text:
Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics

This is the talk page for the CORE TOPICS sub-project of the Version_1.0_Editorial_Team.

/Archive 1 (To end Jan 2006) | /Archive 2 (Feb 1st - Mar 12th, 2006) | /Archive 3 (mid-March 2006) | /Archive 4 (late March 2006) | /Archive 5 | /Archive 6 | /Archive 7 | /Archive 8

 * Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Tree worksheet

WP1.0 editorial team discussions – Core topics COTW – Wiki sort discussions – FAs first discussions – Work via WikiProjects discussions – Pushing to 1.0 discussions

Core Topics: Mid-June Update/Upgrade
I propose that the current information at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics be replaced entirely or largely with the information at this page: User:Silence/Core.

I've been working on this list, in various forms, for over a month now. If we're going to try to avoid overdiscussing list details as much as possible so as not to waste time and energy, then I would argue that this list would be a vastly stronger starting point for us to rely on than the current list is: it's not only greatly-enhanced in terms of coverage, with many of the less-important and lower-quality articles replaced by vastly more-important (bye-bye oceanography, hello water!) and higher-quality (bye-bye craft, hello Sun!) ones, and has exactly 150 articles, but also has been thoroughly checked-over, with each entry's article reviewed, and most of them updated with new information.

Numerous errors have also been fixed, like typos, inaccuracies, dab-page-listings, mis-alphabetizations, etc. Furthermore, all the badly out-of-date sections of the page (except, for the sake of expediency, for "Changes from original list", which I will update on request if anyone wants me to) have been updated, including "Article status summary", and I have added dozens of links to relevant WikiProjects in the convenient, yet previously woefully unused, column allocated to them, allowing users to immediately see, for example, that there is a WikiProject for organized improvements to ecology article (WikiProject Ecology), a very valuable resource for a project like Core Topics. -Silence 04:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I just repeat myself: great work! :) The list is really much better. But what if I don't agree with a Removed entry? And why is it in the discussion namespace? NCursework 05:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree, this is extremely useful. I don't have time to discuss a lot more right now, but I really like the work you have done.  Having an up-to-date list with assessments is extremely valuable to the project, and I appreciate that you have incorporated many of the feedback from our earlier debates.  Also, your joining the project as a working member is a great step forward.  I'll try and check in here again tomorrow with more comments. Walkerma 06:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

 * To answer NCurse's questions: if you disagree with a Removed entry, say so and I'll re-add it if I agree, or talk it over until we reach a compromise. You can also feel free to make changes yourself, if you prefer; whichever you find more convenient and expedient. My proposal is not an attempt to force my specific changes on the page, but rather to speed up and clarify the process of discussing what to remove and what to add, so as to avoid the problem Walkerma mentioned of overdiscussing matters where we have at least a decent (even if not ideal) status quo; I'll gladly make dozens of alterations to the list, if that's what's needed before it can be implemented. I just figured having a solid, obvious version would (1) make things go quicker, and (2) make it more obvious what the differences between the two versions. (For example, the current Core Topics list has many, many more "Start"-level articles than my proposed version does, because I've responded to the earlier arguments Walkerma made about choosing higher-quality pages over lower-quality ones by heavily revising my listing to have a higher number of important, but also very well-written and comprehensive, pages.) As for why it's in the discussion namespace, it's meant to be a temporary page until we can agree on a version to replace the current text at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics, so I didn't want to give it its own Wikipedia page. It was formerly at my userspace (User:Silence/Core), but I moved it to here so other people would feel more free to make changes to it. I may move it back to my userspace after we're done discussing and implementing it, since at that point we can simply go back to making changes and updates at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics itself. It doesn't really matter where it's placed; if you would prefer a shorter page title, for example, feel free to move it.
 * To answer Walkerma: Thanks! I expect that we'll disagree over a few matters, but am very willing to make changes in response to specific suggestions and explanations (for example, if you think Fungus isn't noteworthy enough but Natural environment is, that's certainly a change I'd be willing to make), but my list isn't meant to be "perfect" anymore than the current one is: it's merely meant to be a lot better, so we have firmer ground to base ourselves on in continuing to make improvements and utilize the Core Topics for various affairs (like WikiProject and CD ratings). What's important is that we be consistent, and I think that the suggested list does a much better job than the one we currently have on the Core Topics page (with its glaring errors, like linking to the dab page environment and listing oceanography in lieu of ocean or even water). Anyway, look forward to your feedback, as soon as you have the time! -Silence 06:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, I spoke with Maurreen on the phone, and she's OK with us making these changes. I'd like to propose the following:

 * As Silence proposes, change our current Core Topics list to Silence's latest list. I prefer this to our current list, and it seems as if others do too.  We can nitpick at the list once it's in place, making incremental changes as needed.
 * I would like to formally ask if Silence would be willing to take over leading this project. As you can see from the main WP:1.0 page, we don't have anyone running things here, which is why things have been neglected for a while.  I've been a kind of "caretaker" here just to make sure things didn't die, but I think Silence would bring a lot of fresh ideas and new energy.  This is an important project which deserves committed people, so I hope that Silence can spare the time to do this.  If he can manage also to oversee the COTF as well that would be great, if not, then I will carry on as "caretaker" there as well, or we could share things.
 * Regarding a transition from one core list to another, I would suggest moving any ex-Core topics into the supplement as a default, and if we want to debate removing any of these from there we can. I suspect many of them will be quite appropriate there.  That will also make things simpler as we change over, for example with people voting (as someone did tonight) to support Biotechnology as a Core Topics COTF.  Since I am in contact with many of the WikiProjects anyway, I am willing to let those folks know about any changes to their worklists.
 * I'd like to see the articles in the supplement assessed, so we can start to use the list.
 * Mathbot is currently generating this set of output, updated each night. We will need to think about how we handle supplement articles - do we want to use the same template, or a new one, or not bother?  I would suggest using one single template to simplify things, but using the "importance" parameter to separate them into Main and Supplement.  The bot is a useful way of getting the table automatically updated to keep up with assessment changes as articles get improved, and provides metadata right there on the article talk page.

 * So then, Silence, thank you for your tenacity, insights and sheer hard work (assessing 150 articles from scratch is many, many hours work, I know!). We should use that work to revive this flagging project, hopefully under your leadership if you're willing to take the helm.  Thanks, Walkerma 02:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

 * FYI, for the sake of clarity, I'd like to elaborate a little on my phone conversation with Martin. Essentially, I'm going along with him and supporting Silence coordinating this. If Silence has the time and the inclination, thanks, that's great.
 * About details of the changes, I'm going along with Martin. Doesn't mean I agree with Silence. Means I don't have time right now to work on it. Ciao. Maurreen 05:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

 * "As Silence proposes, change our current Core Topics list to Silence's latest list. I prefer this to our current list, and it seems as if others do too.  We can nitpick at the list once it's in place, making incremental changes as needed." - I'm honored and delighted that you're OK with the list; thank you very much for being understanding! I look forward very much to the nitpicking and discussion, at our leisure: we have plenty of time to fine-tune the list once the big change is done with. What matters in the short term is that we make certain especially significant changes as soon as possible, because the Core Topics list is now starting to be used by many other projects on Wikipedia. That's the only reason to rush: once we've made the most significnt fixes (e.g., replacing the articles on individual religions with more basic articles like fire and color: those religion articles are indeed high-quality, but not really "basic" or general enough for the "top 150" list; the 0.5 CD selection and the Supplemental lists are much better places for them, and prevents the inevitable problem of being accused of bias), we'll not need to rush any more of the overhauls or alterations, as we'll at least have a more consistent and up-to-date listing to start from.
 * "I would like to formally ask if Silence would be willing to take over leading this project." - Hm. I'm not sure I should. I'm something of a rookie to this page, relative to a lot of you: you guys do have more experience. My main advantage was that I gave a "fresh" perspective to the list: I wasn't around for all the haggling and debating over each individual article, so I could review the list from the perspective of an outsider, which is the perspective most people judging the project will have. The list should explain itself: we shouldn't need to explain its history in-depth in order to justify what articles it includes. But because of my inexperience in working on this project, I don't think I'd make a good "leader" at this point. Additionally, although I have plenty of free time now, I can't promise that I will forever (especially after mid-August). I'd feel more comfortable and useful as just some guy who works hard to keep the list up-to-date and comprehensive, than as someone leading the whole project; I tend to be more productive as a second-hand-man, because it gives me enough control to make changes where necessary, but frees me from the responsibilities of running the whole thing so I can spend more time actually working on the list. Also, I don't want my ideas to be given higher priority than other people's, as I'm worried might happen if I was promoted: suggestions should be judged on their merits, not based on who's making them. So: Again, I'm honored, but I don't think it would be a good idea, at least at this point.
 * "I think Silence would bring a lot of fresh ideas and new energy." - That's my job. :) If I can do that without running the project, I'll be happy.
 * "Regarding a transition from one core list to another, I would suggest moving any ex-Core topics into the supplement as a default, and if we want to debate removing any of these from there we can." - Fair enough. You can see all the formerly-listed entries at the bottom of my version's page. Listing them at "Supplemental" would indeed be a good way to give us time to carefully-review the changes later on, though I expect a fair number of the removed entries not to make the cut (like mathematical proof and oceanography). -Silence 08:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Core-topic Categories and Templates
I'm ready to recategorize and retemplatify the Core Topics now, per recent changes, if noone objects. The current categories and template placements for Category:Core topics articles by quality is badly out-of-date. I'm assuming that these categories are only for the main, 150-article list, not for the Supplementals (hence if we do eventually categorize the Supplementals, they'll probably be in a different set of categories). So, shall I go ahead with the switchover? -Silence 03:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Just go ahead. We will look after your work. :) NCursework 08:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, done. -Silence 08:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Table
The table is rarely updated and can be overwhelming. I'd like to move it to a subpage. Maurreen 22:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The table is long with a lot of information. I agree about moving it to a subpage - including moving the "Removed entries" section along with it as well. Vir 06:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, I hate to see it go but you're quite right, it's a bit much. If I ever get time to work on this list again I'd like to see at least a concise summary list included here - would your "tree" serve that purpose, Maureen? Walkerma 06:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Sorry, Martin. I think we don't have enough people working on this to support the table.
 * Having a summary makes sense. I'm not sure which tree you mean. Do you mean essentially adding to the Article Status Summary? That'd be good. I had thought of moving Martin's tree over. But I think it is outdated because of Silence's changes. Maurreen 12:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The table is useful. It doesn't need to be revised weekly to be useful. If there is another article tracking method that is better than the table, fine. Otherwise, if no one else wants to work on the core topics table, I'd be happy work on it with Silence in a few months. Just can't do it now. If Silence still wants to work on it then perhaps that is enough effort. And perhaps other folks will pitch in. Vir 01:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved the table and list of removed items to the same subpage, and I added a tree listing all the current core topics. Maurreen 14:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The tree is a good exercise in general and a helpful way to present the core topics. A few things: In the tree, the subcategories of the applied science category didn't work too well together. So, I moved the applied subcategories to other categories where they seemed to fit better, including these moves: Env. -- Life Science; Comm --> Soc Sci. I also made these moves (and a few other misc. moves): History --> Humanities (including Civilization under History rather than Soc Sci Misc where it could also fit) ; Race --> Soc Sci Misc (note that race is studied very extensively (perhaps most extensively) in sociology -- but also in other fields - hence, like and along with gender, race is perhaps best in Soc Sci Misc) Vir 21:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ps. Communication (and its elements) could fit just as well in Humanities or Social Science categories, like history which can fit in both (and includes aspects of both). Vir 21:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks, it looks good overall. I had debated a couple of ways of breaking up "Communication." But "Information" seems out of place under "Physical science". I would never look for it there, but I'm not sure where is best. Maurreen 00:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Welcome. Based on your comment, I moved "information" to the Communication subcat. It does fit there. I think there are some physics theories that include information along with mater-energy as part of theory, which is why i put it there. But, this is not that sense of information that we usually think of.
 * After reflection, I moved the communication subcategory from soc science, where I first put it, to humanities. "Communications" is not the name of a specific soc sci discipline - rather, there are a number of media/comm disciplines with similar names to "comm." or that fall under that head, that would fit in humanities, though some belong in soc. sciences, such as linguistics. This category stuff is often a fuzzy excercise.
 * Btw, I'm going to let this ID go to sleep a longish awhile -- esplained on my user page. But I'll reappear to contribute in bits in ongoing ways here sometime in next few months with another ID. Vir 16:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks. The "information" move is good. See you later. Maurreen 16:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear
I'd like to replace Nuclear power with the original Nuclear technology, which had been deliberately chosen to encompass both nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Maurreen 15:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, definitely. Nuclear power would be better at the WP:VA level, I think. Walkerma 23:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Stubs
I’m thinking we could move these stubs to the supplement:
 * Health
 * Metal
 * Motion (physics)
 * Landform
 * Visual arts
 * Maurreen 16:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

 * And Matter. Maurreen 17:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I could accept losing landform, which to some extent is covered in continent; Sure, it's very "core", but I personally can't imagine ever wanting to look it up - I would look up something more tangible. Visual arts is also covered somewhat in other core articles, but I'd be more likely to look it up I think.  As for the others, I think they belong in core topics (IMHO) and we can't easily substitute them, so they should stay despite being at the stub/start level.

 * On balance, I think I'd prefer that we kept these. None of them are hardcore stubs, mere dictionary definitions.  Silence made a good point: we shouldn't relegate true core topics on the basis of quality alone, rather, we should try to improve those articles so they are usable.  Another point: Maybe some of these topics should be fairly short articles anyway, with use of main to direct the reader to the more detailed articles?  Take a look at Chemical substance to see the kind of thing I mean.  It used to be a dictionary-type stub - now I think it covers the ground in four screenfuls perfectly well.  It may take a couple of years, but I'd like to see us work on these stubs through the COTF until we get these at least to the B-Class level.  It's a hard choice -what do others think?   Walkerma 23:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't feel strongly about them, but I'm trying to tune some things up and I figure it's worth asking.
 * I do agree that some articles should probably stay short.
 * The COTF doesn't get a lot of participation.
 * Various things will evolve. Maurreen 03:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Similar to Chemical substance, Performing arts has developed from one screen to four. We have Visual arts in the core but apparently removed Performing arts. I see these two as parallel. I'd like to see them together. I am open about whether they are in the core or the supplement. Maurreen 05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Painting
I'd like to restore Painting. We have Visual arts, Art, Drawing and Sculpture. I don't know why "Painting" was removed. Maurreen 03:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, looks nice but for refs, a B, I can't understand it going either. Walkerma 04:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 * "Painting" is a much more specific topic than Visual arts and Art (painting is a type of each), Sculpture (about as broad as "visual arts"), and Drawing (which encompasses not only artistic drawing, but illustration of all kind, including architectural drawings). I wouldn't mind removing Drawing from the list too, though, if people feel it's too specific for the top 150, like Painting. -Silence 04:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 * In my view, Painting and Sculpture are generally at the same level; they should be together one place or the other. But if we have a 2-1 split on this, I will let it go for now and leave things as they are. Maurreen 05:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Solar system
I think this should be added to core topics, alongside "planet", "star", "galaxy" and "universe." Serendipodous 14:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I think astronomy is already over-represented. How about using "Solar system" to replace one or more items in the section? Maurreen 18:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For example, the list has twice as many astronomy entries as chemistry entries. Maurreen 19:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sets of articles and wikiprojects
Many articles seem to work as sets. I joined this project because I really see the value in this way of doing things and learned a lot from working with User:Maurreen and User:Sunray on the Community article. I noticed that the "main" articles that appear on "core topic" articles are important, too. Just a few exapmles in the Community context are Community development, Sense of community and Structure and agency articles. The Work via WikiProjects way is, IMO the only best better way to handle such complexity if you have well organized WikiProjects.

I've had a theory for a long time that "topics" have to be handled with plenty of focus and guidance. I see that North America is getting some attention and as one can see, its "context" is humongous! Though Louisville is only one city in one U.S. state called Kentucky, there are plenty of people there who know a lot about it and are well qualified to perfect that article. Yet The United States is only a country in North America. (Follow the linkage to see where I'm going with this). I think that The Places Team at WP:1.0 can provide much leadership in this area and has already.

Similarly, the Core Team (you folks) could help along struggling projects like WikiProject International law by coordining and connecting their efforts to more successfull projects like WikiProject Law. But from what I've seen from here, the Law wikiproject isn't very enthused about WP:1.0 assessments. However, the smaller project, which doesn't even have a listing here might be more inclined to get on board. That's why I nominated the International law article, which appears at the #5 spot when you google "international law" as a search term. I found all this out when doing research for the international community article.

One more point. Many WikiProjects focus on Portals. WikiProject U.S. states is working to focus and guide several of the WikiProject (Your state) projects toward United States, before building their own state or city portal. If and when interest in North America wins it a COTF spot, I believe that Portal:North America should be kept in mind here and members of this crew can start WikiProject North America to help manage the article and its context.

The big thing here for editors and readers alike is ease of use and logical structures. I've been dealing with WikiProjects, Portals, Templates and Categories (including Category:Wikipedians from a holistic standpoint for a while. In fact, though I can't prove it directly, I may have been partially responsible for the creation of the Portal namespace. (You'ld have to study the deletion logs for deleted WikiProjects). It may even be a good idea to use WikiProject Core as a catylist for bringing about Project:Core (the Project:(topic) namespace is a new namespace to replace Wikipedia:WikiProject (topic)) to go along with Portal:Core (which replaced Wikipedia:Wikiportal (topic)). It would certainly reduce typing and simplify linking. See WikiProject_Community for an idea. Just my $0.02 worth. Sorry for the long post. • CQ 02:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi, CQ. Thanks for joining us. I enjoy your enthusiasm.
 * About WikiProject Law or a project for North America -- I'm sorry, but I think you overestimate us. What you have in mind would be a lot of work, a lot of detail, and probably a continuing effort in a relatively narrow area. That's not something that I at least am interested in. To some degree, it would be the opposite of my general focus -- essentially improving the top of the WP "tree of knowledge."
 * At some level, that includes all the articles on countries. I had started a 1.0 subproject on geography, but I got little help and abandoned it.
 * I think you and I might have more overlap with your ideas for WikiProject Core and Portal:Core. I don't fully understand you, but you might be interested in Category: Wikipedia core topics. I had thought about linking at least some of these with templates and more-similar names and other ideas. Maurreen 06:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I may be asking in the correct place - I doubt it, but here goes: Is something wrong with The GA-category? I noticed in the Community articles by quality tables that Community doesn't show up. Also on the GA listing on one of the main lists for Core Topics No GA's show up. Could there be a glitch somewhere? CQ 23:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I can't help you with that. It would be better to ask at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects. Maurreen 03:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Math
I removed these two from the tree: Calculus and Non-euclidean geometries. Our practices is to discuss changes to the list before making them. I would go along with calculus if at least one item is deleted from the sciences. Maurreen 15:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Calculus is about as core as you can get, though one might argue Mathematical analysis is even moreso. It's just not the greatest article. Any of the following I would consider to be less core in it's branch of knowledge: Big Bang, moon, color, fire, brain, sex. Each deals with a bit more detail, and isn't nearly as foundational to as many fields of knowledge. Non-euclidean geometries I don't think is all that fundamental.

 * While we're at it I would say advertising is not one of the top fundamental concepts in Business/Economics. Risk management would probably underlie more such as insurance, finance, disaster planning, etc, but maybe I'm biased on that. Marketing even is more fundamental than advertising. - Taxman Talk 22:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh, one more comment. Aren't there some relatively standard trees of knowledge out there that we can use as a base. LOC, other library systems etc. I assume they'd all be different, but if we had a way of averaging their top 100, 200 topics, etc then we could avoid reinventing the wheel. - Taxman Talk 22:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that calculus should be in core topics if at all possible. I'm more doubtful about NE geometry. Walkerma 23:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Calculus must be absolutely must be in. Every 16-18 year old student in maths studies it and very important in other fields like physics. I'd say Mathematical analysis is really the daughter of Calculus: MA the field where the rules of high-school calculus are proved and generalised, so less important practically but more important theoretically (deeper). Agree most could happily pass through life without knowing about Non-euclidean geometries all though it is fascinating and part of the bedrock of relativity. --Salix alba (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, how about this for a package deal -- add calculus and remove advertising? I strongly prefer that the list not grow.
 * Also, about Taxman's point about consulting other lists and avoiding reinventing the wheel -- various lists were consulted when the list was orignally created.
 * Also, so people know, the list is essentially a work list.
 * Anybody want to help with Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF? Maurreen 03:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try to write a bit on biotech after Wikimania is over. Yes, we could lose advertising into the supplement, I think.  Walkerma 03:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the original list included calculus. Maurreen 05:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Start class
I am wondering whether Humor, Continent and Electronics should be redesignated as B class. Maurreen 16:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Humour still has a lot of lists as content, and continent has two cleanup tags on it, so I'd hold back on those, though both are close. Electronics does now look like a B to me, though only just.  Should I change it? Walkerma 17:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Continent has had significant work since August. Perhaps time to reassess. Nurg 10:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Color
Physics is the only branch with nine articles. I would like to delete at least Color. Maurreen 16:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think color is pretty core, I'd rather not lose it. You could equally well place it under Visual Arts if you want to balance things - or is that just window-dressing?  The modern physics description of color tends to be seen as part of a wider meaning, relating to the wavelength of any form of electromagnetic radiation, though an understanding of color comes from physics (Newton playing with a prism, etc.) Walkerma 16:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you open to either trimming the list to get it closer to 100 or making replacements to get what I would see as more balance between science and other major groups? Here is the count for major branches:
 * Culture and society, 15
 * Earth, 16
 * Humanities, 24
 * Life science and medicine, 19
 * Mathematics, 7
 * Physical science, 23
 * Social science, 22
 * Technology, 18
 * Total – 134
 * Maurreen 17:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, there's no problem having 100+ core articles. And science is a fairly important subject and one people frequently look up in an encyclopedia. So I would be against any change. Cedars 12:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Query
Do you think W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan are core? The first is FA, the second... not. Adam Cuerden talk 21:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not! At this level - the top 100-150 articles, you get Music and Theatre and that's it!  Even Shakespeare doesn't make it in!  I think Opera is in the supplement!  If you want to argue a case for these articles being important, you should raise the issue at WP:VA and/or Core_biographies but even on the latter page there are only 6 entries for Music - Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Elvis, Beatles and Verdi.  Note that the importance of the topic doesn't relate to the quality of the article - in fact until we started this project many core articles were in very poor shape.  In fact it doesn't matter too much if G&S are on these lists even on our next CD releases we can probably include such articles (Version 0.5 is pretty much closed now, but the next version can probably include them). Congratulations on the new FA! Thanks, Walkerma 22:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we tweak this to make the part about improving the article go away when that isn't necessary?
I ask this because I don't think Talk:Galaxy needs "Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration." It's a recently promoted FA! I was thinking of making its appearance contigent on whether or not blah=no, or something.--Rmky87 21:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Core articles with problems
Greetings. I used a perl script to make a list of articles listed as "core topics" that are also tagged with cleanup messages. It's at Core topics - 1,000/with problems. FYI. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, we can use this to focus our effort. Cheers, Walkerma 04:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Clothing article a disaster
Is this the right place to point out that the clothing article is a disaster? It's one of the Top 150, and contains minimal citations, bizarre content, lack of mainstream facts, and lots of original research. In addition, it appears to have been written by a registered sex offender with clothing fetishes. I am trying to improve, but need major help!! NuclearWinner 20:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - yes, the article does look poor. I think it got on the CD largely because it was a core topic.  Could you perhaps nominate it for the Core Topics collaboration?  That way you could enlist some help, though it may take a few weeks. Thanks, Walkerma 04:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Request: An MOS or guideline for writing about core topics
I've been wanting to tackle film for a long time. However, my minimal effort - and I suspect that this is a common issue across most of the core topics - is how exactly to approach articles on such broad subjects without biting off not only more than I can chew but more than I can even comprehend biting into! While I've been able to get some ideas together by looking at the handful of core FAs, it would be nice if perhaps some of the editors behind these successful articles might be able to write a quick guide as to how to face the daunting task of writing a quality core article. Any advice is very much welcome! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 06:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Great idea! I know I tried working on some, and it's really hard.  If you think film is hard, try Humanities!  One common feature I've seen is a lot of use of Summary style.  The only problem here is locating "some of the editors behind these successful articles" - there aren't many good broad articles.  Nature comes to mind as one that was vastly improved.  One other problem I can see is that every article at this level may be unique.  Definitely worth a try. Walkerma 21:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with by-products of incompleteness
Something I noticed in the online version of version 0.5 was that the fact that not all articles are included is not only a problem just because you can't click on them and look them up. It is compounded by the fact that articles are written assuming that other articles are available to refer to. A lot of this, such as "see also" links, has been diligently removed, but things still get problematic especially with big articles which covers subtopics which branch out into their own larger articles. This kind of writing also tends to occur in both the best written and the most important topics.

For example, the article on the September 11 attacks contains 13 sections which are started with the main template in the current revision. In the case of the shorter of these, the sections are more introductory and follow similar style guidelines to lead sections - that is, they omit details which are more appropriate in elaborative sections in the main article, and there is not always such a density of citations, because facts are explained and cited in more detail in the main article.

Is there any current strategy for dealing with this sort of issue? The possible approaches I can see are:

 * Accept that WP1.0 will not be as informative or verifiable as the live version
 * Wait until articles are at a good enough quality that as many referenced sub-articles are included as possible
 * Actually rewrite certain sections for the 1.0 version
 * Your alternative idea here

Any thoughts? BigBlueFish (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That is why I have never liked the policy of making everything concise, making more articles. Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 21:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sense
Sense is missing from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.5.81 (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sex
Sex is listed as a core topic, but unfortunately can focus on two different classes of things --
 * biological sexual reproduction, male/female differences and sex determination in all kingdoms
 * human sexuality, human male/female sex differences, human sexual intercourse, gender identity

I've rewritten the entire article with the first aspect in mind, for a couple reasons: it's categorized under biology, and the hatnote for the article had said "This article is about biological sex. For alternate uses, such as sexual intercourse, see Sex (disambiguation)."  I'd like to know if (and to what extent) the current article is covering the material envisioned by the core team. Thanks... Madeleine ✉ ✍ 14:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

 * When I last reviewed the article for the Core Topics project, it was mainly about gender. We should probably have both; I may add the sexual intercourse article into the Core Supplement. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Australia
It looks weird to see a country article alongside continent articles, were you conscious of this? It really doesn't match the list. There's a separate article for the continent -- Australia (continent). Madeleine ✉ ✍ 05:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * These lists were first put together in 2004, so the article may have changed in scope since then - the intention was to have the continents. Walkerma (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Mathematics: add Calculus and Set Theory?
I think calculus and set theory and major omissions from the core topics. Calculus and set theory are definitely "core" to mathematics. Set theory is essentially the foundation of mathematics. And calculus is essentially the foundation of modern mathematics - and it is essential in everything from astrophysics to electrical engineering to modern medicine. Kevin Baastalk 16:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, these would be important to add. Although this list is supposed to be VERY restrictive - it only covers broad topics (no Shakespeare or Napoleon) - Mathematics doesn't have a huge number of entries.  Even in the supplement these two don't show, and I think they belong in the main core.  It is fairly academic for our project at this point (our next release will be 20,000-30,000 articles), but I would support adding these two. Walkerma (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, I would think that "Probability theory" should be included too. Come to think about it, it might be even more important than set theory.  And I've always considered "statistics" to be a subset of probability theory (based on the normal distribution), so I would think it more important than statistics.  (The two remaining big ones, IMHO, are trigonometry and information theory, though trig is a pretty small branch.)  Kevin Baastalk 18:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that trig is OK for the top 1000, but not for the top 150-200 topics of all knowledge. As for probability theory, I'd argue that probability (the concept) is more important than the theory describing it (even though I accept that without the theory you wouldn't have the concept).  In the same way we have "Atom", not "Atomic theory".  And I would suggest that it would belong in the supplement, not in the central core - but we would need to discuss that.  Statistics is core, because it is a central theme in many subjects outside mathematics, and it is the more usual term in society (see this).  Walkerma (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added calculus to the project page (updating the dependent counts), as there is support for it and no opposition.  Regarding set theory, what do you think of (set theory vs. set) vs. (mathematical logic vs. logic) vs. discrete mathematics vs. (not core enough) for a core topic?  (I see that Logic is already listed under philosophy.) Kevin Baastalk 14:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Core Contest winners
Folks here may be interested to hear that there was finally some closure on the Core Contest, which was held one year ago. The winners have been announced and will receive their prizes, and more contests are planned in the future. Walkerma (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Evolution
Shouldn't Evolution be a core topic? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's part of the core supplement, I think that should be OK. Walkerma (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Core topic
I'd like to nominate Core topic for deletion. IMHO, WP1.0 should be used instead; it includes all 's functions and a lot of other useful ones. I have recently orphaned, but I wanted to bring it up here first. So, does anyone oppose the deletion? Thanks for your input. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it should be OK to delete this. This template dates from the time before the WP1.0 template was written. We should update the few pages that still link to it.  Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I nominated it. —Ms2ger (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Biology
I think we should demote "Brain" from Core - it's one organ - and put "Evolution" - a truly core subject to biology - in its place. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I would support that. Evolution would be "promoted" from the supplement to the main core, and brain could be "demoted" to the supplement. Walkerma (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good Gary King  ( talk ) 17:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and did it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Table of articles
I started making a table of articles, but I'm busy right now and don't have the time to finish it. Here's what I've got so far if anyone feels inclined to work on it. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Someone can write a script to automatically tabulate all of the information. Gary King  ( talk ) 04:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a script like that would be useful, if anyone reading this can do that. It should use the 1.0 teams 10 top-level categories, though. Walkerma (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Miscount
I just noticed a miscount - there were five science miscellaneous articles, not six. I suppose this means there's an extra slot or two (total: 148). Looking at the old list, Australia or Trigonometry seems a good choice. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Periodic table
Might be worth adding to the list. Nergaal (talk) 02:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Elite Nine
The Elite Nine here are a bit inconsistent with those at Vital articles/Level/1... I will make a post on the talk page there as well. I think we should build a consensus and have the CORE pages match the VA Level 1 articles. Voyaging (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


text: User talk:220.233.68.71

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

title: User talk:220.233.68.71


text:
Posadis

In computing, Posadis is a GPL-licensed DNS server for Microsoft Windows and Unix that uses a zone file format that is compatible with BIND zone files. Posadis is part of a suite which includes graphical configuration and zone file management programs.

Posadis has IPv6 support.

title: Posadis


text:
File:Fury from the Deep.JPG

Actor Bill Burridge as Mr Quill in one of the few surviving clips from the missing 1968 Doctor Who serial Fury from the Deep.

Source: Screenshot from a DVD copy of the documentary Doctor Who: The Missing Years, created and uploaded by User:Angmering. Copyright in the production is held by the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Rationale for the fair use of this image in the article Doctor Who missing episodes

 * The article is about a television programme, and is thus incredibly difficult to illustrate without using images from the programme concerned.

 * The image is from one of the very few surviving clips of a missing serial from that programme, and is thus a valuable illustration for an article on that programme's missing episodes.

 * The image is used for informative and illustrative purposes only and is not believed to detract from the production in any way.

Rationale for the fair use of this image in the article Fury from the Deep
I, Y|yukichigai, hitherto and forthwith posit that this image meets the Wikipedia Fair Use Criteria for use in the article Fury from the Deep for the following reasons:

 * 1) It serves to visually identify the serial, thus providing basis for greater analysis and critical commentary of the episode.
 * 2) It illustrates a principal character in the serial (Mr. Quill) in a manner that cannot be adequately replaced by a textual description.
 * 3) While much of the serial is incomplete and survived only by tele-snaps, the image is taken from one of the few remaining motion clips of the episode, making useful piracy applications unlikely.
 * 4) The image does not depict any controversial or surprising elements of the serial and in no way impedes the copyright holder's ability to profit from the work.
 * 5) The probability of a free content replacement being found is unlikely bordering on impossible, given that it comes from a work of fiction from which very little material survives.

-- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue  check) 00:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

authors: ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ

title: File:Fury from the Deep.JPG


text:
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Everyking

I've been a Wikipedian since February 2004 and an admin since May 2004. As many know, I've at times been vocal in opposition to various things the ArbCom has done. Certainly I am a candidate who sees some problems, who feels strongly about them, and wants to change things a bit. My views on the ArbCom are, in fact, mixed: on the one hand, I see it as a useful and positive means of final dispute resolution in the community, and probably the best form of that; in general I favor increased ArbCom involvement in resolving matters, an expanded scope for the committee and ideally an expanded size to go along with that. On the other hand, of course, I have frequently had very strong disagreements with the ArbCom over matters of individual rulings against users. As regards banning, or any kind of strong penalty, my core philosophy, which I stated last year when I ran, is that the ArbCom needs to first and foremost consider a user's positive or negative impact on the encyclopedia, and not harshly penalize (or drive away or alienate) a user who is helping us out. Therefore I tend to take more liberal positions than the existing members of the ArbCom on these kinds of issues, because many or perhaps most of the people we have punished are good users in general. Furthermore, the ArbCom has to consider that its rulings and practices have a large impact on the Wikipedia culture in general. The community comes to reflect the attitudes and approaches of the ArbCom. Therefore the ArbCom needs to be a lot like what we want the community to be: open (favor public discussion over private mailing lists and IRC rooms, and invite community input), sympathetic, and concerned with erring on the side of caution. In looking at cases, it needs to prioritize encyclopedia work over personality feuds, and think of how a case can end beneficially, or at least with no loss, for everybody involved, if possible—how can a case be treated in a positive way, with an eye to reconciliation and harmony between users and productive editing, as opposed to a purely punitive approach? Even if you can't achieve this, you can usually get something close to it. There also has to be a concern with simple pragmatism, with what is actually going to work in fixing a specific problem. Wikipedia doesn't have a jail; we frequently go through hell trying to enforce rulings that are highly questionable to begin with, and leave bitter feelings all around. I'd like to move towards a change in attitude and approach, something more inclusive in process and open in outlook. Everyking 08:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

A last appeal to voters
As the beginning of the vote draws near, I want to make one more point: in this election, the most important choice you make may be whether to choose candidates with an authoritarian or democratic mindset, with exclusive or inclusive views regarding ArbCom matters. I can promise you that I stand firmly behind the goal of openness and fairness in ArbCom procedure, and I would represent a democratic and inclusive mindset to the very best of my ability. A vote for me is a rejection of ArbCom authoritarian tendencies and secrecy, and an endorsement of the idea that the ArbCom should move closer to the community, and work in harmony with it. Everyking 23:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Some questions from Sjakkalle

 * 1) You have often been critical of bans at all. In what cases do you think bans are appropriate?
 * 2) You yourself have been subject to sanctions by the Arbitration Comitee. Do you think that might be a problem for your candidacy?
 * 3) What is your position now on the 3RR?
 * 4) Your userpage used to have a subpage, User:Everyking/The six principles and the four points which is still there, but which no longer has a link on the main userpage. Do you still endorse what you wrote there, parts of it (and in this case, which parts?), or none of it?

 * Outright bans I think are appropriate only in fairly limited cases. A user needs to be convincingly shown to be destructive to the project, without any intention to change.
 * Unless they make up a new rule, no.
 * I am in favor of the 3RR. At one time I had more reservations about it than I do now. In some cases I do tend to be more sympathetic about violations of the rule than some other admins, because I know from experience the kinds of situations that can arise that aren't always properly addressed by the rule. Nevertheless, I think it has been useful in keeping revert wars from boiling out of control, and putting more focus on talk. For the record I am pretty sure I've never blocked anyone for a 3RR violation, although that doesn't mean I disagree with any particular blockings. It does mean that I am hesitant about it and don't feel comfortable doing it personally.
 * The link was removed because my views have evolved somewhat and I'd like to rewrite the page accordingly, but have so far been too lazy to do so. In general I endorse what I wrote there, but there are several things where I'd like to change the details or the emphasis. Everyking 08:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Followup from Linuxbeak
Everyking, your contributions and your activity on Wikipedia have been nothing short of controversial. However, I believe that your edits in terms of contributing down-right encyclopedic material has been outstandingly superb, and I believe that you are one of the best contributors to the project.

That being said... I want to ask you a single followup question based upon your response to Sjakkalle's question #1. Here we go...

 * 1) Knowing your position in regards to banning, let us take a case from real life in which a user has indeed been banned permenantly: JarlaxleArtemis. His "contributions" were destructive (especially as he approached his final banning), and he successfully wasted several tens of hours of administrator time. He continues to harass users that were key in banning him. This is obviously unacceptable. According to your response above, the case of JarlaxleArtemis seems to be a clear-cut case in which you would endorse a ban. I am, however, uncertain of your position. Please understand that this is not hustling or intimidation; I just want your response. What is your opinion on the matter? Assume that you are an arbitrator. Was a ban necessary or unnecessary? Please give a reason to your response.

 * I haven't seen enough of his edits to really judge. The closest thing to destruction I ever saw him do was adding images that seemed plainly to be copyvios. If I were an arbitrator I would have to review the evidence much more. Everyking 22:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk
''Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)''

A: I am 21 years old and work for a supermarket.

Q: How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?

A: I couldn't put a number on it, but I am definitely willing to put in substantial amounts of time.

''Q: If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.''

A: I have one featured article to date of which I was the primary author (Penda of Mercia). Otherwise, I've written a lot of other content on Anglo-Saxon England, contemporary African politics, and some topics pertaining to current music and artists. Also there's tons of other stuff scattered around, I've got 50-60,000 main namespace edits, but as far as writing substantial original content those have been the areas I've worked in most.

Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.

A: None.

Why does your candidate statement not mention that you've been sanctioned by this very body on three occasions? It sounds a bit like you're trying to hide something. Ambi 08:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I mentioned my past disagreements with the ArbCom. I was being concise and I figured that covered it. I was more interested in talking about my ideas about what's wrong with the ArbCom and how things could be done better. Everyking 09:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd had a myriad of disagreements with the ArbCom before I ran, and yet I'd never even been close to being involved in an actual case, so I see that as a bit misleading. It's nice to know your ideas, but it's a fairly fundamental thing to refuse to disclose. Ambi 16:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

In light of your strong disagreement with much of the arbcom, do you think you could serve productively alongside all of them? Snowspinner 00:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The question is just as good if you turn it around: could they work productively alongside me, despite their disagreements with me? There are a number of arbitrators who I would find it difficult to get along with, I suppose, since we don't get along now. I don't know what the composition of the ArbCom will look like after this election, though. In any case I'd try my best to get along. Wikipedia is all about people who disagree finding common ground and working cooperatively. And there's no sense in having a group of people who all get along swell and agree on everything if they're always making bad decisions. Besides, as I mentioned in my candidate statement, one thing I'd like to see change would be to open up the ArbCom, with more seats in the future and also more dialogue with the community and the affected parties regarding cases. I am not very interested in the behind-the-scenes discussions that go on without the community knowing anything until they see the arbitrators' votes. Everyking 01:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's all well and good - and I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of more arbitrators. But election to the arbcom and opening up the arbcom are unrelated concerns. You've all but accused existing members of the arbcom of cronyism, corruption, and incompetence. If the composition of the arbcom mostly remains unchanged, do you think you can have a civil and productive working relationship? Or are your votes going to be wasted oppose votes that serve to do nothing but produce a symbolic dissent on cases? Snowspinner 02:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I already told you, there's no sense in having a committee that gets along fine but makes bad decisions. I would rather be elected and have a bad relationship with the other arbitrators than not be elected and see it go along in the same old awful way. But—as I also already said—I have every intention of trying to get along if I am elected ("Wikipedia is all about people who disagree finding common ground and working cooperatively"). Everyking 05:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Request from Dragons flight
Arbcom is overworked and no fun. Please review these discussions:   Come up with a short list of suggestions for ways you would endorse for improving the arbitration process. Bonus points for actually managing to create new policy. Dragons flight 07:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Form question by Snowspinner
Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Most recently, dealing with you.

 * Well, I couldn't resist that one. Everyking 03:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Thinking about it, this question does raise something interesting. Is having a finely tuned bullshit detector a necessity for an arbitrator—does it really help at all? Well, I don't know. Maybe it does. But I think this reflects a perception of the ArbCom as a court. I don't doubt that it is a court—I just don't think it really should be a court primarily. You need bullshit detectors if you're out looking for lies, for the guilty and the innocent, etc. I'd rather have an ArbCom which focuses less on finding people guilty and sentencing them, and looks more like a form of mediation, but with some finality, more structure and teeth to make sure things get done, and also makes some decisions on the theoretical level—applying the generalities of Wikipedia policy to specific cases, setting precedents. Obviously the application varies widely, but the idea is to have less of the "court" mentality, the "bullshit detector" mentality.

 * Phil posted this to every candidate statement page, apparently, including his own. He answered himself with a little comment about how he teaches freshman composition, so his detector is naturally fine-tuned. (He's teaching students 5 years younger than himself, something like that? Irrelevant, I guess) What kind of attitude is that? It's very cynical. The feeling I always get from him is one of total contempt for virtually everyone else—I don't mean that as an insult, just an observation, and maybe an idiosyncratic one. (And you can start proving me wrong any time you want, Phil.) Well, on WP we have Assume good faith—how well does the bullshit detector requirement mesh with AGF? I'm not saying there aren't times where there's bullshit out there and it's good to be able to detect it—the problem is in the attitude. Someone who considers a bullshit detector to be an important thing is not really the kind of person I think makes a good arbitrator. You've got to be kind, you've got to be generous, you've got to be trusting to a large extent: it's not naive, it's what works. You've got a project where everybody on earth with a net connection can edit, where banned users can manage to evade their bans half the time—turning on your bullshit detector and kicking ass is the wrong attitude, whether you're looking at it morally or just pragmatically. Inclusiveness and reconciliation is the right attitude—that's the democratic spirit that Wikipedia is based on, and we'll benefit roughly to the extent that we apply it, and suffer roughly to the extent that we deny it. Everyking 10:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Form Question from karmafist
Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not much of a believer in IAR. I think it needs to be modified greatly or eliminated entirely. Aside from that I think policy is relatively consistent, but I'm a big believer in turning to the community to work out policy issues when they arise. Everyking 19:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions from User:-Ril-

 * The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you

''Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?''
 * Yes (left-wing, secular and nonreligious); only if I had personally been involved in the matter (because arbitration decisions at present regard behavior and not content. If the ArbCom expands its role to handle content in the future, I would consider recusing in these cases, but only if having arbitrators recusing for content reasons wasn't seriously depleting the number available to hear a case).

How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?
 * Pretty willing. Given my history of opposing some of their more controversial rulings, I think the ArbCom can already say I'm not one to "go with the flow", and I'm not even an arbitrator yet.

Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?
 * Not at all. But there should be some reason that I consider legitimate.

''In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?''
 * No, I don't think that is necessary; I think it depends on the situation (although this not something that's ever occurred to me before, so that's not a particularly well-considered view).

--Victim of signature fascism 16:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Everyking 05:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Question from Marsden
As you probably are already aware, your age may be an issue to a lot of people. I am one of those people.

My particular concern is that, at your age, you are unlikely to have a broad grounding in the general background knowledge of (what passes for?) our culture. This potentially opens the door for others, possibly including fellow arbitrators, to foist their particular agendas upon you.

In light of my concerns about this, which I suspect others may share, how would you deal with conflicts that might be brought before you as an arbitrator on subjects about which you do not have good background knowledge? How would you keep yourself from just relying on the information supplied by another arbitrator or another person, information that might be biased?

Marsden 00:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, 22 doesn't seem terribly young to me (had a birthday since I answered the question originally) when we've got plenty of teenage administrators, and I think a few that aren't even teenagers yet (don't hold me to that—maybe early teens), and also I'm pretty sure there've been arbs who are younger than me—I know Ambi is younger. I think Grunt too? And maybe others. But, while I personally tend to hold little bias against Wikipedians on the grounds of age, it doesn't bother me if somebody wants arbitrators older than me. Everyking 04:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

At your age, you are unlikely to have a broad grounding in the general background knowledge of (what passes for?) of Zulu culture. You probably also have little grounding in Eskimo law, or Micronesian coming of age ritual. Do you feel that would be a problem? --Victim of signature fascism 08:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm very surprised you're so young. I find your work all the more impressive knowing this, as is the case with Ambi. Anyway, I have a question. The only other candidate whose work rivals your own as a content editor is SimonP. You are uniquely qualified for the job; and I want to vote for you. However, I worry that you may be too lenient. Would you be able to give me an idea of when you'd apply santions? Thanks. 172 10:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I can't really say I wouldn't be more lenient than the current arbitrators, because I probably would be. But my hope for the ArbCom is that it could facilitate practical resolution without necessarily requiring punitive measures—having watched the ArbCom throughout its existence, and especially closely for the last year, my perception is that a large minority, if not a majority of cases could be adequately resolved with a reasonable compromise between the involved parties. A lot of the time, it just takes the ArbCom to step in, set boundaries and require that a compromise is accepted by everyone involved. I often go back to using my own Arb cases as examples—they may not be fully representative of the average case, but you can see something of the problematic thinking at work when you look at them—in all three cases, I was completely willing to compromise on anything, to accept any kind of reasonable deal that would end the dispute without sanctions, and moreover to acknowledge the flaws in my own conduct. In all three cases, no matter how much I maintained this, and no matter how often I made proposals, I was basically ignored. Punitive remedies were pushed through regardless.

 * When would I apply sanctions? I look at it in terms of an editor's good and bad contributions. To what extent does the good outweigh the bad, or vice versa? When a contributor is doing more bad than good, then it's definitely time to consider some penalties. There are certainly cases where there's no choice but to apply sanctions—a per article ban, a per topic ban, a personal attack parole, a revert limitation, and in extreme cases total bans from the project for a given period. When a contributor is doing more good, I think it's a better idea to force people into the process—to mandate solutions and apply penalties only when those solutions are rejected. For example, if you've got a revert warrior, require that every revert is accompanied by an explanation of adequate length on the talk page. That way you're forcing people to talk to each other: if you want to revert, fine, but you're going to have to talk in proportion to the reverting you're doing. If the discussion is uncivil and not bearing fruit? Have things watched by a neutral party to apply short-term blocks for incivility, which can be interpreted variously depending on the degree of the incivility—a severe problem with incivility will mean that no hint of personal hostility will be tolerated. I also like the idea of making liberal use of mentors and mentor teams—empower volunteers, and I think there are plenty out there, who are neutral and can be trusted, to monitor conduct and apply penalties if needed. It's better not to close the gate to someone who is, in general, doing us good; what we need is to force them to work more constructively, to narrow the path available to them while leaving ways for them to help out. Everyking 15:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for such a thoughtful reply! My concerns now have been totally addressed. You're quite right that the Arbcom runs the risk of being too putative with good editors who have made an honest mistake (e.g., IMO such was the case with Stevertigo) or who naturally attract controversy given the nature of the topics in which they are interested (e.g., IMO such was the case with IZAK and RK). You do an especially good job describing the need to work on a case-by-case basis: When would I apply sanctions? I look at it in terms of an editor's good and bad contributions. To what extent does the good outweigh the bad, or vice versa? When a contributor is doing more bad than good, then it's definitely time to consider some penalties. Given the great quantity and quality, along with the regularity, of your contributions on Wikipedia, you probably are particularly well-positioned to make such judgments. I look forward to voting for you again, as I did last time. 172 01:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you support the creation of a Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales? - Ted Wilkes 18:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Question from Grace Note
James, I think the arbitration committee is largely a power trip for wannabe lawyers and jackboot-worshipping types, some of whom the encyclopaedia would possibly even be better off without, let alone empowering, and its proceedings waste an enormous amount of time, which could generally be saved by telling half the people involved to stop being pricks and just get on with creating content. Still, most involved seem to enjoy it, so it's only really a bad thing when users who want nothing to do with it get dragged into the whole nonsense. There's never much justice involved though, and clearly the system is sufficiently entrenched that you'd have little chance of affecting that. So lord knows why you want any part of it.

That's not my question though, because you've explained why you want in. What I want to know is, in the rather unlikely event that you get sufficient support, do you think Jimbo will favour you? Do you have any views on whether Jimbo's exercise of his discretion taints the whole "election"? -- Grace Note.
 * No, I would not expect him to favor me. In fact I suspect I am one of the people, if not the main person, he has in mind when insisting on having a personal veto over candidates. I find it obnoxious that there's this idea that having me on the ArbCom would just be a negative factor, that I'd be a pest the other arbs would just have to work around. In the short to medium term (i.e., what I think could possibly be accomplished in the course of a year) I'd want to push for A) greater openness, which would first and foremost mean eliminating or reducing the role of the ArbCom mailing list (and I would personally commit to not posting on it, and doing all my discussion and deliberation out in the open) and IRC, and concentrating on public decision-making. Right now, I feel what is put out on the wiki are mere formalities, and everything that really matters is done in secret. B) A bigger focus on getting the participants in a case to resolve matters with their own suggestions, ideas, and commitments, as non-punitively as possible, with the ArbCom serving more as facilitators than judges, but with the authority to lay the law down if necessary. One thing I also believe pretty strongly is that we have an anarchistic admin environment which favors the more aggressive admins over the more passive ones; therefore another reform I have in mind is setting up small mentor committees to judge and enforce matters pertaining to individual cases once they have been decided, instead of allowing it to be an admin free-for-all. As it stands now, the harshest possible interpretation of a ruling will usually prevail: Snowspinner, or someone similar, will make that harsh interpretation, block accordingly, and if anybody unblocks he will block again. Since he is more aggressive and assertive, he will always win. If you really challenge him about it, you'll face the ArbCom yourself. That business has got to stop. There needs to be organization and fairness about enforcement. Everyking 05:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions to many candidates by PurplePlatypus

 * 1) How do you view the role (and relative importance) of WP:Civility in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia? How do you view editors who are normally correct in article namespace, but who may be perceived as rude – including to longtime, popular editors and admins – on Talk pages and the like?
 * 2) Do you have an academic background of any kind, and if so, in what field? How do you handle critiques from your peers and professors (assuming those aren’t one and the same), which may be sharply worded or otherwise skirt the edges of WP:Civility even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would they tell me if I asked them the same question about you?
 * 3) What are your views on the proposed policy Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)

PurplePlatypus 08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?
Do you support User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

 * 1) How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?

 * 1) If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?

 * 1) To what extent would those projects be affected?

Tito xd (?!? - help us) 06:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions from Zordrac
Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 16:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?
 * 2) Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions?
 * 3) Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of WP:AGF?
 * 4) How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?
 * 5) Do you think that Arbitration Committee decisions should be able to be reviewed?

Question from User:SqueakBox
What do you think of the current admin election system? How differently would you treat admins from non-admins (a) concerning admins role as admins? and (b)when they are up in front of the arbcom as a normal editor? SqueakBox 16:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Question from Radiant
One or two of the other candidates appear to be people that you really don't get along with. What would your reaction be if both you and one of them are requested to join the ArbCom (by Jimbo or by the community)? Radiant_ >|< 02:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-
(Being asked of all candidates)

Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?

 * Yes; any circumstances it wants

As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?

 * Yes

''wikipedia has a policy of NPOV. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?''

 * Yes; in cases where I see both sides are poorly represented I will try to add content for both sides. Everyking 02:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion
I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct?

 * Yes

2. Are there any parts of Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

 * Yes

 * Sorry, which parts?

 * Sorry. That was supposed to be "no".

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?

 * Yes. Everyking 06:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

(One more question I'm asking everyone:)

4. Have you voted over at Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes. —James S. 07:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * No; haven't gotten around to it (would get involved in it if I thought it had potential to go anywhere) Everyking 08:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Question from Celestianpower
Perhaps this is a little forward but I'll ask anyway. Do you prefer carrots or potatoes? Think carefully now... --Cel e stianpower háblame 11:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What about radishes? Matt Yeager 07:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Form question from Simetrical
What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In favor, in cases of sysop abuse, although it should go to RfA for the final decision. Everyking 05:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What would you view as sysop abuse? (Going to RFA for the final decision is generally enforced by allowing the desysopee to reapply for privileges at any time, I understand.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Using administrative tools in violation of policy or in opposition to something that has been decided through community process. Everyking 04:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over personal attack templates
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Village pump (policy):

 * I am concerned about |recent templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive.

I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * A) I think templates are something that are just a feature of the community now, and we should be liberal about them, although I suppose we do need certain limits—that's something to be dealt with by community vote, though, and if something I think is over the line is judged to be inside the line by the community, then it should stay.

 * B) I don't see any particular need for the ArbCom to get involved in a situation like this; as a last resort it could, but any judgment should be made only in concord with the community. Strong community involvement in all aspects of such a case would be essential. Everyking 06:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


text: User talk:216.127.253.34

title: User talk:216.127.253.34


text:
User:Chagual

Chagual is a large chagualito.

title: User:Chagual


text:
Virginia Housing

Virginia Housing, formerly the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA), is a self-supporting organization created by the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1972, to help Virginians attain quality affordable housing. Mortgages are funded by bonds issued by Virginia Housing, not by taxpayer dollars, and are available for homebuyers and developers of quality rental housing. The group teaches free homeownership classes, and helps people with disabilities and the elderly make their homes more livable. Virginia Housing works with lenders, developers, local governments, and community service organizations.

Funding sources
Each year, Virginia Housing raises funds through the capital markets to support lending for single family and multifamily loan programs. Investors purchase Virginia Housing securities and loans, and this, in turn, generates their principal source of capital. These securities do not constitute a debt or obligation of the Commonwealth.

Organizational structure
Virginia Housing is a quasi-government agency. The governor appoints an 11-member Board of Commissioners. However, the authority is self-supporting and does not use tax dollars to fund its lending programs. Tammy Neale, its Chief Executive Officer since 2024, heads a leadership team of twelve divisional managers. Virginia Housing has more than 300 full-time associates.

title: Virginia Housing


text:
HGW

HGW may refer to:
 * Haigwai language, spoken in Papua New Guinea
 * Home gateway, an IP networking device in a residence
 * Hyperquenched glassy water
 * Hauptmann Gerd Wiesler, a main character in the film The Lives of Others

title: HGW


text:
SNOPT

SNOPT, for Sparse Nonlinear OPTimizer, is a software package for solving large-scale nonlinear optimization problems written by Philip Gill, Walter Murray and Michael Saunders. SNOPT is mainly written in Fortran, but interfaces to C, C++, Python and MATLAB are available.

It employs a sparse sequential quadratic programming (SQP) algorithm with limited-memory quasi-Newton approximations to the Hessian of the Lagrangian. It is especially effective for nonlinear problems with functions and gradients that are expensive to evaluate. The functions should be smooth but need not be convex.

SNOPT is used in several trajectory optimization software packages, including Copernicus, AeroSpace Trajectory Optimization and Software (ASTOS), General Mission Analysis Tool, and Optimal Trajectories by Implicit Simulation (OTIS). It is also available in the Astrogator module of Systems Tool Kit.

SNOPT is supported in the AIMMS, AMPL, APMonitor, General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS), and TOMLAB modeling systems.

title: SNOPT


text:
Saint Edward State Park

Saint Edward State Park is a 326 acre-park in Kenmore, Washington and Kirkland, Washington. It is part of the Washington State Park System. Before becoming a Catholic seminary and later a state park, the area was logged in the 19th century and again in the 1920s. A series of trails runs through the park for bicyclists and hikers. The forest canopy is primarily made up of the Coast Douglas-fir, western redcedar, bigleaf maple, Pacific madrone and western hemlock. Its dense carpet includes many varieties of fern (mainly western sword fern), shrub and moss. It is flanked on the west by an undeveloped beach on Lake Washington. The park surrounds the Saint Thomas Center, which houses Bastyr University.

Saint Edward Seminary
The park includes Saint Edward Seminary, listed on the Washington State Heritage Register since 1997 and added in April 2007 to the National Register of Historic Places. This large, historic building fell into disrepair until it was renovated into a hotel.

Other facilities
Other facilities include the indoor Carole Ann Wald Memorial Pool, which was built in the late 1960s with funding from a seminarian's family and named after the seminarian's sister and donors' daughter. The pool has been operated in recent years by concessionaires and was mothballed December 31, 2009, pending a new operator and/or a greater consortium of support from SESP near-neighbor citizenry, municipalities, and other sponsors.

City of Kenmore, EvergreenHealth, and Bastyr University helped underwrite the CAWM Pool from 2003–2008, but as of 2009, only Evergreen Health and Bastyr University were continuing partners.

The gymnasium and an outdoor stone sanctuary ("the Grotto") both date to the original 1930s construction period. A baseball field and a soccer field lie south of the seminary building.

The park boasts the largest children's playground in the state, built primarily by local volunteers in 2003. It was named one of the top five playgrounds in Washington state in 2009.

The park is day-use only, and no camping is permitted. Dogs are allowed at Saint Edward State Park but state law requires that they be on a physical leash (8 ft or less) at all times.

History
From the 1920s until 1977, the land on which Saint Edward State Park sits was owned by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle. From 1931, it was developed and used for a seminary by the Sulpician Order. The St. Edward Seminary, opened in 1931, was designed by John Graham, Sr., a renowned Seattle architect, and constructed in eight months. The main seminary building was followed in 1958 by the Saint Thomas Seminary and a pool in 1969. Due to declining enrollments, the seminaries closed in 1977. Most of the land was sold in 977 to the state government, with the support of then-governor Dixy Lee Ray.

The remainder of the land, which includes the Saint Thomas Seminary (now Saint Thomas Center) continued under the ownership of the archdiocese until November 2005, when its tenant, Bastyr University, completed their purchase of the property. The property was also used as a backdrop for several movies and television productions, including Northern Exposure, Singles, and Butterfly Dreaming.

Renovation
In 2005, Washington State Parks began a land use planning project for the park. Also known as Classification and Management Planning (CAMP), the project addresses overall visitor experiences, natural and cultural resources, use of the park's buildings, recreation fields and trails, and other topics of interest to the community and customers.

A proposal by McMenamins to develop the main building into a hotel, restaurant, and conference center was withdrawn in spring of 2007.

The State Legislature allocated $500,000 to evaluate the declining condition of the seminary building, and $500,000 toward much needed and previously deferred maintenance.

With the newly available injection of funding, State Parks began an RFQ process with architectural firms spring 2007, moving forward toward a timely evaluation, creating an opportunity for a wider array of prospective uses. Bassetti Architects were selected to evaluate and report on the Seminary building.

In 2010, Friends of Saint Edward State Park and Kenmore Heritage Society began working together on the interpretive sign project, drawing on KHS's experience with the Kenmore History Path at Log Boom Park.

In 2017, Daniels Real Estate signed a 62-year lease with Washington State Parks to renovate the main seminary building into a hotel; as part of the deal, Daniels purchased an adjacent waterfront property and transferred it to the state government. It reopened as the Lodge at St. Edwards in May 2021 at a cost of $57 million; the hotel includes 84 guest rooms, event space, a restaurant, and two bars.

Advocacy groups
A local advocacy group, Citizens for Saint Edward State Park, is dedicated to maintaining the park for passive outdoor recreation.

Another citizen group, Saint Edward Environmental Learning Center (SEELC, 2008–2019) dedicated to creating a sustainable future through park preservation, community collaboration, and innovative educational experiences for all ages. The Kenmore Reporter covered SEELC's production of A Midsummer Night's Dream as part of its environmental-education program, which consists of a variety of courses at Saint Edward State Park between spring and fall each year.

title: Saint Edward State Park


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Pinol

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — J I P | Talk 17:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Michael Pinol
Article is unverifiable and seems rather improbable. Quite possibly nonsense. αγδεε (ε τ c) 08:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. αγδεε (ε τ c) 08:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless verified Qaz  ( talk ) 09:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete improbable, quite possibly a hoax. Basically, per nominator.  Ban e  s  10:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Neier 12:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - CLW 15:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Alhutch 16:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Rogerd 01:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very funny hoax.  Logophile 15:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Taqlid

Taqlid (تَقْليد) is an Islamic term denoting the conformity of one person to the teaching of another. The person who performs taqlid is termed muqallid. The definite meaning of the term varies depending on context and age. Classical usage of the term differs between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam. Sunni Islamic usage designates the unjustified conformity of one person to the teaching of another, rather than the justified conformity of a layperson to the teaching of a mujtahid (a person who is qualified for independent reasoning). Shia Islamic usage designates general conformity to the teaching of a mujtahid, and there is no negative connotation. The discrepancy corresponds to differing views on the Shia Imamate and Sunni imams.

In contemporary usage, especially in the context of Islamic modernism, taqlid is often portrayed in a negative light and translated as "blind imitation". This refers to the perceived stagnation of independent intellectual effort (ijtihad) and uncritical imitation of traditional religious interpretation by the religious establishment in general.

Overview
The Arabic word taqlīd is derived from the three-letter Arabic verbal root of ق-ل-د Q-L-D , which means to imitate. The term is believed to have originated from the idea of allowing oneself to be led "by the collar". One who performs taqlid is called a muqallid, whereas one who rejects taqlid is called a ghair-muqallid. Sheikh Shaamee Hanafi said it is "to take the statement of someone without knowing the evidence."

Sunni Islam
Traditionally, taqlid is lawful and obligatory when one is not qualified as a mujtahid. According to Rudolph Peters, this is by consensus and known in the religion by necessity (ma'lum min al din daruratan) in the eyes of traditional Muslim scholars.

Traditional Sunni scholars rely on two verses of the Qur'an that order one to ask the people of knowledge or remembrance if they do not know and to obey Allah, the messenger and those in authority among them. They also rely on several hadiths, including one where Muhammad tells his companions, "If one does not know what to do, the only remedy is to inquire." Muhammad did this after a companion who had fractured his skull asked other companions with him whether he could perform dry purification. They said no. So this injured companion washed his head with water and died. Muhammad admonished his companions by saying, "They killed him. May Allah kill them. If one does not know what to do, the only remedy is to inquire."

Salafi schools of tradition such as Wahhabism, and Ahl-i Hadith reject taqlid and instead encourage ijtihad.

Shia Islam
In Shia Islam, taqlid "denotes the following or "imitating" of the dictates of a mujtahid". Following the greater occultation (al-ghaybatu 'l-kubra) in 941 CE (329 AH), the Twelver Shia are obliged to observe taqlid in their religious affairs by following the teachings of a thinker (mujtahid) or jurist (faqih). As of the 19th century the Shia ulama taught believers to turn to "a source of taqlid" (marja' at-taqlid) "for advice and guidance and as a model to be imitated." Thus Shia who are not experts in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) are "legally required to follow the instructions of the expert, i.e., the mujtahid" in matters of sharia, but are forbidden to do so in "matters of belief" (usul al-din).

In "matters of belief", aka "principles of religion" -- such as the existence of God and prophethood -- tahqiq, rather than taqlid, should be used. Tahqiq means seeking the truth, investigating or doing research yourself,  rather than following an expert.

title: Taqlid


text:
Madonna di Loreto (Caravaggio)

The Madonna of Loreto or Pilgrim's Madonna is a painting (1604–1606) by the Italian Baroque master Caravaggio, located in the Cavalletti Chapel of the church of Sant'Agostino, just northeast of the Piazza Navona in Rome. It depicts the barefoot Virgin holding her naked child in a doorway before two kneeling peasants on a pilgrimage.

In 1603 the heirs of marquis Ermete Cavalletti, who had died on 21 July 1602, commissioned a painting on the theme of the Madonna of Loreto to decorate a family chapel. As instructed by the marquis's will, the Cavaletti's purchased a chapel in the church of Sant'Agostino in Rome on 4 September 1603.

The painter Giovanni Baglione, a competitor who had successfully ensured Caravaggio was jailed during a libel trial, said that the unveiling of this painting "caused the common people to make a great cackle (schiamazzo) over it". The uproar was not surprising. The Virgin Mary, like her admiring pilgrims, is barefoot. The doorway or niche is not an exalted cumulus or bevy of putti, but a partly decrepit wall of flaking brick. Only a slim halo indicates her saintly status. While beautiful, the Virgin Mary could be any woman emerging from the shadows. Like many of Caravaggio's Roman paintings, such as the Conversion on the Way to Damascus or the Calling of St Matthew, the scene is a moment where an ordinary person encounters the divine, whose appearance is equally ordinary. The woman modelling Mary appears to be the same as that in Caravaggio's canvas in the Galleria Borghese: The Madonna and Child with St. Anne (Dei Palafrenieri) (1605).

It has been suggested that Caravaggio's composition is at least in part derived from a detail of a 1574 engraving, Adoration of the Magi, after Rosso Fiorentino, by Caravaggio's friend Cherubino Alberti (1553–1615).

title: Madonna di Loreto (Caravaggio)


text:
Talk:French response to Hurricane Katrina

Why?
Why was the French assistance initially refused by the US government ?

 * No reason were mentionned in the sources that I have had access to, neither for the delay with which the US government gave the French the necessary informations for this help to arrive when it was finally accepted. Rama 08:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)