text:
Tibet House US

Tibet House US (THUS) is a Tibetan cultural preservation and education 501(c)(3) nonprofit founded in 1987 in New York City by a group of Westerners after the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, expressed his wish to establish a cultural institution to build awareness of Tibetan culture.

Part of a worldwide network of Tibet Houses, Tibet House US focuses on the promotion and preservation of Tibetan culture, contemporary and traditional knowledge, and cultural expressions through education on philosophy, cognitive or mind science based on the workings of mind and emotions, techniques of mediation and mental transformation, and contemporary and ancient arts and culture.

History
In 1959, soon after escaping the Chinese invasion of Tibet to India, the 14th Dalai Lama while addressing a group of fellow refugees stated "The great job ahead of us now is to preserve our religion and culture." In 1987, "a group of Westerners sympathetic to the Tibetan cause," Columbia University professor and THUS President Robert Thurman, the first western Buddhist monk, actor and Chairman of the International Campaign for Tibet, Richard Gere, and classical composer and THUS Vice President Philip Glass, founded the organization to preserve, protect and present the cultural and religious heritage of Tibet, and give a contemporary understanding of the contributions this endangered culture offers, in the Flatiron district of New York City. Frances Thargay, while working at the Office of Tibet in New York as Executive Assistant to the Dalai Lama's Representative to the US, Tenzin Tethong, wrote the first draft of Richard Gere's proposal for Tibet House. Managing Director Nena Thurman initiated the annual benefit concert with Glass, and the annual benefit auction. She is also the Executive Chairwoman of the THUS project, Menla Retreat.

THUS has collaborated with many different educational and cultural institutions. This includes sponsoring teachings in New York City by the Dalai Lama. The Newark Peace Education Summit, a three-day conference in 2011, focused on the policies and methods used by communities to establish peace. Participants included the Dalai Lama and fellow Nobel Laureates, anti-landmine activist Jody Williams, and Iranian civil rights activist Shirin Ebadi; Cory Booker, Martin Luther King III, economist Jeffrey Sachs, Deepak Chopra, Rabbi Michael Lerner; anthropologist Wade Davis, who shared a stage with representatives of the Navajo, Dene, and Hopi nations; and many other international and local activists. The Global Vision Summit was started in 2020. Twenty-one teachers, spiritual leaders, scholars, and students of the 14th Dalai Lama, including Richard Gere, Thupten Jinpa, Richard Davidson, and Daniel Goleman discussed his life and teachings with over 90,000 people worldwide. In 2021 the 2nd Annual Dalai Lama Global Vision Summit, "The Power of Compassion", examined the Dalai Lama's vision and practice of compassion. Participants included Daniel Goleman, Marina Abramović, Jan Willis, Mark Hyman, and Tara Brach. Participants in the 2023 Summit included Daniel Goleman, Thupten Jinpa, Jan Willis, Vandana Shiva, Philippe Goldin, Tenzin Geyche Tethong, Rev. Matthew Fox, Tenzin Priyadarshi and Venerable Thubten Chodron.

Books published by THUS include A Shrine for Tibet: The Alice S. Kandell Collection, "a visual knockout of a book," the accompanying publication for the traveling exhibition In the Realm of the Buddha at the Smithsonian. In collaboration with The American Institute of Buddhist Studies at Columbia University, Robert Thurman founded and edited the Treasury of the Buddhist Sciences series which includes the complete translation of the "originally Indian Buddhist artistic, scientific, and religious works collected in the Tibetan Tengyur," and associated translations, studies and reference works, including the "Treasury of Buddhist Sciences: Associated Literature" and "Treasury of Indic Sciences" series.

The Art of Freedom Award, honoring outstanding contributions reflecting THUS' mission, has been presented to author and human rights advocate Eliot Pattison, director Martin Scorsese, and artist Roy Lichtenstein, among others. THUS presented "Transforming Minds: Kyabje Gelek Rimpoche and Friends," with the Allen Ginsberg Estate and Jewel Heart International in 2021. The gallery and online exhibition of never before seen images by Ginsberg of Gelek Rimpoche and great masters, Tibetologists, and students exemplified the transformational nature of this time in US history.

Fundraising events include the Tibet House Benefit Auction to Preserve Tibetan Culture and dinner at Christie's, which started in 2002. The Annual Benefit Concert at Carnegie Hall organized by Philip Glass, "one of the longest-running and most renowned live cultural events in New York City," is "rich with monumental figures." "A New York institution," held since 1989, the concert and dinner party celebrates Losar, the Tibetan New Year. Featured musicians and performers have included Patti Smith, David Bowie, Allen Ginsberg, Laurie Anderson, Lou Reed, Iggy Pop, Björk, Debbie Harry, Taj Mahal, Paul Simon, Ray Davies, Richie Havens, John Cale, Emmylou Harris, Billy Corgan, Sufjan Stevens, Nawang Khechog, Trey Anastasio, Shawn Colvin, Jimmy Dale Gilmore, David Byrne, Gogol Bordello, Ziggy Marley, FKA Twigs, Annie Lennox, Eddie Vedder, Phoebe Bridgers, Tenzin Choegyal, Bettye LaVette, Dadon, The Flaming Lips, Michael Stipe, Sheryl Crow, Moby, Sigur Rós, Ashley McIsaac, Bright Eyes, Lenny Kaye, Natalie Merchant, Angélique Kidjo, Foday Musa Suso, Caetano Veloso, the Drepung Loseling Monks, Regina Spektor, Pierce Turner, The Scorchio String Quartet, Tenzin Kunsel, Bajah + the Dry Eye Crew, Stephen Colbert, New Order, Allison Russell, Arooj Aftab, Brittany Howard, Eddie Vedder, and many others. boygenius featuring Phoebe Bridgers, Julien Baker and Lucy Dacus premiered two songs from their new album at the 2023 benefit.

Opening 2021's online, live stream 34th benefit, the Dalai Lama sent a video message of congratulation and thanks to Tibet House US, Bob and Nena Thurman, and those who started Tibet House in New York. He also thanked Sogpo (Mongolian) Wangyal, the late Geshe Wangyal, Thurman's teacher, for also contributing to advocating Tibetan Buddhism among Americans.

After Keanu Reeves appeared in the virtual 35th year benefit concert reciting the Beat Poem "Pull My Daisy" in 2022, social media users in China suggested a boycott of his films. "Despite his past close collaboration with its film authorities and decades of mega-stardom spanning the length of the country’s engagement with Hollywood," due to backlash from Chinese nationalists over his appearance in support of THUS, his films have "reportedly been scrubbed from China streaming platforms such as Tencent Video, Youku and Migu Video."

Collections
THUS collects and displays diverse examples of Tibetan sacred, fine, and folk arts, with the hope to ultimately repatriate them to a National Museum in Tibet. Since the Chinese communist occupation of Tibet beginning in 1949, the majority of these artworks and Buddhist manuscripts were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution, and to a much lesser degree by the Younghusband Expedition, a temporary invasion of Tibet by the British, part of the ongoing "Great Game," and by archaeological looting.

The Repatriation Collection and the Old Tibet Photographic Archive were founded in 1992. The Old Tibet Photographic Archive started with the gift of missionary Marion Grant Griebenow's over 3,000 images and journal writings from Tibet in 1928–1949, and contains work by photographers Hugh Richardson, Heinrich Harrer, Fosco Maraini, David McDonald, and Lt. J. R. Weir; photographs from the Tokan Tada collection from the Toyo Bunko Library in Tokyo, Japan, taken in Central Tibet, Amdo, and Sikkim in the 1920s, and images from the A.T. Steele Collection. The Repatriation Collection consists of over 1500 thangkas, bronzes, ritual objects, and folk art. These archives document the destruction of over 6000 monasteries, temples, historic buildings, and the contents that were pillaged; "The monasteries, however, were not only centers of scholasticism (although that was certainly the hallmark of Drepung, Sera and Ganden). They were also centers for the study of painting, sculpture, embroidery, music, dance, chant and ritual. They were the repositories of the treasures of Tibetan art and the libraries of the vast Tibetan literature."

Selected publications

 * Worlds of Transformation: Tibetan Art of Wisdom and Compassion, Marylin Rhie and Robert Thurman, essay by David Jackson, co-published with the Rubin Museum, Harry N. Abrams Co., 1991, ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>870
 * Mandala: The Architecture of Enlightenment, Denise P. Leidy, Robert Thurman., first edition published with Asia Society and Shambhala Publications, thereafter Overlook Press, 1997, ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>188
 * Wisdom and Compassion: The Sacred Art of Tibet, Marylin Rhie and Robert Thurman, co-published with Harry N. Abrams Co., 1991 – 1998 in English, German, Spanish, Catalan, Japanese, and Chinese; 2000, ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>
 * The Tibetan Wheel of Existence, Jacqueline Dunnington, 2000, ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>530
 * Visions of Tibet: Outer, Inner, Secret, photographs by Brian Kistler, introduction by Robert Thurman, ed. Thomas Yarnell, Overlook Duckworth, 2005, ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>412
 * Vanishing Tibet, Catherine Steinmann and Danny Conant, 2008, ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>957
 * A Shrine For Tibet: The Alice S. Kandell Collection, Marylin Rhie & Robert Thurman, Overlook Press, 2010, ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>101
 * Man of Peace: The Illustrated Life Story of the Dalai Lama of Tibet, graphic novel, William Meyers, Robert Thurman, Michael G. Burbank, initiated artistically by Rabkar Wangchuk, art a team effort of five artists coordinated by Steve Buccellato and Michael Burbank, ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>032

Translations and scholarly works

 * The Treasury of Buddhist Sciences, series, editors, Robert Thurman, Thomas Yarnall and The Treasury of Indic Sciences, series, editors Robert Thurman, Gary Tubb and Thomas Yarnall, co-published with the American Institute of Buddhist Studies and the Columbia University Center for Buddhist Studies; Columbia University Press:
 * Universal Vehicle Discourse Literature, Lozang Jamspal, et al., 2004, ISBN 978-0-9753734-0-8
 * Kalacakra Tantra: Chapter on the Individual, Vesna Wallace, 2004, ISBN 978-0-9753734-1-5
 * Nagarjuna’s Reason Sixty, Joseph Loizzo, et al., 2007, ISBN 978-0-9753734-2-2
 * Kalacakra Tantra: The Sadhana Chapter, Vesna Wallace, 2010, ISBN 978-0-9753734-4-6
 * Tsong Khapa’s Extremely Brilliant Lamp, Robert Thurman, 2010, ISBN 978-1-935011-00-2
 * The Range of the Bodhisattva, Lozang Jamspal, 2010, ISBN 978-1-935011-07-1
 * Consciousness, Knowledge, and Ignorance, Bina Gupta, 2011, ISBN 978-1-935011-03-3

With Hay House

 * My Appeal to the World, 14th Dalai Lama, Sofia Stril-Rever, compiler, Robert Thurman, foreword, 2015, ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>561
 * The Dalai Lama and the King Demon: Tracking a Triple Murder Mystery Through the Mists of Time, Raimondo Bultrini, 2013, ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>523
 * A Drop from the Marvelous Ocean of History, Lelung Tulku Rinpoche XI, 2013, ISBN<PHONE_NUMBER>592

Film

 * His Holiness the Great 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet recorded a video message for the 34th annual benefit concert of Tibet House US, Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama
 * First 30 Years of Tibet House
 * God and Buddha: A Dialogue with Deepak Chopra and Robert Thurman, Mystic Fire Video, ASIN: B0000C23DQ
 * Robert A. F. Thurman on Buddhism, Wellspring, ASIN: B00005Y721

title: Tibet House US


text:
Wheatland, Virginia

Wheatland is an unincorporated community in Loudoun County, Virginia located north of Purcellville and south of Lovettsville on Berlin Turnpike (VA 287). Originally located at the intersection of Berlin Turnpike and the Charles Town Pike (State Route 9), the present day road bed of Charles Town Pike lies south of its historical right of way so the village is just north of that intersection.

source: wikimedia

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

title: Wheatland, Virginia


text:
Tócame (song)

"Tócame" is a song by Brazilian singer Anitta, released through Warner Records on July 10, 2020. The track features American singers Arcángel and De La Ghetto.

Background
On June 2, 2020, an Asian website leaked the alleged cover and release date of the single, titled "Tócame", which would be released on June 12. On July 2, Anitta officially released the cover and release date.

Live performances
Anitta performed the song for the first time on July 11, 2020, at the Altas Horas. On August 21, she performed at The Late Late Show with James Corden.

Music video
The music video was directed by Giovanni Bianco, with his scenes being recorded using drones in order to avoid contact between people due to the pandemic of COVID-19. The clip features the participation of the singer's ex-boyfriend, Gui Araújo, anonymous dancing in their apartments and slabs, in addition to the guest artists.

title: Tócame (song)


text:
User:Daask/sandbox/Parœmiologia Anglo-Latina

Parœmiologia Anglo-Latina is a book by John Clarke (d. 1658 )


text:
Talk:Xenomorph (geology)

I'm not sure "Xenomorph (geology)" is the best location for the geological term. I don't find it in Webster's dictionary or even here. A google search for "Xenomorph geology" brings up very few hits, many of which still appear to be about the alien from the movies. Allotriomorph has twice as many hits, none of them about aliens. It seems that, in English at least, Allotriomorph is the more common term for what User:790 is describing here. It should be the main title, not just listed as an "also known as". Kafziel 17:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi, in my "Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary", 1989 edition, both forms are listed as adjectives, where "xenomorphic" contains the explanation, and "allotriomorphic" only refers to it. Greets 790 21:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

 * In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Volume 2 2002, Fifth Edition, page 3688, column two, it lists "xenomorphic" under "xeno-". It states the following: xenomorphic adjective (GEOLOGY) (of a mineral in a rock) having a form different from the charactistic one, owing to the presure of other constituents. --Trakon 21:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Xenomorph (geology)


text:
Hubbard High School (Chicago)

Hubbard High School is a public four-year high school located in the West Lawn neighborhood on the southwest side of Chicago, Illinois, United States. Hubbard is part of the Chicago Public Schools district. The school is named for American fur trader and insurance underwriter Gurdon Saltonstall Hubbard. As of 2017, Hubbard had an 82.9% five–year graduation rate. In 2017, the student population was 91% Hispanic and 96% "low income".

Improvement
Hubbard was one of 16 schools nationwide selected by the College Board for inclusion in the EXCELerator School Improvement Model program beginning in the 2007–08 school year. The project was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

IB Diploma Programme
Hubbard is an IB Diploma Programme high school. This comprehensive and challenging pre-university program for academically advanced and highly motivated students in grades 11 and 12 was implemented at Hubbard in 1998. Students at this school usually take IB exams in May. In the last examination session, students completed the following exams: Biology SL, English A1 HL, History HL, Math.Studies SL, Spanish A HL, Theory Knowl. TK and Visual Arts SL.

Advanced Placement and JROTC
Advanced Placement classes are available in six subjects: Biology, Calculus, English Language and Composition, Psychology, Spanish Language, and United States History. Students may substitute physical education classes with JROTC classes.

Athletics
Hubbard competes in the Chicago Public League (CPL) and is a member of the Illinois High School Association (IHSA). The school is also known for their successful football team. Other sports programs offered by the school include: baseball, bowling, cheerleading, chess, cross country, pom-pom, soccer, softball, swimming, water-polo, soccer, track, volleyball, and wrestling.

In 1973, the boys baseball team, led by coach Tom Skubich, went 28-3 and won the Illinois state championship.

Other programs
Hubbard High School is a participant in the Peer Health Exchange Program and receives educational support for its musical program from the Music of the Baroque professional chorus and band.

Dress Code
Students must wear white, grey or black shirts and black bottoms. They may also wear their class shirts or any shirt produced by a Hubbard club/organization. Hair dying is allowed.

History
Hubbard High School originally opened for the 1928/29 school year. In the late 1990s, Hubbard faced substantial overcrowding, but recent work has lowered its enrollment.

Notable alumni

 * Sean Cattouse – former NFL player
 * Ethan Farmer - musician, songwriter, record producer
 * Kelvin Hayden – former NFL player
 * Othyus Jeffers – professional basketball player
 * Aaron Johnson – professional basketball player
 * Nate Lyles – former NFL player
 * Michael Peña – actor
 * Diante Watkins – professional basketball player

Notable staff

 * Lena McLin – composer, author, and minister; served as a music teacher at the school

title: Hubbard High School (Chicago)


text:
Rhenium trioxide

Rhenium trioxide or rhenium(VI) oxide is an inorganic compound with the formula ReO3. It is a red solid with a metallic lustre that resembles copper in appearance. It is the only stable trioxide of the Group 7 elements (Mn, Tc, Re).

Preparation and structure
Rhenium trioxide can be formed by reducing rhenium(VII) oxide with carbon monoxide at 200 °C or elemental rhenium at 400 °C.

 * Re2O7 +  CO   →   2 ReO3  +  CO2
 * 3 Re2O7 +  Re   →   7 ReO3

Re2O7 can also be reduced with dioxane.

Rhenium trioxide crystallizes with a primitive cubic unit cell, with a lattice parameter of 3.742 Å (374.2 pm). The structure of ReO3 is similar to that of perovskite (ABO3), without the large A cation at the centre of the unit cell. Each rhenium center is surrounded by an octahedron defined by six oxygen centers. These octahedra share corners to form the 3-dimensional structure. The coordination number of O is 2, because each oxygen atom has 2 neighbouring Re atoms.

Physical properties
ReO3 is unusual for an oxide because it exhibits very low resistivity. It behaves like a metal in that its resistivity decreases as its temperature decreases. At 300 K, its resistivity is 100.0 nΩ·m, whereas at 100 K, this decreases to 6.0 nΩ·m, 17 times less than at 300 K.

Chemical properties
Rhenium trioxide is insoluble in water, as well as dilute acids and bases. Heating it in base results in disproportionation to give and, while reaction with acid at high temperature affords. In concentrated nitric acid, it yields perrhenic acid. Upon heating to 400 °C under vacuum, it undergoes disproportionation:
 * 3 ReO3  →   Re2O7  +   ReO2

Rhenium trioxide can be chlorinated to give rhenium trioxide chloride:
 * 2 ReO3 + Cl2 ->  2 ReO3Cl

Hydrogenation catalyst
Rhenium trioxide finds some use in organic synthesis as a catalyst for amide reduction.

title: Rhenium trioxide


text:
Federal Government College, Wukari

Federal Government College, Wukari is a high coeducational school for both mixed genders. It is located at Wukari Taraba, Nigeria.

It was established along with 109 federal own secondary school as one among the unity schools in various states of the federation. The school was open in October 1978 at Wukari, Zaki Bam, a temporary place before locating to the main site in 1980.

The first Principal was Mr. S.N. Abia.

title: Federal Government College, Wukari


text:
User:Henrik Hovland/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

 * Name of article: Birch Monroe
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Because it's the article that I'm gonna work on.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Both.

Content

 * Guiding questions

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? No.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is missing content.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Sort of.
 * Are the sources current? No.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It's to short.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not from my point of view.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No.
 * Are images well-captioned? No pictures.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No pictures.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No pictures.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are none.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It's a part of the WikiProject Biography and rated stub-class there. It's also a part of the WikiProject Biography and rated stub-class there too. It's also supported by WikiProject Kentucky marked as low importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Can't see any difference.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

 * What is the article's overall status? Bad.
 * What are the article's strengths? It's neutral.
 * How can the article be improved? Give it structure and more content. And also pictures. Add citations.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It's poorly developed

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~

 * Link to feedback: Talk:Birch Monroe

title: User:Henrik Hovland/Evaluate an Article


text:
Talk:Don Getty

PC for Privy Council?
At the top of the article, it shows Getty using the "PC" post-nominal, which means he served on the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, although I am unable to find any reference to this, and other facts (such as that he doesn't style himself as "Honourable" any more) lead me to believe he never served on the Privy Council.--RAult 05:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like that's been removed now. Good eye.Garth of the Forest 08:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"following his success in negotiating Senate reform as part of the Charlottetown Accord"??
What's that about? There has been no meaningful Senate reform since 1982. The Charlottetown Accord and all of Mulroney's other attempts to mess up what Trudeau accomplished were doomed to fail, and did. Unless you subscribe to the theory that they (Meech, Charlottetown, etc.) were a smokescreen to distract the electorate from |what was really going on. Garth of the Forest 08:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Grey Cup
Is this Getty in 1956 drinking out of the Grey Cup? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It sure looks like him. I couldn't find anywhere online the number he wore, until I came back to Wikipedia, Template:44th Grey Cup confirms he wore 87. I wonder where those numbers came from... 117Avenue (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good find. I suspected it was him based on a google image search, but it never occurred to me that there was a template with player numbers.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good find on the image. 117Avenue (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, I can't see that being free - that somebody uploaded it to Flickr with a CC designation does not make it so. Steve Smith (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * With over 600 uploads, I believe they are the Toronto archives, who they claim to be. 117Avenue (talk) 06:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * At the Toronto Archives' website, it says of this collection that all non-educational use requires written permission of City of Toronto Archives. Anyway, this debate is better had over at the Commons. Steve Smith (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Um", did you not check the profile of the Flickr uploader? It's quite obviously the City of Toronto Archives, and the Archives' website even links to the Flickr feed.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Image was .--Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Don Getty. 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/20080113011955/http://www.assembly.ab.ca:80/lao/library/premiers/getty.htm to https://www.assembly.ab.ca/lao/library/PREMIERS/getty.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091126183348/http://www.cfl.ca:80/page/his_greycup_recap1956 to http://www.cfl.ca/page/his_greycup_recap1956

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Don Getty. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.assembly.ab.ca/lao/library/PREMIERS/getty.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.cfl.ca/page/his_greycup_recap1956
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104160123/http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=a4caf2d3-54c4-4ad6-98c0-eaaeedd11ccf to http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=a4caf2d3-54c4-4ad6-98c0-eaaeedd11ccf

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Don Getty. 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/20150607135652/http://www.cfl.ca/page/his_legends_ivy to https://www.cfl.ca/page/his_legends_ivy

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Don Getty


text:
Hershey highway

Etymology
In reference to the American chocolate company; the brown color of chocolate is likened to feces.

Noun

 * 1)  The anus or anal sex.

title: Hershey highway


text:
Constructivist Theories in Education/The New Century:Classroom Applications of Constructivism

WebQuests are another constructivist tool. The shortage of text material for the early grades is glaring. It is there, but hard to find.

Computer game programming is an area where Constructivist learning is practiced. With tools such as Gamemaker and Klik&Play, it is being used in classrooms from grade 3 up


text:
Film editing/Understanding "L-Cuts"/Hearing Voices

{| cellpadding="20" cellspacing="5" style="width: 100%; background-color: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"
 * style="background-color: #ffffaa; border: 1px solid #777777; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" colspan="2" |  A three way conversation
 * style="width: 50%; background-color: #fffff0; border: 1px solid #777777; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" |
 * style="width: 50%; background-color: #fffff0; border: 1px solid #777777; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" |

A three way conversation
The best way to learn about editing a conversation is to get the film dailies for a scene and edit the scene.
 * Using insert shots and L-Cuts

 * The story
 * Two men are talking about law cases in a cafeteria. Their partner arrives with news about an important case.

 * A challenge
 * This scene was shot quickly with only a few shots to get all the coverage. Not all the shots match perfectly.  The performances change from the wide angle shot to the close up shot.

 * So you must worry about a lot of things, not just how to create "L-Cuts".

 * style="width: 50%; background-color: Lavender; border: 1px solid #777777; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;"|

A simple scene from a TV drama

 * DVD-Video disk
 * The Star Movie Shop has a disk which shows a three way conversation. The disk is called "Hearing Voices"

 * The disk is both a DVD-Video with a demonstration of how this scene can be edited. You just watch the demos and see the many options.

 * Also the disk is a DVD-Data disk containing all the film dailies for use in your editing program.

 * Enough points?
 * If you have enough points, let me know and the disk will be send to you.

 * style="width: 50%; background-color: #fffff0; border: 1px solid #777777; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" |
 * style="width: 50%; background-color: #fffff0; border: 1px solid #777777; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" |

Who do you want to emphasize?

 * Speaker 1, speaker 2, speaker 3?
 * This disk contains the unedited film footage of one scene which has three people.

 * The dialog is fixed (more or less). But the picture can changed by making "L-Cuts" and adding cut-away or insert shots.

 * Making "L-Cuts" and adding cut away shots changes the way that the audience interprets the scene.

 * In short, you editing creates the emotional content of the scene.

 * style="width: 50%; background-color: Lavender; border: 1px solid #777777; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;"|

Who's in charge?

 * Which is the actor's point of view is the most important?
 * In this scene, you do not know what happened before this scene. Therefore, it is not clear who is the most important person in this scene.

 * Therefore, you should try editing this scene three ways. Each way emphasizes a different actor.

 * Using editing, you can emphasize one actor over the others. Watch the DVD-Video content and see how it is done for this scene.

 * }

{| cellpadding="20" cellspacing="5" style="width: 99%; background-color: inherit; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"
 * style="width: 100%; background-color: LemonChiffon; border: 1px solid #777777; vertical-align: top; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 8px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 8px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 8px;" rowspan="2" |

The next page

 * The next page discusses the first disk about "L-Cuts".

 * "Fireworks Display" DVD-Video [[Image:Crystal Clear action forward.png|24px]]

Contact your instructor

 * Your instructor for this class is Robert Elliott. To email me, you simply  Click Here. [[Image:Crystal Clear app xfmail.png|24px]]

 * }


text:
Wikijunior talk:Solar System/Oort Cloud

 * Oort_cloud
 * 90377_Sedna

---

Not to knock the work done here but is the oort cloud really appropriate for what is after all a basic intro to the sloar system. I've never heard of it before, and since there seems to be some debate if it is part of the keppler belt or not, maybe it should be cut... The bellman 04:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Minor clarification
Current Text: "It is believed that most comets originally were in the Oort Cloud before "falling" into the Sun."

I think falling "into" the Sun might not be what we're looking for - would falling "toward" the Sun be better? Falling into the Sun implies a fiery end for the comet.
 * While I think that the toward is perhaps more correct, "falling into" the sun does indeed happen. In fact, SOHO has seen several with a very fiery end as they go right into the photosphere (with a strong assumption that they don't make it back out).  Perhaps some clarification on the comet page of both types?  I was just trying to put some content in for this page, so don't worry about bruising my ego to make it more correct.Rob Horning 06:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is this really necessary?
The Wikipedia article admits that "The Oort cloud ... is a postulated spherical cloud of comets..." and "Although no direct observations have been made of such a cloud, it is believed to be the source of most or all comets entering the inner solar system...". Is there any evidence that the Oort cloud even exists (besides the fact that comets enter the inner solar system)? And if there isn't, or if the only evidence is one comet that isn't even close to far enough away, why teach this to kids? And why call this armchair speculation science? - SamE 14:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There is large amount of evidence to support the Oort cloud, Hubble Space Telescope has seen large amounts of very small (20 km or so) objects in the far outer solar system. N1person 21:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No there is no evidence for the oort cloud, it has never been observed, but guess what, WITHOUT the oort cloud evolution is impossible, they will make it there i am sure. I am sure the vatican would stand up to any silly arguments put forward by nasa about a oort cloud, even a quote from the author, i now doubt the oort cloud exists as there is not a shred of evidence for its existance. Stop teaching junk to kids and brain washing them with propogander nonsence.

90377 Sedna is plenty far enough away. (What about 50000 Quaoar ?). Apparently other smaller objects are not newsworthy enough to make my newspaper. Do you have a reference for any observations of these small objects? The Kuiper Belt and The Oort Cloud seems to imply that Hubble has only seen 1 such object. Have there been more discoveries (by Hubble or anything else) since that was written? There are quite a few obstinate, stubborn people who prefer links and literature references over "the evidence exists, trust me!" :-). --DavidCary 21:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I think the problem here is that any observation of objects as small as a typical comet is not likely to occur until after the object becomes a comet and enters the inner Solar System. The objective scientific evidence is comparing the frequence of comets over the past several centuries, especially records of comets by Chinese astronomers over the past three millenia, and extrapolating the number of objects that would hypothetically be needed in the Oort cloud to produce that many comets with the seemingly consistant frequency of these cometary appearances.  Cometary infalls measured by SOHO have given another much larger set of datapoints for smaller objects that are not normally seen by terrestrial telescopes simply because they are so tiny that normally they wouldn't even be seen even if passing between the Earth and the Moon.  As for other Kuiper Belt objects, there have been many, but keep in mind that objects like Sedna and Quaoar have to be large enough to be resolved with current telescopes simply because they emit so little light by reflection that there is hardly anything at all that can be measured at all.  Pluto was right at the resolution limits of telescopes at the time of Tombaugh, and had it been any smaller Pluto would not have been discovered at all.
 * If you want to see a current list of confirmed asteroids, please look at the Minor Planet Center for current updates. This site is the "official" organization that desinates any asteroid discoveries and is the central clearing house for any current asteroid observations, including Kuiper objects.  Of particular interest may be the plot of Kuiper Belt objects which show a large number beyond Neptune.  --Rob Horning 01:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Passing stars?
Reading about passing stars makes me very curious about which ones just passed our solar system given the relative stable positions of the stars in space? My suggestion is that someone will come up with a better explanation or point out these passing stars please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IArnold (discuss • contribs) 09:09, 1 March 2011

title: Wikijunior talk:Solar System/Oort Cloud


text:
Pushkino, Altai Krai

Pushkino (Пушкино) is a rural locality (a settlement) in Rubtsovsky Selsoviet, Rubtsovsky District, Altai Krai, Russia. The population was 343 as of 2013. There are 3 streets.

Geography
Pushkino is located 10 km west of Rubtsovsk (the district's administrative centre) by road. Sad-gorod is the nearest rural locality.

title: Pushkino, Altai Krai


text:
Talk:Quantum harmonic oscillator/Boson operators

Are boson operators related to bosons? If so, how? Wikipedia was not helpful and had no entry that I could easily find under search for Boson Operator. Perhaps an opportunity for us to help them out while achieving a link to our lessons here? Mirwin 04:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, some applicable stuff at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_operator I will be back later. Mirwin 04:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

We might want to define operator by linking to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operators. If this is correct regarding how the term is used locally. Mirwin 05:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

 * There's plenty of stuff to be added about second quantization until it becomes "understandable" he he. I'll move its priority up in my list =). --Jorge 03:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They are used to construct the state of many-identical-bosons systems. In the sea of particles' names, Boson and Fermion are opposite, and refer, respectively, to particles which can be identical AND in the same quantum state (as photons) and to particles which cannot be in the same quantum state IF identical (by Pauli, as electrons).
 * There are Fermion operators as well.--Jorge 04:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Breakdown (video game)

Editing
Not sure who originally wrote this but it was either by a reasonably good writer who was a reasonably bad gamer OR a reasonably bad writer who was a reasonably good gamer....either way there was far too much reptition and opinions.

The story and gameplay parts might need a little more work as Its not a game I've played in any great length. :)

--Morda Statca 17:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Article cleanup on aisle 4! -Matt Musgrove 19:35 June 17, 2006

 * This article is awesome. The person who wrote it clearly did so while on a break from writing Starcraft/Harry Potter fanfics. <IP_ADDRESS> 14:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Novel
A Google search for "Matthew Schindler" and "Breakdown" gives only the Wikipedia article as a source for this information. That doesn't say much for the noteworthy status of the section, so I'm removing it. NighTrekr 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Breakdown Review
After reading the story line and thinking of how good the game can be, this game sounds like a keeper. But I would also like to know how the ending is. Other than that, this game itself is sounding like a bit more than Halo or Half-Life, but that is my opinion. Nice game other than that!--Zhang Liao 05:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow
I didn't expect to have to read a whole novel, but the story was pretty good. ShinraiTS4 21:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Development Section
This article is amazing in terms of plot and format, but it desperately needs expansion. Might be good to start on the developments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techcom0 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:VG article assessment (21 September 2023)
''This is a personal template to provide advice in the course of completing a content assessment or reassessment for the WikiProject for video games. It's not a part of the project itself. For formal guidance when creating and editing articles under this project, please consult the project’s content assessment guide and manual of style. The template can be found here.''

title: Talk:Breakdown (video game)


text:
1945 Iowa State Cyclones football team

The 1945 Iowa State Cyclones football team represented Iowa State College of Agricultural and Mechanic Arts (later renamed Iowa State University) in the Big Six Conference during the 1945 college football season. In their fourth year under head coach Mike Michalske, the Cyclones compiled a 4–3–1 record (2–2–1 against conference opponents), finished in third place in the conference, and outscored their opponents by a combined total of 156 to 97. They played their home games at Clyde Williams Field in Ames, Iowa.

There was no team captain selected for the 1945 season. Four Iowa State players were selected as a first-team all-conference players: guard Jack Fathauer, backs Dick Howard and Gene Phelps, and center Jim Riding.

title: 1945 Iowa State Cyclones football team


text:
Nirmal Kanti Chatterjee

Nirmal Kanti Chatterjee (born 1 March 1925) is an Indian politician. He was elected to the Lok Sabha, lower house of the Parliament of India from Dum Dum as a member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). Chatterjee was noted in March 2015 as being one of two surviving founders of the Jatiya Sangha prize.

title: Nirmal Kanti Chatterjee


text:
UMBC University Commons

The Commons at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County is the central student activities center of the university campus. Opened in 2002, "The Commons" includes meeting rooms, food and retail outlets and a book store. Also incorporated into the building is a gameroom, facilities for the student government association, a campus pub, bank and a copying center. In addition, The Commons hosts numerous events such as Quadmania, Big Crazy Fun Night, orientations, fraternity events, and much more.

Layout and design
The Commons was built on the foundation of the former Gym 1 building. The north–south segment of the building is referred to as "Main Street" for it is where multiple student fairs and events are held, and the east–west segment of the building is referred to as "Market Street" since it transverses the main Food Court.

Centers and Student Life
The Commons includes a variety of student life offices to serve the student body of UMBC. The Campus Information Center (CIC), Center for Off-Campus Student Services (OCSS), the Student Events Board (seb), Student Government Association (SGA), the Mosaic Center, and the Women's Center are all located in The Commons.

Shopping
The Commons provides the majority of shopping and eatery options for the campus, along with the University Center's Starbucks and Chick-fil-A in the University Center.

Bookstore
The official UMBC bookstore is housed on the first floor of The Commons. Established in 1966, the bookstore is a non-profit, non-state funded, self-support, auxiliary, retail operation owned and operated by UMBC. The store sells a wide range of items ranging from apparel to electronics.

On the ground floor of the bookstore, the Yum Shoppe serves as a convenience store for the students and faculty on the campus.

Food Court
The Commons contains numerous eateries within the Food Court along "Market Street". They include: 2.Mato, Copperhead Jacks, Halal Shack, Hissho, Retriever Burger Co., Sorrentos, Student Choice, and Wild Greens . Other establishments include Dunkin’ Donuts and The Fireside Lounge on the third floor.

Future plans
According to the 2009 Master Plan, plans call for another student center entitled the "Student Life Building". This building is proposed to be located to the north of The Commons along Erickson Field. This building will add additional student space, as well as reinforce the student core of the campus.

title: UMBC University Commons


text:
Kayaushka

Kayaushka (Каяушка) is a rural locality (a selo) and the administrative center of Kayaushinsky Selsoviet, Rodinsky District, Altai Krai, Russia. The population was 424 as of 2013. There are 4 streets.

Geography
Kayaushka is located on the banks of the Kuchuk river, 17 km east of Rodino (the district's administrative centre) by road. Zelyonaya Dubrava is the nearest rural locality.

title: Kayaushka


text:
faoileag

Etymology
From, from +. Cognate with 🇨🇬 and 🇨🇬,.

Noun

 * 1) seagull; black-headed gull
 * 2) white crest on the waves

Usage notes
See also.

Quotations

 * Seagull. A seagull was lying dead at Anna's feet.

title: faoileag


text:
stracci

Noun

 * : rags, tatters

Noun

 * 1)  a type of cannelloni shaped pasta farced with stuffing of chopped veal, tomato sauce, onions, carrots, olive oil, salt, pepper, pecorino cheese, scamorza cheese, celery

title: stracci


text:
plesti

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1)  to plait
 * 2)  to knit
 * 3)  to braid
 * 4)  to weave
 * 5)  to entwine

Etymology
From.

Verb

 * 1) to plait
 * 2) to weave
 * 3) to braid

title: plesti


text:
'd better

Verb

 * You'd better slow down. The police are behind us.
 * You'd better slow down. The police are behind us.

Derived terms

 * you'd better believe it

title: 'd better


text:
User:Hend8304/sandbox

Gnotobiosis (from Greek roots gnostos "known" and bios "life") is a condition in which all the forms of life present within an organism can be accounted for. Typically gnotobiotic organisms are germ-free or gnotophoric (having only one contaminant).

History
The first discussion of the concept of gnotobiotics is generally attributed to the postulations of Louis Pasteur in the late 19th century, in which he questioned whether animals could survive without microbes. From the late 1890's through the 1920's, numerous scientists attempted gnotobiotic experiments with limited success. The success of these experiments was limited mostly due to the lack of knowledge surrounding nutrition and the biochemical implications of steam sterilizing food, which can degrade essential vitamins. Major accomplishments in the field of gnotobiotics in the early years (1930-1950s) came from primarily Notre Dame University, The University of Lund, and Nagoya University.

The Laboratories of Bacteriology, University of Notre Dame (known as LOBUND), founded by James Reyniers, is cited for making some of the most notable achievements in the field of gnotobiotic research by conducting more expansive tests on some of the first germ-free rats in 1939 and by reducing the cost of isolators. Early isolators were bulky and costly steel containers that were designed to withstand high pressure steam sterilization techniques. Refined sterilization techniques and manufacturing changes from LOBUND significantly reduced the size and cost of isolators, making gnotobiotic research more universally accessible.

Despite numerous advances in gnotobiotic research and technologies, setting up and maintaining a gnotobiotic research facility remains relatively expensive. In 2015 the costs of maintaining gnotobiotic mice cages was greater than 4 times the cost of rearing non-gnotobiotic mice. This increased cost remains a challenge for starting and operating gnotobiotic laboratories, especially if the main source of funds is through federal grants from institutions such as the NIH.

Gnotobiotic animals
A gnotobiotic animal is an animal in which only certain known strains of bacteria and other microorganisms are present. Technically, the term also includes germ-free animals, as the status of their microbial communities is also known. However, the term gnotobiotic is often incorrectly contrasted with germ-free.

Gnotobiotic animals (also "gnotobiotes" or "gnotobionts") are born in aseptic conditions, which may include removal from the mother by Caesarean section and immediate transfer of the newborn to an isolator where all incoming air, food and water is sterilized. Such animals are normally reared in a sterile or microbially-controlled laboratory environment, and they are only exposed to those microorganisms that the researchers wish to have present in the animal. These gnotobiotes are used to study the symbiotic relationships between an animal and one or more of the microorganisms that may inhabit its body. This technique is important for microbiologists because it allows them to study only a select few symbiotic interactions at a time (see Scientific control), whereas animals that develop under normal conditions may quickly acquire a microbiota that includes hundreds or thousands of unique organisms.

Animals reared in a gnotobiotic colony often have poorly developed immune systems, lower cardiac output, thin intestinal walls and high susceptibility to infectious pathogens.

Such animals may also be used in animal production, especially in the rearing of pigs. After the Caesarean birth, these animals are introduced to their natural microflora in a stepwise fashion. This avoids undesired infections and leads to faster growth.

Gnotobiotic Fish
Fish have a numerous advantages as model organisms for gnotobiotic research. Overall fish generally have a significantly higher number of offspring per reproductive event compared to mammals. This can range upwards of thousands of eggs, each of which is contained in a protective outer membrane, the chorion. This chorion membrane allows for the eggs to be easily sanitized prior to rearing in a gnotobiotic environment, removing the need to preform invasive surgeries such as a caesarean section. Another advantage is that fish eggs develop quickly, easily allowing for multi-generational studies. Like in mammals, the microbiota of fish have been attributed to nutrient digestion, immune system stimulation, intestinal development, and other important physiological processes. Thus fish raised in a gnotobiotic environment can display numerous physiological changes compared to those exposed to normal environmental microorganisms.

Historically gnotobiotic fish have been used for human research because of their importance as a model organism. However, with the increased prevalence of aquaculture for sustainable food production, gnotobiotic studies focused on maximizing production and maintaining healthy captive populations are becoming more prevalent. Though these studies are becoming of increasing importance for their implications on farm raised fish dietary and immunological processes, the majority of research is still only conducted on a few species of fish, such as the zebra fish. Since there are many species of fish currently raised in aquaculture, the small number of fish species used in gnotobiotic research is still a known limitation for this growing field.

title: User:Hend8304/sandbox


text:
Talk:Introductory Ancient Greek Language/Lesson 3

in the singular chart, whats that symbol over the w in vocative, it looks like a inverted pyrmid composed of 3 dots.

 * ὦ is a circumflex(ed?) omega with smooth breathing.
 * https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ὦ
 * or,
 * https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E1%BD%A6

 * George Rodney Maruri Game (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Does the definite article follow only this declension model?
When the same word works as a pronoun there are three declension models.

Thereby, my doubt.

George Rodney Maruri Game (discuss • contribs) 15:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


text:
User:Benjy Hall/be bold

'''Being bold is important on Wikipedia. It really is. Being bold is important on Wikipedia. Yep it sure is.

title: User:Benjy Hall/be bold


text:
Talk:Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories/Archive 7

Reversed article move
Since a small portion of the incidents of contact are fairly well established empirical fact, the recent rename didn't really make sense as an umbrella term for all the content on the page. The current (and original) title/location make more sense for referring to both well-accepted and more theoretical and/or controversial views. The article already spends a good deal of effort making a distinction between the two, especially after the recent multi-party efforts to clean things up. Snow (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The page has been moved once again with an edit summary that reads: "Gun Powder Ma moved page Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses over redirect: per consensus on talk page: only the Norse event refers to actual contact and this is not even the main article about it." Two points - one, the alluded to consensus on this issue does not exist - the move was taken unilaterally and without broaching it on the talk page (though clearly it was good faith). The move was acknowledged briefly by one user, but that is hardly consensus support. Second, if the new article title is inconsistent with even one constituent then the title is inappropriate as an umbrella term and the title should not be changed, especially if there is already a serviceable and more broadly accurate title. Third, the argument that only the Norse example "refers to actual contact" is a judgement call on the content, creating an arbitrary and subjective division of the material that is inconsistent with WP:NPOV and the focus of the article -- that is, examining the premise of pre-columbian contact and providing the various proposed occurrences and presenting what the sources say about their veracity. In fact, titles with any unnecessary quality judgment about the content are specifically precluded by policy. What's more, this position entirely misses the actual recent consensus we formed here as a result of the "fringe RfC; that is, that it is not our palce to make judgments on the plausibility of these various proposed incidents but rather to simply report what the sources say; adding that word to the title unfairly labels burdens each empirical argument found in the article (as well as any that may be added later) with the judgment that the word implies.  Lastly, the editor should know that edit warring over this matter (especially without bringing the issue to the talk page for discussion) is inappropriate, as is misrepresenting the change as justified by significant consensus.  (If there are comments I have missed that do justify that determination, I apologize, though I think I've been clean over the page).  I won't revert the title again for now, as I hope we can get some comments here and form a genuine consensus, but my position is that the new title constitutes obvious issues with NPOV, verifiability, specific provisions that govern article titles and common sense. Snow (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Upon re-reading that edit summary, it occurs to me that the consensus being referred to may be that the Norse example was the only "proven" one, rather than that the consensus was that the title move was appropriate. If so, I apologize for my earlier assumption, but I also reiterate that this is not a call for us to be making; our job is to present what reputable sources have to say on the matter, not present our own assessments on how the evidence stacks up, and these restrictions carry over into how we organize and label content as much as how we word our prose. Snow (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd rather argue that we would get a lot more trouble with the aforementioned WP policies if we continue using the factoid title "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact" despite the fact that every single proposed contact presented in the article is at best a very small minority view and at worst WP:Fringe. The only confirmed and historical example is the Norse settlement, but this is not even the main article here but Norse colonization of the Americas. With 20 or so hypotheses to one actual historical event, every sense of WP:Balance requires this article to be named along the lines of the former which clearly represents the bulk of the article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The title of an article should refer to the core concept explored. Pre-columbian trans-oceanic contact did occur at least once, and thus the title is not accurate.   It doesn't really matter what proportion of the constituent examples on the page may be real or fantasy because A) that's not our call to make (we only report what the sources say on the matter) and B) as we've seen in recent weeks, that content can fluctuate wildly as editors debate what constitutes verifiaible and, for that matter, as the state of current research on the matter changes.   Which is why we have policy that specifically directs us to use the more stable form that is immune to these inevitable changes.   What it boils down to is this: "Pre-columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses" does not accurately represent all content on the page, whereas ""Pre-columbian trans-oceanic contact" does, since that is still the subject matter of each of the individual examples, be they established fact or hypothetical claims (which, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, is not our determination to make in any event).  The entire article is committed to exploring the veracity of these claims (through valid sources), so the uncertain nature of these arguments is evident in those cases where they are debated, so we don't need an overarching title that inaccurately describes a subset of the incidents -- even if it is just one, but others will debate that point regardless as you should be aware from the above -- and which contains inherent POV.   That's putting the cart before the horse, in my opinion.  WP:Balance is not really relevant as we have noted the conflicting views on individual claims at length and there are no conflicting views on whether such contact has happened on at least one occasion.  Snow (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The core concept is that these are all hypotheses with very little or no basis in fact. You cannot take a single confirmed example which is not even discussed in detail here and make it your sole standard of judgement by blanking out the hypothetical character of the vast majority of the article. It takes more, much more than one swallow to make a summer. If you want to have the title "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact" all other theories save the Norse contact would have to be removed from the article in order to keep its title NPOV, because this title refers only to a single event correctly. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus for GPM's change in title; it was done unilaterally. I don't like the change (and besides, the original title has been the title for quite a while), but will accept it if there is a clear consensus in favor.  At this point there isn't, so no change until consensus.--Other Choices (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, OC, your wording is a little ambigous to me; by "no change" do you mean you think the title should be reverted to the original? Personally, though I strongly disagree with Gun's rationale, I have no problem leaving the article at its current location while we discuss the matter and it's definitely preferable to edit waring.   I'd RfC the matter, but honestly its just a little too trivial to justify such a process, I think.  And we should get some additional voices to form a more decent consensus soon enough, since the article is still getting decent traffic right now. Snow (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the title should revert to the original while editors discuss and see if there is a consensus to change. I believe that's standard procedure.--Other Choices (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not really addressing the issues I've raised, just reiterating your original points. But to address your comments again: A) They are not all hypotheses', nor is the ratio of confirmed-to-speculative content likely to hold firm over time, nor should we even be engaging in the fruitless debate about how much of the content represents "real" events to begin with. An article's title is taken from the core concept explored, not the proportion of reasonable vs. unreasonable theories explored within it.  This is why we have an article titled Evolution, not "the theory of evolution"; evolution is the central concept, for which there were/are many competing models, some of which have been debunked, some of which are widely thought to be valid, and most of which are varying degrees of controversial.  Sound familiar?  B) "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact" would address all examples (and be perfectly NPOV while doing it) since even the theoretical content are still concerned with Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact.  C) It's not our place to decide which claims are reasonable and which are not: that is for the reader to decide based upon our summarization of conclusions by acceptable sources; doing anything else is POV.   Also, to bring up a new point, "hypotheses" doesn't even apply to all of the controversial claims, since some of them are just allegorical/mythological in nature and are not usually forwarded by modern historical authorities, though that's a side issue at best when compared those discussed above.  Edited to add: Apologies if I'm coming off as curt - emphasis is solely to try to impart points which I feel I am somehow failing to convey. Snow (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 * The article title should contain the word hypotheses, and should not contain any that are not hypotheses. I agree that Pre-Columbian transatlantic contact is not appropriate. NPOVN? Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I can agree to this. The actual Norse contact should be mentioned though in order to give the reader context, but only very briefly, not as long as a chapter. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * If we were going to split the content and include only those instances which are controversial then my position might be different on the title -- and arguably that's a more elegant solution to the matter. But that's not what's been proposed here.  The question is what the title should be given that it includes claims that range from confirmed and accepted by established authorities in relevant fields all the way down to "just short of crackpot and dismissed by almost any researcher, but got a lot of press anyway." Snow (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Up for deletion: Turkey Mountain inscriptions
There are many petroglyphs located at Turkey Mountain near Tulsa, discovered by Gloria Farley in 1975 high up a rock cliff / cave facing the Arkansas River. The most famous of these, is one she figured was Ogam and Iberic, so she showed it to Barry Fell, who provided a reading G-W-N for the alleged Ogam, and P-Y-' for the Iberic. Since then several other "enthusiasts" as they have been branded, have also made reference to these petroglyphs, most notably William McNeil's book on Pre-columbian contact theory, and more than a few bloggers have hiked there and taken photographs and put them on their websites. The exact site of the glyphs is even mentioned on the Tourism map.

Now a team of editors who are overtly hostile to this situation getting any byte-space publicity on wikipedia whatsoever, has put Turkey Mountain inscriptions up for deletion. Numerous sources have been found mentioning the Farley-Fell-McNeil school of thought on this site. But the hostile editors' argument is that the inscriptions are "not notable", all the people who wrote about them are "not notable" and "unreliable", and the personal expertise of these hostile wikipedians is sufficient to trump the Farley-Fell-McNeil school of thought so thoroughly that it must not be mentioned on wikipedia and instead flushed down the memory hole on everyone else's behalf, lest any more people find out about it. Of course wp then becomes a poor source of information relatively speaking, considering researchers into this sort of thing can still easily learn all about the existence of these petroglyphs outside of wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

 * This is canvassing, as this page is not the place to discuss the proposed deletion of another article. However, to repeat what I have written elsewhere, it would indeed be appropriate for the article on the inscriptions to cover all 'theories', if the inscriptions themselves were of such note that specific theories about them existed. But we are not talking about mysterious ancient writings here. To the non Celtic-Punic afficionado, it just looks like some random person has scratched 110111 and PIA on the wall . There are many other initials and other scribblings nearby. People scratch shapes and letters on rocks all the time. It's called grafitti. A lot of it has personal or sub-cultural significance that would be indecipherable after a few years. There's no evidence these are particularly old. Imagine trying to decipher New York subway grafitti in a hundred years. The significance only exists within the "ancient contact" community, in which Fell's interpretations of these markings have been picked up and reproduced. Some few fairly mainstream but non-specialist writers have innocently read mention of them and repeated it. To use these brief mentions in "mainstream" sources as proposed by Til would just give a totally spurious weight to the Fell theory, and we would end up with a "scholarly" looking article on some grafitti which gave the impression that was extensive academic discussion about this stuff. Paul B (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Time for 2 articles
There seems to be a problem - think we need to split the article into "OLD" scientific theories that did hold merit for a time and  thoses that are pure fiction with no scientific  merit. What do people think?Moxy (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be preferable to clean up this article first, including superior sources, before arbitrarily splitting it in the way you suggest.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * .The problem with splitting is that the "pure fiction with no scientific merit" off-spin could be immediately subject of a RfD because being so bewilderingly fringe. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually think this is very clear - We have topics that have had scientific merit and scrutiny (even if they are denounced) ..and on the other hand we have fictional accounts of what may be possible with no actual scientific process. We have two different things going on here - some are scientific theories and some are simply guess work .. would we add Brad Meltzer ideas here - no - but in a fictional accounts article we could. Moxy (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not really. We have material that has some kind of scientific basis, and we have material that is legendary and/or fringe, but no one has ever advocated introducing patently fictional material. What would be best here would be to decide what gets included (notable legend and pseudohistory will have sources discussing and debunking it) and working out the problems with this article before we effectively create a new one with a new scope.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that a split in content -- along the lines of those theories which are still considered (by the scientific/historical community at large) to have some potential viability and those which are not held in such a light -- is probably in order, but I don't think a second article is warranted. I think the existing second section serves just as well, but the wording should perhaps be established in a more careful and pragmatic manner that demonstrates the separation is not an arbitrary one. Snow (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that a second article is not warranted. The idea of a split within the "Fringe" section seems logical -- put Menzies and Sinclair/Rosslyn down at the bottom so readers will at least know that wikipedia editors are already aware of these popular but academically unsupported ideas.  I think that the Fringe section should be trimmed further.  Does anybody disagree with the following suggestions?
 * --I think that the photos should be removed from the Fringe section, because currently they add a lot of visual "weight," unbalancing the article in favor of fringe. Of course an alternative is to add photos to the main body of the article.
 * --The Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca head section should be boiled down to one or two sentences, because it already has its own article.
 * --The African section should also be trimmed, to keep it in balance with other fringe theories.
 * @Moxy -- in the edit summary your recent revert, you made the false comment that I haven't even read Menzies' books. If you go look around the archive at the Gavin Menzies talk page, you will clearly see for yourself.  Or you might want to check my user page for my personal evaluation of Menzies.  Your characterization of Menzies' work as "fiction" is your own personal point of view, which probably doesn't belong in an edit summary or on this talk page.  If you would like to discuss our differences of opinion regarding the merits of Menzies' work, you're welcome to do so on my talk page.
 * --Other Choices (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hes a great author - I just hope you dont think hes work is scientific. Your supporting a guy that claims the North Pole was  300 miles further south than it is now (it was not). So  lets quote the experts and what they think of is work "A work of sheer fiction presented as revisionist history. Not a single document or artifact has been found to support his new claims on the supposed Ming naval expeditions beyond Africa...Menzies' numerous claims and the hundreds of pieces of "evidence" he has assembled have been thoroughly and entirely discredited by historians, maritime experts and oceanographers from China, the U.S., Europe and elsewhere". If you like I can recommend many books that are scholarly and not a work of  fiction on this topic.Moxy (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Menzes' work is not fiction. It's not credible history, but he claims it to be true. And there are many available sources responding to these claims of fact by debunking them; this doesn't happen with fictional works. As pseudohistory this one's pretty notable; debunking sources can and should be used in discussing generally unaccepted hypotheses.Cúchullain t/ c 02:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Cuchullain's point is well made, but in general, I try to respect WP:TPG, which says: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Once again, I would be pleased to exchange views regarding Menzies and his scholarly reception on my own talk page, but not here.
 * --Other Choices (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why to your talk page as seen by the links its not a personal view - its a referenced fact. The info  is here in this article and is in dispute - the info is not on your talk page its here inserted  in this article. We can move the talk to the section above or a new section. But to move it to your talk page would be useless. I agree with  Cuchullain assessment but that does not negate the fact is call "fiction" by most scholars in this field. I can provided more links to this fact but I think we all know this to be true.  All that said the article was moved to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses so I think its more clear now the page will contain non-scientific entires.   Moxy (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Moxy, it appears that you have confused hyperbolic metaphor with literal truth.--Other Choices (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have provided refs for my assertion - got any ref for your opinion its factual? Moxy (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You appear to be confusing what can be properly said in a wikipedia article (backed up by "reliable sources" -- end of argument) with questions of fact or truth (which allow and require us to use our own judgment as we evaluate the credibility of what we read or hear). Your interpretation of the meaning of your source is your own personal point of view.  I and some other editors don't share your personal point of view.  If you insist that your personal interpretation is the same as objective fact, that comes across as arrogance.  For the wikipedia project to work, we need to respect differences of opinion.  Nobody likes having other people's opinions shoved down his throat.--Other Choices (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not "my opinions" is what the references say and have linked for you. Thus far I have provided references to back up what you call my opinion. You have not. Your talking to someone with much more experience with wiki then yourself. Take a look a my user page and see what I write about - If only there was a a bit of genetic evidence then perhaps the world would listen.Moxy (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Moxy, you're getting caught up in terminology. "Fiction" is an imaginary story not intended to be taken as factual, for instance the Bred Meltzer novels you mention above. No one has ever advocated including material like that at this article. On the other hand, Menzies clearly intends for his books to be taken as true. Critics may call them "fictional" rhetorically, but that's different than equating them with a novel. What we can do here is indicate plainly that historians reject Menzies' ideas, but we don't necessarily remove something just because it's untrue if it's otherwise notable.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Moxy, one of us is clearly impressed with how long you have been around here at wikipedia. For all I know, you've been doing a good job.  Your opinion of your source is very different from my opinion of your source.  I would be pleased to discuss my opinion of your source on my talk page, but not here, because it's not relevant to this article.
 * Just because a "reliable source" says something doesn't mean that you can expect other editors to agree that it is true or correct.
 * --Other Choices (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hell, the sheer outlandishness of Menzies' claims ironically seem to be the very thing that make them so notable, drawing criticism from all corners of serious scholarship as they seem to do. That being said, I suspect from his previous comments that Moxy understands the distinction being made and the he too was only using "fiction" in the rhetorical sense.   To some degree I share his vexation that someone who seems to have dubious regard for accurate historical work can have his far-fetched theories cited through the sheer ballsiness of his claims even as we continue to excise other sections from the article.  But that's the way notability works sometimes and Menzies has clearly racked up quite a bit of attention, both within scholarship and in broader media -- more than enough to preserve his place in the current article, though I dare say it wouldn't be overkill to supply four or five sources dismissing his claims, since these are easy enough to aquire. Snow (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Inclined to agree about how notability works. Actually, the current brief mention of Menzies is footnoted with four scholarly refutations.  Nuff said, it's really short, leave it the way it is.  The Paul Chiasson reference, however, is unsourced and therefore, in my mind, a candidate for deletion.--Other Choices (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I would not support a split. But rather a table (with limited space for content) and not a whole section to present each fringe theory. A whole section is too much and since fringe theories are aparently endless they would take upp to much space in the table of contents. Chiton (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to a split because the split would violate WP:POVFORK. Op47 (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Request move

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, in part for consistency with Timeline of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. I find the Opposes to the initial proposition more numerous and convincing, especially arguments that adding "hypotheses" in the title isn't needed when the text/lede is clear, as with other similar topics; the support for the singular "contact" seems well-established (also per WP:SINGULAR) and as the previous stable version in June 2012. Please move protection if the article is moved again without new consensus. :) · Salvidrim!  ·  ✉  04:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contacts → Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses – Current title is misleading and WP:POV, even bordering WP:Fringe: it creates the false impression that there were actual contacts between the Old World and New World before the European Age of Exploration when in fact standard research says there were not. From the myriads of hypotheses given in the article, only a single example stands up to scrutiny, the Norse colonization of the Americas, and this is not the main article for this event. Therefore, Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses to stress the thoroughly hypothetical nature of the examples provided. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I noticed we already have another article about the confirmed contacts named Timeline of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, meaning that currently both the hypothetical/fringe and the actual oceanic contacts go by the same article name with no attempt at differentiation between fact and fantasy. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Comment. They found a Viking settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland, so I don't think there is any question that was in fact pre-Columbian oceanic contact. Kauffner (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 * As I wrote, this contact event, the only confirmed one, is covered in the main article Norse colonization of the Americas, not here. It is only briefly listed here so as to contrast it with all the following hypotheses which constitute the essence and bulk of the article. I count 25+ unsubstantiated theories in the article, should they all pass off uncritically as actual "contacts" because of a single confirmed example? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Support, per nom.  Mini  apolis  00:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - there is additional debate for and against this proposed title above in the section "Reversed move", from previously when multiple editors reversed GPM's previous temporary moves to this same title. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reluctant oppose. I agree with the motivation behind this but it makes the title more unwieldy and unnatural. We have to draw a line at some point; we can't convey all the nuances of a neutral article in the title alone; that's what the lede and the body of the article are for. We don't have an article at Crystal healing is quackery, it won't actually heal you - instead we just have an article at Crystal healing and then we explain that it's bunkum in the text of the article. I would support changes to the article text which dispel a couple of myths and emphasise what reliable sources say; but I would not support this change to the title. (Anyway, "hypotheses" sounds a bit sciency to the average reader, and might therefore give implicit support to that which we're trying to oppose. ;-) bobrayner (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Split into two articles - what is needed is a stricter separation of topic. This article would be about those Pre-Columbian contacts that are accepted by mainstream archaeologists and historians (Viking settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows, possible contact by European fishermen who landed to dry their cod. etc). The proposed "Hypothesis" article would be about those theorized contacts that are not accepted by the mainstream.  We merge articles all the time... what I am suggesting would be its opposite... a "de-merge", if you will. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In other words - to separate the ones "we're trying to oppose" as BobRayner put it, from the ones we're not trying to oppose? (All quite neutrally, of course - we wouldn't dream of overstepping our  bounds here, would we?) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No "opposition" intended... the idea is simply to separate the mainstream views from the fringe views (and the notable fringe views from the non-notable fringe views). We do it all the time on Wikipedia.  Standard practice. Blueboar (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. The point is we cannot let run the hypothetical fringe article under the same affirmative name ("trans-oceanic contacts") as the hard facts article. Gun Powder Ma (talk)

 * Oppose: some pre-Columbian contacts are accepted by the mainstream. --Omar-toons (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Outside of the Norse, which ones? Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The abundance of Punic inscriptions reported all along the entire Atlantic coast of North and South America cannot be explained by pranksters. Why would pranksters from Canada to Tierra del Fuego all pick the same language to fake inscriptions in, and hide them over the course of several centuries?  Yet these uncomfortable facts have always been a raw sore spot for propagandists and revisionists, who historically it seems have stopped at nothing to squelch all talk of anyone being able to cross the ocean before Columbus. There have been entire books published for decades exposing the "NEBC Principle", but you probably won't read that on wp, because  these books will have been black-balled by the know-it-alls here.  One of their favorite "logical" arguments is to compare the idea of people crossing the ocean in boats, something quite feasible, with the idea of people coming down in spaceships - something totally far fetched. I never found the NEBC arguments compelling.  I don't believe in people coming down from spaceships and have a hard time swallowing that one, but the idea of people crossing the ocean in boats is much easier for me to consider, especially with the corpus of Punic inscriptions in America.  So the POV pushers who cannot see past their own noses or cannot see other schools of thought beside their own being valid, really it is high time they came up with some more compelling rhetoric, and acknowledged that they do not have a monopoly on human thought and never will. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment That's nonsense, but in any case we aren't going to state the claim as fact the way we state Norse contact. So why oppose a move which separates up suggestions with accepted contact. And the main reason the Punic stuff is rejected is not the NEBC principle but the 'lack of archaeological evidence' principal. Punic inscriptions up and down the Atlantic Coast of both continents yet no archaeological evidence? Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a few who have considered these objects seriously, but most archaeologists refuse to, and it's obvious why - because the ones that do, by an amazing circular reasoning, are suddenly no longer "archaeologists" but are labeled "cranks" just for discussing that these objects exist. But I don't see how this process is a substitute for archaelogy actually addressing the objects in question. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Weak support. It doesn't matter that one of them is certainly true, or even if some others may be. They are still hypotheses (or 'models' or 'theories' or 'claims') of contact. Having said that, I don't think it's very important. As long as the context explains the arguments and puts the consensus view of the various hypotheses the precise wording of the title is not crucial IMO. Paul B (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Support This article deals with unproven hypotheses. The only verified contact is L'anse aux Meadows, but that is merely for comparison.  If really consider L'anse aux meadows to be a problem, it can easily be removed. Athenean (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Oppose. However, the article should be moved back to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact (singular), where it was before Gun Powder Ma's July 2012 move. Of course L'Anse aux Meadows needs to be discussed, at least briefly, in any article of this nature. And that's a 'hypothesis' in the same misleading sense that gravity and evolution are 'hypotheses'. In addition there is the very promising hypothesis of Polynesian contact, on which a lot of serious researchers seem to be working at the moment. The fringe theories are marked very clearly as such (perhaps too blatantly), and I note that we have plenty of articles with titles such as ghost, witchcraft, Yeti, Loch Ness Monster, Curse, God, philosopher's stone, panacea, soul, transubstantiation, Pope Joan, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Christian Science, cold fusion, Hollow Earth, Time Cube etc., all with no indication in the title that there is a problem with the concept described by it. And that's exactly as it should be. Returning to the long-standing singular title will solve any perceived POV problem anyway, as there is simply no doubt about the Norse settlement in North America and the only open question is whether it was the only such contact. Hans Adler 19:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Your reasoning has a logical fallacy. There is no such thing as a generally confirmed Loch Ness Monster or Yeti for which separate, affirmative articles exist as does Norse colonization of the Americas and Timeline of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact do for the Viking discovery of America. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you just trolling or are you for real? If that was an honest attempt to communicate a rational objection, then please try again. And I suggest doing it without insults. They have a tendency to backfire. Hans Adler 18:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You created the problem in the first place, by moving this article from "... contact" to "... contact hypotheses". Due to a bot edit after the move, the article couldn't be simply moved back, and so it is now at the title "... contacts", which stresses the individual hypotheses and creates an expectation that there was more than one. (Probably true as Polynesian contact is likely, but not really known.)
 * To spell it out: A title "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact(s)" implies no more that such a thing exists than a title "God" or "Flying Spaghetti Monster" implies that such a thing exists. All three are things that people have thought about, that some believe in, some don't, and whose existence some have tried to prove with various means. The only difference is that at least one form of Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
 * Your point about lists makes no sense, but even if it did, there are of course other legitimate articles such as List of cryptids and Cosmology, which discuss hypotheses together due to similarities that have nothing to do with whether they are believed to be correct or whether they are sheer lunacy. Hans Adler 00:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe that the editors who are supporting this move have actually looked at the article. They are acting as if this article were some kind of trick to promote fringe theories through association with legitimate scholarship and therefore must be punished by branding its title, with no regard for collateral damage (L'Anse aux Meadows). Ridiculous. What the article does is absolutely clear: It gives the answers and tentative answers (some obviously wrong) that were given to the question: "Was there pre-Columbian transoceanic contact, and if so, when, how often and between whom?" This question has been moving people for quite some time, and there is nothing fringe about answering it and listing the various fringe ideas properly contextualised. Hans Adler 00:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Support Per Athenean. The title is misleading given it details theories, not confirmed positions that are generally agreed upon by the historical community. John Smith's (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Comment. This article and Timeline of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact take for granted the contact is with the New World, but they don't say so - and they should say so.  There were many examples of trans-oceanic contact that occurred before Columbus.  The titles as they stand do not seem to exclude contact that occurred within an extranovomundane context.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  01:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Timeline of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact??? Now that's a problematic article title! Under a sane interpretation the article will remain as almost empty as it is right now for a while. So it's completely redundant. It would only make sense if it included a lot of fringe theories (POV problem) or specifically tried to disprove them by showing their timelines make no sense (opposite POV problem as it's fully sufficient to disprove them inline).
 * But not explicitly indicating the New World in the title is not a problem. That's implicit in "pre-Columbian". A descriptive article title doesn't have to give a pedantically complete description. Hans Adler 09:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 * move back to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, though I could support Blueboar's split proposal as well. "Hypotheses" is euphemistic. Mangoe (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Oppose instead move back to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, as the Norse are proven and the Yupik/Aleut/Inuit trans-Bering contact is not listed in this article. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose if you write the lead properly you will not have to worry about this problem. not a fan of using titles to bend opinion one way or the other. Let the text make the case --not the title. --Inayity (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Oppose per others, particularly Hans. "Hypotheses" isn't necessary. The article's subject is, well, trans-oceanic contacts in Pre-Columbian America. The article body is the place to clarify which ones happened, which ones may have happened, and which ones are bunk. In general the article could use some serious cleanup.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bobrayner and move back per WP:SINGULAR. --BDD (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see the proposed title being anymore NPOV than the current one. I can't really say I have seen the term hypotheses included in any article titles wherein details are debated (Creation geophysics), with the noted exception of common names (ex: Anatolian hypothesis). Since no argument is being made on a commonname basis, I don't see the move request are being appropriate. But as noted by others "contacts" should be made singular per WP:SINGULAR.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Move back to contact, and a 100% oppose to the proposal. I'm pretty sure the Viking landing is more than a hypothesis, thanks. Red Slash 23:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and move back to contact (not "contacts"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Choices (talk • contribs) 09:54, 20 February 2013

"established beyond reasonable doubt"
The lede currently contains the statement that "only one instance of pre-Columbian European contact – the Norse settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland, Canada c. 1000 AD – is established beyond reasonable doubt." The citation for this statement is defective -- it doesn't support the statement in any way; it's just a link to a tourism site. I think this statement in the lede should be either supported or deleted.--Other Choices (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. "Official" reference from UNESCO/World Heritage List added for L'Anse aux Meadows. Alandeus (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this
This news article is about some Arabic coins that were found on the coast of Australia, leading to speculation about Arab traders having visited Australia around 900AD. While this would certainly count as "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact", it is not explicitly related to the Americas. Something should be mentioned, since it doesn't appear to be fringe. -- Auric    talk  13:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation request for lead
I've raised this at WP:RSN trying to explain that "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is interaction between indigenous peoples of the Americas who settled the Americas before 10,000 BC, and peoples of other continents (Africa, Asia, Europe, or Oceania), which occurred before the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Caribbean in 1492." defines the article and doesn't need a source. I've also (in my edit summaries) tried to get User:Mercy11 to say exactly what needs sourcing, but he's failed to respond either here or on my talk page. Someone has cited the sentence but I doubt very much that the source actually backs the statement. And I see nothing controversial. Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that User:Mercy11 is demanding a citation for the implied assumption that people settled the Americas before 10,000 BC. If that is indeed the case, then the Settlement of the Americas article could be a useful reference.  Did the "Clovis" culture flourish 10,000 years ago or 12,000 years ago?  (Scholarly debate on that one.)  Were there other human groups in the Americas before "Clovis"?  That seems to be a no-brainer, but I see enough ambiguity and weasel-wording that I can sort of understand the demand for a citation.  But of course I'm just speculating about what User:Mercy11 has in mind here.--Other Choices (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You may be right, the editor has refused to explain. No matter what, it's nitpicking of a kind we don't need. A discussion here could have changed the date or the sentence. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove the Henry Sinclair voyage from fringe theories, and put it under probable fact
The only evidence presented to reject a voyage by the Scots (via Earl Henry Sinclair) is the dubious meanings of carvings in Roslyn Chapel. But that is far from the only evidence that the Scots reached north America.

Concrete evidence includes ruins in New Ross, Nova Scotia that date back to prior to colonial history and the Newport Tower in Providence RI. Neither structure fits known Norse building methods/architecture, but tend to fit Scottish Masonic style from the time frame of Henry Sinclair.

Less direct evidence includes the name of Nova Scotia. Also the local native American tribe - Miqmaqs - build lodges very similar to Scottish at the time, and not at all like the neighboring tribes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjones1972 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you could point us to a reliable source that contains the information you mention, that would be helpful.--Other Choices (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You might also want to review WP:REDFLAG. In a nutshell, exceptional claims (such as the alleged Henry Sinclair voyage) require multiple high-quality sources.  That's just one of the wikipedia "filters" that we all have to deal with.--Other Choices (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

 * agreed. The mainstream and academic view is that this never took place. Dougweller (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)