text:
Talk:Politics of Canada

"Realignment"
The subsection labeled "Realignment" is utterly inappropriate. It has nothing to do with the one single source for this section being "wrong," as User:Rjensen brings up. It is simply a matter of proportionality. There are hundreds of journal articles published every year, thousands of newspaper articles, and so on. It it just obviously inappropriate to pick one of these articles, decide you like its thesis, and stick it into a broad high-level overview article. Rjensen's preferred "realignment" section gives this one paper almost as much attention as the entire country's entire judicial system, for example. The Behiels paper asks whether the Conservatives are the new "natural governing party," using a stock phrase referring to the Liberals' longstanding dominance of federal politics, but that dominance is not even covered at all in the current Wiki article.

Of course there is room in the article for a discussion of historical, current, and prospective electoral prospects for all the various political factions. But that is very different from the present thinly sourced Conservative puffery. TiC (talk) 10:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * TiC's last sentence says it all-he is really unhappy not with the Wiki article but with the recent trends in Canadian politics and that is the reason he does not want readers to learn about recent scholarship. He  reveals his blatant POV and partisanship.  (For the record I am not Canadian and have no stake in Canadian politics.) He says there are so many articles out there that none should be chosen--a strange and unhappy twist of the RS rule,. If he has RS that are important he should ADD them, rather than subtract what other Wiki editors (and journal editors) consider important scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from speculating about my motives, which are irrelevant in any case.
 * I do not have to re-write the entire article in great detail in order to achieve balance, just because another user wants to include a paper he likes. To say otherwise is silly.
 * I suggest that the "realignment" section be scaled down and merged into the "political conditions" section. Perhaps after "They gained 10 seats here, whereas in 2004 they had no seats" we can add, "Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper has described his long-term goal of displacing the Liberals as the natural governing party of the country, a political realignment that some observers see as successfully underway." That I think would be a reasonable compromise. But the subsection, especially with such an expansive choice of words, is clearly too much. TiC (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, I've noticed you have been editing elsewhere (including adding references to Behiels' paper to Stephen Harper and his own Wiki bio) so I assume you still think this is important, but you haven't addressed this any further. What do you think of merging the "realignment" subsection into "political conditions?" TiC (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Political scientists have been using the concept of realignment for many decades, so it's not a weird or novel idea. It's mainstream scholarship looking at long-term (many years) trends, as opposed to journalism that looks at the last few months. So a subsection under "political conditions" works ok. Behiels is one of the most prominent political scholars in Canada, so his ideas as presented in a major scholarly journal are important to include.  Reducing a complex argumkent to the trivial "some observers see as successfully underway" degrades the  information available.Rjensen (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The importance of political realignment in a general sense is not at issue here. Behiels is reasonably prominent although I'm unsure that American Review of Canadian Studies is a "major" journal. In any case, even if both of those assertions are true and verifiable, it is obvious that there are a great many articles written by prominent political scholars and published in major scholarly journals; you still haven't explained clearly why this particular article should be used, other than personal preference.
 * Also, since this thesis seems to be Behiels's, I'm a little confused by why the summary says 'many journalists, political advisors, and politicians argue' for it. Is that actually documented in the source, or are those just unsupported attributions meant to promote a particular conclusion? They sure sound like it.
 * Just to make my main point clear once again: highlighting this particular paper with such prominent positioning and effusive language, in the context of a high-level summary covering the entire topic "Politics of Canada," is effectively non-NPOV because it imputes undue importance to a particular view. Not incidentally, this is exactly what the editors at Stephen Harper concluded about this section, and yet it seems clearly more relevant in that article than in this one.
 * At this point maybe we need a third opinion. TiC (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * it's Behiels who says that "a great many journalists, political advisors, and politicians argue that a new political party paradigm is emerging."  He is summarizing for the American audience the consensus of a large Canadian literature of scholarly papers and political commentary. One gets the distinct impression that TitaniumCarbide has not read Behiels --and he has not cited ANY RS to support his position. He assumes that because there are a lot of scholarly articles out there, there surely must be at least one that agrees with his position. But that is reliance ignorance, not verifiable RS.Rjensen (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for answering the question about the gated source which I don't have access to. Please note that I do not have a position about whether Behiels is right, that has never been the issue, and repeatedly implying otherwise is disingenuous at best.
 * Also: why are you now making the section even longer. This is not what I would call collaborative editing. TiC (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I made it longer because the shorter version was badly misunderstood. This is a major topic of great interest to many scholars and students of Canadian politics. most people in the US, Canada, Australia and the UK can get access to articles by going through their local library.Rjensen (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion
I have come to this page following a request made for a third opinion at WP:3O. I haven't interacted with either of the editors engaged in discussion and I haven't edited this article before, so I would suggest I am sufficiently neutral to offer an opinion. I'm not really here to vote for one opinion or the other but to help find a way forward that's beneficial for the article and the editors involved.

I think the current section gives WP:UNDUE weight to a single source and a particular POV. This is not to say that it is not valid, but that it doesn't seem very balanced to present one source as the basis for an entire section. I only looked at the WP:3O page 40 minutes ago, so haven't been able to view the source yet, but does Behiels list the "great many journalists, political advisors, and politicians" or is it just an assertion? From a quick Google there is clearly comething afoot in the Canadian political landscape, sources such as this from the Journal for International Relations and Global Trends and this paper about the Canadian conservative governments foreign policy being based around the aim of becoming the "natural governing party". There are decent looking blog articles noting it too, so there must be further, better sources out there.

I think the information would be better portrayed in a manner similar to Politics of UK (which is actually out of date...) or Politics of Australia, rather than under a heading of Realignment, which is too specific.

Finally, I looked at Realigning election and discovered that Rjensen has added Behiels' work there as well. Does the phrase in that article "...argue that a new political party paradigm is emerging, one based on the drive for a right-wing political party capable of reconfiguring the role of the state – federal and provincial – in twenty-first-century." and in this article as "They see a new power configuration based on a right-wing political party capable of sharply changing the traditional role of the state – federal and provincial – in twenty-first-century" need quotes in the article, as it is repeated in both places – is it a WP:PARAPHRASE of Behiels' article or reformulated for inclusion in the articles?

Thoughts? Bigger digger (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * those suggestions are very useful indeed. I moved the section, added information from and cites to Lang (2010) and Bloomfield and Nossal (2007), as suggested, and listed the six main books that Behiels is summarizing. I also made the text in the realignment article congruent with this one.Rjensen (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * First off Rjensen, you really should read WP:PARAPHRASE: for copyright reasons Wikipedia cannot closely follow the structure or language of its sources. The line about the voting proportions and a "rump" are too close to Lang's original text. This is different to academic writing, so it's fair enough that you might not realise, but it is important that you correct it.
 * Secondly, as you're the politics academic, are those sources I found actually any good? I know little about Canadian politics or research in this field. For balance, are there people out there suggesting other reasons for the Conservative's ascendancy?
 * That's all I can think of for now, I look forward to your response. Bigger digger (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Hello i have just been made aware of this additions :(. Not sure what to do here. I have some serious problems with this additions. I personal should not get involved because of my personal views of how Rjensen adds what i believe are POV addition that are never balanced. This quotes that are always used are not the normal views on the matter. I would like  someone (besides me) to look at additions. I believe conclusions are being made by way of quoting and misrepresenting. We have paragraph after paragraph that are based on just POVs conclusions by one author. I also believe there is as per the norm with Rjensen additions a major synthesis of published material that advances just one position. Again i feel i should step back and not revert as i am biased towards his additions in general, but hope that now that i am the third to voice concerns that the previous or next editors will revert the additions. Moxy (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * working with Moxy is hard 1) because of his personal attacks and 2) his avoidance of all RS. The two are related -- he objects to my introducing scholarship into the articles. The section is now sourced with six major recent books and three recent scholarly articles (two of which were suggested by the independent third party)--which is far more than the rest of the article combined.  Rjensen (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep we have problems you and I ....Your right i hate the fact you are always quoting authors out of context. Your whole section is a copy and past of POV's from authors (and only one side of there argument at that). Your using the quotes all the time to sneak in POV statements and weasel words that would not be acceptable in any other format. And the fact ref like Behiels cites Tom Flanagan, Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power (2nd ed. McGill-Queens U.P., 2009); Chantal Hébert, French Kiss: Stephen Harper's Blind Date with Quebec (Knopf Canada, 2007); William Johnson, Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada (2nd ed. McClelland & Stewart, 2006); Lloyd Mackay, Stephen Harper: The Case for Collaborative Governance (ECW Press, 2006); Bob Plamondon, Full Circle: Death and Resurrection in Canadian Conservative Politics (Key Porter Books, 2006); and Paul Wells, Right Side Up: The Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism (Douglas Gibson Books, 2007).  look like a synthesis of published material.  Moxy (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * yes it is synthesis--Behiels did the synthesis and Wiki reports it. Moxy seems to have his own sources on Canadian politics, but he does not tell us what they are.Rjensen (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Cant address the real concerns raised of undo weight, pov and weasel wording. I will have to fix all this up ...will do it this coming weekend by balancing this out using widely published works on the topic that can be seen by our readers--> Canadian Politics By James Bickerton - The Oxford Handbook of Canadian Politics By John C. Courtney, David E. Smith - In search of Canadian political culture By Nelson Wiseman - Skating on Thin Ice: Canadian-American Relations in 2010 and 2011 By Alexander Moens..............Moxy (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Conservatives in power Section POV Bias
The section called "Conservatives in power" has some serious POV bias. Using a single primary source, it suggests that there have been a realignment of Canadian political thought in favour of the Conservatives. This is totally false. In fact, despite their recent slew of election victories, the Conservative popular vote in Canada is at or near their all-time low. One has to only look at the recent election results and do the math. During the 1980s conservative popular vote was substantially above 50% of the popular vote. This trend continued in the 1990s, but was splitting the vote between two conservative parties (the PC and Alliance), leading to successive Liberal majorities. This phenomenon ended in the 2000s with the merger of the two parties. The real reason for the Liberal party's demise and the Conservative party's ascent is the New Democratic Party which has gained significant support in every election in the 2000s, eventually pushing the Liberal party (as well as the BQ) into the background. The NDP's rise has caused a vote-split in seat-rich Ontario in the Conservatives' favour. I will try to look for some sources and redo the section. Poyani (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Poyani has his personal opinions but he has no RS. He should read the contemporary media (Economist, Globe and Mail, MacLeans) that report on the realignment, or scholarly monographs such as How Ottawa Spends, 2010-2011: Recession, Realignment, and the New Deficit Era by G. Bruce Doern and Christopher Stoney (2011). The section in question uses ten different sources--and note the major media have stressed the theme of a major realignment. The Economist said, "the election represents the biggest realignment of Canadian politics since 1993."[8] Lawrence Martin, commentator for the Globe and Mail said, "Harper has completed a remarkable reconstruction of a Canadian political landscape that endured for more than a century. The realignment sees both old parties of the moderate middle, the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals, either eliminated or marginalized."[9] Maclean's said, the election marked "an unprecedented realignment of Canadian politics" as "the Conservatives are now in a position to replace the Liberals as the natural governing party in Canada."[10]. Rjensen (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep this additions have come up before when they were added long time ago and still have not been fixed. I gave refs in the section above and this cause Rjensen to simply stop talking about the problem. We have this addition added with sources to people like Eugene Lang (co-founder, Canada 2020: Canada’s Progressive Centre).  We also have a blatant Synthesis of published material that advances a position Behiels cites Tom Flanagan, Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power (2nd ed. McGill-Queens U.P., 2009); Chantal Hébert, French Kiss: Stephen Harper's Blind Date with Quebec (Knopf Canada, 2007); William Johnson, Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada (2nd ed. McClelland & Stewart, 2006); Lloyd Mackay, Stephen Harper: The Case for Collaborative Governance (ECW Press, 2006); Bob Plamondon, Full Circle: Death and Resurrection in Canadian Conservative Politics (Key Porter Books, 2006); and Paul Wells, Right Side Up: The Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism (Douglas Gibson Books, 2007). This is all written with a nice POV by someone that is clearly on one side of the fence Conservapedia User:RJJensen.Moxy (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * there are now numerous RS that talk about realignment, and none have been presented that support the belief of Poyani that there is no realignment here. Please read the quotations. As for synthesis, that synthesis was done by scholars in RS and we report it here. As for my own politics, Moxy is totally mistaken--I am not a Canadian and I have never taken any position for or against any policy, party or personality in Canadian politics. I'm neutral. :) Perhaps Moxy should tell us where HE stands in Canadian politics so we can discount his personal POV?? Rjensen (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Rjensen, it would be much easier to take you seriously if at least one other editor would come forth and concur with you that the section is not heavily biased to one particular point of view. If one would like to talk about a true realignment in Canadian federal politics it really should be put in the context of the polarization that occurred in both Western Canada and Quebec (for different reasons) prior to the 1993 election with the rise of the neo-conservative Reform Party in Western Canada and the surge in the popularity of the separatist Bloc in Quebec, not to mention the unpopular policies of the Mulroney Conservatives, all of which led to the conditions allowing an otherwise unpopular Liberal leader (Chretien) to ride the waves of discontent to three successive majority governments. Let's talk about whether or not there is a current re-alignment after we've had at least more than one Conservative majority government in the 21st century. I agree with you that there has been a realignment; however we disagree on the nature of the realignment. I would argue that the realignment has been more so one of discontent with out of touch, unaccountable federal governments of any political stripe, to a form of regional polarization which means the Liberals can no longer count on their traditional Quebec stronghold and the Conservatives can no longer count on winning enough seats in Ontario to win a majority. Rather than choosing the boring American style of choosing between only two real options, the same old Duff and Duff Lite choices of their parents and grandparents generations, Canadians are more and more choosing alternatives other than the lesser of two evils, rather than choosing one of the two TOP (Tired Old Parties), more and more of us are voting for progressive change as demonstrated by the rise of the NDP in Quebec during the last federal election in Canada, and the gradual increase in percentage of popular vote being earned by newer parties such as the Green Party. What gets in the way of this progress is the apathy many Canadians suffer from, partly due to our equally old and tired first-past-the-post system which tends to over-represent the two traditional parties and under-represent other parties. So, in conclusion, I concur with the other editors that this whole section needs a re-write, complete with the addition of content properly referenced by other sources that add other more widely held points of view than the one you are pushing. Garth of the Forest (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Multiculturalism
I was looking to do some research into Canadian politics and I'm a little baffled at the final section of this article labelled "multiculturalism". Specifically, "...it calls into question exactly what has become of true Canadian culture, and what it means to be Canadian. Bannerji (1996) suggests that diversity and multiculturalism in Canada is just a superficial celebration of non-Anglo-European citizens; it has become a top-down strategy of disguised colonialism designed to let the state exploit immigrants and devolve the immigration process."

The article provides zero context to explain why Bannerji's opinions are important or relevant to Canadian policy. Are immigrants being used to create downward pressure on wages? Does this have to do with NAFTA and foreign influence related? How are foreigners being used in "disguised colonialism" if the "colonists" are merely foreign nationals? As a stranger to Canadian politics, I have to infer this is maybe a national socialist perspective since multiculturalism and "disguised colonialism" are often things they complain about, given they believe foreigners dilute their gene pool or culture. I don't know enough about Canadian politics to make any changes right now or elaborate on this section, so would it be possible for someone to shine some light on it? YellowSandals (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

As a Canadian, I would like to add that I have no idea where this viewpoint is coming from, and would appreciate some clarification on this. DC123456789 (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a look into it. The section about multiculturalism is still strange and sounds like its preaching from an ideological perspective, but it appears that Canadian politics on immigration have changed in the past decade to benefit employers. Here's an article on it:
 * No country for old men
 * A summary of the issue is that originally there was a point-based system that accepted immigrants with regard to their fluency in English and French and other general details you might expect of a natural born Canadian. However, the conservative party has revamped the immigration process to be more dependent on employment offers. It's a change with pros and cons - on the bright side, foreign nationals had a hard time finding employment in Canada in the past, so this change means they arrive to Canada with a job on the table. However, immigrants from poor countries will often accept or can be forced to accept lower wages, so employers are taking advantage of this system to suppress wages, which is a similar political issue as the US is having with our H1 visas, from what I understand.
 * I can't tell if the current writing in the article is national socialist, complaining about a diluted culture because Canada is taking on an increased number of immigrants under this system, or if it's on the other extreme and complaining about social justice, but it appears that Canada's original point system was a bit of a landmark as far as immigration goes so it's important to the country in any case. It might be better for the article to instead explain that Canada had used the old point system since 1967 and was seen as ground-breaking at the time, but has since been revised, creating contention. YellowSandals (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Questionable observations
Just some questions about the bias reflected in some actual facts that are not consistent with the material presented and may warrant a further examination of the true facts.

1. Multi-party system ? Not really, it is a three party system.

2. True democracy ? Not really, most people get elected at the local level with less than 40% of the vote, in a first past the post electing system.

3. The Prime Minister is not directly elected, and if he or she gets a majority of the vote, he or she get most if not all the power.

4. The power, is a direct result of the fear of a failed vote, and having to call an election.

Far-right politics still not prominent?
The article claims that far-right politics have never been prominent in Canada, but those sources backing up the claim were made before the PPC and the trucker convoy, which have become far more prominent in Canada, especially the latter. So is it really appropriate to say that far-right politics have never been prominent in Canada anymore? X-Editor (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the consensus of reliable sources on this topic? That would be how that is determined. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

 * The Canadian trucker convoy is an unpopular uprising

 * What's actually standing in the way of right-wing populism in Canada?

 * A Moment for Canada’s Far Right, Still Struggling for Support Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 22:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Royal Coat of Arms of Canada.svg

Clarify cite to V-Dem Dataset
The V-Dem citation for Canada being the 19th ranked democracy links to 4 sets of data, and 5 technical reports. For the purposes of a citation, that’s not very helpful, as the reader who wants to follow up would have to download all those materials and then hunt for the rankings. Can a more specific citation to the V-Dem data be provided? Is there an executive summary somewhere? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Added link to pdf, Table 3 with ranking HudecEmil (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

 * Thanks very much! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Inaccurate Characterization of Liberal Party
The article says this, "The historically predominant Liberals position themselves at the centre of the political scale, with the Conservatives sitting on the right and the New Democratic Party occupying the left."

But in 2012, Justin Trudeau explicitly stated that any person with even one socially conservative position would not be allowed to run for parliament, and all Liberal Party MPs were expected to vote for ALL socially liberal positions going forward. That clearly places the party well left of centre. So, I think the above is an inaccurate statement. 74.98.11.129 (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Politics of Canada


text:
What Is Soul

What is Soul is the seventh album and sixth studio album by Ben E. King, and his fifth and last studio album on the Atco label.

Track listing

 * 1) "The Record (Baby I Love You)" (Kenny Young, Arthur Resnick)
 * 2) "She's Gone Again" (Ben E. King)
 * 3) "There's No Place To Hide" (Roger Atkins, Helen Miller)
 * 4) "Cry No More" (Bert Berns, Jerry Ragovoy)
 * 5) "Goodnight My Love, Pleasant Dreams" (George Motola, John Marascalco)
 * 6) "Katherine" (Ben E. King, Bob Gallo)
 * 7) "I Can't Break The News To Myself" (Jimmy Williams, Larry Harrison)
 * 8) "I Swear By Stars Above" (J.R. Bailey, Johnny Northern)
 * 9) "Get in a Hurry" (Joe Simon)
 * 10) "They Don't Give Medals To Yesterday's Heroes" (Burt Bacharach, Hal David)
 * 11) "Teeny Wheeny Little Bit" (Ben E. King)
 * 12) "What Is Soul?" (Ben E. King, Bob Gallo)

Personnel

 * Ben E. King – vocals
 * Art Farmer – trumpet
 * Dave Burns – trumpet
 * George Jeffers – trombone
 * Bill Bivens - tenor sax
 * Haywood Henry - baritone sax
 * Robert Banks - piano
 * Billy Butler - guitar
 * Chuck Rainey – electric bass
 * Bernard Purdie – drums
 * Strings
 * Bob Gallo and Eric Gale (arr., dir.)

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

title: What Is Soul


text:
Talk:E-Prime

Expressing “the film was good”
The lead states that “the film was good” could not be expressed under E-prime. What about “I considered it a good film”? Or does that contain a contracted “to be”—“I considered it [to be] a good film”? Either way, it may be worth mentioning in the lead. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No. the real trick that your sentence contains "I", i.e., it is a rephrasing with significantly changed structure of the sentence. You will find similar example in the article, e.g, "I see this film as good". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Some people experience the film as good". Randy Kryn 10:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's more that an utterance such as "the film was good" has the form of a universal objective statement about the world, whereas there is no doubt that "I considered it a good film" is an existential subjective statement about a personal taste. Sean O'Halpin 20:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. This is a good illustration of why E-Prime-Prime, which our article does not seem to cover, is so much more practical: "It was a good film to me" and "I thought it was a good film" are equivalent and much more natural. In E-Prime-Prime it's permissible to use "the to be of identity" if it is explicitly qualified as a subjective perception. Whether derived directly from E-Prime-Prime or not, this is a big factor in nonviolent communication and several other approaches.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. The correct equivalent, albeit clumsy, is "The film exhibited the property of goodness". And this zen-like trick creates loopholes in many arguments about e-prime; in particular, my version simply sweeps under the carpet the problem of universal vs. subjective. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

reasoning
"To be" is the language of observation, tending toward abbreviated observation, fueling ambiguity/confusion, often fueling conflict. Also tendinf toward judgment (right/wrong), fueling the fire of authoritarianism (domination/submission, reward/punishment). Rtdrury (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Self-e-primed
Please don't try to rewrite this article in e-prime. This will be invariably reverted, because this sub-language is not commonly accepted. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

i find this utterly sad... how little humour wikipedia have.

would it stay alive if done in the talk page? i wouldn't do it, anyway! 🤣 cregox (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

An important issue which is not really discussed directly
The article doesn't very directly confront the fact that linguistic scholars do not find E-Prime to be of much interest or usefulness (insofar as they've even heard of it). For academic linguists, E-Prime is another in a long line of ideas arrived at by non-linguists (Basic English is another) which does not have much validity from a linguistic point of view. Whoever the "scholars" mentioned in the third paragraph of the article are, it's a safe bet they are not reputable linguists... AnonMoos (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Huh? There an extensive section "Criticisms". I added this to the lede. (BTW, the references of kins "third paragraph" are not very good. For example, I've just moved the 3rd para out of the lede as an unnecessary detail.) Staszek Lem (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 * "Some support it, some criticize it" is fine as far as it goes -- but as I said, it doesn't really address the fact that that E-prime is about language, while scholars in the field of the scientific study of language (linguistics) overwhelmingly do not find it of much interest or usefulness (insofar as they've even heard of it, which many wouldn't have, because it's so remote from what they're mainly concerned with in their day-to-day work). Robin Lakoff is a somewhat well-known linguist; I don't recognize the other names.  It would be nice to have more material which is not sourced to General Semantics publications... AnonMoos (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

do you have any updates on this yourself, anon?

also, why do you give this "scholars grading" so much importance, anyway? i personally believe that pure logic beats scholarship any time, any where. 😁 cregox (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

i am depressed because
i wonder why the psychological effect compared 2 completely different things on that study.

"instead of saying i am depressed" differs a lot when replacing it for "i feel depressed when". unless we include "because" in there!

anyone knows why? cregox (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah. I mean that is kind of the point, to make a subtle change in the effect of the statement. Herostratus (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Explanation needing in asymmetrical relations
What is followint text supposed to mean: """To be statements convey not only identity but also asymmetrical relations ("X heights more than Y"); negation ("A differs from B"); location ("Another castle contains the princess"); auxiliary ("He goes to the store") etc., forms that would also have to be excluded.""" at #Criticisms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.165.130 (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:E-Prime


text:
George H. Tichenor

George Humphrey Tichenor (April 12, 1837 – January 14, 1923) was a Kentucky-born physician who introduced antiseptic surgery while in the service of the Confederate States of America. Thereafter, in private practice in Canton (Madison County), Mississippi, he developed the formula that became "Dr. Tichenor's Antiseptic."

Early life and education
Tichenor was born in Ohio County in western Kentucky to Rolla Tichenor and the former Elizabeth Hymphrey. He was educated in private schools.

Career
Initially, Tichenor was a businessman in Franklin (Williamson County), Tennessee, when the American Civil War began. After the American Civil War had begun, in 1861, he entered military service with the 22nd Tennessee Cavalry Regiment.

In 1863, he became an enrolling Confederate officer, and thereafter an assistant surgeon, during which time he is believed to have been the first in the Confederacy to have used antiseptic surgery. Tichenor experimented with the use of alcohol as an antiseptic on wounds. He was badly wounded in the leg in 1863, and amputation was recommended. He insisted on treating his wounds with an alcohol-based solution of his own devising. His wound healed, and he regained the use of his leg.

His potential reputation as a humanitarian was clouded by his fierce regional loyalty; Tichenor insisted that his techniques be used only on injured Confederates, never on Union prisoners.

An unconfirmed story was later circulated that Dr. Tichenor's antiseptic was granted the first patent issued by the Confederate government. An image of the Confederate Battle Flag remained on the product label well into the 20th century.

Tichenor developed his antiseptic formula in Canton, Mississippi, and thereafter practiced medicine in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, from 1869 to 1887. He started bottling Dr. Tichenor's Patent Medicine in New Orleans; the formula, consisting of alcohol, oil of peppermint, and arnica, was originally marketed as useful for a wide variety of complaints for both internal and external use for man and animal. A patent was registered in 1882. The company producing this liquid was incorporated in 1905 and is still in existence, though the recommended uses are now more modest: principally as a mouthwash and topical antiseptic.

Personal life
Tichenor married the former Margaret A. Drane of Kentucky while they were in Canton. They had three sons: Rolla A. Tichenor, George H. Tichenor Jr., and Elmore Drane Tichenor. He was a member of the Masonic Lodge and the Baptist Church. He was adjutant general and commander of the Louisiana division of the United Confederate Veterans.

He is interred in Roselawn Memorial Park in Baton Rouge, La.

title: George H. Tichenor


text:
Talk:Alfred Korzybski

Untitled
An anonymous user wrote in the article:

CORRECTION: Alfred Korzybski did NOT invent E-Prime.

E-Prime was the product of Dr. Bourland, a student and follower of Korzybski. The idea actually came from still another source, Dr. Bourland could not locate the original thinker behind it (per an article in one of the books by Bois).

W. Paul Tabaka http://Korzybski.Org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brion VIBBER (talk • contribs) 01:26, 18 October 2002 (UTC)

Specific reference needed
Throughout this article, there are references to "his work". I think there is a need to state in which of his works specifically these ideas were put forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheus912 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 24 November 2004 (UTC)

Link suggestions
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Alfred_Korzybski article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience. Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add to this page. — LinkBot 10:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Impact
Under the Impact section, the first thing mentioned is that "Korzybski's work influenced Neuro-linguistic programming especially the metamodel), ..." I don't think the NLP "association" should be the first thing listed, and I think the NLP should be in a different sentence from the cognitive interpretation pursued by Albert Ellis, and others. A distinction should be made. Dan 22:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms
I took out the following paragraph, as there is already in this section a lot of material about Chomsky's criticisms, and it seemed to be talking too much about Chomsky's philosophy rather than his criticism of Korzybski:
 * Chomsky, an anarchist, has also said that the greatest distorters of our perception are concentrations of power, because power centers (e.g. states, corporations) have the means to propagate their point of view and influence our perception of reality, much more than simply not using the verb "to be".

The paragraph also draws a somewhat false dichotomy between (1) "concentrations of power" distorting our perceptions, and (2) not using the verb "to be". There is no evidence that Korzybski would not agree that "concentrations of power" can distort our perceptions, and he never advocated not using the verb "to be". A student of Korzybski's, David Bourland, floated that idea 15 years after Korzybski died. [JDF, April 29, 2006] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.194.150 (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2006 An article on Korzybski cannot be complete without explicit discussion of "Science and Sanity." I hope to correct this lapse soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolffg (talk • contribs) 22:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

(Sourcing)
Where are the Chomsky quotes from? --AlmostC 20:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * AlmostC added this to the article: [Warning: none of the Chomsky quotes below are accompanied by citations. The only quotes below I could find were from an interview with David Cohen, the subject of which seemed to be Skinner, not Korzybski.] Now, an anonymous poster added these "quotes" to several articles. So far nobody has responded to requests for citations and arguments against including this material. (Except with the link to wikiquote, which itself lacks any citation for the alleged Korzybski quote.) Barring some response or argument, I plan to replace this entire section with a link to the criticism section of general semantics (which contains additional material). Then we can decide what to include in that section. If we then decide to copy part or all of the criticism section to other articles, we can do this easily. Or if someone actually decides to argue that some critique belongs at the Korzybski article but not at general semantics, they can go ahead and include it here while we argue at the other talk page. Dan 22:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added a health warning to the general semantics page as well, in the hope that someone will add a citation or delete the reference.--AlmostC 18:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

(His pleasures)
I was just wondering if the following statement would be too opinionated to include in the article (perhaps after the biscuits story, which is just one in a series of such examples). Korzybski enjoyed making impromptu and unwilling human test subjects out of his students, in order to prove his academic points by forceful, material means. --Propriate 10 June 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.184.82.195 (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2007 The struck-thru sig (an implicit claim to be User:Propriate) is a forged Wiki-sig by the IP.
 * "Opinionated" is a little weak for describing the problem with that. It's original research when an editor convinces themself that someone enjoyed something. If you can't specify what you paraphrased (or the simple math you did, that a typical reader could follow if it were stated) you're confusing your careful research or your wild-eyed opinions with accepted knowledge. No matter which of those it was, our readers are not interested in it -- only in accepted knowledge. --Jerzy•t 00:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal in "Anecdote" sec'n
I removed "Apparently his prank aimed to illustrate how some human suffering originates from the confusion or conflation of linguistic representations of reality and reality itself." where it stood between the anecdote and the citation of a book with a citation of a newspaper that apparently either described or quoted the anecdote. What is "apparent" when the judger of apparency remains unidentified must be presumed neither notable, nor more than OR. --Jerzy•t 23:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Anecdote about Korzybski" section
It's certainly an interesting anecdote, but I'm not sure how it advances the article. An encyclopedia should introduce and explain the significance of the anecdote, not simply state it as if the point is self-evident. Why this anecdote, of all the possible ones to include? -Phoenixrod (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Updating Reflink for Ellis
Here is the new link for the Ellis AKML. There is also an addendum to that AKML. I do not know how to edit the References Template (it appears to me to be locked), so if someone cares to make these changes, please do. Benhauck (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.generalsemantics.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/gsb-58-ellis.pdf http://www.generalsemantics.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/gsb-59-ellis-addendum.pdf

General Semantics is not Semantics

 * As Korzybski said, GS should not be confused with semantics, a different subject.

What does this mean? --Rebestein (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Vetting influences and persuasions
The lists of persons under K's influence, in order of growing size (and growing maintenance work) are: They depend on notability, but they also depend on verification: was it really K who influenced them? Or was it the IGS, or was it Hayakawa?
 * Infobox person-level
 * section-level
 * subsections-level, where we are now
 * the summary article-level

We should keep our list items where the direct influence is verifiable:
 * 1) they wrote 'Korzybski'
 * 2) they met Korzybski
 * 3) K said he influenced them
 * 4) Other notables said so

Steps to Good article status: Neil Postman for example, might belong at GS article not here, but Buckminster Fuller wrote "Korzybski", in one of his books. (He lectured and interviewed at IGS, but he joined IGS after K was "gone west" from the scene.)
 * Add citation needed tags where appropriate. These will take time to then remove. Then use the citation to decide if it was K or GS or H that did the influencing.
 * Vet entries that rely only on e.g. ala "They wrote that 'the word is not the thing'".
 * Move info to General semantics content (or Hayakawa content, or other).
 * Put the most notable in the infobox template.

It does do well to honor K for essentially creating general semantics, but Korzybski is the creator sui generis of general semantics, not general semantics itself. There's the Institute of GS. There is Hayakawa. (A U.S. Senator, a University President, etc), and many many others. — Cp i r al Cpiral  23:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Categorizing Influences
I was wondering if there was a more effective way of categorizing those influenced by Korzybski. For example, Ken S. Keyes, Jr. was not only a writer of self-help books, but was a student of Korzybski. Kenneth was also a futurist, like Jacque Fresco, and together co-authored the book

On page 100 (PDF-counted), the book mentions: Youanden (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The most aesthetic would seem to be mentioning students in the bio, and developers (of Korzybskian materials) in their respective sections titled after the material itself, all in a narrative that might include comma separated lists of people. But notice how we yet lack narrative material, and how most of ours is material on other people. See how the other biographies on the Wiki have developed. Simply, for this stage of development, three categorical steps move from the right brain to the left, covering the broad nature of his impressions.

 * Feel free to categorize List of Korzybski's cultural influences. The List article guideline has categorization suggestions (and much more). The categories here are temporary until their information merges into a good article.  Eventually there will be no category at all.  They will all seamlessly woven into a narrative. Your Q becomes in my opinion, how to develop a narrative article that does not describe the other people, from a list article that does, and how to keep information visible on the wiki while shuffling it around. —  Cp i r al Cpiral  21:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

B-class review
Quickfailed during WP:POLAND B-class review due to: insufficient inline references. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Name Dropping in Reception Section
I don't know much about Korzybski, so I don't feel comfortable editing the section about "Reception." As a casual reader, it is unclear what each list of names is about. Are the lists supporters of Korzybski? Are they critics? Are they people who just read Korzybski? The relationship between Korzybski and these people is not clear. Additionally, there are very few sources that indicate a relationship between these people. That could really use some clarification. Mvblair (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

== Being sarcastic, I would add that they forgot to mention his influence on Budha and Jesus...

Quite frankly, I think that this article is a disgrace for Wikipedia! The only fact that could explain this whole thig is the page is being promoted by some group...

206.108.174.222 (talk)

Same confusion about the undocumented relations of a seemingly randomly selected list of people under reception brought me to this Talk page. It tickles my fingers to entirely remove this complete list section. Someone against it? Otherwise I will remove it next week... *setting alarm* --سلوك Saluk 14:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed the name dropping section. It should be completely rewritten and separated into pro and contra Korzybski. But in my humble opinion all those people were influenced by Korzybski's theories (i.e. general semantics), not by the person A. K. --سلوك Saluk 10:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Nothing critical?
Um, I was expecting SOMETHING on how today his ideas are discredited and considered worthless. What is astounding about him is how he got the reputation, and influenced the people, that he did. But nothing. I guess only K-enthusiasts ever dwell on or care about this page.. Yesenadam (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Alfred Korzybski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111007204146/http://nakedlunch.org/naked-lunch/space-time-travel/naked-lunch-and-chicago/seminal-semantics-antics/ to http://nakedlunch.org/naked-lunch/space-time-travel/naked-lunch-and-chicago/seminal-semantics-antics/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Passive Voice
It would be less painfully ironic if this sentence was not phrased in the passive voice, to avoid naming the subject who should be quoted: It is often said [need quotation to verify] that Korzybski opposed the use of the verb "to be."

Xardox (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alfred Korzybski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811091339/http://www.generalsemantics.org/store/all-books/57-manhood-of-humanity.html to http://www.generalsemantics.org/store/all-books/57-manhood-of-humanity.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Influence section is ludicrous
The Influence section seems to have been written by a Korzybski devotee. It begins, "Korzybski was well received in numerous disciplines, as evidenced by the positive reactions from leading figures in the sciences and humanities in the 1940s and 1950s."

The paragraph goes on to to exemplify "leading figures in the sciences and humanities" by naming two science fiction writers (Robert Heinlein and A. E. van Vogt), Alan Watts ("self-styled 'philosophical entertainer'," per Wikipedia), idiosyncratic futurist Robert Anton Wilson, and English professor Samuel Hayakawa. It also refers to a claim in one of Korzybski's own books (no independent substantiation given) that his ideas were used to treat battle fatigue during World War II (to what extent, with what success?). None of the persons named was a scientist, much less a "leading figure" in any science, and while Heinlein and Van Vogt have been popular writers, it is pompously silly to describe them as "leading figures in the humanities."

Not only does the Influence section fail to substantiate its claim that Korzybski "was well received in many fields," the evidence offered is so inadequate as to be funny. A non-fan text might say something like this (but better written): Although Korzybski's ideas deeply impressed several well-known people, including science-fiction authors associated with John W. Campbell in the 1950s and a few countercultural thought leaders of the 1960s, they have had little influence on the development of professional philosophy and psychology.

The grandiose claims should either be ditched or adequately evidenced. Right now, the Influence section is simply ludicrous. Lgilman909 (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Tend to agree. I see that the Douglas Kelley article makes no mention of Korzybski and in fact doesn't even mention battle fatigue. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Alfred Korzybski


text:
Wynonie Harris

Wynonie Harris (August 24, 1915 – June 14, 1969) was an American blues shouter best remembered as a singer of upbeat songs, featuring humorous, often ribald lyrics. He had fifteen Top 10 hits between 1946 and 1952. Harris is attributed by many music scholars to be one of the founding fathers of rock and roll. His "Good Rocking Tonight" is mentioned at least as a precursor to rock and roll.

His dirty blues repertoire included "Lolly Pop Mama" (1948), "I Like My Baby's Pudding" (1950), "Sittin on It All the Time" (1950), "Keep On Churnin' (Till the Butter Comes)" (1952), and "Wasn't That Good" (1953).

Early life and family
Harris's mother, Mallie Hood Anderson, was fifteen and unmarried at the time of his birth. His paternity is uncertain. His wife, Olive E. Goodlow, and daughter, Patricia Vest, said that his father was a Native American named Blue Jay. Wynonie had no father figure in his family until 1920, when his mother married Luther Harris, fifteen years her senior.

In 1931, at age 16, Harris dropped out of high school in North Omaha. The following year, his first child, a daughter, Micky, was born to Naomi Henderson. Ten months later his son, Wesley, was born to Laura Devereaux. Both children were raised by their mothers. Wesley became a singer in the Five Echoes and in The Sultans, and later was a singer and guitarist in Preston Love's band.

In 1935 Harris, age 20, started dating 16-year-old Olive E. (Ollie) Goodlow, of Council Bluffs, Iowa, who came to neighboring Omaha to watch him perform. On May 20, 1936, Ollie gave birth to a daughter, Adrianne Patricia (Pattie). Harris and Ollie were married on December 11, 1936. Later they lived in the Logan Fontenelle projects in North Omaha. Ollie worked as a barmaid and nurse; Harris sang in clubs and took odd jobs. His mother was Pattie's main caretaker. In 1940, Wynonie and Ollie Harris moved to Los Angeles, California, leaving Pattie with her grandmother in Omaha.

Early career
Harris formed a dance team with Velda Shannon in the early 1930s. They performed in North Omaha's flourishing entertainment community, and by 1934, were a regular attraction at the Ritz Theatre. In 1935, Harris, having become a celebrity in Omaha, was able to earn a living as an entertainer, in the depths of the Great Depression.

While performing at Jim Bell's Club Harlem nightclub with Shannon, he began to sing the blues. He began traveling frequently to Kansas City, where he paid close attention to blues shouters, including Jimmy Rushing and Big Joe Turner. His break in Los Angeles was at a nightclub owned by Curtis Mosby. It was here that Harris became known as "Mr. Blues".

With Lucky Millinder
During the 1942–44 musicians' strike, Harris was unable to pursue a recording career, relying instead on personal appearances. Performing almost continuously, in late 1943 he appeared at the Rhumboogie Club in Chicago. He was spotted by Lucky Millinder, who asked him to join his band on tour. Harris joined on March 24, 1944, when the band was in the middle of a week-long residency at the Regal in Chicago.

They moved on to New York City, where on April 7 Harris took the stage with Millinder's band for his debut at the Apollo Theatre, in Harlem. It was during this performance that Harris first publicly performed "Who Threw the Whiskey in the Well" (a song recorded two years earlier by Doc Wheeler's Sunset Orchestra).

After the band's stint at the Apollo, they moved on to their regular residency at the Savoy Ballroom, also in Harlem. Here, Preston Love, Harris's childhood friend, joined Millinder's band, replacing the alto saxophonist Tab Smith. On May 26, 1944, Harris made his recording debut with Lucky Millinder and His Orchestra. Entering a recording studio for the first time, Harris sang on two of the five cuts recorded that day, "Hurry, Hurry" and "Who Threw the Whiskey in the Well", for Decca Records. The embargo on shellac during World War II had not yet been rescinded, and release of the record was delayed.

Harris's success and popularity grew as Millinder's band toured the country, but he and Millinder had a falling out over money, and in September 1945, while playing in San Antonio, Texas, Harris quit the band. Three weeks later, upon hearing of Harris's separation from the band, a Houston promoter refused to allow Millinder's band to perform. Millinder called Harris and agreed to pay his asking price of one hundred dollars a night. The promoter reinstated the booking, but it was the final time Harris and Millinder worked together. Bull Moose Jackson replaced Harris as the vocalist in the band.

In April 1945, a year after the song was recorded, Decca released "Who Threw the Whiskey in the Well". It became the group's biggest hit, reaching number one on the Billboard R&B chart on July 14 and staying there for eight weeks. The song remained on the charts for almost five months, also becoming popular with white audiences.

In California the success of the song opened doors for Harris. Since the contract with Decca was with Millinder, Harris was a free agent and could choose from the recording contracts with which he was presented.

Solo career
In July 1945, Harris signed with Philo, a label owned by the brothers Leo and Edward Mesner. Harris' band was assembled by Johnny Otis, and the group recorded the 78-rpm record "Around the Clock". Although not a chart-topper, the song became popular, and cover versions were recorded by many artists, including Willie Bryant, Jimmy Rushing and Big Joe Turner.

Harris went on to record sessions for other labels, including Apollo, Bullet and Aladdin. His greatest success came when he signed for Syd Nathan's King label, where he enjoyed a series of hits on the U.S. R&B chart in the late 1940s and early 1950s. These included a 1948 cover of Roy Brown's "Good Rocking Tonight", "Good Morning Judge" and "All She Wants to Do Is Rock". In 1946, Harris recorded two singles with the pianist Herman "Sonny" Blount, who later earned fame as the eclectic jazz composer and bandleader Sun Ra.

Some reviewers state that "Good Rocking Tonight", by Roy Brown (1947) or by Harris (1948) is one of the contenders for the title of "first rock'n'roll record". The label of the 45 RPM record by Brown included the words "Rocking blues". According to the Paul McCartney Project, "Harris's version was even more energetic than Brown's original version, featuring black gospel style handclapping". The Project adds that "the song has also been credited with being the most successful record to that point to use the word 'rock' not as a euphemism for sex, but as a descriptive for the musical style.

In 1950, Harris released the double-sided hit "Sittin' on It All the Time" backed with "Baby, Shame on You" (King 4330), and in 1951, he recorded a cover version of Hank Penny's "Bloodshot Eyes" (King 4461). His risqué approach to material at times made his tracks "Keep On Churnin'" (1952) and "Wasn't That Good" (1953) jukebox favorites in the early 1950s. Other lascivious songs he recorded include the earlier tracks "I Want My Fanny Brown" and "Lollipop Mama".

Harris definitely achieved a great deal of success, with "16 Top 10 R&B hits between 1945 and 1952, including the definitive version of Roy Brown's "Good Rockin' Tonight," a disc that spent 25 weeks on Billboard's chart in 1948".

' Lovin' Machine ', (1952), and ' The Deacon don't like it ', (1953), both mention Hadacol whiskey.

Later career
Harris transitioned between several recording contracts between 1954 and 1964. In 1960 he cut six sides for Roulette Records, including a remake of his hit "Bloodshot Eyes" and "Sweet Lucy Brown", "Spread the News", "Saturday Night", "Josephine" and "Did You Get the Message". He also became more indebted and was forced to live in less glamorous surroundings.

In 1964 Harris resettled for the last time in Los Angeles. His final recordings were three sides for Chess Records in 1964: "The Comeback", "Buzzard Luck" and "Conjured". His final large-scale performance was at the Apollo in November 1967, where he performed with Big Joe Turner, Big Mama Thornton, Jimmy Witherspoon and T-Bone Walker.

Death
Harris died of esophageal cancer on June 14, 1969, aged 53, at the USC Medical Center Hospital in Los Angeles.

Legacy
He was the subject of a 1994 biography by Tony Collins.

Since the end of the twentieth century, there has been a resurgence of interest in his music. Some of his recordings are being reissued, and he has been honored posthumously.
 * 1994: Inducted into the W. C. Handy Blues Hall of Fame by the Blues Foundation in Memphis, Tennessee
 * 1998: Inducted into the Nebraska Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Lincoln
 * 2000: Inducted into the High School Hall of Fame at Central High School in Omaha, Nebraska
 * 2005: Inducted into the Omaha Black Music Hall of Fame

In 2011, Harris's song "Quiet Whiskey" was number 9 the list of Top 10 Drinking Songs published by AskMen.com.

In 2014, Harris's song "Grandma Plays the Numbers" was featured in the video game Fallout 4.

The Blues Hall of Fame provides these comments: "Harris recorded sporadically afterwards [after 1952] but never again enjoyed the glory or success he'd known as one of the kings of jump blues. Today he is most acknowledged for laying the groundwork for rock 'n' roll".

Influence on Elvis Presley
Elvis Presley may well have seen Harris perform in Memphis in the early 1950s, although this is not documented. According to Henry Glover, Harris's record producer, Elvis "copied many of the vocal gymnastics of Wynonie as well as the physical gyrations. When you saw Elvis, you were seeing a mild version of Wynonie". Harris remarked in a 1956 interview that Elvis's hip movements were stirring controversy in a way his own never did: "Many people have been giving him trouble for swinging his hips. I swing mine and have no trouble. He's got publicity I could not buy".

In the television miniseries of 2005, Elvis, Harris was played by Marcus Lyle Brown.

title: Wynonie Harris


text:
Genocide denial

Genocide denial is the attempt to deny or minimize the scale and severity of an instance of genocide. Denial is an integral part of genocide and includes the secret planning of genocide, propaganda while the genocide is going on, and destruction of evidence of mass killings. According to genocide researcher Gregory Stanton, denial "is among the surest indicators of further genocidal massacres".

Some scholars define denial as the final stage of a genocidal process. Richard G. Hovannisian states, "Complete annihilation of a people requires the banishment of recollection and suffocation of remembrance. Falsification, deception and half-truths reduce what was, to what might have been or perhaps what was not at all."

Examples include Armenian genocide denial, denial of genocides of Indigenous peoples, Holocaust denial, Cambodian genocide denial, Bosnian genocide denial and Rwandan genocide denial. The distinction between respectable academic historians and illegitimate historical negationists and revisionists, including genocide deniers, rests upon the techniques which are used in the writing of such histories. Historical revisionists and negationists rewrite history in order to support an agenda, which is usually political or ideological, by using falsification and rhetorical fallacies in order to obtain their desired results. Exposure of genocide denial and revisionism surged in the early 21st century, facilitated by the propagation of conspiracy theories and hate speech on social media.

Analysis
According to Taner Akçam, "the practice of 'denialism' in regard to mass atrocities is usually thought of as a simple denial of the facts, but this is not true. Rather, it is in that nebulous territory between facts and truth where such denialism germinates."

David Tolbert, president of the International Center for Transitional Justice, states: "Denial is the final fortress of those who commit genocide and other mass crimes. Perpetrators hide the truth to avoid accountability and protect the political and economic advantages they sought to gain by mass killings and theft of the victims' property, and to cement the new reality by manufacturing an alternative history. Recent studies have established that such denial not only damages the victims and their destroyed communities, it promises a future based on lies, sowing the seeds of future conflict, repression and suffering."

Motives and strategies
Some of the main reasons for denying genocide are to evade moral or even criminal responsibility and to protect the perpetrators' reputation.

Gregory Stanton outlines the tactics of genocide denial including: questioning the statistics, denial of intent, definitional debates, and blaming the victims. Genocide scholar Israel Charny outlines five psychological characteristics of denials of genocide.

Genocide scholar Adam Jones proposed a framework for genocide denial that consists of several strategies, including minimizing fatalities, blaming fatalities on unrelated "natural" causes, denying intent to destroy a group, and claiming self-defense in preemptive or disproportionate attacks:

 * "Hardly anybody died" When the genocides lie far in the past, denial is easier.
 * "It wasn't intentional" Disease and famine-causing conditions such as forced labor, concentration camps and slavery (even though they may be manufactured by the perpetrator) may be blamed for casualties.
 * "There weren't that many people to begin with" Minimizing the casualties of the victims, while the criminals destroy or hide the evidence.
 * "It was self defense" The killing of civilians, especially able bodied males is rationalized in preemptive attack, as they are accused of plotting against the perpetrators. The perpetrator may exterminate witnesses and relatives of the victims.
 * "There was no central direction" Perpetrators can use militias, paramilitaries, mercenaries, or death squads to avoid being seen as directly participating.
 * "It wasn't or isn't 'genocide,' because ..." They may enter definitional or rhetorical argumentation.
 * "We would never do that" Self-image cannot be questioned: the perpetrator sees itself as benevolent by definition. Evidence doesn't matter.
 * "We are the real victims" They deflect attention to their own casualties/losses, without historical context.

By individuals and non-governmental organizations

 * In his 1984 book The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas argued that only "a few hundred thousand" Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, the Jews brought the Holocaust upon themselves because of their behavior, and Zionists had collaborated with the Nazis in an attempt to send more Jews to Israel. In a 2006 interview, without retracting these specific claims, he stated: "The Holocaust was a terrible, unforgivable crime against the Jewish nation, a crime against humanity that cannot be accepted by humankind."
 * In February 2006 David Irving was imprisoned in Austria for Holocaust denial; he served 13 months in prison before being released on probation.
 * David Campbell has written of the now defunct British magazine Living Marxism that "LM's intentions are clear from the way they have sought to publicize accounts of contemporary atrocities which suggest they were certainly not genocidal (as in the case of Rwanda), and perhaps did not even occur (as in the case of the murder of nearly 8,000 at Srebrenica)." Chris McGreal writing in The Guardian on 20 March 2000 stated that Fiona Fox writing under a pseudonym had contributed an article to Living Marxism which was part of a campaign by Living Marxism that denied that the event which occurred in Rwanda was a genocide.
 * Scott Jaschik has stated that Justin McCarthy, is one of two scholars "most active on promoting the view that no Armenian genocide took place". He was one of four scholars who participated in a controversial debate hosted by PBS about the genocide.
 * Darko Trifunovic is the author of the Report about Case Srebrenica, which was commissioned by the government of the Republika Srpska. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) reviewed the report and concluded that it "represented one of the worst examples of revisionism, in relation to the mass executions of Bosniaks committed in Srebrenica in July 1995". After the report was published on 3 September 2002, it provoked outrage and condemnation by a wide variety of Balkans and international figures, individuals, and organizations.
 * Patrick Karuretwa stated in the Harvard Law Record that in 2007 the Canadian politician Robin Philpot "attracted intense media attention for repeatedly denying the 1994 genocide of the Tutsis"
 * On 21 April 2016 a full-page ad appeared in The Wall Street Journal and Chicago Tribune that directed readers to Fact Check Armenia, a genocide denial website sponsored by the Turkish lobby in the US. When confronted about the ad a Wall Street Journal spokesperson stated, "We accept a wide range of advertisements, including those with provocative viewpoints. While we review ad copy for issues of taste, the varied and divergent views expressed belong to the advertisers."
 * American philosopher Stephen T. Katz has argued that the Holocaust is the only genocide that has occurred in history.

Japan
In Japan, interpretation of the Nanjing Massacre is reflected upon the notions of "pride, honor and shame". Takashi Yoshida describes the Japanese debate over the Nanjing Massacre as "crystalliz[ing] a much larger conflict over what should constitute the ideal perception of the nation: Japan, as a nation, acknowledges its past and apologizes for its wartime wrongdoings; or ... stands firm against foreign pressures and teaches Japanese youth about the benevolent and courageous martyrs who fought a just war to save Asia from Western aggression." In some nationalist circles in Japan, speaking of a large-scale massacre at Nanjing is regarded as Japan bashing' (in the case of foreigners) or 'self-flagellation' (in the case of Japanese)". This means that most Japanese youth are oblivious of the massacre because this dark history is not taught in Japanese schools, and the continued worship of Japanese war criminals enshrined in the Yasukuni Shrine by mainstream politicians in Japan.

Pakistan
The government of Pakistan continues to deny that any Bangladeshi genocide took place during the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971. They typically accuse Pakistani reporters (such as Anthony Mascarenhas), who reported on the genocide, of being "enemy agents". According to Donald W. Beachler, professor of political science at Ithaca College: "The government of Pakistan explicitly denied that there was genocide. By their refusal to characterise the mass-killings as genocide or to condemn and restrain the Pakistani government, the US and Chinese governments implied that they did not consider it so." Similarly, in the wake of the 2013 Shahbag protests against war criminals who were complicit in the genocide, English journalist Philip Hensher wrote: "The genocide is still too little known about in the West. It is, moreover, the subject of shocking degrees of denial among partisan polemicists and manipulative historians."

Serbia
According to Sonja Biserko, president of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, and Edina Becirevic, the faculty of criminology and security studies of the University of Sarajevo: "Denial of the Srebrenica genocide takes many forms [in Serbia]. The methods range from the brutal to the deceitful. Denial is present most strongly in political discourse, in the media, in the sphere of law, and in the educational system."

Turkey
The government of the Republic of Turkey has long denied that the Armenian genocide was a genocide. According to Akçam, "Turkish denialism [of the genocide] is perhaps the most successful example of how the well-organised, deliberate, and systematic spreading of falsehoods can play an important role in the field of public debate" and that "fact-based truths have been discredited and relegated to the status of mere opinion". Turkey acknowledges that many Armenians residing in the Ottoman Empire were killed in conflicts with Ottoman forces during World War One, but disputes the statistics and claims that the killings were systematic and amounted to genocide.Measures recognising the Armenian genocide have languished in the US Congress for decades, and US presidents have refrained from labelling it such due to worries about relations with Turkey and intensive lobbying by Ankara.

United States
The government of the United States has been accused of denial of the genocide of its Indigenous peoples by academics such as Benjamin Madley, David Stannard and Noam Chomsky.

Law
The European Commission proposed a European Union–wide anti-racism law in 2001, which included an offence of genocide denial, but European Union states failed to agree on the balance between prohibiting racism and freedom of expression. After six years of debating, a watered down compromise was reached in 2007 which gave EU states freedom to implement the legislation as they saw fit.

In 2022, the United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect issued a policy paper associating genocide denial with hate speech, specifically when directed to specific identifiable groups. The report gives policy recommendations for states and UN officials in the matter of denial.

Effects
Genocide denial has an impact on both victim and perpetrator groups. Denial of a genocide affects relations between the victim and perpetrator groups or their respective countries, prevents personal victims of the genocide from seeking closure, and adversely affects political decisions on both sides. It can cause fear in the victims to express their cultural identity, retaliation from both parties, and hamper the democratic development of societies.

Effects on personal victims of the genocide

While confrontation of the committed atrocities can be a tough process in which the victim feels humiliated again by reliving the traumatic past, it still has a benign therapeutic effect, helping both victim and perpetrator groups to come to terms with the past. From a therapeutic point of view, letting the victim confront the past atrocity and its related painful memories is one way to reach a closure and to understand that the harm has occurred in the past. This also helps the memories to enter the shared narrative of the society, thereby becoming a common ground on which the society can make future decisions on, in political and cultural matters.

Denying recognition, in contrast, has a negative effect, further victimising the victim which will feel not only wronged by the perpetrator but also by being denied recognition of the occurred wrongdoing. Denial also has a pivotal role in shaping the norms of a society since the omission of any committed errors, and thereby the lack of condemnation and punishment of the committed wrongs, risks normalising similar actions, increasing the society's tolerance for future occurrences of similar errors.

According to sociologist Daniel Feierstein, the genocide perpetrator implements a process of transforming the identity of any survivors and erasing the memory of the existence of the victim group.

Societal effects of genocide denial

Bhargava notes that "[m]ost calls to forget disguise the attempt to prevent victims from publicly remembering in the fear that 'there is a dragon living on the patio and we better not provoke it.'" In other words, while societally "forgetting" an atrocity can on the surface be beneficial to the harmony of society, it further victimizes the target group for fear of future, similar action, and is directly detrimental to the sociocultural development of the victim group.

On the other hand, there are cases where "forgetting" atrocities is the most politically expedient or stable option. This is found in some states which have recently come out of minority rule, where the perpetrator group still controls most strategic resources and institutions, such as South Africa. This was, among others, one of the main reasons for granting amnesty in exchange for confessing to committed errors during the transitional period in South Africa. However, the society at large and the victims in particular will perceive this kind of trade-offs as "morally suspect," and may question its sustainability. Thus, a common refrain in regard to the Final Report (1998) by South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission was "We've heard the truth. There is even talk about reconciliation. But where's the justice?"

Effects on democratic development

The denial has thereby a direct negative impact on the development of a society, often by undermining its laws and the issue of justice, but also the level of democracy itself. If democracy is meant to be built on the rule of law and justice, upheld and safeguarded by state institutions, then surely the omission of legal consequences and justice would potentially undermine the democracy. What is more dangerous from a historical point of view is that such a default would imply the subsequent loss of the meaning of these events to future generations, a loss which is resembled to "losing a moral compass." The society becomes susceptible to similar wrongdoings in the absence of proper handling of preceding occasions. Nonetheless, denial, especially immediately after the committed wrongdoings, is rather the rule than the exception and naturally almost exclusively done by the perpetrator to escape responsibility.

Implicit denial of genocide

While some societies or governments openly deny genocide, in some other cases, e.g. in the case of the "Comfort women" and the role of the Japanese State, the denial is more implicit. This was evident in how an overwhelmingly majority of the surviving victims refused to accept a monetary compensation since the Japanese government still refused to admit its own responsibility (the monetary compensation was paid through a private fund rather than by the state, a decision perceived by the victims about state's refusal to assume any direct responsibility). This can have the same effects on societies as outright denial. For example, atrocity denial and self-victimisation in Japanese historical textbooks has caused much diplomatic tension between Japan and neighbouring victim states, such as Korea and China, and bolstered domestic conservative or nationalist forces.

Turkey and Armenian genocide denial

The Turkish state's Armenian genocide denial has had far-reaching effects on the Turkish society throughout its history in regard to both ethnic minorities, especially the Kurds, but political opposition in general. The denial also affects Turks, in that there is a lack of recognition of Turks and Ottoman officials who attempted to stop the genocide. This lack of recognition of the various actors at play in Turkey could result in a rather homogeneous perception of the nation in question, thus making Armenians (but also third parties) project the perpetrating role onto the entire Turkish society and nation, causing further racial strife and aggravating the prospects of future reconciliation. For example, Armenian terrorist groups (e.g. ASALA and JCAG) committed terrorist acts during 1970's and 1980's as a direct result of the Turkish state denial of the genocide.

Prevention
Denial may be reduced by works of history, preservation of archives, documentation of records, investigation panels, search for missing persons, commemorations, official state apologies, development of truth commissions, educational programs, monuments, and museums. According to Johnathan Sisson, the society has the right to know the truth about historical events and facts, and the circumstances that led to massive or systematic human rights violations. He says that the state has the obligation to secure records and other evidence to prevent revisionist arguments. Genocide scholar Gregory Stanton suggests that prosecution can be a deterrent.

title: Genocide denial


text:
Zablujena generacija

Zablujena generacija (Delusive or Stray generation) is a Slovene "saloon" punk - alternative rock musical group from Idrija. The group started out in 1994. The original lineup, who took their lead from the legendary American punkers The Ramones, was Primož Alič (vocal, guitar), Ramon (guitar), Aljoša (bass) and Igor Seljak (drums). In those days they played in different garages and cellars in Idrija, and it was there that their first songs originated. Bass guitarist Aljoša was later on substituted with Hanson in 1998.

Zablujena generacija is sometimes compared to blink-182 or The Offspring, but as they've been on the go since 1994, they have developed their own style.

The band has participated in a Slovenian contest EMA 2007 for the Eurovision Song Contest 2007 with a song Kdo hoče plesati z menoj (Who Wants To Dance With Me).

Their discography includes:
 * Fajht (colloquial meaning of Inebriation), (Vinylmania Records 1997),
 * Pank zabloda (Punk Aberration), (Vinylmania Records 1998),
 * Compilation Drž`te jih! To niso Niet!!! (Stop 'em! They Aren't Niet!!!), (Vinylmania Records 1998).
 * Ultra lahko (Ultra Light), (Vinylmania records 2000),
 * Pozitiv vabrejšan (colloquial meaning of Positive Vibrations), (Menart 2001).
 * Pop Idoli (Pop Idols)
 * Mi smo stare pizde (We are old cunts), (Panker Studio 2008).

title: Zablujena generacija


text:
Emil Jannings

Emil Jannings (born Theodor Friedrich Emil Janenz, 23 July 1884 – 2 January 1950) was a Swiss-born German actor who was popular in Hollywood in the 1920s. He was the first recipient of the Academy Award for Best Actor for his roles in The Last Command and The Way of All Flesh. As of, Jannings is the only German ever to have won the category.

Jannings is best known for his collaborations with F. W. Murnau and Josef von Sternberg, including the 1930 film The Blue Angel (Der blaue Engel, with Marlene Dietrich. The Blue Angel was meant as a vehicle for Jannings to score a place for himself in the new medium of sound film, but Dietrich stole the show. Jannings later starred in a number of Nazi propaganda films, which made him unemployable as an actor after the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Childhood and youth
Jannings was born in Rorschach, Switzerland, the son of Emil Janenz, an American businessman from St. Louis, and his wife Margarethe (née Schwabe), originally from Germany. Jannings held German citizenship; while he was still young the family moved to Leipzig in the German Empire and further to Görlitz after the early death of his father.

Jannings ran away from school and went to sea. When he returned to Görlitz, his mother finally allowed him to begin a traineeship at the town state theatre, where he started his stage career. From 1901 onwards he worked with several theatre companies in Bremen, Nuremberg, Leipzig, Königsberg, and Glogau before joining the Deutsches Theater ensemble under director Max Reinhardt in Berlin. Permanently employed since 1915, Jannings met with playwright Karl Vollmöller, fellow actor Ernst Lubitsch, and photographer Frieda Riess. After World War I all were at the heart of Weimar Culture in 1920s Berlin. Jannings made his breakthrough in 1918 with his role as Judge Adam in Kleist's Broken Jug at the Schauspielhaus.

Career
Jannings was a theater actor who went into films, though he remained dissatisfied with the limited expressive possibilities in the silent era. Having signed a contract with the UFA production company, he starred in Die Augen der Mumie Ma (The Eyes of the Mummy, 1918) and Madame DuBarry (1919), both with Pola Negri in the main female part. He also performed in the 1922 film version of Othello and in F. W. Murnau's 1924 film The Last Laugh (Der Letzte Mann), as a proud but aged hotel doorman who is demoted to a restroom attendant. Jannings worked with Murnau on two other films; playing the title character in Tartuffe (Herr Tartüff, 1925), and as Mephistopheles in Faust (1926).

United States
His increasing popularity enabled Jannings to sign an agreement with Paramount Pictures and eventually follow his acting colleagues Lubitsch and Negri to Hollywood. He started his career in 1927 with The Way of All Flesh directed by Victor Fleming (now lost) and in the following year performed in Josef von Sternberg's The Last Command. In 1929, Jannings won the first Best Actor Oscar for his work in both films. He and Sternberg also cooperated in Street of Sin (1928), though they actually differed about Jannings' acting in front of the camera.

His Hollywood career came to an end with the advent of talkies as his thick German accent was difficult to understand. His dialogue was initially dubbed by another actor in the part-talkie The Patriot (1928) directed by Ernst Lubitsch, although Jannings' own voice was restored after he objected. Returning to Europe, he starred opposite Marlene Dietrich in the 1930 film The Blue Angel, which was filmed simultaneously in English with its German version Der blaue Engel.

According to Susan Orlean, author of Rin Tin Tin: The Life and The Legend, Jannings was not actually the winner of the first best actor vote, but the runner-up. While researching her book, Orlean thought she discovered that it was in fact Rin Tin Tin, the German Shepherd dog, one of the biggest movie stars of his time, who won the vote. The Academy, however, worried about not being taken seriously if they gave the first Oscar to a dog, chose to award the Oscar to the human runner-up. However, this story has been labeled as debunked as absolutely not true by other sources.

In 1960, Jannings was posthumously honored with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame at 1630 Vine Street for his contribution to motion pictures.

Nazi Germany

After the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, Jannings continued his career in the service of Nazi cinema. In Nazi Germany, he starred in several films that were intended to promote Nazism, particularly the Führerprinzip by presenting unyielding historical characters, such as Der alte und der junge König (The Old and the Young King 1934), Der Herrscher (The Ruler 1937) directed by Veit Harlan, Robert Koch (1939), Ohm Krüger (Uncle Kruger, 1941) and Die Entlassung (Bismarck's Dismissal, 1942). He also performed in his famed role in The Broken Jug directed by Gustav Ucicky. Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels named Jannings an "Artist of the State" (Staatsschauspieler)

The shooting of his last film Wo ist Herr Belling? was aborted when troops of the Allied Powers entered Germany in Spring 1945. Jannings reportedly carried his Oscar statuette with him as proof of his former association with Hollywood. However, his active role in Nazi propaganda meant that he was subject to denazification, effectively ending his career.

In the same period Dietrich became a US citizen and an influential anti-Nazi activist, spending much of the war entertaining troops on the front lines and broadcasting on behalf of the OSS. Dietrich particularly loathed Jannings for his Nazi ties, and would later refer to her former co-star as a "ham".

After the war with his reputation stained by his work with the Nazi government, he never worked as an actor again.

Death
Jannings retired to Strobl near Salzburg, Austria, and became an Austrian citizen in 1947. He died in 1950, aged 65, from liver cancer. He is buried in the St. Wolfgang cemetery. His Best Actor Oscar is now on display at the Berlin Filmmuseum.

Marriages
Jannings was married four times. His first three marriages ended in divorce, his last with his death. His last three marriages were to German stage and film actresses, Hanna Ralph, Lucie Höflich, and Gussy Holl. He had a daughter, Ruth-Maria (born 1920), from his first marriage to Lucy Höfling.

Cultural depictions

 * Hilmar Eichhorn portrayed a fictionalized version of Jannings in Inglourious Basterds (2009), directed by Quentin Tarantino. This fictional version of Jannings dies at the end of the film.
 * In the 1972 film Cabaret, singer Sally Bowles (Liza Minnelli) finds herself at a high-society dinner party; she tries to impress someone at the table by suggesting that she is a friend of Emil Jannings.
 * In Series 1 of the BBC’s epic Second World War drama World on Fire (2019) American journalist Nancy Campbell, played by Helen Hunt, accepts an invitation from neighbours in Berlin to see the latest Emil Jannings film, saying: “Well, I love Emil Jannings, and I loved him in The Blue Angel.”

title: Emil Jannings