text:
Talk:Commonwealth School

README
''Please do not remove large chunks of this article without asking first on the talk page. It is being edited a lot and it's tough to improve the worse parts of the article when they vanish.'' Thanks. ThinkingInBinary 12:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This article needs to be dramatically improved or nominated for deletion. Right now it has far too much unverifyable trivia of little interest to the general public. Please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia. The article should consist of information that will still be pertinant 50 years from now, or even 100 years from now. The fact that speakers invited to talk at assemblies generally leave at least 15 minutes for questions from students is not interesting to me, nor can I verify that that is factual. As it stands now, this is essentially a vanity article and does not belong in an encyclopedia. I'll give you a week to clean it up. After that I'm taking an axe to anything that's not verifiable. Kaldari 15:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be harsh, but this doesn't really seem in the spirit of Wikipedia. Deciding that you really don't like an article's style or content and repeatedly tearing it to shreds does not seem like a good thing to do.  About being pertinent 50 years from now--there are many automatically-added articles about counties or townships in random places that aren't even pertinent now.  A quick tour of some random pages suggests that somewhere between 10% and 25% of articles are about things that most people would consider irrelevant a century later.  Here are some examples:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otter_Pops
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot_effect
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Grabber
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Magic_Kingdom
 * Why are you spending so much time trying to destroy other people's work instead of contributing new articles or improving them? I personally don't consider it improvement to erase large parts of an article.  Is there a reason you're picking on this article so much?
 * Two questions about verifiability: First, how do you deal with facts that you know are true but that aren't published somewhere? It's not original research, but there are thousands of Commonwealth students who know that, for example, the clay brigade is a real Commonwealth tradition.  It's true, and other people know it, but how do I cite it?  Second, how can everything be verifiable?  If it were possible for every fact on Wikipedia to be verifiable somewhere else, it might as well be a list of those links instead, to save people's time writing!
 * --ThinkingInBinary 18:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if my actions seem harsh. My first impression, however, was to list the article for deletion, but I decided instead to try to see if the article could be brought up to conform to Wikipedia policies. I'm afraid that you may not completely understand the original research policy. Just because something is a fact does not mean it can included in Wikipedia, even if many people know it is a fact. The fact must be verifiable by an outside person through the use of primary or secondary sources. As the original research policy says: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources."
 * The policy also specifically states that you "may not use unpublished knowledge as a source of information (which would be impossible to verify)".
 * By this policy, I imagine that about half this article needs to be deleted. Rather than using personal knowledge to write this article, it should be based on published newspaper articles, books, and reputable websites.
 * Would it be better in line with Wikipedia policy if I put the information in this article that I know to be true on my web page, and then cited that page in the ==References== section? -- Jeff 20:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Never mind; see below. -- Jeff 21:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If information is not published and verifiable, chances are it isn't notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia article. This is why it is discouraged for editors to write about organizations they are personally involved with. For example, I would never significantly edit the article about the company I work for, for three reasons:
 * It would be impossible for me to write about it impartially and objectively since I have a personal stake in the company
 * Most of my knowledge of the company is not published or verifiable by outside sources
 * It would violate the spirit of the vanity policy.
 * So really, neither students nor faculty of Commonwealth School should be editing this article, as it is a conflict of interests. Of course people do this all the time, so I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you not to edit the article. I will however have to insist that this article conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Kaldari 19:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Kaldari: I'm curious; do you believe that most other articles on high schools should be deleted? Have a look at Groton School, Milton Academy, or Boston Latin School (to pick some local schools I know a bit about), and I think you'll find most of these same objections apply.  That does not mean that it is not useful to have information out there about these schools, and it does not mean that we cannot have a reasonable degree of accuracy. -- Jeff 20:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Suggesting that because we have other articles that are bad it is ok to allow another to continue to be bad is not a good way to write an encyclopedia. Instead, you should go through the other articles and remove those parts of them that are unverifiable. Sympathy is no good, unfortunately. -Splash talk 20:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if it seems like I'm saying "hey look at them: they're just as bad". What I mean to say is that most school articles I have found have been built this way, and saying "ok, we'll delete all of them" is a very strong statement.  I was wondering if Kaldari did feel that they were all in violation of Wikipedia policy and should all be removed (or substantially edited).
 * I'm still curious; would it help if I took the information from this entry that I can personally vouch for, and put on an independant web page that could be cited as a source? -- Jeff 21:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Never mind; I just looked over WP:V, and I see that it wouldn't be acceptable. -- Jeff 21:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 Quite a lot of school articles do have problems because the students/staff add too much information to them. They come to read more like a current-affairs site for the school. That's part of the reason I removed the stuff to do with two new whiteboards and so on. Consider what will be of interest to people reading an encyclopedia when the school no longer exists; when whiteboards, and computers and websites are run of the mill. Will people be concerned with all that detail about Hancock when, in 20 years, the school does some other completely different trip? Certainly, they'll want to know it happened, but in how much detail? What will they really want to know about? Then, since Wikipedia is not paper, allow some leeway and include some interesting facts (facts, not factoids) that might normally be omitted in say, a Britannica version of the article. -Splash talk 21:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

To your question, no, that would be cheating! It would rather step on the toes of our no original research policy. This doesn't mean research in the usual sense. It means any facts that you have determined on your own initiative without referring to somewhere else that is a reliable source. So a common example would be that you're writing a bio on someone. To enhance the article, you take the trouble to interview them. But you can't include any of that info here, since no-one but you can verify what you are saying. You'd have to get a newspaper to publish it or something, because then we would expect it to have gone through good editorial rigour. Then it could be included, because it is information that is verified from a reliable source. -Splash talk 21:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I've been reading through relavant Wikipedia policy, and I think I have a decent handle now on what is allowed. The problem is, the way I've been treating Wikipedia and the way many others seem to treat it is at odds with official policy.  People do write from personal experience.  We could just say these people are sloppy and should go read policy, but that seems like it doesn't deal with anything.  When people do this they are being useful, and often informative and helpful articles get created.  One example, noted earlier by ThinkingInBinary, is Slashdot effect, but there is often information that is:
 * Well known among members of some group
 * Interesting to people outside of the group and for newcomers to the group
 * Not documented in official sources
 * Current Wikipedia policy does not make a way to include this information, but people want it included and so write pages for it. These pages get worked on, and often get to be pretty good.  Then someone comes by applying policy and removes anything not verifyable, making the pages  from lots of people's work, only to be edited to nothingness.  Perhaps there is some way to keep traditional secondary source encyclopediac articles while still allowing documentation from experience?  Grouping all writing of this sort under "origonal research" doesn't really match what's going on. -- Jeff 00:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't really care that much about an occassional bending of the policies, but this article is rather heavy on trivial non-verifyable information. If you guys can clean up the most egregious sections (School Events and Traditions mostly), I'll leave the article in peace. Kaldari 00:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Rewriting
Someone from the school overwrote this entire page with content from the school website; she thought some of the content would be off-putting to prospective students and parents. Some of the previous content (the good stuff, hopefully) has been restored, and the page has undergone many edits since then. --ThinkingInBinary 01:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Policy Violations
Replacing the entire page with stuff off the website appears to go against these Wikipedia policies:

 * Consensus - the old page was wiped out without warning or discussion
 * Autobiography/vanity - the new page was created by the school itself
 * I have this confirmed by the school's director of alumnai relations. -- Jeff 16:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Neutral point of view - the new page removed several students' points of view from the page, whether purposefully or not
 * Copyright/Licensing - the new page came directly from the school's website
 * As it was put there by an official of the school, this should be ok. -- Jeff 16:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It may be legally okay to post it, but does she know she's releasing part of the website under the GFDL? --ThinkingInBinary 17:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Other pages
There are two related pages to this:

 * List of Commonwealth School awards - This page has been replaced with a redirect for the time being. I have a backup of the text, but it needs more discussion before it gets reverted.

 * List of Commonwealth School publications - This is a good page, and is linked to from the Commonwealth School page.

I have replaced the List of Commonwealth School publications with a redirect to this page. The article in question was neither encyclopedic nor verifiable. Please limit the content of Wikipedia articles to that which is notable and of interest to the general public. For example, I don't imagine the general public would be interested in who edited the school's satirical newspaper in 1997. Kaldari 18:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Link to the QOTW website
I just modified the section on qotw to have a link to the group's archive website. It is debatable whether this link should be here, and I'll give some reasons both ways below, but I think it is worth it.

Against having the link:

 * Many or perhaps most of the archived quotes on the website would be of interest only to those in QOTW, and these people probably already know about the website.
 * A small fraction of the quotes could unintentionally make the School look bad when read by those who don't know their context.
 * The website is not very often updated, and isn't likely to be updated in a while.
 * Some people who don't understand how wikipedia works might think that this link is an endorsement of qotw by the school.
 * Mr. Wharton said that most people outside the school don't find QOTW funny or "don't get it". --ThinkingInBinary 12:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The "QOTW Uncensored" page, however deeply hidden, is going to offend people. --ThinkingInBinary 12:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really. It won't offend people if they don't see it, and people are less likely to see things that are "deeply hidden". -- Jeff 16:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

For having the link:

 * It is a logical link for background information, much like the one for firstclass
 * Interested students could find out about it and learn how to join.
 * The site links to the automatically updated (but not-very-pretty) email archive.
 * Properly used, it shows huge amounts of what the atmosphere at Commonwealth is like (even our jokes are usually intellectually motivated :-\) --ThinkingInBinary 12:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

As the harms do not look serious to me, and the information benefit is strong (and in line with wikipedia's goals), I would say keep the link. -- Jeff 21:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Jeff on this one. --Reillyeon 21:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I personally agree, but have heard arguments by more important people otherwise. --ThinkingInBinary 12:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Things seem to have calmed down some, and I think people looking at this page would find them useful, so I'm putting back the links to qotw and the leek, plus a link to a non-wikipedia page of traditions I've written up.
 * -- Jeff 01:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Things to Add or Change

 * More information about academics.--Reillyeon 21:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not long descriptions of every course/department, but a simple list of departments and courses. Mr. Wharton pointed out that this stuff is all in the catalog/on the website anyway, and they've already edited it. --ThinkingInBinary 13:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A useful thing to mention is how the set of courses offered is often adjusted to what students want, particularly as far as higher level classes. -- Jbms 06:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Information about the art programs available at Commonwealth (art classes, plays, etc.)--Reillyeon 21:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ditto on the curriculum--might not be worth duplicating--but a list of plays would be great! --ThinkingInBinary 13:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Information about Commonwealth's interaction with the community around it (community service, City of Boston) --Reillyeon 21:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are lots of organizations that would be good to mention. --ThinkingInBinary 01:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * A short, general description of "what kind of school Commonwealth is", beyond a "private school in Back Bay". What's important to us, what is an average Commonwealth student interested in--something a little less objective. --ThinkingInBinary 01:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Umm, "a little less objective"? That doesn't really sound like the job for Wikipedia. -- Jeff 21:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well some might say that objectivity doesn't exist, but of course, that is not something to discuss here. More in line with wikipedia policy, ThinkingInBinary (perhaps someone I know?) could have suggested that some less trivial information be added to the general description of the school.  For instance, the fact that most of the students and faculty are liberal could be mentioned, although I'm not sure that would be useful.  I don't know how to best describe the atmosphere of the school, but I think it would indeed be very useful to do so. -- Jbms 06:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think a few quotes would be appropriate, indicating how students, faculty, and alumni describe their school. (Perhaps it would be OK to take these from admissions materials?) This would communicate more of the school's personality and feeling, but as quotations they would be sufficiently NPOV. - Reed H. Sept. 06

 * Under traditions, a description of announcements should be added. I will perhaps try to write this.  --Jbms 08:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If you do, you might want to mention that prior to --- I think it was 2001/2002 --- announcements were at the end of lunch instead of as part of recess and the reasons for the change (everyone, including you, was skipping) them. -- Jeff 21:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well it actually seems to me that while announcements are a useful tradition to mention, those specifics of timing and the reasons for changing the timing are not particularly important to mention. -- Jbms 06:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Is the same bell still used? I believe there is an interesting story behind it but I now forget. -- Reed H. September 2006

 * A description of the student lounge should also be added. I am not really qualified to write this, but perhaps someone who is will do so. --Jbms 08:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it's important -- Reed Sept. 06

 * A description of the sports programs should also probably be added. They are modest, but definitely worth mentioning. -- Jbms 06:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Some pictures of the school (such as of the outside), or at least one, would probably be useful. Someone in Boston could produce this very easily. -- Jbms 06:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The logo as well?

 * *Added Songs*: I added mention of some of the tradditional songs of the school. If they are getting too much into trivia, then please feel free remove them. I think they are useful in that they provide relations between Commonwealth and other realms of information on Wikipedia. I also couldn't get them out of my head! - Reed H. September 2006

 * *The Walled Garden*: If anyone has a copy or can find publication information for this book, it should be added to the end as a reference or pointer for more information. -- Reed H. September 2006

Reasons to add to this page

 * It is good to have a neutral article that, without grossly misrepresenting the school, portrays its unique attributes, positive and negative. --ThinkingInBinary 01:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It was turning into a good page that really described the school. --ThinkingInBinary 01:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Parents might want a more clear and less promotional description of the school than the website. They might want something that is clear of precisely the perfectly edited, balanced, and tuned writing that the school puts out. --ThinkingInBinary 01:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The question is, though, is Wikipedia the place for that information? -- Jeff 20:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * See Schools and links from that page. -Splash talk 21:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Reasons not to add to this page
The administration of the school has suggested that: I see the point, but disagree that it's a reason to completely stop adding stuff. Perhaps it's a bad idea to add loads of stuff from the catalog, but expanding the article with simple things that don't require lots of editing/review (like a list of courses in each department) would be useful, in my opinion.
 * They want the page to present the school in a very specific way.
 * It's not up to them, it's up to the editorship of Wikipedia at large. There is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia. -Splash talk 14:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand it's not up to him through Wikipedia, but he has asked students (at least me) not to add stuff to it. --ThinkingInBinary 01:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The content we are adding is already on the website, in the catalog, etc.
 * That's not a problem, since this article is not for advertising. There's no reason to suppose that only interested parents will be reading this article. -Splash talk 14:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you'd think it would be useful for other things, like alumni finding out interesting things about the school culture. Unfortunately he is worried about what prospective parents/students would see, and has removed content because he doesn't think it's relevant to them. --ThinkingInBinary 01:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If we add it and paraphrase/edit it, they will have to edit it again.
 * That's up to them. -Splash talk 14:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If we add it and don't paraphrase/edit it, it's not proper Wikipedia writing.
 * More specifically, it it were copy-pasted it would be copyright infringement and it would be removed on sight (I'm watching this page). -Splash talk 14:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not true, if they are the copyright holder they can use it as they like. They do have to agree to the GFDL, but they can release it to be used on Wikipedia while still holding the copyright.  This is what they did when they replaced the page with stuff from the website, some of which is still there. --ThinkingInBinary 01:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If they edit it, it will end up similar to the website.
 * Then someone else should re-edit it until it isn't similar to the website because the website is essentially non-neutral in its presentation, and one of Wikipedia's core principles is neutrality of point-of-view. -Splash talk 14:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thus, we should just link to the school's website instead of adding stuff here.
 * Absolutely not. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links.
 * It's not a list of links, it's just like many other articles about companies/organizations/schools have an external link to the organization's home page. We're not planning to put up a whole site map or anything. ;-) --ThinkingInBinary 01:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

He has also pointed out that adding to this article has left it "unbalanced", with more focus on things like the Jobs program and Hancock than Academics. While I fail to understand why individual contributors are responsible in any way for this, I understand his concern. I don't know exactly what to do, since it's harder to describe Commonwealth's academics in clear, well-written language... it's hard to explain.

Lastly, the director of alumni relations has asked me to stop adding to this page. It's frustrating, because their high standards of quality for communications about the school mean that any edits will have to be scrutinized, and everyone is already quite busy. --ThinkingInBinary 13:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not up to the school what appears in the article, I'm afraid. They are free to edit it as individuals, but they are not welcome to determine for themselves what will and will not appear here. The article as it stands needs editing down: there's some chunks of stuff in there that aren't really encyclopedically interesting. But that is no reason to refrain from adding or editing. What edits an editor makes on Wikipedia are up to that editor alone and not their headmaster. Be bold, but be sensible and do not ask for permission to do things. If you plan to do something obviously controversial, drop this talk page a note, like you already did. -Splash talk 14:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Although I adhere to your beliefs that editors should be bold in what they do, I'd like to make sure that whatever I do, logged-in or anonymously, is okay with my school. They're a very nice place and try to be flexible about things, so I don't want to disobey what they say in secrecy. --ThinkingInBinary 02:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Headmaster/headteacher
We need to decide whether to call the section on the principals of the school "headmasters" or "headteachers", and which to call the current one.

"Headteacher"

 * Pro: It is definitely gender neutral
 * Con: It sounds clunky
 * Con: His primary function is not as a teacher
 * Con: No one uses the term at the school, and I've not heard it used anywhere else.

"Principal"

 * Pro: It is a very common term for the head of a school
 * Con: It's not used at Commonwealth
 * Con: Mr. Wharton does teach a class, while principals generally don't

"Headmaster"

 * Pro: Mr. Wharton is called the headmaster. He is not refered to as the principal or the headteacher.
 * Pro: I believe all past ones have been called headmaster, including Ms. Keenan. At any rate, I have heard comments like "when Ms. Keenan was headmaster..."
 * Con: Might be gender specific
 * The definitions of headmaster, http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aheadmaster, don't say anything about being gender specific.

Because of these reasons, I think we should put all instances of "headteacher" back to "headmaster" -- Jeff 21:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No one's made any comments here, so I'm going to go ahead and change "headteachers" back to "headmasters". -- Jeff 16:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

How about "Head of School"? That is not gender specific, and besides, I've always found "headmaster" a bit archaic.
 * nobody says that either
 * When my school had an interim head, she was known as the "Head of School," and the position would continue to be known as such if the current headmaster were not a traditionalist pig. Nani 17:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the previous comment meant no one /at Commonwealth/. I've certaily heard "head of school" before at other schools.  I would still say use "headmaster" for here, though, because he is ((just asked a current student)) still universally referred to with that name (or "mr wharton").
 * -- Jeff 00:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Head" or "Head of School" are the correct terms for the head of Commonwealth, I believe. A male "Head" may be called "Headmaster". It varies depending on the personal preference of the head of school, however. - Reed H. September 2006
 * I agree, and -- as a student who attended the school under the reign of Judith Keenan -- can confirm that she was referred to as the "Head".  Jfarber 16:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC), '91
 * I can back up what Jfarber wrote. The correspondence I received (from the school; I am an alumnus) all had "Head: Judith Keenan"at the top. Saugart (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable Alumni
The section listing notable alumni is too big. I'm going to remove all the listings that don't already have a wikipedia page for them.
 * -- Jeff 04:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd keep doing that, EXCEPT IMHO it's worth mentioning both the boys who went on to be Lemonheads (else why name one, and not the other?)  Because, really, someone just deleted Diantha Parker (a radio journalist who has reported on-air for national public radio) and replaced her with (among other folks) someone of the same graduation year whose claim to fame seems to be that they are a "lawyer". Didn't Commonwealth teach us all about how to weigh and compare? How to understand and apply other viewpoints, such as Wikipedia's standard for notability? I'll leave Diantha out until she gets her own article, but I'm using Jeff's standard to delete all other red-ink alums. Jfarber 16:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Rate My Teacher.com
A discussion of whether school pages can link to ratemyteacher.com is happening over at Talk:MiltonAcademy
 * -- Jeff 04:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Jay Featherstone
User:Ajd reverted my listing of Jay Featherstone as Joseph "Jay" Featherstone. He was always referred to as "Jay Featherstone" or "Mr. Featherstone" when I was a student there, and I frankly found it quite strange to see him listed as "Joseph Featherstone", although that was indeed the name that was embossed on the school stationery.

I had added the often-used nicknames of the other headmasters who had commonly used ones, because I didn't want the article to be inconsistent. However, I don't want to get into an edit war. So, does anyone have a problem if only Mr. Featherstone is listed with his nickname? I suggest that I would put in:
 * Joseph "Jay" Featherstone

I'd like to understand if anyone still considers the nickname to be frivolous. I believe I have explained above why I don't think it is frivolous, at least in his case. Thanks. Saugart (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I think using "Joseph 'Jay'" for Featherstone is fine, especially because it's both non-intuitive and how he was usually know. But "William 'Bill'" is silly-looking. AJD (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the feedback, AJD. I agree with your aesthetic judgment and I'll just make the change, since nobody has chimed in.  I think this topic can be closed, unless someone wants to say something.  19:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)(Steven Augart, Commonwealth '83).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saugart (talk • contribs)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Commonwealth School. 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/20090831110607/http://www.bostonmagazine.com/boston/private2009 to http://www.bostonmagazine.com/boston/private2009
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831110607/http://www.bostonmagazine.com/boston/private2009 to http://www.bostonmagazine.com/boston/private2009

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Commonwealth School


text: User talk:80.168.81.66

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

title: User talk:80.168.81.66


text:
Armañanzas

Armañanzas is a town and municipality located in the province and autonomous community of Navarre, northern Spain.

title: Armañanzas


text:
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Competence

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

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_ >|< 13:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Competence
Expectations for users are covered elsewhere, and all I can see coming of this page is someone calling someone else incompetent, which would be inappropriate. -- Reinyday, 14:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Reinyday. BD2412  talk 20:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant. Sonic Mew | talk to me 13:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

No one has said where these expectations are covered or what it's redundant with. I'm thinking of closing this with "no consensus". --Uncle Ed 11:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: I see no one clamoring to keep this page. BD2412  talk 23:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Billboard Comprehensive Albums

Billboard Comprehensive Albums was established in 2003 and was a weekly albums chart produced by Billboard magazine that ranked the biggest selling albums in the United States regardless of the product's age or method of sales.

Billboard Comprehensive Albums included any album, old or new, sold anywhere, for which sales data was available. Generally, the Billboard Comprehensive Albums was nearly identical to the Billboard 200, with the exception of approximately 20 to 30 "catalog" albums that still sell well enough to be one of the top 200-selling albums in any given week.

Albums which are over 18 months old (from the date of release) and have dropped below position 100 on The Billboard 200 were removed from that chart and placed on the Top Pop Catalog Albums chart.

Until November 2007, albums sold as an "exclusive" to a particular retail outlet (such as iTunes, Starbucks, or Wal-Mart) were not eligible for the Billboard 200 due to a long-standing policy. This policy was changed following the first-week success of The Eagles' album Long Road Out of Eden, sold exclusively at Wal-Mart and on the Eagles' website; the rule change took effect with the issue dated November 17, 2007.

The Billboard Comprehensive Albums chart was not published in the print edition of Billboard magazine. Instead, it could be viewed via paid subscription to Billboard ' s online service, Billboard.biz.

The issue dated July 11, 2009 was the first time any catalog album outsold the number-one album on the Billboard 200. Three of Michael Jackson's albums (Number Ones, The Essential Michael Jackson and Thriller) claimed positions 1-3 respectively on Top Pop Catalog Albums and Top Comprehensive Albums in the week following Jackson's death.

After the continued success of such catalog albums, Billboard Comprehensive Albums chart was discontinued in November 2009, and the Billboard 200 began to incorporate the catalog albums. Billboard then started the Top Current Albums chart with the old rules of the Billboard 200.

title: Billboard Comprehensive Albums


text: User talk:195.50.81.249

title: User talk:195.50.81.249


text:
Arruazu

Arruazu is a town and municipality located in the province and autonomous community of Navarre, northern Spain. As of census 2017, there are 101 inhabitants in the area.

title: Arruazu


text:
Aveia

Aveia was an ancient town of the Vestini and Roman former bishopric, which remains a Latin Catholic titular see.

Its site is on the Via Claudia Nova, c. 10 km south-east of L'Aquila, N.E. of the modern village of Fossa, in central Italy's Abruzzo region.

Some remains of ancient buildings still exist, and the name Aveia still clings to the place. The identification was first made by V. M. Giovenazzi in Della Città di Aveia ne' Vestini (1773). Paintings in the church of S. Maria ad Cryptas, of the 12th to 15th centuries, are important in the history of art. An inscription of a stationarius of the 3rd century, sent here on special duty (no doubt for the suppression of brigandage), was found here in 1902.

Residential Bishopric
The bishopric of Aveia (Vestina) was founded in the mid-5th century (circa 450 AD) and disappeared, along with the town, in the 6th-century devastations of the Lombards, circa 500 AD.

Maximus of Aveia, a native of the town and a deacon, was martyred in the persecution of Decius, Roman Emperor from 249 to 251. The bishopric of Aveia may have arisen because of veneration of his relics. After the destruction of the town, these were removed to a nearby town which became known as Civitas Sancti Maximi (Saint Maximus Town), which thereupon became the seat of the diocese. From there, in 1256, they were moved to the new town and diocese of L'Aquila.

Titular see
No longer a residential bishopric, Aveia is listed by the Catholic Church as titular bishopric of Aveia since the diocese was nominally restored in January 2009.

Its only incumbent so far has been, of fitting episcopal (lowest rank) :
 * Titular Bishop (2009.01.30 – ...) Raúl Antonio Chau Quispe, Auxiliary Bishop of Lima (Peru)

Sources and external links

 * Attribution
 * GCatholic
 * GCatholic

title: Aveia


text:
User talk:Snakelord

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Snakelord


text:
User talk:Garcia Marquez

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

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.

You might like some of these links and tips:
 * some General guidance.
 * Tutorial 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
 * Take a look at Consensus of standards
 * Create a User page

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, Alf melmac 14:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC).

title: User talk:Garcia Marquez


text:
Avizandum

Avizandum (from Late Lat. avizare, "to consider"), a Scots law term; the judge "makes avizandum with a cause," i.e. takes time to consider their judgment. Compare to curia advisari vult, the term used in the English tradition.

title: Avizandum


text:
Arróniz

Arróniz (Arroitz) is a town and municipality located in the province and autonomous community of Navarre, northern Spain.

title: Arróniz


text:
Cuban espresso

Café Cubano (also known as Cuban espresso, Colada, Cuban coffee, cafecito, Cuban pull, and Cuban shot) is a type of espresso that originated in Cuba. Specifically, it refers to an espresso shot which is sweetened (traditionally with natural brown sugar which has been whipped with the first and strongest drops of espresso). However, the name is sometimes used to refer to coffee based drinks that include Cuban espresso as the main ingredient, such as café con leche.

Drinking café cubano remains a prominent social and cultural activity in Cuba and in Cuban-American communities, particularly in Miami, Tampa and the Florida Keys.

Preparation
Traditional Cuban-style coffee is made using the darker roasts, typically either Italian or Spanish roasts, with the brands Café Bustelo, Café La Llave and Café Pilón being popular. It can be made using an electric espresso machine, but is commonly made with a moka pot.

A small portion of espresso from early in the brewing is added to sugar and vigorously mixed with a spoon into a creamy foam called espuma or espumita. The heat from the coffee making process will hydrolyze some of the sucrose, thereby creating a sweeter and slightly more viscous result than a normal pull or adding sugar at the table.

Serving
In addition to being served at Cuban restaurants, in areas with a high Cuban population, small cafés (or parts of larger establishments) will have small windows, or ventanitas, where Cuban coffee can be ordered. Cuban coffee is often bought with tostada (a buttered slice of Cuban bread), pastelitos, or other Cuban pastries.

Variations
Cortadito is a standard espresso shot topped off with steamed milk. The ratio can be between 50/50 and 75/25 espresso and milk. It is similar to a cortado served in other Latin countries, but pre-sweetened.

Café con leche, or "coffee with milk", is an espresso served alongside a cup of hot or steamed milk. Traditionally served separate from the coffee, the espresso is poured to the desired darkness into the cup of hot milk and then stirred. It is the traditional Cuban breakfast beverage, served with slices of buttered, toasted cuban bread.

Colada is 3–6 shots of Cuban-style espresso served in a Styrofoam cup along with small, plastic demitasses. It is a takeaway form, meant to be drunk as one shot. This is customary of workplace breaks in Cuban communities.

title: Cuban espresso


text:
10th Army (Italy)

The 10th Army (10ª Armata) was a field army of the Royal Italian Army, which fought in World War I and in Italian North Africa during World War II.

Formation
After the Battle of Caporetto (November 1917) the Italian Army (Regio Esercito) was reorganized by Armando Diaz. In the summer of 1918 (after the Battle of the Solstice) the Command continued to modify these changes and in preparation for the Italian Offensive planned for October 1918, the new 10th Italian Army was formed on 14 October. It was a British–Italian Army under command of the Earl of Cavan. It consisted of
 * 1 Italian Army corps, the XI Corps (Italian) (Corpo d'Armata) of Lt. General Giuseppe Paolini.
 * 37th division of Maj. General Giovanni Castagnola (Brigata Macerata of Brig. General Florenzio Tagliaferri, 121st and 122nd Infantry Regiments; Brigata Foggia of Brig. General Raffaele Radini Tedeschi, 280th and 281st Infantry Regiments)
 * 23rd Bersaglieri Division of Lt. General Gustavo Fara (VI Brigade of Brig. General Giovanni Deo, 8th and 13th Regiments; VII Brigade of Brig. General Alessandro Pirzio Biroli, 2nd and 3rd Regiments)
 * 2 divisions of the British XIV Corps of the General James Babington.
 * 7th Division of Maj. General Thomas Herbert Shoubridge (20th, 22nd and 91st Infantry Brigade, 22nd and 35th Field Artillery Brigade, 2 batteries of trench mortars plus a pioneer battalion).
 * 23rd division of the Maj. General H.F. Thuillier (68th, 69th and 70th infantry brigades, a group of cavalry squadrons, the 102nd and 103rd field artillery brigades, 2 batteries of trench mortars and another pioneer battalion).

At the same time General Jean César Graziani of France was asked to command another new Italian Army (joint), the 12th Army consisting of I Corps (Italy), the 52nd Division – Alpini (Italy) and 23rd Division (France).

The Final Battle
The newly constituted 10th Army participated in the victory of the Battle of Vittorio Veneto (October–November 1918). The Army was inserted between the Italian 8th and 3rd Armies at the Piave River. The 8th Army was to cross the Piave River and advance to Vittorio in order to split the Austro-Hungarian Trentino Army from the ones defending Piave. The 10th Army was to protect their right flank. They were also expected to cross the Piave by breaking the Austro-Hungarian defenses at Grave di Papadopoli, a large island in the river.

The 10th Army was augmented by the addition of the following Italian troops prior to the battle:
 * XI Reparto d'Assalto (Arditi).
 * A squadron of cavalry of the 11th Cavalleggeri di Foggia.
 * Three battalions of engineers: two bridge building units and one sapper unit.
 * 10th and 14th armored car squadrons.
 * Artillery: 2 field artillery regiments and a bomb group.
 * Fifty Sailors (18th Pontieri Company )

The pontieri played an important preparatory role by transporting a contingent of British soldiers by boat to the island to surprise the Austro-Hungarian garrison there and gain control of the island before the commencement of the battle.

The 10th Army provided one of the early successes in the Battle as it established a bridgehead on the left bank of the river, despite high and fast waters (floods) in the river. In fact, elements of the 8th Army had to improvise and use the 10th Army's crossings in order to initially get across the river and then achieve the capture of Vittorio. The 10th Army proceeded to speed across the Italian countryside crossing the Tagliamento River towards 1) Tolmezzo (the XIV Corps) and 2) Udine (the XI Corps) as the Austro-Hungarian Army rapidly retreated and then collapsed.

The 10th Army was subsequently joined in the Battle by the 332nd Infantry Regiment (United States), as part of the British XIV Corps; the American regiment forming the advance guard of the corps. On 4 November, when the Italian armistice came into effect, the line of the 10th Army was Basagliapenta-Meretto di Tomba-Coseano-S. Daniele-Pinzano.

World War II
In 1940, the 10th Army was based in Cyrenaica (eastern Libya) and faced the British in the Kingdom of Egypt, a British ally. The 5th Army was based in Tripolitania (western Libya) opposite French Tunisia.

When Italy declared war on 10 June 1940 the 10th Army consisted of five divisions and the 5th Army consisted of nine. After the Fall of France at the end of June, several divisions were transferred from the 5th Army to strengthen the 10th Army, which was increased to ten divisions.

Italian invasion of Egypt
On 13 September 1940, about four divisions of the 10th Army conducted the Italian invasion of Egypt. Four infantry divisions and the Maletti Group marched 100 km in four days and stopped at Sidi Barrani. The Maletti Group included most of the M11/39 medium tanks in North Africa and numerous L3 tankettes. Defensive positions were prepared by the Italians in fortified camps.

British counter-attack
In December 1940 during Operation Compass, the British counter-attacked in what initially was to be a five-day raid against the Italian camps in Egypt. The Italian camps were overrun and the rest of the 10th Army was pushed further and further back into Italian Libya. Many Italian soldiers surrendered once the British troops encircled them in fortified places like Bardia and Tobruk.

Destruction at Beda Fomm
At the Battle of Beda Fomm (6–7 February 1941), most of the remainder of the retreating 10th Army was isolated by Combeforce (Lieutenant-Colonel John Combe) a small advance guard of the 7th Armoured Division (Major-General Michael O'Moore Creagh). Combeforce took a shortcut across the desert, to block the Italian army's retreat, while the 6th Australian Division continued the coastal pursuit. The force was delayed by the harsh terrain, so Combeforce was divided and the lighter, faster elements were detached to complete the interception, leaving the tracked vehicles to follow.

The first elements arrived at Msus late on the afternoon of 4 February and cleared the local garrison. During the following night and day the advance continued and the British artillery and infantry were in position across the coast road by 4:00 p.m. on 5 February. The head of the retreating Italian column arrived 30 minutes later. The Italians were stunned to find the British force blocking them at Beda Fomm, whose strength they greatly overestimated. With the Australians in pursuit, a desperate battle ensued, in which newly arrived Fiat M13/40 medium tank battalions were thrown against the British positions, at great loss. In the afternoon of 6 February, the 7th Armoured Division tanks arrived and harassed the Italian eastern flank.

On the morning of 7 February, the Italians attempted a final, desperate attempt to break through. By this stage, the British units were almost out of food, petrol and ammunition. The British blocking line was almost breached and convinced of the overwhelming size and strength of the blocking force, the encircled Italian units surrendered. The 10th Army was destroyed.

Commanders

 * General Francesco Guidi (October 1939 – Summer 1940)
 * General Mario Berti (Summer 1940 – December 1940)
 * General Italo Gariboldi (acting)
 * General Giuseppe Tellera (December 1940 – February 1941 [KIA])

Order of battle

 * 10th Army (HQ Bardia) Commander – General Mario Berti (followed by General Italo Gariboldi; who was followed by General Giuseppe Tellera from 23 December 1940 until his death at Beda Fomm; who was followed by General Annibale Bergonzoli who surrendered to the British
 * Babini Group
 * III Tank Battalion "M" (M13/40 tanks)
 * V Tank Battalion "M" (M13/40 tanks)
 * 10th Bersaglieri Regiment
 * 12th Bersaglieri Regiment
 * 12th Artillery Regiment "Savona"
 * 26th Artillery Regiment "Pavia"
 * 55th Artillery Regiment "Brescia"
 * various machine gun battalions
 * XX Corps, HQ in Giovanni Berta (today Al Qubbah), Generale di Corpo d'Armata Ferdinando Cona
 * 60th Infantry Division "Sabratha" (Derna)
 * Libyan Divisions Group, HQ in Sidi Barrani, Generale di Corpo d'Armata Sebastiano Gallina
 * 1st Libyan Division (Al Maktilah)
 * 2nd Libyan Division (Tummar)
 * 4th CC.NN. Division "3 Gennaio" (Sidi Barrani)
 * 2nd Tank Group, Colonel Antonio Trivioli
 * II Tank Battalion "M" (minus one company; M11/39 tanks)
 * LXI Tank Battalion "L" (L3/35 tankettes)
 * Maletti Group (Nibeiwa)
 * Mixed Tank Battalion (1x M11/39 company, 1x L3/35 company)
 * XXI Corps, HQ in Sofafi, Generale di Corpo d'Armata Lorenzo Dalmazzo
 * 63rd Infantry Division "Cirene" (Rabia / Sofafi)
 * 64th Infantry Division "Catanzaro" (Buq Buq)
 * XX Tank Battalion "L" (L3/35 tankettes)
 * LX Tank Battalion "L" (minus one company; L3/35 tankettes)
 * LXIII Tank Battalion "L" (L3/35 tankettes)
 * XXII Corps, HQ in Tobruk, Generale di Corpo d'Armata Enrico Pitassi Mannella
 * 61st Infantry Division "Sirte" (Tobruk)
 * 1st Tank Group, Colonel Pietro Aresca
 * I Tank Battalion "M" (M11/39 tanks)
 * XXI Tank Battalion "L" (L3/35 tankettes)
 * LXII Tank Battalion "L" (L3/35 tankettes)
 * Fortress and artillery troops in Tobruk
 * XXIII Corps, HQ in Bardia, Generale di Corpo d'Armata Annibale Bergonzoli
 * 1st CC.NN. Division "23 Marzo" (along the coast between Buq Buq and Sidi Barrani)
 * 2nd CC.NN. Division "28 Ottobre" (Sollum)
 * 62nd Infantry Division "Marmarica" (covering the escarpment between Sofafi and Halfaya)
 * Frontier Guards and Fortress troops in Bardia
 * Regia Aeronautica (as of 10 June 1940)
 * 5th Squadron General Felip Porro
 * 2 Stormo: 60 CR.32, 25 CR.42
 * 10 Stormo: 31 SM.79
 * 14 Stormo: 43 SM.81, 12 SM.79, 1 BR.20
 * 15 Stormo: 21 SM.81, 37 SM.79, 3 BR.20
 * 33 Stormo: 31 SM.79
 * 50 Stormo: 68 Ba.65, 17 Ro.17, 23 Ca.31
 * 10 Gruppo: 27 CR.42
 * Colonial Garrison
 * 1 Gruppo: 32 Ghibli
 * 2 Gruppo: 27 various models
 * Air Observation
 * 64 Gruppo: 5 RO 1 Bis, 9 Ro.37 Bis
 * 73 Gruppo: 1 Ro.1 Bis, 8 Ro.37 Bis
 * 143 (Sea) Squadron: 6 Cant Z.501 (flying boats)

title: 10th Army (Italy)


text:
Talk:National Gallery of Canada

Architecture
This article contains precious little regarding the architecture of the Gallery, which is certainly a major work of its own... Does anyone have any further information behind the design? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.94.6.30 (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2006

 * Here's a page on the gallery's website about the building itself. I suggest JFGI for more resources. --RealGrouchy 19:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, an article on the art gallery and no mention on the ridiculously expensive giant spider out front of it? Im surprised. Could someone add a blurb about that? 74.101.96.39 03:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maman is already first on the list of Noted Works. Go take your POV elsewhere. --RealGrouchy 17:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Pictures
Is there some Wikipedia statement about having pictures on the right side of the page? I'm new here, so I'm still learning things, but in my opinion, it looks best if the images are balanced on left and right. While I'm on the pictures, surely there's something nicer than National_Gallery_of_Canada_from_Parliament_Hill.jpg? It's a rather bleak... How does Wikipedia decide these issues on taste? --Ducio1234 (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Looking at it again, I imagine my edit of the photo was reverted because it altered the "Collection" heading, which made the page look messy. Sorry about this confusion. --Ducio1234 (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Nicer photos may exist, however they must have an appropriate license. If you find such a properly licensed photo, please add one. Flibirigit (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Collection
"as the painting was no more than three strips of paint." This is POV, and I've removed it. The article mentions Carr and Thompson, and doesn't point out that they are not photorealists, so what is the point of this obviously POV (and debatable at best) qualitative description of Newman's work? Value judgments about the art the gallery houses have no more place in this article than similar judgments anywhere else on Wikipedia. Sigma-6 (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on National Gallery of Canada. 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/20100919014739/http://www.gallery.ca/english/2147.htm to http://www.gallery.ca/english/2147.htm
 * Added tag to http://mediarelations.concordia.ca/pressreleases/archives/2000/06/concordia_university_to_award_1.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100530090211/http://www.ty-a.ca/Citizen/top500.htm to http://www.ty-a.ca/Citizen/top500.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070816134958/http://national.gallery.ca/english/default_38.htm to http://national.gallery.ca/english/default_38.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090925164051/http://www.gallery.ca/english/548_1039.htm to http://www.gallery.ca/english/548_1039.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070818173316/http://national.gallery.ca/english/default_36.htm to http://national.gallery.ca/english/default_36.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091003112121/http://www.gallery.ca/english/index.html to http://www.gallery.ca/english/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Gallery of Canada. 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/20081215104157/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081208.wmayer1209/BNStory/Entertainment/home to https://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081208.wmayer1209/BNStory/Entertainment/home
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714061425/http://www.national.gallery.ca/english/default_3514.htm to http://national.gallery.ca/english/default_3514.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:National Gallery of Canada


text:
Jerome E. Listecki

Jerome Edward Listecki (born March 12, 1949) is an American prelate of the Roman Catholic Church who has served as Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, since 2010.

Previously Listecki served as an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Chicago (2001–2004) and as the Bishop of the Diocese of La Crosse (2004–2009).

Early years
Listecki was born in Chicago, Illinois, and raised on the Southeast Side. His father (d. 1986) owned a tavern before working as a bus driver for the Chicago Transit Authority. Jerome received his early education at the parochial school of St. Michael the Archangel Church before attending Quigley Preparatory Seminary South, from where he graduated in 1967. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Saint Joseph College Seminary in 1971, and completed his theological studies at St. Mary of the Lake Seminary (in Mundelein, Illinois). During his summers as a seminarian, he worked in a blast furnace sintering plant in the US Steel mills near Chicago.

Ordination and ministry
Listecki was ordained to the priesthood by Cardinal John Cody on May 14, 1975.

After studies in canon law and moral theology in Rome, Listecki earned a licentiate and doctorate in canon law from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas (Angelicum) in 1981 with a dissertation entitled Indissolubility and the United Methodist Church. He previously earned a Juris Doctor degree from DePaul University. During his service to the Archdiocese of Chicago, he taught at both Quigley Preparatory Seminary North (later Archbishop Quigley Preparatory Seminary) and St. Mary of the Lake Seminary, served in a number of Chicago parishes and as pastor of St. Ignatius Church, worked within the Archdiocesan Chancery as an Appellate Judge for the Matrimonial Tribunal and separately as in-house legal counsel for the Archdiocese of Chicago from 1985 to 1987, and served as the chaplain to the Catholic Physicians' Guild of Chicago.

His media experience included co-hosting the Chicago radio station WIND program "Catholic Conversation" from 1978 to 1979, his regular participation as celebrant for the WGN TV "Mass for Shut-ins", as well as service as a producer for several other television programs.

Auxiliary Bishop of Chicago
On November 7, 2000, Listecki was appointed titular bishop of Nara and auxiliary bishop for the Archdiocese of Chicago by Pope John Paul II. He was consecrated on January 8, 2001.

Bishop of La Crosse, Wisconsin
On December 29, 2004, Listecki was appointed Bishop of the Diocese of La Crosse, succeeding Bishop Raymond Leo Burke who became archbishop of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, Missouri, in St. Louis, Missouri. On March 1, 2005, he was installed as Bishop of the Diocese of La Crosse.

At La Crosse he initiated a $50 million fundraising campaign, a planning process to restructure ministry and parishes in the diocese, and was instrumental in the development of the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe, a project initiated by his predecessor, Bishop Burke.

Archbishop of Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Bishop Listecki was named Archbishop of Milwaukee by Pope Benedict XVI on November 14, 2009. He was installed on January 4, 2010, by the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America, Archbishop Pietro Sambi. As Archbishop of Milwaukee, the metropolitan see of the Ecclesiastical Province of Milwaukee (the entire state of Wisconsin), he received the pallium on June 29, 2010, from Pope Benedict XVI.

Listecki served as an Army Reserve chaplain in the United States Army Reserve for 20 years, retiring as a lieutenant colonel.

Criticism
The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) criticized Archbishop Listecki on January 6, 2010, for allowing retired archbishops Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee and Daniel Edward Pilarczyk of Cincinnati, who were implicated in covering up of cases of sexual abuse, to say Mass at St. John's Cathedral in Milwaukee. On January 12, 2010, during a hearing of the Wisconsin State Senate on a bill to extend the statute of limitations for reporting abuse as supported by Milwaukee District Attorney John T. Chisholm, state Senator Glenn Grothman joined in this criticism, and also questioned Listecki on why he allowed Weakland, who had been accused of moving around abusive priests, to keep his title as Emeritus Archbishop of Milwaukee, as well as retaining the name Weakland Center on the pastoral center at St. John's Cathedral. Listecki testified against the bill, saying it would single out Catholic institutions and bankrupt the Milwaukee Archdiocese.

Listecki was publicly criticized in February 2010 by Jerry Matysik, the Eau Claire Police Chief, and SNAP for allegedly misleading the Wisconsin State Legislature about the LaCrosse diocese abuse notification procedure in Listecki's testimony against extending the statute of limitations, stating, "Archbishop Listecki appears more interested in protecting the organization than he is in protecting children," and again in August 2010 by SNAP for passing up action on an abuse claim due to lack of evidence.

The Archbishop apologized to victims of clergy sexual abuse on March 30, 2010, in a statement that said that both the individual perpetrators, as well as the bishops who failed to stop the abuse, "go against everything the Church and the priesthood represent." He credited the bravery of "victim-survivors" who persisted in bringing their cases to light and forcing the Church to change. "We owe these victims/survivors our deep gratitude and we acknowledge our own actions have not always expressed that gratitude adequately." He defended Pope Benedict XVI's role in the matter: "[M]istakes were made in the Lawrence Murphy case. The mistakes were not made in Rome in 1996, 1997 and 1998. The mistakes were made here, in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, in the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s, by the Church, by civil authorities, by Church officials, and by bishops. And for that, I beg your forgiveness in the name of the Church and in the name of this Archdiocese of Milwaukee."

Three years later, the New York Times commented, "It is disturbing that the current Milwaukee leader, Archbishop Jerome Listecki, said last week that the church underwent an 'arc of understanding' across time to come to grips with the scandal – as if the statutory rapes of children were not always a glaring crime in the eyes of society as well as the church itself."Listecki was likely referring to the "learning curve" that psychiatrists and the clergy whom they advised experienced when it became clear, in about 2002, that pedophiles were not often likely to be cured of their tendencies.

title: Jerome E. Listecki


text:
User talk:Amrhappy1

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Amrhappy1


text:
Charles A. Busiel

Charles Albert Busiel (November 24, 1842 – August 29, 1901) was an American manufacturer, politician, and the 45th governor of New Hampshire.

Early life
Born at Meredith Village, New Hampshire, Busiel was educated at the public schools and Gilford Academy. He worked in the family hosiery mill training in all departments of the mill to learn the business.

Career
In 1863, he purchased the Pitman Manufactory, which he ran for a few years then sold. He and two brothers continued in hosiery, and he also invested in railroads, then expanded into the banking and publishing industries.

Elected as a Democrat in 1878, Busiel was a representative in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. He became a Republican over the issue of tariffs and served several years as mayor of Laconia.

In 1894, Busiel was elected Governor of New Hampshire and served from January 3, 1895, to January 7, 1897. During his tenure, financial programs were initiated to boost the state's economy, electric trolley and railroad services were promoted. He was president of the Laconia National Bank and the City Savings Bank. He was president of Lake Shore Railroad and director of the Concord & Montreal Railroad. He was a delegate to Democratic National Convention from New Hampshire, 1880, and mayor of Laconia, New Hampshire, 1893-1895.

Death
Busiel died August 29, 1901 (age 58 years, 278 days), of coronary heart disease in Laconia. His death was less than two weeks after the death by drowning of his grandson and namesake, Charles Busiel Smith. He is interred in a mausoleum at the Union Cemetery in Laconia, New Hampshire.

Family life
The son of John W. and Julia (Tilton) Busiel, Busiel married, on November 21, 1864, Eunice Elizabeth Preston, daughter of Worcester and Nancy (Evans) Preston, a native of Concord, New Hampshire. They had one child, Frances Evelyn Busiel, who later married Wilson Longstreth Smith of Germantown, Pennsylvania.

title: Charles A. Busiel


text:
Artajona

Artajona is a town and municipality located in the province and autonomous community of Navarre, northern Spain.

Demography
From:INE Archiv

title: Artajona


text:
Tomita–Takesaki theory

In the theory of von Neumann algebras, a part of the mathematical field of functional analysis, Tomita–Takesaki theory is a method for constructing modular automorphisms of von Neumann algebras from the polar decomposition of a certain involution. It is essential for the theory of type III factors, and has led to a good structure theory for these previously intractable objects.

The theory was introduced by, but his work was hard to follow and mostly unpublished, and little notice was taken of it until wrote an account of Tomita's theory.

Modular automorphisms of a state
Suppose that M is a von Neumann algebra acting on a Hilbert space H, and Ω is a cyclic and separating vector of H of norm 1. (Cyclic means that MΩ is dense in H, and separating means that the map from M to MΩ is injective.) We write $$\phi$$ for the vector state $$\phi(x) = (x\Omega, \Omega)$$ of M, so that H is constructed from $$\phi$$ using the Gelfand–Naimark–Segal construction. Since Ω is separating, $$\phi$$ is faithful.

We can define a (not necessarily bounded) antilinear operator S0 on H with dense domain MΩ by setting $$S_0(m\Omega) = m^*\Omega$$ for all m in M, and similarly we can define a (not necessarily bounded) antilinear operator F0 on H with dense domain M'Ω by setting $$F_0(m\Omega) = m^*\Omega$$ for m in M′, where M′ is the commutant of M.

These operators are closable, and we denote their closures by S and F = S*. They have polar decompositions

 * $$\begin{align}

S = J|S| &= J\Delta^\frac{1}{2} = \Delta^{-\frac{1}{2}}J \\ F = J|F| &= J\Delta^{-\frac{1}{2}} = \Delta^\frac{1}{2}J \end{align}$$

where $$J = J^{-1} = J^*$$ is an antilinear isometry of H called the modular conjugation and $$\Delta = S^*S = FS$$ is a positive (hence, self-adjoint) and densely defined operator called the modular operator.

Commutation theorem
The main result of Tomita–Takesaki theory states that:
 * $$\Delta^{it}M\Delta^{-it} = M$$

for all t and that
 * $$JMJ = M',$$

the commutant of M.

There is a 1-parameter group of modular automorphisms $$\sigma^{\phi_t}$$ of M associated with the state $$\phi$$, defined by $$\sigma^{\phi_t}(x) = \Delta^{it}x\Delta^{-it}$$.

The modular conjugation operator J and the 1-parameter unitary group $$\Delta^{it}$$ satisfy

 * $$J\Delta^{it}J =\Delta^{it}$$

and

 * $$J\Delta J = \Delta^{-1}.$$

The Connes cocycle
The modular automorphism group of a von Neumann algebra M depends on the choice of state φ. Connes discovered that changing the state does not change the image of the modular automorphism in the outer automorphism group of M. More precisely, given two faithful states φ and ψ of M, we can find unitary elements ut of M for all real t such that

 * $$\sigma^{\psi_t}(x) = u_t\sigma^{\phi_t}(x)u_t^{-1} $$

so that the modular automorphisms differ by inner automorphisms, and moreover ut satisfies the 1-cocycle condition

 * $$u_{s+t} = u_s\sigma^{\phi_s}(u_t)$$

In particular, there is a canonical homomorphism from the additive group of reals to the outer automorphism group of M, that is independent of the choice of faithful state.

KMS states
The term KMS state comes from the Kubo–Martin–Schwinger condition in quantum statistical mechanics.

A KMS state $$\phi$$ on a von Neumann algebra M with a given 1-parameter group of automorphisms αt is a state fixed by the automorphisms such that for every pair of elements A, B of M there is a bounded continuous function F in the strip 0 ≤ Im(t) ≤ 1, holomorphic in the interior, such that

 * $$\begin{align}

F(t) &= \phi(A\alpha_t(B)),\\ F(t + i) &= \phi(\alpha_t(B)A) \end{align}$$

Takesaki and Winnink showed that any (faithful semi finite normal) state $$\phi$$ is a KMS state for the 1-parameter group of modular automorphisms $$\sigma^{\phi_{-t}}$$. Moreover, this characterizes the modular automorphisms of $$\phi$$.

(There is often an extra parameter, denoted by β, used in the theory of KMS states. In the description above this has been normalized to be 1 by rescaling the 1-parameter family of automorphisms.)

Structure of type III factors
We have seen above that there is a canonical homomorphism δ from the group of reals to the outer automorphism group of a von Neumann algebra, given by modular automorphisms. The kernel of δ is an important invariant of the algebra. For simplicity assume that the von Neumann algebra is a factor. Then the possibilities for the kernel of δ are:

 * The whole real line. In this case δ is trivial and the factor is type I or II.
 * A proper dense subgroup of the real line. Then the factor is called a factor of type III0.
 * A discrete subgroup generated by some x > 0. Then the factor is called a factor of type IIIλ with 0 < λ = exp(−2π/x) < 1, or sometimes a Powers factor.
 * The trivial group 0. Then the factor is called a factor of type III1. (This is in some sense the generic case.)

Left Hilbert algebras
The main results of Tomita–Takesaki theory were proved using left and right Hilbert algebras.

A left Hilbert algebra is an algebra $$\mathfrak A$$ with involution x → x♯ and an inner product (·,·) such that
 * 1) Left multiplication by a fixed a ∈ $$\mathfrak A$$ is a bounded operator.
 * 2) ♯ is the adjoint; in other words (xy, z) = (y, x♯z).
 * 3) The involution ♯ is preclosed.
 * 4) The subalgebra spanned by all products xy is dense in $$\mathfrak |$$ w.r.t. the inner product.

A right Hilbert algebra is defined similarly (with an involution ♭) with left and right reversed in the conditions above.

A (unimodular) Hilbert algebra is a left Hilbert algebra for which ♯ is an isometry, in other words (x, y) = (y♯, x♯). In this case the involution is denoted by x* instead of x♯ and coincides with modular conjugation J. This is the special case of Hilbert algebras. The modular operator is trivial and the corresponding von Neumann algebra is a direct sum of type I and type II von Neumann algebras.

Examples:
 * If M is a von Neumann algebra acting on a Hilbert space H with a cyclic separating unit vector v, then put $\mathfrak A$ = Mv and define and (xv)♯ = x*v.  The vector v is the identity of $$\mathfrak A$$, so $$\mathfrak A$$ is a unital left Hilbert algebra.
 * If G is a locally compact group, then the vector space of all continuous complex functions on G with compact support is a right Hilbert algebra if multiplication is given by convolution, and x♭(g) = x(g−1)*.

For a fixed left Hilbert algebra $$\mathfrak A$$, let H be its Hilbert space completion. Left multiplication by x yields a bounded operator λ(x) on H and hence a *-homomorphism λ of $$\mathfrak A$$ into B(H). The *-algebra $$\lambda({\mathfrak A})$$ generates the von Neumann algebra

 * $${\cal R}_\lambda({\mathfrak A}) = \lambda({\mathfrak A})^{\prime\prime}.$$

Tomita's key discovery concerned the remarkable properties of the closure of the operator ♯ and its polar decomposition. If S denotes this closure (a conjugate-linear unbounded operator), let Δ = S* S, a positive unbounded operator. Let S = J Δ1/2 denote its polar decomposition. Then J is a conjugate-linear isometry satisfying

 * $$S=S^{-1},\,\,\,$$ $$J^2 =I,\,\,\,$$ $$J\Delta J =\Delta^{-1}\,\,\,$$and $$\, S=\Delta^{-1/2} J$$.

Δ is called the modular operator and J the modular conjugation.

In, there is a self-contained proof of the main commutation theorem of Tomita-Takesaki:

 * $$\Delta^{it}{\cal R}_\lambda({\mathfrak A})\Delta^{-it} = {\cal R}_\lambda({\mathfrak A})\,\,$$ and $$\,\,J{\cal R}_\lambda({\mathfrak A})J = {\cal R}_\lambda({\mathfrak A})^{\prime}.$$

The proof hinges on evaluating the operator integral:

 * $$e^{s/2} \Delta^{1/2}\,(\Delta + e^s)^{-1} = \int_{-\infty}^\infty {e^{-ist}\over e^{\pi t} + e^{-\pi t}} \,\Delta^{it} \, {\rm d} t.$$

By the spectral theorem, that is equivalent to proving the equality with ex replacing Δ; the identity for scalars follows by contour integration. It reflects the well-known fact that, with a suitable normalisation, the function $${\rm sech}$$ is its own Fourier transform.

title: Tomita–Takesaki theory


text:
User talk:Zuru

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Untagged image
An image you uploaded, Image:Coatofsoule.jpg, was tagged with the coatofarms copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as seal. If you have any questions, ask them at Media copyright questions. -- 13:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Coatoflapurdi.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Coatoflapurdi.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Coatofnavarra.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Coatofnavarra.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zuru


text:
Talk:Portrait Gallery of Canada

Why is the old US Embassy building pictured here?
I know that the old US Embassy building was at one time considered to be turned into the home of the Portrait Gallery, but that never happened. Why use a photo of that building to illustrate this article, instead of a photo of the EnCana corporate headquarters building (which was also at one time considered to be turned into the home of the Portrait Gallery, but that never happened), or better yet no image at all? --Rob Kelk 12:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Portrait Gallery of Canada. 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/20121104085338/http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=3e3772de-fc36-4f29-971d-9212162a1a4d to http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=3e3772de-fc36-4f29-971d-9212162a1a4d

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) 23:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Portrait Gallery of Canada


text:
Artazu

Artazu is a town and municipality located in the province and autonomous community of Navarre, northern Spain.

title: Artazu


text:
Talk:Canadian Museum of History

Not in Ottawa, but...
If any part of Gatineau could be also said to be in Ottawa, I think this is it. The categories certainly seem to bear this out.

However, how do we keep this distinction clear to casual visitors? I doubt anyone will suddenly be looking for this on the south side of the river, but I think accuracy needs a hand here.

Thoughts? Radagast 21:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Well, it is in Canada. Added to Wiki Project Canada.Pustelnik (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

photo
Correction

The legend under the third and last photo incorrectly names the museum as the "Canadian Museum of Civilization". The legend should read: "Canadian Children's Museum" which the first picture shows as being directly west of the former.

The above comment was left on the main article page by a user who appears to not understand the function of the talk page.-Dhodges 05:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I have removed the comment, which reappeared on June 25. Not only is the article an inappropriate place to put such a comment, the comment is also inaccurate.  The third picture (Civilzation.jpg) in fact shows the main entrance of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.  The Canadian Children's Museum is contained within the walls of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, but is actually on the opposite side of the building from the side depicted in the photograph.

 * The first picture shows the main museum building on the left and the curatorial building on the right, despite the confusing message that the anonymous user has twice added to the page. Canadiana 21:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please remove the "Cleanup Gallery" tag
I doubt that the person who applied the Cleanup Gallery tag even read or comprehended this article – as a typical reader myself, I'm very glad to see these 5 more views of the Museum. To that person: please keep the readers in mind. I'm sure at least 90% of readers would vote to be able to view the main visitor entrance to the galleries, for instance. These 5 views are certainly not "random images" as the tag calls them.

Someone who knows more about images on WP than I do (ie, I'm ignorant about WP image stuff), please remove this ridiculous tag – ridiculous from the point of view of an average reader. In my opinion, the tag just makes Wikipedia (WP) look laughable to the average reader. For7thGen (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I removed 2 duplicated images and the clean-up tag. DGERobertson (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:IG does not say that you can't have multiple views of a subject in a gallery, but rather that the gallery have a theme and be organized, much the same way the text of the article is. A gallery should be more than just an indiscriminate collection of images of the subject.  I will take a shot at improving this one. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Gatineau - QC - Museum of Civilisation3.jpg
I think this very high quality image should be used somewhere in the article. It is really eye-catching. I was considering to replace the infobox image with this one, but I am in doubt, as the current photo shows a larger fraction of the entire building. On the other hand, this photo is much more appetizing and immediately draws the attention of the viewer. Thoughts? --Slaunger (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. The current image is of poor quality. Do it. Dger (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Replaced infobox img with this one. --Slaunger (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Gatineau - QC - Museum of Civilisation3.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Gatineau - QC - Museum of Civilisation3.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 29, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-08-29. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 16:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Museum of History
Most people will have heard that the museum is to be renamed the "Canadian Museum of History". Although I am not saying what most editors on this article do not already know, the name change has not yet actually occurred. The change will apparently require a bill to be enacted by Parliament to amend the Museums Act. Until such time as the name change has actually officially occurred, the title of this article, and the references to the museum name in the body of the article, should remain at "Canadian Museum of Civilization" (mind you, and now I am really stating the obvious, the article can obviously refer to the anticipated name change). Can everyone keep an extra eye on the article during this interim period, in the event an over-eager contributor in good faith jumps the gun? In the event that the museum itself starts using the new name ahead of the legislative change, we may have to reconsider our timing in light of WP:COMMONNAME. However, we can deal with that issue at that time if it ever arises. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 13 December 2013

 * 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.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Canadian Museum of Civilization → Canadian Museum of History – The Canadian government officially changed the name of the institution on December 12, 2013. --Relisted. — Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

 * Support, as nominator. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Proper name. Curious but why didn't you just move it? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't. The redirect is tagged.  I could have asked an Admin to move it, but it occurred to me that someone could potentially take issue with the name change, given that the museum has yet to shift over its website, etc.  I thought it best to be overly cautious and avoid the type of  dispute that occurred when the Bay changed its name to Hudson's Bay. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. Makes sense. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Oppose. No valid rationale. Please see WP:AT for valid reasons for a rename, and WP:official names for an explanation as to why the particular arguments above are irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support It's just a matter of time until they change their branding etc. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps, but this argument seems to go against long established principles. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: You've misconstrued long established principles, as well as the comment above, for reasons set out below. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree, see below. Andrewa (talk) 05:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

WP:BALL is also relevant here. Andrewa (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No! There are official announcements and press releases. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The WP:BALL suggestion is strange, given the circumstances, as none of this is speculative in the least. WP:OFFICIALNAMES isn't really on point either. This isn't a case where we have an official, statutory name that differs from the commonly-used by the general public.  The name change has been a highly-publicized process.  As is evident from the press release cited in the article, the museum is already referring to itself the Museum of History.  The media has not only extensively covered the name change issue over the past year, but it now also seems to be referring to the institution by the new Museum of History monicker in articles that have nothing to do with the name change itself (see, for example, here, here and here).  Other government departments are now referring to the museum by its new name (for example, here), many of the museum's partners seem to be using the new name (example), and the museum has even switched over its Facebook page to the new name.  As the article states, the museum will continue switching everything over to its new name over the next few months.  It's a gradual process, and there is no single switchover date to which we could tie an article rename.  Given that the name change has occurred,  that it is well known, that the implementation of the change is well underway and that usage has clearly already shifted, it seems quite appropriate for the article name to be changed now, with appropriate references to the former name in the article lead.  Andrewa did not provide any details as to why he thinks there are no "valid reasons for a rename", but there does not appear to be anything in WP:AT that would preclude this move.  This does not give rise to the concerns set out at WP:TITLECHANGES, and we are following the process set out in that section of policy.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The official adoption of the name is not speculative, see below. But since I suggested this, another contributor has said It's just a matter of time until they change their branding etc, which is exactly the sort of argument that WP:BALL urges us to avoid. The tenor of the earlier argument is much the same, but that's a concrete example. So ironically I was even perhaps prophetic. Andrewa (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree that the procedures are being followed. But on the evidence so far presented, the move is has not been justified and so should not occur. This may just be because the evidence given misses the point. Examples are not enough, as they may be isolated. We need evidence of general acceptance. You say usage has clearly already shifted, but why are you so confident of this? You say This isn't a case where we have an official, statutory name that differs from the commonly-used by the general public. Evidence? All we need is the evidence, and the move should then proceed. But we don't have it, and it's up to the proponents of the move to provide it.
 * And we have the situation that not even all of the official website is changed, and that many of the museum's partners seem to be using the new name, which indicates also that some are not. This surely will lead to other people continuing to use the old name? How many? We at least need to ask and answer the question.
 * Agree that the official name change is not speculation. Again, I never said it was. Andrewa (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you didn't mean to suggest that it was speculative, then the bald reference to WP:BALL wasn't that helpful. Before I respond more in depth, I ask that you please not reformat my comments, split my comments in ways that I had not intended so they no longer flow, or insert comments within my previous comments such that some my comments appear to have no signature. If you are responding to something at the start of my previous comments, please simply indicate that is the case without editing someone else's comments.  Obviously feel free to insert comments between separately signed comments.  I have restored my comments to how they originally read.  Thanks.  As for the points you've raised: WP:BALL - Well, no, not prophetic, since there was nothing to suggest that this was a situation to which WP:BALL applied.  As for comments subsequent to your suggestion that WP:BALL applies, please have some good faith and assume an experienced editor like User:Secondarywaltz is well aware of the problems of WP:BALL-type assertions, especially since he was careful to make clear that he was not speculating by referring to the press releases which made clear that the museum is already referring to itself by the new name and would complete the transition in a few months (and, being Canadian, he is undoubtedly personally well aware of this well-publicized change).  Given the context and his full comments, Secondarywaltz was hardly suggesting that "someday the name might change" (the type of situation where WP:BALL would apply), but rather that it was just a matter of time till the museum completes switching everything over (and, as discussed above, that process is well underway).  So, WP:BALL doesn't apply, either in the context of when you made the suggestion, or in light of Secondarywaltz's subsequent comment. As for your other suggestion, there is plenty of evidence that the name change reflects popular usage.  The museum has now even switched over its Twitter account.  The examples provided are not isolated (they've converted their entire social media presence to the new name is isolated evidence???), and there is plenty of evidence of general acceptance.  There is no hard date at which the museum is switching everything over, but they are clearly progressing rapidly.  This is a situation of a well-publicized and reported name changed, which became official almost a month ago, with the museum now referring to itself by the new name and having  already switched over significant aspects of its public branding, with numerous examples of the media, government and other institutions using the new name.  Your comments suggest an unreasonable threshold, unsupported by any guideline, where we would effectively need to conduct opinion polling every time we wanted to switch an article title.   We don't need to prove that the entire world has adopted the new name (for any name change for any institution, some people will continue to use the old name for years after the fact).  In this case, we have shown clear evidence of general acceptance.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll obey your request, although it seems unnecessary and makes it impossible to reply in detail to this, which contains many false statements and misunderstandings.
 * So let's just take your first point. The key is that I said that the claim of popular adoption of the new name was speculative, not the claim of its official announcement. Obviously I didn't say it clearly enough. Do you see the difference now? Andrewa (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that there have been no press releases, nor that there's no usage of the new name. The question is, has this new name come into popular usage? Andrewa (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is clearly more than just press releases. And it has quite clearly come into popular usage, given the demonstrated usage by the museum, the media, government and third parties.Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the evidence so far presented supports that it has quite clearly come into popular usage at all. But that's the right way to argue. Andrewa (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The name change is official from both the government of Canada and the museum itself (I added a link in the article to confirm). It is just a matter of time before it will come into common usage. Wikipedia should be using the correct name. I suggest, move immediately. There is no mechanism to decide when the new official name will become commonplace. Dger (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would disagree, as we should be generally using the common name rather than deferring to an official name simply because it is official (see policy and guideline references in the discussion above). But for the reasons out above, the official name here is already commonplace. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * How exactly do you determine when does a name become commonplace after its official name changes? For Wikipedia to be accurate it should reflect the correct and currect names of institutions. There is no mechanism to poll the population to determine which is the current popular name. You make not like the change but the government of Canada decides the names of its institutions. Personally, I am against the name change but you can't fight the reality of this situation. Dger (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not always easy. But that's the policy, and you can indeed fight the reality of this situation (the reality of the policy, I mean) and that's the tenor of much of the above, but it's probably not the best way forward. Andrewa (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

{{subst:pob||

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Canadian Museum of History. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050330171045/http://www.civilization.ca:80/societe/annrpt95/rp2ree.html to http://www.civilization.ca/societe/annrpt95/rp2ree.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Canadian Museum of History