text:
Talk:Islamization of knowledge

Clearly this implies...
Clearly this implies a few other articles, on Islamic economics, Islamic feminism, Islamic ecology, and the parallel Catholic views (not really a 'program') outlined by Pope John Paul II. The idea of having a 'Catholic' body of knowledge is actually very old, and goes back to the middle ages and Aquinas at least. Which is interesting because he probably got the idea from Arabs, who are now getting it back.

Given world events, this program is probably at least as important as all the anti-globalization movement talk, and we should have a good list of the intellectuals who support this program, and governments too if they do. Gadaffi in Libya has paid lip service to this idea, but firsthand experience of those who've tried to work on such a program under him suggest that it's insincere... big surprise! They also try to do this in Iran, sort of, and in Saudi there are programs of this nature of very limited non-government-threatening scope. Need to do more research...

Also, decided not to include the following paragraph, pending others' comments. It would go at the very end, but perhaps it should go in another article that could compare all the various attempts to subordinate science to ethics, likely called ethics in science and technology or ethics of knowledge itself.

 * The increasing awareness of ethical arguments regarding human cloning, genetics, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and the possibility of a technological singularity that would put technology entirely beyond human control, are causing larger numbers of people who are both scientifically aware, and religious, to consider the limits of human action and control. When Clonaid announced the first human clone in 2003, Islamic clerics condemned it as strongly as Catholics or Jews - suggesting that there is increasing solidarity on the need for cooperation.

Added the following, as this is inherently a conservative Muslim enterprise and needs qualification to maintain NPOV: However, some liberal movements within Islam are skeptical of the approach, viewing the construction of fields such as Islamic science and Islamic economics largely as propaganda created to further the conservative view that Islam is an all-encompassing social system. --Zeeshanhasan 20:00, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the usage of the word ethics (which apears frequently in the article) is in many cases inappropriate and suggests a strong bias towards Islamic Fundamentalism in a subtle way.I guess most people will agree that ethics are more or less general philosophical principles that ditinguish right and wrong in all fields of human actions.It is generally accepted that application of a particular code of ethics depeneds on cultural, economic , etc contexts within which the code of ethics is to be applied as well as personal judgment.So we should distinguish Islamic ethics(which is taken often to mean the code of ethics implicit in Islam) and Islamic Law ,the latter means eternal commands concerning particular actions and are to be applied exactly as they are.Islamic Fundamentalism essentially is a belief that identifies application of the Islamic ethics (which being ethics are all-encompassing) with Islamic Law and so attempts to extract Islamic laws concerning politics , economy etc making Islam an all-encompassing system which has an exact opinion about everything. Now for example look at this phrase : Al-Faruqi died in 1986, but his program has already had a profound effect, especially on Islamic economics, which operates under traditional zero-interest, participatory labor-capital structures, and supports stronger community control of land (as in the traditional practices of haram and hima, the equivalent of the modern watershed protection and wilderness reserve laws), The zero-interst banking and Hima and Haram practices are obviousely parts of Islamic Law , but this term is never used in the article and is always replaced with Islamic ethics , for example in the opening lines.Replacing the terms Islamic Law or technical terms associated with it by ethics is both confusing and a support of those who identify Islamic Law with ethics ,it may be noteworthy that the process of infering Islamic laws , called ijtihad is not a philosophical argument based on ethics , but extracting presuposed to exist laws from texts by means of jurisprudence fiqh.In general I think Islamiztion , beside other things , is an attempt for providing basis for application of traditional terminology of Islamic jurisprudence to concepts developed in modern West , to make ineference of Islamic laws concerning modern affairs more accurate , its next step is to create an Islamic thinking by interpreting what does existing knowledge mean from an Islamic perpective.It's focus is not on ethics.Pasha Abd 22:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Islamization of History
It seems that when a country becomes Islamic - then its history become Islamized.

For example - the history of North Africa is virtually wiped from these people's minds as they only identify with being Arab [which is more of a status symbol that calling oneself, Berber, which the CIA Fact book says that 99.9% of North Africans are.]

For these North Africans all history leads to Arabia. When it is true that North Africa was very important part of the Roman Empire. But with the Islamization of history the North African, has almost forgotten that he existed before the 7th century. Before, by the way, the Syrians took over North Africa and Spain, and not the Arabs. And in addition only ruled over Morocco/Algeria for a maximum of 150 years, where they/ now known as the Moors ruled Spain for far longer, yet the Spanish, proudly do not refer to themselves as Arabs. Once power was transferred or taken back into the hands of the North Africans, many left Spain for North Africa, leaving their Syrian overlords to continue to rule over the Spanish peninsula or al-Andalusia in the end.

Within the Islamic world these kinds of misinformation or beliefs are shared and then reinforced, but outside of the Islamic world this, Islamized version of knowledge can leave the person looking, ignorant of one's own history and even embarrassed by the lack of knowledge.

We can see the Islamization of history process in action today, in the newly formed country of Pakistan, there was an argument about a year ago on whether Pakistani school children should be taught the history of the region, before the event of Islam. The discussion which had reached parliament, ended one day with the storming out of at least one faction, who was claiming that they know where their history comes from and that was Arabia.

Islamization of history seems to be a method of securing one's ties with Arabia, the birth place of the Prophet Muhammad, in spite of one's actual history or origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.242.105 (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a complete overhaul from top to bottom
Crud, what a mess. This is written like somebody's blog post. I tried to remove phrases that were of a highly reflective, personal nature, but this really isn't an article; it's an essay. I'm not sure if it can be salvaged via edits or if it just needs to be completely rewritten. Drastic action is needed, however. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Or maybe it just needs to be deleted. Not a single source is cited.VR talk 11:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Relying on my studies, I can say that there can be no question as to the notability of the subject. But it mostly contains original research. Some of its claims are even attributed to living persons. Is it a joke or what? How can those unsourced statements attributed to those individuals sustain for so long on an encyclopedia having specific guidelines against it? It goes on to say for example, "Nasr's work on the congruence between classical Islam and the modern ecology movement is thought by some to be even more fundamental, and to suggest parallels between the ethical constraints that secular activists seek to place on science and technology, and the ethical constraints that Islam sought to place on philosophy and politics." Now what does it really mean? Whose thought it really is? It also says many other things about Al Faruqi as well. But we all know that the guy is dead. But Nasr is still alive for god's sake. And so is Attas. I myself had removed this sentence in the past for not citing any source. And lo! it is still there. Without of course any source backing it up. I am not of course in any way telling that other parts are without problems. But I think that the portions that concern living individuals are in need of immediate action. Mosesheron (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I've removed the unsourced content, and now the article is a stub. If new sources or content are not presented I'll redirect the article to Islamic philosophy, which was suggested at Articles for deletion/Islamization of knowledge. VR talk 18:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Islamization of knowledge


text:
Talk:Secondary source

Untitled
Thank you for this article. :) I think a lot of us may have been in denial. Hephaestos

Contemporaries are bad sources
This and primary source are good articles, and nice to have. However I quibble with contemporaries being considered good sources. I'm a contemporary of the Second & Third Gulf wars, however most of my 'information' comes from major news sources, and propoganda outlets (US military/administration, Arab news, Iraqi claims), so while I'm a contemporary, I'm really no better than someone else writing about it from their college textbook a 100 years from now. And even though I know some vets, and I talk to them, and I write about what they tell me, doesn't that still make it second-hand? ~ender 2003-04-13 02:47 MST

Contemporary is a fidgety word. Times are not the same everywhere. Someone in 14th century France wouldn't be a contemporary of the birth of the Renaissance, but the same person in 14th century Italy would be. To more extreme, almost no American of the time can be said to be contemporary to the October Revolution.

Contemporary means existing in the same times. The times are the events. You can't be contemporary without being with the times. You can't have been a contemporary unless you moved in similar circles. Musical performers and composers living in the same times are considered contemporaries because they have the same past influences and the same occurring influences.

Unfortunately, it's a point not often made. Sounds too much like a pseudo-science version of General Relativity, I guess. ~Daelin 2004-04-24 12:24 EST

 * It's their first hand experience, it's your second hand retelling, which would be primary source if you're verbatim (pretty much being their scribe in Q&A interview), and secondary if you're presenting an analysis (putting your POV into the mix, even if you're aiming to be NPOV). They are still a primary source, what you're making is not. See the Oregon State Trooper scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 and Fahrenhype 9/11. Check out the talk page for Tertiary Source. MMetro 04:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why I re-wrote
The examples were overly abstract ("imagine a historian used a source which used another source"), and whether something is primary or secondary is how it is used, not what its content is. Furthermore there was too much bias in favor of the accuracy of primary sources which is completely uncritical, unwarranted, and not how history is actually done. --Fastfission 15:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New comment by Birger Hjørland
The way in which primary source, secondary source and tertiary source has been defined in Wikipedia is not in accordance with the way in which is has been defined by UNISIST in 1971 and taken over, by among others, the present writer. (See Fjordback Søndergaard; Andersen & Hjørland, 2003).

Also, the normal language in Library and information science is to speak of bibliografies and the like as secondary sources (or secundary literature).

There are variations in the use of these concepts between the humanities and the sciences, however, if a general terminology should be established, we recommend the UNISIST terminology. bored.

Fjordback Søndergaard, T.; Andersen, J. & Hjørland, B. (2003). Documents and the communication of scientific and scholarly information. Revising and updating the UNISIST model. Journal of Documentation, 59(3), 278-320. Available at: http://www.db.dk/bh/UNISIST.pdf
 * Looking over that lik, that use of the term "secondary source" is to mean something very different from how historians use the term or how it is generally used in the English language. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that looks like the technical use of the term in some porn sort of information management system, and has little bearing on what most people mean when they distinguish between primary and secondary sources. As a historian, I will at least say that I've never heard of UNISIST, and it sounds like something only librarians would know about -- a relatively slim audience. However I could just be wrong about this -- could you clarify what UNISIST is and why its termology should trump comon usage? --Fastfission 17:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * The problem is that there are numerous "common usages", and this article deals with only one of them. Gene Nygaard 14:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Anyone familiar with other common uses should add them. Note, add them, not replace them like the pro-UNISIST pposter recommended. There's enough room in this article to write, "To a historian....To a librarian...." Katherine Tredwell 20:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Another rewrite
I tried to re-write it again. All of this about the primary sources being authoritative is misleading at best, nonsense at worse. Ditto with the descriptions about "orthodox" versus "revisionist" history (which doesn't belong on this page anyway -- that's more of an issue for the historiography page). Anyway I expect a few feathers might be ruffled but hopefully we can sort this out. My current version tries not to be too normative either -- there is a lot of variety in secondary sources, and saying that they all have extensive citation is not correct, nor is it correct to say that "popular history" (whatever is meant by that here) is not concerned with primary sources (most "popular history" books, as I understand them to be, also utilize a mix of primary and secondary sources, like most "scholarly history" books). Anyway, hopefully we can sort this out and make a good entry. --Fastfission 00:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Impressively quick rewrite. I was going to postpone extensive revisions until after finals, but there's little left to do now. Katherine Tredwell 01:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I'm sure there is more than could be done with it, as I am usually not as concise as I should be on these matters (and tend towards repetition). One thought I had is whether or not primary source and tertiary source should just be all merged into one big article with secondary source (with some awful name like primary, secondary, and tertiary sources)? There is a huge degree of overlap between the articles, in part because much of their definitions are, naturally, in contrast to the others, and I'm not sure there is much to say about either of them individually. (They're all problematic in their own way, and the distinction is usually one of usage by the analyst rather than provenance or content.) But that certainly can wait until after finals.. --Fastfission 01:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Authority and reliability in sources
Secondary sources are not authoritative. Secondary sources include many types of works, such as:
 * Thoughtful accounts written by careful historians.
 * Inaccurate accounts written by careless historians.
 * Good accounts written by popular writers.
 * Wildly inaccurate accounts based on forgeries.
 * Controversial accounts.

Holy Blood, Holy Grail is a secondary source, but it isn't authoritative.

Primary sources are not authoritative either. They can be written, for instance, by confused people who misunderstand what they see, or people who are reporting rumors, or people who have a motive for distorting the truth. If they are written after the fact (like memoirs), they may include patchy or altered memories.

The confession of someone tortured by the Inquisition into confessing to witchcraft is a primary source. Someone reporting a vision of the Virgin Mary is a primary source.

Please see authoritative on this matter. Katherine Tredwell 22:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I add that the article is leaning further towards favoring political history over other forms of history with the recent additions concerning revisionist history. I hope in future to correct this drift. Katherine Tredwell 22:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just wondering whether this entry, which seems to be written by and for us historians, should also address the more general issue of the preferred place of secondary sources in Wikipedia? See the guideline on Reliable sources. --SteveMcCluskey 20:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I think that's more of a Wikipedia policy issue, not something that should be in an article on this subject. --Fastfission 20:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Historians spend a lot of attention on secondary sources vs primary sources. Do others scholars have a different take?? As for political (& military) history--well that is the dominant theme in 80-90% of Wiki's entries. The newer historiographical trends just don't appear. (see History of Canada for example). Rjensen 20:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Someone has already pointed out that primary source, secondary source, and tertiary source mean different things in different disciplines. Such attitudes definitely should be incorporated. Right now we just have a short section on law. If most of Wikipedia's historical entries are on political and military history, so what? It's common knowledge (or should be) that Wikipedia has biases in its coverage, and there are editors actively working to fix that. It is not the case that 80-90% of historians do political history. An article or section on what historians do should reflect what historians do, not what Wikipedians do. Katherine Tredwell 15:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * the article reflects the current practice of most historians, not just political. Rjensen 16:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

 * It's undergone a dramatic rewrite since I commented that it was biased towards political history. I hope that the article keeps its newfound general applicability. I hope my observation helped spur the change. Katherine Tredwell 16:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Many disciplines other than history make the distinction between P and S sources. Why are historians grabbing all the gusto?
My only complaint is that this article pretends that only historians make the distinction between primary and secondary sources. Literary theoreticians, art historians, philosophers, etc. all make the same distinction. Does no one know this? Anyway it is almost 5 in the morning here and I haven't been to bed yet, so I am not taking on the task. I am just wondering how the article got so skewed?

Also, if I changed titles / headings above, it was only to get the page to format a content box. It wasn't malicious. Saudade7 02:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the article specifically mentions history in order to emphasise that it is not about the distinction between primary and secondary sources as used on Wikipedia. Rjm at sleepers 06:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the definition of a secondary source as given is not the same as the definition in other areas of study - see the sections on law and genealogy. Rjm at sleepers 06:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * While law and genealogy might have different definitions, you will find that most fields use the terms in just the same way as described in this article. It just seems a little weird (to me) to find the terms portrayed as falling under such an exclusive usage. I wouldn't want undergraduate students, who sadly rely too much on the Wiki (although I believe that the Wiki will eventually be the academic source), to think that such criteria did not apply to their own scholarship.Saudade7 15:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with the current definition (IMO) is that while "a study written by a scholar about a topic" is certainly secondary, not every secondary source is written by a scholar - a newspaper article for example. Rjm at sleepers 16:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Many other people than historians make the distinction, but the distinction is always a historiographic one. For example, the only reason for a scientist to make the distinction is when she is studying the historiography of some scientific idea. Same with literary ideas, etc. Historiographic issues come up in all fields, and sometimes the people in those fields don't even know it; they just use the primary/secondary distinction without knowing the theory behind it and where that theory came from. CO GDEN  17:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Different disciplines apparently do use different definitions of primary and secondary. Primary literature in science is not a primary source as far as historiography is concerned. Similarly, the definition of a secondary source in family history is not consistent with the current definition in this article. I am not familiar with the definitions in library science, but it is at least plausible that they are different again. Rjm at sleepers 08:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Rjm, don't you see? The be all and end all is historiography.  ;)  •Jim 62 sch•  19:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Current (8th Nov '07) definition of secondary and primary
The current definition seems to have taken us some distance from what I was taught. Consider Richard III. A large amount of what we "know" about his reign comes from Crowland, Polydore Virgil and Thomas Moore. Using the definition I was taught, these are all secondary sources despite the fact that they are the original source of a great deal of "information". If I were to write that Richard III had a wart on his left buttock, I would not be a primary source, even though this was "an original source of the information being discussed". Rjm at sleepers 07:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability challenge
Can somebody come up with any reliable source that states the definition of primary and secondary used by historiographers differs from that used by library scientists? If not, I'm going to delete the parts of this article that make that suggestion because I think they are original research. CO GDEN  17:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether you will regard the source as acceptable, but the following was cut and pasted from Lafayette Library page on the web http://ww2.lafayette.edu/~library/guides/primarysources/definitions.html. I have bolded part of it for emphasis.
 * "The definition of a primary source varies depending upon the academic discipline and the context in which it is used.

 * In the humanities, a primary source could be defined as something that was created either during the time period being studied or afterward by individuals reflecting on their involvement in the events of that time.

 * In the social sciences, the definition of a primary source would be expanded to include numerical data that has been gathered to analyze relationships between people, events, and their environment.

 * In the natural sciences, a primary source could be defined as a report of original findings or ideas. These sources often appear in the form of research articles with sections on methods and results."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjm at sleepers (talk • contribs)
 * This synopsis appears to account for the broad scope of primary sources across various disciplines in a much more inclusive way than does the current content in the WP article on primary sources. (Conspicuously absent for WP purposes here are original philosophical, scriptural and other conceptual works by the original authors. Some examples are works by Aristotle, Kant, Karl Marx, Charles Peirce, Wittgenstein, scripture like the Bible, Bhagavad Gita, Quar'an, and numerous other original sources of important but highly obscure or complex concepts that have come to be widely interpreted by secondary and tertiary sources.)
 * I'd support the inclusion of the Lafayette College Library synopsis in primary sources so as to reduce the overemphasis on historiography that currently characterizes that article. In the broader context, primary and secondary source classification is not so much time dependant (as in histoiography) as it is related to the proximity to the origin of the concept or data under study, which often relates to how close it is to the person or group from which the concept or data originated, irrespective of the time at which it was written. As Cogden and others have noted, a single document or book might function as either primary or secondary, depending on context and the nature of the topic under scrutiny. For purposes of scholarly writing, the emphasis on primary sources in disciplines such as historiography has mainly to do with tracking things back to the original source so as to get particular information "from the horse's mouth", so to speak. in Wikipedia, the goal is different when large sets of primary sources are involved -- sources that often lend to conflicting interpretations. In WP, the core editorial policy guides us to summarize material in a given topic for the readers, not to provide original conclusions or novel interpretation of primary sources as is often the case in scholarly writing. For that purpose we are directed to rely on secondary sources that have already put forward such conclusions or interpretations. ... Kenosis 13:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the Lafayette synopsis to primary sources, with citation. Thanks RJM. ... Kenosis 14:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Lafayette College's website is not a reliable source. It's not peer reviewed, certainly, but there does not even appear to be a fact checking process. It's just some librarian with a web page? Is the Lafayette College webmaster the primary source for this idea? If not, how would we know? Mr. Webmaster doesn't include any citations?

 * On the second issue, the historiographic definition is not time dependent. You'll see that in one of the reliable citations I introduced in the primary source article. The modern historiographic definition is exactly the same definition as the Lafayette College library webmaster's definitions, which aren't really separate definitions, just applications of the same definition to different fields. CO GDEN  17:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, what? The website isn't peer-reviewed?  Is there a special symbol or seal of approval that indicates that a site has been fact-checked by a professional fact-checker (whatever in Hades that is)?  •Jim 62 sch•  19:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

 * I'd suggest you read WP:RS. Why do you even want to cite some librarian's help page anyway, when there are plenty of peer-reviewed journal articles and books on the subject? Let's use the most reliable sources on this, because clearly, they are available. CO GDEN  20:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, if the WP:PSTS portion of the WP:NOR policy is going to link to main-namespace articles such as this one, along with primary sources and tertiary sources, broad summaries of the concepts across multiple disciplines are vital components of the content of these source classification articles (primary source, secondary source and tertiary source). Certainly there are such citations that could be found other than UMaryland, James Cook University and Lafayette College that can be tracked back further, perhaps even to their original sources, but these secondary/tertiary summaries are perfectly appropriate to sum up the basic concept for readers/editors who are unfamiliar with the concept. The very notion that sources, even under the WP:RS content guideline analysis, need to be demonstrated as peer reviewed is simply incorrect. I see no such evidence in support of any of the presently provided citations in this article or in the article on primary sources. At this stage there is something of a rebuttable presumption, I should think, where anyone opposing the library science usage as presented on several college-level websites would need to show other reliable sources in order to debunk these college-library-website explanations and summaries of what constitutes a primary, secondary and/or tertiary source. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

 * What I see is an a priori determination that the current definitions are somehow lacking in substance, and yet the counter-arguments against same appear to be lacking lucidity and universally beneficial purpose. I am rather bemused by the current situation and await a logical substantiation of the points raised counter to current guidelines.   •Jim 62 sch•  22:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking for consensus
In this edit, an anon puts a fact tag on something that is incredibly obious to me, so blindingly obvious, it's like seeking a citation for the sky being blue (on Earth). I'd like to remove it. Who's with me? Better yet, anyone got a source? WLU (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking for answers == ==

hi poeples but i'm doing this sorce analysis and i need a little help so i was wondering if anyone can help just give me an e-mail at (little_miss_epa at liveyadayadayada) that would be great thanx!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.36.119 (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh?
From the article:

"Bob "The Blade" Robinson is currently an afternoon disc jockey on rock station 96rock in Raleigh, N.C. and is part of the "Foster & Blade" afternoon rock show which airs between 2 and 6pm each weekday. He reached legendary status in Raleigh/Durham radio history by resigning on the air one evening after being a country disc jockey for three days."

What exactly is this doing at the start of the article? Surely as definition of the term "secondary source" is more appropriate than some waffle about some DJ? Is this deliberate vandalism? I will AGF, but this opening doesn't make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.93.181 (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Think I've cleaned it up now. Guettarda (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Family history -- moved from article
I moved this here from the article:

 * Family history
 * "A secondary source is a record or statement of an event or circumstance made by a non-eyewitness or by someone not closely connected with the event or circumstances, recorded or stated verbally either at or sometime after the event, or by an eye-witness at a time after the event when the fallibility of memory is an important factor." Consequently, an autobiography written after the event is a secondary source, even though it may be the first published description of an event. For example, many first hand accounts of events in the 1st world war that were written in the post war years were influenced by the then prevailing perception of the war which was significantly different from contemporary opinion.

Autobiographies are by definition primary sources. 99.27.201.92 (talk) 06:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Diaries, if written at the time, are primary sources. An autobiography, if written years after the event, is not a primary source. For example, an autobiography may say "I was born on such and such a date in such and such a place." This is not and cannot be a primary source for the birth information. Both the definition and 1st world war example are sourced. I am therefore returning the section to the article. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 * 99.27.201.92 has placed a fact tag in the first sentence of this section. The sentence is in quotation marks and duly referenced at the end of the sentence. I am at a loss to understand what further citation is sought. I'll look up the page number and add it. I can also reference similar statements in other family history textbooks. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, I misplaced that tag. I meant to tag the statement claiming that an autobiography could be a secondary source. 99.55.161.190 (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Mentioning autobiographies was meant to be a straight-forward example of part of the earlier definition. I'll look for a supporting ref, but in the mean time I've reworded the sentence to avoid specific mention of autobiographies. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Having looked at a number of family history textbooks, I find that although primary and secondary sources are usually mentioned, a specific definition is rarely given. None the less, the definition quoted is in good agreement with the definition used in other branches of history. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I hope you like the compromise proposal. 99.27.134.160 (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Like is perhaps a bit strong, but it is acceptable. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Changing "is" to "can be" is not a matter of grammar; it changes the meaning. The definition in the previous sentence is clear that any account written sufficiently after the fact that fallibility of memory becomes a factor is a secondary source. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries
I know dictionaries are sometimes considered secondary and sometimes tertiary, but being that there's no widespread agreement on which they are I think it's inappropriate to just flat out list them as a tertiary source in the lead of (particularly) this article. See 1 and 2. If you know a little about how dictionaries are written they sure seem secondary to me, and they are certainly authoritative in their area (defining words). Mystylplx (talk) 01:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Is a bare conjecture a source?
Can we really call a scholarly opinion about the past (published in a book or journal) that is based on no primary evidence a reliable source? For example, if a scholar says that an event happened for a particular reason without any source material to support the reason, is that a reliable source? Can such an opinion really be cited as dealing with anything of substance? --  spin  control 05:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * yes it's a RS. Scholarly books and articles are closely monitored by other scholars and if someone makes a wild conjecture it will get shot down. Scholars typically look at hundreds or thousands of primary source documents, and only cite a tiny fraction of them. So it's highly unlikely that "without any source material to support the reason" applies. Rjensen (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

 * (That's wishful thinking. The Essene hypothesis for the Dead Sea Scrolls is conjecture, but very popular among biblical scholars. It's so far set the analysis of the DSS back 60 years. --  spin  control 12:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC))

 * And by the way, this article is about the academic term "secondary source", not about wikipedia policies. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

 * OK, Thanks. --  spin  control 12:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Dubious statement in section In science and medicine
The sentence "Unlike in the humanities, scientific and medical peer reviewed sources are not generally considered secondary unless they are a review or a meta-analysis." isn't backed up by any reliable outside source I can find. - Stillwaterising (talk)

There's a recent book (April 2001) that appears to be an in-depth and authoritative source on this topic by Bobick and Berard titled Science and Technology Resources: A Guide for Information Professionals and Researchers The book says on page two regarding scientific and technical sources: "Secondary sources are defined as those sources and publication types that compile, organize, analyze, synthesize, and repackage information from primary sources." I searched the book for the term "medical" and "health" but did not find a differential definition for this term. This source also says about the same thing. I'm going to mark this statement as disputed. - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

 * From what I've been told, policy statements *like articles that start with wp:* do not have to match what reliable outside sources say, and mainspace articles do not have to match what policy statements say. Since this a mainspace article, all statements need to be based on reliable independant (outside of wikimedia) sources. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source found for definitions of sources in Health Sciences
There's a recent book (October 2010, 3rd revision) that appears to be an in-depth and authoritative source on medical sources by Judith Garrard titled Health Sciences Literature Review Made Easy. This book has 143 citations according to Google Scholar. On page 30 there's a definition of Primary and Secondary sources in Health Sciences which are defined as follows: "*Primary source materials are original research papers written by the scientists who actually conducted the study. An example of primary source material is the description of the Purpose, Methods, and Results section of a research paper in a scientific journal by the authors who conducted the study. *Secondary source materials are papers or other documents that summarize the original work of others. In other words, secondary source materials are based on information from primary source materials. Although secondary source materials often are written by individuals other than those who actually did the research, it is possible for authors to summarize their own previously published or reported research, in which case, these later summary descriptions can still be considered secondary source materials. Examples of secondary source materials include a summary of the literature in the Introduction of each scientific research paper published in a journal, a description of what is known about a disease or treatment in a chapter in a reference book, or the synthesis you write as you review the literature."

It would seem that this article is based on inaccurate and uncited sources, or inaccurate synthesis. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward
Being that there's no apparent objection to removing the dubious statement and revising the article, I have started revising the section that was called "In science and medicine" and renamed it "In science and technology" and added another subsection for medicine. For reference, the revision that was being debated above is here. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have moved and re-ordered the statement about primary sources in science - it was in the section about secondary sources in the humanities. I have removed the "definition" of a primary source from the humanities section since it was not sufficiently precise and this article is about secondary sources. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Diagram
I am about to remove the diagram that was added recently. It looks like a Venn diagram and therefore implies that primary sources are a subset of secondary sources which is not true. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

A survey of previous work .. is secondary source information
I disagree with this statement (currently in WP:Secondary) "A survey of previous work in the field in a primary peer-reviewed source is secondary source information." At least in the technical publishing business where I work, there is a huge difference between the intro to a primary source and a review article. The former is setting up the background for a specific set of results to be disclosed, whereas a review is more comprehensive and is detached from supporting the disclosure of new results. If Wikipedia's allows introductions to papers to serve as secondary sources, we are inviting abuse of this guideline. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Firstly, this article is not about Wikipedia policy, it is about the term secondary source as understood in a number of fields, partcularly history. Of course, a survey of previous work is different from a review article, but both are secondary sources. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

 * A peer reviewed review of the literature contained in the introduction of a primary source is by definition secondary. The potential of abuse is not sufficient justification prohibit its use. Boghog (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

 * I have re-added an edited version of the previous text that I hope is an acceptable compromise. Boghog (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Rjm at sleepers is right. This article is not a Wikipedia guideline, but rather a definition of what a secondary source is.  Hence I have remove the qualifiers mentioned above and left a simple declarative statement in this edit. Boghog (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Science, technology, and medicine
Hi, useful article, however there are areas STM, where secondary sources (review articles, books in Xth edition, etc.) are very rare due to the niche-live of the topic or minimum of presence, not saying that some of these "niches" have world-wide impact, but the level of work can be considered research as compared to productive. Any means of Wikipedia exceptions, templates, etc. which cover such special areas? MoS? Appreciate feedback. KR 17387349L8764 (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Secondary source, the specific material within a document or recording and not the enveloping document or recording itself.
One packet of content can contain largely primary source material with a bit of secondary. Another might contain largely secondary source material with a bit of primary. Other combinations can also work as follows:

I worked from the WP:NOR example given in the secondary source related text: "A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source for those experiences." (I summarised this as the book as including secondary source material with personal primary source material included). In more common practice "A book ... about ..." a topic might include photographs and various accounts related to that topic, (as potentially primary source material within secondary source material ). If the "book by a military historian" made reference to, say, another person's war experiences, that account may itself have included that "author's own thinking" on, for instance, personal perceived follies/successes in pervious wars, (secondary source material within primary source material ). Closer to home, Wikipedia calls itself "Wikipedia" (as primary within tertiary with a whole encyclopaedia's worth of PST references placed into a phenomenally voluminous content on the way).

There's also a current discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:No original research for anyone interested.

GregKaye 13:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Secondary source


text:
Warped Tour

The Warped Tour was a traveling rock tour that toured the United States and Canada each summer from 1995 until 2019. It was the largest traveling music festival in the United States and the longest-running touring music festival to date in North America. The festival visited Australia in 1998–2002 and again in 2013.

Following the first Warped Tour, the skateboard shoe manufacturer Vans became the tour's main sponsor, when it then became known as the Vans Warped Tour. Although Vans continued as main sponsor and lent its name to the festival, other sponsors also participated, with stages or other aspects of the festival being named after them on occasion.

Warped Tour was conceived by Kevin Lyman as an electric alternative rock festival, but later began focusing on punk rock music. Although it was primarily a punk rock festival, it covered diverse genres over the years.

Lyman said that the 2018 Vans Warped Tour would be the final, full cross-country run. On December 18, 2018, Lyman revealed details for the tour's 25th anniversary, with only three events in 2019.

In November 2019, rumors spread that Chris Fronzak planned to bring back the Warped Tour after Lyman's retirement. On October 4, 2020, Fronzak confirmed his intent to be involved in the return of Warped Tour; however, "for legal reasons it (could not) come back for "three years or so."

Overview

Band performance times and sets were posted on an inflatable installation and were available in print for purchase from an on-site information stand.

Every year had a "BBQ Band". In exchange for the privilege of playing on the tour, the BBQ Band prepared the post-show barbecue for the bands and crew most evenings. Past BBQ Bands included the Dropkick Murphys, Art of Shock, and "The Fabulous Rudies". Similarly, one band, Animo (formerly DORK), was permitted for four years to play on the tour in exchange for working on the setup crew. The "BBQ Band" for the 2016 tour was Reckless Serenade.

The tour began as a skate punk and third-wave ska tour but later came to feature largely pop punk and metalcore acts. Some hardcore and street punk bands also participated, such as the Casualties, the Unseen and Anti-Flag.

The tour was not set up in a single fixed format; each show venue dictated a different layout. The event was set up in early morning and struck late the same day. Heading into Canada, a bus transported supplies while another bus held equipment not needed during the brief jaunt over the border.

Citing issues like transportation problems for minors and audience demographics trending younger each year, Kevin Lyman decided to let parents attend Warped Tour performances for free beginning in 2013. Parents had their own adult day care, known as Reverse Day Care. Grown-ups could spend the day waiting for their children in the Reverse Day Care tent, which offered ample seating, as well as fans or cooling devices to keep parents occupied during the festival.

History
The Warped Tour was created in 1995 by Kevin Lyman and Ray Woodbury, president of RK Diversified Entertainment, in production with the short-lived Warp Magazine and Creative Artists Agency. The tour began June 21 at the Idaho Center in Boise, Idaho, and ended August 18 in Detroit, Michigan.

The tour usually was held at outdoor venues, though on rare occasions it was held indoors. In 1996, due to problems with the event venue, the show was forced to move indoors to The Capitol Ballroom nightclub in Washington, D.C.

1996 was the first year for Vans as a sponsor; they remained the main sponsor thereafter.

In 1997, the Vans Warped Tour went international and included venues in Europe, Japan, Canada, and the United States.

In 1999, the tour started the new year in New Zealand, Australia, and Hawaii. After a pause, it resumed its North American tour in the continental United States through the summer, before finishing the tour in Europe.

In 2009, the two main stages were condensed into one and bands were given 40-minute sets, as opposed to the traditional 30 minutes across the previous two stages. Despite this, the tour decided to bring back the two main stages concept with 35-minute sets instead for the 2012 tour and beyond.

In 2012, the Warped Tour traveled to London, the first time the tour had left North America or Australia since 2002. In the UK and Europe, Warped Tour was operated by English promoter Kilimanjaro Live. The Warped Tour returned to London in 2015.

Warped Tour 2009
On February 10, 2009, details for the annual "Warped Tour Kick Off Party" were announced. The show took place April 2, 2009, at The Key Club in West Hollywood, California, and featured Warped Tour 2009 bands T.S.O.L., The Adolescents, Sing It Loud, TAT, and TV/TV on the bill. The tour won the Best Festival/Tour Award at the Rock on Request Awards.

Warped Tour 2012
The Warped Tour 2012 kickoff party took place March 29, 2012, at Club Nokia in Los Angeles, California, featuring performances by Falling in Reverse, the Used, Yellowcard, Dead Sara, Matt Toka and Forever Came Calling. During the Toronto date, a fan fell unconscious during Chelsea Grin's performance and died. Both the band and Warped Tour offered their condolences on Twitter. For the first time in 14 years, the Warped Tour was held in the UK in November 2012. This was also the first year that the show Warped Roadies premiered. The show was a behind-the-scenes look at the inner workings of the Vans Warped Tour as it made its way across the country with more than 60 bands. Zach Booher of the band While We're Up was killed in a road accident in Wisconsin.

Warped Tour 2013
The Warped Tour 2013 kick off party took place March 28, 2013, at Club Nokia in Los Angeles, California, featuring performances by Chiodos, New Beat Fund, Gin Wigmore, MC Lars, Craig Owens, Dia Frampton, Charlotte Sometimes, Big Chocolate, Echosmith, and special guests. The tour would again return to Europe for the second year in a row with more tour dates. For the first time since 2001, Warped Tour would also appear in Australia.

Warped Tour 2014
The Warped Tour 2014 kick off party took place on April 1, 2014, at Club Nokia in Los Angeles, California, featuring performances by Bad Rabbits, Issues, One Ok Rock, Secrets, This Wild Life, To the Wind, Watsky, Chelsea Grin, Beartooth, Volumes, Buried In The Mountains, and others. The tour returned to Montreal for the first time in two years. On February 7, 2014, it was announced that the Warped Tour would visit Alaska for the first time for a pre-tour "The Road to Warped" show. The entire first date (June 13 at Houston) was streamed live on the tour's website. In June 2014, Kevin Lyman announced on Twitter that the UK segment of the 2014 tour would not go ahead. The San Diego stop was sponsored by Waveborn Sunglasses. As a part of celebrating the 20th anniversary of the tour, there were surprise appearances from two bands: Linkin Park played at Ventura, California on June 22, 2014, and A Day to Remember played at Chicago, Illinois, on July 19, 2014.

Warped Tour 2015
The Warped Tour 2015 kickoff party took place on April 7, 2015, at Club Nokia in Los Angeles, California, featuring performances by As It Is, Bebe Rexha, New Years Day, Knuckle Puck, Metro Station, Candy Hearts, and New Beat Fund. The tour again visited Alaska for "The Road to Warped" show. The entire first date (June 19 at Pomona) again was streamed live on the tour's website. The tour returned to Europe playing at the Alexandria Palace in London, UK on October 18.

Austin Jones, a former musician and a convicted sex offender, was due to take part in the 2015 tour until reports surfaced about his behavior and about tour founder Kevin Lyman's role in covering up Jones's actions.

Warped Tour 2016
The Warped Tour 2016 announced the lineup on March 22 at its kickoff party at Full Sail University in Florida, featuring select performances by 2016 Warped bands. Headliners of this tour included Falling in Reverse, Less Than Jake, Good Charlotte, Sleeping with Sirens, New Found Glory, and others. The tour kicked off June 24, 2016, in Dallas, Texas, and hit 41 cities throughout the summer, ending in Portland, Oregon, on August 13, 2016. In addition to the 41 cities, there was a "Road to Warped Tour Alaska" on June 22, 2016.

Warped Tour 2017
The Warped Tour 2017 announced the lineup on March 22 at its kickoff party at Full Sail University in Florida. Headliners (Bands playing the Journeys Sponsored Stages) of this tour include Andy Black, Beartooth, Dance Gavin Dance, I Prevail, and New Years Day, among others. The tour kicked off June 11, 2017, in Seattle, Washington, and would hit 41 cities throughout the summer, ending in Pomona, CA on August 6, 2017. In addition to the 41 cities, an additional show was planned with a separate lineup in Toluca, Mexico, on May 27, 2017, plus a "Warped Rewind at Sea" cruise to sail between New Orleans, Louisiana, and Cozumel, Mexico, from October 28 to November 1, 2017.

Warped Tour 2018
On November 15, 2017, Kevin Lyman announced that the 2018 Warped Tour would be the final tour. "I am so grateful to have worked with more than 1,700 bands over the last 23 summers", Lyman said in his announcement. "I wish I could thank every band that has played the tour." Warped Tour also announced it would play in Japan for 2018. Headliners for the Japan segment were listed as Korn (which had not played the festival previously), Prophets of Rage, and Limp Bizkit (who appeared at Warped Tour 1997)

Warped Tour 2019
On December 18, 2018, Lyman revealed details for the tour's 25th anniversary, taking place in 2019.

Warped Tour took place in Cleveland, Ohio, June 8, 2019, Atlantic City, New Jersey, June 29 and 30, 2019, and Mountain View, California, on July 20 and 21, 2019.

Legacy
Warped Tour became a launching pad for many up-and-coming artists. The festival was credited with bringing unknown artists like Black Veil Brides, Avenged Sevenfold, Blink-182, Sum 41, Limp Bizkit, My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy, Paramore, Machine Gun Kelly, Bebe Rexha, Katy Perry, and Yelawolf to the spotlight.

The Warped Tour gave artists like will.i.am and The Black Eyed Peas an opportunity and venue to perform. Black Eyed Peas were featured on the 1999 Vans Warped Tour. According to will.i.am, the Black Eyed Peas were the first group not categorized as "punk" to play at Warped Tour.

Tours by year

 * Warped Tour 1995
 * Warped Tour 1996
 * Warped Tour 1997
 * Warped Tour 1998
 * Warped Tour 1999
 * Warped Tour 2000
 * Warped Tour 2001
 * Warped Tour 2002
 * Warped Tour 2003
 * Warped Tour 2004
 * Warped Tour 2005
 * Warped Tour 2006
 * Warped Tour 2007
 * Warped Tour 2008
 * Warped Tour 2009
 * Warped Tour 2010
 * Warped Tour 2011
 * Warped Tour 2012
 * Warped Tour 2013
 * Warped Tour 2014
 * Warped Tour 2015
 * Warped Tour 2016
 * Warped Tour 2017
 * Warped Tour 2018
 * Warped Tour 2019

Music lessons
Musicians on the Vans Warped tour gave lessons. Percussive Marketing Council teamed up with the Vans Warped Tour and offered free drum lessons Lesson Lab tent to concert goers. These music lessons were for those who were learning to play drums for the first time. The lessons used electronic drum sets and acoustic drum sets. According to PMC Advisory Board Member Billy Cuthrell, having drum teachers from other percussion stores is the "key" to the free lessons program.

In 2005, the Vans Warped tour incorporated a multiple level stage that consisted of two levels for the band Street Drum Corps.

Music education was a big part of the Vans Warped Tour. Throughout the years, the Warped Tour used the John Lennon Bus to achieve this. The John Lennon Bus, essentially a mobile studio, was started by Brian Rothschild and Yoko Ono in 1968. The goal of the John Lennon Bus was to offer music education from performing artists to people, particularly young people, who attended the Warped Tour. Brian Roschild was executive director of the John Lennon Bus. Artists like Eminem and Bowling For Soup visited the tour bus. Other celebrities to use the bus included Fergie from the Black Eyed Peas, Natasha Bedingfield, and John Legend.

Battle of the Bands
The Ernie Ball Battle of the Bands took place at Warped Tour every year. Over 10,000 bands tried out for the battle of the bands in 2005. The bands performed at their local Warped tour date and were judged by music industry professionals. If the bands did well in the competition, they were invited to perform as a side stage act on the Ernie Ball Stage of the Vans Warped Tour.

Reception and controversies
"Warped Tour is a place for teenage kids to go and hear all their favorite bands in one day," says Rob Pasalic, guitarist for The Saint Alvia Cartel. "It wouldn't make sense for it to be the same tour in 2007 as it was in 1997. These are the bands that kids like, and the tour is smart enough to grow and adapt to that. You still get bands like Bad Religion playing, so it's not like it's lost all its roots."

Joe Queer of The Queers stated that

"You play music because there's something inside of you that says you have to play music. Now you get bands like Fall Out Boy that are basically created in the studio. The Warped Tour changed it. Fuck it. I just don't like that shit. All the guys in the bands remind me of the jocks I hated in high school. To me a punk gig is a small sweaty club with the audience right in your face knocking over the mic stand and boogying off the energy."

Keith Morris said that "These kids that are [playing] on the Warped Tour, they should have no choice but to go into the military, and go off to some desert somewhere and spend some time in the desert, rather than having some big, ultra mega record company giving them lots of money and paying for their hotels and buses, making sure their hair is trendy, and that they are wearing the proper clothes that all the kids like and wear, and all that fun shit." Morris' band the Circle Jerks would later appear on the 2007 edition of the tour.

In 2013, Oliver Sykes, lead vocalist of Bring Me the Horizon, took to Twitter to announce that he was no longer allowed to start a mosh pit/wall of death. Kevin Lyman took to Twitter as well to say that audience members could create mosh pits and walls of death, but that someone in the audience had to initiate them rather than any band member because then they would be taking responsibility for any injuries, which could then lead to costly lawsuits.

On 1 July 2015, it was announced that Jake McElfresh's music act Front Porch Step would play the Nashville, Tennessee, tour stop. Many bands including The Wonder Years, Senses Fail, Handguns, and Beartooth asked attendees to boycott McElfresh's set. The Wonder Years' lead singer Dan "Soupy" Campbell, who was supposed to perform after Front Porch Step on the Acoustic Basement Stage, asked fans to go see Man Overboard at 1:15 pm, the time the acoustic set would take place. Lyman responded by saying,

"He was only supposed to be here long enough to play his show but the weather today has been putting us behind schedule. He wasn't added to the tour, so those claims that he was 'added to sell tickets' are completely groundless."

He also said because McElfresh had still not been formally charged with misconduct, he agreed to have him perform. "If he was a danger to anyone, he simply would not have been here."

On July 11, 2016, Vans Warped Tour announced that Virginia pro-life organization Rock for Life would be among the vendors on their 41 tour dates. Rock for Life were known for co-opting punk aesthetics with their logo of a fetus playing a guitar and T-shirts with the phrase "All Lives Matter". Bands such as Safe to Say and Old Wounds spoke out against the organization, with Safe to Say replying to Rock for Life's tweet, saying

"Yes. Everyday. We are a pro choice band. A tent telling young women what to do with their body has no place here."

On June 26, 2017, a video surfaced that showed the punk rock band The Dickies verbally abusing a crowd member after protests against the band, including signs that said "Our teenage girls don't need to be subjected to derogatory jokes by a disgusting old man" and "Punk isn't predatory" took place. While Lyman initially said that the band was no longer on the Warped Tour roster, he released a statement on 1 July that said the band had not been kicked off of the tour and that the altercation was between the band's frontman, Leonard Graves Phillips, and a member of the touring party.

"I thought it was time to put the facts out since I have watched false information floating around. A video has been circulating of a confrontation between Leonard from the Dickies and a Fan. Fact- it was not a Fan, but a member of the touring party. The member of the touring party was standing next to the PA with a sign protesting some of the things they found offensive about the bands jokes, and props on stage. During one of the last songs they went towards the barricade and directed the sign at the band. After a verbal barrage from Leonard, the member of the touring party threw the sign at Leonard, and left the area. I do not condone verbal or physical violence, whatsoever. The Dickies, last day of the tour was that Sunday, which had always been scheduled. These are the facts of what took place and this is why I ask anyone who has an issue with anyone else on tour, to come sit under my tent with me and express their views diplomatically. On this years tour we have many people who may not agree with each other, but as humans we should be able to express our points of view in a civil manner. If we have any hope to progress as a society, communication will be key in moving forward."

Band conflicts
A few bands have left the tour due to conflicts they had with the tour or other bands:
 * Both D12 and Esham were kicked out of the 2001 tour. D12 allegedly attacked Esham because he mentioned Eminem's daughter in his song "Chemical Imbalance". Eminem was not present during this incident.
 * The band Guttermouth was supposedly removed from the Warped Tour 2004 for insulting Simple Plan. The band later stated that they left on their own because "... '10 or so' unnamed bands didn't jibe with Guttermouth's way of doing business, and in some cases, threatened them with violence".
 * The band Islander was kicked off the tour after Mikey Carvajal jumped into a backline drum kit onstage and damaged it during their live set in Denver on July 1, 2018.

Sponsorship
The Vans Warped Tour was sponsored by Vans, and in the final years Journeys joined as sponsor. Kevin Lyman was offered sponsorship from Calvin Klein before eventually working with Vans. The tour also was sponsored by Samsung, which enabled the bands and fans to interact with one another. The schedule for the day was sent out to fans on the day of their show. Samsung also sponsored a reverse day care for the Warped tour, which let parents cool off while their children watched their favorite bands. Warped Tour also partnered with other technology companies like Cingular Wireless, Apple Computer and others. This enabled these companies to reach to younger audiences. The communications manager from Memorex said that Warped Tour let them reach a younger demographic because of the music that these people are "passionate about." At one point in time, Warped Tour also provided internet access to attendees while at the festival. Chaos Mobile was formed by Kevin Lyman and John Reese of Freeze Artist Management.

Activism and philanthropy
Activism was a major component of the Vans Warped Tour and allowed for non-profit organizations such as Invisible Children, To Write Love On Her Arms, Shirts for a Cure, Keep A Breast Foundation, and Hope For The Day to advocate about their causes. Other causes presented at Warped Tour were Music Saves Lives and Earth Echo. Earth Echo promoted recycling and provided a solar-powered stage. Keep A Breast was another organization on the Vans Warped Tour. Keep A Breast educated women about Breast Cancer and preventative measures against the disease. The organization worked in conjunction with the Girlz Garage on the Vans Warped Tour. People who donated to the cause were given T-shirts signed by artists on the tour to spread awareness of Breast Cancer.

Since 2001, the traveling tour was affiliated with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), including food vendors and booths that distributed information about animal rights and veganism.

In March 2016, it was announced that Warped Tour would team up with A Voice for the Innocent to address the issue of sex crimes in the music scene. The Vans Warped Tour contributed 25 cents from every ticket sold to an organization called Hollywood Heart. Warped Tour also gave money to the relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina. Warped Tour and the Taste of Chaos, (a festival) worked together to contribute $500,000.

Musical equipment
Bands on the Warped Tour often brought their own musical equipment, but Industrial Sound also provided equipment for band use, according to lead sound engineer Daniel Bonneau. He also said that the bands had to do line checks instead of traditional soundchecks.

Official compilation albums
An official Warped Tour compilation CD was released annually by SideOneDummy Records to coincide with the start of the tour. Before 1998, official releases were handled by Vans via Uni Distribution in 1996 and Epitaph Records in 1997, respectively. The compilation included songs by numerous artists performing on the tour that year. The first few compilations had varying titles, but starting in 2001 the series used a standard title with the format "Warped Tour Tour Compilation". In 2002, the compilation expanded onto two CDs, totaling 50 artists, a format which the series followed in all its subsequent years. The Warped Tour compilation album in 2002 charted at number 55.

In addition, the digital music service Rhapsody.com released a regular "Warped Tour Bootleg Series", with each entry focusing on a single artist's performances on the tour. Bootleg Series artists included Matchbook Romance, My Chemical Romance, Bedouin Soundclash, MxPx, The Starting Line, Millencolin, Avenged Sevenfold, Gogol Bordello, Motion City Soundtrack, The Casualties, Anti-Flag, Less Than Jake, Rise Against, Joan Jett & The Blackhearts, Helmet, and The Academy Is...

title: Warped Tour


text:
Fred. Olsen & Co.

'''Fred. Olsen & Co.''' is a holding company based in Oslo, Norway. The company was founded as a shipping firm by Petter Olsen in 1848. Today the company manages the Olsen family's interests in a variety of sectors including logistics, energy and consumer goods.

History
The company was founded by Petter Olsen (1821–1899) in 1848 and, by his death, the company had 16 ships with offices in Hvitsten. Petter's son Thomas Fredrik "Fred" Olsen (1857–1933) or Fred. Olsen, whom the company is named after, took the company from a small business with a few boats into a powerful multinational shipping and shipbuilding business. He had a vision of providing high-quality service on a network of lines, at first domestically and, afterwards, internationally. To do this required steamships, of which the first was acquired in 1897. By 1914, the first motor ship was put in use on the South America line. In World War I, 23 of the company's 44 ships were sunk.

After the first Fred. Olsen's death, his sons Rudolf Olsen and Thomas Fredrik Olsen took over the company. During their leadership, the company expanded, even entering the aviation business with its own airline Fred. Olsen Flyselskap in addition to later partial ownerships of Det Norske Luftfartselskap, Scandinavian Airlines System, Widerøe, and Sterling Airlines. During World War II, the company's ships were in Allied service, though 28 were lost – about half the fleet. Rudolf died in 1951 and Thomas suffered ill health from 1955, eventually dying in 1969. Thomas's son, also named Fred. Olsen (born 1 January 1929), is now in control of the company, after becoming director in 1955. In the early 1970s, Fred. Olsen entered the offshore business, with Dolphin drilling rigs and part of Saga Petroleum. The Saga shares were sold in 1991 while Dolphin is now part of Fred. Olsen Energy. Fred. Olsen also had a major share in the construction and engineering company Aker and currently owns Timex Corporation.

The company has also periodically entered the tanking business, operating a total of 40 ships since 1920. In 1973, it sold its tanking interests but reentered the industry again in 1986, creating the publicly listed company First Olsen Tankers in 1993 that was repurchased in 1999. Fred. Olsen Renewables has been involved in wind power since 1997 with wind farms in Norway, Sweden, Ireland and the United Kingdom. In 1980, it was involved in Nimslo, a company making 3D cameras, which later went bankrupt.

Fred. Olsen is today owned by Anette S. Olsen, the fifth generation of the family and daughter of Fred. Olsen. She took over ownership of Fred. Olsen & Co. in 1995 and has since been CEO, though Fred. Olsen has remained Chairman.

At the end of 2008, Fred. Olsen sold its part of Comarit and is no longer a stockholder of the Moroccan passenger carrier.

Companies in the Fred. Olsen Group

 * Bonheur
 * First Olsen Tankers
 * Fred. Olsen Cruise Lines
 * Fred. Olsen Energy
 * Fred. Olsen Express (former Lineas Fred. Olsen)
 * Fred. Olsen Freight
 * Fred. Olsen Marine Services
 * Fred. Olsen Windcarrier
 * Fred. Olsen Production
 * Fred. Olsen Renewables
 * Fred. Olsen Travel
 * Ganger Rolf
 * GenoMar
 * Global Wind Service
 * IT Fornebu (minority ownership)
 * Norges Handels og Sjøfartstidende (minority ownership)
 * Oceanlink
 * Timex
 * The Natural Power Consultants
 * ZephIR

title: Fred. Olsen & Co.


text:
User:MichaelJanich

Michael Janich, born in 1967 in Mosbach, Germany, studied banking in Germany from 1983 to 1985 at Sparkasse Mosbach in Germany and graduated as "Bankkaufmann" (management trainee). He worked for seven more months in the same bank before he started to study Computer Science at the University of Paderborn in Germany in 1986, after one year of business college (Einjaehriges Berufskolleg zum Erreichen der Fachhochschulreife). The university is famous because it is mostly sponsored by Nixdorf (today Siemens Nixdorf). Michael graduated in May 1995 with a Master's Degree.

During his studies, he dealt with the following projects

 * Electrical Engineering background of computers
 * Minor degree in Psychology, which led to his inter-disciplinary master thesis "Recognition of TV advertising using highly parallel Neural Networks"
 * Co-Founder and active member of the Amiga User Group Uni Paderborn (AUGUP)
 * Chip Design and Chip Design Tools

In 1992 Germany changed its postal ZIP code system. Michael Janich took this opportunity to found his own software company. He developed ZIP code changing software for MS-DOS, UNIX and Amiga from idea, design, coding, packing, marketing, advertisement, shipping to tech support. He understood very early what a full development cycle from the idea to the product in the hand of the customer means.

Michael implemented more business ideas successfully.

He was among the first to own a personal WWW homepage and to contribute to the world's largest digital library by investing time and effort into publishing the city homepage of Paderborn.

After his Master's Degree the position MIS manager with IDC Asia/Pacific brought him to Hong Kong. He set up a TCP/IP WAN over the existing IPX/SPX network, installed and maintained SCO UNIX and Oracle, upgraded the office to MS Windows-95. He managed 55 desktops and 2 servers, CC:Mail, LAN-manager (NT) protocol, Lotus Notes, UNIX mail, etc.

In May 1996 Michael Janich joined Ziran Group, now known as Zi Corporation, as Vice President, Head of Systems. He was heading all Asia/Pacific LAN and WAN, supervises technical staff and works together with the sales team in pre-sales presentations. He was responsible for QC/QA for all products as well as customer support worldwide.

In February 1998 he founded nanosoft Ltd., where he developed databases with world-wide-web integration, better known as search engines. He's providing solutions for electronic commerce in Hong Kong and works on projects to improve human information processing.

From Sep 1998 to Sep 1999 he supported Merrill Lynch, the biggest American investment bank and fortune 23 company, with internal and external web related work on a contractual basis.

Since Sep 1999 he serves RawMart.com, a global raw material trading portal, as Chief Technology Officer. Since 2001 he also serves the mother company Noble Group Limited as their Chief Technology Officer.

In January 2004 Michael left the Noble Group to further his education and to change his field: He is starting a PhD degree in the field of genetics in mid 2004. He started with some biology courses at The University of Hong Kong in Sep 2004 and started his PhD in plant molecular biology.

After rejoining Noble Group Michael joined one of its subdivisions "Fleet Management" as CIO.

Today Michael is CEO of Chimera Sys GmbH, a diversified IT consultancy group.

title: User:MichaelJanich


text:
WebMacro

WebMacro is a framework for developing Java Servlets. It enforces a Model-View-Controller framework on a project allowing for a clean separation of concerns in the design. In particular, WebMacro keeps program source code absolutely separate from presentation HTML code. WebMacro is open source software.

WebMacro was initially created and designed by Justin Wells at Semiotek Inc. in the mid-2000, when the project was taken over by a team at SourceForge. Extensive discussions of WebMacro on the Java Servlet-Interest mailing list at that time may have been influential in Sun Microsystems decision to move their Java Server Pages product to a Model-View-Controller architecture.

WebMacro can also be used to generate arbitrary text output from templates (one of its uses is automated code generation).

The template language is very similar to the language used in Apache Velocity and there is an automated script to perform the migration.

The Apache Velocity project was started as a clean room re-implementation by Jon Scott Stevens, Geir Magnusson and Jason van Zyl after agreement could not be reached on adoption of the Apache License.

The current version of WebMacro is BSD licensed.

title: WebMacro


text:
Takbir

The takbīr (تَكْبِير,, lit. 'magnification [of God]') is the name for the Arabic phrase  (اَللَّٰهُ أَكْبَرُ, , lit. 'God is greater than everything').

It is a common Arabic expression, used in various contexts by Muslims and Arabs around the world: in formal Salah (prayer), in the Adhan (Islamic call to prayer), in Hajj, as an informal expression of faith, in times of distress or joy, or to express resolute determination or defiance. The phrase is the official motto of Iran and Iraq. It is also used by Orthodox Arab Christians as an expression of faith.

Etymology
The Arabic word كَبِير means big from the Semitic root . A cognate word for this root exists in Hebrew as כביר (kabir). The Arabic word أَكْبَر is the elative form (bigger) of the adjective kabīr. When used in the it is usually translated as biggest, but some authors translate it as bigger. The term  itself is the stem II verbal noun of the root kbr, meaning "big", from which akbar "bigger" is derived. The form  is a nominative of Allah, meaning 'God'.

The is sometimes translated into English as "God is greater", which is short for "God is greater than all" (الله أَكْبَرُ من كلِّ شيء). It is an example of an Arabic idiom where an incomplete sentence, abbreviated because of its familiarity, is considered grammatically correct.

Usage in Islamic rituals
This phrase is recited by Muslims in many different situations.

In prayer
The phrase is said during each stage of both salah (obligatory prayers, performed five times a day), and nafl (supererogatory prayers, performed at will). The call to prayer by the muezzin to those outside the mosque (adhan) and the call to those inside to line up for the commencement of prayer (iqama) also contain the phrase.

While there are many short prayers like it, the takbīr is used more frequently than any other.

Following births and deaths
The phrase is used after the birth of a child as a means of praising God. It is also part of Islamic funeral and burial customs.

During the Eid Festival and the Hajj
During the festival of Eid al-Adha and the days preceding it, Muslims recite the takbīr. This is particularly the case on the Day of Arafah.

During the halal slaughter of animals
In the process of pronouncing the name of God while performing Dhabihah one must say "Bismillah Allahu Akbar".

Other social usage
The expression "Allāhu Akbar" can be used in a variety of situations, from celebrations to times of grief.

In a historical account by someone who was present both at the birth of the ruler Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr (7th century) and at his funeral, the author observes that "Allahu Akbar" was said on both occasions.

In times of joy and gratitude
The takbīr can be used to express joy or surprise. It is also used as applause in religious contexts, such as after a Quran recital, as other forms of applause are considered less appropriate.

It is used to celebrate an election win. As a multi-purpose phrase, it is sometimes used by Arab football commentators as an expression of amazement, or even as a football chant.

In battle
Historically, the takbīr has been used as a cry of victory during battle. Ibn Ishaq's 8th century Life of Muhammed narrates two occasions when Muhammad proclaimed the takbīr during battle.

Iran
During the Iranian Revolution of 1979, it was shouted from rooftops in Iran during the evenings as a form of protest. The takbīr was later adopted as the official motto of Iran. This practice returned in the 2009 Iranian presidential election protests, which protested the election results.

Usage by extremists and terrorists
This usage has been denounced by other Muslims.

Professor Khaled A. Beydoun, author of The New Crusades: Islamophobia and the Global War on Muslims, writes that the association of the phrase "Allah Akbar" with terrorism has been exacerbated by mass media and television pundits. He adds that films and shows also utilize it as a cinematic trope further cementing the association.

In politics
In India, Asaduddin Owaisi, president of the AIMIM and Abu Taher Khan, representing TMC, after being elected as Members of the Indian Parliament, ended their oath with the slogan of "Allahu Akbar".

Usage by Christians
The phrase (Allah; meaning God in English) is only used by Arab Christians in third person view, and is rarely mentioned during prayers or church service. The Palestinian Christians use Allah in their prayer to refer to the creator of the world, and the takbir as an expression of their faith. The use of Takbir has been defended by Theodosios, the Palestinian Orthodox Archbishop of Sebastia.

Afghanistan
The Afghan constitution that came into force on January 4, 2004, required that Allāhu akbar be inscribed on the Flag of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. After the Taliban takeover, the flag of the first emirate was readopted, and thus the takbīr removed from the flag.

Iran
Allāhu akbar is written in stylized form across the bottom of the green stripe and the top of the red stripe of the flag of the Islamic Republic of Iran, adopted in 1980.

Iraq
The phrase Allāhu akbar is written on the center of the flag of Iraq.

During the Gulf War in January 1991, Saddam Hussein held a meeting with top military commanders, where it was decided to add the words Allāhu akbar (described as the Islamic battle cry) to Iraq's flag to boost his secular regime's religious credentials, casting himself as the leader of an Islamic army. Hussein described the flag as "the banner of jihad and monotheism".

In 2004, the US-picked Iraqi Governing Council approved a new flag for Iraq that abandoned symbols of Hussein's regime, such as the words Allāhu akbar. In January 2008, however, Iraq's parliament passed a law to change the flag by leaving in the phrase, but changing the calligraphy of the words Allāhu akbar, which had been a copy of Hussein's handwriting, to a Kufic script. The Iraqi flag under Hussein had each of the two words of the phrase written in one of the spaces between the stars on the central band; the 2008 flag, while leaving the phrase in, removes the stars.

Other uses
A resistance movement that fought British rule in Waziristan, Pakistan, used a red flag bearing Allāhu akbar in white letters.

The flag used by the Houthis in Yemen also includes bearing Allāhu akbar in green letters.

title: Takbir