text:
Lojban/Vocabulary 1

Wordlist

 * doi
 * coi
 * be'e
 * je'e
 * je'enai
 * co'o
 * re'i
 * re'inai
 * zo
 * ma
 * la
 * mi

 * smuni
 * gismu
 * lujvo
 * tanru
 * sumti
 * bridi
 * cmavo
 * cmene

cmavo
doi      DOI      vocative marker generic vocative marker; identifies intended listener; elidable after COI

coi      COI      greetings vocative: greetings/hello

be'e     COI      request to send vocative: request to send/speak

je'e     COI      roger vocative: roger (ack) - negative acknowledge; used to acknowledge offers and thanks

je'enai  COI*     negative acknowledge vocative: roger (ack) - negative acknowledge; I didn't hear you

co'o     COI      partings vocative: partings/good-bye

re'i     COI      ready to receive vocative: ready to receive - not ready to receive

re'inai  COI*     not ready to receive vocative: ready to receive - not ready to receive

zo       ZO       1-word quote quote next word only; quotes a single Lojban word (not a cmavo compound or tanru)

ma       KOhA7    sumti ? pro-sumti: sumti question (what/who/how/why/etc.); appropriately fill in sumti blank

la       LA       that named name descriptor: the one(s) called ... ; takes name or selbri description

mi       KOhA3    me                    pro-sumti: me/we the speaker(s)/author(s); identified by self-vocative

doi
{doi} works like vocatives like {coi}. A speaker or author tells who they want to listen or read after this word. {do} stands for the listener.

In English poetry sometimes people say O before names, but usually people just put the name at the beginning or the end of a sentence separated from the rest by a comma or as a sentence of its own. In English, people also say "Hey" before names. This carries the added effect of getting someone's attention.

If I felt like saying something completely useless, I would say {doi do}, identifying the listener as the person listening.

Can someone say {doi} by itself (without a name following like I can with the rest of the vocatives)?

coi
Near the beginning of a conversation or upon noticing another Lojban speaker to talk to, a Lojban speaker will often say {coi}. The listener usually replies {coi}.

This has about the same meaning as the English words "Hi", "Hello", "Howdy", and "Greetings". As with most of the vocatives, I can follow it with a name. It must either have la or a mandatory pause between {coi} and the name.

A common Lojban phrase {coi ro do} means "Hi, all.".

{coinai} means the opposite of {coi}, and therefore "goodbye", but most people say {co'o} to express that thought.

be'e
A Lojban speaker not speaking, wanting to speak, and not sure if other speakers will allow him/her to speak will sometimes say {be'e} to ask permission.

In English, people usually only ask to speak on formal occasions like the courtroom and in large meetings. In school students raise their hands for a turn to speak. When people say "Excuse me.", they don't expect someone to deny them from speaking. They also ask "May I have a word with you?" Like most vocatives, I can follow {be'e} with the listener.

While I see {be'enai} as correct grammar, I can't figure out a meaning for it beyond "Ha ha, I know a cmavo you don't!"

''To me, {be'enai} seems fairly obvious: "Permission not to speak?" which could be used in a fairly similar way to "No comment!" but asking permission not to comment rather than refusing.''

je'e
{je'e} acknowledges that the speaker heard and understands the last utterance. As with most vocatives, I can follow {je'e} and {je'enai} with the name of the listener.

In English, people acknowledge "Thank you.", with "Welcome.". They say "I heard." to acknowledge they heard the last utterance. They say "I understand." To point out they understand the last utterance. "Okay." also acknowledges the last utterance, but carries more hint of agreement than {je'e}. To show that nearly anyone would understand an utterance, English speakers sometimes use the word "Duh!".

{je'enai} means the opposite of {je'e}. It means "I did not hear and/or I did not understand."

In English people say "Huh?" or "Wha?" or "What?" to denote similar meanings.

co'o
A Lojban speaker says {co'o} to another Lojban speaker shortly before ending conversation or close proximity to the second Lojban speaker. The second Lojban speaker often replies {co'o}. As with most other vocatives, I can follow {co'o} with a name.

English phrases with similar meanings include "Goodbye.", "So long.", and "See you later.".

{co'onai} means the opposite of {co'o}, but Lojban speakers seem to prefer {coi} to express this meaning nearly unanimously. I like {coi} better because it has two less syllables.

re'i
This word signifies that the speaker can listen to the listener. I can follow {re'i} with a name like most vocatives to signify the listener.

English phrases with similar meanings include "Go ahead.", "I'm all ears.", and "I'm listening."

la daniel. cusku zo be'e .i la kleir. cusku zo re'i Daniel says, "May I have a word with you?". Claire says, "Go ahead.".

{re'inai} means the opposite of {re'i}. Therefore it means the speaker cannot listen to the listener.

In English {re'inai} translate to "Sorry, I'm busy.", "I'm not accepting visitors.", and "I can't listen right now."

zo
{zo} quotes the next word. By quoting the next word, a speaker can refer to a word as a word instead of as its meaning. {zo broda} has about the same meaning as {lu broda li'u}, but {zo} can only quote one word.

In English, I might put a word in quotes italics to quote it. If I only wanted to quote one word, I might say "the word foo".

I can talk about the word {zo} as a word by saying {zo zo}. {zo nai} quotes the word {nai} instead of meaning the opposite of {zo}.

ma
In asking another Lojban speaker for information, a Lojban speaker might say give a bridi describing their information with a blank for the listener to insert their answer. The asker would signify that blank with {ma}. The answerer would probably not repeat the entire le bridi, but instead just the information to replace {ma} with.

In English, a person might say "What" or "blank" instead.

la
{la} must go before names, except names in vocatives where the speaker can replace it with a mandatory pause. English has no article for names. For non-names it has the articles "a", "an", and "the".

zo la gadri {la} is an article.

mi
{mi} refers to the speaker or author. An English speaker would probably say "me" to mean the same. I pronounce both the same.

If I wanted to say something that didn't mean much. I would say, {mi'e mi}, pointing out the speaker as myself.

Does {minai} mean {do}?

I believe that {minai} would mean anyone but yourself.

gismu
smuni mun smu     meaning x1 is a meaning/interpretation of x2                   recognized/seen/accepted by x3                    [referential meaning (=selsni, snismu)]; (cf. jimpe,                    sinxa, valsi, tanru, gismu, lujvo, cmavo, jufra)

gismu gim    gi'u root word x1 is a (Lojban) root word expressing relation x2                   among argument roles x3, with affix(es) x4                    [gismu list, if physical object (= (loi) gimste); referring to the mental construct (e.g. propose adding                   a new gismu to the gismu list = gimpoi, gimselcmi,                    gimselste)]; (cf. cmavo, cmene, lujvo, smuni, sumti,                    tanru, valsi)

lujvo luv jvo     affix compound x1 (text) is a compound predicate word with meaning x2 and arguments x3 built from metaphor x4                   (cf. stura, cmavo, gismu, rafsi, smuni)

tanru        tau  phrase compound x1 is a binary metaphor formed with x2 modifying x3, giving meaning x4 in usage/instance x5                   (x2 and x3 are both text or both si'o concept) (cf. gismu, smuni)

sumti sum    su'i argument x1 is a/the argument of predicate/function x2 filling place x3 (kind/number) (x1 and x2 are text); (cf. bridi, darlu, gismu)

bridi    bri      predicate x1 (text) is a predicate relationship with relation x2 among arguments (sequence/set) x3                   [also: x3 are related by relation x2 (= terbri                    for reordered places)]; (x3 is a set completely                    specified); (cf. sumti, fancu)

cmavo        ma'o structure word x1 is a structure word of grammatical class x2, with meaning/function x3 in usage (language) x4                   [x4 may be a specific usage (with an embedded language                    place) or a massified language description; x3 and x4                    may be merely an example of cmavo usage or refer to                    an actual expression; cmavo list, if physical object (= (loi) ma'oste); referring to the mental construct (e.g. propose adding a new cmavo to the cmavo list =                   ma'orpoi, ma'orselcmi, ma'orselste)]; (cf. gismu,                    lujvo, gerna, smuni, valsi)

cmene    cme me'e name x1 (quoted word(s)) is a/the name/title/tag of x2                   to/used-by namer/name-user x3 (person) [also: x2 is called x1 by x3 (= selcme for reordered                   places)]; (cf. cmavo list me'e, gismu, tcita,                    valsi, judri)

Exercises
In Exercises 1 to 11, translate the Lojban sentence to English. 1. coi. braun. e'apei mi ba te cmene do lu la bab. li'u 2. be'e meiris. mi'o ca cliva 3. ko'a cusku lu le lujvo cu lujvo li'u .i ko'e cusku zo je'e 4. ko'a cusku lu mi cmavo li'u .i ko'e cusku lu je'enai li'u 5. co'o .ednas. ko ba klama mi 6. la daniel. cusku zo be'e .i la kleir. cusku zo re'i 7. mi cusku lu be'e. reitcel. li'u le nanmu pe la reitcel. cusku lu la reitcel. cusku lu re'inai li'u li'u 8. mi cusku zo bridi .i mi na cusku tanru 9. mi cusku lu lu smuni cmene li'u tanru ma ma li'u .i la keven. cusku lu smuni cmene li'u tanru zo smuni zo cmene li'u 10. mi'e la mark. 11. le prenu pe mi te cmene mi lu la brai'an. li'u

In Exercises, 100 to 131, translate le jufra (the sentence) given. 100. le se bridi cu smuni le selbri mi .i 101. zo coi smuni zoi gy. hello .gy mi .i 102. gy. goodbye .gy smuni zo co'o mi .i 103. lu mi'e. brai'an. li'u smuni lu mi me la brai'an. li'u mi .i 104. fi la'o smuni. George Bush .smuni goi ko'a smuni fa ko'a la'o smuni. Mr. President .smuni .i 105. le ve gismu cu smuni le rafsi mi .i 106. zoi ly. gi'u .ly ve gismu zo gismu .i 107. zo smuni gismu .i 108. zo gismu gismu fi le te gismu .i 109. zo selbri gismu le du'u se bridi .i 110. zo selbri lujvo lu se bridi li'u .i 111. zo selbri lujvo zo'e le te lujvo be fa zo bridi .i 112. zo selbri se ve se lujvo lu se bridi li'u .i 113. zo selma'o lujvo fo lu se cmavo li'u .i 114. zo selma'o lujvo fi le se cmavo .i 115. zo selma'o lujvo lu se cmavo li'u le ve cmavo lu se cmavo li'u .i 116. zo selbri lujvo lu se bridi li'u le bridi lu se bridi li'u .i 117. zo tertau lujvo lu te tanru li'u le tanru lu te tanru li'u .i 118. lu gismu smuni li'u tanru zo gismu zo smuni .i 119. lu gismu lujvo li'u tanru zo gismu zo lujvo lu gismu co lujvo li'u .i 120. lu le tanru li'u cu smuni lu le ve lujvo li'u mi .i 121. zo tanru gismu zo'e le se tanru zoi ly. tau .ly .i 122. le gismu sumti dei li pa .i 123. nei sumti dei li re .i 124. li ci sumti dei li ci .i 125. zo sumti gismu .i zo sumti sumti di'u li pa .i 126. mi klama le se klama le te klama .i le te klama sumti di'u li ci .i 127. dei bridi le du'u bridi dei 128. lu le ninmu klama le nanmu li'u bridi le du'u klama le nanmu 129. do nanmu .i di'u bridi le du'u nanmu do .i 130. di'e bridi le du'u cliva la'o gy. Elvis .gy .i la'o gy. Elvis .gy cliva .i 131. zo .ui cmavo zoi selma'o. UI .selma'o lu mi gleki li'u la lojban.

In Exercises 200 to 226, give an English translation of each place of each le sumti given. 201. le smuni 202. le se smuni 203. le te smuni 204. le gismu 205. le se gismu 206. le te gismu 207. le ve gismu 208. le lujvo 209. le se lujvo 210. le te lujvo 211. le ve lujvo 212. le tanru 213. le se tanru 214. le te tanru 215. le ve tanru 216. le xe tanru 217. le sumti 218. le se sumti 219. le te sumti 220. le bridi 221. le se bridi 222. le te bridi 223. le cmavo 224. le se cmavo 225. le te cmavo 226. le ve cmavo

'''In Exercises 301 to 321, use the best word in the vocabulary of this lesson to fill in each blank of each sentence. You may use each word more than once.''' 301. Teacher: _____ is the capital of Kentucky? Pupil: Frankfort. 302. Mother: Did you hear what I just said? Daughter: _____, except I missed the part about chocolate. 303. I said "_____", and she told me, "Sorry, I can listen right now." 304. _____ name is Jessica, but my friends call me Jessie. 305. Welcome to _____ .alaskas.! 306. When I say "_____ Eliza", that means I'm talking to you. 307. I wish I could stay longer. _____ 308. If I knew le _____, I wouldn't have asked you for a definition. 309. Say "doi" and then le _____ of the person you wish to talk to. 310. _____ Robert! It's so nice to see you after all these years. 311. I wouldn't have said "_____" if I wasn't all ears. 312. Did you rent the movie, "_____, Myself & Irene"? 313. Which le rafsi did you use to make that le _____? 314. How can you call that le _____, when a phrase compound needs at least two words? 315. If f(x) = y, then f is the function and yby. _____ fy. 316. That's na ____ because any decent predicate needs at least pa le selbri. 317. ro le attitudinals are a type of word called le _____. 318. _____, but I would feel happy to listen another time. 319. ____ la romeos. _____ la romeos. Wherefore art thou Romeo? 320. _____ blue begins with the letter "b". 321. Lojban has 1342 le _____.

Answers to exercises
1. Hello Brown. May I call you Bob? 2. May I have a word with you, Mary? Let's leave. The Lojban means more "We leave." than the English. Maybe I could change that with an attitudinal meaning "suggestion" or {ko} and {mi} instead of {mi'o}. 3. The first person says, "The affix compound qualifies as an affix compound." The second person says, "I understand." 4. The first person says, "I qualify as a structure word.". The second person says, "Huh?". 5. Goodbye, Edna. Come see me in the future. 6. Daniel says, "May I have a word with you?". Claire says, "Go ahead.". 7. I said, "May I speak with you, Rachel?" The man associated with Rachel said, "Rachel said, 'I can't listen right now.'" 8. I said the word {bridi}. I did not say the word {tanru}. 9. I said, "What modifies what in the metaphor 'meaning sort of name'?" Kevin said, "In the metaphor 'meaning sort of name', 'meaning' modifies 'name'." 10. I go by the name Mark. 11. People associated with me call me "Brian".

100. According to me, "the relationship of a sentence" means "the relationship of a sentence". 101. I see "Hello" meaning {coi}. 102. I see {co'o} as meaning "Goodbye". 103. I accept the interpretation "I am Brian." for the sentence "I am Brian.". 104. George Bush accepts the interpretation of Mr. President as himself. 105. I recognize the interpretation of the affixes of a root word as the affixes of a word. 106. The word {gismu} (meaning root word) has the affix {gi'u}. 107. The word {smuni} qualifies as a root word. 108. The relationship of the word {gismu} has a role for the roles of the relationship of a root word. 109. The word {selbri} denotes the relationship {se bridi}. 110. The affix compound {selbri} means {se bridi}. 111. The relationship of the compound word {selbri} has the same roles as the compound word {bridi}. 112. The compound word {selbri} comes from the metaphor {se bridi}. 113. The word {selma'o} comes from the metaphor {se cmavo}. 114. The relationship of the word {selma'o} involves the grammatical class of a structure word. 115. The compound word {selma'o} means {se cmavo}, and its relationship involves its meaning, and it comes from the metaphor {se cmavo}. 116. The compound word {selbri} means {se bridi}, and its relationship involves the predicate, and it comes from the metaphor {se bridi}. 117. The compound word {tertau} means {te tanru}, and its relationship involves a binary metaphor, and it comes from the metaphor {te tanru}. 118. "Root word sort of meaning" qualifies a binary metaphor with "root word" modifying "meaning". 119. In binary metaphor "Root word sort of compound word", "root word" modifies "compound word", and it means "compound word of root word sort". 120. According to me, "metaphor made into compound word" means "binary metaphor". 121. The root word {tanru} denotes the relationship involving the modifier of the metaphor, and has the affix {tau}. 122. The root word is in the current utterance filling the first role. 123. The current utterance is in the current predicate filling the second role. 124. Three is in the current utterance filling the third role. 125. The word {sumti} qualifies as a root word. The word {sumti} is in the previous utterance filling the first role. 126. I go to the destination from the origin. The destination is in the previous utterance filling the third place. 127. The current utterance qualifies as a predicate with the predicate relationship and the role the current utterance. 128. The predicate "The woman goes to the man." involves the going relationship and the role of the man. 129. You qualify as a man. The last utterance involves the man relationship and the argument you. 130. The next utterance qualifies as a predicate involving the leaving relationship and Elvis. Elvis leaves. 131. The structure word {.ui} comes from the grammatical class {UI}, means I feel happiness, and is used in the Lojban language.

201. meaning 202. symbol with meaning 203. interpreter of meaning 204. root word 205. relationship expressed by root word 206. roles in relationship expressed by root word 207. affixes of root word 208. compound word 209. meaning of compound word 210. roles of relationship of compound word 211. metaphor used to make compound word 212. binary metaphor 213. modifier of metaphor 214. modified of metaphor 215. meaning of metaphor 216. usage of metaphor 217. argument 218. predicate of argument 219. role filled by argument 220. predicate 221. relationship of predicate 222. argument of predicate 223. structure word 224. grammatical class of structure word 225. meaning of structure word 226. language of structure word

301. ma 302. je'e 303. be'e 304. mi 305. la 306. doi 307. co'o 308. smuni 309. cmene 310. coi 311. re'i 312. mi 313. lujvo 314. tanru 315. sumti 316. bridi 317. cmavo 318. re'inai 319. doi, doi 320. zo 321. gismu

title: Lojban/Vocabulary 1


text:
Chinese (Mandarin)/Lesson 3

= Lesson 3: 助詞 = The Chinese language employs heavy usage of particles to modify the meaning of characters and sentences. Since Chinese has neither inflections nor tense, the mastery of particles is an absolute must if one is to fully comprehend both written and spoken Chinese. Below, you will find some of the most common particles in everyday Chinese.

The De {的} particle
Example: 她 的   名字   是   金妮. Tā de míngzi shì Jīnní. Her name is Ginny.

Example 她是一个美丽的姑娘 Tā shì yīge měilì de gū’niang. She is a beautiful girl.

where "美丽" "beautiful" is an adjective, and

Example 研究是一个科学的过程 Yánjīu shì yígè kēxué dè guòchéng Researching is a scientific process.

and where "科学" is a noun in Chinese and is turned into adjective using "的".

The Le {了} / Liăo {了} particle
Perfective Aspect Particle

Example:

他 走  了. Tā zŏu le. He has gone. ※The "le" here is used to modify 走 (zŏu, to go) into an action which has already been completed.

Example:

別  再   打扰  我  了! 別  再   打擾  我  了! Bié zài dărăo wŏ le! Do not bother me again!

※In this instance, le is used in conjunction with bié ("do not") to form an imperative. Note: most imperatives are not formed using this construction.

Example:

我 实在    吃  不  了   了. 我 實在    吃  不  了   了. Wŏ shízài chī bù liăo le. I cannot possibly eat any more.

At first glance, this sentence may seem a bit daunting as it includes two instances of the le particle, paired side-by-side. However, the first le is understood to be liăo given its placement (bù + le is a nonsensical pairing). Therefore, liăo serves to indicate the capability of eating any further and le emphasizes this assertion.

The Zhe [着] particle showing continuation
1. 他睡着觉时有人敲门.
 * Tā shuìzhe jiào shí yǒurén qiāomén
 * While he was sleeping, someone knocked on the door.
 * For this sentence, you can take out "着" and say "他睡觉时有人敲门. " as "时" means "while" here.

The Zháo [着] particle indicating accomplishment
1. 我终于把东西买着了! (我終於把東西買著了!)

 * Wŏ zhōngyú bă dōngxī măi zháo le.
 * I've finally been able to buy this item!

And another word, dào [到], can be seen as a substitution for 着, in most cases they are interchangeable.

2. 他在行窃时被当场抓到.
 * Tā zài xíng qìe shí beì dāng chǎng zhuā dào.
 * He was(is) caught in the act of stealing.

The 把 + N + V + 着(到)了 construction is particularly useful and should be studied.

The De [得] particle indicating degree
1. 我说得很好.
 * Wŏ shuō de hěn hăo.
 * I speak very well.

This construct often requires a context to gain its full meaning.

If you wish to speak more specifically about an action, the two constructs below demonstrate the use of 得 with a direct object.

2. 我说中文说得很好.
 * Wŏ shuō zhōngwén shuō de hěn hăo.
 * I speak Chinese very well.

Note the dual-use of the verb.

3. 中文我说得很好.
 * Zhōngwén wŏ shuō de hěn hăo.
 * I speak Chinese very well.

This construct emphasizes the object (here being "Chinese").

4. 我中文说得很好.
 * Wŏ zhōngwén shuō de hěn hăo.
 * I speak Chinese very well.

This expression is the simplification of the 2nd expression by eliminating the 1st verb. This form is even more frequently used than the 2nd expression above.

Vocabulary
Note: Visit this lesson's Stroke Order subpage to see images and animations detailing how to write the following characters. Audio files of the words are linked from the pīnyīn when available. Problems listening? See media help.

Cinese/Lezione 3 Chiński/Podstawy/Lekcja 3 de:Chinesisch: Lektion 3

source: wikimedia

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

title: Chinese (Mandarin)/Lesson 3


text:
Tarucus ungemachi

Tarucus ungemachi, the Ungemach's Pierrot, is a butterfly in the family Lycaenidae. It is found in Senegal, the Gambia, Guinea, Burkina Faso, northern Ghana, northern Nigeria, northern Cameroon, Chad, southern Sudan, Ethiopia, northern Uganda and northwestern Kenya. The habitat consists of savanna, including Sudan savanna and Guinea savanna.

The species is named after Henri Ungemach.

Adults typically feed from the flowers of Ziziphus, Tridax and other species.

The larvae feed on Ziziphus abyssinica.

title: Tarucus ungemachi


text:
Bukhty

Bukhty (Бухты; Бухди) is a rural locality (a selo) in Gunibsky District, Republic of Dagestan, Russia. The population was 994 as of 2010.

Geography
Bukhty is located 30 km south of Gunib (the district's administrative centre) by road. Shangoda and Shitli are the nearest rural localities.

title: Bukhty


text:
User:Spark Live/sandbox

BT-7274 (Bravo Tango 7274) is Pilot Jack Cooper's titan. originally BT was assigned to captain. Lastimosa.

title: User:Spark Live/sandbox


text:
Talk:Battle at the Binary Stars

Rotten Tomatoes citation
I understand why you would want this to be consistent, but it is also the general style to have the rotten tomatoes citation up with the info because it is not a complete reference, it needs to be updated whenever the data is updated, and users generally won't do that if it isn't right there for them to do so. I believe that is a valid reason to break with consistency, which is why most articles do it. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a complete reference? That's true of every URL: they can all change. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But generally you get the information and add the complete reference. With stuff like the review aggregates, the information keeps needing to be updated for quite a while, and the reference along with it. It's hardly the same as all the other references. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Short Description
Please allow a short description. The first I offered was imported from Wikidata, which is where they come from by magic if there isn’t one on page. It was reverted with a cryptic comment by User:Koavf. So I offered a shorter “short description” which User:Koavf also reverted. This time with a better comment, at least in context.

What wikidata gives us is often not very good, some of what it has is graffiti. Our pages need short descriptions on page where editors can see, refine and improve them.

—¿philoserf? (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Why are inserting a short description that is identical to the one that is generated by the infobox? This is the definition of busywork. I just cannot understand for the life of me the value in this. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It it? That isn't what I saw.—¿philoserf? (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , What did you see? How did you see it? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Battle at the Binary Stars


text:
Talk:David Halberstam

Untitled

 * As of 2013-11-01, sections 1 to 7.1 date from 2006–2007 exclusively. -P64

Untitled
"...and in 1979 published a flawed but enormously informative book" ... what, did your copy have a bad binding? "Citation needed" is a bit weak of an excuse for what comes across as a -- to say the least, POV -- gibe. And it clashes on many levels (logically, aesthetically) with the subsequent "enormously informative".... Or maybe the thought is that the "big book" is flawed because it is just that:  enormous? Anyway, the wording seems... oh, I don't know... flawed. - Michael (talk|contrib) 11:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

citation regarding Kennedy's request to transfer Halberstam
This incident is reported in Neil Sheehan's "Bright Shining Lie" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kukec (talk • contribs) 18:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thích Quảng Ðức?
Surely Halberstam's article should contain refrence to his story on Thích Quảng Ðức's self-immolation. Ka5hmir 09:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible Error in "Death" section
Are we sure this is correct? "He was a passenger in a car broadsided by another vehicle--ironically driven by a journalism school student--while making a left turn across opposing traffic..." Where is a source for the information that the driver of the car that hit him is a journalism student? In the linked articles, it says "The driver of the car carrying Halberstam is a student at the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley..." and this " Acker would not release further details of the accident." Is this an error or is there a source?

---CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/23/halberstam.death/index.html) agrees that the driver of the hit car was a graduate student, not the driver of the car that broadsides them. Newtman 04:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Reason for crash
"Cars turning left at the intersection onto Willow Road may proceed only when they have a green arrow." So either the car in which Halberstam was driving, or the car that hit him, appears to have run a red light. Which was it? Badagnani 00:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 * It's not yet clear who was at fault. That's why Menlo Park police are still asking for witnesses to call them so they can get as much information as possible as to the state of the traffic lights and who ran a red light.  Obviously, someone was negligent (those types of broadside accidents normally don't happen when people pay attention to the traffic lights), but the question is who.
 * I'm really surprised no major news service has pointed out that Bayfront Expressway is an incredibly dangerous road. It should have been upgraded to a freeway a long time ago but Palo Alto has long opposed the upgrade because it fears that simplifying the western approach to the Dumbarton Bridge will make a commute to Palo Alto more appealing to East Bay residents, who will then clog up its streets.  --Coolcaesar 07:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

 * This accident and the Corzine New Jersey accident highlight the dangers of the ropad. People routinely disregarding the safety of otters and thenselvfes.  The France has a tradgedition of speeding ticket amnesties after each (chaque) election which raises the fatality rate on the roads before each election... Chivista 12:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

So, what was the verdict? Or are they still studying it? The guy who was driving is still alive, isn't he? Badagnani 05:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

 * They're still investigating as far as I know. All the information publicly disclosed so far shows that this was a negligent, not intentional accident.  Negligently caused deaths, unfortunately, are a lower priority than intentional crimes, so it will take a while (probably three to six months) for the Menlo Park cops to finish their investigation.  Also, the junction was between a city and state road so they have to coordinate with the CHP and Caltrans.  --Coolcaesar 05:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The journalism student was the driver and was found to be at fault in early 2008. He pleaded no contest and was sentenced to 5 days in jail and 200 hours of community service. The article has been updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Issue with nationality
Isn't saying someone is American the same as saying they are European? America is not a country and American is not a nationality, the term refers to two continents and three geograhic zones in the western hemisphere.wsb05/21/2007

 * See Use of the word American. --Coolcaesar 18:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense! "American" is commonly (nationally and internationally) accepted as a term for a citizen of the United States. I am not bothering to look up a reference. LAM — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism
Curious why someone inserted "criticism" of Halberstam's work by an author who is a known revisionist historian who can't even get a job in El Paso? Mark Moyar has published a book that tries to argue that Vietnam was a conflict that could have been won (debatable), denigrates the ingerity journalists who were actually there (Halberstam, Sheehan, etc), and defends Ngo Dinh Diem as a "wise and effective leader". This is really fringe stuff, and it's no wonder this guy can't get a job. If there is genuine criticism from credible sources, let's put it in. But not from some right wing hack who is going to be writing another revisionist tome about how great Iraq was 20 years from now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs) 03:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with the WP:UNDUE concerns: There's no corroboration, and Moyar by his own admission is on the fringe.   And the phrase, "the most harmful journalists in American history," is purely subjective and far too likely to be hyperbole to make it in to the article. ←BenB4 00:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I inserted the criticism, and I still think it belongs. I believe the "undue weight" guideline actually supports me on this one; it states, "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source." The criticism was published by the National Review, which is cited extensively elsewhere on Wikipedia; removing the viewpoint would thus be a violation of the undue weight guideline. As to the shunning of Moyar by academia, that's an interesting discussion that could be had but it's not necessary, given that the piece being quoted was published in a major opinion magazine. Korny O'Near 11:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Opinion pieces do not have editorial oversight or a fact-checking policy, and therefore are not reliable sources. Exactly how is the opposing mainstream viewpoint represented? ←BenB4 18:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I removed it. Moyar wrote in Triumph forsaken that Diem did not cheat in the 1955 State of Vietnam referendum despite getting 133% of the vote in Saigon. He also thinks that Vietnamese and Chinese people are the best of friends and tells us that his schoolf of thought has "few adherents" in the academic world. Well, we can see where his POV is and also I searched JSTOR for a review of his work and it says "highly tendentious", "worse than disappointing" . Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 01:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is about verification not truth. If the viewpoint has been presented in a reliable source, then there is no reason to delete it. Certainly Halberstam's reliance on Pham Xuan An has been mentioned. It may be a minoirty viewpoint and Moyer may be a revisionist, but is revisionism enough of a reason to delete a source from an article? If thats the case, look out. I am suprised that JSTOR didnt like the book, because they usually gobble up revisionism. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, but is still highly fringe at the moment. The book is less than a year old and we are yet to know if it is going to make much of an impact in academic circles or just for being notorious. I do wonder whether a rebuttal should be put in there about Pham Xuan An. In Karnow's book, Karnow and An talk to each other after the war. An denies making up fake propaganda in the news, saying that if he put fakr info out, it would blow his cover. Thoughts on putting a journo response to Moyar's accusations if the accusations stay there? The other thing is that more notable cirticism would be that JFK asked NYT to pull Halberstam out and some other ppl, eg Marguerite Higgins, who was also a strong Diem supporter, but at least had a Pulitzer from Korea are more notable than Moyar and his hagiography of Diem (and rank acidic personal attacks on Halberstam etc calling Diem opponents as venomous snakes and so forth)  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry Korny,the National Review is hardly a "reliable source". It's a conservative magazine that has anything but a neutral POV. Criticism is fine, but sourcing an opinion journal article by an agenda driven historian who resides on the fringe of academia hardly constitutes a mainstream criticism. The notion that Mr.Halberstam or Mr.Sheehan got all of their information about the Diem regime from this double agent is just flat out false. Both journalists saw first hand how Ngo Dinh Diem cruelly oppressed his people and how he used his military not to defeat the Viet-Cong, but to merely solidify his power and protect himself from a coup. The idea that these journalists were somehow responsible for the US's failure in Vietnam ludicrous, and it is beneath Wikipedia to include the musings of a failed historian who can only get a reading on a right wing opinion journal.

 * It's very important to stress here that this is opinion being cited as opinion, not as fact - the article doesn't say that Halberstam did any of these things, just that one historian has written that he did. See the article American empire for what I think is a good example of an article that cites the viewpoints of historians from across the political spectrum, from Howard Zinn to Victor Davis Hanson, while making it clear that they're all opinions. Also, I don't think the book represents as fringe a viewpoint as some people have claimed - check out all the positive blurbs on the book's Amazon.com page, both from journalists (almost all right-wing, it's true), and historians. Yes, there's obviously a political divide that still impacts people's view of the Vietnam War, but the pro-war, pro-Diem side of it, whatever its validity (I'm far from an expert) has a lot of adherents and couldn't be called "fringe". Feel free to add to the "Criticism" section some sort of rebuttal to the charges - the book has been out for just about a year now, so it shouldn't be hard to find. Korny O'Near 14:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Moyer is not the only guy who thought that Halberstam's dispatches influenced Kennedy’s actions: ''In Vietnam, he gave generous coverage to the Buddhist protests against the Diem regime, and I think he saw the Buddhists as something like the southern blacks and Diem as something like the southern segregationists. Kennedy resented Halberstam's coverage, but it probably contributed to Kennedy's authorizing, or failing to prevent, the November 1963 coup in Vietnam, in which Diem and his brother were murdered. ''Michael Barone. David Kaiser also made a similar case about Halberstam's influence on state department officers Averell Harriman and Roger Hilsman, and how it shaped Washinton’s attitudes on the coup. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that on the one hand, Halberstam supposedly influenced Kennedy's support for a coup, and on the other Kennedy asked the NYTimes to fire him? Don't get it. Kennedy wants to fire the guy, but is so impressed with his journalism that he turns around and order the CIA to support a coup? That's just ridiculous. The historical research overwhelmingly documents the Diem's horrible oppression of his own people, and Mr.Halberstam and his colleagues helped policy makers aware of the problems. But to suggest as Mr.Moyar does that "Halberstam, Sheehan, and Karnow inadvertently caused enormous damage to the American effort in South Vietnam—making them the most harmful journalists in American history." is just so downright misleading and hyperbolic, it's really hard to take this guy seriously. To add to that, the guy only has one peer reviewed article in the literature, had a hard time finding a job at a respectable institution, and both of his books were panned by real historians. This guy reminds me of those Discovery Institute "scholars" who try to publish stuff on Intelligent Design. They simply aren't taken seriously by their peers in the academic community. As for Michael Barone, he's another conservative! And for him to suggest that the work of these reporters led these politicians by the nose is poppy cock. President Kennedy had a very able and astute Ambassador in the form of Henry Cabot Lodge, who was able to see quite clearly that the Diem regime was nothing more than a corrupt class of elites with fascist impulses who were not interested in liberal democracy. And who is David Kaiser? I mean, you need to come up with some better stuff. Mark Moyar is not a serious historian. I'm sure there is legitimate criticism of Halberstam's work, but let's not use the discredited accounts of a revisionist historian with a right wing agenda.

 * As to the Kennedy bit, Moyar might argue that Kennedy didn't mistrust Halberstam enough - that he disliked Halberstam for publishing what he thought were "uncomfortable truths", not realizing they were actually uncomfortable falsehoods. I don't know; as I said before, I'm no expert, and in any case my opinion doesn't matter. The opinion was published in a notable political magazine, and I think that by itself makes it worthy for inclusion. You seem to have an exactingly high standard for inclusion of historical opinion - it must be written by a history professor who's been peer-reviewed, and that you've heard of. Please show me the Wikipedia guidelines you're basing this standard on. Also, do you have any links or citations for anyone "panning" or "discreting" Moyar's writings on Vietnam? Korny O'Near 05:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Out of 20+ history textbooks that I have consulted, only Moyar thinks that Diem won the 1955 State of Vietnam referendum with no cheating (how did he get 133%?) and also that Diem gave the Buddhists special treatment and disproportionate privileges. He's also the only historical book that I read which said RoV was not a Buddhist majority [in name if not benature].  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 06:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * WP:V requires controversial sources to have editorial oversight or a fact-checking policy, and an opinion piece doesn't, and Moyar admits he's on the fringe. Even if it's all true, and Halberstam was duped by a secret agent, the agent deserves the blame, not Halberstam. And the Diem regime was indisputably corrupt and brutal in the first place, so any historian who would say his stories about Diem makes him one of the most dangerous journalists is just kooky. ←BenB4 06:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The "sources" that this guideline is talking about are publications, not authors, so the source in question is the National Review, not Moyar. NR is not a controversial source in terms of the actual facts they print (it's the commentary around those facts that's obviously subject to political debate.) Similarly, the facts published in opinion pieces do indeed have editorial oversight; I don't know why you say they don't - given that that's all that opinion journals like NR, TNR etc. publish, if they didn't have oversight on such pieces they wouldn't have oversight at all. Thus, this piece deserves mention under both the guidelines cited so far, "Undue Weight" and "Sources". Blnguyen, your questioning of Moyar's statements in his book, while interesting, is irrelevant for two reasons: first, the statements only appear in his book, not in the opinion piece cited; second, as I said before, the reputation of National Review is enough to include the piece: by a literal reading of the guidelines, even an opinion piece in NR by the editor's five-year-old son could be cited in Wikipedia.

 * And one more thing: as before, do you have any citations for historians dismissing Moyar's writings on Vietnam as fringe or kooky? Given the press attention he's gotten, it's hard to argue that he's too obscure an author to merit response to. Korny O'Near 14:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * OpEds in otherwise reputable newspapers aren't considered reliable, and as you say, NR is controversial in terms of the commentary it publishes. There is no way a fact checker could determine the accuracy of whether Halberstam was influenced by a secret agent, or how much his stories influenced Kennedy, or whether he was one of the most dangerous journalists in America.  The former are historian's judgment calls requiring extensive research.  The latter is just pure opinion and likely hyperbole at that.  Since all agree that the Diem regime was corrupt and brutal, and Moyar admits that he's alone in his opinions, I just can't countenance including this at all.  Frankly, it sounds like an immature smear.  No way. ←BenB4 15:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Are you really trying to make the case that opinion pieces have no place in Wikipedia because they lack editorial oversight? That’s a fairly poor reading of WP:V and WP:RS and if true would be grounds for the removal of material from other “opinion pieces” in nearly every article. The fact that Moyer was published in a reliable source means that it meets one of the criteria for inclusion into this article.

 * Secondly, there seems to be a misunderstanding of his point about Diem and Halberstam. Moyer is not a fan of Diem, and certainly is not holding him up as an example of good governance. Moyar makes the case, quite well I might add, that Diem was a competent foil to Hanoi, and that he had been successful at suppressing Hanoi’s covert (through the Buddhists, and guerrillas) and overt aggression towards Saigon. He goes on to blame Halberstam, Karnow, and Sheehan’s influence on Lodge as a primary factor influencing the backing of coup and Pham Xuan An’s influence on Halberstam Karnow, and Sheehan as a factor in their opinions on Diem.

 * Lastly, this is not the place to discuss the merits of the source, only if it meets the requirements for inclusion. There have been multiple book review, all of which I have read seem to be fairly positive. Moyar had also been published in several newspapers and has a position at the Marine Corps University. Its almost impossible to see how people can argue he is not an RS. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * "OpEds in otherwise reputable newspapers aren't considered reliable", "Moyar admits that he's alone in his opinions" - I'd like to see some evidence for either of these two statements. Columns and editorials are routinely cited on Wikipedia, and I doubt the second one is true, given the number of positive reviews and blurbs his book received. Korny O'Near 15:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Per WP:V, the burden of proof rests with those wishing to include controversial material. WP:UNDUE is clear:
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia
 * Note that "prominent adherents" is plural -- is there anyone who agrees with Moyar about Halberstam printing false information from a secret agent? About him being a most dangerous journalist?  I think not. ←BenB4 15:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The statement being made in the Wikipedia article is that Mark Moyar said this, not that any of it is actually true. Thus, the burden of proof has quite easily been met. If the article were itself to claim that Halberstam printed false information, the burden of proof would obviously be a lot higher. As to whether others agree with Moyar's view of Halberstam, two have been named on this discussion page alone - Michael Barone and David Kaiser. The Amazon.com review page for the book also lists positive reviews from over 30 other people, including Mackubin Thomas Owens, Max Boot and Jim Webb. It's doubtful that any of them (let alone all of them) fundamentally disagree with the claims about Halberstam presented in the book. Korny O'Near 15:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Sure it's true he said it, but unless there's explicit corroboration from reliable sources, it's still too small of a viewpoint to include. The people you name are described above as saying other things about Halberstam, not that he printed lies from a secret agent or that he was a most dangerous journalist in America. ←BenB4 16:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Perfect Spy: The Incredible Double Life of Pham Xuan An Time Magazine Reporter and Vietnamese Communist Agent by Larry Berman makes the case that Halberstam along with lots of other journalists relied on Pham as a source and considered him a trusted friend. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * That's distinct from printing lies from Pham. And again, if there were lots of journalists involved, and Diem was as bad as everyone agrees he was, this stuff should be part of Pham's or Diem's articles, or both, not the journalists'. ←BenB4 22:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Korny said he wanted some evidence that actual historians who've read his books find his thesis to be on the fringe. Here's a couple...http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/36138.html, http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8723(199903)85:4%3C1675:%3E2.0.CO;2-7&origin=historycoop, http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/94.1/br_116.html. The last two will require special access (hopefully some of you will have access to a university library) Ultimately, these guys Moyar a fair reading, but totally disagree with his conclusions by pointing out that he's basically cherry picking the data to fit his thesis. Some of the highlights include ""worse than disappointing" complaining "a review can only scratch the surface of the questionable elements." Questionable indeed. It's nice to get good reviews from the Max Boots and the Mackubin Thomas Owens and the rest of the National Review/neoconservative crowd who want to whitewash history, but to quote Professor Kuzmarov, Moyar's ideas "do not hold up before the voluminous evidence".

 * Ben - the allegations should be in the articles about Pham, Diem and the journalists, since they were all involved in the story. Anonymous person - thanks for finding the links. It's too bad I can only read the first one, but that one itself is instructive. Interestingly, the one point on which Kuzmarov agrees somewhat with Moyar is about the journalists - "Moyar raises some valid criticisms about the methodologies of American journalists like Sheehan and Halberstam who were influential in shaping public opinion". So, we have a set of historians and commentators who agree with Moyar, and a (perhaps larger) set of historians who disagree with him. Does that mean the criticism should be absent from this article? No, it means both the criticism and the counter-criticism should appear - perhaps in a section titled "Diem coup controversy". Korny O'Near 12:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

section break
I'm not opposed to criticism, or saying that he was influenced by Pham and his reporting influenced Kennedy's decision to go to war, which by itself doesn't even seem like criticism to me. The thing that set me off was the "one of the most dangerous journalists" thing, which just seems like immature name-calling. And, apart from that, saying that he was persuaded to write Pham's lies about Diem just doesn't seem to have the support from anyone other than Moyar -- and even if it did, the fact that Diem and his buddies were doing such bad things out in the open should be used to balance Moyar's opinion that it was all due to Pham's lies. What Diem was doing was bad enough without Pham to make it worse, and like Pham said way after the fact, he didn't risk lies because it would have endangered his cover. I wonder where Moyar gets the story in the first place; too bad he doesn't say in his article. ←BenB4 13:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, if you accept that (a) Halberstam and the other two journalists helped get Diem deposed, and (b) Diem was the only thing standing in the way of a Communist victory in South Vietnam, then that "most dangerous journalists" description isn't very much hyperbole or name-calling, is it? I mean, what journalists would be more dangerous? I'm not saying either of those conditions is true, just that it doesn't seem as out-of-the-blue a statement as you might think it is. Korny O'Near 21:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Well Korny, like many of our neoconservative friends, you conveniently left out that Moyar called "them the most harmful journalists in American history." Your rendition of "most dangerous journalists" is a deliberate ploy to downplay what Moyar actually said. What are you trying to prove here? What Moyar wrote was tantamount to calling these journalists traitors and responsible for America's failure in Vietnam. I'm sorry, to most objective observers, that's way "out-of-the-blue". We've had enough of that rhetoric to last a generation. Journalists who are dangerous are those, who, oh, I don't know, reveal the identity of clandestine officers in the CIA? Why not go over to the Plame scandal and try your hand over there. Might be more successful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs) 23:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I used the word "dangerous" because that's what Ben, right above me, used, and I assumed that was the direct quote. If the word was "harmful", just substitute in "harmful" in what I wrote; the point is the same. No, Moyar isn't calling Halberstam a traitor (that implies willful harm), but yes, he is saying that Halberstam et al. helped cause America's loss in Vietnam. Whether or not the "harmful" line is in there, that's the direct implication. You may agree or not with this opinion (you obviously don't), but I think a good case has been laid out here that the opinion is notable enough to be included in this article. Also, please lay off the personal attacks; believe it or not, they reveal much more about your political biases than they do about mine. Korny O'Near 05:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

 * My fault, the quote was one of "the most harmful journalists in American history." Given that smoking causes as many deaths every five months as we lost in Vietnam, why weren't the journalists that didn't run the Surgeon General's report early on more harmful? ←BenB4 06:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

2007 to 2013
There has been no substantial contribution to this Talk page since August 2007 (immediate above, now section 7.1), or 75 months ago! (diff 2007-08-10 to 2013-11-01)

The page is not so long (or so active!) that it should be archived, afaik. Hereafter the history from 2013-11-01 will show whether anyone has inserted comment above. --P64 (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Today's edit
My complex revision today is substantial only regarding the first part of its edit summary, the portion underlined here:
 * specify Pulitzer Prize w official ref; add Ext links {LCAuth} and thus Catalog, LCCN, GND; // ALSO BEGIN to reduce WP:OVERLINKage and to format apostrophe, dash, date, title, ref

The second part of that refers to my insertion at the end of External links: (There now 48 catalog records, a number that I did not specify as the third template parameter value.)
 * Bibliography

Regarding Pulitzer Prize(s) the official website shows DH a winner only "for International Reporting" in 1964, only a finalist for later books (Search: halberstam). In today's edit I ignored the finalists, provided an official reference for the 1964 prize (multiple locations), re-arranged the specification of prize for International Reporting (multiple locations), and made this change in section Criticism:
 * "all won Pulitzer Prizes for their post-war work s on the war."

Because DH himself, at least, was a PP winner only as war correspondent, not for subsequent work.

All the rest is insubstantial. Within references, date locations and formats are now consistent. I didn't make a decision about authorname format —firstlast or lastfirst— simply moved author names to the front (along with mdy publ dates).

--P64 (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam, and further re Criticism
As it is currently presented, this article on David Halberstam is extremely unbalanced, and unfair to him with regard to the war in Vietnam. Here I'm concentrating on the Marguerite Higgins criticisms, but also see the discussions of Mark Moyar above in the talkpage section titled Criticism.

First, the Vietnam section of the article begins with these two sentences:
 * "Halberstam arrived in Vietnam in the middle of 1962, to be a full-time Vietnam specialist for The New York Times.[4] Halberstam, like many other US journalists covering Vietnam, relied heavily for information on Phạm Xuân Ẩn, who was later revealed to be a secret North Vietnamese agent."

I have now added a tag to the second sentence, not because I dispute the assertion, but simply because it is presently uncited. My real objection is that in context it is extremely prejudicial, giving the impression that Halberstam relied primarily or even solely for his reporting on information fed by a secret North Vietnamese agent.

This impression is then reinforced in the Criticism section, where Marguerite Higgins
 * "frequently clashed with her younger male colleagues such as Neil Sheehan, Peter Arnett and Halberstam. She derided them as "typewriter strategists" who were "seldom at the scenes of battle."[19] She claimed they had ulterior motives, saying "reporters here would like to see us lose the war to prove they're right."[20]"

The tag is mine. Marguerite Higgins was indeed a very famous and respected war correspondent from WWII and especially the Korean War, as well as in Vietnam; and I suspect her name may lend her opinion more credibility than those of the other two people cited for criticizing Halberstam, both of whom could be characterized as right-wing zealots. The giveaway for Higgins is in the opening: "... [she] was the staunchest pro-Diệm journalist in the Saigon press corps ...". Then: "She claimed they had ulterior motives, saying "reporters here would like to see us lose the war to prove they're right." I have no idea of Higgins' politics, but her very strong sense of American patriotism and rightness cannot be in doubt:
 * "She witnessed the liberation of the Dachau concentration camp in April 1945 and received a U.S. Army campaign ribbon for her assistance during the surrender by its S.S. guards. She later covered the Nuremberg war trials and the Soviet Union's blockade of Berlin."

Then in 1950, shortly after being assigned to Tokyo as bureau chief, North Korea invaded the South, and
 * "... she came to the country as one of the first reporters on the spot. On 28 June, Higgins and three of her colleagues witnessed the Hangang Bridge bombing, and were trapped on the north bank of Han River as a result. After crossing the river by raft and came to the US military HQ in Suwon on the next day, she was quickly ordered out of the country by General Walton Walker, who argued that women did not belong at the front and the military had no time to worry about making separate accommodations for them. Higgins made a personal appeal to Walker's superior officer, General Douglas MacArthur, who subsequently sent a telegram to the Herald Tribune stating: Ban on women correspondents in Korea has been lifted. Marguerite Higgins is held in highest professional esteem by everyone."

Patriotic, self-confident, with extensive experience of the horrors of aggression and war - and proud. Higgins must have felt disdain and even horror of these young men, inexperienced in war, who had the temerity to sit in their hotel rooms and undermine the American military efforts and morale. This is all perfectly understandable. Higgins may also have been jealous to some extent, accustomed to being THE leading voice in war reporting, and now overshadowed by upstart David Halberstam in the New York Times.

The WP article on Higgins goes on to say
 * "Higgins continued to cover foreign affairs throughout the rest of her life, interviewing world leaders such as Francisco Franco, Nikita Khrushchev, and Jawaharlal Nehru. In 1955, she established and was chief of the Tribune's Moscow bureau. In 1963, she joined Newsday and was assigned to cover Vietnam, "visited hundreds of villages", interviewed most of the major figures, and wrote a book entitled Our Vietnam Nightmare."

Now 50 years later it's pretty hard to find good cites for what Halberstam actually did in Vietnam; the only one I've found so far is in the Academy of Achievement biography, which merely says he "found another story when he followed the troops into the field." I have no idea about either Sheehan or Arnett, but it has always been my understanding that Halberstam in fact spent considerable time traveling all around Vietnam, accompanying troops on missions, and interviewing anyone and everyone that he could, both American and Vietnamese, including peasant farmers and villagers. He did not just sit in his Saigon hotel room typing seditious lies fed to him by a North Vietnamese secret agent.

Halberstam was a generation younger than Higgins. He had no direct experience of WWII or Korea.* His mindset was certainly different from hers; his own experience was in covering the developing Civil Rights Movement in the South. He was never an anti-war activist, but unlike Higgins he had learned to question authority, and to see other sides of an issue. So it's only natural that what these two correspondents saw and heard, and integrated into their understanding of the war, was very different from each other's. This is not to say that one was right and the other wrong.

This is the problem with the article as it presently stands: Higgins makes accusations that are left entirely unanswered and unexplained. I've discussed Higgins at length here, because she is a deservedly well-respected war observer and correspondent - she isn't a fruitcake with a right-wing agenda. But as it stands at present, none of the criticisms in this section are responded to at all, leaving a badly unbalanced article. Milkunderwood (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

 * (*In fact he would have liable for the draft in the Korean War, and must have had a student deferment for college.) Milkunderwood (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

 * One of many problems with using Higgins as a major source for the denigration of Halberstam is her death in January 1966. She did not live long enough to evaluate Halberstam's work in the context of later developments. HowardMorland (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A point about Higgins that has missed until now is that she was a member of the "China Lobby". She was born in China to Protestant missionary parents and so the whole idea of one day converting all of the Chinese to Christianity would was very attractive to her. In 1927, China's leader, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek converted to Methodism to marry his third wife, Soong Mei-ling, who was one of the three famous Soong sisters who played such a prominent role in Chinese history. The Soong family happened to be the richest family in China, and all of the evidence indicates that Chiang wish to marry Mei-ling was entirely due to his desire to make an alliance with the Soongs for economic reasons. After he got married, he told his new bride that the only reason why everybody has sex to father a son to carry on the family's name, and so he already had a son by his first wife, he had no interest in having sex with her. Chiang had a very debauched youth, spending a disproportionate amount of his time drinking, womanizing, gambling and visiting brothels. As a result of this debauchery, he had contracted every known venereal disease together several unknown ones, which seems to ultimately negatively impacted on his ability to have an erection, which might explain why Chiang was always so bad-tempered all the time. The reasons for his marriage to Soong Mei-ling were entirely economic and also his conversion to Methodism as Mei-ling's mother was not going to let her daughter marry a non-Christian. Chiang had a very superficial interest in his wife's religion and despite becoming a Christian continued to perform Confucian rituals and to pray at Buddhist shrines.
 * But American evangelical Protestant churches missed all this. What they knew was Chiang had become a Christian, and believing he was one of them also believed that he wanted to convert all of China to Christianity. To help him out, evangelical Protestants began to lobby the U.S. government to assist Chiang. This was the origin of the famous "China Lobby". Chiang quickly realized a huge fan base in the United States who were willing to lobby Congress on his behalf, and started to take advantage of this. As Chinag didn't speak any English, he let his charismatic American-educated wife, Soong Mei-ling, who spoke fluent English handle relations with the American media. "Madame Chiang Kai-shek" as the American media normally called her ended up becoming one of the world's most famous women. It would be unfair to say that the "China Lobby" were racists because they did love China. But it was a sort of perverse love. The ideology of the China Lobby was that Chiang was China's Christian savior who with the help of the U.S. government would modernize China and make it into a copy of America. A typical statement from the China Lobby was this extract from a speech given by Republican Senator Kenneth Wherry in 1940: "With God's help, we will lift Shanghai up and up, ever up, until it is just like Kansas City". The basic premise of the China Lobby was that there a special Sino-American partnership, but it was clear about who was going to be the senior partner and who was going to be the junior partner. And finally, the China Lobby, having decided that Chiang was China's Christian savior absolutely refused to hear anything bad about him. For them, he was perfect and any unflattering about him was just a lie. So when Chiang lost the Chinese Civil War in 1949 that was real shock to the China Lobby, who quickly became convinced that Chiang had been betrayed by Soviet spies in the State Department. Before 1949, the China Lobby had taken in both liberals and conservatives, but after the "loss of China", the China Lobby started to move towards right. At that point that people like Senators Joseph McCarthy and Richard Nixon who had previously had no particular interest in China started to very effectively bash President Truman for the "loss of China", a campaign that so damaged Truman that he had to drop out of the 1952 election as he was going to lose. The "loss of China" got a lot of people in America really, really mad at the time-reading some of the accounts at the time you would think that this was the beginning of the end of world. A great number of Americans had gotten very emotionally invested in this vision of making China like America, and where turned out that China was going to be like Russia after the Chinese Communists won the civil war, it was a huge blow to the people of the China Lobby.
 * The China Lobby continued to nourish fantasies all through the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s that the Kuomintang's defeat in 1949 was only temporary and that one day Chiang would lead his army across the Taiwan strait in a victorious campaign to retake China (Chiang also believed in that right up to his death in 1975). But for other members of the China Lobby South Vietnam appeared to be a sort of consolation prize for the "loss of China". Like Chiang, Ngo Dinh Diem was a Christian Asian leader who committed to a pro-American foreign policy and to a modernizing domestic policy. Unlike Chiang, Diem had been born into a Catholic Mandarin family and he was actually a very devout Catholic. Many of the same people involved in the China Lobby also became partisans of Diem for same reasons that they were partisans of Chiang. In the 1950s, Diem was portrayed in the American media as a modernizing leader who make South Vietnam into a copy of America in a manner that was very similar to how Chiang was portrayed in the 1930s and 1940s. As already noted, Higgins had been born in China and she was a member of the China Lobby. Like other members of the China Lobby, she supported Diem, which for her, Halberstam's criticism of Diem was almost treason. Yes, she was a notable reporter, but she had her bias, as did Halberstam. I don't mind the article mentioning her criticism of Halberstam-it should be mentioned. But should note also that Higgins had a particular bias which caused her to lash out in anger at anybody who said any bad about either Chiang or Diem.--A.S. Brown (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

David Halberstam edit
I removed the following sentence fragment from the section: deriding them as "typewriter strategists" who were "seldom at the scenes of battle." The citation listed did not support the content. I tried google searching the phrases and came up with no original source. I also searched her book "Our Vietnam nightmare and again could find no trace of the quotes. If someone can provide the source then by all means add the material back in. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I found the quote in a RS, please refer to page 243 of Our Vietnam: The War 1954-1975 by A. J. Langguth.--A.S. Brown (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:David Halberstam


text:
Wikiversity:Archive/Organizing Self-Management

Please see Organizing Wikiversity for a more recent attempt to discuss the matters of this page.

Organizing Self Management for Wikiversity
You can express your current position by concise bullet voting, or  and signing. Please use the discussion section to illuminate others regarding your thoughts on the subject. Please "vote" early and often, or at least periodically. We will be in flux for a while. Any binding votes will be announced in appropriate areas adjacent to the main page at four weeks before being finalized.

Provisions of the initial approved Wikiversity Proposal are Binding for Six Months.
We are dependent upon the Wikimedia Foundation for initial servers, bandwidth, and technical expertise. Our project has been approvedApproved_Wikiversity_project_proposal by their Board of Directors for this philanthropic support for six months as a "beta" prototype. It is a reasonable expectation on the part of the Board and the initial project organizers that this agreement between the Board and Wikiversity will be honored by all parties to the extent possible. In other policy discussions the community at large is indicating its agreement/opposition to specific provisions of this agreement and this will be useful in future negotiations and for project planning of the community managed by the community's formally selected leadership. So even though some specific provisions may be disapproved by our rapidly forming community, they are binding upon us until we make other arrangements with the Board or Independently.

Position Tally

 * Messedrocker 07:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- sebmol ? 09:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * with provision discussed below -- Reswik 14:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Talonhawk 00:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * - Yorktown1776 17:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * - The Wikimedia Foundation does not have a "board of directors". Wikiversity is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation. If anyone wants to "Independently make other arrangements" they are free to leave Wikiversity and create a new project at any time. --JWSchmidt 04:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * While I agree with the board's position on accreditation (for the time being), I also think that we need to be bold in how we fill the proposal with life. I'd rather see us try a dozen different things where maybe 3/4 don't work out at the end rather than not try at all out of fear of the unknown. -- sebmol ? 09:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Honoring the scope of the Wikimedia's Foundations beta project regarding initiating projects and structures is important. At the same time (and I think this is understood), I believe that the Wikiversity would be very well served by considering and discussing implications of a wide array of long term planning options for development of education and research services, projects and organizational structures. From among such options, directions and aspects of development may emerge that become vital to the Wikiversity's mission and are harmonious with the board and larger wikimedia community's concerns but are not anticipated at this time. Reswik 14:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Initial Operating Assumptions
We are currently operating under a Project Proposal presented to the Wikimedia Foundation Board and approved by them. The Foundation is a separate entity from Wikiversity. Any wiklars who choose to participate at the Foundation are welcome by their current charter and informal procedures to join the Foundation-L mailing list. There is a Wikiversity-L mailing list for Wikiversity matters. The Foundation provides no administrative or project oversight to Wikiversity beyond its philanthropic contribution of server space. Since Wikiversity is currently composed of volunteers with no expenses beyond the need for stable and adequate bandwidth and servers our donation page directs all potential cash contribtions to the Foundation as our benefactor.

Position tallying.

 * Messedrocker 07:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- sebmol ? 09:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely -- Cormaggio 10:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- Reswik 14:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikiversity has always been and remains a Wikimedia Foundation project. The Wikimedia Foundation provides administrative oversight for Wikiversity the same as for all Wikimedia projects. In addition, Wikiversity policies for research will be reviewed by the Special Projects committee at the end of the six month beta period. --JWSchmidt 04:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

 * Wikiversity_is_and_always_will_be_a_part_of_the_Wikimedia_Foundation. If you want to set up something separate - go ahead and do so elesewhere. We've fought long and hard for this to be a part of Wikimedia. I can't believe that you're proposing something so divisive at this point in time. Cormaggio 10:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Full ack. This isn't helping us. -- sebmol ? 10:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, but I think you're overstressing the fact that we're in Beta. Surely, the important part is that we exist - and that we have carved out that existence within the workings of the Wikimedia Foundation - however frustrating you found that to be. Existing is a show of support - we will surely not have the plug pulled in six months - but simply we will be reviewed in terms of our scope for learning (and particularly research). Please, can we get back to the real work of Wikiversity - the content, policies and guidelines? Cormaggio 14:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Just to point out that the Wikimedia Foundation is not short of the funds required to host Wikiversity (according to the WMF's treasurer, Michael Davis, during the board panel at Wikimania). The WMF is a non-profit organisation, which hosts informational/educational projects, among them Wikiversity - there is no "owner" of Wikimedia. I'm trying to bring the focus of our community towards creating educational resources, and fostering the community around those resources - exactly what we said we would do in the proposal. I am not against project management - I'm asking you to please apply your skills to developing what we have always said we would do - not to drive us in a whole new direction. It would only be in doing something like what you suggest that the Wikimedia Foundation would consider pulling the plug. Cormaggio 16:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Most small nonprofit organizations, even with volunteers, need a treasury and treasurer for various expenses. This will be a large project and will have expenses beyond bandwidth and memory. Wikiversity needs a way to manage funds and person(s) to do manage funds. This is not either or in relation to the Wikimedia Foundation. A portion of donations to Wikiversity can be retained and a portion forwarded to the foundation, in whatever portions seem reasonable to all involved. If this is not implemented now, the plan should be in place to implement funds management when the beta phase is over. This is vital and should not be neglected. Reswik 14:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd actually rather that people create their own independent corporations to work on Wikiversity rather than having one central one. (The GFDL limits what wikimedia can do with Wikiversity.)  If anyone wants to create their own non-profit to work on wikiversity projects, I have some practical experience on setting one up (http://www.gnacademy.org/).  The nice thing about have multiple corporations with separate bank accounts working on Wikiversity is that it avoids a lot of the political fights.  Also, I do think that in about a decade or so, that Wikiversity is going to be a huge institution with billions of dollars flowing around related projects, and it seems to be that it would be much healthier to have that money and power distributed among several hundred different non-profits (or for-profits) than to have one monolith.
 * Having multiple non-profits actually removes the purpose of this discussion. If someone wants to set up a non-profit to get grant money for Wikiversity, they can go ahead to do that without anyone's permission.  I'll help since I've already set up one non-profit and also a for-profit. Roadrunner 15:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Why not both? Both small group and large group processes enable participation in different ways. It is a great idea to have a multitude of nonprofits working through Wikiversity. It seems it could also be very helpful for Wikiversity to undertake some projects, with widespread participatory planning processes, in some key educational development, service, and research areas. Reswik 03:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Initial Administrators
As of this time the volunteers on the appointed subcommittee of the appointed Special Projects Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation chartered to help initiate Wikiversity as a viable project recieving support from the Foundation in pursuit of its charter goals and informal goals of its founder Jimmy Wales to help make all free human knowledge available to all humanity have all been given status as Wikiversity administrators. There are a couple of other people acting as administrators by transwiking Wikiversity materials from Wikibooks and the metawiki. It is proposed that any of the five subcommitte members who choose to volunteer for the responsibility of Administership at en.wikiversity.org be automatically confirmed in that position until a formal selection process to become an en.wikiversity.org administrator is implemented. Further any of the adminstrators currently assisting Wikiversity by moving our materials to our web site from Wikibooks or the metawiki also be temporarily confirmed with our thanks for their efforts on our behalf during this transition period until a formal guideline for selecting administrators or the equivalent is established at en.wikiverisity.org by the emerging/arriving community.

Position Tally

 * Messedrocker 07:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yorktown1776 17:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I'm not a fan of admin elections. Besides the fact that voting is evil, it also fosters the wrong type of people in admin roles. Especially in a project such as this - were constructive discourse and civil disagreement is crucial - I would find it very difficult to support an RfA process that involved voting. -- sebmol ? 09:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Wikiversity a Single Massive Project or a Multitude Defined by Language?
As an English only speaker it has been my experience that wiki projects tend to develop along lines of language with their own internal detailed policy and guidelines. Obviously there are multilingual participants crossing over but they fair best when they pick up and apply the local culture and guidelines. Most people are tolerant of mistakes due to language difficulties but expect the mistakes to be reduced over time by learning the local requirements for participation.

Position Tally

 * Wikiversity is or is not a single project/program.

 * Messedrocker 07:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- sebmol ? 09:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * for multiple language projects (not a single project) -- Reswik 14:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Talonhawk 00:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Is the position above for having multiple separate language projects, or a single multi-lingual project? The Jade Knight 00:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I belive that a pro is generally for a "multitude defined by language". Talonhawk 02:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Selection Criteria and Procedures for en.wikiversity.org Administrators
Do we need specific documented selection criteria and procedures for new and existing administrators and project leadership positions?

Position Tallies

 * Messedrocker 07:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- sebmol ? 09:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * . Guillom 10:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- Reswik 14:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Talonhawk 00:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Enni84 08:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I think criteria need to be fairly liberal in the beginning just to cope with the fact that contributors will be rare. A show of trust in another Wikimedia project either through a successful admin vote or comparable involved engagement combined with a passion for what Wikiversity stands for should be all that's necessary. -- sebmol ? 09:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We don't need a complicated, restrictive policy. Let's focus on content. Guillom 10:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the points above. Reswik 17:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree with the above and this sems to be a point where there is a clear consensus, and that gives me hope. Talonhawk 00:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Initial Appointment of Custodians Should be Liberal and Easily Reversible
Position Tallies

Discussion

Administrator Creation and Behavioral Criteria Guidelines and Policy
It is proposed that specific criteria and guidelines be drafted for presentation and approval by the en.wikiversity.org community for en.wikiversity.org  At the moment it shall be beyond the scope of this activity to coordinate specifics, commonalities, and exceptions with other language xx.wikiversity.org projects except on an informal ad hoc basis.

Position Tallies

 * -- sebmol ? 09:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Enni84 08:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

A Board of Regents should be Established
Such a board would provide a place for all the xx.wiktionary.org(s) to coordinate their top level policies and mandates with philanthropic organizations such as the Wikimedia Foundation who wish to provide conditional assistance and help transfer good policy and information on bad policy experiment accross the language barriers. The Wikimedia Foundation might wish to recognize them as an advisory board or simply be responsive to them as a large customer organization who generates a significant percentage of the Wikimedia Foundation's budget. For this to be the case we would need to request of the Wikimedia Foundation that the paypal and internal accounts be setup such that donations originating from Wikiversity may be tracked in their internal budgets.

To keep it small enough to be manageable we might use a formula such as the following:

A member of the Wikiversity Regent would be provided by popular or administrator vote each year from the three largest (by some comparison formula of total bytes in the database, total internet hits, total registered accounts) with one by popular vote on a rotating basis between the remaining active language wikiversities and one or two additional members on a rotating basis from the remaining active language wikiversities as sufficient to create an odd number of regents to avoid deadlocks in voting on measures. The Chair to be elected at any time by simple majority vote of the sitting Regents. The Chair to cast the deciding vote in the event that abscence, abstention or neutrality vote by any other Regent results in a tie on a given measure.

Should such a concept of a unifying overall Board of Regents for all Wikiversities be developed and pursued with the other language Wikiversities?

Position Tally

 * Mirwin 08:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- sebmol ? 09:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Guillom 10:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Roadrunner 14:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- Reswik 17:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
If such a thing would ever be created, it would be much much later than today. -- sebmol ? 09:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The only time such a thing is likely to be created with some legitimacy from the community is at the start before power vacuums and gaps are filled in by practical necessities. Mirwin 10:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do we even have to talk about that now ? Guillom 10:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If not now when? Once a power structure evolves it rarely wishes to give up its priveleges.  I  prefer a wide community based process.  If you do not you are welcome to wait and see what develops in the vacuum of inattention. Mirwin 14:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Evolved systems tend to work better than designed ones. I don't really see any problem with power vacuums and gaps being filled in ad hoc, as it is likely that those vacuums and gaps will be filled in a disorganized and decentralized way.  Roadrunner 14:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Designed systems tend to evolve faster than natural systems left unpeturbed. Fortunately we have plenty of chaos coming.  Over 150 people had registered as of this morning and they all know other people. Mirwin 00:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity Foundation
A non-profit foundation dedicated to the development and support of Wikiversity as a group of cooperating different language based online free learning and learning materials providers should be established sooner rather than later?

Position Tally

 * Mirwin 08:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- sebmol ? 09:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- Cormaggio 10:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Guillom 10:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Roadrunner 14:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- CSM * 07:39, 22 September 2006
 * -- Talonhawk 03:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Enni84 08:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
The Wikiversity is currently on another probation period from the Wikimedia Foundation of 6 months. At that time appparently it will be re-evaluated and the plug possible pulled on the project. This is essentially the third prototype conducted within a irregular flux of changing conditions, procedures and non-responsiveness from the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation. Six months is plenty of time to setup a 501(c) Non-profit in the State of Oregon if we start soon ...say within sixty days ... get an initial satisfactory charter setup  .... then start looking for donated servers, bandwidth, expertise or cash to buy such items critical to maintaining Wikiversity's present online with no interuption should the Wikimedia Foundation determine we are failing to meet their unspecific and vague evaluation criteria in six months. Mirwin 08:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't share the mistrust for Wikimedia at all. There are very intelligent, highly engaged people involved that have offered their support and willingness for new ideas. If there are differences in opinion, they can be solved in constructive discourse. A fork is in my opinion out of the question. -- sebmol ? 09:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * An extra Foundation providing infrastructure is not necessarily a fork. Particularly if after the specified beta prototype period Wikiversity databases are removed from existing Wikimedia Foundation servers.  The success of Wikipedia was still highly questionable in many peoples minds even including some of the initial contributors as late as about eighteen months into the project. Mirwin 10:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Can we please focus on actually developing Wikiversity, rather than playing personal power games with the Foundation? Cormaggio 10:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Guillom 10:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Easy to say/request from the top Cormaggio. I notice two or three adminships have been created outside your appointed committee while there has been no action on my application.  Have you ever heard of a large project involving hundreds of thousands of people without a clear organizational structure?
 * Yes. Linux.  Any large national economy.  Academia in general. Also the organizational structure of any major corporation or university is actually usually a lot less clear than it appears on paper.  Roadrunner 15:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Linux had Linus, a mailing list of aproximately 50? core developers, various support lists and clubs, and now Red Hat as well as other major distribtions. If you check with the various large distributions you will find organizatinoal structure.  In fact as I recall Linus recently went to work in Portland, Oregon for an organization funded by a coalition of corporations.  Large national economy .... this hardly merits a response.  Perhaps we need to agree on a definition of "organizational structure".  Academia ... Board of Regents, employee contracts, State Governments and taxation support many, private corporations others.  Organizational structure exists even if it is unwritten, if people know who they work for and how information flows and how committments are exchanged.  Your statements above are roughly equivalent to stating the Milky Way has no structure because various stars have different vector velocities. Mirwin 16:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I prefer that organizational structure to be designed and supported by the community of participants. As our only appointed bureaucrat perhaps you prefer to put it off.  When shall we start to design a process to confer wide support for your successor in your position?  It might interest you to know that one of your appointed committee members requested that I start the process of defining and legitimizing leadership positions with the involvement and support of the community.  The only way I see to do that is to define the organization and some due process from top to bottom.  If you know a better way by all means write it down and either mandate it or put it up for some straw polls.  Incidentally, developing the engineering school would be much more efficient if I could move my and others files from Wikibooks without making a specific request for an administrator to transwiki each file.   Perhaps some useful work "actually developing Wikiversity" would distract me from "power games" with the Foundation. You could always ask a steward to strip the adminship after I get the engineering files over to Wikiversity for a useful continuing point.  Mirwin 14:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd actually prefer to use Wikiversity to teach people to start their own non-profits and get their own grant money for Wikiversity projects through their own foundations. Roadrunner 15:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a bad thought! Perhaps in the project management classes we can develop a couple of different charter templates/generics suitable for large free wikis.  Wiki software and sites are proliferating wildly.  Someone is sure to be able to use an effective community based charter rather than a God-King charter eventually.  We can also establish a grant/proposal writing class and pool some expertise helping free wikis figure out how to serve target markets in exchange for targeted grant monies.  A lot of this has large commonalities with business proposals so until the crowds grow more numerous and thicker around here we could also invite business management students to participate.  The situation is simply fraught with potential! Mirwin 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, well, I was made bureaucrat pretty randomly - and it is not something that I am entirely happy with. This is not "from the top". I am absolutely for helping us organise our community processes - that is what I am advocating we do - instead of concerning ourselves with 'uber-organisational' structures like a "Wikiversity foundation". This is just not an immediate priority (if on the agenda at all). On making admins, the beginning has been also quite random, and I simply made people admins who were here on the first day and who volunteered to help out. But we still need to get a proper, workable system in place - and that's what we're doing at the moment. Cormaggio 15:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I think I was here six months ago.  I volunteered on the administrator request  page and provided references to my previous status as a Wikipedia Administrator.  I think my app was about third on the first page where nominations were piling up and first on a subsequent page that was established.  Well no sweat. If I cannot help transfer my engineering files I can simply help out at random as quantum uncertainties or personal whimsy shift me around the interesting portions of the site.  Regarding the agenda.  It is certainly going to remain on mine until I see some meaningful data and audits applicable and useful for project planning published to the entire community by the Wikimedia Foundation. Mirwin 00:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I probably should put this under Educational Administration

 * Just a note. The idea of having multiple interacting corporations is something that worked well in the "first era of online internet universities."  What happened was that you just had too many personality conflicts if you tried to fit everyone under one roof, so it worked much better to have several interacting non-profits (Globewide Network Academy, Diversity University, BioMOO, and Virtual Online University).  The interesting thing was that each non-profit was basically organized around a single "queen bee" (me, Jeanne McWhorter, Gustavo Glusman, and William Painter).

 * What killed the era of the MOO universities was that we didn't have the funds to match people like Yahoo and MSN who eventually developed chat and discussion facilities which attracted ordinary people and eventually killed the communities.

 * Roadrunner 15:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know if the other projects such as Wikipedia have their own non-profits or if they are fully funded by the Wikimedia Foundation. Talonhawk 01:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

 * No, each project is fully funded by the Foundation. What we do have, though, as an adjunct to the Foundation, are national non-profits ("chapters"), which support the development of Wikimedia projects in the context of their country. Cormaggio 07:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

 * It seems that no US chapter exists, and I would be far more in favor of utilizing that, than creating a project specific non-profit. Talonhawk 03:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If there are ever new NPCs that supports Wikiversity they should also support and cooperate with the Wikimedia Foundation. --JWSchmidt 04:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Judy Landers

Birthyear
Was Judy born in 1958 or 1961? Hotwine8 03:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 * 1966 <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Parents
Does she have a dad? <IP_ADDRESS> 23:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course she does.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC).

Chippendales
She likes Room Service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Judy Landers


text:
File:God With Us.ogg

Summary

 * Sound sample from the song "God with Us"
 * Song length: 5:52
 * Reduced quality: yes
 * Source : All That Is Within Me
 * Songwriter(s): MercyMe
 * Performed by: MercyMe
 * Producer(s): Brown Bannister
 * Copyright © 2007 INO Records

Rationale of fair use for "God with Us (song)" sample
This is a sound sample from a commercial recording. Its inclusion here is claimed as fair use because:
 * It illustrates an educational article that specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken. The section of music used is discussed in the article in relation to the song's lyrics, musical and vocal style, and may contain part of the song's chorus.
 * It is a sample of no more than 30 seconds from a much longer recording, and could not be used as a substitute for the original commercial recording or to recreate the original recording.
 * It is of a lower quality than the original recording.
 * It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted sample of comparable educational value.
 * It is believed that this sample will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original recording.
 * The audio sample is a copyrighted work. U.S. copyright laws apply to this work. Should a free or public domain sample be located, it should be used in place of this audio sample.

title: File:God With Us.ogg


text:
Chen Shuren

Chen Shuren (1884–1948) was a Chinese painter. Born Chen Zhe, he was renamed Chen Shao and also known by the art names De'an Laoren , Jiawai Yuzi , and Ershan Shanqiao , among others.

Born in Mingjing, Panyu, Guangdong in 1884, Chen studied under painter Ju Lian. In 1903, Chen and two brothers, Gao Jianfu and Gao Qifeng, co-founded the Guangdong Daily. Together, the trio, known collectively by their surnames "Two Gous and one Chan" or as "The three greats of Lingnan", became leaders of the Lingnan school of painting, credited with popularizing the nihonga art style in China. Chen joined the Tongmenghui upon its establishment in 1905. In 1906, he left to attend art school in Kyoto (Kyoto City School of Arts and Crafts), returning to China in 1912 after accepting a teaching position in Guangdong. He went back to Japan in 1913, enrolling at Rikkyo University. Upon completing his studies, Chen remained overseas, serving as secretary general of the Canadian branch of the Kuomintang. He became active in the Guangdong Kuomintang chapter in 1922, the same year he arrived in China. Chen became allied with Wang Jingwei between 1928 and 1931. From 1932 to 1947, Chen led the Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission. He withdrew politically from Wang, who led a Japan-friendly collaborationist government from 1940 to 1944.

title: Chen Shuren