text:
Indigenous languages of the Americas

The Indigenous languages of the Americas are a diverse group of languages that originated in the Americas prior to colonization, many of which continue to be spoken. Over a thousand of these languages are still used today, while many more are now extinct. The Indigenous languages of the Americas are not all related to each other; instead, they are classified into a hundred or so language families (including a large number of language isolates), as well as a number of extinct languages that are unclassified due to the lack of information on them.

Many proposals have been made to relate some or all of these languages to each other, with varying degrees of success. The most widely reported is Joseph Greenberg's Amerind hypothesis, which, however, nearly all specialists reject because of severe methodological flaws; spurious data; and a failure to distinguish cognation, contact, and coincidence.

According to UNESCO, most of the Indigenous languages of the Americas are critically endangered, and many are dormant (without native speakers but with a community of heritage-language users) or entirely extinct. The most widely spoken Indigenous languages are Southern Quechua (spoken primarily in southern Peru and Bolivia) and Guarani (centered in Paraguay, where it shares national language status with Spanish), with perhaps six or seven million speakers apiece (including many of European descent in the case of Guarani). Only half a dozen others have more than a million speakers; these are Aymara of Bolivia and Nahuatl of Mexico, with almost two million each; the Mayan languages Kekchi, Quiché, and Yucatec of Guatemala and Mexico, with about 1 million apiece; and perhaps one or two additional Quechuan languages in Peru and Ecuador. In the United States, 372,000 people reported speaking an Indigenous language at home in the 2010 census. In Canada, 133,000 people reported speaking an Indigenous language at home in the 2011 census. In Greenland, about 90% of the population speaks Greenlandic, the most widely spoken Eskaleut language.

Background
Over a thousand known languages were spoken by various peoples in North and South America prior to their first contact with Europeans. These encounters occurred between the beginning of the 11th century (with the Nordic settlement of Greenland and failed efforts in Newfoundland and Labrador) and the end of the 15th century (the voyages of Christopher Columbus). Several Indigenous cultures of the Americas had also developed their own writing systems, the best known being the Maya script. The Indigenous languages of the Americas had widely varying demographics, from the Quechuan languages, Aymara, Guarani, and Nahuatl, which had millions of active speakers, to many languages with only several hundred speakers. After pre-Columbian times, several Indigenous creole languages developed in the Americas, based on European, Indigenous and African languages.

The European colonizing nations and their successor states had widely varying attitudes towards Native American languages. In Brazil, friars learned and promoted the Tupi language. In many Spanish colonies, Spanish missionaries often learned local languages and culture in order to preach to the natives in their own tongue and relate the Christian message to their Indigenous religions. In the British American colonies, John Eliot of the Massachusetts Bay Colony translated the Bible into the Massachusett language, also called Wampanoag, or Natick (1661–1663); he published the first Bible printed in North America, the Eliot Indian Bible.

The Europeans also suppressed use of Indigenous languages, establishing their own languages for official communications, destroying texts in other languages, and insisted that Indigenous people learn European languages in schools. As a result, Indigenous languages suffered from cultural suppression and loss of speakers. By the 18th and 19th centuries, Spanish, English, Portuguese, French, and Dutch, brought to the Americas by European settlers and administrators, had become the official or national languages of modern nation-states of the Americas.

Many Indigenous languages have become critically endangered, but others are vigorous and part of daily life for millions of people. Several Indigenous languages have been given official status in the countries where they occur, such as Guaraní in Paraguay. In other cases official status is limited to certain regions where the languages are most spoken. Although sometimes enshrined in constitutions as official, the languages may be used infrequently in de facto official use. Examples are Quechua in Peru and Aymara in Bolivia, where in practice, Spanish is dominant in all formal contexts.

In the North American Arctic region, Greenland in 2009 elected Kalaallisut as its sole official language. In the United States, the Navajo language is the most spoken Native American language, with more than 200,000 speakers in the Southwestern United States. The US Marine Corps recruited Navajo men, who were established as code talkers during World War II.

Origins
In American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America (1997), Lyle Campbell lists several hypotheses for the historical origins of Amerindian languages.

 * A single, one-language migration (not widely accepted)
 * A few linguistically distinct migrations (favored by Edward Sapir)
 * Multiple migrations
 * Multilingual migrations (single migration with multiple languages)
 * The influx of already diversified but related languages from the Old World
 * Extinction of Old World linguistic relatives (while the New World ones survived)
 * Migration along the Pacific coast instead of by the Bering Strait

Roger Blench (2008) has advocated the theory of multiple migrations along the Pacific coast of peoples from northeastern Asia, who already spoke diverse languages. These proliferated in the New World.

Numbers of speakers and political recognition
Countries like Mexico, Bolivia, Venezuela, Guatemala, and Guyana recognize most Indigenous languages. Bolivia and Venezuela give all Indigenous languages official status. Canada, Argentina, and the U.S. allow provinces and states to decide. Brazil limits recognition to localities.

 * Bolivia: Official status for all Indigenous languages.
 * Venezuela: Official status for all Indigenous languages.
 * Mexico: Recognizes all Indigenous languages.
 * Guatemala: Recognizes all Indigenous languages.
 * Guyana: Recognizes most Indigenous languages.
 * Colombia: Local recognition at the department level.
 * Canada: Bill C-91 Indigenous Languages Act and Indigenous languages recognition in Parliament.
 * Argentina: Provincial determination of language policies.
 * United States: State determination of language policies.
 * Brazil: Local recognition of Indigenous languages.

Canada

Bill C-91, passed in 2019, supports Indigenous languages through sustainable funding and the Office of the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages. The first Commissioner of Indigenous languages in Canada is Ronald E. Ignace.

Colombia

Colombia delegates local Indigenous language recognition to the department level according to the Colombian Constitution of 1991.

 * Bullet points represent minority language status. Political entities with official language status are highlighted in bold.

Language families and unclassified languages
Notes:
 * Extinct languages or families are indicated by: †.
 * The number of family members is indicated in parentheses (for example, Arauan (9) means the Arauan family consists of nine languages).
 * For convenience, the following list of language families is divided into three sections based on political boundaries of countries. These sections correspond roughly with the geographic regions (North, Central, and South America) but are not equivalent. This division cannot fully delineate Indigenous culture areas.

Northern America

There are approximately 296 spoken (or formerly spoken) Indigenous languages north of Mexico, 269 of which are grouped into 29 families (the remaining 27 languages are either isolates or unclassified). The Na-Dené, Algic, and Uto-Aztecan families are the largest in terms of number of languages. Uto-Aztecan has the most speakers (1.95 million) if the languages in Mexico are considered (mostly due to 1.5 million speakers of Nahuatl); Na-Dené comes in second with approximately 200,000 speakers (nearly 180,000 of these are speakers of Navajo), and Algic in third with about 180,000 speakers (mainly Cree and Ojibwe). Na-Dené and Algic have the widest geographic distributions: Algic currently spans from northeastern Canada across much of the continent down to northeastern Mexico (due to later migrations of the Kickapoo) with two outliers in California (Yurok and Wiyot); Na-Dené spans from Alaska and western Canada through Washington, Oregon, and California to the U.S. Southwest and northern Mexico (with one outlier in the Plains). Several families consist of only 2 or 3 languages. Demonstrating genetic relationships has proved difficult due to the great linguistic diversity present in North America. Two large (super-) family proposals, Penutian and Hokan, look particularly promising. However, even after decades of research, a large number of families remain.

North America is notable for its linguistic diversity, especially in California. This area has 18 language families comprising 74 languages (compared to five families in Europe: Indo-European, Uralic, Turkic, Kartvelian, and Afroasiatic and one isolate, Basque).

Another area of considerable diversity appears to have been the Southeastern Woodlands; however, many of these languages became extinct from European contact and as a result they are, for the most part, absent from the historical record. This diversity has influenced the development of linguistic theories and practice in the US.

Due to the diversity of languages in North America, it is difficult to make generalizations for the region. Most North American languages have a relatively small number of vowels (i.e. three to five vowels). Languages of the western half of North America often have relatively large consonant inventories. The languages of the Pacific Northwest are notable for their complex phonotactics (for example, some languages have words that lack vowels entirely). The languages of the Plateau area have relatively rare pharyngeals and epiglottals (they are otherwise restricted to Afroasiatic languages and the languages of the Caucasus). Ejective consonants are also common in western North America, although they are rare elsewhere (except, again, for the Caucasus region, parts of Africa, and the Mayan family).

Head-marking is found in many languages of North America (as well as in Central and South America), but outside of the Americas it is rare. Many languages throughout North America are polysynthetic (Eskaleut languages are extreme examples), although this is not characteristic of all North American languages (contrary to what was believed by 19th-century linguists). Several families have unique traits, such as the inverse number marking of the Tanoan languages, the lexical affixes of the Wakashan, Salishan and Chimakuan languages, and the unusual verb structure of Na-Dené.

The classification below is a composite of Goddard (1996), Campbell (1997), and Mithun (1999).

 * Adai †
 * Algic (30)
 * Alsea (2) †
 * Atakapa †
 * Beothuk †
 * Caddoan (5)
 * Cayuse †
 * Chimakuan (2) †
 * Chimariko †
 * Chinookan (3) †
 * Chitimacha †
 * Chumashan (6) †
 * Coahuilteco †
 * Comecrudan (United States & Mexico) (3) †
 * Coosan (2) †
 * Cotoname †
 * Eskaleut (7)
 * Esselen †
 * Haida
 * Iroquoian (11)
 * Kalapuyan (3) †
 * Karankawa †
 * Karuk
 * Keresan (2)
 * Kutenai
 * Maiduan (4)
 * Muskogean (9)
 * Na-Dené (United States, Canada & Mexico) (39)
 * Natchez †
 * Palaihnihan (2) †
 * Plateau Penutian (4) (also known as Shahapwailutan)
 * Pomoan (7)
 * Salinan †
 * Salishan (23)
 * Shastan (4) †
 * Siouan (19)
 * Siuslaw †
 * Solano †
 * Takelma †
 * Tanoan (7)
 * Timucua †
 * Tonkawa †
 * Tsimshianic (2)
 * Tunica †
 * Utian (15) (also known as Miwok–Costanoan)
 * Uto-Aztecan (33)
 * Wakashan (7)
 * Wappo †
 * Washo
 * Wintuan (4)
 * Yana †
 * Yokutsan (3)
 * Yuchi
 * Yuki †
 * Yuman–Cochimí (11)
 * Zuni

Central America and Mexico

In Central America the Mayan languages are among those used today. Mayan languages are spoken by at least six million Indigenous Maya, primarily in Guatemala, Mexico, Belize and Honduras. In 1996, Guatemala formally recognized 21 Mayan languages by name, and Mexico recognizes eight more. The Mayan language family is one of the best documented and most studied in the Americas. Modern Mayan languages descend from Proto-Mayan, a language thought to have been spoken at least 4,000 years ago; it has been partially reconstructed using the comparative method.

 * Alagüilac (Guatemala) †
 * Chibchan (Central America & South America) (22)
 * Coahuilteco †
 * Comecrudan (Texas & Mexico) (3) †
 * Cotoname †
 * Cuitlatec (Mexico: Guerrero) †
 * Epi-Olmec (Mexico: language of undeciphered inscriptions) †
 * Guaicurian (8) †
 * Huave
 * Jicaquean (2)
 * Lencan (2) †
 * Maratino (northeastern Mexico) †
 * Mayan (31)
 * Misumalpan (5)
 * Mixe–Zoquean (19)
 * Naolan (Mexico: Tamaulipas) †
 * Oto-Manguean (27)
 * Pericú †
 * Purépecha
 * Quinigua (northeast Mexico) †
 * Seri
 * Solano †
 * Tequistlatecan (3)
 * Totonacan (2)
 * Uto-Aztecan (United States & Mexico) (33)
 * Xincan (5) †
 * Yuman (United States & Mexico) (11)

South America and the Caribbean

Although both North and Central America are very diverse areas, South America has a linguistic diversity rivalled by only a few other places in the world with approximately 350 languages still spoken and several hundred more spoken at first contact but now extinct. The situation of language documentation and classification into genetic families is not as advanced as in North America (which is relatively well studied in many areas). Kaufman (1994: 46) gives the following appraisal:

Since the mid 1950s, the amount of published material on SA [South America] has been gradually growing, but even so, the number of researchers is far smaller than the growing number of linguistic communities whose speech should be documented. Given the current employment opportunities, it is not likely that the number of specialists in SA Indian languages will increase fast enough to document most of the surviving SA languages before they go out of use, as most of them unavoidably will. More work languishes in personal files than is published, but this is a standard problem.

It is fair to say that SA and New Guinea are linguistically the poorest documented parts of the world. However, in the early 1960s fairly systematic efforts were launched in Papua New Guinea, and that area – much smaller than SA, to be sure – is in general much better documented than any part of Indigenous SA of comparable size.

As a result, many relationships between languages and language families have not been determined and some of those relationships that have been proposed are on somewhat shaky ground.

The list of language families, isolates, and unclassified languages below is a rather conservative one based on Campbell (1997). Many of the proposed (and often speculative) groupings of families can be seen in Campbell (1997), Gordon (2005), Kaufman (1990, 1994), Key (1979), Loukotka (1968), and in the Language stock proposals section below.

 * Aguano †
 * Aikaná (Brazil: Rondônia) (also known as Aikanã, Tubarão)
 * Andaquí (also known as Andaqui, Andakí) †
 * Andoque (Colombia, Peru) (also known as Andoke)
 * Andoquero †
 * Arauan (9)
 * Arawakan (South America & Caribbean) (64) (also known as Maipurean)
 * Arutani
 * Aymaran (3)
 * Baenan (Brazil: Bahia) (also known as Baenán, Baenã) †
 * Barbacoan (8)
 * Betoi (Colombia) (also known as Betoy, Jirara) †
 * Bororoan
 * Botocudoan (3) (also known as Aimoré)
 * Cahuapanan (2) (also known as Jebero, Kawapánan)
 * Camsá (Colombia) (also known as Sibundoy, Coche)
 * Candoshi (also known as Maina, Kandoshi)
 * Canichana (Bolivia) (also known as Canesi, Kanichana)
 * Carabayo
 * Cariban (29) (also known as Caribe, Carib)
 * Catacaoan (also known as Katakáoan) †
 * Cayubaba (Bolivia)
 * Chapacuran (9) (also known as Chapacura-Wanham, Txapakúran)
 * Charruan (also known as Charrúan) †
 * Chibchan (Central America & South America) (22)
 * Chimuan (3) †
 * Chipaya–Uru (also known as Uru–Chipaya)
 * Chiquitano
 * Choco (10) (also known as Chocoan)
 * Chon (2) (also known as Patagonian)
 * Chono †
 * Coeruna (Brazil) †
 * Cofán (Colombia, Ecuador)
 * Cueva †
 * Culle (Peru) (also known as Culli, Linga, Kulyi) †
 * Cunza (Chile, Bolivia, Argentina) (also known as Atacama, Atakama, Atacameño, Lipe, Kunsa) †
 * Esmeraldeño (also known as Esmeralda, Takame) †
 * Fulnió
 * Gamela (Brazil: Maranhão) †
 * Gorgotoqui (Bolivia) †
 * Guaicuruan (7) (also known as Guaykuruan, Waikurúan)
 * Guajiboan (4) (also known as Wahívoan)
 * Guamo (Venezuela) (also known as Wamo) †
 * Guató
 * Harakmbut (2) (also known as Tuyoneri)
 * Hibito–Cholon †
 * Himarimã
 * Hodï (Venezuela) (also known as Jotí, Hoti, Waruwaru)
 * Huamoé (Brazil: Pernambuco) †
 * Huaorani (Ecuador, Peru) (also known as Auca, Huaorani, Wao, Auka, Sabela, Waorani, Waodani)
 * Huarpe (also known as Warpe) †
 * Irantxe (Brazil: Mato Grosso)
 * Itonama (Bolivia) (also known as Saramo, Machoto)
 * Jabutian
 * Je (13) (also known as Gê, Jêan, Gêan, Ye)
 * Jeikó †
 * Jirajaran (3) (also known as Hiraháran, Jirajarano, Jirajarana) †
 * Jivaroan (2) (also known as Hívaro)
 * Kaimbe
 * Kaliana (also known as Caliana, Cariana, Sapé, Chirichano)
 * Kamakanan †
 * Kapixaná (Brazil: Rondônia) (also known as Kanoé, Kapishaná)
 * Karajá
 * Karirí (Brazil: Paraíba, Pernambuco, Ceará) †''
 * Katembrí †
 * Katukinan (3) (also known as Catuquinan)
 * Kawésqar (Chile) (Kaweskar, Alacaluf, Qawasqar, Halawalip, Aksaná, Hekaine)
 * Kwaza (Koayá) ''(Brazil: Rondônia)
 * Leco (Lapalapa, Leko)
 * Lule (Argentina) (also known as Tonocoté)
 * Máku (Maku of Auari)
 * Malibú (also known as Malibu)
 * Mapudungun (Chile, Argentina) (also known as Araucanian, Mapuche, Huilliche)
 * Mascoyan (5) (also known as Maskóian, Mascoian)
 * Matacoan (4) (also known as Mataguayan)
 * Matanawí †
 * Maxakalían (3) (also known as Mashakalían)
 * Mocana (Colombia: Tubará) †
 * Mosetenan (also known as Mosetén)
 * Movima (Bolivia)
 * Munichi (Peru) (also known as Muniche)
 * Muran (4)
 * Mutú (also known as Loco)
 * Nadahup (5)
 * Nambiquaran (5)
 * Natú (Brazil: Pernambuco) †
 * Nonuya (Peru, Colombia)
 * Ofayé
 * Old Catío–Nutabe (Colombia) †
 * Omurano (Peru) (also known as Mayna, Mumurana, Numurana, Maina, Rimachu, Roamaina, Umurano) †
 * Otí (Brazil: São Paulo) †
 * Otomakoan (2) †
 * Paez (also known as Nasa Yuwe)
 * Palta †
 * Pankararú (Brazil: Pernambuco) †
 * Pano–Tacanan (33)
 * Panzaleo (Ecuador) (also known as Latacunga, Quito, Pansaleo) †
 * Patagon † (Peru)
 * Peba–Yaguan (2) (also known as Yaguan, Yáwan, Peban)
 * Pijao†
 * Pre-Arawakan languages of the Greater Antilles (Guanahatabey, Macorix, Ciguayo) † (Cuba, Hispaniola)
 * Puelche (Chile) (also known as Guenaken, Gennaken, Pampa, Pehuenche, Ranquelche) †
 * Puinave (also known as Makú)
 * Puquina (Bolivia) †
 * Purian (2) †
 * Quechuan (46)
 * Rikbaktsá
 * Saliban (2) (also known as Sálivan)
 * Sechura (Atalan, Sec) †
 * Tabancale † (Peru)
 * Tairona (Colombia) †
 * Tarairiú (Brazil: Rio Grande do Norte) †
 * Taruma †
 * Taushiro (Peru) (also known as Pinchi, Pinche)
 * Tequiraca (Peru) (also known as Tekiraka, Avishiri) †
 * Teushen † (Patagonia, Argentina)
 * Ticuna (Colombia, Peru, Brazil) (also known as Magta, Tikuna, Tucuna, Tukna, Tukuna)
 * Timotean (2) †
 * Tiniguan (2) (also known as Tiníwan, Pamiguan) †
 * Trumai (Brazil: Xingu, Mato Grosso)
 * Tucanoan (15)
 * Tupian (70, including Guaraní)
 * Tuxá (Brazil: Bahia, Pernambuco) †
 * Urarina (also known as Shimacu, Itukale, Shimaku)
 * Vilela
 * Wakona †
 * Warao (Guyana, Surinam, Venezuela) (also known as Guarao)
 * Witotoan (6) (also known as Huitotoan, Bora–Witótoan)
 * Xokó (Brazil: Alagoas, Pernambuco) (also known as Shokó) †
 * Xukurú (Brazil: Pernambuco, Paraíba) †
 * Yaghan (Chile) (also known as Yámana)
 * Yanomaman (4)
 * Yaruro (also known as Jaruro)
 * Yuracare (Bolivia)
 * Yuri (Colombia, Brazil) (also known as Carabayo, Jurí) †
 * Yurumanguí (Colombia) (also known as Yurimangui, Yurimangi) †
 * Zamucoan (2)
 * Zaparoan (5) (also known as Záparo)

Language stock proposals
Hypothetical language-family proposals of American languages are often cited as uncontroversial in popular writing. However, many of these proposals have not been fully demonstrated, or even demonstrated at all. Some proposals are viewed by specialists in a favorable light, believing that genetic relationships are very likely to be established in the future (for example, the Penutian stock). Other proposals are more controversial with many linguists believing that some genetic relationships of a proposal may be demonstrated but much of it undemonstrated (for example, Hokan–Siouan, which, incidentally, Edward Sapir called his "wastepaper basket stock"). Still other proposals are almost unanimously rejected by specialists (for example, Amerind). Below is a (partial) list of some such proposals:

 * Algonquian–Wakashan  (also known as Almosan)
 * Almosan–Keresiouan  (Almosan + Keresiouan)
 * Amerind  (all languages excepting Eskaleut & Na-Dené)
 * Algonkian–Gulf  (Algic + Beothuk + Gulf)
 * (macro-)Arawakan
 * Arutani–Sape (Ahuaque–Kalianan)
 * Aztec–Tanoan  (Uto-Aztecan + Tanoan)
 * Chibchan–Paezan
 * Chikitano–Boróroan
 * Chimu–Chipaya
 * Coahuiltecan  (Coahuilteco + Cotoname + Comecrudan + Karankawa + Tonkawa)
 * Cunza–Kapixanan
 * Dené–Caucasian
 * Dené–Yeniseian
 * Esmeralda–Yaruroan
 * Ge–Pano–Carib
 * Guamo–Chapacuran
 * Gulf  (Muskogean + Natchez + Tunica)
 * Macro-Kulyi–Cholónan
 * Hokan  (Karok + Chimariko + Shastan + Palaihnihan + Yana + Pomoan + Washo + Esselen + Yuman + Salinan + Chumashan + Seri + Tequistlatecan)
 * Hokan–Siouan  (Hokan + Keresiouan + Subtiaba–Tlappanec + Coahuiltecan + Yukian + Tunican + Natchez + Muskogean + Timucua)
 * Je–Tupi–Carib
 * Jivaroan–Cahuapanan
 * Kalianan
 * Kandoshi–Omurano–Taushiro
 * (Macro-)Katembri–Taruma
 * Kaweskar language area
 * Keresiouan  (Macro-Siouan + Keresan + Yuchi)
 * Lule–Vilelan
 * Macro-Andean
 * Macro-Carib
 * Macro-Chibchan
 * Macro-Gê  (also known as Macro-Jê)
 * Macro-Jibaro
 * Macro-Lekoan
 * Macro-Mayan
 * Macro-Otomákoan
 * Macro-Paesan
 * Macro-Panoan
 * Macro-Puinavean
 * Macro-Siouan  (Siouan + Iroquoian + Caddoan)
 * Macro-Tucanoan
 * Macro-Tupí–Karibe
 * Macro-Waikurúan
 * Macro-Warpean  (Muran + Matanawi + Huarpe)
 * Mataco–Guaicuru
 * Mosan  (Salishan + Wakashan + Chimakuan)
 * Mosetén–Chonan
 * Mura–Matanawian
 * Sapir's Na-Dené including Haida  (Haida + Tlingit + Eyak + Athabaskan)
 * Nostratic–Amerind
 * Paezan (Andaqui + Paez + Panzaleo)
 * Paezan–Barbacoan
 * Penutian  (many languages of California and sometimes languages in Mexico)
 * California Penutian  (Wintuan + Maiduan + Yokutsan + Utian)
 * Oregon Penutian  (Takelma + Coosan + Siuslaw + Alsean)
 * Mexican Penutian  (Mixe–Zoque + Huave)
 * Puinave–Maku
 * Quechumaran
 * Saparo–Yawan  (also known as Zaparo–Yaguan)
 * Sechura–Catacao (also known as Sechura–Tallan)
 * Takelman  (Takelma + Kalapuyan)
 * Tequiraca–Canichana
 * Ticuna–Yuri (Yuri–Ticunan)
 * Totozoque  (Totonacan + Mixe–Zoque)
 * Tunican  (Tunica + Atakapa + Chitimacha)
 * Yok–Utian
 * Yuki–Wappo

Good discussions of past proposals can be found in Campbell (1997) and Campbell & Mithun (1979).

Amerindian linguist Lyle Campbell also assigned different percentage values of probability and confidence for various proposals of macro-families and language relationships, depending on his views of the proposals' strengths. For example, the Germanic language family would receive probability and confidence percentage values of +100% and 100%, respectively. However, if Turkish and Quechua were compared, the probability value might be −95%, while the confidence value might be 95%. 0% probability or confidence would mean complete uncertainty.

Pronouns
It has long been observed that a remarkable number of Native American languages have a pronominal pattern with first-person singular forms in n and second-person singular forms in m. (Compare first-person singular m and second-person singular t across much of northern Eurasia, as in English me and thee, Spanish me and te, and Hungarian -m and -d.) This pattern was first noted by Alfredo Trombetti in 1905. It caused Sapir to suggest that ultimately all Native American languages would turn out to be related. Johanna Nichols suggests that the pattern had spread through diffusion. This notion was rejected by Lyle Campbell, who argued that the frequency of the n/m pattern was not statistically elevated in either area compared to the rest of the world. Zamponi found that Nichols's findings were distorted by her small sample size. Looking at families rather than individual languages, he found a rate of 30% of families/protolanguages in North America, all on the western flank, compared to 5% in South America and 7% of non-American languages – though the percentage in North America, and especially the even higher number in the Pacific Northwest, drops considerably if Hokan and Penutian, or parts of them, are accepted as language families. If all the proposed Penutian and Hokan languages in the table below are related, then the frequency drops to 9% of North American families, statistically indistinguishable from the world average.

Unattested languages
Several languages are only known by mention in historical documents or from only a few names or words. It cannot be determined that these languages actually existed or that the few recorded words are actually of known or unknown languages. Some may simply be from a historian's errors. Others are of known people with no linguistic record (sometimes due to lost records). A short list is below.

 * Ais
 * Akokisa
 * Aranama
 * Ausaima
 * Avoyel
 * Bayagoula
 * Bidai
 * Cacán (Diaguita–Calchaquí)
 * Calusa – Mayaimi – Tequesta
 * Cusabo
 * Eyeish
 * Grigra
 * Guale
 * Houma
 * Koroa
 * Mayaca (possibly related to Ais)
 * Mobila
 * Okelousa
 * Opelousa
 * Pascagoula
 * Pensacola – Amacano - Chacato - Chine (Muscogean languages)
 * Pijao language
 * Pisabo (possibly the same language as Matsés)
 * Quinipissa
 * Taensa
 * Tiou
 * Yamacraw
 * Yamasee
 * Yazoo

Loukotka (1968) reports the names of hundreds of South American languages which do not have any linguistic documentation.

Pidgins and mixed languages
Various miscellaneous languages such as pidgins, mixed languages, trade languages, and sign languages are given below in alphabetical order.

 * 1) American Indian Pidgin English
 * 2) Algonquian-Basque pidgin (also known as Micmac-Basque Pidgin, Souriquois; spoken by the Basques, Micmacs, and Montagnais in eastern Canada)
 * 3) Broken Oghibbeway (also known as Broken Ojibwa)
 * 4) Broken Slavey
 * 5) Bungee (also known as Bungi, Bungie, Bungay, or the Red River Dialect)
 * 6) Callahuaya (also known as Machaj-Juyai, Kallawaya, Collahuaya, Pohena, Kolyawaya Jargon)
 * 7) Carib Pidgin (also known as Ndjuka-Amerindian Pidgin, Ndjuka-Trio)
 * 8) Carib Pidgin–Arawak Mixed Language
 * 9) Catalangu
 * 10) Chinook Jargon
 * 11) Delaware Jargon (also known as Pidgin Delaware)
 * 12) Eskimo Trade Jargon (also known as Herschel Island Eskimo Pidgin, Ship's Jargon)
 * 13) Greenlandic Pidgin (West Greenlandic Pidgin)
 * 14) Guajiro-Spanish
 * 15) Güegüence-Nicarao
 * 16) Haida Jargon
 * 17) Inuktitut-English Pidgin (Quebec)
 * 18) Jargonized Powhatan
 * 19) Keresan Sign Language
 * 20) Labrador Eskimo Pidgin (also known as Labrador Inuit Pidgin)
 * 21) Lingua Franca Apalachee
 * 22) Lingua Franca Creek
 * 23) Lingua Geral Amazônica (also known as Nheengatú, Lingua Boa, Lingua Brasílica, Lingua Geral do Norte)
 * 24) Lingua Geral do Sul (also known as Lingua Geral Paulista, Tupí Austral)
 * 25) Loucheux Jargon (also known as Jargon Loucheux)
 * 26) Media Lengua
 * 27) Mednyj Aleut (also known as Copper Island Aleut, Medniy Aleut, CIA)
 * 28) Michif (also known as French Cree, Métis, Metchif, Mitchif, Métchif)
 * 29) Mobilian Jargon (also known as Mobilian Trade Jargon, Chickasaw-Chocaw Trade Language, Yamá)
 * 30) Montagnais Pidgin Basque (also known as Pidgin Basque-Montagnais)
 * 31) Nootka Jargon (spoken during the 18th–19th centuries; later replaced by Chinook Jargon)
 * 32) Ocaneechi (also known as Occaneechee; spoken in Virginia and the Carolinas in early colonial times)
 * 33) Pidgin Massachusett
 * 34) Plains Indian Sign Language

Writing systems
While most Indigenous languages have adopted the Latin script as the written form of their languages, a few languages have their own unique writing systems after encountering the Latin script (often through missionaries) that are still in use. All pre-Columbian Indigenous writing systems are no longer used.

North America

 * Goddard, Ives. (1999). Native languages and language families of North America (rev. and enlarged ed. with additions and corrections). [Map]. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press (Smithsonian Institution). (Updated version of the map in Goddard 1996). ISBN 0-8032-9271-6.
 * Nater, Hank F. (1984). The Bella Coola Language. Mercury Series; Canadian Ethnology Service (No. 92). Ottawa: National Museums of Canada.
 * Powell, John W. (1891). Indian linguistic families of America north of Mexico. Seventh annual report, Bureau of American Ethnology (pp. 1–142). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. (Reprinted in P. Holder (Ed.), 1966, Introduction to Handbook of American Indian languages by Franz Boas and Indian linguistic families of America, north of Mexico, by J. W. Powell, Lincoln: University of Nebraska).
 * Powell, John W. (1915). Linguistic families of American Indians north of Mexico by J. W. Powell, revised by members of the staff of the Bureau of American Ethnology. (Map). Bureau of American Ethnology miscellaneous publication (No. 11). Baltimore: Hoen.
 * Sebeok, Thomas A. (Ed.). (1973). Linguistics in North America (parts 1 & 2). Current trends in linguistics (Vol. 10). The Hauge: Mouton. (Reprinted as Sebeok 1976).
 * Sebeok, Thomas A. (Ed.). (1976). Native languages of the Americas. New York: Plenum.
 * Sherzer, Joel. (1973).  Areal linguistics in North America.  In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Linguistics in North America (part 2, pp. 749–795).  Current trends in linguistics (Vol. 10). The Hauge: Mouton. (Reprinted in Sebeok 1976).
 * Sherzer, Joel. (1976). An areal-typological study of American Indian languages north of Mexico. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
 * Sletcher, Michael, 'North American Indians', in Will Kaufman and Heidi Macpherson, eds., Britain and the Americas: Culture, Politics, and History, (2 vols., Oxford, 2005).
 * Sturtevant, William C. (Ed.). (1978–present). Handbook of North American Indians (Vol. 1–20). Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution. (Vols. 1–3, 16, 18–20 not yet published).
 * Vaas, Rüdiger: 'Die Sprachen der Ureinwohner'. In: Stoll, Günter, Vaas, Rüdiger: Spurensuche im Indianerland. Hirzel. Stuttgart 2001, chapter 7.
 * Voegelin, Carl F.; & Voegelin, Florence M. (1965). Classification of American Indian languages. Languages of the world, Native American fasc. 2, sec. 1.6). Anthropological Linguistics, 7 (7): 121–150.
 * Powell, John W. (1915). Linguistic families of American Indians north of Mexico by J. W. Powell, revised by members of the staff of the Bureau of American Ethnology. (Map). Bureau of American Ethnology miscellaneous publication (No. 11). Baltimore: Hoen.
 * Sebeok, Thomas A. (Ed.). (1973). Linguistics in North America (parts 1 & 2). Current trends in linguistics (Vol. 10). The Hauge: Mouton. (Reprinted as Sebeok 1976).
 * Sebeok, Thomas A. (Ed.). (1976). Native languages of the Americas. New York: Plenum.
 * Sherzer, Joel. (1973).  Areal linguistics in North America.  In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Linguistics in North America (part 2, pp. 749–795).  Current trends in linguistics (Vol. 10). The Hauge: Mouton. (Reprinted in Sebeok 1976).
 * Sherzer, Joel. (1976). An areal-typological study of American Indian languages north of Mexico. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
 * Sletcher, Michael, 'North American Indians', in Will Kaufman and Heidi Macpherson, eds., Britain and the Americas: Culture, Politics, and History, (2 vols., Oxford, 2005).
 * Sturtevant, William C. (Ed.). (1978–present). Handbook of North American Indians (Vol. 1–20). Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution. (Vols. 1–3, 16, 18–20 not yet published).
 * Vaas, Rüdiger: 'Die Sprachen der Ureinwohner'. In: Stoll, Günter, Vaas, Rüdiger: Spurensuche im Indianerland. Hirzel. Stuttgart 2001, chapter 7.
 * Voegelin, Carl F.; & Voegelin, Florence M. (1965). Classification of American Indian languages. Languages of the world, Native American fasc. 2, sec. 1.6). Anthropological Linguistics, 7 (7): 121–150.

South America

 * Adelaar, Willem F. H.; & Muysken, Pieter C. (2004). The languages of the Andes. Cambridge language surveys. Cambridge University Press.
 * Fabre, Alain. (1998). "Manual de las lenguas indígenas sudamericanas, I-II". München: Lincom Europa.
 * Kaufman, Terrence. (1990). Language history in South America: What we know and how to know more. In D. L. Payne (Ed.), Amazonian linguistics: Studies in lowland South American languages (pp. 13–67). Austin: University of Texas Press. ISBN 0-292-70414-3.
 * Kaufman, Terrence. (1994). The native languages of South America. In C. Mosley & R. E. Asher (Eds.), Atlas of the world's languages (pp. 46–76). London: Routledge.
 * Key, Mary R. (1979). The grouping of South American languages. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
 * Loukotka, Čestmír. (1968). Classification of South American Indian languages. Los Angeles: Latin American Studies Center, University of California.
 * Mason, J. Alden. (1950). The languages of South America. In J. Steward (Ed.), Handbook of South American Indians (Vol. 6, pp. 157–317). Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology bulletin (No. 143). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
 * Migliazza, Ernest C.; & Campbell, Lyle. (1988). Panorama general de las lenguas indígenas en América. Historia general de América (Vol. 10). Caracas: Instituto Panamericano de Geografía e Historia.
 * Rodrigues, Aryon. (1986). Linguas brasileiras: Para o conhecimento das linguas indígenas. São Paulo: Edições Loyola.
 * Rowe, John H. (1954). Linguistics classification problems in South America. In M. B. Emeneau (Ed.), Papers from the symposium on American Indian linguistics (pp. 10–26). University of California publications in linguistics (Vol. 10). Berkeley: University of California Press.
 * Sapir, Edward. (1929). Central and North American languages. In The encyclopædia britannica: A new survey of universal knowledge (14 ed.) (Vol. 5, pp. 138–141). London: The Encyclopædia Britannica Company, Ltd.
 * Voegelin, Carl F.; & Voegelin, Florence M. (1977). Classification and index of the world's languages. Amsterdam: Elsevier. ISBN 0-444-00155-7.
 * Debian North American Indigenous Languages Project

title: Indigenous languages of the Americas


text:
Talk:Urban heat island

PBS News Hour
Just came across this subject during a segment of today's PBS News Hour. Linking in case it's of use to editors here. — Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe delete Urban dust dome and move the contents here?
Please see Talk:Urban_dust_dome

thank you,

KaiKemmann (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

 * See my comments today at Talk:Urban dust dome. I found enough refs to demonstrate probable notability for a standalone dust dome article but I think a merge is better.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Environmental and Climate Justice
— Assignment last updated by Csatterfield (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Jasminezapple (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Environment and Justice
— Assignment last updated by Gobrowns420 (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Organizational Changes
 Move Causes and Climate Change as Amplifier under Description

Move Redlining under society and culture

Consider creating Environmental Justice section

Revise lead to shorten and clarify Merlinderhindergrinder (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, could you clarify why you think those proposed changes are an improvement? For example, I don't think the lead needs to be shortened. It's a good summary of the article and pretty much the right length. And I think "Causes" should remain as a main level heading. The section on redlining doesn't fit, I have removed it (see below). EMsmile (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Removed section on redlining
I have just removed this content because I think it's overly specific to the U.S. and doesn't fit this high level article. Consider moving it to a U.S.-specific article maybe:

"Redlining: Patterns of UHIs appear to be constant in neighborhoods that were historically given poor ratings by the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation in the U.S. These neighborhoods often lack the infrastructure necessary to combat the effects of UHIs.

There appears to be a correlation between historically redlined areas in the U.S. and those most vulnerable to heat exposure today. According to Professor Jeremy S. Hoffman and his colleagues, there is a strong positive relationship between historically redlined neighborhoods and the current heat indexes of those neighborhoods compared to non-redlined ones. The researchers found that "nationally, land surface temperatures in redlined areas are approximately 2.6 °C warmer than in non-redlined areas." " EMsmile (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Urban heat island


text:
Talk:First-class cricket

"major Welsh county" or "Welsh major county"?
I wrote the latter and prefer it because it's a major county that's Welsh, not a Welsh county that's major.Bagpuss
 * Changing it back. Bagpuss

CricketArchive
A possible trap for the unwary (which caught me out when working on Gentlemen v Players): CricketArchive considers the first first-class match to have been England v Surrey in 1801, so that (for example) the 1806 Gentlemen v Players records are included in its first-class statistics. This may affect those writing articles relating to early cricketers. Loganberry (Talk) 15:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know what the precise rules are for what matches are or are not first-class? The definitions do keep changing (including retrospectively - for example, a small number of matches between coloureds in apartheid South Africa are now recognised as first-class, though they were not at the time), 17:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As the article states, there is no exact definition. A match is first-class if it fulfils the requirements of a first-class match and the supervising board decrees it to be first-class. Essentially, it's up to the whim of the board. Which is why it can be unclear or even change. -dmmaus 23:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * First class cricket was defined in 1947, but there has been always disputes over the status of some matches. It seems that MCC used to be the one who decided on the disputes and they arbitrarily set the starting point at 1815. In the early 1990s Association of Cricket Statisticians undertook a revision of the status of matches, giving some non-fc matches fc status and vice versa. As part of this, the cut-off was extended to 1801. Wisden stats still start from 1815 and hence has the lowest team score as 12 while ACS has a 6 allout made in 1810.
 * For political reasons, ICC did not give the rebel tours to South Africa fc status, but ACS refuse to comply. ICC later fell in line. Back in 1993, this had caused a major controversry regarging Gooch's 100th fc 100.
 * ACS had as opportunity to do the same with the Tsunami matches and Supertests, but they chickened out and agreed to consider them as tests and ODIs Tintin 03:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

So where's the ICC definition for past matches? jguk 06:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there any ? I guess it was decided more on the basis of convention, convenience and what Wisden thought about them. There are numerous matches which were scheduled for two days. 12 a side first class matches have been played as late as in the 1920s. There have been all sorts of exhibition matches and privately organized ones which are fc. Many matches of a dubious nature have been given fc status just because WG Grace played in it. There are some others like the 'barndoor match' (See comments at the end of the scorecard).
 * I think you mean this 1837 match where the Players defended an outsized wicket; in the 1832 match you linked to above it was the other way about, with the Gentlemen defending an undersized wicket. (See List of Gentlemen v Players matches, which by happy coincidence now mentions both!) Loganberry (Talk) 11:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Must be the other one then. Took one scorecard for the other ! Tintin 11:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice work on that list, Loganberry! :) Could add a few pictures of WG Grace and we might get it featured ;) Sam Vimes 11:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh, thanks! I still have to finish that blasted record section in the Gentlemen v Players article, though; with luck I'll get that done tonight. =:) Loganberry (Talk) 16:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Damn. I don't know how you guys manage to do so much so quickly. To write a couple of lines, I take half an hour. Tintin 16:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Is that why we have so much on English and Australian cricket but so little on Indian cricket? :) Mind you, I suppose India are only in third place in the Test championship table - best to concentrate on the leaders;) jguk 16:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Had McGrath been playing, you wouldn't be saying such things today :) Tintin 16:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Warne, however, is playing. Unfortunately... Loganberry (Talk) 14:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * So is Freddie. :) Sam Vimes 15:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Even in the 1990s a team fielded only nine players in an fc match . Also look at the comments under this match. This issue is a complete mess Tintin 07:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I sent a question into "Ask Phillip" at CricInfo a few years ago: How many first class matches have been played, it was about 45,000 I think. A bit too vague to include in the article, though. --Paul 18:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Follow-on rule
I have a question about the follow-on rule. The article currently reads I haven't heard of this before. Law 13.3 reads This seems to me to say the opposite. The mention of the first day of the match being abandoned is only to say that at least one day has been lost at the start of the match. But then the follow-on target is calculated according to the actual start of the match.
 * If more than one day is abandoned, the second and subsequent days are still counted for the calculation of follow-ons.
 * If no play takes place on the first day of a match of more than one day's duration, [the follow-on targets] above shall apply in accordance with the number of days remaining from the actual start of the match. [Italics mine]

Could someone more knowledgeable than me clarify the correct interpretation of this Law? Stephen Turner 09:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know the answer to this for sure, but I wonder whether the version in the article comes from the playing conditions of a specific competition rather than applying generally. It would be useful if we could find a scorecard for a match where this had arisen - for example, a two-day County Championship game, of which there must have been a number since four-day cricket was introduced. Loganberry (Talk) 22:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the law, was the same as Stephen Turner's. This was backed up in an umpire's course. I think the article should reflect this, and if an individual competition has different rules, then that should be mentioned as an exception. JPD (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Surely this whole section should be in the Laws of Cricket page or a History of the Laws of Cricket page. Nigej 08:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition and Origin
This continues part of the discussion in CricketArchive above. The "Definition" section is limited to history in the making: recent and current matches. The "Point of Origin" section really concerns the definition for 204 years of cricket history in England, 1660-1864. (This distinction between Definition and Origin is fine with me, although it is not the American English I would write. My point is to point out the scope of the Point of Origin:-)

The "Point of Origin" section of the article does a very good job covering the issue regarding timespan of first-class cricket in England. Several articles published by ACS (why not ACSH? is Historians an afterthought?) reveal how much is happening very recently: Early Cricket History project approved only at the 2006 annual meeting, Match Classification working group set up only months ago, and the news index still features several items on a match classification non-dispute between ACS and the international governing body ICC. (I infer that many ACS members dispute the ICC decision but the organization does not.)

Regarding the basic facts, my two questions are
 * 1) What time period does ICC govern, with the acquiescence of ACS? all the way back to 1660?
 * 2) What is the "Origin" (definition for historical games) of first-class in other parts of the world? Is it agreed that 1660-1864 first-class cricket is England or England and Wales only? --P64 20:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * --That is a good answer to the latter in overnight revisions.)
 * I have slightly that entire comment mainly to clarify the reference to news from the ACS. For more on the origin and early history in England, see "Members Research" published by ACS http://acscricket.com/Research/index.html, especially "In the Mists of Time: The History of Cricket: 1300 - 1730" by John Leach. --P64 16:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 * 1660 is a theoretical date for the start of the "historical record", but it is also a logical one given the historical evidence available, which isn't much to be honest. The theory in the Mists of Time paper was reviewed by several ACS&H members and was published unamended so it is fair to say that its proposals have "tacit" acceptance for the present, pending further analysis should additional data come to light.  The important date from the analysis standpoint is 1772, which is the date that the ACS&H has now at last recognised as the beginning of the first-class "statistical record" given regular match scorecards since then. There was of course no first-class cricket outside England until 1851 as the article now states.  Regards, --BlackJack | talk page 20:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Last first-class match with more than 11 a side?
When was the last first-class match played to have 12 or more players on a side? I know there were 12-a-side first-class university games at least into the 1920s (eg Gloucs v Oxford U in 1924) but I don't know how long these persisted. Loganberry (Talk) 23:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is at least one from India in the 1940s/ early fifties. Will post here if I can find it again. Tintin 02:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The "Definition of first-class cricket" section - esp. West Indies
At the moment, both Beaumont Cup and Guystac Trophy are listed here. Is this correct? Both are defunct competitions, and we don't list (for example) Gentlemen v Players under the England heading. If we're only listing current competitions, then shouldn't both Beaumont Trophy and Guystac Cup be removed? Loganberry (Talk) 16:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Duration
There seems to be a quarrel going on here about how long a first class match is. According to ICC Classification of Official Cricket, three days would be enough, and first class matches in Sri Lanka are played over three days. So why does the article consistently state that it has to be 4 or 5 days? Sam Vimes 11:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question. Change it. Mooretwin (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at this yesterday, and it actually said 3, 4 and 5 in three different places. I believe the correct answer is three, but not certain.Eregli bob (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I decided to edit after Mooretwin supported it. So now it should say 3 or more everywhere (that's what the ICC pdf says anyway) Sam Vimes 12:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work. Mooretwin (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply: First class cricket in Australia such as the Sheffield Shield (Pura Cup) is played in a minimum of 4 days, or even 5 days, see Sheffied Shield Cup or the South Australian Cricket Association for further info. http://www.cricketsa.com.au/content.aspx?p=327 Thanks! Uqahr talk 13:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 4 or 5 days is covered by "3 or more days", so that's fine. Mooretwin (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is worth mentioning that most first class cricket is 4-day though (except in Sri Lanka and some five-day play-offs). The article shouldn't just be talking about the definition, but also how it works in practice (and has worked in practice, the County Championship was three-day until ~1980s).
 * I think Tests are a subset of first class cricket as well (at least that's how FC stats tend to work), so that probably needs to be worked in here too. Sam Vimes 14:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Mooretwin (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"Important match" classification
I apologise if I'm treading on anyone's toes here but this stuff about "important matches" is absolute rubbish. Someone is having a laugh. I've a friend at our local cricket club who's a member of the ACS and he says they never had any intention of creating a new classification. Their handbook was just a list of early matches, nothing more, which cricket historians might find useful. The word "important" was an ADJECTIVE only that could have been "noteworthy", whatever. All they tried to do was select the known matches that were outside of a single town or parish and were, as such, of two wider geographical entities like towns or even whole counties. It really annoyed me to read that Lancashire was not first-class until 1895 and the same is true of a half a dozen other county clubs. Unbelievable that someone can get away with stuff like that. It's what you call "original research" and it's absolute rubbish. I'm happy for anyone to adapt what I've done on the article but, please, lets get shut of this nonsense. The worst thing about it is how it's been transcripted into other articles without question. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If we are not to regard the above as your own OR, please supply reliable sources for verification. Bjenks (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I've seen the handbook that's supposedly the source for this "classification" and it's been misrepresented. It's a list of matches, now a bit out of date, and it makes no attempt to "classify" the games except inasmuch as they ain't village cricket. As I say, someone has invented a theory here. Anyway, the handbook ends in 1863, the year before Lancashire was founded and the ACS in another handbook says the club was first-class from its first match so this person's case doesn't add up. It's widely agreed that first-class matches date back to the earliest days and the 1895 ruling by MCC was only done to ensure clarification in the future. If you look at cricinfo you can see that it ranks all matches by county clubs, starting with Sussex in 1839, and the earlier county teams first-class. There's no such thing as an important match classification. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Examples table
I just added a wikitable for listing the currently active first class domestic competitions, as examples. I placed it after the two sections relative to the concept definition, and before the one occupied with historical issues.

As for the table's structure, only country name and competition name are reported so far, together with a "Notes" field. The competitions are grouped by country and then sorted by date of gaining first-class status - for each country the first tournament to reach it is considered. --5.91.30.238 (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Women's cricket
I note the records of certain women former-players include a category WFC (presumably women's first class)in their records which refers to this page eg Rachael Heyhoe Flint. There is however no mention on this page of women's matches. Also, personally, I am not aware any of two-innings women's mathches other than tests, so I am wondering what the matches in question were, who decided they were first class and when were they were discontinued (as modern players have no such item in their records - eg Sarah Taylor? I think the answer should be added to this article, (if anyone knows). John Price (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for GA review
I'm well aware of the shifting views about WHEN first-class cricket began and it seems there is (note: seems there is, not there is) a current consensus in the ACS and among other interested parties that Roy Webber was right all along and that the advent of overarm bowling was the true beginning of first-class, especially with the concurrent rush to form county clubs. I've been studying some of the entries in the Carlaw/Winnifrith work for the ACS on Kent players and their view on first-class status is exactly as per Webber's and stated right there in the very first paragraph.

I've amended the article to include this source. As Loganberry wrote above in July 2005, the weight of evidence in this article must affect other articles about cricket subjects in the 18th and 19th centuries. As Tintin said in August 2005, the issue is "a complete mess". I think one way to get some closure on the question, as far as WP is concerned, is to have this article formally reviewed and so I'm submitting it to GAN. Whether it passes or not is academic. It will be interesting to see a reviewer's consideration of the start date issue. Bc Jvs  UTC 15:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

No innings at all?
I’m a total cricket noob, but I feel like there should be some sort of explanation as to how a team would play “no innings at all” instead of just as a throwaway line. 71.178.30.158 (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:First-class cricket


text:
Acceptance angle

Acceptance angle may refer to:

 * Half of the angular aperture of an optical system
 * Acceptance angle (optical fiber), the angle in an optical fiber below which rays are guided rays
 * Acceptance angle (solar concentrator)

title: Acceptance angle


text:
Talk:Federal Reserve Corporation

Cut from article:

 * What most people don't know is that the Federal Reserve Corporation is a private corporation controlled by bankers and operated for the financial gain of those bankers. The use of the word "federal" in the name "Federal Reserve" is somewhat misleading as it implies that the Federal Reserve is somehow related to the federal government of the United States.  In fact, the Federal Reserve Corporation is not a United States Government entity.

This is not an accurate assessment of the status and function of the Federal Reserve Corporation. To wit, from < http://www.federalreserve.gov/faq.htm >:

 * ". . . [The Fed] is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as 'independent within the government.'"

 * ". . . Any net earnings [of the Fed] are paid yearly to the U.S. Treasury."

-- NetEsq 23:39 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Federal Reserve Corporation


text:
Talk:Aquemini

Release dates
From Martin C. Strong's book Feel free to ask what certain signifiers and labels on the page mean. Strong has a key in the book somewhere. Dan56 (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

 * No problem, copied the dates for the first and third single from CD Universe. As for the second single, Google Books won't give any preview.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aquemini. 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/20121108071116/http://www.cmj.com/reviews/kendrick-lamar-good-kid-m-a-a-d-city/ to http://www.cmj.com/reviews/kendrick-lamar-good-kid-m-a-a-d-city/

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) 15:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

SpottieOttie description doesn't seem correct
Section 4.2, first paragraph, last sentence. "SpottieOttieDopaliscious" relates a story of ill-fated romance, with André 3000 describing the infatuation during an encounter with a woman at a club and Big Boi noting the hopelessness of the relationship as the song progresses." Citation to a book about seminal hip hop albums which I haven't read, but it seems wrong. The relationship is more than an infatuation and the hopelessness at the end is not necessarily about the relationship. Anyway, nitpicking here.

title: Talk:Aquemini


text:
Talk:Molar solution

This article is looking better all the time. I removed the instructions to label with the preparer's initials -- that may be on an instruction sheet in a particular lab, but it's not encyclopedic. --Nate 22:20 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

Molar solution
I was just surfing the web and ran across what I think is an incorrect definition. The molarity of a solution is measured in moles per liter of solution, not per liter of water used to make the solution. In general, because the molecules of the solute add to the volume of the solution, less than one full liter of water will be required.

This article should point to concentration. Personally, I've never actually heard "a molar solution" to explicitly refer to a 1M solution. Usually it's a one/two/five/whatever molar solution of [whatever solute] in [whatever solvent], unless it's obvious what the solvent is, such as HCl. I understand what the article is trying to say but it could be very confusing to someone who isn't familar with the topic. A one molar solution is not one equivalent of molecular mass with just enough solvent added to make one liter; it's a solution where the number of moles of solute per liter of solution equals 1. That information would be better in an article on how to prepare molar solutions. I considered writing such an article, but I've read somewhere that tutorials/howtos don't belong here. I've also removed the link to percentage solution since it's just one of many ways to express concentration. --jag123 23:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

kudos
Whoever spent time editing this page, good job. A good, consise wiki entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.134.88.55 (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Semi-Contradiction in definition
The article on Molarity states "Such a solution may be described as 0.5 molar. This can be misinterpreted as 0.5 moles of solute per 1.0 litre of solvent, which can be true only if no volume change occurs on adding the solute to the solvent." and this Molar solution article opens with "A molar solution is one that contains one mole of solute per litre." This is a good article, but I think this needs to be clarified in this article, rather than in a sub-section of a different article. 97.82.247.200 00:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Molar solution


text:
A.E.S. Hudson Street

A.E.S. Hudson Street is an American comedy television show that aired on ABC in 1978 on Thursday night from 9:30 pm to 10:00 pm ET.

Synopsis
The series follows the antics of the staff of a run-down Ambulance Emergency Service hospital on Hudson Street, on the lower west side of Manhattan. It was cancelled after five episodes.

Cast and characters
• Gregory Sierra as Dr. Tony Menzies

• Bill Cort as Dr. Jerry Meckler

• Rosanna DeSoto as Nurse Rosa Santiago

• Ralph Manza as Ambulance Aide Stanke

• Allan Miller as Dr. Glick, the psychiatrist

• Susan Peretz as Foshko, the ambulance driver

• Barrie Youngfellow as Dr. Gloria Manners

• Ray Stewart as Nurse Newton

• Stefan Gierasch as J. Powell Karbow, the hospital administrator

• Bob Dishy as Dr. Friedman

• Julienne Wells as Nurse Rhonda Todd

Pilot
The series pilot aired July 21, 1977, with F. Murray Abraham starring as Dr. Tony Menzies. When the five series episodes were filmed, only Dishy and Stewart remained from the original cast. All of the other characters were either dropped or re-cast. In the pilot, A.E.S. stood for Ambulance Emergency Service.

Remake
The series was remade as Stat in 1991. That version lasted 6 episodes.

title: A.E.S. Hudson Street


text:
Roger Taylor (Queen drummer)

Roger Meddows Taylor (born 26 July 1949) is an English musician, songwriter and record producer. He achieved international fame as the drummer and backing vocalist for the rock band Queen. As a drummer, Taylor was recognised early in his career for his unique sound and was voted the eighth-greatest drummer in classic rock music history in a listener poll conducted by Planet Rock in 2005. He was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2001 as a member of Queen.

As a songwriter, Taylor composed at least one track on every Queen album, and often sang lead vocals on his own compositions. He wrote or co-wrote three UK number ones ("These Are the Days of Our Lives", "Innuendo" and "Under Pressure") and wrote a further five major hits ("Radio Ga Ga", "A Kind of Magic", "Heaven for Everyone", "Breakthru" and "The Invisible Man"). He has collaborated with such artists as Eric Clapton, Roger Waters, Roger Daltrey, Robert Plant, Phil Collins, Genesis, Jimmy Nail, Kansas, Elton John, Gary Numan, Shakin' Stevens, Foo Fighters, Al Stewart, Steve Vai, Yoshiki, Cyndi Almouzni and Bon Jovi. As a producer, he has produced albums by Virginia Wolf, Jimmy Nail and Magnum.

As a singer, Taylor employs a falsetto vocal range. During the 1980s, in addition to his work with Queen, he formed a parallel band known as the Cross, in which he was the lead singer and rhythm guitarist. During the early 1980s, Taylor was also a panellist on the UK quiz show Pop Quiz, hosted by Mike Read. In 2014, he appeared in The Life of Rock with Brian Pern as himself.

Early life
Roger Meddows Taylor was born on 26 July 1949 at West Norfolk and Lynn Hospital in King's Lynn, Norfolk. The new maternity ward was opened by Princess Elizabeth, the future queen, Elizabeth II. During her visit she was introduced to 16 new mothers including Winifred Taylor, his mother. Taylor first lived at 87 High Street in King's Lynn and later moved to Beulah Street in the town. Taylor's first school was Rosebury Avenue school. Taylor moved to Truro, Cornwall, in south west England, with his mother Winifred, father Michael and younger sister Clare. When he was seven years old, he and some friends formed his first band, the Bubblingover Boys, in which he played the ukulele. He briefly attended Truro Cathedral School; at the age of 13, he joined Truro School as a day boy.

At the age of 15, Taylor became a member of the Reaction, a semi-professional rock band formed mainly of boys from Truro School. Taylor had originally learned guitar, but became a drummer when he realised he had a more natural aptitude for it. Taylor taught himself to tune his drums, inspired by Keith Moon of the Who because of the "great drum sounds" on the early Who records. Another key influence on Taylor was Mitch Mitchell of the Jimi Hendrix Experience, who Taylor stated was his early role model.

In 1967, Taylor went to London to study dentistry at the London Hospital Medical College, but he became bored with it and changed to biology obtaining a BSc at East London Polytechnic.

1968–1970: Smile
Taylor met Brian May and Tim Staffell in 1968 after a friend saw an advert for a drummer on a noticeboard at Imperial College. Smile included May on lead guitar, Staffell on lead vocals and bass, and later Taylor on drums. The band lasted for two years before Staffell departed to join Humpy Bong, leaving the band with a catalogue of nine songs.

Smile reunited for several songs on 22 December 1992. Taylor's band the Cross were headliners and he brought May and Staffell on to play "Earth" and "If I Were a Carpenter".

1970s–present: Queen
In 1969, Taylor was working with Freddie Mercury at Kensington Market in London (they were sharing a flat at around the same time). Mercury, then known as Farrokh “Freddie” Bulsara, was a fan of Smile. The band split up in 1970. In the same year, Taylor turned down the chance to become drummer for Genesis, which led to Phil Collins joining instead. Bulsara convinced the remaining two members of Smile to continue and he eventually joined the band, which he renamed Queen. In 1971, they recruited bassist John Deacon, before going on to release their self-titled debut album in 1973. Taylor is the third most credited songwriter for the band, usually contributing one or two tracks per album.

1977–present: Solo career
Taylor has had a productive solo career, releasing six albums. His first single was "I Wanna Testify" in 1977, recorded during Queen's sessions for the News of the World album. The A-side, although a cover of the Parliaments song of the same name, was completely different from the original. The B-side was a self-penned song "Turn on the TV".

Taylor's first solo album, released in 1981, was Fun in Space, on which he performed all vocals and played all instruments aside from about half of the keyboards, which were contributed by engineer David Richards. With Queen still touring heavily and recording at the time of release, Taylor was unable to promote the album to its fullest extent, only appearing on some European TV shows to promote the single, "Future Management", including Top of the Pops. A second single from the album was titled "My Country". The only US single released from the album was "Let's Get Crazy".

Taylor's next solo venture, Strange Frontier, came in June 1984. The three singles from the album were the title track, "Beautiful Dreams" (in Portugal only) and "Man on Fire", the latter becoming a live favourite for him in later years. No attempts to promote the singles were made since Queen was touring to promote The Works, with Taylor not even performing on any TV shows. Strange Frontier included guest appearances by bandmates Freddie Mercury, Brian May and John Deacon. Mercury sang backing vocals on "Killing Time", Deacon remixed the B-side "I Cry For You" and Rick Parfitt co-wrote and played on "It's An Illusion". David Richards, Queen's engineer and producer at the time, also co-wrote two of the tracks. The album includes covers of Bruce Springsteen's "Racing in the Street" and Bob Dylan's "Masters of War".

In 1986, Taylor co-produced Vigilante, the sixth studio album by rock band Magnum. After Queen finished their 1986 Magic Tour, Taylor started a new band, the Cross, which released three albums over their six years of existence. In 1993, the band split up, after performing one final gig at the Gosport Festival.

In 1994, Taylor worked with Yoshiki, drummer and pianist of X Japan and released the song "Foreign Sand" and a reworking of the Cross's "Final Destination". The album Happiness? was "Dedicated to the tasmanian tiger – thylacinus cynocephalus, but most especially... for Freddie". "Nazis 1994" from this album became Taylor's first hit single in England and was followed by two other top 40 UK hits, "Happiness" and "Foreign Sand".

In 1998, Taylor released his fourth solo album Electric Fire. Taylor also performed one of the first Internet-gigs – for which he got a mention in the Guinness Book of World Records. On 11 November 2013, Taylor released the album Fun on Earth, On the same day, Taylor released his compilation album The Lot, which includes all of his work outside of Queen.

In response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, Taylor released a new single "Isolation" on 21 June 2020. The song debuted on the top of the UK iTunes Rock chart. On 7 May 2021, Taylor announced his new solo album, Outsider, which was released on 1 October 2021, and debuted at number three on the UK Albums Chart.

The Cross
The Cross were a side project of Taylor's that existed from 1987 to 1993 and released three albums. While still the drummer for Queen, Taylor fronted the Cross as rhythm guitarist and lead vocalist. On its debut release, The Cross incorporated dance influences which they dropped on their remaining two albums.

21st century

Taylor has appeared along with May for various other events and promotions, including Queen's induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2001 and the "Party at the Palace" in 2002, celebrating the golden jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II. In 2004, Taylor, May, and Mike Dixon received the Helpmann Award in Australia for Best Music Direction for the musical We Will Rock You. At the Live Earth concert held at Wembley Stadium in 2007, Taylor opened the show with Taylor Hawkins of Foo Fighters and Chad Smith of Red Hot Chili Peppers.

Taylor and May, performing as Queen, also appeared three times on the American singing contest television show American Idol. The first appearance was on 11 April 2006, during which that week's contestants were required to sing a Queen song. Songs performed included "Bohemian Rhapsody", "Fat Bottomed Girls", "The Show Must Go On", "Who Wants to Live Forever", and "Innuendo". The second time Queen appeared was on the show's season 8 finale in May 2009, performing "We Are the Champions" with finalists Adam Lambert and Kris Allen. The third appearance was during the eleventh season on 25 and 26 April 2012, performing a Queen medley with the six finalists on the first show. The following day, they performed "Somebody to Love" with the Queen Extravaganza band.

In November 2009, Taylor appeared on the reality TV show The X Factor with May as Queen mentoring the contestants and performing "Bohemian Rhapsody". That month Taylor confirmed he was planning to tour with Taylor Hawkins, which Taylor described as a "quick tour". At the 2011 MTV Europe Music Awards on 6 November, Queen received the Global Icon Award, and Taylor and May closed the awards ceremony, with Adam Lambert on vocals, performing "The Show Must Go On", "We Will Rock You", and "We Are the Champions". In 2011, Taylor, along with Steven Tyler and Roger Daltrey, joined the advisory board of Edge Music Network. Taylor performed in the 2012 Summer Olympics closing ceremony in London on 12 August.

In 2013 and 2014, Taylor served as an executive producer of the film Solitary, directed by Sasha Krane. In addition to those duties, he provided original music, including the song "When We Were Young" and three instrumental songs which serve as incidental/background music in the film and during the closing credits. Taylor also appeared as a special guest for Welsh Rock artist Jayce Lewis providing drums for the track "Wrath" which were recorded at Taylor's personal studio in Surrey, the song was released as a single from the Welshmans album Nemesis. On 15 November 2014, Taylor joined the charity group Band Aid 30, playing drums alongside current British and Irish pop acts on the latest version of the track "Do They Know It's Christmas?" at Sarm West Studios in Notting Hill, London, to raise money for the 2014 Ebola crisis in Western Africa.

On 5 and 6 September 2015, Taylor, along with Led Zeppelin's John Paul Jones, joined Foo Fighters on stage in Milton Keynes to perform a cover of the Queen and David Bowie song "Under Pressure". Taylor released a new single called "Gangsters Are Running This World" on 1 April 2019, and on 8 April released a more rocking version of this song called "Gangsters Are Running This World-Purple Version". Both versions became available for streaming on 8 April 2019. On 10 May 2019 he and Czech Arsenal goalkeeper Petr Čech released a song called "That's Football" which Čech wrote for his retiring football career.

In October 2021, Taylor embarked on a 14-date solo tour (Outsider Tour) in the UK, from 2 to 22 October.

In November 2023, Taylor's bar The Wild, a collaboration with his wife Sarina Taylor, Adam Lambert, Bryan Patrick Franklin, and Michael Solis, opened in West Hollywood, California.

Influences and favourite drummers
Taylor has stated that his early role model as a drummer was Mitch Mitchell of the Jimi Hendrix Experience. He said: "I still think listening to Mitch Mitchell, especially the early stuff with Hendrix, is just fantastic. This fusion of jazz technique and wonderful riffs but with this rolling ferocious attack on the whole kit, it had lots of jazz influences I think. In fact for me he played the kit like a song, it was just wonderful. Total integration into the song. Not just marking time".

Taylor has also expressed great admiration for John Bonham of Led Zeppelin. Speaking of Bonham, Taylor said, "The greatest rock and roll drummer of all time was John Bonham, who did things that nobody had ever even thought possible before with the drum kit. And also the greatest sound out of his drums – they sounded enormous, and just one bass drum. So fast on it that he did more with one bass drum than most people could do with three, if they could manage them. And he had technique to burn and fantastic power and tremendous feel for rock and roll". For sheer technique, Taylor described the jazz and big band drummer Buddy Rich as "the best I've ever seen".

Speaking to Modern Drummer in 1984, Taylor described Keith Moon, the drummer of the Who, as "absolutely brilliant...he had a total unique style; he didn't owe anyone anything."

Tributes
In 2013, a newly discovered species of the genus Heteragrion (Odonata: Zygoptera) from Brazil was named Heteragrion rogertaylori after Taylor, in honour of his "powerful sound, wonderful lyrics and raspy voice "; one of four Heteragrion flatwing damselflies named after the bandmates, paying tribute to the 40th anniversary of Queen's founding.

In 1999, Taylor became the second living person, other than members of the British Royal Family and Sir Francis Chichester in 1967, to appear on a Royal Mail stamp, being seen behind Freddie Mercury as part of a "Great Britons" issue. This caused controversy as it was an understood rule that the only living people allowed to appear on British stamps could be members of the Royal Family.

In 2002, Taylor appeared on the "Twelve Drummers Drumming" Christmas card in the "Twelve Days of Christmas" set sold at Woolworths to raise money for the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, alongside Duran Duran's drummer of the same name.

Taylor was appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in the 2020 New Year Honours for services to music. At his investiture ceremony at Windsor Castle in March 2022, Taylor dedicated his OBE to the recently deceased Foo Fighters drummer Taylor Hawkins, adding that Hawkins had been a mentor to his own son Rufus.

Solo albums

 * Fun in Space (1981)
 * Strange Frontier (1984)
 * Happiness? (1994)
 * Electric Fire (1998)
 * Fun on Earth (2013)
 * Outsider (2021)

Solo live albums

 * Outsider Tour Live (2022)

Portrayal in film
He was portrayed by Ben Hardy in the 2018 film Bohemian Rhapsody. Taylor, along with bandmate Brian May, were creative consultants on the film.

title: Roger Taylor (Queen drummer)


text:
Talk:Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus

Old
I have heard that the US city was not so much named in his honour as in honour of his example, to commend normalisation after war rather than the growth of an aristocracy drawn from veterans becoming an elite. PML.
 * It was named after an American society and not the Roman directly. — Llywelyn II   01:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

abilities of Cincinnatus
I'm curious though, why was Cincinnatus picked? According to legend, he's simply a humble farmer, but why did the Senate choose him? Surely he must have participated in politics/military before? -- Natalinasmpf 04:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)64.106.112.229
 * Cincinnatus was an honourable man, an Army/Legion General who was NOT in love with $$$ or power, and the Romans trusted him...because they knew that as soon as he quickly fixed things, he would go back to his farm....a place he loved, especially to his family! Read "The Declaration of RE-Independence" [Cincinnatus is mentioned there], the USA's LAST chance to re-invent itself before self-destruction--->>> http://jimsorrell.proboards33.com or http://thekeeperoftheflame.blogspot.com - but now http://www.scribd.com/Thomas-Jefferson esp. as an alternative better than the breach of social contract as envisaged by AKIP or Yes California Independence - [sorrell.james@gmail.com]19:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Natalinasmpf, Cincinnatus was NOT simply a farmer. All important roman families (and Quinctii were important- see consules) owned vaste properties. (Lucius Quinctius was once consul and twice dictator). But he had a "bad" son; see Il figlio di Cincinnato (unluckily not translated yet) and almost all Cincinnatus' properties had to be sold out. Only 4 jugera were left to the Family becauase they were intouchable. Sorry for my basic english. ;) Vale! it:Utente:Horatius
 * By the way. I didn't find a town named "Cincinnato". In Italy we have only a small village near Anzio (Rome) called Cincinnato. And -obviuously - a lot of Streets, Squares, and so on in almost all towns :D. Vale! it:Utente:Horatius 151.37.228.75 10:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We don't know. He's a legendary figure and the legend picks up once his son is already a grown and troublesome man. Presumably he was a patrician choice, but we don't know if it was on account of his prior military service, due to his staunch opposition to legal reforms that would weaken the patricians' position, or—either on account of his old age or neutrality among the patrician factions—he served as a consensus compromise candidate. — Llywelyn II   02:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

dictatorship
Isn't the word "dictatorship" an anachronism? A dictator in rome wasn't really what we mean today...
 * nope. it's the other way around, sort of. Dictator is an honest-to-god latin word. It, like Tyrant, have come to have more negative, despotic connotations today. But they're not anachronistic. Novium 17:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keeping focus
Why was Cincinnatus ar15 taken out. I guarantee you a site with a 100,000 members knows more about there member cincinnatus than the actual roman. DO a google search 8 pages 257 entries. I know why. Cleaned it up.

 * Cincinnatus the Poster on AR15.com was taken out because the information did not refer to Cincinnatus the Roman. It refered to someone completely different.  If you believe that a poster  on a large discussion board site deserves to be included in Wikipedia (which I don't agree with), then write a seperate entry about them.  But I really don't think it is worth it.  And I know that it doesn't belong to this entry.  This entry is not a discussion of the name 'Cincinnatus'.  It is an entry about the Roman of that name. --Jonathan O'Donnell 06:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The movie Gladiator
The unreferenced fact that Russel Crowe's character in the movie Gladiator, which may have been partially based on Cincinnatus is completely irrelevant. I wish people would stop cluttering articles with senseless pop-culture "trivia". Oleanna1104 13:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish snobs would stop culling information that makes historical figures relevant to our readers. World takes all kinds.

 * Now, that said, it does need a citation and not some editor's personal thoughts on the matter. — Llywelyn II   03:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

analyst
The article says "According to analysts (he was a farmer etc etc)". Is that right? Shouldn't it be, oh, historians, or scholars, or...? Novium 17:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's meant to read annalists. Makes a bit more sense than talking about historians or scholars since in the end they rely on what was written in ancient sources (annals). EmmaRoma 23:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

government textbooks
Presumedly this means in America. I don't think this phrase is accurate since none of the governments of the US write or publish textbooks (none that I know of). Some state governments have officially approved textbooks and of course local governments, such as school boards, buy the textbooks. However, I am not sure why the reference even exists. It doesn't tell you anything about Cincinnatus. What is important is that people draw a parallel between Washington and Cincinnatus even today. What role American governments, or any other governments, have in drawing that parallel is beyond the scope of the article. If people want to explore the politics of American history textbooks they can do it elsewhere.

Equality or not?
First the article says: "laws applicable equally to patricians and plebeians", then "laws that would benefit the aristocracy at the expense of the plebeians".

Would someone care to clarify? (Or aren't those statements contradictory?) --StephanNaro (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Name
The article says "The name given to Lucius Quinctius was Cincinnatus for his curly hair." That's extremely vague, and I can't find anywhere a Latin word for curly hair that's anything close to cincinnatus. Can someone clear it up? 98.145.79.227 (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cincinnatus is itself a Latin word that means curly hair, according to the EB11 article this entry was originally cribbed from. It does seems somewhat dubious, though, since some adjective on birth (-natus) seems more likely. We'd need another source to contradict the EB though. — Llywelyn II   02:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Cincinnatus and conspiracy of Maelius
I read that Cincinnatus became dictator a second time to put down the conspiracy of Maelius, then somewhere else that Cincinnatus was made dictator a second time to put down a plebian conspiracy. Which one is true if either, and why isn't it put in the section on Cincinnatus? 76.93.210.169 (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Both and should be. — Llywelyn II   02:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Should the "consul" link be changed?
The word consul in the first line of the article currently links here. I think it should go to this, an article on Roman consuls. Should someone make a change? Tressif (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree, so I changed it. --LCE(talk contribs) 03:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Timeline consistency
The article says that "The following year" after 461 BC, i.e. in 460 BC, Terentilius proposed what would become the twelve tablets, "which would not become readily accessible in public display for several generations". However, the article on the Twelve Tablets says the first ten tablets were completed in 450 BC. Ten years does not sound like "several" generations. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolda2000 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hyperlink
"the great Capitolinus": this last noun has a hyperlink but if you click on it you find an article dealing with a historical figure who lived some 200 years later. Either the reference to Capitolinus is wrong or the hyperlink should take us to a different Capitolinus.Campolongo (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Historical Propaganda?
The story of Cincinnatus, as laid out here, smells very much like contemporary patrician propaganda to me. Given what is mentioned about his opposition to the plebians, (with his son literally throwing them out of the forum) he clearly had strong ties to the aristocracy. The story about his son being acquitted of military incompetence because, "it would break the old man's heart," also sounds exactly like the sort of gerontocratic cronyism that the Senate was renowned for.
 * For the 2nd part of your non-RS diatribe, SEE WP:SOAPBOX, Anon. 203.206.179.33 (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion
This random assortment was listed as "sources"— —but were completely unused by the text. Kindly restore them to the article as they are used to verify parts of the running text or once there is some commentary about how these works are particularly notable in the history of scholarship on L. Quinctius Cincinnatus. — Llywelyn II   02:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox
This article, along with several other articles about ancient Romans, was changed to use a different infobox, infobox officeholder. In consequence, there's discussion about which infobox to use and how at Talk:Julius Caesar and then at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome as a more central location. NebY (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The City of Cincinnati
In the South West in the state of Ohio located in The United States of America there is a city called Cincinnati. and it is named after the Roman General Cincinnatus. 216.48.140.87 (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Confusing text
Cincinnatus was an opponent of the rights of the plebeians (the common citizens) who fell into poverty because of his son Caeso Quinctius's violent opposition to their desire for a written code of equally enforced laws.

-

This sentence is exceedingly confusing, but I lack knowledge of the facts in order to re-write it.

Opposed rights of (plebeians who fell into poverty because Caeso's opposition to plebeian desire for a written code of equality before the law).

Or...

Opposed rights of (plebeians who fell into poverty) because Caeso's opposition to plebeian desire for a written code of equality before the law.

Or

Opposed rights of (plebeians), who fell into poverty because Caeso's opposition to plebeian desire for a written code of equality before the law.

Anyone knows what's going on? Feco777 (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus


text:
Megabyzus

Megabyzus (Μεγάβυζος, a folk-etymological alteration of Old Persian Bagabuxša, meaning "God saved") was an Achaemenid Persian general, son of Zopyrus, satrap of Babylonia, and grandson of Megabyzus I, one of the seven conspirators who had put Darius I on the throne. His father was killed when the satrapy rebelled in 484 BCE, and Megabyzus led the forces that recaptured the city, after which the statue of the god Marduk was destroyed to prevent future revolts. Megabyzus subsequently took part in the Second Persian invasion of Greece (480-479 BCE). Herodotus claims that he refused to act on orders to pillage Delphi, but it is doubtful such orders were ever given.

Conspiracy of Artabanes
According to Ctesias, who is not especially reliable but is often our only source, Amytis, wife of Megabyzus and daughter of Xerxes, was accused of adultery shortly afterwards. As such, Megabyzus took part in the conspiracy of Artabanus to assassinate the emperor, but betrayed him before he could kill the new emperor Artaxerxes as well. In a battle, Artabanus' sons were killed and Megabyzus was wounded, but Amytis interceded on his behalf and he was cured.

Egyptian campaign

After this Megabyzus became satrap of Syria. Together with Artabazus, satrap of Phrygia, he had command of the Persian armies sent to put down the revolt of Inarus in Egypt. They arrived in 456 BCE, and within two years had put down the revolt, capturing Inarus and various Athenians supporting him.

Origin of the Egyptian campaign
When Xerxes I was assassinated in 465 BCE, he was succeeded by his son Artaxerxes I, but several parts of the Achaemenid empire soon revolted, foremost of which were Bactria and Egypt. The Egyptian Inarus defeated the Persian satrap of Egypt Achaemenes, a brother of Artaxerxes, and took control of Lower Egypt. He contacted the Greeks, who were also officially still at war with Persia, and in 460 BCE, Athens sent an expeditionary force of 200 ships and 6000 heavy infantry to support Inarus. The Egyptian and Athenian troops defeated the local Persian troops of Egypt, and captured the city of Memphis, except for the Persian citadel which they besieged for several years.

Siege of Memphis (459–455 BCE)
The Athenians and Egyptians had settled down to besiege the local Persian troops in Egypt, at the White Castle. The siege evidently did not progress well, and probably lasted for at least four years, since Thucydides says that their whole expedition lasted 6 years, and of this time the final 18 months was occupied with the siege of Prosoptis.

According to Thucydides, at first Artaxerxes sent Megabazus to try and bribe the Spartans into invading Attica, to draw off the Athenian forces from Egypt. When this failed, he instead assembled a large army under Megabyzus, and dispatched it to Egypt. Diodorus has more or less the same story, with more detail; after the attempt at bribery failed, Artaxerxes put Megabyzus and Artabazus in charge of 300,000 men, with instructions to quell the revolt. They went first from Persia to Cilicia and gathered a fleet of 300 triremes from the Cilicians, Phoenicians and Cypriots, and spent a year training their men. Then they finally headed to Egypt. Modern estimates, however, place the number of Persian troops at the considerably lower figure of 25,000 men given that it would have been highly impractical to deprive the already strained satrapies of any more man power than that. Thucydides does not mention Artabazus, who is reported by Herodotus to have taken part in the second Persian invasion; Diodorus may be mistaken about his presence in this campaign. It is clearly possible that the Persian forces did spend some prolonged time in training, since it took four years for them to respond to the Egyptian victory at Papremis. Although neither author gives many details, it is clear that when Megabyzus finally arrived in Egypt, he was able to quickly lift the siege of Memphis, defeating the Egyptians in battle, and driving the Athenians from Memphis.

Siege of Prosopitis (455 BCE)
The Athenians now fell back to the island of Prosopitis in the Nile delta, where their ships were moored. There, Megabyzus laid siege to them for 18 months, until finally he was able to drain the river from around the island by digging canals, thus "joining the island to the mainland". In Thucydides's account the Persians then crossed over to the former island, and captured it. Only a few of the Athenian force, marching through Libya to Cyrene survived to return to Athens. In Diodorus's version, however, the draining of the river prompted the Egyptians (whom Thucydides does not mention) to defect and surrender to the Persians. The Persians, not wanting to sustain heavy casualties in attacking the Athenians, instead allowed them to depart freely to Cyrene, whence they returned to Athens. Since the defeat of the Egyptian expedition caused a genuine panic in Athens, including the relocation of the Delian treasury to Athens, Thucydides's version is probably more likely to be correct.

Cyprus campaign
They then turned their attention to Cyprus, which was under attack by the Athenians, led by Cimon. Shortly afterwards hostilities between Persia and Athens ceased, called the peace of Callias.

Revolt
Some time later Megabyzus himself revolted. Ctesias tells us the reason was that Amestris had the captives from the Egyptian revolt executed, though Megabyzus had given his word that they would not be harmed.

Armies under Usiris of Egypt and the prince Menostanes, a nephew of the king, were sent against him, both foregoing battle for (non-fatal) duels between the generals, and in both cases Megabyzus was victorious. The king resolved to send his brother Artarius, the eunuch Artoxares and Amytis in a peace embassy. His honour restored, Megabyzus agreed to surrender and was pardoned, retaining his position. Some time later, Megabyzus saved Artaxerxes from a lion in a hunt and was subsequently exiled to Cyrtae for violating the royal prerogative to make the first kill, but he returned to Susa by pretending to be a leper and was pardoned.

Megabyzus died shortly afterwards, at age 76. His son Zopyrus II is known to have lived as an exile in Athens, and aided in its assault on Caunus during his father's exile, where he was killed by a rock.

title: Megabyzus