text:
the ‘Recognition as distinct school of Vedanta’ into the Beliefs section as it appears to be more appropriate there. The paragraph “According to Brahmbhatt…” which describes the difference between Swaminarayan’s system and Ramanuja’s seems out of place in the history section and is more appropriate for the beliefs section. In the beliefs section, it fits better because, first the metaphysics and soteriology are explained and now, how this system is related to other Vedanta systems is clarified. Apollo1203 (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 * To have the 'differences with'-info at the beliefs-section is okay; yet, what's missing are the similarities which you removed; see below. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Modes of succession paraphrasing
This edit is a series of quotes that can be trimmed considerably or paraphrased succinctly WP:QUOTEFARM, WP:TERSE. Finally, the last sentence which quotes from Williams repeats in import what the preceding sentence says, further showing this is poorly strung together. The edit I have made is more suitable for the paragraph that introduces the major branches. Actionjackson09 (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you provide diffs for the edits you're refering to? Thanks, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You probably refer to this edit, which replaced
 * with
 * The paraphrases omit several points:
 * The idea of a 'chief ascetic disciple' was not exclusive to the BAPS: According to the Vadtal branche, "Gopalanand Swami was the chief ascetic disciple of Sajahanand,". This adds a nuance to the claims of the BAPS.
 * The word "thus" starts a sentence which interprets and misrepresents Williams:
 * Williams speaks of authority given to the "chief ascetics" (plural) which was not revoked by the installation of the acharyas; he does not speak of "the guru" (singular) who can perform important rituals;
 * The phrase "not revoked" implies an acknowledgement of the authority of the acharyas, and sets a 'backdoor-argument' for the alleged rights of the chief ascetics, not a direct and univocal confirmation by Swaminarayan of the rights of the chief ascetics, let alone the appointment of a succeeding guru;
 * The "strictly virtuous life" is mentioned separately by Williams, not as part of an argument concerning the not-mentioned guru;
 * Williams makes clear, with the concluding quote, that the BAPS created it's own justification for it's claim of a spiritual inheritance.
 * Direct quotes should be used when info can be controversial, misinterpreted, or misrepresented, as is the case here. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The "strictly virtuous life" is mentioned separately by Williams, not as part of an argument concerning the not-mentioned guru;
 * Williams makes clear, with the concluding quote, that the BAPS created it's own justification for it's claim of a spiritual inheritance.
 * Direct quotes should be used when info can be controversial, misinterpreted, or misrepresented, as is the case here. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Gopalanand has been removed before diff; I can't help but sensing a violation of WP:NPOV here. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 * To add some further context. The Shikshapatri, which seems to be the bible equivalent in this religion, seems to outline the succession and existence of the acharya as well.
 * https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_New_Face_of_Hinduism/AHI7AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=shikshapatri+acharya&pg=PA29&printsec=frontcover
 * https://www.google.com/books/edition/Shikshapatri_in_English/qbbeDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=shikshapatri+acharya&pg=PT44&printsec=frontcover
 * During Swaminarayans existence, he established the two Gadi branches and most importantly a defined succession plan for them. I dont think a single piece of non-secretarian evidence has been presented that suggests any established succession plan from Swainarayan for the authority he assigned to Gunatitand and Gopalanand. As outlined in your quote and point, the keyword I see is "retroactively" for how other branches over the faiths history have defined their existence. I think the current page selectively navigates around this to push the narrative from one branch. Just my takeaway. Thanks Kbhatt22 (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the edit I made months ago 1, I too sensed an NPOV violation. I removed these two sentences, "Gopalanand Swami was considered the chief disciple by Vadtal. [source: Williams 2001] He was very learned in Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga, and after the death of Swaminarayan, the responsibility of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and the acharyas were left in the hands of Gopalanand Swami. Swaminarayan held Gopalanand Swami in very high regard. (Source: [Williams 2001, p.53]"
 * The first sentence caught my eye because no page number was included in the citation. I then verified the next sentence. When you read all the sentences together, it’s clearly original research. The Swaminarayan Gadi, not the Vadtal diocese, regards Gopalanand to be Swaminarayan’s successor."“In an explicit rejection of  the  claims  of  the  householder  acharyas  to  be  the legitimate  successors  of  Swaminarayan,  followers  in  this  sect  claim  that Swaminarayan  appointed  an  ascetic,  Gopalanand  Swami,  to  be  his  successor. The spiritual leadership is thought to be in the hands of the ascetic who  is  the  successor  to  Gopalanand.” (Williams 2001, 52-3)"
 * Look at page 53, and you will find no mention of ashtanga yoga on this page, so it fails verification.
 * Look again, and you can see that the only material I left is that which all the groups can agree upon. Nowhere did I leave any details to suggest any one ascetic was the true successor. Hence, the accusations of violating NPOV made by you and are not in good faith (WP:AOBF) and unwarranted. Let’s stick to the content and policies (WP:AGF). Moksha88 (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not accuse anyone specifically in this discussion or make any accusations against anyone. I am simply stating there is a bizarre cadence of resistance against anything that isn't promoting one branch. I find it very odd. I am sorry you feel that is directed at you, because it wasn't. 88% of images originate from one branch, the only sectarian sources used or allowed are from one branch, and multiple other things on this page seem to be from the perspective of one branch and it more then likely was like that before any of us got here, but that doesn't mean we can't fix it. Kbhatt22 (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't wish to engage in any form of fighting. I am simply making an observation and I am not the only one to have that sentiment. The IP that has now been banned did surface this comment of yours from over a decade ago when he/she did make a very direct accusation against you: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan&diff=prev&oldid=93261344. It is very important to disclose any bias should it exist. You did label yourself a "representative" of one of the two branches in discussion. If you are a part of the faith, that is fine I think but it also could imply some bias. You can see on my talk page that the user that is now blocked asked me to pursue this and out of good faith, I refused too do so and guided him to the avenues should he choose to do so. I have no interest in targeting anyone for any reason. So again, sorry you feel that way. Kbhatt22 (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

thank you for your reply. The second line of the text you removed was indeed a violation of WP:NPOV. Note, though, that I cited Williams (2001) p.59, writing

not that

You removed almost the exact sentence as I wrote,

This text is a correct presentation of Williams (2001). My text could be appended with another quote, from p.53:

That would do justice to these three different branches, in accordance with WP:NPOV; to only mention Gopalanand Swami, when there were several main disciples, and various views on their alleged successorship. violates WP:NPOV. It's clear that the different branches have different but overlapping (and, for outsiders, somewhat confusing) narratives on their origins and spiritual leadership. Exact quotes, trying to present all the different points of view, are then better than paraphrasing quotes, I think. Note also this piece of info from Williams (2001), p.98:

Clearly, Gopalanand Swami was an important person in the days of Swaminayaran; the views and claims of Vadtal and Swaminarayan Gadi did not come out of nowhere. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  12:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC) NB: This is WP:QUOTEFARM. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  11:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Rename (again...)
Since "sampradaya" not only refers to a system or school of thought, and various branches have various ideas about the correct line of sucession, it might be more apt to move this article to "Swaminarayan movement." This term is also [https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-m&tbm=bks&q=%22swaminarayan+movement%22&oq=%22swaminarayan+movement%22&aqs=heirloom-srp.. used in the scholarly literature], and covers, or includes, the various denominations of 'Swaminayarism'. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  13:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I am not sure I follow this sentence in your above post, “Since ‘sampradaya’ not only refers to a system or a school of thought….”, I am assuming the ‘not’ was a typo, and that you are asserting that a sampradaya only refers to a system or school of thought. Please correct me if I have misunderstood your point here. If that is what you mean, then I would say the following in response.

 * Williams (2018) notes: “Swaminarayan is one of many manifestations of Hinduism, .... The common word in India for such groups is sampraday[a], which is difficult to translate” (p.2). And in the paragraph following this quote Williams (2018) says: “This revised edition brings the story of the Swaminarayan sampraday up to date through the enormous changes that are currently taking place in India and abroad” (p.2).
 * Indeed those scholars who have used ‘movement’ instead of sampraday are not rejecting the use of ‘sampraday’ but using ‘movement’ as one admittedly imperfect (i.e. “difficult to translate”) English translation of ‘sampraday’. Other scholars have opted for different translations (such as faith). So, while I see that there have been various English translations of Sampradaya used by scholars in different contexts, I agree with Williams’ suggestion that each of these translations are lacking in some important ways. With movement, for example, I feel it too vague as a title for the article - as it could indicate a social, political, educational, art, music, or even terrorist movement, whereas the word sampradaya is more specific to a Hindu religious context and avoids this confusion.
 * Also, as I mentioned, while it is not completely clear to me from what Joshua Jonathan has written in his post, I assume he is suggesting that since various branches have various modes of succession, they should be seen as different sampradayas. However, in reading through academic sources, it seems clear that scholars assert that even though some commonalities bind them together, a sampradaya can have within it various branches with various modes of succession and variations in belief and practice. This is true in the case of the scholarship both on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and on other sampradayas. I have already given one example of this in my quotes of Williams(2018) above, but so as not to make the post overly long, I will give just two more representative examples of this to demonstrate scholarly use of the term Sampradaya demonstrates this point.

 * See I Patel (2018): “The Swaminarayan Sampradaya is currently one of the fastest growing Hindu traditions in the world with over two thousand temples, including the popular Akshardham temples in Gandhinagar and New Delhi. While it started as a small group in the Saurashtra region of present-day Gujarat, today the Swaminarayan Sampraday comprises several transnational denominations, notably the Vadtal Gadi, the Ahmedabad Gadi, and the Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (BAPS), which together have more than five million members in India and abroad.” (p.2) This quote demonstrates that all denominations or branches listed fall under the Swaminarayan sampraday, and that a sampradaya is not monolithic and can and does have multiple viewpoints and branches within it.
 * For another academic example of this use of Sampradaya outside of scholarship on the Swaminarayan sampradaya, see the Oxford Bibliography page on the Rāmānandī Sampradāya(note: no relation to the Ramanand Swami discussed in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya article): “Rāmānanda’s disciples (and subsequently their own disciples) likely followed these mixed teachings and, while passing them on, incorporated new theories or developed new interpretations. These traits resulted in a sampradāya highly differentiated in branches and sub-branches concerned with Rām bhakti.” (https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195399318/obo-9780195399318-0197.xml). This makes clear that sampradayas can not only have branches but also sub-branches.
 * So, after considering all of this, I don’t see the article name change to “Swaminarayan movement” having a strong enough benefit or solving a critical problem for it to be warranted, since as I mentioned, numerous academic sources indicate a sampradaya can include within it multiple branches that have multiple variations in practice, beliefs, and succession. Therefore, I feel that ‘ Swaminarayan Sampradaya’ is appropriate for the name of this article. Actionjackson09 (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

 * You noticed indeed a missing part; it should have been "Since "sampradaya" not only refers to a system or school of thought, but also to a line of succession, and various branches have various ideas about the correct line of sucession". Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I agree with in his logic. I had also in my reading of academic sources run across what he states. I would also add Kim 2010, page 362 stating “This paper focuses on one specific group in the Swaminarayan sampradaya known as Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha.” Basically, multiple academic sources are using the term Swaminarayan Sampradaya to include the multiple branches that are within it. So, I would reject 's assertion. Apollo1203 (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I can see that there are multiple terms used to describe this entity - movement, sampradaya, group, tradition, etc. But I am most convinced by one sentence in Williams (2018) that has been cited in 's post, which states: "Swaminarayan is one of many manifestations of Hinduism, .... The common word in India for such groups is sampraday[a], which is difficult to translate." As a scholar who has written and edited multiple books on the topic is saying that "sampraday" is the common name for the group in its place of origin, it makes sense to me that the title of the article should reflect this common name and remain as Swaminarayan sampraday. Tale.Spin (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Manifestation and devotion
As mentioned above, I think that the article could elaborate more on the belief in Swaminarayan as a manifestation of God; the understanding of Akshar in the various branches; and the practice of devotion towards Vishnu/Krishna/Swaminarayan/akshar-guru. I found the interview in Williams (2001) p.87 enlightening; as a westerner, with a strong inclination towards nirguna Brahman (Zen Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta), I recognised what was told there. It's part of what I do, implicitly; here, it is made explicit. With this interview in mind, read the intro to Dasbodh is like "oh yes, of course; this is about the same." Ramana maharshi, usually depicted as an Advaitin, but regarded as an incarnation/manifestation of Shiva, giving darshan to his devotees: oh yes, now I see. It's obvious, but you've got to have a frame of reference to recognise it. There is a strong Advaita bias at Wikipedia, and very little is explained about actual devotional practice; most is about theory and philosophy. But to understand, feel what it's about, readers have to get info on what devotees do, and what they experience. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC) PS: ever listened to George Harrison's My Sweet Lord from All Things Must Pass? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 * That would be a good addition but also becomes dicey because all the branches share variations in those beliefs and practices. I think as long as it is segmented by branch, it would provide good value for the readers. I also think this leads into one of you're earlier suggestions of the page where it is more of a historical walk through of the faiths growth. Because then this page could represent the faith historically as a whole and then guide to each branches pages where their branch specific beliefs are outlined. This eliminates any possibility of one branches ideology coming off as applicable to the entire faith. An example is the Metaphysics section is written up currently to represent one branches beliefs and uses sources originating from one branch and I don't think all the branches accept it the way ti is currently written. Kind of gets confusing if its not prefaced with what branch it represents. Here is something that used to be on this page from Willaim Brodeys book on page 162 which is a more basic, branch agnostic belief:

 * Upon initiation, Satsangi make 11 vows, called Niyams (Rules):

 * Be non-violent
 * Do not have any kind of relationship with a woman other than your wife
 * Do not eat meat, including seafood, poultry products or eggs
 * Do not drink products that contain alcohol, including medicines
 * Never touch a widow woman whom you do not know
 * Never commit suicide in any circumstances
 * Do not steal
 * Never blame others for something that you may not know about
 * Never disparage God, Goddesses, or any religion
 * Never eat someone's food who does not follow these eleven rules
 * Never listen to holy stories from an atheist.

 * So I agree. I think more practical day to day rituals or beliefs like this would better represent the faith as a whole on this page. Kbhatt22 (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Addition to Practices Section

 * Notes

 * References

Explanation: The second paragraph in Joshua Jonathan’s proposal, and the phrase about Vallabha’s devotional praxis at then end of the other discussion, is I feel better suited to the “Practices” section. I fail to see the point of discussing its inclusion in the belief’s section, when there is another section dealing with “Practices”. Thanks, Skubydoo (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Apollo's Response I agree that this is more relevant to the Practices section. However, I had mentioned problems with this particular formation. I have copied here the relevant problems that I had earlier noted (with additional context inserted in), and at the end, I’ve proposed a reformulation.

Overall, the first sentence is not an accurate description of what Williams is claiming. Williams makes no mention of “influence”, only that practices were adopted (Williams 2018: 30). Further, there is no explicit mention that Sahajanand was ‘positive towards Vallabha’, but only that practices were “affirmed.” Adding “positive towards Vallabha...” in the edit is too vague and it also inaccurately represents Williams’s claims. Williams notes further, in the context of the adoption of practices: “These decisions are consistent with his generally positive affirmations of other Vaishnava and Krishnite traditions, even though he criticised various forms of immoral conduct by some religious leaders and groups.” There is no specific mention of the “influence” of Vallabha or others and Williams describes a consistency among Swaminarayan’s tradition/practices and Vaishnava traditions. The edit needlessly highlights “Vallabha,” even as the import of Williams’s claim is more general: “Vaishnava and Krishnite traditions.” Further, it’s not clear why we need “While Sahajanand's ethical reforms have been regarded as a protest against immoral Pushtimarg practices,” as that is a claim Williams is rejecting, so it adds unnecessary clutter (Williams is talking within an academic discourse, so we do not need to include the negation of a claim, which a general reader wouldn’t have in mind).

In the edit, saying “against practices associated with village and tribal deities,” misrepresents what Williams is saying WP:RSCONTEXT. Williams notes: “That leaves open the interpretation that the primary focus of Swaminarayan’s criticisms were Tantrics and followers of another left-handed Shakti cult, known as Vama-Marga, which was popular at the time, and other disreputable practices associated with village and tribal deities, as François Mallison argues. Those rituals included animal sacrifices, eating meat, drinking intoxicants, and sexual license, all of which were prohibited in Swaminarayan’s teachings” (30). Williams prefaced the quote “village and tribal deities” with “disreputable practices associated with,” which the original edit doesn’t convey. misrepresenting the quote (again, WP:RSCONTEXT). (Here Williams is providing an interpretation, which although interesting does not seem to be significant enough to include in the article, because it is tentatively worded; indeed, he prefaces it with “That leaves open the interpretation”; and Williams himself isn’t proposing/nor it seems supporting the interpretation).

Regarding “In fact, Swaminarayan incorporated devotional practices of Vallabhas Pushtimarg, to gain acceptance in western India,” please see what I had mentioned earlier:

What is added is making a historical claim for the sampradaya which S Patel (2017) is clearly not emphasizing (WP:OR). There are more quotes within the same source that make it clear that Pushtimarg was a matter of identification and not for gaining recognition: “I would like to caution against reading the pointed but limited agreement with the Pushtimarg as a means by which to pin down the history of Svaminarayan development” (S Patel 2017: 54); “Though it has been valuable to understand how the Svaminarayan community engaged with the Pushtimarg, we should pause before implicitly extending this relationship to Sahajanand’s entire vision” (S Patel 2017: 57); the Pushtimarg (amongst other influences) was one reference point, not a catalyst for Sahajanand’s initiative (S Patel 2017: 57). S Patel (2017) clearly asserts that she does not stand behind any claim about Swaminarayan "utilising" Pushtimarg for an ulterior purpose, like gaining recognition. She says, "to be clear, I am not implying that forging a connection to the Pushtimarg excluded the possibility of genuine respect and affection for it by Sahajanand, but retaining likeness to establishment also would have been potent in sanctioning novelty" (53). She uses the phrase "would have been potent," meaning that retaining likeness may have helped sanction the novelty that colored Swaminarayan's distinct and categorically novel tradition. But that such a utilization of the support of established traditions did occur is a claim Patel does not unequivocally affirm. She, in fact, thinks it important to clarify precisely that she doesn't mean to say that. And thus quoting her to suggest Swaminarayan's “utilising elements of Vallabha’s Pushtimarg to gain recognition” is misrepresenting her intention and involves cherrypicking (WP:Cherrypicking) a quote.

Hence, please see my reformulation, which removes undue emphasis etc., but still conveys the insight seeks to provide:

 * "The practices Swaminarayan prescribed were in part consistent with “Vaishnava and Krishnite traditions.” (Williams 2018, 30) Shruti Patel argues that such a consistency with existing practices would have aided in “sanctioning [the] novelty” of sampradaya. (S Patel 2017, 53)"

Apollo1203 (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Hello, thank you for the thorough explanation. I understand the logic behind your proposal and agree it is more coherent and concise WP:BECONCISE. As I stated earlier, I believe this would fit best in the ‘Practices’ section. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd already reformulated my proposal; seems to have escaped the attention of Skubydoo:

 * Notes

 * References

I think it's quite relevant to mention that

Swaminarayan has often been portrayed as a reformer of the Pusjtimarg, whereas this text offers an alternative option. Regarding the relation with other Vedanta-traditions, it's clear that Swaminarayan was firmly rooted in other Vedanta-traditions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  03:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Hello I did not overlook your edit, thank you for checking. I believe the edit by Apollo1203 does a better job of accurately portraying the scholarly sources. From what I have read, you haven’t substantively engaged with any of the summaries of sources that have been raised by other users. If you could share your reflections on the sources, along with the summaries and analysis other users have made, perhaps I can better understand where you’re coming from. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

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

title: Talk:Swaminarayan Sampradaya/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Mary Beth Peil

[Untitled]
Mary Jo Pehl not to be confused with Mary Beth Peil.

Birthyear
Was Mary Beth born in 1930 or 1940? IMDB states 1940. Hotwine8 03:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm led to believe Mary Beth Peil was born in 1940, not 1930. When I first read 1930, I was astounded, since I worked with her in a 1962 Goldovsky Opera Tour of "La Traviata". All our publicity said that she was 21 and a recent graduate of Northwestern and Music Academy of the West. All her later credits, including more Golcovsky Tours, St. Paul Opera World Premiere of Hoiby's "Summer and Smoke" would seem to support the 1940 date. Edward Alley

 * The city of Davenport's own website says she was born in 1930.Nrswanson (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mary Beth Peil. 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/20121020164725/http://www.ibdb.com/awardperson.asp?id=55834 to http://www.ibdb.com/awardperson.asp?id=55834
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105104950/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/141520-Patti-LuPone-Brian-Stokes-Mitchell-Sherie-Rene-Scott-Cast-in-Broadways-Women-on-the-Verge to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/141520-Patti-LuPone-Brian-Stokes-Mitchell-Sherie-Rene-Scott-Cast-in-Broadways-Women-on-the-Verge
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111213181819/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/154125-DIVA-TALK-Chatting-with-Follies-Star-Mary-Beth-Peil to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/154125-DIVA-TALK-Chatting-with-Follies-Star-Mary-Beth-Peil
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040917150441/http://www.usoperaweb.com/2002/june/h_smoke.htm to http://www.usoperaweb.com/2002/june/h_smoke.htm

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary Beth Peil. 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/20110915024925/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/153410-The-Right-Girls-Kennedy-Center-Follies-With-Bernadette-Peters-Jan-Maxwell-Elaine-Paige-Begins-Broadway-Previews to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/153410-The-Right-Girls-Kennedy-Center-Follies-With-Bernadette-Peters-Jan-Maxwell-Elaine-Paige-Begins-Broadway-Previews

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mary Beth Peil


text:
Emile

Proper noun

 * 1)  of Latin origin, an anglicized spelling of French Émile.

Alternative forms

 * Mile

Etymology
Compare 🇨🇬.

title: Emile


text:
Northgate Station (shopping mall)

Northgate Station (formerly Northgate Mall) is an enclosed shopping mall in Seattle, Washington, United States. It is located in the Northgate neighborhood on Interstate 5, adjacent to Northgate Way and Northgate station, a light rail station. The mall is anchored by Barnes & Noble, and Nordstrom Rack.

Northgate opened in 1950. It was the first shopping mall to be built in the post-war United States. The mall was developed by Allied Stores and was initially an open-air facility until being renovated in the 1970s. Now under Simon Property Group ownership, it is currently undergoing redevelopment into a mixed-use complex that includes operational and practice facilities for the Seattle Kraken National Hockey League team.

History
Northgate started as an open-air shopping mall in the northern environs of Seattle. It was the first post-war shopping mall in the United States and originally went by the name of "Northgate Center", in light of its location at the north edge of Seattle (and being beyond the city limits at the time). It began business with 18 stores in April 1950, anchored by The Bon Marché. By 1952, the fully leased structure housed over seventy tenants, and also included an adjoined four-story Northgate Building medical/dental center and Northgate Theatre, which had seating for over 1,300 guests.

Northgate was the first of three malls in the Puget Sound region to be developed by Allied Stores (the parent company of The Bon Marché) and designed by Seattle architect John Graham Jr. The development was built over part of Thornton Creek, on land that had been a cranberry bog in the Maple Leaf neighborhood. Northgate was the first regional shopping center in the United States to be described as a mall, in this instance a double row of stores facing each other across a covered pedestrian walkway. It was also the first mall to have public restrooms.

In 1952, Redmond sculptor Dudley C. Carter designed and carved the 59 ft cedar totem pole that decorated the grand entrance to the central retail corridor, known as the "Miracle Mall". The shopping center was originally anchored by The Bon Marché (which was acquired by Macy's in 2003; it went by the name Bon-Macy's before the Bon name was retired in 2005). There was also a J.J. Newberry 5 and 10, a Butler Brothers Department Store and an A & P Supermarket.

Other tenants who signed on early included the National Bank of Commerce (eventually bought by Norwest Corporation and renamed Wells Fargo) and locally-owned Nordstrom's Shoes, which was expanded into a full line clothing store in 1965. Opened as a Best's Apparel, a division of the Nordstrom Company since 1963, it was rebranded as Nordstrom Best in 1967 and Nordstrom in 1973. The 1965 expansion that added the Best's Apparel store also included an extension of the south end of the complex. This was anchored by a new JCPenney and QFC (Quality Food Center) grocery.

The "Miracle Mall" concourse had been partially enclosed within a "SkyShield" structure added in 1962. This was replaced in 1973 and 1974, with the mall corridor becoming fully enclosed. The official name of the shopping complex was changed to Northgate Mall at this time. Seattle-based department chain Lamonts added a store to the northern end of the concourse in 1977.

The mall was renovated again in 1997, with Toys "R" Us opening a store there in October that year. The food court also underwent renovations, and Sam Goody and Foot Locker also opened stores around this time. The new interior was completed in 1998.

Gottschalks acquired the Lamonts chain in 2000 and had a location at the mall until September 2006, before having to close due to underperforming sales. The Toys "R" Us store closed in January 2012 when its lease expired. Their place was taken by Nordstrom Rack the following year.

Capitalizing on Northgate's success, Allied Stores commissioned Graham to design the fully enclosed Tacoma Mall (opened 1964) and Tukwila's Southcenter Mall (opened 1968). By 1980, there were 123 stores at Northgate Mall. Construction began in the summer of 2006 on a 100000 sqft lifestyle-type addition to the mall. It was completed in early 2008. The mall is anchored today by Nordstrom Rack, DSW, and Bed Bath and Beyond.

On October 8, 2018, it was announced that JCPenney would be closing in 2019. Macy's subsequently announced in January 2019 that it would also close its store in 2020; the closure was ultimately moved up to July 2019, allegedly at the request of Simon Property Group. Nordstrom closed its Northgate store on August 9, 2019, though the Nordstrom Rack remained open. Approximately 40 stores and restaurants at Northgate will remain open through the redevelopment project.

The Macy's and JCPenney anchor stores were demolished in 2019, while the Nordstrom anchor store was demolished in 2021.

Current

 * Barnes & Noble: since fall 2007
 * Nordstrom Rack: since 2012
 * Kraken Community Iceplex: since Sept. 10, 2021

Former

 * DSW: since 2008, opened as Lamonts in 1977, renamed Gottschalks in 2000, closed in 2021
 * Nordstrom: since 1950, closed in 2019
 * JCPenney: since 1950, closed in 2019
 * Toys R Us: since 1997, closed in 2012
 * Macy's: since 2005: opened as The Bon-Marche, renamed Bon-Macy's in 2003, then converted into Macy's in 2005, closed in 2019
 * Bed Bath & Beyond since 2008, opened as Lamonts in 1977, renamed Gottschalks in 2000, closed in 2023

Criminal incidents
In 1973, the serial-killer Ted Bundy reportedly apprehended a purse-snatcher late at night in the Northgate Mall parking lot, a few weeks before his first documented murder. Many of his subsequent victims were approached in parking lots.

On September 12, 1983, Tracy Ann Winston was abducted from Northgate Mall and murdered by Gary Ridgway, the Green River Killer.

The following year, on April 23, 1984, a seven-man force of The Order attacked an armored car at the mall, after first staging a diversionary bombing.

Redevelopment
In 2006, Simon Properties embarked on an expansion of Northgate Mall, in part because of the city's plan for revitalizing the Northgate neighborhood. The expansion plans included a new outdoor "urban-village" on the western end of the mall facing Interstate 5. This village opened in November 2007.

A new five level parking garage at the south end of the mall provides parking for mall users and additional transit parking. The totem pole at the north entrance of the mall was removed in September 2007. Around the same time, the original Northgate Theatre and 4-story Northgate Building were demolished to make space for new tenants.

In 2018, Simon Property Group announced their intention to redevelop the 55 acre mall into a mixed-use center with hotels, housing, offices and the headquarters and practice facility for the Seattle Kraken National Hockey League franchise, in addition to retail space. The redevelopment will replace several parking lots adjacent to a nearby light rail station. Construction on the hockey facility, named the Kraken Community Iceplex, began in February 2020 and was completed and opened in September 2021. The $80 million facility has 1,000 seats around its main rink and 400 seats at two other rinks primarily for community use. It also has a restaurant and a health clinic.

Two hotels are planned to be developed at Northgate Station, both operated by Marriott International; the first, with 167 rooms, is scheduled to open in 2025 on the west side of the property. Construction of the first residential buildings at Northgate Station began in July 2024. A seven-story apartment building with 234 units is scheduled to open in 2026.

Location
The mall is bounded on the north by NE Northgate Way (formerly NE 110th Street), on the west by 1st Avenue NE, on the south by NE 103rd Street, and on the east by 5th Avenue NE. The Northgate informal district and Northgate Way were both named after the mall. The original mall has itself become the anchor for development of surrounding apartment buildings, retail and light commercial blocks and community spaces, all now part of a more comprehensive plan for growth such as the opportunities and impacts of transit facilities and the light rail station for the district.

title: Northgate Station (shopping mall)


text:
Talk:David Paisley

Two David Paisleys?
Shouldn't this be a disambig or something? I know nothing of either one, so I'm reluctant to do anything. -- SatyrTN (talk |contribs) 22:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Who is the other one - are you not thinking of Ian Paisley DavidAnstiss (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on David Paisley. 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/20061121043433/http://www2.xy.com/xycontent/articles/index.php?t=4&b=1&sort=author&a=articles/mag/xy36%20david%20paisley to http://www.xy.com/xycontent/articles/index.php?t=4&b=1&sort=author&a=articles/mag/xy36%20david%20paisley
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140424033210/http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/what-s-on/theatre/daniel_boys_on_glitz_glamour_and_high_society_1_2263546 to http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/what-s-on/theatre/daniel_boys_on_glitz_glamour_and_high_society_1_2263546
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140426233409/http://www.gaytimes.co.uk/Interact/Blogs-articleid-9610-sectionid-761.html to http://www.gaytimes.co.uk/Interact/Blogs-articleid-9610-sectionid-761.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Addition of material to the Personal Life section
A couple of users have amended the section on David Paisley's page to refer to an ongoing criminal case. As the person that has been charged is not David Paisley it would not be appropriate to add the material that was added anyway, but there is also the additional matter that it is unlawful under all jurisdictions of the UK to post material that may be prejudicial to an ongoing criminal matter as the material added this morning seems to be – SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Given the source used for the changes on 04/06/21 came from Graham Linehan's Substack, and both individuals who posted the information have little previous history of wikipedia editing besides attacking transgender individuals/rights movements (one even recieving a temporary block for it), I would very strongly suspect that said changes were not made in good faith. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ye removed sources relating to the Cherry v Paisley case (1), was this intentional? It feels like a blanket blanking without checking and just want to check. Also going to ping  who removed the statement for being unsourced (2) CiphriusKane (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the content because it was unsourced when I looked at the page. I was unaware of the edit history. I have now re-added, with the source previously supplied, and reworded, to illustrate who Cherry is, and accurately reflect the source. I would be in agreement with SakuraNoSeirei that the content about the criminal case should not be here. No reliable source has at present confirmed he is the complainant, and a substack page is most definitely not a reliable source for Wikipedia. AutumnKing (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry about that. Hadn't spotted I'd removed the cite for the previous section when I took out the part about an on-going criminal matter – SakuraNoSeirei (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Personal life section needs to be renamed
…as it’s not the typical personal life in content. It’s not quite campaigning either, tho he is described as such in the lede and has a name for it. Boscaswell  talk  11:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:David Paisley


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Bolarinwa

The result was   delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Tom Bolarinwa

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Contested PROD; this player has not had significant coverage (failing WP:GNG) and he has not played in a fully-professional league (failing WP:NFOOTBALL). GiantSnowman 12:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage, meaning this article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Delete - article is about a footballer that haven't played in a fully professional league, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


text:
Talk:David Keith (actor)

Religion
Is David Keith a Christian? He was in Hangman's Curse, a Christian movie. --LOOKIE MILK! (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * i believe so. I know (from personal experience) that he frequently attended and was a member of a Methodist church in the 80's. Now sure if it's been mentioned in a interview or other citeable source. harlock_jds (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

wife - bad link?
The article says his wife is named Nancy Clark, and there is a link to a person with that name, but it appears to be a different person with the same name. Can someone verify this so we can de-link it? If his wife is not a notable person (in show business or another field), then she probably doesn't have an article --rogerd (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:David Keith (actor)


text:
Nev Chandler

Neville A. "Nev" Chandler, Jr. (October 2, 1946 in Lakewood, Ohio – August 7, 1994 in Rocky River, Ohio) was a Cleveland, Ohio-area sports broadcaster.

Life and career
Chandler graduated from Rocky River High School and, in 1968, Northwestern University. In the 1970s, he worked for several television stations in Ohio and sometimes hosted a sports talk show on WWWE-AM.

From 1980 to 1984, Chandler served as WWWE's sports director and teamed with Herb Score on Cleveland Indians radio broadcasts. In 1985, he moved to television station WEWS as sports director and sports anchor.

He was best known for calling play-by-play for the Cleveland Browns from 1985 to 1993, a time during which the team made the playoffs five straight years.

The quality of Chandler's broadcasts and the excitement of his voice made him a fan favorite and a regular choice for the soundtrack of NFL Films productions. The title of NFL Films' movie about the 1986 Browns, Pandemonium Palace, comes from Chandler's call of the team's double-overtime playoff win over the New York Jets.

Chandler died of colon cancer on Sunday, August 7, 1994. He was buried in Lakewood Park Cemetery in Rocky River.

Signature calls

 * 5–4–3–2–1 Touchdown! – when a Browns player ran in for a touchdown (especially after a long pass)
 * They are serenading the team with a chorus in "boo-flat" – when the Cleveland fans booed the home team after a poor performance
 * Baseball 7th inning stretch call “it’s the middle of the seventh and Tribe fans know what time that is... it’s time to rise and shine! Stretch it out! The score...’’

Awards and honors

 * Five-time NSSA Ohio Sportscaster of the Year (1987, 1988, 1989, 1992, 1993)
 * Ohio Broadcasters Hall of Fame Inductee (class of 1993)
 * Cleveland Press Club Journalism Hall of Fame Inductee (class of 1994)
 * 1994 Society of Professional Journalists (Cleveland chapter) Distinguished Service Award recipient
 * Cleveland Association of Broadcaster Hall of Fame Inductee (class of 1995)
 * Ohio Associated Press Broadcasters Hall of Fame Inductee (class of 2004)

title: Nev Chandler


text:
Pravda, Volchikhinsky District, Altai Krai

Pravda (Правда) is a rural locality (a settlement) in Volchikhinsky Selsoviet, Volchikhinsky District, Altai Krai, Russia. The population was 612 as of 2011. It was founded in 1921. There are 5 streets.

Geography
Pravda is located 13 km northeast of Volchikha (the district's administrative centre) by road. Vostrovo is the nearest rural locality.


text:
hoya

Etymology
From the genus name.

Noun

 * 1) Any plant of the genus Hoya

Etymology
Hinde (1904) records kuhoiya as an equivalent of English in “Jogowini dialect” of Kikuyu, listing also 🇨🇬 as its equivalent.

Pronunciation

 * This o is pronounced long.
 * This o is pronounced long.

Verb

 * 1) to ask for, to beg for
 * 2) to pray
 * 1) to pray
 * 1) to pray

Derived terms

Etymology
..

Noun

 * 1) pit
 * 2) grave

Verb

 * 1)  to pay attention to

title: hoya


text:
User:Highheellover123

Go to http://olivialamper51.wix.com/coolcrafts  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is so cool.

title: User:Highheellover123


text:
Talk:Dean H. Kenyon

Untitled
In 1993 Kenyon was removed from teaching Biology 101 at San Francisco State University. On December 6, 1993 the Wall Street Journal published an article detailing Kenyon’s treatment: "Unlike Scopes, the teacher was forbidden to teach his course not because he taught evolutionary theory (which he did) but because he offered a critical assessment of it.”

Scientist?
So the article says Kenyon was promoted in 2000, but a list of publications shows he has not published any scientific articles in peer-reviewed publications since the 1970s (one creationist article and one creationist book don't count as science.). Can we get some sources on his promotion or his lack of scholarly publication? Agg56tt (talk) 07:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Creation Science?
I note the term used in the sentence: "The case decision went against teaching creation science in public schools". My understanding is that the decision made explicit the fact that Creationism is not in fact science, and the scientific community does not accept any Creation hypotheses as being (valid) science. There would seem to be no grounds therefore for the use of the term "Creation science" in this context. Under the circumstances, I feel that changing "teaching Creation science" to "teaching Creationism as science" is appropriate. I have thus edited the section accordingly. Tarquin Q. Zanzibar 00:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dean H. Kenyon. 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/20110723035627/http://us.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Igpress/2000-07/intrview.html to http://us.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Igpress/2000-07/intrview.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dean H. Kenyon


text:
abonirati

Etymology
.

Verb

 * 1) to get a season ticket for; subscribe for a theater or a concert hall for a season

title: abonirati


text:
User:Bennettma

New Wikiversity user (profile to be developed).

Summary: I am an avid lover of learning, literature, wine & food, photography, travel, sports, history, classical music, and pretty much everything life has to offer.

On a professional level, I am an Information Technology Director and have been working in the field for 12 years. I am a big believer in the concept of using technology to help tap human potential throughout the world, and see projects within online education as being critical to this end.

I'm looking forward to becoming an active member in this project.

title: User:Bennettma


text:
Tian Yi

Tian Yi (, 1534 - 1605) was a eunuch serving at the imperial court of the Ming dynasty. He served under the Jiajing, the Longqing, and the Wanli emperors for a total of 63 years and eventually rose to a high position in the court, overseeing the Directorate of Ceremonial ("Master of the Seal in charge of rituals ) which ranked first among the twelve eunuch directorates. By the time of this death, he had become the favorite eunuch of the Wanli Emperor. Tian Yi was born in Shaanxi Province and was castrated at age 9. He entered the imperial court immediately afterwards. When he died in 1605, the Wanli Emperor ordered three days of mourning and the construction of a tomb with many features of an imperial mausoleum to commemorate him.

Tomb
Tian Yi's tomb has a traditional layout in which a spirit way serves as a central axis and a division between a front portion used by visitors to pay their respects and a closed off back portion. Four eunuchs, who lived at the tomb as monks during the Qing dynasty are buried next to Tian Yi. The tomb is particularly rich in stone carvings. The masonry artworks include three gates (front gate, Lingxing gate, and the graveyard gate), sculptures that line the spirit way, steles, ceremonial vessels, and stone altars for sacrifices. The names of 259 eunuchs who participated in his funeral are also inscribed at the tomb. Notably, the stone statues of the guards before the tomb both wear the uniforms of officials of the first rank, a sign of exceptional favour from the Emperor. The tomb was looted during the period of the Republic of China. Today, it houses the Eunuch Museum, the address is 80 Moshikou Street, Shijingshan district, Beijing.

title: Tian Yi


text:
Norwegian/Lesson 2

Lesson 2 ~ Grunnleggende grammatikk

Gender of Nouns
Norwegian Bokmål has three genders - feminine, masculine and neuter. Each noun is associated with one specific gender only. There are no simple rules for knowing which noun belongs to which gender; the only way to learn which is which is to memorize it. However nearly all feminine words can also be used as masculine words. In fact the dialect of Bergen, the second largest city in Norway, has no feminine gender and the same goes for the moderate version of Bokmål and Riksmål (the traditional written form of Bokmål, still is used by many). For example the noun ‘dame’ (‘lady’ or ‘woman’) can be inflected as: ei dame/en dame - dama/damen (a woman - the woman) and ‘dør’ as ei dør/en dør - døra/døren (a door - the door). In addition very few common words actually belong to neuter. That means that you can assume that nouns are masculine and just memorize those that are neuter.

In English nouns are inflected only by using a/an/the. That is because the word ‘cat’/cats’, for example, is the same in both the indefinite and the definite form. In Norwegian it is done by inflecting the noun instead. Notice also that the ending 't' of the definite singular neuter is silent.

Basic inflectional patterns
Here are examples from each of the three genders. Inflection pattern is marked with bold text.

However, in Norwegian Bokmål, there's an alternative method of inflecting nouns, which basically turns feminine nouns into masculine. This is both accepted and common to do. If you choose to do this, you should also avoid using the a-form of the definite plural neuter.

When speaking, native speakers will often mix between masculine and feminine inflection of nouns. For example, you could say: en klokke - klokka (a clock - the clock). Here, the indefinite singular form is in the masculine ("en klokke" instead of "ei klokke") while the definite singular form is in the feminine.

Check out Appendix 1: Advanced Noun Inflection to see all the ways the nouns can be inflected.

The Indefinite Article
In English the indefinite articles are "a" and "an" (singular) or "some" (plural).

In Norwegian, the indefinite singular articles are dependent upon the gender of the noun being addressed. The indefinite plural article is the same for all genders. In the previous tables, you've already been introduced to the singular indefinite articles.

Personal Pronouns
These are very similar to the English personal pronouns. You'll quickly recognize them

The Polite 2nd Person Singular forms 'De' and 'Dem' and the Polite 2nd Person Plural form 'Dere' are always capitalized, unlike the other pronouns, which follow normal rules for casing. For example whilst "Jeg elsker dem" means "I love them", "Jeg elsker Dem" means "I love you". As a sidenote, the use of these polite forms is becoming rarer and they are very seldom used in everyday language.

Both “den” and “det” mean “it”. If the noun is masculine or feminine “den” is used and “det” is used if the noun is neuter.

Verbs
Learning verbs in Norwegian is easier than most other things you have learnt so far. Unlike English, verbs in Norwegian inflect only for tense and mood. Here's an example - the verbs "to be" and "to run":

title: Norwegian/Lesson 2


text:
Template:Decade in US state category/doc

Purpose
This template is intended to be used on decade in US state categories (for example, Category:1930s in Oregon or Category:1970s in Wyoming). It creates a "timeline" style table of links to categories for adjacent years before or after it in the same decade.

Syntax
No parameters are needed, and none are available

Error-checking
The template checks that the page:
 * 1) is a category
 * 2) has a title of the form "YYY0s in Foo"

If either of those conditions is not met, an error message is displayed and no other output is generated, but the page is added to a tracking category:
 * Category:Errors reported by other category header templates (population: )

Note that this category is also used by many other category header templates


text:
National Register of Historic Places listings in Berks County, Pennsylvania

This is a list of the National Register of Historic Places listings in Berks County, Pennsylvania.

This is intended to be a complete list of the properties and districts on National Register of Historic Places in Berks County, Pennsylvania, United States. The locations of National Register properties and districts for which the latitude and longitude coordinates are included below, may be seen in a map.

There are 140 properties and districts listed on the National Register in the county. Two sites are further designated a National Historic Landmark and another is a National Historic Site.

Current listings

 * }

Former listing

 * }


text:
Wikiversity:Wikiversity feedback forum

A Wikiversity feedback forum is a talk page associated with the Wikiversity outreach programs. Many Wikiversity resources will be shared by other Wikimedia Foundation sister projects, MediaWiki users and Wikia-hosted communities. This is a placeholder for listing feedback from groups outside of Wikiversity with precedence given to Wikimedia sister projects, but inclusive toward a much larger audience.

title: Wikiversity:Wikiversity feedback forum


text:
Ido Marang

Ido Marang (19 December 1918 – 24 May 1970) was a French field hockey player. He competed in the men's tournament at the 1960 Summer Olympics.

title: Ido Marang


text:
John Bernard Blamo

John Bernard Blamo (born 1935) is a former politician in Liberia. He was foreign minister under Samuel Doe in 1986 and 1987. He was preceded by Ernest Eastman and replaced by J. Rudolph Johnson.

title: John Bernard Blamo


text:
Senator Maynard

Senator Maynard may refer to:

 * Andrew M. Maynard (born 1962), Connecticut State Senate
 * Harry L. Maynard (1861–1922), Virginia State Senate
 * John Maynard (New York politician) (1786–1850), New York State Senate
 * Mark R. Maynard (born 1972), West Virginia State Senate
 * William H. Maynard (1786–1832), New York State Senate

title: Senator Maynard


text:
Achiase Senior High School

Akim Achiase Senior High School is a second cycle co-educational institution located in Akim Achiase in the Achiase District, near Akim Oda in the Eastern Region of Ghana. The school has its motto in the Akan language reading "Nsiye Bu Mmusu Abasa Mu" which means Perseverance Conquers Difficulties. It has the nickname of ACHISEC. Old students of Achisec have an association called OSAASSS formed to support the development of the school. Achisec can boast of their powerful cadet because they are situated in the same town with Ghana Army's Jungle Warfare School named, Seth Anthony Barracks. The colours of their school uniforms include blue, yellow and green. The school currently offers the following courses: General Science, Business, General Arts, General Agriculture, Home Economics and Visual Arts.

History
The school was established in 1983 by a Methodist church of Ghana missionary school.

Headmasters

 * Eric Amoah - 2019 till date
 * Alex Badji- 2017 to 2019
 * Frank Yao Dzamaklu
 * Kofi Acheampong

title: Achiase Senior High School


text:
Talk:Public opinion on global warming/Archive 2

See also links
This article has only one See also link. I've been trying to add a few more, but have had some difficulty, and was last reverted here. Public opinion on nuclear issues appears to be causing a particular problem, yet nuclear power is a climate change mitigation strategy, and both articles cover public opinion issues, so they are closely related. Please allow this and other relevant links to be added. Johnfos (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have again added relevant links. Johnfos (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's better than the 99.* anon's spam, but it's not good. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

add for USA?
<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Culture splits climate views, not science smarts 2012-05-29 USA Today

Requested translation of Norwegian polls
The numbers I have inserted is from something called TNS Gallup Klimabarometer, which is a reputable extensive poll on Norwegian attitues to climate change. The presentation of the 2013 poll was followed by a public debate by leading politicans, business people and enviromental actists. I got the percentage for those who believe in climate change directly from the presentation. The number 17% is also there and is also in many news articles.

To find the numbers in the presentation, go to this site and open the Pdf where the numbers are at page 29 (in translation): Two of three believe climate change is caused by humans I believe that climate change is caused by humans (n=1001) Percentage that fully agree or disagree: (graph that shows numbers from 2009 to 2013, with 66/17 in 2013.)

As for opinions and political affiliations, this is covered in the Vårt Land article, Typical Norwegian to be a climate sceptic.

"Why are Norwegian climate sceptics? This has been studied by Marthe Hårvik Austgulen and Eivind Stø at the State Institue for Consumer Research. They think values and ideology influence our opinions on climate. Polls do confirm that political stance means a lot for what we choose to think about the climate change. Among those who vote for the Liberal Party or the Socialist Party, the great majority think that humans are behind climate changes (89 and 92%). Only 41% of those who vote for the Progress Party agree, while the number for Conservative Party voters is 60%."

Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I see there is a third statement where translation is requested: This can be found in the NRK article Norwegians do not fear that climate change will harm Norway. "Questioned about what the consequences of climate change will be for Norway, a majority say that the consequences will be both positive and negative. One out of five believe the consequences will mainly be negative." I should have inserted that this relates to what people think will be the consequences for Norway, I didn't notice that qualification when I read the article.

Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks for quotes and the fix once you became aware of the error. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * PS In reference to the third request for a quote you mentioned, I deleted that whole sentence from the article for the reason stated in my edit summary, and look forward to a repost of article text when you have a chance to study the translation you are offering more carefully.   Read my edit summary here.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of summary of scientific opinion
In this edit, a few sentences summarizing the scientific view were deleted (for the second time, after I restored it the first time). I do not think intended to start an WP:EDIT WAR, and but I think (s)he should take a look at the ARBCOM ruling relating to climate articles, especially the part about discretionary sanctions.

So now that we are here talking about this article text....

In my view, public opinion about this subject divorced from the scientific assessment is rather like eye candy. Do we have an article on public opinion about the color of Bambi's toenail polish? No, we don't.  So the notability of this article is only really established by a short summary of the mainstream scientific assessment. HOWEVER, after this text is restored, I think the article would be improved by moving that text to the lead, as part of our coverage that public opinion is not tracking scientific opinion. We can include links about things that influence public opinion, including media, the various "list of" articles, climate change denial, and climate change conspiracy theory.

Anybody? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Harmonize with corresponding section in Global warming
Global warming has a section on public opinion that links to Public opinion on climate change as the main article. In the section, the content of the first two paragraphs and parts of the rest of the section, more than a third of the section overall, isn't present in the main article here. This content in the section should be integrated into the main article here. – Temporal User (Talk) 23:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Public opinion on climate change → Surveys of public opinion on climate change – Since this article reports the results of surveys, and does not really get into the detailed ins and outs of any of these opinions, we should say "surveys" in the WP:TITLE to make this article "recognizable to readers [and] unambiguous". Other articles do get into the details of the various "public opinions on climate change" so we should say "survey" here to be unambiguously clear that this article reports how researchers have tallied the distribution of opinions thru the use of "surveys". Note that I have explicitly refrained from suggesting a second change (replacing climate change with global warming) and I consider that a separate question which I at least have not proposed at this time. This proposal is only about adding "Surveys of" at the start of the article title. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Surveys are the usual way of gauging public opinion, and if there are other methods to be discussed, they can be included here anyway. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal - we agree that this article reports on the numbers returned by "gauging" public opinion... but there are many ways to talk about public opinion that go beyond such metrics. For that reason, this article title is ambiguous.  This article talks about the relatively narrow topic of these metrics, but doesn't go deep into details of the sorts of things the public believes.  People should instantly understand the narrow scope of the article by its title.  If metrics are produced by "other methods to be discussed" we can address any needed changes at that time - but we don't have examples now, so the uncertain possibility that they might - maybe - arise later is a non-issue now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we're on different wavelengths. What other methodologies do you have in mind? What do you propose to do with the current title after the move? Why would a more specific title, against the Conciseness point of WP:CRITERIA, constitute an improvement here? --BDD (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * re A) "What other methodologies do you have in mind?"
 * Whatever ones you had in mind (I think "none") when you predicated your reason for opposition on the possibility that some unknown methods might surface someday (see your first comment in this thread, above).  Since neither of us had any other methods in mind, this is a moot point.
 * re B) "What do you propose to do with the current title after the move?"
 * Simple redirect to the new name.
 * re C) "Why would a more specific title, against the Conciseness point of WP:CRITERIA, constitute an improvement here?"
 * We will remain on different wavelengths if you don't acknowledge my prior remarks on this point.... for the third time, public opinion can be discussed in terms of metrics (as in this article) or in terms of
 * the details of various viewpoints,
 * what influences those viewpoints,
 * how those viewpoints express themselves, and
 * the impact they have on policy
 * For examples, see the various subsections in Global warming, Global warming controversy, Climate change denial; Politics of global warming; Media coverage of climate change to name just a few. There is a fair bit of redundancy in these pages.   This rename effort is one small step towards an effort at collation.  This article zeros in on the metrics and does not discuss all these other aspects of public opinion.  Your concern with WP:TITLE is appreciated, and I'm all for being concise.  However, it is possible to be so concise that a title fails the WP:TITLE test, and that is the case here.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, if you're saying other articles discuss public opinion on climate change, I understand. But if you'd still take the old title and redirect here—i.e. if you'd do nothing but move this page—the outcome is nonsensical. Better to develop the base title into an overview article on public opinion on climate change, and linking out from there to this article and the others you've discussed. "Collation" is a good idea, and would constitute an improvement to the encyclopedia. But if the only change you want to make is lengthening this title, I see no benefit and can't support. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been at least watching if not actively editing all the pages I mentioned for a couple years... it doesn't change the workings of WP:CONSENSUS a twiddle, but I don't really recall seeing you active in this topic area.  Now that an ed (me) wants to work in small bites towards collation, it's odd that something so small is sticking in your craw.   Gramps used to say "Sweat or get out of the way", and I'm reminded here of MIT Technical Review's recent article "The Decline of Wikipedia".
 * Anyway, no, this is not the only thing I have in mind. But this topic area is contentious and unwieldy.  You can never get consensus to do global anything.  At best you have to nibble small bites; this is one reason we have an insane amount of overlap.   I've floated a few ideas at Talk:Global warming controversy.   This is one component that seemed to have favorable preliminary support so I took this official action first.
 * Hopefully that supplies missing context; a commitment to sweat going forward would be very welcome.  Fleeting procedural opposition, not so collaborative. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA, please. If you're saying something about me instead of the topic, you probably shouldn't be. Anyway, I'm still trying to pin down what you mean by collation. Presumably that means you want to discuss public opinion on climate change in a centralized place, drawing on now disparate sources that discuss it. If so, that's great,(not sarcasm) but I don't see how making this move accomplishes that if you still want to leave Public opinion on climate change as a redirect to "Surveys on..." I read the discussion you linked to and this remains unclear to me. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hopefully that supplies missing context; a commitment to sweat going forward would be very welcome.  Fleeting procedural opposition, not so collaborative. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA, please. If you're saying something about me instead of the topic, you probably shouldn't be. Anyway, I'm still trying to pin down what you mean by collation. Presumably that means you want to discuss public opinion on climate change in a centralized place, drawing on now disparate sources that discuss it. If so, that's great,(not sarcasm) but I don't see how making this move accomplishes that if you still want to leave Public opinion on climate change as a redirect to "Surveys on..." I read the discussion you linked to and this remains unclear to me. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Oppose I haven't given this question the attention it deserves, but my initial reaction is opposition. Granted, much of the content of the article is, not surprisingly about the results of surveys. But not all. When I think about the two options, I would expect that Surveys of public opinion on climate change would contain discussion of public opinion, as well as discussion of survey methodology. There is nothing on the latter point, unless I missed it. The present article contain a subsection titled "Economics". I see nothing in it about survey results. For that matter it isn't referenced, so it needs some work. The Media subsection has some content about survey results, but some content is not about survey results. Is it the intention to excise that material if the article title change is made?
 * The Ideology subsection is an odd duck. It is almost entirely about ideology generically, with a reference to global warming included almost as an aside. Needs work, but that's a different issue.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, it might be the case that the encyclopedia would be better off if we had an article on climate change surveys. It might be the case that the present article is a hodge-podge, including things that do not belong, and missing things that do belong. However, that discussion is broader than simply proposing a new title.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone understands! Bless you my son.  A two year veteran of the Climate pages, I've learned to work at these things in small pieces.  Discussions of broader changes almost always go nowhere. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a dilemma. At the risk off veering off the narrow topic, it reminds me of the concern that Sue Gardner expressed once (she was talking about policy, but it applies to articles as well). There are obviously some advantages to the bottom up article creation process. However, we lock ourselves in to a particular set of articles, subject only to merge or split, which are useful tools, but not well-equipped to surveying a broad topic, and rethinking how it should be organized.  Were we to start from scratch, and decide, for example, that we should have 100 or so articles on the general subject of climate change, we almost certainly would organized the material differently than we have in the existing articles. It is conceivable that we would decide we ought to have an article on surveys of public opinion. However, it isn't trivial to get from here to there. This can be a challenge even within a single article; it is quite a bit of work to rewrite an whole article, and keep everyone happy, although it occasionally happens. That task is exponentially harder if we are talking about a subject comprising dozens of articles. -- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  17:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Query 1) Do you share my belief that there is a huge amount of overlap between the various branches in the global warming tree of articles?
 * Query 2) Do you share my belief that our global warming coverage would be improved if we tried to sort it out?
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Oppose - interesting & thoughtful suggestion. However I think the current title of the article is the most appropriate one for its content; it is, or should be, broader than only surveys, though it may draw extensively on the latter. In the future if/ when there is sufficient information on 'Surveys of...' I would be supportive of a separate article, or spun-off article on that topic. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the first half of your answer... so far I hear "IDONTLIKE" but I'm still listening... to make a complete answer, please specify what "broader" scope this article should have, in your opinion.  If there is just a teensy bit that is related to one of our other articles that bit could easily go to its proper place leaving just the survey-related stuff behind, if that's how we conceive of well-organized and concise coverage, making max effective use of our branching-tree structure for articles.   You seem to think this article should have both surveys and "broader-something" but haven't specified the nature of the "broader-something".  Can you supply more info to convert DONTLIKE into a tangible reason?  Thanks, and apologies if I sound snippy - I don't mean to; just trying to get to the crux. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure... Echoing BDD, above, the broader subject is 'Public opinion...'; surveys are one approach to trying to measure that. There has been much discussion about changes in public opinion on climate change, particularly in the US, drawing largely on surveys. Surveys are arguably good at taking a snapshot of public attitudes about a topic, however they don't necessarily provide us with the basis for understanding what is 'behind' (or 'underneath') apparent shifts one way or another in public attitudes. For this, other methodologies such as in-depth interviews or focus group discussions may be more helpful in giving us insights... This is not to downplay the importance or significance of surveys on this topic; that is why I think it may merit its own/ spun-off article at some point; such an article would necessarily be more narrowly focused, however, and would likely get into discussions of methodology, testing, sampling, interpretation of results, etc. Hope this is helpful... Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Those things already have articles, I think.... Politics of global warming; Media coverage of climate change; Global warming controversy; Climate change denial; Individual and political action on climate change ..... and the list goes on.  You keep saying maybe we should spin off an article on surveys specifically but you haven't commented on the fact that nearly 100% of this article is already about surveys, specifically.   The overlap strikes me as inappropriate redundancy that reduces the impact of our presentation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Might as well rename most topics to "scientific research on x". And what if this page quotes a qualitative study? No. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 edits
Fluff. Smithery. Run-on. Christmas tree. Too vague. These are opinions, not policies. So too with your claims of weight and synth. But let me clarify my position. I have no problem with you trying to clean up the text and to improve the article. I encourage you to do so. My complaint with your latest changes is the removal of long standing, on topic, properly sourced material. I don't care if you shuffle things about but I do care about you wholesale removing all mention of some existing references. For example, the graphic indicating the percentages of the public which believe scientific research may have been falsified. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You were reverted three times by three different editors which should give you a clear idea where consensus is. I agree with the full changes made by . Please explain one by one your disagreements with them or self revert your blanket reversal and edit by parts as he did. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  17:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I have restored all my edits, except I have preserved the single specific issue you have identified for discussion, i.e., the graphic based on the (questionable) Rassmussen survey. Repeat.... I first reverted the IP to restore all my edits, and then I put back the Rassmussen Reports poll and graphic (though it may not be formatted the same way).

The Rassmessen Reports poll should be deleted due to WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. They are the group that grossly flubbed a prediction for a GOP sweep in USA 2012 election by ignoring the numbers. The main guy who was in charge for both of these surveys has been forced out left the firm, and it has been shown that his standard procedure was to only poll cell phone users, which heavily biased those polls in favor of the GOP. Accordingly, this claim is dubious at best and of very little weight, IMO. It should be wasted. But since you want a chance at bat to defend Rassmussen polls as rigorously conducted, and sufficient to meet our test for what wikipedia calls a reliable source, even though (so I'm told) media outlets willing to cite Rassmussen have greatly declined, well.... have at it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I see no need to enter into some debate over whether Rasmussen meets the RS threshold or not. That ship has already sailed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinkSearch&target=www.rasmussenreports.com
 * I agree that a lot of the rework you have done is an improvement so I am happy to avoiding throwing the baby out with the bath water. If you review the comment archives you will be reminded that you yourself have already acknowledged that the graphic adds value to the article. So from a WEIGHT perspective it seems OK to leave it. This certainly isn't a bloated article where we need to find things to delete. And from a content perspective the graphic itself presents all of the applicable viewpoints according to their weights so there is nothing to complain about there.
 * As long as you are willing to leave the graphic which had already been discussed previously and included for a year now I'll agree not to quibble further on the rest.
 * Assuming that we can agree to leave the current version in place I would only point out that the reference for the graphic is currently duplicated. I would fix it to remove the duplication but I am editing from an iPhone and such a complex edit would be difficult. If some else is so inclined could you please clean up this little nit? --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have other complaints about my edits other than the graphic, state them now please. You essentially did a WP:ROLLBACK and the original reason was WP:IDONTLIKE.   This is your chance to list the tangible reasons for which you originally said "Not an improvement".  I will reply on the merits of each, taken separately.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

 * There is no value to be gained from a point by point review of your modifications. Most of what you have done is, from my perspective, inconsequential "smithery" as you have called it that basically boils down to IDONTLIKEIT. Since I don't care to debate the finer points of your "smithery" I am basically neutral on those changes. You obviously consider them net positive as do some others.
 * With the prior wholesale removal of content I considered your changes, taken as a whole, to be a net negative to the article and so I said it was not an improvement. I reverted back to the stable version prior to your changes to avoid any concern that I was trying to introduce bias by selective editing. Now, with my primary concern addressed I remain neutral on the value of your other changes and you and others consider them net positive. Given this I am ok to leave well enough alone and move on. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you just said the single point you wish to argue in the "discussion" phase of WP:BRD is whether the Rasmussen survey should stay or go. Is that correct? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I was merely trying to move things along to the end of the BRD and thus avoid a long drawn out discussion, but the formality of this response seems to flag that you are placing great significance on moving out of the "discuss" phase of the BRD process. Since it seems important to you that we formally complete the "discuss" phase let me back up. I would also like to discuss any changes that you plan to make beyond simply restoring the graphic. Can you please list any additional changes you plan to make to the article after we move beyond the formal "discuss" phase of BRD? --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears you reverted many edits that you didn't actually find objectionable in order to use them as bargaining chips to keep the Rasmussen survey in. "I agree that a lot of the rework you have done is an improvement.... As long as you are willing to leave the graphic which had already been discussed previously and included for a year now I'll agree not to quibble further on the rest."  I'm not interested in playing that game, so you got a formal response.  Do you want to debate any of the edits you reverted other than the Rasmussen survey on their own merits?  I'm just asking for the second, maybe third time:  is the Rasmussen survey the only edit you reverted that you want to debate on its own merits?  At WP:DISRUPT it says something about repeated failure to answer simple direct questions.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I explained my edits. I provided a direct response to every query you made. It appears you want to pick some sort of fight. I decline to oblige you in that. As I have said clearly multiple times I am happy with the article as it currently stands and am ready to move on. That is unless you have additional modifications you wish to propose at this time. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Suppose I still want to delete the Rasmussen survey? Would that cause you to argue over unrelated edits I made that you reverted? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Revert
You can't link to another wikipedia article as your RS, sorry. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Updated poll information.
From Rassmussen in 2014

2014 Eurobarameter on Climate Change

Autumn Eurobarameter

These are all more up to date than the current information on this page. I would add but others seem to object. Perhaps other could have a try.

--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Claims of libel
The content in question is long standing and predates any lawsuit that you claim exists. Clarify how this poll is related to a lawsuit. Clarify how a poll result can be libelous? Who is committing the libel? --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

 * OK, example

 * 1) Said X to media:  Mr. Y raped my daughter.
 * 2) Media newscast:   X says Y raped X's daughter
 * 3) Poll:   Do you think anyone raped X's daughter?
 * 4) Defamation lawsuit filed
 * 5) Statute of limitations would have expired if suit had not been filed

 * Here the poll essentially measures whether people heard the media broadcast and whether the reputation of "anyone" (code for Mr. Y) was negatively impacted as a result.
 * Whether libel exists is a legal question, which measures the basis X had to believe the statement was true, and if not, measures X' intent in making the statement anyway.
 * If the courts say no reasonable basis exists, and the intent was to harm Mr. Y via "defamation", then X is culpable.
 * Advertising the results of the poll simply compounds the gossip
 * Mere fact that poll happened after the facts in the case but before the case was filed is rather irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't do gossiping (See WP:BLP and everyone even mildly knowledgeable of Climategate knows claims about Mann's work are central to that media debacle, which this poll is all about.

See Michael_E._Mann; He's got (or had) another one against Timothy Ball but I've lost track of that one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Where in the poll does it mention Michael Mann? If it doesn't it can't be libeling Michael Mann as you are claiming. You get points for being clever in your POV pushing but this after the fact, made up excuse does not hold water. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Having read your reference I don't see where this poll is mentioned. Does Michael Mann claim anywhere that this poll libels him personally? --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this poll is notable. We're quoting the thing itself - which isn't public - rather than a reliable source talking about it. Looking, I couldn't see any reliable sources talking about it William M. Connolley (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Your point seems off topic for this section. However, is Ramussen not itself considered a reliable source for collecting and reporting on public opinion? The mere fact that they as a reliable source asked the question makes the topic notable. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I've raised the matter at the BLP noticeboard in [|this thread]
 * I don't think it's a BLP issue, but I also don't think it belongs in the article. It's a single poll from a firm that is notably described as unreliable and biased toward Republican/conservative interests. I'd like to see much more of a polling consensus before we cherry-pick one poll as exemplary of "public opinion" on an issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * An opinion piece is not RS. I see nothing at all wrong with this content being included, and note that NAEG seemed to want to remove it last year as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a perfectly reliable source - it's a blog post by a notable expert on polling and was published by The New York Times. If you don't like that one, there's this article from The New Republic. Scott Rasmussen has left Rasmussen Reports, one of the least accurate pollsters of the last two elections. From that perspective, you might expect that Rasmussen was fired for bad surveys. His polls were biased toward Republican candidates in two consecutive cycles, outrageously so in 2012. He refused to interview voters with a cell phone, even though mounting research confirms they tilt toward Democratic leaning groups. He weighted his samples to a fantasy electorate where there are millions more white, Republican voters. And unlike Gallup, which is in the middle of an extensive post-election effort to improve its polling, Rasmussen's post-election rethinking involved reweighting their tracking poll to the 2012 exit polls, even though you really, really can't do that. Really embarrassing stuff. Rasmussen has a noted reputation for partisan bias, has had a number of significant and widely-publicized failures and the cherry-picked use of a single one of their polls here is, at best, questionable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This being a BLP issue is debatable (thought I tend to agree with NAEG) What is not debatable is that it needs to be removed from the article. The addition to the article of a cherry picked biased poll about a since proven to be false event is not acceptable. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  21:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You do realize that climategate is not even mentioned right? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is obviously insinuated. Furthermore, this stands nonetheless: The addition to the article of a cherry picked biased poll (...) is not acceptable. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  21:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In what way was the poll cherry picked? Are there similar polls available covering the same topic that have conflicting results?  I am not aware of any. This page is about public opinion. Surely the public's opinion regarding the scientific opinion is an important topic here. If you are aware of additional sources then point them out. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If there are no other polls on the issue, that would suggest that perhaps it's not considered a significant or useful question by any other polling firms, particularly those without Rasmussen's noted ideological bias. That is as opposed to the many other questions discussed in this article which are widely and commonly asked by a variety of different polling firms. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Kyoto and US "withdrawal"
The article claims that the Bush administration decided to withdraw from Kyoto. IIRC, Kyoto was never ratified by the Senate. Our article on Kyoto_Protocol seems to validate my recollection. The treaty was signed by President Clinton but was never ratified by the Senate. (In the US, Presidents have the power to negotiate a treaty, but the Senate must ratify it.) I'm not sure how the US can withdraw from a treaty in which it was never a participant. Also, the article seems to blame the Bush administration for this "withdrawal" when in reality it was the Senate's fault for failing to ratify the treaty. (In fact, according to our article on Kyoto, Clinton never submitted the treaty to the Senate for ratification.) I'll leave it to regular editors of this article to figure out how best two correct these two mistakes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's my understanding also. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Noting Bush's "foot in mouth" disease, we need to work carefully. My understanding is that, as AQFK noted above, Clinton didn't submit the treaty for ratification (possibly because it was toward the end of his term), and Bush (intended to) explicitly state that he was not going to submit it for ratification.  It could easily be the case that Bush falsely believed that Clinton submitted the treaty, and Bush was going to withdraw that submission.  It could also easily be the case that Clinton agreed to abide to some of the terms of Kyoto, and Bush withdrew that agreement.
 * On the other hand, if the treaty wasn't submitted to the Senate for ratification, it's not its/their "fault" that it wasn't ratified. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Should this Rasmussen poll be included in the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes the poll was discussed widely in the media. Forbes, Nature, Fox, Washington Times, E-The Environmental Magazine, Star Tribune Darkness Shines (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the topic is appropriate material for this page and has nothing to do with Michael Mann. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the poll was in fact not discussed widely in the media. The links presented by DS are: an opinion piece, a blog, a simple note replicating what the poll said, another blog, one more blog, and another one. This is a poll by a known biased organization about scientists supposedly falsifying global warming research. It's not about the public's opinion on climate change itself. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  22:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NEWSBLOG, those sources are reliable enough to show that the poll was widely covered. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not by a long shot. The non-reliable sources you presented are a- minimal in number, b- WP:NEWSBLOG: "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.". You've failed to prove that any of those bloggers are professional journalists/scientists/anything. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  23:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

 * No Because, 1.) Not properly cited/sourced. 2.) It is unclear why this poll should be included, since it gives undue weight to a biased/motivated poll. However, if this is indeed a legit poll from a credible polling company, this may be mentioned as a bias example or something like that. Also the entire coverage in regards to noteworthy needs to be looked at. prokaryotes (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How is simply asking people whether they believe some climate science has been fabricated biased? It is not a leading question. The respondents either think yes, or no, or indicate that they don't have an opinion. Rasmussen merely reports what they got for responses. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If questions are designed in a certain way, i call that bias (favoring a certain response). Anyway, can someone provide a source for the poll? prokaryotes (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Found the source now. Unfortunately it is not possible to draw a lot of conclusion from the scarce info there, a secondary source would be better. Found the secondary sources now. However, this poll belongs into Media coverage of climate change, as an example of motivated media campaigns, false impressions and fabricating controversy,l see Merchants of Doubt prokaryotes (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

 * No It's promoting results of a Push poll.
 * A 2009 Climategate takes off, with Dr Mann a key figure in media stories; thereafter a steady stream of events and investigations and reports produced a steady stream of media accounts
 * B By the time of the 2011 poll, there had been thousands of stories about it.
 * C The suggestive & leading question was "In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?" The sources that popped up here don't mention the give-me-the-answer-I-wanna-hear opener.
 * D The Fed Dist Court (DC) ruled on a procedural matter in Mann v National Review saying "Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable."

- Ruling by the court
 * E Plausible deniability should not allow wikipedia to do assassination by innuendo, and I think the foundation should harken.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes Mr/Ms Shines has shown sources that indeed discuss Rasmussen's poll, and opinion pieces / newsblogs / straightforward reports are media coverage. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your argument fails to acknowledge the entire history of Climate change denial, ie. manufactured controversy. prokaryotes (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Prokaryotes rather vacuous retort and borderline personal attack to one side... you really think numbers in response to the leading question  In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data? have NPOV meaning for us? Really? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See this post and how sources cited above were highly misleading, build upon the supposed Climategase controversy. prokaryotes (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right that the introductory words could cause skew in one direction or another. But quoting the whole question would enable readers to decide whether it's fair. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

 * No - Single poll from an ideologically-biased and unreliable polling organization which by its own admission skewed its sampling and weighting toward older white men during the time period of the poll. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No It would be WP:UNDUE weight on a small poll, from an unusual organisation, from some years ago. The only time such a thing would be interesting enough to include years after the event would be if several other mainstream secondary sources have later confirmed that it marked part of a sea-change in opinion or other currently interesting aspect of the subject. There is no such secondary coverage of this poll at the present time, and it did not in fact mark any particular moment in the history of American public opinion on climate change, as far as anyone has been able to show. --Nigelj (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No - Most definitively the type of meaningless poll based on confirmation bias -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No - Pretty obvious POV issues with this, as evidenced by the fact that it's mainly covered by a limited number of right leaning sources. NickCT (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Rasmussen has been accused of biased polls that use leading questions and has a history of denialism.  To include it would be undue based on the limited number of right-wing newsblogs that cite it.  We should focus on maintaining a higher standard than this.  I'm not saying that every opinion poll needs to be peer reviewed in a scientific journal, but we should avoid biased polls that have little penetration in the mainstream media. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No - POV issues, and coverage is minimal outside marginal sources. Kingsindian (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


text:
Introduction to Philosophy/Rationalism

Rationalism is a philosophical movement declaring that the most certain form of knowledge is derived from reason and that our senses are not reliable submitters of information about the outer world. The most famous rationalists were Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, creating theories of knowledge totally independent from any experience. The senses, according to the rationalists, can not tell us real truth, for example: we could dream that we are the king of the world and not truly be, but the angles of a triangle still sum up to 180 degrees. Knowledge from reason alone and not experience is known as a priori. Plato is considered by many to be the main precursor to rationalism, whereas his student, Aristotle, is often considered to be a precursor to empiricism.

title: Introduction to Philosophy/Rationalism