text:
Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds

Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds are an Australian rock band formed in 1983 by vocalist Nick Cave, multi-instrumentalist Mick Harvey and guitarist-vocalist Blixa Bargeld. The band has featured international personnel throughout its career and presently consists of Cave, violinist and multi-instrumentalist Warren Ellis, bassist Martyn P. Casey (all from Australia), guitarist George Vjestica (United Kingdom), keyboardist/percussionist Larry Mullins, also known as Toby Dammit (United States), and drummers Thomas Wydler (Switzerland) and Jim Sclavunos (United States). Described as "one of the most original and celebrated bands of the post-punk and alternative rock eras in the '80s and onward", they have released seventeen studio albums and completed numerous international tours.

The band was founded following the demise of Cave and Harvey's former group the Birthday Party, the members of which met at a boarding school in Melbourne. Throughout the 1980s, beginning with their debut LP From Her to Eternity (1984), the band drew largely on post-punk, blues and gothic rock, and formed an evolving, multinational lineup, bringing in musicians such as Blixa Bargeld, Barry Adamson and Kid Congo Powers. The band later softened their sound and incorporated other influences on albums such as The Good Son (1990) and The Boatman's Call (1997). Following Harvey's departure in 2009, the band broadened their sound further to include electronic and ambient styles, which feature prominently on the trilogy of albums Push the Sky Away (2013), Skeleton Tree (2016) and Ghosteen (2019).

Formation and early releases (1983–1985)
The project that later evolved into Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds began following the demise of the Birthday Party in August 1983. Both Cave and Harvey were members of the Birthday Party, along with guitarist Rowland S. Howard and bassist Tracy Pew. During the recording sessions of the Birthday Party's scheduled EPs Mutiny/The Bad Seed, internal disputes developed in the band. The difference in Cave and Howard's approach to songwriting was a major factor, as Cave explained in an interview with On The Street: "the main reason why The Birthday Party broke up was that the sort of songs that I was writing and the sort of songs that Rowland was writing were just totally at odds with each other." Following the departure of Harvey, they officially disbanded. Cave also said that "it probably would have gone on longer, but Mick has the ability to judge things much more clearly than the rest of us."

An embryonic version of what became Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds was formed in the Birthday Party's then-home of London in September 1983, with Cave, Harvey (acting primarily as drummer), Einstürzende Neubauten frontman Blixa Bargeld, Magazine bassist Barry Adamson, and JG Thirlwell, known for his solo project Foetus. The band was initially formed as a backing band for Cave's intended solo project Man or Myth?, which had been approved by the record label Mute Records. During September and October 1983, they recorded material with producer Flood, although the sessions were cut short due to Cave's touring with the Immaculate Consumptive, another project formed with Thirlwell, Lydia Lunch and Marc Almond. In December 1983 Cave returned to Melbourne, Australia, where he formed a temporary line-up of his backing band, due to Bargeld's absence, that included Pew and guitarist Hugo Race. The band performed their first live show at the Crystal Ballroom in St Kilda on 31 December 1983.

Following a short Australian tour, and during a period when they were without management, Cave and his band returned to London. Cave, Harvey, Bargeld, Race and Adamson formed the project's first consistent line-up, while Cave's longtime girlfriend Anita Lane was credited as a lyricist on occasional songs (e.g., the title track of 1984's From Her to Eternity). The group, which up to this time had been nameless, adopted the moniker Nick Cave and the Cavemen, which they used for the first six months of their career. However, they were later renamed Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds in May 1984, in reference to the final Birthday Party EP The Bad Seed. They began recording sessions for their debut album in March 1984 at London's Trident Studios and these sessions, together with the abandoned Man or Myth? sessions from September–October 1983 that were recorded at The Garden studios, formed the album From Her to Eternity, released on Mute Records in 1984. Thirlwell left during the recording sessions for Eternity, citing creative disagreements and desires to work on his own solo material. Race, and touring guitarist Edward Clayton-Jones, left to form the Wreckery in Melbourne.

Move to Germany and stylistic evolution (1985–1989)
After the departure of Race and Lane, the remaining members moved to West Berlin, Germany in 1985 and released a second album The Firstborn Is Dead. The album was heavily influenced by the gothic Americana of the American South and blues music, exemplified in songs such as "Tupelo" and "Blind Lemon Jefferson", which reference the birth of Elvis Presley and Blind Lemon Jefferson respectively. Released the following year, the album Kicking Against the Pricks explored such influences with renditions of material by Johnny Cash, John Lee Hooker and Lead Belly. The 1986 album also marked the arrival of Swiss drummer Thomas Wydler, a member of Die Haut, and featured guest appearances from Race, Pew, and Birthday Party guitarist Howard, who had briefly toured with the Bad Seeds as a substitute member in 1985. Pew's death from an epileptic seizure also occurred in 1986.

The band garnered an increased following due to a second 1986 album release, Your Funeral, My Trial, which coincided with Adamson's departure. Due to Adamson’s departure and an injury which made Wydler unable to play the drums, Harvey recorded the bulk of the album’s intrumentation with the only other member who contributed instruments on every track being Bargeld. Tender Prey, the dark, brooding 1988 follow-up, saw the arrival of American guitarist and The Gun Club stalwart Kid Congo Powers—Harvey made the transition to bass—and short-tenured German keyboardist Roland Wolf. The single "The Mercy Seat" chronicled an unrepentant prisoner on death row and further increased the group's critical acclaim and commercial attention. The track was later covered by Johnny Cash on his 2000 album American III: Solitary Man. Despite the increasing level of success, the drug-related issues of band members became problematic. The documentary film The Road to God Knows Where, directed by Uli M Schueppel, depicts a five-week period of the United States leg of their 1989 tour.

Cave and his bandmates also pursued other creative ambitions around this time. In 1987, the Bad Seeds appeared in the Wim Wenders film Wings of Desire, and Cave was featured in the 1988 film Ghosts... of the Civil Dead, which he and Race co-wrote. Cave's first novel And the Ass Saw the Angel was published in 1989.

Growing success (1989–1997)
After a period of time in New York City, Cave relocated to São Paulo, Brazil, shortly after the final tour for Tender Prey and, after successfully finishing drug rehabilitation, began experimenting with piano-driven ballads. The result of this post-rehabilitation period was 1990's The Good Son. Featuring a sorrowful and longing tone, the album was well-received both critically and commercially, and yielded the singles "The Weeping Song" (featuring vocals from Bargeld) and "The Ship Song".

Two established Australian musicians, Casey of the Triffids and solo artist and keyboardist Savage, replaced the departing Powers and Wolf. The addition of Casey on bass allowed Harvey to return to guitar. Their next record, 1992's Henry's Dream, marked a change towards a harder rock sound. Producer David Briggs, known for his work with Neil Young, was enlisted for the recording process. The tour for the album is documented on 1993's live album Live Seeds and showcases the new group's aggressive sound. In mid-1993, the group returned once more to London and recorded Let Love In, the follow-up album. Let Love In expanded upon the fuller ensemble sound that was established in Henry's Dream and featured contributions from Howard, Ellis, Tex Perkins (Beasts of Bourbon) and David McComb (The Triffids). Several popular songs, such as "Red Right Hand" (which featured in the Scream film series and was used as the theme song for Peaky Blinders) and "Loverman" (later covered by Metallica), were drawn from the album. During the promotional tour for the album, American percussionist and drummer Jim Sclavunos joined the group.

In 1996 the band released Murder Ballads, their best-selling album to date. Centered on the subject of murder, the album includes a cover of the folk song "Henry Lee"—a duet with British rock singer PJ Harvey, with whom Cave had a brief relationship— and "Where the Wild Roses Grow", a duet with Australian pop idol Kylie Minogue. The Minogue collaboration was a mainstream hit in the UK and Australia, and won three Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) Awards, including Song of the Year. It was at this time that Ellis of the Dirty Three began regularly working with the band and eventually became Cave's primary collaborator.

The sound of The Boatman's Call, released in 1997, was a radical departure from the archetypal and violent narratives of the band's past, featuring songs about relationships, loss, and longing, often with sparse arrangements. Cave revealed his mindset during the creation of the album in a 2008 interview: "When I was making half that record I was furious because certain things had happened in my love life that seriously pissed me off. And some of those songs came straight out of that. I don't regret making it ... the songs are of a moment when you felt a certain way. When ... you just think, 'Fuck – please! The album's corresponding tour was later documented on the 2008 live album Live at the Royal Albert Hall. After the release of the album, Cave embarked on a brief hiatus, during which time he remarried.

Further musical refinement; Bargeld's departure (1997–2005)
Following Cave's hiatus the band oversaw the release of Original Seeds, a compilation of material from other artists that influenced the group, as well as their own "best of" album The Best of Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds. In 1999 and 2000, the band reconvened to record two improvisations on Anita Lane's Sex O'Clock. The proper follow-up to The Boatman's Call was 2001's No More Shall We Part. The record featured guest appearances by Kate & Anna McGarrigle and was generally well received in reviews: one critic hailed the album as an "entire album of deeply tragic and beautiful love songs without irony, sarcasm, or violent resolution", while also stating that the work is at risk of devolving "into schmaltz".

The band then released Nocturama in 2003. The album marked a return to band-oriented and collaborative arrangements, as previous releases involved a decreased level of input from Cave's bandmates. Nocturama garnered mixed reviews, with critic Eric Carr stating that "in truth, it may still be the group's best work since Let Love In, but it had the potential to be so much more". Shortly after the album's release, Bargeld left the band after 20 years to devote more time to Einstürzende Neubauten.

In 2004 the band released the acclaimed two-disc set Abattoir Blues / The Lyre of Orpheus, with Bargeld replaced by the English actor, guitarist and organist James Johnston, a member of Gallon Drunk and former guest member of the Bad Seeds from a Lollapalooza tour ten years prior (Johnston only played organs on the recordings, as Harvey contributed the guitar pieces). Conceived as two separate albums packaged together, the record featured a diversity of arrangement styles, including aggressive rock and choir-driven ballads. In 2005 the band released B-Sides & Rarities, a three-volume, 56-song collection of B-sides, rarities and compilation tracks that was released on Mute Records in Europe, the US and the UK. The Abattoir Blues Tour, a two-CD, two-DVD box set with performances from the album's promotional tour, was then released in 2007 in Europe and the US. The tour included guest backing vocalists Ase Bergstrom, Geo Onaymake, Eleanor Palmer and Wendi Rose.

Also in 2005, Cave completed work on his script for The Proposition, set in 19th-century Australia directed by John Hillcoat. Cave and Ellis collaborated on the film's score, a partnership that later also scored the films The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007) and The Road (2009).

Grinderman; Harvey's departure (2006–2012)
After operating for several years as a touring backing band for Cave's solo work, Bad Seeds members Ellis, Sclavunos and Casey formed a new side-project Grinderman with Cave in 2006. The band, featuring Cave playing guitar for the first time, played garage rock-influenced music that still retained much of The Bad Seeds' aura and released a self-titled debut album in 2007. In October 2007 Cave was inducted into the ARIA Hall of Fame and, in his acceptance speech, also inducted the members of The Bad Seeds and The Birthday Party, after explaining, "I cannot really accept this until we get a few things straight. What I can't figure out is why I am up here and The Bad Seeds aren't?"

Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds released their 14th studio album Dig, Lazarus, Dig!!! in 2008 and received a high level of critical acclaim. Inspired by the biblical story of Lazarus of Bethany, the album continued the punk and garage rock-inspired arrangements that were explored on the debut Grinderman album, resulting in what NME termed a "gothic psycho-sexual apocalypse". The group then embarked on a North American and European tour is support of the album, with a seven-piece lineup that did not include Johnston, who had left the group after the album's completion. Cave and the band curated Australia's first edition of the All Tomorrow's Parties music festival that was held in various Australian locations during January 2009. On 22 January, after the festival's completion, Harvey announced his departure from the band after 25 years, citing "a variety of personal and professional reasons". Harvey concluded his public statement by stating, "I shall continue working on the Bad Seeds back catalogue re-issues project over the coming year and look forward to the new opportunities I shall be able to accommodate as a result of my changed circumstances." Harvey's departure was the end of a 36-year-long musical collaboration between Cave and Harvey, and Cave was left as the group's only original member. The band enlisted guitarist Ed Kuepper, formerly of the Australian bands the Saints and the Laughing Clowns, as a touring member to complete the 2009 summer festival dates that were scheduled. Also in 2009, Cave published his second novel The Death of Bunny Munro, and Mute Records commenced work on a series of remastered versions of the Bad Seeds' back catalogue (some of the remastered albums included documentary footage from Iain Forsyth and Jane Pollard).

Following this string of activity, the Bad Seeds became dormant while Grinderman reactivated and released Grinderman 2 in 2010. The group also attracted further attention when their song "O Children" appeared in the 2010 film Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1. In December 2011, Grinderman disbanded immediately following an Australian tour. Their final performance was at the Meredith Music Festival in rural Victoria.

Push the Sky Away, Skeleton Tree and Ghosteen (2013–2023
Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds' 15th studio album Push the Sky Away was released in mid-February 2013. During the album's recording, former member Barry Adamson rejoined the band as a bassist, then assumed a multi-instrumentalist (percussion, keyboards, vocals) role on subsequent tours. Kuepper briefly returned as the band's touring guitarist, but was replaced by George Vjestica for the European leg of the tour; Vjestica's 12-string guitar-playing was featured on several Push the Sky Away tracks.

During the Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds summer US tour in 2013, a smaller incarnation of the band recorded Live from KCRW (Cave, Ellis, Casey, Sclavunos and Adamson). In 2014 Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds toured North America with Ellis, Adamson, Sclavunos, Casey plus Conway Savage and George Vjestica. Cave embarked on solo tours in Australia and New Zealand in late 2014 and Europe in 2015 with Adamson on keyboards and percussion, joined by the rhythm section of Wydler and Casey, and with Ellis as the featured multi-instrumentalist. In May 2015, Larry Mullins replaced Adamson as a guest touring member; Adamson has not returned since, and Mullins did not participate in sessions for the subsequent Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds album.

On 2 June 2016, the official Nick Cave website announced a documentary film titled One More Time with Feeling (directed by Andrew Dominik) which was screened on 8 September 2016. It accompanies the band's acclaimed 16th album titled Skeleton Tree (released 9 September 2016). In 2017, Cave begun writing songs for the next Bad Seeds record, which is set to complete a musical trilogy the band began with Push the Sky Away. Ellis and Cave played two orchestral shows at Hamer Hall in Melbourne, Australia on 9 and 10 August, featuring a selection of their various film scores.

On 23 September 2019, Cave formally announced the album Ghosteen, to be released at the beginning of October 2019. It premiered on Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds' YouTube channel on 3 October.

On 22 October 2021, the band released B-Sides & Rarities Part II; the sequel to their 2005 compilation B-Sides & Rarities. In June 2022, the band embarked upon their first tour since the onset of COVID-19, with their 2020 Ghosteen tour having previously been cancelled due to the pandemic. For the tour, the band were joined by four additional members – keyboardist Carly Paradis and backing vocalists Janet Ramus, T Jae Cole, and Subrina McCalla – alongside returning touring keyboardist Larry Mullins, now acting as touring drummer.

Wild God (2024–present)
Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds 18th studio album Wild God was announced on 6 March, 2024 and the title track was released as a single on the same day. A second single "Frogs" followed on 31 May.

Members
Current members
 * Nick Cave – lead vocals, piano, organ, keyboards, harmonica, percussion, electric guitar (1983–present)
 * Thomas Wydler – drums, percussion, backing vocals (1985–present)
 * Martyn P. Casey – bass guitar, backing vocals (1990–present)
 * Jim Sclavunos – percussion, drums, xylophone, keyboards, backing vocals (1994–present)
 * Warren Ellis – violin, viola, tenor guitar, synthesizers, mandolin, bouzouki, lute, electric mandolin, flute, programming, loops, piano, percussion, backing vocals (1997–present)
 * George Vjestica – acoustic and electric guitars, piano, backing vocals (2013–present)

Current touring musicians
 * Larry Mullins – keyboards, vibraphone, piano, organ, drums, percussion, backing vocals (2015–present)
 * Carly Paradis – keyboards (2022–present)
 * Janet Ramus – backing vocals (2022–present)
 * T Jae Cole – backing vocals (2022–present)
 * Subrina McCalla – backing vocals (2022–present)

Discography
Studio albums
 * From Her to Eternity (1984)
 * The Firstborn Is Dead (1985)
 * Kicking Against the Pricks (1986)
 * Your Funeral... My Trial (1986)
 * Tender Prey (1988)
 * The Good Son (1990)
 * Henry's Dream (1992)
 * Let Love In (1994)
 * Murder Ballads (1996)
 * The Boatman's Call (1997)
 * No More Shall We Part (2001)
 * Nocturama (2003)
 * Abattoir Blues / The Lyre of Orpheus (2004)
 * Dig, Lazarus, Dig!!! (2008)
 * Push the Sky Away (2013)
 * Skeleton Tree (2016)
 * Ghosteen (2019)
 * Wild God (2024)

APRA Music Awards
The APRA Awards are presented annually from 1982 by the Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA), "honouring composers and songwriters". They commenced in 1982.

! Ref.
 * 1994
 * "Do You Love Me?"
 * Song of the Year
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=5|
 * rowspan=3|1996
 * Nick Cave
 * Songwriter of the Year
 * Won
 * rowspan=2|"Where the Wild Roses Grow"
 * Most Performed Australian Work
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=2|Song of the Year
 * Nominated
 * 1998
 * "Into My Arms"
 * Nominated
 * 2021
 * "Ghosteen" (Nick Cave & Warren Ellis)
 * Song of the Year
 * "Into My Arms"
 * Nominated
 * 2021
 * "Ghosteen" (Nick Cave & Warren Ellis)
 * Song of the Year
 * Song of the Year

ARIA Music Awards
The ARIA Music Awards is an annual awards ceremony that recognises excellence, innovation, and achievement across all genres of Australian music. They commenced in 1987.

!Ref.
 * rowspan=2| 1995
 * Let Love In
 * Best Group
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=2|
 * "Do You Love Me?"
 * Single of the Year
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=5| 1996
 * rowspan=2| Murder Ballads
 * Album of the Year
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=5|
 * Best Alternative Release
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=3| "Where the Wild Roses Grow" (with Kylie Minogue)
 * Song of the Year
 * Won
 * Single of the Year
 * Won
 * Best Pop Release
 * Won
 * rowspan=4| 1997
 * rowspan=2| The Boatman's Call
 * Album of the Year
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=4|
 * Best Alternative Release
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=2| "Into My Arms"
 * Song of the Year
 * Nominated
 * Single of the Year
 * Nominated
 * 2001
 * No More Shall We Part
 * Best Male Artist (Nick Cave)
 * Won
 * rowspan=2| 2003
 * rowspan=2| Nocturama
 * Best Male Artist (Nick Cave)
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=2|
 * Best Rock Album
 * Nominated
 * 2007
 * Cave (honorary inductees Harvey, Ellis, Savage, Casey)
 * ARIA Hall of Fame
 * inducted
 * rowspan=3| 2008
 * rowspan=3| Dig, Lazarus, Dig!!!
 * Album of the Year
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=3|
 * Best Male Artist (Cave)
 * Won
 * Best Rock Album
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=6| 2013
 * rowspan=4| Push The Sky Away
 * Album of the Year
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=6|
 * Best Group
 * Nominated
 * Best Independent Release
 * Won
 * Best Adult Contemporary Album
 * Won
 * "Jubilee Street" (directed by John Hillcoat)
 * Best Video
 * Nominated
 * Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds
 * Best Australian Live Act
 * Nominated
 * 2014
 * Live from KCRW
 * Best Adult Contemporary Album
 * Nominated
 * 2015
 * Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds
 * Best Australian Live Act
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=3| 2017
 * rowspan=2| Skeleton Tree
 * Best Group
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=3|
 * Best Adult Contemporary Album
 * Nominated
 * Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds
 * Best Australian Live Act
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=2| 2020
 * rowspan=2| Ghosteen
 * Best Independent Release
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=2|
 * Best Adult Contemporary Album
 * Nominated
 * 2014
 * Live from KCRW
 * Best Adult Contemporary Album
 * Nominated
 * 2015
 * Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds
 * Best Australian Live Act
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=3| 2017
 * rowspan=2| Skeleton Tree
 * Best Group
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=3|
 * Best Adult Contemporary Album
 * Nominated
 * Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds
 * Best Australian Live Act
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=2| 2020
 * rowspan=2| Ghosteen
 * Best Independent Release
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=2|
 * Best Adult Contemporary Album
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=2| Ghosteen
 * Best Independent Release
 * Nominated
 * rowspan=2|
 * Best Adult Contemporary Album
 * Nominated
 * Nominated

Australian Music Prize
The Australian Music Prize (the AMP) is an annual award of $30,000 given to an Australian band or solo artist in recognition of the merit of an album released during the year of award. The commenced in 2005.

 * 2019
 * Ghosteen
 * Australian Music Prize
 * Nominated
 * Nominated

Australian Independent Music Award

 * 2013
 * Push the Sky Away
 * Independent Album of the Year
 * Nominated
 * 2020
 * Ghosteen
 * Best Independent Rock Album or EP
 * Nominated
 * Best Independent Rock Album or EP
 * Nominated

EG Awards / Music Victoria Awards
The EG Awards (known as Music Victoria Awards since 2013) are an annual awards night celebrating Victorian music. They commenced in 2006.

 * rowspan="2"| 2008
 * Dig, Lazarus, Dig!!!
 * Best Album
 * Won
 * Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds
 * Best Band
 * Won
 * Best Band
 * Won

NME Awards

 * 2013
 * Themselves
 * Best International Band
 * Nominated
 * Nominated

Q Awards

 * 1999
 * rowspan="2" | Themselves
 * rowspan="2" | Best Live Act
 * Nominated
 * rowspan="2" | 2008
 * Nominated
 * Dig, Lazarus, Dig
 * Best Album
 * Nominated
 * Dig, Lazarus, Dig
 * Best Album
 * Nominated

World Music Awards

 * rowspan=3|2014
 * rowspan=2|Themselves
 * World's Best Group
 * Nominated
 * World's Best Live Act
 * Nominated
 * Push the Sky Away
 * World's Best Album
 * Nominated
 * Push the Sky Away
 * World's Best Album
 * Nominated

 * 2001 Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA) 75th Anniversary: "The Ship Song" voted in the APRA Top 30 Australian songs
 * 2004 MOJO Awards: Best Album of 2004 (Abattoir Blues / The Lyre of Orpheus)
 * 2008 MOJO Awards: Best Album of 2008 (Dig, Lazarus, Dig!!!)
 * 2014 The Ivor Novello Awards: Best Album award for song writing for Push the Sky Away
 * 2017 Grammy Awards: Best Music Film for One More Time with Feeling

title: Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds


text:
Winnipeg Free Press

The Winnipeg Free Press (or WFP; founded as the Manitoba Free Press) is a daily (excluding Sunday) broadsheet newspaper in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. It provides coverage of local, provincial, national, and international news, as well as current events in sports, business, and entertainment and various consumer-oriented features, such as homes and automobiles appear on a weekly basis.

The WFP was founded in 1872, only two years after Manitoba had joined Confederation (1870), and predated Winnipeg's own incorporation (1873). The Winnipeg Free Press has since become the oldest newspaper in Western Canada that is still active.

Timeline
November 30, 1872: The Manitoba Free Press was launched by William Fisher Luxton and John A. Kenny. Luxton bought a press in New York City and, along with Kenny, rented a shack at 555 Main Street, near the present corner of Main Street and James Avenue.

1874: The paper moved to a new building on Main Street, across from St. Mary Avenue.

1882: Control of the Free Press was passed on to Clifford Sifton. The organization subsequently moved to a building on McDermot Avenue, where it would remain until 1900.

1900: The paper moved to a new address on McDermot Avenue at Albert Street.

1901: John Wesley Dafoe served as president, editor-in-chief, and editorial writer for the WFP until 1944.

1905: The newspaper moved to a four-storey building at Portage and Garry.

1913: The newspaper moved to 300 Carlton Street and would remain there for 78 years.

1920: The Free Press took its newsprint supplier before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for violating the War Measures Act during World War I. The newspaper won the case, known as Fort Frances Pulp and Paper v Manitoba Free Press, as the court determined that whether the state of national emergency continued after the war was a political matter for Parliament.

December 2, 1931: The paper was renamed the Winnipeg Free Press.

1991: The Free Press moved to its current location in the Inkster Industrial Park, a CA$150 million plant at 1355 Mountain Avenue. December 2001: The Free Press and its sister paper, Brandon Sun, were bought from Thomson Newspapers by FP Canadian Newspapers Limited Partnership.

Strike
In 2008, at noon on Thanksgiving Day (Monday, October 13), about 1,000 members of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, representing editorial, advertising, circulation, and press staff, as well as newspaper carriers, launched a strike action. The strike ended 16 days later, when the union ratified the final offer on Tuesday, October 28. The contract was ratified by 67% of newspaper carriers, 75% of the pressmen, and 91% of the inside workers, including journalists. The recent five-year contract was negotiated, ratified, and signed in 2013, with no threat of a strike. Workers and managers negotiated directly with great success, without the need of a lawyer that previous contracts had required.

Circulation
As of November 1, 2009, the WFP ceased publishing a regular Sunday edition. In its place, a Sunday-only tabloid called On 7 was launched, but it has since been discontinued.

On March 27, 2011, the impending arrival of Metro in the Winnipeg market caused the Sunday newspaper to be retooled as a broadsheet format, Winnipeg Free Press SundayXtra. The Sunday edition is now available exclusively online.

According to figures via Canadian Newspaper Association, the Free Press ' average weekday circulation for 2013 was 108,583, while on Saturdays it was 144,278. Because of the relatively small population of Manitoba, that meant that over 10% of the population could be receiving the paper and its advertisements. Like most Canadian daily newspapers, the Free Press has seen a decline in circulation, dropping its total by 0% to 106,473 copies daily from 2009 to 2015.

 * Daily average

As of 2023, the Winnipeg Free Press media kit claims that 1.15 million users visit the newspaper's network of sites each month, and that in Winnipeg, 439,000 adults read the publication in print or digital format each week.

Notable staff

 * Charles Edwards (1928 – early-1930s): journalist and news agency executive
 * Bartley Kives (2000–2016): arts and news writer; left to join CBWT-DT as a television journalist.
 * Vince Leah (1980–1993): journalist, writer, sports administrator and member of the Order of Canada
 * Bob Moir (1948–1958): television producer, sports commentator, and journalist
 * Hal Sigurdson (1951–1963; 1976–1996): columnist and sports editor from 1976 to 1989
 * Maurice Smith (1927–1937; 1940–1976): columnist and sports editor from 1944 to 1976
 * Scott Young (1936–1940): sports writer from 1936 to 1940

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

title: Winnipeg Free Press


text:
Talk:Ryukyu Kingdom

Opinion
Was this written by a Japanese nationalist? The general tone is understating the forced annexation of the Ryukyu Kingdom into the Empire of Japan and totally passes over the severe hardships caused by this, both culturally as there has been a long history of forced assimilation (kominka) as well as military repression. The latter half of this article could use a serious rewrite, especially in light of the work of such scholars such as Tomiyama Ichiro. It's really unimpressive, and seems to attempt to erase the fact that this was a colonial invasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:C4:59FA:1:39AF:468E:B071:A6FA (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC) These sentences were removed from the article. These opinion sentences present a point-of-view. The POV is not supported by a cited source:
 * The Ryukyuan king was a vassal of the Satsuma daimyō, but his land was not considered as part of any han (fief): up until the formal annexation of the islands and abolition of the kingdom in 1879, the Ryukyus were not truly considered part of Japan, and the Ryukyuan people not considered Japanese. Though technically under the control of Satsuma,

Part of this is contradicted by Ronald P. Toby. (1991). State and Diplomacy in Early Modern Japan: Asia and the development of the Tokugawa bakufu, pp. 45-46, citing manuscripts at the Historiographical Institute of the University of Tokyo; excerpt, "Ieyasu granted the Shimazu clan the right to "rule" over Ryukyu ... [and] contemporary Japanese even referred to the Shimazu clan as 'lords of four provinces', which could only mean that they were including the Ryukyuan kingdom in their calculations". Is it possible that this subject is best understood using a kind of fuzzy logic? --Ansei (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC) I agree that this sentence has to be removed. It is not covered by the citation given. However the citation itself is problematic as it only resembles the opinion of "contemporary Japanese" (who?) without any reliable source. If it was about feelings why not ask some contemporary Okinawans for their opinion? The entire section has Satsuma as subject and not Ryukyu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.203.142.174 (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Ryukyu's tribute to China when the Yongle Emperor was in power
Yongle Emperor was shocked at Ryukyuans castrating innocent people in order to send eunuchs as tribute, he was asvised to tell Ryukyu not to send eunuchs again

http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs/wps/wps07_093.pdf

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1317152

05:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Ryukyu's historical relations with China
Imperial Chinese missions to Ryukyu Kingdom

http://www.uchinanchu.org/uchinanchu/history_early.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=3zBLjHeAGB0C&pg=PA165#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=3sy-JNJEfjYC&pg=PR23#v=onepage&q&f=false

Kumemura

http://books.google.com/books?id=OuSsxBuALQYC&pg=PA196#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ga-5mPOr2-wC&pg=PR13#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ddcV_cGegX4C&pg=PA125#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ULyu8dNqS1sC&pg=PA39#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=3zBLjHeAGB0C&pg=PA165#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Fmmcu7S1BcEC&pg=PA330#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=566AlluiHT0C&pg=PA275#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=RXOrZUlF_OoC&pg=PA330#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=GSA_AaRdgioC&pg=PA220#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=y5yTBp_fk4oC&pg=PA171#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ka6jNJcX_ygC&pg=PA145#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=vaAKJQyzpLkC&pg=PA76&dq=kumemura&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VNzgUamgGeTA4APUjYCACQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=kumemura&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=37LxVhgIbJkC&pg=PA136&dq=kumemura&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VNzgUamgGeTA4APUjYCACQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=kumemura&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=ULyu8dNqS1sC&pg=PA39&dq=kumemura&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VNzgUamgGeTA4APUjYCACQ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=kumemura&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=4z_JJfG-hyYC&pg=PA240&dq=kumemura&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VNzgUamgGeTA4APUjYCACQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=kumemura&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=jIAKkMlFFQAC&pg=PA70&dq=kumemura&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VNzgUamgGeTA4APUjYCACQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=kumemura&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=lbOau1trIMMC&pg=PA146&dq=kumemura&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Dd3gUZanO-zi4APK64CIBw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=kumemura&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=nWXwkb_xRNsC&pg=PA170&dq=kumemura&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Gt3gUclwl8rgA_zpgdAO&ved=0CCsQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=kumemura&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=E10tnvapZt0C&pg=PA112&dq=kumemura&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Gt3gUclwl8rgA_zpgdAO&ved=0CDAQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=kumemura&f=false

http://wikileaks.org/cable/2006/04/06NAHA103.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2011/07/04/wikileaks-okinawas-pro-china-anti-u-s-bent/

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2011/07/05/wikileaks-okinawas-pro-china-anti-u-s-bent/

The Forgotten Dynasty Of The Ryukyu Islands - Tofugu

http://www.tofugu.com/2013/09/26/the-forgotten-dynasty-of-the-ryukyu-islands/

Rajmaan (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Bernard Jean Bettelheim
http://www.chinajapan.org/articles/11.1/11.1steben39-60.pdf

http://www.uchinanchu.org/uchinanchu/ryukyuanist/ryukyuanist79_80.pdf

http://www.nskk.org/province/others/bp_kyosho_en090531.pdf

Minor Edits in the Infobox

 * I linked the status of the Ryukyu Kingdom to the Imperial Chinese tributary system page as opposed to the Tributary state page as the former provides greater specific insight into the relationship between the Ryukyu Kingdom and China.
 * Additionally, I saw no need to distinguish between "nominal" status and "practical" status in the infobox. If there really is a significant difference, this should be elaborated upon within the body of the article to avoid excessive wordiness in the infobox.
 * Finally, I managed to attach a source to validate the Ryukyu kingdom's tributary relationship with China but there are not any sources attached in the infobox that validate vassalage to the "Shimazu Clan" and the "Empire of Japan".
 * Can someone please attach an appropriate source if found? If not, I'll do my best to try and include appropriate sourcing.
 * I hope the appropriateness of this edit is clear. If there are any digressions, please respond to me.
 * Thanks

BUjjsp (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't like seeing sources in the infobox because it makes it look cluttered, but I have plenty of sources to validate those facts if you really want them cited.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 15:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Definitely understandable. Thanks for your response. BUjjsp (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox
I'm going to ask before reverting, but what part of WP:MOS says that this version is more correct than the previous version? Please be specific.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 18:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See the third paragraph of the lead. It says Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable.[a] If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. Oda Mari (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

 * For the sake of discussion, I will reproduce the response I made to Oda Mari's comments on my own talk page.
 * The section you gave in your more recent edit summary refers to content in Wikipedia as a whole, including text in body paragraphs, introductory sections, etc. It DOES NOT specifically pertain to the content of infoboxes.

 * I don't know if you're aware (I have shown you countless times before), but the Wikipedia Manual of Style does have an article SPECIFICALLY PERTAINING to infoboxes: MOS:INFOBOX. It states that in the infobox "wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content".

 * If this STILL isn't clear enough for you, there's another Wikipedia page that helps lay out some infobox guidelines, called Help:Infobox. It EXPLICITLY states that,

 * "If a lot of different subjects all share a common attribute (for instance, all people have a name and a date of birth), then it is useful to be able to compare these across different pages. This also implies that where possible, material should be presented in a standard format."

 * Since it was decided by the Wikipedia community that "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" was the most concise, and thus most acceptable format, the infoboxes of other pages should follow this same format. It's simple logic, really. BUjjsp (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

 * "Should not change... styles... without a good reason." Well you see, according to that RfC over at Talk:Goryeo, there is plenty of reason to change styles, and consensus backs that up. Why are you so against this change that you'll go against consensus to undo it?  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 19:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to start an RfC tomorrow.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because neither "member" nor "Imperial Chinese tributary system" is supported by Template:Infobox former country. See also Template:Infobox former country/Categories. There was no style inconsistency before on this Ryukyu Kingdom article. The style is tributary/vassal state of (country name).  "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" is a different style and MoS says Style and formatting should be consistent within an article. I think this should be talked at the template talk page or the MoS talk page before RFC. Oda Mari (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oda Mari, you brought up the exact same argument on the Talk:Goryeo page and unfortunately, you were wrong there and you are wrong here. As I told you before, Template:Infobox former country and Template:Infobox former country/Categories only list what parameters are accepted in the default "|status" and "|empire" fields. The field "|status_text" exists specifically to create more specific status labels that do not follow the default format, such as in the case of, "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system".
 * What you perceive to be a "style inconsistency" was almost unanimously accepted by the Wikipedia community as appropriate. See Talk:Goryeo. The only dissenter there was you. You made the same argument there, yet every other editor involved disagreed with you. What makes you think this will be any different? BUjjsp (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can open an RfC and just place a notice on those talk pages linking here. However, I'm completely certain the RfC will result the same as on Talk:Goryeo.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 19:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Vassal and tributary states of the Ottoman Empire is a similar, and more detailed, article to Imperial tributary system, but these Ottoman related articles do not use "a member of " or "one of". The style is "Vassal (state) of the Ottoman Empire". See Crimean Khanate, Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711), Republic of Ragusa, andWallachia. China related articles should follow the default format. The sentence "xx was a tributary state" is complete and understandable, but "xx was a member" is meaningless and not specific. "Member " is not a word to describe the status of the country. Oda Mari (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not an appropriate comparison. First off, plenty of academic sources use the term "Imperial Chinese tributary system" whereas I have yet to see one that uses the term "Ottoman Empire tributary system" or something of the sort. Therefore, why would anyone use it in an infobox? The terms "member" and "member state" are academically sourced and thus appropriate. In fact, linking the Imperial Chinese tributary system page as opposed to Tributary state page reveals a lot more regarding the specific tributary relations that were in place. BUjjsp (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Infobox
Should the infobox read "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" or "Tributary state of Ming Dynasty, Tributary state of Qing Dynasty"? See above sections for background and already-stated arguments; see Talk:Goryeo for a similar RfC.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 19:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * former per BUjjsp. I like conciseness. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 19:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Follow the sources If the preponderance of reliable general-audience sources (or as close as we can get to it on a subject this advanced) prefer to call it a "member of the tributary system," then we should do that. If they call it a "tributary state" then we should do that.  The infobox discussion above does not seem to address this Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment - Information in the infobox is dependent on the content of the article; it should just follow what the term is used in the main text. STSC (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The two terms "member of the tributary system" and "tributary state" are interchangeable. It is merely a choice of diction. In fact, the former is far more specific and informative. The term "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" is not used, likely in the interest of conciseness. However, in the infobox specifically, "tributary state of x dynasty" is far less concise than "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" especially when the relationship existed between the kingdom in question and multiple dynasties, as was the cause of change in Talk:Goryeo.BUjjsp (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't even find the term "Imperial Chinese tributary system" in the main text; technically, that is not acceptable in infobox unless you put that term into the content of the article first. An infobox is not an independent mini-article and it should reflect the terms used in the article. STSC (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * May I ask what guideline stipulates this? Thanks. BUjjsp (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just use common sense - if the fact about "member of Imperial Chinese tributary system" does not even appear in the article, how could the infobox include it? Or have a look at MOS:INFOBOX. STSC (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said before, the terms can easily be substituted. They mean the same thing. For the purpose of the infobox however, the former is far more concise. The fact that the article doesn't include a link to the Imperial Chinese tributary system is a problem, which I'd be happy to fix as soon as this discussion concludes. BUjjsp (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Former - Based on the sources provided below. I also agree with Chris Troutman's opinion on conciseness, especially in an infobox. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Keep It Simple... use "Tributary state" - Having looked into the whole issue, I prefer the common name "tributary state" in the article including the infobox. The term "tributary state of X Dynasty" does not imply the state is part of the X Dynasty in terms of sovereignty, so there's no need to be nationalistic about that. And the term "member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system"... What a mouthful of words! STSC (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Tributary state of the Ming Dynasty and Tributary state of the Qing Dynasty" is even more of a mouthful of words, if I'm not mistaken. Also, the issue of sovereignty is fully addressed in the Imperial Chinese tributary system page whereas the Tributary state page is broad and can be confused with Vassalage. BUjjsp (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "tributary state of X Dynasty" vs "member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" - Let other editors decide which is more straight forward. If the Tributary state article has shortcoming, then be bold and improve it. Don't just avoid using the common term. STSC (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Tributary state page's shortcoming in this case is that it is wide-reaching, including tributary relationships from around the world (which have various definitions), not just the type pertinent to Imperial China. It's not something I can "fix". In my opinion, it just makes sense to reference the page that is specific to the Ryukyu Kingdom's relationship with China. BUjjsp (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How about just "Ming Dynasty tributary" and "Qing Dynasty tributary"? Those are short and mean the same thing. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 19:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. However, it just doesn't make sense to me why two distinct labels need to be used when they can be combined, since the nature of the tributary relations did not change between the Ming and Qing dynasties. This consistency is why historians use the collective term, "Imperial Chinese tributary system," or "Imperial tribute system," to describe the tributary relationships that existed under the various Chinese dynasties. BUjjsp (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Neither In some cases (e.g. Britain) paying tribute to China merely meant conducting trade relations with China. So being a tributary state of China is not notable enough to include in a country’s infobox.--Wikimedes (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Use of member of/tributary state in sources
Originally a response to Darkfrog24's "Follow the sources" comment.
 * I've never seen either in any source, usually just "paid tribute to China/X Dynasty".  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 20:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The preponderance of sources say "paid tribute to China/X Dynasty". However, while that describes the relationship, it isn't appropriate to be used as a kingdom's "status". "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" sums the relationship up quite well and is more appropriate as a kingdom's "status". The terms "member" and "member state" to describe these states are used in academic sources, a few of which I've reproduced below.
 * From the London School of Economics (LSE) - The Nature and Linkages of China’s Tributary System under the Ming and Qing Dynasties, by Giovanni Adornino
 * "Secondly, and consequently, “it must be safely assumed that a common culture among members facilitated the emergence and operation of extra-territorial institutions that operated to regulate inter-state relations and sustain the system. Indeed, the evidence suggests that responses to challenges encountered in solving problems of cooperation, conflict, and coexistence included an elaborated, informed web of codes which was formulated and followed by member states in their mutual relations with the Chinese system.”
 * From the Oxford Journals, The Chinese Journal of International Politics - The Tributary System as International Society in Theory and Practice by Yongjin Zhang and Barry Buzan
 * "Korea, as a model tributary, fully embraced the tributary system, as well the cultural assumptions and legitimation claims behind it, until the end of the 19th century. It is indisputably a member of the society of states centered in Imperial China."
 * The "society of states" is referring to the Imperial Chinese tributary system
 * From Southeast Asia: A Historical Encyclopedia, from Angkor Wat to East Timor, by Keat Gin Ooi
 * "This tribute was not a financial burden for the missions, for they were well compensated for behaving appropriately, and their members were allowed to trade with the Chinese waiting at the designated ports, notably Guangzhou." BUjjsp (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * From Civilization and Empire: China and Japan's Encounter with European International Society, by Shogo Suzuki
 * "However, it is equally important to note that despite the fact that Chinese power waxed and waned over the years, the Tribute System remained intact. In some cases, member states even remained loyal to a deposed Chinese dynasty, despite it making very little sense from the point of view of their survival."
 * From Empires, Systems and States: Great Transformations in International Politics, edited by Michael Cox, Tim Dunne, Ken Booth
 * "Ample evidence suggests that as a response to challenges encountered in solving problems of cooperation, conflict, and co-existence, an elaborate culturally informed web of codes was formulated and followed by member states in their mutual relations with the Chinese system."
 * It should be noted that the editors of this work directly quoted, "The Nature and Linkages of China’s Tributary System under the Ming and Qing Dynasties, by Giovanni Adornino". However, since it is a distinct academic source that finds the term in question acceptable, I thought its inclusion would still be relevant to the discussion at hand.
 * From Everyday Politics of the World Economy, edited by John M. Hobson, Leonard Seabrooke
 * "Despite these limitations of Chinese power, in the case of East Asia the system seems to '[prevail] in time of Imperial China's military weakness precisely because military strength on its own is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the maintenance of this order' (Zhang 2001: 57-8). This suggests that the constitutional structure of the East Asian international system and the tribute system, its fundamental institution, did indeed gain a significant degree of acceptance among the member states in East Asia." BUjjsp (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"Tributary kingdom"
This might be the best option, as kingdom is more accurate than state, and it enables the wording to be succinct. There are numerous examples of its use in scholarly sources. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 10:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

 * I like the conciseness of that label as well. However, I also think that it's a bit ambiguous. "Tributary kingdom" itself does not explicitly describe the state's relationship with China, which is necessary to accurately represent the status of the various tributary system members. It's possible that something like "Tributary kingdom of China" might work. But, I also see problems arising from this due to the fact that the term "China" might be inaccurate for certain non-Han dynasties, such as the Yuan and Qing for example. Using the "Imperial Chinese tributary system" or even "Imperial tributary system" solves this ambiguity problem in my opinion. Any thoughts? BUjjsp (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

 * "Tributary kingdom of China" reads like China is the tributary kingdom. "Tributary kingdom to China" fixes that.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 06:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

 * The problem is that the term "China" could be inaccurate for non-Han dynasties, such as the Yuan and Qing. Under these dynasties, China was conquered by foreign entities, so using the label, "Tributary kingdom to China" can be inaccurate/misleading. "Imperial Chinese tributary system" or "Imperial tributary system" on the other hand is not inaccurate, since it includes the tributary relations that existed between the tributary system member states and the dynasties in power, Han or non-Han. BUjjsp (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

 * How about "Tributary kingdom of the Ming Dynasty", "Tributary kingdom of the Qing Dynasty"?-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 04:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

 * That's pretty much like the label that's currently in place. It's not inaccurate, but it can be a lot more concise. The nature of the Ryukyu kingdom's tributary relationship did not change between the Ming and Qing dynasties, so I don't see why two distinct labels should be included. BUjjsp (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How about Tributary kingdom of the Ming and Qing Dynasties.
 * The main points are that the remote island kingdom was not a "state" in the modern sense of the term or in the sense seen at Vassal state, and that it paid tribute to both China and Satsuma concurrently."The Ryukyu Kingdom found itself in a period of 'dual subordination' to Japan and China, wherein Ryukyuan tributary relations were maintained with both the Tokugawa shogunate and the Ming Chinese court. In 1655, tribute relations between Ryukyu and Qing Dynasty (the dynasty that followed Ming on 1644) were formally approved by the shogunate. This was seen to be justified, in part, because of the desire to avoid giving Qing any reason for military action against Japan."-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 05:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" does not use the term "state" either. My main point is that the individual dynasty names are really not significant enough to warrant another distinct label in the infobox, since the Ryukyu Kingdom's tributary relationship did not change between these dynasties. This especially becomes problematic when some kingdoms paid tribute to many different dynasties and the label becomes "Tributary kingdom of x dynasty and y dynasty and z dynasty..." and so forth. Do you have any particular concerns with the label I have proposed? BUjjsp (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
Have other states that paid tribute listed as tributary states? If so please provide examples. If not, why should it be listed in this infobox?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes, the current consensus on Wikipedia is that this relationship should be included in the infobox. However, the disagreement is over the exact wording. "Member of the Imperial Chinese tributary system" is used on the Goryeo and Joseon pages for example (as decided by a previous Rfc), while this page and the Ashikaga Shogunate page use "Tributary state of X Dynasty and Tributary state of Y Dynasty... etc." BUjjsp (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am just concerned that this is an effort by individuals who believe that the Ryukyu islands are Chinese.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Ryukyu Islands are Ryukyuan.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 15:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:BUjjsp - Could you provide a link to the discussion that resulted in the consensus for including this content in the infobox?--Wikimedes (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep it took place on the Goryeo page: Talk:Goryeo. To summarize, it was agreed upon that there was no need to include every single dynasty that a tributary system member (in this case Goryeo) paid tribute to in the infobox. The Imperial Chinese tributary system remained consistent across the dynasties that employed it, and thus the status of these member states did not change as a result of the transitions that occurred between the various Chinese dynasties. Thus, the relationship could be described within a single title, maintaining the infobox's desired characteristic of conciseness, as described by Help:Infobox and MOS:INFOBOX BUjjsp (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. Through it I found this discussion Talk:Joseon, which discusses whether tributary status should be included in an infobox at all, which was what I was looking for.  (You have my sympathies for what must have been a difficult discussion.)  I happen to agree with your first proposal there that it should not be included in the infobox.  De 4 de 171 provided a reference (the first one) there to support including Joseon’s tributary status in its infobox (even there I find little in the way of details in the article to support that single sentence, but I don’t know much about Joseon).  However it would be silly to mention tributary status in Britain’s, Portugal’s, Arabia’s (Siam’s, Ceylon’s?) infoboxes, so tributary status by itself is not significant enough to include in a country’s infobox.  Consistency with Joseon is also not a good reason to include tributary status in Ryukyu’s infobox, because 1), it will be inconsistent with the many tributary states that should not have this information in the infobox, and 2) WP:other stuff exists is very seldom a good reason.  Is there another reason that tributary status should be mentioned in Ryukyu’s infobox?--Wikimedes (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a very important fact and a large point of discussion between historians that Ryukyu was a tributary state of China and a vassal of Satsuma at the same time. This information belongs in the infobox.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 14:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Good enough. I'll leave you to it.--Wikimedes (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

No such thing as national anthem (Wikipedia as an epicenter for Okinawa-related disinformation)
The following line was added by, who also reinstated the fake flag.
 * |national_anthem = 石なぐの歌

cited no source. added a link to a YouTube clip, which is, of course, not a reliable source.

In principle, the burden of proof is on those who want to keep this statement. Unless a reliable source is presented, we can freely delete it. In what follows, however, I describe how the false statement becomes a "fact" online, because I think this represents an alarming trend of Wikipedia being used as an epicenter for Okinawa-related disinformation.

Need less to say, there was no such thing as national anthem in a pre-modern polity in East Asia. Kimigayo, the national anthem of Japan, was selected at the beginning of the Meiji period, or the late 19th century.

Although cited no source, I can pretty much guess how the false statement has spread over time.
 * In June 2014, added an article on this song in Japanese Wikipedia.
 * In March 2017, translated the Japanese article into Chinese, without giving credit to the Japanese version.
 * In June 2017, created an article for the author of the song/poem with the following line:
 * Prince Kume Gushikawa Chōei was also the author of Ishinagu no uta (石なぐの歌), a Ryūka which was the de facto national anthem of Ryukyu Kingdom. Some scholar thought it's very similar with Kimigayo, the national anthem of Japan.
 * In July 2018, added the template item to this English article, with the Chinese article being the most likely source.
 * In April 2019,, who is at fault for spreading the fake flag online, added the following line to Okinawan music:
 * | "Pebble Song"; a Ryūka poem written by Gushikawa Chōei and national anthem of the Ryukyu Kingdom; it uses the same melody as Kajyadifu.
 * In April 2019, The YouTube video clip was posted with the worrying title "National Anthem of the Ryukyu Kingdom 琉球王国国歌 Himno Nacional de Ryūkyū Hino Nacional da Ryūkyū", probably with reference to Wikipedia.
 * In February 2020, added a link to the YouTube clip in this article.

In the Japanese article, cited Tokuchi (1972):
 * 琉球王国では「石なぐの」が事実上の国歌に相当する賀歌とされ
 * * 渡久地政宰『日本文学から見た琉歌概論』（武蔵野書院、1972年）
 *
 *

Who, except the original author, have checked the external source? I bet no one.

Here I quote from Tokuchi (1972:299):
 * この歌は、古琉球の国歌のような賀歌として歌われている.

This statement is obscure and puzzling. I am not sure what Tokuchi meant by 古琉球 (Old Ryūkyū). Since Iha Fuyū, it has usually referred to the period before Satsuma's conquest of Ryūkyū in 1609. It is no doubt that this poem/song was composed by Gushikawa Chōei after that (i.e., during the Edo period).

The syntactic structure of this statement is ambiguous too. Apparently, interpreted the phrase "古琉球の国歌のような賀歌" as:
 * ((古琉球の国歌) のような賀歌)
 * a/the celebration poem/song treated like the national (the king's) anthem of Old Ryūkyū

But there is another interpretation:
 * (古琉球の (国歌のような賀歌))
 * a/the celebration poem/song from Old Ryūkyū that looks like the national anthem (i.e., Kimigayo)

I think the latter is more plausible because in this context, Tokuchi discussed the poem/song's striking thematic resemblance to Kimigayo.

Even if Tokuchi (1972) intended the former interpretation, we can say that it is an isolated case. To sum up, the central discussion surrounding this poem/song is about its semantic resemblance to Kimigayo. The term "国歌" must be interpreted in that context. It's also worth nothing that this is just one poem/song from the corpus of some three thousand ryūka poems/songs. It's not of special importance.
 * Ahagon (1976:438–9), cited by, also used the term "国歌" (national anthem), but it undoubtedly referred to Kimigayo.
 * なお国歌では、第一句は「君が代は」になっており ...
 * Shimabukuro and Onaga (1968:2), an earlier revision of the book cited by, did not use the term "国歌", but nevertheless made mandatory mention of the Kokin Wakashū poem, an earlier version of Kimigayo.
 * Finally, Hokama and Nakahodo (1974)† gave the longest commentary to the poem/song among the four books, which referred to both the Kokin Wakashū poem and the national anthem of Japan. The term "国歌" did not appear in their discussion.

Finally, I want to emphasize that this incident is just one of many, many pieces of Okinawa-related disinformation spreading online from Wikipedia. Life is short, and I don't have enough time to discuss every problem at length. I ask every one of you to be extremely cautious. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. --Nanshu (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC) Update: 17:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your detailed verification, . Seems Ryukyu likely not having such a concept of "national anthem". I was only being influenced by Chinese Wikipedia on the issue of Ryukyu's national anthem. --筆和擦膠必有用 (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

 * User:筆和擦膠必有用, my suggestion to you is that pay attention to other people's interpretation of things too. The account of Nanshu stays at en.wikipedia for a long long long time.... My memory indicates that Nanshu, my account, user:Fuzheado involved long time ago at Talk:Cannibalism_in_China and the article edits before 20:30, 26 August 2004 . Also please read Talk:Hong_Taiji. -- Ktsquare (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, Nanshi, long long long time no see.... Are you still around? -- Ktsquare (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I do not understand, there already is a valid source/citation about the "national anthem". Take note that the Ryukyus were the first to be exposed to Westerners among the sinosphere states. Now, the Ishinagu lyrics were composed later but the melody has been in existence as a folk hymn sung during important state events or in front of envoys or during felicitous events of the court. Similar to how Dang Dan Cung functioned in Nguyen era Vietnam. The Kagiyadeefu bushi (kajadifuu bushi). The lyrics were written later. I would like to question the credibility of these people who insist that Ishinagu was not a de facto anthem against the words of the Japanese writer Toguchi in his book, who claimed

 * 琉球王国では「石なぐの」が事実上の国歌に相当する賀歌とされ
 * * 渡久地政宰『日本文学から見た琉歌概論』（武蔵野書院、1972年）
 * * 渡久地政宰『日本文学から見た琉歌概論』（武蔵野書院、1972年）

Are we to ignore Toguchi's words in preference to incredulous individuals with dubious backgrounds? Arbencjkv (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

 * User:筆和擦膠必有用 "Wikipedia as an epicenter for Okinawa-related disinformation"...Did you take up research and citations in school? There is a published literature in Japan about the Ryukyus having a national anthem. On what grounds do you have to reinterpret the words of Toguchi? Do you have credible literature, apart from your "unlikely that Ryukyu has national anthem" claim? Why do you call it disinformation when a published citation exists and when you yourself rely only on your intuition? Arbencjkv (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi, I hope your disruption of the earlier part of the discussion was just by accident and not on purpose.
 * And have you really read my comment above? In short, the fake news started when misinterpreted Tokuchi's (1972) short statement (BTW, the correct reading of the author's surname is Tokuchi, not Toguchi) and has spread online because a certan group of Wikipedians harbor a systemic bias on this topic.
 * I am probably the only person here, except Fujikawa Kazuto, who checked the original source. Tokuchi was of an older generation. He was born in 1905, graduated from a normal school, and had taught the national literature (国文学) for decades. If someone like Tokuchi used the term "国歌", it must have referred to Kimiyago, the national anthem of Japan. --Nanshu (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, Nanshu doing honestly impressive research and bringing forth sources which counter his claims, only to systematically discredit those sources and present his interpretation (read opinion) as "facts". Obviously there is a pattern of Nanshu's edits and edit warring despite the large "breaks" he takes in between.  ミラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 02:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Kerr (2000)[1958] is seriously outdated; Replace it whenever possible
People here love to cite George H. Kerr's Okinawa: A History of an Island People. However, it is seriously outdated. Do not cite it. Replace it with up-to-date sources.

As an Army collaborator, Kerr originally wrote the book in 1953. This means that he was contemporary with old guys like Higashionnna Kanjun and Higa Shunchō. It would be an insult to Okinawa if you think there has been no major progress in historiography since then. Of course, we have a dozen of groundbreaking works.

As for the so-called Sanzan period, Kerr was in the good old days when one could write history by applying superficial rationalization to Sai On's edition of the Chūzan Seifu (or the Kyūyō). People today no longer follow the pattern. A breakthrough was the discovery of Sai Taku's edition of the Chūzan Seifu, and we now have a much deeper understanding on how Sai On rewrote history. That led to a consensus that Sai On's version of Okinawan history is not historical truth, but we have no consensus on what historical truth is.

A net result is a retreat of historiography and an expansion of the sphere of influence of archaeology. If you pick up an up-to-date book on the history of Okinawa, you will notice that archaeologist Asato Susumu penetrates well into the so-called Sanzan period. Historian Dana Masayuki still works on this topic, but the focus has shifted from what historical truth to how the narrative has evolved over time. This topic is now a domain of literary historians like Ikemiya Masaharu and Shimamura Kōichi.

So, --Nanshu (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop applying superficial rationalization. Stop replacing "king" with "chief", for example. It's a zeitgeist of his times. In our times, we know that this is getting nowhere closer to historical truth. However small their power was, the kings were kings because they were referred to as such in the Okinawan narrative.
 * Respect the Okinawan narrative. The Chūzan Seikan among others shows in its very first pages a figure illustrating the single like of succession of King of Chūzan starting from Shunten. There was no dynastic change, according to the Okinawan narrative.

 * How can you simultaneously say "don't listen to Kerr because he took the sources at face value" and "respect the Okinawan narrative at face value"? That literally makes no sense other than you don't like Kerr as a source. Calling him a "collaborator" further shows your POV.  ミラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 02:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Contamination by a yashi (unofficial historical texts)
is copying unsourced statements from Japanese Wikipedia. It's unfortunate that he has not learned a lesson from his involvement in spreading the fake national anthem. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This is especially true of Okinawa-related topics. There was no such title as Hokuzan Seishu, for example. I will undo his edits without further notice.

The source of misinformation appears to be Agarie Chōtarō's Ko-Ryūkyū Sanzan yuraikishū, a collection of "oral traditions" by an amateur historian. Someone like Agarie has a desire to supplement fragmentary historical description with imaginary figures and events. No scholar in academia is serious about the nonsense.

Even if demonstrates that this collection of junk passes notability criteria, he must (1) confine it to a new article on Agarie's book and (2) give clear attribution to the fiction. --Nanshu (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Funny that you say that, you love to add fringe facts and theories to articles instead of "confining it to a new article" or labeling it "fiction".  ミラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 02:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Disputed flag
There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the Merchant flag of the Ryukyu Kingdom (File:Merchant flag of the Ryukyu Kingdom.svg) versus the supposed, "official" flag (File:Flag_of_Ryukyu.svg). Several users keep reinstating the "official" flag, which lacks any source material and is dubious at best. Why do you keep adding it? The merchant flag is based on historical artworks of that era, whereas the other flag lacks any sources. It should also be considered that a lot of former nations didn't have a standardized flag or used it in the same way as we do today. Please explain why you wish for this flag to be included in the infobox instead, so we can solve this dispute. Sprucecopse (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The "merchant" flag is only sourced visually. The File:Merchant flag of the Ryukyu Kingdom.svg has this source: 日本近世生活絵引 奄美・沖縄編. It depicts the flag, but labels it "triangle flag" (三角旗) and notes it is mounted on a "Chinese bamboo pole" (唐竹竿), but never explains in detail what it represents or calls it a "merchant flag" (商船旗). The source does explain which ships are "government-owned" by the display of the royal seal. The flags declaring that the ship is on a tribute mission are large yellow banners with text. Meanwhile the other disputed flag has multiple sources depicting it and calling it a "national flag" (国旗): 萬國舶旗圖譜 (OS 1854), 内外旗章地球國名 (OS 1873), and 沖縄県立博物館・美術館所蔵「琉球船の図」と関連資料 (SS 2017). In this instance, it is the supposed merchant flag that lacks sources.  ミラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 04:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A thorough reading of the investigation of the supposed "national flag" (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Flag_of_Ryukyu.svg) is rather enlightening. It mentions two of your cited sources and dissects them. To my understanding there are no Ryukyuan sources claiming that this flag is a "national flag", only mainland Japanese sources, which is rather telling. If this was a national flag of the Ryukyu Kingdom, wouldn't there be Ryukyuan sources to back that up? Wouldn't it in rare occasions be flown today? This is not the best source, but I still think it's interesting, looking up "Ryukyu flag" and "Ryukyu Kingdom flag" in Japanese on google returned no results with this supposed "national flag" being flown, but I was able to find several examples of the Merchant flag being flown. This of course all rests on the assumption of rectangular western style flags being used to symbolize a nation. It should also be noted that the Japanese Wikipedia uses the Merchant flag. I also find it strange and rather dubious that you would remove the "Fact disputed" template from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Ryukyu.svg" and brand it as "vandalism" by a user with a seemingly reputable edit history, and without any preceding any discussion. Sprucecopse (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nanshu is a Japanese nationalist who, while doing great editing and scholarly research, inserts his POV and OR into East Asian topics, especially "Japanese-ness" of Korea and Ryukyu and denial of Japanese war crimes like Unit 731. You are late to this dispute which started nearly 10 years ago and there has been plenty of discussion. Nanshu originally claimed that the flag was an internet hoax created on Wikipedia until the sources proved otherwise, then switched to discrediting the sources. The so called merchant flag was uploaded to Commons only 9 months ago and the creator inserted it while the disputed national flag was already removed, which other wikis then copied as they have done with each removal and addition. The source File:Ryukyu Trading Port (Urasoe Art Museum).jpg is a Japanese folding screen made in Satsuma Domain, not in Ryukyu. On top of that, most Ryukyuan sources we have come physically from Japan or China because the ones that were on Okinawa in 1945 were destroyed or looted. We have fragments instead of the whole picture. There is even another flag that an Okinawan man claims was the Ryukyuan flag at the time of the annexation. The merchant flag on the other hand is not described as a merchant flag in any source. There are two "triangle flags" on each ship in the folding screen images. What is the black and red variant then? And what about the Hinomaru or the Five Races Under One Union flag clearly depicted? The so called merchant flag is not described as such in the sources, but at least the other disputed flag is described as a national flag.  ミラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 04:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing more context to the situation. This definitely paints a somewhat different picture. After some detective work on my own, this website (https://rekioakiaki-cocolog--nifty-com.translate.goog/blog/2011/04/post-9f05.html?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en) explains (to my understanding) that the merchant flag "...used to be the 'ship mark' of Ryukyu ships. However, this is a triangular flag with frills and was used to pray to the sun god for a safe voyage." Whilst this does not discredit this flag as a marker of Ryukyuan ships, which it in fact was, I do not feel that it is quite worthy of being represented in the infobox, though I still believe that it is more appropriate than "Flag_of_Ryukyu.svg."
 * However, I am still skeptical of this supposed "national flag" (Flag_of_Ryukyu.svg). This is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary sources. The few sources that back up the "Flag_of_Ryukyu.svg" as a supposed national flag are, to me, not credible enough. Wikipedia has a habit of inserting flags into infoboxes of historical nations which didn't use such flags in the western way, and indeed, the way we use them today. I hope that I do not come across as belligerent, as that is the furthest from my intentions. If this flag was truly used to the extent of a national flag, I am of the opinion that there would be more evidence of its historical usage, and limited contemporary usage in what was once the Ryukyu Kingdom (Okinawa Prefecture), something which has yet to be presented. Also consider the fact that for example, the infobox for Northern Ireland does not feature the Ulster Banner, as it is not the official flag, despite being widely used. There is, for infoboxes on Wikipedia, evidently a high standard which the role of "national flag" is held to. I think the best way to go about this would be to simply let the Royal Crest stand alone in the infobox, as many other language Wikipedias (Swedish, Finnish, Chinese, Portuguese, Norwegian, Polish, etc.) have done with this article. There is simply not enough evidence to verify that this flag was being used to the point of a national flag, nor is there any evidence of the Kingdom itself establishing this flag as a national flag, contrary to other historical (and current) nations where there is written evidence of the flag being enacted by law. Sprucecopse (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ryukyu Kingdom


text:
Pike County

Pike County is the name of ten counties in the United States:

 * Pike County, Alabama
 * Pike County, Arkansas
 * Pike County, Georgia
 * Pike County, Illinois
 * Pike County, Indiana
 * Pike County, Kentucky
 * Pike County, Mississippi
 * Pike County, Missouri
 * Pike County, Ohio
 * Pike County, Pennsylvania

All were named to honor Zebulon Pike.

title: Pike County


text:
1997 Red River flood

The Red River flood of 1997 was a major flood that occurred in April and May 1997 along the Red River of the North in Minnesota, North Dakota, and southern Manitoba. It was the most severe flood of the river since 1826. The flood reached throughout the Red River Valley, affecting the cities of Fargo and Winnipeg, but none so greatly as Grand Forks and East Grand Forks, where floodwaters reached more than 3 mi inland. They inundated virtually everything in the twin communities. Total damages for the Red River region were US$3.5 billion. The flood was the result of abundant snowfall and extreme temperatures.

In Grand Forks, thousands of people, including Air Force personnel from Grand Forks Air Force Base, tried to prepare for the 1997 flood by building sandbag dikes. These dikes were constructed based on a 49-foot estimate of flooding set by the National Weather Service. The river crested at 54 feet in Grand Forks. Grand Forks mayor Pat Owens had to order the evacuation of more than 50,000 people, most of the population of the city, as a huge area was flooded. A large fire started in downtown Grand Forks, engulfing eleven buildings and sixty apartment units before being extinguished. Those affected by the flood in the U.S. received donations from across the nation, along with billions of dollars in federal aid. City officials and flood-forecasters were criticized for the difference in estimates and actual flood levels.

As a result of the 1997 flood and its extensive property losses, the United States and state governments made additional improvements to the flood protection system in North Dakota and Minnesota. A dike system was built on both sides of the river to protect the twin Forks cities. In the aftermath, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) worked with the cities of Grand Forks and East Grand Forks to clear residential and business development from a large area of floodplain, because of the certainty of future regional floods, and also as the floodplain is intended to be a natural means to absorb floodwaters. They also redeveloped the floodplain along the river as the Greater Grand Forks Greenway, including several parks, a Minnesota state campground recreation area, and a 20-mile biking and walking trail.

Flooding in Manitoba resulted in over $500 million in damages. The Red River Floodway, an artificial waterway completed in 1968 and nicknamed "Duff's Ditch", exceeded its capacity flow but managed to divert the floodwaters around Winnipeg which minimized damage. From 2005 to 2010, the province made substantial upgrades to inlet control structures and fire protection, increased elevation of existing dikes (including the Brunkild dike), and widened the floodway channel.

Previous floods

The Red River of the North has flooded repeatedly through the centuries. It is highly prone to spring flooding because of its northward flow, the nearly flat former lake bed of the valley, and ice formation on the river. As spring approaches, the snow melts from south to north in the same direction as the riverflow. At times high waters encounter ice on the river and back up, spreading out of the banks. The wide flatness of the terrain, formed from an ancient lake bed, and the low slope of the river also contribute to severe flooding in the region.

Serious floods occurred in 1948 and 1950. The 1950 flood reached a high of 30 ft (9.2 m) at Winnipeg and caused the largest evacuation in Canada's history: an estimated 70,000 to 100,000 people had to be evacuated. An estimated $606 million CAD (1997) of damage resulted. In the aftermath, the government of Manitoba and the Canadian federal government constructed flood safety measures.

The first known records of floods along the Red River were documented in the 1770s. Severe floods have occurred throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, including in 1979. Residents and officials incorrectly assumed that homes that were safe in 1979 would be beyond the reach of a future flood.

North Dakota and Minnesota
The Red River forms the border between Minnesota and North Dakota. A few sets of "sister cities" developed along opposite sides of the river. Grand Forks, North Dakota and its counterpart East Grand Forks, Minnesota, were the pair most severely affected by the 1997 flood. Fargo, North Dakota/Moorhead, Minnesota (Fargo-Moorhead) and Wahpeton, North Dakota/Breckenridge, Minnesota also had severe flooding. Much of the flooding accumulated not only because of the rising river levels, but also from overland flooding, as meltwater did not drain away. Temporary dikes were erected along the riverfront and around the edges of towns, but were sometimes overwhelmed.

It was difficult for the cities to prepare for such an enormous flood. The National Weather Service (NWS) had forecast that the river would crest at 49 feet (14.9 m), which was its highest level during the 1979 flood. The cities had built dikes to this level, but the river continued to rise past it. Taken by surprise, the NWS did not upgrade its forecast until April 16, the day the river reached 49 feet.

The dikes in the low-lying Lincoln Drive neighborhood of Grand Forks were the first to break, doing so early on April 18, as the river kept rising. Other dikes in the Grand Forks and East Grand Forks area failed that day and the next, flooding thousands of homes. During this time, Grand Forks mayor Pat Owens ordered the evacuation of more than 50,000 people, much of the population of the city. This was the largest evacuation in the United States since the evacuation of residents in Atlanta, Georgia during the Civil War.

Water reached areas more than two miles (3 km) inland from the Red River, requiring evacuation of all of East Grand Forks and 75% of Grand Forks. School was cancelled in both cities for the remainder of the term, as were classes at the University of North Dakota. All transportation was cut off between the two cities (and for many miles, the two states). East Grand Forks residents were evacuated to nearby Crookston, namely to the University of Minnesota Crookston. Residents of Grand Forks were given mandatory evacuation orders on April 18, and retreated to Grand Forks Air Force Base (residents stayed in airplane hangars, which were supplied with more than 3,000 cots). Many residents also evacuated to motels and homes in outlying communities.

The river crested at 54.35 feet (16.6 m) on April 21, and the river level did not fall below 49 feet (14.9 m) until April 26. Because water drained so slowly out of the most low-lying areas, some homeowners could not visit their damaged properties until May. By May 30, the Red River had receded below flood stages everywhere in North Dakota.

Manitoba
The province of Manitoba completed the Red River Floodway in 1968 after six years of construction, built permanent dikes in eight towns south of Winnipeg, and built clay dikes and diversion dams in the Winnipeg area. Other flood control structures completed later were the Portage Diversion and the Shellmouth Dam on the Assiniboine River. Even with these flood protection measures, in 1997 the province had a flood cresting at 21.6 ft. It caused 28,000 people to be evacuated and $500 million CAD in damage to property and infrastructure.

The 1997 flood was a 100-year flood. It came close to overwhelming Winnipeg's existing flood protection system. At the time, the Winnipeg Floodway was designed to protect against a flow of 60,000 cuft/s, but the 1997 flow was 63,000 cuft/s.

To compensate, the province broke operational rules for the Floodway, as defined in legislation, during the night of April 30 / May 1, to prevent waters in Winnipeg from rising above the designed limit of 24.5 ft above the "James Avenue datum", but causing additional flooding upriver. Winnipeg Mayor Susan Thompson, announcing that the design limit had been reached, misinterpreted this as good news that the flooding had peaked. City sand-bagging stopped, and national reporters left the city, but the water continued to rise inside and outside of the city until the peak late on May 3 / early on May 4. The city officials have said that the peak occurred on May 1; scientific reports record a peak on May 3/4.

Towns upriver of Winnipeg, forewarned by footage of buildings in Grand Forks burning and covered in meters of water, built ring dikes to protect their homes and properties. The province of Manitoba called in the Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the provincial Department of Natural Resources. Many people chose to evacuate, including residents from Morris, who had only two days notice to evacuate to Winnipeg. Thousands of volunteers helped to build sandbag dikes around homes and property. An emergency 42 km long dike, later called the Brunkild Z-dike, was constructed in a matter of days when officials realized that overland flooding threatened the city of Winnipeg. It cost $10 million (CAD).

Almost all of the ring dikes around the towns held, except for that at Ste. Agathe. The town's dike system was prepared for the river approaching from the south, but the river had spread widely and floodwaters swamped the town from the west. At the flood's peak in Canada on May 4, the Red River occupied an area of 1,840 km2 (710 mi2) with more than 2,560 km2 (990 mi2) of land underwater, which earned it the nickname "Red Sea."

While the flooding was still underway, the federal Liberal government led by Jean Chrétien called a snap election. Several of the party's MPs from the province, including Reg Alcock, requested a delay until the flooding was under control. When Chrétien let the election go ahead as originally planned, Alcock transformed his campaign office into a volunteer relief centre, spending his time in relief efforts instead of campaigning, and won re-election.

Aftermath
In July, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and United States President Bill Clinton appointed the International Red River Basin Task Force, comprising members from both countries. The task force's purpose was to find ways to improve flood forecasting.

The province of Manitoba asked the International Joint Commission (IJC) to provide a report on the flood event and to recommend measures to ensure further flood protection for the city of Winnipeg. Largely as a result of this study, the province widened the floodway between 2004 and 2010.

Societal response

 * Catastroffiti
 * Catastroffiti, a form of graffiti related to natural disasters, starts to appear as affected residents gut their houses, placing damaged materials on the berms. At first, this graffiti was placed on trashed appliances to prevent theft and resale, but soon expanded in medium and purpose.  The graffiti done mostly in spray paint (also mud) started to not only be a precaution, but a dialogue of emotions related to the effects of the flood.  Post-flood emotions driving this largely consisted of frustration with the National Weather Service after it predicted a flood crest about five feet less than the actual.  As this developed, catastroffiti was appearing on not just household appliances, but also houses, garages, and signs.  In the aftermath of the 1997 Red River Flood, catastroffiti became a method of commentary and coping in the affected areas.

title: 1997 Red River flood


text: Template:Skate class submarine

title: Template:Skate class submarine


text:
Silas Talbot

Captain Silas Talbot (January 11, 1751 –June 30, 1813) was an American military officer and slave trader. He served in the Continental Army and Continental Navy during the American Revolutionary War, and is most famous for commanding USS Constitution from 1799 to 1801. Talbot was a member of the Society of the Cincinnati's branch in New York.

Early life
Talbot was born in Dighton, Massachusetts on January 11, 1751, and came from a large, farming family. He first took to seafaring at the age of twelve serving as cabin boy in a coasting vessel. Talbot's performance proved to be outstanding and by 1772 had saved up enough money to buy property on Weybosset Street in Providence, Rhode Island, and build a stone home, having learned the trade of stone masonry earlier in life. He owned slaves.

American Revolutionary War
On June 28, 1775, Talbot received the commission of a captain in the 2nd Rhode Island Regiment. After participating in the siege of Boston, Talbot and the Continental Army began their march to New York. En route, they stopped at New London, Connecticut whose port had just received Esek Hopkins who had just landed from a naval expedition to the Bahamas. After learning that Hopkins was going to petition General Washington for 200 volunteers needed to assist his squadron in reaching Providence, Talbot volunteered his services in this effort.

After Talbot made his way back to New York where he was aiding in the transportation of troops, he obtained command of a fire ship and attempted to use it to set fire to the Royal Navy warship HMS Asia on September 14, 1776. The attempt failed, but the daring it displayed, and that Talbot was severely burned during the effort, won him a promotion to major on October 10, 1777, retroactive to September 1.

After suffering a severe wound at Fort Mifflin, while fighting to defend Philadelphia, on October 23, 1777, Talbot returned to active service in the summer of 1778 and fought the Battle of Rhode Island on August 28, 1778.

As commander of the galley HM GALLEY Pigot (which he had captured from the Royal Navy in the Sakonnet River on October 28, 1778), and later USS Argo, both under the Army, he cruised against Loyalist vessels that were harassing American trade between Long Island and Nantucket and made prisoners of many of them. On November 14, 1778, the Continental Congress passed a resolution that recognized his success in capturing Pigot and promoted him to lieutenant colonel on the same date. In October of the same year, the Rhode Island General Assembly voted to present Talbot with a "genteel silver-hilted sword" for the same action. The sword was made by silversmith John Gladding Gibbs of Providence.

Continental Navy
Because of his success fighting afloat for the Army, Congress commissioned Talbot as a captain in the Continental Navy on September 17, 1779. However, since Congress had no suitable warship to entrust to him, Talbot put to sea in command of the privateer General Washington. In it, he took one prize, but soon thereafter ran into a Royal Navy fleet off New York. After a chase, he struck his colors to Culloden, a 74-gun British ship-of-the-line and remained a prisoner of war until exchanged for a British officer in December 1781.

Slave trader
Talbot was not only a slaveholder, but from 1783 onwards was the partial owner of two slave ships, the sloop Peggy and ninety-ton brigantine Industry. Both vessels transported slaves from the Guinea region to Charleston. On one 1786 voyage of the Industry, Talbot was notified by his solicitors Murray, Mumford and Bower on 9 September 1786 of a large financial loss: "we hear about one hundred & eighty Slaves off the coast of Guinea, near half of which died before the brig arrived in Charleston where she is now." As late 1801 Talbot was still trying collect some compensation from his business partners to offset his financial losses from the slave trade.

Postwar
After the war, Talbot settled in Johnstown, New York, the county seat of Fulton County, where he purchased the former manor house and estate of Sir William Johnson, founder of Johnstown. He was a member of the New York State Assembly in 1792 and 1792 to 1793.

Congress and United States Navy
In January 1793, Talbot was elected as a Federalist from New York to the 3rd United States Congress, and served from March 4, 1793, to approximately June 5, 1794, when President George Washington chose him third in a list of six captains of the newly established United States Navy. During his time in Congress, he was one of nine representatives to vote against the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. He was ordered to superintend the construction of the frigate USS President (1800) at New York. On April 20, 1796, construction of President was suspended and Talbot was discharged from the Navy.

With the outbreak of the Quasi-War with France, Talbot was re-commissioned as a captain in the United States Navy on May 11, 1798. He served as commander of USS Constitution from June 5, 1799, until September 8, 1801, sailing it to the West Indies where he protected American commerce from French privateers during the Quasi-War. He commanded the Santo Domingo Station in 1799 and 1800 and was commended by the Secretary of the Navy for protecting American commerce and for laying the foundation of a permanent trade with that country. It is said that Talbot was wounded 13 times and carried 5 bullets in his body.

Captain Talbot resigned from the Navy on September 21, 1801, and died in New York City on June 30, 1813. He was buried in Trinity Churchyard in lower Manhattan.

Legacy and honors
The first USS Talbot (TB-15) (Torpedo Boat No. 15) was named for Lt. John Gunnell Talbot, no relation to Silas Talbot; the second and third Talbots (Talbot (DD-114/APD 7) and Talbot (DEG/FFG-4), respectively) were named for Captain Silas Talbot.

Talbot was an original member of the Rhode Island Society of the Cincinnati.

Battery Talbot (1899–1919), named for Silas Talbot in G.O. 30, March 19, 1902, was a reinforced concrete, Endicott Period 4.72 inch coastal gun battery on Fort Adams, Newport County, Rhode Island. Both of the original guns from this battery survive. One is on display at Equality Park in Newport and the other is at Fort Moultrie National Park near Charleston, South Carolina.

There is a cenotaph in honor of Captain Talbot in the Dighton Congregational Church cemetery in his hometown of Dighton, Massachusetts.

title: Silas Talbot


text:
Pierce County

Pierce County is the name of five counties in the United States.:

 * Pierce County, Georgia
 * Pierce County, Nebraska
 * Pierce County, North Dakota
 * Pierce County, Washington
 * Pierce County, Wisconsin

title: Pierce County


text:
Phillips County

Phillips County is the name of several counties in the United States:

 * Phillips County, Arkansas
 * Phillips County, Colorado
 * Phillips County, Kansas
 * Phillips County, Montana

title: Phillips County