text:
Talk:William Herbert Sheldon

Add debunking studies
It'd be good to have some details of the debunking studies. matturn 11:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That sounds like the talk of an ectomorph: don't just talk, man, act!
 * I doubt there are any. The reference ot the claim that Sheldon's work was dismissed is an article from a newspaper, which in turn does not reference anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.78.131.219 (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Temporary bio data for article until completed
He was born in 1898 and had a brother: Israel Sheldon.

Recent Times article
The Great Ivy Leage Nude Posture Photo Scandal Shinobu 02:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Source for quackery text
Why this revert? The source (which is the New York Times) clearly and unequivocally states that Sheldon's "work has long been dismissed by most scientists as quackery." So where do you get the idea that this is "incorrect" or "unsupported by the source"? Please elaborate. MastCell Talk 05:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

 * And, while we are at it, I question the basis for this revert. According to WP:Sources, "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" are acceptable - specifically listing "mainstream newspapers" as an option. I think the New York Times falls within this definition. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I have no intention of reverting anyone's edits at this article, but I agree with the editor who removed the NYT reference that an NYT article isn't a good source to use here. The NYT isn't a scientific journal, and the article's reference to "quackery" is vague and unsupported. "Quackery" isn't a precise term or a term with a proper scientific meaning; it's a term of abuse, and it's not proper to describe something as "quackery" in Wikipedia's voice. If Sheldon's work isn't considered scientifically valid, then find a better source for that, and explain it in suitably neutral terms. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The New York Times is a good source, by this site's standards. In fact, it's the only decent source in the article at present - the only independent, reliable secondary source. It is a fact that Sheldon's claims are no longer taken seriously by the scientific community. That fact is properly sourced. By failing to present it, we're failing the reader, and I'm not sure why. We're not in the business of "watering down" reliable sources because we personally find them "abusive". The Times used the word quackery - a word with a strong but specific meaning. MastCell Talk 19:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Give me a break. Wikipedia's policies shouldn't be followed slavishly for their own sake, and they aren't set in stone - they can be changed, like anything else on Wikipedia, if editors decide that that's appropriate. We should use common sense in deciding what sources to use, and if need be change policy accordingly. The fact that there currently isn't a better source than the NYT article doesn't make it a good source (it's a second-rate or third-rate piece of journalism), and though I'm not about to remove it, doing so would be a perfectly reasonable editorial decision. I have seen sources such as the BBC News removed from articles when editors judged that they were junk or saying something that was just wrong. And I stand by my judgment of "quackery" - though often used pejoratively to describe things that aren't scientific, it is itself an unscientific term, so it should hardly be used to represent the views of scientists. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember too that just because a source says something, that doesn't mean we automatically have to repeat it in articles. For example, you could probably find a source saying that most scientists see Sigmund Freud's work as quackery, but that doesn't mean that we would have to quote it in the article on Freud, or stuff the "quackery" bit in the lead (I've worked hard trying to improve the Freud article, and keep it neutral, and would be strongly against such a thing). There's more reasonable and sensible criticism of Freud out there, and obviously the Freud article needs to reflect the best-quality criticism of Freud - same should go for Sheldon. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. If you really feel that it's inappropriate to cite the New York Times piece as evidence of the reception of Sheldon's work by mainstream scientists, then the next step is probably to solicit outside input, for example at the reliable sources noticeboard. While I agree that Wikipedia's policies are not to be followed slavishly, I fail to see how that mandates removing the lone independent, reliable source in the article. MastCell Talk 21:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the "reliable" phrase from the article:

 * "Mr. Sheldon has since died, and his work has long been dismissed by most scientists as quackery."

 * It is an outright weasel phrase and as such must be deleted on sight. There is nothing to discuss about it. The Wikipedia guideline says that "Phrases such as these present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint."—Editor75439 (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Say, I like a good argument as well as the next person. But isn't this one now moot?

I read it in the Times
It is a direct quote from the New York Times, so it cannot be a weasel word. I have restored the quote in the citation. Readers need to see how strongly or weakly worded the New York Times says his work has been refuted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I have a great deal of respect for the New York Times. That said, I don't think it has elevated the art of reporting to such a level that anything that appears in its pages is beyond question. Wikipedia is not bound to quote verbatim everything the NYT says. We give folks the cite and they can go look at the article if they want to read more. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Disproof - or proof - of scientific concepts
The scientific community cannot refute a concept just by saying that its author is a coin thief and his theory is quackery. '''A scientific concept can only be disproved by experimental evidence. All known experimental studies undertaken to test Sheldon's findings have produced supportive evidence for his position:''' Sheldon maintained that the person's somatotype is genetically determined and causes people to develop and express personality traits consistent with their body builds. For example, he hypothesized that endomorphs (high in fatty tissue) would be sociable, complacent, and capable of easy communication of feelings. He thought mesomorphs (high in muscle tissue) would be adventurous, bold, competitive, aggressive, and energetic, whereas ectomorphs (low in fatty and muscle tissue) would be inhibited, introverted, hypersensitive to pain, and secretive. He tested these hypotheses by having observers rate individuals on these trait dimensions and found empirical support for his ideas (Sheldon, Hartl, & McDermott, 1949, pp. 26–27). Although this study has been strongly criticized on methodological grounds (Sheldon himself made both the physical and psychological ratings), more methodologically sound studies—in which investigator bias was minimized by having one investigator rate the somatotypes and having the study participants independently rate their own personality traits—have also produced supportive evidence for Sheldon's position (Child, 1950; Cortes & Gatti, 1965; Yates & Taylor, 1978).
 * —Ryckman, Richard M. Theories of Personality Ninth edition, Cengage Learning, 2007, p. 260
 * 89.110.28.44 (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Please see the Talk page for Somatotype and constitutional psychology. BTW, I would be happy to see or someone else taking a look at the "discussion" so far to try to salvage something out of this mess, using all available references (including, IIRC, one that Editor75439, who is likely the IP-address poster above, at first cited but dropped after someone pointed out that going on slightly further in the text indicated that the author actually disagreed with Sheldon). I'm too tired of all this. Allens (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ryckman disagreed with Sheldon by expressing a conjecture (not supported by any experimental evidence!) that the correlation between somatotypes and psychotypes is explainable by instilled cultural stereotypes. But this conjecture is an obvious absurdity because it implies that the sensitivity to sleeping pills, which in cerebrotonics is thrice lower than in viscerotonics, is a result of cultural stereotypes. —89.110.28.44 (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Regarding the premise that "[a] scientific concept can only be disproved by experimental evidence": At what point does a "hypothesis" become a "concept" such that this rule applies? (And, while we're at it, what IS a "scientific concept"?) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's basically a back-asswards rendition of the scientific method. In reality, a scientific concept must be proven by experimental evidence in order to be accepted. The burden of proof is on the person proposing a novel hypothesis. One very common hallmark of nonsense and quackery is that its proponents make a claim and then demand that science conclusively disprove it. MastCell Talk 19:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not quite call it the burden of proof - it's more like the burden of showing that you've tried to disprove it and failed. (The "tried to disprove" efforts need to include attempts to show if any alternative reasonable hypothesis is more congruent with the evidence - or, to be precise, less noncongruent with the evidence.) But, yes, the burden is certainly on those trying to claim something. (This is one reason the precautionary principle is not scientific, incidentally - it removes the burden of proof from those making a claim, namely a claim of danger.) Allens (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In 2021 this is no longer in the article, but perhaps should be in some form. — Paleo Neonate  – 07:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC) Another source with some mention of criticism: — Paleo Neonate  – 07:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

And more can be found at — Paleo  Neonate  – 07:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Sanitizing
A "new" editor (who, having just started editing November 30, seems unusually adept at citing Wikipedia guidelines) seems to be removing any negative information from this article. This person has already had trouble complying with Wikipedia rules. I have restored the negative text. If that editor wants to re-write it so as to soften the impact, that is one thing. But removing it altogether seems to be censorship by someone who has an ax to grind. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

 * An update: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Three more articles regarding Sheldon
The following may be of interest: http://www.coinbooks.org/esylum_v11n22a06.html, do a "find" for "Sheldon" - on his coin-collecting misdeeds, as is http://maineantiquedigest.com/articles_archive/articles/shel0298.htm on a court decision regarding Sheldon that should be locatable (for an even better reference); and http://www.cbmh.ca/index.php/cbmh/article/view/928/923 - a journal article on Sheldon that looks to be well-referenced if perhaps with some left-wing bias. Allens (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:William Herbert Sheldon


text:
Talk:The Da Vinci Code/Archive 1

The Priory of Sion
The part in the article dealing with the Priory of Sion was misleading. The statement alleging "While the Priory is a genuine organization claiming to have been the Templars' driving force" just cannot be substantiated in any possible way. I have included a factual account of the Priory of Sion to the article. Paul Smith

Criticism about bees and phi
This article was obviosly partisan and took many liberties with its presentation. It has been revised accordingly.

I don't have time to include this in the article, but the straight dope had some very good observations about this: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040618.html. maybe someone could go through and pick out what's relevant. -- comrade009

The criticism about bees and phi is quite off the mark. The book isn't suggesting the ratio in nature is exactly phi, it is suggesting it is generally very close to phi, or perhaps that it approaches phi as the number of bees increases. --rem120
 * Yes that is quite misguided as a criticism. Whoever included it does not understand the concept of mathematical limits. There are certainly many things you can say against the book, but that is not one of them. -- Decumanus 15:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The book doesn't suggest it is approximate, it suggests a full match. Mathematically, this is impossible. "Correct. And did you know that if you divide the number of female bees by the number of male bees in any beehive in the world, you always get the same number?" "You do?" "Yup. PHI."
 * even assuming it's approximate, so what? φ isn't all that far from 1, and there's a tremendous variety in sex ratios; hunt around enough species and you're sure to find one whose ratio comes close. An honest symbologist would acknowledge that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... Similar comment applies to his shells. Kwantus 15:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * But this isn't just something that Brown made up - it is scientific fact. It comes about because phi is the limit of the ratio of consecutive terms of the Fibonacci sequence, and the Fibonacci sequence appears in nature all over the place because of the way organisms subdivide and replicate.  So, if anything, it isn't phi that is everywhere in nature - rather, it is the Fibonacci sequence that is everywhere.  Phi is not naturally present - it arises only when a human being does the division. — Paul G
 * Okay. But why whould the sex ratio in bees in particular have more to do with "the way organisms subdivide and replicate" than that of other species? Something to do with part of the hive splitting off to form a new colony? Brown doesn't explain and without some sort of explanation for why this should be so the sex ratio of bees being close to 1.6, even if true, is quite uninteresting. Haukurth 20:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree! He should have used bunnies (after reading this, only 15 guys got the joke, and only 4 thought it was funny). Seriously though, it is true, it has to do with how bees reproduce. The explanation is that if you look at the pedigree of a single male bee the number of people in each generation are consequtive fibonacci-numbers. Fibonacci numbers occur everywhere in nature like sunflowers and tree branches, etc. But I agree, it is quite uninteresting. Gkhan 13:05, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you but I still don't get it. I'm perfectly comfortable with Fibonacci numbers and their use to count bunnies etc. but I don't see the bee connection here. Why isn't the sex ration in bunnies 1.6? What's special about bees? Haukurth 20:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I know the term symbologist is used in the book (so it's okay to use the word), but isn't the correct field of study semiotics not symbology. I read somthing somewhere, don't quote me on this, that symbologist was a word coined by Brown toa void explaining what semiotics is. If no one disputes this, should this be mentioned in the article? (Note: Symbology has no page in wikipedia)

BrokenSegue 00:10, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) [The French expression for the Holy Grail, San gréal, actually is a play on words for Sang réal, which literally means "royal blood".] -> The french expression is 'Saint Graal' (litterally Holy Grail) ans it is not a play on words for 'Sang Royal' (royal blood). 'gréal', 'réal' and 'san' are not even french words. FoeNyx 17:33, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Tell that to Montréal. Those may not be the words now. What were they a thousand years ago, when spelling was much less consistent (and in oral transmission, nonexistent) and there were dozens of tongues in that part of the world. 142.177.125.221 15:01, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

not npov
although well written and nicely formatted i believe that this article has not been written with a neutral point of view. there seems to bee too much focus on the negative opinions of others concerning the truth/untruth the novel brings to light. keep in mind it is fiction, however i think there should be a balance in the article between the positive/negative aspects of the book and the way it was affected the thinking of others which it obviously has. --Larsie 16:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Being NPOV generally means including both positive and negative points of view. I can't see why you say there is "too much focus" on negative viewpoints; only about 10% of the article covers this, tucked away entirely at the tail end of a long article. Given that it has been controversial enough to stimulate someone to write a rebuttal - a rather unusual thing for a novel - it could be argued that there is far too little space devoted to this. And "keep in mind it is fiction" - parts of it claim to be non-fiction, and it is those parts which have been criticised for inaccuracy. But I suppose there probably should be literary criticism, too. Securiger 13:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I also just noticed (on Lewis Perdue's website about the lawsuit) that Random House is claiming the similarities are scenes à faire on the basis of being carefully historically researched. That being the case, the question of whether or not DVC is historically accurate (and it isn't, IMHO) is likely to be examined in court. Securiger 16:34, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Neutral Point Of View. An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that has been written without showing a stand on the issue at hand. When reading the article the da vinci code the reader is generally left w/ a negative feeling toward the novel. this can not be disputed as there is nothing in the article focusing on anything in the novel as being historically accurate as opposed to inaccurate. the impression given by the author of the article is that they themselves portary a negative veiw on the novel and the issues it raises. that is not a neutral point of view. --Larsie 16:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Larsie, how do you suggest we improve this? personally, I don't see it as being POV but if we are to improve this article then we need some suggestions on how to improve it. Do you have a solution towards "fixing" this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:04, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * There is nothing about NPOVness that says the reader has to walk away without an opinion; just that the information has to be conveyed without bias. For example, we could not say "Pol Pot was an evil fiend", but it's perfectly OK to say "The casualty list ... is disputed... Amnesty International estimated 1.4 million", and if people decide that Pol Pot was an evil fiend, as they are likely to do, that's their business. Now the fact is that the preface to DVC rather unusually claimed that certain parts of the book are factual, but a number of historians have strongly disagreed (to the very unusual extent of writing a rebuttal to a novel), and furthermore the issue might soon be raised in court (in relation to the plagiarism lawsuit). Clearly these are significant facts and should be included. Personally, I found these arguments quite convincing; that doesn't mean that including them is POV. To be NPOV, we need to include any response made by Dan Brown. To this end, I just went and scoured his website. However, he seems to have chosen to make no response to his critics at this time. Securiger 15:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this article is to negative, quite the opposite. I think it is to kind to an author who has stolen the entire plot of his book.

too bad mr. brown has no comment, but i don't think we necessarily need anything from him. what would be good is idea if we could get some info from historians or others who do support the accuracy of the novel of which i'm sure there are.
 * I you find some such references, it would be appropriate to include them. However I have looked, and not found any. Brown's ideas (or rather, Baigent and Leigh's ideas) do not seem to be much supported among professional historians.

to convey the fact that that not one person can support any historical accuracy would be silly.
 * I don't understand what you meant there, sorry.

mr brown must have got some of his ideas from somewhere. if i remember correctly was the not a bibliography included?
 * He seems to have principally used Holy Blood, Holy Grail. This is already referenced in the article, and we have an article on that book.

(edit: Also Laurence Gardner has written about this theme (Bloodline of the Holy Grail etc.)

i realise that a number of historians strongly disagree, however i am sure a number of them happen to agree or can at least support his claims.
 * Find some such references and we will certainly include them.

it just seems that the only people we hear from are those who are disgruntled at the fact that someone is contradicting everything that they've been taught.
 * Huh. Sure you don't have a little POV yourself? As I remarked above, far from being "the only people we hear from", very little of the article addresses the book's historical claims, despite them being one of the three most notable features (the others being the puzzles, and the plagiarism lawsuit). And calling people "disgruntled" because they object to historical inaccuracies is rather pejorative.

on another topic: it is unfortunate that i do not have access to the www from home otherwise i could research this a little, however i only have access at work and am only able to access .org sites.--Larsie 21:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could try an internet café, or a library (many now provide free internet access). Of course, you can also do off-line research at the library, and that is often of a higher quality than what you find on the net. Just a few suggestions. Securiger 02:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * sorry you misunderstood, what i meant by "the only people we hear from" is the general public just any person you discuss topics with or read discussions on forums or even verbally communicating, not professionals. in most cases people only hear or see what they want and if you try and suggest them otherwise they will not listen. it would be interesting to see what types of comments others have on the topic, not that the book itself is important but the issues it raises are as religion is such a big part of a lot of peoples lives.--Larsie 16:28, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * as for improving this page a heading for accuracy or supported facts or something along those lines in order to counter the critiscizms heading would help to give a balance in the article and allow people "both sides" that would defineately balance the article--Larsie 16:47, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm a little afraid the article would get extremely silly extremely quickly if you tried to list all true historical details from the book. "As Brown indicates, there were military orders during the Crusades. He further correctly identifies the Pope as the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Etc." The point is that the historical and factual deviations are significant to the article, the specific things that are correct are not interesting (unless someone can show that some surprising or outlandish claim is true, of course.)

 * The article doesn't mention that the Pope who Brown reports as having disposed of people in the Tiber (sorry I don't have the precise details at my fingertips), was actually an Avignon Pope and never once set foot in Rome as Pope. So the article is not going out of its way to find points to dispute. Mpolo 16:56, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * that would be a perfect point to address mpolo these are the types of things that sould be added, also per the paragraph above if there is a "true claim" then there is no reason for it to be outlandish.--Larsie 18:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * If I can just make a suggestion, open a new paragraph about "Facts", describing the broadly accepted information given by the Da Vinci Code. This balances the "Criticisms" paragraph. --MaxB 19:45, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was looking at the character list and thought that the Leutinant should be added, but I dont know his name. Will someone do that?

 * It was stated that describing the bible as a subjective source was POV. As the content of the bible is selected by a small number of highly influencial people, and they have selected the content from a broader number of documents, I am afraid that the bible by definition is subjective. This is even strenghtened by the fact that the "books" are the personal views of individual people, like Paul and John. With this statement I do not say anything about my personal feelings if the Bible reflexes the actual historical situation. I do not know. --MaxB 14:47, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This book is extremely controversial, and the main reason for this is that every single claim in it is made in form of revelation of fact. It really works if one is not familiar with the real facts, and if he is, the result is often frustration and anger. For instance, the author isn't very familiar with Vatican semantics, for instance he claims that Pope made Opus Dei "his personal prelature" while in fact he made it "a personal prelature". To an insider, this reveals the author's ignorance, but an outsider would just swallow it whole without questioning. I guess that explains why millions of people think this book is the key to christianity, while historians generally have negative opinions. I'm not a historian, but I'm somewhat familiar with the history of Church and Christian theology, and I found a solid amount of terrible blunders in this book. There are a few good points but they are not documented with good sources (and yes, I found very solid arguments about Mary of Magdala elsewhere). It is very difficult to maintain a neutral PoV when you see that the author got practically everything wrong, has a very low regard for the facts, and has lots of naive people blowing his horn all over the place. Let's face it, if one lies and distorts, neutral facts just can't display him in neutral or positive light. --Danijel

Dan brown never says any of the history is true. The "fact page" discusses art, architecture, documents, and secret rituals, but never says anything about history (though it's claim about the priory of scion is debateble.) I noted this in the introductory paragraph to the criticisms section. It's a fictional novel for god's sake. Xunflash 04:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Point form
How can we rewrite this article to remove the point form? I'm thinking of placing this on peer review to see what people think. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:54, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have any great ideas, but the point form is quite distracting ;-) — Matt Crypto 12:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quick question...
Does calling it a novel make it immediately and indisputably clear that it is fictional? I've run into a few people that asked about the book, "is it real?" Because of that, I'd lean toward explicitly saying it is fiction, unless there's some overwhelming reason not to. Bantman 05:56, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

According to the wiki article on novel, it is quite clear that a novel is a work of fiction. I have thus added links to both of these topics within the Da Vinci Code article itself, so that people who don't have a clear understanding of this can check it out themselves. And while I don't believe it is really necessary to state blatently that novel = fiction within this article, I am not opposed to it being done, if necessary. The problem IMHO is wild interpretation of, as the article states: "the novel's claim to contain elements of historical truth within its fictional framework"; so what is the truth, and what is not. Of course, everyone will have an opinion on this, especially as it strikes close to personally held truths. Sfdan 11:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The opening claim in the book states that the descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals are accurate, not the theory behind Mary Magdalene that is presented in the book. Dan Brown intended the book to be fiction, which he himself has stated. People should not regard the theories in the book as true, and likewise, the book shouldn't be criticized for presenting those theories as true. Xunflash 4 July 2005 21:11 (UTC)

Criticism?
I don't follow this criticism.

''Mary Magdalene is said to have been labelled a whore; in fact, there is no Biblical correlation between the whore that Christ saves from being stoned to death and Magdalene whatsoever. This common misunderstanding is initiated by Pope Gregory I, who proclamed this based on a false analysis of Luke 7 and 8. He "integrated" three different women into one''

The novel claims that Mary Magdalene was deliberately smeared as being a whore. Here we learn that Pope Gregory I did the smearing. This seems to support what Brown wrote. So what's the criticism? Sleeper 9-Feb-2005

Sleeper, I believe the criticism is that the novel states that Mary Magdalene was officially considered by the church (as a whole) to be a whore up to present day as part of their suppression of the sacred feminine. But, that is not the case. I am not a historian and can't corroborate this, but it's implied in the criticism here that Pope Gregory I's views were not shared by others or, at least, were not endorsed by the church up to present day. KD: March 22, 2005

The criticism here implies that the novel says the bible labelled Mary Magdalene as a whore, which is not what the novel claims. Until 1969, the Catholic Church actually did consider Mary Magdalene as the whore who washed Jesus's feet. Movies like [The Passion of the Christ] still follow that tradition, so the novel was right in saying the Catholic Church "smeared" Mary Magdalene. Anonymous 6-19-05

The Passion of the Christ was not produced by the Catholic Church; you can't cite it as proof of Church teaching. It has been a widely believed tradition (lower-case "t") that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute; however, at no point was it part of Catholic dogma. Furthermore, to say that the Catholic Church sought to smear Mary Magdalene is a gross mischaracterization. Even those who believe that she was also the sinful woman in the Bible revere her as a woman who reformed her life and became a devoted follower of Jesus. I don't know if this is really worth putting in the article, but it is worth noting here that there was never a "smear" campaign against Mary Magadalene. JVB 6-22-05

Exactly for that matter, while Pope Gregory I did botch his interpretation of those two passages from Luke, it was quickly dropped by the Catholic Church, and is not Catholica Dogma. The Catholic Church did not consider Mary Magdalene as the whore who washed Jesus's feet. While this was still a popular thought, it was not held as necessarily true by the Catholic Church. Furthermore, even considering this interpretation of Mary Magdalene as the whore, do we not have a woman who met Christ, was cleansed of her sins and forgiven by Christ, and become a devout follower? She was not only not the victim of a smear campaign, but a shining example to those who had fallen from grace. -LOL 7-4-05

Basic Premise
The basic premise of this "novel" is that there were descendants of Jesus that come down to ONE person today, the heroine in the book.

That is genetically an extreme silly proposition...

From the time of Jesus (and his children) to today is (2000 years from time of Jesus or approx 1950 years from time of his children divided by 25 years per generation = 1950/25 = 78 generations (or 2000/25 = 80 generations) Such a massive number of generations simply means that today the descendants then of Jesus would blanket Europe.

And clearly NOT be one person.

And that is the case ... see books delineating some of those descendants.

Considering the limited number of birth/death/marriage records, and high mortality rates for much of history since the first century AD, it would be rather difficult to keep track of Jesus' descendents if any. (He might have had some or siblings had children of course).

Applying Occam's Razor - there are too many disparate components involved - and there are no obvious other links between them.

 * A few points on what is written above:
 * That was not the main premise of the book. If that section was removed from the book then the plot would remain exactly as it currently is.
 * The heroine also had a brother.
 * The book did not state that the heroine was the sole descendant, only that both her parents were from the strongest bloodline.
 * Why have you quoted the word "novel". Are you implying that it isn't?
 * What in the world does any of this have to do with Occam's Razor? Please elaborate.
 * I liked the novel, it wasn't fantastic but was entertaining. Obviously some people take these things a little too personally.
 * --13:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Has this got anything to do with the article? Remember, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum... — Matt Crypto 14:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Number of copies in print
The article currently says there are over "44 million copies sold." A recent Associated Press article claims there are 25 million copies in print (in 44 languages). Given that even the AP gets it wrong once in a while, does anyone have a source for the 44 million figure? - Walkiped 03:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Plenty of sources give the lower figure. The higher was added by an anon and never changed. DJ Clayworth 19:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * 36 million copies in print as of August 2005, according to Dan Brown's agent, Heide Lange, quoted in the NYT --Lucien 00:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Three ex-BBC started this whole mess 30 years ago
Added info about the book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" (ISBN-0-09-968241-9) written by three british ex-BBC. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0099682419/202-6416673-8852619). the da vinci code is 100% copycat and two of the authors of the "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" faux documentary book have actually started to sue Mr. Brown last autumn.

I've tidied the English, and placed this anon's paragraph in the 'criticism' section. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Being at legal risk
Dear "Mel Etitis",

What I wrote about da vinci being copycat of the 1982 faux doc book is not criticism it is fact. Please be aware that the three original authors are already sueing Mr. Brown for plagiarism. I happen to know that that the university of bordeaux computer linguistic lab has just completed a comparative machine analyis of the two books and found overwhelming statistical correlation (i.e. plagiarism is thus Q.E.D.) This will be sumbitted as evidence in the pending plagiarism lawsuit.

Please note that I allege you intentionally hide factual info at the bottom (criticism part) of the da vinci code wiki article and thus you violate NPOV. What I wrote is not opinion, I provided rock solid facts. I reserve the right to call the wikipedia council's attention to the situation. Finally I may even threat Google with press (Google gives money, money runs wikipedia). Put the info back where it belongs, at the front, because the "origins" section belongs to the front.

Otherwise, please note that in some jurisdictions someone who has been ruled in favour of in plagiarism lawsuit may go after those who republish or make money of the book. That is libraries who host the da vinci code book may be sued in civil damages court, after the court has ruled in favour of those three ex-BBC guys. Then libraries will say they were no aware of plagiarism because Mel Eititis at wikipedia edited out the revelant part and they will cite you to court.

 * Are you kidding? Threats and "warnings" like this are not the way Wikipedia works.  Until a court rules that the book is a work of plagiarism those accusations should appear in the criticism section, otherwise stating such as fact would be worse. violet/riga (t) 12:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (after edit conflict) Anon:
 * The implication that criticisms aren't fact is peculiar; are you saying that all criticisms are false?
 * Your allegations are silly. I haven't read the book, it doesn't interest me, I find the hysteria with which some people regard it as embarrassing — but I take Wikipedia seriously, and what you added needed to be significantly edited for its English and placed in the appropriate place (which is not decided by what you find important, but by the logical structure of the article).
 * Your last paragraph, in so far as I can decipher it, is even sillier than the previous one, and not worth a response. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:25, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * (many months later...) And this is precisely why we don't want Google to have full control of the purse strings. Anonymous editor, your assertions are ridiculous. If you have facts, source them. Otherwise, don't bring original research into this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 3 July 2005 06:28 (UTC)

Ridiculous => Criticisms include: the fact
"Criticisms include:   * The fact"

Maybe you realize fact cannot be criticism, because it is opinion. Everbody is entitled to his/her opinion, but not to his/her own facts, as you know very well. Thus I put facts about the origin back where they belong, right at the front. Because all things start with the origin, that is the law of nature.

Sincerely: Tamas Feher from Hungary

 * In English, at least, a statement of fact counts as a criticism when it's presented in order to count against a position, person, or (as in this case) a book. read the other criticisms (I suspect that you haven't actually read the article; you're only interested in one specific point).
 * All things don't start with the origin; many narratives start in the middle or even at the end. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've reworked it into the most logical section - I hope this can please both sides. violet/riga (t) 12:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * That's fine with me; I'd originally been torn between putting it there and in the criticisms section. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Now that both books have their own page the situation is more balanced. Great pity people are so gullibe as to still read old recycled junk.

Just curious
How did Davinci knew so much about Jesus if he lived several centuries after Jesus did? Couldn't Davinci just be concocting his own theories about the biography of a historical Jesus just like many of us do in the XXIst century? And is Jesus more important for His biography or for His teachings according to this book?

 * It's a novel. DJ Clayworth 19:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Bah, if you think that then you're clearly one of them :) -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 20:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Sales figures
I've just discovered that we've been carrying the wrong sales figures on this page for over a month. They were overestimated by a factor of more than two. For those who like to keep track of how accurate Wikipedia is, the change was made by an anon on 17th March and never changed again. See  DJ Clayworth 19:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mr. vs Dr.
Someone just removed the appelation "Dr" from Langdon's name. I wasn't sure if they were correct in asserting he's a Mr rather than a Dr, but a check through Angels and Demons shows him being called "Mr Langdon" by several people, including Kohler (p28, 29,35,36 of my paperback edition). I can't see any mention of his being called Dr or of having a Ph.D. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 20:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * @page 3: "You're a professor of religious iconology…"
 * Professors usually have a Ph.D. See the Professor article for details. Shinobu 17:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I think usually is the operative word there. I know of atleast one Professor who doesn't have a Ph.D.
 * In The Da Vinci Code, Chapter 1, Langdon is described on a flyer as "Professor", then introduced by the hostess firstly as "Mr" and then "Professor" so this was (by her and the author) presumably deliberate. It is strange that Brown took this line but he possibly wanted to avoid confusion with a medical doctor. In Chapter 54, Teabing's first words to Langdon are "Sir Robert" but I think this is intended as a joke. Thincat 09:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jonas Faukman
Robert Langdon's New York editior(Jonas Faukman)'s name is an anagram for Jason Kaufman, Dan Brown's real New York editor. Also, in the internet scavenger hunt, participants, at one point, actually call Jonas Faukman, whose answering machine points out that is publishing company is called Doubleknight (play on Doubleday, Jason Kaufman's company).

I really think this should be noted.

P.S. One of the names in the acknowledgements is Andre Vernet, matching the Depository Bank of Zurich head's name. Does anyone know what that means?

 * Apparently one of Brown's teachers had this name . I doubt it is worth mentioning his in the article. Thincat 11:45, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Da-Vinci-Code.com Website, www.da-vinci-code.com, Dedicated to Da Vinci Code Launched
Da-Vinci-Code.com Website, www.da-vinci-code.com, covers articles, information, news, press releases, images, blogs, RSS feeds and more, all related to Da Vinci Code.

(PRWEB) June 12, 2005 -- Da Vinci Code related website, Da Vinci Code covers articles, information, news, reviews, press releases, FAQs, images, blogs, RSS feeds and more, all related to Da Vinci Code.

Da-Vinci-Code.com website will be multilingual, starting with French, then Spanish, German,and Italian.

Da Vinci Code is a best seller by Dan Brown

The plot as outlined on Dan Brown's website:

"While in Paris on business, Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon receives an urgent late-night phone call: the elderly curator of the Louvre has been murdered inside the museum. Near the body, police have found a baffling cipher. Solving the enigmatic riddle, Langdon is stunned to discover it leads to a trail of clues hidden in the works of Da Vinci…clues visible for all to see…and yet ingeniously disguised by the painter.

Langdon joins forces with a gifted French cryptologist, Sophie Neveu, and learns the late curator was involved in the Priory of Sion—an actual secret society whose members included Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Da Vinci, among others. The Louvre curator has sacrificed his life to protect the Priory's most sacred trust: the location of a vastly important religious relic, hidden for centuries.

In a breathless race through Paris, London, and beyond, Langdon and Neveu match wits with a faceless powerbroker who appears to work for Opus Dei—a clandestine, Vatican-sanctioned Catholic sect believed to have long plotted to seize the Priory's secret. Unless Langdon and Neveu can decipher the labyrinthine puzzle in time, the Priory's secret—and a stunning historical truth—will be lost forever.

In an exhilarating blend of relentless adventure, scholarly intrigue, and cutting wit, symbologist Robert Langdon (first introduced in Dan Brown's bestselling Angels & Demons) is the most original character to appear in years. The Da Vinci Code heralds the arrival of a new breed of lightening-paced, intelligent thriller…surprising at every twist, absorbing at every turn, and in the end, utterly unpredictable…right up to its astonishing conclusion."

Teabing/Baigent
Why say that "Leigh Teabing" appears to be an anagram of the surnames Baigent and Leigh? It is! I understand that "appears" is probably there for legal reasons, but an anagram is an anagram and nothing changes that. What is doubtful is whether this transposition is intentional, and that is what the article should reflect. — 193.203.81.129 28 June 2005 13:25 (UTC) (Wikipedia won't keep me logged in - this is User:Paul G)

Few points on the status of embassies
In the DVC, the French media and Police are depicted frustrated at the "fact" that US citizens committing crimes in France are tried in the US. On a few points, there seems to be an idea that the US embassy would be empowered to extradite its citizens back to the US. On a third point, the US embassy is depicted as a potential safe-haven for the fugitive US citizen Langdon. I find these topics somewhat confusing. Is there an extraterritoriality agreement between France and the US? To my knowledge, only diplomats, their families and NATO military personnel have extraterritoriality. This should apply as well to the US citizens as to the citizens of other countries in France and in most other European countries. Of course after having returned back to the US, the case will be handled by US courts as no country is willing to extradite its citizens, but if caught in France, a US citizen would be most likely tried there.

Embassies do not typically give asylum to their citizens who are fleeing the local police. Criminals are usually turned in to the police with little delay. This is especially true in a Western country like France. Acting otherwise would be a gross breach of protocol. In a non-democratic country undergoing political unrest, the situation might be wholly different. I wonder if US embassies are an exemption to this quite common international custom.

The idea of extradition seems somewhat hazed in the DVC. In the very beginning, Langdon, jokingly, warns that he might ask the embassy to extradite a person back to the US. Similar wordings seem to have been used in a few other places. It should be noted that the embassy does not extradite a person. The country where a person resides does so after receiving a request for it. The procedure is quite long and used only with a likely proof of serious crimes. Without such crimes, committed in the home country, an embassy should not be able to do anything to restrict a citizen's movement abroad. Most Western countries consider the right to leave the country to be a basic human right. The governments of such countries do not have a legal power to prevent a citizen from traveling to and in any foreign country if the country in question permits it and there is no state of war between the countries. Is this the case with the US?

If the points addressed above have validity, they might be worth adding to the Criticism section. --81.197.79.13 5 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)

Film adaptation
I moved most of the information in this section of the article to the separate article dealing with the film. Since there is a clear message at the top of this article that it has to do with the novel, and that there is a separate article for the film, I could not see any reason to maintain information in two places. I left the bare minimum information in this article. Sfdan 07:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Jesus and Mary Magdalene

 * "The controversial thriller is the story of a Vatican conspiracy to suppress the supposed marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene."

Is the above quotation a good summary of the book? Uncle Ed 21:07, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * No, it's a very poor summary. The plot of the book does not involve a modern Vatican conspiracy at all. The shadowy pope in the novel is a reformist liberal, and the apparent Opus Dei conspiracy turns out to have been orchestrated by an anti-Catholic. The novel refers to supposed RC attempts to suppress "the truth" about Jesus and Mary in the past. It's not always clear whether the medieval church is supposed to know that the marriage occured or whether they genuinely believe it's a lie. Paul B 21:30 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:The Da Vinci Code/Archive 1


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 10

C L R James
I note that BlackJack moved this from C. L. R. James a few days ago on the grounds (see the edit summary) that the style with full stops is an "American anachronism". Personally I don't agree, and would prefer the original to have been left (we have W. G. Grace and M. J. K. Smith, after all), but even if it's better to change it, I feel that CLR James (currently a double redirect) would be preferable; the style without punctuation but with spaces is extremely rare on Wikipedia. Thoughts please? (And while we're at it, does the fame of Beyond a Boundary mean that it should have its own article?) Loganberry (Talk) 23:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * MoS says C. L. R. James. I would prefer C.L.R. James; CLR James would be ok.  C L R James would be least favourable, tied with Cyril Lionel Robert James.  As for Beyond a Boundary - I think it deserves an article...sadly and with embarrassment I must admit that I have never read it :( - Guettarda 23:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm a little surprised at your favourite style; if you'd said C.L.R. James I'd have been less so, but why have full stops after only two of the three initials? Loganberry (Talk) 23:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Ooops! Sorry. That's what I meant.  Though, why not just drop one full stop at random?  :) - Guettarda 23:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It's CLR James on the cover of my copy. I'd prefer that. Beyond a Boundary probably deserves an article, but frankly I was less than impressed by it. -dmmaus 23:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Good to hear that. Agree with both comments - that BaB deserves an article but it is very overrated. I have a feeling that most of the new readers consider it a good book because it is 'supposed to be' a good book. Tintin 08:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Like Guettarda I have yet to read it (the shame!), but have just picked it up remaindered for a pound, so will have to see. Of course it's a significant work from a political as well as a cricketing point of view, which probably colours (especially) newspaper reviewers' opinions of it. Loganberry (Talk) 03:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It is proposed on Naming conventions (listed as 'under consideration') that initials have full stops. Certainly this is what I've always thought was the accepted standard. Raven4x4x 09:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I wonder why Wisden have adopted the so-called "American anachronisms" - at least in my copy from 2003, people are listed as M. E. Trescothick, M. P. Vaughan, A. Flintoff and J. L. Langer. If both the MoS and Wisden write it like that, I think we've got the common way of writing initial names. Sam Vimes 09:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm a stickler for things like that, and I'm pretty sure that W. G. Grace, S. R. E. Turner etc. is standard British English. Stephen Turner 10:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * He changed G. B. Buckley to G B Buckley too. Stephen Turner 10:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I prefer no spaces and no dots. The internet is different from printed text, where (at least outside of newsprint) the style of having both dots and spaces is still used - however, this style does not look good aesthetically on screen. Unfortunately too many of our American readers are stuck with what was drummed in them at school - we were lucky in the UK - we were never taught grammar! jguk 18:05, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

 * You are arguing from an aesthetic judgement, which is subjective. I'd rather worry about grammatical convention. Stephen Turner 22:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I suspect I know how BlackJack got the idea that in British English we don't use the dots. There is a slightly strange convention in British English — but I believe not in American English — that if the last letter of an abbreviation is the last letter of the word, we omit the dot. For example, we write "Dr Stephen Turner", whereas Americans would write "Dr. Stephen Turner". Of course, that rule doesn't apply in this case. Stephen Turner 09:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Lets put an end to this debate and redirect all the acronyms to Cyril Lionel Robert James. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  06:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry to prolong this debate any further, but I'm not sure about that suggestion. Would you file W. G. Grace at William Gilbert Grace too? I think if a person is best known by their initials, that's where the article should reside. (Although with redirects it doesn't matter too much). In any case, don't we usual omit the middle name, so it would be Cyril James? Stephen Turner 09:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I've just come back from holiday and I'm amazed to see this debate taking place. Americans use periods everywhere. They even SAY the word ad nauseum. Modern grammatical convention in English, which is English not "British English", is to leave out periods after initials and at the end of abbreviations like "Dr"; but not after abbreviations like "etc." where the last letter of the abbreviation is not the last letter of the full word "etcetera". As cricket is a sport that is essentially of the English-speaking world outside the USA (i.e., not U.S.A.), we should use English conventions and not American ones (although I believe most younger Americans nowadays try to leave out periods).

Having said all that, I do favour CLR James rather than C L R James because the former is easier to type. Note that I wrote USA and not U S A above and I do the same with BBC and so on. --Jack 11:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

How about a vote?
(and I'm only talking here about those cricketers better known in the style of initial/s then surname, as in Messrs James, Grace, Fry etc.)
 * Option 1: C. L. R. James
 * Option 2: C.L.R. James
 * Option 3: CLR James
 * Option 4: C L R James (current article)
 * Option 5: Cyril Lionel Robert James

Voting

 * Option 3. This is what I would enter firstly into a search box if I was looking for a person and I reckon it looks the best on screen also. 2nd choice would be option 4. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 2 or 3Tintin 01:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1, slightly, on the grounds that it's what we have already (W. G. Grace etc) and that Wisden uses it. I wouldn't have any particular problem with 3, so long as Grace and co were also changed to that style at some point. 5 is ridiculous unless we're going to have Warnakulasuriya Patabendige Ushantha Joseph Chaminda Vaas.
 * (Thank you, Nichalp =;) )

That leaves 2 and 4, which I oppose on the grounds that they're rarely used. Loganberry (Talk) 02:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Option 2, (or Option 1, since it conforms to the naming convention) - Guettarda 02:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3. Second choice 1. -dmmaus 05:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Option 1 for reasons of grammatical convention, followed by Option 3 for conciseness and ease of typing. Of course, all the other combinations should redirect to whichever's chosen. Stephen Turner 10:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Option 1. With redirects, of course. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5 : I feel that the article should be under the title of the christened name of the induvidual. WG Grace, CB Fry etc can all be redirected to the full title. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * and same for Mr Vaas and Mr Laxman? -- Ian ≡ talk 05:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * We can make an exception for Chaminda Vaas :D. As for VVS Laxman, the acronym is the legal name: See Indian family name =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah. You learn something every day! -- Ian ≡ talk 08:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment: At the moment, and taking Tintin and Guettarda's first choices to be the option they mention first, we have:

 * First-choice votes: three for option 1, two for option 2, three for option 3, none for options 4 and one for option 5.
 * Second-choice votes (where stated): two for option 1, none for option 2, two for option 3, one for option 4 and none for option 5.
 * On that basis, options 4 and 5 look as though they're going to struggle to make any headway, while option 2 is doing better than those, but still lagging behind a bit. Options 1 and 3 are tied for first place. Assuming this pattern were to continue (which it may or may not do), then there's not going to be a clear consensus for one of those two styles over the other. What do we do then? Loganberry (Talk) 00:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The BC/BCE debate of WP:Cricket? ;) I suppose we could say that if it's a tie, then the Manual of Style presides over article names, but people are free to write whatever they write in articles - as long as they're consistent. Note that I don't care either way, hence haven't voted. Sam Vimes 06:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh good grief, don't let's go down that road! However, here's a proposal, which fits in with what you say: editors can use either style 1 or style 3 as a matter of personal preference, so long as they always create a redirect from the other style. Styles 2, 4 and 5 should not be used without good reason (there's always the chance that someone will deliberately spell their name in an odd way). I realise that that's a little controversial given that option 2 has received some support, but it would allow both the common American style (and there are American cricketers!) and the common British style to be used with little fuss, just as we can use UK/US spelling as appropriate. Loganberry (Talk) 13:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately the American preference for having both dots and spaces will remain - even though they look incredibly unaesthetic, particularly on the internet and particularly for those with lots of names. H. M. R. K. B. Herath seems a silly place to have an article that would look much better at HMRKB Herath, but we'll have lots of American style Nazis on our backs if we try to adopt a different style, jguk 07:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * We should have an article on A. R. R. A. P. W. R. R. K. B. Amunugama Tintin 20:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * He got mentioned in Wisden as an "elaborate joke" Sam Vimes 21:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A dreadful omission that I have now corrected with a stub (see A. R. R. A. P. W. R. R. K. B. Amunugama). Please help expand it! jguk 20:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Your wish is my command. ;) Sam Vimes 20:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * This is one fine scorecard. The last foour batsmen for Kurunegala were JAMW Kumara, MAWR Madurasinghe, ARRAPWRRKB Amunugama and HMRKB Herath while one of the openers was SNRHMSB Malmeewala. Tintin 20:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Option 2 as per http://www.clrjamesinstitute.org Vivenot 13:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Option 1 is nonsense and completely outdated as a style and a convention. Option 2 is also outdated but is prefereable to option 1 because it is easier to type. Just because Wisden uses periods as in W. G. Grace is no precedent; Wisden still follows the conventions that date back to its Victorian origin. All of options 3, 4 and 5 are fine but I don't think option 5 should be used if the person was known by his initials as CLR James undoubtedly was; and as WG Grace was. Although I have used C L R James in the article (and also G B Buckley), I agree that Option 3 is the best convention for modern grammatical correctness and usage, as well as being the most economical for typing. --Jack 11:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Option 3 is the preferred style as it meets modern grammatical convention and is also the most economical both to use and in terms of resource. Periods are an outdated convention but BlackJack is incorrect to assert that they are an American convention. Some Americans use them and some do not; it's the same as in England and has more to do with age than nationality. My second choice would be option 4. I have no problem with option 5 if the person was known by one of his forenames but CLR James was always known by his initials so option 5 is inapplicable here. Option 2 is outdated and cumbersome; option 1 is ridiculously so. --GeorgeWilliams 11:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Another comment and a question It seems that option 3 is the only one of the five that does not arouse specific opposition, and is therefore the only option that could be said to enjoy a consensus. That being so, it would seem sensible to make option 3 our primary convention, though as option 1 is common elsewhere on Wikipedia we probably ought to create redirects from there. The fact that it may be outdated is not an argument for refusing to let people see it - I note that the Hurricane Rita article gives the central pressure of the storm in inches as well as in millibars, and some articles about older storms give inches first. (And don't let's start on whether millbars themselves are out of date! =;) )

As for Jack's point about Wisden, I think it is relevant: if that's what people see in Wisden, then it's possible that they'll look under the same thing here. I feel that what readers actually look for is more important than what we may or may not think is correct, and don't like the idea of our being rigidly prescriptive on the matter. (I think it's fine to create redirects from any other style one likes, of course; "redirects are cheap".) So... would anyone actually object to option 3? Loganberry (Talk) 12:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with Loganberry in his summary. Lets go with CLR James and WG Grace to conclude this discussion.  --Jack 14:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, thanks for agreeing what is "modern" amongst yourselves, and thanks also for the brickbats thrown at our American friends; however, despite it being condemned as nonsense, completely outdated and Victorian, I still prefer option 1, and, to avoid the rather spurious argument that option 3 has no objections and so must be the consensus choice, I object to option 3 too. I can't see why articles on cricketers should diverge from the standard elsewhere on Wikipedia.  If you think X. Y. Zzzz is incorrect, get it changed in the Manual of Style.  We should not plough our own furrow.  -- ALoan (Talk)

 * Firstly, the Manual of Style is not policy; indeed, its own lead section says, Clear, informative and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required. Secondly, I think (though I'm ready to be corrected on this) that there is a consensus that option 3 is not actually objectionable; consensus is not the same as unanimity. Thirdly, this whole thing only blew up in the first place because an article was moved from option 1 style to option 4. And finally, Wikipedia doesn't have a single standard anyway; if it did, the whole thing would probably be written in American English.

 * As far as I'm concerned, if some people want to carry on with option 1, that's entirely fine, and if other people want to use option 3, that's entirely fine as well. Which is, in fact, what the nascent style guide on the bottom of our project page actually says. Loganberry (Talk) 22:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Adopting your numbering:
 * I didn't say MoS was policy: what I said was that we should have a good reason if we are going to diverge from the accepted norm, otherwise non-WP:C people will just move the articles to where they think (and the MoS says) they ought to be, creating extra work for everyone.
 * I was mainly objecting to the characterisation above that an absence of objections to one option (in what was essentially approval voting) implied a consensus for one option. It seems that there is no clear consensus, since various people voted for various different options.  Ideally, consensus should mean that everyone is happy to live with a particular result, notwithstanding that they may have a more preferred option.  If I was in a minority of one, I would defer to the majority and accept the consensus, but the vote here seems pretty evenly split.
 * Indeed: that is why we should have an accepted standard, otherwise articles will appear all over the place. OTOH, the problem largely goes away if redirects are added for the alteratives.
 * In terms of language, Wikipedia does have a single standard: articles about substantially American topics should follow American standards of spelling, typography, etc; articles about substantially British/International/non-American topics should follow British/International/non-American standards; and articles about topics that are both American and British/International/non-American should follow the standards adopted by the first author. The problem here is that there is no clear divide between the "American" standard and the "non-American" standard: it is quite normal for a full stop/period to be used after initials in non-American usage.
 * However, on the basis that we can't seem to agree, I think the nascent style guide on the WP:C page has it about right: people should create pages where they think best, and the wiki process will ultimately put them in the right place (wherever that is). I do not think option 3 should be our primary convention.  -- ALoan (Talk) 11:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Firstly, I think you're right, I was using "consensus" rather too loosely; my apologies for that. Secondly, I think part of the problem is that I've been indecisive and didn't stick to what I said in my earlier comment. There, I proposed that: "editors can use either style 1 or style 3 as a matter of personal preference, so long as they always create a redirect from the other style". That would mean that readers would always find the article they wanted, which is the most important thing. I don't feel strongly enough about this subject to get into fights about it (I'm not accusing you or anyone else of trying to do that of course; it's a general observation) and frankly I'd rather spend my time writing actual articles. Final word? I agree that the style guide as it now stands will do. Loganberry (Talk) 13:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Option 3 it just "feels" right and is the shortest.  DaGizza  00:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with ALoan. I've no idea where this idea that the "W. G. Grace" style is outdated came from. On the contrary, it seems to me to be the most common style in current usage. However, I don't object to option 3 either. I think authors should use whichever of those they prefer, as indeed the style guide currently says. Stephen Turner 11:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As a new "member", I am reluctant to get involved in such a heartfelt debate, but I really have to add my voice to those of Stephen Turner and ALoan; there is nothing oldfashioned about "W. G. Grace" as a convention. I also agree with ALoan that there is no consensus emerging from this vote (now there's a surprise). Given this lack, the MoS seems a good place to look. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I just realised there's a sixth option/style: C.L.R.James which no-one has mentioned yet. On that basis, I'll be bold and update the style guide as this being another non-preferred style. -- Ian ≡ talk 11:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Right. Definitely non-preferred. That looks sooo ugly... Sam Vimes 13:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Looking at the "local usage" thing, and since we still claim James even though he spent much of his life in England and was actually banned from entering the country by the PNM government...the Trinidad Guardian and the Trinidad Express appear to use CLR James...so on those grounds I am leading towards option 3. Guettarda 14:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think its high time that we put an end to this silly debate. 10 days have passed and we've argued on minor fullstops and spaces. If redirects are in place, I don't think any reader be offended by these minute details. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  14:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Women's Writing Woeful!
Are there any female participants or anybody with a good knowledge of Women's cricket in WikiProject Cricket? I think we need some because every single article on women's cricket is terrible. I think all of them are stubs! DaGizza 07:16 20 September 2005

 * Yeah - it's been pointed out for quite a while, but no one has actually gotten round to fixing it. I think a good start would be to make List of Australian Women's Test cricketers, for example. Sam Vimes 07:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps User:Petaholmes aka 'nixie' could help. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  07:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I can honestly say that I don't know a thing about womens cricket, or most sport for that matter. But I think a better way to build up the area would be to start with major competitions, teams and then down to players since many players may not be interesting enough for a biography article (i.e. too little information about to write an article longer than a stub).--nixie 10:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Coincidentally, I noticed yesterday that Rachael Heyhoe-Flint is still red. Stephen Turner 09:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Entirely agreed - and I say that as the author as a few of those stubs! I think "terrible" might be a little harsh, but "totally inadequate" wouldn't be. Women's cricket itself is still a redlink, which is just embarrassing. Loganberry (Talk) 22:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Shamed by the redlink, I have created a stub. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration of the fortnight - Discussion?
Just a question: I know Donald Bradman is the current collaboration of the fortnight, but where exactly is it being discussed? I'm interested to know what improvements are being made, and if there is anything people think the article needs that I might be able to provide, but I can't find any evidence of collaboration on it anywhere: not on the article talk page, not on the Collaboration of the fortnight talk page and not on this talk page. I'm sure I'm just not looking in the right place, but where exactly is it being discussed? I posted a comment on the Don Bradman talk page about a new picture I found, and to my surprise this was the first comment on the page. I would have thought that the talk page would be very busy. Raven4x4x 09:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think if discussion is needed, it should take place on the article's talk page. Stephen Turner 10:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and I wouldn't have thought you could have collaboration without discussion. I'm just wondering where the discussion happens to be. Raven4x4x 05:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * WikiProject Cricket/Collaboration of the fortnight =Nichalp   «Talk»=  06:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That isn't the sort of discussion I'm talking about. That page and the talk page there is all about what should be the COTF, changing the COTF and improving the COTF process etc. I'm looking for discussion about the Bradman article itself, ways it can be improved etc, which is discussion I'm sure should be happening for the COTF. I'm very surprised that such discussion isn't going on the talk page of the article in question (there is still only my message on there, with no replies), and I'm asking where that discussion is. Raven4x4x 09:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that the whole COTF concept has never really taken off. The chosen article generally only gets one or two people working on it, and so improves a bit but not spectacularly; and nobody can be bothered to change the COTF every fortnight. Am I being too harsh? Stephen Turner 09:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * No, you're not. I think it is still a good idea, but it requires that we actually have time to invest and perhaps are short of other good ideas to work on. As things stand, there are plenty of small pet projects to work on, so no one really has the spare time to work on the big CoTF. Sam Vimes 10:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Virtual Scoring
Is anyone familiar with the concept described at Virtual Scoring? If not, I'm going to assume it's original research and propose it for deletion. Stephen Turner 10:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * No, I've never heard of it. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  10:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * See the discussion in Sam's talkpage : User_talk:Sam_Vimes Tintin 10:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * So he heard about it somewhere else, but he doesn't know where, and he doesn't know what its usual name is. It's better than I thought in that it doesn't originate with him, but I'm still leaning towards deletion. Stephen Turner 11:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * IMHO, it would be better to sort it out here before going for an AfD because most of those who should have a say in it are readers of this page. There, most of the people will be deletionists wrt cricket articles.

 * I have a weak keep attitude towards this. Tintin 15:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * OK then, who else wants to comment? Stephen Turner 15:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Ask BlackJack on what virtual scoring really is, since he made the article.DaGizza 22:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Never heard of it, Google brings nothing up, it seems like the author has "invented" this concept himself, and published it on here in the hope that it gains popularity? --PopUpPirate 09:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * If so, it's original research and will have to go, but Stephen's comment above implies that he saw it somewhere else, making it acceptable. Having said that, I'm uneasy about the fact that apparently "he doesn't know what its usual name is"; that sounds a bit like putting the description for The Oval under "South London cricket ground". Loganberry (Talk) 13:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm only judging by what BlackJack said on Sam Vimes's user page (link above). At best it's a report of someone else's original research, and possibly filed under the wrong name. Stephen Turner 13:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobody seems very keen to keep it, so I've listed it on AfD. You can still have your say at Articles_for_deletion/Virtual_Scoring. Stephen Turner 07:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions
I posted a message a while back suggesting that, as a novice, I go through the articles on cricket and jot down anything that isn't clear. Since that time, I've been far too busy actually watching it and have therefore picked up quite a bit, but I've just looked at some pages that explain cricket and tried to spot where articles are a little confusing to beginners or could easily be fleshed out.

I hope the below is useful and can provide food for thought for editors - I'll certainly try and cover some of the below myself. If any of the ideas I've put down have been mooted before and resoundingly rejected, I do apologise! I'd massively appreciate any feedback, be it positive or negative.

Many thanks, -- High (Hopes) [ (+) ] 13:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * First off, the bowling template is excellent and makes navigation much easier.
 * Terms like 'a leg break turns from leg to off' come naturally to the initiated, but force novices to take a minute to picture in their head where leg and off are (it gets worse when the batsman is left-handed!). Would it be possible to produce diagrams to illustrate different deliveries? They might be useful for the following:
 * Off-breaks, leg-breaks, left arm orthodox and the Chinaman
 * The variations (googly, doosra, etc.), especially where the flight of the ball after pitching comes into play (I'm thinking along the lines of Warne's flipper and zooter)
 * For fast bowlers, a side-on or 45deg view of different lengths to help illustrate different deliveries (going from beamer right back to bouncer/short one - the diagram could be appended with text to explain, for example, that the half-volley is easy to play, etc.). If anyone has Simon Hughes's book Jargonbusting, the diagram on p. 48 is what I thought might be useful
 * The diagrams I had in mind would look quite scientific and, coming to think of it, bear a passing resemblance to how HawkEye looks on TV, which could be a problem! Does anyone have a degree in some graphics program or is friendly with anyone at Sunset & Vine/Channel 4?!

 * On a similar note, the articles on different bowling deliveries might also be enhanced with photos of the wrist action involved for each ball (this would be especially useful to help explain how a googly is bowled, and why, therefore, it spins in the opposite direction). Anyone here good at bowling googlies or doosras?! The way I've mentally pictured them would be a series of good, clear photos, preferably against a neutral background, showing the view from behind (and possibly the batsman's too).
 * With all due respect to whoever made the diagram, the drawing on the off spin article doesn't strike me as being very helpful and seems out of place.
 * Bowling strategy (cricket) could be expanded to explain how a bowler might do for a batsmen by cleverly constructing an over of deliveries that lead up to a dismissal. Michael Holding's famous 'best over in the history of cricket' is one example, and I've heard the media talk at length about how clever Flintoff's over to Ponting in the second innings at Edgbaston was. There's also the three-card trick - bouncer; place a deep square leg to suggest another ball that can be hooked; then get them plumb leg before. I'm sure someone here knows more about this than I!
 * The terminology page is superb. Thinking back to terms I heard during the Ashes that aren't listed, 'back of a length' is the only one not mentioned.
 * Captain (cricket) is good, but it would be useful if the section on the toss could be expanded to explain what factors will affect the toss winner's decision to bat or bowl. Of course, a brief reference to Mr Ponting's generous decision to put England in at Edgbaston wouldn't go amiss...
 * Talking of conditions, I couldn't find anything about what conditions are ideal for bowling and which aren't, and why (overcast = good for swingers, etc.). Equally, the media often refer to perfect batting conditions (the adjacent picture is always of a very sunny day) - why is this perfect?
 * The page on batting (cricket) doesn't discuss footwork much, yet this is frequently mentioned as the key to good batting. Might this be expanded?
 * The page on fielding (cricket) could be expanded with respect to how different fielding positions are used to attack or defend against the batsmen. This would be quite a long list, but novices might wonder what circumstances would lead to the use of a mid-on but not a mid-off etc. I certainly still do!
 * The article on the international structure of cricket is useful but only touches on what many seem to wonder about - what or who dictates which teams play each other and when? While the Ashes clearly have a some rhyme and reason (twice every four years), does this exist for other teams? Is there a decree to ensure that two Test teams must play each other at least once in a given amount of time?
 * Lastly, the difference between right-handers and left-handers is clearly crucial (both for batsmen and bowlers), but I can't find anything to explain why. Given that this is an area where shrewd tactics come into play, it would be useful to have something on how to deal with bowlers using different arms and how tactics might differ depending on the batsman's handedness.

The following are personal questions about aspects of cricket I don't yet understand, but if anyone has the answers I can update the relevant articles:
 * I'm sure that during coverage of The Ashes, off- and leg-cutters were explained as being created through movement off the seam, rather than through imparting spin on an axis parallel to the pitch. Which is correct?
 * The article on the Chinaman states that this delivery is less dangerous than left-arm orthodox spin, as it turns into the right-handed batsmen. This makes sense, but Shane Warne has little difficulty in terrorising left-handed batsmen with his leg-breaks. What explains the difference?

Thanks again, -- High (Hopes) [ (+) ] 13:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Insightful suggestions and thoughts to keep us going. Ok, to answer your queries: 1. A cutter is a delivery which spins. A fast version of an offbreak or leg break in reality, though with much less 'turn'. 2) A chinaman is a wrist spin delivery bowled by a left-handed bowler. Shane Warne is right-handed. Warney & Murali are dangerous as they both can turn the ball a looooooong way. We unfortunately don't have any graphic designers on board. :( =Nichalp   «Talk»=  13:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Nichalp, thanks for your reply - that explains the off-cutter, thanks! I think I see what you mean about the Chinaman - I didn't word my question very well. Essentially I was confused why a Chinaman (saw Katich bowl them in the Ashes) wouldn't be dangerous to a RHB when a leg-break (I had appreciated that SW is right-handed) is clearly a problem to LHB - but the fact that SW is a lethal turner of the ball explains it. I'm going to have a go at drawing a bowling diagram - it won't be very 'technical', but hopefully it can be worked on by others. -- High (Hopes) [ (+) ] 17:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, Warne is also often helped by the rough outside the right-handed batsman's leg stump/left-handed batsman's off stump (created by the right-arm bowlers bowling over the wicket/left-bowlers bowling round the wicket, as they continue down the pitch from their delivery stride). An off spinner rarely has the same level of assistance from wear on the other side of the pitch.  But, with the best will in the world, Simon Katich is not in the same league as a bowler as Shane Warne.  Compare Ashley Giles, who bowls left-arm orthodox spin (essentially leg spin identical to Warne, although left-arm finger spin rather than right-arm wrist spin) - although Giles is a notch or two above Katich, he is still not on the level as Warne. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The rough created by the right arm bowlers does explain a lot - I'll add this to the articles on SLC and LB. A final point, actually - on cricinfo and Shane Warne's page, his bowling style is given as LBG - but he barely used his googly during the Ashes, and it's not as though the googly has ever been his stock ball - is there an explanation for this? --HighHopes (T)⋅ [ (+)] ⋅(C)⋅(E) 13:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Excellent suggestions, I'm afraid I can't help with many (not good on the technical side of the game) but I'll have a hack at the International structure of cricket and women's cricket fairly soon. Sam Vimes 12:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sam, thanks. I'm in the same position on the technical side - which is why I made the suggestions in the first place. If I may ask - you seem to contribute loads to cricket articles, but if you're not big on the technical side, what has helped you add so much to cricket? Was just seeking some advice so I can contribute in a similar way (i.e. without much of a cricket-playing background). Thanks,-- High (Hopes) [ (+) ] 17:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Remember, you're talking to a person who's had four cricket articles on AfD! ;) Anyway, reading helps - I got Wisden 2003 last year, that helped me loads in understanding how people wrote about cricket, and seeing that Wikipedia had something similar got me into it. Basically, there's a lot you can write based on a scorecard! As for biography contributions, they're really quite easy - I use cricinfo and cricketarchive to get a summary of the careers, and then write based on the stats. It's probably not the best way of doing it, but as it'll often be the case that we're writing about players that we haven't seen, it's an okay method. Cricinfo often has a short profile, too, which helps. Sam Vimes 18:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This is what I do for bio articles as well, especially when it comes to players I haven't actually come across (eg Steven Lubbers, a Dutch ODI player). Cricinfo's "related articles" can also be worth reading; as a Worcestershire supporter I already knew that Ben Smith relinquished the captaincy in mid-match last year, but if he'd been playing for another county I might not have done without reading the article. It seems to work reasonably well for the most part, although it can be tricky when a player has a gap in their career and you don't know whether that was because of poor form, injury, personal reasons (eg Thorpe) etc. But of course anyone who does know can improve the article, this being the Wonderful World of Wiki. =:) Loganberry (Talk) 22:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Sabir Mahfouz Lahmar

Untitled
This article survived a afd nomination: Articles for deletion/Sabir Mahfouz Lahmar. Eugene van der Pijll 11:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Replaced transcluded image with inline image - npov tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption
Replaced transcluded image with inline image - npov tag as per dispute on Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption. Geo Swan 15:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

move from article space
A comment was inappropriately placed in the article, affer the allegation that Lahmar tried to rob a US citizen, that stated:

The comment could be a troll. Or it could be a comment from someone actually involved in an incident. What the anonymous IP needs to understand is that, even if they were an eyewitness to events we cover, unless they were interviewed by an WP:RS, or published an account of the incident, in a newspaper, journal -- but not a personal blog, we can't use their account in article space.

If they were an eyewitness to the event, they may be information they could provide on the talk page that could be useful here.

FWIW, there is another Guantanamo captive, who lived in Bosnia, who was alleged to have played a role in the death of a US citizen because he had in his possession a watch that had belonged to that US citizen. The US citizen was an employee of the United Nations. The UN and Interpol concluded he was not the target of a terrorist attack, but a tragic, criminal, but non-terrorist mugging.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sabir Mahfouz Lahmar. 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/20071203004301/http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/index_CSRT_detainees_testimony.pdf to http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/index_CSRT_detainees_testimony.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/us/24iht-letter.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gmG5QgvT7-GmkSoLztKVMcH-27RA
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113002950.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113002950.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) 07:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sabir Mahfouz Lahmar


text:
Sexual health clinic

Sexual health clinics specialize in the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections.

Terminology
Sexual health clinics are also called sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics, venereal disease (VD) clinics, or genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics.

Sexual health clinics differ from reproductive health and family planning clinics. Sexual health clinics offer only some reproductive health services. Reproductive health clinics, such as Planned Parenthood, offer most of the services of sexual health clinics.

Services
Sexual health clinics provide some or all of the following:
 * Information about safer sex, birth control, reproductive health and general sex education
 * Free condoms
 * Sexual health examinations
 * Tests to detect some sexually transmitted infections
 * Antibiotics to cure chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis
 * Medications and other treatments
 * Vaccinations
 * Counseling and therapy
 * Emergency contraception
 * Urine test for pregnancy
 * Referrals for additional information or services

Many clinics provide vaccinations to prevent infections from the hepatitis A and B viruses. Young women may receive vaccinations to prevent infection from some strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV).

Many clinics provide interpreting for the hearing impaired or speakers of other languages.

Many clinics will help patients tell their sexual contacts if they have a sexually transmitted infection, anonymously if needed.

Public governmental and non-profit clinics often provide services for free or adjust the fee based on a patient's ability to pay. Sexual health clinics often offer services without appointments. Some clinics open evenings or weekends. Some clinics have separate hours or facilities for men and women. Some clinics serve only specific populations such as women, men, MSM, youths, LGBT, ethnic groups, the poor, or students.

Examinations
With the patient's consent, a clinician will inspect the patient visually and by touch. If needed, the clinician will take samples to test for sexually transmitted infections.

In a private room or space, the patient will partially undress.

The clinician may inspect the patient's:
 * Throat and lymph nodes of the neck for inflammation
 * Pubic hair for lice
 * Lymph nodes of the groin for swelling
 * Genitals, anus, and surrounding areas for sores and warts

The clinician may swab the patient's:
 * Throat to test for gonorrhea and possibly chlamydia
 * Cheek, inside, to diagnose HIV
 * Sores of the genitals, anus, and surrounding areas to test for herpes
 * Urethra to test for gonorrhea and possibly chlamydia
 * Vagina to test for chlamydia and possibly gonorrhea
 * Cervix to test for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (a Pap test)
 * Rectum to test for gonorrhea and possibly chlamydia

The clinician may take small blood samples by pricking a finger or from a vein to test for HIV, syphilis, and possibly herpes and hepatitis C.

The clinician may ask for a small urine sample, given in private, to test for chlamydia and possibly gonorrhea. The inspections and taking samples do not hurt, but swabbing the urethra and cervix, and a finger prick blood sample feel uncomfortable. Women will often receive a pelvic exam, both external and internal, but usually less thorough than a reproductive health exam. A patient can choose a female or male clinician if available. A patient can have a chaperone. Some clinics have separate hours or facilities for men and women.

Privacy
Medical confidentiality is an important part of the medical ethics of a doctor–patient relationship. Sexual health clinics follow local standards of medical confidentiality to protect the privacy of patients. Some clinics provide anonymous services or protect confidentiality by having a patient use a number or a pseudonym.

Additional privacy protections sometimes apply to matters of sexuality and reproduction, since these areas are sensitive in many cultures. The diagnosis of HIV/AIDS has legal restrictions in patient confidentiality, and some clinics use rapid antibody tests to provide results to a patient within 30 minutes, without holding the patient's records.

In the United States, clinics receiving federal funding from Medicaid or Title X of the Public Health Service Act must treat all patients confidentially. Thus minors can receive services without parental notification or consent. Additionally, medical records for all patients age 18 and above are strictly confidential under HIPAA.

Consent
Medical standards of informed consent apply to sexual health clinics. A patient needs information about the purposes and consequences of examinations, tests, treatments, and other procedures. A patient may then choose whether to consent to these procedures.

A minor may consent to receive some or all of the procedures at many sexual health clinics.

United Kingdom

 * (England)
 * (Wales)
 * (England)
 * (Wales)
 * (England)
 * (Wales)
 * (Wales)

title: Sexual health clinic


text:
Delco

Delco may refer to:

Places

 * Delaware County, Pennsylvania
 * Delaware County, Ohio
 * Delaware County, Iowa
 * Delta County, Colorado
 * Delta County, Michigan
 * Delco, North Carolina

Companies

 * Delco Electronics
 * Delco ignition system
 * ACDelco

People with the surname

 * Wilhelmina Ruth Delco (born 1929), American politician

title: Delco


text:
Panna district

Panna district is a district of the Sagar Division, within the Madhya Pradesh state in central India. The town of Panna is the district headquarters.

History
Panna district was created in 1950, shortly after Indian independence, from the territory of several former princely states of British India, including the states of Panna, Jaso, most of Ajaigarh, and a portion of Paldeo. Panna District was part of the new Indian state of Vindhya Pradesh, which was merged into Madhya Pradesh on 1 November 1956.

Geography
Panna district lies between 23.45°N, 79.45°W and 25.1°N, 80.4°W. It has an area of 7,135 km2.

The Ken River flows through the district. The Pandav Falls and the Gatha Falls are located in the district. Panna National Park is a major tourist attraction in the district.

Economy
In 2006 the Ministry of Panchayati Raj named Panna one of the country's 250 most backward districts (out of a total of 640). It is one of the 24 districts in Madhya Pradesh currently receiving funds from the Backward Regions Grant Fund Programme (BRGF). It is among the five poorest districts in the state in terms of income. It ranks 41st out of 45 districts in human development index (HDI) in Madhya Pradesh.

Gram panchayats under Panna district
This intermediate subdivisions are also called block, intermediate panchayat, tehsil or tahsil. Inside Panna district, there are the following nine subdivisions:
 * Ajaigarh
 * Amanganj
 * Gunour (or Gunnor, or Gunor as panchayat and habitation name or Gunaur as village name )
 * Panna
 * Pawai
 * Shahnagar
 * Raipura
 * Simariya
 * Devendranagar

Demographics
According to the 2011 census Panna District has a population of 1,016,520, roughly equal to the nation of Cyprus or the US state of Montana. This gives it a ranking of 442nd in India (out of a total of 640). The district has a population density of 142 PD/sqkm. Its population growth rate over the decade 2001–2011 was 18.62%. Panna has a sex ratio of 907 females for every 1000 males, and a literacy rate of 66.08%. 12.33% of the population lives in urban areas. Scheduled Castes and Tribes made up 20.46% and 16.81% of the population respectively.

Languages
At the time of the 2011 Census of India, 69.08% of the population in the district spoke Hindi and 29.73% Bundeli as their first language.

Among Panna's languages is Bundeli, which has a lexical similarity of 72–91% with Hindi and is spoken by about 3 million people in Bagelkhand.

Mining
Panna district is famous for its diamond mines located in a belt of about 80 km across the Panna town. In olden days the most productive mines were located in the village of Sukariuh. Nowadays, Majhagaon is the only active diamond mine in Asia.

Tourist places

 * Ajaygarh Fort, This fort was very important during the half period of Chandela rule. This fort is situated on the top of the Vindhya hills. The fort has two entrances. There is a gate in the north of the fort and Tarhauni gate in the south-east. To reach the doors one has to climb a steep rocky slope of 45 minutes. There is a lake named Ajay Palaka Talav in the middle of the fort.
 * Panna National Park, Panna is the twenty-second tiger reserve of India and the fifth of Madhya Pradesh. The reserve is located in the Vindhyan Range and extends across Panna and Chhatarpur districts in the north of the state. Panna National Park was created in 1981. It was declared a Project Tiger Reserve by the Government of India in 1994.
 * Raneh Falls, a waterfall on Ken River. The Ken River forms a 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) long, and 30 metres (98 ft) deep canyon made of pure crystalline granite in varying shades of colours ranging from pink and red to grey. There is a series of waterfalls in the canyon. The larger and smaller falls run all through the year. Other seasonal falls appear during monsoons.
 * Jugal Kishor Mandir, The idol kept in the sanctum sanctorum of this temple has been brought from Brindavan via Orchha. Swami's jewellery and attire reflect the Bundelkhandi style. The temple has all the architectural features of Bundela temples, including a nata mantapa, bhog mantapa and pradakshna passage.
 * Prannath Mandir, Mahamati Prannathji Temple is an important pilgrimage site for Pranamis and attracts large number of devotees during Sharad Purnima. It is believed that Mahamati Prannathji lived at that place for 11 years after which he took Samadhi inside one of the domes of this temple. The temple was built in 1692 and has Muslim and Hindu architectural styles in its domes and lotus structures.
 * Nachna Kuthara Mandir, The Nachna temples are of various types dating back to the Gupta Empire era of the 5th or 6th century. Chaturmukh temple dates back to the 9th century. These temples reflect the North Indian style of Hindu temple architecture.

Villages

 * Jaruapur
 * Muhandra

title: Panna district