text:
Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics)

= Request to move page to Shazam (character) =

Untitled
This page should be moved to Shazam (character) Captain Marvel isn't his name anymore. Marveldccomicsfan (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Marveldccomicsfan

 * I agree, it should be moved. Foreva000 (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Foreva000

 * Support - as pointed out in the previous RM discussion, the character has been marketed by DC as "Shazam" for 50 years now, and they officially renamed him as such 10 years ago. Along with that, it would seem that the 2019 film Shazam! (and the MCU film Captain Marvel, released the same year), has basically cemented the fact that he known, both officially and per WP:COMMONNAME, as Shazam, making this entirely appropriate. -  wolf  00:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. The character gained notability as Captain Marvel, and his most notable achievements were done under that name. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - just wondering what part of wp:recentism supports your !vote? Thanks -  wolf  20:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The second sentence (writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view) and the section on article imbalace. The name change is recent compared to the character's age. The most notable thing he's done since the rename is star in a film, and this article is about the comic book character, not the film character. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. -  wolf  02:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Argento Surfer. See also WP:NAMECHANGES (sources published as recently as three days ago still use the name "Captain Marvel") JOE BRO  64  13:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , From the article you cited: "Mary first appeared in comics in 1942, three years after the debut of Billy Batson as the superhero Captain Marvel and a year after Billy got his first sidekick, Captain Marvel, Jr. But the characters are better known these days as the superheroes of the Shazam family." The article points out that he was known as "Captain Marvel" 83 years ago, and further confirms that he is now known as "Shazam", with links to two additional articles, one explaining the name change and other referring to the character family solely by the "Shazam" name, (with no mention of "Captain Marvel" at all). Hows does this support your !vote? If anything, it supports the change in article title. (Also wp:namechanges clearly supports a change here, not the status quo) -  wolf  20:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact they specify he was known as Captain Marvel for much of his history before addressing he's called "Shazam" now illustrates that the old name is still in use and the RECENTISM of the change. The name "Captain Marvel" is still frequently used to refer to the character in reliable sources, not to mention that he's still referred to as Captain Marvel in the ongoing Young Justice show and comics published as recently as 2016. The new name hasn't replaced "Captain Marvel" in the cultural consciousness yet. I'm also going to ask that you please refrain from WP:BLUDGEONING. JOE BRO  64  21:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Erm... I think you should actually read (or re-read) "bludgeoning". But other than that, thank you for the reply. I was simply looking for some clarification and, I think I got some. Have a nice day. - wolf  01:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with Argento Surfer. DC's use of an older character is barely notable, and the attempted rename has had little to no impact. Dimadick (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, just seeking clarification; who is the older character you're referring to? And (again, honest question) when you say "attempted rename", are you referring to DC's renaming of "Captain Marvel" to "Shazam"...? Thanks -  wolf  20:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't it obvious? Captain Marvel is a character from Fawcett Comics which was acquired by DC several decades after his World War II heyday. Dimadick (talk) 08:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, no... that's why I asked. I'm well aware of the character's history, it's just that your reply wasn't clear to me. Especially when you say "attempted" rename, because Shazam actually was renamed. But anyway, thank you for the reply. -  wolf  17:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As Joe pointed out above, the renaming has not been consistently applied in recent years. That's what I understood by attempted. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but... (since you mentioned it) there are several problems with his reply as well. And I would've addressed that, but he has made it clear he has no interest in any discussion. At. All. So, as I did with him, and you, I simply thanked Dimadick for their reply and I'll leave it at that. It's clear you guys are dug in here, and since this request isn't getting much of a response outside of fans, this change isn't likely to happen, even though facts and policy say it should. Again, thanks for the response. -  wolf  21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME is a policy, and it says to give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change. As pointed out above, post-2012 sources still regularly identify him as Captain Marvel. Post 2012 comics still present him Captain Marvel. Scholarly and historical sources always note the character's history as Captain Marvel, even when they're about the recent movie, because they want to note how popular he had been in the 1940s before entering obscurity. Ergo, policy opposes the move to Shazam.
 * Perhaps you should reflect on the idea that we're no more "dug in" on our position than you are. Deriding people who disagree with you as "fans" is presumptuous and dismissive. If you want to see a discussion that goes against policy, I suggest you check out Talk:Spider-Man: Far From Home/Archive 2 and its repetitions, where the MOS on capitalization was ignored in favor of a movie poster. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, you guys seem pretty dug in, so (regardless of what you seem to have got wrong here, or on this other RM) there's no point in debating this RM any further, for even if you suddenly change your mind, this would still be a "no consensus", ergo "no change". The one thing I will address however is your comment about "fans". As a "fan" myself I take offense at the notion that you find the term "derisive". If you're not a "fan" then just say so. (In the future I'll just refer to you guys as "Wikipedia editors with a particularly strong interest in keeping this article title as is".) There's no need for this get any more negative than it already has. As it is, I simply asked for clarification, once, for some the responses here as they seemed flawed or just vaguely written, and I get accused of "bludgeoning" by one user and insulted by another. When I saw where this was going, I decided to just say "thanks for reply" and leave it that. So, again... thanks for the reply. I think we're done here. -  wolf  22:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing "no consensus" with "consensus not to move". I also think it's disingenuous to say all that you said, then to say "we're done here." But, since you're no longer discussing the issue aside from saying that everyone but you has things "wrong" here, I agree there's no point in continuing. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oy... No, I meant what I said. I don't think there is a concensus here (either way), and since there appears to be no consensus to move the page, it likely won't be moved. If I thought there was a consensus in favor of not moving the page, I would've said that. Other that than that, I don't see a point in further discussion because I don't think it will affect the outcome. If I thought that either you or JB were right, then I would be in agreement with you. But I don't, so I'm not. That's just stating the obvious, I don't see how you could have an issue with that. Since there's no point in debating this further right now, and I'm not interested in arguing just for the sake of arguing (eg: "no consensus to move vs a consensus not to move"), I decided to disengage (which I'm still trying to do). Unless this is a must-have-the-last-word sort of thing, I'd like to think we are done now. Have a nice day -  wolf  22:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This page should be moved from Captain Marvel (DC Comics) → Shazam (DC Comics). --Thefrobro (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC) Thefrobro
 * I agree Kevin  Talk 06:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Support - Per what wolf said. Higher Further Faster (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Comment: Unfortunatly this RM is almost two years old and likely not considered valid. Anyone that believes this page should be moved to "Shazam", should start a new RM (enough time has passed). Also note that there are previous requests and discussions on the matter, including most of Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics)/Archive 5, much of /Archive 3, and at several points on /Archive 2, dating as far back as July 2008. (fyi) - w o lf  22:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

= Fawcett vs DC Captain Marvel =

As the first appearance of this character is in the public domain, as well as a big chunk of the rest of the stories produced by Fawcett, have lapsed into the public domain due to not being renewed, derivative works of the character mean that the character itself is public domain. This means that the article claiming the character is the property of DC is not accurate, as they can only own the copyright to their own works involving the character and their trademarks. So really, Fawcett/Captain Marvel should be a separate article where that character is discussed as being in the public domain, and this DC/Captain Marvel under the Shazam Trademark, should contain the history of the DC version of the character. But being as the original works are in the public domain, they should be referred to as such a not as the property of DC—they belong to everyone now.

The early Captain Marvel works now considered to be under copyright by Warner and not in the public domain are: Captain Marvel Adventures nos. 3-6, 46-129, 131-141 and 143-150; Captain Marvel Jr. nos. 29-34, 36-106, 108-117 and 119; Captain Marvel Story Book nos. 1-2; Fawcett’s Funny Animals nos. 31-79; Hoppy the Marvel Bunny nos. 1-15; The Marvel Family nos. 1-3, 5-80, 82-89; Mary Marvel Comics nos. 1-28; Master Comics nos. 61-126, 128-132; Whiz Comics nos. 3-6, 64-98, 105-118, 130-153 and 155; and Wow Comics nos. 36-69 Best regards, ~Whig 11:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

 * While an interesting argument, in order to change wikipedia, one would need to find sourcing for this. ResultingConstant (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

 * @ResultingConstant thank you for your response. All copyright renewals are a public record. Please see Whiz Comics copyright information. Whiz Comics #2 (not to mention a noteworthy chunk of Captain Marvel-related publications across multiple titles) was never renewed. In general, Fawcett had a spotty record on renewals. The one's I mentioned above were renewed, and therefore remain under copyright. Under US copyright law, if the first appearance is in the public domain, derivative works are freely allowed as well just like any public domain work. DC has the copyrights only to those Fawcett Publications which were in fact renewed, which does not include the first appearance of this character and so they only own the works that they hold the copyright for. So, there *is* a DC Comics version of the character, but also a public domain version. As an example, the character of the Blue Beetle also meets similar criteria, and also has separate articles as I am suggesting here.
 * So, my suggestion is that we maintain this article for the DC Comics version of the character and have a separate article, Captain Marvel (public domain), for the original works which have lapsed into the public domain--none of which were produced nor owned by DC Comics or any of it's parent companies. Of course, this article would only include the art from those works which are no longer under copyright. I hope this information helps. Please let me know what other evidence may be required to proceed. Best regards, ~Whig 19:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What you are doing above is WP:OriginalResearch, and at best reliance on WP:Primary sources. In order for wikipedia to state something, or reorgoanize our content to do something, it needs to be published in WP:RS reliable WP:Secondary sources.   In any case,  regardless of the copyright status, I would likely not support a split of a articles based on ownership. Its the same character. Just like many golden age heroes they've gone through multiple biographies, and they are generally handled within a single article, just as this one is. If reliable sourcing can be found which specifically states that the base character is in public domain, then the article can say so. I think this situation is very analogous to Sherlock_Holmes or Mickey_Mouse (where the lack of renewal is specifically an issue) where the initial character is now public, but subsequent plot points and character development are not, and such issues are described in the article, but the article is not split based on that status (and note that there are a plethora of reliable sources discussing the copyright status of those characters) .  ResultingConstant (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * reping because I used the wrong name above ResultingConstant (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, a character cannot be public domain or proprietary. Works can be under copyright, or public domain. So, it is not possible for there to be sourcing for an underlying character, only the works they appear in.
 * The Library of Congress (the definition of a reliable source) only has only the above-referenced works listed as being under copyright. I am only summarizing what the LoC says, and since they hold the records of all copyrights and are public record, this is not original research, it is a well-sourced fact from a very reliable source as per your above-referenced policy. I shared the copyright renewal information above from an academic source which is also by definition a reliable source. So no, this is not original research. Since the first appearance is PD, derivative works are PD (or in other words, when the colloquialism is used to state that the "character" is in the PD). Moreover, any discussion of whether to call the character "Shazam" or "Captain Marvel" would, by necessity, only be a debate within the confines of changes made to the character in DC-published material and not the character as a whole since the entirety of the published works are not under copyright and the first appearance is in the public domain.
 * What type of evidence would you need to be convinced? The first appearance lapsed into the PD decades ago, the Library of Congress contains no record of a copyright renewal. So please, be specific about what documentation is required to make this necessary change because there is no affirmation that any character is public domain as you described above. Best regards, ~Whig 01:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While the initial appearances of the character certainly seem to be public domain, that's not actually a good reason to split the article. The article is about the character, from Fawcett through DC. The title of the article is a separate issue, but existing guidelines and conventions for article naming would seem to support the parenthetical "DC." But, that doesn't mean you can't make (supported by reliable sources) changes to the article that clarify the situation; say, something like "DC purchased the remaining rights to the character, with some early appearances having lapsed into the public domain" and/or a section on public domain appearances. 03:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally am convinced. But that is irrelevant. The encyclopedia requires reliable sources. You going to the the relevant law, and looking at the registry is by definition WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and WP:SYNTH. Please read those previous two links. If you want the encyclopedia to say the original character (or works) lapsed into public domain you need a reliable secondary source explicitly saying specifically that these fawcett works are public domain. At a minimum you would need someone WP:NOTABLE on the topic of copyright to be stating their opinion of such in a reliable source, and then we could quote them. As per the examples in Mickey Mouse and Sherlock Holmes. To my knowledge, there is not a single reliable source making this argument, though there are various blogs and forums that do so.  (which is a bit of a surprise actually, with the movies).   ResultingConstant (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @ResultingConstant commenting again because I did not mention you. See above, how Wikipedia treats other public domain superhero characters from the Golden Age of Comic Book Heroes. Best regards, ~Whig 17:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @ResultingConstant:
 * As a model of how Captain Marvel should be treated, I suggest using Stardust the Super-Wizard, a character known to be completely in the public domain.
 * From the article: "The character of Stardust the Super Wizard is in the public domain. As such, he can and has been used by a host of creators over the years [34]"
 * Please see citation 34 from the article associated with the character "Stardust the Super-Wizard". It reads the following:
 * "The copyright on the character Stardust the Super Wizard has expired. The character appeared in comic books originally published in the U.S. by Fox Feature Syndicate between 1939 and 1941. Fox established the original copyrights to the two publications in which Stardust appeared: Fantastic Comics in 1939 and Big 3 Comics in 1941, respectively. The original copyrights lasted 27 years from the end of the year of their first publications. The copyright holder was free to renew the copyright any time during the year 1977. Fox Feature Syndicate, who went out of business in the mid 1950s, did not do so. The character's creator, Fletcher Hanks, died on 22 January 1976 and never established legal claims to his characters. All copyright renewals after 1977 can be searched online at the United States Copyright Office."
 * Technically inaccurate as works have copyrights but not characters. However, it works for a general understanding which is what an encyclopedia is intended for, so it works. I suggest we mark Captain Marvel as public domain in much the same way, and it can read something like this:
 * "The copyright on the first appearance, and many other early appearances of Captain Marvel has expired. The character appeared in comic books originally published in the U.S. by Fawcett Publications between 1940 and 1953. Fawcett established the original copyrights to the publications in which Captain Marvel first appeared: Whiz Comics in 1940 and Captain Marvel Adventures in 1941, respectively. The original copyrights lasted 27 years from the end of the year of their first publications. The copyright holder was free to renew the copyright any time during the year 1977. Fawcett Publications, who stopped producing comics in the mid- 1950s, did not do so. The character's creators, C.C. Beck, who died on 22 November 1989, and Bill Parker, who died 31 January 1963, never established legal claims to their characters. All copyright renewals after 1977 can be searched online at the United States Copyright Office. DC Comics and its parent company Warner Brothers Discovery, are know to own the copyright on the following golden age comics: Captain Marvel Adventures nos. 3-6, 46-129, 131-141 and 143-150; Captain Marvel Jr. nos. 29-34, 36-106, 108-117 and 119; Captain Marvel Story Book nos. 1-2; Fawcett’s Funny Animals nos. 31-79; Hoppy the Marvel Bunny nos. 1-15; The Marvel Family nos. 1-3, 5-80, 82-89; Mary Marvel Comics nos. 1-28; Master Comics nos. 61-126, 128-132; Whiz Comics nos. 3-6, 64-98, 105-118, 130-153 and 155; and Wow Comics nos. 36-69"
 * After we have done this, we can continue the discussion on changing the article name from Captain Marvel (DC Comics) to Captain Marvel (comics) or Captain Marvel (Fawcett Publications) or something else. But the first appearance and a huge portion of the other golden age appearances have lapsed into the public domain, and so it is not accurate to say DC Comics owns anything more than the version of the character they have under copyright, no more no less. Disney has lost in court trying to use trademarks to claim ownership over public domain stories such as Aladdin and his Magic Lamp. It would be wrong for them to sue Netflix of releasing a Pinocchio film in the same year as their recent remake with Tom Hanks, for example. DC Comics has made a lot of changes to the character and thus only own their version which they hold under copyright.
 * Best regards, ~Whig 15:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As a model of how Captain Marvel should be treated, I suggest using Stardust the Super-Wizard, a character known to be completely in the public domain.
 * From the article: "The character of Stardust the Super Wizard is in the public domain. As such, he can and has been used by a host of creators over the years [34]"
 * Please see citation 34 from the article associated with the character "Stardust the Super-Wizard". It reads the following:
 * "The copyright on the character Stardust the Super Wizard has expired. The character appeared in comic books originally published in the U.S. by Fox Feature Syndicate between 1939 and 1941. Fox established the original copyrights to the two publications in which Stardust appeared: Fantastic Comics in 1939 and Big 3 Comics in 1941, respectively. The original copyrights lasted 27 years from the end of the year of their first publications. The copyright holder was free to renew the copyright any time during the year 1977. Fox Feature Syndicate, who went out of business in the mid 1950s, did not do so. The character's creator, Fletcher Hanks, died on 22 January 1976 and never established legal claims to his characters. All copyright renewals after 1977 can be searched online at the United States Copyright Office."
 * Technically inaccurate as works have copyrights but not characters. However, it works for a general understanding which is what an encyclopedia is intended for, so it works. I suggest we mark Captain Marvel as public domain in much the same way, and it can read something like this:
 * "The copyright on the first appearance, and many other early appearances of Captain Marvel has expired. The character appeared in comic books originally published in the U.S. by Fawcett Publications between 1940 and 1953. Fawcett established the original copyrights to the publications in which Captain Marvel first appeared: Whiz Comics in 1940 and Captain Marvel Adventures in 1941, respectively. The original copyrights lasted 27 years from the end of the year of their first publications. The copyright holder was free to renew the copyright any time during the year 1977. Fawcett Publications, who stopped producing comics in the mid- 1950s, did not do so. The character's creators, C.C. Beck, who died on 22 November 1989, and Bill Parker, who died 31 January 1963, never established legal claims to their characters. All copyright renewals after 1977 can be searched online at the United States Copyright Office. DC Comics and its parent company Warner Brothers Discovery, are know to own the copyright on the following golden age comics: Captain Marvel Adventures nos. 3-6, 46-129, 131-141 and 143-150; Captain Marvel Jr. nos. 29-34, 36-106, 108-117 and 119; Captain Marvel Story Book nos. 1-2; Fawcett’s Funny Animals nos. 31-79; Hoppy the Marvel Bunny nos. 1-15; The Marvel Family nos. 1-3, 5-80, 82-89; Mary Marvel Comics nos. 1-28; Master Comics nos. 61-126, 128-132; Whiz Comics nos. 3-6, 64-98, 105-118, 130-153 and 155; and Wow Comics nos. 36-69"
 * After we have done this, we can continue the discussion on changing the article name from Captain Marvel (DC Comics) to Captain Marvel (comics) or Captain Marvel (Fawcett Publications) or something else. But the first appearance and a huge portion of the other golden age appearances have lapsed into the public domain, and so it is not accurate to say DC Comics owns anything more than the version of the character they have under copyright, no more no less. Disney has lost in court trying to use trademarks to claim ownership over public domain stories such as Aladdin and his Magic Lamp. It would be wrong for them to sue Netflix of releasing a Pinocchio film in the same year as their recent remake with Tom Hanks, for example. DC Comics has made a lot of changes to the character and thus only own their version which they hold under copyright. Best regards, ~Whig 14:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The citation in the other article is original research, and it should be removed. Please read the links I sent you. What you are trying to do is very very clear cut original research and synth. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Fawcett Comics
We have owned our home for 42 years and was changing one of the ballasts in our finished basement and a bean bag fell out. It said Mary Marvel Toss Bag, and Mary Marvel has a cape on like a super hero. We were wondering if you would like us to send you a [ 96.19.107.229 (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Academic evidence: Captain Marvel is a public domain character, DC only owns their IP.
Evidence suggests that the first 2 issues of Whiz Comics were not renewed as required by law then. This means that the character and derivative works are in the public domain in the United States. DC would own the remaining issues still under copyright, DC-produced works, and their associated trademarks (which does not include the Captain Marvel moniker) Best regards, ~Whig 18:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Captain Marvel (DC Comics)


text:
Talk:Music of Scotland

Untitled
The Boards of Canada may be mentioned as a very successful electronic music act hailing from Edinburgh. - James Redfern

Information on all types of music should be at music of Scotland until that article is too long. This is preemptively splitting because now a topic of broad encyclopedic interest redirects to a narrow subsection of the subject. Where would I add info on Scottish rappers or heavy metal bands or immigrant folk music? Putting at music of Scotland would place a small amount of information about a tangential subject at the main page, with presumably a see also to an article on folk music, which actually discusses several non-folk kinds of music. This also does not fit in with the scheme being used at dozens of other articles, even ones that are exclusively about folk music. Finally, the new title is POV because plenty of reasonable people use one of the following definitions of "folk music":
 * Music made using long-standing traditional techniques passed down from generation to generation
 * Musical forms invented by people performing without the hope of recording for profit
 * Any music not rock-, metal-, punk- or hip hop-based, or pop or avant-garde, or electronic in origin
 * Any music made using only traditional instruments
 * Music meant primarily for performance and not recording

This article does not describe music that universally meets any one of these definitions.

 * An appeal to false authority like "Plenty of reaosnable people" holds no water. This is not a split; there is the same number of pages now as before the move: one. There *was* no information on rappers or heavy metal.Andy Mabbett 01:03, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If there was no split, why shouldn't we adhere to standards and keep this at "music of scotland"? Moving this page will limit the scope of the article when it shouldn't. --Jiang | Talk
 * Already answered on my talk page. What "standards"? Cite, please. Nothing was being limited: Wikipedia is not paper. Andy Mabbett 01:27, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Oh, you mean "Because Scotland has other types of music"? Then these types of music should also be mentioned! If we don't mention it here, then where? Sure, Wikipedia is not paper, but that pertains to equally viable alternatives. If you can make articles titled similarly, then we should. That's why we have something called naming conventions. --Jiang | Talk 01:33, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * The following is in response to Andy's comments before Jiang moved the page: It does mention music that is electronic in origin, however. I'm not certain if you are trying to deny that my above definitions are used, but here's a few quotes:

- from here
 * 1) The music must be very old; that it is a particular style of music; that the author is not known. An art song is one that is written by a trained composer and is passed on in written form, whereas a folk song is one which is passed on in the oral tradition rather than in written form (Nettl & Myers, 1976).
 * 2) The International Folk Music Council adopted this definition at its Annual Conference in London in 1952. It is "music that has been submitted to the process of oral transmission. It is the product of oral transmission. It is the product of evolution and is dependent on the circumstances of continuity, variation and selection." The music may change and evolve as it passes from person to person (Karpeles, 1955, p. 6-7).
 * 3) Removed one that applies to American folk music
 * 4) Rhodes (1966) said that folk music could be defined by its sociological function because it is a kind of social behavior. "Interpreted in this light, it can reveal a great deal regarding the interests, thinking and feeling of the people" (Rhodes, 1966, p. 18).
 * 5) Bohlman (1988) talked about folk music's ability to "express the most profound of human values" (p. xii).
 * 6) Historically, both folk and popular music are learned through hearing and performing, but that performers of "serious" music have formal training in music theory, composition, and more (Denski, 1992).
 * 7) There are two kinds of popular music, the folk and mass forms. The folk form is performed live, and the mass form is recorded (Cutler, 1985).

1. Folk songs represent the musical expressions of the common people.

2. These songs are not composed in that they are not the works of skilled, tutored musicians. It is more accurate to say that they have been created rather than composed.

3. These songs are ordinarily the product of an unknown person or group of persons. The credits often read: Anonymous; American Folk Song; Traditional; or Southern Mountain Song. [But Forcucci notes that there are folklike songs where the author is known, but that these songs are "patterned to fit the mold of what typical American folk songs should sound like," p. 18.]

4. The words or lyrics of folk songs are usually colloquial in nature to reflect the speech patterns and expressions of a particular people or region.

5. These songs are highly singable, primarily because they were first presented with the singing voice rather than have been written down in musical notation beforehand.

6. Folk songs are simply structured, both musically and verbally. It is their naivete that gives them their charm.

7. These songs can be effectively performed without instrumental accompaniment. When they are accompanied, a less formal instrument (such as a guitar, banjo, accordion, dulcimer, or Autoharp) is considered appropriate.

8. Folk songs are indigenous to a particular region or people because they reflect the musical/verbal preferences of that people or region in their materials. (Forcucci, 1984, pp. 18-19)

In an editorial for Sing Out! magazine, editor Mark D. Moss noted that the folk magazine had wrestled with a definition of folk music for years. He said that "our community vehemently refuses to take responsibility for defining folk music" (Moss, 1995, p. 2). Moss prefers to think of folk music as an umbrella which covers blues, Cajun music, ballads, and "rooted" music from around the world, along with the music of the contemporary singer-songwriters (Moss, 1995).

from here

the traditional and typically anonymous music that is an expression of the life of people in a community

from here

Webster defines folk music as the "traditional and typically anonymous music that is an expression of the life of the people in a community." It is an excellent "quick and dirty" definition.

Folk music is music that has become part of a people's heritage through oral tradition. A true folk song has no known author. Because of its oral tradition folk music is fluid. Variations in both tune and melody developed as music was passed orally through counties and countries.

Folk music is also a current genre of music that includes not only traditional tunes but newly composed tunes. The definition is not a set one and classification of specific musicians and songs is subject to controversy. Musical genre is much more fluid now than it has been in the past, so the lines between folk, country, celtic and others are often blurred and crossed. The definition of a "modern" folk song is a "song with a soft melodic sound and guitar accompaniment."(1)

from here

Music in Brazil is usually divided in three categories: música folklórica (Folk music), música popular Brasilera or MPB (Popular Brazilian music), and música erudita o música de escola (art music). These terms are generally accepted as implying specific musical styles and social functions. In 1954, there was an International Congress of Folklore, which met in São Paulo. One of the questions on the agenda was the distinction between folk and popular music. Folk music was defined as "that music which being used anonymously and collectively by the unlettered classes of a civilized society, originates also from anonymous and collective creation from the group, or from the adoption and accommodation of popular works that have lost their vital functions in the source from which they originated.(2)" Popular music was defined by the same congress as "that music, which being composed by known authorship, is disseminated and used, with less or more frequency by all levels of the collective group."

(1) The Beginnings of Musical Nationalism in Brazil. Gerard Behague, page 3.

- from here

Folk music is characterized by its integration into daily life or its function as a means of passing time while engaged in activities such as work or travel (2) The Music of Brazil. David Appleby, page 95.

- The bulk of what this article describes is only debatably folk music. Scottish folk music is POV. Tuf-Kat 01:37, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC) And put me down as another vote for including info on this page on other types of music besides folk music. -Drstuey 05:40, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

links
The article "List of Folk Musicians" links to an article on "The Battlefield Band". That same group is mentioned in this article "Music of Scotland" yet it doesn't lead to that same article. Instead it links to "edit" ie it is empty. Is there any way of tidying up this loose end?

Clarification of edit
I just removed from the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s section a list of "important rock and alternative rock acts". It was getting rather long, and while some may merit special mention, it's ambiguous as to where to draw the line. I think, and in my experience this is reflected in other articles, that it's better to not have the list at all. If you have thoughts on the topic, please express them. -GlamdringCookies 05:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the subject to dive in and start editing myself, but if notable bands are to be mentioned, shouldn't Runrig be in there somewhere? As well as a bit about languages in the music (revival of Gaelic, etc). Its my understanding that their first album (Play Gaelic) was breakthrough in being entirely in that language, and that they've done a lot for the language.

{Above} Hear hear. Runrig definitely deserve a particular mention somewhere, though their significance is cultural rather than musical. Indeed it seems that Gaelic-lyriced songs were a minority of their output, and their popularity in any language, seems to be minor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuckwitt (talk • contribs) 12:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

A silly question but...
The paragraph about the bagpipe says 'having been imported around the 15th century'. Interesting. Fascinating. From where? Who by? I think a pair of sentences could develop this point.

I agree The burnanator 01:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The burnanator (talk • contribs)

There are many allegations as to the origin of bagpipes -just one being that they were introduced to Britain and elsewhere by Roman armies, who used them as a battlefield signalling instrument, after having themselves adopted them from people they encountered in what is today Turkey, (which still does not exclude a Celtic origin). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuckwitt (talk • contribs) 12:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Another endless list of "top names"
So, the Wikipedia policy about lists is that the criteria for inclusion have to be clear and objective. I want to remove the part of the fiddle section that reads:

"The growing number of young professional Scottish fiddlers makes a complete list impossible. Top current names include Aidan O'Rourke, Bruce MacGregor, Catriona MacDonald, members of the band Blazin Fiddles; John McCusker; Duncan Chisholm of Wolfstone; Chris Stout, Kevin Henderson, Maurice Henderson, and Andrew Gifford of the Shetland group Fiddlers' Bid; Eilidh Steel, Iain MacFarlane, Pete Clark, Eilidh Shaw, Gavin Marwick, Anna-Wendy Stevenson, Angus Grant Jr., and Alasdair White."

I don't consider "top current names" to be clear and objective. I propose this section should be removed, and will do so shortly if no objection is voiced here. -GlamdringCookies 12:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Scottish music
I made Template:Scottish music today - can you add things to the navbox please. Thanks --Montchav 18:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Folk vs. Pop and Rock
The following is in the Pop and Rock section:
 * More modern musicians include Shooglenifty, innovators of the house fusion acid croft, along with Peatbog Faeries. The Easy Club, jazz fusion bands, puirt a' bhèil mouth musicians Talitha MacKenzie and Martin Swan

I identify these performers as folk musicians, though certainly with a fusion element (but this is also true of groups such as Runrig and Capercaillie, which are mentioned under Folk). Should they be moved? An argument could be made for a new section. See Celtic_rock. It may be counter-productive to try to label a given performer as folk, rock, or fusion, but I want this article to reflect the breadth and creative genius of modern Scottish folk-infused music. Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Rock: Jack Bruce
Somebody without a talk page edited the Pop, rock and fusion section extensively, with, I think, valuable additions. Some of this was on Jack Bruce of Cream fame, who had just died. The material is valuable, but too extensive for an article on Music of Scotland. Some of it would be better in the article on Jack himself. I edited this content heavily, but, I hope, without removing too much. Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Paul's edit seems appropriate, although the deletion of the mention of Bruce being awarded for his contributions by a Scotish academic institution seems it should of been left there. Per the Guardian Obit a "rehearsal hall at the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama, Glasgow, was named after him, and two years later he was presented with an honorary doctorate of letters from Glasgow Caledonian University"

 * I added the Jack Bruce and Donovan mention years ago -- and today was surprised and a little sad to find someone had deleted my mention of these 2 important Scotish artists from the Music of Scotland.

 * Younger people may wonder why these 2 deserve their own paragraphs, but it should be remembered both artists competed with the Beatles and Rolling Stones not only for chart positions, but also in craft and nuance.

 * There was something about the previous tone of the article that may of left the concept that Scotland was a minor player in 60s music, Bruce and Donovan are well documented as being in the major leagues.

 * Remember Donovan sang and likely still sings Yeats and Burns, Bruce had songs with titles like 'Clear Out' and the 'The Weir of Herminston'. Bruce's contributions and participation in jazz sometimes are a footnote, for that subject lets leave it for a future interview with Carla Bley, Kip Hannahran, Cindy Blackman or Vernon Reid. And/or perhaps as Paul says its time to scan the Jack Bruce page for clarity and set the record straight.

 * Was sorry to see someone scratched Bruce completely from Scotish music history a few years back, but was also glad to see Paul had the respect to carefully edit the paragraphs yesterday with attention both for the persons and the flow of the article. Sorry to see Jack gone from the planet, he was no trivial figure in late 20th century music. He danced with (and even danced circles around) the giants and never lost his soul.

 * AnimalNorth (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 00:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Music of Scotland. 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/20071113222244/http://www.hamishmoore.musicscotland.com/essay.htm to http://www.hamishmoore.musicscotland.com/essay.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120516091513/http://www.ahds.ac.uk/performingarts/collections/five-centuries.htm to http://www.ahds.ac.uk/performingarts/collections/five-centuries.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070404132822/http://ahds.ac.uk/performingarts/index.htm to http://www.ahds.ac.uk/performingarts/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209043451/http://www.calumcille.com/ to http://www.calumcille.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Archibald Miligan
This Midi file was mistakenly created for the profile of Australian Thomas Bulch (Confusingly, they used the same pen name) but I will leave the citation here in case anybody wants to create one for Edinborough violinist Archibald Miligan 1848-1919 publishing under the pseudonym Carl Volti. Tradimus (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

CE of 'Music festivals'
The current ce tag drew my attention to the article, and I am not sure whether to expand the section or cut things. Debatably every festival without written text could be put into a list... which would kind of defeat the point of a copy edit, as lists are undesirable.

My idea would be to either leave it at the 'see also' to everything categorised as 'Music festival in Scotland' or put in a hidden list like so:

 * Aberdeen and NE Scotland Music Festival
 * Big Burns Supper Festival
 * Callander Jazz and Blues Festival
 * Connect Music Festival
 * Darvel Music Festival
 * Eden Festival
 * Glasgow International Jazz Festival
 * Glasgow Summer Sessions
 * Let's Rock
 * Leith Festival
 * Skye Live Festival
 * Wickerman Festival (former)
 * Big in Falkirk (former)
 * RockNess (former)
 * Be in Belhaven (former)

Your thoughts? JackTheSecond (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Music of Scotland


text:
Waterloo, Louisiana

Waterloo is the name of a former town at the upriver juncture of the False River oxbow on the west bank of the Mississippi River in Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana, United States. Founded circa 1820, the community grew as a bustling export center for cotton and sugar cane produced in Pointe Coupee Parish.

History
For protection against the frequent floods of the Mississippi River, Waterloo was surrounded by levees, the large state-maintained levee in the rear and a small levee maintained by the community itself at the river's edge. Both of these levees broke during the flood of 1884, seriously damaging Waterloo and the smaller communities of Anchor and Cook's Landing immediately downriver. What the river did not destroy, arsonists did during the mid-1890s and there is nothing left to indicate that the town once existed. Most of the families who lived at Waterloo moved to the parish seat of New Roads, just a few miles to the west on False River.

The names Waterloo, Anchor, and Cook's Landing are perpetuated, however, in the street names of nearby subdivisions of new homes developed between 1968 and 2007. It is also not uncommon for residents of these subdivisions to uncover remnants of the communities while performing any sort of excavation upon their properties. There are 144 households, in which there is an estimated population of 332. The racial makeup of the neighborhood is 93.05% White non-Hispanic, 6.25% African American, and 0.6% Latino. The median income is estimated at $71,232. The median house age is 19 years.

title: Waterloo, Louisiana


text:
Cheval de frise

The cheval de frise (plural: chevaux de frise, "Frisian horses") was a defensive obstacle, existing in a number of forms, principally as a static anti-cavalry obstacle but also quickly movable to close breaches. The term was also applied to underwater constructions used to prevent the passage of ships or other vessels on rivers. In the anti-cavalry role the cheval de frise typically comprised a portable frame (sometimes just a simple log) with many projecting spikes. Wire obstacles ultimately made this type of device obsolete.

The invention of the cheval de frise is attributed to ancient China. The concept of using a defensive obstacle made of wooden or metal stakes predates its use in Europe. Historical records suggest that similar types of defensive barriers, known as "teng pai" or "mó pai", were used in China as early as the 4th century BC. These early versions of the cheval de frise were employed to protect cities, forts, and other strategic locations from enemy attacks. In Ming dynasty military treatises, it was known as the juma (拒馬, lit. 'Horse repeller') or lujiao (鹿角, deer horn).

The use of chevaux de frise spread to Europe during the Middle Ages and became a common feature of medieval fortifications. They were used extensively in castle defenses and military campaigns, particularly during the Renaissance and early modern periods. However, the original concept and early usage of the cheval de frise can be traced back to ancient China.

During the American Civil War the Confederates used them more than the Union forces. During World War I, armies used chevaux de frise to temporarily plug gaps in barbed wire. Barbed wire chevaux de frise were used in jungle fighting on the South Pacific islands during World War II.

The term is also applied to defensive works on buildings. This includes a series of closely set upright stones found outside the ramparts of Iron Age hillforts in northern Europe, or iron spikes outside homes in Charleston, South Carolina.

Etymology

In French, cheval de frise means "Frisian horse". The Frisians fought predominantly using cavalry; they were known for being formidable horsemen, and Frisian horses were renowned for their strength and agility. Therefore, for defense they relied heavily on anti-cavalry obstacles. The Dutch also adopted the use of these defensive devices when at war with Spain. The term cheval de frise came to be used for any spiked obstacle, such as broken glass embedded in mortar at the top of a wall.

The cheval de frise was adopted in New York and Pennsylvania during the American Revolutionary War as a defensive measure installed on rivers to prevent upriver movement by enemy ships. During the Peninsular War, at the Siege of Badajoz (1812), a cheval de frise was used to fill a breach in the town wall, allowing the French to inflict heavy casualties on the British storm troops.

American Revolutionary War
During the American Revolutionary War both Thaddeus Kosciuszko and Robert Erskine designed an anti-ship version of the cheval-de-frise to prevent British warships from proceeding up the Delaware River and Hudson River, respectively. A cheval de frise by Erskine's design was placed between Fort Washington at northern Manhattan and Fort Lee in New Jersey in 1776. The following year construction began on one to the north of West Point at Pollepel Island, but it was overshadowed by the completion of the Great Chain across the Hudson in 1778, which was used through 1782.

Similar devices planned by Ben Franklin and designed by Robert Smith were used in the Delaware River near Philadelphia, between Fort Mifflin and Fort Mercer. Two other lines of chevaux-de-frise were also placed across the Delaware River at Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania and Fort Billingsport, New Jersey as a first line of defense for Philadelphia against the British naval forces.

A cheval de frise was retrieved from the Delaware River in Philadelphia on November 13, 2007, in excellent condition, after more than two centuries in the river. In November 2012, a 29 ft spike from a cheval-de-frise was recovered from Delaware off Bristol Township; it was also believed to be from the Revolutionary era installation at Philadelphia and freed up by Hurricane Sandy earlier that fall.

Legacy
A small promontory on the north-east Essex coast in the United Kingdom (UK), between Holland Haven and Frinton-on-Sea, was named Chevaux de Frise Point.

title: Cheval de frise


text:
Die Grünen

Die Grünen (German for "the Greens") may refer to:

 * The Greens – The Green Alternative, the Austrian Green Party
 * Alliance 90/The Greens, the German Green Party
 * Green Party of Switzerland
 * Greens (South Tyrol)

title: Die Grünen


text:
Ceiling (aeronautics)

With respect to aircraft performance, a ceiling is the maximum density altitude an aircraft can reach under a set of conditions, as determined by its flight envelope.

Service ceiling
Service ceiling is the density altitude at which the rate of climb drops below a prescribed value.

The service ceiling is the maximum altitude of an aircraft during normal operations. Specifically, it is the density altitude at which flying in a clean configuration, at the best rate of climb airspeed for that altitude and with all engines operating and producing maximum continuous power, will produce a given rate of climb. A typical value might be 100 ft/min climb, or on the order of 500 ft/min climb for jet aircraft.

The one-engine inoperative (OEI) service ceiling of a twin-engine, fixed-wing aircraft is the density altitude at which flying in a clean configuration, at the best rate of climb airspeed for that altitude with one engine producing maximum continuous power and the other engine shut down (and if it has a propeller, the propeller is feathered), will produce a given rate of climb, usually 50 ft/min.

However, some performance charts will define the service ceiling as the pressure altitude at which the aircraft will have the capability of climbing at 50 ft/min with one propeller feathered.

Most commercial jetliners have a service (or certified) ceiling of under 45,000 ft (13,700 m) and some business jets about 51,000 ft. Before its retirement, the Concorde supersonic transport (SST) (as well as the Tupolev Tu-144 before it was retired) routinely flew at 60,000 ft.

Absolute ceiling
The absolute ceiling is the highest altitude at which an aircraft can sustain level flight. Due to the thin air at higher altitudes, a much higher true airspeed (TAS) is required to generate sufficient lift on the wings. The absolute ceiling is therefore the altitude at which the engines are operating at maximum thrust, yet can only generate enough lift to match the weight of the aircraft. Hence, the aircraft will not have any excess capacity to climb further. Stated technically, it is the altitude where the maximum sustained (with no decreasing airspeed) rate of climb is zero.

Compared to service ceiling, the absolute ceiling of commercial aircraft is much higher than for standard operational purposes. In the Concorde's case, it was tested to be 68,000 ft. It is impossible to reach for most (because of the vertical speed asymptotically approaching zero) without afterburners or other devices temporarily increasing thrust. Another factor that makes it impossible for some aircraft to reach their absolute ceiling, even with temporary increases in thrust, is the aircraft reaching the "coffin corner". Flight at the absolute ceiling is also not economically advantageous due to the low indicated airspeed which can be sustained: although the true airspeed at an altitude is typically greater than indicated airspeed (IAS), the difference is not enough to compensate for the fact that IAS at which minimum drag is achieved is usually low, so a flight at an absolute ceiling altitude results in a low TAS as well, and therefore in a high fuel burn rate per distance traveled. The absolute ceiling varies with the air temperature and, overall, the aircraft weight (usually calculated at MTOW).

title: Ceiling (aeronautics)


text:
Isabella of Armenia (disambiguation)

Isabella of Armenia (died c. 1252) ruled the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia from 1219 to 1252, married to Hetoum I.

Isabella of Armenia or Sibylla of Armenia may also refer to:
 * Sibylla of Armenia (1240–1290), daughter of Queen Isabella and King Hetoum I
 * Isabella of Armenia, Princess of Tyre (died c. 1321), daughter of Leo III of Armenia, wife of Amalric of Jerusalem

title: Isabella of Armenia (disambiguation)


text: Talk:Scottish folk music

title: Talk:Scottish folk music


text:
Talk:Journey into Space

Grammar
In a recent revision somebody changed "theirs" to "their's". Sorry: that's completely wrong. Possessive pronouns do not contain apostrophes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee M (talk • contribs) 01:07, 16 December 2003

Question about edit
I downloaded a version of "Operation Luna" from the internet which consists of 12 not 13 episodes. Episodes 11 and 12 are longer than the others and appear to contain the final three episodes of the original show, with 12 (original) cut in two and divided between them. Who is responsible for this edit? I assume it was done in order to fit the broadcast into a single season of 3x4 weeks? Danceswithzerglings (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I must say, I'm confused now.
WHAT series was it exactly that was uncovered on those 16-inch discs that the BBC engineer restaurated so well? Was it the original 1953 version of the series (still called "Journey into Space") or the sort of abridged re-recordings, i. e. those renamed to "Operation Luna", from 1958? Nowhere in the article this is pointed out without making the reader wonder...-andy 77.190.13.179 (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC) It was Operation Luna, The Red Planet and The World in Peril - not the original 1953 Journey To The Moon. This is all spelled out in the article (even on 20 Sep 2013). Kmm1965 (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I am confused as well. Between 1975 and 1980 I was a producer at the BBC Transcription Services and I recall listening to a set of 12-inch transcription discs of Operation Luna with a view to tightening them up for reissue. So how come only 16-inch disks were found in 1986? Perhaps I was listening to Journey to the Moon. It was the one where the first episode is entirely taken up by launch and at the end Lemmy says something like 'Cor Jet, that was rough. It will have broken all the valves in the radio set'. Delverie (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Critical Analysis (absence of) References Needed
Suggestion for improvement : On one level this radio dramatisation is an entertaining if at times unintentionally (with hindsight) hilarious dramatisation of a post war book. On the other there is clearly scope for some mention of its Cold War influences, post war context and position within an overall decline in Britain's global status and power specifically the abject failure of its 1950s aerospace programme. I would have thought this was necessary as the BBC has always taken its propaganda role very seriously - especially in the field of light entertainment. There must be references to critical discussion which might usefully be included in this article. 94.1.166.134 (talk) 11:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Journey into Space


text:
Marion Zioncheck

Marion Anthony Zioncheck (born Marjan Antoni Zajaczek; December 5, 1900 – August 7, 1936) was an American politician who served as a member of the United States House of Representatives from 1933 until his death. He represented Washington's 1st congressional district as a Democrat.

Having struggled with his mental health during his term in Congress, Zioncheck killed himself by autodefenestration in August 1936.

Early life
Zioncheck was born Marjan Antoni Zajaczek in Kęty, Austria-Hungary (now in Poland), the son of Clemens and Frances (née Wlodiga) Zajaccek (later Zioncheck). His family immigrated to the United States in 1904, and they settled in Seattle, Washington. He attended the University of Washington where in 1927 he became president of the student government (ASUW).

He also earned a law degree from the University of Washington while earning recognition as a left-wing leader in the Democratic Party and the Washington Commonwealth Federation. The Washington Commonwealth Federation would support his election to Congress in the 1932 election.

Congress
As a U.S. Representative, Zioncheck was known mostly for ardently championing Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal policies. But his tireless work on behalf of the New Deal often was overshadowed by his many personal escapades, which included dancing in fountains and driving on the White House lawn. Beset by the press and by critics of Roosevelt's policies, Zioncheck became depressed and stated that he would not seek reelection to a third term in 1936. In his diary entry for April 30, 1936, Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes recounted how Zioncheck had asked him to officiate at a wedding with his fiancée, Rubye Louise Nix. Ickes demurred, saying that he had no authority to do so; he was aware of Zioncheck's reputation and simply did not want to get involved. Ultimately, Zioncheck went to Annapolis, Maryland for the wedding and San Juan, Puerto Rico for his honeymoon. On August 1, Zioncheck's friend and ally, King County Prosecutor Warren Magnuson, took him at his word regarding his retirement plans and filed to run for Zioncheck's House seat.

Zioncheck's antics attracted attention. The United Press later described him as having become a "national joke".

Stay at mental hospital
On May 30, 1936, Zioncheck's wife left him after an argument during a party at their apartment. On June 1, he became frantic and searched Washington, D.C. for her. He was arrested later that day on a lunacy warrant. He was confined in Gallinger Municipal Hospital Psychopathic Ward, during which his wife returned to him. Doctors blamed overwork and his hectic lifestyle.

He was later transferred to a private facility in Towson, Maryland, but escaped and fled to Washington, where he received congressional immunity.

Suicide
Zioncheck died after plummeting to the sidewalk from a window of his office on the fifth floor of the Arctic Building, at 3rd Avenue and Cherry Street in downtown Seattle, on August 7, 1936. He struck the pavement directly in front of a car occupied by his wife. A note was found; it read, "My only hope in life was to improve the condition of an unfair economic system that held no promise to those that all the wealth of even a decent chance to survive let alone live." This was an instance of suicide by autodefenestration.

Zioncheck was mourned at his early death; both the University of Washington and Boeing closed down for half a day in his honor. He is buried in Evergreen Washelli Memorial Park in Seattle.

His widow, as Rubye Nix Wilson, would later become a well-known artist, and was exhibited at the Museum of Modern Art and the Kennedy Center.

Legacy
Zioncheck is the subject of an unpublished book-length poem by Grant Cogswell, entitled Ode to Congressman Marion Zioncheck. The story of Zioncheck, and Cogswell's obsession with him, is detailed in Phil Campbell's 2005 book Zioncheck for President: A True Story of Idealism and Madness in American Politics (Nation Books; ISBN 1-56025-750-4). The option to make Campbell's book into a feature film was purchased in 2007 by producer/director Stephen Gyllenhaal.

The Ballad of Marion Ziocheck, released by indie musician Left at London on her 2021 album T.I.A.P.F.Y.H., recounts the story of Zioncheck's life.

title: Marion Zioncheck


text:
User talk:Chris Muir Price

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

UtherSRG 01:13, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

you can sign your name using three tildes, like. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

authors: Template namespace initialisation script

title: User talk:Chris Muir Price


text:
User talk:Zake

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

UtherSRG 01:13, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

you can sign your name using three tildes, like. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

Hello and welcome. Please note: don't start with a dictionary-style definition; write a complete sentence. Highlight the title word or title phrase at its first appearance, like this. I took care of this last point in re-entry vehicle. Also, it's better to write "In ABC-ology, X is Y" than to write "X is a term used in the field of ABC-ology to refer to Y". Michael Hardy 22:26, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hello. I just brought Blue Man Group and paper mill into conformance with the highlighting convention. Michael Hardy 23:33, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vorpal sword

The article Vorpal sword has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "This object has no detailed coverage in reliable third party sources as required by the WP:GNG. There are only passing mentions which aren't enough for significant coverage and Notability."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jontesta (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Vorpal sword for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vorpal sword is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Vorpal sword until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jontesta (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zake


text:
Islamic Jihad Organization

The Islamic Jihad Organization (IJO; Organisation du Jihad Islamique (OJI); حركة الجهاد الإسلامي) was a Lebanese Shia militia known for its activities in the 1980s during the Lebanese Civil War.

The organization, advocating for the withdrawal of all Americans from Lebanon, claimed responsibility for a number of kidnappings, assassinations, and bombings of embassies and peacekeeping troops which killed several hundred people. Their deadliest attacks were in 1983, when they carried out the bombing of the barracks of French and U.S. MNF peacekeeping troops, and that of the United States embassy in Beirut.

The group was closely linked with Palestinian militant group Fatah al-Islam and reportedly financed by Iran. It also maintained close ties with Hezbollah. Adam Shatz described Islamic Jihad as "a precursor to Hezbollah, which did not yet officially exist" at the time of the bombing it took credit for.

Origins
Possibly formed in early 1983 and reportedly led by Imad Mughniyah, a former Lebanese Shi'ite member of Palestinian Fatah's Force 17, the IJO was not a militia but rather a typical underground urban guerrilla organization. Based at Baalbek in the Beqaa valley, the group aligned 200 Lebanese Shi'ite militants financed by Iran and trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' contingent previously sent by Ayatollah Khomeini to fight the June 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. However, senior Iranian officials denied the alleged connections. For instance, Mehdi Karroubi claimed that Iran had not been related to the group.

Existence
Initially the group was described as "a mysterious group about which virtually nothing was known," one whose "only members" seemed to be the "anonymous callers" taking credit for the bombings, or one that simply didn't exist. After the MNF bombing, the New York Times reported that "Lebanese police sources, Western intelligence sources, Israeli Government sources and leading Shi'ite Muslim religious leaders in Beirut are all convinced that there is no such thing as Islamic Jihad," as an organization, no membership, no writings, etc.

Lebanese journalist Hala Jaber compared it to "a phony company which rents office space for a month and then vanishes," existing "only when it was committing an atrocity against its targets ..." Journalist Robin Wright has described it as "more of an information network for a variety of cells of movements", rather than a centralized organization. Not all of IJ's claims of responsibility were credible, as "in some cases, the callers seemed to be exploiting the activities of groups that had no apparent ties to Islamic Jihad," while working with some success to create "an aura of a single omnipotent force in the region." Wright has compared Islamic Jihad to the Black September wing of the Palestinian Fatah, serving the function of providing its controlling organization, in this case Hezbollah, with some distance and plausible deniability from acts that might provoke retaliation or other problems.

Adam Shatz of The Nation magazine has described Islamic Jihad as "a precursor to Hezbollah, which did not yet officially exist" at the time of the bombings Islamic Jihad took credit for. Jeffrey Goldberg states "Using various names, including the Islamic Jihad Organization and the Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, Hezbollah remained underground until 1985, when it published a manifesto condemning the West, and proclaiming, '.... Allah is behind us supporting and protecting us while instilling fear in the hearts of our enemies.'"

According to investigative journalist Ronen Bergman, "Islamic Jihad" was one of many aliases used by Hezbollah. A 2003 decision by an American court named Islamic Jihad as the name used by Hezbollah for its attacks in Lebanon, and parts of the Middle East, and Europe. Hezbollah itself uses the name "Islamic Resistance" (al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya) in its attacks against Israel.

According to Marius Deeb, by the mid-1980s Hezbollah leaders are reported to have admitted their involvement in the attacks and the nominal nature of "Islamic Jihad", that it was merely a "telephone organisation," and whose name was "used by those involved to disguise their true identity."

Former CIA operative and author Robert Baer describes it as the cover name used by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Baer claims the order for 1983 US embassy bombing is widely believed to have originated high up in the Iranian leadership hierarchy. According to Baer it is "a very distinct organization, which was separate from Hezbollah because you had the [Hezbollah] consultative council which only had a vague idea of what the hostage-takers were doing."

Hala Jaber calls it a name "deliberately contrived by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and their recruits to cast confusion." However, Wright is more circumspect saying: "Islamic Jihad was clearly pro-Iranian in ideology, but some doubts existed among both Muslim moderates and Western diplomats about whether it was actually directed by Iran rather than home-grown."

More recently authors such as researcher Robert A. Pape and journalist Lawrence Wright have made no mention of Islamic Jihad and simply name Hezbollah as the author of Lebanese terror attacks claimed or attributed to Islamic Jihad: "From 1982 to 1986, Hezbollah conducted 36 suicide terrorist attacks involving a total of 41 attackers against American, French, and Israeli political and military targets in Lebanon ... Altogether, these attacks killed 659 people ..."

Bombings and assassinations

 * 24 May 1982. Car bomb attack on French Embassy in Beirut killing 12 and wounding 27. Islamic Jihad is one of several groups taking responsibility. Anger over France's providing of arms to Iran's enemy Iraq is thought to be the motivating factor.
 * 18 April 1983. Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut. Detonated in a delivery van driven by a suicide bomber, carrying about 2000 pounds of explosives. The bomb killed 63 people, 17 of them Americans, including 9 CIA agents in Beirut for a meeting.
 * 23 October 1983. MNF barracks bombing in Beirut. Two truck bombs struck buildings in Beirut housing U.S. and French members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon, killing 241 American servicemen and 58 French paratroopers. Islamic Jihad claims responsibility in a statement to Agence France Presse: "We are the soldiers of God, ... We are neither Iranians, Syrian nor Palestinians, but Muslims who follow the precepts of the Koran ... We said after that [April embassy bombing] that we would strike more violently still. Now they understand with what they are dealing. Violence will remain our only way."
 * 12 December 1983. 1983 Kuwait bombings. Two months after the Beirut barracks bombing. The 90-minute coordinated attack of six key foreign and Kuwaiti installations including two embassies, the airport and the country's main petro-chemical plant, was more notable for the damage it might have caused than what was actually destroyed. What might have been "the worst terrorist episode of the twentieth century in the Middle East," succeeding in killing only six people because of the bombs faulty rigging.
 * 18 January 1984. Malcolm H. Kerr, president of the American University in Beirut (AUB), was assassinated near his office. He had replaced AUB president David Dodge, who was kidnapped six months earlier. A telephone message claiming to represent Islamic Jihad proclaimed: "We are responsible of the assassination of the president of AUB ... We also vow that not a single American or French will remain on this soil. We shall take no different course. And we shall not waver."
 * 7 February 1984. Gholam Ali Oveisi, former military governor of Tehran, and his brother were assassinated in Paris where they were in exile. An anonymous person called and told the UPI in London that the group perpetrated the assassination, stating "...we shall do this wherever our opposition is abroad."
 * 20 September 1984. 1984 U.S. embassy annex bombing. In Christian East Beirut the US embassy was bombed by a suicide van bomber with 3000 pounds of explosives. 14 were killed, including two Americans, and dozens were injured. They had moved to a "quiet residential suburb of hillside villas and luxury apartments" after the 1983 bombing. Ambassador Reginald Bartholomew and visiting British Ambassador David Miers were buried under rubble but rescued with only minor injuries.  Islamic Jihad took credit in an anonymous phone call vowing, "The operation comes to prove that we will carry out our previous promise not to allow a single American to remain on Lebanese soil. ... we mean every inch of Lebanese territory. ..."
 * 12 April 1985. 1985 El Descanso bombing. The IJO claims a bombing of a Spanish restaurant aimed at American military personnel. The bomb killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82 others, including 11 American servicemen.
 * 25 May 1985. Attempted assassination of Kuwaiti ruler (Emir) Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, by suicide car bomber attack of the Emir's motorcade. Two bodyguards and a passerby are killed. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility and again demands the terrorists release.
 * 22 July 1985. 1985 Copenhagen bombings. Two bombs exploded in a terrorist attack in Copenhagen, Denmark. One of the bombs exploded near the Great Synagogue and a Jewish nursing home and kindergarten, and another at the offices of Northwest Orient Airlines.
 * 17 March 1992. 1992 Israeli Embassy attack in Buenos Aires. A suicide truck bomber smashes into the front of the Israeli Embassy destroying the embassy, a Catholic church, and a nearby school building. 29 are killed and 242 wounded, mostly Argentinian civilians, many of them children. As of 2006 it remains the deadliest attack on an Israeli diplomatic mission. Islamic Jihad, claims responsibility, stating the attack was in retaliation for Israel's assassination of Hezbollah leader Sayed Abbas al-Musawi.

Unverified claims

 * 12 December 1985. Arrow Air Flight 1285 taking off from Gander, Newfoundland, crashes and burns about half a mile from the runway, killing all 256 passengers and crew on board. An anonymous caller to a French news agency in Beirut claimed that Islamic Jihad destroyed the plane to prove "our ability to strike at the Americans anywhere." An investigation by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board (CASB) found that the crash was most likely an accident. However, the minority report speculated that the in-flight fire "may have resulted from detonations of undetermined origin".

Kidnappings

 * 16 March 1984. William Francis Buckley, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Beirut chief of station, was abducted on this date. Islamic Jihad claims to have killed him on 3 October 1985, and later released to a Beirut newspaper a photograph purporting to depict his corpse. Press reports stated that Buckley had been transferred to Iran, where he was tortured and killed.
 * May 1984. Presbyterian minister Benjamin Weir is kidnapped by three armed men. Weir may have thought he was safe from harm from Muslims because he had lived in Lebanon since 1958. He lived in Shiite West Beirut working "closely with various Muslim-oriented charity and relief groups". Two days after his abduction, a telephone message allegedly from Islamic Jihad, claiming responsibility for the abduction "in order to renew our acceptance of Reagan's challenge and to confirm our commitment of the statement ... that we will not leave any American on Lebanese soil." Weir was freed sixteen months later.
 * 10 February 1986. Islamic Jihad released a photograph that claimed to show the (dead) body of French citizen Michel Seurat, who had been kidnapped earlier.
 * In January 1987, Terry Waite traveled to Beirut with the intention of negotiating with Islamic Jihad to release hostages. The group violated an agreement of safe passage and kidnapped him.  He was kept as a hostage until 1991.

Decline and demise, 1986–1992
The IJO suffered a setback in 1986 when their temporary abduction of four Soviet diplomats carried out previously in September 1985 ended up in the assassination of one hostage. The KGB promptly retaliated with intimidation and by pressuring Syria to stop its operations in northern Lebanon in exchange for release of the remaining three hostages. This fiasco, coupled by the pressure resulting from tighter security measures and joint anti-militia sweeps implemented by the Syrian Army, the Lebanese Internal Security Forces (ISF) and the Shi'ite Amal militia at the Shia quarters of West Beirut in 1987–88, brought a steady decline in the organization's activities in Lebanon for the rest of the civil war.

The last recorded attack claimed by the IJO as an independent group took place outside the Middle East in March 1992, when the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina, was blown up in retaliation for Israel's assassination of Hezbollah's secretary-general Abbas al-Musawi in February that year.

This organization is no longer active. Some reports indicate that they merged with Hezbollah afterwards, with their leader Imad Mughniyeh appointed head of that party's overseas security apparatus. In 2008 Mughniyeh was killed by a car bomb in Damascus, Syria as a part of a CIA and Mossad combined operation.

title: Islamic Jihad Organization


text:
Organization of the Oppressed on Earth

The Organization of the Oppressed on Earth is a group that claimed responsibility for kidnappings, bombings, and executions in Lebanon in the 1980s. It was considered a precursor to, or another name for, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.

Connection to Hezbollah
The US, Israel, and Canada consider the names "Islamic Jihad Organization", "Organization of the Oppressed on Earth" and the "Revolutionary Justice Organization" to be synonymous with Hezbollah.

Jeffrey Goldberg in the New York Post wrote:

"Using various names, including the Islamic Jihad Organization and the Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, Hezbollah remained underground until 1985, when it published a manifesto condemning the West, and proclaiming, '.... Allah is behind us supporting and protecting us while instilling fear in the hearts of our enemies.'"

Bombings
The group claimed responsibility for a 1985 bombing attack against the Madrid offices of British Airways and Trans World Airlines.

Kidnappings
The group kidnapped 4 Jews in 1985, including Isaac Sasson, leader of the Jewish community in Lebanon, and Dr. Ellie Hallaq, the community doctor. Sasson (إسحق ساسون) was taken at gunpoint March 31, 1985, on his way from the Beirut International Airport, after a trip to Abu Dhabi. The group killed the abductees one-by-one.

In 1987, the group kidnapped British citizen Terry Waite who was in Lebanon as a hostage negotiator. Waite remained in captivity for 1,763 days, the first four years of which were spent in solitary confinement. He was finally released on 18 November 1991.

In 1989, the group kidnapped and then later hung United States Lieutenant Colonel Richard Higgins. Higgins was a member of the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization observer unit and was accused of spying by his captors. A videotape was released July 31, showing his body hanging from a gallows.

title: Organization of the Oppressed on Earth


text:
Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques

Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques (abbreviation CTHM; خَادِمُ ٱلْحَرَمَيْنِ ٱلشَّرِيفَيْنِ), or Protector of the Two Holy Cities, is a royal style that has been used officially by the monarchs of Saudi Arabia since 1986. The title has historically been used by many Muslim rulers in the past, including the Ayyubids, the Mamluks, the Ottomans and the Sharifain rulers of Hejaz. The title was sometimes regarded to denote the de facto Caliph of Islam, but it mainly refers to the ruler taking the responsibility of guarding and maintaining the two holiest mosques in Islam: Al-Haram Mosque (اَلْمَسْجِدُ ٱلْحَرَامُ, "The Sacred Mosque") in Mecca and the Prophet's Mosque (اَلْمَسْجِدُ ٱلنَّبَوِيُّ) in Medina, both of which are in the Hejazi region of Saudi Arabia. The Custodian has been named the most powerful and influential person in Islam and the Sunni branch of Islam by The Muslim 500, as well as the most powerful Muslim and Arab ruler in the world.

History
It is believed that the first person to use the title was Saladin.

After defeating the Mamluks and gaining control of the Mecca and Medina in 1517, the Ottoman sultan Selim I adopted the title. Rather than style himself the Ḥākimü'l-Ḥaremeyn (حَاكِمُ الْحَرَمَيْن, Ruler of the Two Sanctuaries), he accepted the title Ḫādimü'l-Ḥaremeyn (خَادِمُ الْحَرَمَيْن, Servant of the Two Sanctuaries).

The first King of Saudi Arabia to assume the title was Faisal bin Abdul Aziz (1906–1975). His successor Khalid did not use the title, but the latter's successor Fahd did, replacing the term "His Majesty" with it. The current king, Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, took the same title after the death of King Abdullah, his half brother, on 23 January 2015.

title: Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques