text:
Talk:Two by Twos

Edits removed 24 Feb 2019
I've removed these edits which were summarized with... Please note that article lead sections are used to summarize the referenced material in an article's body. Personal experience and research is not suitable for inclusion in articles, and instead the material in articles are to be referenced to published source materials. If you wish to add material with alternative viewpoints, please do so within the body of the article (not simply alter the lead section) with reliable references to back up your statements. • Astynax talk 21:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed the erroneous statement that "members are told to deny any church name" and gave one explanation for why any name(s) exist at all. Also, removed the word "only" in "salvation is only available" because that is flatly not the case. God saves whomever He saves. It is true where the gospel has been preached, those who reject it may miss out. But what most ministers would say is that such matters are in God's hand. It is possible to accept every word preached and nevertheless "lose out."

 * Sounds like you removed edits /info that was correct 134.215.4.36 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sexual Assault in the Church
I was raised in this religion. I never believed in it but I would like to know more about it. I saw in the publication that there was mention of sexual assault, I would like to more about this subject. I'm interested in learning more truth about the religion it almost feels like there is a secret part missing. Finding out more about there money trail would be quite interesting. I also know they still practice meetings in places like parks and such where only certain religions are allowed. (As to keep there practice secret from governments/law enforcement) I wonder if there is somebody above the head workers, I wanna know who's at the very top. I have heard stories of the female workers being sexually assaulted by other male workers. I also would like to bring up the complete sexist way that they will only allow male workers to be head workers. What are they trying to keep so secret? Why don't they tell members more about how it was founded. I was always under the impression that the religion had always been because nothing was even explained. This article is great but I wouldn't say that it quite up to date with how they act now. Many members use technology, even the workers have phones and social media. But don't get the wrong idea the people are super nice probably some of the nicest people I've met. And I know of members who do have tattoos. I did notice that almost all members hide the fact that they take part in "worldly" things like watching TV. I also noticed that it's not mentioned in the article that workers go around to the different members house and stay the night with them or even multiple nights. They are also given there vehicles by members of the church along with there gas money ECT. Currently I haven't meet a bad person belonging to the church, they all seem like good people but I would like for the church to be more transparent to it's members. I would be very interested in anything else that has been heard or seen that hasn't already been mentioned. 2600:387:F:E37:0:0:0:2 (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The main problem for under-reported groups such as the Two by Twos is finding published source reference material required to support statements added to articles. There have been several court cases, some ongoing, and convictions of such incidents which could be added to this article (with appropriate references). However, it likely would not be acceptable to add language to imply that sexual predation was a widespread or inherent characteristic within this group unless backed up with high-level source material. • Astynax talk 17:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The latest episode (published Aug. 16, 2023) of the "Trust Me: Cults, Extreme Belief, and Manipulation" podcast is part one of a discussion with two former members; one of the podcast hosts is a former member from a different area. At least one mentions having been a fourth-generation member. They finish the episode by reading a letter to the community from a member of leadership about the sexual abuse by a recently dead member, I think an overseer.
 * https://www.trustmepod.com/podcast/episode/4c0d7990/kyle-and-kari-part-1-deconstructing-the-two-by-twos Ann Burlingham (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't question the seriousness of this issue, however, until there is coverage of this issue in WP:RS reliable sources (e.g., scholarly journals/books, mainstream newspapers/broadcast news, and similar published sources) this subject won't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Podcasts generally don't meet the standards, unless associated with scholarship (such as produced by a sociologist of note), and often not even then if the content primarily reflects opinion or personal viewpoints rather than research. This and similar issues (such as fleshing out details on finances or succession at the higher levels of the clergy) are certainly worthy of inclusion; once backed by acceptable sources. • Astynax talk 15:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll add that news reporting on court cases arising from such incidents (and court records themselves) can serve as sources, if carefully cited. I believe there have been a stream of convictions in the past that are likely noteworthy, records of which could serve as sources if someone is motivated to dig for them. As I previously stated, however, any intimation that sexual abuse is a common or inherent feature of this church would require top-tier sources which state this (see WP:EXCEPTIONAL). • Astynax talk 17:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Astynax@Ann Burlingham we now have a reliable source and a confession. Doug Weller  talk 20:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent reporting on this topic for a totally reputable source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66449988?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.51.38.173 (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Citations in lead
There's not one single citation in the lead and this is highly problematic. This article needs massive improvements to the lead. AlanStalk 05:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Hi @AlanS. According to WP:LEADCITE, citations are not absolutely required in the lead, assuming that all the information in the lead is presented with citations in the body of the article. However, if there are controversial statements in the lead, then citations should be duplicated there. Is there anything in particular in the lead for which citations are not provided in the body, or anything that you think is controversial? Indyguy (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Indyguy "These organization names are used only for registration purposes and are not used by members." I'd think that is a strong enough of a statement that it should have an inline cite. Organisations handling finances need to have some sort of registration in a lot of jurisdictions, whether unincorporated or incorporated. If there is some sort of strong claim otherwise that should be backed up. AlanStalk 22:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * One could purport just about any statement out to be "controversial" with this group, as (based upon my reading) many members deny it is an "organization" at all. That the official names were taken by the group's clergy and/or upper echelons of its membership, rather being imposed by outsiders, is incontrovertible (they've signed the documents), and that the common names are used, even if by outsiders, is widely supported by reliable sources. I personally fail to understand how this would confuse readers, nor how repeating citations in the lead would be an improvement. • Astynax talk 17:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's clearly an organisation, regardless its views. It has rigid, long-standing in-group and out-group rules, a defining characteristic of organisation. It considers all other Christians to not be Christians unless they are specifically baptised by its ministers and attend its services to the exclusion of others. It has specific social norms that its members strictly adhere to. AlanStalk 06:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

CSA in the 2x2 church Article
Hi there is an article written on the Daily Dot about this exact topic of horrible abuse in this church. Would that be enough to dig deeper into this issue? https://www.dailydot.com/news/underground-church-two-by-twos/#llqqcu69euohmb6dle6 2600:6C5E:87F:FA4F:6DC7:8D31:B008:6E67 (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Daily Dot has in the past been considered a reliable source for "non-contentious claims of fact". Such sources must be carefully used, however, e.g., it is not stand-alone backing for claims of abuse (although it can be used as backup if such claims have either been cited in higher quality sources and/or tried in a court leading to a conviction covered by the claim), and you cannot cite portions of the article which use Wikipedia itself as a source. A quick scan of that article seems to indicate that there are links to court cases that might yield records that provide additional backing for some statements. I'd suggest any such material be placed toward the end of the Into the 21st century section. Wikipedia is not a current events notice board, place to post info about current allegations/investigations, or place to advance original syntheses, so exercise discretion. When in doubt, wait for high quality reliable sources to appear, however frustratingly slow that may seem. • Astynax talk 17:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Two by Twos


text:
Interrupt vector table

An interrupt vector table (IVT) is a data structure that associates a list of interrupt handlers with a list of interrupt requests in a table of interrupt vectors. Each entry of the interrupt vector table, called an interrupt vector, is the address of an interrupt handler (also known as ISR). While the concept is common across processor architectures, IVTs may be implemented in architecture-specific fashions. For example, a dispatch table is one method of implementing an interrupt vector table.

Background
Most processors have an interrupt vector table, including chips from Intel, AMD, Infineon, Microchip Atmel, NXP, ARM etc.

Handling methods
An interrupt vector table is used in the three most popular methods of finding the starting address of the interrupt service routine:

"Predefined"
The "predefined" method loads the program counter (PC) directly with the address of some entry inside the interrupt vector table. The jump table itself contains executable code. While in principle an extremely short interrupt handler could be stored entirely inside the interrupt vector table, in practice the code at each entry is a single jump instruction that jumps to the full interrupt service routine (ISR) for that interrupt. The Intel 8080, Atmel AVR and all 8051 and Microchip microcontrollers use the predefined approach.

"Fetch"
The "fetch" method loads the PC indirectly, using the address of some entry inside the interrupt vector table to pull an address out of that table, and then loading the PC with that address. Each and every entry of the IVT is the address of an interrupt service routine. All Motorola/Freescale microcontrollers use the fetch method.

"Interrupt acknowledge"
For the "interrupt acknowledge" method, the external device gives the CPU an interrupt handler number. The interrupt acknowledge method is used by the Intel Pentium and many older microprocessors.

When the CPU is affected by an interrupt, it looks up the interrupt handler in the interrupt vector table, and transfers control to it.

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

title: Interrupt vector table


text: User talk:86.131.30.93

title: User talk:86.131.30.93


text:
Talk:Sandra Day O'Connor/Archive 1

Resignation
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has announced her resignation. The announcement came Friday morning, July 1. -- anonymous contribution 1 July 2005 14:48 (UTC)

 * Right during the Price is Right :-( grrr..... -- unsigned contribution by CFIF 1 July 2005 15:26 (UTC)

clarification?
"She later wrote a book about her childhood experiences on the ranch, "Lazy B," with her brother, H. Alan Day." did she write the book with her brother? or did she have the experiences with her brother? Kingturtle 1 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)
 * They are indeed co-authors of the book (and also had shared experiences) NoSeptember T  1 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)

First section POV
In this context, "relatively moderate" could be construed as POV. Relative to what? Also, if this is going to stay, it should also say that she was considered part of the "conservative wing" for quite some time before being the "moderate" on this court.

Perhaps this should be moved to an ideology section or something?

Retirement vs. resignation
Although the words "retirement" and "resignation" are often used interchangably, they are two very different steps for a Supreme Court Justice to take. By announcing her intention to "retire" rather than "resign," Justice O'Connor will be leaving active service and entering senior status. In this capacity, she is a senior member of the court, and entitled to full privileges of federal judgeship. She receives full salary, although this may be reduced if she does not perform any judicial duties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 371, 471.

Please check your verbiage carefully when posting updates on this and other pages. The news media have been totally inconsistent on this point. --Saucy Intruder 2 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)
 * This is particularly important in light of the fact that, as a retired Supreme Court Justice, she can return to the Court to sit as an alternate in cases where another justice recuses himself. She will also be the first living ex-justice in quite some time. -- BD2412 talk July 2, 2005 00:45 (UTC)

Suspicious retirement

 * http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/01/politics/01AP-text.htm
 * July 1, 2005
 * O'Connor's Retirement Letter to President Bush

 * Dear President Bush:

 * This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor. It has been a great privilege, indeed, to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms. I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure.

 * Sincerely,
 * Sandra Day O'Connor

Do I smell something fishy here? One of the most powerful women gives up her power so easily and cheaply while that old and dying Cancer Man still refuses to retire or resign. GWB will have two new chief justices in months. Scalia and Thomas will have two little friends. It'll be the zenith of human civilization. -- Toytoy July 2, 2005 02:00 (UTC)

 * Leaving aside the tastefulness of smelling something fishy<?> when a woman retires, and of mocking Rehnquists's cancer....How do you envisage two chief justices as a result of O'Connor's resignation? She'll be replaced by an associate justice, not a chief justice. There can be no nomination for Rehnquists's position until he decides to leave it, or dies in office. - Nunh-huh 2 July 2005 02:06 (UTC)

A few points here, Toytoy:

 * John Paul Stevens is four years older than Rehnquist and is also decrepit with age (although he is not fighting off cancer). Why aren't you making scurrilous remarks about his hold on his seat?
 * In all seriousness, O'Connor has been tired of her job for a while now, and has grandkids waiting for her in Arizona. Meanwhile, Rehnquist's wife died a few years back and he doesn't seem to have much of a life waiting for him outside the Court.  Add in the fact that the Justices probably don't want to create double vacancies if they don't have to, and it makes perfect sense that O'Connor would resign first.

— DLJessup 2 July 2005 04:35 (UTC)

someone
Has changed her name to "O'Queef". And I can't edit it...so could someone else?

Image:SandraDayOConnor.jpg
where is it from? it´s written ''"This is the official portrait of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor."' .. but the source is not given :o( ... so it might be PD .. but ... Sicherlich talk 2 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure they are from the Supreme Court, but any image of the justices seems to be hard to come by for some reason. -- tomf688 (talk) July 2, 2005 15:50 (UTC)

Full title
As a justice, O'Connor's full title should be "The honorable Sandra Day O'Connor. The pages for justices from other countries always begin with "The honorable" and I don't see why the pages for American judges should be any different. user:J.J.

 * Let me give you a few comments:
 * * First of all, justices and judges from a British tradition often have "the Right Honourable" or something similar prefixed before their names. That's because that is the tradition in those countries.  Americans threw out most of those traditions during the American Revolution, so it isn't necessarily appropriate for us.
 * * On a more practical level, I don't believe that any other justice, past or present, has "The honorable" prefixed to their name, and I don't propose that we go through all the articles and change them.
 * Thus, I will be reverting that change.
 * — DLJessup 3 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)

According to most protocol guides, like this one it's still considered proper form for a justice to be referred to as "the Honorable" as part of her full title. Wikipedia articles always begin with the person's most full, proper title, and in this case that should include the honorable. You're right that grander titles such as Excellency and so forth have been phased out in the US, but honorable has stayed. In court, they even introduce judges by stating "the Honorable So-and-So presiding," and of course everyone present refers to him or her as "your honor." user:J.J.

 * While "The Honorable" would technically be a correct title, seems to me it would be redundant with "Justice". -- BD2412 talk July 4, 2005 00:16 (UTC)

There is not even the title "Justice" as of now. user:J.J.

 * J.J., could you please point out in the Wikipedia project pages where it says that "Wikipedia articles always begin with the person's most full, proper title"? I ask because I've just scanned many of the bios of Supreme Court justices and of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.  The closest that any of these articles has gotten to your rule is that current justices (and only the current ones), aside from O'Connor herself, start off with "Justice".  (That exception turns out to be because Whig added that to the articles back in May of this year, and the introductory sentences end up reading as "Justice X has been an Associate Justice", which is just a little bit redundant.)  No previous justice gets a title so far as I can tell, nor does any President, including the current one.  If what you write is truly a Wikipedia standard, we're going to have to modify a lot of articles.  — DLJessup 4 July 2005 23:03 (UTC)

Forbes
Why is the forbes ranking mentioned in the head of the article? its just an personal opinion of the people from forbes and thus should be removed.

 * The point is that O'Connor is one of the most powerful women in the country, if not the world (at least until her retirement goes through), and the Forbes article is the closest to an objective, citable source that any article editor has come up with. If you've got a better source in support of this proposition, or a good counterexample, by all means add it to the article.

 * — DLJessup 3 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)

Missing material?
There has been talk / speculation about who the successor will be to Sandra Day O'Connor. It seems that this could be created under its own article with a blurb in this article? There may not be enough material yet to start it but what should it be called to prepare, Nomination confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States (2005) ? --ShaunMacPherson 4 July 2005 11:18 (UTC)
 * Information about the nomination and confirmation process will likely go to the article on the nominee, when one is named. -- BD2412 talk July 4, 2005 21:20 (UTC)
 * Also information is going into this article: Potential Bush administration nominees to the Supreme Court of the United States, but once a nomination is made, the focus of discussion will be in the nominee's biography article. NoSeptember T  5 July 2005 21:33 (UTC)

Recent vandalism - lock?
This article seems to be a heavy target for vandalism in the last couple days. Perhaps a lock would be in order for a while until the children go away? Autiger 6 July 2005 04:45 (UTC)
 * I'd second that idea... --WAHooker July 6, 2005 13:06 (UTC)
 * I dissent; the vandalism is not as bad as some other pages that remain unprotected (see, e.g., George W. Bush, which gets vandalized over 50 times per day. --Saucy Intruder 6 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)
 * I see no harm to it, as no new work on this article will be necessary until the nominee is named. In the meantime, it seems that all the edits are vandalism, revert, vandalism, revert... -- BD2412 talk July 6, 2005 13:24 (UTC)
 * If we lock this one, then why not lock the new nominee's page and every current event article that sees extra traffic and vandalism? No, we should save the lock for the rare cases of the persistent vandal who is not stopped by blocking.  NoSeptember T  6 July 2005 16:03 (UTC)

Gonzales photo
Is that photo based on the assumption that Gonzales will replace O'Connor? If that turns out to not be the case, the photo will be somewhat irrelevant. Will the photo then be taken down? --JamesB3 03:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As long as he is Attorney General, the photo seems to be appropriate (the highest level person sworn in by her, except for any inaugurals she may have done). That he is a possible nominee makes it more so.  I like it, we should keep it.  NoSeptember -  03:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * SDO swore in Dan Quayle in '89, I believe, so Gonzales is not the highest-ranking swearing in she has performed. --Saucy Intruder 18:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As noted above, I thought she may have done an inaugural or two. Gonzales' swearing in is certainly a more recent event involving a still active official, so it still seems appropriate to keep picture.  NoSeptember -  20:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

O'Connor dating Rehnquist
I find that to be supisious, does anyone have any way to verify that fact?

 * This has been known for years. I saw her give a speech at the University of Kansas in 1986 and she made a joke about it.  ---  --Keetoowah 22:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

See the last paragraph before the picture: http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2005/julaug/features/rehnquist.html.

 * Um, how does this help? From what I can tell, it merely says that Rehnquist met the then-Day at Stanford, but doesn't affirm or reject the notion that he dated her. — DLJessup 13:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear DLJessup: I agree with you the Stanford Alumni picture does not not provide us verification of really anything, other than what we were already quite sure of: Rehnquist and O'Connor were in law school together. Howeverwhile attempting to track down something definitive I stumbled on to an Arizona Republic article that indicates that the the old story about Rehnquist been 1st and O'Connor being 3rd in their class is a myth. Please read here Keetoowah 19:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I have found a citation that has backed up the assertion that O'Connor and Rehnquist dated in law school. It is a news article from the Cox News Service you can view it here Keetoowah 19:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Keetoowah:

The link about O'Connor's class standing being a myth points to the Google cache. Since the Google cache is particularly volatile, I placed a citation to it as a newspaper article in the "References" section so that, if the web link breaks, we could at least go to the library and find the dead tree version. — DLJessup 19:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Mike Eagan: Were you friends with Sandra Day O'Connor in those days?
 * William Rehnquist: Oh, yeah. She was one of the entering class, but I don't think we really got to know each other until toward the end of the first year. Then I went and visited her at her family's ranch that summer. We dated some in the second year, and then we kind of went different ways.
 * http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/lawyer/issues/72/1on1Rehnquist.html
 * —RandallJones 23:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sandra Day O'Connor/Archive 1


text:
Eagle Awards

The Eagle Awards were a series of British awards for comic book titles and creators. They were awarded by UK fans voting for work produced during the previous year. Named after the UK's seminal boys' comic Eagle, the awards were launched in 1977 for comics released in 1976.

"[S]et up and financed by a group of dealers and fanzine editors" with the intention of including "people with... diverse interests... to make the poll as impartial as possible," the Eagles were described as "the first independent [in the UK], nationally organised comic art awards poll." The hope was that the Eagle Awards would "become a regular annual fandom event," and indeed, they were the preeminent British comics award in the 1980s and the 2000s (being mostly dormant in the 1990s), variously described as the country's comics equivalent of the Oscars or the BAFTAs. The Eagle Awards were usually presented in a ceremony at a British comic book convention; venues over the years included the British Comic Art Convention, UKCAC, Comic Festival, Comic Expo, and the London MCM Expo. Hosts for the ceremonies included such notables as Simon Pegg, Norman Lovett, Fraser Ayres, Billy West, and Anthony Stewart Head.

Initially the Eagle Award itself was a certificate; eventually the award became an engraved trophy.

Notable repeat Eagle Award winners included Alan Moore, who won the Favourite Comicbook Writer award an impressive eleven times (including sweeping the U.K. and U.S. categories in the period 1985–1987); Terry Austin, who won the Favourite Inker award nine times; Alex Ross, who won the Favourite Comics Artist (Fully Painted Artwork) seven times in ten possible years; and Laura DePuy Martin, who won the Favourite Colourist award six straight times. 2000 AD won the Favourite (Colour) Comic award 12 times, while The Walking Dead won Favourite Black & White Comicbook seven straight times. Batman was voted Favourite Comicbook Character 12 times and Judge Dredd won the award seven times; while the X-Men dominated the Favourite Comicbook Group or Team category, winning it eight times in the span of 11 years. Wolverine won the Favourite Comicbook Character category three times, the Favourite Supporting Character award three times, and the Character Most Worthy of Own Title twice.

In 2014, in connection with Stan Lee, the Eagle Awards were renamed, and presented as, the True Believer Comic Awards. They have not returned since then.

1977: conception and debut
The Eagle Awards were set up by prominent British comics enthusiasts Mike Conroy, Nick Landau, Colin Campbell, Phil Clarke, and Richard Burton. Because the Eagle logo was perceived (as described by Burton) as "a standard of quality ... seldom reached" in early 1977, the Eagle Awards were named "with official blessing from IPC" (Eagle ' s former publisher).

The Eagle Awards were launched at the British Comic Art Convention, the earliest British fan convention devoted entirely to comics (and usually known by the moniker Comicon). The first awards ceremony was held on 3 September 1977, at the Bloomsbury Centre Hotel, London. The 1978 and 1979 awards were also presented at the British Comic Art Convention. Almost from the beginning, the awards included separate UK and US sections.

The 1980s: a Golden Age
The 1980 Eagle Awards (for comics published in 1979) were sponsored by Burton, Conroy, Colin Campbell, Dark They Were and Golden Eyed, Steve Dillon, Forbidden Planet, Forever People, Nostalgia & Comics, Bob Smart, and Valhalla Books; and organised by Burton and Conroy. The 1981 edition was again organised by Burton and Conroy, and sponsored by Burton, Conroy, Colin Campbell, Forbidden Planet, Nostalgia & Comics, Bob Smart, and Comics Showcase. Marvel's X-Men comic and creators dominated the 1981 Eagles, winning Favourite Comic Book, Artist (John Byrne), Writer (Chris Claremont), Inker (Terry Austin), Character (Wolverine), Single Comic Book Story (X-Men #137, "The Fate of the Phoenix"), Continued Comic Book Story ("The Dark Phoenix Saga," X-Men #135–137), and Cover (X-Men #136, by Byrne and Austin). The 1981 awards were organised by Burton and Conroy, and sponsored by Burton, Conroy, Colin Campbell, Bob Smart, and four UK comics retailers: Forbidden Planet, Forever People, Nostalgia & Comics, and Comics Showcase.

After a hiatus in 1982, the Eagle Awards returned in 1983, presented at the London Comic Mart by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons.

The 1984 Eagle Award nominations were announced in May with Howard Chaykin's American Flagg! dominating the nominations – Favourite Penciler, Inker, Writer, Comic, Character (Reuben Flagg), Supporting Character (Raul the cat), New Comic, Single or Continued Story, and two nominations for Favourite Cover – and winning seven of them. The 1984 awards presentation was at the Birmingham Comic Art Show.

By the mid-1980s the work of British authors often dominated both the UK and US categories. In 1985 Alan Moore won favorite writer in both categories, and in 1986 (presented on June 1 at the Birmingham Comic Art Show), the awards "proved to be a virtual clean sweep ... by Alan Moore," who not only again won "favourite writer in both the US and UK categories," but had his work win for favourite comic book, supporting character and new title in the US, and character, continuing story and "character worthy of own title" in the UK (in which last category his works held all top three spots).

The awards became almost fully annual in 1987, in conjunction with the United Kingdom Comic Art Convention (UKCAC); they were held at the UKCAC in 1987, 1988, and 1990.

The 1990s: a fallow period
The Eagle Awards went dormant during most of the 1990s, as organizer Mike Conroy focused on his freelance writing (including becoming an editor of Comics International). From 1990 to 1997, the Eagles were replaced by the UK Comic Art Awards, and then from 1997 until 2003 (with the exception of the year 2000) were supplanted by the National Comics Awards.

The 2000s: a return to (hesitant) prominence
In 2000, on the 50th anniversary of the birth of Eagle, the Eagle Awards returned. The ceremony was held April 22, 2000, at the Bristol Comic Festival (known as "Comics 2000"); this time MC'd by actor/comedian Simon Pegg. There were no Eagle Awards distributed in 2001; voting for comics published in 2000 ended in October 2001 and the winners were announced in June 2002 (at the Comic Festival, which had replaced UKCAC), so news reports announced these variously as the 2000, 2001, or 2002 Eagle Awards. The Eagles again went dormant in 2003 (replaced by the National Comics Awards).

The Eagle Awards returned in 2004 (sponsored by the retailer Ace Comics) and were presented at the inaugural Comic Expo, held November 6–7, at the Ramada City Inn in Bristol; the Eagles were again not presented in 2005.

The 2006–2008 awards presentations were held at the Comic Expo in Bristol, with the 2008 awards being notable for accusations of ballot-stuffing.

Management of the Eagle Awards was transferred from co-founder Mike Conroy to his teenage daughter Cassandra Conroy in 2009 (although Mike Conroy stayed on as advisor). The previous years' venue the Bristol Comic Expo scaled back that year, and was not available for the evening awards ceremony. After attempting to go forward with the Eagle Awards as an online-only process, the Conroys were forced to cancel the 2009 awards due to a "lack of nominations."

2010–2014: rifts, name changes, and demise
The 2010–2012 awards were presented at the London MCM Expo. At the 2012 awards it was announced that the award would in future be called the MCM Award. The announcement prompted a public rift between MCM and the Conroys; as a result no Eagles were awarded in 2013.

The Conroys decided to continue the awards separate from MCM, and in April 2014 it was announced that the award would be presented at the London Film and Comic Con (LFCC) and be named The Stan Lee Eagle Award, with the backing of Stan Lee in his last European convention appearance. In June 2014, however, it was announced that the new award would be called the True Believer Comic Awards. The inaugural True Believer Comics Awards were presented July 12, 2014, at the LFCC, with host Anthony Stewart Head and a special appearance by Stan Lee. They have not been awarded since.

Nominations and voting
At the outset of the Eagle Award, ballots were made available to "most dealers, shops and fanzines." The initial method of casting votes was designed to be inclusive and straightforward, with completed forms able to be returned to the same place, rather than a centralised location. An initial ballot formed a list of nominees, from which the voting ballot was created and disseminated in the same manner.

The awards for 1983 used an open voting system, with no pre-selected nominees. In 1984, the Eagles introduced a new nomination system composed of "prominent British fans, publishers, dealers, and artists," which put forward three names in each category.

The 1986 Eagles saw the introduction of a "free vote . . . rather than pre-selected nominees," creating a "fairer reflection of fans' opinions – and some anomalous results, especially in the Roll of Honor category."

The 2004 awards saw online voting for the first time; over 13,000 voting forms were "received via post, email and website counting centres."

For the 2007 awards, nominations were made by the general comics-reading public via the Eagle Awards website; the five most popular became nominees for the awards.

Categories
Over the course of their existence, the Eagle Awards were eventually awarded in more than 30 categories.

The first ballot had nominations in 19 categories:

 * 1) Favourite Comicbook Artist
 * 2) Favourite British Comics Artist
 * 3) Favourite Comicbook Writer – U.S.
 * 4) Favourite British Comics Writer
 * 5) Favourite Comicbook – Dramatic
 * 6) Favourite Comicbook – Humour
 * 7) Favourite Dramatic Black & White Comics Magazine
 * 8) Favourite Black & White Comicbook – Humour
 * 9) Favourite Comic Publication All Time
 * 10) Favourite Comicbook Character
 * 11) Favourite British Comic Character
 * 12) Favourite Comicbook Team
 * 13) Favourite New Comic Title
 * 14) Favourite Single Comicbook Story
 * 15) Favourite Continued Comic Story
 * 16) Favorite Professional British Comic Publication
 * 17) Favourite British Fan Publication
 * 18) Favourite British Fan Personality
 * 19) Favourite Comics Creator All Time

The next year's ballot, 1978, had 21 categories, dropping Favourite British Fan Personality and Favourite Comic Publication "All Time," and adding categories for Inker, Villain, and Supporting Character. The 1979 ballot dropped categories for Favourite Comic – Dramatic and Favourite Comic – Humour and added categories for Cover and Character Most Worthy of Own Title.

The nominations for Favourite Single Comicbook Story and Favorite Continued Comicbook Story were separate from 1977 to 1980 and then again from 2011 to 2014; they were merged as one category from 2000 to 2010. Similarly, the Favourite Cover category was only divided into British and American sections from 1984 to 1990.

Reflecting an interest in long-form comics, the Best Original Graphic Novel category was added in 1986. The Favourite Team category was dropped after 1990.

With the revival of the Eagles in 2000, categories for Favourite Writer and Favourite Artist were no longer separated into UK and US sections, and a host of new categories were added:
 * Favourite Comics Artist – Fully Painted Artwork
 * Favourite Colourist
 * Favourite Comics Editor
 * Favourite Black & White Comicbook
 * Favourite British Small Press Title
 * Favourite Trade Paperback/Reprint Collection
 * Favourite Comic Strip/Newspaper Strip
 * Favourite Comics-Based Movie or TV
 * Favourite Comics Related Website
 * Favourite Comics Related Website (fan-organised)
 * Favourite Comics E-Zine

The Favourite Comics Related Website (Fan-Organized) category was dropped in 2002, but five more award categories were added:
 * Favourite Comics Writer/Artist
 * Favourite Manga Comic
 * Favourite European Comic
 * Favourite Comics-Related Book
 * Favourite Web-based Comic

The 2004 Eagles dropped awards for the long-running categories Supporting Character and Character Most Worthy of Own Title, as well as the relatively new categories of British Small Press Title, Comic Strip/Newspaper Strip, and Comics E-Zine. It added a Favourite Letterer category as well as the one-off category Favourite Comics-Related Merchandise.

The 2006 Eagles saw the addition of a Favourite Publisher award, and the 2008 Eagle Awards added categories for Favourite Newcomer: Writer and Favourite Newcomer: Artist while dropping the long-running categories Favourite Character/Hero and Favourite Villain.

The final set of awards, in 2014, were given in 28 categories.

The following is a comprehensive list of the Eagle Award categories and the years they were presented, many of which were divided into British sections and (North) American sections. These categories included:

 * Favourite Writer (1977–2014)
 * Favourite Artist/Penciler (1977–2014)
 * Favourite Comic/Colour Comicbook (1977–2014)
 * Favourite Black & White Comicbook (2000–2014)
 * Favourite New Title (1977–2014)
 * Favourite Single or Continued Story (1977–2014) – divided into separate categories for Single and Continued 1977–1980, and 2011–2014
 * Best Original Graphic Novel (1986–2014)
 * Favourite Comic Strip/Newspaper Strip (2000–2004)
 * Favourite Cover (1979–2014)
 * Favourite Character/Hero (1977–2008)
 * Favourite Villain (1978–2008)
 * Favourite Supporting Character (1978–2004)
 * Character Most Worthy of Own Title (1979–2004)
 * Favourite Specialist Comics Publication/Magazine About Comics (1977–2014)

General categories not divided into U.K. and U.S. sections were:
 * Favourite Comics Writer/Artist (2002–2012)
 * Favourite Inker (1978–2014)
 * Favourite Comics Artist – Fully Painted Artwork (2000–2014)
 * Favourite Colourist (2000–2014)
 * Favourite Comics Letterer (2004–2014)
 * Favourite Comics Editor (2000–2014)
 * Favourite Publisher (2006–2014)
 * Favourite Newcomer (1997)
 * Favourite Newcomer: Writer (2008–2014)
 * Favourite Newcomer: Artist (2008–2014)
 * Favourite Comic: Dramatic (1977–1978)
 * Favourite Comic: Humour (1977–1978)
 * Favourite Black & White Comicbook - Humour (1977–1980)
 * Favourite Comics Magazine (1977–1980)
 * Favourite British Small Press Title (2000–2004) – specific to the U.K.
 * Favourite Manga Comic (2002–2014)
 * Favourite European Comic (2002–2014)
 * Favourite Team (1977–1990) – divided into U.K./U.S. in 1985 only
 * Favourite Trade Paperback/Reprint Collection (2000–2014)
 * Favourite Comics-Related Book (2002–2014)
 * Favourite Comics-Based Movie or TV (2000–2014)
 * Favourite Comics Related Website (2000–2014)
 * Favourite Comics E-Zine (2000–2004)
 * Favourite Web-based Comic (2002–2014)
 * Roll of Honour (1977–2014) – originally called "Favourite Comics Creator All Time"

Finally, there were a few one-off awards:
 * Favourite British Fan Personality (1977)
 * Favourite Comic Excluding North American and UK titles (2000) – became separate awards for Favourite Manga and Favourite European Comic
 * Favourite Comics Related Website (fan-organised) (2000)
 * Favourite Comics-Related Merchandise (2004)
 * 30th Anniversary Award for Outstanding Achievements in British Comics (2006)

Past winners

 * Listed by year presented

Favourite Comicbook Writer
Alan Moore won this award an impressive eleven times (including sweeping the U.K. and U.S. categories in the period 1985–1987), with Chris Claremont winning it four times (all in the span 1977–1981).
 * 1977
 * U.K.: Chris Claremont
 * U.S.: Roy Thomas
 * 1978
 * U.K.: Martin Lock
 * U.S.: Steve Englehart
 * 1979
 * U.K.: T.B. Grover (pseudonym of John Wagner)
 * U.S.: Chris Claremont
 * 1980
 * U.K.: John Howard
 * U.S.: Chris Claremont
 * 1981
 * U.K.: T.B. Grover
 * U.S. Chris Claremont
 * 1983
 * U.K.: Alan Moore
 * U.S.: Frank Miller
 * 1984
 * U.K.: Pat Mills
 * U.S.: Howard Chaykin
 * 1985 (U.K. and U.S.) Alan Moore
 * 1986 (U.K. and U.S.) Alan Moore
 * 1987 (U.K. and U.S.) Alan Moore
 * 1988
 * U.K.: Pat Mills
 * U.S.: Alan Moore
 * 1989
 * U.S.: Neil Gaiman (for The Sandman)
 * 1990
 * U.K.: Grant Morrison
 * U.S.: Neil Gaiman, Sandman (DC)
 * 2000 Alan Moore
 * 2002 Alan Moore
 * 2004 J. Michael Straczynski
 * 2006 Grant Morrison
 * 2007 Warren Ellis
 * 2008 Alan Moore
 * 2010 Warren Ellis
 * 2011 Grant Morrison
 * 2012 Scott Snyder
 * 2014 Matt Fraction

Favourite Comics Writer/Artist
Mike Mignola won this award three times while Frank Miller won it twice.
 * 2002 Frank Miller
 * 2004 Mike Mignola
 * 2006 Howard Chaykin
 * 2007 Mike Mignola
 * 2008 Alan Davis
 * 2010 Darwyn Cooke
 * 2011 Mike Mignola
 * 2012 Frank Miller

Favourite Comicbook Artist/Penciler
Multiple winners of this award included John Byrne, Brian Bolland, and Alan Davis with three wins; and Neal Adams, John Bolton, George Pérez, Bill Sienkiewicz, Frank Miller, Brian Talbot, Frank Quitely, and J. H. Williams III with two awards apiece.
 * 1977
 * U.K.: Frank Bellamy
 * U.S.: Neal Adams
 * 1978
 * U.K.: John Bolton
 * U.S.: Neal Adams
 * 1979
 * U.K.: John Bolton
 * U.S.: John Byrne
 * 1980
 * U.K.: Brian Bolland
 * U.S.: John Byrne
 * 1981
 * U.K.: Brian Bolland
 * U.S.: John Byrne
 * 1983
 * U.K.: Brian Bolland
 * U.S.: Frank Miller
 * 1984
 * U.S.: Howard Chaykin
 * 1985
 * U.K.: Alan Davis
 * U.S. Bill Sienkiewicz
 * 1986
 * U.K.: Alan Davis
 * U.S.: George Pérez
 * 1987
 * U.K.: Alan Davis
 * U.S.: Frank Miller
 * 1988
 * U.K.: Bryan Talbot
 * U.S.: Bill Sienkiewicz
 * 1989
 * U.K.: Bryan Talbot (for The Adventures of Luther Arkwright)
 * 1990
 * U.K.: Simon Bisley
 * U.S.: Todd McFarlane
 * 2000 George Pérez
 * 2002 Frank Quitely
 * 2004 Jim Lee
 * 2006 Bryan Hitch
 * 2007 John Cassaday
 * 2008 Frank Cho
 * 2010 Frank Quitely
 * 2011 J. H. Williams III
 * 2012 J. H. Williams III
 * 2014 Fiona Staples

Favourite Inker
Terry Austin won this award nine times in an eleven-year span (from 1978 to 1988).
 * 1978 Terry Austin
 * 1979 Terry Austin
 * 1980:
 * U.K.: Brian Bolland
 * U.S.: Terry Austin
 * 1981 Terry Austin
 * 1983 Terry Austin
 * 1984 Howard Chaykin
 * 1985 Terry Austin
 * 1986 Terry Austin
 * 1987 Terry Austin
 * 1988 Terry Austin
 * 1990 Paul Neary
 * 2000 Jimmy Palmiotti
 * 2002 Mark Farmer
 * 2004 Scott Williams
 * 2006 Jimmy Palmiotti
 * 2007 Paul Neary
 * 2008 D'Israeli (Matt Brooker)
 * 2010 Kevin O'Neill
 * 2011 Mike Mignola
 * 2012 Scott Williams
 * 2014 Becky Cloonan

Favourite Comics Artist (Fully Painted Artwork)
Alex Ross dominated this award, winning it seven times in 10 possible years.
 * 2000 Alex Ross
 * 2002 Alex Ross
 * 2004 Alex Ross
 * 2006 Alex Ross
 * 2007 Alex Ross
 * 2008 Alex Ross
 * 2010 J. H. Williams III
 * 2011 J. H. Williams III
 * 2012 Alex Ross
 * 2014 Fiona Staples

Favourite Colourist
Laura DePuy Martin won this award six straight times from 2000 to 2008.
 * 2000 Laura DePuy
 * 2002 Laura Depuy
 * 2004 Laura Martin
 * 2006 Laura Martin
 * 2007 Laura Martin
 * 2008 Laura Martin
 * 2010 Ben Templesmith
 * 2011 Dave Stewart
 * 2012 Dave Stewart
 * 2014 Matt Hollingsworth

Favourite Letterer

 * 2006 Todd Klein
 * 2007 Chris Eliopoulos
 * 2008 Dave Gibbons
 * 2010 Todd Klein
 * 2011 Richard Starkings
 * 2012 Richard Starkings/Comicraft
 * 2014 Annie Parkhouse

Favourite Comics Editor
2000 AD ' s Tharg the Mighty won this award four times (with three of those awards going to Matt Smith); Axel Alonso also won the award three times.
 * 2000 Dennis O'Neil
 * 2002 Andy Diggle (Mighty Tharg: 2000 AD)
 * 2004 Axel Alonso (Marvel Comics)
 * 2006 Axel Alonso
 * 2007 Matt Smith
 * 2008 Tharg (Matt Smith)
 * 2010 Axel Alonso
 * 2011 Matt Smith/Tharg
 * 2012 Karen Berger
 * 2014 Chris Ryall

Best Newcomer

 * 1997 Alex Ronald

Award for Favourite Newcomer Writer/Rising Star

 * 2008 Matt Fraction
 * 2010 Jonathan Hickman
 * 2011 Paul Cornell
 * 2012 Jeff Lemire
 * 2014 Matt Fraction

Award for Favourite Newcomer Artist/Rising Star

 * 1978 Marshall Rogers
 * 2008 David Aja
 * 2010 Jamie McKelvie
 * 2011 Sara Pichelli
 * 2012 Francesco Francavilla
 * 2014 Fiona Staples

Favourite (Colour) Comic
2000 AD was dominant in this category, winning 12 times; X-Men was in second place with six wins (five of them in the period 1977–1981).
 * 1977 X-Men
 * 1978 X-Men
 * 1979
 * U.K.: 2000 AD
 * U.S.: X-Men
 * 1980
 * U.K.: 2000 A.D.
 * U.S.: X-Men
 * 1981
 * U.K.: 2000 AD
 * U.S.: X-Men
 * 1983
 * U.K.: Warrior
 * U.S.: Daredevil
 * 1984
 * U.K.: The Daredevils
 * U.S.: American Flagg!
 * 1985
 * U.K.: Warrior, edited by Dez Skinn (Quality Communications)
 * U.S.: Swamp Thing
 * 1986
 * U.K.: 2000 AD
 * U.S.: Swamp Thing
 * 1987
 * U.K.: 2000 AD
 * U.S.: Watchmen
 * 1988
 * U.K.: 2000 AD
 * U.S.: Watchmen
 * 1990
 * U.K.: 2000 AD
 * U.S.: Uncanny X-Men
 * 2000
 * U.K.: 2000 AD
 * U.S.: Preacher, by Garth Ennis and Steve Dillon
 * 2002
 * U.K.: 2000 AD
 * U.S.: JSA
 * 2004
 * U.K.: Warhammer Monthly (Black Library)
 * U.S.: Fantastic Four (Marvel Comics)
 * 2006
 * U.K.: Judge Dredd Megazine (Rebellion)
 * U.S.: The Ultimates Volume 2 (Marvel Comics)
 * 2007
 * U.K.: 2000 AD
 * U.S.: All-Star Superman
 * 2008
 * U.K.: The Spectacular Spider-Man
 * U.S.: Hellboy: Darkness Calls
 * 2010
 * U.K.: 2000 AD
 * U.S.: Batman and Robin
 * 2011
 * U.K.: 2000 AD
 * U.S.: Batman and Robin
 * 2012
 * U.K.: Doctor Who Magazine
 * U.S.: Batman
 * 2014
 * U.K.: 2000 AD
 * U.S.: Saga

Favourite Comic Magazine
Savage Sword of Conan prevailed in this category three times in the five years it was awarded.
 * 1977 Savage Sword of Conan
 * 1978 Savage Sword of Conan
 * 1979 Savage Sword of Conan
 * 1980
 * U.K.: 2000 AD Summer Special
 * U.S.: Howard the Duck
 * 1981 Epic Illustrated

Favourite Comicbook - Humour

 * 1977 Howard the Duck
 * 1978 Howard the Duck

Favourite Black & White Comicbook - Humour

 * 1977 Mad magazine

Favourite Black & White Comicbook
The Walking Dead won this category seven straight times.
 * 2000 Hell and Back (A Sin City Love Story), by Frank Miller
 * 2002 Liberty Meadows, by Frank Cho
 * 2004 Bone (Cartoon Books)
 * 2006 The Walking Dead (Image Comics)
 * 2007 The Walking Dead
 * 2008 The Walking Dead
 * 2010 The Walking Dead
 * 2011 The Walking Dead
 * 2012 The Walking Dead
 * 2014 The Walking Dead

Favourite UK Small Press Title/Black and White Comicbook

 * 2000 Kane by Paul Grist
 * 2002 Jack Staff by Paul Grist (Dancing Elephant Press)
 * 2004 Thrud the Barbarian (Carl Critchlow)
 * 2006 Springheeled Jack (Black Boar Press)
 * 2007 Hero Killers (Moonface Press)
 * 2008 How to Date a Girl in Ten Days by Tom Humberstone
 * 2010 Whatever Happened to The World's Fastest Man? by Dave West and Marleen Lowe
 * 2011 Commando (D. C. Thomson & Co. Ltd)
 * 2012 Viz (Dennis Publishing)
 * 2014 Good Cop Bad Cop by Jim Alexander

Favourite Comic Album/Graphic Novel/Original Graphic Novel

 * 1986
 * U.K.: Nemesis Book III by Pat Mills and Kevin O'Neill
 * U.S.: American Flagg!: Hard Times by Howard Chaykin
 * 1987
 * U.K.: D.R. & Quinch's Totally Awesome Guide to Life by Alan Moore and Alan Davis
 * U.S.: Batman: The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller and Klaus Janson
 * 1988
 * U.K.: Violent Cases by Neil Gaiman and Dave McKean
 * U.S.: Daredevil: Love and War by Frank Miller and Bill Sienkiewicz
 * 1989 Violent Cases by Neil Gaiman and Dave McKean
 * 1990
 * U.K.: Sláine: The Horned God Book I by Pat Mills and Simon Bisley
 * U.S.: Arkham Asylum: A Serious House on Serious Earth by Grant Morrison and Dave McKean
 * 2000 JLA: Earth 2 by Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely
 * 2002 Safe Area Goražde by Joe Sacco
 * 2004 Sgt. Rock: Between Hell and a Hard Place by Brian Azzarello and Joe Kubert
 * 2006 Top 10: The Forty-Niners by Alan Moore and Gene Ha
 * 2007 Pride of Baghdad by Brian K. Vaughan and Niko Henrichon
 * 2008 The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Black Dossier by Alan Moore and Kevin O'Neill
 * 2010 The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Volume III: Century by Alan Moore and Kevin O'Neill
 * 2011 Scott Pilgrim, Volume 6: Scott Pilgrim’s Finest Hour by Bryan Lee O'Malley
 * 2012 Batman: Noël by Lee Bermejo
 * 2014 Avengers: Endless Wartime by Warren Ellis, et al.

Favourite Trade Paperback/Reprint Collection

 * 2000 From Hell: To Hell, by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell
 * 2002 The Authority: Under New Management by Warren Ellis and Bryan Hitch
 * 2004 The Chronicles of Conan (Dark Horse)
 * 2006 Absolute Watchmen by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons
 * 2007 Absolute Sandman Volume 1 by Neil Gaiman
 * 2008 Absolute Sandman Volume 2 by Neil Gaiman
 * 2010 Captain Britain by Alan Moore and Alan Davis Omnibus
 * 2011 Absolute All-Star Superman by Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely
 * 2012 Thor Omnibus by Walt Simonson
 * 2014 Hawkeye Volume 1 Oversized HC by Matt Fraction, et al.

Favourite New Comic Title

 * 1977 Howard the Duck
 * 1978 John Carter, Warlord of Mars
 * 1979 Micronauts
 * 1980
 * U.K.: Doctor Who Weekly
 * U.S.: Howard the Duck
 * 1981 The New Teen Titans
 * 1983
 * U.K.: Warrior
 * U.S.: Camelot 3000
 * 1984
 * U.S.: American Flagg!
 * 1985
 * U.K.: Captain Britain
 * U.S.: Power Pack, written by Louise Simonson (Marvel Comics)
 * 1986
 * U.K.: Captain Britain
 * U.S. Miracleman
 * 1987
 * U.K.: Redfox
 * U.S.: Watchmen
 * 1988
 * U.K.: The Adventures of Luther Arkwright
 * U.S.: Marshal Law
 * 1989
 * U.K.: The Adventures of Luther Arkwright
 * 1990
 * U.K.: The Bogie Man
 * U.S.: Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight
 * 2000 Top 10, by Alan Moore and Gene Ha
 * 2002 Ultimate Spider-Man
 * 2004 Conan (Dark Horse)
 * 2006 All-Star Superman (DC) by Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely
 * 2007 Nextwave
 * 2008 Thor
 * 2010 Batman and Robin
 * 2011 Daytripper
 * 2012 Batman
 * 2014 Guardians of the Galaxy

Favourite Single or Continued Comicbook Story

 * 1977
 * Single: Howard the Duck #3: "Four Feathers of Death" (Steve Gerber/John Buscema)
 * Continued: Master of Kung Fu #48-51 (Doug Moench/Paul Gulacy)
 * 1978
 * Single: Avengers Annual #7 – The Final Threat (Jim Starlin)
 * Continued: Avengers Annual #7/Marvel Two-in-One Annual #2 (Jim Starlin)
 * 1979
 * Single: X-Men #111 – Mindgames (Chris Claremont/John Byrne)
 * Continued: The Avengers #167, 168, 170-177 (Jim Shooter/George Pérez, Sal Buscema, David Wenzel)
 * 1980
 * U.K.:
 * Single: Hulk Weekly #2 (Night Raven)
 * Continued: Hulk Weekly 1–30, 42, 43 (Black Knight)
 * U.S.:
 * Single: Iron Man #128 – Demon in a Bottle (David Michelinie, Bob Layton/John Romita Jr.)
 * Continued: X-Men #125-128 (Chris Claremont/John Byrne)
 * 1981
 * U.K.
 * Single: "Terror Tube," 2000 AD #167
 * Continued: "The Judge Child," 2000 AD #156–181
 * U.S.
 * Single: X-Men #137 "The Fate of the Phoenix"
 * Continued: X-Men #135–137, "The Dark Phoenix Saga"
 * 1983
 * U.K.: Marvelman (Warrior #1-3, 5, & 6)
 * U.S.: Wolverine #1-4 (limited series)
 * 1984
 * U.S.: American Flagg! #1–2, "Hard Times"
 * 1985
 * U.K.: 2000 AD #355–359
 * U.S.: Superman #400
 * 1986
 * U.K.: Halo Jones Book Two (2000 AD #406-415)
 * U.S.: Crisis on Infinite Earths #1-9
 * 1987
 * U.K.: Halo Jones Book Three
 * U.S.: Batman: The Dark Knight Returns
 * 1988
 * U.K.: Zenith (2000 AD #535-550)
 * U.S.: Batman #404-407: Year One
 * 1990
 * U.K.: Sláine: The Horned God Book I (2000 AD #626-635)
 * U.S.: Skreemer (limited series)
 * 2000 Daredevil (#1-8), by Kevin Smith and Joe Quesada
 * 2002 The Authority: The Nativity
 * 2004 Daredevil #46-50: Hardcore (Brian Michael Bendis & Alex Maleev)
 * 2006 The Ultimates volume 2 #1-9 (Mark Millar, Bryan Hitch, and Paul Neary)
 * 2007 Nextwave #1-6
 * 2008 Captain America #25-30: The Death of Captain America
 * 2010
 * Single: Phonogram: The Singles Club #4: "Konichiwa Bitches"
 * Continued: The Walking Dead #61-65: "Fear The Hunters"
 * 2011
 * Single: Daytripper #8
 * Continued: The Walking Dead #73-79: "Too Far Gone"
 * 2012
 * Single: Doctor Who #12
 * Continued: Walking Dead #79-84: "No Way Out"
 * 2014
 * Single: "Pizza is my Business," Hawkeye #11
 * Continued: Saga

Favourite Cover

 * 1979 Master of Kung Fu #67 (Paul Gulacy)
 * 1980
 * U.K.: 2000 AD 144
 * U.S.: The Avengers #185 (George Pérez)
 * 1981
 * U.K.: 2000 AD #173 (Brian Bolland)
 * U.S.: X-Men #136 (John Byrne/Terry Austin)
 * 1983
 * U.K.: Warrior #7 (Mick Austin)
 * U.S.: Doctor Strange #55 (Michael Golden)
 * 1985
 * U.K.: Warrior #19 (David Lloyd/Garry Leach)
 * U.S.: New Mutants #22 (Bill Sienkiewicz)
 * 1986
 * U.K.: Captain Britain #6 (Alan Davis)
 * U.S.: Swamp Thing #34 (John Totleben)
 * 1987
 * U.K.: 2000 AD #500 (multiple artists)
 * U.S.: Batman: The Dark Knight Returns #1 (Frank Miller/Klaus Janson)
 * 1988
 * U.K.: The Adventures of Luther Arkwright #1 (Bryan Talbot)
 * U.S.: Wonder Woman #10 (George Pérez)
 * 1989
 * U.K.: The Adventures of Luther Arkwright (Bryan Talbot)
 * 1990
 * U.K.: 2000 AD Prog 626 (Simon Bisley)
 * U.S.: Aliens #1 (Denis Beauvais)
 * 2000 Batman: Harley Quinn (Alex Ross)
 * 2002 Ultimate Spider-Man #1 (Joe Quesada)
 * 2004 JLA: Liberty and Justice (Alex Ross)
 * 2006 All-Star Superman #1 (Frank Quitely)
 * 2007 Fables: 1001 Nights of Snowfall (James Jean)
 * 2008 World War Hulk 1A (David Finch)
 * 2010 Batman and Robin #4 (Frank Quitely)
 * 2011 Batwoman #0 (J.H. Williams III)
 * 2012 Batwoman #1 (J.H. Williams III)
 * 2014 Hawkeye #9 (David Aja)

Favourite Comic (excluding North American and UK titles)

 * 1990 Akira (Japan)
 * 2000 Bacchus, by Eddie Campbell (Australia)

Favourite Manga Comic

 * 2002 Lone Wolf and Cub
 * 2004 Blade of the Immortal (Dark Horse)
 * 2006 Blade of the Immortal (Dark Horse)
 * 2007 Blade of the Immortal
 * 2008 Death Note
 * 2010 Fullmetal Alchemist
 * 2011 Fullmetal Alchemist
 * 2012 20th Century Boys

Favourite European Comic

 * 2002 Metabarons (Les Humanoïdes Associés, France)
 * 2004 Tex (Sergio Bonelli Editore, Italy)
 * 2006 Asterix and the Falling Sky (Albert Rene Editions, France)
 * 2007 Asterix and the Vikings (France)
 * 2008 Requiem, Vampire Knight (Nickel Editions, France)
 * 2010 Requiem Chevalier Vampire (France)
 * 2011 Blacksad (Dargaud, France)
 * 2012 Dylan Dog (Sergio Bonelli Editore, Italy)

Favourite Newspaper Strip

 * 2000 Peanuts
 * 2002 Liberty Meadows
 * 2004 Mutts (Patrick McDonnell)

Favourite Comic Strip in a UK Comic or Magazine

 * 2000 Judge Dredd (2000 AD/Judge Dredd Megazine)
 * 2002 Nikolai Dante (2000 AD)
 * 2004 Judge Dredd (2000 AD/Judge Dredd Megazine – Rebellion)

Favourite Web-Based Comic

 * 2000 Astounding Space Thrills by Steve Conley
 * 2002 Sluggy Freelance by Pete Abrams
 * 2004 PvP by Scott Kurtz
 * 2006 Supernatural Law by Batton Lash
 * 2007 Penny Arcade by Jerry Holkins and Mike Krahulik
 * 2008 The Order of the Stick by Rich Burlew
 * 2010 FreakAngels by Warren Ellis and Paul Duffield
 * 2011 Axe Cop by Malachai Nicolle and Ethan Nicolle
 * 2012 Freakangels
 * 2014 Aces Weekly by David Lloyd, et al. (www.acesweekly.co.uk)

Favourite Publisher

 * 2006 DC Comics
 * 2007 Marvel Comics
 * 2008 Marvel Comics
 * 2010 DC Comics/Vertigo Comics
 * 2011 DC Comics/Vertigo/WildStorm
 * 2012 DC Comics/Vertigo
 * 2014 IDW Publishing

Favourite Comicbook Character
Batman won this category 12 times; Judge Dredd won seven times, and Wolverine won it three times.
 * 1977
 * U.K.: Captain Britain
 * U.S.: Conan the Barbarian
 * 1978
 * U.K.: Judge Dredd
 * U.S.: Batman
 * 1979
 * U.K.: Judge Dredd
 * U.S.: Batman
 * 1980
 * U.K.: Judge Dredd
 * U.S.: Wolverine
 * 1981
 * U.K.: Judge Dredd
 * U.S.: Wolverine
 * 1983
 * U.K.: Marvelman
 * U.S.: Wolverine
 * 1985
 * U.K.: Judge Dredd
 * U.S.: Reuben Flagg
 * 1986
 * U.K.: Halo Jones
 * U.S.: Batman
 * 1987
 * U.K.: Judge Dredd
 * U.S.: Batman
 * 1988
 * U.K.: Luther Arkwright
 * U.S.: Batman
 * 1989
 * U.K.: Luther Arkwright
 * 1990
 * U.K.: Judge Dredd
 * U.S.: Batman
 * 2000 Batman
 * 2002 Batman
 * 2004 Batman
 * 2006 Batman
 * 2007 Batman
 * 2008 Batman

Favourite Villain
DC's The Joker won this category five times, 2000 AD ' s Torquemada won four times, and Marvel's Magneto came away with three wins.
 * 1978 Thanos
 * 1979 Magneto
 * 1980
 * U.K.: Judge Cal
 * U.S.: Magneto
 * 1981
 * U.K.: Judge Death
 * U.S.: Magneto
 * 1983
 * U.K.: Kid Marvelman
 * U.S.: Darkseid
 * 1985
 * U.K.: Torquemada, from Nemesis the Warlock (2000 AD), by Pat Mills and Brian Talbot (Fleetway)
 * U.S.: Doctor Doom
 * 1986
 * U.K.: Torquemada
 * U.S.: Anti-Monitor
 * 1987
 * U.K.: Torquemada
 * U.S.: The Joker
 * 1988
 * U.K.: Torquemada
 * U.S.: The Joker
 * 1990
 * U.K.: Judge Death
 * U.S.: The Joker
 * 2000 Herr Starr (Preacher)
 * 2002 Lex Luthor (Superman)
 * 2004 Doctor Doom (Fantastic Four – Marvel Comics)
 * 2006 The Joker
 * 2007 Dirk Anger (Nextwave: Marvel Comics|)
 * 2008 The Joker

Favourite Supporting Character

 * 1978 Pip the Troll
 * 1979 Wolverine
 * 1980
 * U.K.: Ro-Jaws
 * U.S.: Wolverine
 * 1981
 * U.K.: Hoagy (Robo-Hunter)
 * U.S.: Wolverine
 * 1983
 * U.K.: Zirk (Warrior)
 * U.S.: Elektra
 * 1984
 * U.S.: Raul the cat (American Flagg!)
 * 1985
 * U.K.: Evey (V for Vendetta)
 * U.S.: Raul the cat (American Flagg!)
 * 1986
 * U.K.: Meggan (Captain Britain)
 * U.S.: John Constantine (Swamp Thing)
 * 1987
 * U.K.: Ukko the Dwarf (Sláine)
 * U.S.: John Constantine
 * 1988
 * U.K.: Ukko the Dwarf
 * U.S.: Abigail Arcane Cable
 * 1990
 * U.K.: Middenface McNulty (Strontium Dog)
 * 2000 Oracle/Barbara Gordon (Batman/Birds of Prey)
 * 2002 Commissioner James Gordon (Batman)
 * 2004 Mary Jane Watson (Spider-Man – Marvel Comics)

Character Most Worthy of Own Title

 * 1978 Silver Surfer
 * 1979 Silver Surfer
 * 1980
 * U.K.: Judge Dredd
 * U.S.: Warlock
 * 1981
 * U.K.: Judge Dredd
 * U.S.: Silver Surfer
 * 1983
 * U.K.: Judge Anderson
 * U.S.: The Spectre
 * 1985
 * U.K.: D.R. & Quinch
 * U.S.: The Spectre
 * 1986
 * U.K.: Halo Jones
 * U.S.: Wolverine
 * 1987
 * U.K.: Captain Britain
 * U.S.: Wolverine
 * 1988
 * U.K.: Halo Jones
 * U.S.: Rorschach
 * 1990
 * U.K.: Captain Britain
 * 2000 Luther Arkwright (Heart of Empire)
 * 2002 Elijah Snow (Planetary)
 * 2004 Doctor Strange (Marvel Comics)

Favourite Comicbook Group or Team
The X-Men dominated this category, winning it eight times in the span of 11 years.
 * 1977 X-Men
 * 1978 X-Men
 * 1979 X-Men
 * 1980
 * U.K.: Ro-Busters
 * U.S.: X-Men
 * 1981 X-Men
 * 1983 X-Men
 * 1985
 * U.K.: Mega City Judges
 * U.S.: Teen Titans
 * 1986 X-Men
 * 1987 X-Men
 * 1988 Justice League International
 * 1990 Doom Patrol

Favourite Specialist Comics Publication/Trade Publication
Multiple award-winners in this category included Wizard with six wins, Fantagraphics Books with its publications Amazing Heroes and The Comics Journal racking up seven wins in total, and the British publication Speakeasy with four wins.
 * 1977
 * Pro: House of Hammer
 * Fan: Comic Media News
 * 1978
 * Pro: Starburst
 * Fan: Comic Media News
 * 1980
 * U.K. (fan): BEM
 * U.S. (fan): The Comics Journal
 * 1981
 * U.K.: BEM
 * U.S.: The Comics Journal
 * 1985
 * U.K.: Fantasy Advertiser
 * U.S.: Amazing Heroes
 * 1986
 * U.K.: Speakeasy
 * U.S.: Amazing Heroes
 * 1987
 * U.K.: Speakeasy
 * U.S.: Amazing Heroes
 * 1988
 * U.K.: Speakeasy
 * U.S.: Amazing Heroes
 * 1990
 * U.K.: Speakeasy
 * U.S.: Marvel Age
 * 2000 Wizard
 * 2002 Wizard
 * 2004 The Comics Journal (Fantagraphics Books)
 * 2006 The Comics Journal (Fantagraphics Books)
 * 2007 Wizard
 * 2008 Wizard
 * 2010 Wizard
 * 2011 Wizard
 * 2012 DC Comics Super Hero Collection
 * 2014 Bleeding Cool

Favourite Comics-Related Book

 * 2002 The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, by Michael Chabon
 * 2004 Mythology: The DC Comics Art of Alex Ross by Chip Kidd with Geoff Spear
 * 2006 Eisner/Miller (edited by Charles Brownstein & Diana Schutz)
 * 2007 Making Comics: Storytelling Secrets of Comics, Manga and Graphic Novels by Scott McCloud (HarperCollins)
 * 2008 Our Gods Wear Spandex by Christopher Knowles
 * 2010 The Insider's Guide to Creating Comics and Graphic Novels by Andy Schmidt
 * 2011 75 Years of DC Comics by Paul Levitz (Taschen)
 * 2012 Supergods: Our World in the Age of the Superhero by Grant Morrison
 * 2014 The Secret History of Marvel Comics: Jack Kirby and the Moonlighting Artists at Martin Goodman's Empire by Blake Bell and Michael J. Vassallo

Favourite Comics Related Website (professional)
Comic Book Resources was a repeat winner in this category, with five wins in 14 years.
 * 2000 Comic Book Resources
 * 2002 Comic Book Resources
 * 2004 Comicon.com
 * 2006 Silver Bullet Comic Books
 * 2007 Newsarama
 * 2008 Marvel.com
 * 2010 Comic Book Resources
 * 2011 Comic Book Resources
 * 2012 Bleeding Cool
 * 2014 Comic Book Resources

Favourite Comics Related Website (fan-organised)

 * 2000 Sequential Tart

Favourite Comics E-Zine

 * 2002 Comic Book Electronic Magazine
 * 2004 Newsarama

Favourite Comics-based Film or TV Series

 * 2000 Batman Beyond
 * 2004 X2 (Bryan Singer, director)
 * 2006 Batman Begins (Christopher Nolan, director)
 * 2007 Heroes
 * 2008 300
 * 2010 Watchmen
 * 2011 Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
 * 2012 The Big Bang Theory
 * 2014 Iron Man 3

Favourite British Fan Personality

 * 1977 Martin Lock

Favourite Comics-Related Merchandise

 * 2004 Kingdom Come action figures (DC Select; second series)

Favourite Comic Publication "All Time"

 * 1977 Fantastic Four

Roll of Honour

 * 1977 Stan Lee
 * 1978 Steve Englehart
 * 1979 Jack Kirby
 * 1980 Roy Thomas
 * 1981 Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster
 * 1982 Mick Austin
 * 1983 Will Eisner
 * 1985 Steve Ditko
 * 1986 Alan Moore
 * 1987 Frank Miller
 * 1988 Pat Mills
 * 1990 2000 AD
 * 2000 Gil Kane
 * 2002 Joe Quesada
 * 2004 Neil Gaiman
 * 2006 Grant Morrison
 * 2007 Warren Ellis
 * 2008 Mike Mignola
 * 2010 Brian Bolland
 * 2011 Dave Gibbons
 * 2012 Frank Quitely
 * 2014 Gail Simone

title: Eagle Awards


text:
Talk:Battle of Mogadishu (1993)/Archive 1

POV
The additonal information (UBL references, Blaming Adid for all the civilian casulties) seems a little non NPOV. Any supporting evidence for these assertations before I re-word the article? User:Alex

Read the book for God's sake. This sort of censorship, without even a cursory review of the literature transforms Wikipedia into a compedium of popular prejudices, nothing more. I'm outta here, Wikipedia can wither - long live it's new competitors. If ignorance trumps knowledge, and deletion necessitates no bibliography, those who have done the reading aren't going to write anything up. Not to mention that no particular kind of suspected bias was mentioned (I'm on the left and not American.) Read the damn book. You obviously saw the movie, but the Americans left out some central issues that are unmistakable in the book. This is utterly indefensible. This way of building an encyclopedia can't work. The system is broken.

Naming
Why is it necessary to have "Somalia, 1993" in parenthesis after the title? Was there another Operation Gothic Serpent? It should be named either [Operation Gothic Serpent] or [Battle of Mogadishu]. Battle of Mogadishu is much more common:. --Jia ng 02:15, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC) bi
 * Moved to [Operation Gothic Serpent]. --Jia ng 22:01, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I was thinking of entering on more details about the operation, not only about the battle of Oct 3. After more consideration I beleive it is better to move it back to October 3, 1993 Battle of Mogadishu and have an article on its own about the battle that ocurred on that day. --Maio 12:41, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

Why is specifying the date necessary? Should the [Operation Gothic Serpent] redirect be deleted? --Jia ng 07:25, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Not only 1 battle has ocurred in Mogadishu but if you want to move it, that's fine. :) And yeah, Gothic Serpent should be deleted until someone can write an article about the whole operation per se. --Maio 14:37, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

Operation Gothic Serpant has been deleted. I think keeping the title "Operation Code Irene" (curiously no google hits) in the text will be enough. We'll add a disambiguation notice if someone wants to write about the other titles. --Jia ng 00:16, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the list of US dead, because I believe it is frankly unencyclopedic. If anybody wants to put it on sep11.wikipedia.org, go ahead. I tried to, but couldn't figure out where it was supposed to go. We don't need to know every single dead US soldier's name from this battle anymore than we need to know all of them who died in the Gulf War or World War II. DanKeshet 08:52, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * Someone put them back in, I re-removed them; agreed, it'd be seriously impractical to list the name of every man who has given their life in battles throughout history, and unfair to list only those who died in smaller conflicts. Davedx

SEALs and other stuff
According to what source were the US Navy SEALs involved? *Points to the "American units involved in the battle"*.

And on another note: "Not to mention that no particular kind of suspected bias was mentioned (I'm on the left and not American.) Read the damn book. You obviously saw the movie, but the Americans left out some central issues that are unmistakable in the book. This is utterly indefensible. This way of building an encyclopedia can't work. The system is broken."

An American wrote the book by the way.

--CorranH96

 * Source:

 * Bowden, Mark (March 1999). Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War. Atlantic Monthly Press. Berkeley, California (USA).

 * Specifically Chapter I. Read The Fuckin Manual or in this case, Read The Damn Book.

 * I really don't understand what the hell are you trying to express in your second paragraph.

 * —John | Talk 21:00, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

The SEALS were in Somalia. In fact, they were the first US troops to land in Somalia. They conducted six raids during August and September, but they were not involved in this particular battle. See. Ydorb 18:08, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

 * Negative, there were at least 2 Navy SEALs involved in the Battle of Mogadishu, and IIRC one of them was even injured.   —Joseph | Talk 22:05, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

I stand corrected. According to Bowden's book, two SEALs were involved, Homer Nearpass and John Gay. Both were attached to TF Ranger. So, it may be correct to say that no SEAL units were involved, but not that no SEALs were involved. Ydorb 22:42, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

American Fatalities 18 vs 19
There is confusion about the number of fatalities during the battle. This is from an official US Army history:
 * Casualties were heavy. TF Ranger lost 16 soldiers on 3–4 October and had another 57 wounded, with 1 other killed and 12 wounded on 6 October by a mortar attack on their hangar complex at the airport. The 2–14th Infantry suffered 2 Americans killed and 22 wounded while the Malaysian coalition partners had 2 killed and 7 wounded and the Pakistanis suffered 2 wounded. Various estimates placed Somali casualties between 500 and 1,500.

So, the number of American fatalities during the battle depends on how you define the battle. The box defines it as 15 hours on October 3-4. Eighteen Americans died during those hours. The nineteenth person listed, Sgt. First Class Matt Rierson, fought and survived the battle (he was awarded a awarded the Silver Star, but died in the mortar attack two days later.

At least three other US soldiers died in Somalia. On September 25, a UH-60 helicopter was shot down by an RPG and three soldiers killed. Ydorb 18:08, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

 * There were 18 American deaths in the time period of the battle, these include 16 soldiers from the 1st SFOD-D and the 75 Ranger Regiment, and 2 from the 2-14th as the article mentions.   —Joseph | Talk 22:05, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

The article needs consistency in the number of dead and wounded. The box says one thing, the intro a second and later in the article there is a third mention. I vote for following the stats reported by the US Army History report: 18 dead and 79 wounded. If there's no complaints I will change the article soon. If there is disagreement, please state the source so we can figure this out. Ydorb 23:49, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that consistent numbers should be reported throughout the article but it may be even more valuable to explain why there are discrepancies between various accounts, even from one source like the US military, in the number of casualties reported, i.e. it depends on how the time frame of the battle is defined. Alberuni 00:06, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Agree with both of ya. Perhaps we should mention that 18 American soldiers lost their live in the battle, and integrate some sort of text that says "a few days later, x soldiers lost their live in a mortar attack" or something similar. By the way Ydorb, be bold in updating pages. ;-)   —Joseph | Talk 01:15, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * Also a quick note - it lists US casualties as 'dead and wounded' in the side box, but the Somalian figure seems to be dead only - the intro talks about injured in the thousands. This should probably be made consistant too - if you're talking "casualties", you should include anyone wounded in action on both sides right? Also, just noticed - the article intro says "3000-4000 injured", but the side box says their strength was "more than 2000" (strength including citizens in the Defendents box) Davedx

Military Defeat
I don't think calling it a military defeat is very proper. Casualties wise the Americans come out on top, and accomplished their mission. Now it was a political defeat because it caused the US Forces to pull out. But ultimately it was the people of Somalia that lost out, since they are still starving, and no one wants to go in since the US pulled out. PPGMD

 * I could be wrong, but the capture of the clan leaders was the objectives for Operation Gothic Serpent; the battle that followed wasn't supposed to be part of the operation, and the US forces were forced to retreat with heavy casualties, suffering loss of life and the downing of two military helicopters by relatively poorly armed & trained militia. If that's not a military defeat, what is? Davedx

 * Actually all subjects of the operation were captured, some were killed due to hostile fire directed at the US Forces during the convoy back to base. The causalities were higher than expected. But considering it was 2,000 rebels, and civilians crowding around them, against 160 Rangers, the result being 14 dead compared to between 350 to nearly 1,000 dead depending on who you talk to. I would hardly call that defeat on military grounds, though mistakes were made causing higher than expected causalities. PPGMD

I don't think you could call it a military defeat considering the fact the battle didn't end in the utter defeat of either side.It didn't result in a retreat of US forces since it was always their plan to pull out after capturing their targets.--83.141.75.111 12:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have seen other websites refer to this battle as one of the more famous US military "blunders", which may be a little more accurate than "defeat", although perhaps a bit too POV a term for Wikipedia. It wasn't a "defeat" since the US forces weren't defeated. However, I don't agree with those who use the death toll to measure the mission's success, since the Somalian fighters undoubtedly expected to take heavy casualties when fighting superior US troops, and the mission was a surgical strike, its objective wasn't to kill lots of Somalians. In fact, the mission was a blunder simply because the US troops were put in a situation where they had to kill so many Somalians. It was supposed to be a quick in-and-out retrieval with minimal fighting, but it turned into an unorganized, all-night urban brawl. US forces may have succeeded in capturing who they set out to capture, but the reprecusions of the things that went wrong had a much more lasting impact. I'm sure that when the next generation of military minds study this battle, they'll do so with an eye towards what went wrong and what not to repeat, even though the battle did have numerous instances of individual excellence and heroism. With that said, it is indeed hard to express this on the article without coming off as POV. Perhaps quotes from leading military or political figures could be used to explain how this battle is percieved? -Eisnel 06:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I would agree that it was a political defeat. But in the area of purely military objectives it was a successful operation. It also taught the military some important lessons. Lessons which would have been costly both in men, and in negative media attention, if we had not learned them in 1993, instead learned them on the streets of Iraq.
 * But as far as what to study, you always study what went wrong with an operation, historians who study WWII don't look at Patton's fast charge of his 3rd Army, instead at how the Germans were able to build up so many forces without the Allies noticing. Thats the only way you learn. PPGMD 19:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Malaysian casualties
The introduction and summary give 2 casualties for the Malaysian forces, but it's written just one near the end of the text. Which one is correct?

Typical of the inherent racism surrounding such events that films & debates should be taking place about the negligible number of American (professional) soldiers killed, as against innocent civilians caught up in the terrible quagmire of Somali politics. --unknown

--

Your own biases are clouding your judgment. Whereas it is true there were few US combatant casualties compared relatively to the estimated Somali casualties, you are assuming that 1. the Somali's involved were innocent 2. the American soldiers were racist with disregard to Somali's, and were negligible casualties Your emotions are closing your mind to the history and circumstances of the event. First, by both the US soldier's AND by the Somali militia's accounts, the Somali citizens willing shielded the militia troops to get them closer to firing at US personnel. By Somali militia's own accounts they covered the miltia with blankets and surrounded them in groups to allow them to approach US positions. Other accounts even described children firing on troops aswell as a Somali woman concealing a rifle under a wrapped baby.

Although Americans may be appalled at these methods, the Somali's did not see anything wrong with the tactic. When interviewed, Somali's defended that there was no other way to confront the US soldiers whom they felt were the real threat to them, and that the soldiers fired back anyway.

Obviously, Somali miltia and civilians are not expected to abide by Geneva conventions on warfare, although US and allied forces are held by them since they possess formal armies. And by Geneva convention, forces can fire upon any individual that poses a threat. As mobs of Somali civilians provided a human shield to militia that were firing on US soldiers, it was not considered an infraction to fire upon the crowd given their trapped situation. Point in case, when Randy Shugart and Gary Gordon were killed they were overrun by rioting Somali citizens who were also attacking the soldiers.

The summary of this is that there is no question of whether Somali citizens participated in the battle, so they were clearly not "innocent".

Secondly, your prejudice against the US has blinded you to the reason why the US was even involved in Somalia, or the history leading up to the event. Somalia was suffering from both genocide and starvation due to the infighting of the warlords. The US intervened with both humanitarian aid and a security force of Marines. Later when responsiblity was transferred to the UN, both security forces and international aid workers were attacked including Pakistani troops that were mutilated in the open streets

The US responded by sending in Task Force Ranger to capture or kill the warlord they assumed was responsible for the attacks. Regardless, of whether or not you agree the US soldiers should have been present their mission was to ensure security and humanitarian aid for the region. There was no alterior motive as the region is poor in resources let alone stabilization.

Finally, some may see 19 dead, 73 wounded as a small casualty rate, but it was enough to stir emotions in America as to end US involvement there. It is too easy for people not connected to the event(or any tragic event for that matter) to simply say only a few died. You might as well tell people that have lost a loved one, "the number of people that died were negligible".

See how well they take that. --Acefox 19:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Battle of the Black Sea? By whom?
The article lists the Battle of Mogadishu as also called the Battle of the Black Sea. I just wanted to check the source of where it is listed as such. Somalia is no where near the Black Sea (at least as it is known by most of the world). Unless the Somali's call the Indian Ocean the Black Sea?...--Acefox 30 June 2005 19:05 (UTC)

 * The neighborhood in Mogadishu where the battle took place is known as "Black Sea". Ydorb June 30, 2005 21:04 (UTC)

 * I was a bit dubious but a google search confirms this. Lisiate 02:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

As no proper reference source aside from this Wikipedia article cites the Battle of Mogadishu as the Battle of the Black Sea, I have removed that definition from the opening sentence. I think it is sufficient that the introduction mentions that part of the battle took place in the so-called "Black Sea" market district of the city. --Acefox 20:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Additional revisions
Just added the sections "Background to the Battle" and "Mission Shift", as well as a paragraph under "Consequences". Hope that it gives a good idea of the terrain that the men were operating in when the mission took place. Fergananim 23:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Yamaha GX-1

See
For more info, and films of this rare beast. Go to http://www.roth-handle.nu/instruments/synths_gx1.htm

Rarity
Surely more than 10 were made? If you count the number of owners listed, plus the majority that never left Japan (as alluded to by Gordon Reid's article, under "The Who's Who Of GX1s"). —Liyang 08:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism?
Huge swathes of this page are identical to this article: http://www.synthmuseum.com/yamaha/yamgx101.html yet neither makes reference to the other. Unless both were written by the same person, somebody has been cutting corners. Melaena (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

GX1 recordings
how about a section/list on tracks that use it?

too hard to put together? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.198.82 (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Too many to list. You'd end up writing almost every single ABBA track since 1975 into that list. Benny Andersson used that thing rather than not after he got it. --85.177.142.36 (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Popular Music
No references or citations given for any of the 10 bullet points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.156.195 (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Yamaha GX-1


text:
Humidity indicator card

A humidity indicator card (HIC) is a card on which a moisture-sensitive chemical is impregnated such that it will change color when the indicated relative humidity (RH) is exceeded. This has usually been a blotting paper impregnated with cobalt(II) chloride base; Less toxic alternatives include other chemicals such as cobalt-free chloride base and special plastic films.

Humidity indicators are an inexpensive way to indicate or quantify moisture content inside sealed packaging. They are available in many configurations and used in many applications, especially military and semiconductor. The most common humidity indicator cards change color from blue (less than indicated RH level) to pink (greater than indicated RH level).

History
The need for an easily read humidity indicator that could not be damaged by vibration was identified during World War II. Rear Admiral Welford C. Blinn, at that time the Commander of the USS Pope, became concerned about the poor condition of the weapons and ammunition arriving in the Pacific Theater. High humidity in the South Pacific, coupled with poor packaging methods, was causing corrosion and moisture damage. A significant amount of ordnance was arriving in an unstable, and sometimes dangerous, condition. Following the end of the war Rear Admiral Blinn was assigned to Washington, D.C., where he had the use of a research lab. There he developed the concept for the first color change humidity indicator, a simple Go/no go method of monitoring humidity.

In the late 1940s, Relative Humidity in the range of 30-35% was the concern because this is when corrosion can begin. For 50 years, industrial and military applications for color change humidity indicators were the primary market for these products. R. Admiral Blinn founded Humidial Corporation in 1948 Acquired by Süd-Chemie, Inc., in 1989 to commercialize humidity indicators, later acquired by Clariant

In the mid-1980s descendants of R. Admiral Blinn began working with manufacturers of semiconductors to identify and resolve the problem of “pop corning”. It was determined that the solder mounting of semiconductors, also known as devices, onto boards can cause "pop corning" of certain types of surface mount packages if they have been improperly stored or handled. This package delamination occurs as excessive moisture within the package expands as a result of the rapid thermal changes experienced during solder mount operations. As a result, an industry wide standard for packaging of semiconductors was released in 1989. This standard, EIA 583, called for the use of humidity indicator card that would indicate as low as 10%. Adherence to proper storage and handling methods immediately reduced the number of failures in the semiconductors, but over the years it became apparent that even humidity levels under 10% were detrimental to the devices. Once again, the Joint Electron Device Engineering Council (JEDEC), now the standards body for semiconductor packaging, went to the descendants of R. Admiral Blinn to determine the feasibility of making a 5% color change humidity indicator. In April 1999, J-STD-033 was released with a 5, 10, 15% color change indicator card specified.

Humidity indicator cards are also present on many small electronic devices, ranging from cellular phones to laptop computers, for the purpose of alerting the manufacturer that the device has been exposed to high levels of moisture. In many cases this voids or changes the terms of warranty coverage for the device.

The previous United States Military Specification Mil-I-8835A was the governing specification for a humidity indicator card. The humidity indicator card is also specified for use in J-STD-033, which is the standard for handling, packing, shipping and use of moisture/reflow sensitive surface-mount devices. This is a joint standard developed by the Joint Electron Device Engineering Council and IPC and is used in semiconductor packaging.

Cobalt-free humidity indicator cards
Several cobalt-free systems have been developed. Cobalt-free brown to light blue(copper(II) chloride base) HICs can be found on the market. In 1998, the European Community (EC) issued a directive which classifies items containing cobalt(II) chloride of 0.01 to 1% w/w as T (Toxic), with the corresponding R phrase of R49 (may cause cancer if inhaled). As a consequence, new cobalt-free humidity indicator cards have been developed by some companies.

Although the EC issued this directive, it did not ban humidity indicators that contain cobalt(II) chloride. The only effect the EC directive has on a humidity indicator card that contains cobalt(II) chloride is setting labeling requirement thresholds. There are two ways to consider the EC directive:
 * 1) The cobalt based HIC producers says that if a humidity indicator is considered an article in the EC definition and therefore has no labeling requirements if the content of cobalt(II) chloride by weight is <0.25%.  The T (toxic) and R49 (may cause cancer if inhaled) is not applicable because a humidity indicator cannot be inhaled.
 * 2) On the other hand, if you consider HIC as a chemical (indicating spot) on a paper card (indicator) the consequence is that it should be considered as a preparation, the concentration limit changes to 0.01% weight of cobalt(II) chloride, and it should be labeled as T (toxic) and R49 (may cause cancer if inhaled). Moreover, it is clear that the HIC can not be inhaled, but the regulation is about the content of substances and is a warning for users: e.g. if they know that there are harmful substances in the HIC, they will not dispose of them by burning.

HICs in semiconductor packaging
For semiconductor packaging, HICs are packed inside a moisture-sensitive bag, along with the desiccant, to aid in determining the level of moisture to which the moisture-sensitive devices have been subjected. Moisture sensitivity levels are indicated with a number as in the MSL list.

JEDEC is the leading developer of standards for the solid-state industry and sets the standards for semiconductor packaging. The latest JEDEC standard, the Joint Industry Standard for the “Handling, Packing, Shipping and Use of Moisture/Reflow Sensitive Surface Mount Devices” J-STD-033B, sets forth the use and testing of humidity indicator cards in the dry packaging of semiconductors. HICs are used to ensure that the humidity within dry packed barrier bags remains at safe levels for surface mount devices. In the past, HICs for the semiconductor industry have indicated relative humidity (RH) levels of 5, 10 and 15 percent. However, JEDEC and IPC released JSTD-033B in 2005, which requires the use of an HIC that indicates RH levels of 5, 10 and 60 percent.

The standard includes the use and testing of humidity indicator (HI) cards in the dry packaging of semiconductors. The methods outlined in the standard are prescribed by JEDEC and IPC to avoid damage—like cracks and delamination—from moisture absorption and exposure to solder reflow temperatures that can result in yield and reliability degradation.

The stipulations of J-STD-003B state:
 * 1) HICs must adhere to a standard, minimal color-change quality level to ensure accuracy and readability between dry and humid states: The Color Meter Test Method quantitatively determines the accuracy of color-change HICs.  The levels, as outlined in the J-STD-033B revision, require a “significant, perceptible change in color” between noted humidity levels.  Manufacturers are required to test their cards for accuracy using a colorimeter device and be required to provide a test report to the customer certifying that the HIC meets quality requirements.
 * 2) HICs must indicate humidity levels for MSL 2 Parts, in addition to MSL 2a to 5a: Whereas previous cards used a 5-, 10- and 15-percent relative-humidity spot system to indicate humidity exposure levels for moisture-sensitive components, the new HIC will now feature spots indicating 5, 10 and 60 percent.  The change means that cards will now indicate humidity exposure for Level 2 MSL devices.  Additionally, a positive reading on the 60-percent spot indicates that cards should not be re-used, as the high levels of humidity to which the card has been exposed will jeopardize the accuracy of low (5% RH) readings.  The 5-, 10-, 60-percent cards are complaint with European Community Council Directive 67/548/EEC as long as they do not contain more than the applicable amount of cobalt chloride.

The full standard can be downloaded from JEDEC.

Irreversible maximum humidity indicator cards
Maximum humidity indicator cards are specially designed cards that monitor relative humidity levels in cargo applications. Each level of humidity is represented by a blue crystal that dissolves to create a large blue spot that clearly indicates the highest relative humidity level that has been reached. Maximum humidity indicator cards are irreversible, thus indicating the highest level of humidity experienced by cargo during its voyage, regardless of current (potentially lower) humidity levels. They provide a clear, unmistakable means of determining if goods have been exposed to damaging humidity levels during their journey. If the card indicates high levels of humidity, users know to check their products for possible damage or modify their packaging regimen accordingly. Several technologies are available.

title: Humidity indicator card


text:
Singapore Sailing Federation

The Singapore Sailing Federation (Abbreviation: SSF; ), also known as SingaporeSailing, is the National Sports Association (NSA) responsible for the management and organisation of the sport of sailing in Singapore.

The Federation works closely with Sport Singapore, on various fronts and adheres to the various rules and regulations required by Sport Singapore for NSAs. SingaporeSailing works with various clubs and affiliates in Singapore and also the Singapore National Olympic Council (SNOC) and World Sailing on the high performance front.

The Federation is currently headed by Lincoln Chee and it is headquartered at the National Sailing Centre in East Coast Park.

History
In 1966, the Singapore Yachting Association was founded by Jack Snowden who served as its first president.

In 1994, the National Optimist Sailing Scheme (NOSS) was setup to focus on training sailors on the Optimist class. A National Optimist Certification Scheme was introduced in 2000 to recognise young sailors who take up sailing.

On 29 April 2000, the Singapore Yachting Association was renamed as Singapore Sailing Federation, also known as SingaporeSailing.

Organisation
In September 2010, Federation revealed a strategic blueprint called The Next Leg. It seeks to steer the development of sailing in the next decade via 10 Strategic Thrusts. These thrusts guide the Federation's efforts as it continues to forge ahead. Besides heightening focus on High Performance operations and programmes, in line with the recommendations put forth by the Olympic Pathway Taskforce in 2011, the Federation also set up a High Participation Committee in 2015 to coordinate efforts in sailing participation islandwide.

Executive committee and board members

 * President - Lincoln Chee
 * Deputy President - Stanley Chan
 * Vice President - Jevan Tan
 * Vice President - Pamela Goh
 * Vice President - Alan Goh
 * Honorary Treasurer - James Tan
 * Deputy Treasurer - Toh Liying

Presidents

 * Jack Snowden - 1965 to 1972
 * Seah Peng Yong - 1972 to 1975
 * C. Kuttan - 1975 to 1989
 * Ng Ser Miang - 1989 to 1991
 * Peter H. L. Lim - 1992 to 1993
 * Ong Siong Kai - 1993 to 1998
 * Low Teo Ping - 1998 to 2010
 * Ben Tan - 2010 to 2018
 * Lincoln Chee - 2018 to Present

Clubs and affiliates

 * Changi Sailing Club
 * Constant Wind Sea Sports @ NSRCC Sea Sports Centre
 * Kitesurfing Association of Singapore
 * Marina at Keppel Bay
 * One Degree 15 Marina Club
 * Outward Bound Singapore
 * Raffles Marina
 * Republic of Singapore Yacht Club
 * SAF Yacht Club
 * Seletar Country Club
 * Singapore Disability Sports Council
 * Singapore Polytechnic Student Yacht Club
 * SMU Sailing Club
 * Water Venture PA (East Coast)
 * Windsurfing Association of Singapore
 * Aloha Sea Sports Centre

Events
SingaporeSailing organises several events and regattas each year to maintain a vibrant sailing landscape and to engage the community. While there are many regattas each year, some are staple regattas that are held every year.

Singapore Youth Sailing Championship
The Singapore Youth Sailing Championship is the largest youth regatta in the local sailing calendar. It is typically held in March, in conjunction with the week-long school holiday in Singapore. The regatta is held at the National Sailing Centre, which is an accredited World Sailing Approved Training Centre.

The Singapore Youth Sailing Championship is also an international regatta where sailors from overseas are allowed to participate in. The regatta typically witnesses around 350 sailors from 11 different countries competing over 3 or 4 days.

The title of the regatta  also varies depending on sponsorship as well as the theme of the event. In 2019, the regatta is called the Singapore Youth Team Racing Championship.

Singapore National Sailing Championship
The Singapore National Sailing Championship is the largest regatta in the local sailing calendar, attracting more than 400 sailors from 15 countries. The regatta is typically held in June, coinciding with the month-long June school holidays and it is held over 5 days.

Similar to the Singapore Youth Sailing Championship, the Singapore National Sailing Championship is held at the National Sailing Centre.

NSC Cup Series
The NSC Cup Series comprises three small regattas where sailors across different boat classes compete over three days of racing. Each regatta has a small awards ceremony, while the third and final regatta determines the overall winner of the NSC Cup Series for the year. Points are calculated and aggregated based on the performance of sailors across all three regattas.

Notable sailors

 * Griselda Khng (49er FX) - Olympian
 * Kimberly Lim (49er FX) - Olympian, Optimist World Championship Champion
 * Ryan Lo (Laser Standard) - Olympian
 * Cecilia Low (49er FX) - Olympian
 * Jovina Choo Bei Fen (470) - Olympian

 * Elisa Yukie Yokoyama (470), Optimist World Championship Champion
 * Justin Liu (Nacra 17) - Olympian
 * Denise Lim (Nacra 17) - Olympian
 * Audrey Yong (Techno 293) - Olympian
 * Colin Cheng (Laser) - Olympian

Asian Games Gold Medalists
• Andrew Paul Chan

• Colin Cheng

• Sherman Cheng

• Joan Huang

• Russell Kan

• Terence Koh

• Raynn Kwok

• Jodie Lai

• Rachel Lee

• Christopher Lim

• Kimberly Lim

• Lim Tze Ting

• Colin Ng

• Savannah Siew

• Siew Shaw Her

• Maximilian Soh

• Benedict Tan

• Ivan Tan

• Naomi Tan

• Sarah Tan

• Renfred Tay

• Roy Tay

• Teo Wee Chin

• Justin Wong

• Xu Yuan Zhen

title: Singapore Sailing Federation


text:
Talk:List of cartoons featuring Bugs Bunny

Untitled
Is a list of Bugs Bunny's cartoons in alphabetical order *really* necessary, when the present List of Bugs Bunny cartoons seems more than adequate? This page strikes me as somewhat redundant... Anthony Dean 12:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wyeth

 * 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 Speedied. android 79  16:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Wyeth
Possibly not notable. -- Curps 12:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity article. CambridgeBayWeather 12:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   16:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as an A7. If that doesn't work, delete slowly.  Friday (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Hearts of Hate

Hearts of Hate is a 1995 Canadian television documentary film about the Canadian White Supremacist movement of the early to mid-1990s.

Synopsis
The 51-minute film profiles the four most active groups in Canada at the time; Heritage Front, Aryan Nations, Church of the Creator and Canadian Liberty Net.

Summary
Directed and produced by Peter Raymont, the film primarily studies the involvement of young Canadians in the activities of these groups, which were making frequent headlines at the time in Canada. The documentary was intended for in-classroom viewing, though it aired nationally on CTV.

Interviews in the documentary include Wolfgang Droege, deceased leader of the Heritage Front, George Burdi, former lead singer of RaHoWa and Alicia Reckzin, a former member of the Anti-Racist Action.

Awards and nominations

 * 1995 Gold Apple Award, National Education Media Competition
 * 1995 Yorkton Film Festival Golden Sheaf Award Nominee, Multicultural/Race Relations

title: Hearts of Hate