Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted 00:36, 22 April 2008.

List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty
My next lists were going to be season articles for Degrassi Junior High, but I'm getting really annoyed with that whole thing at the moment. Instead, here's something that isn't media or sports related.

So, yeah. A list of LAPD cops killed in the line of duty. Every cop is listed, some, especially the more recent ones, have specfic references, the others can be referenced by the three general references given. If I'm forced to I suppose I can make a trip to the county library in downtown LA, which has archived the Los Angeles Herald, but I'd rather not. I've tried to keep the Lead WP:Neutral, but let me know if it needs tightening, and as always, any other comments and concerns will be addressed. Thank you. -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə• Щ•   @  05:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Support as nominator -- ṃ• α• Ł• ṭ• ʰ• Ə• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  06:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When I sort by 'time on force', for some reason, Dorris and Schmid come after Villalobos. --Golbez (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is why I hate making sortable tables :) ✅ -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#191970 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  18:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments from
 * Not sure you've completely justified your inclusion of the other four individuals who aren't classed as LAPD officers... (same old title vs content argument)
 * I can see the two mentioned in the lead who aren't LAPD, not 4, but actually one of them really was part of the LAPD. The 2nd City Marshal in the list was the head of the LAPD (which was founded in 1869) before his murder in 1876, upon which the title Chief was used. I included the one before him as he was also a City Marshal, which was the only law enforcement agency before the LAPD was founded, even though the title was carried over for the first 7 years of operation. Do you have any ideas on a reword? -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#4682b4 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "who isn't " - is not. Avoid these naughty contractions!
 * Put (LAPD) after first full use of the expression.
 * "such as that for the most recently killed officer, " avoid this - as soon as the next LAPD officer is killed you'll need significant rework. Same for the image caption, I'd just stick to absolute fact rather than timeframing it.
 * "..Arnold Schwarzenegger.[7] and featured .." - bad full stop there.
 * I'd avoid spaces between notes and refs in the notes column.
 * "James H." sorts strangely. As does "William H." and "John M." (that's in Safari by the way).
 * Why allow the notes column to sort?
 * ✅ — forgot to add the code. Hmmm... I can't find the code to add to do this. Can someone point me in the right direction please
 * I think I've done it using  in the table heading.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Assault|Vehicular assault" for Beatty needs sorting out.
 * 1876 and 1853 don't sort properly in the date of death col.
 * That's probably because only their year of death is known. How can this be fixed using dts2? -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#4682b4 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Pratt's six month tenure isn't sorted correctly. Ricardo Lizarraga has a similar issue.  As does David Charles Schmid.
 * Simmons age in the table is given as 31 while 27 years in the service.
 * ✅ — should have been 51
 * Notes C to F need references I think.
 * As I said above when I nominated, their deaths came either before, or while the internet was in its early years. Also, the Los Angeles Times is notable for ignoring its website readers, and has been slammed for it numerous times. I have to make an 80 mile trip into LA to the only county library that has archived an old local newspaper, alternatively, each officer has a page at the Officer Down site, which I could link to, but I gave the LAPD page at Officer Down as a general reference. It's no hassle to add those, though. -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#4682b4 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's probably because only their year of death is known. How can this be fixed using dts2? -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#4682b4 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Pratt's six month tenure isn't sorted correctly. Ricardo Lizarraga has a similar issue.  As does David Charles Schmid.
 * Simmons age in the table is given as 31 while 27 years in the service.
 * ✅ — should have been 51
 * Notes C to F need references I think.
 * As I said above when I nominated, their deaths came either before, or while the internet was in its early years. Also, the Los Angeles Times is notable for ignoring its website readers, and has been slammed for it numerous times. I have to make an 80 mile trip into LA to the only county library that has archived an old local newspaper, alternatively, each officer has a page at the Officer Down site, which I could link to, but I gave the LAPD page at Officer Down as a general reference. It's no hassle to add those, though. -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#4682b4 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said above when I nominated, their deaths came either before, or while the internet was in its early years. Also, the Los Angeles Times is notable for ignoring its website readers, and has been slammed for it numerous times. I have to make an 80 mile trip into LA to the only county library that has archived an old local newspaper, alternatively, each officer has a page at the Officer Down site, which I could link to, but I gave the LAPD page at Officer Down as a general reference. It's no hassle to add those, though. -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#4682b4 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's me done! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Detailed, filled with all sorts of information, and utilises innovative ways of organising it, and representing the different kinds of incident, late deaths and so on, and incorporates a useful lead section as well. --SGGH speak! 14:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I dont think the entire list is encyclopedic, and I notice the FA nomination as I was about to list it for AfD. They have a web site for the purpose, referenced above. I do not think it needs a WP article. DGG (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I began creating a few articles for some officers who had been killed. They were deleted, but those deletions were reverted. They were then prodded. After five days, the prod was removed, and the articles still stand. However, as a result of the prods, deletes and reverts, it was suggested that a list would be more suitable, and would be unlikely to be deleted. I don't see why the fact that there is a website which also has the information is a reason not to have the list here. There are plenty of other lists based off of 3 main reference points which still stand. It would have more references, except that the internet dates back maybe 15 years, and the earlier deaths, while reported on in newspapers, aren't available online. If it is absolutely necessary, then I will make the trip to the library in LA which has archived the local newspapers, but I'm not looking forward to that hassle, let me tell you!
 * I also added your oppose back in; it had been removed because it was a H2 header, but the oppose still stands. -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#008080 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  06:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for messing up the format. Here is my view in more detail.
 * I am willing to accept the inclusion in an official department list as evidence of the basic facts--obviously not for notability such as would make an individual article, but certainly the basic facts of the name and the date.  As for the details of how the person died, that might take the actual news story.  And that brings me to the more basic point that :
 * These of of very different notability. There is a difference to the public between those killed in traffic accidents and those shot by criminals. One is unfortunate, worthy of commemoration within the department, worthy of a special pension, but not really of public interest, then or now. It's really just the same if a policeman is killed by in a car accident while going to work as if anyone else is. And even slightly more job related, if a policeman is struck by a truck while making a roadside car stop, it is not more noteworthy than if a member of a road repair crew is killed in a similar manner. These are misfortunes common to anyone who works on highways. The public interest and notability for an encyclopedia is the people who are killed while carrying out their duties by criminals, or in some similar manner very specifically job-related to the peculiar aspects of the profession. The drama attaching to this is why people care about the topic. (I'm aware that some of the deaths by traffic and the like may have been directly caused by criminals, such as being run over by the people being stopped for investigation--that's one reason why more exact sourcing is needed.)
 * I agree that being killed in a traffic accident isn't as wowish as being shot up by a gangsta, but the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial states that those deaths (and those happening while off duty) are in the line of duty. Those who have died by being knocked over by a car, or from traffic accidents, both on and off duty, are listed at the LAPD's fallen officer webpage, the California Peace Officer's Memorial etc etc. The websites also indicate how they died. That's why each officer doesn't have their own article, but a list of all of them covers all bases. To include the officers who were killed as a result of someone else's actions, but leave out those who died by some sort of accident would be POVish in my opinion. It isn't a List of murdered LAPD officers, it's those that have died in the line of duty, and the provisions of that statement have been verified in the article. -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#090 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  06:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I accept the use of the lists to indicate the basic facts about individuals, but a greater number of the more recent people where there are not specific references should be findable online. This may not be practical immediately, but it should be done relatively soon. I do not think it can be called a FA while this is incomplete. A FA is supposed to have complete sourcing, not a portion of it that still needs to be done. DGG (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the LA Times doesn't keep its articles online once they're about 3 years old, unless it's really big news such as the 94 Northridge earthquake. The LA Daily News is a little better, and that's really it. I will keep Googling though. If there was a way of Googling through newspaper articles from 1998 that have been archived by Wayback, that'd be wonderful, but I don't think there is so it's kind of impossible to search. Each cause of death is given by the three references at the start of the reference section, though. -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#090 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  06:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of what you're opposing, however, seems to me to be more to do with the subject of the list, as in importance, rather than the quality of the list, which is what Featured status is about. FL is about presenting all the facts (which this does), verifiable (it is), well written (IMO it is!) and everything else at the Featured list criteria. Each individual death may or may not be on its own notable, but when put together like this, I believe as a whole it is notable. -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#090 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  06:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from DGG (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The use of color seems inappropriate--color is usually used to highlight something as being particularly distinctive or different. Here it is used merely to indicate a degree of uncertainty or particular minor point about the exact day of death, & its relationship to the event causing it. This really should be done by something like a footnote marker, and asterisk or the like, that would be less conspicuous.
 * This one I have less of a problem addressing, although I do feel it helps quickly identify certain things. It's not like different shading isn't being used to identify different causes of death, and I would say that more than one officer dying in a particular incident is distinctive or different. Those who died off duty is also distinctive IMO, especially when the term in the line of duty is used. It's not a list of every officer who died while employed by the agency, after all, which would then call for all those who died of duty, sitting at home watching TV with a beer in hand, for example. -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#090 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  06:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * since the LAPD & the NLEOMemorial define "in the line of duty" as including those killed in accidents going to and from work, those people are not conceivably significant in an encyclopedic sense. Whatever they think for purposes of publicity  or morale, it is not publicly significant, even for article content. Agreed individuals in this sort of list do not have to be individually notable, but they have to have some encyclopedic relevance.  Since the currently easily available data does not provide for sorting them out adequately, it is possible that they might have to be included temporarily as a matter of practicality--but I think that dubiousness is enough to disqualify the list for featured status. It actually would take finding true sources to justify placement on the list. The LA Times is available via Proquest back to vol. 1. It is available at UCLA and other UC campuses, & the LA public library--and probably other libraries. (It is also possible that the LAPD maintains an information center with clippings)   Doing a featured article takes doing the necessary research.  DGG (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Collectonian Collectonian (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC):
 * the image of Randal Simmons seems unnecessary, though if it has a justifable purpose, it should be moved to the right side as it is totally messing up the menu. Collectonian (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll move it to the right for now, if any more objections come in, then I'll remove it. It's there basically to show Simmons, as he is discussed in the paragraph along side it. ✅-- <small style="background:#fff;border:#4682b4 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  06:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also must question the inclusion of two city marshals. They died before the LAPD existed, and as such can not be considered Los Angeles Police Department officers. It would be one thing if the list were List of Los Angeles law enforcement officers, but as it specifies "Los Angeles Police Department," it should only include those who were actually LAPD officers.Collectonian (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As above to TRM, the city marshal was the highest ranking of the LAPD from 1869 when the force was created, to 1876, when the second marshal in the list died. They then changed the title to "Chief". The first one in the list is there because although he wasn't part of the LAPD, his position was. I can see this is contentious though, so it may be better to simply remove it. -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#4682b4 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  06:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also must question the way the Cause of Death's are listed. For example, the footnote on Ian James Campbell seems to indicate he was kidnapped and murdered, but his cause of death is only listed as Gunfire. While it would make the list longer, perhaps if the notes in the notes column were put with the names, and the badge number dropped (which seems to be rather personal information, even for deceased officers, as well as somewhat superflous as their badge numbers is unrelated to their deaths), the column on cause could have room for longer comments where necessary. This would allow a more accurate reflection for cause, and some small story as most of these will never have articles and so I think some brief summary should be included here.Collectonian (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He was still murdered by gunshots. The fact that he was kidnapped may have contributed to it, but it wasn't the cause of death. -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#090 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  05:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the badge number column tomorrow, but I'm not sure if removing it will give that much room to add even a sentence of additional information. -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#090 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  05:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the MOS requires the dates to be in full format, as ISO dates are generally discouraged except in references. Collectonian (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * DATE#Dates says "ISO 8601 dates are uncommon in English prose, and are generally not used in Wikipedia. However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness and ease of comparison." -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#4682b4 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  06:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC) I will change them tomorrow when I do the badge numbers though.
 * I can't seem to make the sorting work when written out as full dates, and the MOS says it's okay for use in tables, so I'm going to leave it for now. -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#090 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  05:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If its needed for sorting, then its fine. Collectonian (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also must echo the other remarks on the last column and the color coding, particularly the numbering to indicate two officers died in the same incident. I'm not sure how to better format it though, if it should be done with a notes column under some items, or notes to the side, but the current system seems confusing. Collectonian (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I could make footnote links for those who died in the same incident. Do you think all the different shading should go, or just some of it? -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#000 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  07:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * as currently used, all the different shading should go. The one thing I can think of that would be valuable--as you in fact suggest earlier--is to distinguish those who were actually killed directly by criminals, from accidents--except that you do not actually have full information on that for many of the people. On duty/off duty is not the same thing. If you want to brighten up the table, use color for those awarded stars or medals, instead of symbols. Color should be used to mark the more significant, not the less significant.   DGG (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Something I noticed in the other list, before noticing here but the list is declared to be a list "officers killed in the line of duty" so why are there entries for people who died of a heart attack? That's natural causes, not being killed. As I said in the other, I realize the criteria in the list seems to be just to be on the official list, but if that's all it is, we aren't doing much but replicating the official list which would call to question, as others have, whether the list belongs at all. Collectonian (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * I really don't like the use of numbers in the last column to indicate ones who died in the same incident; they look too much like footnotes, and the numbers have no actual meaning. --Golbez (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it was an easy way of identifying, for when the list is sorted by anything other than date. The bolded 1s can be distinguihed from the 2s, can you think of any other identifier that would be more suitable? -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#800080 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  05:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose &mdash; in my opinion, it's not encyclopedic; it's an original research. MOJSKA   666  -  Leave a message here  05:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting, although I'm puzzled as to which part you feel is original research. Each officer and his/her death is referenced through three different sources, and others have addtional sourcing where it's available online. If you can tell me which bits are OR, I'll attempt to make it not so. -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#daa520 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  06:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agree with DGG. Notability of this list is at most borderline. A list of officers who were killed intentionally because of their work might be a different matter, but this list is no more notable than the List of USC Medical Center staff who died at work. List of USC Medical Center staff who died from a disease they caught at work might be more notable though, especially if it was unusually long. (Which I suppose it isn't, because I just picked this hospital at random.) The list currently looks more like propaganda for a police department, and this needs to be corrected. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Propaganda? I don't really know what to say to that... -- <small style="background:#fff;border:#ff8c00 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">ṃ<big style="color:#090">• α<big style="color:#090">• Ł<big style="color:#090">• ṭ<big style="color:#090">• ʰ<big style="color:#090">• Ə<big style="color:#090">• Щ<big style="color:#090">•   @  05:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Propaganda is an old-fashioned word for advertising. It used to be used for everything, including consumer products, but for propaganda reasons it was renamed in that context. Now it's mainly used in political contexts, and this is a political context. To quote from Propaganda: "The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented." That's what this list is doing, whether it is intentional or not. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.