User:Vejvančický/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

User:Shajaf

I just had a conversation with another admin on the subject of user:shajaf which I thought might interest you - here - the idea of sockpuppetry is interesting but I dont know what SPI or CU stand for - I am not an admin. Mark^Dask 12:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

SPI is a shortcut for Sockpuppet investigations and CU refers to Requests for checkuser. It is quite clear that Shajaf (talk · contribs) and Hjaf (talk · contribs) is the same person, but I don't think we should jump on them, block them and delete everything immediatelly. Many people start editing Wikipedia without the slightest knowledge of our rules, they don't know under what conditions it is allowed to use multiple accounts etc. We should assume good faith, give a new or inexperienced editor some time for response/explanation and decide what to do only after that. The articles by Shajaf/Hjaf are suspicious but quite harmless, and in my opinion we should give the editor a chance to respond. Be patient, Mark. I watch all the articles and Shajaf's user page. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I leave it entirely to you Vejvančický. If you decide to Afd the articles I will be happy to include my comments on the relavent page/s. Mark^Dask 14:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your assistance. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ophiuchus

Hi Vejvančický

I note your comments about Ophiuchus, and wondered if you have a reason for not seeing the article as fit for deletion? I have never recommended an article for deletion before but this one is particularly bad and completely full of misinformation. I'll put a copy of my view on the talk page to raise the issue openly. In the meantime, because this is the first time I have done this, could you give me the link I need for when you say raise it at AfD? Perhaps best to answer on the talk page ? Thanks Zac Δ talk 10:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zachariel. The article is here from November, 2009, and has many contributions by multiple users. There's a possibility that someone inserted incorrect information during the editing process. Google Books search result suggests that Ophiuchus in astrology might be a notable topic for this project. It is quite possible that our article needs simple fix/improvement, not deletion. Therefore I declined your speedy deletion nomination. If you really want to nominate the article for deletion, see Wikipedia:AfD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion. However, I would recommend you to work on it, especially if you are familiar with the topic. Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Btw, this page could provide you a good information of what is suitable for speedy deletion and what is not. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my proposal. I submitted twice and couldn't figure out why it wasn't showing up. Still not sure, but feel have gone a little down the WP learning curve today (not that I expect to make this a regular habit (!). Also, I thought I had left an earlier reply to you but it looks like that got lost in the ether too. The main point was that if someone feels the article can be fixed or deserves to remain despite all the problems (I don't) then that's fair enough with me. Cheers Zac Δ talk 11:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, the AfD is open, but I don't feel competent to comment on it. I know nothing about astrology. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Have this Kitten for your effort in patroling wikipedia and keeping the wiki flag flying,thanks.

```` (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

:) Thank you, Netknowle. Do you like cats? I had a cat and it was an excellent hunter. Sometimes when I woke up in the morning I found mice carefully stacked side by side in front of the door of our house. I think the cat wanted to prove us that it is a helpful member of our household. It spent nights in the garden and hunted mice :) It was a long time ago... --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I appologise for answering you lately,our school calender is in it's second semester begining period and so i was busy,sorry.But i would say the cat you had was a nice one,i love cats greatly more than any other animals because they live with you in your room too.I play with them.Netknowle message me! 06:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan Loft Corporation

Fine Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Freak Sol -> recently Deleted by you

What is the correct procedure to build some information about a company ?? Am not referring to Advertisement nor Spam but i just want that details of the company should be listed as listed by many other company for public disclosure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourhty (talk • contribs) 11:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I replied at your talk page. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A favour please

Hi Vejvančický, please do something for me. I have created my first Archives box on my talk page using your talk page for a template but I dont know how to put the actual messages in the box. Can you do it for me this time and I will learn by your example. Hope you can oblige. Mark<sup>Dask</sup> 15:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

RESOLVED - Did the job myself Vejvančický, very messy. Thanks anyway. Mark<sup>Dask</sup> 17:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

My method is called cut and paste. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Srebrenica Genocide memorial

Can I ask for assistance, please? I tried to move Srebrenica Genocide memorial to Srebrenica Genocide Memorial with the M capitalised as in a proper name, per the official name given at http://www.ohr.int/print/?content_id=40028. It turns out I have to consult an admin because somehow the move is not illegitimate and the Potocari Memorial is supposed to be only one of a plurality.Opbeith (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the move looks uncontroversial and the redirect needs to be deleted to make way for the move. However, I can't delete pages arbitrarily. I delete only pages nominated by others and I'm trying to be as independent as possible. You know, I'm still involved in the situation concerning diacritics; some editors there are accused of creating POV pushing nationalist groups and I performed some possibly controversial page moves (¡Ay Dios mío!). I'm afraid that any deletion and move based solely on your recommendation could be viewed as an example of WP:INVOLVED. I think the best solution is requesting deletion via {{db-g6|rationale=}} (speedy deletion criterion for uncontroversial page moves) or WP:RM (discussion). I understand your point and I agree, but I in my opinion it is better to ask for the deletion/move independently. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I quite understand - no problem and thanks for the guidance! Opbeith (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Move now sorted, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Opbeith (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Hefaiston

The DYK project (nominate) 12:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Mojmir II

Hi Antonin,

Thank you for contacting me about this article move. I did read the talk page and therefore did not move the article to Moimir II. The move to Mojmir II was for the purposes of being consistent with Mojmir I; no one has objected to the removal of the diacritic from Mojmir II, but if you do, feel free to start a separate move discussion.

Neelix (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Josef Bohuslav Foerster

Hello Vejvančický: When you have a moment, would you please review the Czech titles on the List of compositions by Josef Bohuslav Foerster? This information doesn't seem to be collected by any other source, so there are many discrepancies. If you have further additions to the list, it would be appreciated. Best regards, Hrdinský <sup>〒</sup> 13:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Díky! Hrdinský <sup>〒</sup> 18:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Remco Cables

Please do not delete the page, I will amend the page and try to change the style of the page and add some references. But please give me some time. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wajahat malik (talk • contribs) 18:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The article was deleted again, and I agree. It was a blatant advertisement, totally inappropriate for this project. Please, read the notification at your talk page: Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Btw, you can find the notability criteria for companies here: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Thanks for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you

SwisterTwister has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

I hope you enjoy this cookie as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

More advice

Can I ask for more of your helpful advice - but only a signpost wanted, not for you to get involved! I'd like to know where to go for advice on being threatened with a block at the Srdja Trifkovic article. I'm told that I'm acting against a consensus which I've challenged at the BLP noticeboard and I have to respect the consensus even though the references I've provided and the arguments I've advanced seem to have been simply ignored. I'm not going to let myself be blocked by responding to the person with an Undo so I want to fetch in a third party to take a look over and tell me if my annoyance is legitimate or not legitimate. Is there a taxi rank somewhere where trustworthy third parties are on call? Opbeith (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The WP:BLPN is the right venue for your request, however, instead of reverting you should discuss the Trifkovic's case separately. The discussion at Wikipedia:BLPN#Anders_Behring_Breivik_.283.29 is inappropriatelly generalized, as the circumstances of each case are different. Srdja Trifkovic has participated in the public discussion regarding his alleged influence on Breivik's ideas and the event has already influenced his career/life. It is clear from the sources presented, the information is relevant and verifiable and it is possible to describe the facts in a neutral and appropriate way also in the Trifkovic's article. He commented on that in Dagbladet and people have the right to know his opinion. The reliable sources and Trifkovic explained the matter and we remain silent? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I don't understand why Wikipedia tries to impose this general embargo on all of the articles. The people are unwillingly involved in a situation that deeply affects their lives, they defend themselves and they have the right to be heard. Wikipedia should provide objective and neutral facts about that. Also, I don't think we can apply the WP:UNDUE guideline. The Norway shooting is not a trivial event, even today it is an important part of the European history. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Antonín (I just worked out how to get your name right with the "í" quickly and easily - I cut and pasted from the User page). The above is a very straightforward analysis. Even if we'd been in profound disagreement I could see you'd taken on board all the arguments and we could discuss further in an intelligent manner.

Anyhow I'm back temporarily. They seem to have blocked me for longer than the time announced, but I'm unlocked now. The pause was useful, it let me have a good think. I can cope with the blusterers and the bullies and the coteries and the wilfully obtuse - I had all that useful experience with the Serb nationalists - and I was quite happy to handle the initial threat of a block. What turned out different was that someone else went in and called in the services of authority. Legitimate authority I'll accept but not arbitrary authority (acting on the basis of nonsense as well but I know that's just my view). I'm afraid arbitrary exercise of authority is something I'm allergic to. So I'm off.

As you know, I think the general idea of Wikipedia is a great one even with its problems. And I've met some excellent people like yourself, so I hope you don't feel I'm leaving you and the other decent people in the lurch, which I am. But when you disagree with the system, not just its abusers, there's no point wasting time and effort when there are so many other things to be done elsewhere.

I'm still very happy to help out if - say - you want some English checked. Put a message about it here and send me an e-mail via my User Page to come and look at your Talk Page. And thanks for being such a decent colleague/collaborator, it's been a pleasure! Opbeith (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

PS I leave it to you to tell OhConfucius that his digame needs a stress accent on the "i"!

They blocked you for edit warring without further investigation of your arguments. The person who reported you haven't bothered to notify you about their report (and they should do that). You are an experienced editor and you should know about the existence and possibility of breaking the WP:3RR rule, however, you aren't obliged to know that rule, and you should have been warned about this specific rule before the ANI report). I'm sure you know how useless is fighting in this manner. You made the mistake of re-adding the disputed material stubbornly to the article. It was inappropriate, no matter whether you was right or wrong. However, it was your only mistake. The block was an insidious slap in the face of a honest editor and I understand your resentment: You offered intelligent arguments in a civil discussion and they banished you from the debate in a despicable way. I can imagine how bitter that must be, you edit here for five years without serious problems and suddenly they treat you like an incompetent and disruptive idiot. Instead of a proper response to your questions they found an easier and a more comfortable way how to prevent you in further participation in the discussion. It is shameful, however, it doesn't matter so much, as now you are back, more experienced and better prepared! Don't get upset over small things and mistakes, Owen, and please, come back. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As for the Trifkovic's article, I have to admit that I'm not sure. Breivik's 'heroes' are people who are known for their controversial views; they try to build up a debate and platform on a serious and contentious topic. Breivik didn't contribute to any debate, he is a merciless murderer who used their names and ideas to justify his atrocious attacks. Are those people his hostages? On one hand, the information is publicly known and available and it is a duty of an open source informative project to provide neutral and undistorted facts without censorship. On the other hand, we are an encyclopedia and our way of processing information is a bit different from the news sources. Personally, I would agree with mentioning the case in the Trifkovic's article, because, as I said above, he commented on that and people have the right to know his opinion. The event affects his life, and preventing the information from being added to his article could be considered equally harmful. Your description was in my opinion neutral and appropriate. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello Antonín, I've popped back for a cup of tea, but didn't think I ought to bring kittens (songbird population decline, etc.)! Thanks for your thoughtful comments. As I told you before, you're a much more patient and careful character than I am but I'm always willing to be put in my place by people who know what they're talking about and conduct a discussion fairly. Very graciously of me I'm sure, I'm also willing to be put in my place by one of the people I have less respect for when they've made a fair point.

Nevertheless I've been around for a while and I'm very grateful to the Serb nationalist propagandists with their deft rulebook manipulations I encountered in the past for helping me develop a bit of an eye for a rogue. These days when it comes to a having a discussion with someone who's not actually interested in discussion, only in the outcome, there's a limit to my willingness to join in an elaborate morris dance routine.

Of course I'm not going to persist in an argument if someone shows that they've listened to my arguments and shows me where I'm wrong. That's a constructive experience for me apart from anything else. But I'm not going to concede on a legitimate point when I'm dealing with someone who knows exactly where they want to get to and simply wants to shift me out of the way to get there. If I dig my heels in and I'm wrong I know I have to take the consequences. Fair enough, as long as it's a fair process.

I'm not calling it a day just out of annoyance on this particular issue. I've had to concede enough reasonably important points in the past - after a while banging on the walls you learn to accept that you win some, you lose some. But the problem goes beyond the specific issues like in this case the role of Trifkovic and his fellow counterjihadists in developing a climate of opinion that encouraged the new Templars and their fellow anti-Islamic campaigners, important though that is (incidentally can you imagine the Wikipedia response to something like Kristallnacht?). It's a structural matter. As you know, I believe in the principle of open access and that means you can't be too precious and sensitive. But in the end you have to have faith in the mechanisms will generally yield a constructive outcome.

Too much at Wikipedia is just plain destructive, sometimes extraordinarily and wilfully so - just look at the Edward McCabe business at the BLP noticeboard at the moment. Sometimes the impact of this wilful destructiveness is contained, but I don't have confidence that's necessarily the case. This morning I've just seen two deletions of material I'd contributed at Srdja Trifkovic and Counterjihad. I think the deletions are misguided but I can understand the fundamental reasoning. Nevertheless whatever the justification given, they are simply deletions of information that's quite important for the article with no attempt made to fix the problem or patch over the gap left.

If I was going to be sticking around I'd have to think, do I get involved in a discussion in the hope that there might be a fair resolution? I'm reasonably confident I can make a good guess whether there's the possibility of an amicable compromise at the end of. If not, I have to ask myself is there going to be a respectable - fair - arbitration procedure at the end? And from what I've seen, that can't be counted on - it's a lottery.

In this instance that's led me to call it a day I did as instructed and went to BLPN and found exactly what the original interventions led me to expect. I didn't expect a fair hearing but put my case. Which was largely ignored or shouted down. Shouting down is understandable, but not wilful disregard. When I protested I got hauled up before the magistrate who handed out summary justice.

I'm not moaning that this was a particular example of unfairness that had impacted on me. When J. Wales expressed his uncompromising opinion that unreferenced BLPs should be deleted immediately that was the guideline that the authoritarians and the malevolents were looking for. A Wikipedia where destructive elements were balanced by constructive elements depended on an effective structure of conflict resolution. That doesn't exist.

So the block gave me the opportunity to look at what I'd been doing - how I was spending my time and how I was likely to continue spending my time. We tend to persist in doing what we've been doing even when we have our doubts about its real justification simply because we've invested a lot in building momentum. When we suddenly come to a halt, we ask ourselves whether the energy expenditure required to escape the imposed inertia again is effective. I'm happy to accept the overhead cost of win some, lose some, if the system is basically fair and constructive. But if it's not, you reflect on the many other things that have been left by the wayside as a result of pursuing battles that might otherwise have been worthwhile.

A friend has asked me to revise the English of some research on Srebrenica. Another friend has asked me to translate a text about Leonard Peltier's solitary confinement. Forgetting the demands of everyday life and just thinking about voluntary effort, those are things that shouldn't be forfeiting priority to hopeless battles. Wasting time has a cost.

I know from what you've posted at BLPN that you appreciate that this is an important issue. Please be reassured that I didn't take my decision lightly or out of pique. I very much respect your judgment and I absolutely wouldn't want you to think that. Opbeith (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?

I can not express how much I regret your departure, Owen. With you, Wikipedia loses a part of its openness, humanity, freedom and the eternal questioning, its most important values ... It looks that I have no other choice than to respect your decision ... your arguments are good, honest and persuasive as usual ... I stay, as I think Wikipedia has a lot to offer to me, and I believe I have a lot to offer to Wikipedia ... I help inexperienced editors to build their articles and I chronicle stories of my cultural area. I'm trying to avoid big political questions and cases of our time. The world scares me with its brutal mercilessness and emptiness ... Please, let me know if you ever visit my country, I'll show you my beloved Moravia and vineyards and all the good people ... Stay strong, and be happy wherever you are, my friend. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Far more important that you're still here - you've got the calm head and the patience that's more likely to achieve results than my bull-in-a-china-shop instincts. You've achieved a lot by cultivating your own Wikipedia "jardin" and labouring in the vineyard. I won't be off to my coffin yet, I'll still pop around and visit and hopefully offer words of encouragement, I'll just have to make sure I keep myself ring-fenced away from getting tangled up in articles and arguments. Opbeith (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Good to hear that:)) Well, right now I'm compiling this article. I can't find so many relevant and interesting details as in our previous collaboration, but I think it is worthy to mention his name and fate here. A few minutes ago I found a recollection of an excellent writer and Frýd's friend, Lenka Reinerová. I'm working on translation. Would you mind to look at the article? :) Ask me whatever (but the sources are very laconic). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Vejvančický. You have new messages at MikeAllen's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Trying to broaden consensus of use of diacritics

My diacritics RfC has been going long enough to give a sense of what might fly and what might not. I am contemplating an attempt to institutionalise the proper use of diacritics, _targeting specifically French, Spanish and German words or proper names (and for the time being ignoring the other languages with Latin scripts), with the exception of certain cases of names in those languages with uncontestably common Anglicisations such as 'Munich'. The case in point is crêpe, where there are at present attempts to argue that WP:COMMONNAME should prevail over WP:RETAIN, when it is clear that the word bearing diacritics is commonly but not perhaps the most commonly used. What do you think? --Ohconfucius <sup>¡digame!</sup> 06:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

What exactly do you plan? Your previous proposal has a little chance to win support in favour of using diacritics on this part of the project. ...and it is a good and clear proposal following the prevailing and current trends in the English media, organizations and institutions. I'm afraid that the English Wikipedia prefers inconsistency and confusion. It is clear also from the discussion at crêpe. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm actually more encouraged by the RfC than you could imagine. I never imagined a revolution, and am really quite happy that the proposal, something closer to asking editors to ignore the rules about how common the terms may be out of respect and for the sake of accuracy, had 50% support. Now that the RfC is drawing to a close, one option is to do nothing and leave it to individual projects, but I was thinking that we could get it formally written into the rules that French, Spanish and German proper names should be written in the 'native' from by default, unless the Anglicised version was overwhelmingly common and long-dated, so that 'Cologne' and 'Napoleon' are left alone but we insist on it for 'François Mitterrand'. One part of the argument, including Jimmy Wales' objection, is that it's often difficult to know how/when to type some words with diacritics are. However, I believe it's clear that editors generally feel more comfortable with Spanish and French alphabets (and perhaps to a lesser extent Northern European ones) than they do with central European ones, so perhaps it's worth pushing on that. --Ohconfucius <sup>¡digame!</sup> 04:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Another thought... you remarked on how WP was full of inconsistencies. One way to achieve this broadening without having a WP-wide consensus is to ensure that as many as possible of the projects adopt diacritics as 'normal' usage, as is the case as WP:HOCKEY. For most of the 'national' projects of nations employing latin script natively, use seems to be taken as read but not necessarily formalised in a project requirement or goal. My idea would be to try to get this is explicitly stated in individual projects. I suspect that would not be controversial in the vast majority of language/national projects, as this actually reflects current practices. I believe this may be one to model wording on. --Ohconfucius <sup>¡digame!</sup> 01:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• BTW, I recently started monitoring WP:RM. That is where I found out crepe was in the throes of a diacritics war. --Ohconfucius <sup>¡digame!</sup> 02:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The relative 'success' of the proposal was partially caused by the international character of this part of the project. Your recent focus on French, Spanish and German languages is logical and understandable, but I doubt you'll get more support, the opposition is too uncompromising against the use of diacritics generally. But I may be mistaken. Personally, I disagree with such a 'segregation', since there's a little difference between French and - say - Polish diacritics. The selection based on cultural and geographical preferences has in my opinion little to do with proper encyclopedic work. The idea of compiling project-based guidelines is interesting, but I don't believe that such a guideline would be respected by some (mainly sports-oriented) editors. We'll see, maybe I shoud ask people from the Czech and other national projects. Anyway, thanks again for your time and efforts on the previous proposal, to me it was a lesson in productive and constructive thinking. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Why?

I am sorry,can I know why did you delete my article Ilija Stojanovic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.173.86 (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course you can. I deleted it because I didn't find any reliable source confirming the claims in the article (his student awards and the alleged association with the Bavarian nobility). Moreover, the claims were insufficient to meet Wikipedia inclusion requirements for people. The claims in the article weren't credible and verifiable. I also noticed that someone contested the speedy deletion with the following rationale:

• he is our nobleman,and we love him
• YOU ARE OUR PRINCE ....WE LOVE YOU...!!!!!BYE
• ILIJA WE LOVE YOU......BECOME OUR KING

etc. So, that's another reason why I deleted the page. This project is an encyclopedia, not a forum for someone's jokes. Thanks for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Norbert Frýd

Possible revisions of the English between * *, comments between // //

He is known mainly for his autobiographical novel Krabice živých (A Box of Lives, 1956), in which he describes his *experiences in* Nazi concentration camps.

• 

Norbert Frýd was born in České Budějovice to *a* family of Jewish merchants.

• (whooops, I'm stupid)

In the mid-1930s, he *became involved with the "Leftist Front" cultural and political movement in Prague*.

• 

He *was a close collaborator* with Emil František Burian

• 

From 1936, he *was employed as a lyricist, editor and script-writer with Metro–Goldwyn–Mayer and RKO Radiofilm*.

• 

He participated in the illegal cultural activities in the ghetto - //I understood Theresienstadt was simply a camp - was there a ghetto as well?//

• • Yes, Theresienstadt was a "camp-ghetto", see for example [1].

In September, 1944, he was taken *to Auschwitz* concentration camp and subsequently he was transferred to Dachau-Kaufering.

• 
• In the period following the end of *the war, he helped the Americans as an interpreter during the interrogations of the Dachau SS guards.
• 

• New para*While in Mexico, he met his childhood friend, the writer Lenka Reinerová. She later remembered that Frýd was "the only person who protested against my arrest by the communist authorities" [after the war, Reinerová spent 15 months in communist prison]. //This chronology is confusing//

• • What about: While in Mexico, he met his childhood friend, the writer Lenka Reinerová. After her return to Czechoslovakia, Reinerová spent 15 months in communist prison. She later remembered that Frýd was "the only person who protested against my arrest by the communist authorities"

a cheerful guy who *was always playing the guitar and singing*.

• 

He *came back* from Dachau, but he was a different person.

• 

He had cold *clammy*/*moist* hands, as if you *were touching a corpse*

• 

He had to *cope with* terrible fear. And yet** he wasn't scared and went to the communist Department of the Interior* on my behalf* ", she commented.[5]

• 

After a brief *period of employment with* Czechoslovak Radio (from 1951 to 1953) he *embarked on a career as *a freelance writer.[1]

• 

--

Frýd *published* his first literary *efforts* in 1929 in the magazine Tramp. He *wrote in both Czech and German*.

• 
• The main theme of* his works was the fate of* Czech Jews. In the novel Krabice živých, he attempted *proivide*a detailed psychological picture of *concentration camp prisoners and*
• 
• He also produced* short stories, reportages//?news reporting// *and* travel books.
• 

During his career, he *worked for the" theatre, radio *and* television.

• 

Children's literature *was* another important part of his *work*.

• 

He *wrote* children's books and scripts for children's films.

• 
• He was able to illustrate his books with photographs taken during his own extensive travels.*

---

Books

• Bratr Jan (1945, under the pseudonym Nora Fried, written *in memory of the* author's brother Jan*, murdered* in a concentration camp[6])
• 
• Divná píseň (1946, 1940 censored//?banned in 1940//)
• 

---

in the fictional concentration camp *of* Gigling.

• 

The main character, *the* young intellectual Zdeněk Roubík, *is an assistant in the camp office*.

• 

One of his *jobs* is to maintain the *card index* of the inmates, *hence the title of* the novel *, "A Box of Lives"*.

• 
• In* the camp, Roubík gradually manages to overcome *the* apathy and depression caused by the death of his brother and *he* becomes more *actively involved in* camp life. The author attempts to depict *everyday* life, social interactions and relationships in the camp, *and* the work and hardships of the inmates. *The description of the SS guards in the camp *is a focus of particular attention*.[6]
• 

The novel *includes* autobiographical elements (*the* author's brother Jan died in a concentration camp*, like* Roubík's brother in the novel) and attempts to * document *life in the *inhumane* environment of a concentration camp. It *offers* philosophical *insights while attempting to provide an objective picture of the camp's everyday reality*". The author *reflects* on how to *maintain* human dignity and *cope with* evil in the *extraordinary circumstances* of the camp.[6]

• 

The novel was *acclaimed by contemporary critics*, and *republished* in numerous *editions* and translations.[6]

• 

---

Thank you many times. I still repeat the same mistakes ... I can't believe my eyes :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm so glad I didn't have to learn English! Opbeith (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the USHMM link, the ghetto notion makes much more sense of how the concept of "normality" was maintained at Theresienstadt and of the film I've seen in the past of the Red Cross visit. This was a real enough physical location rather than a sort of theatre set, whatever the script. Perhaps you might say "he participated in the clandestine cultural life of the ghetto area" - rather than use the word "illegal" in circumstances where the law itself was criminal.

The account of the Reinerova episode reads more easily but I'm still not absolutely clear about the chronology. Did Reinerova get away to Mexico after she was released and then met Fryd, who then went to the Ministry of the Interior to speak on her behalf after he returned home, or had he interceded for her while they were both still in Czechoslovakia, before she was imprisoned and he went abroad? By the way it might clarify a bit if you insert "diplomatic" before "attache", or replace "attache" with "diplomat". Opbeith (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I added your suggested changes to the article, thanks. The film The Führer Donates a Town to the Jews is another interesting topic. There's a lot of material (also in English) about this shameful Nazi trick. I wrote about it in Fritz Weiss' article and maybe somewhere else, I can't remember. The film deserves its own article. I just found the article, see Theresienstadt (film). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

At YouTube[2]. I'm not clear how much anyone was fooled. I think the International Red Cross decided at some point that it wouldn't jeopardise their access to the camps by condemning them. It seems to have made the wrong choice. I need to check back - it's a long time ago that I remember reading about that. It's a permanent dilemma, reflected in the problem facing agencies wanting to deliver famine relief in Somalia today. Opbeith (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

For Germans, it was too late to fool anyone and it looks that they stopped the project. I'm afraid that more frightening events occurred back in the 1944. The Vrba-Wetzler report didn't stop killing thousands of Jews, the priorities were apparently different. ...and yes, the dilemma continues today and will continue in future. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Vrba-Wetzler report article. I knew little about the background to the report (or even about Vrba and Wetzler), just the failure of the Allies to act on it. A couple of months ago I was talking to someone researching Eleanor Roosevelt, a woman who was far more radical than her husband. The researcher had talked about how ER pushed FDR much further than he with his political caution had intended to go on anti-racism issues such as support for Marion Anderson's Lincoln Memorial concert and the Tuskegee Airmen's war effort and I asked whether ER had pressed FDR at all about the VW report which the War Refugee Council gave him but which he did very little about (I didn't know about his appeal to Horthy until I read the WP article). The researcher - who was herself Jewish - said that although she greatly admired Eleanor in most respects she did not think Eleanor had made any particular attempt to push Franklin to take really effective action about the camps. Opbeith (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there's an error in the chronology, Reinerová moved from Mexico to Yugoslavia together with her husband in 1945 (after the war), while Frýd worked in Mexico in 1947. She was arrested at the beginning of 1952 [3], and at that time Frýd worked as a reporter/editor for the Czechoslovak Radio. I messed up the events together without careful check. I'll fix it. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sea of Tranquillity

Lo mismo que el fuego fatuo,

lo mismito es el querer

que huyes y te persigue,

le sigues y echa a correr.

or

Lo mismo que el fuego fatuo,

lo mismito es el querer

le huyes y te persigue,

le llamas y echa a correr.

Nice picture, just like the horizon I was looking at last night except it was a half moon and the angle of the sunlight falling on it was making the relief of the craters stand out more dramatically than I've ever seen before. Opbeith (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I like your observation talent, Owen, it reminds me of me :) I spend a lot of time wandering the countryside around my village, watching the hills, fields and forests, comparing the faces of the land. As I grow older, I pay more attention to the micro-universe of my 'close' places, people and thoughts. I think it is a kind of opposition against the conventional and superficial promotion of "travelling", that is so popular today. I enjoy discovering the inner world of things and places. Milan Kundera once wrote about a voyage that leads "into the infinite diversity of the interior world lying hidden in all things ... We ponder the infinitude of the stars but are unconcerned about the infinitude our papa has within him". (The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, pp. 225-227, btw, to me it is one of the most striking passages in the world literature). The comparison is perhaps a bit off, but that's how I feel it.

I took the text from wikisources, see . I know nothing about Spanish and I noticed that several slightly different versions of the poem exist. I think it is written in a dialect, see the website of the Project Martha Argerich: "even the songs are in the gypsies’ Andalusian dialect rather than in Castilian Spanish". I know the Saura's film, the song is available on YouTube: [4]. It seems to me that the singer pronounces the word "el" as "er" etc. But I'm not sure and I'm not a linguist :)

The 'Song of the will-o'-the-wisp' and whole the story is fantastic and mysterious, I discovered it not long ago and it contributes to my recent fascination with flamenco. Last year I visited a concert of Gerardo Núñez and his band and it was a disconcerting experience, as I was unable to decode the complicated rhythms and counter rhythms and the perfect collaboration of the band and the dancer. You can hear the secret code also in the video, just listen to the sound of the movements of the dancers' legs in the sand! They communicate with the music in a fascinating way. Flamenco is a storytelling, theatre and a kind of secret language, understandable only to those who have the language in their blood. To me it is a beautiful mystery and a kind of fascinating gesamtkunstwerk :) The words of the Canción del Fuego Fatuo are plain, truthful and crystal-clear, and I highly value those qualities in poetry. Sadly, I know the meaning of the poem only through the English translation. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My fault, I assumed the words were just the transcription of a performance, I should have thought of the dialect, which is primarily spoken language in any case. Long ago I used to escort tourist groups in Spain. The tours took in some very cynical "tourist traps" but the flamenco evening we used to go to in a club just outside Seville was wonderful - it wasn't anything like the exploitative charade you might have anticipated, it was fresh and genuine every time we went there, the presence of an audience felt almost irrelevant.

The night before last the half-moon was sitting above a tree similar to, though not quite the same shape as yours. I like looking at the full moon and trying to see if I can recognise the different features but I've never seen the craters quite so clearly demarcated on the full moon as they were along the line of light and shade on this half moon. Seen with borrowed binoculars, unfortunately I dropped mine and broke them a while ago - very sad. Looking at the moon and stars brings a wonderful sensation of feeling in touch with the vastness of the universe. It's a reminder of our planet's and our own physical insignificance in the immense cosmos but also of our physical reality and rootedness in space and time. Opbeith (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Marrante (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sylvie Bodorová

Milý pane Vejvančický, píšu Vám z mailu své ženy Sylvie Bodorové, sylvie.bodorova@iol.cz, zdá se mi, že na naglické verzi wikipedie o mé ženě je zase bějaký problém, začal jsem připravovat text o Sylvii pro festival v Meklenbursku a nahoře jsem našel poznámnku o debatě o vymazání. Jsem z toho vždy smutný, ten text už jsou jen holá fakta, kde co a jak, skutečně pozitivistická historiografie (pokud se tak lze o žijících osobnostech vyjádřit), nevím, kde se to stále bere. Moc prosím, můžete pomoci a zjistit, kde vlastně ten problém je??? Moc amoc Vám děkuji

Se srdečným pozdravem

Jiří Štilec — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.208.127.251 (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Zdravím Vás, pane Štilec

Na Wikipedii může kdokoli nominovat článek ke smazání, v následné diskuzi se poté týden rozhoduje, zda článek zůstane, či ne. V tomto případě to zatím vypadá, že článek bude ponechán, diskuzi můžete sledovat (či komentovat) zde:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sylvie_Bodorov%C3%A1

S pozdravem,

Antonín Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Norbert Frýd

Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for passing that on. I'd been to have another look and had some more thoughts, in particular I suggest breaking the text up into smaller paragraphs to make it easier for the reader to identify the different stages and episodes in his life. It's an excellent commemoration of the life and work of a brave man who documented an important experience.

---

• His father was a Czech Jew and *his* mother came from a German Jewish family.
• 
• *He went on to study* at the Faculty of Law of the Charles University in Prague. After *graduating* in 1937, he began studying modern literature at the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy//This begs the question, what was the nature of this study - for a doctorate or a new degree, or informal?// //new para//
• I'm not sure, I will check the sources again.

I'll quote the entry in the Dictionary of Czech Writers: "... práce Geneze českého surrealismu předložena již 1939, doktorát až 1945 ..." "... the work Genesis of the Czech Surrealism submitted in 1939, the doctorate only in 1945 ..."

• *It was while working at* Burian's theatre *that his collaborative partnership* with the composer Karel Reiner began*.
• 
• //new para//*In 1936 he began working* as a lyricist, editor and script-writer *for* Metro–Goldwyn–Mayer and RKO Radiofilm.
• 
• //new para//*In 1939, when Jews were excluded from public employment*, he was forced to work as a laborer for the Prague's Jewish community.[1] //I'm a bit puzzled by "for" - was he working for the Jewish community generally or does it mean simply that he wasn't permitted to work for anyone else?//
• It means that he wasn't permitted to work for anyone else.
• *The* slogan "Work Brings Freedom" *over the entrance to* the Small Fortress of Theresienstadt *where Norbert Frýd spent almost two years*.
• 
• In November 1942, Frýd was imprisoned in *the ghetto at Theresienstadt, where he became involved in the clandestine cultural life of the community*.
• 
• *He wrote* a collection of nursery rhymes*,* Abeceda květovaného koně*, which later he and Karel Reiner rearranged into a set of children's songs and choruses that were successfully performed in the ghetto.
• 
• *He also* directed the play Esther (*with* music by Reiner).//An existing work or his own?//
• No, E. F. Burian was the author of the script. They (Reiner and Frýd) prepared the play in Burian's theatre before the war, and later took the script to Theresienstadt.
• //new para//In Autumn 1944, he was *transported* to Auschwitz concentration camp, along with all the *other* artists imprisoned in Theresienstadt.
• 
• *At* Auschwitz, he spent several nights sitting (together with thousands of other people) on a concrete floor in block "E2", *on* the site of the former Roma camp.
• 
• "I was in Dachau-Kaufering at the end *of 1944*", he later remembered, "when the boys from all over Europe — French, Dutch, Germans, Poles, Yugoslavs, Greeks, we Czechs and I don't know who else — began to sing The Internationale in their mother languages*, all* together.
• 
• It sounded to me like never before."https//Not quite the right expression in English, but I'm not certain what the best way of rephrasing would be yet//

Okay, I'll wait.

• //New para// *In April 1945, as the SS were starting to evacuate the camps, he managed to escape.*
• 
• *Fryd's* father, brother and wife died in the concentration camps *and he appears to have been * the only member of his family to survive the Holocaust.
• 
• //New para// During the immediate postwar period, he helped the Americans as an interpreter during the *interrogation* of the Dachau SS guards.
• 
• He *returned* to Prague on 22 May 1945, together with his friend Karel Reiner.
• 
• In 1946, he changed his name to Frýd. //Presumably this was intended as a personal/political statement of identity - is there a citation of his reasons?//

All I have is this bare fact. Many of Czech Jews have changed their names after the war. I remember that Ruth Bondyová researched this topic in one of her books, I'll try to find out more.

• A year later, in 1947, he became a cultural diplomatic attaché in Mexico and subsequently *served in* various diplomatic posts in Latin America and the U.S. //combine career paras// After a brief period of employment *with Czechoslovak* Radio from 1951-1953, he embarked on a career as a freelance writer.
• 
• *Frýd's* childhood friend, the writer Lenka Reinerová, *recalled in an interview how he had helped her when she was arrested in 1952 //insert "(while he was still working at the state radio station)" to highlight the significance?// .

Hmm, I don't think it is necessary to mention the radio again. Reinerová doesn't emphasize the association.

• And yet he wasn't scared and went to //or "and intervened with"?// the communist Department of the Interior on my behalf",

The source states that he ...went to the communist Dep. ..., so I would prefer this wording.

• From 1951 until the early 1970s, he served as a delegate to UNESCO. //split para, even though short?//
• 
• *Fryd* died in Prague in 1976.
• 
• *As well as* children's books *he also wrote* scripts for children's films.
• 
• and he becomes more actively involved *in camp* life.
• --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Opbeith (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again, Owen. It isn't easy to find more relevant facts. Surprisingly, I found the most comprehensive information in the book about the composer Karel Reiner. However, Frýd's presence in the book serves mainly to depict their wandering through Nazi concentration camps. After the war, Reiner refused to speak about his experience, and the author of his biography used the recollections of his friend. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

--

Follow-up:

• *He went on to study* at the Faculty of Law of the Charles University in Prague. After *graduating* in 1937, he began studying modern literature at the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy//This begs the question, what was the nature of this study - for a doctorate or a new degree, or informal?// //new para//
• I'm not sure, I will check the sources again.

I'll quote the entry in the Dictionary of Czech Writers: "... práce Geneze českého surrealismu předložena již 1939, doktorát až 1945 ..." "... the work Genesis of the Czech Surrealism submitted in 1939, the doctorate only in 1945 ..."

• So perhaps something along the lines of "After graduating in 1937 he studied for a doctorate in modern literature at the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy. He submitted his thesis

on "The origins of Czech surrealism" in 1939 but was not awarded his Ph.D. until 1945." (Somehow there seems to be a link after "This" in "This begs the question" - it's just an artifact.)

• , btw, I think that the double slash broke the formatting, but it isn't so important. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• //new para//*In 1939, when Jews were excluded from public employment*, he was forced to work as a laborer for the Prague's Jewish community.[1] //I'm a bit puzzled by "for" - was he working for the Jewish community generally or does it mean simply that he wasn't permitted to work for anyone else?//

• Perhaps "he was forced to work as a manual laborer not allowed to work for anyone outside Prague's Jewish community"
• , yes, I think it is acceptable.
• It sounded to me like never before."https//Not quite the right expression in English, but I'm not certain what the best way of rephrasing would be yet//

• Perhaps "It was a sound like I'd never heard before"
• Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• In 1946, he changed his name to Frýd. //Presumably this was intended as a personal/political statement of identity - is there a citation of his reasons?//

//It's just a point of interest - was it a rejection of German identity or an embracing of Czechoslovak identity?//

• It's hard to say ... Czech Jews were forced to adopt German names by a decision of the Emperor Joseph II. I assume that the main reason for the change that came after the WWII was desire of Jews to assimilate and escape the terrible curse. Unfortunately, they weren't successful and communist butchers continued their elimination, see for example Slánský trial. Comrade Stalin was a good teacher. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• *Frýd's* childhood friend, the writer Lenka Reinerová, *recalled in an interview how he had helped her when she was arrested in 1952 //insert "(while he was still working at the state radio station)" to highlight the significance?// .

//It's not the radio that's important but reference to the fact that the dates of his radio employment indicate he was a state employee at the time (I presume the radio was state-owned at the time) - so taking an even greater risk. With your Czech background you might take that for granted but other people would not necessarily make the connection.//

Opbeith (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Almost everyone was a state employee in Czechoslovakia of 1952. Everything was state-owned at the time, and danger was omnipresent. Nobody was safe, a poor peasant, a goverment minister, they all have been threatened by denunciations. See for example the fate of Vladimír Clementis. The revolution devours its own children. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Gene Gigli

Hello, I did a search on Wikipedia for "Sagamore of the Wabash" and added Eugene (Gene) Gigli to the list of recipients on the "Sagage of the Wabash" page. Also, I tried to create a page (my first time) for Eugene (Gene) Gigli but was informed it is being deleted for copyright infringement. There is no copyright infringement--I listed the source (his obituary) that was published in our local newspaper and referrenced the newspager (the Indianapolis Star) as the source. Please help me understand why a page for Eugene Gigli, a recipient of the "Sagamore of the Wabash" award should be deleted when the source is clearly referenced. He died this week and his funeral was yesterday. I think it is appropriate he be added to the list of recipients on the "Sagamore of the Wabash" page and that he have his own page that details the accomplishments of his life leading to the award. Thank you. Dioti763 (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. The content of the articles Gene Gigli and Eugene Gigli was completely copypasted from http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSlh=1&GRid=74700909&, so that's why I deleted both the pages. For further information, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

whats wrong with u

what da hell do u mean by owh its not important WHATS UR PROBLEM WHY U DELETE THE PAGE,HUH -.- IT IS IMPORTANT JUST LIKE SELENA GOMEZ PAGE,JUSTIN BIEBER PAGE,TAYLOR SWIFT PAGE AND SHAKIRA PAGE GET IT ON NOW OR U WILL FACE THE CONSEQUENCES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.139.61.188 (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

For real? Someone comes here and leaves a message "U WILL FACE THE CONSEQUENCES"? Someone who doesn't even have the face to identify themselves? What sort of gangsta hangout do they imagine Wikipedia is? You know, 217.139.61.188, when you come on strong on a User talk page, it's not just Vejvančický you're talking to, you've just gone and got yourself a loudhailer and described yourself to the whole of Wikipedia. It's not the best place to expose yourself to public view unless you're confident of the sight you're presenting. Opbeith (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyhow, to proper business - I don't know if you saw the obituary of Lenka Reinerova at the Independent website? It describes how Reinerova went to Mexico - she was in Romania at the time of the Nazi takeover, and made her way to Mexico via internment in France and then Casablanca. She had a Yugoslav husband and came back to Prague (added - after the war) after a spell in Belgrade. Like Norbert Fryd she discovered she was the only member of her family to survive the Holocauset. She arrived back in just at the wrong moment in 1948, to bump into the Trotskyite-Titoist-Zionist campaign. According to the Independent she spent 15 months in prison. It's at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/lenka-reinerova-german-writer-in-prewar-prague-878719.html Opbeith (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they have stolen 15 months of her life, the fact is included in a note in our article. Reinerová was a bearer of the most important elements of the pre-war Czechoslovak culture: German, Jewish and Czech.--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies - I wasn't going to allow myself to get entangled in Wikipedia arguments again, and here I am doing so intrusively on your User page. By way of excuse, seeing a message like that intruding into Wikipedia (a) after all that's been going on in London and England this last week and (b) after we've been discussing the fatal consequences of right and left fascism, severely rattled my cage. But I'll try and keep out of the situation. Opbeith (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

They forgot to add the name of the page that I deleted and there's no way to find it out :) Usually they don't bother to come back.

No problem, my talk page is open for everyone ... sometimes I watch the messages with interest, sometimes with amusement. I'm an eternally surprised observer :) I have been called various names, but I don't mind too much. This online world is too abstract to infuriate me. You know, almost everyone is a big boss while hidden behind a screen of a computer. On Internet, you can meet a lot of bragging people who know everything. In real life, most of them don't dare to open their mouths :)

Thanks for your patience! Opbeith (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Those people (vandals) in London ... Do they really think they are so poor and have to fight against the rich by thoughtless destroying? What is the motivation of the riots? The article Causes of the 2011 England riots is not very enlightening. Why did they let the kids make such a big mess? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Just my point of view, picking up info here and there: It started with a black gun crime operation (Operation Trident) that went badly wrong - the suspect had a gun, the police thought he fired at them and shot him, but the first shot that lodged in a police radio appears to have been fired in fact by another policeman. The Police Inquiry team seem to have been pretty poor keeping the family and community informed about the progress of the inquiry - all sorts of rumours were going round. There was a peaceful protest march to the local police station. A senior police officer was supposed to be coming to explain to the protest what was happening but didn't arrive. Someone set a police car on fire.

At this point the whole situation changed from being a community relations issue (local unhappiness about heavy-handed policing etc.) to opportunistic crime. Rumour has it that since it's summer and tensions build up, criminal gangs which promote and exploit disaffected kids' gangs in drug-related crime activities were already getting ready to take advantage of any unrest. Local people seemed aware of this from interviews afterwards, but police intelligence seems to have been scanty. The police, thinking the violence was community unrest and aware of the potential consequences of intervention (and possibly but not necessarily influenced by budget cut considerations), held back from intervening. That provided the opportunity first for the criminals to go into action and then for all the local idiots to join in the excitement and free shopping.

More point of view: Since Thatcher decided that there's no such thing as society and if you let the rich get on with making lots of money everyone will eventually benefit in a consumerist economy, and then Blair decided Thatcher was an appropriate mentor for a socialist party, Britain has become a more and more unequal society, London very obviously so. As long as things improved overall the problem that we no longer bothered about being a cohesive society could be ignored. Then came the economic crash and cracks started appearing. A lot of people were hit by the effects of the crash and the cuts.

But not the people at the heart of it - the bankers in the city were squeezing everybody else and doing very, very well for themselves. The politicians who had deregulated and let them do what they wanted were discredited by the expenses scandal (Blair let MPs have expenses as a substitute for the pay rise that he was scared to give them) and then by the Murdoch phone-hacking scandal (Thatcher and successors gave the Murdoch press the power they needed to use something closely related to blackmail - personal and socio-political - by the printed media as a means of securing control over the profit stream from electronic media). Politicised but intelligent senior police were kicked out when there was a change of political control, particularly in London. The apparently clueless replacement was unable to see the problems of massive police corruption associated with the Murdoch and the groups' illegal activities, was discredited himself and had to resign, leaving morale and apparently organisational problems behind him.

So disillusion with competence, probity, etc. of those in authority combined with resentment at social inequality and uneven sharing of the burden of new hardships, resentment of prejudice and privilege, disruption of organised youth entertainment/containment activity by local economic cuts, incitement of consumerist greed, planned criminality and the excitement of civil disturbance combined with incompetence, misjudgment and political selfishness on the part of those who demanded respect allowed a very volatile situation to ignite and then spread very quickly - helped by social media.

It's extraordinary that so few lives were lost (seem to have been five people died in specific incidents), we must be thankful. A very toxic infection has reached a fever spike - hopefully the right lessons will be learned, but who can tell? Anyhow, at least we know where we stand now, this has been a long time coming. Sorry for going on so long, just my jaundiced point of view after decades of political disaffection. Opbeith (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize, I'm glad to hear an intelligent and detailed opinion. In my country, we try to build up exactly the same caste system, but the abyss between poor and rich is not so wide yet (at least in my opinion). A great many people are already disillusioned with politics and cuts, however, they forget that they themselves contribute to the bad situation: Many people (tens of thousands — my humble estimate — and not only immigrants) engage in illicit work and simultaneously take advantage of social benefits. It is twice as harmful to the system, but who cares? The system squeezes you permanently, so you have to find appropriate defense. A typical Czech "cleverness". Uff ... but it is a different situation. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)