text:
Wikipedia:Peer review/Albatross/archive1

Albatross
I have been trying to bring this article up to FA status, and it's much improved with a lot of the recent new research on the family included. I have almost all the relevant information on the biology and conservation of albatrosses, so I'm submitting it to peer review now. Assuming that we can get this featured it would be the first family to achive featured article status (though it won't be the last as I am already collecting info on a few more families to be my next few projects). One note, I will also be spending the next few weeks turning the remaining albatross species and genera that are red-links into articles as well. At any rate, comments, questions, suggestions and critisisms please! Sabine's Sunbird 17:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite to comment. I agree that sorting out the redlinks (& not just the species and genus ones) is a prerequisite to FA status. I'd also like to offer the following opinions: Hope that helps. SP-KP 19:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the article needs a better taxobox picture; the one there at present is only barely recognisable as an albatross
 * The "new taxonomy" is controversial at the species level, and for the moment, the individual species pages should reflect the widely-accepted view that there are only c.14 species, and this page aligned with that. The debate should be summarised in the article somewhere however.
 * The "petrel" wikilink links to a page which is about petrels in the vernacular sense, rather than to the Procellariidae page which is what I believe is intended
 * Vagrancy of three albatross species into the North Atlantic (and the long-term presence of Black-browed in British/Faeroese gannetries) would be worth including as a passing mention in the distribution section
 * The words that attempt to describe the phylogeny of the genera could be clearer. I can't quite be sure that my visualisation of the tree is correct
 * Should distribution & taxonomy be two separate sections? They are two subjects that are not any more closely related than any other two in the article. In fact if aything Taxonomy & evolution could be combined.
 * Could you be specific about what the "North Pacific" is
 * Waved feeds on the coast of South America? or off?
 * I'm surprised by the comment about AOU & Ciconiiformes. You ought to check that that comment is correct.it is correct. weird, for sure, but S&A really did put them in as one family in the Ciconiformes. Sabine's Sunbird 00:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC) Duh, re-read your comment, and you're right. Thanks for catching that. Sabine's Sunbird 15:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * primitive (i.r.t. Sooty albatrosses) is spelt wrongly, and this should say something like "at that time believed to be primitive)
 * the section on generic taxonomy is quite verbose & repeats itself a bit - could do with a rewrite Jim broke it up and I removed some of the obvious repetition, it's better now I hope. Sabine's Sunbird 16:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sibley & Ahlquist's work ought to be mentioned in the taxonomy section It was mentioned in the evolution section, now all one section as per earlier comment Sabine's Sunbird 21:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The sentence starting "The molecular evidence" - same problem in visualising the tree. Perhaps what we need in this article is a cladogram?
 * Needs a proof read - I spotted an "is was", an "Oliocene", an "accute", a "colinies", an "essentail", a "my" instead of a "by", an "avarage"
 * 1st use of mya could have the unit spelled out in full for clarity
 * beak - should say bill and be wikilinked
 * you could mention the unguis in the morphology section
 * glide ratio deserves an article of its own maybe? Not come across this as an explicit concept before
 * the phrase "use them without understanding" is too anthropomorphic for my liking - could be worded better I think
 * the recent work on systematics by Penhallurick and Wink should be mentioned somewhere
 * Some info on places where albatross viewing is part of the local tourist economy would be worth including (e.g. Kaikoura)
 * An albatross category for this and all other albatross articles would be a good idea - I believe this should be standard practice for all biological families
 * Inclusion of current threat statuses for each species would be a useful addition
 * How about brief descriptions of the morphological characters of each genus?
 * Perhaps worth including some info on longevity
 * Info on the Birdlife albatross campaign would be worth including
 * Wow! That's a lot to react to. I'm at work now, but I'll adress those ponts asap. But, a few brief points, your comment about the taxonomy re the number of species - 21 is the most accepted number that I can find. The 14 species dates back to 1992 HBW - after which there have been a great deal of work. As for the authors you suggested, I found this reference Only recently a highly-questionable paper by Penhallurick and Wink (2004) has argued for lumping all of the species promoted by Robertson & Nunn (1998), whereas others support he recognition of at least some of these ‘new species’ (Burg and Croxall 2001;Abbott and Double 2003a; Burg and Croxall 2004).  Given that scientific concensus is generally against retaining 14 species, I went for the IUCN/Birdlife International accepted species list. But perhaps that is a discussion for the talk page rather than here.
 * Apart from that I agree with most of your comments, and I'll do my very best to address them quickly. I am disappointed that you disliked the taxobox image, I rather liked it. Sabine's Sunbird 19:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I should clarify my comments about the taxobox pic. I don't tend to think about my personal aesthetic tastes when assessing Wikipedia content. What with the amount of brainpower that assessing content on information-conveying grounds requires of me, I don't think I have the mental resources to make assessments of the artistic merit of the content on top of that. I also don't feel I have the attributes or qualification to do that. I don't dislike it as a picture; it's what you human beings might call "atmospheric", I guess...

I think the article would benefit from retaining it, as it would serve to broaden its appeal. I just feel that a picture above a taxobox should convey the distinctive features of the taxon in question. I could go to the shearwater page, post a similar silhouetted shearwater there, and people looking at these two pages would think "blimey - albatrosses and shearwaters look bloody difficult to tell apart".

On the taxonomy, I'm sceptical about P&W's findings too. I wouldn't feel comfortable using their work as the basis for decisions until corroborated by others. I only mentioned including that as it is a recent, detailed work covering the subject and so shouldn't be left out. I agree with the source that you cited that the albatrosses need to be assessed against a species-concept framework like Helbig et al's British list criteria. At the moment albatross taxonomy is based on out of date ideas of what a species is, and so it's quite possible that the revisionists are right. The issue to my mind is that the "interim taxonomy" was not supported by the kind of rigorous data that such a revision requires, and this is why it has proved so controversial. I think that an approach which might help here would be to canvass opinion on the various birding mailing lists and see whether a consensus emerges. SP-KP 21:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

One other external link I'd suggest including (I'd like to see the corresponding pages linked for all bird families, in fact): Don Roberson's family page SP-KP 21:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, lets see. I've already mentioned two points. And I've struck through the small niggly things that were easy to change. If you aren't happy with the changes unstrike them and let me know!
 * The vagrancy of the three species in the NA is alluded to in the section about flight. Beyond that it strikes me as a good thing to keep out of the main article and in the individual species articles.
 * I wikilinked beak- the wikipedia article is at beak not bill. Is there a particular preference for one or the other, I always thought they could be used interchangably. And the ungis, is that the hook at the end?
 * glide ratio may deserve it's own article but that is one for the physics people, I found the bird flight article hard enough!
 * the phrase "use them without understanding" is too anthropomorphic for my likingHmm, funnily enough this is phrased in much the same way as Ticknell did in his book. I don't think, in the context of language, even albatross language, that understanding is the wrong word to use.
 * As for the rest of your points, they are good ideas I'll add to the article. Sabine's Sunbird 21:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll take another look at the article (prob not until tomorrow now though). Just on the beak/bill thing - bill is the preferred scientific term, as I understand it, beak being more a colloquial name. The unguis/ungues (need to check spelling) is/are the plates that cover the outer portion of the mandibles, the upper one terminating with the hook (I think they each have a separate name ... "maxillary unguis" springs to mind for one of them, can't remember which). I'll do some more thinking on how to explain what I meant about "use without understanding" - I've failed to convey my objection well here. SP-KP 22:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I know what you mean about "use without understanding', it's a failing of using the same words for human and animal behaviour. How is the new wording? Sabine's Sunbird 16:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The specifics of Albatross taxonomy are over my head, but it seems that in this case it may be best to discuss that different authors have included different species and how those descriptions differ. A mention of oceanic longline fishing and its impact on albatross - especially since there are moves now to minimise the practice- could be interesting. Lastly the lead is a bit short- for an article of this length go for 2 to 3 paragraphs that summarise the content of the article.--nixie 02:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I had planned to expand the intro, and have now done so. Added some more info on the conservation as well. Sabine's Sunbird 21:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:War of Jenkins’ Ear

Much better overview this time - but I enjoyed the old article's almost satirical account of this war. Cheers. 25-01-06

How is this redirect page different from the page it liks to? I can't see a difference! --Ye Olde Luke 02:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:War of Jenkins’ Ear


text:
Talk:Cruiser

The US Navy's "cruiser gap"
There is an interesting difference in the comparison between U.S. and U.K. versions of English.

In this section, the writer refers to Farragut-class vessels as "frigates". The designator for the class "DL" or "DLG" labels these as Destroyer Leaders, the purpose of which was to act as squadron flagship for a deployed destroyer squadron. In that they were built slightly larger, they had staff accommodations. Even the Royal Navy in WWII had vessels in a class designed specifically to act in this capacity. Smaller vessels (in particular DE and DEG) were Destroyer Escorts, designed with convoy escort duty in mind (and were only slightly larger than most WWII "frigates" (PF)). The larger DLG's were better equipped for Anti-aircraft Warfare (AAW), so were naturals for re-designation to CG/CGN (especially the nuclear vessels, who could keep up with the CV). The smaller DL/DLG vessels had lesser AAW weaponry and were really just destroyers. The MISSION determines the classification, not size. The Ticonderogas were designed, from the keel up, as cruisers. Their size was determined by the limitations of the Aegis radar deployment, and designation by the retirement of other older vessels. The Kidd-class destroyers (destined for Iran before the coup) were the only odd ducks hard to really classify - they were Spruance-class hulls with double launchers like the DLG's (that were re-designated as CG's). Which brings us to the Spruance-class Destroyers (DD). They were as large as many WWII cruisers, but were DD because of the better Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) equipment installed.

I, also, find it interesting that the only two references quoted for this page are written by Brits. The portion of this section dealing with U.S. motives and reasons have not been attributed to any U.S. source. --CDR Tom Mischke USN(Ret.) 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Before the 1975 redesignation certain classes of vessels were designated frigates and designated DL, DLG, and DLGN. It proved to be a bad idea as no other Navy followed suit with the designation. In 1975 the frigates were redesignated as destroyers or cruisers. Examples: The DLG-6 class "Coontz class" were redesignated the DDG-37 class. The DLG-16 "Leahy class" were redesignated guided missile cruisers, CG-16 class.Two way time (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

 * The section about the US Navy reclassification ist IMO completly irrelevant here, the article is explaining Cruisers in general, not US Navy naming system. How about removing the section and just add a link to the relevant article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersymetrie (talk • contribs) 11:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

difference between cruiser and battlecruiser
Please clarify the difference between cruiser and battlecruiser, to help translation from foreign languages. mikka (t) 17:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * What exactly is unclear about the battlecruiser section already in this article? Stan 03:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * OK let me give you an example. An online Russian-English dictionary I have translates "линейный корабль" and "бронено�?ец" as battleship. I'd rather want to have different words for them. The back conversion gives only the first version. Fortunately, "battlecruiser" and "линейный крей�?ер" match. What I want is a set of simple rules how to tell which ship is which, similar to language recognition chart. I have already met cases of inconsistency on 'net as to types of Imperial Russian ships when I was double-checking wikipedia updates on the topic. mikka (t) 04:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose you could say that their knack of exploding helped distinguish battlecruisers from other types of warship :-D. But seriously, compare two Royal Navy classes: Town class cruiser (1910) and HMS Indefatigable (1909). Battlecruisers were much, much larger than cruisers; they had bigger guns, almost comparable speed (i'm not sure how their armour compared). Battlecruisers dispensed with much of their armour to give them an advantage in speed compared to early dreadnought battleships, but they were pretty much similar in every other aspect. I'm not sure if that was the answer you were looking for, so sorry if it isn't! Take care. If I got anything wrong with the analogy, I'm sure Stan will correct me :-) SoLando (Talk) 04:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I pondered this some more since last writing, and oversimplified down to "armed like battleships, armored like cruisers". :-) We have a lot of verbiage on the subject in WP because battlecruisers have always been hard to classify. But the question of translation is rather different, and I can imagine random dictionaries not getting it right. What I would suggest is to find a Russian-language work on naval matters by a respectable authority, and see what word(s) are used to describe the vessels that are here called "battlecruisers", for instance anything in Category:Battlecruisers of the Royal Navy . I'm sure that Russian naval experts have a term they've agreed upon, as well as which ships they categorize that way - better to rely on them than on us amateurs. :-) Stan 12:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Try this explaination. Cruiser were limited to ships with largest guns of 8 inch size. This applies to the United States Navy, for the World War II era ships. Unsure how the other Navies were with this distinct. See Heavy_cruiser and Washington_Treaty_for_the_Limitation_of_Naval_Armaments. Note per the Washington Naval Treaty alos limited to a 10,000 tons standard displacement. 74.214.49.112 (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 * The cruiser was designed for long distance cruising, i.e., steaming for long periods so that it could reach trouble spots over the worldwide empires of the countries that originated them. The battleship cruiser (battlecruiser) was intended to provide a cruiser with the longer-range gun capability of the battleship, so that it could stand-off against it's likely opponents - which would be unlikely to be battleships - and hit them before the battlecruiser entered the range of the opponent's guns. The increase in gun size was not so much for raw firepower, just that if you increase the size of the gun calibre, then range is also increased - otherwise you would need a new design of gun in the usual smaller calibre with perhaps an increased charge to get the additional range. It was quicker and cheaper to just up-gun to the next size gun. The battlecruiser was intended for long range steaming and so the armour was sacrificed for additional bunker capacity and for overall ship speed so that it could reach trouble spots more quickly. Unfortunately due to the battlecruiser having the same size guns as the contemporary battleship, they tended to get used in situations for which they were inappropriate, i.e., the Hood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

 * The 8-inch gun limitation was per the Washington Naval Treaty, and all signatories (US, UK, Japan, others) abided by that until the Japanese (and Italy) withdrew from the Second London Naval Treaty conference in early 1937 (see also Friedman's battleship book). In March 1938 the remaining treaty powers triggered an "escalator clause" in battleship design, which resulted in the Iowa-class battleships. With the outbreak of WW2 in September 1939 all parties basically threw out the treaties. Based on rumors Japan was planning new 12-inch-gunned cruisers (and possibly also in response to the German Scharnhorst-class battleship), the Alaska-class cruisers were designed and built to match them, and also act as "cruiser killers". These were designated CB for Cruiser, Big and were sometimes called "battlecruisers", but were more accurately called "large cruisers". They did not resemble the WWI-era battlecruisers, which were about the size and gun caliber of battleships but sacrificed armor and number of guns for speed. The Russian Kirov-class battlecruisers are usually called that due to their large size and heavy anti-ship cruise missile armament. RobDuch (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Possibly unclear?
Forgive me if I'm being dense, but it seems to me that in the last paragraph of the 'Later 20th Century' section, it's not entirely clear what name is being misapplied.

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. — Nightst a  llion  (?) 11:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Cruiser (warship) → Cruiser – the article was moved last month without first gathering a group consensus; of the 676 articles linking to Cruiser (warship), only 50 link directly to the current name and 500 of them link via the Cruiser page's redirect

Voting

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~

 * Support - the article was moved without first gathering a group consensus, and while 500 articles link to Cruiser only 50 link to Cruiser (warship). --Kralizec! | talk 18:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per above comment --Lox (t,c) 21:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support also per above comment --Spot87 23:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Suppport. I already commented below, doesn't hurt to reiterate. Stan 05:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I do not know what possesed me to move the page. (I must have been high:-) TomStar81 05:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Cjrother 17:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. --Ekeb 19:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Given the numerous meanings (at least in my dictionaries for the term – warship, police car, pleasure boat, person who likes cruising ...), I can see why someone did this; however, I don't agree with it nor in the failure of the 'offender' to discuss the move beforehand. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, obviously, as long as an otheruses tag remains at the top. --Russ Blau (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

''The following were moved here from Talk:Cruiser (disambiguation) by me. --Kralizec! | talk 18:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest this article be moved to Cruiser (disambiguation) and that Cruiser be a redirect to Cruiser (warship). Nearly all existing uses of the term cruiser seem to refer to the warship type.  --Russ Blau (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't understand Tomstar81's motivation in changing what has been working just fine for many years. Stan 20:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree.--Commander Keane 00:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Seriously—why? I agree with the proposal. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 04:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't see how this change helps anyone.  Cjrother 20:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Origin of name
We have two explainations as to the origin of the name Cruiser - one in the intro, and one at the start of the following History section. Can we either put both in the same area and list them as both possible origins, or examine which is actually correct?
 * I don't see a problem. The intro gives the etymology of the word, while the history section gives the reason for its application. Perhaps a full definition of the word would be better... Therealhazel 17:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested layout
I'd like to propose a layout for the article, broadly similar to that used at battleship, which presents the material roughly in a chronological order, with shipbuilding, strategic considerations, and operations all considered for each type in roughly the same place. There is no reason at all why this cannot be an FA.

What I suggest is:
 * 1) Early history (to about 1850)
 * 2) Roughly 1850 - 1880: the age of unarmoured steam cruisers
 * 3) Development of Armored and Protected Cruisers - inc outline of the type of armor and tradeoffs required
 * Elswick types
 * Armored cruiser
 * Protected cruisers
 * Development of the PC into the 1910-ish Light Cruiser
 * The cruiser as destroyer or TB flotilla leader
 * Battlecruisers: Early 20th C view on obsolescent of the cruiser and results
 * 1) World War I: Very brief overview of operations placing the existing cruisers in their context; the Bacchantes, Coronel, Falklands, Jutland, convoy duty
 * 2) Cruisers 1919-39
 * Cruiser design and production, 'light' and 'heavy', under the Treaties
 * Breaching of the Treaties, including Japanese heavy cruisers and the Pocket Battleships
 * 1) World War II
 * 2) Cold War
 * introduction of guided missiles, retirement of gun models (mention the Belgrano)
 * cruiser's new role as fleet air defence unit
 * AEGIS
 * 1) Cruisers in current navies

... what d'you reckon? The Land 17:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see where you are going, I will slowly start working on this one too, as all my current projects are coming to an end now. --MoRsE 15:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

 * The evolution of the cruiser into the primary fleet AAW escort came about during WWII, and would be more appropriate under that section. --Dukefan73 23:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Very fair point - sadly my sources only go up to about 1920 ;) The Land 21:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction
The articles for Cruiser and Destroyer both claim that "At the beginning of the 21st century, [destroyers/cruisers] are the heaviest surface combatant ships in general use, with only four nations (the United States, Russia, France and Peru) operating [these/cruisers ]..." -Greg (forgot my wikipedia username), 10:20am PST, June 18, 2007

 * Note that Cruiser says "in use" while Destroyer says "in general use". However, the intro to Cruiser currently claims that Italy also operates a cruiser, but the text under "Late 20th Century" doesn't include Italy, nor does the intro to Destroyer. 76.91.203.252 (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

More Recent history
I would like to suggest that you guys place a section or paragraph of more recent cruiser history with the Belgrano sinking during the Falklands war. Numerous Falklands and Argentine and UK links exist, and the Cruiser page should likely reflect that. --enm, 19:00 1 Nov 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a good idea - we do need to be careful though not to duplicate the articles on Belgrano and the Falklands War - and Belgrano was an obsolete (and unrepresentative) cruiser... The Land 20:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * General Belgrano was the ex-USS Phoenix, a USN Brooklyn class light cruiser. Had she closed to the necessary range to use her 6 inch guns against the Royal Navy vessels she could have done serious dammage to the amphibious operation.Two way time (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Cruiser Epochs
The history of cruisers is best described in the different "epochs" (for a lack of a better term) rather than a continual definition.

Epoch one: Cruisers in the age of sail (>1880)

Epoch two: Steam and steel (1880-1922)

Epoch three: The age of the Washington treaty and World war two. (1922-1945)

Epoch four: Airpower and missiles (1945-Present)

Each one of these epochs have cruisers acting in different rolls and with different design conventions. Comparing cruisers across these divisions is difficult because the technology and rolls have changed so much.137.144.147.201 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Two way time (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Viva la France!
The article makes no mention of the "Dupuy de l'Homme", even though that was the first protected cruiser with its 23 knots speed. A ship of just 18 knots cannot be called a cruiser, that would be ridiculous! 91.83.3.127 (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I suppose you mean the "Dupuy de Lôme" (not "Dupuy de l'Homme"). JT Swe (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I suppose he/she does as well. However, to answer the anonymous editor's point, there is no lower limit on cruiser speed - cruisers have been around for a very long time and seen all sorts of technology come and go.... The Land (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

HMS Caroline image text
In the image text concerning HMS Caroline, I added "light" to "cruiser" in the following sentence: "the only World War One era Cruiser in exsistence[sic]", to emphasize that it is the only LIGHT WWI cruiser still out there. There are other preserved cruisers from that era, i.e. the Greek "Georgios Averof" and Russian "Aurora". (Minor changes can matter too...). JT Swe (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Aurora could also be referred to as a 'light cruiser'; while 'protected' is more accurate, cruiser terminology is far from precise... I have also rewritten the caption; the fact that Caroline is still in active service is more relevant than the fact she's still in commission. The Land (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Does Italy have cruisers?
From the opening section: "only five nations (the United States, Russia, France, Italy and Peru) operating these at the time". That's fine. However the article on destroyer says "only four nations (the United States, Russia, France and Peru) operating cruisers". They can't both be right. Maproom (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, forget it. I have now read the whole paragraph, as I should have done before writing the above. Maproom (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Cruisers vs. Category:Cruiser classes
Category:Cruiser classes is itself a category within Category:Cruisers — Robert Greer (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Heaviest - Cruiser or Destroyer?
"At the beginning of the 21st century, cruisers were the heaviest surface combatant ships in use..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser).

"At the dawn of the 21st Century, destroyers are the heaviest surface combatant ships in general use..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.153.16 (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Go look at the ships of the World War II era, cruiser were the heaviest. Look now at the US Cruiser. Then look at the US Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer. And note the size difference about this class with a Flight I, Flight II, Flight IIA differences. Next go look at Atago_class_destroyer; the KDX-III Korean Destroyers. The distinction between Frigate, Destroyer and Cruiser in vastly blurred, each Nation for its own reason has different label size ideas on what to call a particular class of ships. In my mind a modern combatant ship above say above 8000 tons displacement, and greater than 50 significant size missiles (AAW or land attack, anti-ship missiles do not count is a Cruiser. I think that make NO modern European cruisers. Unsure what if any Indian or Chinese vessels become cruisers in this definition. When you read United States Navy 1975 ship reclassification and the section on the Cruiser Gap, all ships reclassified under that had crew size above 500 as another factor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.214.49.112 (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced article
The article (and articles on various cruisers) is heavy on offensive capabilities and short on passive defensive attributes like armor plate belt armor. The people maintaining the pages on battleships don't have this weakness. This is particularly important as cruisers evolved into ships which no longer have armor plate (like USS Long Beach) in the old traditional sense. Likely weak on other similar things. 143.232.210.150 (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Scout Cruisers?
There is a page on Scout_cruiser that is neither mentioned nor discussed from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.50.36 (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Added. RobDuch (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Kara-class
I'm going to remove the mention about Kara-class, because whilst it was traditionally classed as 'cruiser' in the Western sources, it was called 'large anti-submarine ship' (ie. destroyer) in Soviet navy, and I've not found any Russian source which has implied that the designation has been changed. Also the ship is clearly equivalent to modern destroyers in role, armament and size. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

South Korean and Japanese "Cruisers"
I went ahead and removed all references to the South Korean and Japanese "cruisers" from the article. I don't know the answer to whether or not these ships (Sejong the Great-class destroyer and Atago-class destroyer) should be classified as cruisers or destroyers. However, what I do know is that Wikipedia prohibits original research and requires citations. Every major source I have come across refers to these ships as destroyers. Furthermore, when carrying out the standard Google search results test, "Sejong the Great-class cruiser" returns no results, while "Sejong the Great-class destroyer" returns 3,010 results. Again, "Atago-class cruiser" returns 3,260 results, while "Atago-class destroyer" returns 7,530 results. (Please note, many of the results for "Atago-class cruiser" are due to overlap with the Japanese cruiser Atago from World War II.)

In addition, it seems to me that any sources that are used to support the "cruiser" classification must directly refer to the ships as cruisers. In other words, merely stating that they are comparable to cruisers is not sufficient. However, it also seems that if such claims of comparison are found in reliable sources, then obviously statements to that effect may be included in the article - if they do not imply that they actually are cruisers.

Therefore, it seems to me that until a reliable source that directly refers to either of these classes as "cruisers" is found, they should not be included in the article. —Noha307 (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Concur. - BilCat (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

 * The same IP user is making the same sorts of edits on Destroyer, adding frigates he/she considers to be destroyers, and removing the destroyers he/she considers to be cruisers. - BilCat (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I am the one who is making these edits. Please stop changing them. I have done proper research. If you compare the specs of the following ships:

Atago-class destroyer from the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force and the Sejong the Great-class destroyer from the Republic of Korea Navy.

The reason these ships are more like cruisers than destroyers is their difference in size and strength when compared to destroyers from other countries. You may be right with the Sejong the Great-class, but the Atago-class is more easily compared to the United State's Ticonderoga-class cruiser cruiser than other destroyer classes. That is a fact and the Atago-class was labeled as a cruiser on this website for a time being that was not done by me.

If you want proof, read the articles of each ship and you will see them mentioned as such. The same goes for the European ships. For some reason, a lot of European countries under classify what they really have. All those European "frigates" are really "destroyers" by terms of size and strength. Just read the articles for each and they're even mentioned as destroyers by the international community.

I am editing them back because I know I'm right. You gotta problem, sue me.

- Battleship Sailor (talk) 2:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

 * All that is being asked is that you provide a citation to a reliable source that makes the claim that you stated above. Right now it just looks like it's your opinion. You can't use another wikipedia article as a source, see WP:RS for more information. Uncited additions may be removed. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

 * The user is still edit warring at Destroyer. While he/she is attempting to add sources, some are blogs, while others still call the ships frigates that he/she is claiming are destroyers. In one case the source did state that the ships were the size and capability of destroyers, but that isn't saying the are destroyers, nor that they are commonly called destroyers in reliable sources. One newspaper source called the frigates "battleships"! - BilCat (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Given the users statements above, it's probably time for ANI or 3RR. The user clearly isn't interested in building a consensus.

None of the references were blogs, all were legitimate defense articles. If you've noticed, the French Navy doesn't use the term "destroyer" but rather "first-rate frigate" and marks those ships with a "D" for destroyer and not "F" for frigate. (This includes the FREMM.)

All I'm trying to do is show what these ships REALLY are. And yes, the term "frigate" will appear first because these countries have classified them as such. Many European countries prefer not to use the term "destroyer" because they feel it is too "war-like." I know we're not allowed personal experiences, but I've studied naval history for 13 years and am an officer in the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps, so I know I'm right. Stop trying to deceive the public. These edits were up for MONTHS before you had a problem with it.

Also, you're deleted more than you think. You're undoing other edits that ARE unarguably accurate.

If you have a problem, I would say to do you're homework and see that I'm right. I'm not backing down.

-Battleship Sailor (talk) 2:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

 * It doesn't really matter who you are, what matters it what source you are citing. Please read Verifiability, "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." What you need is a reliable source that supports the assertions you are making. That's all that is asked of any editor. "Right" is what you can prove with a citation from a reliable source. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

 * This site which you added here is clearly a blog, not a defense site. - BilCat (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

World War II section
I am working on a World War II section and plan to post it in a few days. I'm primarily highlighting surface actions in which cruisers and battlecruisers played a part. I'm also considering doing a World War I section in the next few weeks. I welcome comments. RobDuch (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

 * World War II section entered. RobDuch (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cruiser. 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/20110605223708/http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/active/fleet.htm to http://www.nvr.navy.mil/NVRSHIPS/ACTIVE/FLEET.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010522092000/http://www.warship.org/no11994.htm to http://www.warship.org/no11994.htm

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) 00:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cruiser


text: Talk:Invasion of Scania

title: Talk:Invasion of Scania


text:
Category:Transport in Paisley, Renfrewshire

 * Transport in Paisley, Renfrewshire, Scotland.


text:
Talk:Basuto Gun War

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Basuto Gun War. 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/20110706204130/http://stmarys.ca/~wmills/course322/Gun_War.html to http://stmarys.ca/~wmills/course322/Gun_War.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) 18:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Basuto Gun War


text:
Talk:New Faces

Joe Pasquale
Joe Pasquale claims that JP won New Faces. Here it is claimed he came second. Which is correct? Guinness 17:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Not so famous winners/contestants
If they're not famous, they're not notable, so why are they here? bingo99 11 August 2007 19:10 (UTC)

Theme tune
Someone should seriously post the theme tune here. Curvebill (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Dave Allen and "the original BBC series"
I am not aware of an "original BBC series" of New Faces:
 * The reference in the Dave Allen entry is the only such reference in the whole article.
 * The linked article at UKGameshows.com makes no reference to "an original BBC series".

Was there one?

Brother Francis (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've just [29-12-14, 20:00, BBC2] seen this fact flash up on "Dave Allen: God's own comedian", which is why I ended up on this page. And am trying to find other references to the programme. 95.146.10.18 (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

eg http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/search/0/20?adv=1&q=new+faces&media=all&yf=1959&yt=1959&mf=1&mt=12&tf=00%3A00&tt=00%3A00#search 95.146.10.18 (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Were the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band on New Faces?
Did the Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band appear on New Faces? The chronology seems wrong. New Faces started in 1973 whereas the Bonzos already had much TV exposure, a hit with "I'm the Urban Spaceman" in 1968 and their first reunion in 1972.

Brother Francis (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Putting this in category called Talent Shows
Having just put the articles on Opportunity Knocks and Britain's Got Talent in the category called "Talent shows", I thought I had better do likewise with the article on this programme (I am old enough to remember it). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Incosistency
The table of series 1-6 winners doesn’t agree with the prose section about the series. In the prose Lenny Henry is described as “the 1975 competition winner” while the table gives Marti Caine as the winner. If Henry just won an episode this should be clarified. I actually arrived here from the Les Dennis article which has a similar issue, describing him as the 1974 winner, but not according to this table. Again, did he just win an episode? danno_uk 21:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:New Faces


text:
Talk:Gothic War (535–554)

Untitled
I think this page is not categorised correctly. The war occurred in the early middle ages not in ancient times.davidzuccaro 02:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree - changed the Wikiproject task force to "medieval". RJASE1 04:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

 * No. Historians mark the beginning of the Middle Ages with the death of Justinian. The Fall of the Western Roman Empire used to be a breaking point, but, as the culture continued for quite some time after that, the death of Justinian and the transformation of the East Roman Empire into the Greek Byzantine Empire (of the Romans) is today seen as the start.HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Claudian
Ehm... I'm not sure what Claudian's De bello Gothico is doing there in the "External links" section? That's about a different war in a different century. Iblardi 21:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Theoderic the G.
So theoderic was a commander in the gothic wars, thats interesting espacially because he died in 526 AD. So how on earth could he have participated in a war 9 years after his death?

 * You're right, this probably should be Theodahad, who deposed Amalasuintha. Edited it accordingly. Iblardi 19:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

End of the war in 552?
Why do we say that the war ended in 552? There were at least two major battles after that, before the fate of Italy was sealed, namely the Battle of Mons Lactarius in 553 and the Battle of Casilinum in 554. If no one objects, I shall make the change. Regards, Cplakidas 09:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Where would you end it? In 553 with the defeat of the Goths and the readmission of their remnant into the Byzantine fold? Or with the defeat of the Franks in 554, who had come into the peninsula as allies of the Goths? Srnec 04:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say the proper date would be 554, which is when the last major operations ended. After Casilinum, the Roman conquest was pretty much secured, at least from Goths and Franks. Cplakidas 22:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have moved it and fixed the redirects. I doubt that most of the links are other than piped links and therefore there is no need to go around fixing dates, but I may be wrong. I fixed the date at the dab page. Srnec 05:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

MAP
This fine article needs a map for some geographical orientation. Dobrin 15:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

battle picture replaced by map
I think the historistic picture by Alexander Zick initially placed as an eyecatcher in the upper right part of the article and still used for example in the french article may be placed in a future section dealing with the reception history of this war. Using it at the visual starting point of the whole article imho mainly conveys popular but misleading conceptions of heroic battles with almost mythic leading figures making european history. This view still roots in 19th century understanding of history and does not advocate deeper understanding of this topic.

Therefore I exchanged it with a map which shows the geographic space where the events covered here have taken place. I admit that this map is far from perfect. There is in fact a more refined map on the corresponding German Wikipedia site. If anybody would be able to rework it in English this would be a further improvement.

if anybody wants to use the historistic battle picture, for example for a reception history part, the file is Image:Mons Lactarius.jpg|300px

NPOV, with this terminology?
Does an article that considers Romans to be civilised and non-Romans to be inferior really neutral? In the 2nd paragraph of the lead it says "invading tribes" were "barbarians." Why do we not leave out the racism and just call them by their national name (i.e. Goths, etc). Proposal is to remove the word "barbarian" from the following sentence:
 * "The war had its roots in the ambition of Roman Emperor Justinian to recover the provinces of the former Western Roman Empire, which had been lost to invading barbarian  tribes in the previous century (the Migration Period).Studyhard12 (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

 * You do hopefully know that "barbarian" is not originally a pejorative and even less a racist adjective, but simply signifies peoples who don't speak Greek, and later those outside the Greco-Roman oecumene? Even the Persians or the Egyptians, who were by no means uncivilized and were greatly admired by the Greeks, are called "barbarians" by Greek writers. How modern language uses certain terms is not how these terms are to be understood in a specific historical context, e.g. tyrant, dictator, or despot. The use of "Barbarian tribes" here simply means "tribes from outside the Roman Empire". You can replace it with "Germanic tribes" if you want, but as there were not a few Iranians (the Alans, Sarmatians, etc) and even Mongolic tribes (the Huns) among them, the only - and probably most common, per WP:COMMONNAME - catch-all term is, indeed, "barbarian". This is also related to recognizability, since the other popular name for the more politically correct Migration Period is the "Barbarian Invasions". Even non-historically-interested people understand the period the game called "Rome: Total War: Barbarian Invasion" refers to and have an approximate idea who these invading "barbarians" were... Otherwise you might as well say that the WRE had been lost to "people" or "somebody". "Racism" or "NPOV" have little to do with it, except perhaps for representing the viewpoint of the Greco-Roman historians on whom we depend for our information, but after 2,000 years their "POV" has become standard historical terminology. Constantine  ✍  14:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with Cplakidas. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gothic War (535–554). 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/20050915003514/http://patriot.net/~townsend/GBoH/Modules/gboh-belisariusatbay-module.html to http://patriot.net/~townsend/GBoH/Modules/gboh-belisariusatbay-module.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) 15:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

CE
Started a ce but have paused while Star Trek TNGs on. ;o)Keith-264 (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Salona
Excellent article! I was a little confused when the Romans abandoned all but Salona and then the Goths abandoned it. I know you parenthetically describe the Gothic occupation before the Gothic abandonment, but the term "occupation" suggests taking without struggle. Did the Romans abandon Salona or not? :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

They did abandon it but Constantinianus later retreated into Salona from the surrounding area when a large gothic army approached. This is according to Ian Hughes’ “Belisarius: The lasted Roman General”. Dorromikhal (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Justinian’s ambition
The war had its roots in the ambition of the East Roman Emperor Justinian I to recover the provinces of the former Western Poman Empire. P. Heather disputes this in his book “Rome Resurgent: War and Empire in the Age of Justinian” published by the very respectable Oxford University Press. In the article there is no citation at all. Maybe at some other point the statement is repeated with a citation but I would still dispute as this is a recent book (2018), with probably more recent information than almost all other books. (I go into more detail on Justinian I’s page) Dorromikhal (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Maps
I can't understand what the maps say because they are not in English Poppyway (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gothic War (535–554)


text:
Talk:Byzantine–Georgian wars

Requested move 10 September 2023

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. I’ve redirected the proposed move destination to the page. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Byzantine–Georgian wars → Georgian–Byzantine wars – Georgian kings initiated mostly the wars per claims over the north-eastern lands of Anatolia, that were absorbed by the Byzantine Empire. An emperor ✖ 05:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Alphabetical order is superior to trying to figure out reasons for putting one country or another first. Srnec (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Srnec, how so? Should we make Russo-Georgian War into Georgian-Russian War based on that reason? An emperor ✖ 00:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Russo-" is a combining form. Also, Russo-Georgian War is an established term/name. We don't have to discuss the order because we aren't making it up. Our hands are tied. However, both "Byzantine–Georgian wars" and "Georgian–Byzantine wars" are descriptive titles. Neither is an established term. In other words, Wikipedians invented the title to describe the topic, which does not have a set description (name) in the sources. Such titles must be neutral. The title of the Russo-Georgian War does not, in fact, have to be neutral, so long as it is the established name. Srnec (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Srnec Thank you for voting. An emperor ✖ 13:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose better to use alphabetical order. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Super Dromaeosaurus Thanks for voting. An emperor ✖ 13:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Weak oppose. Seems unnecessary. Maybe "Georgian–Byzantine wars" could be a redirect? Professor Penguino (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Byzantine–Georgian wars


text:
Talk:Wahhabi War

Untitled
Ottoman or Egyptian Campaign? The Ottoman participation in this conflict was nominal; in reality it was Muhammad Ali's project from start to finish. Vassiliev, for example, consistently refers to the invading forces as "Egyptian." "Egyptian Occupation of Arabia" might also be suitable, as the Egyptians continued to govern the area until 1840. -- Slacker (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * After carefully reading the article about Muhammad Ali of Egypt I think things are not as easy as that. In 1799 the ottoman sultan Selim III sent him to Egypt as member of the ottoman army. In 1805 he was recognized by the Porte and appointed Ottoman viceroy of Egypt. Though technically and de facto he probably was autonom and independant enough to rule as he wished. This was to some extant normal for Turkish governors, Pashas and Agas and maybe others at the time and the very thing the reforms of the ottoman sultan Mahmud II later tried to change. At least until the desaster of the egyptian fleet at the Battle of Navarino in 1827 Muhammad Ali probably saw himself as part of the Ottoman Empire and himself a subject of some sort to the Sultan at Constantinople. The First Turko-Egyptian War may be seen as the official break with the sultan in 1831. The conflict with the Saudis was in 1811-1818 even befor the egyptian campaign in Sudan. The Saudis had taken the Hejaz in 1802 from the Ottoman Empire and if indeed the ottoman Sultan sent Muammad Ali to reconquer Arabia, then I think it should be called an Ottoman affair carried out by their egyptian representives for that is what Muhammad Ali was at the time, though later he may have been an independend sovereign of his own. - But that was later. --T.woelk (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, but if the Egyptians invaded after being asked to do so by the Ottomans, that doesn't mean it wasn't the Egyptians who in fact invaded and not the Ottomans. I just feel this title may give the impression that there were Turkish troops and officers involved, or that the Porte had an active role in commanding the conflict, when in reality this was a campaign by the army created by Muhammad Ali. I suppose we can make that clear in the body of the article. -- Slacker (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm - I would agree that the troops involved started from the "ottoman province" of Egypt for this campaign. But how do you define "Egyptian troops". Soldiers who had been born, raised and trained in Egypt? William Facey states in Dir'Iyyah and the first Saudi State, p65, 1997, (ISBN 0905743 806) that the army of Ibrahim Pasha who had been born in what is today Greece and may have been of albanian heritage, incuded 3000 North African Cavalrymen and North African, Turkish and Albanian Infantry. The medical force seems to have been mostly of Italian origin (Scoto, Gentili, Todeschini and Socio)and the siege engineer Vaissiere was French. He also names the cavalry commanders 'Awzun Ali and Rishwan Agha though not making any reference to their origins. So I conclude that the Turkish and Albanian units in Ibrahim pashas army may have included some of the regular ottoman troops that Muhammad Ali pasha had brought with him when he landed in Egypt in 1799, himself an ottoman officer at that time. --- going to bed now --T.woelk (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes he did use a lot of North Africans, but I meant that it was an army raised by Muhammad Ali himself, according to modern standards, and not an army supplied to him by the Porte, at least that was my impression. But if he was using Ottoman troops that landed with him in Egypt, then that would indeed be different. Since I don't know for sure, I guess we should leave the page as is.  Thanks. -- Slacker (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Commander
for every battle that says Muhammad Ali Pasha I will remove Muhammad Ali since he was not even there for these battles. Or was he? In all the Turkish articles it does not cite Muhammad Ali as a commander. Let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauca50 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2017

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Ottoman–Wahhabi War → Wahhabi War – The article was repeatedly moved in the past few years without any relevant discussions. And, as obvious from the above 2008 discussion, whether to use "Ottoman-Wahhabi" or "Egyptian-Wahhabi" remains somewhat controversial ("Saudi" is much less common). The campaign involved an army raised by Muhammad Ali of Egypt, but was launched in the name of the Ottoman Porte. So I'm proposing a new title, Wahhabi War, that is both NPOV and used by several sources:
 * Acton and Benians, The Cambridge Modern History, Volume 10, p.547 (no preview → "The Wahabi war dragged on till 1818, when Ibrahim, the Pasha's son, who in 1816 had...")
 * Clodfelter, Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492–2015, 4th ed., p.xi (index preview)
 * Hewins, Golden Dream: The Miracle of Kuwait, p.114 (no preview → "The political consequences of the Wahabi War of 1811-19 were momentous...")
 * Howard, A History of the Ottoman Empire, p.240 ("Then the Wahhabi war was launched, with Ibrahim in command.")
 * Sharif, Thoughts on just society and enduring ideology, p. (no preview → "Using the approaching Wahabi War in Arabia in 1811 for which a punitive expedition was instructed by Ottoman...") Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

 * Support per nom and a perusal of Google Books results. Other names used include "Turko-Wahhabi War" but "Wah(h)habi" alone seems more common and avoids the confusion noted by the nominator above.  —  AjaxSmack  03:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Requested move 31 December 2020

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move  (t · c)  buidhe  18:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Wahhabi War → Ottoman–Saudi War – Ottoman–Saudi War is the Real name of the War, not Wahabbi War. D4rkeRR9 (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. — Nnadigoodluck  █ █ █ 18:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If moved, it should be Ottoman-Saudi War (with a hyphen), as per MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES (combining form).  —Biscuit-in-Chief :-)  (/tɔːk/ – /ˈkɒntɹɪbs/) 01:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. "Ottoman-Saudi" is anachronistic, as "Saudi" is a common term for "Saudi Arabia", which did not exist as a kingdom until 1932. Moreover, the scope of this article is a bit weird.   The Wahhabis have been at "war" generically since 1744.  And have certainly been at war with the Ottomans since at least 1802. This article is covering just a single campaign.  "Egyptian invasion of the Hejaz" would be a more accurate description.  Or at least "Egyptian-Wahhabi war", particularly as the Ottomans were not directly involved, and indeed (if some sources are to be believed) the Ottoman Porte was kinda hoping it would drag out, and that both the Egyptians and Wahhabis would pummel and weaken each other. Walrasiad (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Support the proposed move. Ottoman-Saudi is the commonly used term in both Turkish and Arabic. There is nothing anachronistic about the term "Saudi", since that's what the House of Saud (and the land unde its rule) was called then and now. Saudi Arabia as it is now only emerged in 1932, but the Saudi domination of parts of Najd (Central Arabia) dates to the 18th century. Muhammad Ali's Egyptians were independent in practice, but officially still part of the Ottoman Empire, something that they acknowledged. Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Oppose I agree with but I think the most appropriate title is: "Ottoman/Egyptian—Wahhabi War".  They were (and are still today)  called Wahhabis by the majority of Muslims, see: (Fitnat al-Wahhabiyya), & (2016 international conference on Sunni Islam in Grozny). --TheEagle107 (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This is true, but "Wahhabi" denotes the religious doctrine, "Saudi" the state and territorial domain. Of course, the relationship is symbiotic in this case, but this was the Saudi state (that's how it's called in Arabic, الدولة السعودية الأولى), not the Wahhabi state. Unfortunately, there is the tendency of ex post facto projection (especially since 9/11) of the religious/ideological element, whereas we are talking about states and rulers. For example, the Soviets in the Cold War were the Soviets, not the Leninists. Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, I would like to suggest adding all the appropriate titles to the preface of the article (the article's introduction). For example: Ottoman-Wahhabi War (1811–1818) (also known as Egyptian-Wahhabi War, Ottoman-Saudi War, Egyptian-Saudi War)... All these titles are used in books and websites, and should be mentioned at the beginning of the article, in accordance with WP:NPOV.--TheEagle107 (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Article’s name
There is no term called Wahhabi، it is neither sectarian nor a name for nationality, this term is used by anti-Saudi groups As a kind of criticism or attack, As for the controversy over the use of the name (Saudi), this is the real and common name and it was used by the British in documents in the 19th century, in addition to that (Saudi) represents the name of the ruling family that has been ruling the country since 1744, If you notice that there are articles on Wikipedia named "First Saudi State" and "Second Saudi State" though there is no country called Saudi Arabia at that time, so the real name for the article should be “Saudi-Ottoman” war. Aziz bm (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The term "Wahhabi" refers to the followers of the religious doctrine preached by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, there is nothing inherently "anti-saudi" about it's use. The state ruled by the Saudi family was referred to at the time as "Emirate of Diriyah", the term "first Saudi State" is a retroactive classification. The motivations behind the war were also expressly religious, not national, including this with the fact that other Nejd tribes aside from the Saudi family also participated in the conflict in support of the Wahhabi ideology making the proposed "Ottoman - Saudi War" much less adequate in describing the conflict, the phrasing "Ottoman - Wahhabi War" is more accurate and contains no implications that would bring into question the neutrality of the arti

Name Change
We should change the name to the Ottoman-Wahhabi War, because just "Wahhabi War" is very bland and is probably not the greatest title to this conflict. PanjshirLions (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality
Elaborate specifically where the article is not neutral and does not correspond with the sources. Both Ottoman and Wahhabite persepctives are represented. A totally pro-Ottoman article regurgitating their anti-Wahhabi themes is not acceptable by the Neutrality standards. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) Shadowwarrior8 (talk)

Represent all point of views neutrally and with due weight, even if you disagree with the view. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. Can you tell me what is the reason for adding this phrase "Muhammad Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, the leader of the Wahhabi Reformation"?!--TheEagle107 (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a war article and one state's view cannot be asked to be overly promoted, in this case, Ottomans. "popular", "minority" etc these are subjective terms. Any objective evidence that Ottoman view is most popular? Infact Ottoman invasion is viewed negatively in arab circles. Promoting a Turkish nationalist view of the conflict cannot be accepted.

As for the phrase the leader of the Wahhabi Reformation", it signifies the theological background underlying the conflict. Ideas of Wahhabites perceived as "Reformist" in that context, vs what was considered "Traditional" by wide majority of Muslims. It is relevant since the conflict was justified on that basis by either parties. (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Egypt Eyalet Suggestion
Ottoman Empire should be listed above where it says Egypt Eyalet. PanjshirLions (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Name’s Neutrality
I’m initiating this discussion to point out that the term Wahhabi has negative connotations and has been used predominantly by the Ottoman and western scholars. It’s also to be noted that Wahhabi is a modern slur used against Saudis; not that it’s offensive to many or them but it certainly isn’t neutral. 2A0E:CB01:24:8D00:69DC:C1D5:5A3F:78C6 (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Wahhabis of Nejd Victory?
How are the Wahhabis considered victorious when the war resulted in the destruction of the Emirate of Diriyah? The establishment of the Emaryare of Najd is cited in the "results" box here, but that happened 6 years later and it hardly justifies the use of the term "victory" here. The peace treaty is also cited, although the war resumed months after it was signed. Azeezm4r (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

 * I would also like to say here that the name Wahhabi war is not very informative. A war against whom? The British? The rival Al-Muntafaq? The name "Ottoman-Egyptian expedition in Arabia" seems better. Azeezm4r (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wahhabi War


text:
Talk:Duar War

Books

 * (Anglo-Bhutan war of 1864-6; minor mention)
 * (The Great Duar War)
 * (mainly Duar War)
 * (Duar War)
 * (Duar War)
 * ("War with Bhotan")
 * (Dooar War)
 * (Duar War; kinda minor mention)
 * (Duar War)
 * (Duar War)
 * (Duar War)
 * (Duar War)

Articles

 * (Duar War)
 * (Anglo-Bhutan war of 1864-65)

Theses

(*) indicates I that don't have access to the book. Regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 19:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Collister is a primary source for all practical purposes — the material on Duar War and its effects are summarized from British reports etc. with negligible independent analyses and I will prefer citing Rennie or the Mission reports! The less said about Labh, the better and he is not a HISTRS. Bhutanese textbooks are not suitable for use either. Phuntsho's work can be classed in the genre of pop history and his academic training was not in history but Religious Studies.
 * However, Singh (1988) looks good: I need to consult it. Wangyal and Das are decent too. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 25 September 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover)   SITH   (talk)   14:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Bhutan War → Duar War – per COMMONNAME. Most sources describe it as Duar War and not Bhutan War. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 01:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Megan☺   Talk to the monster  09:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Support per WP:PRECISE as well; the war was really about the Duars more than it was about Bhutan itself.  Zoozaz1  talk 11:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support (as proposer): Karma Phuntsho's The History of Bhutan, considered to be the authoritative book on Bhutanese history, uses the term Duar War. I've listed some other sources in the section above, which mostly use Duar War too. David Rennie, who participated in the war and wrote about the it while returning to England, also used Duar War (although with an archaic spelling of Duar). So it's pretty clear Duar War is the common name. Regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 13:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

title: Talk:Duar War


text:
Talk:Joe Pasquale

Arbitrary section header
This article claims that JP won New Faces. The new faces article claims he came second. Which is correct? Guinness 17:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC) Children ==

I have uploaded an image of Joe: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Joe_Pasquale_2007.JPG but do not know how to get it to be visible on this page - if anyone can help please do. [Lynda Steele March 2008]

Under trivia:

"likened to Tommy Cooper, he has been called a comic genius." Really? I think Joe himself might have written this... This is quote from a newspaper following the appearance on New Faces.

Thief
Is he a joke thief? Stewart Lee alleged that he stole the joke "People often say to me: 'Get out of my garden'" off some other comedian, who isn't famous. Is this true?
 * I think we should at least mention this, Joe is mainly famous in the UK Alt-comedy circuit for being the butt of Stewart Lee's routine about joke theft. If a citation is needed, here is one: http://www.stewartlee.co.uk/press/writtenformoney/1995-dec-joe_pasquale-sundaytimes.htm

Joe has been accussed of joke theft and there seems to be some evidence for this. Joe has stated that someone can't really own a joke so that may his way of admitting he has used other peoples jokes. Most of Joe's jokes are not new, it is the way he is on stage that makes it totally irrelevant whether you hav heard the joke before or not.

Joe did not win NEW FACES he won his heat and came second in the final.

After borrowing a magicians trick he made a real hash of it but the crowd loved it and hence the remarks about Tommy Cooper were born and also his new act.

At the time of appearing on New Faces he admitted to judge Ken Dodd that he didn't really have an act.

He has borrowed people jokes, he is not really in a position to deny this. He without question used the in my garden joke.
 * Stewart Lee's routine makes a further joke of Joe's claim that "someone can't really own a joke". I really think the the allegations of plagiarism should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.194.105 (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Previous comment was by me! --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

To quote his tour/autobiography title...
Does he really talk like that?! Is the voice he uses his "natural" voice, or put on? Sven945 11:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I went to the same school as Joe and have met him since he became famous. He does have a high pitched voice but does exagerate this during his act. He says himself that the adrenalin of performing sends his voice higher but it is definitely not faked [Lynda Steele March 2008]

I also went to Torrels comp and was in the year below Joe. I also met him when he was a performer in his early days just before New Faces. His voice is squeeky and high without really trying, but he does add to it during his act.

Bias of article?
Is it just my limited command of English or does this read like it's taken out of a fanpage? The entire style of writing seems off. Also the lack of commentary on the (alledged) joke-stealing is odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.88.249.140 (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only does it read like a fan page but nuclearwarfare who is editing and protecting this article is in my view censoring the article from any information that Joe Pasquale wishes not to be seen here regardless of wether it's true and in the public domain already I fail to see the point of wikipedia if contributors are censoring the articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shammie62 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. For example: "Unfortunately, tragedy struck in January when, whilst on stage, he fell and severely injured his shoulder." This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Sorry, it might have hurt a lot, but injuring your shoulder is not a 'tragedy' in normalspeak. 194.39.218.10 (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

'In 1999, he appeared as a lead character in The Nerd. The show received rave reviews with one source describing it as "rib shatteringly funny".'Oh come on. Unattributed quote. I saw that show, my ribs were not damaged in any way. I didn't even laugh once. Why is Wiki protecting a third rate unoriginal comedian?

Edit request from Loftyboy44, 6 January 2011
edit semi-protected

Please add to occupations the following :- "he also worked, for a spell, at a famous margarine factory, near his home town, cleaning crude fish oil tanks (while doing occasional cabaret appearances in his spare time) Here is a link to an article where Joe states he worked at the margerine factory "http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/230188/Joe-Pasquale-on-geology

Loftyboy44 (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  —  Jeff G.  ツ  16:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Official Website
Please could you put a link to his official website at http://www.joepasquale.com All other websites are unofficial and Joe has personally requested that they be marked as unofficial.

Coyledesign (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal life
Joe pasquale was married twice. His first marriage to Alison Partridge ended in divorce. He is currently seperated from his second wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shammie62 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

He has at least three daughters Dani,Vicky and Tina with which he appeared on ITV's Family Fortunes.Owain meurig (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC) Yes he has 3 daughters, Dani and Vicky with his first wife Alison, Tina with his second wife Debbie and a son with his second wife Debbie. Joe also has a step daughter with his first wife Alison called Kerry who was a baby when Joe met Alison and 7 when they divorced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.93.144 (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Joe is currently studying for a Geosciences / Geology BSc at The Open University. Ref: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/230188 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.145.248 (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Horton Hears a Who!
No mention of his vocal performance in the above film in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.91.143 (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Editprotected
editprotected Please change the to. ۞  Tb hotch ™ &  (ↄ),  Problems with my English?  03:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the edits that have been removed are actually facts, note an interview with Joe pasquale http://www.ciaranbrown.com/pasquale.html

The page is now edit protected how can I edit the page using the interview enclosed as a reliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.252.80 (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP violation
editprotected

Please remove the sentences "Pasquale dropped out of school at the age of 15. He tried several occupations before turning to the stage." in the first section per WP:BLP. Please replace the next "He" with "Pasquale" to maintain clarity. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is this page protected?
He's hardly a controversial figure NBeddoe (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is protected because people like me stated facts about Joe Pasquale that either him or people around him didnt want in the public domain. Mostly thse facts that were changed back and forth were about his personal life and the his children. Joe stated on TV that he had 3 children with his first wife but one was a step daughter, this is accepted now but wikipedia wont allow it on the article. Joe also worked in a mararine factory which he has stated on TV but that was allowed either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.93.144 (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

MuppetFest
Since I can't edit the page, I'd like to point out to anyone who can that there was only one MuppetFest (so it should say something like "At the First (and only) Annual MuppetFest." --Muppet321 (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "On 9 December 2001, during the first (and only) annual MuppetFest celebration" —  The J J J unk  ( say hello ) 15:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
Joe second wife and 4 children

Curlycurly332 (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —  The J J J unk  ( say hello ) 15:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Joe Pasquale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121222162525/http://www.itv.com:80/dancingonice/contestants/joe-pasquale/ to http://www.itv.com/dancingonice/contestants/joe-pasquale/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121007004850/http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk:80/Nicest-man-showbiz/story-12979417-detail/story.html to http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Nicest-man-showbiz/story-12979417-detail/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Horton Hears a Who
So Dr Suess' Horton Hears a Who! was on TV recently and I happened to catch the ending + the credits. And guess what? Joe Pasquale played the role of "The Dentist" in the film. It's not included on this page, nor the page of the film so I wasn't sure if it was just a revoice they did for the UK version (It happens a lot of with CG animated films, adding local celebrities to roles). I checked Imdb (which does credit him) and it says there is no "alternate versions" of the film released in any country, but obviously Imdb can also be wrong. Can any American's confirm he does the voice in your version and can someone please add it to the article?

--86.15.86.18 (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Joe Pasquale. 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/20141221215558/http://www.rentaghostthemusical.com/ to http://www.rentaghostthemusical.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140107174951/http://www.national-accident-helpline.co.uk/about-us/news/press/underdog-books-tv-ad/ to http://www.national-accident-helpline.co.uk/about-us/news/press/underdog-books-tv-ad/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070618110244/http://www.joe-pasquale.co.uk/ to http://www.joe-pasquale.co.uk/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130505113457/http://www.whatsonwales.co.uk/interviews/i/25296/ to http://www.whatsonwales.co.uk/interviews/i/25296/

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) 15:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

King Rat
New to this, want to add:

"He's a member of the show business fraternity the Grand Order of Water Rats, having served as "King Rat" in 2012"

Then a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Order_of_Water_Rats — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.214.46 (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2020
Change 'In March 2020, he guest starred in an episode of the BBC daytime soap opera as himself, in an episode titled "The Joe Pasquale Problem".[2]' to 'In March 2020, he guest starred in an episode of the BBC daytime soap opera Doctors as himself, in an episode titled "The Joe Pasquale Problem".[2] Gogglyspecs (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — MRD2014 (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Age is incorrect
His date of birth was randomly changed to make him 10 years older. the Mirror, the Metro, and IMDB all have him as being born in 1961, making him 60.

92.14.126.221 (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

 * ✅. Thanks for the notice. Aidan9382 (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Joe Pasquale


text:
Talk:Colombian conflict

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colombian conflict. 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/20150217215352/http://infovenezuela.org/news/hugo-chavez-farc-terrorism-30042009.php to http://infovenezuela.org/news/hugo-chavez-farc-terrorism-30042009.php

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) 01:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Changes in the causes
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I just made some edits on the page's history section. I felt the page lacked a more succinct list of the causes of the conflict. I listed some of the main causes but feel free to add more. The conflict is such a complex social phenomenon that a list of causes will never be enough, yet I listed the ones that I felt were more relevant for an audience that does not have any knowledge of the conflict or Colombia's history. By also keeping in mind that my audience probably does not have any deep knowledge of the socio-cultural factors and history of Colombia I had to make some generalizations. For instance, in the list of causes, I generalized that the right-wing and capitalist movements are represented by the government meanwhile the left-wings are represented by the armed groups. This was a gross generalization that is particularly unfair in current Colombia, where there are now left-wing political parties in the Congress. Yet, I still think that it holds true in the context of the beginning of the conflict. I also expanded on the diverse and oftentimes competing theories on the date of the start of the armed conflict with the aim of highlighting how complex the conflict is and how still to this day there is still a lot of things that Colombians do not understand and fully comprehend of its history. Finally, I also expanded and corrected some things about the UP (Union Patriotica). I felt that the information was not deep enough and that due to recent research done by an amazing organization like the CNMH it was worth trying to explain something that had deadly consequences for the Colombian democracy.

Please feel free to reach out if there are any concerns with my edits.

Updating of the report based on findings of the Truth Commission Report
Hi I think we should start updating this page (and other pages related to the topic, based on the new facts that have come to light in the newly published Truth Commission Report. Starting with the number of Casualties, below being the quote from the report presenting the updated count after the extensive investigation done by the truth commission: "hecho y del acuerdo de paz irreversible entre el Estado y las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia-Ejército del Pueblo (FARC-EP)– no ha logrado seguridad para la vida de los ciudadanos, las instituciones, la naturaleza ni la economía. Lo demuestran más de nueve millones de víctimas, de las cuales el 90 % son civiles: cerca de 450.664 personas muertas y 121.768 desaparecidas, así como millones desplazadas, muchas hoy en el exilio, y miles secuestradas, violadas o torturadas. Las violaciones de los derechos humanos y las infracciones al derecho internacional humanitario (DIH) han afectado directamente al menos al 20 % de la población colombiana. Casi ninguna familia colombiana ha escapado a la violencia. Aunque la mayor victimización y daños los han sufrido personas y comunidades campesinas, así como indígenas y afrocolombianas, mujeres, niñas y niños, la violencia también ha afectado a sectores con poder político y económico. Miles de millones de dólares utilizados y perdidos en la guerra, tierras abandonadas, infraestructura, oleoductos y empresas destruidas. Esto se da en un país que tiene, posiblemente, el aparato de seguridad y defensa militar y policivo más grande, costoso y mejor entrenado y dotado de todo el continente, después del de Estados Unidos." BasilLeaf (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Colombian conflict


text:
Comana

Comana may refer to:

Turkey

 * Comana (Cappadocia), an ancient city in Turkey
 * Comana Pontica, an ancient city of Pontus in Turkey

Romania

 * Comăna, a commune in Brașov County, Romania (including the villages of Comăna de Jos and Comăna de Sus)
 * Comana, Constanța, a commune in Constanţa County, Romania
 * Comana, Giurgiu, a commune in Giurgiu County, Romania
 * Comana, a tributary of the Ialomița in Ialomița County, Romania
 * Comana (Olt), a tributary of the Olt in Brașov County, Romania

Other

 * Comana (genus), a moth genus in the family Limacodidae

title: Comana


text:
Passiflora tarminiana

Passiflora tarminiana (or banana passionfruit) is a species of passionfruit. The yellow fruits are edible and their resemblance to small, straight bananas has given it the name banana passionfruit in some countries. It is native to the uplands of tropical South America and is now cultivated in many countries. In Hawaii and New Zealand it is now considered an invasive species. It was given the name banana passionfruit in New Zealand, where passionfruit are also prevalent. In Hawaii, it is called banana poka. In its Latin American homeland, it is known as curuba, curuba de Castilla, or curuba sabanera blanca (Colombia); taxo, tacso, tagso, tauso (Ecuador); parcha, taxo (Venezuela), tumbo or curuba (Bolivia); tacso, tumbo, tumbo del norte, trompos, tintin, porocsho or purpur (Peru).

Passiflora tarminiana belongs to the Tacsonia subgenus of Passiflora. It has been known under a number of different names and was only formally described in 2001.

Description
Passiflora tarminiana is a high climbing vine with hairy stems and petioles. Where the petioles join the stem it has stipules which are 4–7 by 2–3 mm and are soon deciduous. The leaves are three-lobed and hairy below but usually hairless above. The flowers are solitary and hang downwards. The base of the flower has pale green bracts enclosing a swollen nectary chamber. The floral tube (hypanthium) is 6–8 × 0.7–1 cm and pale green, while the sepals and petals are 3–6 cm long, pink and perpendicular to the floral tube, or reflexed. Fruits taper at both ends, are 10–14 cm long by 3.5–4.5 cm wide and ripen to yellow or light orange. The fruit contain many seeds which are embedded in an edible, orange aril.

Mollissima and its close relative Passiflora mixta are vines with cylindrical stems densely coated with yellow hairs, and are vigorous climbers, growing up to seven metres. The leaves are a shiny green with clearly defined veins, the flower is large, pink and green petalled with a yellow and white centre. The fruit is yellow-orange when ripe and contains a sweet edible orange-colored pulp with black seeds.

Passiflora tarminiana is distinguished from P. tripartita var. mollissima by a number of features. P. tarminiana has small deciduous stipules while P. tripartita var. mollissima has larger, persistent stipules. The sepals and petals in P. tarminiana are perpendicular to the floral tube or are reflexed, whereas they are never so open in P. tripartita var. mollissima. They are also both much shorter in relation to the length of the floral tube in P. tripartita var. mollissima than in P. tarminiana.

Taxonomy

The correct taxonomic placement of this species has been problematic for some years. In South America it has been considered under P. cumbalensis, P. mollissima or P. tripartita (the species which now includes P. mollissima), or as a hybrid. In Hawaii it was referred to as P. mollissima. In New Zealand it was included under P. mixta although some sources also used the name P. mollissima for this species. It was described as a separate species distinct from any of these in 2001. The specific name recognises the Colombian agronomist Tarmín Campos.

Common names for P. tarminiana include banana passionfruit (Australia, New Zealand, Africa, Hawaii), curuba India, curuba ecuatoriana, curuba quiteña (Colombia), tacso amarillo (Ecuador), tumbo (Perú), banana pōka (Hawaii) (in the Hawaiian language the word pōka'a refers to tendrils – "that which is tied up in a ball like rope or twine"), northern banana passionfruit (New Zealand).

Distribution
Passiflora tarminiana is native to the uplands of tropical South America but the exact native range is uncertain as it has been widely cultivated in this region. It is found in the Colombian highlands and the Venezuelan, Peruvian and southern Ecuadorean Andes where it is cultivated from around 2000 – 3000 metres. It has naturalised in Australia, Guam, Hawaii, New Zealand and Zimbabwe. In both Hawaii and New Zealand it is regarded as an invasive species. It is widely cultivated throughout the world, including California, Réunion, Mexico, Panama and Papua New Guinea.

Passiflora tripartita var. mollissima and P. tarminiana were until recently considered to be one species, P. mollissima.

Historic use
The banana passionfruit is native to the Andean valleys from Venezuela to Bolivia. It was domesticated and cultivated since pre-Columbian times by various cultures of western South America before the Spanish Conquest and today it is commonly cultivated and its fruit are regularly sold in local markets. The vine is grown in California as an ornamental under the name "softleaf passionflower". It is grown to some extent in Hawaii, Madeira and the State of Tamil Nadu, India.

Biology

In the original description Passiflora tarminina is described as a cultigen and there is little information about its biology in the wild. Many members of the subgenus Tacsonia are restricted endemics and it is unclear whether the widely cultivated species (such as P. tarminiana) are also local endemics which have been spread through widespread cultivation or whether they are naturally widespread species. The type specimen is from a cultivated rather than a wild plant.

Unlike many Passiflora species, P. tarminiana is self-compatible, although self-pollination is not considered important in the wild. The main pollinators in South America are believed to be hummingbirds or large bees, while in Hawaii birds were commonly observed robbing nectar but not transferring pollen. Bees and other insects were observed collecting pollen in Hawaii.

In Hawaii the seeds are dispersed by frugivorous animals. By far the most important disperser in Hawaii is the feral pig, which eats the fallen fruit and passes the seeds intact. Feral pigs seek out the fruit and when P. tarminiana occurs with feral pigs in Hawaii, the seeds are abundant in pig droppings. Germination is not enhanced by gut passage but pigs disturb the ground making a more favourable environment for germination of P. tarminiana. Because their home range is typically one to two square miles, pigs contribute more to the peripheral expansion of P. tarminiana patches than long-distance dispersal.

Passiflora tarminiana invades both open and closed forest in Hawaii. It grows most rapidly in full sun but tolerates some shade. Growth is severely restricted at relative light intensities of less than 2%. Where the forest canopy is largely intact, P. tarminiana invades in canopy gaps formed when trees fall or die.

Passiflora tarminiana hybridises with other members of the subgenus Tacsonia.

Uses
Passiflora tarminiana is cultivated for its edible fruit. It is the second most common species in cultivation in South America after P. tripartita var. mollissima and is considered more disease resistant than that species. The fruit are also eaten in New Zealand but in Hawaii the fruit is considered to be insipid.

The pink flowers are showy and it is also considered to be an ornamental species.

Invasive species
Passiflora tarminiana and P. tripartita thrive in the climate of New Zealand. They are invasive species since they can smother forest margins and forest regrowth. It is illegal to sell, cultivate or distribute the plants.

Banana passionfruit vines are now smothering more than 200 sqmi of native forest on the islands of Hawaii and Kauai. Seeds are spread by feral pigs, birds and humans. The vine can also be found all across the highlands of New Guinea.

It is considered an environmental weed in South Eastern Australia (Victoria, Tasmania and New South Wales), but not declared or considered noxious by any Australian state government authorities.

Banana passionfruit is used as rootstock for grafting the passionfruit varieties more commonly grown for food, especially in climates too cool for productive passionfruit growing. Regrowth from beneath the graft is one means of its outbreak as a weed, so growers should be vigilant for sprouting low on the main stem or from around the base of the plant, and should pull up and cut back the plant when (typically after 6–9 years) the grafted passionfruit is no longer as productive.

Control
Three biological control agents have been released in Hawaii for the control of Passiflora tarminiana. Septoria passiflorae, a fungus, was released in 1996. There have been major epidemics that have substantially reduced the biomass of P. tarminiana. This fungus requires wind and rain to spread and in some areas requires repeated inoculations to achieve control. Two moth species were also introduced, Cyanotricha necryia, which failed to establish, and Pyrausta perelegans, which suffered substantial levels of egg parasitism and has not become common.

Physical and chemical control methods have generally proved to be ineffective and uneconomic in Hawaii, although glyphosate has been successfully used to control P. tarminiana in Acacia koa forest.

Passiflora tarminiana is controlled by land management agencies in some areas of New Zealand. Control is either by physical control (for example hand pulling of seedlings) or using herbicides. Biological control research is underway in New Zealand. The Septoria species from Hawaii was tested in containment in New Zealand and found to damage Passiflora edulis which is grown commercially. Pyrausta perelegans is undergoing host range testing.

title: Passiflora tarminiana


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The dust jackets

 * 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 Deletion review nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 21:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The dust jackets
Another non-notable band trying to advertise. Vanity and non-notable Gator1 17:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. - Gator1 17:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing at allmusic.com, and the only Google hits for "The dust jackets" "Adam Kagan" are a blog or something. There's almost no information on their website, which is just a student's page at a Uni. There is no means to third-party verify any information about this band, quite apart from the fact that there is no information in the article. (Oh, and they soundly fail WP:MUSIC.) -Splash talk 20:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If they make an impact on the music industry, sure. Until that time, delete. -- Captain Disdain 00:47, 16 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

authors: ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ