayHenry 15:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

 * technical point-- see WP:CITE for the way to unify some of the references. DGG (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sea Serpents
So, when I read this article, I was expecting to read something about nature's tendency to indulge "sea serpents", ie: people who were quite into comparing the electromagnetic waves felt on earth to, say, occasions of spontaneous human combustion. I was under the opinion that it was that kind of "science mag". Am I just totally mislead on this issue, or is there a massive gap in the entry about Nature? I would love to hear from you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.215.135 (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 * What are you talking about, now? Nature is not a "science mag", it's one of the top peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NatureCover2001.jpg
Image:NatureCover2001.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Web site launched in 1996, not 1997
As stated here  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ark25 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, still a problem? If, fix it. Otherwise reviewing this comment and setting to done. ✅

Page number
The article does not mention the continuous page number sequence across issues. Anwar (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Page editors, please fix a wrong claim
Introduction makes a statement "Although most scientific journals are now highly specialized, Nature is one of the few journals, along with other weekly journals such as Science and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that still publishes original research articles across a wide range of scientific fields." , which is incorrect because Nature nowadays is not one journal covering a wide area, but an umbrella group of highly specialized, quasi-independent journals (at least that what their editors openly claim). Best regards.NIMSoffice (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

 * First let me express an opinion: I am delighted that NIMS is contributing to Wikipedia. The contributions of such institutes will surely help to improve Wikipedia's standing in the academic world.
 * To address the above request to fix a wrong claim, I would say two things:

 * 1) Anyone can edit the article. If you disagree with a statement and can produce verifiable references to back up your view, by all means correct the article yourself.
 * 2) While it is certainly correct that Nature has created what it refers to as a "family" of journals (in addition to the Nature journal, their website refers to "Nature research journals", "Nature Protocols", "Nature Reviews journals" and "Nature Clinical Practice journals") Nature itself still claims that it publishes a wide range of articles in the fields of science and technology.

 * In other words, the article is not necessarily incorrect but perhaps needs to be expanded to mention the other journals in the Nature "family". --TraceyR (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Suppport to eugenics for many decades
From 1870 decade, until 1940 decade, this American magazine was a main supporter of eugenics.On September, 1939, this American magazine published the so called Eugenics manifesto.This manifesto can be read in this site: [Eugenics manifesto].Agre22 (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

Other Nature journals
The section on the other journals published by the NPG would seem to be out of place here and better at its place in the article on NPG. Any objections to a move of that content? --Crusio (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, looks done to me... ✅

Distinction between the journal and a magazine of the same name
As can be seen here at Google Books and here at WorldCat, from the 1920s to the 1950s there used to be a Nature Magazine targeted at a general audience and published out of Baltimore by the American Nature Association. According to this reference at Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Natural History (magazine) "absorbed" Nature Magazine in January 1960.

I am about to add a WP:hatnote to draw attention to this, and have wikified a small number of references to the American Nature Association. 72.244.204.123 (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention that this link provided some context to me about this topic. 72.244.204.123 (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I assembled this information into a stubby article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Nature Association, though I am far from certain I was able to establish the result was notable enough. 72.244.204.123 (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Finance and organisation
There are several interesting figures in this statement to the Select Committee on Science and Technology:. Obviously, some figures are equivocally phrased to inflate the number, but it is an interesting spit down of costs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.144.13 (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Landmark papers - difficult to read
I think all the citation in the landmar papers section makes it difficult to read. especially doi numbers are not necessary at all. why not add citations as classical wiki citations? --ArazZeynili (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Rejection of paper by Fermi
In The Last Man Who Knew Everything (Basic Books, 2017) David N. Schwartz writes “Segrè reports that soon after this holiday Fermi presented the paper to the British journal Nature, because the group at Via Panisperna had decided, following the rise of Hitler in Germany, to boycott German publications even though they remained the most prestigious in the field. According to Segrè, Nature rejected the paper, a reviewer claiming that it was too “speculative.” In response, Fermi sent the paper to the Italian journal Nuovo Cimento and the German Zeitschrift für Physik, both of which published it. This story is so central to the legend of the paper that Wikipedia reports Nature later publicly regretted having rejected it as one of its most egregious editorial errors. In fact, no such public statement of regret can be found in any back issues of Nature. It is unfortunately impossible to review Nature’s archives to find the rejection letter written by the reviewer, because all records were destroyed in a move to new offices several decades ago. Some historians question the entire story. They observe that at that time Nature accepted only short notes on these types of subjects and was certainly not a forum for a detailed presentation of new quantum field theories. A more logical British publication would have been the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, which had published all of Dirac’s seminal papers on QED and would have been a logical place for Fermi to submit the beta decay paper. These historians suggest that he may have wanted his German counterparts, particularly people like Born, Heisenberg, and of course Pauli himself, to read the paper first. A white lie—that he had tried but failed to get it published by Nature—would get him off the hook with his young colleagues who were so opposed to publishing anything in German journals and still achieve his main objective.“ If the author is correct, it might be necessary to remove mention of this “error” from the Controversies section. At the very least, perhaps a qualification? EighteenFiftyNine (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nature (journal). 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/20061115084545/http://npg.nature.com/npg/servlet/Content?data=xml%2F02_history.xml&style=xml%2F02_history.xsl to http://npg.nature.com/npg/servlet/Content?data=xml%2F02_history.xml&style=xml%2F02_history.xsl
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141202182430/http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-12/02/nature-publishing to https://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-12/02/nature-publishing

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) 17:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Nature (journal) still British?

 * Note: This conversation was moved from WP:RD/Science

Is it right to call Nature a British journal? It's owned by a German company (Holtzbrinck Publishing Group), and it's pretty international obviously. --Hofhof (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with dropping the nationality here. In an increasingly multinational world, such ties seem tenuous and arbitrary, and slightly chauvanistic. -- Jayron 32 04:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose such an unthinking move. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Just as an example: Vauxhall is regarded a british car manufacturer and Opel a german one, nomatter they actually build nearly identical car models and where 100% owned by General Motors, which is a big US car manufacturer. Recently the french Groupe PSA, formally called "PSA Peugeot Citroën" bought both, Vauxhall and Opel, from GM, so you could alike argue they where actually an american company and now are a french one, but they are still regarded british or german companies by everyone. --Kharon (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Main office, London. what do you think?  Abductive  (reasoning) 06:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The connection with Britain might be tenuous, but the connection of this question with the Science refdesk is so subtle as to be barely perceptible. Perhaps this should be discussed instead at talk:Nature (journal)?  And this whole conversation moved there? --Trovatore (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

"The journal Nature" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The journal Nature. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Ciriticism missing: NPOV
E.g. this censorship, pressure on the contributing scientists and opaque paid advertorial content: https://retractionwatch.com/2020/07/23/author-retracts-nature-commentary-over-concerns-about-sections-sponsorship/

-> let us add to mainspace that they sold out. (To China here.)

Zezen (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Wuhan
Hi, the text "The journal apologised for its initial coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic in which it linked China and Wuhan with the outbreak, which may have led to racist attacks." raises some flags. Firstly, citing https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3079293/coronavirus-nature-magazine-apologises-reports-linking-covid-19 and then fixing by Editorial publication https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01009-0 including strong words such as 'stigma'. Why is this a controversy? From other sources it seems that there exists a track record of complying China. Problems: Article 1 by SCMP doesn't cite the actual Nature article. Article 2 sub-headlines "A loss for all". No, the loss for all is, if we do not keep the origins of C19 open to the truth (further research), which we will see unfold over the next years. Feel free to discuss, but it seems rather as concordance than controversy.--𝔏92934923525 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nature (journal)


text:
Erich Goldmann

Erich Goldmann (born April 7, 1976) is a German former professional ice hockey defenceman. Goldmann was drafted by the Ottawa Senators in the 8th round (212th overall) in the 1996 NHL Entry Draft. He played one game in the National Hockey League for the team against the Nashville Predators. He did not register a point in his 9:44 of ice time. Most of his professional career was spent in the Deutsche Eishockey Liga, most recently for the Iserlohn Roosters. He ended his playing career in the 2nd Bundesliga with a single season at EHC München.

Goldmann played 126 international games for the German national team, including the 1998 and 2002 Winter Olympics. On 28 May 2011, he was inducted into the German Ice Hockey Hall of Fame. Goldmann currently works as the main ice hockey pundit for the German TV channel Sport1.

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

title: Erich Goldmann


text:
Harrison Gray

Harrison Leroy Gray (September 5, 1941 – August 19, 2022) was a Canadian professional ice hockey goaltender who played in the National Hockey League with the Detroit Red Wings during the 1963–64 season. The rest of his career, which lasted from 1961 to 1970, was spent in the minor leagues.

Playing career
Gray played for only 40 minutes of one NHL game, the November 28, 1963 match against the Montreal Canadiens. He received credit for the loss after allowing 5 goals on 31 shots in a 7–3 loss at Detroit. Gray took over for the injured Terry Sawchuck.

From 1964 to 1969, Gray played another 318 games in the Eastern Hockey League before retiring from professional hockey.

Prior to playing for the Detroit Red Wings, Gray played 15 games in the Western Hockey League with the Edmonton Flyers, and 3 games with the Cincinnati Wings in the Central Hockey League. Gray died in Strathmore, Alberta in 2022 at the age of 80.

title: Harrison Gray


text:
Wayne Groulx

Wayne Groulx (born February 2, 1965) is a Canadian-born Austrian former ice hockey centre. During the 1984–85 NHL season, he played one game for the Quebec Nordiques.

Groulx was drafted 172nd overall by the Nordiques in the 1983 NHL Entry Draft and played one game for them during the 1984-85 NHL season. He also played in the International Hockey League for the Muskegon Lumberjacks and in the American Hockey League for the Fredericton Express and Baltimore Skipjacks. Groulx played in Finland's SM-liiga for KalPa before spending six seasons in Austria, with EHC Lustenau and five seasons with EC Graz. He represented Austria in the 1992 World Hockey Championship.

Despite three 100-point campaigns with the Ontario Hockey League's Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds, including winning the Red Tilson Trophy as Most Outstanding Player in 1985, his success never translated beyond the junior level in North America, though he later became a star player in the Austrian Hockey League in the 1990s.

After retiring as a player, Groulx coached the Fort Erie Meteors of the Golden Horseshoe Junior Hockey League.

title: Wayne Groulx


text:
Hook (video game)

There have been several video games based on the 1991 film Hook. A side-scrolling platform game for the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) and Game Boy was released in the United States in February 1992. Subsequent side-scrolling platform games were released for the Commodore 64 and the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES), and an arcade beat ‘em up by Irem later in 1992, followed by versions for the Sega CD, Sega Genesis, and Sega's handheld Game Gear console in 1993.

A graphic adventure point-and-click game, developed and published by Ocean Software,  was released for Amiga, Atari ST, and DOS in 1992.

Gameplay
In each version of the game, the player plays as Peter Pan, who must go through Neverland to rescue his children after they are kidnapped by Captain Hook. Each version of the game is set in Neverland, and concludes with a sword fight between Peter Pan and Captain Hook.

Arcade version
The arcade version is a side-scrolling beat 'em up that supports up to four players. The player chooses to play as either Peter Pan or one of the Lost Boys: Ace, Pockets, Rufio, or Thudbutt. The game is played across six stages. It was handled by Irem, who is known for their other arcade games, like Kung Fu Master (known as Spartan-X in Japan) and the R-Type series.

PC version
The version for PC is a graphic adventure point-and-click game. As Peter Pan, the player must solve puzzles and problems to progress through the game. Each large problem cannot be solved without first solving several smaller problems first. Puzzles are solved by talking to characters and finding useful objects. Five icons are featured at the bottom of the screen, each one representing a different action that the player can take: "look at", "talk to", "pick up", "use", and "give". An inventory window, showing all the items the player has accumulated, is also located at the bottom of the screen. Also located at the bottom of the screen are two separate images, one depicting Captain Hook while the other shows Peter Pan. The characters' facial expressions change depending on the player's progress. Tinker Bell accompanies Peter Pan to provide hints and clues. The game has three main sections: Pirate Town, an encounter that Peter Pan has with the Lost Boys, and the confrontation with Hook.

Sega, Sega CD, and SNES versions
These versions are side-scrolling platform games. The Sega CD version utilizes the identical gameplay of the Genesis and SNES versions. The Game Gear version has eight levels, while the Genesis, Sega CD, and SNES versions all have 11 levels. Each version features various locations that include caves, forests, lagoons, and snowy mountains. Throughout the game, the player must defend against Hook's pirate henchmen, as well as spiders, snakes, and skeletons. Peter Pan's primary weapon is a dagger. After completing the first level, the player receives the golden sword as a weapon, capable of shooting balls of energy. If the player is attacked, Peter Pan drops the sword and must use the dagger, while the golden sword can sometimes be retrieved in the following level.

The player's health meter is measured as leaves. The player begins with two leaves, and loses one each time an enemy attacks. The player can collect additional leaves throughout the game to increase the health meter, for a maximum total of four leaves. Fruits that are scattered throughout each level can be collected to refill the player's health meter. After collecting pixie dust, Peter Pan has the ability to fly for short periods of time, until the Fly Meter becomes empty. Tinker Bell appears throughout the game to refill the Fly Meter. The game does not include a password feature.

The film's musical score was adapted for use in the Sega CD version, which also includes digitized graphical sequences from the film, and voice acting. Additionally, the Sega CD version includes a computer-generated scan of Captain Hook's ship, which is featured during the game's introduction.

Commodore 64/NES/Game Boy version
This version is a side-scrolling platform action game, in which Peter Pan can fly and swim. Enemies include Hook's henchmen, as well as ghosts, zombies, and monkeys that throw bananas at the player. A map of each level is provided to the player. The player must collect items in order to proceed to the next level. Instructions are provided to the player before each level, and Tinker Bell appears so she can provide the player with hints. Tinker Bell also has the ability to revive the player if all health is lost. The game includes a two-player option. The NES and Game Boy versions are nearly identical to each other. The NES version has 16 levels, while the Game Boy version has 27 levels.

Development and release
The Super Nintendo version was in early development in January 1992. Ocean Software began working on the graphic adventure version in January 1992. For the graphic adventure game, the creative team read the film's script and were required to have the gameplay closely follow the film's story. It was Ocean Software's first graphic adventure game. The NES and Game Boy versions, developed by Ocean Software, were the first versions to be released; they were published by Sony Imagesoft, and were released in February 1992. The Amiga version had been published in Europe by July 1992.

The SNES version, developed by Ukiyotei and published by Sony Imagesoft, had been released in the United States by September 1992. Ocean Software developed and published the Commodore 64 version, also released in 1992. By March 1993, Irem had released its arcade version of the game in the United States. The Sega CD and Genesis versions were developed by Core Design, while the Game Gear version was developed by Spidersoft; each version was published by Sony Imagesoft. The Sega CD version includes voice acting, but not from the film's actors, as licensing their voices was deemed too costly. In the United States, the Sega CD version was released in March or April 1993, while the Genesis and Game Gear versions were released in July 1993. In Europe, the Mega Drive version was released in November 1993. By December 1993, the Amiga version had been re-released in Europe by publisher Hit Squad.

Reception
Nintendo Power considered the NES and Game Boy versions to be nearly identical, and criticized them for being "an average running and jumping game with a pretty weak character and sluggish play control. The movie is good, but the game falls short." N-Force criticized the music of the NES version and wrote that the film "doesn't translate very well to console. You occasionally get one that does the platform adventure game extremely well–but Hook just isn't one of them." Steve Jarratt of Total! praised the graphics of the NES version but wrote that the in-game music "is a bit annoying after a while". Andy Dyer of Total! praised the Game Boy version for its music and graphics, and wrote that it was "much faster to play" than the NES version and "therefore more fun", while noting that it was also harder than the NES version. GamePro praised the music of the NES version, but wrote that Peter Pan's "limited range of sword swinging motion and lethargic forward movement make gameplay a bit of a drag." GamePro reviewed the Game Boy version and wrote that it had an "enticing musical repertoire and superbly detailed graphics, although they are tiny and a bit eye straining. Overall, this is a fun Game Boy cart".

Marc Camron of Electronic Games praised the graphics of the SNES version and wrote, "What makes this game different from most games based on movie licenses is that this game is good!" N-Force praised the graphics and music of the SNES version, but criticized the standard gameplay. Nintendo Power praised the SNES version for its graphics and considered it better than the NES and Game Boy versions, but noted the occasionally slow response times for the controls. Jason Brookes of Super Play praised the colorful graphics of the SNES version, but criticized its short length and slow-moving gameplay.

Mean Machines Sega praised the graphics, music and "well planned" levels of the Sega CD version, and awarded it a 72% rating, but criticized the slow controls. The magazine concluded that the game was "a real waste" of the Sega CD's "enormous potential," stating, "Visually and aurally Hook is tremendous, but underneath there is a very average game bursting to get out." Camron, who gave the Sega CD version an 89% rating, praised the music, graphics, and gameplay, but criticized the quality of featured footage from the film and the limited amount of voice acting. Sega Visions, reviewing the Sega CD version, noted that the "outstanding quality of the music will give your gaming a lift."

Sega Visions wrote, "With the exception of the sound and music, the Genesis version of the Sega CD hit […] is every bit as good as the original." Sega Visions wrote about the Game Gear version: "The translation to Game Gear is superb. From great color to terrific game play and bouncy tunes, Hook Game Gear is a blast." GamePro wrote that the Genesis version does not have as good graphics or high quality sound as the preceding versions for the SNES and Sega CD, but "it's just as fun to play." Mean Machines Sega praised the graphics and music of the Genesis version, but criticized its difficulty, while calling it, "Sort of reasonably playable, in a way." The magazine concluded, "Another mediocre film becomes a mediocre platform game. Hook isn't terrible, but it's not loaded with fun either." In a retrospective review of the Genesis version, Brett Alan Weiss of AllGame noted that Peter Pan "moves along at a dreadfully slow pace, even when jumping or running in wide open spaces. He can jump high and far and can even fly and swim, but the slow motion routine gets old almost as soon at begins." He praised the graphics despite occasional glitches, but wished that the game contained hidden items or areas. He concluded, "Hook is a flawed, but fun platformer that will keep your interest at least until you beat it."

James Leach of Commodore Format reviewed the Commodore 64 version. Leach praised the sound effects and music, the large levels, and the various gameplay styles, but criticized its main character for looking "a bit pasty." Leach also believed that the game was too easy, and criticized it for "Tons of boring loading" times. Commodore Format reviewed the game again in 1993, criticizing the game's repetitive gameplay and concluding, "It's got probably the most irritating multiload system in the history of gaming, making you wait while it loads a subscreen, then wait again while it loads the main level." Commodore Force praised the graphics but wrote, "Hook's multiload is possibly one of the worst I've come across", further stating, "It's a shame (and also ironic) that Hook's incredible amount of detail is also its downfall: all those admirable extras extend loading time." The magazine concluded, "It's a fun game to play, with lots to do and see, but can you stand the waiting? Basically, if you hate multiloads, avoid Hook like the plague."

Electronic Games nominated the SNES version for its 1993 Electronic Gaming Awards, in the category of Best Electronic Game Graphics. The magazine stated, "Some of the finest game graphics can be found in Hook", writing that the game had a "unified visual appearance like no other game on the market."

PC version
Amiga Action praised the graphics and music, but criticized the graphics. Tony Jones of Amiga Mania considered the game to be better than the film, and noted that it had a "much clearer storyline." Rik Haynes of CU Amiga wrote, "Sadly, despite aspiring to the heights achieved by Monkey Island, Hook has none of the finesse of rival productions from Virgin Games or Delphine."

Maff Evans of Amiga Format called the game a "tedious graphic adventure" and criticized its story and characters, writing that they "don't seem to evolve at all, leaving everything seeming rather flat." Evans also criticized the control system for being "far too limited and unwieldy," and wrote, "Occasionally nice graphics, but a bit too cartoon-like for this style of game." Andy Hutchinson of ST Format criticized the Atari ST version, calling it "terribly reminiscent of Monkey Island. However, where that game is hysterical and innovative, Hook is slightly amusing and derivative." Hutchinson concluded, "A polished but ultimately unsatisfying game. Buy Hook only if you're a massive fan of graphic adventures or have pleasant childhood memories of Peter Pan. Then expect to be disappointed."

Amiga User International praised the music and graphics, but wrote, "The only disappointments are that it is too short by far, and the puzzles are not really very tough. The game is pretty linear and will not let you stray very far off track." Mark Ramshaw of Amiga Power praised the music and sound effects, but criticized the game's puzzle aspect, calling it "occasionally a little predictable, sometimes a bit on the obtuse side, and just a tad too linear." The One praised the music and graphics, but criticized the short length.

Several publications reviewed the game again in December 1993, after it was re-released by Hit Squad. Cam Winstanley of Amiga Power praised the graphics but criticized the difficulty of the puzzles. Paul Roundell of Amiga Action wrote, "The graphics are colourful, but average, and the interface and interaction, while workable, are certainly no breakthrough, and as always in games of this kind, the humour is dire." CU Amiga praised the music and graphics, but criticized it for occasionally illogical puzzles, as well as confusing text responses given to the player out of order as the result of poor coding. Amiga Format criticized the game's repetitive character interactions.

In 1995, Matt Broughton of The One Amiga reviewed the game and wrote that it "offers enough locations and graphical treats to keep most people happy. The control system breaks no new ground, but why fix something that ain't broke?"

Entertainment Weekly gave the game a B− and wrote that "Peter Pan tries to rediscover his inner child by hacking his way through the usual assortment of bad guys. One plus: gorgeous green-and-gold backgrounds that are truer to real life than the movie's overstuffed sets."

title: Hook (video game)


text:
François Guay

François Guay (born June 8, 1968) is a Canadian former professional ice hockey centre.

Guay was born in Gatineau, Quebec. As a youth, he played in the 1980 Quebec International Pee-Wee Hockey Tournament with a minor ice hockey team from Brossard.

He was drafted in the eighth round, 152nd overall, by the Buffalo Sabres in the 1986 NHL Entry Draft. He played just one game in the National Hockey League with the Sabres, appearing in a single contest during the 1989–90 season. He did not score a point.

title: François Guay


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gangsta Appology

 * 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. — J I P | Talk 15:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Gangsta Appology
An album "probably to be released in 2006." Crystal-ball-cruft —Wahoofive (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Wahoofive. Xoloz 09:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Mmmmm... if Ice Cube exist and are being managed by Dr Dre then I'd be tempted to say keep on the basis that the band probably and the manager certainly are notable. The Land 11:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Ice Cube definitely exists, he's a hugely succesful rap artist. "Ice Cube" + "Gangsta Apology" gets 0 Google hits, though, so this is, um, speculation, at best.  Jkelly 17:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unverifiable album speculation. Jkelly 17:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete — speculation (and is an album managed?). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Article "probably to be deleted in 2005". MCB 23:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find any evidence of this, and with the people involved a rumour would be floating about. It seems to be a hoax. --Apyule 06:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
The Rooster Prince

The Rooster Prince, also sometimes translated as The Turkey Prince, is a Jewish mashal or parable told by Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, founder of the Breslov form of Hasidic Judaism. It was first told orally, and later published by Nathan of Breslov in Sippurei Ma'asiot, a collection of stories by Rebbe Nachman. It has since appeared in numerous folklore anthologies and works on Hasidic storytelling.

Story
In this story, a prince goes insane and believes that he is a rooster (or turkey.) He takes off his clothes, sits naked under the table, and pecks at his food on the floor. The king and queen are horrified that the heir to the throne is acting this way. They call in various sages and healers to try and convince the prince to act human again, but to no avail. Then a new wise man comes to the palace and claims he can cure the prince. He takes off his clothes and sits naked under the table with him, claiming to be a rooster, too. Gradually the prince comes to accept him as a friend. The sage then tells the prince that a rooster can wear clothes, eat at the table, etc. The Rooster Prince accepts this idea and, step-by-step, begins to act normally, until he is completely cured.

Interpretations
The main interpretation of this story is that the prince represents a simple Jew who has forgotten his true self, and the sage represents a Hasidic Rebbe who has the cure for his soul. Rather than condemn the simple Jew for being non-religious, the Rebbe "descends" to his level to meet him where he is, then shows him how to return to God, step by step, and in a manner that he can accept. Some Breslov Hasidim say that the "wise man" is Rebbe Nachman, himself. In 1991, Rabbi Avraham Greenbaum, himself a Breslover Hasid, published an entire self-help book based on this story, entitled Under the Table and How to Get Up. This book goes, step by step, through the story, expanding each detail into a personal lesson on spiritual growth.

As noted, above, there is some debate as to which barnyard bird was originally being referred to in the story. The parable was originally told in Yiddish. Some early translations and oral traditions rendered the Yiddish word אינדיק indik as "Indian rooster". (A well-known example is in Souls on Fire by Elie Wiesel, where he retells the story as heard from his Hasidic grandfather.) Others thought the word referred to the male junglefowl or a peacock. More recently, some translators, most notably the Breslov Research Institute, have rendered it as turkey. (The fan tail of a turkey does resemble that of a peacock.) These differences do not affect the basic plot of the story.

The parable has been used by social conservatives in the United States and Israel to argue against the promotion of dysphorias they deem to be mental illnesses like gender dysphoria.

In popular culture
"The Rooster Prince" is the title of the second episode of the FX television series Fargo. It was written by show creator Noah Hawley and was directed by Adam Bernstein.

title: The Rooster Prince


text:
Talk:Rounders (film)

Stub?
At the end of the trivia section it is said that Malkovich's character is throwing the "stub" on the table. What does this mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.19.215 (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

 * In poker, "stub" refers to the cards that remain in the dealers hand during play of a round, having not yet been dealt. ♣ ♦  SmartGuy  ♥  ♠ 20:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

i always thought Teddy KGB was holding pocket 10s in the last hand - making trip 10s on the flop. this makes more sense as he slow plays his pocket pair and then gets aggressive with the trips. Once he convinces himself Mike is on a draw he puts more and more pressure on him to fold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.21.46 (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

5 nines, 5 aces?!
Am I missing something here? The article states that "However, Mike's nines full of aces are beaten by KGB's aces full of nines and he loses everything." Nines full of aces would be a full house with 3 nines and 2 aces, right? And aces full of nines would be a full house with 3 aces and 2 nines, right? So they're playing poker with a deck with at least 5 nines and 5 aces? Phanatic 14:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * they are playing Texas hold 'em where there are 5 shared community cards which any player can use to make his/her hand and thus can be double counted your way. --Rajah 17:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is Mike?
Who the f is Mike? He is mentioned without being said who he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.93.54.214 (talk • contribs)
 * Mike McDermott is the main character, and this is described in the article. Kasreyn 22:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Johhny Chan - Rounders.jpg
Image:Johhny Chan - Rounders.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What Teddy KGB is holding in the final heads up hand
I noticed that if one looks close enough and goes through the portion when Teddy KGB slamms his cards and the deck on the table, we can see that he was holding the two red tens (that is the ten of hearts and the ten of diamonds), meaning that he flop top set (three of a kind) -- the second best hand possible (second of course only to what Damon is holding -- a straight). Should this be added? I'm not too sure why the speculation is necessary when I think it's quite clear what he is holding (i.e. you can see his cards!).

Heymanamen (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to go back a bit further on the movie and look at the cards that are flopped on that final hand. They are, in order, the six of diamonds, the seven of spades and the ten of hearts, so KGB couldn't have had the ten of hearts in his hand.  And if you move a bit forward from when he throws the stubs and starts to walk away, you can see that his hole cards are still face down on the table.  Now granted, that could very well be an edit from another take, but there's no denying the ten of hearts on the flop.  Let the speculation continue!
 * Pbxguy (talk) 05:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to be a poker nerd here but the ace of Spades comes off on the river, meaning that if he did have pocket tens he'd have the third nut behind Mikes straight and a set of aces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.203.99 (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, in the DVD commentary Phil Hellmuth, Chris Ferguson and Johnny Chan speculate on this and their conclusion is that he was holding pocket Aces, which would be a further nice symmetry with the hand that busted Mike at the beginning of the film. So then there are three key hands: Mike and Teddy KGB at the beginning, Seidel and Chan in the middle, and Mike and Teddy KGB at the end, where Teddy KGB has the same holding as at the beginning, but where Mike beats him by using the same play (three street check-call bluff with the nuts) as Chan did in the WSOP final hand. Seanhunter (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This is why when the ace comes on the river Teddy says "That ace could not have helped you". He knows the ace couldn't have helped Mike because he has a pair of aces himself. 204.4.131.140 (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, going all in with AA would be really dumb, no? What's to gain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.152.111 (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

What the oreos really mean
The plot description says that KGB is using the Oreos to decide what he should do. But I think the Oreos are actually his "tell" -- if he breaks the Oreo beside his ear (or possibly if he eats it), he has a good hand. If he breaks it in front of him or doesn't eat it, he's bluffing. At the end of the movie, it's made clear that Mike notices KGB breaking the Oreo by his ear and eating it and comes to some sort of realization. I have only seen the movie, I haven't heard the audio commentary or anything else, so I don't want to change the article if what's currently in the plot description has been confirmed elsewhere... help? Autonerd (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Autonerd

Articles

 * 5 Card Stud
 * Rounders
 * American Cinematographer
 * to use with this article--J.D. (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Symbolism of final scene
It should be mentioned that the final hand between Mike and Teddy mirrors the final hand of Chan and Seidel, complete with the flopped straight, the three checks by Chan/Mike, and the all in bet by the loser on the river. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.119.229 (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuit
This is about the legal case, I'm sure there are other sources too. Hell there is even an article on it: Grosso v. Miramax. (Emperor (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

title: Talk:Rounders (film)


text:
Arto Järvelä

Arto Järvelä (born in 1964 in Hattula, Finland) is a Finnish fiddler and composer. Because of the many groups and projects he is involved in, he has been called "the busiest man in Finnish folk music". He is primarily a violinist, but among other instruments of his are nyckelharpa, mandolin and kantele. Arto Järvelä is the fourth generation of the well known Järvelä fiddler family, whose musical roots belong in the rural area close to the small town Kaustinen.

As a ten-year-old, he started to play the drums and bass guitar in a family band, together with his father. He got serious on the fiddle at about 13 years of age. He played the harmonium (pump organ) in a band of youngsters called Järvelän pikkupelimannit (the small fiddlers from the Järvelä village) until he got good enough on the fiddle to join the group as a fiddler. This group eventually became the most well known Finnish fiddler folk music group, abbreviating its name into JPP. Besides having learned to play the traditional route, Järvelä is also trained in the Sibelius Academy's department for folk music, where he nowadays also teaches.

Among the groups where he is or has been a member are

 * JPP
 * The trio Alakotila-Järvelä-Kennemark, along with Timo Alakotila from JPP and the Swedish fiddler Hans Kennemark
 * Koinurit, a group playing polskas as fast as possible sometimes called Finland's answer to the Pogues
 * Pinnin Pojat, Arto and Kimmo Pohjonen. The original setting, later expanded, was Kimmo on mouth harp and Arto on fiddle/nyckelharpa/mandolin
 * Helsinki Mandoliners, a mandolin trio
 * Lumisudet, the Finnish-Texan fiddler Erik Hokkanen's band
 * Aldargaz, accordionist Maria Kalaniemis group
 * Niekku, one of Maria Kalaniemi's earlier bands form while students at the Sibelius Academy
 * Salamakannel, kantele with rock influences
 * Ampron Prunni, harmonium och nyckelharpa
 * Tallari

Solo discography
Only solo records mentioned here. Titles of JPP records can be found under the groups entry.

 * Polska Differente, 1994
 * Arto Järvelä plays fiddle, 1999
 * Far in!, 2004
 * Arto Järvelä plays fiddle Vol.2: Cross-tuned 2012
 * Arto Järvelä plays fiddle Vol.3: On the coast 2013

title: Arto Järvelä


text:
User talk:CyclePat

'''Welcome to my talk page!

History - Archives by permanent link class="plainlinks">A-105: Apr 13 2007 - May 29 2007 class="plainlinks">A-106: May 29 2007 - Sept 08 2007 class="plainlinks">A-107: Sept 08 2007 - Dec 03 2007 class="plainlinks">A-108: Dec 03 2007 - Dec 15 2008 class="plainlinks">A-109: Dec 16 2008 - Apr 30 2009 class="plainlinks">A-110: May 1 2009 - Apr 6 2019
 * A-101: Sep 2005 - Jan 29 2006
 * A-102: Jan 29 2006 - Jan 13 2007
 * A-103: Jan 13 2007 - April 10 2007
 * ''I may no longer wish to release comments on this talk page under Wikipedia's GFDL licence. Hence if you wish to trully receive a response try sending me an email.''

Click here to send me an email

Category:CCNA Networking Academy Program has been nominated for deletion
Category:CCNA Networking Academy Program has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:CyclePat