text:
Talk:2015 Chapel Hill shooting

Removal of sourced content
Why was this removed? Most of the media has talked about the possibility of the students being targeted because of their faith. Therefore we should mention it in a neutral manner.VR talk  15:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have removed it as coming from IBTimes, which i believe is not a reliable source. the content, i havent reviewed yet, sorry, no time.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There are likely at least a hundred sources that say they were Muslims. Telegraph, USA Today, Washington Post etc. Can you please undo the edit and restore the fact that all three were Muslims?VR talk  16:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ARticel currently shows they are muslim. the only question is where, and how often, this should be pointed out. but its there now, and i agree there are more than enough sources, its not debatable, just that one ref was no good. sorry if i sounded at all insensitive to the importance of this fact.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I added it back. All sources confirm that they were Muslim and that they were students. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Article name and lede
I think that we should avoid putting our, or any, name for the event in the lede of the article, as the media have not given it a name yet. the article needs a name, but its for now a placeholder, albeit a logical one.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"School shooting"?
Thusfar, major sources aren't categorizing this as a "school shooting"; yet we have labelled it so, presumably because it occurred "near the campus" of UNC and the victims were students. According to our own 'School shooting' article, I don't believe this incident qualifies (as yet). Official source (police) describe it as "...a dispute over parking and possibly a hate crime". Comments? —<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I considered that earlier, and I agree. This isn't quite the same as University of South Carolina February 2015 Shooting, where the shooting took place on campus. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Geogene (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is certainly a school related attack as victims were affected students, and the college community. There an increasing number of attacks on students in off-campus locations, housing and parties which may be more attractive as targets than on-campus attacks like Virginia Tech which has higher security. In the US, and the world in general, there have been increasing numbers of attacks on schools, shopping centers, and government offices by criminals with no apparent political motive, nor links to terrorist groups that might want to commission attacks of this kind. The murder in University of South Carolina by a woman from Korea also involved a Lebanese educated in Aleppo Syria, this murder involved a student of Syrian origin on his way to aid Syrian refugees in Turkey. The suspect certainly has strong religious and political views which might make a more likely motive for an execution style killing than an argument over parking which seems to be a cover story that police are accepting at face value, but the father is not. Redhanker (talk) 20:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a school shooting, and let's not write speculation into the article. Geogene (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Why Israel
Why Israel (JP) can not have here they opinion on muslims and terror ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it's an opinion piece. And in the US, whether a crime is or is not terrorism is considered a big deal, not a matter of speech. Usually the FBI makes that determination publicly. And usually it isn't considered terrorism, despite what opinion pieces here say. Geogene (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do it mean - becouse how to 'deal' have to be somehow anounced? Do you want to suggest that FBI opinoin is somehow ranked by media (sources) higher and Israel (JP) lower? Should we regard it such or the FBI opinion, is different and not influenced by anybody opinion. If it is not your opinion, can you source it. What the media put statistically is corelated by calculating the ranked precedental semantical redundancy; puting in other words: who's op follow who po. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

4 day agpo:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Gen. Martin Dempsey talks to UNC-Chapel Hill crowd about ISIS google selected full quote:: "Quite a few soldiers drove from a Fort Bragg to Chapel Hill. ... is our nation's armed forces are diligently working to adapt to the terrorist group". If google is automated process - should we considered it is not an opinion and if so can we put it in the article whithouth fera to be reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Geogene (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * We can agree the google is not fully automated process. Sad mo have impact on it. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hate crime, according to victims' family
Anybody know the policy on this? Do we normally quote them as if they're legal experts? Geogene (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if they were legal experts, I'd say their personal relationships with the deceased color their judgment to the point of being irrelevant. I'd wait for the professionals to investigate. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is WP:DUE if many outlets are publishing it, along with calls for an investigation. WP:SAY and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV mean that the text needs to only repeat that media outlets have published the father's claim. -- Aronzak (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Muboshgu, but that looks it has due weight. Other perspectives have since been added from around the neighborhood, assuming those are Due it gives the article a more neutral feel. Geogene (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Basically: if it is notable enough, it should be noted. One member of his family claims it was a hate crime; others dispute that characterization and seem to characterize Hicks as a generally angry and aggressive man who is really touchy about his parking space. The important thing is to make sure that Wikipedia itself remains WP:IMPARTIAL; we should not give the impression that we are claiming that it was or was not a hate crime at this point, merely present information to the reader. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * AP Bigstory discusses the issue and has useful details, killer's wife is divorcing him. I would rather go with what credible media outlets say, than sensationalist speculation on what Facebook comments may have meant.-- Aronzak (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Having read this article and major sources carefully, it seems clear that the objective evidence to date points to the conclusion that this was not a hate crime. Titanium Dragon is right: in spite of the politically-senstive context of this crime, the suspect was nothing more than an unstable person pathologically obsessed with parking in his housing complex. As WP is a repository of demonstrable facts, and not a forum for speculation, the hate crime issue should be mentioned in passing (i.e., "The victims' families consider this a hate crime", period, no elaboration) unless and until objective evidence to the contrary turns up. Laodah 22:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Facebook Page
I've examined his Facebook page; it was almost entirely composed of reblogs and common atheistic image macros. There wasn't anything that I saw which exhorted violence against religious people in general or Muslims in specific; indeed, he reblogged multiple images condemning religious violence. I used a different source which more directly quoted his page. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Further, the Huffpo source wrongly attributes a Barry Goldwater quote to the killer, this needs to be compressed and cleaned up. Too many quotes, too much interpolation.-- Aronzak (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Victims' nationality: US
They weren’t just Americans, they were extraordinary Americans who loved their faith and their community. so I presume that the IP edit-warring over the victims' supposed Syrian or Palestinian nationalities can stop now. Geogene (talk) 01:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks. Geogene (talk) 02:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2015
Is the section about Mr. Dawkins really relevant enough to be in this article? IMO you should remove it or add a tag.

<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added the {Importance-section} tag to the section. IMO, it's not very notable either. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I have weak opinions either way. If we post Muslim condemnations of Muslim violence, it makes sense, but there is no confirmed atheist motive. Then again, we probably would include Muslim condemnations before violence would ever be officially attributed to Muslims. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: Given that he mentioned a work by Dawkins as influential, it is fair to give Dawkins space to respond. You could move the Dawkins quote to the "Suspect" section and contextualize it this way. I agree that there doesn't need to be a special section just for this comment. -Classicfilms (talk)
 * ✅ Feel free to edit it, if you could word it better. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I moved it down, and also removed the fundamentalist Christians vs Muslims thing, as it doesn't have any relevance to this. We don't need to list off every image macro he had posted on his page. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"Murder" category
"Murder of" articles

I'm not going to enter a revert war, but these guidelines say that cases should only be referred to as murder when a court rules them so '''tAD''' (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I don't see that in the essay you're citing, which deals with article titles and notability. Further, it's unlikely that anyone will make a credible argument that this event was not a murder. Geogene (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Where does it say that? The above does not mention the word "court" or "judge" in the entire article? Joseph2302 (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 * "If a person has died under suspicious circumstances, but their death has not been legally ruled a homicide, the article should be titled "Death of [victim]" instead of "Murder of [victim]." For example, in the Death of Mutula Kilonzo, the victim died under suspicious circumstances, but foul play was never conclusively determined, so under no circumstances can such an article be labeled as a murder. In the death of Caylee Anthony, the prime suspect was put on trial for murder, and the public widely held beliefs of murder, but since this defendant was acquitted and legally can no longer be tried for murder, the case cannot be labeled as "murder" under Wikipedia guidelines". - Verbatim '''tAD''' (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 * That doesn't apply here. Geogene (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I'll "bury the hatchet" as there is no consensus. It's not even my opinion that it wasn't a murder (not that opinion matters, of course). It's just that seven years ago, people would have reached the same opinion on the Caylee Anthony case and that was a rare occasion where the outcome wasn't how the majority saw it. My knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines must be revised. No hard feelings from me. '''tAD''' (talk) 05:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 * 'All three victims had been killed with gunshot wounds to the head'. I can't imagine the circumstances, outside of a warzone, in which three people being shot in the head could not be murder. We shouldn't describe the alleged perpetrator as a murderer until he's convicted as such, but we can certainly categorise the event as a murder, which it unquestionably was. Robofish (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (Compare, for example, 2012 Aurora shooting, which is rightly categorised as a mass murder, although the presumed perpetrator hasn't yet been convicted.) Robofish (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There are instances where it's ambiguous whether foul play was involved, and this is not one of them. Geogene (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Suicide by gunshot is a very common thing. Accidental death by gunshot is so easy, even a child can do it. Granted, these don't look likely, but they're still possible and need to be ruled out in court before killing becomes murder. Even if we know buddy did it, his lawyer can say he was acting in self-defence, it was a crime of passion or the guy's insane. A few other tricks, too. If the jury believes this, no murder occured. Always best to wait, court is sometimes unpredictable. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ^That was what I was intending all along. Sure it looks incredibly unlikely, but we can't play WP:CRYSTAL on anything on Wikipedia '''tAD''' (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Muslim Lives Matter
I created Muslim Lives Matter as a redirect to this article. If this phrase receives as much coverage as Black Lives Matter, please feel free to expand. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Coordinates?
At least if followed to Google Maps, the coordinates display the center of the UNC campus, which doesn't seem to be where the shooting happened. Could someone take a look at this? Maybe the coordinates for the nearby Friday Center for Continuing Education are close enough? --BDD (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

additional/relavent dawkins quote
Dawkins also tweeted in response to the murders. "...there's only 1 ideology now that preaches the legal killing of dissenters. And it isn't atheism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by WHRex (talk • contribs) 06:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Has that been reported in news sources as relevant to the story? I don't know, just asking. '''tAD''' (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * not yet, at least https://www.google.co.uk/#q=there%27s+only+1+ideology+now+that+preaches+the+legal+killing+of+dissenters.+And+it+isn%27t+atheism '''tAD''' (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I've yet to see any kind of publications consider that statement by Dawkins as news / as relevant either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 * OK so let's remove it. Besides the noteworthiness issue, it's also sloppy writing to include a quote with no context explanation of why it's there (I for one have no idea what "ideology" dawkins is referring to...). Somewhat related, that he describes himself as "anti-theist" on his FB page is nowhere mentioned in the cited source...the cited source mentions his FB profile as including "Atheists for Equality". Now I don't think this quite counts as self-identification as an atheist (setting aside other evidence), but it certainly counts for that more than self-identification as an "anti-theist". In situations like this I think the full context should be included and editors shouldn't be drawing conclusions themselves, so I propose simply stating the profile affiliation.Snarfblaat (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Muslim Lives Matter be merged into 2015 Chapel Hill shooting. I think that the content in the "Muslim Lives Matter" article can easily be explained in the context of "2015 Chapel Hill shooting". Unlike its African American counterpart, this hashtag has only received wide attention on one event so far. '''tAD''' (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It was created as a redirect to this article, I don't think it has any life outside of this event. Geogene (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, if this becomes a widespread social movement like the African American version, it deserves an article then '''tAD''' (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Disagree Have not contributed to either article so I feel I'm neutral. The hashtag started before this event, didn't I? I know I've heard of it before this. Additionally it may be less well-known because the murders/deaths of Muslims are not reported the same way as other deaths. Wikimandia (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not helping your cause to admit that the hashtag was not widely used before. '''tAD''' (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fully agreed. Something tells me that article was created because of others like it. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's front page!!!
It has been more than 4 days since the incident and there's nothing about it on the news column on the main page with at least a link to redirect to this article!! It's all over the internet, twitter and news pages right now, but it seems that it's not more important than the other news related to islamophobia issues such as ISIS, boko haram, how Malala was treated, etc. Yes, it looks like Muslim's lives don't matter with Wikipedia as well! Is that news column monitored by Fox News or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear to be related to religion or a hate crime as of yet. There was multiple killings in Boston over parking spaces.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

(Sorry correction) I meant more than 3 days. Does it have to be approved that this is a hate crime to be mentioned on the front page? or how big the incident has become is what matters? I still think that Muslims' lives don't matter because THE VICTIMS NAMES ARE STILL NOT EVEN MENTIONED ON THE RECENT DEATHS PAGE UNTILL THIS MOMENT!!! any excuse or explanation for that also?

Turkish President Erdogan and US President Obama spat over Chapel Hill incident
Why is there no mention of the political fallout between the Turkish President and President Obama over the Chapel Hill incident? http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/2/13/turkeys-erdogan-criticizes-obama-for-silence-over-slain-muslims.html http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/13/erdogan-chides-obama-chapel-hill-murders http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/191298#.VOCMkfmUeSo — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Because Obama has responded to the issue so the Turkish whinge is moot. WWGB (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

President Obama only responded after Turkey's President challenged him to condemn the murders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The only Turkey that influences Obama is this one. WWGB (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Undue tag
The suspect's section has fallen into WP:UNDUE. It is out of balance with the victim's section. I am fine with the current presentation of titles - the matter is one of content. Either we trim the suspect's section or we add more content to the victim's section.-Classicfilms (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's probably because of implicit speculation in whether or not it was a hate crime, with both "sides" having their say there by including things that support various positions. I suggest trimming that and not having the debate in the article, even indirectly. Geogene (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The Wikipedia reflects the topic of an article as it is discussed in reliable sources. The discussion of motive is out there and thus the Wikipedia needs to reflect that. The undue tag has to do with a balance between sections.-Classicfilms (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As for trimming that is fine, material can be either deleted or moved elsewhere.-Classicfilms (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, we should cover speculation from reliable sources, without working our own speculation into the article. And to be clear, I'm not flinging accusations, just pointing out a common (barely avoidable) Wikipedia dynamic. Geogene (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Geogene, good idea and I appreciate your feedback. Points are well taken. I think the article could have a "Motives" section and all material could be moved there. It would mean restructuring the article with new headings - I'll be interested in hearing suggestions from other editors about how this could be done before any changes are made.-Classicfilms (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That will work, but should probably call it "possible motives" or something, for reasons of presumed innocence. As food for thought, I think there's three things RS say about the suspect: (1) has a problem with religion (2) has problems over a parking space and (3) has a gun. We can convey those more efficiently than we are now. Geogene (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Possible motives" is a good choice for the reasons you suggest and I agree with your points. I would add a fourth point as the three come from the suspect's account and facebook page - as the victims are not here to speak for themselves we also need to include the multiple RS on the points made by family and friends of the victims. I agree that all of this can be conveyed more efficiently than it is now. Signing off for today - but I will check in tomorrow. Perhaps we can use this TALK page to create a new kind of outline.-Classicfilms (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Possible motives" could be a good subtitle. Too much of the content is based on initial subjective speculation on social media posts, which should be replaced with critical analysis by sources that have looked at all possible motives. We can also bring in some of the content from the victims family section in, which is better content than subjective speculation from the media. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @ -- Aronzak - great points, I agree with you. I think the section should consist only of family, friends, and neighbors of the victims and suspects, official police and reports by investigators, and secondary sources that directly quote Hicks' Facebook page (rather than speculative interpretations of it by the media). If we do this, then it will be a matter of figuring out where the section will go and of rearranging existing points on the article and deleting other sections. We can use this space to predetermine what that will be. A bit swamped in RL today - and I'd like to wait another day or two to see if more editors contribute ideas. Also if you or Geogene have further ideas as to how to do this, that would be great.-Classicfilms (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since there is so much material to work with, perhaps the easiest way to begin would be to first figure out how the "suspect" section will read - in other words the short biographical section. I would suggest that it be just a few sentences to match the "victims" section in length. The second phase would be to take the rest of the material from the original "suspect" section and combine it with material from the two family sections in "response" as a "Possible motives" section (assuming some of it may or may not be deleted). Approaching it in this way may make the task less daunting...I will checkin again tomorrow.-Classicfilms (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"UNDUE" isn't applied this way. Mass murderers are generally covered more than their victims. That is the case here. The alleged perpetrator is receiving a lot of attention for his motive, his acts, his life that got to this point, etc, etc. "How could a person do this?" drives the coverage. The salient points about the victims that are covered in the reliable sources are presented as well. There is no requirement they be equal as coverage is not equal. --DHeyward (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The Wikipedia rules on WP:UNDUE are pretty clear:
 * "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." There is no exception for a particular type of article or the fact that the media chooses to highlight one aspect of a situation. WP:NPOV governs all articles.-Classicfilms (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint published by reliable sources". The suspect is undoubtedley going to get more coverage than the victims.  After indictment, he will be arraigned, tried and convicted/acquitted.  He is going to get substantially more coverage than the victims.  He may even get his own article at some point.  This is the nature of notability.  Think of a plane crash:  Pilot and passengers don't get the same level of coverage. The pilot gets a full workup and investigation, the victims are generally lumped into a non-culpable list.  Such is the nature of the coverage.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I reiterate - none of which is relevant to Wikipedia rules, to WP:NPOV. I am signing off for today but I will check back at a later time. -Classicfilms (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutrally presented biographical details about the suspect can be 10x the volume of victims without running afoul of either UNDUE or NPOV. NPOV would kick in, for example, if a side were chosen in the parking dispute or hate crime declared.  The hate crime aspect is currently overplayed in terms of facts presented, but it's coverage in reliable sources means we have lots of coverage of that aspect.  The reality is that coverage of the suspected perpetrator is more prominent than the victims and coverage of the suspected perpetrator will continue to grow while the victims will not - our article and sections will reflect this in proportion to the coberage.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * " coverage of the suspected perpetrator is more prominent than the victims and coverage of the suspected perpetrator will continue to grow while the victims will not" - sounds a bit like WP:CRYSTALBALL to me. In any event, there is quite a bit on the victims out there, it just is not yet in the article. Some of the material in "suspect" overlaps with the material in the "response/victim's family section" as well. As I suggested above, we can extend the victim's section as well. I will say it again, WP:NPOV is the abiding code of the Wikipedia and this article is no different. I will check back in tomorrow. -Classicfilms (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add relevant material material about the shooting with respect to the victims. Don't expect them to be equal as no policy requires it.  Your understanding of UNDUE and NPOV is flat wrong.  Like I said, there is more material in general about shooters than victims.  See other articles like 2012 Aurora shooting.  The shooter has his own article.  The fatalities are a simple list.  Over 70 victims.  Victims and criminals are not covered equally in reliable sources with regards to crime because people that commit heinous crimes get considerable media attention.  That's just a fact and it's true here and in other places.  Our policies are to neutrally present the shooting in propotion to its coverage, not equal length sections on victim/criminal.  The alleged perpetrator was/is the focus of intense and in-depth coverage.  The innocent victims are not going to get that. That's not crystall ball, that's the current state of coverage.  Also note, this is an event that is being covered.  --DHeyward (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the content at the beginning of the thread above, I'm not the only one who read it as undue. And another editor suggested that we trim rather than add, offering a different approach. As none of us WP:OWNs this article and solutions need to be built on Consensus, I'm going to wait a bit more to see if anyone else responds.-Classicfilms (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am also going to ask that we focus on the topic of this particular article rather than Other stuff exists.-Classicfilms (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Parking dispute?
The article still makes a lot of the parking dispute claim which was pure speculation on the part of Hicks' wife (cf. ). --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it is speculation - as is any other possible motive unless Hicks admits honestly to one or a court rules that there was one '''tAD''' (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * His wife made this speculation, but it's also the local police department's theory, based on their investigation, her, and other sources - c.f. "Chapel Hill police have said the Tuesday shootings were prompted by a parking dispute between Mr. Hicks and the married couple, his closest neighbors." . I also don't see text / references regarding the prevalence of parking dispute murders vs Muslim hate murders in the US; I'm working on that. --Djbclark (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 April 2015

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. So my criterion is useless; big deal. Anyway, "shooting" can mean one location with multiple victims, eh? George Ho (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 Chapel Hill shooting → 2015 Chapel Hill shootings – There were three victims in a similar location. Despite one attack, "shooting" should be pluralized. George Ho (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The very reason "shooting" is singular is that there was one attack incident, not a series of them. Charlie Hebdo shooting is in singular, despite it filling your own criteria for pluralizing. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 23:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose like WikiLaser says; it was a shooting. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

International reactions
It has been custom on other recent events, like 2015 Copenhagen shootings and Bardo National Museum attack, to compress the International reactions into summary prose, as most of them convey the exact same message. This could also be done here. '''tAD''' (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

✅ '''tAD''' (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Shooting, mass murder, terrorism
Smkolins:

With regards to the description of 'mass murder', you stated: "while a severe incident the guideline on "mass murder" is four people killed in an incident. Nor am I aware scholars or authorities on shootings are calling it mass murder". You have not provided a link to this guideline, and as a result I have reinstated the 'mass murder' tag.

With regards to the description of 'terrorism', you stated: "not a high quality sign it was terrorism, more about the response in international context" Your description of the source as not being 'high quality' seems to be an arbitrary value judgement on your part. Furthermore, the description of the incident as terrorism comes from a reliable source. As a result, I have reinstated the 'terrorism' description. Gfcvoice (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

 * A mass shooting is defined by the FBI as a killing of four or more people with no cooling off period.

 * Terrorism is a WP:LABEL issue and needs strong sourcing from a number of strong news outlets (not daily mail) or from academic sources. The daily mail does not meet those requirements -- Callinus (talk) 07:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

 * The Daily Mail (actually a syndicated article by Agence France-Presse) was not calling the attack terrorism, but quoting Palestinian politicians. That is an understandable reaction when their people have been killed, but it is not a sole arbiter of what this attack was. '''tAD''' (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Trial
I am working offline on some edits to the page with a new sub-section entirely dedicated to the trial that took place recently (06/12/19) and the disturbing revelations made public for the first time at this gathering. Details to come... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzle26 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

'Islamophobia' was NOT his motive
'There are many more — hundreds of stories — about his sentencing, and all of them proclaim that Craig Hicks killed “3 Muslims.” Anyone skimming these headlines, or reading the reports themselves, will of course assume that Hicks’s crime was the product of anti-Muslim hate. That has become the narrative. Almost no one challenges it. But that narrative is false.'

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/06/craig-hicks-sentenced-to-life-for-killing-three-neighbors-part-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Your source, Jihadwatch, is a known hate site and highly biased. Given the perpetrator's online postings against Muslims, islamophobia appears to have been a contributing factor. 01:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC) <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Names of victims in Infobox
I don't understand the objection by User:YatesTucker00090 to having the names of the victims in the infobox. Their edit summary says that there is no need for the names of the victims to be in the article twice. The name of the perpetrator is in the article multiple times. The inf in the infobox is incomplete without the names of the victims. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Since the names of the victims have been in the infobox since 2015, and in the absence of any comments here justifying their removal, I am reinstating them. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Why have you not given any justification for the deletion of the names of the victims in the infobox? What is it that you object to? Sweet6970 (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Names of victims and the perpetrator are completely different from each other. It's very uncommon to find names of victims in the infobox, especially when there's several victims. The perpetrator is almost always included in the infobox and is more relevant to the article than the victims names. It's also not mandatory to add the victims names to articles as recently, the inclusion of them now requires consensus from other editors. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 * The names of the victims have been in the infobox for this article since 2015. So, in effect, there has been a consensus for 5 years that the names should be in the box. In this case, it is the victims who are more important and relevant to the article than the perpetrator. I think that you would need a consensus to remove the names. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Victims names are optional, as wikipedia in not a memorial. Also if it's a list of multiple victims, then we don't need to list it twice, and on wikipedia, the perpetrators information is more important since this isn't a place to memorialize people. This is a crime related article and we usually use information on the attacker rather than the victims. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 * This article may be unusual in that a significant part of it is concerned with memorials to the victims. If you agree that including the victims’ names is optional, do you actually object if they are put back into the infobox? Sweet6970 (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

As you previously stated, this article is 5 years old and does have a lot of information about the victims. Each one has their name in bold letters and a short bio about them. If you want to talk about consensus, I think it has already been reached just to include them at all and have most of the article be about them. With that being said, I don't think we need to have their names listed twice since they're already easy to find in the article. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 * OK Sweet6970 (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:2015 Chapel Hill shooting


text:
Talk:Bryan Patterson

How Is This Person Notable?
I do not believe this person merits an article as he does not meet the notability requirements of WP. Someone should either show cause or remove it. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Needs work
Patterson is certainly notable-- a member of the National Academy of Sciences, an accomplished scientist and academic. But the article has errors and is woefully incomplete to the point of being misleading. A decent article could be made just by paying attention to the National Academy and Society of Vertebrate Paleontology secondary sources cited in the article. MayerG (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

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

title: Talk:Bryan Patterson


text:
Talk:The Beginning or the End/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) 04:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 * 1: A good article is well-written.
 * The lead is insufficient as a summary of the article. I'll admit, I suck at these, too. But at a minimum, each section should be represented here in some fashion. Fixed, and I don't see any other significant problems at the GA level.

 * 2: A good article is verifiable.
 * Let's get the big problems out of the way first. I'm concerned about the reliability of some of these sources.
 * "The Eddie Mannix Ledger" (which is styled as "The E. J. Mannix ledger" in WorldCat) is ... awkward. It's not technically a published source, for one, and it's absolutely a primary source. WorldCat says that "No definitive representations have been made about how the data should be interpreted." Is that all we can go to for the budget and box office numbers? At the very least, this needs its OCLC number (801258228). Ultimately, it'd be ideal if an alternative source could be found for this. But, at the very least, there have been several academic papers written about the Mannix ledger, so it's a well-researched, if a bit odd, primary source. We work with what there is, sometimes.
 * The Sharpe source should ideally reflect that it was a journal article (from SMEC Vintage Electrics), republished online, rather than a website de novo.
 * Why is Wellerstein a reliable source? Surely there's better material to cite this claim. In fact, see under criterion 3.
 * Wellerstein is clearly knowledgeable about the topic, but I don't think he's quite the sort of expert that is contemplated by the "expert exception" in WP:SPS, especially when there are other sources that provide the same material without any difficulty. Consider, which references this exact claim on pp. 366–367.

 * 3: A good article is broad in its coverage.
 * Comprehensive surveys of literature aren't required for GA; that's a FA criterion. Still, it looks like there's a lot more out there than you've called on. I'm sure there are people who would be willing to quibble about the suitability of Greg Mitchell's NEWSBLOG material from The Nation (it likely would be deemed to at least have somewhat more editorial oversight than Mitchell's self-published book on the topic). But even if you didn't end up citing this piece directly, it suggests important sources whose viewpoints are lacking: a positive review in Variety, and a rebuttal of its claims of accuracy in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (certainly a far better source than the suspect Wellerstein blog). But see my closing notes.

 * 4: A good article is neutral.
 * No objections here.

 * 5: A good article is stable.
 * There's a talk-page complaint about reference formatting changes, but I don't see that much came of it. No obvious concerns here. Doesn't seem to have mattered.

 * 6: A good article is illustrated, if possible.
 * Images are appropriate and properly licensed. It's possible that the poster wasn't renewed and so would be eligible for, but if you don't want to do the legwork to check for a renewal notice (which is sometimes far more trouble than it's worth), there's nothing wrong with the fair use claim given.

Prose analysis (for criteria 1 and 4) pending, probably tomorrow. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this review. It is much appreciated. Again, thanks for taking this on. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) The figures from The E. J. Mannix ledger were added before I began work on the article. I have added the OCLC. I don't know anything about how you obtain budget and box office numbers for classic films. However primary sources are acceptable for facts.
 * 2) I don't know how you do the legwork to check for a renewal notice either. If I did, I have a publicity still with the cast gazing off into space.
 * 3) I've added the Variety review comments to the article.
 * 4) Alex Wellerstein is an assistant professor at the Stevens Institute of Technology. He wrote his doctorate on the Manhattan Project. He is absolutely an expert on the subject and the article cited summarises the latest scholarship.

Promotion
I'm happy to pass this as a Good Article. I still believe that the Wellerstein source is not optimal, and I've offered an equivalent replacement source above, if you're interested, but I'm not going to hold this back from promotion over a disagreement about whether the WP:SPS expert exception applies in this case.

If you are interested in developing this further, there's a lot more material out there that you can draw upon. A quick perusal of the other sources suggests that your survey of the literature is "broad", as the GA level demands, but far from FA's "comprehensive" criterion (although I do think this article could easily become FA-level). Getting a hold of the Journal of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article would be quite valuable, I think. And there are quite a few print sources that discuss the film, sometimes at length. One, I linked above as an alternative to Wellerstein's blog. Other books that appear to have particularly germane content include:
 * (has considerable discussion of the cultural themes represented)
 * (more on cultural themes, only major source I found to discuss the Matt Cochran subplot and its implications)
 * (only minimal coverage, but p. 57 identifies two educational films that were themselves based on this documentary: Beginning or the End [without "The", 1947] and First Atomic Pile [1947])

As an unrelated suggestion for improvement, you might considered end-noting inflation-based equivalents for financial figures (the template is an awesome tool that I only recently became aware of. But none of this stuff is required for the GA standard, and I feel the work done on the article since I started the review satisfies that standard. So I'm happy to award it the little green icon. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I have added the inflation templates. They are awesome, but I'm restricted in using it in the military and scientific articles I normally work on. I do have the Journal of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article. I have added it to the article. Wellerstein's article is used to cover the debate about the leaflets. What happened was that this became a major issue in 2012 with the online publication of various leaflets. This resulted in a flurry of research. There was debate on Wikipedia, resulting in a careful wording. The idea is to give the reader access to the most up-to-date information. I will consult books you recommended. Again, thanks for the review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Beginning or the End/GA1


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Don't Start Now/archive1

Don't Start Now

 * Nominator(s): LOVI  33  18:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a song by English singer Dua Lipa. Probably her most successful single along with "New Rules" as it reached number 2 on both the UK Singles Chart and US Billboard Hot 100. The article was brought to GA status by, who intended to bring it to FA status, but has since retired. I have done some improvements and adds since then and would like to finish his intentions. LOVI 33  18:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments from HĐ
I haven't listened to this song yet so I believe I'd provide an unbiased review.
 * the same team she worked with on her 2017 single "New Rules" → I don't think this is noteworthy for the lede, unless the two songs sound very similar to each other
 * Removed.

 * numerous 1980s and disco tropes in its production → Wikilink to trope may be needed to assist understanding; I'm not sure if "1980s and disco" can be in the same sentence, since an average reader wouldn't know what the difference between them is
 * Added wikilink. I think 1980s and disco tropes just refer to 1980s styled disco or disco in general, and 1980s styled music. I don't know if viewers will know the difference, but I would say that it should be included since the track was also praised for its throwback sound as you can see in the critical reception section. Although, if you think it should be removed then I will remove it.

 * A post-break up song → Unnecessary
 * Removed.

 * the song charted in the top 10 in more than 40 countries → I'd say charted in the top 10 on charts in 40 countries
 * Rephrased.

 * I see inconsistent use of the Oxford comma here.
 * I have fixed it to like this: list item 1, list item 2 and list item 3.

 * The next morning they decided to write a disco song as "it's the most fun to dance to"; however, the session was unproductive → Reading this, I understand that they only decided to write, but did they initiate the decision right away? I think the bit about the unproductive session can be omitted
 * Removed unproductive session part. I think the decision was initiated right away. The source says: The next morning, we woke up, and were like, ‘We have to make a disco song. It’s the most fun to dance to.

 * Although "Don't Start Now"'s bassline sounds live, Kirkpatrick created it with MIDI → Can't MIDI be produced live?
 * I am unsure but here is what the source, which is an interview with the song's producer says: The bass sounds live, but it’s actually midi.

 * The caption of the file says synth-pop, but I don't see it sourced within the prose
 * Added to prose.

 * "Don't Start Now" is a retro-tinged nu-disco song,[12][13][14] incorporating several 1980s and disco tropes, and elements of dance-pop, Eurodance, and funk.[15] → Grouping of multiple sources to create a statement is WP:SYNTH. Consider breaking it down
 * Broken down.

Overall a well written article. I'll try to review the rest within a week. HĐ (talk) 08:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to drop in as I am not the nominator, but I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of WP:SYNTH. If different reliable sources separately use the descriptors "retro-tinged" and "nu-disco", and we trust both sources, then it must follow that we believe both descriptors apply to the song simultaneously, and whether we put them both in one sentence or cite them to each source separately, we are simply juxtaposing them and not leading the reader to draw a separate conclusion from their being combined; therefore, I would argue we are not violating SYNTH or WP:OR. That is assuming the adjectives are objective descriptors and not subjective opinions. In the latter case they should be attributed in the text, but the problem then isn't SYNTH, it's a lack of in-text attribution of opinions. I would be interested to know what other people think though. Ajmint (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, what you say is totally what I mean. I may have not been very thorough in assessing whether it was a case of SYNTH, but the lack of attribution is definitely what I find problematic. HĐ (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, any updates regarding my concerns? HĐ (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry I didn't think I would get a response this soon. I have addressed all your concerns above, and with this edit. I look forward to seeing your thoughts on the rest of the article. LOVI  33  03:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Support from The Ultimate Boss
User:LOVI33, The article looks amazing! I am going to support it! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator comment - This has been open for almost a month without any substantive support for promotion. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC) -- Laser brain  (talk)  12:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


text:
You Make It Feel Like Christmas (song)

"You Make It Feel Like Christmas" is a song by American singer Gwen Stefani from her fourth studio album of the same name (2017). It features guest vocals from Blake Shelton. The song was written by Stefani, Justin Tranter, Shelton and busbee, while production was handled by busbee and Eric Valentine. It was recorded during the summer months, with the song title leaking in August 2017. The song was eventually released for digital download and streaming as the lead single from the album by Interscope on September 22, 2017. It was influenced by popular holiday music from Stefani's childhood and marks Stefani and Shelton's second collaboration following their duet "Go Ahead and Break My Heart" in 2016. A Christmas track, the song includes country and pop music elements, with lyrics describing a romantic holiday season.

"You Make It Feel Like Christmas" received positive to mixed reviews from music critics. Some believed that the song was successful lyrically and would ultimately become a modern Christmas classic, while other critics found it inferior to the rest of You Make It Feel Like Christmas. In the United States, the song failed to enter the Billboard Hot 100, and instead peaked at number two on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 extension chart. It reached the top 10 of the Adult Contemporary charts for both Canada and the US. In countries such as Germany and Switzerland, it became Stefani's first track to chart in years. On the UK Singles Chart, it served as her first solo top 100 single since 2007 and has sold 200,000 copies as of December 2022. In 2023, the single was certified Platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in the US.

The accompanying music video was directed by long-time Stefani collaborator Sophie Muller and released in November 2018. It features scenes of Stefani and Shelton partaking in various holiday-themed activities interspersed with ones of the two performing the song, accompanied by a big band and children dancers. Stefani's looks in the video were described as reminiscent of American actress Marilyn Monroe. The song has been performed on various television series, such as Jimmy Kimmel Live!, The Late Late Show with James Corden and The Voice, as well as on the 2017 American holiday special Gwen Stefani's You Make It Feel Like Christmas.

Background and release
After the release of Stefani's third solo album, This Is What the Truth Feels Like (2016), she announced her plans to release new music by the end of 2017 in July of that year. Besides the announcement, she had no further details. Following a nature walk that occurred at Shelton's residential estate in Oklahoma, Stefani felt inspired to write Christmas music and began work on a track that later became "Christmas Eve". The material created for You Make It Feel Like Christmas was recorded during the summer months of 2017, after Stefani scheduled joint studio and songwriting sessions with Justin Tranter and busbee. The latter of the three collaborated with Stefani following a suggestion from Shelton that she would work well with him. Stefani was pressured to create a holiday album by busbee that was "raw and punk and sort of classical at the same time"; accordingly, Stefani listened to the favorite holiday albums of her childhood, such as Vince Guaraldi's A Charlie Brown Christmas (1965) and Emmylou Harris's Light of the Stable (1979), for inspiration.

On August 2, 2017, the titles of several unreleased tracks from Stefani, including "Christmas Eve", "My Gift Is You", "Under the Christmas Lights" and "You Make It Feel Like Christmas", first leaked onto the internet when they appeared as published works on BMI and GEMA, American and German music databases, respectively. Because of the titles, music critics suggested that Stefani may have been recording a holiday album, due for release in 2017. On September 18 that year, the singer took to her social media accounts and claimed that she "had something big planned for the holidays", and would release more information in the near future. The next day, Stefani revealed that she had recorded a Christmas album, confirming its title as You Make It Feel Like Christmas, and stating that the title track would be released as the lead single. It was written by Stefani, Justin Tranter, Shelton and busbee, while production was handled by busbee and Eric Valentine.

"You Make It Feel Like Christmas" was sent to music distributors such as Amazon Music for digital download and streaming on September 22, 2017 through Interscope Records. It was ultimately serviced to adult contemporary radio stations by Interscope in several countries including the United States, except in Italy where the Universal Music Group released Stefani's cover of "Santa Baby" as the lead single instead. Alongside the release included two unique promotional CD singles; one was distributed to United Kingdom radio stations by Interscope Records while another, serviced through Polydor Records and Universal Music Group, was sent out for French airplay rotation. In Russia, the song was released to contemporary hit radio stations on September 25, 2017.

Composition and lyrics
Musically, "You Make It Feel Like Christmas" is an infectious and upbeat country pop Christmas song with romantic lyrics. Megan Armstrong from Billboard described the song as a blend of both Stefani and Shelton's signature styles, incorporating elements from both the pop and country genres, although she felt it emphasized the former more than the latter. Labelling it a "bouncy duet", AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine noted that the song contains a "Motown beat" and pays homage to the past. Echoing the view that the song has an older vibe, Noisey's Alex Robert Ross called the duet "an upbeat, old-timey, country-esque Yuletide song". Furthermore, Michael Bialas from The Huffington Post used "You Make It Feel Like Christmas" to characterize Stefani's career as heading into a country music direction.

According to Musicnotes.com, "You Make It Feel Like Christmas" is set in common time and has a moderate "bright swing" tempo of 93 beats per minute. The key of the song is in C major, with Stefani's vocal range spanning nearly an entire octave, from C3 to E5 in scientific pitch notation. Throughout the song's three verses, the vocal range advances in the chord progressions of C–G–B–Am. The song was engineered by Valentine and mixed by Dave Clauss. Jonathan Sterling served as assistant engineer whereas busbee and Dave Way were lead vocals engineers, with assistance from Peter Chun. Erica Canales, Laura Mace, Monet Owens, and Dolly Sparks provided background vocals for the track, with arrangements from Grace Potter.

The first verse is performed by Shelton, who sings, "I wanna thank the storm that brought the snow / Thanks to the string of lights that make it glow". According to E! News's Cydney Contreras, Stefani "joyously sings about how she thought she 'was done for [and] thought that love had died'"; however, she disregards her assumptions after being romantically involved with Shelton, who helps make it "feel like Christmas". The couple discuss love and name-drop holiday-themed items, such as snow and "sweet gingerbread made with molasses", within the lyrics.

Critical reception
Allan Raible from ABC News admired the song's retro charm, calling it an asset. Regarding Shelton's feature, he wrote: "This is Shelton being welcomed into Stefani’s world and not sounding out of place." Randy Lewis of the Los Angeles Times enjoyed the collaboration, writing that it is "sweetly romantic" and an obvious inclusion on You Make It Feel Like Christmas due to the highly publicized relationship. Rob Copsey, an editor for the Official Charts Company, appreciated Stefani's decision to emphasize the importance of family in the song. He described the song as a modern classic and said: "There's just the right amount of schmaltz and country-pop festive cheer, so expect to see this reappear in the coming years." Mike Nied from Idolator was similarly positive, suggesting that it "may have something that will live up to Mariah Carey’s defining classic 'All I Want For Christmas Is You'" from 1994.

Ross was critical of the single's release date in September, several months before Christmas Day. As one of the subjects for his 2017 article titled "Christmas Songs? In September? Really?", the song was described as "almost quite fun if you live somewhere unnaturally cold during the fall". Variety's Chris Willman considered the original songs on You Make It Feel Like Christmas to be superior to her covers; however, he used "You Make It Feel Like Christmas" as evidence that Shelton and Stefani should keep "their careers separate". Quite oppositely, while David Smyth from Evening Standard was positive about the album in general, he considered the song to be less memorable than Stefani's covers of Christmas standards.

Commercial performance
In the US, "You Make It Feel Like Christmas" narrowly missed entering the Billboard Hot 100 chart. Instead, it reached the US Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart, which serves as an extension to the Hot 100, cataloging the songs that have not yet charted on the main ranking. The song entered at number 11 for the issue date of December 23, 2017. The following week it peaked at number two and was blocked from the top spot by Walk the Moon's 2017 single "One Foot". The song lasted for four weeks on the Bubbling Under Hot 100. Fueled by strong download sales, "You Make It Feel Like Christmas" peaked at number 37 in 2017 on the US Digital Song Sales chart and number 3 on the corresponding Holiday Digital Song Sales component chart. Of Stefani's five top 10 hits on the latter chart, "You Make It Feel Like Christmas" reached the highest peak. The song re-entered the Digital Song Sales chart in 2020, when it reached a new peak at number 35. Following the single's release to adult contemporary radio playlists in 2017, the single reached number nine on Billboard's Adult Contemporary chart, becoming the singer's second top 10 track as a solo artist and highest entry since "The Sweet Escape" peaked at number three in 2007. The former also entered the seasonal US Holiday 100 airplay chart, peaking at number 37. On December 10, 2020, the single was awarded a Gold certification from the Recording Industry Association of America, signifying 500,000 track-equivalent units.

On Canadian charts, "You Make It Feel Like Christmas" reached number 26 on the country's main digital sales chart in 2017. It spent five non-consecutive weeks on the chart, with its last appearance on the chart occurring in 2020, when it peaked at number 24. It also reached airplay charts for Canada: the Adult Contemporary and Hot Adult Contemporary charts, where the song peaked at numbers 2 and 31, respectively. On the former chart, "You Make It Feel Like Christmas" became Stefani's most successful solo entry, surpassing "The Sweet Escape" that had previously reached number three. The following year, during the 2018 holiday season, "You Make It Feel Like Christmas" also entered the recurrent Adult Contemporary chart in Canada due to heavy airplay.

Outside of North America, "You Make It Feel Like Christmas" reached the charts in many European countries. In Switzerland, the song became Stefani's first chart entry as a solo artist since 2007's "Early Winter". It entered at number 80 in 2017 and ultimately peaked at number 62 in 2018; the song spent two weeks in total on the Swiss Hitparade chart. Similar performance was attained in Germany, where "You Make It Feel Like Christmas" reached number 55, becoming the singer's first entry since her comeback single "Baby Don't Lie" in 2014. In the UK, the single debuted at number 100 on the UK Singles Chart for the chart dated December 22, 2017, serving as Stefani's first solo top 100 hit since "Now That You Got It" with Damian Marley in 2007. In 2017, the former reached number 98, but during the holiday season in 2018, it re-entered the chart and peaked at number 71 for the week ending December 28, 2018. By December 7 of that year, the song had sold 33,500 copies in the UK. In 2019, the sales total for "You Make It Feel Like Christmas" increased to 66,000 copies, and it was certified Silver by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) in December 2022 for sales and streams exceeding 200,000 units. On the Scottish Singles Chart, compiled by Official Charts Company, the single peaked at number 57. Elsewhere in Europe, "You Make It Feel Like Christmas" peaked on the airplay charts in Belgium, Poland, and Slovakia at numbers 31, 43 and 33, respectively.

Music video
The music video for "You Make It Feel Like Christmas" was shot over the course of one day during late 2018. It was directed by long-time Stefani collaborator Sophie Muller, who had previously directed the music videos for "Don't Speak" (1996), "Cool" (2005) and "Spark the Fire" (2014), among others. The primary source of inspiration for the clip was the 1957 musical film Pal Joey, which Stefani and Shelton had watched together during a date night. After production was completed and prior to the clip's release, Shelton tweeted that the style of the latter reminded him of the 1950s American sitcom I Love Lucy. Stefani was grateful for the shoot and considered the final product Shelton's Christmas gift to her, citing his dislike of filming music videos. Stefani first hinted of the video's release on November 18, 2018, uploading a series of stills from the final video to her various social media accounts, such as Instagram. In particular, one of the photos depicted Stefani preparing a holiday feast alongside Shelton and included the song's lyric "We're gonna be a classic for all time..." as the caption. She later confirmed that the music video would be released on November 22, 2018 and was directed by Muller. On the scheduled date, it was uploaded to her official Vevo account on YouTube.

The video opens with Stefani and Shelton driving in a retro convertible as snow falls. While transporting a Christmas tree in the car, Shelton becomes disrupted by a swarm of bees that Stefani attempts to shoo away. Another scene depicts the couple in an orchestral hall setting, with a big backing band and a group of children dancers dressed as Santa Claus, and the people cause Shelton to become surprised. He wears a tuxedo and Stefani sports a silver flashy and "ritzy" dress, with her look in the segment being compared to American actress Marilyn Monroe. The succeeding scene shows the couple building snowmen in a forest, with Shelton's resembling the traditional variety and Stefani's replicating the appearance of Michelangelo's David.

They are again joined by the backing band and dancing children, who perform their choreography and circle Stefani and Shelton as the couple sing. A living room setting features Stefani magically decorating the interior and entrapping Shelton with a string of Christmas lights. As Stefani cuddles with and embraces Shelton, he uses a handheld nutcracker to open a shelled chestnut without luck. Another scene demonstrates Stefani adding the finishing touches to a holiday feast and reprimanding Shelton for attempting to eat prematurely. Following the video fading to black, bonus scenes show Stefani and Shelton engaging in a food fight, the latter losing control of the vehicle during a snowstorm, and Stefani attempting to woo Santa, much to the dismay of Shelton.

Alongside the release of the music video, the paid download was available for purchase via iTunes on November 22, 2018. A behind-the-scenes clip documenting the filming and production of the video was published to Stefani's main YouTube channel on December 7, 2018. Idolator's Mike Wass was impressed by the visual, writing: "Calling Gwen & Blake's video adorable is a serious understatement [...] It’s as irreverent, cheeky and feel-good as the song." Multiple critics considered Stefani to be channeling Monroe in the clip. Wass wrote: "This nostalgic clip throws it back to the 1950s with [Stefani] serving full Marilyn Monroe glamour" while UPI's Annie Martin claimed that in the big band scene, Stefani wears a "retro-inspired look [...] reminiscent of Marilyn Monroe".

Live performances
On December 4, 2017, Stefani and Shelton appeared on The Voice, where they performed "You Make It Feel Like Christmas". The former wore a festive sheer and flower-inspired dress, and ended the performance with a kiss from Shelton. Randee Dawn from Today spoke positively of the act, calling it festive and "a major high point for the pair". On Stefani's holiday special for NBC, titled Gwen Stefani's You Make It Feel Like Christmas, she performed various songs from the album as part of her set list, including "You Make It Feel Like Christmas". Stefani was joined by Shelton when performing the track and she wore a matching plaid top and slitted-skirt. Entertainment Tonight's Emily Krauser opined that Stefani's "real ska sensibilities came out" during the performance.

During the 2018 holiday season, Stefani served as a guest on Jimmy Kimmel Live! and performed both "You Make It Feel Like Christmas", and a duet cover of "Feliz Navidad" with Chilean singer Mon Laferte. For the former's appearance, she wore a "white gown [with] embellished polka dots on sheer material" and was accompanied by a group of four backup dancers, dressed in black-and-white clothing. The performance was eventually uploaded to her Vevo account on December 8, 2018. She also appeared on the December 19, 2018 episode of The Late Late Show with James Corden to perform the track. The performance was praised by AXS contributor Kareem Gantt, who wrote that "Stefani brought the house down, and it gave the 'Corden' set a festive, yule-time feel that is sorely needed right now". For the Christmas Eve broadcast of ESPN's Monday Night Football, Stefani performed a condensed version of the song during the Genesis-sponsored halftime show. It was broadcast in black and white and uploaded to Stefani's YouTube account that same day.

At the 87th annual Rockefeller Center tree lighting ceremony in 2019, Stefani served as a featured performer alongside fellow The Voice judge and American singer John Legend. Her performance occurred on November 14, 2019, and Stefani began with "You Make It Feel Like Christmas" and closed with her cover of the Christmas standard "White Christmas". According to Heran Mamo of Billboard, she wore "a sheer black long-sleeve with a pearl-embellished red and gold shimmering front, black sequined hot pants, black fishnet leggings and black leather knee-high boots". Her segment was recorded and later broadcast via NBC on December 4, 2019. Radio station WRMF reported that the performance was likely prerecorded due to her prior commitment to be available for The Voice.

Cover versions and usage in media
For a seasonal promotional campaign of the American motor company Ram Trucks in December 2018, the single was used in television commercials to advertise the new Ram 1500 pickup truck. Additionally, American record label Power Music remade "You Make It Feel Like Christmas" as a dance remix called the "Workout Remix", and released it to their Apple Music profile on November 6, 2020. On December 16, 2020, The Voice winner Carter Rubin performed "You Make It Feel Like Christmas" with Stefani during the season 19 finale. Their version appears on his first extended play, The Season 19 Collection, a compilation of select performances from the series. It was released for digital download and streaming in the US and Canada, through Republic Records.

Song
Credits adapted from the liner notes of You Make It Feel Like Christmas.

 * Gwen Stefani – lead vocals, writer
 * Blake Shelton – featured vocals, writer
 * Justin Tranter – writer
 * busbee – writer, production, trombone
 * Eric Valentine – production
 * Sean Hurley – bass
 * Ryan Dragon – bass trombone, trombone
 * Erica Canales – background vocals
 * Laura Mace – background vocals
 * Monet Owens – background vocals
 * Dolly Sparks – background vocals
 * Patrick Warren – celeste, piano
 * Aaron Sterling – drums
 * Greg Camp – electric guitar
 * John Storie – electric guitar
 * Matt Musty – percussion, timpani
 * Stewart Cole – trumpet
 * Jamie Hovorka – trumpet

Music video
Credits adapted from Stefani's YouTube account.
 * Sophie Muller – director
 * Grant Jue – producer

title: You Make It Feel Like Christmas (song)


text:
двадцать восемь

Numeral

 * 1) twenty-eight (28)

Usage notes

 * два́дцать во́семь in the nominative and accusative case governs the genitive plural of the noun. There is no animate/inanimate distinction.

 * два́дцать во́семь in other cases governs the appropriate plural case of the noun.

title: двадцать восемь


text:
What is an algorithm

Objective
There are several definitions for the notion of an algorithm. As an introduction to the concept, we shall study some simple applications.

By the end of this lesson, students should:
 * Know what an algorithm is.
 * Know what pseudocode is.
 * Be able to write a simple algorithm in pseudocode.

Intro
What is an algorithm? An algorithm is a step-by-step solution to a certain problem. Richard Jeffery and George Boolos gave an informal description of an algorithm, and the powers it grants us, in Computability and logic:

"No human being can write fast enough, or long enough, or small enough† ( †'smaller and smaller without limit ...you'd be trying to write on molecules, on atoms, on electrons') to list all members of an enumerably infinite set by writing out their names, one after another, in some notation. But humans can do something equally useful, in the case of certain enumerably infinite sets: They can give explicit instructions for determining the nth member of the set, for arbitrary finite n. Such instructions are to be given quite explicitly, in a form in which they could be followed by a computing machine, or by a human who is capable of carrying out only very elementary operations on symbols."

Restated, this means that while no human could possibly write out an infinite series of things, humans are able to create a specific process to generate the portions of that series which are relevant to solving a particular problem. The specific list of steps thus created constitutes an algorithm, a concept at the very core of computer science.

Assignment 1
Algorithms do not only exist within the realm of computer science. Beginners may find it helpful to recognize the algorithmic thinking they already apply for daily life.

On a separate sheet of paper, list all the known possible steps in preparing/performing the following activities, be as descriptive and specific as you can be:
 * 1) Cooking/Frying an egg, sunny-side up
 * 2) The activities you do and the vehicles you ride in on your way to school
 * 3) Walking your dog at the park

These activities above might seem easy, but as you perform the tasks, you will encounter a series of trial-and-error sub-activities. For beginners, this is normal and you may tend to miss a few steps.

Assignment Solution and Discussion
As you were able to see in the assignments above, Algorithms are lists of instructions which are followed step by step.

Your solution to the case of egg frying should look like this: 1. Get the frying pan. 2. Get the oil. a. Do you have oil? 1) If yes, put it in the pan.    2) If no, do you want to buy oil? a) If yes, then go out and buy.       b) If no, you can terminate. 3. Turn on the stove. 4. Etc...

For the case of Frying an egg sunny side-up, have you forgotten to state that you will heat up the pan? Or maybe put in some oil? Should you put some oil in first before heating the pan, or should you heat the pan and then put some oil in? These are the possible conditions that you may encounter in preparing the algorithms for this task.

Once you have gotten used to writing simple algorithms, you can attempt to write pseudocode. Pseudocode is simply an algorithm which is written in a way that resembles computer code - it does not have to be in any particular programming language. People write algorithms in pseudocode because it is easier to see what a computer program will look like after it is written, and it may also be easier to notice logical problems in the algorithm.

Pseudocode doesn't lend itself well for non computerized tasks, but let's try writing some for the algorithm above:

get(frying_pan) if you_have(oil) then get(oil) else if you_want(oil) then buy(oil) else terminate turn_on(stove)

Spend some time reading that pseudocode. If you are acquainted with programming languages then the format above should seem familiar.

Required Assignment 2
Try writing pseudocode for the algorithms you wrote in the first assignment. Get(leash) Put(leash)on(dog) If(weather)=(sunny)then Go_to(park) If_not Cancel(dogwalk)

if (vehicle_location is known) { transport_to(vehicle) } else { locate(vehicle) }

if (destination location is known) { if { vehicle is turned off) { turn_on(vehicle) } else { if (location of smart_phone is known) { use_GPS(directions_to_location) } else { locate(smart_phone) use_GPS(directions_to_location) }}}

etc etc etc.

Required Assignment 3
Pseudocode (and programs in general) are best suited for mathematical problems. Try to write an algorithm in pseudocode for this math problem:

 (x4 + 25y2 + 2z) − 13

(x4 + 25y2 + 2z) − 13

((x^4) + (25 * y^2) + (2 * z)) - 13

Conclusion
Algorithms are a series of step by step instructions for solving a problem. Pseudocode is an algorithm written in a way that resembles computer code. To practice writing algorithms in pseudocode, you first think of a complex problem and consider the logical solution before writing it out.

title: What is an algorithm


text:
File:Penny Yells at Egg w Back.png

Summary
{Information }}
 * Description=Illustrations for the Editing course
 * Source=DAZ Studio and GIMP
 * Date=2007-4-20
 * Author=User:Robert Elliott
 * Permission=Public Domain
 * other_versions=

title: File:Penny Yells at Egg w Back.png


text:
GCSE Science/Coursework marking system

[This page is of historical use only now, as the GCSE Science has changed - it no longer uses the POAE criteria.]

Each piece of coursework is split into four strands, of which three (Planning, Obtaining and Analysing) are worth 8 marks, and one (Evaluation) is worth 6 marks. In the event of a school prescribing more than one piece of coursework for a subject, the overall coursework mark will the be the sum of the highest marks in each strand. For example, if one obtained the marks 8 7 6 5 and 7 4 7 3, the overall mark would be 8 7 7 5, giving a total of 27 marks.

The coursework marking is the same for all the subjects – even if you are doing Dual Award science, you will still have to do at least three pieces of coursework.

As with all coursework, you will be required to fill in a sheet stating what help you received. The information in this section is merely a description of the marking scheme, and as such does not need to be included. However, if you use any of the rest of this book, you will need to acknowledge it as you would do with other textbook (see How do I cite a Wikibooks module in a paper).

N.B. The information describes the AQA coursework system. Although it is likely to be the same for other exam boards, check if you will be taking an exam from another exam board. Specifically, AQA's marking scheme is hierarchical – the lower marks need to be obtained before the higher ones are. This may not apply to other boards. The mark descriptions are taken verbatim from the AQA documents, and their use is contended to be fair use.

Planning (P)
You will have to perform a preliminary and produce a plan before you carry out the actual investigation. The plan is expected to use the results of the preliminary to suggest a possible experiment that can be carried out. This will typically involve a recommendation of which factor should be altered, what should be measured, and what range of results should be taken. It is important to make a prediction here, as it is needed for marks in the Analysis.

You should also make reference to safety and how your experiment will be fair, talk about the variables involved, your independent variable (the one you have chosen to investigate) and dependent variable (the factor you will be recording). These come in very helpful and pick up a few more marks.

Obtaining Evidence (O)
This strand is marked on how you perform while performing the experiment itself. You will be marked on both how you perform during the experiment and your results table, which must be handed in.

In the unlikely event of no results being obtained from the Obtaining, your teacher will issue you with a set of results to use for the Analysis and Evaluation. You will, however, receive no or few marks on this section if you do not take your own results.

Mark Descriptions
 2 marks O.2a collect some evidence using a simple and safe procedure 4 marks O.4a collect appropriate evidence which is adequate for the activity O.4b record the evidence 6 marks O.6a collect sufficient systematic and accurate evidence and repeat or check where appropriate O.6b record clearly and accurately the evidence collected

8 marks

O.8a use a procedure with precision and skill to obtain and record an appropriate range of reliable evidence

Analysing and considering evidence (A)
The analysis is intended as the longest section of the coursework, because it involves processing the data collected from the Obtaining Evidence section of the mark scheme. Graphs are notably important here, as is a conclusion, which is required to sum up the data which has been processed.

Mark Descriptions

2 marks A.2a state simply what is shown by the evidence

4 marks

A.4a use simple diagrams, charts or graphs as a basis for explaining the evidence

A.4b identify trends and patterns in the evidence

6 marks

A.6a construct and use suitable diagrams, charts, graphs (with lines of best fit, where appropriate), or use numerical methods, to process evidence for a conclusion

A.6b draw a conclusion consistent with the evidence and explain it using scientific knowledge and understanding

'9-16 marks mention a naseebo lal song and analyse it referring to its social historical and vulgar context''

finally for 17-20 marks mention the laws of naseebo mujra

A.8a use detailed scientific knowledge and understanding to explain a valid conclusion drawn from processed evidence

A.8b explain the extent to which the conclusion supports the prediction, if one has been made

Evaluating (E)
The Evaluation consists of identifying any anomalous data, and suggesting possible improvements to the experiment.

Mark Descriptions

2 marks

E.2a make a relevant comment about the procedure used or the evidence obtained

4 marks

E.4a comment on the quality of the evidence, identifying any anomalies

E.4b comment on the suitability of the procedure and, where appropriate, suggest changes to improve it

6 marks

E.6a consider critically the reliability of the evidence and whether it is sufficient to support the conclusion, accounting for any anomalies

E.6b describe, in detail, further work to provide additional relevant evidence

title: GCSE Science/Coursework marking system


text:
Talk:Embsay and Bolton Abbey Steam Railway

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Embsay and Bolton Abbey Steam Railway. 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/20080228013646/http://www.embsayboltonabbeyrailway.org.uk/historyo.html to http://www.embsayboltonabbeyrailway.org.uk/historyo.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817220010/http://www.embsayboltonabbeyrailway.org.uk/babadd.html to http://www.embsayboltonabbeyrailway.org.uk/babadd.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


text:
1969 Memphis State Tigers football team

The 1969 Memphis State Tigers football team represented Memphis State University (now known as the University of Memphis) as an independent during the 1969 NCAA University Division football season. In its 12th season under head coach Billy J. Murphy, the team compiled an 8–2 record (4–0 against conference opponents), won the MVC championship, and outscored opponents by a total of 328 to 191. The team played its home games at Memphis Memorial Stadium in Memphis, Tennessee.

The team's statistical leaders included Danny Pierce with 1,049 passing yards, Paul Gowen with 715 rushing yards, Frank Blackwell with 591 receiving yards, and Jay McCoy with 48 points scored.

title: 1969 Memphis State Tigers football team


text:
User:Derfed

Fred Mattern

D,O,B

OCTOBER 3 1963

Died inside 4/23/2010

over Ventura & Kern county deception lies and

Tijuana rejects having the right to refuse service.

Simi police

This all started ed

/b

Christmas tree profile

icture

"THIS IS FOR EVERYONE Christmas tree profile picture IF YOU CAN'T TELL THE TRUTH YOUR A SORRY SAD PERSON""￼

Father Donald G Mattern

that lady Pat  fine

MOM ? SORRY THIS IS NOT A VARY NICE PERSON.￼

Moved to Simi Valley in 1964

Has two girls

Brittany L Mattern

Chelsea R Mattern

One Grandson

Keanu Taylor

MY LIFE NOW

is really sad the way it all turned out so who keeps pushing everything on me and why are they pushing it because they are definitely hiding something they don't want anybody to see or understand

title: User:Derfed


text:
Debabrata Goswami

Debabrata Goswami FInstP FRSC, (Devanagari गोस्वामी) is an Indian chemist and the Prof. S. Sampath Chair Professor of Chemistry, at the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur. He is also a professor (Higher Administrative Grade) of The Department of Chemistry and The Center for Lasers & Photonics at the same Institute. Goswami is an associate editor of the open-access journal Science Advances. He is also an Academic Editor for PLOS One and PeerJ Chemistry. He has contributed to the theory of Quantum Computing as well as nonlinear optical spectroscopy. His work is documented in more than 200 research publications. He is an elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, Fellow of the Institute of Physics, the SPIE, and The Optical Society. He is also a Senior Member of the IEEE, has been awarded a Swarnajayanti Fellowship for Chemical Sciences, and has held a Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellowship. He is the third Indian to be awarded the International Commission for Optics Galileo Galilei Medal for excellence in optics.

Scholarship
In 2017, he was elected Fellow of the Optical Society of America "for seminal and significant contributions in ultrafast optical instrumentation for exploitation in cross-disciplinary fields like quantum information and biomedical applications as well as pedagogy in optics and photonics and voluntary services to OSA" (Engineering and Science Research).

Goswami has demonstrated near-IR rapid Femtosecond Laser pulse shaping in the Megahertz repetition domain, which is the current state of the art metric for the generation of shaped laser pulses. This latest demonstration of rapid near-IR femtosecond pulse shaping is based on his original approach of Fourier Transform Femtosecond Pulse Shaping that utilizes a programmable traveling wave grating in an acousto-optic modulator. Pushing the limits of current technology and the realization of improved standards of experimentation has been a coherent part of his research narrative. His approach to Femtosecond pulse shaping has been crucial for applications from the demonstration of control in the gas phase fragmentation reactions to 2D IR spectroscopy and quantum computing.

His work has built upon a history of over thirty years of working on pulsed laser experiments and has established other milestones in the field. He developed the self-calibrated femtosecond optical tweezers method for reproducible pulsed laser optical tweezers experiments with an additional forced oscillatory mode of motion. He went on to use the femtosecond optical tweezers to provide a direct measure and control of 'in situ' temperature and viscosity at micro-scale volumes. He used this method to directly detect colloidal assembly, their structure, and orientation, which affirmed the spatiotemporal aspects of the method.

Breaking the barrier of programmable pulsed laser generation has been concomitant to his insights into the theoretical aspects of pulsed light and heat dissipation dynamics. His work on the cumulative thermal effects of femtosecond infrared lasers, has revolutionized the existing framework of laser heat dissipation. This has in turn been shown to be the key to mitigating the deleterious effect of heat accumulation during sensitive measurements of nonlinear optical properties. Further, this led to the first demonstration of the hitherto unexplored distinction between molecular structures with femtosecond laser-induced thermal spectroscopy. Femtosecond thermal spectroscopy with infrared lasers has thus become a new spectroscopic identification method.

In more direct applications of the experimental framework driving his work, he has demonstrated how to distinguish overlapping fluorophores in multi-photon imaging microscopy using near-IR high repetition rate femtosecond lasers by exploiting repeated excitation and de-excitation processes that help to distinguish and eventually eliminate abnormal cells from healthy ones.

Education
1964. B.Sc. Jadavpur University, 1986. M.Sc. IIT Kanpur, 1988.Princeton University, M.A. 1990; Ph.D. 1994. PDF at Harvard University, 1993–94. His work at Princeton overlapped with future Nobel laureate in physics Donna Strickland.

Career
After graduating, he spent two years at the Brookhaven National Laboratory from 1994 to 1996 before spending a year at Quantronix Corporation in 1997. He returned to the Princeton University Center for Ultrafast Laser Labs in 1998. He returned to India to join the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research as a Fellow-E in 1998 as part of the DNAP (Department of Nuclear and Atomic Physics). In 2003, He moved to the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, his alma-mater, to join the Department of Chemistry as an associate professor and has remained there since, currently as a professor (Higher Administrative Grade). He was awarded the Prof. S. Sampath Chair Professorship of Chemistry in 2018. He also holds a joint appointment at the same institute in The Center for Lasers & Photonics.

Outreach

 * National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning course on Quantum Computing
 * Ultrafast Laser Virtual Lab

title: Debabrata Goswami