text:
Talk:Bobby Sands

There is a clear guideline on Wikipedia about the use of the word Terrorism. Please read it before editing.

Untitled

 * Words to avoid

Category additions reverted again
I have again reverted the addition of biased categories from this article, and removed them in-line with consensus at other articles (Martina Anderson, Edward O'Brien (Irish republican) and Patrick Magee (Irish republican))

The history of Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict shows it was created as a result of Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 9, which starts right off by saying There has been extensive debate on how to neutrally categorise those individuals imprisoned during The Troubles in Britain and Ireland I have emphasised an important word in that sentence. The extensive debate refers to Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16, Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16, Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16 and Irish wikipedians' notice board/Archive16. summarises the whole issue perfectly in the last link, saying Woah! Hang on! You're not going to call them terrorists, you're going to call them criminals?? Let me say this one more time — this is not NPOV, this is extremely POV! I really had the feeling that you were pretty clued-in, that you were genuinely interested in finding a solution, but let me say: this is not it! Calling them criminals puts forward a point of view about the criminal justice system in the UK, as well as the competence of UK courts to try the cases, and whether politically-motivated acts can be treated as "criminal". So please, drop this one now!

Category:Criminals from Derry (city) contained only one article, Martina Anderson, despite it being created on 12 July 2019. This demonstrates clearly this was not an attempt to use categories to navigate to similar articles, but to add a criminal label to an article about a living person.

The debates concluded that it was inappropriate to categorise people imprisoned during the Troubles as criminals. This is supported by Categorization of people which says to categorize behaviour or acts as criminal, not people as criminal. FDW777 (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

 * The categories & inclusion in them aren't biased; your removal of them is. I usually assume good faith, but you've falsely assigned bad faith to me. Also, the large majority of your edits are about Irish republicanism, so you're portraying yourself as a single-purpose account who occasionally edits other topics.
 * The first discussion ended without consensus - it didn't reach anything like the conclusion that you claim. The other discussions were mainly about whether people imprisoned on terrorist charges/convictions should be categorised as POWs, which isn't anything to do with the cats in question.
 * There are many cats which categorise people as criminals. People who've been convicted of serious crimes (terrorist or not) - whose convictions have not been quashed - certainly should be categorised as criminals. Saying that we can't categorise people convicted of certain crimes or those belonging to certain criminal groups as criminals is ridiculous. For example, Ed O'Brien undoubtedly bombed a bus in 96. Patrick Magee undoubtedly bombed a hotel in 84, killing 5 people, then planted a bomb in a hotel in London in 85. Those were very serious crimes perpetrated against civilians & would be regardless of the bombers' ideology.
 * Cats being underpopulated - when other articles are eligible to be in them - doesn't mean anything like what you claim it does. Many valid cats are underpopulated months after they were created.
 * There's no rule/guideline that living people are ineligible for criminal cats.
 * In the edits you mention above, you removed criminal cats only from articles of people who committed terrorist-related offences whilst they were IRA members. Do you also think that we shouldn't categorise people who've committed terrorist crimes in the name of other ideologies (such as Mohammad Sidique Khan, Mohamed Atta, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Joseph Kony, Josu Urrutikoetxea, Anders Behring Breivik & Andreas Baader) as criminals? Your arguments - if accepted - would lead to the conclusion that criminal cats shouldn't be on those articles either. Or are you saying that there's some reason to categorise IRA members' criminality differently to the criminality of Islamist, Christian, separatist, far-right, far-left etc. terrorists? Jim Michael (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 * The discussions included the categorisation of people as criminals, as the quote from says. Read the discussions properly. Also read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 17, One side (the establishment) saw certain acts as crimes, and the other (the paramilitariesand their related political parties) saw them as political acts. Certainly, seven or eight years ago, there was a convention that they were not treated as either. The acts would be described as killings or robberies, and if a person was convicted and jailed for the act, they would be categorised as Category:Prisoners and detainees of Northern Ireland or a sub-cat of Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict. This applied equally to republicans, loyalists and members of the security forces.

 * I have no problem with anyone being categorised as part of Category:Republicans imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict or its sub-categories, since they are factual. Using any category using the term "Criminals" in it to describe anyone imprisoned during the Troubles, be they loyalist, republican or security forces, is inherently not NPOV. FDW777 (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 * The thing about categories is that they are intended to bring together similar subjects. Thus, in a "criminal" category you would expect to find people like Ted Bundy, Ronnie Biggs and John Gilligan: people who committed crimes for personal gain, in the heat of passion, or simply because they could, and believed they would get away with it. What somebody once called "ordinary decent criminals". People who commit certain acts for ideological reasons are a different class of person. They're not the same as ODCs, and we don't expect to find them in the same category. That includes Mohamed Atta, Joseph Kony and Andreas Baader as well as Bobby Sands and other IRA men. A category ceases to have a useful function if it jumbles together subjects of different types. As points out, republican and loyalist paramilitaries who committed acts of violence have their own categories; putting them in "criminal" categories as well only muddies the waters and doesn't improve the project. By the way, none of Mohamed Atta, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Joseph Kony, Josu Urrutikoetxea and Andreas Baader is in any "criminal" category. Mohammad Sidique Khan and Anders Breivik are, but I would argue for their removal.  Scolaire (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All those I listed here are in criminal-related cats of some sort - & Patrick Magee still is, after some applicable cats were recently removed. It seems like you're saying that categorising a terrorist as a murderer is correct, but we mustn't have the same person in a category which includes the word crime or criminal - which is bizarre, because Category:Murderers is a sub-subcat of Category:Criminals. It's also unsupported by any WP policy or guideline.
 * Categorising known serious criminals as criminals isn't POV - whether it's Magee, The Kray twins or Fred West. All those were undoubtedly murderers - it's factual, well-sourced & relevant. The criminal's motive makes no difference to whether or not what they did was a crime. A killer may do some sort of psychological gymnastics to make himself come to the conclusion that planting a bomb in a hotel in Brighton & another in a hotel in London is justified, productive & helpful, but he would still have been very aware that his actions were serious crimes, In addition, the authorities make no exception in the law on any such basis. Saying that having certain motives should exclude them from criminal cats would mean you could make that argument for other categories of criminal. You could argue that - to use your example - the difference between the motives of Ted Bundy & Ronnie Biggs is major - TB being primarily motivated by enjoying killing; RB motivated primarily by financial gain. It's highly unlikely that anyone would say that one of those types shouldn't be categorised as a criminal. Jim Michael (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Silly me! I looked for "criminal" in the categories and not for "murderers". My mistake, but I would still argue that those articles should not be in those categories. I still can't find "murderer" or any other subcat of "criminal" in the Kony, Urrutikoetxea or Baader articles.
 * You say, Categorising known serious criminals as criminals isn't POV, but Bobby Sands isn't a known serious criminal; he is regarded as a terrorist by many people, and as a freedom fighter by many others (few would regard him as just a common criminal). It's entirely a matter of point of view (POV), unlike Bundy and Biggs, who were unambiguously criminals. You also say, A killer may do some sort of psychological gymnastics to make himself come to the conclusion that planting a bomb in a hotel in Brighton & another in a hotel in London is justified, productive & helpful. That shows that you have strong feelings on the question, and you're expressing those strong feelings by adding a "criminal" cat. That is POV-pushing, even if it doesn't seem like it to you. I am not in any way an apologist for Sands. I simply think that having categories for political/religious activists who kill and categories for common criminals, and then putting people from one category into another, is unencyclopaedic. Scolaire (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no policy or guideline which says that terrorists shouldn't be in criminal cats, nor would it make sense to have such an exclusion. They aren't exempt from conviction, imprisonment - nor from WP cats. This distinction you make between ordinary criminals & terrorists doesn't exist in the vast majority of contexts. If, for example, a person has been convicted of murder (whether it be Magee or Harold Shipman), they're rightly categorised as criminals & murderers. If they undoubtedly committed that crime but weren't able to be convicted due to being dead before there was an opportunity to try them (for example O'Brien or Fred West), they're likewise rightly categorised as such. That's unambiguous. To say that they aren't criminals (or some aren't based on their motive/ideology) & to not describe them as such is POV.
 * JK, JU & AB are all in terrorist cats.
 * Many criminals are held in high regard by some people - not only those with political motives. Biggs is regarded by many as some sort of folk hero for committing a very large robbery, escaping from prison & going on the run - remaining free for decades. Some people praised Raoul Moat. Many imprisoned, convicted serial killers receive fan mail. Freedom fighter cats rightly don't exist on WP.
 * You'd struggle to find people who know about terrorism yet have no feelings about it. It'd be even less likely that you'd find people who have no feelings on the matter, yet choose to spend many hours of their free time improving articles related to it. You could say the same about people who edit articles about politicians, actors, sportspeople etc. - most aren't neutral about the subjects of the articles. My editing is neutral & factual, including adding relevant cats.
 * Categories are for navigating to similar articles, not for labelling people. Anyone vaguely familiar with Bobby Sands will know he rejected the label of criminal to be wiling to endure years of appalling conditions in prison, followed by a hunger strike to the death. Saying he was convicted of a crime is a factual statement. Saying he was a criminal is not a factual statement, and endorses the British government's propaganda. Doing so fails Categorization, since Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. FDW777 (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * People who've undoubtedly committed serious crimes are rightly described as criminals. That's factual & neutral, every bit as much as saying that they were convicted - it's not propaganda. Every country in the world regards people who bomb shops, hotels, buses etc. as criminals - it's not a British thing. It makes no difference if the perpetrators describe their crimes against civilian targets as a way of fighting, struggling or as an intended route to liberation. It wouldn't be neutral to introduce or categorise as a criminal someone who has a long successful career as an entertainer, scientist, sportsperson etc. who once committed a minor crime. However, the people we're talking about here are a world away from that. All 4 whom you removed cats from undoubtedly committed serious crimes. None of them said that they were framed. 3 undoubtedly committed violent crimes & the other made bombs for other people to use them for that purpose. There's no exception - in law, in WP policies, in media coverage etc. for any type of criminal based on their motivation - it would be very biased to give any type of criminal an exception. Many criminals of various kinds reject the label of criminal - either by denying that they committed the crimes, saying they were justified in committing them, saying that someone made them do it etc. Many terrorist orgs use words such as army, freedom, liberation or defence in order to make themselves sound legitimate. Some criminals who aren't political refer to themselves in ways that make them sound good, including some members of street gangs who refer to themselves as soldiers. Many rioters (political or not) refer to the rioting which they take part in as uprisings. Many of the 2011 rioters in England said that they were justified in burgling shops & setting them on fire in Manchester because police shot a drug dealer in London. Many career criminals say that committing crimes is justified as a way for them to provide a the best standard of living for their families. A hunger strike to the death is a slow suicide accompanied by demands. West isn't absolved of his crimes because he killed himself, nor are hunger strikers such as Sands or Barry Horne. Sands was well aware that planting a bomb in a furniture shop and carrying a gun were serious crimes and no-one claims that he was framed. Having been treated badly in prison doesn't change that. Jim Michael (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We are not here to right great wrongs and the convention on wikipedia is pretty clear on the terrorist/criminal issue. If you want to change that you need to make a more general case for a change rather than working on one article -Snowded TALK 11:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No WP convention/policy/guideline says to not categorise terrorists as criminals. If it did, you'd give a link to it. I'm not merely working on 1 article. FDW chose to start a discussion here in relation to this & 3 other bios from which he recently removed criminal cats. Jim Michael (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What Jim Michael deliberately fails to mention is that the other articles he refers to are ones that he added the categories to in the first place. Martina Anderson here and here, Edward O'Brien here and here and Patrick Magee here, here, here and here. FDW777 (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about Sands being badly treated, I said he endured years of appalling conditions, due to being on the blanket protest and dirty protest due to completely rejecting the label of criminal. These started due to the British government's three-pronged strategy, beginning in 1976 of criminalisation, normalistion and Ulsterisation. Criminalisation referring to the ending of internment without trial and the withdrawal of special category status, since before 1976 the British government were quite willing to accept that republican, and loyalist, prisoners weren't common criminals but had entirely different motivations. This is covered by any decent book on the Troubles. These authors give you an insight into the situation. Peter Taylor, Provos: The IRA and Sinn Féin page 251 Mrs McCloskey had said that she did not want her son to die and then when he lapsed into a coma she would take him off. 'I would like you to know that my son is not a criminal,' she said. 'He was a bad boy and he should not have shot that person. But if I thought he was a criminal I would never allow him to come inside my house again. Prior learned fast. 'That told me a great deal about the attitude and the mentality of the Republican community.'. Robert White Out of the Ashes: An Oral History of the Provisional Irish Republican Movement page 189 Adams, Carron, and Ruddy also visited Kieran Doherty and, when Adams told him that if he stayed on the fast he would be dead in a week, Doherty replied, 'Thatcher can't break us, I'm not a criminal.' Margaret M. Scull The Catholic Church and the Northern Ireland Troubles, 1968-1998 page 101 In addition, McCreesh told a rally in Toome: 'My brother is not a criminal', in direct response to Thatcher's 'crime is crime is crime, it is not political' speech It was a deliberate strategy of the British government to present republican, and loyalist, prisoners as common criminals, it would not be neutral for Wikipedia to present their view as fact. FDW777 (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, terrorists aren't unique in being a type of criminal who often don't categorise themselves as (common) criminals or whom claim to have justification for their crimes. Some professional criminals consider themselves to be above & distinct from criminals who commit crimes because they enjoy it or to fund addictions. Some people who are part of non-political organised crime groups consider themselves businesspeople. We neutrally categorise all sort of criminals as criminals & subcats of it. The UK Gov having formerly considered terrorists to be different to other types of criminals doesn't mean that they considered them to not be criminals - otherwise they'd have not convicted & imprisoned them. You're quoting people who were obviously strongly biased - including a convict on hunger strike & the mother of another convict on hunger strike - saying that we should follow their descriptions of them. If we were to do that, Reynhard Sinaga wouldn't be in criminal cats because his mother said that she doesn't believe that he's a criminal. Jim Michael (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stay on-topic. Unreferenced speculation about Reynhard Sinaga has got nothing to do with this article. FDW777 (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's a fact they are criminals perhaps you could provide references to counter The Alleged Transnational Criminal:The Second Biennial International Criminal Law Seminar (Theory and Applications of Transport in Porous Media) (ISBN 978-0792334095) page 411 By doing so, the U.K. was given licence to obtain the return of Irish republicans from the U.S. without the vexing difficulty of establishing in fact and in law that Irish republicans are the "terrorists" and common criminals the two governments regularly pronounced them to be. Despite the vastness of their combined resource, the two governments had been markedly unsuccessful in convincing U.S. judicial officers of the correctness of their position. Naturally you'll provide zero references like you usually do when challenged. FDW777 (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Or how about The Irish Jurist (1984), 189, 192-193 "Irish Republican Prisoners - Political Detainees, Prisoners of War or Common Criminals" by Clive Walker (cited in Asian Yearbook of International Law 1994: 1994 v. 4) As a result the public is coaxed into taking a perception of the terrorists which corresponds to that of the State. In other words, the terrorists are viewed simply as criminals, so their treatment as such is acceptable . . . Thus, criminalisation is an important conditioning factor to be applied to the minds of the British public, and it is equally aimed at channelling world opinion. Movements denounced as criminal plots rather than freedom fighters are much less likely to receive moral or material support from third states. FDW777 (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your first para doesn't give an online link, but it sounds like it's about an extradition case of suspects whom you haven't named. As you know, a suspect being extradited doesn't mean that they're automatically convicted. After being transferred to the custody of the receiving country, they're prosecuted in same way as suspects already in the country. Suspects who've committed crimes (regardless of motive or ideology) and who are arrested in another country are often extradited - that isn't specific to the UK.
 * The public anywhere in the world will typically view armed groups with a political motive who aren't lawful combatants as terrorists, because they clearly fit the definition - they don't need the gov to tell them that. Such groups aren't part of any country's armed forces & their actions are serious crimes. You again refer to terrorists being criminalised, but they do that themselves by the actions they choose to perform. They choose to join VNSA groups whom they know are outlawed & commit serious crimes, including the use of violence against civilian targets. Such attacks were already serious crimes before anti-terrorism legislation was brought in. There's no free pass or even mitigation in having a political motive. The claims by many that terrorist convicts are imprisoned for their political beliefs is clearly absurd - they're imprisoned for the crimes they committed. We're talking about people who committed armed attacks, not people who peacefully expressed dissatisfaction with the government. There's no law against believing that NI should be in the ROI, nor that the Basques or Tamils should each have their own country. Committing violent crimes to try to force such a change is a different matter. No country allows a VNSA group to bomb shops, buses, hotels etc. The authorities will take action against people who do & are justified in doing so - wherever in the world it takes place.
 * You clearly have a long-term grudge against the UK gov (& perhaps other governments as well), which makes you strongly biased.
 * You used a quote from the mother of a convict saying that he wasn't a criminal as though it were evidence that he wasn't. I showed how unreliable & biased such a source is by pointing out that Sinaga's mother said that he isn't a criminal.
 * You haven't shown any policy, guideline etc. which says that any particular type of criminal - whether it be motive, type of crime etc. - should be exempt from criminal cats. You know that what Sands, O'Brien, Anderson & Magee did were serious crimes - they chose to become criminals. They weren't framed, weren't exonerated & weren't POWs. Their motives do not make them or their actions any less criminal. Jim Michael (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Naturally you'll provide zero references like you usually do when challenged. With predictions that uncanny I should play the lottery more. You also misrepresent the completely off-topic claims you made about Reynhard Sinaga. As the original article with the interview in actually says Even now Normawati struggles to believe that her son could be capable of such evil crimes. She did not even know that he was gay. “We are a good Christian family who do not believe in homosexuality. He is my baby,” she said. So she never said he wasn't a criminal or his actions weren't crime, so even if it was on-topic (which it blatantly isn't) it doesn't even support your point, whatever it is. You deliberately ignore that a policy based objection (in addition to the mention of the guideline Categorization of people, which again you ignored) was made in my very first post on this page, when I quoted Scolaire saying You're not going to call them terrorists, you're going to call them criminals?? Let me say this one more time — this is not NPOV, this is extremely POV. You can find the policy at WP:NPOV, since you appear to be totally ignorant of its existence. I have provided multiple references to support my arguments, you've proved a grand total of zero. FDW777 (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, I mentioned Sinaga as an example of a criminal whose mother says he isn't, in order to refute your claim that we shouldn't say that a convict on hunger strike was a criminal because his mother said he wasn't - even though she knew that he'd committed crimes. The reasons for denying their sons' criminality was different, but both mothers have done so. Sinaga's mother said that she thinks the victims made false reports that they'd been raped by him, despite him having proved himself guilty by recording his attacks. Mothers are typically a strongly biased source in relation to their own children.
 * Contrary to your repeated claim to have proved your position, you haven't provided anything significant to support your assertion that terrorists (or any other type of criminal) shouldn't be categorised on WP as criminals. None of the links you've provided even come close to doing so - they all fit into one or more of: a) opinion & claims rather than policy or guidelines - including the sentence you repeated from Scolaire which was merely part of a discussion; b) are from biased sources - including a convict's mother's opinion of him; c) don't say what you claim they do - including Categorising people, which doesn't say not to put terrorists in criminal cats. I've long been aware of the policies & guidelines. I read the ones you've linked to again recently to see if they'd changed to say what you claim they do, which as you know they don't come close to.
 * My additions of criminal cats to bios of people who undoubtedly committed serious crimes is well within WP policies & guidelines as well as facts & common sense. Your removal of them isn't supported by any policy or guideline. If they were, you'd quote them. Jim Michael (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Still no references! What a surprise!! Ignoring the policies and guidelines I keep pointing you to doesn't further discussion. The policy is Neutral point of view, and the guidelines are Categorization of people and Categorization. A specific quote from the last one is Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view, so that doesn't mean they present the British government's viewpoint as fact. It's been well established that it was a specific policy of the British government to criminalize people imprisoned during the Troubles after 1976. Out of the Ashes: An Oral History of the Provisional Irish Republican Movement page 144 quotes Keirean Nugent saying And I didn't see the logic in the British government - saw again that had them offenses been committed before the first of March 1976, I would be a politicial prisoner. It turned out I was arrested on the fourth of May 1976, which is only two months after the date. Yet, they were saying that you weren't a political prisoner, you were a criminal. That underlines the absurdity of the whole situation, that people convicted of offences committed before March 1976 still received special category status (ie. political status) but people convicted of offences committed after that date didn't receive special category status and were classed as common criminals. The British government are masters of talking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.

 * And since you still don't seem to understand simple English words, I will spell out the problem with your Sinaga argument.

 * Mrs McCloskey had said that she did not want her son to die and then when he lapsed into a coma she would take him off. 'I would like you to know that my son is not a criminal,' she said. 'He was a bad boy and he should not have shot that person. But if I thought he was a criminal I would never allow him to come inside my house again. Prior learned fast. 'That told me a great deal about the attitude and the mentality of the Republican community.'

 * Liam McCloskey's mother accepts that her son was a bad boy and that he shot someone, but despite that she does not consider him a criminal.

 * Even now Normawati struggles to believe that her son could be capable of such evil crimes. She did not even know that he was gay. “We are a good Christian family who do not believe in homosexuality. He is my baby,” she said

 * Reynhard Sinaga's mother struggles to understand that he son was capable of the crimes, a struggle lots of parents of criminals go through. However she does not say anything similar to Liam McCloskey's mother, she doesn't say Yes, he raped all those men. But that doesn't make him a criminal. So the two cases are not in any way similar. One mother acknowledges that her son did commit certain acts but says that doesn't make him a criminal, the other mother apparently labels his acts evil crimes. FDW777 (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 * You're fond of boasting about the sources you place, but this latest one is also severely biased - from convicted criminal Kieran Nugent. A problem with the way you present his biased quote is that you're asserting that special category prisoners of the time that status existed weren't convicted criminals. That, as you know, is incorrect. They were still convicts serving prison sentences; the difference was that they had more rights & a more favourable status within the prison population. The government, prison service, police, media, general public etc. still regarded them as convicted criminals & their convictions constituted a criminal record.
 * Sinaga's mother didn't say that her son committed evil crimes. She's not saying that rape isn't a serious crime - she doesn't believe that he's a rapist. She said that she thinks the victims made false rape reports. I said that there's a similarity between the mothers' view of their convicted criminal prisoner sons in that they both deny their sons' criminality. As I said, the reasons for the denials are different, but the situation of a mother asserting that her criminal son isn't a criminal is the same.
 * Stop talking down to me as though I'm stupid. You can clearly see from the way I write that I'm educated. Do you see loads of mistakes in spelling, grammar, punctuation etc. in what I write? I realise that I'm not the only person that you're uncivil towards on WP, but you know that it's against policy to communicate that way on WP. You can clearly see that I've remained civil.

Why does it feel like it's 2007 again? Per FDW777, Scolaire, and Snowded, the convention on wikipedia is pretty clear on the terrorist/criminal issue. The criminal category is not appropriate for this article. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. is fond of saying there is no policy or guideline to prevent him from adding the cat. Well, WP:Consensus is a policy. A consensus was arrived at many years ago not to categorise these people as criminals, and Jim Michael has failed to achieve a consensus for doing so now.  Scolaire (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 * You'll need to show a policy (not mere comments, opinion etc.) which clearly states (not merely hints, suggests etc.) that terrorists should not be categorised as criminals. You say that such a policy was formed, so why aren't you providing a link to it?
 * I'm fond of improving WP by following policies & editing neutrally. There's no doubt that Sands was a convicted criminal serving a long sentence. It would be beyond POV to not categorise him as such. Jim Michael (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It would also be POV to categorise him as such, thus failing Categorization since Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Checkmate. FDW777 (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's neutral, because it's reliably sourced that he was convicted of serious crimes. If criminal cats or including criminals in them were POV, such cats wouldn't exist. It can't honestly be argued that he didn't commit crimes, nor that the crimes were minor &/or of little relevance to his life. The claim that he wasn't a criminal because he wasn't a common criminal is preposterous. Jim Michael (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not neutral, according to me and Scolaire and numerous references. Pretending otherwise is disruptive. I suggest you head over to Talk:Nelson Mandela and propose your change there, and see how much traction it gets. FDW777 (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It certainly is neutral & factual to state that people convicted of serious crimes whose convictions haven't been overturned are criminals. Two biased editors & some biased sources don't change that. Other reliable sources say that he was a criminal. It's you - rather than me - who's refusing to accept the truth. You're honestly claiming that bombing a furniture shop either isn't a crime (or shouldn't be regarded as a crime), then you're claiming that I'm being biased to say that it was a crime & that he was a criminal for doing it?! Do you say likewise for terrorists of other ideologies? Jim Michael (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Clive Walker and others aren't biased, more "I didn't hear that". Special Category: The IRA in English Prisons Vol. 2: 1978-1985 by Ruán O'Donnell page 312 POA [Prison Officers Association] Chairman Colin Steel concurred with Richards and was critical of the Prison Department's policy of accommodating criminals along with 'very sophisticated politically orientated prisoners' You're convincing nobody and still haven't produced any references. Why don't you to go Talk:Nelson Mandela? Is it because you know full well your proposal will get shot down in flames and permanently stop your POV-pushing here? FDW777 (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also I don't see any criminal categories over at Nelson Mandela despite him being convicted of more serious charges and serving longer in prison than most, if not all, the people you claim should have the label "criminal" applied to. Mandela is in Category:South African prisoners and detainees, people imprisoned during the Troubles are in the similar Category:People imprisoned during the Northern Ireland conflict and its sub-categories. Why don't you go to Talk:Nelson Mandela and see if you can get consensus to add criminal categories to that article? FDW777 (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep bringing up Mandela - that's not going to change the fact that Sands was a convicted criminal. No rule or guideline says that convicted criminals aren't eligible for criminal cats if their acts had political motives, nor if they were sophisticated. It's you who's POV-pushing. Jim Michael (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we just close this - the issue has been resolved years ago and one editor on a campaign over several articles is not enough to change prior consensus. personal attacks on other editors don't help either -Snowded TALK 18:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Show where it was resolved - not merely a claim, suggestion, interpretation etc. - or a discontinued/unresolved/abandoned discussion. Putting criminal cats on articles about convicted criminals isn't a campaign. Jim Michael (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be the most sensible option. Every time a few days pass I think a certain editor finally gets it, only to have him post again with no references repeating his repeatedly rejected POV. FDW777 (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If by 'getting it' you mean swallowing your ridiculous bias, forget it. That will never happen. I'll never view any terrorist of any ideology in a positive way. Jim Michael (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela keeps getting brought up because he's the poster boy for people convicted of politically motivated crimes. He was convicted of more serious crimes than Bobby Sands and served far longer in prison. Yet there are no categories that directly label him a "criminal" on his article. If your intent is that all people convicted of politically motivated crimes should have a "criminal" label directly applied to them, I suggest you start there since you're failing miserably here. FDW777 (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 * How about a compromise on 'war criminal' rather than 'criminal' on the premise that the IRA (based on their view) were engaged in an armed struggle against the British State and they perpetrated war crimes - such as kidnapping, torturing, murdering and secretly burying a (civilian) mother of ten and then not disclosing the whereabouts of her body?
 * Just to clarify - is it fine to class Bobby Sands as a terrorist but not a criminal? Just an FYI - the IRA were an illegal organisation in Ireland since 1939 under the state's counter-terrorism laws ergo a member of that organisation would be viewed as a criminal under Irish and UK law on the basis membership of a proscribed organisation is illegal. Breaking the law = criminal (Definition of criminal: a person who has committed a crime. Definition of crime: an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law). We are supposed to view matters objectively and without POV. Therefore, Bobby Sands is different from Nelson Mandela because the scenarios are incomparable so it is illogical to make an argument that is fundamentally flawed (suggesting Nelson Mandela's page is edited to refer to him as a criminal). At the time of Bobby Sands' conviction, imprisonment and death the law in respect of his conviction (and validity of same) was not changed. Further, the IRA is still a proscribed organisation in Ireland and the UK, bombing buildings is still illegal, and being arrested in possession of weapons without a licence is still a crime. Whether the purpose was for general crime, or for terrorist activities (against civilian populations) that is still criminal activity (on both sides of the border). TheSquareMile (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Why a furniture shop?
Why did he & his accomplices bomb a furniture shop? What was the significance of doing that? Did they have something against furniture, shops, the owner, or some combination of those? Is there a better explanation than something along the lines of: 'it was an economic target in the UK, so it was legitimate to attack it'? Jim Michael (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Read a book. FDW777 (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

 * The article should explain why they chose to bomb a furniture shop. If you know why that was selected as a target, add it to the article - rather than talking down to me as you usually do. Jim Michael (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Why should it? If it should (and no major objection) then find a reliable source and add it in.  Drive by tagging asking other editors to do work for your is discouraged so I have reverted that.  This is a more elaborate version of "Read a book" which I can't see as talking down although it is a little abrubt. -Snowded TALK 08:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 * At Talk:The Troubles/Archive 3 you suggested a change to the article, without suggesting what the change would be or providing any references. replied stating Perhaps Jim Michael could propose a wording for his perspective, citing a reasonably authoritative source?. You replied without doing either, prompting replies including Scolaire's And it's not up to other editors to write it for you. Your comments here show this is a pattern of behaviour. I doubt anybody is going to research anything on your behalf, so it's up to you to do the legwork. FDW777 (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Your 'read a book' reply to me strongly asserts that were I to read a (relevant) book, I'd find out what the reason for a furniture shop being targeted was. It also implies that the reason is well-known, clear & that you know what it is. However, I've read a lot & have never seen anything approaching an explanation. I have, however, heard many people say that they're puzzled as to why it was selected & that it's a world away from being an obvious target (unlike for example a police station, army barracks or prominent politician's house/car). I must be one of thousands of people who've read this article in order to find out the motive for the furniture shop being selected. It's not a case of me not wanting to add this info to this article myself - I don't know the reason & haven't been able to find out. However, if (as you strongly suggest) you know, why would you not improve the article by adding that info to it? Surely you'd want to do that, particularly as Irish republicanism is clearly by far the topic that you're most interested in. If you don't know, why imply that you do? Jim Michael (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes, reading a book can definitely help. Here is a result I got very quickly from a Google Books search: "the IRA continued to attack economic targets" (bottom of the page). I'm not saying Jonathan Tonge is the go-to source for information of this sort; it's just the first one I found. It's well known that the IRA bombed businesses, and I sincerely doubt there were any hand-wringing discussions about whether a furniture shop qualified or not. It's a non-story. The chosen target was a furniture shop, and the reader doesn't gain anything from asking why – even if the precise reason for the choice of that particular target could be ascertained, which of course it cannot, since they didn't keep minutes. Scolaire (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

 * It's strange that none of Sands' thousands of fans, even those who claim to have been friends of his, will say why he & his associates chose to bomb a furniture shop. They often describe him as a hero, but how can bombing a furniture shop be interpreted as heroic? It was severe vandalism of private property which had nothing to do with the government. Jim Michael (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Your (sneering and trying to degrading) "advice" "Read a book.", FDW777, is violating our wikiquette and is of NO real use to anyone interested in this question. It WOULD have been of great use if you wrote WHICH book - AND would have summarized what valuable information to this question you have found in this book. Steue (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 * @ Steue: Indeed - he often talks down to constructive editors in a patronising tone in comments & edit summaries. Jim Michael (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

 * @ Jim Michael
 * The article "says", in Bobby_Sands, "Balmoral Furniture Company".
 * What I do know: "Balmoral" is associated with the Queen, because she has a castle there. So my guess is: This association might have been enough cause for the attack.
 * Please ping me. Steue (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I don't believe the furniture company had any royal links, despite its name. I'm not aware of a royal name being a reason for being targeted, otherwise Windsor Davies & Barbara Windsor would have been considered by them to be legitimate targets.
 * Describing various civilian targets as economic targets was clearly an attempt by the IRA to make it sound like it's legitimate to target them, but it's a world away from targeting the military & police. In addition, the IRA are unlawful combatants, so any attacks by them were illegal, as is membership. Targeting shops isn't legal anywhere & it's a fact that Sands was convicted & imprisoned for serious crimes; he was far from being a prisoner of conscience. Even Sands' most devoted fans don't claim he was framed, so to claim that criminal cats shouldn't be on the article goes against reliably sourced facts as well as WP policies & guidelines.
 * A discussion on this talk page by a tiny number of people doesn't create a consensus to remove criminal cats from various articles about Irish republicans who were convicted of serious crimes. No WP policy or guideline says that biographies should be excluded from criminal cats on the basis of motive, ideology or any other factors. It's rare that anyone says anywhere other than on Irish republican articles that criminal cats should be omitted & it would certainly be very biased to exclude cats from articles related to crimes & criminals committed in the name of Irish republicanism when we don't do so for crimes committed in the name of religion, separatism, far-left, far-right, animal rights activism etc. Jim Michael (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

 * If you believe it was bombed because of the name "Balmoral", I suggest you read a book too. One or more of the many listed at Provisional Irish Republican Army might prevent similar comments in future. FDW777 (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 * You strongly implied that a book will state specifically why a furniture shop was targeted. If one of them does that, say which one. Otherwise, stop stating such things. Also, stop using a patronising, uncivil tone in your comments & edit summaries. As you know, it's explicitly against WP rules. Jim Michael (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Jim Michael. And, if you FDW777 really want to be of use, which I'm sure you want, you would include the page number. Steue (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Is as simple and easy as looking for the term "Balmoral" (if you don't know Belfast). No relation with the English royal family, it is a district -whose name comes from the Irish language- of South Belfast, as you can see in this Wikipedia link: [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.39.218.10 (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

"Bobby Sands" was the inspiration to "Byron" of "Babylon 5"
In the TV series "Babylon 5" there is the character "Byron" List_of_Babylon_5_characters. Having seen this series and having read the article Bobby Sands and seen the two images within it, it is quite obvious, to me, that "Bobby Sands" was the inspiration to "Byron" of "Babylon 5". But I don't know of any source for this. Please ping me. Steue (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:FORUM violation ^ and your personal observations have no place whatsoever on Wikipedia - only Reliable Sources do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.18.254 (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Set Internal Balmoral Furniture bombing hyperlink in the lede
I tried to do it but the text looks wrong. Wikipedia's interface has changed. It used to be easy to do this. I've done what I wanted, it just looks wrong. Can someone please tweak this thing?107.195.106.201 (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Cancel that. It looks fine now after publishing.  There were extra characters in the "preview", but now it looks fine.  I also think the casualties of the Balmoral bombing should be included in the Lede.  Those lives mattered.  Aware of the controversial nature of the Article, so I'm stepping out.  I've done what I wanted to do.107.195.106.201 (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1971 Balmoral Furniture Company bombing is nothing to do with Bobby Sands. FDW777 (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Terrorist
He wasn't a soldier he was a terrorist. 2A00:23C8:2293:7D01:1896:4E21:3A62:EBDB (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bobby Sands


text:
Rodovia Ayrton Senna

Rodovia Ayrton Senna da Silva (officially designated SP-070 and formerly named Rodovia dos Trabalhadores) (Workers' Highway), is a highway in the state of São Paulo, Brazil.

The highway begins in the Eastern region of city of São Paulo and ends at the county of Guararema, merging with Rodovia Presidente Dutra.

The cities served by Rodovia Ayrton Senna are Guarulhos, Itaquaquecetuba, Mogi das Cruzes, Suzano, Poá and Guararema. It continues in the same direction into Rodovia Carvalho Pinto, which has the same SP-070 designation, in parallel with Dutra Highway.

Near São Paulo, special highway engineering techniques had to be used, in order to cross the natural swamp area by the Tietê River without damaging the nearby ecosystem. Its main traffic nowadays is between São Paulo and the São Paulo/Guarulhos International Airport (also known as Cumbica Airport).

The highway is named in honour of the deceased Brazilian Formula One driver, Ayrton Senna.

It was managed and maintained by DERSA, a state-owned company, until June 18, 2009. It is now maintained by Ecopistas, but it is a toll road.

Story
On August 3, 1979, Decree No. 13,756, gave concession to DERSA for construction and exploration of the Eastern Road, now called the Ayrton Senna Highway.

The highway, former Trabalhadores, had the first stretch of São Paulo-Guararema built by DERSA in 22 months - from June 1980 to April 30, 1982 -, has a length of 48.3 km, to which were added 5, corresponding to the interconnection with the Presidente Dutra Highway in which it has the name of Access SP 070 / BR-116.

The inauguration took place on May 1, 1982. The work met a historical need, determined by the growth of the São Paulo Metropolitan Region with access to the Tietê Ecological Park, São Paulo / Guarulhos International Airport and Intermodal Cargo Terminal.

In addition to alleviating the traffic that congested the Presidente Dutra Highway in the busiest section (São Paulo-Guarulhos), the Highway became the long-needed alternative between the city of São Paulo and the Vale do Paraíba and Rio de Janeiro. It also began to facilitate tourism to the North Coast and Campos do Jordão.

Since June 18, 2009, the concessionaire Ecopistas, of the EcoRodovias Group, is responsible for the management and administration of the highways that make up the Ayrton Senna / Carvalho Pinto Corridor: the SP-70, which links the city of São Paulo and Valley of the Paraíba, with 140 km of extension.

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

title: Rodovia Ayrton Senna


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pain Clinic

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — J I P | Talk 05:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Pain Clinic
''Not enough discussion, relisting. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)''

Self-promotion (note the user is a new user named "Cashman44" and one of the hosts is called "the Cashman" in the article) for a non-notable local radio talk show. I'm living in Rochester NY, and I've never even heard of the show. — ceejayoz ★ 18:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ★ 18:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

We have been on the air for 7+ years. It's not my fault if you don't know us. If you want to add something you have to have an account. Wikipedia covers alot of wrestling and you casn search us on any search tool and find stuff about us. We have a great history that I was in the midst of adding when you posted your deletion request! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.63.77 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 7 October 2005
 * You may continue editing the page, and those edits will certainly remain if the vote for deletion fails. However, I believe your page remains a candidate for deletion as it is non-notable and self-promotional. As a side note, please sign your posts in this page with ~, and I encourage you to login when posting. — ceejayoz ★  18:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Weak Delete Verifiable... but obviously vanity.--Isotope23 19:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. I don't live in Rochester, yet I have heard of this show. Yes, this article as originally posted is self-promotion, but as a talk radio aficionado, I immediately associated "Pain Clinic" in the "Recent Changes" with this radio show. (I am quite against the homogenization of broadcast radio and am fond of using the Internet to listen to locally produced programs, especially those on unconventional topics, such as this show.) I am going to attempt to remove the self-promotion aspects of this article -- I believe it has a place. — psu256 18:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've done some cleanup in the event that the article is kept. — ceejayoz ★ 22:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment': in [] user 24.24.63.77 (presumably 'the Cashman Richie Rich' himself) removed the word 'Cashman' in what seems to me to be a clumsy attempt at hiding the reference mentioned in initial referral above. (Clumsy, b/c incomplete; it now reads: 'the Richie Rich'.) On the other hand, maybe I'm just failing to be a nice guy. Mr Cashman's obvious desire to promote himself doesn't automatically prevent his article from being notable (if cleaned up). Eaglizard 15:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete 01:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Seven years is quite a good span.  If we were talking seven months, I'd reconsider.  --Merovingian (t) (c) ( e ) 01:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Borderline keep . Rochester isn't a huge media market, but it isn't insignificant either. Seven years is a pretty long time for a wrestling show to go on. Article also needs to be cleaned up to remove vanity POV. Also needs to be disambiguated. At first I thought this was an article about physical medicine and rehabilitation. - Sensor 01:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * First off, lets avoid hazing the newbies, even if they are here trying to get a somewhat self promotional article published. Not every one is familiar with wiki-ettiquette.  My first experience on wikipedia was so negative that I nearly left altogether.  If this radion show is in fact notable, then it should be kept regardless of who initially posted it.  It is now part of WP and can be freely edited by anyone.  I'm not voting on this, as I have not read enough of the article. — Gaff  ταλκ 02:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Right now I'll abstain, but if anyone can prove it has been running for 7 years froma reliable 3rd party source, I'd be happy to vote keep.- Mgm|(talk) 12:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Show's website is here. Alexa ranking of 1,678,769, but the article is on the show, not the site. There can't be all that many sports-talk shows on wrestling, can there?  Anyway, I hereby change my vote from weak keep to keep but disambiguate.
 * Weak keep, but definitely disambiguate. I thought of a medical article as well, as I know several 'real' pain clinics. --JoanneB 17:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Trollderella 20:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep --Rogerd 00:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Palazzo Spada

The Palazzo Spada is a palace located on Piazza di Capo Ferro #13 in the rione Regola of Rome, Italy. Standing very close to the Palazzo Farnese, it has a garden facing towards the Tiber river.

The palace accommodates a large art collection, the Galleria Spada. The collection was originally assembled by Cardinal Bernardino Spada in the 17th century, and by his brother Virgilio Spada, and added to by his grandnephew Cardinal Fabrizio Spada,

History
In 1540, the palace was commissioned by Cardinal Girolamo Capodiferro, and utilized as an architect Bartolomeo Baronino of Casale Monferrato, while Giulio Mazzoni and a team provided lavish external and internal stucco-work.

The palace was briefly owned by the Mignanelli family, until in 1632, the palace was purchased by Cardinal Spada, who commissioned modifications from Francesco Borromini. The Baroque architect Borromini who created a masterpiece of forced perspective optical illusion in the arcaded courtyard, in which diminishing rows of columns and a rising floor create the visual illusion of a gallery 37 meters long (it is 8 meters) with a life-size sculpture at the end of the vista, in daylight beyond: the sculpture is 60 cm high. Borromini was aided in his perspective trick by a mathematician.

The Mannerist stucco sculptural decor of the palazzo's front and its courtyard façades feature sculptures crowded into niches and fruit and flower swags, grotesques and vignettes of symbolic devices (impresi) in bas-relief among the small framed windows of a mezzanine, the richest Cinquecento façades in Rome. The colossal sculpture of Pompey the Great, erroneously believed to be the very one at whose feet Julius Caesar fell, was discovered under the party wall of two Roman houses in 1552: it was to be decapitated to satisfy the claims of both parties, which appalled Cardinal Capodiferro so, that he interceded on the sculpture's behalf with Pope Julius III, who purchased it and then gave it to the Cardinal.

Gallery
The palazzo hosts the Galleria Spada, the Cardinal Spada's collection, which includes four galleries of 16th and 17th-century paintings by Andrea del Sarto, Niccolò Tornioli, Guido Reni, Titian, Jan Brueghel the Elder, Guercino, Rubens, Dürer, Caravaggio, Domenichino,  the Carracci, Salvator Rosa,  Parmigianino, Francesco Solimena, Michelangelo Cerquozzi, Pietro Testa, Giambattista Gaulli, and Orazio and Artemisia Gentileschi, and has the additional interest of being hung in the 17th-century manner, frame-to-frame, with smaller pictures "skied" above larger ones.

Public authority
Palazzo Spada was purchased by the Italian State in 1927 and today houses the Italian Council of State, which meets in its richly frescoed and stuccoed rooms.

title: Palazzo Spada


text: User talk:83.71.46.218

title: User talk:83.71.46.218


text:
Yukon–Kuskokwim Delta

The Yukon–Kuskokwim Delta is a river delta located where the Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers empty into the Bering Sea on the west coast of the U.S. state of Alaska. At approximately 129500 km2 in size, it is one of the largest deltas in the world. It is larger than the Mississippi River Delta (which varies between 32,400 and 122,000 square kilometers or 12,500 and 47,100 sq mi); it is comparable in size to the entire U.S. state of Louisiana (135,700 square kilometers or 52,400 sq mi). The delta, which consists mainly of tundra, is protected as part of the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge.

The delta has approximately 25,000 residents. 85% of these are Alaska Natives: Yupik and Athabaskan people. The main population center and service hub is the city of Bethel, with an estimated population of around 6,219 (as of 2011). Bethel is surrounded by 49 smaller villages, with the largest villages consisting of over 1000 people. Most residents live a traditional subsistence lifestyle of hunting, fishing, and gathering. More than 30 percent have cash incomes well below the federal poverty threshold.

The area has virtually no roads; travel is by bush plane, or riverboats in summer and snowmachines in winter.

Bethel is the location of the Yukon Kuskokwim Correctional Center.

title: Yukon–Kuskokwim Delta


text:
Set operations (SQL)

Set operations in SQL is a type of operations which allow the results of multiple queries to be combined into a single result set.

Set operators in SQL include,  , and  , which mathematically correspond to the concepts of union, intersection and set difference.

UNION operator
In SQL the   clause combines the results of two SQL queries into a single table of all matching rows. The two queries must result in the same number of columns and compatible data types in order to unite. Any duplicate records are automatically removed unless  is used.

can be useful in data warehouse applications where tables are not perfectly normalized. A simple example would be a database having tables  and   that have identical structures but are separated because of performance considerations. A  query could combine results from both tables.

Note that  does not guarantee the order of rows. Rows from the second operand may appear before, after, or mixed with rows from the first operand. In situations where a specific order is desired,  must be used.

Note that  may be much faster than plain.

Examples
Given these two tables:

Executing this statement:

yields this result set, though the order of the rows can vary because no  clause was supplied:

Note that there are two rows for Joe because those rows are distinct across their columns. There is only one row for Alex because those rows are not distinct for both columns.

gives different results, because it will not eliminate duplicates. Executing this statement:

would give these results, again allowing variance for the lack of an  statement:

The discussion of full outer joins also has an example that uses.

INTERSECT operator
The SQL  operator takes the results of two queries and returns only rows that appear in both result sets. For purposes of duplicate removal the  operator does not distinguish between. The  operator removes duplicate rows from the final result set. The  operator does not remove duplicate rows from the final result set, but if a row appears X times in the first query and Y times in the second, it will appear $$\min(X,Y)$$ times in the result set.

Example
The following example  query returns all rows from the Orders table where Quantity is between 50 and 100.

EXCEPT operator
The SQL  operator takes the distinct rows of one query and returns the rows that do not appear in a second result set. For purposes of row elimination and duplicate removal, the  operator does not distinguish between. The  operator does not remove duplicates, but if a row appears X times in the first query and Y times in the second, it will appear $$\max(X - Y, 0)$$ times in the result set.

Notably, the Oracle platform provides a  operator which is functionally equivalent to the SQL standard   operator.

Example
The following example  query returns all rows from the Orders table where Quantity is between 1 and 49, and those with a Quantity between 76 and 100.

Worded another way; the query returns all rows where the Quantity is between 1 and 100, apart from rows where the quantity is between 50 and 75.

Example
The following example is equivalent to the above example but without using the  operator.

title: Set operations (SQL)


text:
Chelodina

Chelodina, collectively known as snake-necked turtles, is a large and diverse genus of long-necked chelid turtles with a complicated nomenclatural history. Although in the past, Macrochelodina and Macrodiremys have been considered separate genera and prior to that all the same, they are now considered subgenera of the Chelodina, further Macrochelodina and Macrodiremys are now known to apply to the same species, hence Chelydera is used for the northern snake-necked turtles.

Chelodina is an ancient group of chelid turtles native to Australia, New Guinea, the Indonesian Rote Island, and East Timor. The turtles within this subgenus are small to medium-sized with oval shaped carapace. They are side-necked turtles, meaning they tuck their head partially around the side of their body when threatened instead of directly backwards.

Chelydera represents those species that have often been termed the Chelodina B group or thick necked snake neck turtles. The subgenus was described in 2020 by Thomson & Georges (in Shea et al. 2020). They are a side-neck turtle of the family Chelidae with extremely long necks and long flattened heads. They are specialist fish eaters using a strike and gape mode of feeding. They are medium to large species with the largest Chelodina (Chelydera) expansa reaching shell lengths of some 45 cm. The first fossils (C. (Chelydera) alanrixi) are known from Queensland from the Eocene period (Lapparent de Broin, F. de, & Molnar, R. E., 2001).

Macrochelodina (Wells & Wellington, 1985) is a monotypic subgenus of the Chelodina. Its sole member is the enigmatic Chelodina (Macrochelodina) oblonga from Western Australia.

Taxonomy
Current taxonomy follows that of Georges & Thomson, 2010 with updates from van Dijk et al. 2014 and Shea et al. 2020.

Synonymous names for the Chelodina Fitzinger 1826 genus include: Hydraspis Bell 1828, Chelyodina Agassiz 1846:79 (nomen novum), Hesperochelodina Wells and Wellington 1985 (nomen nudum).

The type species for the Chelodina subgenus is Chelodina longicollis (Shaw, 1794). The type species for the Chelydera subgenus is Chelodina parkeri Rhodin and Mittermeier 1976. The type species for Macrochelodina is Chelodina oblonga Gray 1841.

Extinct species
There are three identified extinct species of Chelodina:
 * Chelodina alanrixi de Broin and Molnar, 2001 is a species of snake-necked fossil turtle which was described in 2001 using material gathered in Redbank Plains, Queensland, Australia. It is a member of the Chelidae Pleurodira. The fossil has been dated to the Eocene Epoch.
 * Chelodina insculpta de Vis, 1897 is an extinct species of snake-necked turtle that was described in 1897 from material gathered in Darling Downs, Queensland, Australia, restricted. It is a member of the Chelidae; Pleurodira. The fossil has been dated as Pliocene to Pleistocene.
 * Chelodina murrayi Yates, 2013 is an extinct species of snake-necked turtle from the Waite Formation on the Alcoota Scientific Reserve, north-east of Alice Springs in the Northern Territory of Australia. The species would appear to belong to the Chelodina novaeguineae group of species within the subgenus Chelodina.

title: Chelodina


text:
Ian Watson (author)

Ian Watson (born 20 April 1943) is a British science fiction writer. He lives in Gijón, Spain.

Life
In 1959, Watson worked as an accounts clerk at Runciman's, a Newcastle shipping company. The experience was not particularly satisfying.

Watson graduated in English Literature from Balliol College, Oxford, in 1963; in 1965 he earned a research degree in English and French 19th-century literature.

Watson lectured English in Tanzania (1965–67) and Tokyo (1967–70), and taught Future Studies at the Birmingham Polytechnic from 1970 to 1976. After 1976 he devoted himself to his career as a professional writer.

His first novel, The Embedding, winner of the Prix Apollo in 1975, is unusual for being based on ideas from generative grammar; the title refers to the process of center embedding. He is a prolific writer, having written more than two dozen novels, among them Miracle Visitors, God's World, The Jonah Kit and The Flies of Memory; and many collections of short stories. Watson is credited as author of the screen story for the motion picture A.I. Artificial Intelligence. In 1977, The Jonah Kit won the BSFA Award for Best Novel.

During 1980, Watson and Michael Bishop wrote the first transatlantic SF novel collaboration, Under Heaven's Bridge, using typewriters and postal services.

In 1989 Watson made an extended appearance on television in Channel 4's After Dark series alongside Buzz Aldrin and Whitley Strieber among others.

He has also written a series of novels relating to the Warhammer 40,000 line of games: Space Marine, and the Inquisition War trilogy of Inquisitor, Harlequin and Chaos Child (republished in 2002 by The Black Library, with Inquisitor retitled Draco). Other recent stories have been published in US magazine Weird Tales, the Canadian anthology Lust For Life, New Writings in the Fantastic, the Mammoth Book of Best New Erotica volume 7, and in a few more books. Some of these stories have been translated into non-English languages.

A collaboration with Italian surrealist writer Roberto Quaglia has produced a book, The Beloved of My Beloved, launched during April 2009 during Eastercon.

His major work of recent years is The Waters of Destiny co-written with Andy West.

Novels

 * Orgasmachine. Paris: Editions Champ Libre, 1976.
 * The Martian Inca. London: Gollancz, 1977. ISBN 0-575-02218-3
 * Alien Embassy. London: Gollancz, 1977. ISBN 0-575-02336-8
 * Miracle Visitors. London: Gollancz, 1978. ISBN 0-575-02474-7
 * God's World. London, Gollancz, 1979. ISBN 0-575-02683-9
 * The Gardens of Delight. London: Gollancz, 1980. ISBN 0-575-02819-X
 * Deathhunter. London: Gollancz, 1981. ISBN 0-575-03023-2
 * Under Heaven's Bridge, with Michael Bishop. London: Gollancz, 1982. ISBN 0-575-02927-7
 * Chekhov's Journey. London: Gollancz, 1983. ISBN 0-575-03213-8
 * Converts. London: Granada, 1984 (paper). ISBN 0-586-05895-8
 * The Books of the Black Current:
 * The Book of the River. London: Gollancz, 1984. ISBN 0-575-03396-7
 * The Book of the Stars. London: Gollancz, 1984. ISBN 0-575-03508-0
 * The Book of Being. London: Gollancz, 1985. ISBN 0-575-03596-X
 * Yaleen, omnibus edition. Dallas, TX: BenBella Books, 2004 ISBN 1-932100-24-5
 * Queenmagic, Kingmagic. London: Gollancz, 1986. ISBN 0-575-03883-7
 * The Power. London: Headline, 1987. ISBN 0-7472-0031-9
 * Whores of Babylon. London: Paladin, 1988 (paper). ISBN 0-586-08773-7
 * Meat. London: Headline, 1988. ISBN 0-7472-3130-3
 * The Fire Worm. London: Gollancz, 1988. ISBN 0-575-04300-8
 * The Flies of Memory. London: Gollancz, 1990. ISBN 0-575-04873-5
 * The Books of Mana:
 * Lucky's Harvest. London: Gollancz, 1993. ISBN 0-575-05423-9
 * The Fallen Moon. London: Gollancz, 1994. ISBN 0-575-05424-7
 * Hard Questions. London: Gollancz, 1996. ISBN 0-575-06189-8
 * Oracle. London: Gollancz, 1997. ISBN 0-575-06487-0
 * Mockymen. Urbana, IL: Golden Gryphon Press, 2003. ISBN 1-930846-21-5
 * Orgasmachine. Alconbury Weston: NewCon Press, 2010. ISBN 978-1-907069-14-7
 * The Waters of Destiny (with Andy West)
 * Assassins. Palabaristas Press, 2012
 * Tongue of Knowledge. Palabaristas Press, 2012
 * Death Overflows. Palabaristas Press, 2012
 * Tongue of Knowledge. Palabaristas Press, 2012
 * Death Overflows. Palabaristas Press, 2012

 * Warhammer 40,000
 * The Inquisition War trilogy:
 * Inquisitor (vt 2002 Draco). Brighton: GW Books, 1990 (paper). ISBN 1-872372-29-5
 * Harlequin. London: Boxtree, 1994. ISBN 0-7522-0965-5
 * Chaos Child. London: Boxtree, 1995. ISBN 0-7522-0621-4
 * Space Marine. London: Boxtree, 1993 (paper). ISBN 1-85283-840-X

Short fiction

 * Collections
 * The Very Slow Time Machine. London: Gollancz, 1979. ISBN 0-575-02582-4
 * Sunstroke and Other Stories. London: Gollancz, 1982. ISBN 0-575-03138-7
 * Slow Birds and Other Stories. London: Gollancz, 1985. ISBN 0-575-03675-3
 * The Book of Ian Watson. Willimantic: Mark V. Zeising, 1985. ISBN 0-9612970-3-4
 * Evil Water and Other Stories. London: Gollancz, 1987. ISBN 0-575-03953-1
 * Salvage Rites and Other Stories. London: Gollancz, 1989. ISBN 0-575-04447-0
 * Stalin's Teardrops. London: Gollancz, 1991. ISBN 0-575-04942-1
 * The Coming of Vertumnus. London: Gollancz, 1994. ISBN 0-575-05766-1
 * The Great Escape. Urbana, IL: Golden Gryphon Press, 2002. ISBN 1-930846-09-6
 * The Butterflies of Memory. Harrogate: PS Publishing, 2006. ISBN 1-904619-49-5
 * Saving for a Sunny Day. Alconbury Weston: NewCon Press, 2012. ISBN 978-1-907069-38-3
 * Stories

Poetry

 * List of poems

title: Ian Watson (author)


text: User talk:209.137.181.42

title: User talk:209.137.181.42


text: User talk:81.99.53.221

title: User talk:81.99.53.221


text:
Anthony Storr

Anthony Storr (18 May 1920 – 17 March 2001) was an English psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, and author.

Background and education
Born in London, Storr was educated at Winchester College, Christ's College, Cambridge, and Westminster Hospital. He was in the first cohort of medics to train in Jungian analysis at the Society of Analytical Psychology in London.

Career
In 1974, Storr moved from private practice to a teaching appointment at the Warneford Hospital in Oxford, until his retirement in 1984.

Personal
Storr was, as one of his obituarists observed, "no stranger to suffering at formative stages of his life." He married twice, to Catherine Cole (who became a children's writer under her married name) in 1942 and writer Catherine Peters in 1970 after the first marriage ended in divorce.

Distinctions

 * Emeritus Fellow of Green College (1984)
 * Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature (1990)
 * Honorary FRCPsych (1993)

Works
In his books, Storr explored the secrets of the dark sides of the human psyche – sexual deviations (Sexual Deviation, 1964), aggression (Human Aggression, 1968), and destructiveness (Human Destructiveness, 1972). At the same time, he saw the possibility of creative use of these spontaneous drives and directing them towards sports, scientific and artistic feats (The Dynamics of Creation, 1972).

In his book Music and the Mind, Storr explores various theories on the origins of music.

In chapter 3 of the book Storr writes: "Although music is sometimes referred to as a universal language, this is an entirely misleading description. The difficulty of appreciating music from different periods of history or from different cultures is a powerful argument in favour of the view that the various types of music are predominantly cultural artefacts rather than based on natural phenomena."

In his final book Feet of Clay; Saints, Sinners, and Madmen: The Power and Charisma of Gurus (1996) Storr tracks typical patterns, often involving psychotic disorders that shape the development of the guru. He challenges Jesus' mental health by implying that there are psychological similarities between crazy "messiahs" such as Jim Jones, David Koresh, and respected religious leaders, including Jesus. His study is an attempt to look at Jesus as one of many gurus.

Publications

 * The Integrity of the Personality (1961) ISBN 978-0-345-37585-8
 * Sexual Deviation (1964) ISBN 978-0-14-020649-4
 * Human Aggression (1968) ISBN 978-0-689-10261-5
 * Human Destructiveness (1972) ISBN 978-0-435-82190-6
 * The Dynamics of Creation (1972) ISBN 978-0-689-10455-8
 * Jung (1973) ISBN 978-0-00-633166-7
 * The Essential Jung (1983) ISBN 978-0-691-08615-6
 * The School of Genius (1988) ISBN 978-90-254-6789-0
 * Solitude: A Return to the Self (1988) ISBN 978-0-00-654349-7 — paperback retitling of The School of Genius
 * Freud (1989) ISBN 978-0-192-82210-9
 * The Art of Psychotherapy (1979, 1980) ISBN 978-0-416-60211-1
 * Churchill's Black Dog, Kafka's Mice, and Other Phenomena of the Human Mind (1990) ISBN 978-0-00-637566-1
 * Human Destructiveness: The Roots of Genocide and Human Cruelty (1991) ISBN 978-0-415-07170-3 – fully revised edition of Human Destructiveness
 * Music and the Mind (1992) ISBN 978-0-00-215398-0
 * Feet of Clay; Saints, Sinners, and Madmen: A Study of Gurus (1996) ISBN 978-0-684-82818-3
 * The Essential Jung: Selected Writings (1998) ISBN 978-0-00-653065-7 – another edition of The Essential Jung
 * Freud: A Very Short Introduction (2001) ISBN 978-0-19-285455-1 – another edition of Freud

title: Anthony Storr


text: User talk:70.146.68.128

title: User talk:70.146.68.128


text: User talk:69.16.84.2

title: User talk:69.16.84.2


text:
RAF Kuala Lumpur

Royal Air Force Kuala Lumpur or more simply RAF Kuala Lumpur is a former Royal Air Force (RAF) station in the Federation of Malaya and saw extensive use during the Malayan Emergency.

It was built and opened by the RAF in 1931.

Military
The airfield was home to: No. 52 Squadron operating Vickers Valettas, used for supply dropping to Army troops in the jungle. In 1959-1961 it was the only operational squadron in the RAF.

 * No. 155 Squadron operating Westland Whirlwind HC.4 helicopters.
 * No. 194 Squadron operating Westland Dragonfly helicopters/re-equipped with Bristol Sycamore HC.14 helicopters.
 * No. 110 Squadron above two squadrons merged on 3 June 1959.
 * No. 267 Squadron operating Douglas Dakota, Vickers Valetta, Scottish Aviation Single and Twin Pioneers (Dakota and Auster using broadcasting loudspeakers.)
 * 848 Naval Air Squadron (Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm) using Whirlwind helicopters.
 * No 656 Squadron Army Mobile Servicing Squadron servicing Auster AOP.6, Auster T.7 and Auster AOP.9.
 * The Royal New Zealand Air Force 41 Squadron (RNZAF) used Bristol Freighters.

The station was handed over to Royal Malaysian Air Force in 1961. During the height of the Emergency, the single runway had the highest number of aircraft movements in the world.

The station was situated about 3 miles from the town with its own swimming pool and cinema. It is commonly known to the locals as Sungai Besi Air Force Base.

Civilian
The airfield was also the site of the first civil airport, Sungai Besi Airport, which had a route to London with British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) using Britannia aircraft. The airport opened in about 1957. Malayan Airways operated Dakota aircraft on domestic flights. The Duke of Gloucester was greeted at the airport by the British High Commissioner in Malaya, Sir Donald Charles MacGillivray, when Malaya was granted independence ("Merdeka").

Sungai Besi Airport was in use as a civilian airport long before 1957, with Malayan Airways Airspeed Consuls and DC3's flying in and out of the airport from the late 1940s. BOAC Argonauts used the airport in the early 1950s, after the Marsden Matting runway and taxiways were replaced by asphalt. A new terminal building was built in 1957 and this may be the source of confusion as to the date the airport was opened. This building was demolished around 2004.

Qantas started Super Constellation services into the airport in 1958 and BOAC Comets replaced the Britannias in 1959.

The civilian airport was later replaced by Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport in 1965.

title: RAF Kuala Lumpur


text:
Bermuda Principles

The Bermuda Principles set out rules for the rapid and public release of DNA sequence data. The Human Genome Project, a multinational effort to sequence the human genome, generated vast quantities of data about the genetic make-up of humans and other organisms. But, in some respects, even more remarkable than the impressive quantity of data generated by the Human Genome Project is the speed at which that data has been released to the public. At a 1996 summit in Bermuda, leaders of the scientific community agreed on a groundbreaking set of principles requiring that all DNA sequence data be released in publicly accessible databases within twenty-four hours after generation. These "Bermuda Principles" (also known as the "Bermuda Accord") contravened the typical practice in the sciences of making experimental data available only after publication. These principles represent a significant achievement of private ordering in shaping the practices of an entire industry and have established rapid pre-publication data release as the norm in genomics and other fields.

The three principles retained originally were:
 * Automatic release of sequence assemblies larger than 1 kb (preferably within 24 hours).
 * Immediate publication of finished annotated sequences.
 * Aim to make the entire sequence freely available in the public domain for both research and development in order to maximise benefits to society.

title: Bermuda Principles


text:
Hungama (2003 film)

Hungama is a 2003 Indian Hindi-language comedy film co-written & directed by Priyadarshan and produced by Venus Records & Tapes. The film stars Akshaye Khanna, Paresh Rawal, Aftab Shivdasani and Rimi Sen, while Shakti Kapoor, Rajpal Yadav, Tiku Talsania and Shoma Anand play supporting roles. It is a remake of Priyadarshan's own 1984 Malayalam film Poochakkoru Mookkuthi which itself was based on the 1980 Telugu movie Gopal Rao Gari Ammayi.

Plot
Anjali Patekar arrives in Mumbai to escape family problems and look for a job. To secure cheap lodging from a paranoid landlord Popat, she fakes a marriage to Nandu Apte, an aspiring musician who is in a similar predicament. Jeetu Sahai starts his own electronics business after robbing his miserly father. His friend Anil, who wishes to marry into a rich family, woos Madhuri, the daughter of criminal Teja by pretending to be millionaire businessman Radhe Shyam Tiwari's son. He secures an engagement with her through the help of Tiwari's servant Pandu. Radhe Shyam Tiwari and his wife, also named Anjali, decide to leave their village and shift to Mumbai permanently. Their arrival disrupts Anil's plan, and Pandu asks him to abscond. Teja approaches Tiwari to discuss the marriage, and accuses him of lying when he claims to have no knowledge of his supposed son. This creates a rift between Tiwari and his wife, who suspects that he has a son outside their marriage.

Anjali visits Tiwari's mansion hoping for a job, while Jeetu goes there to fix equipment, and assumes her to be Tiwari's daughter. Later on, she applies for a position at Jeetu's store, who hires her in an attempt to woo her. Anjali continues the pretense, and Jeetu starts dropping her off at Tiwari's mansion everyday. Radhe Shyam spots Jeetu outside his house as he does so, with his wife spotting the other Anjali at the same time. Both Tiwaris become convinced that their spouses are having an affair with the younger counterparts.

Nandu falls for Anjali, while the landlord Popat's wife Dulari falls for him and wants to run away. He discovers that Anjali is being forced to marry Raja, the son of her village's landlord, and scares him away when he arrives in Mumbai. Raja hides at Welcome Lodge under a fake alias, where Anil too is hiding. Soon, Teja learns of Anil's location and arrives at the lodge, but in confusion, beats up Raja instead, making him go crazy. Meanwhile Anjali, unable to keep up with her lies, skips work. A worried Jeetu storms up to Tiwari and demands he let them marry, while Tiwari, believing that he is talking about his wife, starts a feud with him. Nandu lies to Dulari about running away, telling her that he'll be waiting for her at Welcome Lodge. She takes the help of a corrupt policeman Waghmare, but he mistakenly picks up an insane Raja, who fights back and leads Waghmare and the lodge staff into a chase. Jeetu arrives at Tiwari's house. To clear up the misunderstanding, they call Anjali as well, who tells them the truth. Teja reappears, furious about the marriage, and forcibly takes them to his warehouse. Nandu is chased by Popat, who is after a reward that Nandu's family has offered to return him home. All characters end up in Teja's warehouse, where they fight and get arrested. Jeetu and Nandu confront Anjali and profess their love, making her to choose. She chooses Nandu and Jeetu quietly agrees.

Cast

 * Akshaye Khanna as Jeetu Sahai (a.k.a. Jeetu Videocon)
 * Aftab Shivdasani as Nandan "Nandu" Apte
 * Paresh Rawal as Radhe Shyam Tiwari
 * Rimi Sen as Anjali Patekar
 * Shoma Anand as Anjali Pandey Tiwari (Radheshyam's Wife)
 * Shakti Kapoor as "Raddiwala" Teja Bhai (a.k.a. Kachra Seth)
 * Rajpal Yadav as Raja / Tulsi Das Khan
 * Tiku Talsania as Popat Seth, Nandu & Anjali's landlord
 * Neena Kulkarni as Renuka Sahai, Jeetu's Mother
 * Amit Divetia as Advocate Chandra Kanth Sahai, Jeetu's miserly father & Radhe's legal advisor
 * Upasna Singh as Dulari Seth (Popat's Wife)
 * Manoj Joshi as Inspector Anand Waghmare
 * Sanjay Narvekar as Anil Singh / Munna Tiwari (Radhe's fake son)
 * Razak Khan as Babu Bisleri (A worker at Welcome Lodge)
 * Amin Gazi as Bholu Singh
 * Jagadish as Pandu Rajan (Radhe's servant)
 * Nandhu as Tejas Iyer (Welcome Lodge manager)
 * V. B. K. Menon as Kachra Seth's henchman
 * Jyothi Joshi as Madhuri K. Seth (Teja Bhai's daughter)
 * Shaan as Himself in the song "Chain Aapko Mila"
 * Sadhana Sargam as Herself in the song "Chain Aapko Mila"
 * Varun Seth as Babban
 * Donny Kapoor as Anjali's friend
 * Anu Ansari as Nurse
 * Jaydutt Vyas as Nandu's manager

Soundtrack
The music of Hungama was composed by Nadeem–Shravan and lyrics penned down by Sameer.

Box office
The film grossed ₹20.24 crore worldwide, against a budget of ₹6 crore.

Critical response
Taran Adarsh of IndiaFM gave the film 2 out of 5, writing, "On the whole, HUNGAMA is a light entertainer with several hilarious moments." Ronjita Kulkarni of Rediff.com called it a "confusing comedy," writing, "The film has too many sub-plots and too many characters. The result is that all the characters are half-baked and shallow."

Sequel
In November 2019, Priyadarshan announced Hungama 2 with Paresh Rawal, Shilpa Shetty, Meezaan Jafri and Pranitha Subhash in lead roles. The filming started on 6 January 2020 in Mumbai. The film was scheduled to be released on 14 August 2020 but delayed due to COVID-19 pandemic. The film was released on Disney+ Hotstar on 23 July 2021 owing to closure of cinemas due to COVID-19 Pandemic.

title: Hungama (2003 film)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulier's Law

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — J I P | Talk 07:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Pulier's Law
Non-notable vanity page. Google turns up 642 for Eric Pulier and no results for Pulier's Law. — ceejayoz ★ 18:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ★ 18:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete because of Isotope's Law: You have to do more than spout some silly sayings to be notable.--Isotope23 18:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, but I strongly advocate an article for Isotope's Law ;-) Justin Bacon 01:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Now that's a law I can support. *g* — ceejayoz ★ 03:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity. Sadly, although he mentions 'other "eponymous laws"', he fails to state what "Pulier's Law" might actually be. The world is the worse off for it, no doubt. Eaglizard 15:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * He did manage to slip it into List of eponymous laws here... — ceejayoz ★ 16:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:List of storms in the 2006 Pacific hurricane season

Daniel TCR (CPHC portion)
The CPHC has its report on Daniel up:. --Ajm81 21:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, Emilia, Norman TCRs
Norman, Emilia, Daniel. --Ajm81 14:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * That's all for the EPac. Now we have to wait for the CPHC reports that are still awaiting. CrazyC83 17:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They might do a report for the subtropical storm though. íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 (samtal)
 * Don't count on it. It's a borderline call with that storm and hurricane forecasters don't like adding storms right and left postseason, it's bad for their image. NHC already has to deal with an Atlantic storm in July that looks obviously tropical to me. This weak, brief oddity will likely get passed. -- § Hurricane E  RIC § archive 23:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Daniel TCR updated
They posted an update yesterday for BT intensities and verification. Good kitty 17:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, now it includes the proper CPAC information. --Ajm81 17:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Track maps
The NHC track maps are out:. Still waiting for the remainder of the CPHC report. --Ajm81 16:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just out of interest does the JMA issue invidual storm reports or will we have to wait till april 2008 when the JTWC will issue their report on Ioke and all the storms west of the dateline ?Jason Rees 19:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like the JMA does annual reports. I don't know when they are released. --Ajm81 21:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * At least until April, 2008 Jason, JTWC is notoriously slow. They didn't finish the 2004 report until like June of last year and haven't even started the 2005 reports. A well-oiled machine it's not, but I suspect it'll come out before we all have gray hair. -- § Hurricane E  RIC § archive 02:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, they have completed the 2005 reports, but it's horrible and lacking in content. – Chacor 05:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh! Where'd you find that link? It's not on JTWC's archive page. -- § Hurricane E  RIC § archive 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I found it a couple of weeks ago Eric; predictable URLs mean I could find it directly...--Nilfanion (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow so much for wating until April 08 the JTWCs Report for the 2006 (2005/2006) Season is already up on the Archive page Jason Rees

Strongest storm in infobox
This season is, as far as I can tell, the first to definitely have the strongest storm of the year in the central rather than east Pacific.

Previous seasons, which since 1979 have had at least one storm form or reach the central Pacific, have only one strongest storm in their infobox. That storm has always been in the eastern Pacific. For example, the 2004 season has Javier in the infobox. The strongest storm in the central Pacific, Estelle, has no mention in the infobox.

Because previous seasons have only one strongest storm in their infobox, and that the strongest storm is considered to encompass both the eastern Pacific part and the central Pacific part, I propose taking Daniel out of the infobox, leaving only Ioke. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

 * This is a good idea, despite mentioned nearly 10 months ago. I went ahead and took Daniel out. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Other storms
Quick question to get people's opinions. Should the other storms section really be included? While there is some standard to include possible storms, this storm was never considered a tropical cyclone by any tropical cyclone agency (only NASA, which is in a separate league). Even the CHC (link) called it an extratropical cyclone; on the flip side, it was included in the hurricane season summary, which could imply that they thought it had tropical characteristics, but couldn't call it as such. I believe I was the one who added it, so I'm slightly inclined to keep it, but I'd like some feedback from the community (if anyone is even still here). Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Don't worry...I am still here. Yes I think the other storms section should stay as it adds intrest to the article. Juliancolton (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I say definitely keep it; the US Navy works with the NHC/CPHC in matters of early detection, and if the Navy considered it such, I figure that's enough for me, even if the NHC/CPHC didn't; but since they didn't, it's not good enough to get a mention in the main list. --Golbez (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Come to think of it, perhaps there could be an article on that thing, the "2006 central Pacific weather system" (to call it something neutral). It could include its storm history- Padgett offers a track- and that could be included, as could the rain it caused in the PNW. I could also include which agencies thought it was this, and which agencies thought it was that, etc. I'm not sure what infobox to include, or perhaps no infobox at all. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Given that it was certainly a cyclone, it could use Template:Infobox winter storm, as used here. BTW, it also brought rainfall to southwestern British Columbia, per the CHC report. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Once I finish expanding list of Pacific hurricanes, I'll give it a shot. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 02:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Awesome, and good luck. If you need a hand, I'll be around. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I just published it at 2006 central Pacific cyclone. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

todo
improve and make a FT.

Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 15:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge with 2006 Pacific hurricane season?
Wasn't it an error that people began to use this different format after 2005 AHS used it due to the amount of storms? Though usually on average WPAC pages are probably the same length as the 2005 AHS... but I think maybe this could go back to the original format it was supposed to be in like the 2005 PHS is. atomic 77  32  05:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed to some extent, but the problem is this article is an FL. Why merge an FL? If you really think this should be merged Atomic (I know you hate the knew format) nominate the page for FLRC. YE  Tropical  Cyclone 02:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the appropriate venue is indeed right here. Once there is a consensus to merge, then it can be taken to FLRC. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree this should be merged now. I'll take this to FLRC. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


text:
Rodovia Carvalho Pinto

The Rodovia Governador Carvalho Pinto (officially designated SP-070) is a highway in the state of São Paulo, Brazil.

It is a continuation of the Rodovia Ayrton Senna (also SP-070), near the city of Guararema and ends by merging with Rodovia Presidente Dutra, which connects the cities of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro; and Rodovia Floriano Rodrigues Pinheiro (SP-123), which connects Taubaté to Campos do Jordão. In 2018, a branch was added linking it to Rodovia Oswaldo Cruz, which connects Taubaté to Ubatuba The cities served by the highway are Guararema, Jacareí, São José dos Campos, Caçapava and Taubaté.

The highway was built in order to relieve the traffic saturation of the Presidente Dutra Highway, and is the main thoroughfare used by the paulistas who wish to travel to the beaches and cities near the South Atlantic Ocean of the Northern coast of the state (Rodovia dos Tamoios, SP-099), as well as to other cities of the Paraíba River valley, such as Paraibuna and Jambeiro on the plateau of Serra do Mar, and to the mountain resorts in the Mantiqueira Mountains, such as Santo Antonio do Pinhal and Campos do Jordão, via the Rodovia Floriano Rodrigues Pinheiro.

The highway honours one of the former governors of the state of São Paulo, Carlos Alberto Alves de Carvalho Pinto.

It was managed and maintained by DERSA, a state-owned company, until 18 June 2009. Now it's maintained by Ecopistas, but is a toll road.

title: Rodovia Carvalho Pinto


text:
Talk:Aarhus Cathedral

Untitled
"Aarhus Domkirke is the largest cathedral in Aarhus" - is there more than one cathedral in Aarhus? Uppland 18:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * No. I've done a little cleaning. Valentinian T / C 21:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Aarhus Cathedral. 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/20081226115537/http://www.aarhus-domkirke.dk:80/Historie-4.aspx to http://www.aarhus-domkirke.dk/Historie-4.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426075325/http://aarhussymfoniskeorgelfestival.dk/artikel.asp?artikelid=8 to http://aarhussymfoniskeorgelfestival.dk/artikel.asp?artikelid=8

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Aarhus Cathedral


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santosh

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete the article. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Santosh
Beside the etymology one-liner, this page seems only to have served as a vehicle for vandalism thoughout the times. -- Egil 18:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as utter nonsense.--Isotope23 18:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bobblewik 19:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sp Delete Tintin
 * Delete one line is not an article, should be redirected to a list page instead =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santosh