text:
Barolo

Barolo (, , ; bareul ) is a red denominazione di origine controllata e garantita (DOCG) wine produced in the northern Italian region of Piedmont. It is made from the nebbiolo grape and is often described as one of Italy's greatest wines.

The zone of production extends into the communes of Barolo, Castiglione Falletto, Serralunga d'Alba and parts of the communes of Cherasco, Diano d'Alba, Grinzane Cavour, La Morra, Monforte d'Alba, Novello, Roddi, Verduno, all in the province of Cuneo, south-west of Alba. Although production codes have always stipulated that vineyards must be located on hillsides, the most recent revision of the production code released in 2010 goes further, categorically excluding valley floors, humid and flat areas, areas without sufficient sunlight, and areas with full-on northern exposures.

Barolo is often described as having the aromas of tar and roses, and the wines are noted for their ability to age and usually take on a rust red tinge as they mature. Barolo needs to be aged for at least 36 months after the harvest before release, of which at least 18 months must be in wood. When subjected to aging of at least five years before release, the wine can be labeled as Riserva.

In the past, Barolo wines tended to be rich in tannin. It can take more than 10 years for the wine to soften and become ready for drinking. Fermenting wine sits on the grape skins for at least three weeks, extracting huge amounts of tannins, and is then aged in large, wooden casks for years. In order to appeal to more modern international tastes, those that prefer fruitier, earlier-drinking wine styles, several producers began to cut fermentation times to a maximum of ten days and age the wine in new French oak barriques (small barrels). "Traditionalists" have argued that the wines produced in this way are not recognizable as Barolo and taste more of new oak than of wine. The controversies between traditionalists and modernists have been called the "Barolo wars".

History
Until recently it was believed that up to the mid-19th century, Barolo was a sweet wine. This was attributed to the fact that the nebbiolo grape ripens late in October, meaning that temperatures would be steadily dropping by harvest. By November and December, temperatures in the Piedmont region would be cold enough to halt fermentation, leaving a significant amount of residual sugar in the wine. Another popular idea was that in the mid-19th century, Camillo Benso, Conte di Cavour, the mayor of Grinzane Cavour, invited the French enologist Louis Oudart to the Barolo region to improve the winemaking techniques of the local producers. Using techniques focusing on improving the hygiene of the cellar, Oudart was able to ferment the nebbiolo must completely dry, making the first modern Barolo. This new, "dry" red wine soon became a favourite among the nobility of Turin and the ruling House of Savoy, giving rise to the popular description of Barolo as "the wine of kings, the king of wines".

The idea that Barolo was once a sweet wine and that it took a French oenologist to turn it into a dry wine has been recently challenged, based on new research, by Kerin O'Keefe. According to this revision of Barolo's history, Paolo Francesco Staglieno was responsible for the modern dry version. He was the author of a winemaking manual, Istruzione intorno al miglior metodo di fare e conservare i vini in Piemonte, published in 1835. It was Staglieno who was called upon by Camillo Benso, Conte di Cavour, who appointed him to the position of oenologist at his Grinzane estate between 1836 and 1841. Staglieno's task was to produce quality wines geared towards ageing and stable enough to be exported. Staglieno fermented the wines dry, something that at the time was referred to as "the Staglieno method". Oudart was a grape and wine merchant, not an oenologist, who in the early 1800s moved to Genoa and set up a winery, Maison Oudard et Bruché. By the time Oudart turned up in Alba, King Carlo Alberto and Cavour were already following Staglieno's guidelines and both were producing dry wines. This revised version of the history of Barolo was positively accepted by other experts.

By the mid-20th century, wine production in the Barolo zone was dominated by large negociants who purchased grapes and wines from across the zone and blended them into a house style. In the 1960s, individual proprietors began estate bottling and producing single vineyard wines from their holdings. By the 1980s, a wide range of single-vineyard bottlings was available, which led to a discussion among the region's producers about the prospect of developing a Cru classification for the area's vineyards. The cataloguing of Barolo's vineyards has a long history dating back to the work of Lorenzo Fantini in the late 19th century and Renato Ratti and Luigi Veronelli in the late 20th century, but as of 2009 there is still no official classification within the region. However, in 1980 the region as a whole was elevated to DOCG status. Along with Barbaresco and Brunello di Montalcino, Barolo was one of the first Italian wine regions to attain this designation.

The Barolo wars
In the 1970s and 1980s, trends in the worldwide market favoured fruitier, less tannic wines that could be consumed at a younger age. A group of Barolo producers, led by the house of Ceretto, Paolo Cordero di Montezemolo, Elio Altare, and Renato Ratti, started making more modern, international styles of Barolos by using shorter periods for maceration (days as opposed to weeks) and fermentation (usually 48–72 hours or at most 8–10 days), less time ageing in new small oak barrels and an extended period of bottle ageing prior to release. By using modern technology, including specialized tanks that allow the wine to be pumped out from underneath the cap of skins and then pumped over, they found ways to maximize colour extraction and minimize harsh tannins. Prior to this "modernist" movement, nebbiolo was often harvested slightly unripe and at high yields, which left the grapes with harsh green tannins that had not had time to fully polymerize. To maximize colour extraction, producers subjected the wine to extended periods of maceration, taking up to several weeks, and then several years ageing in large oak casks to soften the wine. Through the long slow process of oxidation, the perception of tannins lessened (such as occurs when decanting wine), but the fruit would also fade and become oxidized. The decline in fruit would no longer be able to balance the remaining harsh tannins, leaving a bitter, astringent wine with withered fruit. To counter this change, some producers would blend in other grape varieties such as Arneis and Barbera to add colour, fruit or softness to the wine.

Advances in viticulture have helped to bridge the gap between modern and traditional producers. Better canopy management and yield control have led to riper grapes being harvested earlier with more developed tannins in the grape skins. , winemaking for both traditionalist and modernist Barolo producers includes strict hygiene controls and the use of some modern winemaking equipment such as temperature-control fermentation vessels. Rather than fall into one hardline camp or the other, many producers take a middle-ground approach that utilizes some modernist techniques along with traditional winemaking. In general, the traditional approach to nebbiolo involves long maceration periods of 20 to 30 days and the use of older large botti-size barrels. The modern approach to nebbiolo utilizes shorter maceration periods of 7 to 10 days and cooler fermentation temperatures between 28 - 30 C that preserve fruit flavours and aromas. Towards the end of the fermentation period, winemakers often heat the cellars to encourage the start of malolactic fermentation, which softens some of nebbiolo's harsh acidity. Modern winemakers tend to favour smaller barrels of new oak that need only a couple of years to soften the tannic grip of the wines. While new oak imparts notes of vanilla, it has the potential to cover up the characteristic rose notes of nebbiolo.

Climate and geography

The Barolo zone is located 3 km southwest of the Barbaresco zone with only the vineyards of Diano d'Alba planted with Dolcetto between the two nebbiolo strongholds. Compared to the Barbaresco zone, the Barolo zone is cooler and located on higher elevations, rising nearly 50 m above Barbaresco. The harvest of the late-ripening nebbiolo grape usually takes place in early to mid-October though some producers are experimenting with viticultural techniques that allow for an earlier harvest in late September. At harvest time, rains and downy mildew are two of the main hazards to worry about, along with early spring hail damage earlier in the growing season. Like most of south-central and southeastern Piedmont, the zone experiences a continental climate tempered by the Tanaro river and its tributaries - the Tallòria dell'Annunziata and Tallòria di Castiglione - that split the region into three main zones. To the west of the Tallòria dell'Annunziata is the commune of Barolo and La Morra. To the east of the Tallòria di Castiglione is the commune of Serralunga d'Alba located on one of the highest hilltops in the Barolo zone. Separated by a narrow valley to the west is the commune Monforte d'Alba located in the Monforte hills. Further upstream north, located in the v-shape spur between the two tributaries is the commune of Castiglione Falletto.

Located among the Langhe hills, the Barolo zone is a collection of different mesoclimate, soil types, altitudes and expositions that can have a pronounced effect on the development of the nebbiolo grape and the resulting Barolo wine. Within the Barolo zone there are two major soil types separated by the Alba-Barolo road. Within the communes of Serralunga d'Alba and Monforte d'Alba is a compact, sandstone-based soil dating from the Helvetian epoch. In the Barolo and La Morra zone, the soils are similar to those found in the Barbaresco zone, dating from the Tortonian period, being composed of calcareous marl that is more compact and fertile. Throughout the Barolo zone there are clay deposits and soil with enough alkalinity to tame nebbiolo's naturally high acidity. In Jan 2007 Filippo Bartolotta indicated how a vertical tasting of Barolo, from 1985 to the present "showcased Barolo's longevity, intense aromatics, freshness, silk-and-cashmere tannins and also highlighted the considerable contrast between production zones".

Being dependent on a grape that is slow to ripen, global warming has had a beneficial influence on the Barolo zone. Theoretically, the increased temperatures of summer followed by mild autumns that promote misty fog that keeps the grapes from burning has helped to increase sugar levels and led to riper phenolic compounds such as tannins. To empirically link this to anthropogenic global warming is speculative. More likely, better vineyard management and winemaking techniques have contributed to a string of successful vintages for Barolo in the last 20 years.

Wine region

The present-day Barolo zone is located a little over 11 km southwest of Alba. While it is nearly 3 times the size of the nearby Barbaresco zone, it is still relatively small and is only 5 mi wide at its widest point. In 1896, the Italian Ministry of Agriculture demarcated the Barolo production zone to include the communes of Barolo, La Morra, Castiglione Falletto, Serralunga d'Alba and the northern half of Monforte d'Alba. In 1909, the Agricultural Commission of Alba added the commune of Grinzane Cavour and parts of Novello and Verduno to the zone. When the region was designated as a Denominazione di origine controllata (DOC) in 1966, parts of Cherasco, Diano d'Alba and Roddi were included with this delimitation of the Barolo zone staying unchanged through the zones promotion to DOCG in 1980. Despite these additions, over 87% of Barolo is produced in the original five communes of Barolo, La Morra, Castiglione Falletto, Serralunga d'Alba and Monforte d'Alba with Barolo and Castiglione Falletto considered the "heart" or unofficial "classico" areas of the zone. In addition to restrictions on yield and alcohol levels, to be labelled DOCG, a Barolo must be aged at least three years (a minimum of 38 months from November 1 the year of harvest), of which a minimum 18 months in wooden barrels. For wines labelled Barolo Riserva, five years of total ageing is required (a minimum of 62 months from November 1 the year of harvest), again with a minimum of 18 months in barrel.

The Barolo zone can be broadly divided into two valleys. The Serralunga Valley to the east includes the communes of Castiglione Falletto, Monforte d'Alba and Serralunga d'Alba. Planted with soils higher in sand, limestone, iron, phosphorus and potassium, the wines of Serralunga Valley tend to be austere and powerful and require significant ageing (at least 12–15 years) to develop. The Central Valley to the west includes the communes of Barolo and La Morra with soils higher in clay, manganese and magnesium oxide. This region tends to produce wines with more perfumed aromas and velvety textures. These wines tend to be less tannic and full-bodied than those from the Serralunga Valley and can require less ageing (8 to 10 years). The most widely planted and productive region of the Barolo zone is La Morra, which is responsible for nearly a third of all wine labelled as Barolo and produces twice as much wine as the next leading zone of Serralunga d'Alba.

The "crus" of Barolo
Since the late 19th century, efforts have been made to identify which vineyards in the Barolo zones produce the highest quality wine. Inspired by the prestige and high prices charged for Grand cru bottlings of Burgundy wine, Barolo producers began separating their holdings into individual vineyard lots and labelling the wines with these single-vineyard designations. The practice became so extensive that some producers were doing single-vineyard bottlings and charging high prices on all their holdings, regardless of whether the particular vineyard quality merited such a practice.

Led by prominent wine critic Luigi Veronelli, there was a push to have the vineyards of Barolo classified according to the quality of their produce. Winemaker Renato Ratti conducted an extensive study of the soils, geography and produce of vineyards throughout the area and mapped out individual plots based on their quality potential. The "Ratti Map" is still widely used by producers and negociants today. While there is no official designation of cru vineyard in the Barolo zone, both oral tradition and the history of high prices paid by negociants have elevated some vineyards to "cru" status in Barolo. In the commune of Barolo, the Cannubi and Sarmassa are considered "cru" class as well as the Brunate vineyard shared with the commune of La Morra. Also in La Morra is the highly esteemed Cerequio and Rocche vineyards. In Castiglione Falletto is the Monprivato and Villero vineyards. The commune of Serralunga d'Alba is home to the esteemed vineyards of Lazzarito and Vigna Rionda while the commune of Monforte d'Alba is home to the Bussia, Ginestra and Santo Stefano di Perno vineyards.

Below is a list of some the traditional "crus" of Barolo (divided by commune):

In 2010 the Barolo Consorzio introduced the Menzioni Geografiche Aggiuntive (additional geographic mentions) also known as MGA or subzones, after the Barbaresco Consorzio introduced them in 2007. 181 MGA were officially delimited, of which 170 were vineyard areas and 11 were village designations. Following the introductions of MGA for Barolo (and Barbaresco) the term Vigna (Italian for vineyard) can be used on labels after its respective MGA and only if the vineyard is within one of the approved official geographic mentions.

Grape and wines

Barolo wine is produced from the nebbiolo grape variety with the Lampia, Michet and Rosé clones authorized. The clusters are dark blue and greyish with the abundant wax that dresses the grapes. Their form is lengthened and pyramidal, with small, spherical grapes and substantial peel. The leaves are of average size with three or five nevertheless voluptuous lobes. Compared to the annual growth cycle of other Piedmontese grape varieties, nebbiolo is one of the first varieties to bud and later varieties to ripen with harvest taking place in mid to late October. In some vintages, other Piedmontese producers are able to pick and complete fermentation of their Barbera and Dolcetto plantings before Barolo producers have even begun their harvest. According to DOCG regulations, Barolos are to be composed of 100% nebbiolo. Historically producers would blend other grapes such as Barbera and today there is speculation that modern Barolo producers may be blending in Barbera, Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot and Syrah but there has been no conclusive proof of this practice. In the 1990s producers in the Barolo zone petitioned that the required nebbiolo content be lowered from 100% to 90% but this petition was eventually defeated.

Barolos tend to be rich, deeply concentrated full bodied wines with pronounced tannins and acidity. The wines are almost always lightly colored varying from ruby to garnet in their youth to more brick and orange hues as they age. Like Pinot noir, Barolos are never opaque. Barolos have the potential for a wide range of complex and exotic aromas with tar and roses being common notes. Other aromas associated with Barolos include camphor, chocolate, dried fruit, damsons, eucalyptus, leather, licorice, mint, mulberries, plum, spice, strawberries, tobacco, white truffles as well as dried and fresh herbs. The tannins of the wine add texture and serve to balance Barolo's moderate to high alcohol levels (Minimum 13% but most often above 15% ABV). Excessive extraction from prolonged maceration periods and oak aging can give the wines an over-extracted bitterness.

Within the different communes of the Barolo zone, stylistic differences emerge due to differences in soil type. The calcareous marl soils of Barolo and La Morra are relatively fertile and tend to produce softer, more aromatic and fruity wines that age relatively sooner than Barolos from other parts of the zone. The less fertile, sandstone soils of the Monforte d'Alba and Serralunga d'Alba commune produce more intense, structured wines that need more time to mature. Castiglione Falletto is located on a spur between the two valleys with overlapping soil types. This region tends to produce wines with the elegance and aromatics of the Barolo commune and the structure of wines from Serralunga d'Alba.

Barolo Chinato

In the Piedmont region, old Barolo wine is used to make an after-dinner digestif known as Barolo Chinato. The bark from the South American cinchona tree is steeped in Barolo and then flavoured with a variety of ingredients, depending on the producer's unique recipe. Some common ingredients of Barolo Chinato include cinnamon, coriander, iris flowers, mint and vanilla. The resulting beverage is very aromatic and smooth.

Production
A string of favourable vintages in the late 1990s led to an increase of price for Barolos and, in turn, led to increased plantings. Between 1990 and 2004 there was a 47% increase in nebbiolo plantings in the Barolo zone with 4,285 acre under vine. The production subsequently increased from 7 million bottles in the mid-1990s to 10.25 million bottles in the mid-2000s. In the rush to increase plantings some of the less ideal sites previously used by Barbera and Dolcetto were gobbled up. It remains to be seen if these sites will be able to adequately ripen nebbiolo enough to produce quality Barolo that justifies the high price of the wine. Some experts are predicting a market correction similar to what was seen in the 1980s when a backlog of vintages caused prices to stabilize.

Food pairing

A big, powerful, tannic wine, Barolo needs to be matched with foods of similar weight. Paired with light dishes low in protein, such as steamed vegetables, a Barolo will overwhelm the food; its tannins will react with the proteins on the tongue and sides of the mouth, accentuating the bitterness and drying the palate. In Piedmont, the wines are often paired with meat dishes, heavy pastas and rich risotti; the tannins bind to the food proteins and come across as softer.

title: Barolo


text:
Kure (disambiguation)

Kure may refer to:

Places

 * Kure, Hiroshima (呉), a city in Hiroshima prefecture, Japan
 * Kure Line, a rail line in the city
 * Kure Naval Base
 * Kure Station, a railway station on the Kure Line
 * Kure Atoll, an island in the Pacific Ocean, part of Hawaii
 * Kure Beach, North Carolina, a town near Wilmington and part of its metropolitan area

 * Küre, Kastamonu, a town and district of Kastamonu Province, Turkey
 * Küre Mountain, a mountain at Bartın and Kastamonu provinces
 * Küre Brook, a small river near İnebolu, Kastamonu Province
 * Küre, Bilecik, a town in Söğüt district of Bilecik Province, Turkey
 * Küre Mountains, a mountain range in Turkey

People

 * Inge Kure (born 1965), Dutch cricket player
 * Urve Kure (born 1931), Estonian chess player
 * Yuki Kure (呉 由姫), Japanese manga artist and illustrator

Organizations

 * KURE, a radio station (88.5 FM) licensed to serve Ames, Iowa, United States
 * KURE-LP, a low-power radio station (106.1 FM) licensed to serve Eloy, Arizona, United States
 * Kure Software Koubou, Japanese video game development company

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

title: Kure (disambiguation)


text:
Tulsa International Airport

Tulsa International Airport is a civil-military airport five miles (8 km) northeast of Downtown Tulsa, in Tulsa County, Oklahoma, United States. It was named Tulsa Municipal Airport when the city acquired it in 1929; it received its present name in 1963. While Tulsa International Airport only serves domestic destinations, it is still an international airport since it has customs and border patrol facilities.

The 138th Fighter Wing of the Oklahoma Air National Guard is based at the co-located Tulsa Air National Guard Base. The airport is the global maintenance headquarters for American Airlines.

During World War II Air Force Plant No. 3 was built on the southeast side of the airport, and Douglas Aircraft manufactured several types of aircraft there. After the war this facility was used by Douglas (later McDonnell Douglas) and Rockwell International (later Boeing) for aircraft manufacturing, modification, repair, and research. Spirit AeroSystems currently builds commercial airline parts for Boeing aircraft in part of the building and IC Bus Corporation assembles school buses in the other part. Spirit AeroSystems also builds Boeing wing and floor beam parts and Gulfstream wing parts in a facility on the east side of the airport, just north of runway 26.

The Tulsa Air and Space Museum is on the northwest side of the airport.

History
Duncan A. McIntyre, an early aviator and native of New Zealand, moved to Tulsa in 1919. His first airport was located at Apache and Memorial and opened August 22, 1919. He moved and established a private airport on an 80-acre tract at the corner of Admiral Place and Sheridan Avenue. McIntyre Field had three hangars to house 40 aircraft and a beacon for landings after sundown.

McIntyre evidently closed his airport during the 1930s and merged it with R. F. Garland, a Tulsa oil man and owner of the Garland Airport at 51st and Sheridan Road for $350,000. He ran the airport and became the president of the new venture. This airport would later become the Brown Airport (after a number of owners and names including the commercial airport before it moved to 61st and Yale). In 1940, McIntyre accepted a position with Lockheed Corporation and moved to California.

Charles Lindbergh landed at McIntyre Field on September 30, 1927. He had been persuaded to visit Tulsa by William G. Skelly, who was then president of the local Chamber of Commerce, as well as a booster of the young aviation industry. In addition to being a wealthy oilman and founder of Skelly Oil Company, Skelly founded Spartan Aircraft Company. Lindbergh had already landed at Oklahoma City Municipal Airport, Bartlesville Municipal Airport and Muskogee's Hatbox Field. All of these were superior to the privately owned McIntyre Field. Lindbergh pointed this out at a banquet given that night in his honor.

Opening
The initial municipal airport was financed with a so-called "stud horse note", a promissory note like those used by groups of farmers or horse breeders who would collectively underwrite the purchase of a promising stud horse. The note would be retired with the stud fees paid for use of the horse. In the case of the Tulsa airport, the note would be paid from airport fees. Using this vehicle, Skelly obtained signatures from several prominent Tulsa businessmen who put up $172,000 to buy 390 acre for a municipal airport. It opened July 3, 1928. The city of Tulsa purchased the airport, then named Tulsa Municipal Airport, in 1929, and put its supervision under the Tulsa Park Board. Charles W. Short was appointed Airport Director in 1929, and remained in this position until 1955.

The first terminal building was a one-story wood and tar paper structure that looked like a warehouse. The landing strips and taxiways were mown grass. Still, it handled enough passengers in 1930 for Tulsa to claim that it had the busiest airport in the world. The Tulsa Municipal Airport handled 7,373 passengers in February 1930 and 9,264 in April. This outpaced Croydon Airport, Berlin Tempelhof Airport, and Paris Le Bourget Airport for those months. Braniff Airways stopped at Tulsa on its original route between Chicago and Wichita Falls, and TWA stopped at Tulsa on its original route between Columbus and Los Angeles. Later in the 1930s, Tulsa became a stop on the American Airlines Chicago-Dallas route.

In 1932 the city opened a more elegant Art Deco terminal topped with a control tower. It was designed by Frederick V. Kershner, a lead architect working for Leon B. Senter. The structure was masonry with rounded corners, resulting in a futuristic appearance. Charles Short decorated the inside walls with a collection of early aviation photographs.

Although many Tulsans had concluded that the 1932 terminal was inadequate to serve the rapidly-growing city by the mid-1950s, the 1932 building served until Tulsa to construct a new terminal, east of the old facility. The new terminal would be designed by noted architect Robert Lawton Jones, who later said that his design was inspired by Mies van der Rohe Terminal design work began in November 1958 and the completed building opened November 16, 1961; on August 28, 1963, the facility was renamed Tulsa International Airport. The 1932 terminal was demolished in 1969 to make way for a runway expansion project. In January 1928 Skelly bought the Mid-Continent Aircraft Company of Tulsa and renamed it the Spartan Aircraft Company. It first built a two-seat biplane, the Spartan C3 at its facility near the new airport. Later it would also build a low-wing cabin monoplane as a corporate aircraft, and the NP-1, a naval training plane used in World War II. In 1929 Spartan established the Spartan School of Aeronautics across Apache street from the new Tulsa airport to train fliers and support personnel. The Spartan School was activated by the U. S. Army Air Corps (USAAC) on August 1, 1939, as an advanced civilian pilot training school to supplement the Air Corps' few flying training schools. The Air Corps supplied students with training aircraft, flying clothes, textbooks, and equipment. The Air Corps also put a detachment at each school to supervise training. Spartan furnished instructors, training sites and facilities, aircraft maintenance, quarters, and mess halls.

World War II
The 138th Fighter Wing of the Air National Guard was organized at the Tulsa Airport in 1940 as the 125th Observation Squadron, then renamed when it deployed overseas during World War II. It is still based at TUL.

On January 4, 1941, the War Department announced that Tulsa would be the site of a $15 million plant. The Federal Government built Air Force Plant No. 3 on the east side of the airport. The plant was operated by Douglas Aircraft Corporation to manufacture, assemble and modify bombers for the USAAF from 1942 to 1945; production was suspended when World War II ended. The plant was reactivated in 1950 to produce the Boeing B-47 Stratojet and later the Douglas B-66 Destroyer. In 1960 McDonnell Douglas, the successor to Douglas Aircraft Corporation, continued to use the facility for aircraft maintenance. Rockwell International leased part of the plant to manufacture aerospace products. McDonnell Douglas terminated its lease in 1996. Boeing bought Rockwell International's aerospace business in 1996, and took over much of the facility for aerospace manufacturing.

Postwar
In 1946 American Airlines acquired two former Air Force hangars to start a maintenance and engineering base at Tulsa Municipal Airport.

The April 1957 OAG shows 20 weekday departures on American, 18 Braniff, 6 Continental, 6 Central and 4 TWA. American had a DC-7 nonstop to New York, but westward nonstops didn't get past Oklahoma City, Wichita and Dallas. (In 1947, when transcon flights made at least one stop, American had nonstops from Tulsa to San Francisco and Los Angeles.) In 1979 the airport was also served by Frontier Airlines, Scheduled Skyways and Texas International Airlines.

In 1967 the Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust (TAIT) was established as a public trust to build, operate, and maintain airport facilities for the city of Tulsa. TAIT has no authority to levy taxes and depends on airport revenues to repay airport-related debts. TAIT is independent of the city, but all board members are appointed by the Mayor of Tulsa and confirmed by the City Council. In October 1978 TAIT leased Tulsa International Airport and other city aviation facilities (other than police and fire heliports) to the city of Tulsa acting through the Tulsa Airport Authority (TAA), which agreed to disburse all airport-related income to TAIT. In July 1989, a lease amendment gave daily airport operation and maintenance responsibility to the TAA.

The Tulsa Air and Space Museum (TASM) was established in 1998 on the northwest side of the airport. The museum added the James E. Bertelsmeyer Tulsa planetarium in 2006.

In December 2000 TAIT guaranteed a loan to Great Plains Airlines in cooperation with the Tulsa Industrial Authority (TIA), the Bank of Oklahoma and the city of Tulsa. The TIA mortgaged Air Force Plant No. 3 for $30 million, which was loaned to Great Plains, and TAIT agreed to purchase the property if the airline defaulted. Great Plains went bankrupt in January 2004 and was unable to repay $7.1 million of the loan, but the loan guarantee was deemed to violate Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) policies prohibiting an airport authority from subsidizing a particular airline, and when the Bank of Oklahoma tried in June 2004 to collect the debt, TAIT declined to purchase the property from the TIA. The TIA promptly sued TAIT for violating the agreement and later added the city of Tulsa to the lawsuit in June 2008. The parties tried to settle the suit in August 2008 by repaying the TIA with $7.1 million of city funds, but this was challenged by a taxpayer group in a qui tam action, and the settlement was deemed illegal in October 2011 by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The TIA and the Bank of Oklahoma then sued TAIT for breach of contract in March 2013, seeking $15.6 million ($7.1 million in 2004 plus interest). The dispute was finally settled on 31 August 2015 with TAIT agreeing to pay $1.56 million to the TIA and the Bank of Oklahoma's parent company and $125,000 to the Tulsa Regional Chamber.

2010-Pre COVID-19
Allegiant Air began service in 2013 to Orlando/Sanford. In 2015 Allegiant also began service to Las Vegas, Los Angeles International Airport, and St. Petersburg/Clearwater in 2015. TUL also saw a completed terminal renovation in 2015. Allegiant Air has had routes come and go such as New Orleans, Baltimore, and Nashville. Frontier Airlines returned once again in 2018 after pulling out of TUL a decade prior and began year-round service to Denver International Airport. Frontier also has been a victim of short lived routes in this timeframe such as Washington Dulles, San Jose (CA), Orlando, and San Diego. Former Regional Carrier Via Air served TUL with nonstop service to Austin from 2018 to 2019. American Airlines reunited year-round service to Los Angeles in April 2019 after the route was cut in the late 2000s. Allegiant Air began seasonal service to Destin/Fort Walton Beach in June 2019. During this time frame Runway construction took place along with the return of a jet bridge to gate B9 for Frontier's return.

COVID-19
COVID-19 affected TUL like any other airport during the timeframe. New service on Allegiant Air to San Diego and Nashville along with a new Southwest Airlines seasonal service to Baltimore were all slated to start in the summer of 2020. Nashville was attempted but did poorly as expected considering the circumstance. Ultimately, the route was cut in August 2020. Tulsa International Airport rebounded very well from COVID-19 thus leading to many new routes and aircraft upgrades. The first began with American Airlines adding nonstop service to Phoenix Sky Harbor in November 2020 to attract leisure travel, this route was very successful, therefore, the route turned into a year-round service just a few months after flights began. Startup low-cost carrier Breeze Airways began service to TUL as the airport scored Breeze as one of their first 15 cities with nonstop service to New Orleans, San Antonio, and Tampa, flights began in the summer of 2021. American Airlines began a surge at Tulsa International Airport adding four new destinations within one year, nearly doubling their network with new services to Austin, Miami, New York–LaGuardia, and Washington–National. This was huge for TUL as many unserved markets were reunited at long last. Unfortunately, Tulsa did have some miscues to complement the new services. Breeze Airways discontinued service to New Orleans and San Antonio in November 2021. Allegiant Air also attempted service to Austin but was unsuccessful as the route was discontinued a little over a month after beginning. the Austin market in November 2021 as well. This did not last for long though as new services quickly touched down. Allegiant Air began new seasonal service to Phoenix/Mesa and Sarasota in November and December 2021 respectively. Southwest Airlines launched two new routes for the first time in four years with service to Austin to complement American Airlines and the return of Chicago–Midway as Southwest served MDW till 2015 from Tulsa. Breeze Airways launched non-stop service to Nashville in June 2022 and will add Orlando in March 2023.

Facilities
The airport covers 4360 acre and has three paved runways:
 * 18L/36R: 10,000 x, surface: grooved concrete
 * 18R/36L: 6,101 x, surface: grooved asphalt
 * 8/26: 7,376 x, surface: grooved concrete

As of August 31, 2023, the airport had 86,011 aircraft operations, average 235 per day: 40% commercial airline, 18% air taxi, 27% general aviation, and 15% military. 133 aircraft were based at the airport: 47 single-engine, 15 multi-engine, 46 jet, 3 helicopter and 22 military.

Terminals
The airport has a smaller regional terminal with newly renovated concourses. Concourse A, which houses Allegiant, American and Delta, has 11 departure gates: A1 through A11. Currently, seven of those are in use. Concourse B, opened in 2012, has ten gates, but only seven have jet bridges. Southwest and United use Concourse B.

In 2010, a renovation of the 1960s-era terminal began. The renovations were designed by Gensler and Benham Companies. Concourse B (home to Southwest and United) underwent a $17.9 million renovation between September 7, 2010 and January 18, 2012, including major HVAC replacement along with the more noticeable design changes. These changes include sky lights and raising the somewhat low ceilings in the concourse area, improved passenger waiting areas and gate redesigns. Concourse A (home to Allegiant, Delta, American and US Airways before its merger with American) subsequently underwent renovation and upgrades which were completed in 2015.

American Airlines Maintenance Facility

TUL is the headquarters for all Maintenance and Engineering activities at American Airlines worldwide, and is the maintenance base for the airline's fleet of Airbus A320 family, Boeing 787 and Boeing 737 aircraft – a combined total of nearly 800 airplanes. It employs over 5,000 people, with the majority as licensed aircraft and jet engine mechanics. According to the company, it is one of the largest private employers in Oklahoma.

While many other major domestic airlines (e.g., United, Northwest and US Air) were closing their maintenance facilities and outsourcing the work to major contractors in the early 2000s, American consolidated these activities at the MRO. The airline vowed to make the center as cost-effective as private centers and attract some of this work from other airlines as well. AA won major cost concessions from its own employees, pledged to relocate all its Boeing 737 heavy maintenance work to Tulsa, along with its work on the GE CFM-56 engine work. It also contains a wheel-and-brake overhaul facility and composite repair center. AA received $22 million in funding from Tulsa's Vision 2025 program that helped it buy machines, tooling and test equipment that only original-equipment manufacturers previously had. This funding helped it get contracts for maintenance work from Synergy Aerospace for F100 aircraft; Aeroserve, for JT8 engine work; GE Aviation Materials, for work on CF6-80 engines; Omni Air International and Vulcan Flight Management for work on Boeing 757 aircraft; and Aero Union for work on A300 landing gear.

The MRO occupies about 260 acre and 3300000 sqft of maintenance "plant" at the Tulsa Airport. Each year, the base performs major overhaul work on about 80% of American's fleet. It also does aircraft maintenance for other carriers on a contract basis.

On 28 February 2020, American Airlines announced an investment of half billion US dollars for the MRO base that will include two new hangars, including a 193,000-square-foot facility big enough to hold six narrow-body planes, such as a Boeing 737, or two larger planes.

Lufthansa Technik Component Services
Lufthansa Technik Component Services LLC (LTCS), a subsidiary of Lufthansa Technik AG, is headquartered at Tulsa Airport. LTCS provides maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) services to airlines. The Tulsa location includes the departments of Production and Product Development Engineering, the department of Finance and Controlling as well as Human Resources Management, Strategic Purchasing and a Customer Service team. The workshops and various department occupy an area of 72000 ft2.

Public transportation
There is no public transport service to the main terminal. No city buses stop at the airport currently. Uber and Lyft are common. A taxi stand is present, but a taxi is not always available. Bus stops are 1.2 to 1.3 miles from the terminal.

Departures / arrivals
Although generally single-level, the entry section of the airport has separate departure and arrival curbs; the inner Apache Drive for departures and outer Airport Drive for arrivals. Baggage claim carousels are located on Airport Drive on the Arrival upper-level curb. TIA has six baggage carousels in service. Currently American Airlines, Delta, and Allegiant on carousels 1, 2, and 3, and Southwest, United, and Frontier are 4, 5, and 6.

Industrial land development
In 2008, Tulsa Airport Authority began a new industrial land development project. Aerospace is one of the Oklahoma's largest industry clusters with 400 companies that directly or indirectly employ more than 143,000 people with a payroll of $4.7 billion and an industrial output of $11.7 billion. Tulsa is ranked eighth nationally for the size of its aerospace engines manufacturing cluster and 20th for its defense-related cluster.

TUL's central location in the south is easily accessible by a multi-modal transportation network. With a total of 4000 acre and 14,000 on-airport employees, Tulsa is a large center of aviation activity. Six sites totaling over 700 acre of real estate will be developed. Each of the sites can be divided into smaller lots to meet any organization's individual needs.

HP Enterprise Services building

The HP Enterprise Services (formerly EDS) building hosting some of Sabre's datacenter servers is located at the Tulsa Airport. The company applied a reflective material on the roof to reduce heat gain, thereby reducing the air conditioning power consumption. In front of this building is a 6-foot sculptured penguin, given to the company as part of a local art campaign by the Tulsa Zoo.

Accidents and incidents

 * June 10, 1950: a USAF Douglas C-47 lost power on takeoff and crashed into an aviation school barracks. Three men were injured, one fatally.
 * January 6, 1957: American Airlines Flight 327, a Convair CV-240 struck trees 3.6 miles north of the airport and slid some 540 feet. One person was killed out of the 10 on board.
 * January 8, 1965: The pilots of Central Airlines Flight 168, a Convair CV-240, diverted to Tulsa and performed an intentional belly landing after repeated unsuccessful attempts to lower the landing gear. The aircraft was substantially damaged but the nine passengers and three crew were not significantly injured.
 * September 15, 1987: Eastern Air Lines Flight 216, a Boeing 727 carrying 55 passengers and 7 crew, was seriously damaged in a hard landing. The aircraft was inspected by mechanics at the American Airlines Tulsa maintenance base and cleared to fly; it was then flown to Kansas City and Chicago with passengers, only to be removed from service after skin wrinkles in the fuselage were noticed. An American Airlines official later said that the Tulsa mechanics erred in their inspection. The accident was attributed to the pilot's decision to disregard a hazardous weather advisory and land in severe winds.
 * February 22, 1991: A Mitsubishi MU-2B-60, registration number N274MA, rolled over and crashed in a steep inverted dive after takeoff; the three occupants were killed. Investigators found the right-hand propeller feathered, the left spoiler deployed, and the rudder trim control in the neutral position; emergency procedures for the MU-2 dictated that after an engine is shut down, rudder trim should be applied "as soon as possible" to prevent spoiler deployment. The accident was attributed to the shutdown of one engine for unverified reasons, the failure of the pilot to maintain VMCA, and the pilot's improper emergency procedure.
 * December 28, 1992: A Beechcraft C24R Sierra, registration number N3809Q, struck trees during an Instrument Landing System approach at night in low visibility, killing the pilot and two passengers. The accident was attributed to "The pilot's disregard of and descent below the published decision height. Factors were his failure to maintain proper glide path and localizer alignment."
 * November 25, 1994: UPS Airlines Flight 732, a Boeing 757-24APF, sustained severe structural damage in a tailstrike on landing. There were no injuries to the two pilots. The accident was attributed to the failure of the pilot to maintain VREF and an improper landing flare. The aircraft was subsequently repaired and placed back in service.
 * October 27, 1995: A Beechcraft B95 Travel Air, registration number N9943R, overran Runway 36L on takeoff and struck a tree and railroad tracks, killing the pilot and sole occupant. Investigators attributed the accident to the pilot's failure to remove the flight control gust locks during the preflight inspection, and the pilot's subsequent failure to abort the takeoff.
 * July 10, 2010: A Cessna 421, registration number N88DF, experienced a double engine failure and crashed on approach, killing the two pilots and single passenger. The aircraft was low on fuel, but the pilot did not declare an emergency, and accepted a landing clearance on Runway 18R despite being significantly closer to 18L. The accident was attributed to "The pilot's inadequate preflight fuel planning and management in-flight, which resulted in total loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's use of performance-impairing medications."

title: Tulsa International Airport


text:
Apple GS/OS

GS/OS is an operating system developed by Apple Computer for its Apple II GS personal computer. It provides facilities for accessing the file system, controlling input/output devices, loading and running program files, and a system allowing programs to handle interrupts and signals. It uses ProDOS as its primary filing system. GS/OS is a component of Apple II GS System Software versions 4.0 through 6.0.1, and was the first true 16-bit operating system for the II GS.

Speed optimization
The advantage of GS/OS over its predecessor, the ProDOS 16 operating system, is that it was written entirely in 16-bit code for the 65816 processor used in the II GS, rather than primarily in 8-bit 6502 machine code that does not take advantage of the II GS 's unique features. This in turn allows GS/OS to offer vast speed optimizations (loading time, disk access, screen updates) compared with the previous OS, and provided room to incorporate many features of other Apple operating systems, including Apple III Apple SOS, the Macintosh System 5, as well as concepts and features that would later appear in future Macintosh System Software releases (e.g. proportional scrollbars, thermometer progress bars).

New features and enhancements
In addition to continued enhancements to the IIGS Finder and loadable fonts, GS/OS offered plug-in device drivers (modem, printer, etc.), a thermometer progress display, AppleShare support, File System Translators for accessing foreign file formats, disk caching and support for storage devices up to 4 Gigabytes. It also extends the ProDOS file system to provide for resource forks on files similar to those used on the Apple Macintosh, which allows for programs to be written in a more flexible way. The newly included Apple Advanced Disk Utilities and Apple IIGS Installer helped facilitate partitioning, formatting and installing software and drivers with visual ease. A command-line development environment called APW (Apple Programmer's Workshop) is available; much like the Macintosh Programmer's Workshop.

File System Translators
GS/OS includes a facility known as file system translators (FSTs) which allows it to support multiple on-disk file systems in a manner transparent to application programs and to the user, a feature not found in ProDOS or most other microcomputer operating systems at the time. While GS/OS natively uses the ProDOS file system (from which it must be booted), it also fully supports HFS used by Mac OS. Other file system translators include those for MS-DOS, High Sierra/ISO-9660, Apple DOS 3.3, and Pascal, albeit read-only (full read/write support had been planned but was never completed).

Releases
Source:

ProDOS 16 (GS/OS predecessor)

 * 1986 – System 1.0 (ProDOS 16 v1.0), System 1.1 (ProDOS 16 v1.1)
 * 1987 – System 2.0 (ProDOS 16 v1.2), System 3.1 (ProDOS 16 v1.3)
 * 1988 – System 3.2 (ProDOS 16 v1.6)

GS/OS

 * 1988 – System 4.0 (GS/OS v2.0)
 * 1989 – System 5.0 (GS/OS v3.0), System 5.0.1 (GS/OS v3.0), System 5.0.2 (GS/OS v3.0)
 * 1990 – System 5.0.3 (GS/OS v3.03)
 * 1991 – System 5.0.4 (GS/OS v3.03)
 * 1992 – System 6.0 (GS/OS v4.01)
 * 1993 – System 6.0.1 (GS/OS v4.02)

Unofficial versions

 * 2015 – System 6.0.2 (GS/OS v4.02), System 6.0.3 (GS/OS v4.02)
 * 2017 – System 6.0.4 (GS/OS v4.02)

title: Apple GS/OS


text:
Talk:Begging the question

The article of alternative usages of "Begging the question" provides evidence to the contrary of the article's claim
Currently, the article claims "The phrase "begs the question" is also commonly used in an entirely unrelated way to mean "prompts a question" or "raises a question", although such usage is sometimes disputed.[4]" This sounds like the cited reference from The Guardian provides evidence that "begs the question" is NOT used as "raise the question". However, the reference provides evidence, that "begs the question" is only rarely used as a fallacy and MOSTLY used as "raise the question". Thus, the change 20:26, 29 November 2023 is correct. Why was it reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:4485:7DA0:C42F:502B:E1F8:85A8 (talk)

 * Sorry, I don’t see the contradiction? The article supports that it is “commonly used […] to mean […] ‘raises a question’ ” but that it “is sometimes disputed”. Spidermario (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

 * There are two usages of "begging the question": 1. fallacy uage, 2. "raise the question"-usage. My points are these: a) The article does not "dispute" anything. What it does it says, "Most of the time the usage 2 is applied, rarely the usage 1, so don't make a fuss if someone uses 2." This is still a long way from dispute the usage. b) The articles disputes the common application of usage 1. However, the Wikpedia-article says "The phrase "begs the question" is also commonly used in an entirely unrelated way to mean "prompts a question" or "raises a question", although such usage is sometimes disputed." The such is referring to usage 2 - in contrast to the The Guardian article. Was I able to express myself more clearly?

 * The article itself does not dispute usage 2, but it does mention that some people dispute it, therefore it supports the claim that usage 2 is sometimes disputed. Spidermario (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Can you quote the exact passage in the The Guardian article, which does this mentioning? I do not find it. It mentions that some people in a comment section (which seems to be the least credible source, Wikipedia could be quoting in my opinion), corrected an author of yet another article, when that author applied usage 2. However, this does not dispute the fact that usage 2 is applied. If anything, it confirms that usage 2 is applied, even if - as the commenters believe - it was a false usage. A false usage is still a usage. For example "begs the question is best avoided as it is almost invariably misused: it means assuming a proposition that, in reality, involves the conclusion ... What it does not mean is 'raises the question', and if you can substitute this phrase, it has been used wrongly." claims that usage 2 is wrong, but confirms that usage 2 is applied, just wrongly. There would be no point in discussing whether usage 2 is correct or wrong if it was never applied. Maybe we are misunderstanding each other? Maybe you talk about "disputing that using 'beg the question' in the sense of 'raise the question' is a correct usage", while I talk about "disputing that the phrase 'beg the question' is used in the sense of 'raise the question' at all"; could that be a source of misunderstanding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:4485:7DA0:19:F2CB:95B:21A5 (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Oh! That is indeed what I mean by “disputed”. Would “contested” be clearer then? Or maybe “objected to”? Spidermario (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

 * I do not think that the word "disputed" is the issue in itself, but that it is ambiguous what is disputed. Is it the fact that "beg the question" is used in a certain way or whether this way of usage is valid? So, what the Wikipedia article should say is "..., although the validity of such usage is sometimes disputed.[4]" Additionally, most of the article is making the point that using "beg the question" as "raise the question" is fine. I think it is not a fair representation-wise to use the article to support the opposite point of view. Thus, I would simply add, "However, some argue that the usage in the sense of "raise the question" is in fact more common and should not be rejected." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:4485:7DA0:2D0A:9A2B:B364:31CF (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Deleted "Hero Man" example broke following paragraphs
I agree with 92.22.149.83's 12/9/20 removal of the bad example about "Hero Man". The problem is that it is germane to the paragraph (and Herrick quote) following it, which made no sense after this less than ideal example was removed and not replaced with a better one. And I find that following paragraph quite helpful, and completely confusing the way it was left incorrectly referencing what was meant to be a valid counterexample to begging the question (and incidentally unnecessary in my opinion.)

I just found and added what I think is a reasonable example to support the paragraph that follows it that is an example listed in Fallacies and Pitfalls of Language: The Language Trap. Came upon the exmaple via a nice ThoughtCo article on the subject. Jeff Axelrod (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Title
Rather than perpetuating the mistake, shouldn't this article be titled "assuming the initial point" with a note that it is often mistranslated as "begging the question"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.146.26 (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

"Incorrect" meaning
This edit by another editor was reverted with the explanation "POV". Quite by coincidence, I made almost the same edit. The original edit was correct and should have stood. The "POV" comment is bizarre. Anyone with any powers of observation can be in no doubt that in everyday English "beg the question" is almost always used with the "incorrect" meaning. Most people have no knowledge of the "correct" meaning. 86.129.206.245 (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think my experience is a bit different than yours, but really what is needed her is some source which says what you assert. Paul August ☎ 02:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, the misused form "beg the question" is grammatically incorrect, because in the intransitive form of "beg", it should be "beg for the question". The transitive form of "beg" has the target of begging as the object of the verb, e.g. "I beg you", "he begged the passer-by for help".24.69.25.223 (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It being grammatically incorrect really has no bearing on the question at hand here, which is whether it is meaningful to deem as "incorrect" the most common usage of a phrase.172.98.135.43 (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The question seems best answered by examples of modern ("incorrect") usage, which I hear just about every day on news programs, juxtaposed to former usages in rhetoric and argumentation which were in fact correct by the understanding of those users. As far as the transitive form of the verb I agree that's true in the majority of cases but think that usage is more elastic: "I am thirsty. I beg water of you." You could argue that it is more proper to phrase it differently but this seems idiomatic enough, though a little old fashioned. The question of the correctness of the use is really overshadowed by the obvious need in today's world for the modern meaning. Blueistrue (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

This article begs the question: if I'm using "beg the question" incorrectly, how could I possibly tell?
About the only thing I get out of this article is that no-one can explain what "begging the question" actually means. The examples are painfully unclear, the writing muddy, and the writers/editors of this article seem absolutely determined to expound on their arcane knowledge without ever getting to the point.

This article probably needs to be blown up and restarted from scratch. At the very least, someone needs to come up with a simple, clear set of examples for what this phrase meant in its classic sense. I mean, it sure beats me. I read the article, and I still don't know. No wonder the modern meaning is completely trouncing the older one -- even its defenders can't coherently explain it! 70.27.3.143 (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 * I agree that the article needs a better explanation and example of something that "begs the question" in the older, formal sense of the term. I'm adding an example section to the top of the article. 209.165.166.193 (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Deleting the erroneous or at best very confusing example in the first paragraph
The example relating to paranormal activity is clearly erroneous in my opinion as the writer of the passage assumed that a person needs to assume that paranormal activity is real in order to conclude that he has experienced a paranormal activity (and therefore infer that paranormal activity is real), which is not the case. The writer stated "something must be real for it to be experienced" as a part of his explanation, but the statement is of nothing more than the reason that a person who thinks he has experienced paranormal activity can logically infer that paranormal activity is real. I have decided to delete this example from the page. 134.87.133.113 (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

the freedom of speech example isn't a fallacy
The article claims that:

"To allow every man an unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the whole, advantageous to the State, for it is highly conducive to the interests of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments."

is a fallacy because the second clause is just a restatement of the first clause. I don't agree. The first clause talks about the the advantage to the State, while the second clause talks about advantage to the community. A state is not the same thing as a community. There is, to be sure, a hidden premise: that things which are advantageous to communities are also advantageous to states, and one could quibble about that. But if the listener accepts that premise as plausible, then there is no fallacy in the statement. 185.121.6.44 (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 * "the State" is just a specific case of a community here; one could replace the word "community" with "State" and it would be the same argument. But it's not circular because the conclusion differs from the premise. It is however invalid, because there is a hidden and erroneous premise that what is highly conducive to the interests of a community must always be, on the whole, advantageous to it ... not so, as there could be other competing interests of the community. -- Jibal (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the first part. The OP here is confusing "a state" with "the state." The former just refers to a mid-level form of organization and government, generally somewhere between a city/town/village and a nation/country/republic. The latter is a broad term to refer to the governing body of a city/town/state/county/nation/republic/etc. It's a reference to the interests of the body in charge, that makes legislation and has an obligation to defend "the state's interest" in any law which restricts activities of anyone it applies to.
 * The second part is trickier. Yes, there can be competing interests, but there can also be competing situations of advantage. Something can advantage one party or group within a community and disadvantage others - but that is covered in the wording and you kind of glossed over that. Even your use of "always be" and "on the whole" are direct contradictions of one another. "On the whole" specifically means in the bulk of situations, not in all situations - it's the same thing as saying, "generally," "in most cases," "for the most part," etc. It's specifically clarifying that, while it is true more often than not, it is not going to be true in every single example.CleverTitania (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "State" is not differentiated by the presence of a definite or indefinite article. (Compare "The state of Israel is ending negotiations," to, "A state, such as Israel, may decide to end negotiations." Both have the same meaning, referring to the government of Israel.) In the quote in question, however, it is differentiated by the use of capitalization which means here it refers to a government entity (capitalization isn't always used to make this clarification, relying on context often, but when capitalization is used like this, it is almost always referring to a government entity). The three terms "Nation" (the people), "State" (the government), and "Country" (the territorially bounded land associated with a Nation and/or State) often get sloppily confused. France is a State governing a Nation living in its Country. The US is a State composed of a federal union of individual member States who have joined that union over a couple centuries. The EU, too, is a State composed of a confederate union of individual member States (the EU is a confederation bordering on federation, while the US is a federation bordering on being a confederation—the difference between these is the level of sovereignty the member states can exercise inside and outside of the union).
 * In the quote, it is talking about this meaning of "State" (a government entity), while the word "community" takes the place of "Nation" (both refer to the people governed by the State). "State" and "community" are not the same thing as one is referring to the government entity and "community" is referring to the people subject to that State. One could rewrite it as, "Freedom of speech is an advantage to the government because the individuals among the people can freely express their feelings." (Basically, turned into a question : How is the government going to correctly govern if its people can not freely tell it what things are going wrong?) — al-Shimoni  (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Short definition
How about "pretends to demonstrate what it already assumes"?96.248.101.32 (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)DeMikeal Brown

 * Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not the original thoughts of editors. If you can find some RS that uses that language, then it can be incorporated into the article. -- Jibal (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Bad example
This is confusing to read:

"All birds that are black are ravens; therefore, all birds that are not ravens are not black."

We should also include an example which has a *true* premise:

"Asia is the largest continent; therefore, Asia has the largest area of any continent."

To ensure we don't mislead the reader into thinking "begging the question" necessarily means false premise.

Mateen Ulhaq (talk) 12:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The way the example is now stated doesn't really fit. The line is now:

"Asia is not the smallest continent because it has the largest area of any continent."

But this does not align with the conclusion:

"[...] assuming the initial premise to be correct also means assuming the conclusion is correct."

One can assume Asia is not the smallest without therefore assuming the it has the largest area.

ZAD-Man (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

All I know
"Begs the question" is always used incorrectly because nobody knows what it really means. 205.142.232.18 (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Begging the question.png

The description of the "classical" meaning is confusing
The description of the "classical" meaning is so confusig that now I wonder whether even Aristotle knew what he meant for it. The "modern" meaning is very clear, but mostly thanks to the example given. Why not give a couple of examples for the "classical" one too, before trying to explain the concept in abstract and full generality? That is a basic teaching technique... To be most effective, the "question" of the example should be something that the reader has no way to know whether it is true or false; and the argument should have three or four steps. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Does this beg the question?
"Prescriptivist grammarians and people versed in philosophy, logic, and law object to such usage as incorrect or, at best, unclear. This is because, it is claimed, the classical sense of Aristotelian logic is the correct one."

Does this sentence at the end of the article beg the question, or am I just confused? LouMichel (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

 * No, the sentence does not beg the question, the passage describes people engaged in an argument that could be considered begging the question, in the Aristotelian fashion. Hence the "it is claimed" in the middle.

 * That said, it's pretty common within etymology to treat the first definition in history as the "correct" one, especially if it was in use for many years (centuries) before the secondary or modern usage. And that's doubly true if early examples of contemporary usage all appear to be the result of people misunderstanding the existing definition. So, their argument isn't exactly saying it's the correct one because it's correct, so much as it's the correct one because it's usage far predates the contemporary usage.

 * For myself though, I would really like to see an etymological breakdown of the contemporary usage, and see if those early examples did involve people incorrectly using the existing phrase, or if it was said by people who had never heard the original phrase. Because that would indicate whether or not it's a misusage or a dual evolution of the phrase - which is certainly plausible. CleverTitania (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

 * The sentence doesn't beg the question, but the argument given by prescriptivists does: The "modern" sense is incorrect because the classic sense is correct. As for "it's pretty common within etymology" -- etymology is not meaning, and has nothing to say about what is "correct usage". P.S. Gotta love the absurd putting-words-in-my-mouth claim that I'm arguing that etymology is not what etymology is defined to be; I of course am doing no such thing. Yeah, etymology includes study of historical usage. Again, that tells us nothing about "correct usage". The very fact that there is such a thing as "the evolution of a word's meaning" should make that clear. Etymology is an area of scientific investigation, not a normative arbiter ... science never tells us what is "correct" behavior. -- Jibal (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That etymology is not the end-all-be-all of definition or usage is certainly true. But to say etymology is neither meaning nor has anything to say about correct usage is bordering on absurd. Etymology is the study of the historical origin, usage and evolution of a word's meaning. You're basically arguing that etymology is not what etymology is defined to be. CleverTitania (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

New Usage
The ‘new’ usage does not arise from any fresh approach to rhetoric, but sheer ignorance, the misapplication of a precise term due to faulty understanding, or lazy learning. Like using ‘problematical’ to mean ‘difficult’ or ‘troublesome’.

‘I’m like really hungry and thirsty and stuff but I like left my wallet at home, so, yeah, that like begs the question of how I’m like gonna pay to eat and stuff. So, yeaahhhhhhhh…’ is a current misusage couched in a knucklehead idiom. --2001:44B8:3102:BB00:A533:3726:4EB6:E1FC (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Usage examples
Please see my comment in the "Incorrect" post above.

Regarding the question of whether it is correct to say begs the question when you mean something like calls for the question to be asked and dealt with: It seems best answered by examples of modern (so-called "incorrect") usage, which I hear just about every day on news programs, juxtaposed to former usages in rhetoric and argumentation which were in fact correct by the understanding of those users.

As far as whether the transitive form of the verb does NOT encompass begging [for] a thing, I agree that it is true in the majority of cases but think that the usage can be more elastic: "I am thirsty. I beg water of you." You could argue that it is more proper to phrase it differently ("I beg a man for water.") but the first example seems idiomatic enough, though a little old fashioned. In the first, "water" is the direct object while in the second "a man" is the direct object. Perhaps more examples of parallel usages to "begs the question" from published works could be provided to fill out the picture. If I find any I'll post them.

The question of the correctness of the use is really overshadowed by the obvious need in today's world for the modern meaning. There would be literally tens of thousands of examples if one were so inclined to comb through media transcripts. That part does not seem arguable at all. It means today what people think it means. It would, however, make everybody a little better informed if we understood the where the modern usage came from and how our ancestors spoke and thought. Blueistrue (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * (note I'm not the above IP poster) IMHO that line of thought falls to pieces considering the choice to use the exact phrase “begs the question” (or any close misrecollection that was intended to be such,) rather than any other phrasing with the words “beg” or “question.” That is a clear indication such speakers are (dimly) aware of and struggling to refer to the specific logical fallacy, typically to lend a “highfalutin” air to their own speech, rather than innocently mashing together words in an arrangement that resembles the fallacy's name by coincidence.
 * Particularly risible is the closing paragraph of the article, incoherently dribbling that prescriptivists object to such abuses because we “hold them to be incorrect.” Uh, yeah, anyone who doesn't believe in categorization of “correct” and “incorrect” language as worthwhile, is by definition a descriptivist! 2600:1700:DA90:2AB0:912A:6930:89B7:D3DA (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Common use of this phrase
I was under the impression that "begging the question", as commonly used, refers to someone making a statement which will prompt or require the response the speaker desires. For example, an employee being asked by a supervisor, "Doesn't our company have a great leadership team?" If the employee wants to remain employed, they are forced to say yes, if not to make a more flattering comment in praise of corporate leadership. I grew up in the New York City metropolitan area, perhaps this was just a local idiom. I am curious if anyone else hs a similar interpretation. 2001:558:6045:B5:4025:7A2F:4E54:EC5C (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

 * You might be thinking of a loaded or leading question. NicolinoChess31415926 (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Problematic example about sweaters and jackets at the beginning
In the second paragraph of the first section of the current version of the article, it is written that:

'For example, the statement that "wool sweaters are superior to nylon jackets because wool sweaters have higher wool content" begs the question because this statement assumes that higher wool content implies being a superior material. '

Let P denote the statement "wool sweaters are superior to nylon jackets because wool sweaters have higher wool content".

Let A denote the statement "for every wool sweater and every nylon jacket, if the wool sweater has higher wool content than the nylon jacket, then the wool sweater is superior to the nylon jacket".

(Note that this statement is weaker than the analogous statement with "wool sweater" replaced by "sweater".)

Regarding the explanation for the example:

Let B denote the statement "this statement assumes that higher wool content implies being a superior material".

I fail to see why B is true – since in general the quality of the sweaters is not solely determined by how good the material is, we can only infer from P that A, rather than "higher wool content implies being a superior material", and so it cannot be inferred that the latter is assumed. B can only be true in some specific contexts, but since no specification of the context has been made for this statement, it would be weird to assume the context to be one of the particular contexts under which the statement is true, instead of a general context. Hence regardless of whether the statement is begging the question, the explanation in the article of why it is begging the question is problematic.

Regarding whether the statement begs the question:

I fail to see how it can be inferred that P begs the question, because begging the question is the problem of an attempted justification of a statement by another unjustified statement that implies the statement, and:

 * It is not clear if A has not been (independently) justified in the context of concern (where we are limited to considering only a certain kind of wool sweaters and a certain kind of wool sweaters), since no context has been given. In order for this statement to be begging the question, the underlying context must not contain a justification of A, which would be the case if the context is given to be the general (i.e. unrestricted) context (since A is obviously not a part of general knowledge, and in fact most people would assume it to be in general false).

 * A implies that "wool sweaters are superior to nylon jackets" if and only if e.g. one assumes that "wool sweaters" necessarily have higher wool content than "nylon jackets". I suppose this assumption is true by common sense for many people, but just from the names "wool sweaters" and "nylon jackets" I personally could not be completely certain that a "wool sweater" necessarily has more wool content than a "nylon jacket" of the same size, since I was considering the (epistemic) possibility that e.g. regardless of how much wool a jacket contains, as long as it contains [a certain sufficiently large mass depending on the size of the jacket] of nylon, it'd be called a "nylon jacket", in which case it is logically possible for it to contain a greater mass of wool than a "wool sweater" of the same size. In fact, note the ambiguity as to what is meant by "wool content" – does it refer to the percentage or the mass? If it refers to the mass, then it seems quite plausible that some really thick nylon jacket does contain more wool than a really thin wool sweater of the same size.

LRC.WK (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

 * I've updated the example to use the same wording as the reference. Yannn11 22:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

A better definition?
"In modern usage it has come to refer to an argument in which the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it"

Can "supporting it" be replaced by another verb or extended and made more specific via "supporting it by. . ."?

In the following examples, the premises indeed seem to "support" or agree with the conclusions. So for the layperson, can the definition be sharpened? Can counterexamples/fixes be added? 2600:1700:5B2C:A090:CD71:6CF5:98EB:EF87 (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

 * How about, "the premises do not provide independent grounds or reasons for accepting the conclusion"? Or, "the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it with independent grounds or reasons"? Dezaxa (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect examples
The examples currently posted in first paragraph are incorrect.

In detail:

"People have known for thousands of years that the earth is round. Therefore, the earth is round." This is appeal to popularity, not begging the question. "Coca Cola is the most popular soft drink in the world. Therefore, no other soft drink is as popular as Coca Cola."This is just deduction. If the first sentence is untrue then it's a false premise, but the logic is sound. "God possesses all the virtues. Benevolence is a virtue. Therefore, God is benevolent."Again, this is just deduction. If the first sentence is untrue then it's a false premise, but the logic is sound.

The following would be better examples of begging the question:

"Glancing into the lengthy criminal record of the accused will reveal a history of conflict with the law." A lengthy criminal record is indeed bound to contain some sort of mention of the accused being in conflict with the law. However, it is not formerly stated as a premise that such a record exists, and the conclusion is false if it doesn't. "Being able to factorize the positive natural number N into two unique sets of prime numbers proves that the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic is false." This sentence is correct if the existence of a number N is granted. However, it is not stated as a premise but implied within the sentence. Should such a number not exist (and it doesn't), the conclusion is false. 165.225.206.228 (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 * I don't agree with your assessment. Question begging, as the article states, is usually understood to mean the informal fallacy of assuming the conclusion within the premises. This may be because the argument is circular, or somewhat more generally that the argument assumes a premise that is itself just as much in need of justification as the conclusion. The fallacy is informal because a circular argument is formally valid. The most extreme case of a circular argument is "P; therefore P". There is nothing wrong with the logic; P does indeed have P as its logical consequence. But the argument has no epistemic value since we would not accept the premise if we did not already accept the conclusion. Question-begging is concerned with a failure to supply reasons or grounds for the conclusion, not a fault in the logic. Your examples seem to be cases of unstated or hidden premises. Dezaxa (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with IP on "Coca Cola is the most popular soft drink in the world. Therefore, no other soft drink is as popular as Coca Cola."
 * I read this and was very confused by what we are trying to demonstrate here. The conclusion follows from the hypothesis. I'm removing it Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Raising the question and vernacular
People so often misuse this phrase, I think it would be helpful to have a: "Not to be confused with 'raising/prompting the question' at the start. However, the existing notice is there because of a template, and there is no article for "raising the question" but there is this article's section on "vernacular." Consequently, I have two questions.

1. Can "Vernacular" be changed to something more meaningful, e.g., "Vernacular for 'raising the question'".

2. Can we have something at the head of the article noting a "not to be confused with" the "raising the question", even if it's not using that template. -Reagle (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Poor examples
Examples are related to circular reasoning which is a related fallacy. 83.148.206.134 (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Begging the question