text:
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 February 3

= February 3 =

I would like to understand the Chinese perspective on spying
Hi, I'd like to understand the Chinese perspective on spying (which I'm generally against, by all countries - I think in general there are better ways to use resources together and grow as a world economy). Besides replying here (from wherever) obviously I'm interested in any books or references by current or ex-Chinese spies detailing their perspective, and also organizationally how China feels and what they're like. This information is quite easy to find and skim through in half an afternoon on most countries but I haven't heard much about China, perhaps due to a lack of translations. Any references would be appreciated - my goal is genuinely to understand the Chinese perspective. Thank you. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I did find Chinese_intelligence_activity_abroad just now, which is an interesting article. However, it doesn't have any material on perspective or philosophy, other than mentioning bolstering the economy through industrial espionage. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I doubt if you will find much from the Chinese perspective, since they just deny that they do any economic spying. Hard to say why you would do something you claim not to have done. StuRat (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 * But it doesn't stop them giving perspectives on other aspects of spying, the OP mentioned resources and world economy, but they didn't say they were only interested in economic spying. Anyway even in China people are often able to publish stuff which doesn't toe with the official line and of course, ex-spys living in other countries are sometimes able to sometimes get away with publishing stuff they aren't supposed to publish. So the fact that China may deny they do any economic spying doesn't stop people offering perspectives in support of the idea and, in fact it may not completely stop people publishing stuff claiming they were involved in it. (Of course, it's always wise to read any claims with a grain of salt. Nil Einne (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes, of course. Everything StuRat says applies just as well to the spying by every country (obviously they will deny it) but it is quite easy to read about other countries' perspectives in an afternoon.  Obviously there were large revelations such as the fact that everyone was surprised by Snowden's specific revelations about the scope of spying by America on Americans and details thereof, but everyone knew what the NSA's mission and general MO was or philosophy, i.e. vacuum (hoover) up everything, sort later as appropriate.  Of course the official perspective was that nobody should know any of that, but it didn't stop it being 'in the air' so to speak.  I didn't ask for details, just general Chinese perspectives and what's hanging in the air and philosophically around their foreign spying and general things, nothing specific.  The kind of thing you could read in a well-researched spy novel that doesn't actually say anything specific enough for anyone to even bother to keep it from being published, such as the fact that Le Carré (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy etc) was an actual ex-spy giving a certain perspective.   So I'm just looking for the same, fine acceptabe perspectives from the Chinese side, nothing they would even bother to keep from being published. (Everyone likes to express themselves and be understood, and also dialogue always helps everyone in general - it's the distinguishing thing about humanity, and of course of all economic and industrial progress from ancient times through today.)  I'd just like to understand their attitudes etc a bit better when it comes to spying, and welcome any kind of reply or speculation or what-not, general resources.  I'm not looking for facts here, which for obvious reasons would be buried or gainsaid.  Just perspectives, philosophy, etc.  References to read for half an afternoon, or anyone's reply or speculation here :) Really, I'm open to anything.  The article I linked was super-short and didn't help. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 * There's a big difference. The US (and other countries) admit to spying, in general, although they may deny specific instances (or give a "no comment").  The CIA has a "covert service", after all.  China, on the other hand, completely denies any involvement in economic spying.  Part of the reason is democracy.  In a democracy, transparency is important, so they couldn't just deny that the CIA or MI6 exist.  StuRat (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Is the OP talking about government spying, or industrial spying? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 * They're kind of one in the same in China. The government spies on foreign industries, and gives the info to their own industry, to give them a competitive advantage. StuRat (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, sure. It's just that the OP is talking about the world economy, which suggests more directly to do with industrial spying, as opposed to trying to find out troop deployments and the like. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 * OP here. I'm not picky, just give me large references or summarize them at length or synthesize your own opinion based on knowledge or readings. I would have liked the article I had linked if it had some of the questions I raised answered.  <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused here. Why do you keep referring to economic spying? The OP never said, and seem to have confirmed above they are just interested in economic spying. China may be somewhat more secretive but AFAIK, they admit to spying with the in general with the Ministry of State Security (China) etc, just as the US and other countries do. As AnonMoos said below, depending on your definition the US likewise denies involvement in economic spying, although particularly with recent revelations I think many would call that in to question. Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OP here. even if they admit something it doesn't really give me a perspective.  for example I'm sure the department of agriculture in the united states admits everything, it's just a boring old government division, I picked it to be a boring example here.  reading United_States_Department_of_Agriculture is filed with tons of facts nobody has any reason to deny but just doesn't tell me what it's like to be an employee there or what their perspective is.  if you google https://www.google.com/search?q=what+it%27s+like+to+work+for+department+of+agriculture+united+states nobody has bothered to write that, because who cares.  I picked this department as the most boring thing I could possibly think of.  I'm sure I could skim a book on it though if someone wrote one, but in this case it's not my request. in this case I'm asking about china's foreign service stuff, I'm sure parts are just as boring.  but in this case I'd skim a book if someone has written one.  I'm really not looking for facts here, and they wouldn't help me. I wouldn't even read it if we had as detailed and long an article as my boring example.  By the way it could just be my impression that in general spying is boring thankless work, obviously books would be about the exciting parts.  so did anybody write any? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

<IP_ADDRESS> -- Some of the recent disputes between the US and China on the subject are because the US draws a clear "red line" around government spying as industrial espionage for the benefit of companies not directly part of the government, while China doesn't see why such a distinction is important... AnonMoos (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 * thanks I guess but this gives very little flavor. I'd just like to know what it's like for them, in practice, etc.  there's tons of spy books about other countries, some written by ex spies, and they all read the same (and are pretty boring).  so if they're all the same, it gives a good flavor to how things are done.  but do you have a book recommendation with a chinese perspective, for example? might be interesting. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Does this sound like it might be along the right lines? Some of the results here seem like they might help too. -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * sure. I'd just prefer for someone else to do that reading.  could you summarize those books? I'll reply with my personal details.  <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleveraging and the World Wars
Hello, I know that when I ask this question there will be a torrent of "we don't answer 'what ifs' on the Reference Desk" [NPA], but I was hoping one of you might help me find some resources which could answer. I understand that Britain underwent a massive debt reduction programme during the 1800s. My question is, if Britian hadn't of done this, would it have fallen into economic collapse during the World Wars? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Hi. There's an important note at the end of this response.

 * I'm not an expert in the 1800s, but have a firm answer for you based on economic analysis you will find very useful, and almost certainly has all the predictive value you asked about. In general unless the debt was over 100% of GDP, it was almost certainly quite manageable and would not have led to collapse. Over that amount would have been extremely problematic and very likely would have led to a collapse if there was no bailout, debt reduction, or external factor. This is to be taken seriously, and I would like to demonstrate it for you.  Have a look here: List of countries by public debt and sort by the sixth column, "Net government debt as % of GDP (IMF)" from highest to lowest.  As you can see the list starts (after you have sorted it):

List

 * Notice anything about those countries and the sixth column?

 * This is a Backtesting exercise to prove my point. This column is from 2012 data, and obviously the countries in the news about dire economic straits (Grece, Italy, Portugal, and at the time Ireland) are at the very top of the sorted list, all above 100%.  After you move past 100% to lower levels you get some of the largest current economies that have particularly rosy outlooks this year.  (Click through to the actual list and sort it and look through it yourself.)  I would say that debt up to a large percentage of GDP is absolutely manageable, but over 100% becomes problematic.  (This is not only my own opinion.)

 * Secondly, note the similarity with "Buffet's key metric" (Google this phrase) -- i.e. in that it is also based on GDP. For why you must pay attention to his most important metric, recall that Warren Buffet went from personally being worth a few thousand dollars working for a paycheck as an investment salesman, to generating double-digit returns (leading with a 2 or 3) for 5 decades until his company Berkshire Hathaway was the fourth largest in the world, he was personally worth $73.8 billion and being among the top couple of richest people on investment alone.  Which is approximately 738,000x growth in his personal wealth made via investment, over 50 years, i.e. 1.31x (31% annual) growth sustained for 50 years.  (Give or take, this is rough and not inflation-adjusted etc.) He knows how to invest for sustained growth.  He has become the world's second richest man - around and annually vying with Bill Gates who founded Microsoft, a 338.65B company and top 35 in America and who personally built it to this size.  In Buffett's case, this was made with pure investment, (that's his personal wealth, his wealth under management is much larger) with those returns being sustained year over year over year..  So I would just say, I would look at his feedback extremely carefully.  That is how you get to 31% growth for decades to come, as he did.  Look at Buffet's key metric, notice it is based on GDP, and look also at debt ratios based on GDP size.  You can comfortably deal with any debt up to very close to 100% of GDP.  Regarding what this figure was in the 1800's, you will have to investigate.  If it was over 100% it would have fallen into economic collapse based on all available evidence, all of which is to be taken quite seriously.

 * Important note: by the way the questioner sounds like they're interested in history, which is a humanities subject. If they could in exchange try to research the prevoius question above this one and give a summary or any references they could find it would be appreciated.  Just general things, nothing specific or that would cause a problem or hasn't appeared elsewhere already.  Things I would find out anyway from public sources if I had a lot more time - I just think a lot hasn't been translated or well-researched novels haven't been published by people who know.  That sort of thing.   Any speculation or general ideas based on a quick reading would also be appreciated.  I took quite a bit of time to prepare this response, so a similar quick look by OP at some sources and a general summary of what they say for my question would be appreciated.  I don't really have so much time or, as I mentioned, such an interest in history.  General impressions would be fine too.  Thanks for any time you have for this, it would be very greatly appreciated, and, as mentioned in one of my responses above, I am sure even the mainland would not mind once they realize this public information "is the distinguishing thing about humanity, and of course of all economic and industrial progress from ancient times through today", as well as being public and nonspecific anyway.  Thanks again, and I will be happy to answer more questions if you help me with the above. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 * There is no rule that dictates that debt levels greater than 100% of GDP are problematic. It depends very much on the growth rate of the economy in question.  As long as the economy is growing faster than the stock of debt, debt will decrease as a percentage of GDP.  Debt exceeding 100% of GDP may be problematic in times of recession, but those have typically been short lived in modern times.  According to our article History of the British national debt, the national debt of the UK exceeded 200% of GDP after the Napoleonic Wars. However, because Britain was then the world's leading industrial power, with a steadily growing economy, it was able to reduce its debt as a percentage of GDP steadily during the 19th century. Its successful record of economic growth and debt repayment certainly helped the UK borrow the funds it needed to fight the world wars in the 20th century.  Even if Britain had not been able to reduce its debt level during the 19th century, it would have had other options entering the world wars, such as instituting a command economy involving some nationalization. Such a policy arguably could have left the UK economically weaker after the world wars, but would not necessarily have entailed "economic collapse". Repudiating debt would have meant a financial crisis and losses for Britain's wealthy elite, but redistribution and a reduction in economic inequality, which could have resulted from a command economy, could also have resulted in renewed economic vigor if, say, the country's capital had been privatized by granting shares in firms to employees. Marco polo (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The ratio alone isn't that important. As long as the borrowed money is put into adventures that create more profit than the interest on the loan there is really no problem. The table that was placed above isn't very important because it fails to mention the estimated future gdp-debt ratios and debts owned. Some countries, like Canada, owe over half a trillion in debts and continually run deficit budgets, but when you see that the economy is growing faster than the debt and that the interest rates paid out are low and that the country loans out more money at higher interest rates then you see that everything is fine. And back to the WWI context, after Britain won, well to the victor goes the spoils, either flex your obvious military might or tell them to collect what is owed from the Axis. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Correlation isn't causation, but if you get the top 5 developed countries that are IN HUGE TROUBLE out of the top 10 when sorting 100 datapoints on a field, then maybe that field is worth paying attention to as a predictor. (Though there could be a data bias of only troubled countries having their debt listed in that field, since lots of countries were blank.) You don't have to be tall to be in the MBA but if you get the 3 top scorers out of the top 5 sorted by height of 50 players, well, it does tell you something. It would be like the 5 most expensive buildings in the world being in the top 10 sorted by height of 100 expensive buildings.  You would have to concude that height is a great predictor of most expensive.  Debt/GDP is a great predictor of dire straits with a few exceptions (including bailout.)  It really is a real rule.  As for whether height is, just sort all MBA players by height and see if the top scorers are in the top few.  I don't know the answer (which is the point, it's experimental) but if so, then height (probably) really does matter. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to just be making it up as you go. You don't seem to realize that most investors don't loan money to nations which are IN HUGE TROUBLE. Many debt free nations are that way because no one will loan them money. Like people, countries have credit ratings, and similarly, a person with millions in debt often is, or will be, wealthier than an average debt-free individual. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. We are not using debt to predict wealth. We are asking what tends to happen when extraordinarily high debt exists and is retained. (The question asks about this scenario explicitly.)  For an analogy about the difference, obviously height doesn't predict MBA playing ability all that well, as it's a sport and skill.  you can't just measure heights.  But if you're 7 foot tall (very rare), you have a 17% chance of playing in the MBA.  If you have over 100% of your GDP as debt (very rare), your odds of impending ruin are high, as I showed.  I didn't mean to go too far beyond the OP's question to try to apply it to other scenarios, i.e. more average levels of debt. sorry if I gave that impression.  <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A nation could very well hold a 100:1 Debt:GDP ratio without any problem so long as it maintains a credit rating of AAA. Of course the nation would only keep the AAA rating if it was wisely using the borrowed money to create profit over the interest paid. If Britain during the 1800s did not have many profitable adventures in which to invest the money it was borrowing than it would be very important to pay down the debt. If Britain had opportunities to use borrowed capital to increase their GDP by more than the interest cost than keeping the debt would be wise. If you look at a world map of debt:gdp ratios you will see nations like Canada, Japan, and Ireland, borrowing money to increase their GDPs (infrastructure, research, re-lending) and nations like Norway, Saudi Arabia, and PRC holding no debt as all the profitable adventures for them are already fully funded. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * what you've written about 100:1 ratio is true. But only in the same way that a 12-person unincorporated community can become the world's leading economic superpower in 108 minutes if it is allowed to borrow unlimited money at -0.5% interest rate in any currencies.
 * (still massively tricky, because the created cash has to be locked up so as not to spoof the market, which is massively difficult to set up in 108 minutes without being an actual entity even if several of the 12 knows exactly what they're doing, there's instant agreement on independence and interim government within seconds, in perfect philosophical alignment on all issues. then quadrillions have to be locked up and inaccessible with a few trillion to spend now and $50 trillion due as interests payments, for 1 example (another is simply no plan to repay). still won't have real economic output until it spends tons of that cash - which here is essentially redistributory seigniorage from all 196 countries, not any real output. very tricky, 99% chance of failure, huge chance of devaluing entire world economy massively - but more surprising things have happened, it's easily in the realm of possible within 108 minutes for them to become the world's leading superpower.)
 * But anyway, I think the OP was interested in realistic scenarios, not 100:1 debt:gdp ratios retaining AAA rating or unlimited cash in any currency at -0.5% rate to 12 random people. I would say the two are about equally realistic, and in fact QE (quantitative easing) means the world has a lot more experience with this second scenario than yours, and the 12 now-bankers are a good analogy for how many people feel (in this scenario how the 'rest of the world' would feel) about Wall Street over the last few years, and their views on its real economic contribution.  Bet you didn't expect that connection! :) <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much all those contributors who answered! <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Grumble: debt is an amount of money, GDP is an amount of money divided by time. A ratio between them ought to be expressed in units of time (e.g. days), rather than a dimensionless "%". —Tamfang (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Short story about soldier ants
As a young teenager I read a short story about a devastating army of soldier ants. I loved it, but can't remember much about it, other than they were a ruinous threat, possibly considered a danger to people and this - the most specific memory - that at one point someone needs stitches and they use soldier ant heads to do the trick. It might have been in a Reader's Digest book and at a guess I read it c.1984. Any help identifying it? --Dweller (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking "Leiningen Versus the Ants"... I recall reading that when I was younger. Scared the daylights out of me (though I'll admit I didn't recall the title). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Could be! I've scanned it and it does seem familiar, though I must have synthesised the memory of the ant-head-stitches. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, ant head stitching is a real thing, not fiction. See the end of Dorylus. I'm guessing this was fiction, because ants aren't generally a threat to human communities (though it is true that a toddler can get pretty damaged playing in a nest of fire ants). Also, "soldier" isn't the name of an ant species or family. You might be thinking of driver ants or army ants, which are new world and old world variants on the same theme. "Soldier" usually refers to a caste of sterile worker ants, see Ant. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's about 30 years ago, so details are somewhat fuzzy. --Dweller (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I've heard "Leiningen" dramatized for radio, btw. —Tamfang (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I read the same story, it was most likely in the late 70's, but could have been published any time before that. μηδείς (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The book I found could have been a few years old. Do you remember ant-head-stitches, Medeis? --Dweller (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I was in grade school, perhaps four decades and a 1,000 novels ago. I remember it involved an ingenious farmer whose farm was overrun in Africa or South America, his animals killed, and he had to abandon the site.  I remember the ant-head anecdote, but can't say it was part of the story.  It would have been in a book or a collection that I got from an elementary school for kids 6-12 years old, but they weren't very censorious.  Basically, if you could and wanted to read a story you were allowed.  The story sticks out because I almost only read non-fiction back then.  Of course I have nothing more useful to say than that I read such a story in the same era. Having just read Leiningen Versus the Ants I am quite sure that it was that story I read. μηδείς (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Take your stinking mandibles off me, you damn dirty ant! Clarityfiend (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I saw the film adaptation, The Naked Jungle, and remember thinking how stupid he was to stay, when the natives told him to flee. Unfortunately, his actions got many people killed.StuRat (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, nobody tells Charlton Heston what to do (except Chuck Norris). They can have the plantation when they take it from his cold, dead hands. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

name of germanic tribe
Which germanic tribe cut off the aqueducts of ancient rome during the sixth century when they sacked it? Also, what was the background surrounding this invasion of rome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See Siege_of_Rome_(537–38) --Dweller (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Angels/Demons
In Kabbalah there are angels of sacred prostitution, which are the first vampires. – True/False? -- (Russell.mo (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC))
 * Sacred prostitution doesn't have much to do with vampires. Lilith, often associated with those angels, but not one herself, is often confused/associated with Lamia, famous for drinking blood. Which (if any) of these demons/angels existed first is virtually unanswerable, but the stories of Lamia predate those of Lilith and crew. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Vampire folklore by region is sort of interesting. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Thanks InedibleHulk! -- (Russell.mo (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC))

Prophet Moses
"In one case, an angel wrestled with Moses and was going to kill him, until Moses's wife saved him." – true/false?

Does anyone know the story? A definition would be sufficient as this is not something for me to learn. The original sentence is as follows: “In one case, an angel wrestled with Moses and was going to kill him, until Moses's wife threw a foreskin at it.” I believe the gentleman/lady was trying to throw humour.

(Russell.mo (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC))
 * See Zipporah at the inn. Nanonic (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 * The story is recounted in Moses: A Life which is a rather skeptical and irreverant work. It implies she saved him from what was the equivalent of a demon (nephilim?) by circumcising him and providing his foreskin as a blood sacrifice.  It is implied that much of what became Judaism was inherited from Moses's father-in-law. μηδείς (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The nephilim are half god, half human. The nephalem are the half demon, half angels. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I just found the Kirsch in storage, but am reading Almond's The Devil: a New Biography. The latter doesn't strike me as the most careful of sources, but it implies that some of the Nephilim were fallen.  In any case, Kirsch argues that the circumcision story is far older than most of the Bible, with the Nephilim only mentioned in the 4th-2nd centuries BC per Almond.  I just happened to be reading this now, and have no expertise. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, me neither. I've read a little bit here and there, and there are a lot of twists on the story. Ancient giants tend to stir people's imaginations more than regular-sized legends. First I've heard of anyone tossing a foreskin, in any book. Cool tale. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 * That sounds like a confused combination of Zipporah at the inn and the story of Jacob wrestling with an angel. In Genesis 32:22-30, Jacob is about to cross a river when God appears in the shape of an ordinary man.  Jacob wrestles with God and wins; his name is then changed to Israel (meaning "he who wrestled with God").  --Bowlhover (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Lol. Its not me InedibleHulk, the statement is from Rationalwiki. Someone has to be mad (crazy) to write such thing... Thank you all, and Medeis . I've saved the links, I'll read through the links when I get some free time... -- (Russell.mo (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC))


text:
Portal talk:Social Sciences

If you want to experiment with a radical new version of Portal:Social Sciences you can work at Portal:Social Sciencesnew.

If you update featured content on this portal, make sure that you update Portal:Social Sciences/Featured.

Hey people
Did you get to hear or see what the vandals did on the main Wikiversity page? If not, check the page history, it was terrible. User:Lawman was the first to witness the effect. The admins should better consult him for the investigation. How dishonorable the act is? I appeal to all noble people who are beyond such barbaric acts to be vigilant throughout Wikiversity. User:Humble Guy

I think we'll survive pr0n spammers so long as there are enough regular visitors to revert mischief. Lucidish 18:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Does "communication" belong in the social sciences?
Communication Courses seem more like they'd belong in a Humanities league. Just a thought. jxn 19:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One of the things you should consider doing, if you wish for people to enroll in Wikiversity courses is to make it really, really easy to do. I would like to enroll in the school of economics. I searched for about an hour for a way to enroll, and never did find one.

Put a link right near the top of the Wikiversity home page; >>>ENROLLMENT<<<. I'm not saying there isn't a way somewhere, but I didn't find it. Wilbur Wilson<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
It seems obvious to me that communications theory belongs in the social sciences, though I would call it a subcategory of Sociology. Though this brings up the whole notion of a categorization scheme for the social sciences, which I'll talk about in a sec. Lucidish 18:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

New Departmental scheme
Quite literally the word "anthropology" means the study of humans, so every so-called "Social science" is actually a branch of anthropology. Accordingly, I think that's what the entire faculty should be named.
 * Moreover, the way I see it, disciplines would look like this, if they were arranged by topic:

The Anthropologies
 * School of Psychology
 * School of Sociology
 * School of Communication
 * School of Media Studies
 * School of Development Science
 * School of Economics
 * School of Political Science
 * Cultural Studies
 * School of History
 * School of Human Ecology
 * School of Geography
 * Archeology
 * (Indsnry.) College of Social Work (applied Social Science)
 * (Indsnry.) College of Social psychology
 * Linguistics

 * Note that "geography", "Human ecology", "archeology" and "linguistics" have been included.
 * Economics and politics are specialized fields of sociology because they describe the makeup of societies and the activity within them.
 * Sorry, but this doesn't gel with most established Universities... Economics and Politics are separate fields of study distinct from Sociology.--Dnjkirk 07:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Interdisciplinary" fields I dubbed "colleges".
 * In hard brackets are some of the applications of each field, indicating that some generic introductory material will be included to bridge the gap between theory and practice.
 * Italicized are disciplines that would not have departments of their own.
 * All the research done in Anthropology would be downloaded into the appropriate discipline(s). Lucidish 04:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see any particular reason that we need a hierarchical scheme at all. Why not simply use the categorization functionality of MediaWiki to put schools (and courses) in multiple categories?  -- <IP_ADDRESS> 09:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't History be in the Social Sciences?

Furthermore I think the name "Social Sciences" is problematic. I much prefer the name "Social Studies." Fokion 02:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is what is great about wikis. History can be in which ever school it wants to be, both at the same time. No need for it to fall under just one cat.--Rayc | (Talk) 05:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but currently it's not here or in the Humanities. I don't care if it gets put in both places, but clearly it should be created!  Jade Knight 07:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Social Studies or Social Sciences, they are both used in universities all over and the distinction is negligible. The argument will continue long into the future no matter what it is, so it's probably better in the long run just to make a decision early and stick with it.--Dnjkirk 07:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * History should not be in "Social Sciences" because it is not a scientific discipline or attempting to be a scientific discipline. Social Sciences are those disciplines that try to use scientific methods to study human beings, such as sociology and psychology.  Political Science can be included because many of its practitioners use scientific methods such as statistical analysis and scientific polling.  A simple rule of thumb, if the discipline includes "science" or "-ology" in its names then it should be considered a "science".  Given a list of departments I would never look in "social sciences" for history. History is like the study of literature or art, not like sociology.   It searches for understanding, not scientific technocratic solutions. --<IP_ADDRESS> 12:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

List of teachers
If learners are teachers and teachers are learners, shouldn't a list of active participants by definition include the list of both teachers and learners? Why must this be reproduced?--Dnjkirk 07:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Totally Redone!!
Strategic Studies has completely cribbed the template from Humanities and created their own killer page. It's probably better set up now for a cribbing by Social Sciences, if someone's up to the task... Right now I've got to get on redesigning Strategic Studies' templates! HOHO!!--Dnjkirk 16:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Genealogy
I would like some input on exactly where Genealogy belongs. I don't see anything on it yet, but am interested in starting something. As it's own department? Or as a sub-department under ... perhaps History? I'm open to suggestions. Wjhonson 07:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

New page format
I started Portal:Social Sciencesnew as a work space for new designs of Portal:Social Sciences. My main goal was to include featured content and links to other Wikiversity content about Social Sciences. --JWSchmidt 00:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Active participants

 * Roy H. Brown, LCSW - interested in teaching
 * Ruzzel Brian Mallari- needs help for School of Demography kindly email me<EMAIL_ADDRESS> * Emanuele Canegrati - interested in teaching Political Economy and Political Economy Projects —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JWSchmidt (talk • contribs) 23:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
 * William Hamblin 07:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC) - Working on developing the new department of military history.

Things you can do
The "todo" list box is currently being truncated and is virtually useless for this reason at the moment. Can anyone fix this? I've tried to figure it out, but failed. The Jade Knight 00:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

In need of Peer Review/Criticism
I am looking for some serious critiquing on my project here, I know many of you are probably busy enough. But, I do not feel dignified by begging. Recovery_psychology--recovery psychologist 01:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Congratulations on your very substantial work on this resource. I will gradually take a look and see if I can help where I can - I have much to learn from it and an interest in humanistic/positive psychology, and anti-psychiatric viewpoints. I like the way you've positioned the topic in the introduction (as academic but also activist). I didn't look closely enough yet, but does recovery psychology include examination of the history of anti-psychiatric arguments e.g., Thomas Szasz? -- Jtneill - Talk 01:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely examing anti-psychiatry arguements point-counter point is essential to recovery psychology, since the recovery concept is very much influenced by anti-psychiatry. Actually on the humanistic-positive psychology aspects, I was working with another student-consumer who felt it all should be humanistic, I felt it should be eclectic or integrated school of thought (all except the Freud) Positive psychology, although when I read what I have seen so far on it looks like it is not very accepting of persons with psychological disorders, as if it is only about the so called normal, pathologically normal, or chronically normal finding happiness...other than that I would say that positive psychology and recovery psychology would be like twins (except one has a mental illness) --recovery psychologist 20:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I've semi-randomly flipped through some Recovery psychology pages, and am appreciating the depth and quality of the material. One thought for you is to consider renaming the pages by topic rather than by lesson number. You could still have a sequential course outlined, but it would also facilitate people being able to come in and find and learn from specific, single topics. -- Jtneill - Talk 02:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I will have to consider that...If you see the talk page on the course summary page; I have thought of doing that study I mention there offline, since I guess we are not supposed to do any actual or original research here on wikiversity, but it would be APA published research paper, the question of self-promotion comes in it I qoute myself after I am officially published, what are the ethics or guidelines here on that?--recovery psychologist 20:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Hi RP, I don't see any problem with original research on wikiversity, e.g., see Portal:Research. If you do consider renaming, maybe see Naming conventions. Here's an example of a way I've created sequenced content, but also created lessons with unique and descriptive names Survey research methods and design in psychology. Hope this helps. -- Jtneill - Talk 05:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Critical Updates
The Social Sciences Portal is in need of critical updates, as opposed to discussing them, I'm going to start making the changes and as people disagree with the changes,I beg for feedback and help in attempting to revitalize Wikiversity ... let's not let this good thing, fade away.

Some major projects that I am going to be working on are:

-Wikiversity Social Sciences Summit 2009 (WS3 2009) scheduled for 21 - 25 September,2009; more to follow. Make sure to check back into the page as often as possible for updates.

-Wikiversity Social Sciences Featured Articles Program

-Wikiversity Social Sciences Featured Research Program

-Wikiversity Social Sciences Research Centers and Programs

Departmental Changes
I figured that this would be really controversial so I am going to give the reason why the change is being made so that folks don't get too upset. We are trying to define Social Sciences as if it were a wikipedia page by adding all of the different disciplines that we think should be added. As opposed to trying to redefine Social Sciences, why don't we just use the Wikipedia page to make the divisions. If you have an issue, change the Wikipedia page and then we can add it to the Wikiversity page. In essence, we're allowing the broader Wikipedian society to help us define the major Social Science Divisions ... flawed logic? This way we don't have a list of divisions that literally runs over a page long. We can have the departments within each division, represent the different disciplines that each Division may have. --JaylanHaley 04:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Makes sense enough. Do make sure you pay attention to Social_Sciences, however.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 05:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The structuring of social sciences and related pages I think is quite mature, so this make sense. I've noticed especially on WV in the School: and Portal: name spaces a lot of rather empty structure, so by all means tidy up and be as consistent as possible not just with wikipedia but also check social sciences. Personally I've tended to drill bottom-up, e.g., I've tried to organise Psychology pages, but we need people approaching from all angles/levels. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 05:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'm doing the same kind of work over at History. The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I was just thinking, if we could get just one very active "bureaucrat"/participant from each of the schools here, that could be a very good thing. Right now, looks like we've got Jtneill for Psychology, JaylanHaley for Political Science, and me for History (and theoretically for Linguistics, but I mostly just ignore the School there, as I mostly am only interested in ELang).  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Great discussion thus far ... I am absolutely going to be working on the Political Science page and I have been thinking about taking on another project (Division) but for the next couple of weeks, I am going to be working on cleaning up the Social Sciences and Political Science Pages so that they can be streamlined and ready to go. In a couple of weeks I am going to be hosting the Wikiversity Social Sciences Summit and I encourage you all to attend.  The specifics of the conference have not been fully conceived but I think once I get everything organized it should be an interesting experience.  If anyone needs any help with anything, let me know.--JaylanHaley 17:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Category Tree
I think we should make a Category like the one below, but for the entire School. (This one is featured at Portal:History.)

The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And put it on the Portal. Forgot to mention that part.  The Jade Knight (d'viser) 06:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an awesome idea ... I'll work on incorporating that into the Social Sciences page. I'll use the history link as the guinea pig.  Actually, I'll use the Political Science Department.  Since it's a little thin.  I'll work on the categorization because that's going to be the biggest pain.--JaylanHaley 17:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

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

title: Portal talk:Social Sciences


text:
Japanese/Vocabulary/Everyday Phrases

see you

Greetings

 * 今晩は　(こんばんは) - Good evening (generally used after 6pm).
 * 今日は　(こんにちは) - Hello; good day; good afternoon.
 * おはよう - Casual "Good morning" (generally used until 10am).
 * おはようございます - Formal "Good morning."
 * お休み　(おやすみ) - Casual "Good night."
 * おやすみなさい - Formal "Good night."

Yes and No

 * はい - yes (formal)
 * ええ - yes (slightly less formal)
 * いいえ - no (formal)
 * うん - yeah/uh-huh (casual)
 * ううん - no/uh-uh (casual)
 * いや - no (casual, indicates displeasure)

Eating

 * いただきます - Polite phrase to say before eating.
 * ごちそうさまでした - Polite phrase to say after eating.

Praise

 * おめでとう - Congratulations
 * おめでとうございます - Stronger congratulations.
 * よく出来ました. - Good job. (You did well.)

Please and Thank You

 * ~ ください - ~ please. (Usually used with the -te form of the verb)
 * おねがいします - please (Slightly more polite)
 * どうぞ - please (Casual)
 * どうも - Thanks.
 * ありがとう - Thank you. (Casual)
 * どうもありがとう - Thank you very much. (Casual)
 * ありがとうございます - Thank you. (Polite)
 * どうもありがとうございます - Thank you very much. (Polite)
 * すみません - excuse me.
 * どうもすみません - Thanks a lot. (Usually when someone goes out of their way to help)
 * どういたしまして - You are welcome.
 * いいえ - Not at all/No problem.

Getting Attention

 * すみません - Excuse me.
 * あのうすみません - Ah, excuse me ...
 * すみませんが - Excuse me, but ...
 * おい - Hey (Somewhat rude)

Apology

 * ごめん - Sorry.
 * ごめんなさい - I am really sorry. (more formal)
 * ごめんね - Sorry (soft/fem.).
 * ごめんな - Sorry (masc.).
 * ごめんよ - Sorry (masc. or Kansai dialect).
 * すみません - I'm sorry.

Farewells

 * しつれいします. - goodbye for use with social superiors
 * さようなら - Goodbye. (Primarily before a long absence.)
 * じゃまた　- See you later.
 * じゃ - Bye! See you soon. (Mostly used by men )
 * じゃね - Bye! See you soon.(Mostly used by women)
 * また明日　(またあした) - See you tomorrow.
 * またね　- Later.
 * また会いましょう　(またあいましょう) See you again.
 * またどうぞ　- Please come again.
 * バイバイ - Borrowed from English, Bye Bye.
 * いってきます　- I'm leaving (said when leaving the house)
 * いってらっしゃい　- Have a safe trip (response to いってきます)
 * ただいま - I'm home (said when returning home)
 * おかえりなさい - Welcome back
 * おかえり - Less formal than the above

Finding the bathroom

 * トイレ (といれ) - Toilet
 * お手洗い (おてあらい) - Restroom (variants are 御手洗い and 手洗い)
 * 便所 (べんじょ) - Lavatory
 * 化粧室 (けしょうしつ) - Powder room

 * すみません. トイレはどこですか. - Excuse me. Where is the bathroom?
 * すみません. おはどちらですか. - Excuse me.  Which way is the restroom?

Hesitation noises
Hesitation noises, or vocal pauses, are the "uh" and "um" of a language, filler sounds we produce when we pause to think while speaking. Using the correct hesitation noises can make the difference between natural sounding Japanese, and awkward foreign sounding speech.

They are:
 * あのう - Usually when you are about to say something.
 * ええと - When you are just thinking.
 * まぁ　 - "Well..." used for considering, reconsidering, etc...
 * さぁ　 - Another thinking sound) Used for when you're not sure of the information.
 * 何だっけ (なんだっけ) - "What's it called..." used when trying to remember something specific.
 * そうですね - Acknowledges what was previously said. More of a staller than a hesitation noise.  Somewhat more formal. Also used to show you care what the speaker is saying.

title: Japanese/Vocabulary/Everyday Phrases


text:
Wikibooks talk:Policies and guidelines

Origins
Initial text adapted from w:Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. --mav 08:12 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * And it's caused us much confusion ever since. ;-) - Aya T C 16:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for major policy overhaul
Original e-mail from User:KelvSYC at: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/textbook-l/2005-July/002415.html

Reply from User:Robert Horning at: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/textbook-l/2005-July/002416.html

My original plan was to try to get all 'policy' pages such as WB:WIN, etc., onto Meta, but I don't think it's going to be practical. The alternative is that each Wikimedia project remains autonomous, and has its own policy pages. It just seems a shame that many (at least en.wikipedia.org and en.wikibooks.org) shared common policies (such as w:WP:NPOV and WB:NPOV) which become desychronized over time. One of the keys rules for a DBA (database administrator) is that each datum should have one, and only one, canonical location, otherwise you end up with contradictary data. But how did things end up so confusing?

 * A brief history of Wikimedia

First of all, I haven't been around that long, so some of this is guesswork.

It all started with the project now hosted at en.wikipedia.org. The idea being to collaboratively create a generalized encyclopedia with no (apparent) limitation on its scope. That is to say, entries in any natural language were considered 'fair game', and some users felt it was appropriate to create extensive entries such as 'How to play chess', and the like. The scope also allowed entries pertaining to concepts which were very specific to Wikipedia, its users, and their culture.

At some point, someone (perhaps Jimbo?) decided this was going to get in the way of creating an encyclopedia, so a number of other Wikimedia projects were set up, in the hopes that this data could be transferred to a more appropriate location.

The Wikipedia project was split up into different language codes. This was probably a good idea. It would be impossible to administer a site containing text in a dozen languages you don't understand. I realize that some people speak multiple languages, but I doubt anyone speaks all of the languages for which a Wikipedia current exists.

Meta-Wiki was put in place to take on all the Wikipedia-specific concepts, including policy, but it was only used for a short while, after which it all moved back to Wikipedia. The only roles it now serves are as a host to pages about the myriad 'associations of Wikipedians', and as a place to post news about, and arrange translations between, projects. It also ended up as a dumping ground for content that users were told was 'inappropriate for Wikipedia'.

Wikibooks was created for the much larger articles which had enough text to constitute a whole book on the subject, but has also ended up as a dumping ground for encyclopedia-length articles.

Wiktionary was created for the shorter, dictionary-length entries, which were felt to be inappropriate for Wikipedia. This project has actually worked quite nicely, although it will always have minor scope overlap with Wikipedia, since the first sentence of a Wikipedia article is generally a dictionary-length definition, and where multiple meanings exist for the same word, they generally exist as both a Wiktionary entry, and a Wikipedia disambiguation page.

Over time, some content was transferred, while some was not. Since each project had its own 'what is/isn't' page, users changed its scope over time as well. The endless cycle continues today:

 * 1) Create a new wiki
 * 2) Create a badly-defined scope
 * 3) Fill it with inappropriate content
 * 4) When it becomes unmanagable, goto 1

What the projects need is centralized management, but with the flexibilty and freedom to post what you like, where you like, combined with the fact that there's a negligable amount of responsibility as to who should be sorting it out, I don't think it's ever going to work.

 * But what is a wiki anyway?

I guess at its most basic, it's a mapping of key/value pairs. The key is the name of a page, and the value is the text on that page. For some wikis it's pretty obvious how this mapping should work. The page named 'Programming' on Wiktionary and Wikipedia are fairly obvious, but what about Wikibooks? Should it be a book on programming? Or should that data fall into a subpage of a book on computers? e.g. 'Computers/Programming'. The point is that the MediaWiki software is a poor choice for a project intending to create books.

 * Back on topic

First of all, using a 'What is not' page as a means to determine scope is a rather strange idea. See the paragraph starting with 'The asymmetry of not' at http://abelard.org/category/category.htm#zero_error for an explanation. Personally, I think something along the lines of User:Aya/Wikibooks/A critique of Wikibooks might be better, which is really just an elaboration of the fundamental policy that 'Wikibooks is a collection of open-content textbooks'. That's all you really need. I don't know where you got the phrase 'instructional material' from, but looking in a dictionary, the word 'instructional' would not preclude biographical material. Creating more pages such as WB:IM and WB:RM in addition to WB:WIN may just make things worse, as there is always the possibility that a user will find one of these pages, and not the other.

My own view is to throw away the page WB:WIN, and use the page About to define the scope in a more positive fashion. The exclusions listed in WB:WIN could still be a part of this page. The advantage of the page About is that it's highly visible (just click on the word 'Wikibooks' on the Main page to get there). Most new users will probably just read that, not bother reading anything else, and just get on with their editing. Meta uses the page m:Meta:About for this purpose.

WB:HNS should be merged into WB:NC, and the colon separator should perhaps be dropped completely, since many users are too lazy to provide backlinks to their book's main pain. As for WB:MOS, that doesn't even exist. I don't recommend creating it, since it will be a fork of w:WP:MOS. Remember forks are evil. My own view is that any parts of Wikipedia's version which are relevant to all Wikimedia projects (most of it in fact) should be moved to Meta, and a new section added which pertains only to Wikibooks.

I noticed a lot of people are creating their own standards (MOSs) for individual book projects, and including the standards in subpages of the books. This is perhaps a better idea than having one big MOS containing everything.

I could go on for ages, but I'll stop here for now, to put a bit more thought into the problems. I still believe that the 'all policy should be on Meta' is right (just read m:Meta:About). I think what I need to do to fix it, is to get admin privs on meta, and tidy up the whole damn thing. I've made a start (Directory and Policy), but I'll need to make changes to Main page to make it much clearer as to what the hell it's all about. - Aya T C 17:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that it is time for some more organization and policy review. "What Wikibooks is not" also seems kind of strange to me and I like the idea of simply stating it in positive terms in the "about" page. I was thinking about an organizational division between
 * textbooks,
 * study guides,
 * non-textbook books and how-to's, including non-serious material,
 * lesson plans and other didactic materials.

 * I might mention that it always seemed to make more sense to me to house everything on the same website, the encyclopedia, dictionary and textbook materials at least. Maybe someday it will all move to Wikipedia and we can just click a tab to switch between the different sister projects. --Karl Wick 22:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * We certainly need a more clear cut definition of what Wikibooks is, and hence what it is not. The current definition has been causing problems on VfD. But, that's part of a wider problem with VfD, whereby some people vote to keep or delete a book depending only on how much they like it. Our most important polices (permitted content, naming conventions, rules of conduct, etc.) should be more visible, and presented in a concise form for newcomers. Neglecting to complete edit summaries seems to be the rule, maybe we need to apply some pressure to change that. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 05:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Personally, empty edit summaries don't bother me for the most part, since I don't necessarily trust that they match the actual edit. That is to say, I will always check the diff. The only time they're important is when the edit is contentious, especially when removing content from a page. I will almost always revert an unexplained deletion. - Aya T C 16:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Categorization of policies
All those pages about policies should be categorized, and those categories should be subcategories of another category like Category:Wikibooks policies and guidelines. Maybe we can get some ideas from Wikipedia, for example the w:Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines is also a subcategory of w:Category:Wikipedia. --surueña 11:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * If you read WB:PAG, you will notice that the following categories already exist:

 * Category:Wikibooks enforced policies
 * Category:Wikibooks proposed policies
 * Category:Wikibooks obsolete policies
 * Category:Wikibooks rejected policies

 * Pages are automatically added to those categories when you include the appropriate template in the page. I have made all those a subcategory of Category:Wikibooks policies. That should suffice for now. - Aya T C 16:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Behavioral policies
After seeing a three-year old version of a Wikipedia policy be revived and reading the above comments, I propose that:

Wikibooks should treat the behavioral policies listed on w:Wikipedia:List of policies as one entity, and vote on whether to enact them all and use the next versions of those policies, created on Wikipedia (provided that they aren't radically different, sort of like agreeing to license your work under the next GFDL version).

Benefits: --अagin·ძaz 10:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) All behavioral policies are written in the same spirit, and with the same goal in mind
 * 2) Wikipedia's policies have had several years of field-testing and corrections
 * 3) Behavioral policies are general, all-purpose rules that are not unqiue to any wiki

 * This is a very good idea, I agree with you. We should not waste time trying to invent something that is ready on Wikipedia. I don't think wikietiquette should be different on Wikibooks and Wikipedia. --Derbeth talk 12:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Eleven new, somewhat verbose policies taken from a sister wiki that is not noted for its friendliness? I really hope not. What about one single concise behaviour policy (if we really need to have something formal). After all, what do we really need to say? My thoughts are:

 * Rule 1: Be nice.
 * Rule 2: If you break rule 1 then other wikibookians will take appropriate action to encourage you to be nice.
 * Rule 3: If you really do refuse to be nice, you will end up being blocked (though may be unblocked later if you offer credible evidence that you will abide by Rule 1).

 * Ok, we might need a bit more than this, but probably not too much, Jguk 18:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

 * One single policy is also a good idea. Really anything is better than having a dozen various policies, with half being enforced and half only proposed. But a simple three-rule policy runs the risk of growing longer and longer to handle upcoming circumstances. Of course we may be able to keep it simple, but there's a reason Wikipedia has all those policies. Assuming Wikibooks is eventually going to become as large as Wikipedia, we need to be prepared for the future. And a reasonable set of time-tested policies already happens to exist. --✉haginძazt\c 18:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

there's a reason Wikipedia has all those policies. Yes, but what is that reason? People like me suspect that reason is apathy: old policies tend accumulate like barnacles long after they become irrelevant, and there is no pressure to get rid of them. --<IP_ADDRESS> 14:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reorganising this page
I'd like to reorganise this page quite dramatically and, therefore, have deceided not to be too bold and consult with the community beforehand.

I think the page would be more sensible for the user if the page grouped policies and guidelines according to their status, rather than treating them one after the other (in its present form, we might as well split the page in two).

I'm thinking:
 * 1) Definition of terms.
 * 2) Procedures
 * 3) Formulating policies and guidelines
 * 4) Enforcing policies
 * 5) Enforced policies.
 * 6) Accepted guidelines.
 * 7) Proposals
 * 8) Obsolete
 * 9) Rejected

--Swift 06:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to polish the Definition of terms section to include the should/must definitions.
 * I think Proposals should perhaps transclude Category:Wikibooks proposed policies and Category:Wikibooks proposed guidelines rather than duplicate the content, possibly (probably?) causing inconsistencies.

 * Sounds good to me, this page always has been a bit of an eyesore, in my opinion. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 12:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Definition of terms
I've cleaned this up for clarity. I commented the "Wikibooks * ..." parts out since I don't really think they are necessary. Their meaning is simply so obvious. As for the must/should, these have a subtle difference which is good to clarify. I'd still like to slim that section down a bit.

I'm still not sure how to word the official/obsolete/rejected/proposed definitions. --Swift 00:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've also acted on my slimming down on the must/should definitions as threatened earlier. --Swift 08:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Change to categorization
Currently, we have several categories which I'd like to see changed/merged. See table:

The rationale for merging the proposed policy and guideline categories is that, at least recently, proposals have been switched between the two, and being able to discuss which it should be would be a useful option without much beurocracy. The category page could also be used to coordinate which PAG proposal was currently being discussed. As for the rest of them, I think seperating them into seperate categories serves little purpose (except in the current official ones).

The names begin to sound a little odd, though, so I've been wondering if there is a nice collective term for "policies and guidelines" (and even essays?). The best I've come up with is "principles", but that might just confuse and complicate. --Swift 08:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

 * This is now mostly done. There is now an over-arching category, Category:Wikibooks policies and guidelines, for all PAG matters. It should contain everything.
 * The only two outstanding issues are to run through everything and make sure there aren't any typos, mistakes and inconsistancies, and to make sure everything is categorized properly (pipe what needs to be piped so that it appeas at the correct place in lists etc.) --Swift 06:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Enforced and Official
I'm inlcined to start using "official" instead of "enforced" when referring to a policy or guideline. It seems odd that a policy should be enforced without being official and vice versa.

Essentially, there are some policies that are simply "generally accepted" without having been voted on (these would be enforced, but not official; though the page makes it seem that these aren't labelled as enforced). I'd say, we brand these as "official" as well (and, if need be, vote on them).

Using the term enforced for guidelines (as is currently done) also seems a little odd. --Swift 00:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Done. Policy and Guideline now use "official". --Swift 06:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

these need some explanation
Under style guidelines, there is listed

 * 1) Use color sparingly
 * 2) Use subheads sparingly

why?? I'm not going to follow arbitrary guidelines for no reason whatsoever. Subheadings provide structure. Colour can be very illuminating. Why not do what works? Other similar 'one liners' are also owed some explanation. --pfctdayelise 02:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Good point. The color one, i think, just makes things more readable, especially for people who are colorblind, or who need high-contrast settins in their browser. Sometimes manually setting the colors using HTML directives can override the disability settings on the person's browser. Perhaps it's a small reason (and possibly contrived), but it's something to consider before you turn your page into a terrible rainbow.
 * As to the subheadings one, I think the point is to use "deeply nested" subheadings sparingly. High-level subheadings can actually be smaller then the surrounding body text, and pages with so many levels of sub-headings should probably be broken into sub-pages instead. Also, pages with dozens of headings and subheadings will have an obnoxiously long TOC on the page, which can be annoying. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Merging Policies and guidelines sections
I'd like to merge the policies and guidelines sections. They are topically identical and only differ in how strict they are. I suggest the following structure (sublists contain which current sections should go where):

Official policies and guidelines
 * Copyrights policies
 * Don't infringe on copyrights
 * Project scope
 * Wikibooks is an instructional resource
 * Structure
 * Wikibooks structure
 * Content
 * Wikibooks content
 * Content guidelines
 * Style guidelines
 * General guidelines: Editing guideline
 * Behaviour
 * Respect other contributors
 * Behavior guidelines
 * Maintainance
 * Administrators
 * General guidelines: Decision making

Comments appreciated. --Swift 23:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The word "guideline" usually means a weaker form of policy. So, yes, gudielines are less strict policies. The reason policies are separated from guidelines in general is to highlight the fact that the policies are strict rules. I am happy with the current division - it draws a clear line in the sand: on one side are guidance notes and on the other side there are rules. RobinH 10:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging policies and guidelines into one category
Currently, our policies and guidelines are seperated only by strictness. Some are policies actually have some parts that have "should"s in them and some guidelines might have some "must"s (haven't checked the latter). Anyway, given the definitions given at the top of the page, we really don't need to distinguish between policies and guidelines; a policy can contain both requirements and recommendations.

I'd really appreciate a discussion on this as it would be quite a drastic move. --Swift 01:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Objections to Merging policies
As I have stated elsewhere, I personally prefer several smaller policies that are short and to the point as opposed to a single monolithic policy. Here are some reason why:

Individual Policies are....

 * Easier to reach a concensus. If the topic is focused, you can usually get a number of people to agree to individual points.
 * Easier to change. If a policy contains just a few words and the justifications for the policy are weak, it is easier to change a single small policy instead of a huge monolithic policy document.
 * Easier to write. By keeping a policy to a specific point where there have been issues raised in the past, you can usually come up with come very clear wording that doesn't try to be everything for every situation.

This IMHO is where What is Wikibooks/Unstable is falling apart as it is trying to become a single monolithic policy for a whole bunch of things at the same time. My experience is that such policies rarely gain community concensus and often languish for years before acceptance, if ever.

My comments I made earlier with Wikibooks talk:Policies and guidelines/Proposed reform still apply here. It is possible (and it works rather well) to ammend policies one section at a time, making overall very minor modifications. That precludes such massive overhauls such as what is being done with the What is Wikibooks, which really need to have stronger attention by the Wikibooks community for such a massive change. Smaller changes, while significant over time, can also be reversed easily. --Rob Horning 16:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that it would be far easier to get acceptance of smaller policies. Indeed all three points of Rob's seem entirely valid to me. The sheer content of a single (or small number) all embracing policy is quite worrying never mind being all things to all people -- Herby  talk thyme 17:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I think you may have misunderstood Swift's suggestion (if thats what this is in response to). Swift was suggesting only the merging of categories and I think getting rid of the distinction between policy and guideline. Not about merging any current policy/guideline. I agree with your pointers, but disagree with your use WIW/Unstable as an example. It has a focused topic, what contents of Wikibooks consists of. Its about the same size as the current WIW. It does address problems now and in the past. It doesn't try to be everything to everyone. Before I did some major editing of it, the proposal was a lot longer and I think a lot less focused and didn't really address a specific point. It tries to be a more general policy (or guideline if you prefer) to address some confusion over what Wikibooks is for. I do admit its a major change in approach and probably the best solution which has already been suggested on its talk page is to discussion and deal with each section one at a time. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 00:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm in agreement with Rob here, and even though I appreciate your vision, Darklama, I don't think it's a method that's going to work in the long term. There are two options that I would like to consider:
 * A small number of policy documents, reasonably large, but vague. These documents would be supported by a number of smaller ancillary guideline pages, that would detail the specifics of the policy, as needed.
 * A large number of small policy documents, specific to their own topics, and not requiring external supporting documents.
 * WIW is an important policy I think, but if we try to make it the only resource, or the only policy document, we are going to fail. I say we make it more simple, and use guidelines to fill in the details. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo
I've removed the following text from this page:

 * In extreme and unusual cases, Jimbo Wales has stepped in to ban a user who has proven to be unusually disruptive. Jimbo has also declared certain policies to be, essentially, official Wikimedia policies; see this Wikien-l post.

I did this for a few reasons: I'm hoping that this removal won't upset anybody. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Jimbo has never really been as big an authority here as he has been at wikipedia (although many people, myself included, highly value Jimbo's opinions)
 * 2) Jimbo is generally less active in WMF things then he used to be.
 * 3) If anybody has the ability to dictate policy, it is likely the WMF board as a whole, not just Jimbo.
 * 4) To the best of my knowledge, Jimbo or the WMF has never dictated a policy to us that we must obey.

 * I think the key aspect here is that Jimbo is not really active with WMF projects (although I've seen some recent posts by him on Foundation-l). Part of this is (I think) to give Florance the chance to take the helm of the WMF as the current chair and not overshadow her.  Jimbo does maintain a seat on the board of trustees, but is concentrating most of his efforts on Wikia, in terms of making policy decisions and such.

 * As far as the WMF or Jimbo "dictating policy", I'll leave that subject alone. I've spilled far too much ink on that subject.  --Rob Horning 11:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Mm, not me. I like the occasional improvement of this document, and wish to see more.  :-)  --Iamunknown 00:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Things have changed since 2007 (e.g., the wmf:Resolution:Biographies of living people was adopted). WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 04:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Must and should
I appreciate the use of RFC 2119 definitions for these words must and should.

This page says that policies contain rules that must be obeyed, and that guidelines contain rules that should be obeyed. However, this isn't true. Policies contain descriptive information, alternatives, help material, and statements that something "should" be the case or "may be" this or that. Even the #Policies section itself uses the word should: "The site should primarily be used for developing textbooks..."

I think it might be appropriate for the statement "A policy is a set of rules that must be followed. A guideline is a set of rules that should be followed" to be removed. WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 04:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Object, the text does not intend to define what a policy or guideline is in general terms, but what they are in regards to Wikibooks bureaucracy. If it seems confusing to you, policies are guidelines that have some dictates that must be enforced by the community (or a proposal made to change them) a guideline is not enforced, it states that something should or may be done in the preferred stated as agreed way but there may be reasons not to do it so or existing exceptions, it is simply a communal request of compliance.
 * "The site should primarily be used for developing textbooks..." is correct not all the projects on Wikibooks are textbooks or even intended to be so, but that is the primary goal.  --Panic (discuss • contribs) 06:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Saying that policies are rules that must be obeyed, when the policies themselves say that some rules "only" should be obeyed seems self-contradictory to me. For example,
 * Annotated texts says "There are no absolute rules for texts of this kind and any reasonable decision by the contributor(s) should be respected" – but this page says that if it's a policy, then you must obey that page.
 * NPOV says "competing mainstream views can and should be presented" – but this page says that if it's a policy, then you must do that.
 * Deletion says, "you should add rfd to the top of the work" – but this page says that you must do what the policy says.
 * Profanity says, "Module titles should not include profanity unless specifically required by the content" – but this page says that this is a "must", even if the policy says "should".
 * If this bit is supposed to mean "We enforce these consistently, and we recommend these", then we should just say that, instead of adding a layer of falsehoods about policies containing absolute requirements even when the policies themselves say that some of their content is optional. WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 18:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Add in new policy inside
What do you guys think of this newly added guidelines?

(1) No solicitation of paid work: All contributions (in any forms such as creating new page, edit pages) made to the Wikibooks must be done in voluntarism spirit and without any expectation of financial compensation.

(2) No self - promotions or advertisements: The Wikibooks should be a platform for sharing information, not a place to promote personal websites, businesses products, services, or individuals. This means that any promotional content, including links or mentions of products or services, should be avoided and banned if found. Any information shared in Wikibooks should be objective and focused on providing helpful, relevant content to the community.

(3) Transparency: If a contributor is found to be soliciting paid work or engaging in any other form of self-promotion, they should be transparent about their intentions and immediately remove any inappropriate content.

(4) Bias : The Wikibooks should be driven by the community, with contributions coming from a wide range of individuals with diverse backgrounds and perspectives. This helps to ensure that the content remains unbiased and relevant to the community as a whole.

By your truly Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 12:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Wikibooks talk:Policies and guidelines


text:
Talk:ｗ

What is the name of this character? Wikipedia has it as only a redirect to W. —AltiusBimm 21:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

 * It's called ダブル and the closest English pronunciation would be 'daburu'. But a Japanese person wouldn't say 'daburu' in this context; they would just say 'warau' or 'warai'. <IP_ADDRESS> 02:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

 * In Unicode it's "fullwidth Latin small letter W" (U+FF57). Equinox ◑ 02:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:ｗ


text:
1988 Harvard Crimson football team

The 1988 Harvard Crimson football team was an American football team that represented Harvard University during the 1988 NCAA Division I-AA football season. The Crimson tied for next-to-last in the Ivy League.

In their 18th year under head coach Joe Restic, the Crimson compiled a 2–8 record and were outscored 272 to 202. Donald C. Peterson was the team captain.

Harvard's 2–5 conference record tied for sixth in the Ivy League standings. The Crimson were outscored 168 to 131 by Ivy opponents.

Harvard played its home games at Harvard Stadium in the Allston neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts.

title: 1988 Harvard Crimson football team


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possessor (comics)

The result was redirect to Elders of the Universe. History is available if anyone wants to merge additional details. RL0919 (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Possessor (comics)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Keep or merge to Elders of the Universe. BOZ (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: No sources. No keep.  All WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Rockphed (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Elders of the Universe. WP:CHEAP and already there. Starting to feel like a broken record. -2pou (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Elders of the Universe per 2pou. No sources to indicate any independent notability, however as the character is already present on the main "Elders" page with a basic description, a redirect there would be fine.  Rorshacma (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


text:
Talk:David Lidington

Europe minister
"Previously he was Minister of State for Europe and hence the longest-serving Europe Minister in British history.[1]" I do not understand how this makes him the longest serving, should this be 'last'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxdown (talk • contribs) 22:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC) * agree as per Foxdown Clarissa1925 (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on David Lidington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100515034600/http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/topstorynews/2010/05/her-majestys-government-49840 to http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/topstorynews/2010/05/her-majestys-government-49840
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5364110/MPs-expenses-David-Lidington-is-Mr-Clean-but-you-pay-for-his-soap.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/mps_expenses_the_price_of_democracy_in_aylesbury_vale_1_613622
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/more-news/editor-s-comment-time-fast-approaching-for-mr-lidington-to-stand-up-and-be-counted-over-hs2-1-5655994

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Siblings
It seems odd to me that this article refers to one of his brothers (Peter, a teacher), but not to his other brother.

I was at school with the Lidington boys - we travelled to school together. David, the oldest, was a year or two ahead of me; Peter was in my year; and Tony a year or two below Peter and me. Tony went on to a life in the theatre. peter_english (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Gareth Griffith-Jones, The Welsh Buzzard (Talk) 14:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess this is he. A definite family resemblance. Cheers!

Equinoxmist (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it refers to Peter because a history teacher?

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on David Lidington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120908181804/http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/l/17051/David+LIDINGTON.aspx to http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/l/17051/David+LIDINGTON.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110911095051/http://www.buckstv.co.uk/buckstv/politics/day_in_the_life_with_an_mp_in_westminster.html to http://www.buckstv.co.uk/buckstv/politics/day_in_the_life_with_an_mp_in_westminster.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

De facto deputy prime minister
Lidington is de facto deputy prime minister according to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/19/britain-could-one-day-join-reformed-eu-hints-theresa-mays-de/ and other sources

 * I added this to page but it seems that user keeps reverting it, possibly due to conflict of interest or because vandalism and removing clearly referenced material is a habit of this user, as also reported at [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarissa1925 (talk • contribs)
 * If there is other sources then please show them. As per WP:BRD if a bold edit is reverted by me or anyone else then you should take to the talkpage and discuss it. What conflict of interest could I have? Please don't use the term vandalism here unless you have read WP:Vandalism and know the specific meaning it has here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * other sources you can find here:

 * https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=de+facto+deputy+prime+minister+david+lidington&oq=de+facto+deputy+prime+minister+david+lidington&aqs=chrome..69i57.7086j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
 * Telegraph article referenced in article is more than enough anyway though.
 * And does this user know what de facto means?

Clarissa1925 (talk)
 * Please revert back to the Consensus version of the article, and then we can discuss your edits. It is not my job to look through Google for other sources, if you add a claim the burden is on you to add sources. One source by the Telegraph is not more than enough anyway. I do know what de facto means, but do you. Also a ping doesn't work unless you sign your comment in the same edit. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss here, "admin approval" is not needed. In the meantime please revert to the consensus version. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

 * I don't know why this appears to be such a contreversial edit. Enough references to support it, including:

 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/19/britain-could-one-day-join-reformed-eu-hints-theresa-mays-de/
 * https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lidington-calls-for-tories-to-show-more-respect-to-theresa-may-b8g7dqfkm
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/david-lidington-eu-brexit_uk_5a62f55ae4b0dc592a08f40b
 * https://www.politico.eu/article/radical-changes-ahead-for-eu-says-theresa-mays-deputy-david-lidington/
 * https://www.politico.eu/article/cabinet-reshuffle-brandon-lewis-uk-immigration-minister-moved-to-chair-tory-party/
 * http://www.cityam.com/278379/cabinet-reshuffle-theresa-may-reveals-first-major-shake-up
 * https://www.ft.com/content/a92aa982-0fe8-11e8-8cb6-b9ccc4c4dbbb

I agree with emir that Clarissa1925 (talk) was rather lazy for not providing it, but they are now provided so that should suffice. I can give you more, but I think 7 is more than enough and certainly ample! They are all credible sources (read Academic use if you don't understand why), and if you dispute one source, there's 6 others. I don't know much about the UK Parliament, but as an independent, just a quick bit of research has shown me that consensus definitely for keeping this change. Clearly referenced in the article and not controversial. It should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregPantry (talk • contribs)

title: Talk:David Lidington


text:
Aleocharina

Aleocharina is the type subtribe and largest subtribe of the tribe Aleocharini. It contains 650 species in 16 genera. The type genus (Aleochara) contains 545 species and makes up the majority the subtribe, but this classification of the genus is under debate due to difficulties determining its limits. Members of the subtribe are characterized by a 5-5-5 segmented tarsi, but this character is found in many other groups of Aleocharinae.

The subtribe contains the following genera:

 * Aleochara Gravenhorst, 1802
 * Aleonictus Kistner, 1997
 * Amarochara Thomson, 1858
 * Formicaenictus Kistner, 1997
 * Indiachara Pace, 2012
 * Leptogenophilus Kistner, 1975
 * Megalogastria Bernhauer, 1901
 * Ocyota Sharp, 1883
 * Paraleochara Cameron, 1920
 * Paroxysmeme Bernhauer, 1928
 * Piochardia Heyden, 1870
 * Plesiochara Sawada, 1989
 * Pseudocalea Luze, 1902
 * Rencoma Blackwelder, 1952
 * Tetrasticta Kraatz, 1857
 * Ystrixoxygymna Pace, 1999

title: Aleocharina


text:
Talk:David Bedella

Fair use rationale for Image:JSTO - Devil 1.jpg
Image:JSTO - Devil 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Gay Bedella's gay (see for example http://www.liztray.com/LT/files/rocky_horror_show.php ) - should be added to LGBT category — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Jeasus Christ Superstar
I first heard this amazing voice as Chiaphas (sp) (in JCSS) in the Nutter Center, Dayton Ohio (Wright State University). I was lucky enough to get a chance to speak with him. Me and my "magic stones" got his autograph and enjoyed a drink before I had to return to military duty. Such a powerful voice. So much delight in hearing him sing. 2603:6011:BB06:B81D:F457:1796:A995:40FD (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:David Bedella


text:
injectable

Adjective

 * 1)  Capable of being (or designed to be) injected

Translations

 * French:
 * Galician: ,
 * Portuguese: injetável
 * Spanish: inyectable
 * Swedish:

Noun

 * 1)  A liquid, such as a medicine or a Botox solution, which is injected using a needle and syringe.

Translations

 * Galician: ,
 * Romanian:
 * Spanish: inyectable

Etymology
From.

title: injectable


text:
קאָפּ

Etymology
From, from , from , from ; more at 🇨🇬, 🇨🇬.

Noun

 * 1)  head
 * 2) head of a nail, or screw

title: קאָפּ


text:
User:Jmabel

Don't expect to find me much here; if you are looking to get hold of me, try my account on the English-language Wikipedia, which is where I am most active. - Jmabel 23:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

title: User:Jmabel


text:
Liugoulong station

Liugoulong station is a subway interchange station in Changsha, Hunan, China, operated by the Changsha subway operator Changsha Metro.

Station layout
The station has one island platform.

History
The station was completed in August 2017. The station opened on 26 May 2019. It later became an interchange on June 28, 2022 after the opening of Line 6.

Surrounding area

 * Hunan University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
 * Xiangya Third Hospital of Central South University
 * Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University
 * Zhonglian Science Park
 * Binjiang School
 * Yuelu District Children's Palace

title: Liugoulong station


text:
1988 Bucknell Bison football team

The 1988 Bucknell Bison football team was an American football team that represented Bucknell University during the 1988 NCAA Division I-AA football season. It tied for third in the Colonial League.

Bucknell played its home games at Memorial Stadium on the university campus in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.

History
In its third and final year under head coach George Landis, the Bison compiled a 3–7 record. Ed Foley, Chris Hackley and Steve Weiss were the team captains.

The Bison were outscored 323 to 229. Their 2–3 conference record placed Bucknell in a three-way tie for third (and for next-to-last) in the six-team Colonial League standings.

title: 1988 Bucknell Bison football team


text:
List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters: 2010–2015

This is a list of dramatic television series (including web television and miniseries) that premiered in 2010–2015 which feature lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender characters. Non-binary, pansexual, asexual, and graysexual characters are also included. The orientation can be portrayed on-screen, described in the dialogue or mentioned.


text:
School talk:Journalism

Who's in charge around here?--Elatanatari 22:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody & everybody, says I.

Overhaul
I'm going to begin working on a sort of overhaul on this page to make it more accessable and informative to the community at large. Thunderhead 10:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ethics of Journalism
With regard to the proposed course, Ethics of Journalism, please see the related Wikiversity Learning Project on Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia, where we are compiling educational resources related to Ethics in Online Media. —Moulton 09:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

title: School talk:Journalism


text:
Talk:Delroy Lindo

Best known...
I really don't like those "he is (perhaps) best known for..." sentences. They ad no real information and they are seldom true for people outside the US. For me Delroy ,is best known for his performaces in Heist and Ransom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey what do you mean seldom true for people outside the US? That is just another stupid American pride thing isn't it. Shut up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Delroy Lindo is cited as being in a "gorilla-action" movie and the "gorilla" Army. Someone should change that, as the correct word is actually "guerrilla" — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Nationality??
Are there citations for this person's nationality? This will help with crafting the lead and categories. TIA, --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the information available to us in the article at present, we must assume that he is British. It does not mention that he got US citizenship, however it does clearly state that he was born in Britain. He simply works in America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

 * He's lived and worked in the US since he was 16; it would be unusual if he claimed he was only English.Parkwells (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Delroy Lindo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022142638/http://www.ibdb.com/awardperson.asp?id=79450 to http://www.ibdb.com/awardperson.asp?id=79450

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Delroy Lindo