text:
Talk:Selective Service System

[edit] Mobilization (draft) procedures
This section is not clearly written. I assume Congress will set new and different procedures if they deem a future draftr is necessary. When were the procedures mentioned in place? World War II, World War I, the Cold War conflicts, or all of the above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedow (talk • contribs) 14:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Punishment
What is the punishment for refusing a draft notice? not mentioned anywhere in the article from what I could see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.1.35.250 (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Back in the day, the maximum punishment for draft dodging was the firing squad. However we have not had a draft in to long to consider that a reliable yardstick, and we really wont know until a new draft is implemented. --Brian95620 (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is it called 'selective service'?
Why is it called this? It appears there is nothing selective about it.

Ali0th (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, speaking as a guy who was actually drafted, it was selective. We underwent a physical exam, auditory testing, visual testing, etc. I was drafted out of law school when my rural draft board decided it needed more warm bodies and that it had already deferred me for college. Other people, like Vice President Joe Biden, were able to get enough draft deferments to avoid military service entirely.

Obsolete codes
How should obsolete draft codes be handled? For example, I wanted to remind myself of what 1-Y was, but found it missing. From a random article I was reminded: 1-Y Qualified for military service only in time of national emergency (classification eliminated 10-Dec-1971) Mulp 09:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

1984
Removed entirely the statement that non-registration was at 13% by 1984. A reference to a Mennonite web page was given with it but had no support for it. Moved that ref up. Anybody who was an adult in the country in question at that time knows that that would probably be high for the compliance rate. Lycurgus 16:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I realize I'm replying to a talk article from a year ago, but this does bring up an interesting idea. I agree that the revert done by Lycurgus was correct and the data was not properly sourced. However, perhaps a short table showing compliance rates by year would be of interest.  Some the data is online at the SSS site.  Anyway, just a thought. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Foreigners Comment
I have a friend whom was not born in the United States whom was unaware of the requirements to register for the SSS. Is anyone aware if there are any notices or if anyone advises immigrants of the requirement to register for the SSS? I was told of the requirement from my parents, but his family not being from the United States was unaware and did not advise him. 209.6.216.215 (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Damian A. Cordialini Jr.

Not being from the U.S., I was wondering, What percentage of people actually register? (See the link to the complinace statistics and analysis.) What about moves in Congress to abolish Selective Service or to extend it to females? (None currently being seriously considered, as of May 2006. But the Selective Service System says that the Health Care Personnel Delivery System, if activated, would probbaly include females.)

I would assume that almost all register, as there are heavy fines if you do not. (No: see the link to the compliance statistics and analysis. Currently there is no serious threat of fines or criminal enforcement, although there are penalties such as ineligibility for Federal financial aid and Federal jobs.) And as far as I know there have been no plans to abolish it, or extend it to females. Mac Domhnaill

To answer the above question, it's awful close to 100% these days. (No: see the link to the compliance statistics and analysis.) No one's really afraid of being drafted anymore, so there's not much of a reason not to register. (No, and no.) But I'm wondering if anyone has any knowledge/interest in the stuff being reported here: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/War_Peace/Military_Draft.html

1)When is the last time they punished someone for not registering? (The last indictment was in January 1986.) 2)If you claim that your gay, do they actually investigate it? (It varies. But you shouldn't count on being exempted if you are gay, lesbian, or bisexual: many observers belive that too many people would opt out of a draft on groaunds of being at least somewhat bisexual, and that "Don't ask, don't tell" discharge policies would not be sustainable in conjunction with a draft.( 3)As they're heterosexist, do they qualify bisexuals under class f-4? (Yes, as of now.)

Need for Selective Service/Census
Living in a country under a government that issues social security numbers, I really don't understand the need for 'Selective Service' at all. Not that the US wouldn't conceivably require a draft, it would just seem that the government should 'know' who is eligible to be drafted simply by social security records ie. you are automatically 'registered' for the draft at birth. Same goes for the census, you would think the government would already know where the citizens are living.

The government would only know where someone was living based on their social security number if and when the person files an annual tax return. Not everyone is required to file an annual tax return, such as if your annual income is very low or zero. Quacks Like a Duck 14:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, SSNs are not "issued at birth" by the US government. Having a SSN is optional. 74.227.246.102 (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Legal Issues"
Does any serious person or group contend that the draft is equivalent to slavery or involuntary servitude under the 13th Amendment? Especially given that, as the article points out, the Supreme Court has ruled on that exact point? This sounds like one of these crackpot theories like that the income tax is illegal or that fringes on a flag make a court a military court. --Max power 16:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Among the active Duty military, I believe the standard enlistment contract (volunteer sing) might also have same commnet against it, but the code/law from the 13 Admentment has a specific exception for the military enlistment contract. Wfoj2 (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep some serious people sure do

I sure do

As the US Government didnt arrest my parents when they had me circumcised I do not feel beholden to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.221.110.161 (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Thats an interesting comparison--mandatory actions against men only. I might look into it. AvocadosTheorem (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Medical Draft?
I wonder if there should be some mention of the proposed (but not implemented) medical draft? It seems to re-surface from time to time in the news. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.19.42 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

 * What is it?Kernel.package (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

 * This Times article has some information. Also, google 'Medical Draft' and you'll get a lot of info. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Leap Year babies?
The "Lottery Procedures" section says that number 366 is only used for lotteries held in a leap year. But the year a lottery is held has nothing to do with the date on which a person was born. Does that really mean that "leap babies" would be exempt unless the lottery was held in a leap year? Sounds pretty strange to me. 86.132.143.247 23:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know how it works. But if you're conscripting people who are 20 years old (I presume this means on the day of conscription), then there is no point conscripting people born on a leap year unless it is the leap day (February 29th) 'til February 28th of the next year. By definition, there will be no people 20 years old born on a leap day except during that time. On the other hand it seems to me it will be simpler to just use 366 and worry about the other stuff later Nil Einne 03:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Some info: 75.142.145.104 (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reading this again, one thing I neglected to consider is that I don't know if new numbers/lotteries are done if the draft is extended for 21 etc. If they aren't then the practice above would be problematic in non leap years as it would likely eventually exclude those born in the leap year. Also I neglected to consider the possibilities when a year is dividible by four but not a leap year (e.g. 2100) as in that case people born 20 years ago may have been born in a leap year even if it's not a leap year. In any case as I mentioned above it does seem simpler to either just draw the leap years as well and sort it out later (this would enable the same drawing to be used both for those born in leap years and those not born in leap years) or go by the the year of birth of those you're drawing for. Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Overview
Perhaps directing people to another site is not the best form for an overview. Perhaps someone could fix that, if no one is interested, I could try putting something together. Sir LoseALot (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

formed dates
why there are 2 dates in the infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.27.168 (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

confirmation
I wanted to confirm that Byron V. Pepitone was indeed Acting Director in 1972-3, so you can remove the question mark after his name in the list of directors. rumjal 22:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A Campaign Bill?
Just wondering, since Carter didn't sign this until June 1980, was it a campaign move by him to weaken Reagan's "Build up the Military" stance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.19.147 (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Draft and "Smart Ass Cops"
About people who are "4-F", others who would be in a similar problem, what about police who will DEMAND that the person give the cop his/her "Draft card", sees this and makes a comment, even takes action indicating the 4-Fer is FAKING it?("You're 4-F?", then arrests that person for being a "Draft dodger", thinking the status is FAKE and the person is a criminal). Powerzilla (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Reason I asked this question is that I had dealt with police who gave Viet Nam War era "draft dodgers" hell. IF the current war gets worse, the "draft" may be initiated. Powerzilla (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

 * One is only classified 4-F after review of his medical condition by the SSS. It was perhaps possible for someone to "fake it", but also there were a variety of conditions that might result in a classification of 4-F, but would not be apparent without medical examination. My father was 4-F during WWII due to a back injury from his youth, but this injury had little if any effect on his day to day activity. To successfully prosecute someone with 4-F status as a draft dodger, you would have to prove that he had deliberately mislead the draft board and medical examiners about his condition. Wschart (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Were 4f required to perform alternative service like the conscience objectors were? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinrobin (talk • contribs) 04:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

25 or 26?
It appears that the requirement is that men be registered from the day they turn 18 until the day they turn 26 — do we generally call that "ages 18-25", "between 18 and 25", or "between 18 and 26"? --Rob* (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * https://www.sss.gov/Fast%20Facts%20Table.htm — for reference. --Rob* (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Footnote 2.
Footnote 2 appears to be a broken link. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Section regarding women
Just a thought; rather than the lengthy conjecture and arguments about women and the draft, why not just keeping it to facts such as the pertinent statues and court rulings?-- Surv1v4l1st (Talk 00:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal issues
As it is, the majority of the 'Legal issues' section is argumentation and speculation regarding the law. To keep this article encyclopedic, I think limiting the section to the relevant case law would be best. Any objections to trimming this down? Any other court cases (SCOTUS or otherwise) that we should cover beyond Butler v. Perry? IIRC, there were some rulings in the WWI and Vietnam eras that might be noteworthy. Thanks. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 05:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I engaged in some boldness and went ahead and updated the section. I removed some of the speculation that, while interesting, wasn't particularly encyclopedic.  A couple of related court cases were also added with necessary citation. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 02:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction in "Alien Registration" section
This section begins - "Some registrants are not American citizens; they fall instead into one of the following categories:"

In detailing those categories, it says "Dual national: The person is a citizen of both the United States and another country at the same time." which is a clear contradiction of the leading sentence.

Not sure of the best way to fix this. Thoughts? Ian Page (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

 * The linked-to page says "Alien or Dual National". --Spoon! (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the fix! --Ian Page (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Dead Links
Reference 4, "Proof of Registration & Change of Address" http://www.sss.gov/ack.htm is offline -- the url needs to be updated or changed to an Internet Archive url. Sadsaque (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

 * ✅ It's now updated to its current page on the SSS website. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 13:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 one external links on Selective Service System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sss.gov/LOTTER2.HTM
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sss.gov/lotter3.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sss.gov/lotter4.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090610131539/http://www.centeronconscience.org/home.shtml to http://www.centeronconscience.org/home.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080919181648/http://www.peaceabbey.org:80/confcenter/coregistry.htm to http://www.peaceabbey.org/confcenter/coregistry.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20020525075120/http://www.american.edu:80/dgolash/rostker.htm to http://www.american.edu/dgolash/rostker.htm

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Selective Service System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080727071105/http://www.sss.gov:80/FSbenefits.htm to http://www.sss.gov/FSbenefits.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

New Laws Proposed
The section on the law proposed in the house this year says that this would do nothing about existing state laws denying people state benefits, however the selective service would no longer exist to actually verify that they had not registered, and in both the house and senate laws, there is a section that reads as follows. c) Effect On Existing Sanctions.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person may not be denied a right, privilege, benefit, or employment position under Federal law on the grounds that the person failed to present himself for and submit to registration under section 3 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 3802), before the repeal of that Act by subsection (a).

Which makes it pretty clear that the law is well and truly intended to obliterate the selective service, and de-stigmatize the people who have opposed it. If anyone thinks I'm missing anything, say so now, otherwise I will go through with that edit some time soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.118.155.125 (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

My apologies
I was using a proxy and I thought this was my user page replication of the page, so I thought I was playing around with my user page. -Ethanbas (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Well if you are no longer proposing that the page be deleted, then please could you withdraw that proposal. Currently, the article has an ugly banner at the top, which links to a page for discussing whether to delete it, which I assume will last for some period of time while that discussion takes place. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Done. Nobody should waste any time discussing an error that is easily corrected.  Smallchief (talk  10:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 * OK, glad this was resolved quickly, apologies for my reckless actions. -Ethanbas (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 * You're the first person who has ever made a mistake on Wikipedia. ;) Smallchief (talk 19:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Selective Service System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090507211145/http://www.sss.gov/QUICK.HTM to http://www.sss.gov/QUICK.HTM
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pacshiprev.com/PacificArchivesSubDirectory/page31.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090507213741/http://www.sss.gov/FSstateleg.htm to http://www.sss.gov/fsstateleg.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060405005624/http://peace.mennolink.org/safnr.html to http://peace.mennolink.org/safnr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Anti-trans women policies of SSS
Legal and anatomical women who used to be male are required to serve as men even if they have had male-to-female sex reassignment surgery. SSS and trans-women SSS doesn't allow any correction to sex.--2601:C4:C080:81C:551D:B868:C24D:135D (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This Talk section, and the text of the article, both assume that the policies of the SSS are "anti-trans." Since US law governs the policies of SSS, can the SSS be accused of this, or should the wording be modified to clarify that the SSS must operate within US laws, and currently US laws do not permit people born female to register, and requires those born male to register, without further editorializing about a fast-moving cultural and legal topic? 2600:1700:A150:E860:D1C2:4C17:3BE5:B999 (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Definitely. SSS is anti-trans because SSS doesn't allow correction to sex whereas the Social Security Administration, for example, does.--2601:C4:C080:81C:E50A:E85B:C057:3D2 (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Questionable Logic?
This article states: "...all male U.S. citizens between 18 and 25 (inclusive) years of age are required to register within 30 days of their 18th birthday."

Question: How can a "25" year old meet the requirement to register "... within 30 days of their 18th birthday."

VinAcapuloPE (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

"Assigned male at birth" reverted
I changed the text in the intro to clarify that the SSS requires people assigned male at birth to register in the system:

 * All U.S. citizens and immigrant non-citizens who are between the ages of 18 and 25 INS and assigned male at birth are required by law to have registered within 30 days of their 18th birthdays...

I believe this wording is clearer because it more accurately reflects that the SSS determines who must register based on their gender assigned at birth, rather than other factors like the current gender on their ID.

I'd like to understand why you reverted my edit, since you did not provide an explanation. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 03:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Since you have not responded, I restored my edit. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 20:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Public Policy
— Assignment last updated by Shakaigaku Obasan (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Selective Service System


text:
Mary Richard

Mary Richard, (June 7, 1940 – September 9, 2010) was an aboriginal activist and politician in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Life
Richard was born to a Métis family in Camperville, Manitoba. She has long been active in promoting language retention, housing, training, cultural awareness and business enterprise among and for Manitoba's aboriginal population. She became the director of the Manitoba Association of Native Languages in the 1980s, and held this position for almost a decade. In 1997, she was appointed by Winnipeg Mayor Susan Thompson to co-chair the North Main Task Force, examining social problems in north Winnipeg's aboriginal community.

She was the first Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Thunderbird House in north Winnipeg, which opened its doors in 2000. Although this was intended as a tourist destination, it soon became primarily a social outreach centre for the many low-income persons living in the area. Under Richard's leadership, Thunderbird House became active in programs to assist aboriginal youth escape solvent abuse, gang life and the sex trade.

Richard was also a president of the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg, and a former executive director of the Indian and Métis Friendship Centre of Winnipeg. She also owned the Teepee Restaurant in Winnipeg. In 2000, she was admitted to the Order of Manitoba.

She campaigned for the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba in the 1999 provincial election, in the constituency of Point Douglas. Richard's campaign was part of an effort by Gary Filmon's government to increase its profile in the aboriginal community. She received 1224 votes (19.56%), an improvement over previous Conservative candidacies in the area. The winner was George Hickes of the New Democratic Party.

The following year, Richard crossed to the Liberal Party of Canada and ran as that party's candidate in Winnipeg North Centre for the 2000 federal election. In explaining this move, Richard told a Winnipeg Free Press reporter that she had long supported the Progressive Conservatives at the provincial level and the Liberals at the federal level. She received 6,755 votes, finishing second against New Democrat Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

She died on September 9, 2010, while undergoing treatment after a kidney transplant.

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

title: Mary Richard


text:
Future Farmer Records

Future Farmer Records is an independent record label based in San Francisco, California.

Inspired by skateboarding culture, Future Farmer was founded in 1996 by San Joaquin Valley natives Jeff Klindt and Dennis Mitchell.

Former label member M. Ward remains the label's biggest commercial success to date.

Artists

 * Built Like Alaska
 * Cub County
 * David Dondero
 * For Stars
 * Fuck
 * Nik Freitas
 * Ghosty
 * Granfaloon Bus
 * The Heavenly States
 * The High Violets
 * Jackpot
 * Jet By Day
 * Joaquina
 * Kevin Salem
 * Matt Keating
 * The Minders
 * Yuji Oniki
 * Righteous Boy
 * The High Strung
 * Virgil Shaw
 * M. Ward
 * Wonderlick

title: Future Farmer Records


text:
User talk:Andrewpmk/Archive 3

Andrewbot
Please create a user page for your bot, describe that it is a double redirect fixer, manually run by you occasionally. Note on the user page that you are the sole maintainer for the bot, and problems or concerns should be cited on your user page. Additionally, please make certain your bot is part of Category:Wikipedia bots. Thank you. --AllyUnion (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

email me please
Email me please if you want to discuss writing 'pornography' on the encyclopedia article about me. --Jimbo Wales 13:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

June 24th?
Andrew, regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=June_24&diff=next&oldid=21901580, can you clarify why you deleted the EB link on the June_24th page? Why is a link to the BBC "this day in history" page acceptable, but a link to the EB one unacceptable? Who's interest is conflicted? - 216.146.93.139 19:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for cleanup
Andrew, thanks for cleaning up my talk page. I actually had contacted an administrator for help doing that. . . you have done marvelously!

While you are at it, would you mind archiving my talk page in the way I've had it done in the past (see the top of the page) so that only messages from August 1, 2005 and forward remain? I'd be much in your debt! You'd be helping someone who has just a bit of trouble understanding directions. . . I'm very literal minded. Tell your teachers thanks as well for helping a fellow educator. --avnative 20:36, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * Super job! Thanks again.  --avnative 20:50, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Jkelly 23:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

PY
You are right, py dosen't work, i deleted 250 px, otherwise it was messed. Regards Rafikk 20:55, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Stethoscope
Andrew pmk, Do you think that you could review the AfD page and change your comments? It's not a vote, it's a discussion, and unregistered users are welcome to add to the discussion, however input without rational may be discounted regardless of its source. brenneman (t) (c) 23:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Missed!
You probably meant to put this on his talk page. --fvw *  01:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Ugly, rude double tag on my talk page!

 * You placed the following notice on my talk page. Why do you need TWO (count 'em 2) headers to make your point?
 * Note, as I've said in several places before, that any image I upload, unless otherwise noted, is mine.
 * Also note that you need to sign your comments with FOUR (count 'em, 4) tildes (~). Pollinator 05:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Quote below:

Image Tagging Image:Oatka_milk_8933.jpg
+   +    + Thanks for uploading Image:Oatka_milk_8933.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag, so its copyright status is therefore unclear. Please add a tag to let us know its copyright status. (If you created/took the picture then you can use to release it under    + the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use  .) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know on the image description page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Otherwise, see Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged imaged will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much.

Re: reverting
Andrew, user that Zora and I reverted, is well-known POV pusher. Has been pushing POV all day today under different IPs. Still thanks for the warning, -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 23:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Also I never called that vandalism, I called it POV pushing. See you later,  a.n.o.n.y.m   t 23:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Andrew, the controversy re Aisha's age-at-marriage is covered in extreme detail in Aisha. Allowing an anon vandal to use an extremely emotional and value-laden term in the main article, and relegating any response to the break-out article, is POV and not even-handed. Anonymous editor and I would be responding differently to an editor who was bringing up NEW material and protesting censorship. I'm dead set against censorship, but I also don't like Karl-Rove-like mudslinging. Zora 23:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Intresting Ayyavazhi Family
Hai Andrew, there are intresting articles about Ayyavazhi, a new religion on both mythology and religiosity. Wikipedia is rich with this topic in English, but poor in other languages. Since french is a leading language in Wikipedia it is better to translate the contents on this AYYAVAZHI family to french. - Paul Raj

Transportation-related vandalism
I must disagree with your comment on WP:VIP on User:SPUI's behaviour on recent AfDs not being vandalism. He has a habit of disruptive outbursts in transportation-related debates when consensus is against him. "Avoidance Vandalism" on Vandalism fits completely. Also see. People did leave comments on the talk page before, to no effect. Pilatus 13:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

fluorescent black
I noticed that the article on the rock band Fluorescent Black is up for deletion, and I am wondering why. It is clearly written, and conforms with all the rules that you set for new articles. It is in no way advertising a business, or anything else for that matter. Please reconsider this article, as it concerns legitimate information. Thank you.

(Re: Speakeasy Comics) Ignorant deletionist
Re: Your Votes_for_deletion/Speakeasy_Comics

 * 1) You had no idea what you were talking about and trying to delete. Since the demise of Crossgen Comics, Alias Comics and Speakeasy Comics are two notable new players in the US comics publishing field. Contribute what you know or are willing to learn more about
 * 2) This one-liner stub has since then been turned into a one-pager stub.

Stop trying to kill baby articles before they even had time to grow up. Ignorant deletionist psychopaths like you are why wikipedians quit in drove every day.

WP:CP
Hi, you've reported copyright infringements to WP:CP in the last week, a new measure was recently passed to allow the speedy deltion of new pages that are cut and paste copyvios. Please follow these instructions if you come across this type of copyvio. Thanks. --nixie 00:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Andrewpmk/Archive 3


text: Category:Aircraft carriers of Argentina

title: Category:Aircraft carriers of Argentina


text:
Julian Stone

Julian Stone is a British actor.

He has appeared extensively on the screen, guest-starring in many popular TV shows including Suburgatory, Maron, Castle, Columbo, Mad About You, Baywatch, and Babylon 5, and was a regular on General Hospital as Jerry Jacks (ABC). As a voice actor, he has worked in video game franchises such as Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Titanfall and Uncharted, and films including Star Wars: The Last Jedi, Rogue One, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, The Revenant, Mad Max: Fury Road, and Phantom Thread.

Stone played Jerry Jacks on the soap opera General Hospital from April 1998 until December 1999. Stone also portrayed vampire Barnabas Collins in a 1988 Off-Broadway play of Dark Shadows.

He also played Derek Hammond in the 2002 Dualstar movie When in Rome.

In October 2003, Stone took over for Justin Carroll as David Hastings on Passions while Carroll was on paternity leave.

Television filmography

 * Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (2019) as UK Team Leader
 * Maron as Wesley Mann (2013) - (episode Sex Fest)
 * Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman as Patrick Sullivan (1995) – (Season 3 Episode 4 "When Irish Eyes Are Killing")
 * Poltergeist: The Legacy as Samuel Hartford (1996) (one episode guest star – Man in the Mist)
 * Renegade as Gary Butler (1996) – (Episode: "God's Mistake")
 * Babylon 5 as Captain Charles 'Charlie' Mitchell (1997) – (Episode: "Endgame")
 * Mike Hammer, Private Eye as Lord Gaffney (1998) – (Episode: "Lucky in Love")
 * Passions as David Hastings (2003) – (temporary replacement)
 * General Hospital as Jerry Jacks (1998–1999)
 * Handy Manny as Dandy Dan
 * The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy as Sir Raven
 * California Dreams as Zane Walker (1995) – (Episode: "Fallen Idol")

title: Julian Stone


text:
Makhzen

Makhzen (المخزن, لمخزن, ⵍⵎⴻⵅⵣⴰⵏ) is the governing institution in Morocco and in pre-1957 Tunisia, centered on the monarch and consisting of royal notables, top-ranking military personnel, landowners, security service bosses, civil servants and other well-connected members of the establishment. The term "Makhzen" is also popularly used in Morocco as a word meaning "State" or "Government".

Etymology
The word makhzen (مخزن) literally means "warehouse" in Arabic (from khazana 'to store up' ), where the king's civil servants used to receive their wages; but this usage of the word became in Moroccan Arabic synonymous with the elite. It is likely a metonymy related to taxes, which the makhzen used to collect; the term may also refer to the state or its actors, but this usage is increasingly rare and is primarily used by the older generation.

It is the origin of the Spanish and Portuguese almacén and armazém (with addition of the Arabic definite article), meaning warehouse. It was also incorporated into French and Italian as magasin (meaning 'store') and magazzino. It came into the English language from Middle French as magazine, originally referring to a storehouse for ammunition and later to publications. With the "store" meaning, it was also adopted from French into Russian as Магазин and into Romanian as magazin.

In the Berber culture of Morocco, the Berber equivalent of mekhzen ('warehouse') would be agadir. Berber tribes also considered the agadir (warehouse of the tribe's crops and valuables) as a powerhouse guarded and managed through a legal system.

Makhzen in Morocco
The Makhzen is a very ancient notion in Morocco, it roughly coincides with the notion of the feudal state predating the French protectorate in Morocco. Bilād al-makhzen ('the land of the makhzen') was the term for the areas under central government authority, while those areas still run by tribal authority were known as bilād as-siba ('the land of dissidence'). Hubert Lyautey, who served as resident-general of Morocco from 1912 until 1925 during the era of the protectorate, was a fervent proponent of indirect colonisation, especially in Berber-speaking areas. Lyautey maintained the role of the Makhzen and even enhanced it by giving important roles to local notables such as Thami El Glaoui. Local notables acted as a relay between the population and the French authorities.

title: Makhzen


text:
Adisumarmo Airport

Adisumarmo Airport is a domestic airport in Boyolali Regency, Central Java, Indonesia. It is located 14 km north of Downtown Surakarta. It is the main airport of Boyolali and Surakarta and the surrounding area, also known as Greater Solo. The airport also serves as an alternative airport to Adisutjipto International Airport in Yogyakarta during a disaster, such as during the 2006 Yogyakarta earthquake and the 2010 Mount Merapi eruption.

The airport also serves as the base of the Indonesian Air Force which is known as Lanud Adisumarmo. However, the airport do not serve as a home base to any combat squadron of the Indonesian Air Force. Instead, it serves as the training institute for future Indonesian Air Force cadets. The airbase also oversee the air defense of Surakarta and the surrounding area. Lion Air declared the airport as a regional hub in 2016.

On 2 April 2024, the Ministry of Transportation revoked the international status of the airport.

History
The airport was formerly called Panasan Air Force Base, because it is located in Panasan area. The airport was built in 1940 by the Dutch Colonial Government as an emergency airstrip. During the Japanese invasion of the Dutch East Indies, the airport was destroyed by the Dutch to prevent it from being captured intact by the Japanese, but the Japanese military rebuilt it and it serves as a military base for the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service. After the Independence of Indonesia, the airport continues to serve as a military airbase, this time for the Indonesian Air Force. The airbase was first used officially for commercial flights on 23 April 1974 served by Garuda Indonesia on the Jakarta-Solo & Solo-Jakarta route with a frequency of 3-times a week. On 25 July 1977, the airport changed its name to Adi Sumarmo Airport, which was taken from the name of Adisumarmo Wiryokusumo, the younger brother of Augustinus Adisucipto. Together, they are known as the pioneers of the Indonesian Air Force.

On 31 March 1989, the airport was designated an International Airport by serving Solo-Kuala Lumpur & Solo-Singapore flight routes. On 1 January 1992, the airport was handed to Angkasa Pura I. On 28 January 2008, the airport was closed to all commercial traffic for several hours while the body of former Indonesian President Suharto was transported from Jakarta's Halim Perdanakusuma International Airport.

On 2016, Lion Air makes Adisumarmo International Airport as one of its hub in its flight connectivity. It aims to develop service routes from Central Java, especially from Solo to various cities both in the country and abroad. There are 5 domestic flight routes that opened from and to Solo, among others, from and to Banjarmasin, Lombok, Palangkaraya, Makassar, and Pontianak. Lion Air will make several additional services such as, adding new routes from and to the city of Solo and the addition of frequencies of existing flight routes.

Terminal
On 2 March 2009, a new terminal began operation which has more capacity than the old terminal. The new terminal is located to the north of the old terminal which belongs to the Air Force. The new terminal is built on an area of 13,000 square meters. The old terminal complex is only 4,000 square meters. The new terminal has parking facilities for nine narrow-body aircraft like the Boeing 737 Classic or three wide body planes and three narrow body planes. The terminal has three aerobridges with five gates. The airport is able to serve wide body jet like Airbus A330, Boeing 747, and Boeing 777. The Airbus A330 is usually operated for Hajj flights in Hajj season or for some extra flight in Ramadan season. The airport terminal has minimarkets (Circle K and Indomaret), food counters, shopping area and some food counters near the boarding lounge. The old passenger terminal is now used for VIP flights.

Passenger
As of May 2024, the airport does not serve international routes to Malaysia, Singapore and Saudi Arabia due to decision of Ministry of Transportation.

Bus
Perum DAMRI operates airport shuttle buses that serve several destination from Adisumarmo Airport.

Since May 2011, Batik Solo Trans buses also connects the airport to the city.

Car and taxi
Various taxi and shuttle services are provided by numerous service providers.

Train
The 13.5-kilometer airport rail connects from Solo Balapan Station to Adi Soemarmo Airport. Construction of the airport rail line consists of two segments, namely segment 1, ranging from Solo Balapan Station to Solo Baru Station along 3.5 km which is the existing railway track. Meanwhile, segment 2, starting from Solo Baru Station to Adi Sumarmo Airport along the 10 km to be built new railway line. The presence of the airport train is one of the government's efforts to realize the integration between public transport modes and meet the needs of community mobilization, and to create safe, secure, convenient and timely transportation facilities. The airport train is formally launched on December 29, 2019. By using the airport train, the distance from Solo to Adi Sumarmo Airport will only take in 19 minutes and 27 minutes from the airport to the city with headway 40 minutes. This is the first airport train in Indonesia connects city directly to departure hall in the airport and faster than using a car which usually takes 40 to 60 minutes.

Incidents

 * On 30 November 2004, Lion Air Flight 538 overran the runway after landing in bad weather. 25 people on board were killed.

title: Adisumarmo Airport


text:
Lowdham

Lowdham is a village and civil parish in the Newark and Sherwood district of Nottinghamshire between Nottingham and Southwell. According to the 2021 census, it had a population of 3,247. Two main roads slicing through the village are the A6097 south-east to north-west and the A612 between Nottingham and Southwell.

History
The name Lowdham seems to be derived from the Old English masculine personal nickname Hluda, combined with "hām," meaning village, community, manor, estate, or homestead, resulting in "Hluda's homestead or village." However, the name Lowdham also suggests a Danish origin, with earlier forms such as Ludham and Ludholme.

Relics from the Middle Ages include an alabaster slab and a figure of a knight in armor, located in the chancel of the church and inscribed in memory of Sir John de Loudham. The dog at the feet of the effigy indicates that Loudham was a warrior. According to one source, "Many of the Crusaders are represented with their feet on a dog, to show that they followed the standard of the Lord as faithfully as a dog follows the footsteps of his master."

The old church and the castle mound are located to the west of the bypass. St Mary's Church dates back to before the 14th century. In 1826, a Wesleyan Methodist Chapel (Top Chapel) was built on Ton Lane, and in 1844, an Independent Primitive Methodist Chapel (Bottom Chapel) was established on Main Street. The Ton Lane chapel closed in 1986, but the Bottom Chapel continues to be used as an Independent Methodist church.

To the northeast of the bypass is Lowdham Mill. There is now little evidence of the frame knitting industry that was significant in this area during the 19th century. In 1844, there were 94 stocking frames operating in Lowdham.

Notable people
In birth order:
 * Sir John de Loudham (died 1318), landowner, is commemorated in St Mary's Church.
 * George Wilkins (1785–1865), Vicar of Lowdham (1815–1839), was later Vicar of St Mary's Church, Nottingham and Archdeacon of Nottingham, and prominent in church building and restoration in the city.
 * Cornelius Brown (1852–1907), local historian and newspaper editor, was born in Lowdham.
 * Harold Cottam (1891–1984), wireless operator aboard the RMS Carpathia, who received RMS Titanic's distress call and was instrumental in getting the Carpathia to come to her aid. He is honoured by a blue plaque on the wall of The Old Ship Inn.
 * Richard Whitehead (born 1976), Paralympic sprinter, is honoured by a gold-painted post box outside the post office.

Amenities
Lowdham railway station is on the Nottingham to Lincoln Line. Two miles from the railway station is HMP Lowdham Grange.

Village pubs are the Railway, the Magna Charta, the World's End (formally the Plough and still located in Plough Lane), and the Old Ship. All have open lounge/bar layouts and are situated near the centre of the village.

The retail services include two general stores, a sub-post office, several take-away eating places, a filling station and a bookshop.

Bus services
Nottingham City Transport NottsBus Connect
 * 26: Nottingham – Carlton – Gedling – Burton Joyce – Lowdham
 * 26A: Nottingham – Carlton – Gedling – Burton Joyce – Lowdham – Southwell

 * 747

CT4N

 * 300

title: Lowdham


text: Category:United States senators from Maine


text:
User:Artboy94

Username: Artboy94

Contributions made: 2

title: User:Artboy94


text:
Rigaud Duplan

Joseph Rigaud Duplan was a 2006 candidate for president of Haiti running for the political party Plate-forme Justice pour la Paix et le Development National (JPDN). He was the most popular of the candidates in Haiti who did not advertise on TV or radio. Currently he works as an attorney in his own law office in Port-au-Prince.

He was Minister of Finance in 1994.

title: Rigaud Duplan


text:
Frucor Suntory

Frucor is a Japanese-owned beverage company operating in Australasia, and headquartered in Auckland, New Zealand. The company is known for its V energy drink launched in 1997, which is sold across the world including Europe, South Africa and Argentina. Frucor has joint partners PepsiCo, Danone, and Sanitarium so their products are marketed by Frucor.

History
Frucor was founded by New Zealand Apple and Pear Board in 1962 and released their first product, Fresh Up. In 1978, New Zealand Olympic track runner John Walker endorsed the Fresh Up product, with the catchphrase "Fresh Up – it's got to be good for you'". Frucor was owned by New Zealand Apple and Pear Board until 1998, when it was purchased for $50 million by Pacific Equity Partners. In 1999 Frucor became the exclusive bottler for Pepsi products in New Zealand. In 2000 Frucor launched V in the UK and Ireland manufactured in the Netherlands.

In 2001, Forbes named Frucor in its Top 20 Companies of 2002. In January 2002, Groupe Danone purchased Frucor for $294 million after bidding since October 2001 and being rejected by Frucor in the beginning. That same year, Frucor acquired the Australian fruit juice company Spring Valley from Bonlac Foods (now Fonterra).

In 2007, Frucor partnered with MySpace to host a job promotions campaign with participants Rolling Stone, Billabong. The collaboration with MySpace and the job promoters was the first of its type in Australia. In October 2008, Groupe Danone sold Frucor to Japanese company Suntory for over €600 million.

In January 2011, Frucor launched the V brand in Spain, where by June, was already being sold in 8,000 outlets.

In 2013, Frucor sponsored the IGN Australia Black Beta Select Awards. In June 2017 Frucor Beverages was renamed Frucor Suntory to align better with its parent company Suntory.

Products
Frucor Suntory's diversified portfolio of products includes carbonated soft drinks, spring water, sports drink and energy drinks, fruit juices, iced tea, flavoured milk, coffee, tea and alcohol. Frucor Suntory distributes a number of sparkling, still and other non-alcoholic beverages. Some of these include:
 * V (drink)
 * Boss Coffee
 * Maximus (Sports drink)
 * Ribena
 * Mccoy
 * Just Juice
 * Fresh-Up
 * Pepsi Max
 * Pepsi
 * Mountain Dew
 * 7Up
 * Gatorade
 * Rockstar Energy Drinks
 * Lucozade
 * NZ Natural
 * h2go
 * Mizone
 * GForce
 * Up & Go

title: Frucor Suntory


text:
John Erskine, 1st Baron Erskine of Rerrick

John Maxwell Erskine, 1st Baron Erskine of Rerrick, (14 December 1893 – 14 December 1980) was a Scottish banker. He acted as Governor of Northern Ireland from 1964 to 1968.

Life
Lord Erskine was born in Kirkcudbright, the son of John and Maryanne Erskine, and was educated at Kirkcudbright Academy.

He was General Manager of the Commercial Bank of Scotland from 1932 to 1953, and a director from 1951 to 1969. From 1937 to 1940 he was President of the Institute of Bankers in Scotland. In 1933 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Scotland. His proposers were James Watt, Robert Grant, Sir Thomas Barnby Whitson, and Ralph Allan Sampson.

He was knighted in 1949, created a baronet in 1961 and created a Baron in 1964.

Family
He married Henrietta Dunnett in 1922 and they had one son and one daughter. His son Iain Maxwell Erskine succeeded him as 2nd Baron Erskine of Rerrick.


text:
Talk:John Esposito

Untitled
Why were these published works chosen as representative? According to amazon.com, he has at least 69 published books. Also, this article desperately needs expanding.JeremyBicha 01:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't Robert Spencer and frontpagemag be considered "views of a tiny minority" per WP:BLP. Can some user look into that?Bless sins 17:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Most people aware of Esposito likely share those views. Arrow740 06:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section
206.57.40.102 (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Pamela McVay206.57.40.102 (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC) While I may agree that Kramer's points should be noted, their current phrasing in the article makes them sound as if they could not possibly stem from personal animus or from jealousy. The article of Kramer's to which this article links makes what I consider to be serious accusations of poor scholarship, and they are based on what I consider poor and poorly reasoned evidence. For example, according to the link Kramer says:

"During the first part of his career, John L. Esposito never studied or taught at a major Middle East center. He completed a doctorate in Islamic studies at Temple University in 1974 and then spent nearly twenty years teaching comparative religion and Islam at the College of the Holy Cross, a Jesuit college in Massachusetts. His early published work dealt with Pakistan and Muslim family law. Had he continued along this trajectory, he would have remained obscure even by the standards of Middle Eastern studies."

Esposito is a prolific publisher, especially for someone not affiliated with a major research university and therefore responsible for a lot of teaching. (Although I think Temple University is a much better institution than Kramer seems to imply) The first book-length study he was associated with, so far as I know, was _Islam in transition : Muslim perspectives_ which he edited with John J. Donohue. It was from Oxford University Press in 1982, which in terms of publishing means it was basically finished by 1981 at the latest. In other words, within 8 years of finishing his doctorate, Esposito had enough clout and had performed enough service in the field to edit a volume whose scholars' backgrounds and topics covered the entire gamut of the central middle east, from Egypt to Pakistan. In the pre-e-mail era, corresponding with the large number of middle eastern scholars represented here would have been a Herculean labor. Kramer's assertion that Esposito "would have remained obscure" seems highly unreasonable given Esposito's early exposure to so many scholars from different regions, especially while working with such a distinguished press as Oxford. Moreover, very little of Esposito's published work has been on Pakistan. Of his many publications, nearly all are comparative, synthetic, edited compliations attempting to create a synthesis, or, like "Islam: the Straight Path" intended for a wide audience.

As one of the many people who have turned to Esposito's textbook in my preparing my own teaching, I also resent Kramer's apparent assertion that those of us who chose it did so in order to make some point about Edward Said, or out of a reluctance to assign _Orientalism_ to our students, or out of a desperate desire for works that fit a particular political slant. The article attributed to him says:

"The rank-and-file of MESA [whom Kramer seems to imagine were the only people reading Esposito] were drawn increasingly from academics like Esposito, at lesser universities and colleges. Many of them were teaching the most basic courses on Islam, with enrollments driven by bad news from the Middle East. They were on the lookout for sympathetic texts on Islam — pitched lower than Orientalism, uncontaminated by anti-Americanisms, preferably even written by an American — which they could use in their classes and recommend to their departmental colleagues."

I will let aside the barely hidden contempt Kramer heaps on academics "like Esposito," those of us teaching at "lesser universities and colleges", all of us presumably unable to detect unreasonable scholarly bias. However, I point out that if there is a case for selection bias to be made here, it would actually be that many of us would respond well to a point of view forged in a teaching situation similar to our own. The article probably should reflect this; Esposito publishes primarily for scholars and teachers whose duties are like his own, and we teach most of the US's student population. Thus, yes, his ideas have been widely disseminated.

In any case, I can hardly imagine that anyone who has taught American freshmen and sophomores would think _Orientalism_ was any use as an introduction to Islam or to the Middle East. Any historian or comparative religion instructor in the who thought Esposito's text was, at the time of its first publication, their only choice would have to have been incompetent. Indeed, since _Orientalism_ is actually a critique of European intellectual history, the suggestion that we would consider using it to introduce even graduate students to issues in modern Islam is baffling.

_Islam: the Straight Path_, as Kramer surely knows, is an introductory primer to Islam, written for the reader who knows nothing of Islam and little about religion as a scholarly topic. The natural alternative to it was not _Orientalism_ or some more appropriately critical (in Kramer's mind) text, but Huston Smith's _Religions of Man_ (more lately revised into _The World's Religions_, a work which is no less sympathetic to Islam than Esposito's. Moreover, scholars scarcely had search hard to find Huston Smith if they wanted to find a suitable introduction to Islam; Smith's book has been in publication in one edition or another since the late 1950's. Esposito's book won out with most people teaching the middle east because we thought it was better; more detailed, more up to date, and more engaged in issues we thought our students cared about.

In short, while Kramer may well know a great deal about radical Islam--indeed, he is a leading authority on it--he apparently knows very little about American teachers of history and comparative religion, except that he thinks we're all incompetent. His critique of Esposito has been widely disseminated, and therefore needs to be in here, but it ought not to stand without substantive analysis.

206.57.40.102 (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Pamela McVay206.57.40.102 (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Why does his criticism section even MENTION obscurity? Since when does Wikipedia care about how "obscure" or even how "American" people/subjects are? Why is this even a valid criticism in the first place? Does it even mean anything? How about - Is it even a criticism? I suggest removing such racist garbage. --68.11.242.153 07:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Behemoth101

I added that Campus Watch is an American pro-Israel and pro-Iraq War think tank. This is true even according to Wikipedia. Please do not remove. I removed criticism section for now, per concerns raised regarding WP:BLP in --Aminz 02:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The criticisms Esposito are more prominent and propounded by more reliable sources, as opposed to one non-notable person. Arrow740 06:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The same argument made there. WP:BLP requires balance between positive and negative views. --Aminz 07:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The issue is undue weight. Please read BLP again. Arrow740 07:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am making the same arguments. A WP:BLP can not conain only criticisms. --Aminz 07:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

 * WP:BLP does not say that a biogrpahy cannot contain any criticism. Beit Or 07:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. We can have criticisms but not "all" criticisms. --Aminz 07:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. Notable and releevant criticism must be included. In addition, yours and Bless sins' edits to this page clearly violate WP:POINT. Beit Or 07:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Bless sin's edits? It is not WP:POINT. What point? I am saying we should apply equal standards to WP:BLP articles. --Aminz 07:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You failed to insert criticism that violated WP:NPOV into Martin Gilbert, so you want to remove notable and relevant criticism from this article. This is a violation of WP:POINT. Beit Or 07:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you please explain the difference between valid criticism and the one that violates WP:NPOV. --Aminz 07:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done it many times, but I'll do that once again. Beilin's criticism was about a rather obscure book by Martin Gilbert, who is best known for the biogrpahy of Winston Churchill. On the other hand, Martin Kramer's criticism of Esposito is about the latter's rise to fame. This is clearly an important aspect of Esposito's notability and thus not in violation of WP:NPOV. Beit Or 07:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Martin Kramer is a Likudnik ideologue and hack. His so-called criticism is nothing but shrill nonsense. There should be a criticism section on this page, but find some true academic criticism to replace this garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.49.17 (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Has John Esposito converted to Islam?
Esposito seems to believe like many Muslims - that Islamophobia (i.e. irrational fear of Islam) is the root cause of terrorism and all that is not right with the Islam and the wider world. If we would just stop fearing Islam in America, Europe and in other parts of the free world, then, Buddhist monks would not be attacked in Southern Thailand - for being Buddhist; the beliefs within Islam that call for world domination - by almost any means - i.e. jihad / which the Prophet Muhammad took part in - to create terror and fear - in order to convert and to subjugate or to kill those who would not convert - so says the Koran. Does he believe that if we would rid ourselves of personally or cleanse society of all fear of Islam or Islamophobia, then the entire reality of jihad would go away - as 93% of the versus dealing with jihad in the Koran, Hadiths and Sira, relate to violent jihad - while only 3% deal with the highly publicized 'inner peace/struggle'. Or perhaps the reality that calls for apostates to be sentenced to death - and non-believers to be attacked - is probably what cleansed the once largely Christian Middle East of those believers - can also be rectified by doing away with the person choice to dislike, somewhat like, or even hate Islam.

Though it puzzles me how it is that - in reaching out to Islam - those who profess to be Christian - like Esposito and the Archbishop could so easily overlook the plight of Christians within the Islamic world. So eager to help – they trample the very thing they claim to believe. Solving the 'Islam problem' is far more exciting and something which they could gain much more prominence than dealing with the old 'Christian persecution problem' in the Islamic world.

While it is not possible for Esposito or the Bishop to bring a personal bible or a cross into Arabia or to worship freely there, due Esposito Saudi sponsored position at GU, his sole aim is to convince us that the problem with Islam is entirely owing to western attitudes towards the religion.

Why is Esposito so keen on getting westerners to accept Islam – or rather to see it in a positive light - over and above what it actually does in today's world? It is a valid question – if John Esposito has converted to Islam – would he put his personal interests above that of the University, society and then nation – in order to fulfil a religious role? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egyptoo (talk • contribs) 04:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms ARE many
I have just read the article and the discussion. The facts are that John Esposito IS highly criticized by many, though I don't have the full list ! That we agree or disagree with these criticisms is irrelevant, I think they should be mentionned at any rate, and could be mentionned in all neutrality with regards to Wiki's policy with giving a short summary of them and of which personns/organizations issued them. Unfortunately, I don't think my English is good enough to write a paragraph about that, besides the fact that, although I know in general which criticisms are made towards Esposito's views, I don't have enough precise references. But if anyone would write such a paragraph, with a neutral title such as "Criticisms", I really don't think this would violate the neutrality policy (as long as references are given !), which appears to me as being the motive of the discussion above. I would add that without any mention of a strong opposition in the intellectual and/or activist sphere towards Esposito's points of view and activities, this article is really uncomplete.

Spipou (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

 * One little point more : of all the non-muslim intellectual personnalities who promote the inter-faith dialogue, John Esposito seems to me to be one of the most controversial, at least in the US and from what I can read in the anglophone media/websites. If I am not wrong saying this, this mere FACT should be written in the article !

Spipou (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Biased Language
This section uses obviously biased language and ought to be either deleted or rewritten to have a neutral tone:
 * Following the September 11 attacks, Daniel Pipes's anti-Islamic organisation Campus Watch[5] initiated accusations that Esposito is an Islamist apologist because he raised attention to grievances that inspired people to conduct suicide bombings in Palestine. Esposito does not condone terrorist violence and has supported the Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings issued by Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri. This fatwa, for which Esposito and Joel Hayward wrote the introductory sections, is one of the strongest condemnations of terrorism ever issued by a senior Islamic cleric.[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.202.225 (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Esposito. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061026001853/http://www.islam-democracy.org/esposito_bio.asp to http://www.islam-democracy.org/esposito_bio.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060906105303/http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/jle2/bio.html to http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/jle2/bio.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Esposito. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060904131933/http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=3762 to http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=3762

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect removal of Category:Muslim apologists
This is a relatively minor issue. has recently been removed by with the motivation that “Esposito is not Muslim”. However defines itself as “The following individuals are all known to a significant degree for their work in the field of Islamic apologetics.”.

Besides the explicit label, the fact that “Muslim” in “Muslim apologists” is the object of the apologetics and not an adjective referring to the apologists can be easily understood by reductio ad absurdum: given that apologetics always requires a field to be applied to, and imagining that “Muslim” is an adjective that refers to the apologists as Vice regent understands it, there would be a piece missing… “Muslim apologists of … what?” Muslim apologists of pizza? Muslim apologists of basketball?

By having a look at what the people listed in the category defend it is clear that they defend Muslims or Islam. So “Muslim apologists” is to be intended as “Apologists of Muslims”, not as “Apologists (of what?) that are Muslim”. And indeed the category explicitly mentions it. --Grufo (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any reliable sources that refer to Esposito as an apologist for Islam? The article doesn't state this and for now it should stay removed per WP:BLP.VR talk 12:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought that your problem was whether Esposito is or is not a Muslim, or so you have stated in your edit summary. Has your problem now shifted to whether Esposito defends Muslims or not? For as tautological as it sounds, if the article has, the article automatically states that Esposito writes in defense of Muslims. And I believe that we are talking about a fact evident enough (and nothing is bad about it). --Grufo (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , everything on BLP must be sourced. If not, it must be removed immediately. If you think Esposito is an "apologist" or writes in "apologetics" than find a source that says that. And its the latter then "Muslim apologetics" is the better category, not "Muslim apologists". Also . VR talk 13:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Grufo, sometimes less is more. Your argument of him not being Muslim is valid (although he is suspected of "converting to Islam" by some (see above)). But we need sources for the claim that Esposito is an apologist for Islam. While I've heard some academic criticisms of Esposito, they often tend to be drowned out by crankish claims made by people like Daniel Pipes according to whom many people from Prince Charles to Obama is a Muslim apologist and maybe even a convert. Caution is advised especially considering BLP.

 * Can user GorgeCustersSabre give his views as well since he's involved? 39.37.149.152 (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I had missed the anonymous IP address that always accompanies Vice regent… We are talking about how to categorize his work, not his life, and the article itself is a long bibliography of selected works from Esposito. The choice is then on how to categorize this list of works. Again, the fact that we are talking about literature in defense of Muslims is evident (almost tautological), nothing is bad about it, and it has nothing to do with his biography. --Grufo (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * . Hello. I hope you are fine. Here's a source saying that Esposito is an apologist for Islam. Paul Hollander, ed., Political Violence: Belief, Behavior, and Legitimation (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), pp. 182-183. Being an apologist isn't a terrible accusation. It just means that someone seeks, through argument, to present the religion in a positive light. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I hope you're doing well too! I read those pages and they sound pretty anti-Esposito to me. They cite
 * which is a notoriously bad source. Also the source says "Esposito tried to present Islam and Islamism in Western categories thereby hoping to create a more favorable attitude to them in the West." There's plenty of academics who do that, but we wouldn't label them as "apologists". Does the source use the term "apologist"? If so, I missed that.VR talk 14:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * FrontPage Magazine is a deprecated source, meaning that it can't be cited as source of facts, and has very little weight for opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Thanks for your question. It’s in a section about apologists but, you are correct, it does not explicitly state “John Esposito is an apologist”. I think you have a point about its sources. So I won’t be dogmatic about this issue. I’ll go with whatever consensus emerges. Thanks for your goodwill. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I just saw the author for that source, its Ibn Warraq. That's definitely a controversial source and criticized by academics (Ibn_Warraq). I'm removing this, per WP:BLP, until we can find better sources.VR talk 15:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * GorgeCustersSabre, you are absolutely correct in saying that there is nothing wrong in being an "apologist", but the problem is that the word can have different meanings. Once upon a time, the term propaganda and propagandist was used neutrally but this is not the case anymore. Generally, when we talk about apologia we usually mean it in a negative, judgmental sense. The category apologists for Muslims is also strange seeing as it only includes less than a dozen authors (only Espesito beiong non-Muslim), when we can literally have hundreds if not thousands of authors who have written in "defense of Islam or Muslims", practically every Muslim scholar plus many non-Muslims I can think of as well, like Karen Armstrong. In any case, this is more an issue with the label "Muslim apologist", rather than the application of it to Esposito, so I'll bring my arguments there. 39.37.149.152 (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Against removing the category: It is evident that we are talking about apologetic literature (probably good one). --Grufo (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to provide reliable sources that Esposito is an apologist or his works constitute apologist literature.VR talk 17:14, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Literature that speaks in defense of something (even by restoring a mistreated truth) is apologetic by definition. And there is nothing bad with it. I believe you would like to remove it because his opponents apparently accuse him of being apologetic of radical Islam, but this is not what this discussion is about. I believe he speaks in defense of the more secular and pragmatic Muslims, so why would you like to hide it? --Grufo (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Apologist can be a negative label, but that doesn't matter as WP:BLP requires us to remove poorly sourced material "whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". WP:BLPCAT says the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Currently we have nothing in the article that makes that clear. If you think what you're saying is so obvious, why can't you find reliable sources for it?VR talk 17:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Investigating what the problem is is far from WP:ASPERSIONS. “Apologetic” can have positive or negative meanings as much as its opposite, “critic”: it all depends on the context and how it is used, and per se is a fairly neutral term. This is an excerpt from a review of John Esposito's book Islam and Development: Religion and Sociopolitical Change made by Emmanuel Sivan:
 * Removing the category would be a bit like removing from… let's say Voltaire (or choose another name if you prefer). --Grufo (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The "three co-authors" that Sivan mentions appear to be John Thomas Cummings, Hossein Askari, and Ahmad Mustafa. The source seems to be referring "apologetics" in a negative manner. The full sentence is,
 * To refer to an academic's work as "full of mistakes" is strong criticism, but it should be considered a criticism of the "three co-authors", not of Esposito.VR talk 22:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot access the book except that page and I believe I made a mistake in referencing it (I hope it is fixed now). By the way, Esposito is the editor of the book containing Sivan's quotation above, which for sure is a review of Islam and Development: Religion and Sociopolitical Change (I checked), so I am fairly convinced the review cannot be too critical against Esposito and we are for sure in an unbiased territory. As I said, apologetics is a neutral term per se, and “excercize in criticism” would sound as negative. Moreover, although this is probably not the case, a source would not even need to endorse Esposito and it can perfectly be critical of him: it needs just to be reliable. --Grufo (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think Esposito is the editor of the source containing Sivan, and yes reliable sources can be critical of Esposito, and we should include that criticism. However, Sivan is not criticizing Esposito, but rather "three co-authors", which I believe are John Thomas Cummings, Hossein Askari, and Ahmad Mustafa.VR talk 13:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Being the editor of a book that collects a series of articles means taking responsibility for what these articles state. Consider that is often given for much less. Voltaire for example wrote relatively few words about Islam in proportion to the rest of his work. Esposito instead seems focused mostly on Islam. And besides what evidence and common sense can suggest about the tone of his work, at least a third of one of his books has been explicitly defined as apologetic. For me this is more than enough. --Grufo (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, certainly not on a WP:BLP. If this is your only evidence, then I suggest we remove this category for now (per WP:BLP rules) and take this to WP:DRN.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 19:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, certainly not on a WP:BLP. If this is your only evidence, then I suggest we remove this category for now (per WP:BLP rules) and take this to WP:DRN.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 19:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has not been my argument and please do not reinterpret what I explicitly say. My argument has been: --Grufo (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Its not his book, its a book he edited. In any case, I don't see us making progress anymore, so best to post this somewhere like WP:BLPN. In the meanwhile I'm removing the category per WP:BLP. Lets see what others say. VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 20:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Discussion here Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 20:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A point to note is that the above source only criticises the three in regards to aplogetics regarding "compatibility of Islamic law and economic practice", and not the full range of their works. Esposito has written on much more than Islamic economic practice. The source does not seem to support the designation. 39.37.128.59 (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Further sources that categorize Esposito as apologist:

--Grufo (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Who is the author? Is it this Tom Moylan or a different one? And not sure how scholarly a source E-International Relations is.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 21:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * “Who is the author?”:
 * “how scholarly a source E-International Relations is”: It is a peer-reviewed magazine, it is widely used by Wikipedia ([]) and its articles seem to have an acceptable number of citations . More information at their website
 * --Grufo (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

--Grufo (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * By investigating further, I have understood that there is a sort of acedemic battle between two schools of thought in oriental studies, labeled respectively as “neo-orientalists” (right wing?) and “apologists” (left wing?) – see for example, p. 11. But this goes a bit beyond the scope of this topic. --Grufo (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Conclusions
I believe the removal has the effect of presenting as neutral an author that has shown the will to take position and is identified as such by the sources. To avoid impoverishment of the article the removal of the category is to be reverted. Furthermore a presentation of the current dispute between neo-orientalists and apologists in oriental studies is more than welcome to integrate the article. --Grufo (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We are hardly in a position to "conclude" right now. I posted this on WP:BLPN and want to give others the opportunity to comment.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 00:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So you would still like to remove the category? Why so? --Grufo (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because I don't think its appropriate he is widely known as an apologist, unlike others in that category like Zakir Naik etc. He is known first and foremost as an academic. The sources presented thus far aren't the greatest and do seem biased. I also want to get opinions from others before adding the category as this is a WP:BLP after all.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 00:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am looking forward for more interventions. Apologist in this case is quite an academic label, have you read what I wrote about the two fields in oriental studies and Marranci's paper? How do the sources seem biased? Does Marranci seem biased? Or Nester? Or Moylan? Please do explain. --Grufo (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Marranci seems to contradict the view that Esposito is an apologist and in fact regards the categorization of apologist as "polemic" and less accurate than a different categorization:
 * VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 01:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a bit inaccurate. Marranci takes position against creating two fields, but in his (personal) refusal he acknowledges the fact that such division is quite common among academics. But as I said before, this goes a bit beyond the scope of the discussion (the article is not about Marranci). Furthermore you have still not answered some of my questions. Who do you think is non-reliable among the sources that have no problems in defining Esposito as apologist? Nester? Moylan? The fact that at least two sources do that is really more than enough, considering that Esposito is not a rock star and not everyone talks about him.--Grufo (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well we have two sources (Halliday and Marranci) saying that the categorization of academics as apologists is incorrect and Esposito should be considered as a "contingencist". I asked you who Moylan was and I have no idea what their credentials are. I need to dig a bit more into Nester's book. Esposito is a fairly famous academic in Islamic studies.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 01:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We have two sources that explicitly list Esposito as apologist (as I said, he is not a rock star), but if you want the list of sources that acknowledge the two schools of thought independently of Esposito there will be way more than two names in the list against Halliday and Marranci . --Grufo (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I've started a similar discussion at Talk:Edward_Said.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 00:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a strong consensus emerging at Talk:Edward_Said that the sources presented above do not warrant the inclusion of the category for a variety of reasons.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 17:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is another page, which talks about Said, and where editors have not been involved in this discussion and that don't seem to even mention Nester. --Grufo (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right that's another page, but the sources and the quotes are the exact same: Hoyland and Nester. seems to have initially found both sources to be partisan, but later only reserved that judgement for the Nester source.  seems to have agreed with on what Johnbod said. (Hope I didn't misrepresent either of the users and they should correct me if I did).VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 01:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I dislike categories in BLPs unless they are very firmly entrenched in self-recognized or a description accepted by the person's relevant peer-group. This one in particular is problematical, and the kind of sourcing about is predominantly politicized, pinning an 'apologetic' label to skewer an adversary. BPLs should avoid such labeling unless the author himself uses the term, or does not object to their work, or one of their works, being described as such.Nishidani (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not so sure self-recognition is necessary. Some of the people in would maybe describe themselves as “not critic at all, only objective” – and yet they should still remain there. As for Esposito, he does not seem too enthusiast about categorizations in general – although about the category in question he says it is “one of the better names I have been called”:
 * "When you start calling people names then that is when you begin to see a shift. If you say someone is an apologist for Islam, it’s like somebody saying to a Western scholar you are an Orientalist. They just use that sort of blanket blame. Actually that’s one of the better names I have been called. I have been called a stealth and so on."

 * Whether his approval is necessary or not though, I believe secondary sources are what decides about the matter. And in this case what I see is a mainstream division (neo-orientalists vs. apologists), opposed by some critical voices.
 * As for using the “'apologetic' label to skewer an adversary”, honestly I have seen also the opposite, using the “neo-orientalist” label to demean an adversary. This is just what inevitably happens when people start to use simplifications. --Grufo (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We just don't ticket people with exonyms they have never endorsed. Full stop. The rest is waffle. Numerous times people have tried to list the religion of people of Jewish extraction as Judaism, and this has been quite properly ruled out, on the grounds that if the  subject of the wiki bio has not personally endorsed the connection, it cannot be inferred.Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you read his whole response its very clear Esposito rejects the label. I guess there are now three sources that reject this label in the context of Esposito being called an "apologist": Halliday, Marranci and Esposito.VR <b style="color:Black">talk</b> 13:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought I had said he is not enthusiastic about it. But he is directly involved, so he counts relatively. And if you include Halliday (who does not talk about Esposito as far as I know) we will have to include the zillion sources that acknowledge the two schools of thought without mentioning Esposito either. --Grufo (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:John Esposito


text:
Category talk:Atlantic hurricanes

tropical storms
should tropical storms be placed in their own sub category? Hmains 21:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Atlantic hurricanes


text:
Pik

Pik may refer to:

People

 * Pik, name used by comic creator Léo Quievreux as a musician
 * Fong Chong Pik (1924–2004), Malaysian politician
 * Pik Botha (1932–2018), former South African politician
 * Tzvika Pick (1949–2022), Israeli composer and singer

Places

 * Shek Pik, Hong Kong
 * Pik Talgar, Kazakhstan
 * Pik Tandykul, Central Asia
 * Pik Uk, Kowloon, Hong Kong
 * Pik, Iran (disambiguation)

Other

 * Pik As, a jumping horse

title: Pik


text: User talk:67.167.130.188

title: User talk:67.167.130.188


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avivo

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Avivo
advertisement and no assertion of notability. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete spam --Rogerd 01:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Ad spam. Could  be re-written, however.  Sunray 02:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or completely rewrite it,... as it stands it is ad spam -- Malo 02:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I concur Avalon 03:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Ad spam Pureblade 20:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Ad spam, but I agree that with a total re-write, the underlying technology could possibly be of value. Colin99 20:11, 9 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.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avivo


text:
Talk:Saar Protectorate

Name
Shouldn't this page be Saar (1947-1956)? Given that it became part of Germany on January 1, 1957.

Or maybe a better name is Saar (French protectorate) or Saarland (French protectorate), without using the years of existence. Chanheigeorge 01:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

1952 Elections
The statistics of the 1952 elections where pro reunification parties were barred would be a lot more meaningful if the percentage of voters who actually took part was given. Has anyone been able to dig them up?Stor stark7 18:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions
This article contradicts with Saarland on the subject of currency used during and just after the protectorate. TheGrappler 16:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed the date when Germany's Deutsche Mark became Saarland's currency. According to a German-speaking description of Saarland's history, Saarland returned to Germany (Federal Republic of Germany, that is) on January 1, 1959, still using French Franc as its currency; Germany's Deutsche Mark replaced it on July 6, 1959. The text says: Am 6. Juli 1959 folgte die wirtschaftliche Rückgliederung aus dem französischen in den deutschen Wirtschaftsraum, bei der u.a. in einem Währungsumtausch der Franken durch die Mark ersetzt wurde.
 * Saar_franc also gives some information about the currencies used in Saar / Saarland. Thomasnimmesgern 02:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

European flag
From the article:

The conflict between France and Germany over control of the Saarland led to the European flag being given 12 stars instead of the originally proposed 15.

How/why? We need more of an explanation. I don't understand how this one territory would be the difference between 12 and 15 stars. Funnyhat 19:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the Twelve Stars of the European Flag came from Revelation 12.1 via the Statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Strasbourge Cathedral. 12 is one of the special numbers in the Jewish Christian Tradition, 12 Tribes of Isreal and 12 Apostles, and is likely to have been made so because there are 12 complete Calendar Moons to the Solar Year. It is the United States Flag which gains stars when a new state is added. I agree that there seems to be no logic in the Saarland being responsible for the twelve stars instead of fifteen. peter.hawkins@orange.fr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.214.53.252 (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

From Flag of Europe: The number of stars on the flag is fixed at 12, and is not related to the number of member states of the EU. This is because it originally was the flag of the Council of Europe, and does not have a relationship with the EU.[12] In 1953, the Council of Europe had 15 members; it was proposed that the future flag should have one star for each member, and would not change based on future members. West Germany objected to this as one of the members was the disputed area of Saarland, and to have its own star would imply sovereignty for the region.[13]  Twelve was eventually adopted as a number with no political connotations and as a symbol of perfection and completeness[12]  because of the ubiquity of the number for groups in European cultures and traditions. Etm157 (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Other
What does "strongly ethnically German" mean? Strongly as compared to what? To other German states? Or to France? Anyways, the term should be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlerauge24 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

 * It's probably just someone's pov pushing. I just removed the unnecessary adjective.  Volunteer Marek   20:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Deficient map
The current map is bordering on useless, it being virtually impossible to spot the region in question. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This article seriously needs a clear map showing the actual borders of the protectorate and its main cities in the time described. werldwayd (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I logged on here to say that.Czolgolz (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Saar Protectorate. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://homepage.tinet.ie/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/euroflagmemo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest New version Saar Protectorate Patriotic Song (1945–1957) - "Land der Saar" URL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyEX0I7Xs9w Thanks. Andre Farfan (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Time
Saarland only officially became a French protectorate with the promulgation of its constitution on December 15, 1947. Hammermann75 (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Was it a de facto protectorate before that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It was de facto separated in 1946 but it wasn't a protectorate. Hammermann75 (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article seems to say so:  On 16 February 1946, France disentangled the Saar from the Allied zones of occupation and established the separate Saar Protectorate... Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem was that Saarland was then just a French customs territory. Hammermann75 (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a citation from a reliable source that says that Saar was not a protectorate until the institution of its constitution? It very much appears to me that it was a de facto protectorate from the time the French declared it as such.  They certainly behaved as if it were - governments generally don't throw people out of a mere "customs territory."  And in regard to that, do you have a citation from a reliable source which says that it was a customs territory and not a protectorate? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "A protectorate, in the context of international relations, is a state that is under protection by another state for defence against aggression and other violations of law", so for you was the Saarland a state (even de facto) in 1946? Hammermann75 (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Other language versions, including German, say 1947. Hammermann75 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, what are your citations from reliable sources to support your contentions? You're new, so you may not be aware that all information added to Wikipedia must be verifiable, and unsourced information may be removed at any time -- and may not be restored unless accompanied by a citation from a reliable source. I suggest you read these policies, and the other onces which I have made you aware of on your talk page. I think one of the reasons you have been able to rack up 1,000 edits in a mere week is that you have not been citing sources, which takes time and effort. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * BTW, WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So do you have a source to prove it was a protectorate on February 16, 1946? You rely on the previous version; not as attached to Wikipedia as you are and the dogmatism and lack of judgment here makes Wikipedia contain false information..., and I don't want to argue as useless and costly here as in that situation, bye. Hammermann75 (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not "dogmatism" to insist that Wikipedia policies be followed. The WP:ONUS to change the article's WP:STATUSQUO is on you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Still a deficient map
It's improved from the 2011 map (Europe with the Saar as a dot), but the map that is used in 2023 is not ideal. The French occupied zone is much more prominent, both in size and colour, and could be mistaken as being the Saar itself, the article topic.

 * File:Deutschland Besatzungszonen 8 Jun 1947 - 22 Apr 1949 franzoesisch.svg

That map, without a key, appears in internet searches and so on, and will mislead some users as to the Saar's size. The French zone is certainly relevant here, and that map should be used to display it, but further down in the article.

The best for the Infobox would be a map where the Saar location is unmistakeable - like this one, but with historical borders not modern ones:

 * File:Locator map Saarland in Germany.svg

But such a map doesn't exist on Wikipedia yet. I'm happy to make one but may take a while. The other languages' Wikis, if you look there, have used a couple of multi-coloured maps of post-war Germany, which aren't bad, but again don't clearly reflect the topic of this article.

1RightSider (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Ah, here we are: I'll be happy to base the map upon this blank Germany map of the 1947-1949 boundaries. Or someone else can, if wanted.
 * File:Germany location map 8 Jun 1947 - 22 Apr 1949.svg
 * 1RightSider (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

New map: Have added this one to Wikimedia Commons and the infobox, based on TUBS's extensive maps from the era -- this should be an improvement for the introduction, at least, and give more clarity as to the location and geography of the Protectorate circa 1947.

 * File:Saar Protectorate Germany location map 8 Jun 1947 - 22 Apr 1949.png

1RightSider (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Saar Protectorate