Talk:Exopolitics/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Speedy deletion of Exopolitics 2 Updating 3 Information 4 Updating 5 Information 6 Australian University

Speedy deletion of Exopolitics

A tag has been placed on Exopolitics, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

There's plenty of evidence that this term has frequently been used, but little evidence that it exists as a concept in political science. I'm not sure that we need an article about a vague political usage or derogatory term, and it seems unlikely - especially on the basis of the life of this article so far - that such an article would ever get to the point of being particularly informative, let alone reality-based, comprehensive, well-sourced and well-written or, in short, encyclopaedic. However, I must admit that we have plenty of other articles about equally indefinite concepts/usages.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Please re-read WP:CSD, the rationale given does not fit any CSD category. If you still believe that this article should be removed from Wikipedia please list it up on articles for deletion. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 02:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Updating

Ok I am going to start updating this article today and tomorrow and for the rest of the week, if anyone would like to join me please do so (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · contributions} 20:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• I updated External links today, I will start adding references and citation tomorrow, join the part hehe (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 21:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• well i have updated the references a bit (i figured i couldn't wait tell tomorrow), but I will go ahead and clean up the references tomorrow using correct citation and improving on the article (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 21:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well i couldnt help myself, I went ahead and fixed the citation style for a few of the references today, I will finish the rest tomorrow hehe (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 21:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• The updating process is going very well, I should put in an additional few sentenecs tomorrow or so, join the fun if you want (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 23:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Information

Please stop removing Webre's informatoin and source, he is very famous in the exopolitics and Ufology community and his works is very well known and was one of the first (if not first) major papers published on exopolitics (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly care if he's well-known in the "exopolitics community." We source information to reliable sources on Wikipedia. His e-book is not a reliable source. Marskell 22:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• His source is reliable, I am not sure what you mean, it was one of the first if not first papers to talk about the subject (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I also don't care about whether he was the first to talk about it. It's an e-book. My kid brother can put out an e-book. It's not reliable. Read WP:RS or WP:ATT or WP:NPOV. Marskell 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please stop, it is a well-known document and well cited document in the field of exopolitics, look i am not sure why you keep removing it if your not familiar with the Ufology and exopolitics scenario (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• It is a primary source my friend, I understand what sources are necessary that why it is in the article (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"It's a primary source." Thank you for making my point. Wikipedia relies on secondary, not primary, sources. It's an e-book. It is not reliable and you have not made an argument otherwise. It's fringe pseudoscience. Read NPOV—pseudoscience gets put in its place here. Marskell 22:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Nope, it is also a Secondary source from a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• It does not go against NPOV, it just states that he is a key figure and published a famous work in the exopolitical and ufology community and given that he is a big player in the community it counts as a well esteablished seconday souce (well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise)(:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• It is a big work in the community b/c of his experience in the space-political arena in the United States and Canada and given his position at the time he helped initiate a formal exopolitical movement (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry, but I have to ask: please stop placing idiotic emoticons on my talk.

No, it is not a secondary source. As near as I can tell, it's a self-published manifesto from a pseudoscientist. I will continue to revert it. Marskell 22:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• yup it is a secondary source, and I have given why it counts as an exception to a secondary source (well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise) given that he took all his experience in the political and space field and also it is a primary source b/c of his first hand experience in the field, and he didnt just make this up out of know where, it was a publication that occurred with occurred before to his famous book Exopolitics: Politics, Government, and Law in the Universe, and he is Michael Salla's coworker (did you not read into their profiles?) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 23:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a self-published source of dubious reliability. Policy allows us to use such sources on articles about the authors but not elsewhere. Reliable sources have editorial oversight, fact-checking, and so on. The exception is for well known "professional researchers". Neither Salla or Webre are professionals because a) Exopolitics is not a profession b) they are both "researching" privately. These works are not published through a university, major news organization, publishing house etc. You have produced a Washington Post article making this very point about Salla. The entire page should be gutted and rebuilt. Webre and Salla do not belong on it except in the context of reliable third parties talking about them. Marskell 06:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Neither Salla or Webre are professionals, they are and alfred has played a big part in the Canada scene, even in the US he helped co-architect of the Space Preservation Treaty and Space Preservation Act and is cofounder of the Institute for Cooperation in Space which has many key figured in the science and space community as directors and advisors such as Astronaut Edgar D. Mitchell link (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 17:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me put this to you another way. I believe you wrote the following about Salla:

"His unconventional views have made his work the subject of considerable controversy and criticism within both the ufological and [mainstream academic] communities. Much of the testimony he uses to support his position is controversial due to a lack of empirical evidence to substantiate many of the claims. While many of Salla's sources are considered to be credible by adherents to the UFO Disclosure movement, critics argue these sources have been discredited for a variety of reasons, among these the dissemination of patent falsehoods in the content of claims made, and the misrepresentation of credentials."

This is wordy and needs editing, but is an attempt at NPOV, which I applaud you for. Given that you'r willing to admit Salla has been criticized for "the dissemination of patent falsehoods," how can we use him as a reliable source outside of his own page? See what I'm saying? It doesn't matter that he and Webre are famous or first or anything. They are not fundamentally reliable. Their exopolitics stuff should be used nowhere but on their own pages. Marskell 08:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I never put that paragraph in: history spot of insertion by a unregistered IP (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 17:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion Summary: Alfred Webre should be included, but not this book.

Analysis:

• Some want to include a reference to an e-book by Alfred Webre into the article, citing notability to the subject.
• Some want to remove it, citing that it is a primary source and pseudoscience.
• Alfred Webre is a respected person in the area this article belongs to: politics in space. (Note that "politics in space" is far from pseudoscience - see also Space law)
• The source cited in the article is added to Wikisource by User:Nima Baghaei, does not cite the source where it is drawn from, does not establish any authenticity, and can be edited by anyone. This is about as bad as citing another Wikipedia article as a reference.

I suggest that something is written on Alfred Webre in this article, at the very least a see also link to the Wikipedia article. I would suggest noting the existence of one of his other books which seems to be about exopolitics too.

Also, this article needs expansion. There are numerous articles about this subject already (Planetary defense e.a.), and there is a huge subculture on exopolitics (Star Trek anyone?). Some reliable newspapers must have written something on that. Start by making a category and catagorizing all articles related to this topic in it. Category:Space_law is of interest too. --User:Krator (t c) 12:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

To be clear about one thing, I do not dispute that the broad area has a valid scientific base. And I do not have a problem per se with claiming that the zoo hypothesis is plausible. It's the "extraterrestrial presence" as formulated by these people that I'm calling fringe and pseudoscientific (Salla's seventeen extraterrestrial races etc., Eisenhower's telepathic communication with ETs, etc.). Words like "formalized approach" and "conventional political science methodologies" do not belong. They imply that the work was done in the academy when it was not. Actually, on balance it's Salla rather than Webre that should probably go. But most definitely, the e-book as cited now does not belong in the article. Marskell 13:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• "formalized approach" and "conventional political science methodologies" ==> there is nothing with this, both men are both educated and have both received multiple degrees and sala worked at auniversity and alfred worked for jimmy carter administration and for one of former president ford's organizations, and actually they do not have to imply the work was done in an academy, instead they imply they were done by former or current academics (it takes a person's experience into consideration) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 18:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• and no his article should not go b/c that was a formalized paper that alfred wrote in order to start exopolotics as a accepted topic, definition, etc... and is based on his past experience while working for Jimmy Carter's administration and coincides while the Space Preservation Treaty was being developed by him (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 18:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions Australian state university. We can start with that if someone has a link to a program. Marskell 13:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• searched but cant find anything on it, i may go back into the history of this article's page and see who inserted it so we can maybe get a references (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 18:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nima, you're not getting me. Salla has formal degrees in political science, not in "alien presence" or "disclosure science". You're argument amounts to saying that because they've published credible work once, all of their work is credible. This is completely off-base. Marskell 18:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not just once but multiple times they have published work on exopolitics, dont forget that salla and alfred have worked and do work in the space arena, and don't forget that both hold positions on exopolitical study groups and don't forget that alfred was part of the Jimmy Carter white house study group Extraterrestrial Communications Study and was the co-architect of the Space Preservation Treaty and Space Preservation Act and is cofounder of the Institute for Cooperation in Space which has many key figured in the science and space community as directors and advisor's such as Astronaut Edgar D. Mitchell link ... from my perspective, that is very formal background ... their experiences gave them the understanding to develop the data they have published (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 19:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, you're still not getting me. To have published credible work does not make all of your work credible. If Stephen Hawking self-published a theory that Eisenhower visited with alien ambassadors in 1954 we would not be in a position to post it anywhere but on the page for Hawking. The research of Webre and Salla that you're citing is not reliable. This is private research. It does not come from a reliable publisher. There is no indication that credible peer review occurred. In Salla's case it was private research that had him dismissed from his academic position. I'm removing it pending suggestions of alternate wording. Marskell 19:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• It is based on their experiences: well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise (WP:RS), and Salla's organization is made up of figures within the space community (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 19:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh for Christ's sake: Salla himself admitted it was private research. Exopolitics is not a profession. This work was not published by reliable publishers. Marskell 19:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• And these two figures helped develop and introduce exopolitics formally into the mainstream given their experiences with the education and governmental authorities before their work was published (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 19:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Helped develop and introduce exopolitics formally into the mainstream..." Right Nima. That's why Salla was dismissed from his last academic position. Marskell 20:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Updating

Ok I am going to start updating this article today and tomorrow and for the rest of the week, if anyone would like to join me please do so (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · contributions} 20:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• I updated External links today, I will start adding references and citation tomorrow, join the part hehe (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 21:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• well i have updated the references a bit (i figured i couldn't wait tell tomorrow), but I will go ahead and clean up the references tomorrow using correct citation and improving on the article (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 21:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well i couldnt help myself, I went ahead and fixed the citation style for a few of the references today, I will finish the rest tomorrow hehe (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 21:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• The updating process is going very well, I should put in an additional few sentenecs tomorrow or so, join the fun if you want (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 23:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Information

Please stop removing Webre's informatoin and source, he is very famous in the exopolitics and Ufology community and his works is very well known and was one of the first (if not first) major papers published on exopolitics (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't particularly care if he's well-known in the "exopolitics community." We source information to reliable sources on Wikipedia. His e-book is not a reliable source. Marskell 22:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• His source is reliable, I am not sure what you mean, it was one of the first if not first papers to talk about the subject (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I also don't care about whether he was the first to talk about it. It's an e-book. My kid brother can put out an e-book. It's not reliable. Read WP:RS or WP:ATT or WP:NPOV. Marskell 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please stop, it is a well-known document and well cited document in the field of exopolitics, look i am not sure why you keep removing it if your not familiar with the Ufology and exopolitics scenario (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• It is a primary source my friend, I understand what sources are necessary that why it is in the article (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"It's a primary source." Thank you for making my point. Wikipedia relies on secondary, not primary, sources. It's an e-book. It is not reliable and you have not made an argument otherwise. It's fringe pseudoscience. Read NPOV—pseudoscience gets put in its place here. Marskell 22:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Nope, it is also a Secondary source from a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• It does not go against NPOV, it just states that he is a key figure and published a famous work in the exopolitical and ufology community and given that he is a big player in the community it counts as a well esteablished seconday souce (well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise)(:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• It is a big work in the community b/c of his experience in the space-political arena in the United States and Canada and given his position at the time he helped initiate a formal exopolitical movement (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry, but I have to ask: please stop placing idiotic emoticons on my talk.

No, it is not a secondary source. As near as I can tell, it's a self-published manifesto from a pseudoscientist. I will continue to revert it. Marskell 22:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• yup it is a secondary source, and I have given why it counts as an exception to a secondary source (well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise) given that he took all his experience in the political and space field and also it is a primary source b/c of his first hand experience in the field, and he didnt just make this up out of know where, it was a publication that occurred with occurred before to his famous book Exopolitics: Politics, Government, and Law in the Universe, and he is Michael Salla's coworker (did you not read into their profiles?) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 23:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a self-published source of dubious reliability. Policy allows us to use such sources on articles about the authors but not elsewhere. Reliable sources have editorial oversight, fact-checking, and so on. The exception is for well known "professional researchers". Neither Salla or Webre are professionals because a) Exopolitics is not a profession b) they are both "researching" privately. These works are not published through a university, major news organization, publishing house etc. You have produced a Washington Post article making this very point about Salla. The entire page should be gutted and rebuilt. Webre and Salla do not belong on it except in the context of reliable third parties talking about them. Marskell 06:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Neither Salla or Webre are professionals, they are and alfred has played a big part in the Canada scene, even in the US he helped co-architect of the Space Preservation Treaty and Space Preservation Act and is cofounder of the Institute for Cooperation in Space which has many key figured in the science and space community as directors and advisors such as Astronaut Edgar D. Mitchell link (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 17:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me put this to you another way. I believe you wrote the following about Salla:

"His unconventional views have made his work the subject of considerable controversy and criticism within both the ufological and [mainstream academic] communities. Much of the testimony he uses to support his position is controversial due to a lack of empirical evidence to substantiate many of the claims. While many of Salla's sources are considered to be credible by adherents to the UFO Disclosure movement, critics argue these sources have been discredited for a variety of reasons, among these the dissemination of patent falsehoods in the content of claims made, and the misrepresentation of credentials."

This is wordy and needs editing, but is an attempt at NPOV, which I applaud you for. Given that you'r willing to admit Salla has been criticized for "the dissemination of patent falsehoods," how can we use him as a reliable source outside of his own page? See what I'm saying? It doesn't matter that he and Webre are famous or first or anything. They are not fundamentally reliable. Their exopolitics stuff should be used nowhere but on their own pages. Marskell 08:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• I never put that paragraph in: history spot of insertion by a unregistered IP (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 17:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion Summary: Alfred Webre should be included, but not this book.

Analysis:

• Some want to include a reference to an e-book by Alfred Webre into the article, citing notability to the subject.
• Some want to remove it, citing that it is a primary source and pseudoscience.
• Alfred Webre is a respected person in the area this article belongs to: politics in space. (Note that "politics in space" is far from pseudoscience - see also Space law)
• The source cited in the article is added to Wikisource by User:Nima Baghaei, does not cite the source where it is drawn from, does not establish any authenticity, and can be edited by anyone. This is about as bad as citing another Wikipedia article as a reference.

I suggest that something is written on Alfred Webre in this article, at the very least a see also link to the Wikipedia article. I would suggest noting the existence of one of his other books which seems to be about exopolitics too.

Also, this article needs expansion. There are numerous articles about this subject already (Planetary defense e.a.), and there is a huge subculture on exopolitics (Star Trek anyone?). Some reliable newspapers must have written something on that. Start by making a category and catagorizing all articles related to this topic in it. Category:Space_law is of interest too. --User:Krator (t c) 12:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

To be clear about one thing, I do not dispute that the broad area has a valid scientific base. And I do not have a problem per se with claiming that the zoo hypothesis is plausible. It's the "extraterrestrial presence" as formulated by these people that I'm calling fringe and pseudoscientific (Salla's seventeen extraterrestrial races etc., Eisenhower's telepathic communication with ETs, etc.). Words like "formalized approach" and "conventional political science methodologies" do not belong. They imply that the work was done in the academy when it was not. Actually, on balance it's Salla rather than Webre that should probably go. But most definitely, the e-book as cited now does not belong in the article. Marskell 13:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• "formalized approach" and "conventional political science methodologies" ==> there is nothing with this, both men are both educated and have both received multiple degrees and sala worked at auniversity and alfred worked for jimmy carter administration and for one of former president ford's organizations, and actually they do not have to imply the work was done in an academy, instead they imply they were done by former or current academics (it takes a person's experience into consideration) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 18:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• and no his article should not go b/c that was a formalized paper that alfred wrote in order to start exopolotics as a accepted topic, definition, etc... and is based on his past experience while working for Jimmy Carter's administration and coincides while the Space Preservation Treaty was being developed by him (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 18:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions Australian state university. We can start with that if someone has a link to a program. Marskell 13:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• searched but cant find anything on it, i may go back into the history of this article's page and see who inserted it so we can maybe get a references (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 18:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nima, you're not getting me. Salla has formal degrees in political science, not in "alien presence" or "disclosure science". You're argument amounts to saying that because they've published credible work once, all of their work is credible. This is completely off-base. Marskell 18:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not just once but multiple times they have published work on exopolitics, dont forget that salla and alfred have worked and do work in the space arena, and don't forget that both hold positions on exopolitical study groups and don't forget that alfred was part of the Jimmy Carter white house study group Extraterrestrial Communications Study and was the co-architect of the Space Preservation Treaty and Space Preservation Act and is cofounder of the Institute for Cooperation in Space which has many key figured in the science and space community as directors and advisor's such as Astronaut Edgar D. Mitchell link ... from my perspective, that is very formal background ... their experiences gave them the understanding to develop the data they have published (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 19:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, you're still not getting me. To have published credible work does not make all of your work credible. If Stephen Hawking self-published a theory that Eisenhower visited with alien ambassadors in 1954 we would not be in a position to post it anywhere but on the page for Hawking. The research of Webre and Salla that you're citing is not reliable. This is private research. It does not come from a reliable publisher. There is no indication that credible peer review occurred. In Salla's case it was private research that had him dismissed from his academic position. I'm removing it pending suggestions of alternate wording. Marskell 19:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• It is based on their experiences: well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise (WP:RS), and Salla's organization is made up of figures within the space community (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 19:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh for Christ's sake: Salla himself admitted it was private research. Exopolitics is not a profession. This work was not published by reliable publishers. Marskell 19:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• And these two figures helped develop and introduce exopolitics formally into the mainstream given their experiences with the education and governmental authorities before their work was published (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 19:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Helped develop and introduce exopolitics formally into the mainstream..." Right Nima. That's why Salla was dismissed from his last academic position. Marskell 20:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved?

• I thought we resolved the issue, now what is the problem? (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 22:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem so much; it should just be left up a little longer than two days for others who might want to come and comment (e.g. Krator). Marskell 08:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Australian University

• found the location where this was insereted in the articles history, but the user who put it in was a IP and not logged in if they have (had) an account ... so I am gonna ask some people in the space community if they know anything about this and I will also try to check some search engines, if anyone else wants to help that would be great! (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 21:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• They say it may have something to do with Paul Davies (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 02:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Exopolitics was not a mainstream academic discipline though the underlying questions involved are of legitimate scientific and philosophical interest and have now began to be viewed in accepted interest by mainstream academic science (Australian state university).^{[citation needed]}"

• I moved it here b/c from what I getting from my searches, it seems someone may have just simply made this up, but lets keep this here in just as a backup copy in case we can find a reference, is that ok with everyone? (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont} 02:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)