text:
Rhumba

Rhumba, also known as ballroom rumba, is a genre of ballroom music and dance that appeared in the East Coast of the United States during the 1930s. It combined American big band music with Afro-Cuban rhythms, primarily the son cubano, but also conga and rumba. Although taking its name from the latter, ballroom rumba differs completely from Cuban rumba in both its music and its dance. Hence, authors prefer the Americanized spelling of the word (rhumba) to distinguish between them.

Music

Although the term rhumba began to be used by American record companies to label all kinds of Latin music between 1913 and 1915, the history of rhumba as a specific form of ballroom music can be traced back to May 1930, when Don Azpiazú and his Havana Casino Orchestra recorded their song "El manisero" (The Peanut Vendor) in New York City. This single, released four months later by Victor, became a hit, becoming the first Latin song to sell 1 million copies in the United States. The song, composed by Moisés Simons, is a son-pregón arranged, in this case, for Azpiazú's big band featuring three saxophones, two cornets, banjo, guitar, piano, violin, bass, and trap drums. With vocals by Antonio Machín and a trumpet solo (the first one in the recorded history of Cuban music) by Remberto Lara, the recording, arranged by saxophonist Alfredo Brito, attempted to adapt the Cuban son to the style of ballroom music prevalent at the time in the East Coast.

Soon, Azpiazú's style was followed by other Cuban artists such as Armando Oréfiche and the Lecuona Cuban Boys, who had extensive international tours in the 1930s. Their style has been often described as ballroom conga, since they used to borrow conga rhythms in songs such as "Para Vigo me voy". Among their numerous hits were boleros and canciones such as "Amapola" and "Siboney". This music movement, which also included many American big bands that covered Latin standards, was dubbed the rhumba craze. Notable bandleaders of the rhumba craze include Xavier Cugat, Jimmy Dorsey, Nathaniel Shilkret, Leo Reisman and Enric Madriguera. Rhumba was also incorporated into classical music, as exemplified by symphonic pieces by composers such as George Gershwin, Harl McDonald and Morton Gould.

The kind of rhumba introduced into dance salons in America and Europe in the 1930s was characterized by variable tempo, sometimes nearly twice as fast as the modern ballroom rumba, which was developed as a dance in the 1940s and 1950s, when the original music movement had died down. Nonetheless, the rhumba craze would be the first of three Latin music crazes in the first half of the 20th century, together with the mambo craze and the cha-cha-cha craze.

Dance
Two variations of rhumba with opposing step patterns are danced around the world. American style rumba was imported to America by band directors like Emil Coleman and Don Aspiazú between 1913 and 1935. The film Rumba, released in 1935, brought the style to the attention of the general public. American style rhumba is taught in a box step, known for its slow-quick-quick pattern danced on the 1, 3, and 4 beats of 4-beat music. International style rhumba was developed in Europe by Monsieur Pierre after he compared the established American style with contemporary Cuban dancers. International style is taught in a quick-quick-slow pattern danced on the 2, 3, and 4 beats of 4 beat music, similar in step and motion to the cha-cha-cha. Both styles were canonized in 1955.

International style
Rhumba is one of the ballroom dances which occurs in social dance and in international competitions. Of the five competitive international Latin dances (pasodoble, samba, cha-cha-cha, jive, and rumba), it is the slowest. This ballroom rumba was derived from a Cuban rhythm and dance called the bolero-son; the international style was derived from studies of dance in Cuba in the pre-revolutionary period.

The modern international style of dancing the rumba derives from studies made by dance teacher Monsieur Pierre (Pierre Zurcher-Margolle), who partnered Doris Lavelle. Pierre, then from London, visited Cuba in 1947, 1951, and 1953 to find out how and what Cubans were dancing at the time.

The international ballroom rumba is a slower dance of about 120 beats per minute which corresponds, both in music and in dance, to what the Cubans of an older generation called the bolero-son. It is easy to see why, for ease of reference and for marketing, rhumba is a better name, however inaccurate; it is the same kind of reason that led later on to the use of salsa as an overall term for popular music of Cuban origin.

All social dances in Cuba involve a hip-sway over the standing leg and, though this is scarcely noticeable in fast salsa, it is more pronounced in the slow ballroom rumba. In general, steps are kept compact and the dance is danced generally without any rise and fall. This style is authentic, as is the use of free arms in various figures. The basic figures derive from dance moves observed in Havana in the pre-revolutionary period, and have developed their own life since then. Competition figures are often complex, and this is where competition dance separates from social dance. Details can be obtained from the syllabuses of dance teaching organizations and from standard texts.

American style
There is also a variant, commonly danced in the United States, with box-like basic figures.

title: Rhumba


text:
Bristol 188

The Bristol Type 188 is a supersonic research aircraft designed and produced by the British aircraft manufacturer Bristol Aeroplane Company. It was nicknamed the Flaming Pencil in reference to its length and relatively slender cross-section as well as its intended purpose.

The Type 188 was developed as part of supporting research efforts for the Avro 730, a later-cancelled bomber capable of Mach 3 flight. Its purpose was to explore high-speed, high-temperature flights; for the latter purpose, it made use of unconventional materials, such as large quantities of stainless steel, as well as the incorporation of an active refrigeration system. To work with this material, relatively exotic puddle welding fabrication techniques were employed along with extensive technical support from external companies. As part of its intended test programme, the Type 188 was designed with flexible engine installations that allowed for the fitting of different air intakes, engines, and propelling nozzles. It was also furnished with extensive electronic sensors, data recording, and telemetry apparatus. A total of three aircraft were constructed – a single static test frame along with two (constructor numbers 13518 and 13519) flight-capable aircraft; various scale models were also produced.

During May 1960, the first airframe was delivered to the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) at Farnborough. The maiden flight of the Type 188 occurred on 14 April 1962. Flight testing encountered numerous problems, including the excessive fuel consumption of the De Havilland Gyron Junior engines used, which did not permit the aircraft to fly at high speeds long enough to evaluate the "thermal soaking" of the airframe, one of the main research areas of the project. Across 51 flights, the Type 188 attained a maximum speed of Mach 1.88 (1,440 mph; 2,300 km/h) at 36,000 ft (11,000 m).

During early 1964, it was announced that all activity involving the Type 188 was to be terminated. The project had cost £20 million by the end of the programme, making it the most expensive research aircraft ever developed in Britain at that time. The technical data and knowledge garnered from the Type 188 was put to use in other British high-speed aerospace efforts, most notably the development of Concorde supersonic transport, as well as the Bristol (later Rolls-Royce) Olympus 593 powerplant, which powered both Concorde and the BAC TSR-2 bomber. During the late 1960s, it had been intended for both of the Type 188 fuselages to be used as targets for gunnery trials at the Proof and Experimental Establishment at Shoeburyness, Essex; however, XF926 was subsequently transported to RAF Cosford, initially to act as instructional airframe 8368M, it has since been preserved at the Royal Air Force Museum Cosford in Shropshire.

Design and development
The Bristol Type 188 had its genesis in Operational Requirement 330, which sought a high speed (Mach 3) reconnaissance aircraft, which eventually developed into the Avro 730. Air Ministry officials recognised that, as the Avro 730 was expected to operate at high speeds for extended periods of time, more data was needed on high speed operations; to fulfil this need, the follow-on Operational Requirement ER.134T was issued in February 1953; it called for a flying testbed capable of attaining speeds in excess of Mach 2. This aircraft was expected to run at these speeds for extended periods of time, allowing it to study kinetic heating effects on such an aircraft. Furthermore, it was also expected to operate for a considerable amount of time with a skin temperature around 300 Celsius.

Several of Britain's aircraft manufacturers took interest in this relatively advanced specification, Bristol Aircraft being specifically invited to tendered by ministry officials. The company's design team opted to produce a clean sheet aircraft design, which was assigned the internal designation of Type 188. The submitted design was somewhat vague and even speculative in several aspects, the aircraft's layout was not firmly decided upon until as late as 1955. Nevertheless, following a competitive review of submissions, the associated contract 6/Acft/10144 was awarded to Bristol during February 1953.

The advanced nature of the aircraft meant that new construction methods had to be developed. Several materials were considered for construction and two specialist grades of steel were selected: a titanium-stabilized 18-8 austenitic steel and a 12%-Cr steel used in gas turbines (Firth-Vickers Rex 448). These had to be manufactured to better tolerances in sufficient quantities for construction to start. The 12% chromium stainless steel with a honeycomb centre was used for the construction of the outer skin, to which no paint was applied. However, simply procuring sufficient amounts of stainless steel sheeting was a challenge, only compounded by factors such as the desired strength and uniformity.

While traditional riveting was considered to be a potential construction method, however, this posed substantially difficulties as every rivet, bolts, and screws used would have had to be specially manufactured out of compatible materials to ensure the necessary tolerances were met. Instead, a relatively cutting-edge technique of arc welding using an argon gas shield, known as puddle welding, was used. Another British aircraft manufacturer, the W. G. Armstrong Whitworth company, provided substantial technical help and support to Bristol during this period; they had also explored the use of puddle welding for advanced aerospace purposes. Armstrong Whitworth produced major sections of the airframe as a subcontractor. North American Aviation used the same methods of argon welding of stainless steel honeycomb sheet metal for the XB-70 Valkyrie bomber.

A fused-quartz windscreen and canopy and cockpit refrigeration system were designed and fitted, but were never tested in the environment for which they had been designed. The pilot was provisioned with a conventional ejector seat. All of the flight controls, along with elements such as the undercarriage and four-part air brakes, were hydraulically powered. The main undercarriage elements retracted inwards to lie vertically within the fuselage aft of the main spar, while the forward undercarriage retracted forwards into a space directly aft of the cockpit. The majority of the oval-shaped fuselage's internal volume was occupied by the fuel tanks; a large compartment forward of the wing housed the suite of electronic recording and telemetry apparatus along with elements of the refrigeration system.

Amongst the various stipulations of the specification was the requirement of engine installations which permitted the fitting of different air intakes, engines and propelling nozzles. The Type 188 was originally intended to be powered by a pair of Rolls-Royce Avon engines, however, these were substituted for a pair of De Havilland Gyron Junior engines (each of which was half a ton lighter) in June 1957. This change of engines necessitated some configuration changes, including the mounting of the engines further forwards along with elongated nacelles and jet pipes. The Gyron Junior was then under development for the Saunders-Roe SR.177 supersonic interceptor and incorporated a fully variable reheat arrangement, which achieved a smooth variation in thrust between dry and full reheat, so being one of the first engines in the world to give continuous variation in thrust from idle to max reheat. This choice of powerplant resulted in the Type 188 having a typical endurance of only 25 minutes, not long enough to conduct the high-speed research tests that were required of it. Chief Test Pilot Godfrey L. Auty reported that while the Type 188 transitioned smoothly from subsonic to supersonic flight, the Gyron Junior engines were prone to surging beyond that speed, causing the aircraft to pitch and yaw.

In order to solve the aerodynamic and flutter problems identified, a large number of scale models were produced and tested. Some of these models were mounted on converted rocket boosters and used to conduct free-flight investigations, multiple such launches were conducted from RAE Aberporth. As a result of these tests, along with wind tunnel testing, various aerodynamic refinements and alterations were made to the Type 188's design. As a result, a largely rectangular wing plan was adopted between the engine nacelles alongside horn-balanced ailerons on the compact outer wings; the all-moving tailplane was also raised to the top of the fin while the chord was also extended to accommodate single-engine failure during take-off.

It was ultimately decided that there would be three aircraft built, one being a static test frame while the other two (constructor numbers 13518 and 13519) would be used for flight testing. On 4 January 1954, under contract number KC/2M/04/CB.42(b), the serial numbers XF923 and XF926 were given to the two aircraft. To support the development of the Avro 730 Mach 3 reconnaissance bomber, another three aircraft were ordered (Serial Numbers XK429, XK434 and XK436). However, this follow-up order would be eventually cancelled shortly after the Avro 730 programme was itself terminated during 1957 as part of that year's review of defence spending. Despite this, the Type 188 project was continued for the time being as a high speed research aircraft.

Operational history

During May 1960, the first airframe was delivered to the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, where it underwent a series of structural tests, both heated and unheated, before it was transferred to RAE Bedford. On 26 April 1961, XF923 undertook the first taxiing trials, after which it was promptly put through extensive pre-flight testing. Due to problems encountered with the initial design of the intake, the maiden flight of the Type 188 did not take place until 14 April 1962. XF923 was intended to remain with Bristol for its initial flights and evaluation before turning it over to the MoA. XF926 had its first flight, powered by XF923s engines, on 26 April 1963; XF926 was given over to RAE Bedford for its flying programme.

Across 51 flights, the Type 188 reached a top speed of Mach 1.88 (1,440 mph; 2,300 km/h) at 36,000 ft (11,000 m). The longest subsonic flight lasted only 48 minutes, which was largely due to 70 percent of the aircraft's total fuel capacity being consumed just to attain its operational altitude.

In September 1962, the first prototype made its first public appearance, being displayed on both the ground and in the air at that year's Farnborough Air Show. During that same year, the aircraft was seen in the film Some People.

Measurements during testing were collected and, in addition to being recorded onboard, were transmitted to a ground station for live review as well as being recording and subsequently analysed. The ground station was typically manned by both an engineer and a "ground pilot"; the extent of the flight information transmitted permitted the ground pilot to comprehensively advise the pilot of the aircraft in real time, although it was convention for only key information to be communicated as such to avoid excessive distraction to the pilot flying.

Flight testing of the Type 188 encountered a number of problems, perhaps the principal being that the fuel consumption of the Gyron Junior engines used did not permit the aircraft to fly at high speeds long enough to evaluate the "thermal soaking" of the airframe, which was one of the main research areas that the Type 188 had been built to investigate. Combined with fuel leaks, the inability to reach its design speed of Mach 2 and a takeoff speed at nearly 300 mph severely compromised the flight testing phase of the project. Nonetheless, although the Type 188 programme was eventually abandoned, the knowledge and technical information gained was put to some use for the future Concorde program. The inconclusive nature of the research into the use of stainless steel led to Concordes being constructed from conventional aluminium alloys with a Mach limit of 2.2. Experience gained with the Gyron Junior engine, which was the first British gas turbine designed for sustained supersonic operation, additionally later assisted with the development of the Bristol (later Rolls-Royce) Olympus 593 powerplant, which was used on both Concorde and the BAC TSR-2.

During early 1964, it was announced that all development activity on the Type 188 was to be terminated. The final flight of XF926 took place on 12 January 1964. In total, the project cost £20 million. By the end of the programme, considered the most expensive to date for a research aircraft in Britain, one aircraft had to be "cannibalised" in order to keep the other airframe flightworthy.

Surviving aircraft
In April 1966, both Type 188 fuselages were transported to the Proof and Experimental Establishment at Shoeburyness, Essex to act as targets for gunnery trials, but during 1972, XF926 was dismantled and moved to RAF Cosford (without its engines) to act as instructional airframe 8368M, and is preserved at the Royal Air Force Museum Cosford in Shropshire. XF923 was subsequently scrapped at Foulness.

Operators

 * Royal Aircraft Establishment
 * Royal Aircraft Establishment

Notable appearances in media
Bristol 188 XF923 was prominently featured in Some People (1962), a feature film primarily shot in Bristol.

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

title: Bristol 188


text:
Roosevelt Sykes

Roosevelt Sykes (January 31, 1906 – July 17, 1983) was an American blues musician, also known as "the Honeydripper".

Career
Sykes was born the son of a musician in Elmar, Arkansas. "Just a little old sawmill town", Sykes said of his birthplace. The Sykes family was living in St. Louis by 1909. Sykes often visited his grandfather's farm near West Helena. He began playing the church organ around the age of ten. "Every summer I would go down to Helena to visit my grandfather on his farm," he told biographer Valerie Wilmer. "He was a preacher and he had an organ I used to practice on, trying to learn how to play. I always liked the sound of the blues, liked to hear people singing, and since I was singing first, I was trying to play like I sang." Sykes was baptized at 13 years old, his lifelong beliefs never conflicting with playing the blues.

At age 15, he went on the road playing piano in a barrelhouse style of blues. Like many bluesmen of his time, he traveled around playing to all-male audiences in sawmill, turpentine and levee camps along the Mississippi River, sometimes in a duo with Big Joe Williams, gathering a repertoire of raw, sexually explicit material. In 1925 Sykes met Leothus "Lee" Green, a piano player in a West Helena theater playing a mix of blues, ragtime, waltz, and jazz to accompany silent movies. They worked the Louisiana and Mississippi work camp and roadhouse circuit together, with the older man acting as mentor and protector to Sykes. "I just been pickin' a little cotton," Sykes would say from the stage, "and pickin' a little piano." The more experienced Green taught him the style, characterized by separate bass and treble rhythms, that would become the basis for "44 Blues". Sykes' wanderings eventually brought him back to St. Louis, Missouri, where he met St. Louis Jimmy Oden, the writer of the blues standard "Goin' Down Slow".

After a few years Sykes found work at Katy Red's, a barrelhouse across the river in East St. Louis, Illinois. He was paid room and board, and a dollar a night. In 1929, he was spotted by a talent scout and sent to New York City to record for Okeh Records. The talent scout was Jesse Johnson, who owned De Luxe Music Shop. After Sykes had played a few songs on the store's piano Johnson offered him the opportunity to make his first recordings. His first release was "44 Blues" which became a blues standard and his signature song. Sykes recalled: "I started making records 14th of June 1929. I had been playing eight years or so before I started recording. The first number I made was a hit, '44 Blues', and every record I made was a star ever since." Sykes picked up his nickname "the Honey Dripper" while playing on a session for singer Edith Johnson later in 1929, during which she recorded "Honeydripper Blues". Johnson later said she gave him the name due to his kind disposition and easygoing personality. Sykes claimed the sobriquet dated back to his childhood, "Girls used to hang around me when I was a young kid. So the boys say, 'He must have honey.'" Sykes invested his earnings from recording in an illegal speakeasy that sold fried fish and alcohol, a business he continued at various locations for years. He recorded for different labels using pseudonyms, including "Easy Papa Johnson" for Melotone Records, "Dobby Bragg" for Paramount Records, "Willie Kelly" for Victor Records, and "the Bluesman" for Specialty Records, in the 1930s and 1940s. During this period he befriended another blues musician, the singer Charlie "Specks" McFadden, and accompanied him on half of McFadden's recordings.

Sykes and Oden moved to Chicago, where Sykes found his first period of fame when he signed a contract with Decca Records in 1934. In 1936 he recorded "Driving Wheel Blues" for Decca. He was soon a sought-after session pianist for the Bullet and Bluebird labels. Sykes and Oden continued their musical friendship into the 1960s.

In 1943 Sykes began performing with his band The Honeydrippers. The band often had as many as twelve musicians, including many of Chicago' best horn players. Despite the growing urbanity of his style, he gradually became less competitive in the post–World War II music scene. After his contract with RCA Victor expired, he recorded for smaller labels, such as United, until his opportunities ran out in the mid-1950s. Sykes left Chicago for New Orleans in 1954, as electric blues was taking over the Chicago blues clubs. He also recorded two sessions for Imperial Records in 1955, that were produced by Dave Bartholomew. He moved back to Chicago in 1960 as the folk music revival rekindled interest in the blues. He toured Europe and performed at blues festivals in the United States. In the late 1960s Sykes moved back to New Orleans, where he played at clubs, including the Court of Two Sisters. When he recorded in the 1960s, it was for labels such as Delmark, Bluesville, Storyville and Folkways, which were documenting the quickly passing blues history. He lived his final years in New Orleans, where he died from a heart attack on July 17, 1983. He was buried at Providence Memorial Park in New Orleans in an unmarked grave.

Technique
Sykes said in his later years he decided to become a bluesman when he heard St. Louis piano player Red-Eye Jesse Bell. He named St. Louis musicians including Bell, Joe Crump, Baby Sneed, and his mentor "Pork Chop" Lee Green as his early influences. Leothus Lee "Pork Chop" Green, is thought to have schooled Sykes in mastering separate but complementary bass and treble rhythms.

Sykes had a big voice and a heavy foot. In his voice that could be piercing yet had a mellow side, he sang with beautiful vibrato and at times intricate embellishment. His piano style featured a simple left hand, frequently with single repeated notes on the beats, and with great rhythmic complexity in his right hand. Throughout his career his music was harmonically uncomplicated, seldom using more than the three standard blues chords. His technique was more akin to blues guitarists than to other piano players who were recorded at the time. Though he was highly skilled on breakneck boogie-woogie numbers, Sykes shone on slow and moderately paced blues. His left hand played a strong bedrock bass, keeping the beat, as his right hand roamed the length of the keyboard. He used the piano as a lead instrument rather than as part of the rhythm section. It was a style that worked without accompaniment, as well as with larger bands.

As his career progressed Sykes showed greater sophistication in the lyrics he wrote, including pop music influences, than in his playing or singing. Some of his later blues are in an 8-bar pattern, like pop or gospel, rather than in his earlier 12-bar manner. Sykes moved easily from country boogie-woogie to his urban blues piano style. A blues virtuoso, he played blues in an older way, adding flourishes, notes, and chord changes where he felt necessary, even if it meant adding or subtracting a beat. Nevertheless, Sykes was sensitive as an accompanist, responding to other musicians’ changes.

Sykes’ vocal trademark was his practice of singing half a measure ahead of his accompanying piano. Author Paul Oliver stated, "His habit of anticipating a phrase on the piano gave a rhythmic impetus to his sung lines."

Legacy
Sykes had a long career, spanning the pre-war and postwar eras. His pounding piano boogies and risqué lyrics characterize his contributions to the blues. He was responsible for influential blues songs such as "44 Blues", "Driving Wheel", and "Night Time Is the Right Time".

He was inducted into the Blues Hall of Fame in 1999.

Discography

 * The Return of Roosevelt Sykes (Bluesville, 1960)
 * The Honeydripper (Bluesville, 1961)
 * Blues (Folkways, 1961) with Memphis Slim
 * Face to Face with the Blues (Columbia, 1961)
 * The Honeydripper: Roosevelt Sykes Plays and Sings the Blues (Columbia, 1962)
 * Roosevelt Sykes Sings the Blues (Crown, 1963)
 * Hard Drivin' Blues (Delmark, 1964) with Homesick James
 * Roosevelt Sykes in Europe (Delmark, 1966 [1969])
 * The Meek Roosevelt Sykes (Carson, 1969; Jewel, 1973)
 * Chicago Blues Festival (Black & Blue, 1970) with Homesick James
 * Feel Like Blowing My Horn (Delmark, 1970 [1973])
 * The Honeydripper's Duke's Mixture (Barclay, 1971)
 * Roosevelt Sykes is Blue and Ribald...A 'Dirty Mother' for You (Southland, 1972)
 * Dirty Double Mother (BluesWay, 1973)
 * Music Is My Business (Blue Labor, 1975 [1977])
 * The Original Honeydripper (Blind Pig, 1977)
 * Boot That Thing 1929–1941 (Acrobat ADDCD-3019 [2CD], 2008) includes material recorded for the OKeh, Victor, Paramount, Champion, and Decca labels.

title: Roosevelt Sykes


text:
Talk:Battle of Monte Cassino

Bear
I reverted this edit, adding the bear to the list of combatants. Note that I did so solely based on this being acting inappropriately (see WP:SOCK). I take no stance on whether or not the bear should be included in the list, and my revert should not be understood as me advocating any position on that subject. I do really like the story of the bear, though. --Yamla (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This has been an issue on this page for several years, with some (usually drive-by) editors repeatedly adding "1 bear" to the allied belligerent strengths, and others (usually the regular editors of this page) reverting them. I completely support the reversions: even though Wojtek (bear) was technically enrolled in the Polish army, the belligerent strength numbers are necessarily very round figures, and there is absolutely no justification for singling out one "individual" who was present at but played no significant part in the battle. However, having said that, Wojtek is considered notable enough to have his own article (and was even once the subject of a "Did you know?" entry), and I would have no objection to his being given a very brief mention somewhere appropriate in the body of the article; or alternatively just being listed in the "See also" section. What do others think? GrindtXX (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we revisit this? Wojtek was an enlisted soldier and since bears cannot be categorized under men, tanks, or planes it is entirely appropriate to add in the "1 bear." It is misleading and detrimental to the article’s integrity to leave Wojtek out, GrindtXX. How does it actually hurt the article to add 1 bear? It is historically accurate and doesn't actually affect anyone. Aelimian21 (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

So im gonna raise this again, the bear, why can't he be a fixture of the page? or can he, i think this needs revisting. Lindwigtoon 00:24, 28th September 2020 (BST)
 * I take it no one is going to comment on this, so I'm going to make the change, if we discuss this at a later date and decide otherwise. Lindwigtoon 12:57, 9th October 2020 (BST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:4C75:C500:C81F:19C7:DA7F:E33D (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Impact on the Abbey building itself ? Impact on the town ? The Marocchinate ?
I find it astonishing that there is almost nothing about the impact and the almost total destruction of the abbey (especially the building) itself. That especially since this abbey is and was so much important as one of the original abbeys of the Benedictine Order. This historical importance is nowhere emphasized.

Compared against the great amount of detail and wealth of information of the battle itself, the destruction of the abbey's building itself is nowhere actually described. The battle is explained and described in every possible detail - but the actual destruction of the building - and what has actually been destroyed - is almost silenced to death.

Even more disturbingly, there does not even exist an English-language article about the abbey's building itself; there is only one single artice titled "Monte Cassino", and´the article begins as a description of the hill, not of the abbey. It does contain an description of the abbey - but the overall article's wording is always about the hill, not the actual abbey's building. Through this downplaying, readers can get the impression as if this special Benetictine founding abbey was "just another target" and didn't have any importance in Christian history at all.

I can also see no article on the destruction of the town of Cassino, nothing about its bombing, and no article how much of the ancient roman town of Casinum was destroyed through the bombing. And nothing about the fact that many civilians lost their lives there.

There is also almost no mentioning of the Marocchinate and its reasoning. That an Ally officer apparingly implicitely allowed the mass rape (or so I understand its article) is something that should be within the Battle article. Although this is clearly a part of the actual war, it is never mentioned within the main article, and the proposed thousands of cases of rape (if the numbers of the Marocchinate article are true) are thus downplayed as some kind of minor collateral damage. There is no mention of an scientific approac to the event, only the mention of an "claims of exaggeration" by a French Marshal, but this claim does not look to me like an the result of a scientific study.

When I compare the sheer amount of words of the paragraph called "the Battle" with the paragraph about the Marocchinate, then the reader can see how unimportant actual civilians are. Even the paragraph about "troop honours" is placed higher than the paragraphs about the civilians.

The article "Battle of Monte Cassino" is an military article. It should, however, show *everything* about the battle, and not downplay aspects of it, like the destruction of the actual, Abbey building, the mass rape called Marrocchinade, and the destruction of the town of Casino.

On the page about the town Cassino there is a picture of the destroyed town "ruins of Cassino after the bombing". What I do not understand is that it is not shown within the "Battle of Monte Cassino" page, although its destruction was clearly a part of the whole battle. Alrik Fassbauer (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The simple reasons for your first two questions is that this is an article about the battle in the context of the campaign in Italy and not about the building or town except where that has relevance to the fighting. And that's where the focus of the article lies. That does not preclude anyone writing an article about the buildings or the town but if volunteer editors don't have resources or inclination to write about those then they won't. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"After the bombing" quote
From the article as it stands: "Cardinal Secretary of State, Luigi Maglione, bluntly stated to the senior U.S. diplomat to the Vatican, Harold Tittmann, that the bombing was 'a colossal blunder … a piece of a gross stupidity'." That should clearly be (in correct English) "a piece of gross stupidity". Is Maglione being misquoted, or was his English poor? Can anyone check the cited source: Hapgood & Richardson, p. 225? Thanks. GrindtXX (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Quote is correct. In Hapgood & Richardson, New York: Congdon & Weed, Inc., 1984, it is, however, on p. 227. TrinityGate (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC) x
 * Haven't researched this particular quote and am not going to, but I feel compelled to point out that Romance languages do not use "a" and "the" the same way that English does. Very plausibly he was mistranslated, since this is a Top Ten translation mistake. Alternately, if he was speaking in English it is possible that he had not grasped this difference. It seems rather pointless to make a distracting issue of the use of language when the ellipsis could cover it: "a colossal blunder...gross stupidity". That said, I have no intention of doing a deep dive on the issue, consider this a drive-by suggestion. I am here trying to parse out which "corps" joined "Armée B". It wouldn't be the Germans and doesn't seem to have been the Fifth Army. Off to look further. Elinruby (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Polish unit that captured Monte Casino
If Polish forces captured Monte Casino why is the Polish unit not mentioned, only the British and Americans. Surely the Polish unit had a name and a leader — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.126.121.235 (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Newfoundland - a separate belligerent? Huh?
It wasn’t a separate country in 1944. Boscaswell  talk  01:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Wojtek Compromise
Ive been reading lack of consensus here on the mentioning of Wojtek the bear in the Strength Section of the Infobox.

Perhaps a compromise could be reached by adding a note on the 240k men to make note of Wojtek, given that they didnt fit the commonly understood notion of "men" in a military context.

Given that Wojtek is of notoriety for his combat in the battle, especially given how unusual it is for a bear to fight in a human war, I think it should be at the very least, a footnote Cheese   122  07:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There's clear consensus that he's not to be added to the infobox. He's already listed in the article under "See also". --Denniss (talk) 15:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean looking above at the Bear Section only one person @GrindtXX directly agreed with the not making a note of it however even they stated they would be ok with a small mention. The rest of the comments all either want it to be revisited or the original person who made the revision specifically not taking a stance on the issue.
 * That doesn't seem like a consensus unless the discussion about this happened elsewhere? Cheese   122  21:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree on the footnote stance, I see this as a fair compromise. 2001:48F8:4028:1C23:8480:1EF2:5379:7F65 (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus not to include among actual editors, which is visible in talk page comments both in one of the above sections and in the TP archive. Drive-by IPs are not pertinent to that consensus. Loafiewa (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Again if I am missing something, please point to the supposed consensus that exists. 1 person in the above sections, mildly agrees with its lack of inclusion although is open to some other means of inclusion.
 * Looking through the archive, 1 discussion was held 4 years ago about the dispute that cited the reason for not including it as " just nationalism/fanboism vandalismus. " which makes zero sense given that it is an objective fact that Wojtek was a part of the battle and that he is a notably unusual aspect about that battle, likely where most people actually hear about the battle itself.
 * Furthermore, it only seems like two editors actually agreed with the belief that its inappropriate which I think is fair to say that it is not a consensus, especially when its keeps getting added by Driveby IPs Cheese   122  07:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, let's just go over the facts again. Wojtek did not "fight" in the battle: he was a unit mascot, who (as a technical fiction, to allow him to be shipped to Italy) was nominally enrolled as a soldier. He may, on occasion, have helped carry boxes of ammunition (though even that's disputed). As for your suggestion that he is "likely where most people actually hear about the battle itself", that's nonsense: that may be how you heard about the battle, but most people will learn about it as a major battle of World War II, involving thousands of men and thousands of casualties, not because of one minor "fun fact". As far as I can see, Wojtek gets no mention in any of the standard English-language histories of the battle (Majdalany, Ellis, Parker etc). The figures in the infobox are rounded off to the nearest thousand, and there is absolutely no reason to single out one "individual" for mention, either in the infobox itself, or in a footnote from it. We don't mention the hundreds of mules who played a far more significant role as ammunition carriers.
 * The presence of a bear technically in the Polish ranks is a piece of trivia, completely incidental to the story of the battle (which is what this article is about). I'll agree it's "quite interesting", and could be mentioned in, or as a footnote from, the body of the article – but absolutely no more than a single sentence, with a link to Wojtek (bear). Unfortunately, there's no obvious place to insert it – possibly under "Legacy", though even that's not really ideal. GrindtXX (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, with your statement that he did not "fight" per se in the battle, however he was certainly involved in the battle itself in a combat capacity, compared to the mules that you mention which played a logistical role instead of combat.
 * I believe I may not have properly conveyed my belief when I said that Wojtek "likely where most people actually heard about the battle itself". I mean to convey that, for more youthful users, they likely do not learn about the battle directly unless they live within Italy itself. Outside of this, I have heard very little mention about the battle of Monte Casino despite its importance. However many people likely have heard of Wojtek through the memeiness of the bear. Looking at the views of both this page and Wojtek's, at time of current writing, Wojtek has approximately 600 more views than this article. On Youtube, where most people likely learn about Wojtek, the top videos have 3.8 Million views; 4.3 Million Views and 9.9 Million views compared to the highest video on Monte Cassino being at 1.3 Million Views and is a reupload of a old documentary, all others are under 1 Million. While this doesn't intended to show the Wojtek is more important than Monte Cassino, Wojtek is likely more known than the battle he was present in.
 * I agree that Wojtek shouldn't get an extra statistic in the strength forces and I agree that Wojtek is absolutely a piece of trivia of the battle, but he is a well known piece of trivia, and I believe he is worthy of a mention, however brief in the article for being that piece of trivia.
 * I suggest, as a footnote on the strengths of soldiers, we add "A unit mascot, Wojtek, a bear, was allegedly present in the battle, carrying ammunition to troops". I think this would be a simple and small note to give mention of Wojtek as trivia while not immensely infringing on the content of the article itself. Cheese   122  01:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with a sentence along those lines – preferably citing a couple of references (which could just be copied from the Wojtek article). However, I still don't think that the infobox (or even a footnote from the infobox) is the right place for this. The purpose of an infobox is "to summarize ... key facts that appear in the article... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose" (MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). I think Wojtek should be mentioned in the body of the article. The problem is where: there's really nowhere obvious as things stand. One possibility would be create a specific (but still short!) "Bear" section – perhaps after "Casualties" and before "Legacy". Another would be to create a "Bear" subsection within "Legacy" (probably at the end), with a mention of his postwar life in Scotland and the fact that a number of memorials to him exist. Other views? GrindtXX (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, the bear is of no importance at all for the Battle article. At best a footnote and this is already handled in the see also section. --Denniss (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @GrindtXX I see your point on the info box, I agree that a small subsection in the legacy section could be sufficient.
 * @Denniss As I showed in my previous comment about the internet notability of Wojtek, I would say Wojtek is relevant to the battle, especially in its legacy which has, at least online, become more prevalent and known than Monte Cassino itself Cheese   122  01:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That may be in a polish bubble only but not in the rest of the world. Wasn't the polish nationalist party mis-using him for advertizing? --Denniss (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wojtek is a trivial subject compared to the battle itself. It's worth a link to the Wojtek article from the "See also" section, but that's it. (Hohum @ ) 12:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Denniss I had been looking through English youtube and Wojtek is a more viewed subject on English youtube than this battle specifically. I don't know anything about a polish nationalist party misusing him and I also don't see how that is relevant.
 * @Hohum Trivial, maybe, but is a large part of this battles legacy due to his legend and I dont think a link the "See also" gives proper justice, nor does it adequately explain his relevance to the battle.
 * In case y'all want any more date showing Wojteks notoriety over Monte Cassino, see below:
 * https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F0fcx81,%2Fm%2F081w0&hl=en
 * Based of the google trends data, Wojtek as been consistently searched more online than the Battle of Monte Cassino except for a brief period between December 2016 - December 2018. While I'm sure Google trends isn't the best source for the frequency of searches, it does show that broadly Wojtek is searched more worldwide than the Battle of Monte Cassino  Cheese   122  12:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles about battles should by guided by what is in military history resources, not relative popularity on a social media platform. (Hohum @ ) 13:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, however when an certain aspect of this battle is so prevalent in the common knowledge, arguably more than the actual event itself, I would say that is is worth to be mentioned as part of its legacy Cheese   122  13:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an article about a battle; the main Wojtek article is not, and goes into as much detail as required. All that needs to be in this article is a link to it. (Hohum @ ) 13:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A link however, does not actually convey the cultural impact from wojtek to the history of the battle and I think is insufficient Cheese   122  13:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you are over emphasizing Wojtek's cultural impact on the historiography of this battle. Of the relevant reliable sources about this battle, how many have more than a passing reference, or any reference to Wojtek? (Hohum @ ) 13:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Battle of Monte Cassino


text:
Acid rock

Acid rock is a loosely defined type of rock music that evolved out of the mid-1960s garage punk movement and helped launch the psychedelic subculture. While the term has sometimes been used interchangeably with "psychedelic rock", acid rock also specifically refers to a more musically intense, rawer, or heavier subgenre or sibling of psychedelic rock. Named after lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), the style is generally defined by heavy, distorted guitars and often contains lyrics with drug references and long improvised jams.

Compared to other forms of psychedelic rock, acid rock features a harder, louder, heavier, or rawer sound. Much of the style overlaps with 1960s garage punk, proto-metal, and early heavy, blues-based hard rock. It developed mainly from the American West Coast, where groups did not focus on the novelty recording effects or whimsy of British psychedelia; instead, the subgenre emphasized the heavier qualities associated with both the positive and negative extremes of the psychedelic experience.

As the movement progressed into the late 1960s and 1970s, elements of acid rock split into two directions, with hard rock and heavy metal on one side and progressive rock on the other. In the 1990s, the stoner metal genre combined acid rock with other hard rock styles such as grunge and doom metal, updating the heavy riffs and long jams found in acid rock and psychedelic-influenced metal.

Definitions
"Acid rock" as a term was initially (and often still is) loosely defined. In 1969, as the genre was still solidifying, rock journalist Nik Cohn called it a "fairly meaningless phrase that got applied to any group, no matter what its style". The term was originally used to describe the background music for acid trips in underground parties in the 1960s (e.g. the Merry Pranksters' "Acid Tests") and as a catchall term for the more eclectic Haight-Ashbury bands in San Francisco. The Grateful Dead's Jerry Garcia believed that acid rock is music you listen to while under the influence of acid, further stating that there is no real "psychedelic rock" and that it is Indian classical music and some Tibetan music "designed to expand consciousness".

The term has often been deployed interchangeably with "psychedelic rock" or "psychedelia", particularly during the genre's nascence. However, the distinction between the heavier "acid rock" and the more general or inclusive genre of "psychedelic rock" has been well established. According to Per Elias Drabløs, "acid rock is generally considered a subgenre of psychedelic rock", while Steve and Alan Freeman state the two terms are more or less synonymous, and that "what is usually referred to as acid rock is generally the more extreme end of [the psychedelic rock genre]". This would mean psychedelic rock that is heavier, louder, or harder.

When defined specifically as a hard rock variant of psychedelia, acid rock is distinguished as having evolved from the 1960s garage punk movement, with many of its bands eventually transforming into heavy metal acts. Percussionist John Beck defines "acid rock" as synonymous with hard rock and heavy metal. The term eventually encompassed heavy, blues-based hard rock bands. Musicologist Steve Waksman wrote that "the distinction between acid rock, hard rock, and heavy metal can at some point never be more than tenuous".

Origins and ideology

Many bands associated with acid rock aimed to create a youth movement based on love and peace, as an alternative to workaholic capitalist society. David P. Szatmary states, "a legion of rock bands, playing what became known as 'acid rock,' stood in the vanguard of the movement for cultural change." Szatmary also quotes from the San Francisco Oracle, an underground newspaper published between 1966 and 1968, to explain how rock music was perceived at that time and how the acid rock movement emerged: "Rock music is a regenerative and revolutionary art, offering us our first real hope for the future (indeed, for the present)."

When played live at dance clubs, performances were accompanied by psychedelic-themed light shows in order to replicate the visual effects of the acid experience. According to Kevin T. McEneaney, the Grateful Dead "invented" acid rock in front of a crowd of concertgoers in San Jose, California on December 4, 1965, the date of the second Acid Test held by author Ken Kesey. Their stage performance involved the use of strobe lights to reproduce LSD's "surrealistic fragmenting" or "vivid isolating of caught moments". The Acid Test experiments subsequently launched the psychedelic subculture. Author Steve Turner recognises the Beatles' success in conveying an LSD-inspired worldview on their 1966 album Revolver, especially with the track "Tomorrow Never Knows", as having "opened the doors" to acid rock. Former Atlantic Records executive Phillip Rauls recalls: "I was in the music business at the time, and my very first recognition of acid rock ... was, of all people, the Beach Boys and the song 'Good Vibrations' ... That [song's electro theremin] sent so many musicians back to the studio to create this music on acid."

According to Laura Diane Kuhn, the heavier form of psychedelic rock known as acid rock developed from the late 1960s California music scene. The Charlatans were among the first Bay Area acid rock bands, though Jefferson Airplane was the first Bay Area acid rock band to sign a major label and achieve mainstream success. By July 1967, Time magazine wrote, "From jukeboxes and transistors across the nation pulses the turned-on sound of acid-rock groups: the Jefferson Airplane, the Doors, Moby Grape". In 1968, Life magazine referred to the Doors as the "kings of acid rock".

Other bands credited with creating or laying the foundation for acid rock include garage rock bands such as the 13th Floor Elevators and Count Five. The blues rock group the Paul Butterfield Blues Band are also credited with spawning the harder acid rock sound, and their 1966 instrumental "East-West", with its early use of the extended rock solo, has been described as laying "the roots of psychedelic acid rock" and featuring "much of acid-rock's eventual DNA". The Beatles' June 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was a major influence on American acid rock groups.

Evolution from garage bands
Originating in the early 1960s, garage punk was a mainly-American movement that involved R&B-inspired garage bands powered by electric guitars and organs. It was mainly the domain of untrained teenagers fixated on sonic effects, such as wah-wah and fuzz tone, and relied heavily on riffs. The music later blurred into psychedelia. American garage bands who began to play psychedelic rock retained the rawness and energy of garage rock, incorporating garage rock's heavy distortion, feedback, and layered sonic effects into their versions of psychedelic music, spawning "acid rock". Bisport and Puterbaugh, defining acid rock as an intense or raw form of psychedelia, include "garagey" psychedelia under the label of "acid rock" due in part to its "energy and intimation of psychic overload". Exemplary acts of "garagey" psychedelia include Blues Magoos, the Electric Prunes, and the Music Machine, all of which may be defined as early acid rock bands.

The earliest known use of the term "garage punk" appeared in Lenny Kaye's track-by-track liner notes for the 1972 anthology compilation Nuggets: Original Artyfacts from the First Psychedelic Era, 1965-1968, which prominently featured both acid rock and garage rock. Musicologist Simon Frith cites Nuggets as a showcase for the garage psychedelia of the 1960s and the transition between early 1960s garage rock and the more elaborate acid rock of the late 1960s. This acid rock present in the Nuggets anthology has been described as an offshoot of 1960s "punk rock". At the time, the term "punk rock" referred to the garage rock of the 1960s, such as that present in the Nuggets compilation. Bands such as Count Five, with their 1966 song "Psychotic Reaction", as well as other groups featured on Nuggets, would eventually epitomize the overlap between 1960s garage rock and psychedelic punk, or acid rock. As one of the first successful acid rock songs, "Psychotic Reaction" also contained the characteristics that would come to define acid rock: the use of feedback and distortion replacing early rock music's more melodic electric guitars.

Another group included on the Nuggets album, the 13th Floor Elevators, began as a straight garage rock band before becoming one of the original early acid rock bands and the innovators of psychedelic rock in general, with a sound consisting of distortion, often yelping vocals, and "occasionally demented" lyrics. Their debut album, The Psychedelic Sounds of the 13th Floor Elevators, featuring the garage rock hit "You're Gonna Miss Me", was among the earliest psychedelic rock albums. By 1966, the New York City garage band the Blues Magoos were referring to their wailing blues rock as "psychedelic music", and their hard variant of psychedelic rock, with its roots in the garage movement, would be increasingly labeled "acid rock".

Distinctions from other psychedelic rock

Acid rock often encompasses the more extreme side of the psychedelic rock genre, frequently containing a loud, improvised, and guitar-centered sound. Alan Bisbort and Parke Puterbaugh write that acid rock "can best be described as psychedelia at its rawest and most intense ... Bad trips as well as good, riots as well as peace, pain as well as pleasure - the whole spectrum of reality, not just the idyllic bits, were captured by acid rock." "Acid rock" has also been described as more heavily electric and containing more distortion ("fuzz") than typical psychedelic rock. By the late 1960s, in addition to the deliberate use of distortion and feedback, acid rock was further characterized by long guitar solos and the frequent use of electronic organs. Lyric references to drug use were also common, as exemplified in Jefferson Airplane's 1967 song "White Rabbit" and Jimi Hendrix Experience's 1967 song "Purple Haze". Lyrical references to drugs such as LSD were often cryptic.

At a time when many British psychedelic bands played whimsical or surrealistic psychedelic rock, many 1960s American rock bands, especially those from the West Coast, developed a rawer or harder version of psychedelic rock containing garage rock energy. When contrasted with whimsical British psychedelia, this harder American West Coast variant of psychedelic rock has been referred to as acid rock. American psychedelic rock and garage bands such as the 13th Floor Elevators epitomized the frenetic, darker and more psychotic sound of American acid rock, a sound characterized by droning guitar riffs, amplified feedback, and guitar distortion. Hoffman writes that acid rock lacked the recording studio "gimmickry" that typified the more Beatles-influenced strain of psychedelic rock, though acid rock experimented in other ways with electrified guitar effects.

Tonal distortion was also one of the defining characteristics of the San Francisco Sound. The acid rock of the San Francisco Sound heavily incorporated musical improvisation, jamming, repetitive drum beats, experimental sound and tape effects, and intentional feedback. San Francisco acid rock generally took a non-commercial approach to song-writing: it often involved almost free jazz-like, free-form hard rock improvisations alongside distorted guitars, and lyrics often were socially conscious, trippy, or anti-establishment. Many of the musicians in the scene, including bands such as the Charlatans and the Quicksilver Messenger Service, became involved in Ken Kesey's LSD-driven psychedelic scene, known as the Merry Pranksters.

Transition to hard rock and heavy metal
Heavy metal evolved from psychedelic music and acid rock and added psychedelic/acid rock to the basic structure of blues rock. In the 1960s, the heavy, blues-influenced, psychedelic hard rock sound of bands such as the Jimi Hendrix Experience, Deep Purple, and Cream was classified as acid rock. Other acid rock groups such as Blue Cheer, Iron Butterfly, and Vanilla Fudge served as examples of early heavy metal, or proto-metal, creating stripped-downed, loud, intense, and "fuzzy" acid rock or hard rock. Bands such as Blue Cheer, Cream, and the hard rock group The Amboy Dukes have all been described as "leading practitioners" of the harder variant of psychedelic rock known as "acid rock". Many acid rock bands would subsequently become heavy metal bands.

The influence of acid rock was evident in the sound of heavy metal in the 1970s. Iron Butterfly's "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" is sometimes described as an example of the transition between acid rock and heavy metal or the turning point in which acid rock became "heavy metal". "In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida" serves a notable example of 1960s and early 1970s acid rock or heavy psychedelia, and the band would continue to experiment with distorted, "fuzzy", heavy psychedelia into the 1970s. Both Iron Butterfly's 1968 album In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida and Blue Cheer's 1968 album Vincebus Eruptum have been described as influential in the transition of acid rock into heavy metal. Heavy metal's acid rock origins can further be seen in the loud acid rock of groups such as Steppenwolf, who contributed their song "Born to Be Wild" to the soundtrack of the 1969 film Easy Rider, which itself glamorized the genre. Ultimately, Steppenwolf and other acid rock groups such as Cream, the Jimi Hendrix Experience, and Led Zeppelin paved the way for the electrified, bluesy sound of early heavy metal.

Coven is an American rock band formed in Chicago in the late 1960s. They had a top 40 hit in 1971 with the song "One Tin Soldier", the theme song of the movie Billy Jack.In addition to pioneering occult rock with lyrics and aesthetics that explicitly dealt in themes of Satanism and witchcraft, they are recognized by metal fans and metal historians as being the band that introduced the "Sign of the horns" to rock, metal and pop culture, as seen on their 1969 debut album release Witchcraft Destroys Minds & Reaps Souls. By the early 1970s, bands such as Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath combined the loud, raw distortion of acid rock with occult lyrics, further forming a basis for the genre now known as "heavy metal". At a time when rock music began to turn back to roots-oriented soft rock, many acid rock groups instead evolved into heavy metal bands. As its own movement, heavy metal music continued to perpetuate characteristics of acid rock bands into at least the 1980s, and traces of psychedelic rock can be seen in the musical excesses of later metal bands. In the 1990s, the stoner metal genre combined acid rock with other hard rock genres such as grunge, updating the heavy riffs and long jams found in the acid rock and psychedelic-influenced metal of bands such as Black Sabbath, Blue Cheer, Hawkwind, and Blue Öyster Cult.

In addition to hard rock and heavy metal, acid rock also gave rise to the progressive rock movement. In the 1970s, elements of psychedelic music split into two notable directions, evolving into the hard rock and heavy metal of Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, and Led Zeppelin on one side and into the progressive rock of bands such Pink Floyd and Yes on the other. Bands such as Yes, Pink Floyd, King Crimson, and Emerson, Lake, and Palmer kept the psychedelic musical movement alive for some time, but eventually moved away from drug-themed music towards experiments in electronic music and the addition of classical music themes into rock music.

title: Acid rock


text:
Suicide door

A suicide door is an automobile door hinged at its rear rather than the front. Such doors were originally used on horse-drawn carriages, but are rarely found on modern vehicles, primarily because they are less safe than a front-hinged door. Being rear-hinged, if the vehicle were moving and the door opened, aerodynamic drag would force the door open, and the driver/passenger would have to lean forward and out of the vehicle to close it. As seat belts were not in common use at that time, the risk of falling out of the car and into traffic was high, hence the name "suicide door". Another reason could have been that while a door was open on a city street, a speeding car moving in the same direction as the parked car could rip a front-hinged door off the parked car but someone inside the adjacent seat, even if moving to leave the car, could not get scratched. However, with a suicide door, someone inside or partially outside the passenger compartment would get struck by the suicide door forcefully swinging back to a shut position due to the impact of the speeding car on the door.

Initially standard on many models, later they became popularized in the custom car trade. Automobile manufacturers call the doors coach doors (Rolls-Royce and Lincoln), flexdoors (Opel), freestyle doors (Mazda), rear access doors (Saturn), or simply describe them as rear-hinged doors.

History
Rear-hinged doors were common on cars manufactured in the first half of the 20th century, including the iconic Citroën Traction Avant. In the era before seat belts, the accidental opening of such doors meant that there was a greater risk of falling out of the vehicle compared to front-hinged doors, where airflow pushed the doors closed rather than opening them further.

Rear-hinged doors were especially popular with mobsters in the gangster era of the 1930s, supposedly owing to the ease of pushing passengers out of moving vehicles with the air around the moving car holding the door open, according to Dave Brownell, the former editor of Hemmings Motor News.

After World War II, rear-hinged doors were mostly limited to rear doors of four-door sedans. The best-known use of rear-hinged doors on post-World War II American automobiles was the Lincoln Continental 4-door convertibles and sedans (1961–1969), Cadillac Eldorado Brougham (1956–1959) four-door sedans, and Ford Thunderbird (1967–1971) four-door sedans. The British Rover P4 used rear-hinged doors at the rear. German Goggomobil saloons and coupes had two-door bodies with rear-hinged doors until 1964. The French, hand-made Facel Vega Excellence offered a four-door hardtop with a Chrysler-sourced Hemi V8 beginning in 1954.

Modern use
In 2003, the new Rolls-Royce Phantom car reintroduced independent rear-hinged doors in luxury vehicle applications. Other luxury models with rear-hinged doors include the Spyker D8 and the Rolls-Royce Phantom Drophead Coupe four-seat convertible. The most recent mass-produced model with such doors may be the Opel Meriva, followed by the Rolls-Royce Cullinan in 2018, and a few Chinese electric vehicles including the Singulato iS6 in 2018 and HiPhi X in 2020. Lincoln announced that 80 limited-edition 2019 Continentals would be made with "coach" doors, marking the Continental's 80th anniversary. The 2020 Citroen Ami electric vehicle is unusual in having a suicide door for the driver but a conventional door for the passenger, as the doors are identical units that are not differentiated by side.

In the early 2000s, rear-hinged rear doors that are held closed by the front doors, and cannot be opened until released by opening the front door on the same side (hinged at the front), have appeared on a number of vehicles. Such doors may be referred to as clamshell doors. Examples include extended-cab pickup trucks, the Saturn SC, Saturn Ion Quad Coupe, Honda Element, Toyota FJ Cruiser, BMW i3, Mini Cooper Clubman, Mazda RX-8, Mazda MX-30 and Fiat 500 3+1.

Rear passenger rear-hinged doors had long been used on Austin FX4 London taxis, discontinued on their successors the TX1, TXII and TX4, but reintroduced in the 2018 LEVC TX.

Several concept cars have featured rear-hinged doors, such as the Lincoln C, a hatchback with no B-pillar and rear-hinged doors at the rear, or the Carbon Motors Corporation E7, a police car with rear rear-hinged doors designed to aid officers getting handcuffed passengers in and out of the back seat. The Kia Naimo, an electric concept car, also has rear suicide doors.

Other car manufacturers which have produced models with suicide doors include Citroën, Lancia, Opel, Panhard, Rover, Saab, Saturn, Škoda, Studebaker, Ferrari, Mazda and Volkswagen.

Advantages
Rear-hinged doors make entering and exiting a vehicle easier, allowing a passenger to enter by turning to sit and exit by stepping forward and out. This is important for passengers who need to make a dignified entrance; the UK State Bentley has rear-opening passenger doors that are broader than usual and open very wide, allowing the monarch to exit the car in a dignified way.

In combination with traditional front doors, rear-hinged doors allow chauffeurs easier access to the rear door. In Austin FX4 taxis, drivers were able to reach the rear exterior door handle through the driver's window without getting out of the vehicle.

Rear-hinged doors also allow a better position for a person installing a child seat into the back seat of a vehicle than conventional doors, while being simpler and cheaper to build than the sliding doors commonly used on minivans. The Opel Meriva B compact MPV introduced in 2010 had such doors.

The combination of front-hinged front doors and rear-hinged rear doors allows for a design without the B-pillar, creating a large opening for entering and exiting the vehicle.

Disadvantages
When front doors are directly adjacent to rear suicide doors, exiting and entering the vehicle can be awkward if people try to use the front and back doors at the same time.

There are also a number of safety hazards:

 * Aerodynamic factors forcing rear-hinged doors open at speed in older cars. In 1969, Consumer Reports reported this problem on a Subaru 360.
 * If a person not wearing a seat belt falls out of a moving car with a coach door, the door can catch them and drag them along the road at speed, causing serious injuries.
 * If a person exits a vehicle while parallel parked and a car hits the door from the rear, the person would be crushed instead of the door being ripped off.

Car manufacturers mitigate these hazards with such safety features as seat belts, and locks requiring front-hinged doors be open before permitting rear-hinged doors to open.

title: Suicide door


text:
Jimmy Ruffin

Jimmy Lee Ruffin (May 7, 1936 – November 17, 2014) was an American soul singer, and the older brother of David Ruffin, the lead singer of the Temptations. He had several hit records between the 1960s and 1980s, the most successful being the Top 10 hits "What Becomes of the Brokenhearted" and "Hold On (To My Love)".

Early life
Jimmy Ruffin was born in 1936 in Collinsville, Mississippi, to Eli, a sharecropper, and Ophelia Ruffin. He was approaching his fifth birthday when his younger brother David was born. As children, the brothers began singing with a gospel group, the Dixie Nightingales.

In 1961, Jimmy became a singer as part of the Motown stable, mostly on sessions but also recording singles for its subsidiary Miracle label, but was then drafted for national service. After leaving the Army in 1964, he returned to Motown, where he was offered the opportunity to join the Temptations to replace Elbridge Bryant. However, after hearing his brother David, they hired him for the job instead so Jimmy decided to resume his solo career. Ruffin recorded for Motown's subsidiary Soul label, but with little success.

Career
In 1966, he heard a song about unrequited love written for The Spinners, and persuaded the writers that he should record it himself. His recording of "What Becomes of the Brokenhearted" became a major success. The song reached #7 on the Billboard Hot 100 and #6 on the R&B Chart. It also initially reached #8 in the UK Singles Chart, rising to #4 when it was reissued in the UK in 1974. "What Becomes of the Brokenhearted" remains Ruffin's best-known song. It was the lead single from his debut album Jimmy Ruffin Sings Top Ten (released as The Jimmy Ruffin Way in the UK), which was released on the Motown's Soul subsidiary label in 1967. Follow-up singles in America were successful, with "I've Passed This Way Before" and "Gonna Give Her All The Love I've Got" in late 1966 and early 1967.

Ruffin's second album, Ruff 'n' Ready, was released in 1969. It contained the song "Don't You Miss Me a Little Bit Baby", which made the lower parts of the Billboard Hot 100 (#68) and was a Top 30 hit on the R&B Charts, peaking at #27. As a solo artist, it would prove to be Ruffin's last significant chart appearance in America for many years, and his last significant charting record for Motown in the US. The song was also released as the B-side to "What Becomes of the Brokenhearted" when it was reissued in 1974.

As Ruffin found success in the United States difficult to sustain, he began to concentrate instead on the British market. In 1970, "Farewell Is a Lonely Sound", "I'll Say Forever My Love" and "It's Wonderful (To Be Loved by You)" each made the UK Top Ten, and he was voted the world's top singer in one British poll. He also teamed up with brother David to record the album I Am My Brother's Keeper, a modestly successful 1970 album for Motown that included the songs "When The Love Hand Comes Down", "Your Love Was Worth Waiting For" and a cover of Ben E. King's "Stand by Me". His third solo album for the label, The Groove Governor, was released in 1970, and did not fare as well as his previous two albums.

Following the success of his initial hits, Ruffin found it hard to maintain an identity, as most of his songs were later covered by other Motown artists, most prominently "Everybody Needs Love", a hit when covered by Gladys Knight & the Pips for their 1967 debut album of the same name, "Maria (You Were The Only One)", a hit for Michael Jackson and "If You Let Me," a minor hit for Eddie Kendricks. In addition, he had recorded the first version of The Temptations hit "Beauty Is Only Skin Deep".

He then left Motown, and recorded for the Polydor and Chess labels, where he recorded "Tell Me What You Want." In 1980, Robin Gibb of the Bee Gees produced his album Sunrise and the hit single "Hold On To My Love", which reached #10 in the US and #7 in the UK, on the RSO label.

In the 1980s, Ruffin moved to live in Great Britain, where he continued to perform successfully. In December 1984 he collaborated with Paul Weller of The Style Council for his benefit single "Soul Deep", produced to raise money for the families of striking miners affected by the UK miners' strike. This went under the name of The Council Collective and Jimmy appeared with Paul on Radio 1 to say he is involved because his father worked down the mines and "he understands the suffering."

In 1986 he collaborated with the British pop group Heaven 17, singing "A Foolish Thing to Do" and "My Sensitivity" on a 12" EP record. In 1987, Ruffin recorded "Easy Just To Say I Love You", which was written by Peter Marsh, Mae McKenna and Julian Marshall. He took part in recording for Ian Levine's Motown revival label, Motorcity Records, in the late 1980s and early 1990s. He recorded duets with both Maxine Nightingale and Brenda Holloway. Later, Ruffin hosted a radio show in the UK for a time, and became an anti-drug advocate following the 1991 drug overdose death of his brother David. Ruffin was portrayed by Lamman Rucker in the 1998 mini-series The Temptations.

Later life and death
Following the 2010 release - on CD for the first time - of his 1970 album I Am My Brother's Keeper, Ruffin had been writing and recording songs for a new album that he had planned to release during 2013. It was not finished at the time of his death.

In 2012, a compilation album titled There Will Never Be Another You, including his hit songs "What Becomes of the Brokenhearted", and "Hold On To My Love", had been released.

Ruffin lived in the area of Las Vegas, Nevada. On October 17, 2014, it was reported that he was gravely ill and had been taken into an intensive care unit at a Las Vegas hospital. He died on November 17, 2014, in Las Vegas, aged 78. Ruffin is buried at Palm Memorial Park Northwest Cemetery, Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada in the Garden of Eternal Life Section.

Family
His siblings were Davis Eli (David), Reada May (Marie), Rosine, and Quincy B (all deceased). His children are Arlet, Philicia, Jimmie Ray (deceased), Jimmy Jr., Ophelia, Camilla and Jimmie Ray Vaughn.

Discography

 * Sunrise (1980)

title: Jimmy Ruffin


text:
Talk:The Wizard of Oz (disambiguation)

Untitled
This is a selected entry on MediaWiki:November 3 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mav (talk • contribs) 09:07, 13 March 2004 (UTC)

Merger of Wizard of Oz (movie) disambig page with this one proposed, so I did it. Thatcher131 04:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation
I'm afraid this disambiguation goes into too much detail, and sort of defeats the purpose of a disambiguation page. As I see it, disambiguation pages should help direct people to articles they are likely to be looking for, whenever options exist. This means that a disambiguation page does not have to be comprehensive or detailed: just give people enough information to identify the page they need. Scott, while I respect what you're doing here with film and stage adaptations, I don't think the disambig page is the place to list esoteric adaptations like the Turkish films. I also think that in a disambiguation we should aim to list links in order of importance or centrality, rather than chronological or alphabetical order. Perhaps what you should do, Scott, is create a new article, something like List of stage and film adaptations of The Wizard of Oz, where you can go into all the production details, and link to it from here. Or else there could be a List of articles related to The Wizard of Oz. I think this disambiguation page should be further shortened and cleaned up. (By the way Scott, I'm somebody you know. Welcome to Wikipedia.)--woggly 21:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd go even further. A disambiguation page is really meant for the case where there are two or more topics that have the same name but otherwise aren't directly related.  Trust and series are good examples. I would submit that everything on this page, except two entries under "Other meanings," really relates to one main topic -- namely, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and its sequels and adaptations.  The title Wizard of Oz should redirect to that page, which should (if it doesn't already) include a list of adaptations, and this should be a much, much shorter Wizard of Oz (disambiguation) page.  --Russ (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The land of Uz
Is it coincidence that the bible figure job comes from the land of uz?? just a funny coincidence (as many will soon say), or did someone read secondary literature on Oz?<<FlammingoParliament 14:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In all probability it is a coincidence. Frank Baum was not a religious man, in fact he was in some ways anti-church, and it would be very out of character for him to plant biblical references in his works. He did however have a penchant for naming his fairylands short, one syllable names, often with odd letters, such as Ix, Quok, Ev or Mo. There are several theories for why he chose the name Oz, one that crops up in several places and seems credible is that he happened to spot a filing cabinet labelled A-N and O-Z just as he was seeking a name for his invention. By the way, in Hebrew translations of "The Wizard of Oz", Oz is translated עוץ, precisely as in the book of job; this translation seems to have originated with a translator named Yerushalayim Segal who translated the subtitles for the film in 1940. It makes for nice alliteration in Hebrew, but proves nothing about Baum's intentions! --woggly 16:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

was the wizard of oz the firs movie in color? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.184.213 (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: the discussion is closed. older ≠ wiser 16:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the link to the current discussion. Cheers! bd2412  T 17:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually you broke the link, which is intended to go to the archived discussion. There is a new discussion at Talk:The Wizard of Oz (1939 film). older ≠ wiser 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress 31 October 2013
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — Steel1943  (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 30 October 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a consensus that there is no primary topic. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

– Move this page to The Wizard of Oz (disambiguation) and redirect The Wizard of Oz to the The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. I think there should be a redirect to the original novel in a similar way we redirect Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs to Snow White. Many editors are saying that the 1939 film is primary so editing request to match that. Interstellarity (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wizard of Oz → The Wizard of Oz (disambiguation)
 * The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) → The Wizard of Oz
 * Oppose if anything, the 1939 film is primary. But I don't see there being a primary topic. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 01:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:力. If the 1939 film is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then no other dab page entry should be primary. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Tried to fix request. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Having the target be a disambiguation page also prevents incorrect incoming links from being used, which in situation like this with plenty of "popular" entries, could very likely happen. Gonnym (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I have edited this request to make the 1939 film primary. Interstellarity (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, and also because AFAIK the original book was never published under the title "The Wizard of Oz". 162 etc. (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose move per all above. If anything's the primary, it's the 1939 film, not the original novel.  O.N.R.  (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 * Still oppose and think the dab should be the target. Gonnym (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Wizard of Oz (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:New King James Version

Archaic language?

 * The major criticism of the NKJV is that is rendered in a language that no one has ever really spoken

Err, that needs a source, or I don't think it's true. The KJV is in archaic English; the NKJV is not. The major criticism of the NKJV is criticism of its Majority text base. Jdavidb 17:04, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It needs a source, all right, and I'm trying to remember the places that I've seen it in print rather than just heard it said. The sentiment is out there. I hope that I've suggested the nature of the Majority text/Textus Receptus problem. To me, the project would have been better conceived and executed had it been one to remove from the KJV "prevent" in the sense of "precede", "communicate" for share, etc., and otherwise kept the basic Elizabethan diction. This would still have been a different project from the ERV/ASV family, which in large part kept the Elizabethan diction but used what was then modern scholarship and later-found, earlier-dated texts. This would have kept the literary grandeur of the KJV while ridding it of anachronisms which prevent it from being widely-understood in the English-speaking world of today and thus the exact opposite of what the original translators say that they intended. The NJKV is one of those things that is neither fish nor fowl -- for the large part not a product of truly modern scholarship, but far more than a mere revision of the KJV.

Rlquall 16:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The problem is, the language of the KJV itself, like most Elizabethan literature, was written in a literary style that did not necessarily reflect everyday conversation. So the NKJV not reflecting a spoken kind of English is not really a criticism. 71.224.137.100 (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the NKJV doesn't use the Majority Text, but the Received Text. The article's been updated referring to the preface of the NKJV in this case. Sledge84 03:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy
The Article reads

"The New King James Version is a revision of the King James Version that does not make any alterations on the basis of the Greek New Testament or Hebrew Old Testament texts established by modern scholarship, but adheres to the readings presumed to underlie the King James Version."

The statements - as it reads - is inaccurate. The contention of the above paragraph is that the NKJV "does not make any alterations" on the basis of the Hebrew Old Testament texts established by modern Scholarship.

The statement is untrue. If a person were to read that statement, the impression created is that the text used for the Old Testament section of the NKJV is the SAME text in Hebrew that was used for the old testament of the original 1611 King James Version.

That would not be an accurate statement, or an accurate conclusion. The 1611 King James Version used the 1525 Hebrew Text of Ben Chayim (Ben Chayyimm/Ben Hakkim). It was a text in Hebrew and produced by Ben Chayim who was a Jew and fluent in Hebrew.

The New King James Version of Hodges and Farstad has entirely changed the basis for its translation of the Old Testament. The Old Testament Hebrew manuscript that was the basis for the NKJV was Biblia Hebraica of 1937/1977 which was produced in Germany during the time of Hitler, specifically the edition of 1937. There is an updated version (the BHS of 1977). However, it also uses the 1937 Edition of the Old Testament of Kittel, as its own basis.

The Text of the Biblia Hebraica of Kittel was NOT the Hebrew Text of Ben Hakkim. Instead, Kittel substituted a manuscript called the Leningrad Codex, which was produced by Ben Asher.

In addition, Kittel plainly stated in his two volume work "History of the Hebrews" several personal beliefs which would impact his Hebrew translation. Rudolph Kittel:

- did not believe that any accurate copy of the Old Testament existed

- believed that the current Old Testament was an amalgamation of several contradictory texts (rather than believe that God has sovereignty preserved the Old Testament)

- believed that Jehovah and Adonai were two totally separate Deities, whose identities had been confused and mixed up by those who came after the composition of the original Old Testament. The implication is that either the verses that speak of Adonai are Fraudulent, or the verses that speak of Jehovah are fraudulent, or they are BOTH fraudulent.

The Old Testament of Kittel is the basis used for Almost all modern versions of the Bible in English. This means that whenever a person reads their Old Testament in English, believing that they have the Word of God, they are reading the verses from those who specifically denied that the same verses Were or Could be from God. although nominally and officially a Lutheran, Kittel was Not a Christian and did not believe in the authenticity of the Bible.

This did not stop him, however from producing an Old Testament which advanced his status, his prestige and his academic career.

The New King James Bible may not be the best seller anymore : The first mention of nkjv is #8 as of 4/4/2015 174.126.92.170 (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The KJV's source of the Hebrew OT
The claim that the KJV was based on the Second Rabbinic Bible published in Venice in 1525 (also known as the Bomberg text - although Bomberg had published a number of editions, and also known as the Ben-Chayyim edition because edited by the Hebrew grammarian Jacob ibn Adoniyah ben Chayyim) is, at best, exaggerated. The identity of the Hebrew edition used by the KJV translators is unknown (acc. to Daiches, History of the English Bible). It is very probable that more than one edition was used, there being more than a hundred printed editions of all or part of the Hebrew Bible in existence before the KJV was worked up. There are a number of KJV readings that simply are not to be found in the Ben-Chayyim edition, although they are supported by other early Hebrew editions such as the OT portion of the Complutensian Polyglot (1518) -- the Complutensian text was fairly popular with subsequent Christian editors of a Hebrew OT, who frequently included the chapter and verse numbers from the Vulgate, while the Ben-Chayyim edition was popular with Jews - none of whom were in England when the KJV was being worked on.

By the 19th century the Ben-Chayyim was generally recognized, even by Christian scholars, as the most reliable text to date, and was probably used as the basis of the OT in the English Revised Version of 1885 (Christian David Ginsberg, who was on the OT committee of the RV had worked up an annotated Hebrew Bible based on the Ben-Chayyim edition).

In the 20th century, Rudolph Kittel used the Ben-Chayyim text for the first two editions of his heavily annotated Biblia Hebraica, but the third edition (1937), published some years after his death and mostly edited by Paul Kahl, used the Leningrad Codex for the main text; this was the oldest complete and dated (1009 AD) Hebrew Bible manuscript and purported to have been copied directly from a master copy written by Aaron ben Asher. Subsequent editions have corrected the text further, using high technology to study and copy the manuscript, and it is now regarded as the most authoritative text - although its differences from the Ben-Chayyim are relatively few and virtually none of them would be significant to a translator.

King James Onlyism
While the New King James Bible is obviously "descended" from the original King James, I think there should be more about the NKJV itself, like which churches/denominations use it, etc., rather than the controversy about its differences from KJV, especially since the KJOnly-activists are fewer and farther between than ever. They're only known because they keep a high profile on the internet, but are very sparsely populated compared to most other American Christians. There's too much controversy covered on Wikipedia as it is. Of course it's not the King James, and it's not meant to replace it. It's for people (such as myself) that like the King James, but are thrown off by the archaic language and grammar. Flutequeen84 02:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section
The whole "criticism" section is highly POV, and contains a lot of unreferenced assertions. If references can't be found for these, they should be deleted per WP:NOR. Having a separate section devoted to "criticism" should itself be avoided: see WP:WTA. VerticalDrop (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I took care of it.12.152.59.201 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Must improve the Wikipedia article to include info on the different NKJV revisions
Dear friends,

I have always used and enjoyed the NKJV, but once, in 1995, while comparing my print edition to the edition on my Bible-study computer program, I discovered several discrepancies. On the computer, John 14:15 said, “If you love Me, KEEP My commandments," while the print edition that I had had since 1991 said, "If you love Me, you WILL keep My commandments." I also noticed other similar discrepancies, but this is just an example.

I called Thomas Nelson Publishers by phone, in 1995, and the secretary was kind enough to allow me to speak with whom I understood to be one of the members of the translation committee itself, Mr. Bob Sanford (presumably the same man who is now Vice President of the company). The secretary herself stayed on the line, listening in. (Those were the days when companies had operators answering the telephones, who could instantly redirect any call to the appropriate department.)

Mr. Sanford then proceeded to tell me that the NKJV had had a second "major revision" in 1984, even thought the first complete-Bible edition had already been officially released two years earlier, in 1982. This is why some printed Bibles contained the 1982 edition while others contained the 1984, and theoretically, perhaps even on the same shelf of the same Christian bookstore, at the same time, depending on how old their stock was, or which source for the text was used by the publisher. He told me that all digital editions of the text were of that 1984 revision alone, however, such as those used in Bible-study programs. Consequently, one could have a Ryrie Study Bible printed in 1985, as I did, containing the text from the older, 1982 edition, while, at the same time, having a Bible-study program on the computer, that used the 1984 revision of the text.

At least I had an explanation. What I began to worry about, was whether Nelson would continue to revise the NKJV every few years, without going to great efforts to annouce the revisions publicly, as they had done with the 1984 revision, and without ever giving the new revision a new name such as NKJV 84. The Revised Standard had called their revision the "New Revised Standard," the NASB came out with the NASB 77, the ESV with the ESV 2011,and in the Spanish-speaking world, Bibles are often identified as the RVR 1960, RVR 1977, RVR95, etc., each making it abundantly clear to the reader that certain minor updates are to be found in the edition that is before his eyes.

Which revision is better is not the question, however. My concern is to know why the changes were ever made in the first place, why Nelson chose not to identify the revision on the title page or on the title itself, and whether additional revisions have been released sporadically since 1984.

It seems that some Bible translators are concerned with having greater accuracy in their newer revisions, while others simply feel compelled to use more politically-correct language and end up making certain phrases more ambiguous or less accurate. Having a definitive answer to these questions regarding the NKJV would certainly make it easier to understand and appreciate the translation, recommend it to others, and to trust it. To have a side-by-side comparison of the 1984 text and the previous 1982 revision (which is supposedly not even available digitally) would make for a very interesting study on the subject.

Today I discovered another article that confirms some of the concerns that readers have on this whole issue. See it here: http://verbosephilosopher.blogspot.com/2012/01/nkjv-1982-vs-198485.html

Meanwhile, I would like to incorporate this background information that I have provided above, into the text of the main article, but I don't yet know how to do that on Wikipedia.

 * Normally, you would edit a Wikipedia page the same way you edit a talk page on Wikipedia. You just go in and change it. However, in this case, there's a problem. According to WP:BLOGS, we can't use self-published internet blogs as a source on Wikipedia, so if you want the article to include things about the changes to the NKJV over time, you'd need to find something to that effect published in reliable sources. Alephb (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 * The 2008 Orthodox Study Bible uses the New King James version for the New Testament ,but at Luke 20:42 and Matthew 22:44, "LORD said.." is translated as, "Lord said..". This is different. All capital letters for "Lord" indicates the Covenant Name of God .Although John 14:15 in this Bible seems to be the 1984 version judging from what you have written above. Matthew 2:3 in this version also seems to indicate that it is the 1984 Edition. 2600:1011:B15D:BB7B:D51:C53A:AC74:F00A (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Correction: Issue stated above is ONLY at Luke 20:42. 2600:1011:B125:71E2:D017:B901:34F4:6FD (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on New King James Version. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/followupgideons.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Relationship to the KJV
The article says almost nothing about the relationship to the original KJV (only saying it is "scrupulously faithful" to it) - this is surprising. As this translation is based on original source texts, can the article (especially "translation philosophy") be updated to reflect how the NKJV is related to the KJV? For example, describing how the translators worked to preserve the style of the KJV when translating original-language texts. Kidburla (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:New King James Version