text:
“see talk” and give the details there… however, BWDIK wants the edit summary itself to have an “explanation” and so this isn’t acceptable… so my question stands.) Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, you know that is not what I want. Do I read your comment above to say that editors should give contemporaneous explanations ("the details) of reverts in either an edit summary or a talk page? If so then we are in complete agreement. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean, but the opposite situation is even more likely: some new user sees an obvious blatant error, or NPOV violation etc, but the user who was active in this article before and who, for some reason, wants that error to be preserved, reverts the attempt to fix it under a pretext that the reverted text is ostensibly a consensus version.

 * If we assume that all long lasting content is by default the content people had been working hardly with, then we must openly say that any long lasting version should be considered a consensus version. I personally believe that would be a grave mistake.

 * A more concrete answer to that question is as follows. If the user who reverts a bold edit can demonstrate that the stable version was worked on by several editors a few years ago, and that it had stabilized into a consensus version (no serious dormant disputes, no strong conflicts etc), then it is easy to demonstrate, and these evidences must be provided. If the user who reverts the bold edit was a part of that implicit consensus building process (or at least is familiar with the details of that process), they can easily provide needed evidences. Thus, a good example of edit summaries can be This had been discusses in the past and rejected 3 years ago. See the article history and talk page discussion. If you believe you have fresh arguments, please, present them on the talk page first.
 * The burden of evidence must be on the user who refers to a previous consensus. Actually, the policy always says about that, although it sounds more like a recommendation. I propose to make this requirement mandatory.
 * With regard to: "Personally, I would just put “see talk”", absolutely agree. That is what I myself am doing frequently. It does not matter where and how the information is provided, but it must be provided.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's look at this structurally. "No consensus" like a zillion other commonly used edit summaries and things that Wikipedians write is not logically specific which means that it can cover many different statement and assertions (including assertions of what situation exists) in the context of many different situations that actually exist. Let's narrow the infinite possibilities down to just 20 situations that actually exist and 20 different assertions that the person could mean for each which brings it down to about 400 situations covered by a (potential) "no consensus" edit summary. And so we're having discussions above about a handful of those 400 to formulate a prescriptive policy (yes, this is a policy page) to prescribe what must be done for those situations. So following this concept, we're going to have to first list the 400 different situations covered by a (prospective)"no consensus" edit summary and then write a policy on what should happen for each of those 400. When we're done with that then we can start with #2 of those zillion.

Or we can write a policy that requires explanatory and logically explicit edit summaries. Which inevitably would be violated about 100,000 times per day so we'll need to expand WP:ANI capacity to handle those. The brief edit summary that I'll use for this edit ("+comment") will become one of those violations.

Or else we can use the current system for those which is that if the edit/revert is contested a discussion ensues generally starting with talking about what the current situation is and an expansion on what the editor is asserting. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

 * I already proposed to narrow it down to just one case: if some user writes "no consensus" (be it an edit summary or talk page post), that user must explain what consensus is meant, and when it was achieved. Without that, the policy implicitly puts the burden of proof that no consensus exists on those who proposes a change. That contradicts to the policy's spirit. The policy says:

 * A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised.

 * When a user X writes: "No consensus", they imply that the edit made by a user Y is close to the previously proposed version that had already been rejected, and that the arguments Y presents had already been addressed in the past. That means the user X has that information, otherwise the statement made by X would be an obvious lie. That means it would be easy for X to share this information with Y, by doing that, X shows respect to the opponent.

 * Furthermore, if Y starts browsing the article's history in attempt to find when and where the consensus had been achieved, that may take a lot of time, and, importantly, the search may lead to somewhat different result, which by no means facilitates the consensus building process. Meanwhile, by explaining what consensus they refer to, the user X puts this information into a common knowledge domain, and that, per Aumann's agreement theorem, greatly facilitates a consensus building process.
 * In general, this theorem must be made a core of this policy, because it significantly narrows the range of issues where people can agree to disagree.
 * If the requirement to explain the revert is too strict, we can do the following:

 * "If some user reverts the edit with such an edit summary (or a talk page post) as "No consensus", "against consensus" etc, that user must provide an exhaustive information about the consensus they refer to upon request. If that user is unable to do so, the reference to the previous consensus is deemed non-legitimate."

 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I totally agree in spirit… a revert should be accompanied by an explanation. But calling an unexplained (or poorly explained) revert “non-legitimate” is just an invitation to Wikilawyering. Encourage, don’t mandate. Blueboar (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we need to require exhaustive information. Just some information should usually be enough.  "See talk page" (if there's a relevant discussion there) gives the bold editor a starting point.  Even "previously rejected" gives you a hint about what the problem is.  An unexplained "No consensus" could mean anything from "I don't like it" to "this is good edit, but I want you to jump through some hoops first" to "I can't believe that you missed the huge fight about this last month". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Blueboar and WhatamIdoing, actually, I didn't mean explanations are mandatory. I meant that if you revert someone with the edit summary "no consensus" etc, you must be ready to explain that your action when you are asked about that. If you fail to explain when and how that consensus had been achieved, the reference to consensus is not deemed legitimate, and you cannot say that the user whom you reverted was acting against consensus. That includes possible complaint at ANI, AE, etc. Moreover, if you fail to provide evidences and continue to maintain the proposed change violate previous consensus, that your activity may be considered disruptive. Obviously, the consensus achieved through editing is not covered by that rule, because in that case it is hard to discriminate between a consensus version and just a last stable version.
 * Specifically, that is needed to prevent some users from speaking on behalf of the community in a situation when they hardly have a right to do so.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I can certainly agree with the principle that an editor should explain their edits/reverts when asked to do so. I see such a request as being the bridge between “consensus through editing” and “consensus through discussion”.
 * In “consensus through editing” We don’t actually need to explain our edits… we simply edit (and reverting is just another type of edit - part of the back and forth of the editing process). However, as soon as someone effectively says: “hold on, I want to discuss this” (whatever the language used to convey this request) we should shift to “consensus through discussion” - and explain.
 * It does not matter who initiates this transition. It is usually the editor who gets reverted (by asking “why”)… but the reverting can certainly initiate the transition (by anticipating the request and preemptively posting an explanation). Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Yes, and I think we need to add that to the policy. Currently, there may be a conflict between WP:ADMINSHOP and WP:CCC. The latter just recommends that terse explanations should be avoided, whereas the former says: (Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process. As a result, a user who is repeatedly asking for evidences that some text reflects previously achieved consensus may be accused of filibustering or stonewalling. Indeed, very frequently, users respond to such requests just by saying: "Please, stop it. You are acting against consensus.", and the current version of the policy perfectly allows them to do so. We must fix that.

 * The following change should be made to WP:CCC. Instead of:

 * "Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed)."

 * I propose:

 * "Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor. If you do use such terse explanations, you may be asked to provide a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed. In general, in any discussion, an editor who refers to some previously achieved consensus may be asked to provide additional information on that matter. If the editor fails to do that, their reference to the consensus that was ostensibly achieved in the past cannot be considered valid, and their arguments may be disregarded"

 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

 * I just realized another reason for my hesitancy regarding all this: There seems to be an assumption that a summary that just says “no consensus” means the reverter thinks a previous consensus exists.
 * I think that assumption is flawed. Sure, It could mean that, but it could ALSO mean that the reverting editor dislikes the edit (or is simply unsure of it) and is requesting discussion in order to establish consensus on the edit.  It is an attempt to say that there is “no consensus” (yet)… so let’s discuss and FORM one.  Sure, there are probably better ways to say that… but we should assume good faith, and a blunt “no consensus” can be interpreted as a good faith attempt to request a discussion. Blueboar (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Do I correctly deduce from this that you also take the position that "I reverted this edit because I don't like it" is a good faith edit summary? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it may be a good faith edit summary, if a reverter is ready to elaborate on that and join a talk page discussion Actually, that is what WP:BRD says.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find that language at wp:BRD. Is it from somewhere else?
 * What I did find at BRD is "briefly explain why you reverted." The problem, of course, is that wp:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a meaningful explanation. Or are you saying that an explanation doesn't have to be meaningful as long as the editor is prepared to be meaningful in a talk page discussion? In other words, is it good faith for an editor who is willing to engage on a talk page to say "yellow octopus" in the edit summary of every revert they make? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "I reverted this edit because I don't like it" is a good-faith edit summary (when reasonably accurate). The person doing this isn't trying to harm the encyclopedia; the editor just thinks the edit in question did not improve the page.
 * Saying "no consensus" when the problem is "I (personally and individually) don't agree" is potentially deceptive. We usually interpret "no consensus" as meaning "many editors disagree" – not just me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have asked: Is "I just don't like it" a good faith reason to revert? Is wp:JUSTDONTLIKEIT wrong? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 * I think it can be. It isn’t a Policy based reason, but not every change/revert needs to be policy based. Of course, the reverting editor should be prepared to follow up and explain WHY he “just doesn’t like it” (if asked). Blueboar (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Right, edits need not be policy-based (e.g., "copy edit" is fine). The problem with "I don't like it" is that it is not substantive - it adds nothing to the fact of revert itself. The reverting editor is giving the reverted editor no "why" information. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 * "Copy edit" doesn't give you "why" information either - if I add a comma with the edit summary "copy edit", that provides a reasonable description of what I did, but not why I think there should be a comma there in the first place. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 * "Copy edit" gives you a "what" and implies a substantive "why" (to improve the text (as opposed to the content)). "I like it" and "I don't like it" give you neither. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Don’t care… (once again) if you want to know WHY someone “just does not like it”… just ASK them! It isn’t onerous. Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 * The fact that you don't care is not a reason "based in policy, sources, and common sense." Assuming, without conceding, that forcing other editors to open a discussion to obtain the reason for an edit is not onerous, then it isn't onerous to force the editor who makes the change to explain it from the get-go. I will (once again*) ask the question that you have yet to answer: Why not save the step and have editor who makes the change provide a contemporaneous explanation?

 * * See above at: 22:21, 19 June 2021 / 02:18, 20 June 2021 / 05:30, 21 June 2021 / 16:42, 21 June 2021 Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Because I can not control what some other editor puts (or does not put) in their edit summaries. What I CAN control is how I respond to whatever they put (or don’t put).  If I need clarification, it’s up to ME to ask for clarification. Blueboar (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 * But we're not talking about what you can control, we're talking about what our policies should say. Our policies are full of aspirational requirements and prohibitions that seek to "control" editor behavior (with varying levels of success). Why shouldn't requiring contemporaneous explanations for edits be one of those rules? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Is "I have a good reason for this edit. Start a talk page discussion and ask me if you want to know what it is." a good faith edit summary? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Sure, if the person making the edit is willing to do just that if someone asks. It may not be to everyone's preference, but not all edits are easily explained within the confines of an edit-summary - even something like "per WP:V", while technically correct, may oversimplify. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 * "not all edits are easily explained within the confines of an edit-summary" Can't argue with that. In such cases the appropriate practice* would be to explain it on the talk page contemporaneously with the edit (with an edit summary of "see talk").
 * * I say "appropriate practice" because a substance-free edit "explanation" impedes consensus-building and creates extra work for any editor who wants to know the edit what and why, Further, in the case of reverts, it is discourteous to the reverted editor. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 * In the case of an edit that will obviously be controversial, an immediate talk-page post is reasonable. But in other cases, an edit summary that simply states what and not why is entirely acceptable, because no one is likely to question it. This is why a lot of our anti-vandalism tools use just a "Reverted..." summary by default - I don't really need to explain why I think the article's text should not be replaced with "poop", and I don't particularly worry about being discourteous to the editor who thought it should. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Fair enough: bad faith editors don't deserve an explanation. But what about good faith editors? Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Make vandalism an exception to the general rule. Does that resolve your concern? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 * @Butwhatdoiknow, this is kind of a tangent, but you keep asking whether something is good faith, and it's bugging me.
 * "Good faith" means that the person is trying to help. That's it.
 * If your neighbor gets up at sunrise and plays his trumpet so loudly that the entire neighborhood woke up, that's "good faith" unless and until you discover that your neighbor was actually trying to hurt you. Even if the neighbor was trying to wake everyone up on purpose (maybe because he'd been reading that people who wake up earlier live longer, and he wants everyone to live longer), that's still good faith.
 * For that edit summary to be "bad faith", you'd have to have a reason to believe that the editor was actively trying to harm Wikipedia (or another editor) with that edit summary. It's possible to cause harm in an edit summary, but those tend to take the form of vandalism, WP:OUTING, lying, or other really obvious problems.  Merely reverting something that I don't think improves a page (BTW, that falls under "common sense" in the policy) or claiming that there's no consensus (maybe there isn't!) is not evidence of trying to harm Wikipedia.  It may be a suboptimal edit summary.  It may be undesirable.  It may be inefficient.  But it's not an active attempt to deceive or hurt people.
 * Bottom line: Please stop asking whether those edit summaries are made in good faith.  They are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Between active good faith and active bad faith lies a gray area of laziness, thoughtlessness, and discourtesy that - whatever the intent - harms Wikipedia by making editing more frustrating and making the community less collegial. Would it bug you less if I referred to such behavior as lacking in civility? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 * It would certainly bug me to have edits labelled as lazy, thoughtless, or discourteous, simply because you didn't like the associated edit summary. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Me too! My understanding is that the topic of this discussion is substance-free edit explanations, not the edits they fail to meaningfully explain. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Blueboar, let me remind you that the section that we are talking about is WP:CCC, i.e. this section specifically discusses the cases when the reverter thinks the previous consensus does exist. I agree with what you say in general, I think we should not restrict users in the methods of interaction and collaboration. However, in this concrete section we must focus on one specific case: what should we do when some users believe they are defending a consensus version, whereas others express a doubt that that version really reflects consensus? I proposed the solution, and I am not pretending it is a universal rule: that rule regulates a relatively narrow type of cases. If you have an idea on how to explain that in a more clear way, please, propose your version. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 * But I think the current language is just fine as it is. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

This discussion covers trillions of possibilities.... a common, incomplete edit summary which inevitably gets somehow clarified in the next few exchanges. IMO trying to get prescriptive here about what should happen is not a good idea. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup… We can give advice, outlining things that we find helpful when trying to reach a consensus (which we currently do) … but we can not (and should not) proscribe how to reach a consensus (nor can we proscribe how not to do so). If we find that a particular comment or approach isn’t helpful, we shift gears and try something else.
 * Fact is, reaching a consensus can be messy and is often frustrating. There will be false starts and miscommunications. Sometimes it will be hard to assume good faith… and yet we try to do so. And occasionally, no matter how hard we try, we find that consensus just isn’t possible. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, we should, can, and do proscribe how to reach consensus. wp:EDITCONSENSUS calls for "Substantive, informative explanations." wp:DISCUSSCONSENSUS calls for "reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense." Granted, once each side has stated their case the path forward may "cover trillions of possibilities." But we're talking about whether each side must state their case (that is, must say more than "I disagree"), not what happens after that. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It says “should”, not “must”… it’s (good) advice, not a proscription. Blueboar (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Must" is a synonym of "should." And the sentence that precedes the "should" sentence says "Explain the purpose of the edit" without equivocation. (It recently said "Use clear edit summaries that explain the purpose of the edit," also without equivocation.) - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Must is not a synonym of should. Most policies use those words in a manner that is consistent with .  One of the recommendations in Policies and guidelines is to use those words precisely (specifically, to not use should to describe requirements:  you must not violate copyrights). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (assuming you meant "prescribe" and not "proscribe") By "prescriptive" I meant saying very specifically what should happen. "Prescribe" can have broader uses including what you refer to.   <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Do you mean the policy is not mandatory? To the best of my understanding, we have a separate category pages, called "guidelines" that contain non-mandatory advice. In contrast, the policy says something that we must observe without reservations. We cannot engage in original research (not "should not"), we cannot post non-verifiable information (not "should avoid" doing that), etc. Why WP:CON is an exception? The WP:CCC is written in a style that is more appropriate for guidelines, not a policy, and I disagree with your approach that de facto mixes the latter with the former.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you intend to address that to me? Because I don't see how it relates to what I said / intended to say. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 * No, I didn't. As you can see, our posts were separated by less than 10 minutes, I would simply have no time to respond.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Paul, the line between policy and guideline is not so clear cut. Many of our guidelines contain firm “rules” (worded as “do”, “don’t” and “must”), and many of our policies contain advice (worded as “should”). Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Yes, and I see it as a problem that we should fix.

 * In particular, the consensus policy is needed to address one important issue: to emphasize the difference between consensus and vote. That is the key aspect, because, by its nature, Wikipedia is being written by amateurs, for amateurs, and mostly in an amateurish way, although some (few) users may be professional experts or the amateurs who are digging deeper into the subject. If a consensus building process is not focused on a quality of arguments, amateurs (who are much more numerous) will always dominate over professionals, which negatively impacts WP quality. To avoid that scenario, the policy's preamble says that consensus is not the result of a vote. However, the same preamble says that consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity, which means that even when some user disagrees, we still can talk about consensus. The problem is that the user (or users) who disagrees with the majority may be the one whose opinion is based on the most deep and thoughtful analysis of sources. I recommend you to read this article (I hope it is freely available online), where the discussion on the Vietnam war talk page is being analyzed by a scholar who is systematically studying Wikipedia. He notes that Wikipedians efficiently " changes the criteria we use to judge expertise, albeit, I would argue, without replacing them with much that could be construed as progressive". In other words, in a discussion that involves several superficial users and one or few users who are digging deeper into the subject the former quickly start to dominate, because the arguments of the latter fall into deaf ears, and by repeating them, the later is engaged in what is called "stonewalling".
 * By making WP:CON deliberately vague (by imposing a guideline style on it), we greatly facilitate that outcome. We need more strict procedure that would not allow some users to refer to "consensus" in a situation when no consensus was achieved, or the consensus building process was just an implicit !vote.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, now you are getting into something more fundamental than reverts and edit summaries. I would agree that the way in which we reach consensus has evolved over the last few years.  consensus discussions are increasingly being structured as !votes… battles between pre-set options… whereas we used to structure them as more open-ended discussions, where people attempted to find compromise.  Perhaps Wikipedia was less “litigious” in those days. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Yes, I see the problem as a fundamental, and the problem is in an extreme inhomogeneity of the Wikipedia community and Wikipedia content. Many (if not majority) articles, such as anime, rock bands, computer games, small towns, local schools, etc, are devoted to very simple topics, and they are based on relatively low quality sources. Other articles talk about science, history, etc., and much more serious sources are available on those subjects, and, importantly, these topics require more expertise and more specific approaches towards sources selection. However, the policy is the same for all those topics (BLP, MedRES are rare exceptions). Wikipedia policy is inherently more friendly to amateurs than to experts, and it is more focused on creation of a comfortable and collaborating atmosphere for users, whereas the debates between professionals may be rather hot, and they may require many rounds of arguments and counter-arguments. To non-expert, behaviour of an expert looks close to stonewalling, and that may lead to elimination of the expert from the discussion, or even to their topic bans (we all know the examples). Therefore, we need a tool that would hepl an expert in that situation. We need the rule that would allow a user who brings strong arguments and high quality sources to prevail in a dispute even if that user is outnumbered by non-expert users who believe they reflect consensus. And I described it above.
 * To avoid misunderstanding, let me re-iterate: we need a multilevel concept of consensus that would allow a user (or a small group of users) who brings higher quality sources, stronger arguments, and who are digging deeper, to elevate a consensus-building process to a more professional level and to protect them from the users who may say: "Look we already have a consensus, and we are comfortable with it. We do not want to return to that issue anymore, because the issue is already resolved, and if you will continue your stonewalling, you will be reported at ANI". I think it is extremely important, because it may significantly increase quality of high level Wikipedia article, and prevent true experts from leaving the project.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Explanation of July 7 edit
On June 28 I moved this sentence:
 * If an edit is reverted and further edits seem likely to meet the same fate, create a new section on the associated talk page to discuss the issue.

from the 4th to the 3rd paragraph of wp:EDITCONSENSUS. On June 30 I edited the sentence to read:
 * If you can't [think of a compromise edit that addresses the other editor's concerns ], or if you do and your second edit is reverted, create a new section on the associated talk page to discuss the dispute.

Another editor noticed the original sentence had been removed from the 4th paragraph (but, I suspect, did not realize that it had been moved to the 3rd paragrah and edited) and restored it to the 4th paragraph. Now we say the same thing twice: once in the 3rd paragraph and once in the 4th paragraph. I'm removing the sentence in the 4th paragraph and copying it over the sentence in the 3rd paragraph. If there is no revert of that edit then, after a week or so, I'll try restoring the edited version of that sentence. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Thanks for explaining. I think your edited version is fine. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Note
What is it like to ask for a consensus? I want to change a table. --IoATi (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

 * You have two initial pathways to choose from. The more common is to to follow Bold, revert, discuss. Just make the change you want to make. If it is reverted, don't revert back but instead open a new section on the article talk page requesting discussion for the change. Discuss and see if consensus can be reached. If necessary to come to consensus, try dispute resolution. The other possible path is to just start with the talk page discussion without making the change and waiting to see if it will be reverted. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Volunteers
I've been thinking about WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces. I think we have some of the language wrong there, but there's a fundamental question that I don't think is addressed outside of Wikipedia is a volunteer service: We can't form a consensus to force you to take any action. We can require you to stop ("stop it, or I'll block you"), and we can be coercive ("do it, or I'll block you"), but we can't actually make you do anything.

In the case of merging groups of people, we require a discussion with plenty of opportunity for people to decide whether they want to join a different group. (These discussions are usually boring, but they are sometimes emotionally fraught.) If someone doesn't want to join the other group, then we really can't make them.

In the case of a content decision, if I strongly disagree with the consensus – maybe everyone agrees to cite a source that I think is garbage, or to emphasize a viewpoint that I think is unimportant – then you can expect me to abide by the consensus (e.g., I won't revert you for IMO damaging the article by adding that garbage source), but you can't expect me to implement the consensus myself (e.g., I won't personally damage the article by adding that garbage source myself).

In the case of a behavioral decision, if an admin disagrees with a decision, then that admin is expected to not take that action. If the AFD closes as delete, but you strongly think it should be kept, then you let some other admin delete it. If RFA ends with a vote to promote, but you think the candidate will be a lousy admin, then you let some other bureaucrat handle it.

I don't know what you call this idea in the real world. First do no harm? The opposite of running to do evil? Freedom of conscience? Keeping your hands clean? Being mature enough not to jump off the cliff just because everyone else voted to do so? But I think that it might be nice if one of the policies pointed out that you can't vote to make someone else do something. Consensus means that the group agreed that I can do it myself, not that I can make you do it for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2021
<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — <b style="font-family:Ariel; color:red">IVORK</b> <b style="font-family:Ariel; color:Green; font-size:x-small">Talk</b> 23:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

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

title: Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 21


text:
History of the Arab–Israeli conflict

The Arab–Israeli conflict began in the 20th century, evolving from earlier Intercommunal violence in Mandatory Palestine. The conflict became a major international issue with the birth of Israel in 1948. The Arab–Israeli conflict has resulted in at least five major wars and a number of minor conflicts. It has also been the source of two major Palestinian uprisings (intifadas).

Ottoman era
Tensions between the Zionist movements and the Arab residents of Palestine started to emerge after the 1880s, when immigration of European Jews to Palestine increased. This immigration increased the Jewish communities in Ottoman Palestine by the acquisition of land from Ottoman and individual Arab landholders, known as effendis, and establishment of Jewish agricultural settlements (kibbutzim). At the time, Arabs lived in an almost feudal existence on the effendis' land. Demographer Justin McCarthy estimated from Ottoman census data that the population of Palestine in 1882–3 was about 468,000, consisting of 408,000 Muslims, 44,000 Christians and 15,000 Jews. By the eve of World War I, these numbers had increased to 602,000 Muslims, 81,000 Christians and 39,000 Jews, plus a similar but uncertain number of Jews who were not Ottoman citizens. The first Statistician General of Israel, Roberto Bachi, give similar numbers except for a lower count (525,000) of Muslims in 1914.

British Mandate (1920–1948)
During the time of the Mandatory Palestine, the Balfour Declaration signed in 1917, stated that the government of Great Britain supported the establishment of a "Jewish national home" in Palestine. This exacerbated tensions between the Arabs living in Mandate Palestine and the Jews who emigrated there during the Ottoman period. Signed in January 1919, the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement promoted Arab-Jewish cooperation on the development of a Jewish national homeland in Palestine and an Arab nation in a large part of the Middle East, though this event had little to no effect on the conflict.

In 1920, the San Remo conference largely endorsed the 1916 Anglo-French Sykes–Picot Agreement, allocating to Britain the area of present-day Jordan, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, and Iraq, while France received Syria and Lebanon. In 1922, the League of Nations formally established the British Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan, at least partially fulfilling Britain's commitments from the 1915–16 McMahon–Hussein Correspondence by assigning all of the land east of the Jordan River to the Emirate of Jordan, ruled by Hashemite king Abdullah but closely dependent on Britain, leaving the remainder west of the Jordan as the League of Nations Mandatory Palestine. While the British had made promises to give both Arabs and Jews land, the British claimed they had never promised to give either side all of the land. Rising tensions had given way to violence, such as the 1920 Nebi Musa riots, and Jaffa riots of 1921. To assuage the Arabs, and due to British inability to control Arab violence in the Mandatory Palestine any other way, the semi-autonomous Arab Emirate of Transjordan was created in all Palestinian territory east of the Jordan river (roughly 77% of the mandate).

The conflicting forces of Arab nationalism and the Zionist movement created a situation which the British could neither resolve nor extricate themselves from. Pogroms in Russia and the Ukraine as well as Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Germany created a new urgency in the Zionist movement to create a Jewish state, and the evident intentions of the Zionists provoked increasingly fierce Arab attacks against the Jewish population (most notably in the preceding 1929 Hebron massacre, the activities of the Black Hand, and during the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine). The British-appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, led opposition to the idea of turning part of Palestine into a Jewish state.

In search for help in expelling British forces from Palestine, thus removing the enforcer of the Zionist enterprise, the Grand Mufti sought alliance with the Axis Powers. The response of the British government was to banish the Mufti (who spent much of World War II in Germany and helped form a Muslim SS division in the Balkans), curb Jewish immigration, and reinforce its police force. The Jewish leadership (Yishuv) "adopted a policy of restraint (havlaga) and static defense in response to Arab attacks" and criticized the British for "what they regarded as Britain's retreat from the Balfour Declaration and its conciliation of Arab violence." It was at this time that critics of this policy broke away from the Hagana (the self-defense organization of the Yishuv) and created the more right-wing militant Irgun, which would later be led by Menachem Begin in 1943. For a list of Irgun attacks on Palestinian civilians and policemen during this period, see List of Irgun attacks during the 1930s.

A British Royal Commission of Inquiry that came to be known as the Peel Commission was established in 1936. In its 1937 report, it proposed a two-state solution that gave the Arabs control over all of the Negev, much of the present-day West Bank, and Gaza and gave the Jews control over Tel Aviv, Haifa, present-day northern Israel, and surrounding areas. The British were to maintain control over Jaffa, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and surrounding areas. The two main Jewish leaders, Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion had convinced the Zionist Congress to approve equivocally the Peel recommendations as a basis for more negotiation. The Arabs, however, rejected it while demanding cessation of immigration and land sales to Jewish people. The Arabs' demands prompted the British to stop Jewish immigration, thus preventing refugees from escaping the Holocaust.

Jewish violence against the Mandatory Palestine continued to mount throughout the later half of the 1940s, with attacks by the Irgun, assassination of British authorities officials by the Lehi, and the 1946 King David Hotel bombing.

In 1947, the population was reported as 1,845,000, consisting of 608,000 Jews and 1,237,000 Arabs and others.

War of 1948
The 1948 Arab–Israeli War (1948–49), known as the "War of Independence" by Israelis and al-Nakba ("the Catastrophe") by Palestinians, began after the UN Partition Plan and the subsequent 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine in November 1947. The plan proposed the establishment of Arab and Jewish states in Palestine. The Arabs had rejected the plan while the Jews had accepted it. For four months, under continuous Arab provocation and attack, the Yishuv was usually on the defensive while occasionally retaliating. By March 1948 however, the United States was actively seeking a temporary UN approved trusteeship rather than immediate partition, known as the Truman trusteeship proposal. The Jewish leadership rejected this. By now, both Jewish and Arab militias had begun campaigns to control territory inside and outside the designated borders, and an open war between the two populations emerged.

Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese,  Iraqi and Saudi troops invaded Palestine subsequent to the British withdrawal and the declaration of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948. The Arab invasion was denounced by the United States, the Soviet Union, and UN secretary-general Trygve Lie, although it found support from Taiwan and other UN member states. The Arab states proclaimed their aim of a "United State of Palestine" in place of Israel and an Arab state. The Arab Higher Committee said, that in the future Palestine, the Jews will be no more than 1/7 of the population. i.e. only Jews that lived in Palestine before the British mandate. They did not specify what will happen to the other Jews. They considered the UN Plan to be invalid because it was opposed by Palestine's Arab majority, and claimed that the British withdrawal led to an absence of legal authority, making it necessary for them to protect Arab lives and property. About two thirds of Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from the territories which came under Jewish control; the rest became Arab citizens of Israel. All of the much smaller number of Jews in the territories captured by the Arabs, for example the Old City of Jerusalem, also fled or were expelled. The official United Nations estimate was that 711,000 Arabs became refugees during the fighting.

The fighting ended with signing of the several Armistice Agreements in 1949 between Israel and its warring neighbors (Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria), which formalized Israeli control of the area allotted to the Jewish state plus just over half of the area allotted to the Arab state. The Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt and the West Bank by Jordan until June 1967 when they were occupied by Israel during the Six-Day War.

Aftermath of the 1948 war
The about 711,000 Palestinians who fled or were expelled from the areas that became Israel were not allowed to return to their homes, and took up residence in refugee camps in surrounding countries, including Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and the area that was later to be known as the Gaza Strip; they were usually not allowed to leave refugee camps and mix with the local Arab society either, leaving the Palestinian refugee problem unsolved even today. Around 400 Arab towns and villages were depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East was established to alleviate their condition.

After the war, "[t]he Arab states insisted on two main demands", neither of which were accepted by Israel: 1. Israel should withdraw to the borders of the UN Partition Plan – Israel argued "that the new borders—which could be changed, under consent only—had been established as a result of war, and because the UN blueprint took no account of defense needs and was militarily untenable, there was no going back to that blueprint." 2. The Palestinian refugees deserved a full right of return to Israel – Israel argued that this was "out of the question, not only because they were hostile to the Jewish state, but they would also fundamentally alter the Jewish character of the state."

Over the next two decades after the 1948 war ended, between 700,000 and 900,000 Jews fled or were expelled from the Arab countries they were living in, in many cases owing to anti-Jewish sentiment, expulsion (in the case of Egypt), or, in the case of Iraq, legal oppression but also quite often to promises of a better life from Israel; of this number, two-thirds ended up in refugee camps in Israel, while the remainder migrated to France, the United States and other Western or Latin American countries. The Jewish refugee camps in Israel were evacuated with time and the refugees were eventually integrated in the Jewish Israeli society (which in fact consisted almost entirely of refugees from Arab and European states). Israel argued that this and the Palestinian exodus represented a population exchange between Arab nations and the Jewish nation.

For the 19 years from the end of the Mandate until the Six-Day War, Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip. In 1950, Jordan annexed the West Bank, but this annexation was recognized only by the United Kingdom. Both territories were conquered (but not annexed) from Jordan and Egypt by Israel in the Six-Day War. Neither Jordan nor Egypt allowed the creation of a Palestinian state in these territories. The effect this had on Israel during this period "were frequent border clashes ... terror and sabotage acts by individuals and small groups of Palestinian Arabs."

War of 1956
The 1956 Suez War was a joint Israeli-British-French operation, in which Israel invaded the Sinai Peninsula and British and French forces landed at the port of Suez, ostensibly to separate the warring parties, though the real motivation of Great Britain and France was to protect the interests of investors in those countries who were affected by Egyptian President Nasser's decision to nationalize the Suez Canal. Israel justified its invasion of Egypt as an attempt to stop attacks (see the Fedayeen) upon Israeli civilians, and to restore Israeli shipping rights through the Straits of Tiran, which Egypt claimed was within its territorial waters. The invading forces agreed to withdraw under U.S. and international pressure, and Israel withdrew from the Sinai as well, in return for the installation of United Nations Emergency Forces and guarantees of Israeli freedom of shipment. The canal was left in Egyptian (rather than British and French) hands.

Between 1956 and 1967
This period saw the rise of Nasserism; the founding of the United Arab Republic in 1958 and its collapse in 1961; Syrian plans for the diversion of water from the Jordan River; continued fedayeen raids, mostly from Syria and Jordan, and Israeli reprisals; and the increasing alignment of the Arab states with the Soviet Union, who became their largest arms supplier.

In 1964, the PLO was established by mostly Palestinian refugees mostly from Jordan. The Article 24 of the Palestinian National Charter of 1964 stated: "This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area."

War of 1967
The background from which erupted the Six-Day War was caused by an erroneous information given to Nasser from the Soviet intelligence services that Israel was amassing troops near the Israeli-Syrian border. The state of conflict was also very tense after increased conflicts between Israel and Syria and Israel and Jordan – i.e. the Samu Incident. On 14 May 1967 Mohamed Fawzi (general) left for Syria for one day tour, verified that the Soviet report was false and reported that there were no Israeli armed forces near the Syrian border. Still, Nasser declared full mobilisation in Egypt as of 14 May 1967, citing the joint defence agreement with Syria. The Egyptian further steps were stationing of 100,000 Egyptian troops at the Sinai Peninsula, expulsion of UNEF peacekeeping forces (UNEF II) from the Sinai Peninsula along the border with Israel, and closure of the Straits of Tiran on May 21–22, 1967 (thus "blocking all shipping to and from Eilat ... a casus belli" according to a possible interpretation of international law). The Israeli army had a potential strength, including the not fully mobilized reserves, of 264,000 troops.

Following the breakdown of international diplomatic efforts to solve the crisis, the fighting in the Six-Day War of 1967 began on 6 June 1967 with surprise Israeli air strikes that destroyed the entire Egyptian air force while it was still on the ground. In spite of Israel's request to Jordan to desist from attacking it, Jordan along with Syria began to shell Israeli targets. In addition, Hussein, reluctant at first, sent ineffective bomber strikes because of Nasser's requests and affirmation of a sound Egyptian victory. Attacks on other Arab air forces took place later in the day as hostilities broke out on other fronts. A subsequent ground invasion into Egyptian territory led to Israel's conquest of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula. With the rapid and rather unexpected success on the Egyptian front, Israel decided to attack and successfully captured the West Bank from Jordan on June 7, and the Golan Heights from Syria on June 9.

Khartoum Resolution, UN Resolution 242, and peace proposals
The Khartoum Resolution of September 1, 1967, was issued at the conclusion of 1967 Arab League summit convened in the wake of the Six-Day War, in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. The resolution ended the Arab oil boycott declared during the Six-Day War, and called for the establishment of the Kuwaiti-led Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development. On the conflict with Israel, it said: "'The Arab Heads of State have agreed to unite their political efforts at the international and diplomatic level to eliminate the effects of the aggression and to ensure the withdrawal of the aggressive Israeli forces from the Arab lands which have been occupied since the aggression of June 5. This will be done within the framework of the main principles by which the Arab States abide, namely, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it, and insistence on the rights of the Palestinian people in their own country.'" Israel and some analysts interpreted the "three noes" of the resolution as a firm proof of Arab intransigence. Others noted that the resolution called for Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines rather than Israel's destruction and understood the "three noes" as meaning that the Arab states must negotiate as a group and not individually.

Following the Six-Day War, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 242 which proposed a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The resolution was accepted by Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, but rejected by Syria until 1972–73 and the Yom Kippur War. To this day, Resolution 242 remains controversial due to conflicting interpretations over how much territory Israel would be required to withdraw from in order to conform with the resolution. Also, after the Israeli occupation of the West Bank following the war, Palestinian nationalism substantially increased. Armed resistance was encouraged from within the newly occupied territories and from the Arab nations that lost in the war.

U.S. Secretary of State William P. Rogers proposed the Rogers Plan, which called for a 90-day ceasefire, a military standstill zone on each side of the Suez Canal, and an effort to reach agreement in the framework of UN Resolution 242. The Egyptian government accepted the Rogers Plan even before Anwar Sadat became president. Israel refused to enter negotiations with Egypt based on the Rogers peace plan. Nasser forestalled any movement toward direct negotiations with Israel. In dozens of speeches and statements, Nasser posited the equation that any direct peace talks with Israel were tantamount to surrender. No breakthrough occurred even after President Sadat in 1972 surprised everyone by suddenly expelling Soviet advisers from Egypt and again signaled to the United States government his willingness to negotiate.

War of 1967–1970
The War of Attrition was a limited war fought between Egypt and Israel from 1967 to 1970. It was initiated by Egypt to damage Israel's morale and economy after its victory in the Six-Day War. The war ended with a ceasefire signed between the countries in 1970 with frontiers at the same place as when the war started.

War of 1973
The 1973 Yom Kippur War began when Egypt and Syria launched a surprise joint attack, on the Jewish day of fasting, in the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights. The Egyptians and Syrians advanced during the first 24–48 hours, after which momentum began to swing in Israel's favor. By the second week of the war, the Syrians had been pushed entirely out of the Golan Heights. In the Sinai to the south, the Israelis had struck at the "hinge" between two invading Egyptian armies, crossed the Suez Canal (where the old ceasefire line had been), and cut off an entire Egyptian army just as a United Nations ceasefire came into effect. During this time, the United States airlifted military supplies to Israel while the Soviet Union airlifted military supplies to Egypt.

Israeli troops eventually withdrew from the west of the Canal and the Egyptians kept their positions on a narrow strip on the east allowing them to re-open the Suez Canal and claim victory. According to The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East (ed. Sela, 2002), Israel clearly had the military victory over both Syria and Egypt, but it suffered a large blow to morale as well as substantial human casualties. The outcome of the Yom Kippur War set the stage for "a new phase in Israeli-Egyptian relations" ending ultimately in the signing of the Camp David Accords.

1978 conflict
Operation Litani was the official name of Israel's 1978 invasion of Lebanon up to the Litani river. The invasion was a military success, as PLO forces were pushed north of the river. However, international outcry led to the creation of the UNIFIL peacekeeping force and a partial Israeli retreat.

1982 Lebanon War
The 1982 Lebanon War began when Israel attacked Lebanon, justified by Israel as an attempt to remove the Fatah militants led by Yasser Arafat from Southern Lebanon (where they had established, during the country's civil war, a semi-independent enclave used to launch attacks on Israel). The invasion was widely criticized both in and outside Israel, especially after the Israeli-backed Phalangist Christian militia's Sabra and Shatila massacre, and ultimately led to the death of roughly 1,000 Palestinians. Although through the war, Israel succeeded in exiling the PLO military personnel, including Arafat to Tunisia, it became entangled with various local Muslim militias (particularly Hezbollah), which fought to end the Israeli occupation.

1982–2000 conflict
By 1985, Israel retreated from all but a narrow stretch of Lebanese territory designated by Israel as the Israeli Security Zone. UN Security Council Resolution 425 (calling on Israel to completely withdraw from Lebanon) was not completely fulfilled until 16 June 2000. Despite UN Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1583, Hezbollah continues to have a military wing.

Intifada of 1987–1993
The First Intifada, 1987–1993, began as an uprising of Palestinians, particularly the young, against the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip after the failure of the PLO to achieve any kind of meaningful diplomatic solution to the Palestinian issue. The exiled PLO leadership in Tunisia quickly assumed a role in the intifada, but the uprising also brought a rise in the importance of Palestinian national and Islamic movements, and helped lead to the Palestinian Declaration of Independence in 1988. The intifada was started by a group of young Palestinians who began throwing rocks at the Israeli occupying forces in Jabalia (Gaza Strip) in December 1987. In May 1989, the government of Yitzhak Shamir, the prime minister of Israel at the time, "suggested that violence cease, and that elections should be held in the West Bank and Gaza for a political delegation with whom Israel would come to terms regarding the implementation of Palestinian interim self-governing authority in these areas." These elections however never materialized.

During the Gulf War in 1990–1991, Iraq tried to draw Israel into the confrontation by firing rockets at Israel and thereby make it difficult for Arab regimes to remain in the coalition. During the war, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and King Hussein of Jordan supported Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, while PLO chairman Yasser Arafat had allegedly received $100 million from Saddam Hussein. However, under strong pressure from the US, which feared direct Israeli involvement would threaten the unity of the coalition, Israel did not retaliate against Iraq and the multinational coalition ousted Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The defeat of Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War "was a devastating blow to ... the Palestinians." After the Gulf War, Kuwaiti authorities forcibly pressured nearly 200,000 Palestinians to leave Kuwait. The policy which partly led to this exodus was a response to the alignment of PLO leader Yasser Arafat with Saddam Hussein. They also withdrew their financial support from the Palestinian cause due to PLO support of Saddam Hussein. It was this political environment that allowed for the PLO to begin talks with the United States and Israel. The First Palestinian Intifada ended with the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the signing of the Oslo Accords by Israel and the PLO in 1993.

Oslo peace process (1993–2000)
In September 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles (DOP) which "shaped the principles for a prospective process of the establishment of a five-year interim self-governing authority" in the Palestinian territories. In May 1994, the first stage of the DOP was implemented, Arafat arrived in the Gaza Strip, and financial aid started pouring in from the parts of the Western world and Japan. Unfortunately, "the new trend in Israeli-Palestinian relations also entailed a wave of violence by religious fanatics." In September 1996, after the opening of some ancient tunnels near the Temple Mount, a small wave of violence occurred. This frightened many Israelis into believing that "the new reality created by the Oslo Agreements, namely the presence of an armed police force of approximately 30,000 Palestinians, ... could easily shift from cooperation to hostility."

In October 1998, Arafat and then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signed the Wye Memorandum which "called for the implementation of Israel's first and second redeployments according to the DOP in three phases." Shortly after, Netanyahu's government fell and the Labor Party (under Ehud Barak) won control of the Knesset. Barak's election campaign was mostly geared toward a lasting peace in the Middle East by further implementation of the Wye Memorandum and the Oslo Accord. Barak won the election and attempted to deliver on his promises in 2000, when he and Arafat met at Camp David. Barak had offered Arafat a Palestinian state in all of the Gaza Strip and most of the West Bank with a capital in East Jerusalem. Arafat rejected the proposal, did not make a counteroffer, and walked away from the negotiating table.

Intifada of 2000
The al-Aqsa Intifada, or Al-Aqsa Intifada, began in late September 2000, around the time Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon and a large contingent of armed bodyguards visited the Temple Mount (Haram al-Sharif) complex in Jerusalem and declared the area as an eternal Israeli territory. Widespread riots and attacks broke out among Palestinians and Arab citizens of Israel in Jerusalem and many major Israeli cities, and spread throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Authority (PA) involvement in the Intifada was handled by the Tanzim organization, which was the secret armed branch of Arafat's Fatah party within the PLO. In January 2002, the "PA's direct involvement in the Intifada was confirmed ... when the IDF intercepted a cargo ship in the Red Sea carrying tons of rockets, mortars, and other weapons and ammunition from Iran, earmarked for smuggling into PA [Palestinian Authority] areas." In March 2002, just prior to the Arab Peace Initiative, suicide bombings committed by Palestinians against Israeli civilians "intensified ... in buses, restaurants, coffee shops, and other public places in Israel." An Israeli human rights group, B'Tselem, estimated the death toll to be 3,396 Palestinians and 994 Israelis, although this number is criticized for not showing the whole picture, and not differentiating between combatants and civilians (suicide bombers, for example, are counted in that death toll). The Intifada also created "heavy economic losses to both sides" of the conflict.

Arab Peace Initiative of 2002
In 2002, Saudi Arabia offered a peace plan in The New York Times and at a summit meeting of the Arab League in Beirut. The plan is based on, but goes beyond UN Security Council Resolution 242 and Resolution 338. It essentially calls for full withdrawal, solution of the refugee problem through the Palestinian "right of return", a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem in return for fully normalized relations with the whole Arab world. This proposal was the first to receive the unanimous backing of the Arab League.

In response, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said: "... the details of every peace plan must be discussed directly between Israel and the Palestinians, and to make this possible, the Palestinian Authority must put an end to terror, the horrifying expression of which we witnessed just last night in Netanya", referring to the Netanya suicide attack.

In 2005, the United States Congress acknowledged that Saudi Arabia has been funding to Hamas and other Palestinian insurgency groups.

Israel's Disengagement of 2005
In 2005 Israel unilaterally evacuated settlements, and military outposts from the Gaza Strip and the northern West Bank.

The Disengagement Plan was a proposal by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, adopted by the government and enacted in August 2005, to remove a permanent Israeli presence from the Gaza Strip and from four Israeli settlements in the northern West Bank. The civilians were evacuated (many forcibly) and the residential buildings demolished after August 15, and the disengagement from the Gaza Strip was completed on 12 September 2005, when the last Israeli soldier left. The military disengagement from the northern West Bank was completed ten days later.

Aftermath
From the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iranian President, the Islamic Republic of Iran has actively supported numerous Arab organizations opposing Israel and has also actively called for waging war against it. Iran was widely referred as attempting to create a Shi'a Islam dominated axis, including the Syrian Ba'athist government, dominated by Alawites, Lebanon with Hezbollah dominance and making a strategic alliance with Sunni Hamas in Gaza Strip, which lasted until 2012 (terminating due to Shi'a – Sunni discourse in the Syrian civil war). In January 2007, concerns increased among Israel's leaders that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran might be planning some sort of nuclear arms buildup, which might be considered for use in opposition to Israel. The Security Council voted to put sanctions on Iran for its pursuit of nuclear technology.

In 2020, the United States brokered a deal for Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). In return for normalized relations, Israel agreed to suspend controversial plans to annex portions of the West Bank. This was the first time a Gulf Arab country established diplomatic relations with Israel. Shortly after Bahrein, Sudan and Morocco followed and established relations with Israel.

Syria
Some Israeli officials asserted in January 2007 that there had been some constructive progress in unpublicized talks with Syria. Syria has repeatedly requested that Israel re-commence peace negotiations with the Syrian government. The United States demanded that Israel desist from even exploratory contacts with Syria to test whether Damascus is serious in its declared intentions to hold peace talks with Israel. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was forceful in expressing Washington's view on the matter to Israeli officials that even exploratory negotiations with Syria are not to be attempted. Israel has thus far obeyed Washington's demand to desist. Syrian Ba'ath government representative was expelled from the Arab League in 2012, upon the Syrian civil war.

Israel–Hezbollah conflict of 2006
The 2006 Lebanon War began on 12 July 2006, with an attack by Hezbollah on Israel. Three Israeli soldiers were killed, and two were kidnapped and taken prisoner into Lebanon. In a search and rescue operation to return the captured soldiers, a further five Israeli Defense Forces troops were killed. It marked the beginning of a new wave of clashes between Israel and Hezbollah which saw the Lebanese capital, the sole Lebanese international airport, and much of southern Lebanon attacked by the Israelis, while Hezbollah, bombarded northern Israeli cities, striking as far south as the city of Haifa. The conflict killed more than a thousand people, most of whom were Lebanese civilians and Hezbollah fighters; and displaced 974,184 Lebanese and 300,000–500,000 Israelis. Fears were growing that the situation could deteriorate further, with the possibility of either Syria or Iran becoming involved. But a ceasefire was signed, and went into effect 14 August.

2007 rally
In January 2007, thousands gathered in Lebanon in a rally to support Hezbollah, and to celebrate the resignation of Israel's top military commander, Dan Halutz. However, in some Lebanese communities, Hezbollah lost popularity, for opposing Lebanon's national government.

Abbreviated timeline

 * 1948 Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
 * 1948 Arab–Israeli War
 * 1948 Establishment of the All-Palestine Protectorate
 * 1949 Armistice Agreements
 * Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
 * 1956 Suez War
 * 1967 Six-Day War
 * Khartoum Resolution
 * 1970 War of Attrition
 * 1973 Yom Kippur War
 * Geneva Conference (1973)
 * 1978 Camp David Peace Accords between Egypt and Israel
 * 1982 Lebanon War
 * 1993 Oslo Peace Accords between Palestinians and Israel
 * Israel–Jordan peace treaty, 1994
 * Camp David 2000 Summit between Palestinians and Israel
 * Israel's unilateral disengagement plan

title: History of the Arab–Israeli conflict


text:
User:Tintin1107/Todo

Revisit the queries

Jeff Thomson K. S. Ranjitsinhji Six-Day War Operation_Focus Rai Singh Passchendaele Battle of Messines Maurice Leyland

Merge M. A. Chidambaram T. A. Sekhar

Add data from more sources Kochi (India) Brabourne Stadium

Articles to proofread Thiruvananthapuram district

Cricket articles proofread
 * July 12 : Tom Armitage, Henry Charlwood, Tom Emmett, Andrew Greenwood, Allen Hill
 * October 20 : George Ullyett, James Southerton, Alfred Shaw

title: User:Tintin1107/Todo


text:
K55

K55 or K-55 may refer to:

 * K-55 (Kansas highway)
 * K-55 (missile), a Soviet air-to-air missile
 * K55 howitzer, a South Korean self-propelled gun
 * HMS Periwinkle (K55), a corvette of the Royal Navy
 * Keystone K-55 Pronto, an American biplane
 * Osan Air Base, in South Korea
 * Potassium-55, an isotope of potassium
 * SOVIET SUBMARINE K-55, various vessels
 * K-55, a Billiard table profile

title: K55


text:
Oyster Pond

Oyster Pond may refer to:

 * Oyster Pond (Martha's Vineyard) - a pond on Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts
 * Oyster Pond (Cape Cod) - a pond in Chatham, Massachusetts on Cape Cod
 * Oyster Pond, Saint Martin - a village in the French Collectivity of Saint Martin

title: Oyster Pond


text:
File talk:AtomicEffects-Hiroshima.jpg

i want to know how s this site different from others... n wat new can it offer me on a global basis???

title: File talk:AtomicEffects-Hiroshima.jpg


text:
User:Alex beta~enwikiversity/The origins of philosophy

In all history, nothing is so surprising or difficult to account for as the sudden rise of civilization in Greece. (Bertrand Russell: History of Western Philosophy and its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from Earliest Times to the Present Day. Second edition, 1961)

Ancient Greece
Our story begins in the sixth century B.C., at the time of a profound change in the heart of Greek society. Traditional wisdom, all the knowledge handed down through generations in the form of myths, was no longer seen as certain and it was subjected to a severe critique. Cosmology, moral values, sociology and theology were all challenged by a diverse range of thinkers, who no longer took what had gone before as certain. The range and extent of these challenges vary, each retaining different portions of the pre-philosophical culture and criticizing others.

The Greeks were a loose collection of city states and territories bound together by a common language and cultural ties. Although many different forms of government existed across Greece, aristocracy was prominent everywhere. The nobles, who would lead the people in times of war, were conceived as the only possessors of virtue. The Greek word for virtue (Αρετή) is often translated as excellence in an attempt to escape some of its connotations in English, many of which were introduced by Christian thought at a later stage. A man was considered especially virtuous if he possessed fame, noble ancestry and success. Failure was punished and considered shameful.

Bertrand Russell argued in his History of Western Philosophy that the greatness of the Greeks came both from their passion and their intellect. "They had a maxim 'nothing too much', but they were in fact excessive in everything--in pure thought, in poetry, in religion, and in sin. It was the combination of passion and intellect that made them great, while they were great. Neither alone would have transformed the world for all future time as they transformed it. Their prototype in mythology is not Olympian Zeus, but Prometheus, who brought fire from heaven and was rewarded with eternal torment.(Bertrand Russell: History of Western Philosophy and its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from Earliest Times to the Present Day. Second edition, 1961. p. 41)"

Essential Reading

 * Ancient Greece
 * Αρετή
 * The myth of Prometheus in Hesiod's Theogony (507-616). A summary can be found in the Wikipedia entry for Prometheus.

Myth
F. M. Cornford's book From Religion to Philosophy begins with the following lines: "The words, Religion and Philosophy, perhaps suggest to most people two distinct provinces of thought, between which, if (like the Greeks) we include Science under Philosophy, there is commonly held to be some sort of border warfare. It is, however, also possible to think of them as two successive phases or modes, of the expression of man's feelings and beliefs about the world; and the title of this book implies that our attention will be fixed on that period, in the history of the western mind, which marks the passage from the one to the other. It is generally agreed that the decisive step was taken by the Greeks about six centuries before our era. At that moment, a new spirit of rational inquiry asserted its claim to pronounce upon ultimate things which had hitherto been objects of traditional belief. What I wish to prove, however, is that the advent of this spirit did not mean a sudden and complete breach with the older ways of thought. (F. M. Cornford: From Religion to Philosophy. A Study in the Origins of Western Speculation. Princeton University Press, 1991, p. xiii)"


text:
Filmmaking Basics/3D Storyboard/QuickStart

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="margin:0em 0em 1em 0em; width:100%" Pop quiz - Create two basic shots
 * style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; border:1px solid Sienna; background-color:Cornsilk;" |

Over-the-shoulder shots

 * I want you to create an over-the-shoulder shot using

 * 1. A wide angle over-the-shoulder shot

 * and

 * 2. A telephoto over-the-shoulder shot.

 * }

Your assignment - part 1

Your assignment - part 2

The final result

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="margin:0em 0em 1em 0em; width:100%" The final results
 * style="width:55%; vertical-align:top; border:1px solid Gold; background-color: LightYellow;" rowspan="2"|

The Shot Manager
Then I go to the Shot Manager to see my completed shots.

At the top of the page is all the pictures I have created (which in this case is just the wide angle and the telephoto versions of an over-the-shoulder shot.

 * style="padding:0em 0.5em 0em 0.5em;" |

The wide angle shot
 * style="width:45%; vertical-align:top; border:1px solid #abd5f5; background-color:#fff;" |

The finished shot
The wide angle lens makes the two horses seem cold and distant. Even though the horses are very close together when I photograph them, they look very far apart.

If you do not understand about lenses, go to the next lesson about camera lenses.
 * style="padding:0em 0.5em 0em 0.5em;" |
 * style="padding:0em 0.5em 0em 0.5em;" |

The telephoto shot
 * style="width:45%; vertical-align:top; border:1px solid #abd5f5; background-color:#fff;" |

The finished shot
The telephoto lens makes the two horses seem warm and close. Even though the horses are very far apart when I photograph them, they look very close.

If you do not understand about lenses, go to the next lesson.

 * }

{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="margin:0em 0em 1em 0em; width:100%" Begin storyboarding
 * colspan="2" style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; border:1px solid Sienna; background-color:Cornsilk;" |

The next page

 * Begin now creating the storyboards for "Seduced by the Dark Side!". Send me the first two frames so I know that you are doing it correctly.

 * This next page just gives some basic info. Go to basic info about this assignment.

 * }


text:
José Betancourt

José Betancourt (born 8 January 1963 in Humacao, Puerto Rico) is a Puerto Rican former wrestler who competed in the 1984 Summer Olympics, in the 1992 Summer Olympics, and in the 1996 Summer Olympics. He won a bronze medal at the 1987 Pan-American Games in the 74.0 kg Greco-Roman category. At the 1987 Pan-American Games 74.0 kg freestyle category he finished fourth. At the 1991 Pan-American Games: 82.0 kg Greco-Roman category he finished fifth.

title: José Betancourt


text:
Talk:Bruno Blum

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bruno Blum. 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/20120425162249/http://www.lestroisbaudets.com/programme/2010/septembre/11.html to http://www.lestroisbaudets.com/programme/2010/septembre/11.html
 * Added tag to http://skanews-webzine.propagande.org/french-mis/madnessedaire

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bruno Blum. 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/20131115132314/http://www.docreggae.com/musique/welikom.htm to http://www.docreggae.com/musique/welikom.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131115125811/http://www.docreggae.com/Photos/expojamaique/expojamaique.html to http://www.docreggae.com/Photos/expojamaique/expojamaique.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131115125428/http://www.docreggae.com/gainsbourgpalace/gainsbourgpalace.htm to http://www.docreggae.com/gainsbourgpalace/gainsbourgpalace.htm

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Bblumlive6008 - copie.jpg
 * Bruno Blum & the Wailers.jpg
 * Bruno Blum speaking in Guingamp, France, October 2007.jpg
 * Bruno Blumpunk exhibition17.jpg
 * BrunoBlum2011.jpg

title: Talk:Bruno Blum


text:
Azure Moon

The song "Azure Moon" is Every Little Thing's 29th single released by the Avex Trax label. "Azure Moon" was a ballad single that also included a special acoustic version of their 2004 single "Soraai" for Every Little Thing's concert "Every Little Thing X'mas Acoustic Live at Uragami Tenshudou: Ai no Uta", which took place at Nagasaki on December 11, 2005. The single peaked in 12th place on its first week at the charts and sold 17,212 copies.

Track listing

 * 1) Azure Moon (Words - Kaori Mochida / music - HIKARI)
 * 2) Soraai (ソラアイ) (20051211 version) (Words - Kaori Mochida / music - HIKARI)
 * 3) Azure Moon (Instrumental)

Charts
Oricon sales chart (Japan)

title: Azure Moon


text:
reservere

Verb

 * 1) to book

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to book
 * 2) to reserve
 * 3)  to reserve

title: reservere


text:
List of protected heritage sites in Ramillies, Belgium

This table shows an overview of the protected heritage sites in the Walloon town Ramillies, Belgium. This list is part of Belgium's national heritage.

 * }


text:
James Faiva

James Nunu Fainga'anuku Faiva (born 13 June 1994) is a Tongan rugby union player who generally plays as a fly half represents Tonga internationally and currently plays for Italian Top10 Petrarca Padova. He was included in the Tongan squad for the 2019 Rugby World Cup which is held in Japan for the first time and also marks his first World Cup appearance.

Career
He made his international debut for Tonga against Samoa on 27 July 2019.

title: James Faiva


text:
Talk:Corneal ectatic disorders

Veterinary medicine
I am a little leery of the link from riboflavin <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Corneal ectatic disorders


text:
Joseph Ford (physicist)

Joseph Ford (18 December 1927 – 26 April 1995) was Regents' Professor of physics at Georgia Institute of Technology specializing in thermodynamics and chaos theory.

Early life and education
Born in Buncombe County, North Carolina, he was awarded a BS degree by the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1952 and a Ph.D in physics by Johns Hopkins University in 1956.

Career
Ford spent two years as a research physicist at Union Carbide Corporation in Niagara Falls, New York before joining the faculty at the University of Miami in 1958. He was then appointed an associate professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1961, rising to become Regents' Professor of Physics there in 1978, a position he held until his death in 1995.

He was elected a Fellow of the American Physical Society in 1989 "for pioneering contributions in classical and quantal chaos, and for fundamental and significant contributions to theory of statistical mechanics, ergodicity, and stochasticity, and chaos"

Joseph Ford Commemorative Lectures
In 1995, the Georgia Institute of Technology School of Physics established the Joseph Ford Commemorative Lecture in honor of Ford's Memory.

title: Joseph Ford (physicist)


text:
Talk:Yannick Noah

Is this noteworthy?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article728349.ece GeneralBelly (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for wider input on discussion at WikiProject Tennis
There is a long, ongoing discussion at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found in tennis articles on English-language Wikipedia (e.g., this type of table). The discussion is about whether the "official sponsored name" of a tournament - such as Pacific Life Open - or another tournament name without the sponsor - such as Indian Wells Masters - must be used in those articles. Please join the discussion here. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Photo
It is inappropriate to show a photo of someone other than the entry's subject. There is bound to be a photo of Noah alone or as the center of focus somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skaizun (talk • contribs) 22:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. From Wikipedia Commons: Noah.png. 5-4-10. 21:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-singing photo for Tennis infobox
Since Noah has had two careers, a tennis career and an entertainment career, we have a separate "sports" infobox and later on an "artist" infobox. But we are using a picture showing Noah singing in the tennis infobox. I think this should be replaced by a proper tennis photo, and if not found, by a neutral face photo. The one we have now is appropriate on;y for the "artist" infobox below. Can anybody help provide a tennis photo at the beginning? werldwayd (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

skin color
"first black man to win the French Open" He's not black. At most he is a nicely tanned light-skinned person. FonsScientiae (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Not that it matters to your racist, statement. You are aware that there are light skinned black people in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 11:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yannick Noah. 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/20060412194546/http://www.rfimusique.com/siteEn/biographie/biographie_6285.asp to http://www.rfimusique.com/siteen/biographie/biographie_6285.asp

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Should there be a chart for his doubles Grand Slam performance?
As a grand slam doubles champion I believe it makes sense to have a chart alongside Noah's singles grand slam results detailing his doubles results. Before putting in the effort to find these results, do people here think this would be a valid addition? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Yannick Noah


text:
Washingtonian

Etymology
From.

Adjective

 * Of, or pertaining to, the U.S. state of Washington or its culture.
 * Of, or pertaining to, Washington, D.C. or its culture.
 * Of, or pertaining to, the life, values, or presidential administration of.
 * Of, or pertaining to, the life, values, or presidential administration of.
 * Of, or pertaining to, the life, values, or presidential administration of.

Translations

 * Macedonian: вашингтонски

Noun

 * 1) A native or resident of the state of Washington in the United States of America.
 * 2) An inhabitant or a resident of Washington, D.C..
 * 3)  A member of the, a 19th-century sobriety support group.
 * 1)  A member of the, a 19th-century sobriety support group.
 * 1)  A member of the, a 19th-century sobriety support group.

title: Washingtonian


text:
Talk:Ivan Strack

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good article, but, to improve, please use more sources for WP:V. Thanks.

Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ivan Strack


text:
Talk:Dorothy Otnow Lewis

Minor change
Replaced Dorothy with Dr. Lewis from sentence: Dorothy has worked with death row victims. I'm not sure I've ever seen an encyclopedia that refers to people by their first names. I know I've never seen one omit a Dr. title. Though some clarification about the specific victims would be apreciated. Since opinions about capital punishment are divided, I have noticed there are some people who feel that anyone executed or awaiting it on death row are also victims. Does she work with those who have lost someone caused by a now convicted death row inmate? Or does she work with the inmate's family? Anynobody 08:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect
done! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This page should be moved to Dorothy Otnow Lewis, she publishes under her full name. If I knew how to do it I would just do it. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Since no one who has been watching this page since I posted previously I suspect there will be no problem with this redirect. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dorothy Otnow Lewis. 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/20140413150203/http://www.thirteen.org/openmind/the-law/guilty-by-reason-of-insanity/853/ to http://www.thirteen.org/openmind/the-law/guilty-by-reason-of-insanity/853/

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

HBO Documentary "Crazy, Not Insane...."
This should be added to her bio.

```` Lauren Rhone — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Certifiable quachery
this so called doctor has seen her better days many moons ago. And, I might add, her son had to be admonished for smoking a weed vape in the courthouse. 2600:1014:B100:3046:0:30:97CE:A501 (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 * look, she sucks but none of that is appropriate for this forum/page <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Dr. Hackenquack has done nothing but make a FOOL of herself. Shame on her and constantly being very late for court even after being admonished by the judge. Keeps doing it any way. She is a nasty piece of work and thinks the world revolves around her 2601:147:C300:A4E0:B5CB:1945:879D:5F97 (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Really? Why not? 2601:147:C300:A4E0:9896:747D:24D7:9465 (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Accuracy
dr Lewis is a well known quack yet her Wikipedia page reads like any other doctors, there should be more sections on this page informing enquiries into her unethical behaviour, she is one of life's parasites and will say just about anything for money, she has now finally been disgraced, please update the article to reflect this. 2001:BB6:6D18:F600:60AC:AFFC:8095:55AC (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dorothy Otnow Lewis


text:
Instructional design/Developing Instructional Materials for the Interpersonal Domain: Media Selection Strategies

When developing your instructional materials you will need to consider your media options. The choice you make may be based on projected availability of media where instruction is to take place, ability of instructor and learners to use the media, cost, flexibility, durability, and convenience. This section will provide you with some strategies to help you make the right choice for your needs.

8 Steps for Conflict Resolution

Angry Neighbors Mediation


text:
Austrocidaria prionota

Austrocidaria prionota is a species of moth in the family Geometridae. It is endemic to New Zealand. It is found in the South Island and regarded as being uncommon.

Taxonomy
This species was first described by Edward Meyrick in 1883 using specimens collected at Castle Hill and Dunedin, and given the name Arsinoe prionota. Meyrick described the species in more detail in 1884. In 1886 Meyrick recognised that the genus name he had used for this species had been used previously and renamed the species with the genus Anachloris. In 1917 Meyrick synonymised Anachloris with Hydriomena. George Hudson described and illustrated the species both in his 1898 book New Zealand Moths and Butterflies (Macro-lepidoptera) and in his 1928 book The Butterflies and Moths of New Zealand using the name Hydriomena prionota. In 1971 J. S. Dugdale placed this species within the genus Austrocidaria. Dugdale suggested that A. prionota may actually be the same species as Austrocidaria lithurgia.

The lectotype specimen is held at the Canterbury Museum.

Description
Hudson described the species as follows: "The expansion of the wings is rather under $1 1/2$ inches. The forewings are dull yellowish-brown, with many obscure, wavy, transverse, brown lines, which tend to form two ill-defined bands, one rather narrow near the base and the other much broader near the middle of the wing. The hind-wings are very pale yellowish-brown; there are a few obscure dark lines near the dorsum. The veins are distinctly dotted in black, and the outline of all the wings is deeply scalloped."

A. prionota is likely variable in appearance. This species has been confused with Austrocidaria cedrinodes as the two species are similar in appearance. However they can be easily distinguished from each other as A. prionota has a complete lack of antennal pectinations.

Distribution
This species is endemic to New Zealand, and occurs in the South Island. It has been collected at Gouland Downs in the Kahurangi National Park, as well as at Castle Hill in Christchurch and in Dunedin. It is regarded as not common and difficulty has been had sourcing specimens good enough for the addition of this species into a photographic database.

Biology and behaviour
The larvae of A. prionota have been recorded feeding on Myrsine divaricata as well as on species of Coprosma. This species is on wing in January and October. The adult moth is regarded as being a medium flyer with the ability to remain active in light breezes. Adult moths are attracted to light and have been collected via Robinson light trapping.

title: Austrocidaria prionota


text:
Sam Ojebode

Samuel Ojebode (14 July 1944 – 4 July 2012) was a Nigerian footballer.

Career
Ojebode played for Shooting Stars, where he won the 1976 African Cup Winners' Cup; he also captained the Nigerian national side in three matches at the 1976 African Cup of Nations. He appeared in four FIFA World Cup qualifying matches.

title: Sam Ojebode


text:
Richard Root

Richard K. Root (December 1, 1937 – March 19, 2006) was the former Chairman of Medicine at Yale University, Chairman of Medicine at University of California, San Francisco, and Chairman of Medicine at University of Washington. He also launched the Infectious Disease division at the University of Pennsylvania while a professor there in 1971.

Root received his MD from Johns Hopkins University in 1963 and did his Residency and Internal Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital from 1963-1965. He served as Chief Resident and Instructor in the Department of Medicine at the University of Washington from 1968 to 1969.

After leaving the University of Pennsylvania, Root worked on infectious diseases at Yale University and served as vice chairman of medicine. In 1982 he was voted medical school teacher of the year. He subsequently became the Chief of Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. He later became chief of medicine at Harborview 1991 and became an emeritus professor in 2002. He was a former president of the American Federation of Clinical Research, editor in chief of a textbook, Clinical Infectious Diseases, and, from 1986 to 1991, director of the National Institutes of Health's AIDS Advisory Committee.

In 2006, he was invited by the University of Pennsylvania Infectious Disease Department to assist a project in Botswana. He was killed by a crocodile attack while on a wildlife tour of the Limpopo River in the Tuli Nature Reserve. He was in the lead canoe with a guide when a 13 – crocodile pulled him overboard. While at least one article has aligned the story to the popular notion of unstable dugout canoes turning over, the trip pictures taken by his wife reveal Root and his guide riding in a sound commercially manufactured vessel. Witnesses state that the canoe shook but was not overturned. Root's body was found four days later, near the site of the initial attack.

title: Richard Root


text:
Ada Programming/Keywords/accept

Summary
The keyword accept is used in Ada tasks for accepting a rendezvous.

Wikibook

 * Ada Programming
 * Ada Programming/Keywords

Ada Reference Manual

Ada Quality and Style Guide

|Accept Keywords:accept

title: Ada Programming/Keywords/accept


text:
Alfons Riedel

Alfons Riedel (31 July 1901 – 1 April 1969) was an Austrian sculptor. His work was part of the sculpture event in the art competition at the 1936 Summer Olympics.

title: Alfons Riedel


text:
Talk:Data Structures/Introduction

In the second example of "Building a Chain from Nodes" nodes are created while intergers are input, then the nodes are iterated over in a while loop. Inside the loop, the current node value is accessed--get-value(nodes)-- then the nodes object is updated--nodes := get-next(nodes)--.

It seems the while loop would exit after the first iteration as the nodes reference is still the last item added and the get-next(nodes) call would return a null. I would have expected to a reference to the first item stored and the nodes object reset to this original reference before the while loop in question was entered. Is this a typo or am I missing an obvious concept?

 * The last item added is the front of the list, not the back of the list. I thought about perhaps having some "head" pointer and a tail pointer, but that might be more complicated than this way. MShonle 14:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you, that completly clears up my confusion. I looked at the example for a long time, but missed that the first item in the list starts off with a null reference and all further items reference the previous item. I just couldn't see it. Thanks for the prompt feedback and the great resource.

In this section, the book makes reference to the term "node" as a data type, but isn't singly linked list the more technically correct term? I always thought a linked list was made up of nodes, but the data structure itself was called a linked list.

In the list of node operations is set-next method with return value Node. But in the implementation, there is no return value. set-next is used in the example where data are stored in not reversed order. According to this example, set-next should return Node that has been set as next in original Node.

 * I'm thinking the exact same thing. "nodes := set-next (nodes, make-node (i, null)) // append new node to the end of the list" makes no sense in this context, and the current program would malfunction by dropping all but the last two inputs. Also, the line's comment contradicts the discussion above, in which it is stated that the list should be created in reverse order. I'd also add that the implementation smells of bad design: when making a custom data structure for this, why make it mutable? There's no reason to even allow forward creation, since the problem is order-independent. The code becomes longer and harder to reason about for no apparent benefit. <IP_ADDRESS> (discuss) 13:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm introducing a paragraph in the introduction that explains big-oh notation. I think most people are oblivious to the notation until they start studying data structures and a quick explanation is valuable, especially before it's used in the node structure. I'm also a little confused about the organization. Shouldn't nodes be introduced after arrays since they lead into lists so nicely? Christopher.Reilly (discuss • contribs) 00:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Data Structures/Introduction


text:
Talk:M series (computer)

Algol 68 implementation
Any more details about this implementation. NevilleDNZ (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe was it derived from L. Ammeraal's work?

title: Talk:M series (computer)


text:
Cayman Islands at the 1976 Summer Olympics

The Cayman Islands competed in the Olympic Games for the first time at the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Previously Cayman Islands competed under Jamaica, British Empire as dependency until Jamaican independence in 1962. Cayman Islands also competed under West Indies Federation in 1960.

Sailing
Mixed Two Person Dinghy
 * Gerry Kirkconnell and Peter Milburn