User talk:JWB

I don't understand why you are deleting material without any reason or sources being provided for the removal. It seems that the text should stay in until someone shows a reason to remove it. Where am I wrong ? Parmaestro 23:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Europe for discussion of the several problems with the material. Please participate there if you still have any questions afterwards.--JWB 23:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the decision to remove the text but what I disagree with is the procedure used to remove it. Parmaestro 09:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting all of your messages just fine, User:JWB. Just look in User:Bathrobe talk page, my comments are there. Thanks. User:Le Anh-Huy.

By the way, are you a apeaker of Japanese?; I'm not, but I noticed that only some Japanese speakers are familiar with the exact term "Etsunan", the Japanese Kanji for Vietnam. These are the ones that are most aware of the span of unity- or lack thereof- of the various cultures influenced by China. The majority, though, only know the Katakana term, "Bettonamu"; increased usage of this bastardized term, I think, sadly increases popular Japanese ignorance of Vietnam's culture. I am of Vietnamese descent, but I most often get mistaken for a Japanese, so I would blend into Japanese society only superficially. But many Japanese people seem to assume that my own people and their country, Vietnam, is just some other "exotic land" in Southeast Asia, sadly ignorant of the fact that Vietnam actually fits into the Sinosphere more than their country ever did. User:Le Anh-Huy.

I'm not a native speaker of Japanese. I would guess older Japanese or those who have studied history would be more familiar with the kanji term. Use of katakana transliteration of foreign words (mostly English) has continued to grow in Japanese until it forms a large fraction of current Japanese texts, often replacing native or Sino-Japanese words. Katakana words are seen as fresh and modern compared to the older Sino-Japanese terminology.

I believe only the names of China and both Koreas are written in kanji now. In the '30s or so the phonetic loan from European languages "Shina" for China was even current, although it could also be written in kanji. The Chinese strongly disliked this term and asked that China be referred to as "Chuugoku".

Japanese attitudes have often been that as a developed country they are different from the rest of Asia, although this is abating with the rise of other Asian economies, and has also always coexisted with the attitude that Japan will save the other Asian countries. Japanese attitudes to contemporary Chinese are probably no better than attitudes to Vietnamese. However, South Asian and Iranian guest workers are viewed as more racially alien than East and Southeast Asians.--JWB 08:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting tired of editing your false statements you are putting in the caucasian article. I really don't want to report you but your basically making up stuff and providing no evidence of it. Please change this in the future.

Jmac800, I notice you have blanked your own talk page and the multiple vandalism accusations against you, before making an unjustified vandalism accusation on my talk page. I've reported the blanking at Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress.--JWB 08:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: Hi, good to see you here. I have also cited you in the references in Human skin color. You may want to say more about your views in the main body of the article.--JWB 14:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I am still figuring out how to participate. For instance, I do not know if I was supposed to put this message into my "user talk" page or yours. Regarding my contributions, for now I am simply trying to correct a few errors noticed by A.D. Powell, who is the author of Passing for Who You Really Are, a book that my company published. FrankWSweet 16:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either works. I think when I edited your talk page, it was placed on my watchlist, so next time I look at My Watchlist, I would see the change. But putting it on my talk page gives even faster notification.--JWB 16:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, JWB! Concerning your questions about racism towards minorities in Russia, in particular the Chukchi, check out the wikipage on Russian humour, and look up ethnic jokes: Russian humour and Russian joke. - User:Le Anh-Huy

Thanks! Someone pointed me there at the time of the discussion.--JWB 00:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice revision to the article "Capoid." I've been thinking it was in real need of some cleanup and professionalization for a little while now, and you've provided it. Thanks. --Craigkbryant 17:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment! --JWB 13:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template originally distinguished between historical definitions of race and 2000 US Census race definitions. User Lukobe advised me to remove the 2000 US Census race definitions because they were US-centric. The template should probably be renamed template:historical_race_definitions. -- Dark Tichondrias 03:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Writing systems worldwide.png. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi JWB,

When you have the time, could you check out the "Physical appearance" section of the Turkic peoples article? It's unreferenced and might be original research. Perhaps you could let me know what you think of it, thanks. —Khoikhoi 05:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Khoikhoi - I don't agree with the assumption that there is a "Turkic people" in a racial sense (do English-speakers form a race?) and would prefer the section and article not start from this assumption. However, the section does at least discuss the ways in which this is not true, and most of the individual statements do not seem to be blatantly wrong. I'll try to make some edits. --JWB 17:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I see what you mean. If you could provide references for the section that would be great. Ciao. —Khoikhoi 18:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I probably don't have references handy for most. Are there some statements you find particularly improbable? --JWB 18:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was just because there was an anon who kept blanking it, and a few months before there was a user who wanted to delete it with the excuse that it was unreferenced. —Khoikhoi 20:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to Caucasico in the Spanish Wiki from Indo Aryans in the English Wiki because Indo Aryans was discused as a section on Caucasico's page.--Dark Tichondrias

I see... wouldn't it make more sense to link to es:indoaria then? Or you could link to es:Caucásico#Indoarias. --JWB 06:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those examples make more sense.--Dark Tichondrias

Hi, I would like clarification of how 3RR applies here. As far as I can see, for any of the text in question, Eiorgiomugini removed it for a 4th time before I re-added it for a 4th time. Can fixing a 3RR violation actually be a 3RR violation itself? Thanks! --JWB 17:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Obviously. Read the rules. See any exception there? William M. Connolley 22:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I had read WP:3RR and WP:Revert. In answer to your question, both of those two pages listed these two exceptions:

• reverting simple vandalism, which was defined by linking to Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism, which listed blanking significant parts of articles as one kind of vandalism, but did not mention the phrase "simple vandalism" except once in relation to dispute tags. (not clear to me whether "simple vandalism" might apply in this case; would appear to depend on whether the passage in question is considered "significant")
• removing posts made by a banned or blocked user (you did in fact block this user for his reverts, though my removal of his reverts anticipated your block)

I am not requesting a change in your determination in this case, but just want to help continue to clarify the policies for the future. In any case, thank you for your original action on the matter. --JWB 23:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image was non-free because (according to what you listed on the page) it was licensed "for non-commercial or educational use only". Apparently this is not free enough for Wikipedia - see Jimbo's official policy on this at [2]. I should point out that I had nothing to do with the tagging of your image for deletion (somebody else must have noticed it), or the fact that it was subsequently deleted. I noticed it because that page (Provinces of South Africa) is on my watchlist, so when I saw the map was non-free and about to be deleted, I removed it from the article. I hope this answers your question. - htonl 18:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. The unacceptability of these licenses was not clear from the upload page or the license dropdown box on the page. I notice that one free license listed is "Work of a US Government agency". I wonder if the SA government has a similar blanket policy. --JWB 20:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Arabic)#poll for standard transliteration. I noticed that you previously contributed to the discussions on Arabic. thanks. Cuñado - Talk

Hello, do you wish to continue your request to not merge several neighborhoods into East Oakland, Oakland, California? Jeepday (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see justification for such an indiscriminate merge, as already explained. If you call for any votes, please make sure to inform editors interested in those pages and related ones, especially Oakland, California. --JWB 23:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JWB.

Great edit to that article today. It is also my belief that the high genetic diversity of the (remaining) Khoisan peoples could simply have been due to a high level of mixing with other people, not necessarily because their mitochondria developed numerous mutations over a very very long period. Additionally, the so-called pygmie peoples (who live in forests and speak Bantu languages) are also included in this Khoisan "race" when doing genetic tests.

My problem however is whether the belief that the group is ancient is scientific consensus or a popular misinterpretation of a small number of studies? The only sources I've seen cited for this extraordinary claim have been newspapers.

What do you think?

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 08:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tebello,

It depends on what "ancient" means. I think the "oldest human group" label is somewhat of a misinterpretation or at least open to interpretation. That's why I tried to make the article more specific about the genetic studies and what they may mean.

Scientific consensus agrees that some genetic patterns are ancient.

--JWB 09:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably it needs a source, but I think the item you removed was referring to GDP, not income or real estate values. --Cheers, Komdori 18:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I misread it as compared to world, not Asia. I've put it back. --JWB 19:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood 1212 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. Thanks for making the article (Governorates of the Palestinian National Authority) explain it a bit more.

Actually, there are not good articles and maps on Areas A, B, and C, even though there are very detailed maps on other sites. We should have some. --JWB 02:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JWB you seem to be the main editor with the writing system alphabet stuffs so I want to make a change proposal to the graph - making Korean alphabet a separate category. I just can't help being suspicious when there are Cyrillic, Greek, etc. but not Korean. I need consensus, don't I? So could you go and participate in that image talk? Thanks.

Image talk:Writing systems worldwide.png Wikimachine 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered your query at the image's talk page on the same page. In response to your additional question here, Korean does have a separate category on the map. Cyrillic and Greek do not have separate categories, but are both members of the alphabet category. --JWB 15:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you changed the map for western US in List of American institutions of higher education and am wondering if there are equivalent looking maps for the rest of the US (to help maintain a uniform look to the article)? If so, could you please change the other maps too? Thanks! panda 20:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got it from Category:United States maps. The Midwest map was missing from the category, but on checking, it does exist under the expected name Image:Map of USA highlighting Midwest.png, so I have added it to the category. Now there are a set of 4 region maps, but they assign Delaware to the Northeast instead of the South, unlike this article and the Census Bureau. Not sure what you want to do about this. --JWB 23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... that's interesting. Do you know why Delaware was moved from the South to the Northeast? Also, was there any special reason for replacing the image other than it had overlapping states with another region? panda 00:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the main reason was all the shaded states, especially marking the Pacific states as not necessarily part of the West.

Looks like someone changed Delaware on the NE and S maps in Feb 07. In my experience both DE and MD are considered Northeast, but in the Census Bureau division they are South and your article follows that.

Delaware is small enough to not be very visible, so I think I will change the rest of the maps in your article as requested and worry about Delaware later. --JWB 07:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or the article could just have the single image Image:Census Regions and Divisions.PNG. --JWB 07:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks fine the way it is right now. As you said, Delaware is really small so I'd be surprised if anyone notices that it's in the NE instead of the S map. Thanks for making the changes! panda 19:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote at: Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel "However, estimates based on plutonium production do not place a limit on the number of devices using highly enriched uranium instead of plutonium." I assume this means that therefore they could have produced even MORE nuclear weapons than the estimates? Maybe you should say so more explicitly so quick skimmers and non-techies will get it more easily. ALso, A reference wouldn't hurt, unless you think it's really implicit in what comes earlier. Thanks. Carol Moore 16:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

I think it's implicit - the two processes are independent. But I've now found a reference with discussion from Nuclear Weapon Archive and have added that. --JWB 20:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:USA 9 Divisions.svg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed you edited the article to state that people with ancestry from the Central Asian republics are counted as Asian by the U.S Census, and used the reference I gave as a basis for the claim. Unfortunately, on page 681 of the pdf link, it clearly shows that former Soviet Central Asian states as listed as being under "Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union". In other words, the census does not count Central Asians as "Asian American". That, coupled with the fact that the U.S Courts view the Central Asian "stans" in the same regard, means that any notion of inclusion within the protected class of "Asian American" is simply not factual. The U.S Government would have listed "Central Asian" under the title of "Asian American", if such a title was warranted. As of now, just like Middle Easterners, they are not assigned to a legal protected class, and as such are defaulted as "white". Atari400 19:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to Asian American#Terminology.

• I did not state that Central Asian ancestry response and no race response was counted as Asian race, but that we have not yet found proof this combination is counted as white race, Asian race, or neither.

You may not be familiar with legal definitions of race in the U.S, and how such notions are utilized in the public sphere. As such, the U.S Census Bureau's definitions largely reflect and run parallel to definitions used by EEOC. In other words, being from "Asia" is irrelevant to being "Asian" in most regards. What is defined as being racially Asian in the U.S, and as Asian American, exists under what is known as a protected class. Thus, what is listed as being racially Asian accounts for what is considered a member of that protected class. Since nowhere are people from the Central Asian Republics listed as being "Asian" by the EEOC, as such they are not a member of that protected class. A person from countries such as Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and Iran can all claim to be "Asian", and many did on the 2000 U.S Census form. After all, they are all from Asia proper. Unfortunately, non can claim racial discrimination for being Asian in a U.S court of law. Atari400 08:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you are shifting from debating the Census, to saying the Census is irrelevant and stating something about the EEOC. Whatever it is, please show your references. Looking at EEOC's site myself, [3] they appear to be 1) saying that self-identification is primary 2) not mentioning Central Asia at all in the list of places under either "White" or "Asian". --JWB (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "shifting the debate" from anything, but only trying to find a conclusive answer to the question of Central Asians in the U.S. Since the U.S Census is closely tied the the definitions of the OMB, and the EEOC uses that information to enforce regulation, the utter lack of mention of anything Central Asian is rather telling. In fact, the one thing that is obvious, is that individuals from these nations are not seen as "Asian", or else they would have been identified as such for various purposes. Atari400 08:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of any mention argues equally well that individuals from these nations are not seen as "White". (You were the one insisting on a statement that the Census designates Central Asians as "White". I have never tried to insert the opposite statement that the Census designates Central Asians as Asian.) Now that you realize you have no positive evidence, you want to not mention the topic at all in the article. I guess that's progress.

Hey, relax. You are one of the more civil editors I've come across, and you made me stick to facts. Please keep up the good work. As far as evidence, this subject is a real "slippery slope". For instance, An Uzbek in the U.S cannot get the benefits of affirmative action, or the ability to sue for racial discrimination in a U.S Court outside of San Francisco, literally. The fact that they are not listed means they are not a noted minority, referred to as a "protected class", i.e Asian. As a result, someone from Afghanistan or Tajikistan is lumped in as "white", regardless of how others see that individual. Unfortunately, the nature of this subject makes it rather hard to work into an encyclopedia. After all, how many examples of an Uzbek suing for employment discrimination that was rejected by a U.S federal judge, can you find with relevant ease and make public with permission? Its a tough one. Atari400 10:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legally prohibited discrimination includes race, national origin, religion, and sex, so there is not much incentive for the disadvantaged Uzbek to show he or she is of a minority race, when being Uzbek, Muslim, or simply an immigrant, are sufficient grounds. And discrimination in the US against Muslims and some nationalities, or foreigners in general, is surely more serious and credible than discrimination against Asian-Americans in general these days. For affirmative action in education, etc., claiming you are Asian usually does not bring any benefit, since Asians are already well-represented. --JWB (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You raise some very good points, and I believe accurate ones at that. Though this is perhaps off topic, I would argue that a OMB classification/clarification of Central Asian, and perhaps even Middle Eastern ancestry, in addition to "protected class" status would be useful in my line of work(not to divulge my profession), for statical reasons. Granted, I do not disagree with your assertion that national origin by itself is a very convincing legal avenue to take.

I might add that you seem very knowledgeable about the topic, and I have very much appreciated this discourse, regardless of our differing arguments. Atari400 12:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I agree this has wound up being a productive and stimulating discussion! I'm glad to be able to talk with someone with a professional interest in the topic.

I read recently that inclusion of South Asians in the original formulation of the Census's Asian/Pacific category in the early '70s was at least partially due to lobbying by some Indian-Americans. Government classifications of race are political, to state the obvious. My guess is that a decision on Central Asians will come only if there is some incentive for the government (or individual agencies) to do so; otherwise, why should they bother doing additional work and exposing themselves to criticism? It's also possible that some actors feel that fixing the race of Central Asians either way is problematic and would weigh in with opinions against it. And criticisms of Census racial classification in recent years seem to focus on people not wanting the government to dictate or restrict their choices; the recent changes have been putting more emphasis on self-identification, and not forbidding people from declaring more than one race. (as well as splitting of the Asian/Pacific category) Given this, the government is likely wary of making any more declarations that group X is in race Y unless an uncontroversial consensus has already been established.

South Asians did suffer at least some discrimination earlier in US history (immigration and property restrictions) which is presumably a reason for being a protected class now (though I haven't seen this codified so far) and Central Asians would have difficulty claiming this. But should "not victims of historic government discrimination in the US" be equivalent to "White"?

"Middle Eastern" and/or North African could certainly be made a separate race category, or "Muslim" could be added as a non-race but transnational category similar to "Hispanic/Latino". But given the existing national origin and religious protections that already cover these populations, there is less incentive for these actions too.

Outside of government, it sounds like at least some Asian-American scholars and activists see some commonality with and would be happy to work with people from the remainder of Asia and include them within the Asian American scope; I've added a couple of references to the end of the introductory section of Asian American. Besides pursuing such a dialogue for its own sake, if one were interested in expansion or clarification of the government definition, this would certainly be a good place to start.--JWB (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sum up the situation very accurately and in great detail. I agree with the sentiments in the last paragraph as well. Wikipedia is a very good place for clarification of said government definitions, as it is also one of the top results in a google search on the topic. Atari400 09:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most likely explanations for the lack of mention are 1) Central Asians have not been considered much because of their small numbers in the US 2) If US government agencies have thought about Central Asians, they realize that it would be difficult to make a conclusive statement that they should be considered "White" or considered "Asian" without controversy, so decision makers have avoided making such a statement, since there is little need for one so far anyway. --JWB (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are not very many Central Asians in the U.S, and nobody has ever considered me "white". (Native American and Central American are the most often "guesses" for me). I guess that makes you right on two counts. Atari400 10:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Central Asian I met in the US looked exactly like Americans of half-East Asian, half-European descent. --JWB (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that pretty much describes my family, with maybe more of a "half-Middle Eastern" than a "half-European" look(???), for whatever that means. Good observation on your part, though.

At any rate, I hope my removal of the sentence from the article Asian Americans satisfactorily remedied the whole issue. Atari400 12:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The headings in the Ancestry Code List starting at p. 678 of [4] do not correspond to race as you are assuming.
  • 200-299 includes Spaniard (white) and Latin American (various races)
  • 500-599 is mostly black but includes Afrikaner (white)
  • 800-899 includes Australian, Australian Aborigine, and various Pacific Islander.
  • 900-994 includes African American, various American Indian, "White", Pennsylvania German, and ancestries named after various locations in the US.
• As I noted in the edit comment, on pp. 783-4, country codes for Central Asian Republics are in the Asia section.
• You have not referenced any US court rulings on the race of people of Central Asian ancestry.

That is because they do not exist. There is no federal U.S court ruling on the "race" of people from Central Asia, and there probably never will be. For the sake of the article, the burden is not on me to prove that Central Asians are counted as "white", but for you to prove that they are legally counted and defined as "Asian". Pending such proof, it would be considered OR for either of us to merely suggest that people from the former Soviet Republics of Central Asian are identified as racially Asian in the U.S. If they were, then it would be rather easy to find a civil labor complaint made to the EEOC showing that a person from a Central Asian state was counted as a member of the protected class of "Asian". As of yet, I have not found one. Atari400 08:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Census records a large minority of people in the US who were born in 4 of 5 Central Asian republics (no data is given on Turkmenistan) as Asian or "Two or more races"; [5][6][7][8] these people must either have self-identified as Asian or mixed race, or have not reported a race and then presumed Asian or mixed based on reported ancestry. Many or most emigrants from the Central Asian republics are from people of Russian and other European ancestry living there, who would probably self-identify their race as white on the US census, and I have not found separate figures for people having Central Asian nationality in their original country. --JWB (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those are rather interesting documents, and I complement you on looking them up. Certainly, many of those immigrants from the Central Asian Republics are not ethnically indigenous to the nations they come from, and many are in fact ethnic Russians. This is especially true in the cases of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, as they both had and have a very large Russian population. The documents though, still do not answer the question of how the U.S Government would categorize a person from a nation such as Uzbekistan. The best place to look for that information, is at the Office of Management and Budget. Atari400 08:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote: "Americium is the lowest transuranium element in the order of the periodic table discovered artificially. Since plutonium and neptunium occur naturally on Earth and all of the elements with higher atomic numbers, without exception, are also artificial."

You deleted by: "Not true - it can occur just like plutonium, though at smaller probability."

Quotation of the article trace radioisotope: "Isotopes with half-lives greater than about 80 million years also remain in trace amounts from the formation of the Earth."
That's the case by ²⁴⁴Pu with its half-life of 8.08×10⁷ y.

Since you are the great specialist, not me, I ignore, if perhaps an isolated atom of americum may have a natural occurrence by cosmic rays? (Is it so?)  But even if this would be true, there is a great difference between elements remaining from time of formation of Earth and a highly improbably and very accidentally isolated formation.

This difference justifies imho the notice of the fact that americium opens the artificial transuranic elements.  -- Gluck 123 (talk) 11:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I'm especially interested in americium by a calendar poetry ;-)  The current length of the tropical year requires an exceptional common year all 128 years exactly one. (Not 3 in a 400 year cycle. This was astronomically true 6000 years ago.)  Since northern summer currently lasts about 93.65 days, a so-called "americium day" may occur in some years, cf. here.  Remark, that this poetry is not related to any superstition, but an universal civil proposal.

Transuranic elements can be created from U-238 by successive neutron capture. Neutrons can come from spontaneous fission of U-238 and other actinides, from natural nuclear reactors like at Oklo, and perhaps from cosmic rays. Am-241 in particular would require 3 neutron captures without fission. Only the second neutron capture (on Pu-239) has a significant chance of fission, about 75% with thermal neutrons.

For primordial Pu-244, at least 50 halflives have passed since the formation of the Earth and probably more since the creation of the isotope by the r-process in a supernova. 10 halflives give about a factor of 1000 decrease; 50 halflives are about a 10¹⁵ decrease; 60 halflives are about a 10¹⁸ decrease, meaning that from one mole (unit), about 600000 atoms would survive, or about 2.5 atoms per milligram. The original primordial abundance of Pu-244 is also unclear and there are several reasons why it may be low; it can only be produced by the r-process, but it and predecessors may be susceptible to fission in an environment with fast neutrons.

It is not immediately clear that primordial Pu-244 is more abundant than other transuranics produced by neutron capture in nature.

You also implied that Np is natural, since you said Am is the first artificial actinide. No primordial Np would have survived. For that matter, no primordial Pa or any of the elements between lead and thorium would have survived; they occur naturally only as a result of decay. --JWB (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JWB for your explanations.

You are right, of course, primordial Np can't survive. However, the fact that Plutonium is the highest element remaining in traces from supernova r-processes is interesting.
But perhaps, this mention rather belongs into the article Plutonium.

I was also in error to assert that an "americium day" may occur in the quoted calendar. By retaining the definition: Is "hydrogene day", the day within the phenomenon solstice/equinoxe takes place, at the most,
maximum eight hours in the early morning may be considered as the "americium part" of the "hydrogene day" of the second equinox. Thus the last element occuring in this calendar stays definitively Plutonium.

However, for me your assertion concerning the chances of naturally produced transuranics by neutron capture in nature stays unclear. Excuse me.

• by cosmic rays, that's only perhaps, by all means in insignificant quantities.
• all natural nuclear reactors are extinct for about 1.5 x 10⁹ years, too many halflives for all the istopes of americium.
• stays the neutron capture on Pu-239, itself a isotope with a halflife of only 24 ky. Currently its quasi-entirety should be man-made.

So, I can understand, that nowadays the chances of producing other transuranics by neutron capture on Pu-239 are higher. Thus the abundance of primordial Pu may not be higher.

However, before, the only natural way was: U-238 hidden by a neutron, becoming U-239, decaying itself to Np-239, decaying into Pu-239, before eventually transformed to higher actinides like Americium...  This abundance may be nevertheless inferior to primordial Pu-244 abundance. Isn't it?  -- Gluck 123 (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it is less than primordial Pu-244 abundance. You could start with the spontaneous fission rates of U-238 (0.0136 neutron per gram per second) and other actinides in uranium ore, then estimate the chance of a U-238 nucleus capturing 3 spontaneous fission neutrons without undergoing alpha decay or fission, i.e. in times comparable to the halflives of Pu-239 and Pu-240. --JWB (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. With your proposed approach, I'll continue to try to find out more precisions on the topic.

However, wrt. my concern, i.e. the civil calendar proposed by my friend Michael Florencetime, I retain: The tropical year divided by four gives ca. 91.31 days.
This means, if seasons would be shared equally, only uranium may appear in a such calendar. Uranium is the highest and very last element with a substantial abondance on Earth.
But since seasons are shared unequally, currently Neptunium occurs regulary, often also Plutonium. Plutonium, in traces, is also the last primordial element on Earth.

Of the current occurrence of transuranic actinides perhaps 99.9% should be artificial, man-made during the last decades. This means that this calendar poetry is legitime, however, days in seasons and elements are admittedly without any cause and effect. But this poetry gives the opportunity to learn, forth a year, all the existing elements up to the last primordial one.

The quasi-exclusively artificial, transuranic actinides are an own and a very special chapter. Thanks to you JWB, for our exchange. Gluck 123 (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Westbankjan06-jerusalem-etzion.jpg

Hello. Where is this image taken from? --Timeshifter (talk) 01:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says on the image page. It's a subset of another image, which is a subset of another, which is attributed to the UN. --JWB (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I find that "United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs" is listed as the source. Do you happen to know the exact URL for the source map there? --Timeshifter (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have any knowledge of it as I am not the editor who uploaded that map; please ask them. Also, doing a quick Google, it looks like [9] is a good place to start looking. --JWB (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I added the link to the source map page (commons:Image:Westbankjan06.jpg) at the commons along with the UN license tag: {{UN map}}

I wish the original uploader had made and uploaded a PNG or GIF copy of the source map. Same for the subsets. PNG and GIF are free, lossless, uncompressed, sharper formats. The JPG copies and subsets get progressively more and more blurry since JPG is always compressed. Even at the highest quality levels. Please see: [10]

I use the freeware IrfanView. It is great for pasting in full or cropped sections of PDF maps, and then converting to GIF or PNG. One can continue to crop further subsets without loss of clarity. For more info:

User:Timeshifter#Copying_maps_and_charts_from_PDF_files --Timeshifter (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the IrfanView pointer. Isn't SVG even more preferred at Wikipedia now? If the original PDF was a vector image, this might be a good fit. It looks like there are also free PDF to SVG tools though I haven't tried any yet. --JWB 23:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know how to easily convert PDF to GIF or PNG. I don't know much about SVG, though. Can you point me to the free PDF to SVG tools? --Timeshifter (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just googled "free pdf to svg" and FreeSVG was the first result. I tried it for one of the large UN atlases and the result was quite large and slow to display. I'm not sure what the best solution is and may continue to try as I have time. If you find anything good please let me know also. --JWB 06:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been compiling some SVG map info here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Maps#SVG, but I don't really understand it since I haven't tried anything yet with SVG. A GIF map can sometimes use a lot fewer kilobytes than the same map in the PNG or SVG format. The PNG map may have more colors, but the difference from the GIF image is not usually detectable. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, have you seen this edit by an anonymous user: [11], is it ok? Also, I have made an svg version of the png Dynkin diagrams image: Image:ConnectedDynkinDiagrams2.svg, but I'm not sure if it looks better. Arthena^(talk) 22:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure what to make of that edit, partly because the original sentence was not clear. If "base" means "basis" I think the edit makes the sentence wrong. "Base" might have another meaning, but on checking, the word is used nowhere else in the article. The edit should be reverted, but rewriting the whole sentence might be even better.

Your SVG version gets rid of the graininess of the original. I think the displacement of E6 to the right makes no sense though and need not be copied from the original. --JWB (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Long-lived FP table Template appears in several places. It's a handy summary, but had me checking my Table of Isotopes when I first saw it because of apparent errors in beta decay energies. Turns out to be OK once I found and read all the fine print around the table. I suggest the following to improve clarity - Relabel the decay energy column as "E(keV)", and put beside each entry either "beta" or "beta gamma", as appropriate. I also propose use of Ma rather than my for million years, per the distinction between million and milli. Finally, can you put some white space border around the table? Seems to get crowded with the text where it is inserted. PJG 22:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've implemented most of your suggestions, except whitespace - I'm not sure how to do it, it may be something that can be done in pages including the template, and I think it looks ok in Fission product - the template's text lines are not vertically aligned with the article's, which makes it easier to distinguish them. Also, Decay energy lists Q as the symbol. --JWB (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC

I haven't figure out how to add whitespace either. But the following line added to the header of your template produces a box just around the table itself, which helps visually offset it from the surrounding text... style="border: 1px solid #CCCCCC;"PJG 02:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have added this border. --JWB (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have created a new Wiki article on long-lived FPs. First, I don't understand why it is needed. We seem to already have a plethora of assorted articles on fission products. I think we should be able to adequately cover the subject through the high-level article on FPs and then the specific articles on the individual radioisotopes. Second, these are not the only long-lived FPs. There are others, although with lower yields (Nd144, Rb87, Sm146, Sm147...).PJG 02:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

1. LLFP is a term that is actually used, and as people will be looking it up, it should appear either as an actual article or a redirect to a section of the FPs article. They are treated as a group for discussion of long-term disposal or transmutation. I think the content I added is a worthwhile summary. It could also become a section in the FPs article instead of an independent article. I don't have a strong opinion on this, other than to note Fission product is already 28 KB long, and will eventually hit the recommended article size limit if it keeps expanding, and at that point or before, it should hive off subarticles, leaving summaries in the main article. Much of the FP article could also use rewriting; but it's rambling enough that this would be hard to do at one go.
2. I'd appreciate more info on those shadowed low-yield fission products. However, 3 of the 4 you list have halflives a good deal longer than the age of the earth. They are not a significant radiation hazard, and for this purpose can be treated as stable. More stable isotopes have and will continue to be found to have these very slow decay modes, so the list will have to continue to change anyway. ¹⁴⁶Sm is not primordial and does get a mention in references like [12][13]. Do you have information on its yield? So far it still sounds like it is not a significant waste disposal concern. --JWB (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the FP article is pretty rambling as-is. And I keep finding all these other FP-related articles and think there must be some better way to present the info to minimize duplication. So I'll continue to work at it and in due course the best way to present these points may become obvious. With respect to the other long-lived FPs, a few points. (1) I agree that your list is the important ones for waste disposal, I only disagree in stating or implying in an encyclopedia that these are the *only* long-lived ones. I would rather have the clarifying remarks you note above included somewhere. (2) Pulling out the FP data from some ORIGEN results I have for used fuel, I can quote the following half-life in years and yields in mol/kgU for a particular burnup cycle: I-129 1.5e7 5E-4. Nd144 2E15 3E-3. Rb87 5E10 8E-4. Sm146 1E8 3E-9. Sm147 1E11 8E-4. Tc98 4.2E6 1.5E-9. PJG 02:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giersp (talk • contribs)

1. Great, I agree existence of nearly-stable nuclides should be noted. I think they are better viewed, at least for this purpose, as a special case of stable fission products, rather than a special case of radioactive fission products.
2. So that would give ratios of ¹⁴⁶Sm 6ppm ¹²⁹I, ⁹⁸Tc 3ppm ¹²⁹I. When you say "cycle", that suggests that neutron activation and other reactions might be included as sources (or destroyers), rather than simple fission yield after short-term beta decay. [14] also has a couple of data sets with similar ratios on the order of a million. --JWB (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The probable sorry state of 'core anthropology' articles on Wikipedia has been recently identified here

As a self-nominated Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anthropology member, I thought I'd check on your interest and willingness to see anthropology better represented on Wikipedia? Bruceanthro (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you mean the Anthropology article specifically, or the subject in general? Certainly I'm interested. --JWB (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for your offer to give some assistance! At present the kinship article has been suggested, nominated and supported (see link in heading above) as a recommended first 'core' articles needing attention.. to be worked on over the mid_Jan to mid_Feb 2008 month?!

Perhaps you have ready access to some good material, or you have diagrams and Wikipedia skills that may be useful in upgrading this article (perhaps illustraiting kinship types etc)?!

If you'd be interested in assisting with this first core concept article , please freely (and boldly!) contribute ..otherwise, keep an eye on upcoming monthly collaborations for other articles you may be able to help and assist with!!

Again, thanx!! Bruceanthro (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to revert the edits by User:128.135.96.184 in Southern California but it did not seem to work right. Reverting my change made it worse. I notice that you have done some more work on the article. Maybe you could fix the problem I created. It would be greatly appreciated. Dbiel ^(Talk) 03:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your first revert worked; maybe a refresh problem prevented you from seeing it. Your second revert did drop some of my recent edits, which i've now fixed; thanks for the heads-up. --JWB (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my mess. By the way, I tried editing it three more times but those edit just kept disappearing. Strange! Thanks again for the help. Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:ThermalFissionYield.svg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you aiming for? Is the question Merg vs. Not merge? Or is it Merge vs. Revert “complete” to what it was a month ago and keep “divided” like it is? Greg L (my talk) 22:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking. You proposed a merge, there was disagreement, we're voting on the merge. Not merging would mean that the the unitary table remains in one article and the divided table in the other. When there is disagreement, you are not supposed to go ahead with it before consensus. This is not that complicated and I've tried to explain it a couple of times already. --JWB (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Dimond District, Oakland, California, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimond District, Oakland, California and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of World Atlas of Language Structures, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://emeld.org/workshop/2005/abstracts/bibiko-abstract.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main URL is wals.info and content is stated to be under a Creative Commons Licence. --JWB (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an error in the image. South of the label Midwest and north of North Dakota and Minnesota, there is a fat black line. Just letting you know. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 18:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, I can't tell where this is coming from. It doesn't appear when viewing the file in a browser; something must be different about Wikipedia's renderer. --JWB (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the changes you made on the page of Selenium-79. What a promt and appropriate reaction after my modifications (less than 1h30 !). You looked immediately to the good reference and at the appropriate pages in the Safir-2 report. Congratulation. :-) Shinkolobwe (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! --JWB (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JWB: Thank you for intercepting my question directed to Quilbert and responding so quickly. So… Do I understand this correctly? All nuclides with atomic masses of greater than about 20 amu are “within” the drip line (do not “leak”)? Also, regarding those nuclides that are perpendicular to the diagonal of stable nuclides, if they are 1) less than about 19 amu and 2) are sufficiently far at the edges of the chart, are these “beyond” the drip lines? Examples would be B-5, Ne-16, Li-12, He-4. Greg L (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your recent work on the table of examples of the definition. I am questioning the examples from Atlantic Coast Conference, I-85 Corridor, and BellSouth and maybe others. None seem to define the Southeast instead of just being in the Southeast. I was almost bold and removed them with this rational but wanted to bounce the idea off of someone. What do you think? You can reply here, I will watch your page for awhile. Thanks. Dimitrii (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right about Atlantic Coast Conference, since there is also a Southeastern Conference; both of them together are approximately the Southeast. The local operating subsidiary BellSouth Telecommunications is actually changing its name to AT&T Southeast and is a good representative. I-85 Corridor is synonymous with the Southeast or Piedmont "megapolitan area" (or other equivalent term) centered on Atlanta. The Florida megalopolis is usually referred to simply as Florida, so "Southeast" tends to connote the Atlanta-centered area.

Since there is no official definition of the Southeast, it's good to have information on the actual use of the word; otherwise everyone thinks their own definition is the right one, leading to edit warring as happened in the past on this page. If you think the phrase "definition of the Southeast" sounds too universal, we can weaken it to something that clarifies it means individual organizations' regions. --JWB (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been pondering this for awhile. I missed that BST is operating as ATT SE. Pretty bad since I worked there for a decade and still have their service. With all of the contention I saw on the talk page I don't think my concerns are important enough to stir that pot again. It wouldn't improve Wikipedia as a whole. I will let it drop without any contact on the page. Glad I could bounce it off of you. Take care, Dimitrii (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JWB, I have added discussion to the Talk:Toyota Prius page at "Fact tag removal by User:JWB", which you may wish to respond to. -- de Facto (talk). 17:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Linear3.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 15:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see you recently joined WikiProject Geographical coordinates. Although this is an unofficial greeting, feel free to leave a comment on my page is you have any questions about the project. Happy editing, Spencer^T♦C 17:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on JWB/Isotope color chart requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Mblumber (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you were involved in some of the edit discussions involving the CNW study on the Prius page, so thought I would let you know that we're doing a poll to try to community consensus. Your input would be appreciated. Sacxpert (talk) 05:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you keep Gadsden Purchase watchlisted, but I should let you know (as you appear to be the biggest contributor to that article) that I have reviewed this article and placed it on hold pending some minor improvements. Protonk (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The featured list Nuclear power by country, in which you contribute regularly, has been nominated for removal. You can comment at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Nuclear power by country. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Superfamily (molecular biology) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ipatrol (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have userfied the content to User:JWB/Superfamily. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a fellow member of the WikiProject HGH may I ask for opinions on this accusation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am copying the following paragraph from a post I made to User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#"Disputed" tag and three articles to this talk page because I agree with your comment at the deletion discussion for SanSan.

I have been watching the article BosWash for two years. It and the associated articles ChiPitts and SanSan concern the concept of a theoretical entity known as a Megalopolis. The talk page discussion Talk:BosWash#Isn't this kind of melodramatic? sums up the disputes I and another editor have with the form and content the article has taken on. My major problem with all three articles is that although the subject and title do exist as part of a theory published by Jean Gottmann in 1961, the articles themselves treat the three terms, BosWash, ChiPitts and SanSan as actual physical locations with real boundaries and constituent geographical members. Not only is this not true, it is unencyclopedic and supported only by original research that masquerades as fact within each article. I would like to place a {{Disputed}} tag on each article. The documentation for the tag directs that a new section called "Disputed" be added to the article's talk page. I have two questions about how to proceed: in your opinion, is my proposed placement of the tag for these three articles warranted? and if so what is the best way to include the statements already made on the BosWash talk page within a new "Disputed" section, can they simply be copied into the section, and how can the discussion of all three pages be centralized?

In my opinion, these three articles should suffer a "merge and redirect" fate if kept in their current form. The use of the terms is possibly gaining traction do to the proliferation of the BosWash article on Wikipedia mirror sites, but the articles themselves are bold-faced WP:OR masquerading as fact; I don't see any books or census documents which support the existence of these entities, they are made up and promulgated by editors who plainly don't know what they are talking about. I don't believe Wikipedia should be responsible for pushing a rarely used neologism found in a largely singular source as fact. The SanSan open currently states "Gottmann's coinage of BosWash (the first and largest of the megalopolises) has, in fact, gained considerable currency." It is unfortunately through Wikipedia and mirror sites that this unsupported statement has even a chance of being considered accurate. I would value your input here on what you think should be done. Sswonk (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an IFR discussion list on google. Basically, even the biggest IFR advocates realize that fissile material availability is a big problem for IFR rollout. Here's a recent posting for example:

A better number for doubling time is about 15 years (from George Stanford). This is no great shakes either, and I agree that fissile supply for start charges in a high growth-rate situation is likely to be a problem -- the IAEA study done under their GAINS program came to the same conclusion, as did my little paper on the subject of transition from thermal to fast reactors (posted at <inea.org.br/>).

The best available answer: build lots of high-conversion thermal reactors in the immediate future, and bring in IFRs as quickly as you can. Start some of them on enriched uranium or U233 (produced in thermal reactors). If you must, produce more fissile using other methods. Stk (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about existing stocks of surplus weapons plutonium and reprocessed commercial reactor plutonium, as well as the even larger amount of plutonium available by reprocessing existing spent fuel? --JWB (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'd like to add the image File:ThermalFissionYield.svg to the German wikipedia. However a reliable source is mandatory for this kind of information. Can you give the source the image is based on? Thanks.-----<(kaimartin)>--- (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was based on the Knolls chart available from [15].

Another good source with data on even more nuclides is Chain Fission Yields which is referenced in Fission product yield. --JWB (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply added on Talk Page about the world maps.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  304° 15' 00" NET   20:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{talkback}}   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  349° 30' 00" NET   23:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the section "Comparison between Classical and Modern Hebrew" in the status constructus article, I'm uncomfortable with the use of "Israeli" as a term for Modern Hebrew in the phrases "...is not productive in "Israeli" (his term for Modern Hebrew)" and "Modern Israeli Hebrew grammar makes extensive use...". My understanding is that the claims the Modern Hebrew should be regarded as something other than a descendant of classical Hebrew (which the term "Israeli" invariably suggests) is fairly unpopular, and also clashes with popular usage of the term "Hebrew". I don't think it makes sense to introduce this debate into this article, where it is essentially irrelevant. Mo-Al (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first instance is only describing Zuckerman's usage, not saying it is general usage. If we are covering Zuckerman's ideas it doesn't make sense to suppress all mention of his terminology.

The second is using the established phrase "Israeli Hebrew", not Zuckerman's innovation of using "Israeli" in isolation as a language name.

Interestingly American language, Brazilian language, and Israeli language are currently all valid redirects or disambiguation pages. --JWB (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first usage doesn't seem necessary to me, as the author's view on how to classify the language doesn't have bearing on whether the construct state is productive. The second I suppose is fine as long as it isn't construed as supporting his point of view. Mo-Al (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: 1) I don't think we should include troop movements and unofficial "claims", these soldiers had no authority to annex land on the part of the United States. What if Mexico had reconquered California? Would we note each part of the region that changed hands? And 2) Same deal with the Mormons; they weren't official actors of the United States. By that logic, we would be noting when the first white Texians settled. --Golbez (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the U.S. forces in New Mexico and California did have orders to claim land for the United States and govern it for the United States. U.S. government control started with these events, which was not the case with Texas independence. Of course Mexican claims to California and New Mexico did not cease until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, but this is just as true of Texas! If we can list only the date when Mexico dropped claims, we must also remove the Texas Annexation.

The biggest point I would like to make is that New Mexico was never divided at the Rio Grande by the unenforced Texan claim, as maps usually suggest. New Mexico was captured as a whole by Kearny, and Mexican claims were relinquished as a whole by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. --JWB (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Territorial evolution of the United States shows unilateral seizure of West Florida before this was acknowledged by Spain. This is similar. --JWB (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on compiling a book containing information about almost all Non-indigenous ethnic groups living or working in Pakistan. The population of a particular ethnic group would be obtain respectively from their diplomatic missions in Pakistan including regions with significant populations, languages spoken and religious affiliations. I'm not very good with writing so it would be great, if you would like to collaborate with me.--116.71.53.25 (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]