text:
User talk:Oolong

I’m curious as to the development of aba not taking into account their patients long term and short term effects. The fact that autistic adults are screaming this is an abusive dog therapy designed by a perverted ableist doctor falling on deaf ears as more parents are shuffled into this miracle 17.5 billion industry. I hope you include the many articles written by autistic adults and attorneys about the harms of ABA and manage to include them in your synopsis of ABA so that all facts can be viewed and it would also help future consumers if the Dr who designed aba background wasn’t white washed, guy was a sexual predator who abused animals and designed therapy by abusing kids in the same way he did dogs. If your gonna be thorough please cover all sides

 * Oh hi, anonymous visitor! I think it's safe to say there is quite a bit of work still to do before the ABA entry is anywhere close to fairly balancing the views of autistic people, who are overwhelmingly opposed, with the views of people who do ABA for a living, who are of course broadly in favour.

 * It's a tricky thing to navigate, because as you probably know, Wikipedia is theoretically written from a Neutral Point of View, and all potentially controversial statements need to be backed up by reliable sources. So we can't just go in and edit the ABA entry to say something like 'this is a set of abusive practices, backed up by terrible-quality science and heavily promoted by people making enormous profits from it'; it's necessary to represent all sides of each debate as fairly as possible, using information from published sources - newspapers and books can work, but peer-reviewed research is particularly helpful, and even more particularly secondary medical literature, where relevant. Annoyingly, but not entirely unreasonably, that means the vast majority of writing by autistic people is not really citable here; for the most part, we're looking for things that have gone out through reputable publishers, and autistic people are still systematically under-represented in formally published literature on autism. --Oolong (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Edinburgh International Festival
See discussion for further observations on the topic of whether the links for threeweeks and Fest should be there or not. BAK 09:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Buffalo
Brilliant explanation. Thank you. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

William McGonagall: slightly less awkward phrasing
I did chuckle at your comment on your edit of William McGonagall! -- Jmc (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Autism spectrum article: changes needed
As per 's suggestion under Talk:Autism spectrum, I wanted to start a list of things that need changing on the Autism spectrum page. I'm dealing with a hostile editor threatening to revert any changes I make, so proceeding cautiously here. I will move this list to the main Talk page when it's ready.

"Autistic" redirects here. Not to be confused with Autism.
It doesn't make sense to suggest that people might confuse this with autism. Either 'autism' refers to the exact same thing, or (historically) it refers to a sub-category of ASD.

The autism spectrum is an umbrella term...
This first paragraph should start by explaining what the term means in broad strokes, before introducing the other names it is known by (including 'autism') and explaining what is meant by a 'spectrum' (the existing explanation is unclear, and reads like it may have made a bit more sense before some earlier text was rewritten). As an opening paragraph, this is considerably longer than it should be. There should be a brief account of the previously separate diagnoses that were collapsed into this in DSM-5 and ICD-11, and how the new manuals divide the ASD category, but I think this warrants its own paragraph.

Symptoms can be detected before the age of two
There was a requirement of 'onset prior to age 3 years' for a diagnosis of 'autistic disorder' in DSM-IV, but not for Autism Spectrum Disorders more broadly, and the requirement seems to be entirely absent from DSM-5. The uncited claim that 'experienced practitioners can give a reliable diagnosis' is obviously wrong in many cases.

The causes of autism spectrum conditions remain uncertain
They really, really do, and I don't think it's helpful to have a substantial paragraph on this before we get to the Contents table. This should be fully dealt with in the separate section below; a single sentence in the introductory sentence would be sufficient.

Diagnosis is based on observation of behavior and development
Is this the right place for this? It's quite detailed when it comes to childhood diagnoses, and I'm fairly sure many of those details will vary from country to country, which is not made clear here.

Autistic spectrum disorder is considered a lifelong condition with no simple test or cure
This paragraph relatively solid, although again I'm not sure this level of detail belongs in the opening section. If we're talking about cures, it's probably worth mentioning that as far as the best evidence we have goes, most autistic people don't want one; or, given that this question hasn't been researched as much as it should be, at least that many autistic people have said they wouldn't want to be cured. I don't think the sentence on research that has 'pointed to the reversibility of phenotypes' belongs here; this is a very strong claim, and would require strong evidence.

The reported prevalence of ASD worldwide is variable
This should be dealt with in a section on prevalence, and expand considerably on the fact that 'Apparent increases in the prevalence of ASD have been attributed to changes in reporting practices': there is an important and dangerous misconception that actual prevalence has skyrocketed, and it deserves to be addressed seriously.

Advocacy groups have emerged, some as part of the autism rights movement
A bit odd to mention the autism rights movement (autistic rights movement) but not the huge charities set up by parents, given that the rest of the paragraph is talking at least as much about the big charities. A casual reader might get the very wrong idea that parts of the autistic rights movement promote drug treatment, biogenetic research, behavioural therapy, and 'beliefs about envirotoxins', when these are all things that have been largely opposed (or at least selectively resisted) by autistic-led organisations. I'm amused by how obviously this sentence was written by someone with an axe to grind: "Critics, including those on the spectrum, have bemoaned the entrenchment of some groups' opinions". Also, that Washington Post article is really misleading. Someone ought to take a careful look at the other links too, at some point.

Contents
Six screens down! Still, better late than never.

Classification
On a skim read, this bit looks reasonably solid. Someone's made a valiant effort to condense the latest diagnostic manuals into 2-3 paragraphs each!

We might want to lose 'Further information: Autism § Classification' which starts 'Autism is one of the five pervasive developmental disorders (PDD)'. Historical information like that obviously needs to be marked as such, and anyway this is the kind of needless redundancy that makes duplication of pages like this such a chore.

Signs and symptoms
This is obviously written from a 100% medical lens, with little regard for the perspective of autistic people, which I flag up here as something worth thinking about critically. I acknowledge that there are challenges to maintaining NPOV while respecting subjective experiences, and ASD is of course a clinical diagnosis, and in some sense that is our focus here. So I'm not proposing any changes here except for the following:

people with ASD can exhibit notable ability
If we're bringing this up, we ought to talk about 'spiky skills profiles' more broadly, and possibly 'splinter skills'. Depending on what you think counts as a 'notable ability', I'm not sure that only a small percentage of autistic people have them. But then, a lot of people have one or more notable abilities! Especially people with intense interests.

There are two possible developmental courses of ASD
Exactly two? Really? This seems a bold claim. This next one is less tenuous, but it's pre-DSM-5, with much of the data cited being much older still; I'd want to know if it holds up at all since they removed the strict requirement for signs to be evident before the age of 3: 'Most parents report that the onset of autism symptoms occur within the first year of life.'

Regressive autism
There's a paragraph on 'regressive autism' before the section on it starts, presumably missed in the recent merger. We have five paragraphs on this, but they say surprisingly little of real substance. No mention is made of autistic burnout (c.f. Raymaker et al), or other examples of the occasional loss of abilities reported by many autistic adults. No kind of explanation is pointed to at all, really; I know of several proposed mechanisms, but this is obviously not an area that has seen conclusive research. My sense is that this material should be cut down and/or moved out of 'Signs and symptoms' into its own, subsequent section. This is a lot of detail, and we haven't even got to 'social skills' yet.

Social and communication skills
The 'double empathy problem' should be brought in right at the start here; there's plenty of evidence at this point that it's misleading at best to suggest that 'Impairments in social skills present many challenges'. c.f. CJ Crompton, K DeBrabander, B Heasman (2021) and DEM Milton (2012), as well as Crompton et al (2020) and MA Gernsbacher, M Yergeau (2019). In short, the assumption that the social difficulties autistic people experience are the result of deficits in the person is not supported by the available evidence. This section should be rewritten to account for this new evidence and long-standing methodological critique; the current framing is not scientifically supported.

Behavioural characteristics
Many of these are not behavioural characteristics. 'They may develop these difficulties of creating connections due to anxiety or depression' is an interesting suggestion, why not the other way round? Seems simplistic.

I don't think 'abnormal responses to sensations including sights, sounds, touch, taste and smell' stands up as a behavioural characteristic when the sensations themselves, and the way they're processed, are different.

The second core symptom of autism spectrum
Probably best to mention what the first one is supposed to be before getting on to this. This section as a whole could be better structured.

Self-injury
I'm not convinced this belongs under 'signs and symptoms' at all. It's also currently full of inadequately sourced claims, and doesn't explicitly make the obvious links with stimming, with meltdowns, or with distress, aside from chronic pain. In fact, there seems to be no mention of autistic people's distress anywhere in this article, in so many words, which is... interesting. There's only one mention, in passing, of meltdowns. Nothing on shutdowns, catatonia or even inertia, either.

If we're going to have a section on self-injury, can we make sure not portray it as if it's just a thing that happens sometimes when you're autistic? That's harmful. It's important that people at least try to understand the reasons.

Causes of autism
I question the need for four screenfuls on causes when there is also a separate entry on this, and when we could pretty much summarise the state of scientific knowledge of causes as 'it seems to be overwhelmingly genetic, but highly polygenic, and there is ambiguous evidence for a large number of possible environmental factors. It's definitely not vaccines though, this is conclusive.'

Most of the studies on so-called 'risk factors' fail to account for likely confounding factors, notoriously the high likelihood that parents are autistic themselves (but frequently undiagnosed) and being autistic causes environmental factors. As discussed elsewhere, autistic people are far more likely to be unemployed and isolated, for example. There is no point citing any studies on risk factors unless they have carefully accounted for this kind of thing (and preferably been independently replicated).

Pathophysiology
I'm not going to go into this, but I think it could benefit from the attention of someone with a critical eye and limited patience for preliminary findings.

Mirror neurons
I think this one's been directly refuted in the 13 years since the most recent cited study on it. Possibly of interest in a history of science kind of way, but maybe not worth a paragraph here.

As of 2012, there is a consensus
How strong was this consensus? How strong is it now? The citation given doesn't mention a consensus. The abstract says 'We suggest that the social brain, and its dysfunction and recovery, must be understood not in terms of specific structures, but rather in terms of their interaction in large-scale networks'.

Temporal lobe
'It has been argued' ... 'one fMRI study' ...does this warrant a paragraph? There are a lot of other things we could be learning about here. Similarly 'ASD could be linked to mitochondrial disease'... is it, though? If so, how? Is 5% of autistic kids meeting the criteria a lot? If it is, what does that tell us?

Serotonin
Interesting stuff, but still seems to be super speculative. Entry claims '45% of ASD individuals have been found to have increased blood serotonin levels' but study actually states up to 45%. Mulder et al. (2004) suggested 'at least 25%'.

That's it for now.

Hello! (For Neurodiversity Workings in WM-UK)
Great to see you here! Now I, 3Oceans, and m:Wikimedia Korea(WM-KR) are preparing Neurodiversity Editathon(Off/Online Event of editing Wikipedia). I hope the initiative becomes international: so it would be helpful to make the foundation admit they have eliminated Autistics from participating for the sum of the knowledge. Can you encourage workers in Wikimedia UK(WM-UK), to making the initiative to cooperate with Autistic editors / Autistics and wikimedia community in Scotland, England, or Ireland? I think AMASE/ARGH can make this. - Ellif (Talk) 12:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

AS
I will say this for the last time: when you are reverted, do NOT revert back and take it to the talk page per WP:BRD. It doesn't matter if you're right or not, I gave a rationale and you have to discuss it on the talk page. It is clear and simple; end of story. Again, I do not oppose your edits, but they have to be supplemented by reliable sources, which you at least thankfully did eventually. If you keep edit warring like this in the future, I will have to unfortunately report you to WP:AN/E. Please understand the importance of WP:RS and updating info only if the sources are updated too. Wretchskull (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 * As previously discussed, if you simply abided by Revert only when necessary, this would never come up. You are supposed to 'revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration', 'when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement'. 'For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse.'
 * Simply apply these tests before you revert people's good faith edits, and we won't have this kind of conflict.
 * In this particular case, your reversion was to change an entry about a condition that no longer appears in any diagnostic manuals to put it back into the present tense. Your stated rationale was simply 'not supported by source'. This is nonsense. You need to provide a valid rationale if you expect people not to revert.
 * No, not every edit has to be 'supplemented by reliable sources'. That is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. You need to understand When to cite. Specifically, 'anything likely to incur a reasonable challenge should be sourced to avoid disputes and to aid readers'. If it is not open to a reasonable challenge, it does not require a citation. The importance of Reliable sources is that 'Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered'. The point of Identifying reliable sources (medicine) in particular is that 'Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge'. That means removing or updating claims that are no longer supported by reliable, third-party published secondary sources.
 * Perhaps you have noticed that Asperger syndrome has had an uncontested hat-note for the last couple of months, reading 'This article needs to be updated. The reason given is: some parts of the article do not accurately reflect either the new DSM-5 or ICD-11 criteria. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.' You are doing the precise opposite of that by incorrectly reverting updates to the page.
 * And no, the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle does not require us to go to the Talk page in every instance; the guidance is quite explicit that there are alternative, valid approaches. Here I followed bold, revert, revert. In this case, the reversion was made by someone with a history of poorly-justified reversions, a habit of misrepresenting the content of sources, and a tendency to completely ignore valid points made in Talk. Speaking of which, since you still haven't addressed it on the relevant Talk page, why did you delete @Eco-Climber's comment there?
 * You do not get to pretend like you are following Wikipedia guidelines on all this and I am not. Oolong (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with this reply is you seem to completely contradict yourself multiple times. First of all, I did provide a valid rationale: the addition wasn't supported by any source. You MUST update the sources when updating information as well. You cannot, for example, update the number of individuals with a certain condition without updating the source itself, which only display the previous figures. Same thing applies here. Second, this is a large claim about the disorder, so it should absolutely be referenced. Third of all, "a history of poorly-justified reversions" is not assuming good faith, as I made it very clear to your that I do not oppose your edits and that I only reverted when necessary, and each one was. It was absolutely justified, so you didn't abide by either WP:BRD or WP:GF. Regardless mate, I'd love to just quash the animosity and move on. I'm sure you find this as tiresome and unnecessary as I find it. Wretchskull (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi again, there is no contradiction at all. I'm tired and irritable, so I'm going to be civil here, but not gentle.
 * You didn't provide a valid rationale. As I said in my comment above, you put a statement about something that no longer appears in any diagnostic manuals back into the present tense. Of course that's supported by sources. It's no longer in any diagnostic manuals, a fact for which ample sources have been supplied.
 * It is not 'a large claim about the disorder'. If accurate sources fifteen years ago were describing AS a certain way, but it's established AS is no longer considered a separate thing by any reliable source, it follows inexorably that it is now accurate to say, of what those sources say, that AS 'was said to be' such and such. It should also be obvious that it is now misleading, at best, to talk about AS in the present tense.
 * My comments about poorly justified revisions etc. are not an accusation of bad faith. They are an entirely factual account of why I would much prefer to avoid trying to engage with you on talk pages. I am agnostic about the reasons why you have been behaving like this. However, I see no reason to expect different, given that you haven't addressed any of these problems to date. You haven't so much as gone back and posted 'oh, no, you're right, now that I actually read these citations I posted, I can see that they show the opposite of what I previously claimed.'
 * You are correct that I find this animosity tiresome. 'Tiresome' is a mild word for it, frankly. It is unnecessary, yes, in the sense that none of your reversions have been necessary. I'm strongly in favour of moving on: I think I have have explained what is required; you can think through any future edits on these topics, especially any reversions, and provide actually valid rationales for them; or you can simply not make such edits. Oolong (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Your edit summary for Revision 1095491344 on Neurodiversity
Heya! I was reading your edit summary for this revision of the article Neurodiversity. I agree with your edit; the art should not have been deleted. However, I take particular issue with your edit summary:

"The image description makes clear that its intent matches the description. The user responsible is autistic, as per their profile. Undid revision 1095474172 by 92.1.144.176"

It seems as if you're attacking the user and deeming them as autistic in an attempt to degrade their character, and you really shouldn't be attacking others in this manner. We have an entire policy (WP:NPA) on not personally attacking people. Please don't attack others like this, even if you're in a dispute with them. It degrades your own professionalism and damages the reputation of the person you attack, but yours' more tenfold.

I understand this isn't necessarily normal stuff, but I'm personally a huge proponent of remaining professional and/or civil on Wikipedia. Avoid personal attacks at all costs. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

 * No! Goodness,, it hadn't occurred to me it could be read that way. I'm autistic myself. I was pointing out that the user who made the graphic is too, because a previous edit had denied that it was autistic-made. Oolong (talk) 10:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:Cassie Schebel submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * I nominate Oolong to be this weeks Editor of the Week for the frequent and quality additions on pages related to the topic of Autism. That article and others, such as, Autism Spectrum, Applied behavior analysis, Neurodiversity, and Asperger syndrome have all been vastly improved by their edits. They have been a Wikipedian since 2005 with over one thousand edits, with an average size of almost 250 bytes. Only 23 of these edits are currently deleted.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! ― Buster7  ☎   12:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Hey, I don't think I ever said thanks, especially to @Cassie Schebel. Thank you! Oolong (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just doing my part to make sure the hard work behind Wikipedia is appreciated <3 Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Peace Dove
Happy Holidays. ― Buster7  ☎   07:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions
Hi @Oolong I read your articles and I was thrilled. I have just started my account in Wikipedia but I don't find any topic worth interesting for editing. What should I Do? Ellenmarker (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Oolong


text:
Cacapon Mountain

Cacapon Mountain runs northwest through Morgan and Hampshire counties in West Virginia's Eastern Panhandle, rising to its greatest elevation of 2618 ft above sea-level at High Point. Cacapon Mountain is a folded mountain ridge, belonging to the Appalachian Ridge and Valley Province. Cacapon Mountain spans 16 miles (26 km) NNE to the Potomac River near Great Cacapon.

From its southern point, Cacapon Mountain rises from the landscape north of Bloomery in northeastern Hampshire County. The mountain's western flank forms a series of steep hollows such as Horsebone Hollow and the hollow that bears Falling Spring Run. Beyond these hollows lies the Cacapon River which parallels the Cacapon Mountain until it joins the Potomac River. Between Bloomery and the Morgan County line, Cacapon Mountain forms the border between Hampshire and Frederick County in Virginia. While in Morgan County, the majority of Cacapon Mountain lies in Cacapon Resort State Park. The mountain forms a series of warm springs that flow from the Devonian Oriskany (Ridgeley) sandstone along the eastern flank of its anticline such as those at Berkeley Springs. Cacapon Mountain's northern end is located at the scenic Panorama Overlook off West Virginia Route 9 that overlooks three states and the confluence of the Cacapon and Potomac Rivers.

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

title: Cacapon Mountain


text:
Talk:Kythira

Kythira and Attica
It would be interesting to know why Kythira is part of the periphery of Attica, despite being physically distant from the rest of it. --Jfruh 00:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Cythera and Piraeus
Because of naval-connection with harbor of Piraeus, in Attica.

Laconia is a agricultural district.

Note: Cythera (or preciously, Cythêra) but not Kythira.

--IonnKorr 15:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Spelling of name
Google shows 139,000 times Kythera and 412,000 times Kythira.Andreas 20:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

-

The reason Kythira is the predominant spelling is because this is the official transliteration from modern hellenic characters (Κύθηρα) to latin characters according to ELOT (ΕΛΟΤ, Ελληνικός όργανισμός τυποποίησης, Hellenic Organisation for Standardisation, the ANSI equivalent of Greece). As the de facto authority on Hellenic->Latin transliteration, the ELOT standard is actually adopted by the UN. While the word Kythira is hellenic and the transliteration standard is clear with regards to its spelling in a latin alphabet, it's prior use by non-Hellenes has established Cythère, Cythera, Kythera as common alternatives in the Western world. I would not go as far as calling any of the above spellings wrong, although the official spelling in use by the Hellenic Government and the International Organisations when referring to the island in latin is Kythira, not any of the others.

I recommend moving the article back to Kythira as per the proposal found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Greek)#Proposal:_UN.2FELOT regarding the transliteration of Hellenic.

Cosmix 18:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

 * According to Naming conventions (Greek), the name would be "Cythera" if we treat it as an Ancient Greek site, and "Kythira" if we treat it as Modern Greek. Most of the article is about the present island, so that would favour using "Kythira". Google search (with "Greece" included in order to exclude false hits, only English, no wikipedia): Kythira 184k, Kythera 57k, Cythera 27k, Kithira 56k. I admit it's a rough search, but the difference is large enough to say that Kythira is the most used version in English. I'll move it back to Kythira. Markussep 14:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

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

Page moved to Cythera (island). While there was consensus to move, this was not a multimove and replacing a dab page requires more discussion. So it this can be demonstrated as the primary topic, a new multimove should be listed at WP:RM. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Kythira → Cythera – per WP:COMMONNAME & WP:USEENGLISH.

Cythera is not only one of the historical names, but also today's common name of this island in English language like Cologne, Munich, Prague, Turin, Milan, Corfu, Cephalonia etc.

According to Books Ngram Viewer, Cythera is most common in English sources (1. Cythera > 2. Kythera > 3. Kythira > 4. Kithira) -- Takabeg (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Strongly support. Much of the reference to the island, under any spelling, is to its cultural and mythological meaninng, as in the Embarkation to Cythera of Watteau, right. In this function, it is called Cythera, rarely Kythera, not the present title; this should be much expanded, (as should the island's history). Rather than picking one of the several systems of transliterating Demotic, we should reassure those readers that they are at the right article. If the article concerns a concept that is significant in the Hellenistic period or before (i.e. would merit its own article even if the modern concept did not), use the archaic spelling. This is particularly intended for place-names. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Against. In modern English I always found "Kythira" for the island. All web pages in English about tourism, weather forecast, maps and so on about the island use the spelling with the "k". Moreover would the association with "Antikythera" where the Antikythera mechanism was found little sense. That a French painter at the end of the 17th century used Chytere is not pertinent. First is the correct spelling in French (with no alternative version starting with "k") and secondly, well, this is the English Wikipedia. --Dia^ (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The French for Cythera is fr: Cythère, which I would also oppose; but that is not what is suggested. Neither Nancy Williard's Sailing to Cythera or Ken Ireland's Cythera Regained? are in French; I could go on citing WorldCat's titles in English, of which there are over a hundred. By contrast, of the eighteen titles using Kythira, a large number are roadmaps and guidebooks, which Wikipedia does not follow; as our guideline says: When a guidebook or roadmap written in English shows an autobahn between München and Nürnberg, it is attesting to local usage, because that is what the signs on the autobahn will say; Munich and Nuremberg are still the English names.    Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maps were just one of my examples. If you are looking for books about the island, the spelling is always "Kythira". I you are looking for literary or music works, than the spelling is "Cythera". To compare it with you example with Milan, Munich and so on, all the books about these towns are with the English spelling. --Dia^ (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually looking for books on Cythera turns out differently.
 * When I looked for books on the island, in English, in major catalogues, I found four books by Byzantinists, which  used Kythera (not Kythira), such as  Gillian Ince's Paliochora on Kythera: survey and interpretation : studies in medieval and post-medieval settlements; but one expects them to spell that way.  These are the only whole books in English, guidebooks aside, on the island; it was neither an ancient city-state, nor densely populated in modern times.
 * Looking for books which mention it (again, not guidebooks) I found a good many books that use Cythera; as with Michael Whitby's Sparta, (2002) or Melville-Jones's Venice and Thessalonica (2009). Conversely, there are English guidebooks (i've seen them), titled München, as there are guidebooks that use Kythira. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mhmm...I wonder where you have been looking...In amazon.com searching for "Kythira" you get:
 * 'Kythira Sights: a travel guide to the top attractions and beaches in Kythira Island, Greece' (2011)
 * 'The Greek Experience Book of Walking on Kythira' (1999)
 * 'Walking in Kythira' (2002)
 * 'KYTHIRA - HISTORICAL AND TOURIST GUIDE (KYTHIRAIKA)' (2000)
 * 'Saronic Gulf Islands and Kythira (Lascelles Greek Island guides)' (1988)
 * 'Lonely Planet Greek Islands (Regional Travel Guide)' (2010)
 * 'Lonely Planet Corfu & the Ionians' (2002)
 * For "Cythera" you get:
 * 'News from New Cythera: A Report of Bougainville's Voyage, 1766-1769' (1970)
 * 'Attrazione D'Amore/Voyage to Cythera' (2005)
 * 'Sailing to Cythera: And Other Anatole Stories' (2008)
 * 'Voyage to Cythera'
 * 'Embarking for Cythera Study Score'
 * 'The Four Slaves of Cythera (Romantic Content : Poetry : Significant Minor Poetry 1789-1830)' (1978)
 * 'Cythera' (novel) (1998)
 * 'farewell to cythera'
 * 'Cythera Regained: The Rococo Revival in European Literature And the Arts, 1830-1910' (2006)
 * So zero travel book titled "Cythera". Moreover with your chosen example, searching for "München" again in amazon.com, under "Travels", the first 5 books are in German, that follow 9 travel book in English that bear "Munich" in the title (Lonley Planet Guides included).--Dia^ (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Precisely. We are not compiling a travel book. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. This is English Wikipedia, and most English sources refer to Cythera, including most scholarly and historical works.  It's the form that'll be the most familiar to English speakers.  Since Greek has no "C" and Latin renders "Kappa" as either "C" or "Ch", Cythera is how the name Κυθηρα would be properly transliterated.  The tendency to transliterate Kappa only as "K" seems to be a modern convention, and if Modern Greek now prefers to transliterate Eta as "I", the letter is still literally a long "E" and has always been transliterated that way into English.  That's why the English form predominates in English sources.

 * That said, the opening line should make clear what both the ancient and modern Greek forms are, both in Greek and transliterated into English. I suggest something along the lines of: "Cythera (Greek Κύθηρα, modern Kythira) is one of the Ionian Islands of Greece ."  That seems less awkward than the present sentence, which links to "Island" and provides the Italian name, which, while relevant to the article, doesn't need to be listed in the opening sentence.  A list of forms of the name in other languages or alternate transliterations might be appropriate toward the end of the article.  P Aculeius (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But Cerigo is used (like Candia or Negroponte or Smyrna) in appropriate historic contexts, so it is something more than an interwiki link. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Support. Our article title policy requires the prevalent English usage, and there is no contest: it's "Cythera." I believe it's clear that the claim above, "In modern English I always found 'Kythira'," could not be made by anyone who read or surveyed very much of what is written in modern English about the place. Google Books has 63900 occurences of Cythera to 3720 of Kythira; the JSTOR repository of scholarly journal articles has 867:34. And other major languages use other spellings, so that we can be assured that the vast majority of hits for "Cythera" are in English. I can't find a case on the other side. Wareh (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing is, that when a word like "Cythera" has been extensively used in literature for his mythological meaning - or just even its "aura" (see the list I posted above), that has little to do with the island itself, and you do a simple search, you are bound to get overwhelming results for that word. That doesn't mean necessary that these articles refer to the island and not maybe to the paintings, music pieces, novels, ships, short stories, planet Venus and so on. Doing a Google book search ordered for publication date, seems that "Cythera" was the old spelling, slowly being replaced by "Kythira", but as I pointed out before, it doesn't really say what the works were about. For Wikipedia users, namespace "Kythira" gets on average 120 hits a day (higher in the summer months seems to me, but I haven't really calculated the differences), "Cythera" 46.--Dia^ (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I just searched in JSTOR, so, not only scholar works and no common amazon books, here the results: for "Cythera":
 * 1) about Watteau's painting
 * 2) about poetry
 * 3) a review about a film
 * 4) another article about Watteau's painting
 * 5) a third article about Watteau's painting
 * 6) a forth article about Watteau's painting
 * 7) a fifth article about Watteau's painting
 * 8) article about poetry
 * 9) another article about poetry
 * 10) "Embarking for Cythera"
 * 11) "The Embarkation for Cythera"
 * 12) "The Embarkation for Cythera" (another article)
 * 13) first hit actually about the island
 * 14) poem (Pushkin's)
 * 15) Charles Baudelaire's poem
 * 16) Mythology
 * 17) again about Watteau's painting
 * 18) a review or a German book possibly about Watteau's painting
 * 19) second hit about the island (a bishop born on the island in 17th century)
 * 20) a review of a book about Antoine de Bougainville
 * 21) another hit about important person from the island (Philoxenus)
 * 22) Review about a book on Russian cultural history in 18th century.
 * 23) an article about Hypnerotomachia Poliphili
 * 24) again about Watteau
 * 25) third hit about the island
 * 26) French Libertine Movement

Compare that with "Kythira":
 * 1) Archaeology, about the island
 * 2) Review German book about archaeology on the island
 * 3) Archaeology, about the island
 * 4) Botany, article about the island
 * 5) Zoology, article about the island
 * 6) Botany, article about the island
 * 7) Botany, article about the island (German)
 * 8) Botany, article about the island
 * 9) British School at Athens
 * 10) Taxonomy, article about the island
 * 11) Geography, article about the island
 * 12) Greek Folk Dance Music about the island
 * 13) Botany, article about the island
 * 14) Archaeology, about the island
 * 15) Botany, article about the island (German)
 * 16) Geology, article about the island
 * 17) Taxonomy, article about the island
 * 18) History, article about the island
 * 19) Geography, article about the island(German)
 * 20) Agriculture, article about the island
 * 21) History, article about the island (French)
 * 22) Biogeography, article about the island
 * 23) Biogeography, article about the island (again)

It seems clear, that if one exclude all the results that "Kythira" is the term used in all scholar works that are not about Watteau's or Baudelaire's works.--Dia^ (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What Dia does not mention is that Kythira only appears in 33 JSTOR articles; Kythera in 764; Cythera in 840. Kythera (with an e for eta) would be the second most acceptable form, although it is not our usual practice - its frequency in JSTOR is in part produced by its appearances in German articles, which transliterate Greek differently; Cythera is more recognizable and less pedantic. In short, Dia is quoting almost all the evidence for his choice; almost none of the evidence for actual English usage.

 * However, even we did not count the appearance of the island in modern European culture (which there is absolutely no reason to omit), Cythera still has 240 hits. (JSTOR subscription required). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Just to dispel any doubt: I didn't "choose". I just looked behind the numbers in the first page for both spellings. Not to mention again, that for English speaking tourists is apparently "Kythira" the "spelling of choice". That modern tourist guides are pedantic, is news to me. As you wrote in your first post here, if one is looking for "its cultural and mythological meaninng" than the spelling of choice is "Cythera", if one is looking for the spelling for the island (and this IS the article about the island) than the preferred spelling should be "Kythira". I think I've already proposed it, but I do it again, why not have two articles linked together in the hatnote? Or even in the lead section if preferred. One for the island and one about the island in its cultural and mythological meaning (especially in Europe in 1800). We have already Cytherean. By the way, for a laugh, I just discovered that there is a Cytherian too (°_°) LOL! --Dia^ (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This article should cover all aspects of its subject; other geographical articles do - and there is no reason this should not. The cult of Aphrodite Ourania on Cythera is part of its history: one of the chief reasons for concluding that there was a Phoenician settlement.

 * Even it were covering the hunk of rock south of Laconia without dealing with art or mythology, Cythera and Kythera are both more common than Kythira, which represents neither ancient nor modern Greek (in the former, the second vowel is an e; in the latter, the first two syllables have the same vowel). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, "Kythira" does correctly represent Modern Greek, insofar as it follows the UN-ELOT norm of transliteration (see Romanization of Greek), which is the standard we typically use per WP:GREEK. No comment at this point on whether "Cythera" qualifies as "common English usage" orverriding this standard transliteration. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Leave it to the UN to choose a system which reflects neither the pronunciation nor the spelling of Demotic, but wavers in between, dreaming of both.

 * Cythera doesn't have to "override" WP:GREEK; consider the section on Words appearing in both Modern and Ancient Greek. Articles, especially geographical articles, which deal with places which are as important in classical antiquity as they are now, use the classical transliteration - for precisely this reason, that it will be better known. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Support, and move the DAB to Cythera (disambiguation). When the evidence above is purged of non-English sources, it favours the Cythera spelling. Andrewa (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move Feb 2014

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

The result of the move request was: moved to Kythira. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Cythera (island) → Cythera
 * Cythera → Cythera (disambiguation) (added 14:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC))

– This would also affect Category:Kythira and Category:People from Kythira. Per the previous RM, right above, on the form of the name (Latinized or transliterated); per the fact that the island came first and is inherently more important than all the other instances at Cythera (disambiguation) that derive from it; per the fact that the island page is visited many more times than the video game, US patrol boat, novel, or yacht combined; per even the most perfunctory search in Google that makes clear that "Cythera" or derivatives like "Voyage to Cythera" refer to the island first and foremost. This so clear-cut a case I am surprised a new RM is even considered necessary. --Relisted. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC) --Constantine   ✍  12:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment it's strange that we have this and Antikythera — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.175.135 (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree it is rather weird. For some reason, while Cythera is more used, Antikythera seems to be the preferred form. I too would prefer consistency, but unless other people comment here so some consensus can be displayed, the move could easily be reversed on technicalities. Constantine  ✍  07:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Comment: I have added Cythera → Cythera (disambiguation) to the nomination, as this nomination was not initially made as a multi-move as required by the closer of the previous RM above. I suggest that this discussion be extended accordingly. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support a move; preferrably to Kythira. I've read the previous RM discussion, but I find it rather backwards. Even if we take for granted that Cythera is more common spelling than Kythira, a) it's arguable if it's true in modern context, as there's a general trend in usage towards endonyms/transliterations over historical spellings and b) It created an ambiguity resolved by a supervote from closer, and badly at that. Title Kythira would come as a WP:NATURALDAB, and allow a decision whether we should have a redirect or dab page at Cythera. No such user (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support a move; preferrably to Kythira. - the above RM was completely wrong-headed, several of the users arguing "This is the English Wikipedia" were making arguments closer to "This is the Napoleonic Wikipedia". The island in 2014 is Kythiria in English. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kythira. 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/20150921212047/http://dlib.statistics.gr/Book/GRESYE_02_0101_00098%20.pdf to http://dlib.statistics.gr/Book/GRESYE_02_0101_00098%20.pdf

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) 09:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hospital
Too much emphasis is given to the old hospital.The new general hospital which includes all medical and domestic facilities is almost neglected. The new excellent hospital was built with a perfect design made by Depanom, and the financial aid of the European community.The Greeks usually neglect the people who helped them and the new hospital is mentioned only as a note. This is outside the standards and recommendations of Wikipedia. Delete the paragraph of the hospital,or describe the history and the facilities of the new hospital. Jestmoon(talk) 09:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kythira


text:
User talk:IntoTheNIGHT

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:
 * Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset.
 * Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style.
 * Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
 * Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
 * Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
 * Use the Show preview button
 * Provide an Edit summary
 * Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
 * Create a User page
 * Be bold
 * Ignore all rules

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the  link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alphax τεχ 01:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.. (Especially forums that aren't actually there yet). -- Syrthiss 18:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:IntoTheNIGHT


text:
Talk:Duff's device

Code Example modified
I used a define to specify an imaginary IO port as in Duff's original prog quoted in DrDobbs Journal cited above. Using the construct **to = **from++

looks too much like the many memory copy related routines where "**to" is a variable pointer pointer to a destination in memory that would need to be incremented. Indeed, I looked at the sources on this page and tried to write an example program that showed the behavior (and didn't increment the destination pointer resulting in the example not working. As such, it was a confusing example that hid the way duff's algorithm actually worked.

The central point of this article should be the focus on combinining the switch and loop constructs into 1 entity -- the fact that Duff's code needed to specifically write to a contant Hardware address was secondary.

Additionally, parameterizing the "to" destination also makes it seem like the destination should be parameterized, when in fact, it would be a specific, HARD-CODED address in memory that wouldn't change for the life of the HARDWARE.

Calling a routine "sendto_" makes it even more clear that this specific implementation was for a specific piece of HW, and not a general purpose example. (Astara Athenea (talk))

 * It does not matter what you think about Duff's device. This article is about a piece of code written more than 30 years ago and you are not supposed to change (and thus utterly ruin) Wikipedia's description of that code. Please revert your changes ASAP. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 * But the example that was presented wasn't what Duff wrote. If you follow the references -- especially the one to Dr. Dobbs Journal, you'll see that his original example used an "ALLCAPS" constant for the name of the IO_PORT, not "*to".  If you want it to be historically accurate, the ALLCAPS version specifying an I/O port is closer.  If you want the exact text, you can copy it from the Dr. Dobbs article -- that's fine with me if it is fine with Wikipedia standards.  However, the article is talking about "Duff's Device" -- not Duff's program, or Duff's code, but the "Device" of overlaying the switch statement on top of a loop as a compact, though unusual way to perform strength reduction.  In that light, it would make more sense to show an example in the context of what "C programmers" would commonly understand and deal with -- like copying memory from 1 location to another using the 1st change I inadvertently proposed using "*to++ = *from++".  That didn't highlight his usage of using an ALLCAPS "#define" constant for the "to" destination.  I did my homework -- his original program can be seen @ http://www.drdobbs.com/a-reusable-duff-device/184406208 .  He later wrote up is device and presented it to bell labs in this (http://doc.cat-v.org/bell_labs/duffs_device) paper.  NOTE, he says the algorithm on the 2nd source is an ***abstract***.  It's not the one that he originally used as the wikipedia article seems to indicate.  Please read both sources and note which claims to be the original and which claims to be an "abstract".   Wikipedia quoted the abstract page -- not his original work.

In light of that, do you still believe my edits should be reverted, and if so, why? Do you want his original code from the "Dr. Dobb's" article, verbatim? I would have no problem with that -- the issue of clarity and intent are served by either my revision, or his original code. ???
 * You are mistaken. You seem to be laboring under the false assumption that the cited Dr. Dobb's article shows Duff's original code, but it does not. The article as it was before you made your changes did show Duff's original code that he posted to Usenet in 1983 (and again in 1988). This is what the article is supposed to show, not some different version. Whether you consider your own versions to better demonstrate clarity and intent is irrelevant. So once again, please reinstate the original version of this article. Thanks, Lklundin (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And somewhere in there the text is out of sync with the code example. Pretty confusing.  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 21:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted. If you are looking for clarity, its more important that the text match the code. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 21:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is important for all editors to understand that this article is about a specific piece of code, and that therefore attempts to 'improve' it are misplaced. Lklundin (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, but I don't quite agree: It would seem its about an algorithm and the important thing is that it is described clearly. I like keeping the original formulation, but those unfamiliar with a "memory-mapped register" might be distracted by that "wierdness" and miss the point.  But then again, the motivation for the efficiency of the algorithm is lost if you don't have that.  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that the contested code is listed under the heading Original version, which clearly is not subject to attempts at clarification. Also, Duff's Device is clearly a specific implementation of a given algorithm. The developer named the code after himself, per his Usenet posting. Lklundin (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @Lklundin: "It is important for all editors to understand that this article is about a specific piece of code" I don't agree that this article is about documenting a particular historic event; "Duff's Device" refers not to a particular piece of code that Duff wrote, but to a technique Duff discovered for solving a particular class of problems by intermingling a switch statement with a loop. 2603:8001:D3F0:87E0:0:0:0:1DF6 (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

-- The article at Dr. Dobbs says that they are showing Duffs original code that he also wrote about in "a historic e-mail by Tom Duff that he wrote to Dennis Ritchie, see http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/duffs-device.html". In that article, Tom is talking about the algorithm and publishes ***an abstraction*** of the actual code: "Consider the following routine, ***abstracted*** from code which copies an array of shorts into the Programmed IO data register of an Evans & Sutherland Picture System II". The abstracted code *doesn't show the specific **register** used (as his original does). He wrote both copies, but the source "himself", calls the version cited on the DuffDevice page, an ***abstraction*** of the real code. Please confirm your understanding that an "abstraction" is not the same as the original code. and -- please consider your reversion as it doesn't quote Duff's original code and doesn't look anything like his original code, compared to the version I put up (I hesitated to post a verbatim copy of the original, due to ownership claims, but considering the context, it might not be out of place).

As I mentioned before, I wouldn't be adverse to putting either Duff's original code or my modified version in place as being the *original*. Nor do I have issue with calling the version not showing the Evans & Sutherland Picture System II's hardware port an "abstraction" (and keeping it as the author's (Duff)) revision of the code for "public consumption/posting" on USENET. But to claim that the code on the article page is his original that shows it talking to a specific piece of hardware -- the Evans & Sutherland Picture System-II, is patently false -- there is no mention of its port or sign that it was talking to that device -- unlike the version published in Dr. Dobbs.

I also feel that, the 'abstracted' version obscures what it is that is actually "Duff's Device". If the article is to be clear about what "Duff's Device" should be, it should show the code where the target is either an ALLCAPS-HW-DEFINED-PORT or as a way to copy memory (*to++=*from++). -- I'm not sure what you mean by "the motivation is lost" -- as using the same "Device" to copy memory from/to a source/destination in memory would also result in a measurable performance boost.

As for the imporantance of clarity -- I have a B.S. degree in Computer Science & decades of work experience, and I found the the example unclear. The example in Dr. Dobbs article made it clear, as it showed the HW-PORT in a #define and didn't try to "parametrize" (as the abstract does) what was a hard-coded example for a specific piece of HW. Astara Athenea (talk) 28-Jan-2017
 * My interest in reverting was clarity and laziness. As it stood before I reverted, the commentary around the article was referring to variable names that were not in the example.  I did not have time or interest to make the changes there to match it up - that would be the responsibility of the original editor that created the mis-match.  The easiest way to resolve that problem was to revert back to something that made much more sense.  I don't have a horse in the game otherwise.  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, from your lengthy comment I fail to see a specific proposal for how to improve the article. Lklundin (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

-- well I'm not real hot on rewriting the article at this point, but it seems the Dr.Dobbs section should come first as an example of his original code -- then the existing examples of what he sent off in his email with his "abstracted" code... then, *maybe*, another example showing Duff's dev used in a classic memory copy routine and how, even there, the reduction in #loops by a factor of 8 speeds up that as well. But that's alot of rewriting and I'm a computer scientist, but not a very good, _concise_ writer unless I spend a fair amount of time in multiple revisions cutting things out from my 1st or earlier attempts.

I dunno, Lklundin _seems_ to have more of a history w/this article than I, if he wants to add a 'lead-in' w/the original code that would seem to clarify the historical points as well as providing 2 different looking examples that should make it easier for readers to abstract the key points -- or I could write-up a third example showing a memcpy (it would be trivial, so if Lklundin wants to do that as well, I'm not attached to the idea.

My involvement came from being confused by the original article's point and getting clear after seeing the 1st version showing ports and stuff -- then I understood the 2nd was a 1st attempt at abstracting the algorithm...

Comments? Astara Athenea (talk) 29 Jan 2017
 * Since Wikipedia has no concept of ownership you should not feel compelled to ask specific, previous contributors for feed-back regarding your suggestions for improvements. Before you start editing the article I would caution you though, to take a moment and reflect on the fact that so far your edits to the article have not been constructive. You repeatedly modified code that was clearly described and sourced as being a verbatim copy of a specific historical code. Your first edit summary clearly shows that you failed to read and understand the intention of the code. After having had this pointed out to you, you then went on to 'improve' the verbatim copy of a historical code, again displaying a lack of understanding of this article. When asked (by me) to self-revert you did nothing for 60 hours, at which point another editor reverted your edits. With that start, your addition of your own code examples motivated by the hope of clarifying an already concise and well explained code, is maybe not the best next step to take. Remember that Wikipedia is a collection of information collected from external sources, so your own, personal idea of what constitutes a clarification may not be universally accepted. Good luck. Lklundin (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

There isn't anything wrong with adding new sections at the bottom of the article. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 17:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The article is clear. Here traces for count=1 to 16
The article is clear. Here are traces from count=1 to 16, some may be picked to insert in the article. I didn't attempted to change the article because it is clear to me. But this can be clearer for some readers. I don't know if it is possible to hide and show the code clicking a button. If it is not possible, maybe the trace for code=10 is more illustrative. This discussion is short, if the traces become obstructive for reading, because it is not possible to hide and show them clicking a button, leave the more representative 1,7,8,10,16 cases to delete the rest.

0 case
This is nitpicking, but maybe a warning should be added that the current printed algorithm is incorrect for the case count = 0 (1 iteration too much). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.144.199.7 (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "This code assumes that initial count > 0." --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Change code to better reflect use
The use of the pointer "to" is unclear as we are either overwriting the same section of memory over and over again (and not the contents of a register @Jwy) or writing to a second part of memory (by adding ++ after *to in all examples) which I feel diverges too far from the source material. SetOfAllSets (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 * The register keyword gives the compiler a hint to move the pointer to "to" into a register SetOfAllSets (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The supplied code is exactly what is quoted in Reference 2. Since this section is labelled "Original version", it shouldn't be modified to match our current opinions on programming. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As explained in the text, "Duff's problem was to copy 16-bit unsigned integers ("shorts" in most C implementations) from an array into a memory-mapped output register, denoted in C by a pointer." While it is confusing if you are unfamiliar with such hardware and how C might deal with it, it is the original code and that it is a register is actually immaterial to the algorithm.  And (I _think_) the algorithm is mostly of historical interest as most modern languages/compilers take away the need for this level of optimization by the programmer.  Since it is of historical interest, the original code is most appropriate.  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Digging into the references, I see how the use of the register is of importance:

In the "Subject: Re: Explanation, please!" reference, Mr. Duff himself says:

It is claimed:

"...the device wouldn't exhibit the desired speed-up. The argument was flawed in two regards: first, it didn't address the performance of the device, but rather the performance of one of its few uses (implementing memcpy) for which many machines have a high-performance idiom.  Second, the poster made his claims in the absence of timing data, which renders his assertion suspect.  A second poster tried the test, but botched the implementation, proving only that with diligence it is possible to make anything run slowly."

The algorithm probably would not help if it were memory to memory copy (memcpy would probably be faster). Its only when it is NOT memory to memory but memory to register that is is useful! --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 * @Jwy "memory to a register" the register keyword hints to the compiler to do that for you, duff's device would be copying to a variable moved into a register and overwriting the contents of the variable repeatedly in the example. 2600:1700:4540:3D10:275A:2F43:F4B7:2395 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @2600:1700:4540:3D10:275A:2F43:F4B7:2395 this was me, I forgot to log in on my phone SetOfAllSets (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I know. And the text SAYS its memory to register. My point is that the editor's change to make it memory to memory - besides changing the original magazine article's program - is not desirable.  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Duff's device


text:
Comanche language

Comanche (, endonym Nʉmʉ Tekwapʉ̲) is a Uto-Aztecan language spoken by the Comanche, who split from the Shoshone soon after the Comanche had acquired horses around 1705. The Comanche language and the Shoshoni language are quite similar, but certain consonant changes in Comanche have inhibited mutual intelligibility.

The name Comanche comes from the Ute word kɨmantsi "enemy, stranger". Their own name for the language is nʉmʉ tekwap ʉ, which means "language of the people".

Use and revitalization efforts
Although efforts are now being made to ensure its survival, most speakers of the language are elderly. In the late 19th century, Comanche children were placed in boarding schools where they were discouraged from speaking their native language, and even severely punished for doing so. The second generation then grew up speaking English, because of the belief that it was better for them not to know Comanche.

The Comanche language was briefly prominent during World War II. A group of seventeen young men referred to as the Comanche Code Talkers were trained, and used by the U.S. Army to send messages conveying sensitive information in the Comanche language so that it could not be deciphered by the enemy.

As of July 2013, there were roughly 25-30 native speakers of the language, according to The Boston Globe. The Comanche Language and Cultural Preservation Committee offers dictionaries and language learning materials. Comanche language courses were available at the now-closed Comanche Nation College. The college previously conducted a language recording project, as the language is "mostly oral", and emphasizing instruction for tribal members. On the language-learning platform Memrise, the Comanche Nation Language Department has published learning materials.

As of 2022, there were fewer than nine fluent native speakers of Comanche, many of the old speakers having succumbed to old age, health problems or the COVID-19 pandemic.

Vowels
Comanche has a typical Numic vowel inventory of six vowels. In addition, there is the common diphthong. Historically, there was a certain amount of free variation between and  (as shown by comparison with Shoshoni cognates), but the variation is no longer so common and most morphemes have become fixed on either  or. In the following chart, the basic symbols given are in the IPA, whereas the equivalent symbols in the conventional orthography are given to the right of them.

Vowel length and voicing
Comanche distinguishes vowels by length. Vowels can be either long or short. Long vowels are never devoiced and in the orthography they are represented as (aa, ee, ii, oo, uu, ʉʉ). An example of a long vowel is the (ee) in [wakaréʔeː] 'turtle'. Short vowels can be lengthened when they are stressed.

Short vowels can be either voiced or voiceless. Unstressed short vowels are usually devoiced when /s/ or /h/ follows and optionally when word-final. Voiceless vowels are non-phonemic and therefore not represented in this chart. In the conventional orthography, these vowels are marked with an underline: $⟨ii⟩$.

Consonants
Comanche has a typical Numic consonant inventory. As with the vowel charts, the basic symbols given in this chart are in the IPA, whereas the equivalent symbols in the conventional orthography are given to the right of them.

Stress
Comanche stress most commonly falls on the first syllable. Exceptions to this rule, such as in the words Waʔsáasiʔ 'Osage people', and aná 'ouch!', are marked with an acute accent.

For the purpose of stress placement, the diphthongs /ai/, /oi/, and /ui/ act as one vowel with one mora. Additionally, possessive pronouns, which serve as proclitics, do not affect the stress of a word (so that nʉ + námi 'my sister' retains its stress on the /a/ in námi).

Secondary stress is placed on the second syllable of a two-syllable word, the third syllable of a word with three, four, or five syllables, and the fourth syllable of a word with six syllables.

 * Primary stress: Primary stress is "marked when it is non-initial stress". In addition, "when a pronoun is suffixed by, for instance a postposition, the pronoun does take primary – and initial – stress." An example is [nɨpía] nʉ-pia 'my mother' (my-mother). In the following data where primary stress appears it will be shown as an "acute accent". Primary stress is found in words or compounds of three, six and five syllables. However, when primary stress is marked in a third syllable it can also be consider as a secondary stress according to Canonge's but an "exception to this case is when both a proclitic and prefix are used." An example of a third syllable stress is [há.bi+hu.píː.tu] 'stopped and lay down'. Words with "five syllables have primary stress on the first syllable." An example is [ká.wo+nò.ka.tu] 'stress'. Also, words with six syllables have primary stress on the first syllable.  An example is [kú.ʔi.na.kù.ʔe.tu] 'roasts for'.

 * Non-initial stress: Non-initial stress can be found in any syllable of a word that is not in the initial position and it can also fall on long vowel. Also, the "initial syllable never weakens to the point of voicelessness." However, some exceptions to the non-initial stress are animal and plant names because some of them end with a stress long vowel plus which is represented by "ʔ". "Loans are common sources of words with nonitinal stress" an example is [pirísiː] pitísii 'policeman'. A word with two stresses is [ánikúra] ánikúta 'ant' (analysis unknown).

 * Alternating stress: Alternating stress occurs when there are words with three four, five and six syllables. In addition alternating stress is given "when nouns of compound are coequal, a root or stem has one-syllable suffix." Also, prefixes or not stem-changes do not receive an indicial stress because the alternating stress "begins on the second syllable as in the following word of six syllables, following the pattern of five-syllable words." e.g. [wu.hká.ʔa.mí.ʔanu] 'went to cut down'. Examples of alternating stress are:
 * {| class=wikitable

! 4 ! 5 ! 6
 * [á.ni.múi ]
 * [yú.pu.sí.a]
 * [wuh+tú.pu káʔ 'buckle]
 * 'housefly'
 * 'louse'
 * 'button'
 * }
 * An example of three syllables is [wáhkát ìmat òʔiàt I] 'twelve' (liter. waha=-?? 'two-??').
 * }
 * An example of three syllables is [wáhkát ìmat òʔiàt I] 'twelve' (liter. waha=-?? 'two-??').

 * Stress shift: Stress shift occurs when "verves often exhibit stylistic stress shift when occurring at the end of a breathing group." In addition, stress moves "one syllable to the right if that syllable is voiced; otherwise it skips over the voiceless vowels to the next syllable". An example is [pohínu] 'jumped. According to Charney stress shift is caused by a suffixes-n which cause a 'right ward shift of stress in form with the shape CVHCV or CVhV."
 * {| class=wikitable

! CVHCV ! CVhv
 * [marohtíkʷan]
 * [pahín]
 * ma-toH-tíkwa-n
 * pahi-n
 * 'he hit him'
 * 'he fell'.
 * }
 * By using the form CVHCV or CVhV we can see that -h "is presented as a second or a precipitated consonant". However, "stress does not shift rightwards when the verb root does not contain [h]. An example is [nómiʔan] no-miʔa-n 'they moved camp'.
 * 'he fell'.
 * }
 * By using the form CVHCV or CVhV we can see that -h "is presented as a second or a precipitated consonant". However, "stress does not shift rightwards when the verb root does not contain [h]. An example is [nómiʔan] no-miʔa-n 'they moved camp'.

Phonological processes

 * Free Variation: although not often reflected in the orthography, certain sounds occur in free variation. For instance, can be pronounced as a  (for example: ma yaa ), and a labialized  can be voiced (as in nʉ gwʉhʉ: it is written gw, even though it is more accurately, just as the labialized  is written in Comanche as kw rather than ). In contemporary times, preaspiration and preglottalization may occur in free variation with a long vowel: aakaaʔ / ahkaaʔ ('devil's horn').
 * Spirantization: spirantization can occur in the phonemes and  when they are preceded by vowels.  becomes the voiced bilabial fricative,, usually written as a b, and  becomes the voiced alveolar tap, , written as an r. An intervening  or  does not block this spirantization process, as seen in tuaʔbaʔa 'on the son' (the sound  is written here as b, and is allophonic with the Comanche ). In the past, there was a process of nasalization in Comanche which has since been lost and which blocked spirantization; certain words that would otherwise exhibit spirantization in modern Comanche do not, therefore, as a result of the historical presence of what would have been a preceding nasal (ʉ papi 'your head' would historically have been ʉn papi).
 * Metathesis: A fairly regular process of metathesis occurs, sporadically with voiceless consonants and regularly with voiced consonants. It is accompanied by the deletion of a vowel: otʉnhʉh > orʉhʉ > ohrʉ ('they', dual). In modern Comanche, voiceless, unaspirated stops followed by a long (written ʉ) and an  may be realized as aspirated equivalents at the expense of the subsequent long vowel and : pitsipʉ̱ha > pitsipʰa ('milk').
 * Preaspiration and Preglottalization: Certain consonants undergo preaspiration word medially, namely, and the voiceless, unaspirated stops, , and  (rendered in the IPA as , , , , respectively). It is usually written with an h before the consonant, as in aworahna 'cupboard' or ekasahpanaʔ 'soldier'. Similarly, many of the same consonants can also undergo preglottalization, which is written with ʔ before the consonant (resulting in the digraphs ʔn, ʔb, ʔw, and ʔr), as in hunuʔbiʔ 'creek' or taʔwoʔiʔ 'gun'.
 * Organic and Inorganic Devoicing: each Comanche vowel has an allophonic voiceless (or "whispered") equivalent. The devoicing process in Comanche follows a predictable pattern, and can be broken down into two categories - organic (compulsory) and inorganic (optional).
 * A vowel which precedes an /s/ or an /h/ undergoes induced organic devoicing, provided that the vowel is unstressed, short, and not part of a cluster (contrast sit u suʔa, 'this one also', which undergoes organic devoicing, with the similar word sit u u suʔa, 'these ones also', which does not because the vowel is not short). Two adjacent syllables cannot both have organic voiceless vowels. In such a situation, the second vowel does not devoice.
 * The second type of devoicing that can occur in Comanche is inorganic devoicing. Short vowels that are not part of a cluster may be optionally devoiced at the end of a breath group, and this may apply even if the preceding vowel has undergone organic devoicing. Additionally, an inorganic, voiceless vowel conditions optional lengthening of a voiced penultimate vowel if there is no intervening preaspirated consonant (for example, kaasa̲ 'wing' and oomo̲ 'leg').

Writing system
The Comanche Alphabet was developed by Dr. Alice Anderton, a linguistic anthropologist, and was adopted as the official Comanche Alphabet by the Comanche Nation in 1994. The alphabet is as follows:

 * Notes:

 * Long vowels are indicated by doubling the vowel: aa, ee, ii, oo, uu, ʉʉ.
 * Voiceless vowels are indicated by an underline: a̱, e̱, i̱, o̱, u̱, ʉ̱.
 * When the stress does not fall on the first syllable of the word, it is marked with an acute accent ´: kʉtséena 'coyote'.
 * The glottal stop is sometimes written as ?.
 * The phonemes and  are written as ts and kw, respectively.

Morphology
Like many languages of the Americas, Comanche can be classified as a polysynthetic language.

Nouns
Comanche nouns are inflected for case and number, and the language possesses a dual number. Like many Uto-Aztecan languages, nouns may take an absolutive suffix. Many cases are also marked using postpositions.

Personal pronouns exist for three numbers (singular, dual, and plural) and three persons. They have different forms depending on whether or not they are the subject or object of a verb, possessive (including reflexive possessive forms), or the object of a postposition. Like many languages of the Americas, Comanche first-person plural pronouns have both inclusive and exclusive forms.

The Comanche paradigm for nominal number suffixes is illustrated below (in the practical orthography):

 * Notes:

 * The objective and possessive forms differ only in their final feature: fortis is applied at the end of the possessive suffixes.
 * The two dual suffixes are not technically distinct and may be used interchangeably. However, the first of the two (Dual I) is preferred for humans.
 * The absolutive suffix may be dropped before the addition of these suffixes.

Verbs
Many of the verb stems regularly are suppletive: intransitive verbs are suppletive for singular versus plural subject and transitive verbs are suppletive for singular versus plural object. Verbs can take various affixes, including incorporated nouns before the stem. Most verb affixes are suffixes, except for voicing-changing prefixes and instrumental prefixes.

The verb stem can take a number of prefixes and suffixes. A sketch of all the elements that may be affixed to the verb is given on the right:

In addition to verbal affixes, Comanche verbs can also be augmented by other verbs. Although in principle Comanche verbs may be freely combined with other verbs, in actuality only a handful of verbs, termed auxiliary verbs, are frequently combined with others. These forms take the full range of aspectual suffixes. Common auxiliary verbs in Comanche include hani 'to do, make', naha 'to be, become', miʔa 'to go', and katʉ / yʉkwi 'to sit'. An example of how the verbs combine:

katʉ + miʔa = katʉmiʔa

{to sit} {} {to go} {} {to ride (and go)}

Instrumental prefixes
As mentioned above, Comanche has a rich repertoire of instrumental prefixes, and certain verbs (termed instrumental verbs) cannot occur without an instrumental prefix. These prefixes can affect the transitivity of a verb. The Comanche instrumental prefixes are listed below:
 * kʉh- = 'with the teeth, chin, mouth'
 * kuh- = 'with heat, fire'
 * ma- = 'with the hand' and as a generalized instrumental
 * mu- / muh = 'with the nose, lips, front'
 * nih- = 'verbally'
 * pih- = 'with the buttocks, rear (e.g., of a car)'
 * sʉ- = 'with cold'; fortis is applied at the end of the prefix
 * sʉh- = 'with the foot, in a violent motion'
 * su- = 'with the mind, mental activity'; fortis is applied at the end of the prefix
 * tah- = 'with the foot'
 * toh- = 'with the hand, violent or completed action'
 * tsah- = 'with the hand (extended to hand tools)'
 * tsih- = 'with a sharp point, with the finger'
 * tsoh- = 'with the head'
 * wʉh- = an all-purpose instrumental

Syntax
Comanche parts of speech include nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, and interjections (such as haa 'yes' and kee 'no'), as well as particles.

The standard word order is subject–object–verb, but it can shift in two specific circumstances. The topic of a sentence, though marked with one of two particles, is often placed at the beginning of the sentence, defying the standard word order. Furthermore, the subject of a sentence is often placed second in a sentence. When the subject is also the topic, as is often the case, it ends up in the first position, preserving SOV word order; otherwise, the subject will be placed second. For example, the English sentence 'I hit the man' could be rendered in Comanche with the components in either of the following two orders: 'I' (topic) 'man' (object) 'hit' (an aspect marker) - the standard SOV word order - or 'man' (object and topic) 'I' 'hit' (an aspect marker) - an OSV word order, which accentuates the role of the man who was hit.

Switch reference
Like other Numic languages, Comanche has switch-reference markers to handle subordination. This refers to markers which indicate whether or not a subordinate verb has the same or different subject as the main verb, and in the case of Comanche, also the temporal relation between the two verbs.

When the verb of a subordinate clause has a different subject from the verb of the main clause, and the time of the verbs is simultaneous, the subordinate verb is marked with -ku, and its subject is marked as if it were an object. When the time of the verbs is not simultaneous, the subordinate verb is marked with one of several affixes depending on the duration of the subordinate verb and whether it refers to an action which occurred before that described by the main verb or one which occurred after.

In popular culture
In the 1956 film The Searchers, starring John Wayne, there are several badly pronounced Comanche words interspersed, such as nawyecka (nooyʉka 'move camp around') and timoway (tʉmʉʉ 'buy, trade').

In the 1963 film McLintock!, also starring John Wayne, McLintock (Wayne) and Chief Puma (Michael Pate) speak Comanche several times throughout the film.

In a 2013 Boston Globe article, linguist Todd McDaniels of Comanche Nation College commented on Johnny Depp's attempts to speak the Comanche language in the film The Lone Ranger, saying, "The words were there, the pronunciation was shaky but adequate."

In the 2016 film The Magnificent Seven two of the titular characters, a Comanche warrior named Red Harvest and Sam Chisholm, an African-American warrant officer, speak Comanche to each other.

In the 2019 TV series The Son, the main character, Eli McCullough, lives with a tribe of Comanche natives, who speak in Comanche to each other and later to him.

The 2022 movie Prey, set in the early 18th century, is the first feature film to have a full Comanche language dub.

title: Comanche language


text:
See You in Hell (album)

See You in Hell is the debut studio album by British heavy metal band Grim Reaper, released on the independent record label Ebony Records in 1983. The album cover was designed by Garry Sharpe-Young.

Critical reception
The title track was ranked No. 38 on VH1's 40 Most Awesomely Bad Metal Songs Ever countdown. According to vocalist Steve Grimmett in a 1984 interview, "Dead on Arrival" is about his friendship with Brian Field who was involved with the Great Train Robbery.

Track listing
All tracks by Nick Bowcott and Steve Grimmett, except "The Show Must Go On" by Bowcott and Paul DeMercado

Personnel
Grim Reaper
 * Steve Grimmett – vocals
 * Nick Bowcott – guitar
 * Dave Wanklin – bass
 * Lee Harris – drums

Technical personnel
 * Darryl Johnston – producer, engineer
 * Ebony Artists management – management
 * Garry Sharpe – sleeve design

title: See You in Hell (album)


text:
Kelly Rounds

Kelly Rounds, or Castle Killibury is an Iron Age hill fort in Cornwall, England, United Kingdom. It is situated beside the A39 trunk road approximately two miles east of Wadebridge.

The site is north of the village of St Mabyn, approximately 300 metres east of Three Holes Cross on the border of the parish of Egloshayle. Radiocarbon dating has dated the occupation of Kelly Rounds to between 400 and 100 BC. More carbon dating has dated a pre-hill fort occupation as between 1250 and 950 BC.

Description
The fort was described by Craig Weatherhill as "a bivallate Iron Age hill fort 230m in diameter. The ramparts, each about 3.0m high externally, are widely spaced and fronted by ditches (often flooded) 1.8m deep. The north side of the fort is well preserved, but to the south of the lane the defences have been ploughed almost flat. The northern half of a rectangular annexe survives on the west side of the fort, the rest was obliterated by the building of Sandylands Farm. On the opposite side of the fort cropmarks and traces of two contiguous annexes have been detected. Excavations found the inner ditch to have been cut 2.8m into the bedrock. It also showed that the earliest occupation of the site was during the 11th or 10th century BC. It is not known if this was before the defences were built. The fort has long been a leading candidate as the location of Arthur's home fort of Celliwig (along with Castle Canyke), but only two post-Roman sherds have been unearthed."

In July 2010 it was added to English Heritage's "heritage at risk register" because of ongoing deterioration.

title: Kelly Rounds


text:
1981 in Australia

The following lists events that happened during 1981 in Australia.

Incumbents

 * Monarch – Elizabeth II
 * Governor-General – Sir Zelman Cowen
 * Prime Minister – Malcolm Fraser
 * Deputy Prime Minister – Doug Anthony
 * Opposition Leader – Bill Hayden
 * Chief Justice – Sir Garfield Barwick (until 11 February), then Sir Harry Gibbs

State and territory leaders

 * Premier of New South Wales – Neville Wran
 * Opposition Leader – John Mason (until 29 May), then Bruce McDonald (until 12 October), then John Dowd
 * Premier of Queensland – Joh Bjelke-Petersen
 * Opposition Leader – Ed Casey
 * Premier of South Australia – David Tonkin
 * Opposition Leader – John Bannon
 * Premier of Tasmania – Doug Lowe (until 11 November), then Harry Holgate
 * Opposition Leader – Geoff Pearsall (until 11 November), then Robin Gray
 * Premier of Victoria – Rupert Hamer (until 5 June), then Lindsay Thompson
 * Opposition Leader – Frank Wilkes (until 9 September), then John Cain Jr.
 * Premier of Western Australia – Sir Charles Court
 * Opposition Leader – Ron Davies (until 18 September), then Brian Burke
 * Chief Minister of the Northern Territory – Paul Everingham
 * Opposition Leader – Jon Isaacs (until 1 November), then Bob Collins
 * Chief Minister of Norfolk Island – David Buffett

Governors and administrators

 * Governor of New South Wales – Sir Roden Cutler (until 19 January), then Sir James Rowland
 * Governor of Queensland – Sir James Ramsay
 * Governor of South Australia – Sir Keith Seaman
 * Governor of Tasmania – Sir Stanley Burbury
 * Governor of Victoria – Sir Henry Winneke
 * Governor of Western Australia – Sir Richard Trowbridge
 * Administrator of Norfolk Island – Peter Coleman (until 19 March), then Ian Hutchinson (until 10 May), then Thomas Paterson
 * Administrator of the Northern Territory – John England (until 1 January), then Eric Johnston

January

 * 30 January – Sir Harry Gibbs is announced as the next Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia in the wake of Sir Garfield Barwick's resignation.

February

 * 8 February – A murdered woman's decapitated body (Kim Barry) is found near Kiama on a ledge under the Jamberoo Lockout.
 * 10 February – Townsville International Airport opens in Townsville
 * 14 February – Australia withdraws recognition of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia.
 * 17 February – A funnel-web antivenene, developed over 22 years, is used for the first time in Sydney.
 * 20 February – Alice Springs coroner Denis Barritt finds that Azaria Chamberlain was killed by a dingo.

March

 * 11 March – Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser informs Parliament that US B-52 bombers will be allowed to land at Darwin from their base at Guam.
 * 19 March – The South Australian Parliament passes the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981.

April

 * 15 April – Minister for Industrial Relations Andrew Peacock resigns from cabinet accusing the prime minister of gross disloyalty.
 * 16 April – The New South Wales Government's controversial election funding Bill is introduced into Parliament, provoking strong Opposition criticism. The Bill imposes stringent declaration conditions with political donations of more than $200, requiring a statement giving the name and address of donors.
 * 26 April – First tethered flight of Defence Science and Technology Group's Hoveroc rocket is carried out at Port Wakefield, South Australia. It was the world's first practical hovering rocket.
 * 29 April – A fire at the Pacific Nursing Home kills 16 in Sylvania, a suburb of Sydney.
 * 30 April –
 * The Federal Government's Committee of Review into Government Functions, nicknamed "The Razor Gang", releases its final report and begins a series of cuts in spending on public services and instrumentalities.
 * Graham Potter, aged 23, is charged with the murder of a woman found decapitated near Kiama on 8 February. He is refused bail after denying the allegations.

May

 * 7 May –
 * Alleged crime boss, Robert Trimbole, leaves Australia.
 * Three engineering companies make agreements for shorter working weeks with metal trade union representatives in Sydney, giving a major boost to the ongoing campaign for a 35-hour week.
 * 9 May – Assisted passage to Australia is now restricted to refugees.
 * 26 May – Foreign Affairs Minister Tony Street announces that the United States has asked Australia to send peacekeepers to the Sinai Desert.

June

 * 5 June – Rupert Hamer resigns as Premier of Victoria after losing the support of his party. Lindsay Thompson is selected by the party-room to become Victorian Liberal leader and Premier of Victoria.
 * 18 June – The 4 millionth Holden car leaves the GMH assembly line.
 * 23 June – The Queensland Government approves sand mining on Moreton Island.

July

 * 17 July – A truck drivers' strike in most states causes the Queensland Government to declare a state of emergency.
 * 24 July – The Queensland Government declares a state of emergency over a threat to food supplies caused by the transport workers' strike.
 * 30 July – The ALP National Conference rewords its Socialist Objective and endorses affirmative action.
 * 31 July – The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission decides to end wage indexation, a system which has been established in April 1975. President Sir John Moore stated that the guidelines indexing wage adjustments to inflation would no longer be applied to cases before the commission.  Each case will now be decided on individual merit.

August

 * 24 August – The Church of England in Australia is renamed the Anglican Church of Australia.

September

 * 1 September – Further changes are made to the Medibank health scheme and free treatment of uninsured people in standard hospital wards is abolished.
 * 19 September –
 * The ALP government of Neville Wran is re-elected in New South Wales, increasing his majority from his "Wranslide" win in 1978.
 * Northern Territory Chief Minister Paul Everingham orders the police to re-open the investigation into Azaria Chamberlain's disappearance.
 * 21 September – Seven people are killed when a Cessna 206 aeroplane crashes at Charleville.

October

 * 1 October – The National Bank of Australasia and the Commercial Banking Company of Sydney amalgamate to create the National Australia Bank.

November

 * 2 November – The Bank of New South Wales and the Commercial Bank of Australia Limited merge to form a new bank which commences trading under the name of Westpac twelve months later.
 * 11 November – Harry Holgate becomes Premier of Tasmania after the resignation of Doug Lowe.
 * 12 November – The Federal Government declares the Cairns section of the Great Barrier Reef a marine park, overriding the Queensland Government.
 * 20 November – Alice Springs coroner Denis Barritt's findings in relation to Azaria Chamberlain are quashed by Mr. Justice Toohey of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. A new inquest is ordered and begins on 30 November.

December

 * 12 December – A referendum is held in Tasmania to vote for whether or not the Franklin Dam should be built. 47% vote for the original proposal, 8% vote for the compromise solution & 45% vote informally. It is estimated that up to one-third of all votes were for 'no dams', which was not a sanctioned option.
 * 31 December – New South Wales abolishes death duties.

Unknown dates

 * Public funding of election campaigns introduced in New South Wales
 * Victoria decriminalizes homosexual acts between consenting adults

Arts and literature

 * Peter Carey's novel Bliss wins the Miles Franklin Award

Film

 * Puberty Blues
 * Gallipoli

Television

 * 2 March – Good Morning Australia premieres on Network Ten, marking the return of breakfast television to Australian television screens.
 * 10 April – The TV Week Logie Awards air on Ten for the first time. It is also the first time that the Logies have not been screened on the Nine Network.
 * 27 July – Wheel of Fortune premieres on the Seven Network
 * 16 September – The Nine Network celebrates 25 years of television in Australia
 * November – A Country Practice debuts on Channel 7

Sport
†=Scored under outdated scoring system.
 * 1 February – Trevor Chappell bowls underarm in the final delivery of the game against New Zealand at the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG). The delivery leads to the banning of underarm deliveries in cricket.
 * 28 March – Australia is represented by fifteen long-distance runners (nine men, six women) at the ninth IAAF World Cross Country Championships in Madrid, Spain. Robert de Castella is Australia's best finisher, claiming the sixth spot (35:20.0) in the race over 12 kilometres.
 * March – The Canberra Raiders are accepted as the fourteenth team in the New South Wales Rugby League (NSWRL) for 1982.
 * The sin bin rule is introduced in rugby league. Newtown hooker Barry Jensen becomes the first player sent there.
 * 6 June – Kevin Bartlett becomes the first player to play 350 Victorian Football League (VFL) games, celebrating as Richmond Football Club beat 20.16 (136) to 14.10 (94).
 * 25 July – Garry Bentley wins the men's national marathon title, clocking 2:16:58 in Werribee, while Rosemary Longstaff claims the inaugural women's title in 2:46:48.
 * 29 July – The VFL board announces that South Melbourne will play 11 games in Sydney in 1982.
 * 29 August – South Melbourne play their last game at the Lake Oval in Albert Park against North Melbourne. North Melbourne win, 15.17 (107) to 10.14 (74).
 * 26 September – 12.20 (92) defeat  (10.12 (72)) to win the 85th premiership. It is the last time Collingwood would feature in a grand final until 1990.
 * 27 September – The Parramatta Eels defeat the Newtown Jets 20-11† to win the 74th NSWRL premiership. It is also the first premiership for the Parramatta Eels, who had been trying to win one since 1947. Fans celebrate by burning down the main grandstand of the Cumberland Oval, which was due to be demolished. The Balmain Tigers finish in last position, claiming the wooden spoon.
 * 3 October – Port Adelaide (14.11 (95)) defeat Glenelg (6.8 (44)) at Football Park to win their 27th South Australian National Football League (SANFL) premiership. Port Adelaide's Russell Ebert is awarded the inaugural Jack Oatey medal for best player during the grand final.
 * 3 November – Just A Dash wins the Melbourne Cup.

Births

 * 3 January – Don Brown, politician
 * 8 January – Trent Waterhouse, rugby league player
 * 20 January – Brendan Fevola, footballer
 * 27 January – Greg Owens, soccer player
 * 17 February – Lisa Skinner, gymnast
 * 24 February – Lleyton Hewitt, tennis player
 * 26 February – Daniel Geale, welterweight boxer

 * 2 April – Michael Clarke, cricketer

 * 11 April – Veronica Pyke, cricketer

 * 16 April – Vico Thai, actor
 * 11 May – Lauren Jackson, basketball player
 * 20 May – Mark Winterbottom, motor racing driver
 * 26 May – Robert Copeland, footballer
 * 7 June – Luke Burt, rugby player
 * 12 June – Paul Hasleby, footballer
 * 13 June - Mick Fanning, Surfer
 * 15 June – Andrew McDonald, cricketer
 * 17 June – Shane Watson, cricketer
 * 24 July – Doug Bollinger, cricketer
 * 26 July – Abe Forsythe, actor
 * 8 August – Vanessa Amorosi, singer-songwriter, entertainer
 * 17 September – Matt Kean, politician
 * 11 October – Beau Brady, actor
 * 18 October – Nathan Hauritz, cricketer
 * 19 October – Sarah Taylor, field hockey player
 * 22 October – Bradley Hore, boxer
 * 26 October – Guy Sebastian, singer-songwriter, Australia's first Idol
 * 2 November – Mitchell Johnson, cricketer
 * 16 November – Kate Miller-Heidke, singer
 * 21 December – Justin Kane, bantamweight boxer
 * 26 December – Nikolai Nikolaeff, actor
 * 27 December – Emilie de Ravin, actress
 * 31 December – Matthew Pavlich, Australian rules footballer

Deaths

 * 7 January – Eric Robinson (born 1929), Liberal politician
 * 16 June – Sir Thomas Playford (born 1896), former Premier of South Australia
 * 29 June – Russell Drysdale (born 1912), painter
 * 19 October – Dymphna Cusack (born 1902), writer
 * 2 September – Dame Enid Lyons (born 1897), Liberal politician
 * 9 September – Sir Robert Askin (born 1907), former Premier of New South Wales
 * 23 December – Sir Reginald Ansett (born 1909), businessman

title: 1981 in Australia


text: User talk:210.48.109.206

title: User talk:210.48.109.206