text:
Talk:Id Kah Mosque

No working mosques in Kashgar?
The claim that there are no working mosques in Kashgar is an extraordinary claim. Kashgar is a large city (with approximately 700,000 inhabitants) with a majority Muslim population, which has until recently had thousands of mosques. The claim that not a single mosque is in operation - which means that none of the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who live in Kashgar attend a mosque to pray - is inherently extraordinary. This claim appears to be sourced to a single article in The Independent. Unless there is much stronger sourcing, this claim should be removed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If they’re the only ones who have reported that it should be either attributed or removed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You know, I think I’d prefer attribution to full removal. Lets include it with attribution. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Xinhua is reliable for Chinese government view, with attribution

 * Do not move discussion to DRN. Continue article discussion here until a mediator opens the case there. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Noted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding these edits: Xinhua is reliable for the Chinese government view, with attribution. The removal of Xinhua's response to claims by Radio Free Asia is not justified by RS policy. It's actually important, from the point of view of neutrality, to include the Chinese government's response to allegations by US government media. Xinhua is perfectly fine for relating the Chinese government's response, and the text in question attributed Xinhua's claims in-line. If anyone wants to suggest a better way to word the material in question, I'm open to suggestions. But the material should be restored to the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "According to the Chinese government news agency Xinhua, the still-active imam stated that the plaque had been moved inside to protect it from exposure to the rain and sun.” is a statement of fact not a statement of the Chinese government’s view. Its also covered by BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s clearly a statement on the claims and views of the Chinese government. Or are Chinese sources no longer reliable for stating the opinions of the Chinese government? I’ve held off on editing this article personally because of accusations of edit warring (which I do not want to partake in), but I’d say according to the discussion on Xinhua it’s fine to use for the topic of China’s official response to a situation so long as the statements are not put in wiki voice. Deku link (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement is clearly attributed to Xinhua, with an explanation that Xinhua is a Chinese government news agency. That's how we're supposed to use Xinhua in this sort of circumstance. This isn't a WP:BLP problem - nothing potentially derogatory is being implied about any living person, and no living person is even named.
 * It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to include the response from Xinhua to these allegations, and doing so is in fact in line with WP:NPOV. Do you have a suggestion about how to better word the response printed in Xinhua, or do you want to suggest an alternative source? -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can find a WP:RS which discusses this. If no WP:RS has covered it then we don’t have a NPOV issue. Unfortunately it falls outside of the consensus for where we can use Xinhua for facts, especially ones covered by BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Xinhua is a reliable source for giving the China's response to the allegation. It just needs proper attribution, which the text gave. I'm asking you to be reasonable here. We include RFA's claim, with attribution, even though RFA is a problematic source for this subject area. It would be unreasonable and frankly POV to exclude the response from China. There's no actual question of reliability here. There's even a video of the statement that Xinhua is referencing. So again, let's be reasonable here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But the statement by the Imam is not China’s response... Its the Imam’s response. I am being reasonable, whats not reasonable is dismissing The Independent’s claim as exceptional while treating Xinhua’s claim as non-exceptional... At least for the first claim we actually had a WP:RS unlike here where we have *no* WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Imam has made the same statement on video, so there's no actual doubt about whether he said what Xinhua says he said. But if you object to using Xinhua to relate what the imam said, the Xinhua article also cites what the Chinese embassy to the US stated on Twitter. That piece of text can, at least, be restored. I think we can attribute the Chinese embassy's statement to the Chinese embassy directly, without writing, "According to Xinhua, ..." It's still attributed, and the fact that the embassy made the statement is not in doubt. I still think the imam's views should be in the article, but we can discuss that later. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We can say “according to Xinhua the Chinese embassy in the US released a statement which said _____.” There is no way we can use them for assertions about the Imam’s statement, there is no room for that in the community consensus on Xinhua’s reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you might be conflating the general reliability of sources with the reliability that sources hold on a case by case basis. We have a 3 minute long video posted by the official account of the Chinese embassy where the Imam blatantly and clearly makes several claims about the state of the mosque. If Xinhua then reports on those statements, and everyone and their dog can clearly see those statements were made, there’s no reason to believe that specific reporting is unreliable. Deku link (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Chinese embassy is not a WP:RS, nor is Xinhua a reliable source in this case. We can not do WP:OR and interpret the video ourselves. Also it doesn’t matter whether the statement was made or not, without coverage bu independent reliable sources its simply not WP:DUE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, you’re conflating general reliability guidelines with case by case analysis. Xinhua is reliable when stating opinions or claims of the Chinese government. Deku link (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not the opinion or claim of the Chinese government, its the opinion or claim of a religious leader. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is blatantly a claim made by the Chinese embassy that they are attributing to a religious leader (who is on camera attesting to this). There is absolutely no reason we can't include what the embassy has to say about the matter from a Chinese source. Deku link (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We can include what the embassy says, but we can’t use them as a source for the statements of third parties (especially a living person) as you are asking to do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should leave out what the imam of the Id Kah mosque has to say about this issue. There's no doubt that he said it, not least because he said it on video, so the BLP risk that we would possibly misquote him simply does not exist. I just don't think that there is any legitimate BLP concern here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Misquoting is not why we have a BLP policy. If no WP:RS has reported what the imam of the Id Kah mosque has to say about this issue then we can’t possible include it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If misquoting is not your concern, then what is your concern? The imam has made a statement on this issue - I don't think you're questioning whether he said exactly what Xinhua reports him to have said. So what is your concrete BLP concern about including a statement that the imam made?
 * The article currently details an accusation made by US government media about the mosque. You're arguing that we can't include the response that the imam made to that accusation. To me, it seems like we're violating neutrality here. We should either cover this story neutrally, meaning that we include what the various sides are saying (including the imam, who actually runs the mosque), or we should remove it altogether. Either option is fine by me, but covering the issue in a one-sided manner is not acceptable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But we have no reliable source for the imam’s claims, we *only* cover whats been published in reliable sources per WP:NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You keep saying variations of "we have no reliable source", but the fact that the imam made the statement that he's reported to have made is actually easily verifiable. There are worries about Xinhua potentially being a biased source for this particular issue, but in this particular case, there is no worry about it being unreliable for the imam's statement - since there is an actual video of him making the statement. Radio Free Asia is also a biased source for this subject, yet we're presenting its claims anyways. It would frankly be absurd to present RFA's claims, but then argue that we can't include statements by the imam who runs the mosque. Either we cover this issue neutrally, or we leave it out of the article altogether. Covering only US government media's claims about the issue is not acceptable. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What reliable source can I use to verify his statement? Xinhua can not be relied upon for accuracy in this context "For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately;” I don’t see a similar consensus existing for RFA, can you point to one? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What reliable source can I use to verify his statement?. Xinhua published the video of the interview, meaning that there's no question about whether or not it is accurately reporting the imam's words. There's no question about verifiability here, so I really hope we can stop arguing about this issue. If you're actually worried that the imam might not have said what he's reported to have said, then please say so. Otherwise, arguing about this question is a waste of time for both of us. I don’t see a similar consensus existing for RFA, can you point to one? The RfC on RFA found that because of its connection to the US government, attribution is appropriate for geopolitically charged subjects. Xinjiang certainly qualifies as such a subject.
 * I propose we just remove this entire section from the article. RFA's claims about the mosque are marginally notable anyways, and if we can't cover them neutrally, we shouldn't cover them at all. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Xinhua is not a reliable source in this context. I don’t see the linkage, RFA and Xinhua are in different categories vis-a-vis reliability. Even if Xinhua was reliable it would still be an extraordinary claim like the one from The Independent, my position has been consistent... Why hasn’t yours been? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The claim that the imam said what Xinhua reports him to have said is not in any way extraordinary. In fact, as you know from the video, it's true. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If it isn’t extraordinary then you can point to multiple WP:RS which say it. The video is not usable without a reliable source vouching for it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I find it very telling that you're not actually questioning whether the imam said what Xinhua reports him to have said. The fact that he said what Xinhua claims he said is easily verifiable (just watch the video). I've said a few times now that I don't want to waste either of our times, and that if we can't cover this issue neutrally, it shouldn't be covered at all. Right now, we only present the view given by one biased source - US government media. The other side - the statements of the imam who runs the mosque - are being excluded from the article on the grounds that we supposedly can't verify that the imam actually made those statements, despite the fact that he made the statements on video. This is clearly non-neutral. To save us all time arguing over this relatively minor story about the Id Kah mosque, I propose we simply remove this section from the article. Unless there's any objection, I'll be doing this shortly. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NPOV we can’t delete the section, we can however expand it using reliable sources. I think you’re missing the point, even if its true its not WP:DUE because it hasn’t been covered by a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course we can delete the section. This is an extremely famous mosque that's been around for many centuries. Unless you can give a compelling reason why one claim by a US government media outlet deserves a section, the section should go. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * RFA is not the only source in that section. Do you mean just that line? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Copied Discussion from DRN
Reliable sources/Perennial sources: "There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials."

As far as I understand, the usage of Xinhua in this particular claim is about the statement of the "still-active imam". Per Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Xinhua is reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. In my opinion, there's a good reason for thinking that Xinhua's reporting on this subject might entail the propaganda of the Chinese government, due to the political situation in Xinjiang. In that case, Xinhua is generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials, however, an active imam in the Id Kah Mosque, whose statements are being conveyed by Xinhua, is not a member of the Chinese government nor its official. Therefore, Xinhua is not used in this case to report on the views of the Chinese government and its officials and it might contain propaganda of the Chinese government. In conclusion, I think this particular report of Xinhua shouldn't be used in the article about Id Kah Mosque. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The actual report is to be used to report on the Chinese Embassy's claims as presented in a video (where you can clearly see and interview with the imam) with in-line attribution, not to make claims about his life. Specifically these claims are being presented by a part of the Chinese Government, so I don't see how referring to those claims would be an issue. Deku link (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There are due weight concerns about the inclusion of the content, not just sourcing concerns. There's also a community consensus that Radio Free Asia (RSP entry) is generally reliable for this sort of reporting (although attribution may be appropriate), whereas there is also community consensus that Xinhua is not reliable to report dispassionately when the Chinese government has a stake. It's not clear to me that including Xinhua's reporting on this would constitute due weight if reliable sources aren't covering the Imam's statement.
 * Additionally, there are a multitude of sources that describe the transformation of the mosque into a tourist location, aside from the generally reliable Radio Free Asia. These include The Independent and The Globe and Mail, each of which are currently cited in the article. AFP (via Arab News) also describes the Mosque as having been closed to prayer, with entrance to the mosque requiring the purchase of a tourist ticket. The Christian Science Monitor (RSP entry) also reports that the prayer times for the mosque are "just for show", that prayer at the mosque was forbidden for foreigners, and that the mosque "is largely deserted apart from Chinese tourists". In light of this, the inclusion of Xinhua's reporting seems less and less worthy of inclusion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Radio Free Asia is not reliable for this story. The RfC result on Radio Free Asia was that attribution is appropriate for geopolitically charged issues, noting that RFA is US government media. One of the issues that that motivated this decision is the fact that RFA has pushed disinformation about the CoVID-19 death toll in Wuhan. RFA has pushed speculation that as many as 150,000 people may have died in Hubei province (the scientific estimate is that approximately 4500 people died of CoVID-19 in the province).
 * The Christian Science Monitor piece you quote does not claim that the mosque is closed for prayer. It says that an anonymous foreign businessman claims he was told the mosque is closed for prayer. There's a difference there (reported speech versus a factual claim by the newspaper). The Arab News article that you quote likewise does not claim that the mosque is closed for prayer. It says that one anonymous tourist claims he was told that he had to purchase a ticket to enter the mosque and that as a tourist, he wasn't allowed to pray during his visit. Again, this is very far from a newspaper making a sweeping claim that prayer is banned at the mosque. That would be an extraordinary claim, and there's absolutely no support for it in either of these two articles.
 * Xinhua has published a video interview with the imam who runs the mosque. He responds directly to Radio Free Asia's claim that a plaque has been removed by showing - on camera - that the plaque is still displayed at the mosque. There's no doubt that the imam actually made these claims, because he made them on camera. It's fine to attribute the claims to the imam and note that he made them in an interview with Xinhua, a state media agency. However, presenting only US government media's claims, but censoring a refutation by the guy who actually runs the mosque, would be ridiculous.
 * This is a minor enough story that we don't have to present it at all. But if we do present it, we cannot do so in a one-sided manner. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:CRYBLP and Memet Jume
It's not appropriate to claim that any information about the Mosque's imam, Memet Jume, cannot be added, even from Xinhua, because the information would be a "BLP violation". It's not. BLP is meant to protect living people from defamation. WP:CRYBLP specifically states,

CRYBLP explains that if the material in question does not clearly cause harm to the subject, BLP should not be invoked:

Ironically, refusing to quote from Jume suggests that Jume is himself a part of the campaign against his own mosque, faith and people. It would be Orwellian to argue that you're protecting someone by silencing them, or that you're defending Islam or Uyghers by making sure that statements by the representatives of their communities can't be reproduced even in articles about those communities. -Darouet (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn’t even read all of WP:CRYBLP (an essay)... If you had you would have come across WP:CRYCRYBLP: "Referencing this essay in a discussion may be taken as an easy method of dismissing another editor’s concerns. Given the importance of the biographies of living persons policy, make an effort to understand the editor’s view before responding with a link here." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've read the whole essay in the past, and every policy or essay contains caveats. However, I did more than link CRYBLP: I explained how citing Jume doesn't harm him, but refusing to cite him (in an article about a mosque he runs!) is, indeed, harmful to him. -Darouet (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree that refusing to quote from him harms him or suggests what you are suggesting it does. We simply can’t use quotes that come from unreliable sources. If the quote was from a reliable source you would have a point, but it isn’t. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Jume runs this mosque. You don't think he's harmed if
 * a US government news service says the mosque is only a tourist site, not a place of worship,
 * that allegation is displayed prominently in an international enyclopedia (as a fact by the way, not as an allegation!), and
 * Jume isn't allowed to respond that the mosque he runs is real, and has some purpose?
 * His response in Xinhua is obviously calibrated to his own community and answers this point:
 * Again, it's offensive not to include his response, but doubly offensive to say it can't be included for his own benefit. -Darouet (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "but doubly offensive to say it can't be included for his own benefit” I haven’t said that. Remember that WP:BLP says it always applies regardless of whether its positive, negative, etc: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” notice theres no mention of harm being necessary, rather the opposite in fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also on points 1,2, and 3 you are fundamentally mistaken, the sources that say the mosque is "only a tourist site, not a place of worship" are The Independent and The Globe and Mail, we do not source that statement to RFA. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Independent is a great paper (The Globe and Mail far less so), but this is an extraordinary claim. Do you dispute these basic facts of Jume's life - that his father was the imam of the same mosque - that his father was killed by separatists or extremists - that Jume is now himself the mosque's imam - and that he contradicted assertions made about his mosque, in comments that were reported all across Chinese media? -Darouet (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If multiple WP:RS make it then its not a WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. We can only use whats been published in WP:RS, it doesn’t matter how widely they’ve been covered by unreliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To comment a characterization of one of the sources: The Globe and Mail is the newspaper that has the largest circulation in Canada on all days but Sunday, and it's widely considered to be a paper of record. It's a highly reliable WP:NEWSORG. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually like the Globe and Mail in many ways, but its editorial line towards China has been extraordinarily hawkish in the last few years. We need to be sure that it's universally understood that the Id Kah Mosque is merely a tourist attraction and not a mosque if we're going to put this statement in Wikivoice, and not attribute it. The fact that the mosque's imam is stating that the mosque is functional leads me to doubt the veracity of this statement, and it will be really abominable to write something so inflammatory in Wikivoice that doesn't have sufficient sourcing to do that, and may be false. -Darouet (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for that statement from the imam? Without one we can’t include it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Xinhua is a reliable source - they interviewed Memet Jume on video. There's no doubt that he said it. Unless you're actually questioning whether he said what he plainly said on video, please do not raise this transparently spurious objection again. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Xinhua is not a reliable source when it comes to Xinjiang. The current consensus is "Xinhua News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency. Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try to find better sources instead; use inline attribution if you must use Xinhua.” now I understand that consensus is being challenged but for now it stands. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The imam stating that his plaque was being cleaned, and that his mosque is functional, is not an "extraordinary claim" unless we decide to approach this topic from the perspective of a fanatic. Am I missing something? Why is this an extraordinary claim? -Darouet (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if we ignore that part its still a clear no, this is clearly an area where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. We can not trust that Xinhua has accurately and dispassionately conveyed the views of the imam. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you truly fear that, you can simply attribute the interview — that's what we do now for the claim made by the Globe and Mail. That's standard practice. -Darouet (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Globe and Mail is a WP:RS in this circumstance, Xinhua is not. Thats apples and oranges, we only cover whats been published in reliable sources. If its not published in a reliable source a BLP statement simply can not be made, per WP:BLP "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Globe and Mail is a WP:RS in this circumstance, Xinhua is not. Thats apples and oranges, we only cover whats been published in reliable sources. If its not published in a reliable source a BLP statement simply can not be made, per WP:BLP "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

What we're actually discussing is whether or not the views of the imam of the Id Kah mosque will be kept out of the article about the Id Kah mosque on the basis of what is clearly a spurious objection about reliable sourcing. The fact that he said what he said is reliably sourced - it's on video. Memet Jume made the statement in question. We can note that he made the statement in an interview with a Chinese state news outlet. Readers can judge for themselves what they think of the imam's statement, but censoring the imam's statement entirely, based on conjectures about whether the imam meant what he said, would be inappropriate, in my opinion. I think readers are smart enough to take into account what the imam said, and what medium he said it in, and to form their own opinions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Videos are sources in their own right? I didn’t know that, can you cite the policy that says that? If the views of the imam of the Id Kah mosque has been published in a WP:RS or a source covered by WP:ABOUTSELF I would have no objection, but it has not been as far as I am aware. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there an actual justification for censoring the views of the imam of the Id Kah mosque? The transparently spurious objections about sourcing are getting tiresome. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Respecting WP:BLP and WP:NPOV is not censorship, either find a high quality reliable source or move on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How does censoring the imam's statement respect BLP and NPOV? He made a statement directly responding to allegations about the mosque. You're arguing that we should keep his statement out because he made it in the wrong media - not because he didn't make the statement. And then you're claiming that keeping his statement out of the article, while including the allegations about the mosque he was responding to, somehow advances BLP and NPOV. That's simply not a credible argument. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. " WP:NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” You are more than welcome to present any policy which you feels supports your position or a reliable source which we can use. I found a reliable source for the general claim that the sign had been moved inside, I was not able to find a reliable source for the specific claims of the imam. Are you able to? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you still talking about this interview as if it possibly didn't happen? This is getting surreal. The interview is on video. I'm trying very hard to maintain the assumption of good faith, but you're really trying me here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Video is no more reliable than any other form of media. Unless a video has been published by a reliable source we can’t use it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that it would be wise for us all to wait for the WP:RSN thread to conclude before conversation continues here. The discussion here seems to be at an impasse for now, with fundamental disagreement over whether a particular source is reliable and with additional disagreements relating to the applicability of particular other sources (including The Globe and Mail). A formal close of a WP:RSN discussion regarding the particular Xinhua source could give a community consensus that would supersede any local consensus that we could establish in a discussion on this talk page, so I don't see the point in continuing discussion here regarding the Xinhua source until after the WP:RSN thread is resolved. Regarding The Globe and Mail, I am going to open up a separate discussion on WP:RSN, and I invite you all to share your thoughts when I put it up. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Given as that RfC is only for the claim about the plaque and not about the other claims I think we will still need to hash things out here no matter which way consensus goes. In hindsight we should have made a broader Xinhua RfC but we didn’t. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead

 * I am at least not certain that the language in those sources justifies the current lead wording describing it as a former mosque. What does that mean, precisely? To me it implies to me a degree of formality, like it has been officially deconsecrated or whatever the term is, which isn't what the sources say - even if it has become a tourist attraction and few people are able to worship there, it remains a mosque. eg. the Globe and Mail says At the Id Kah Mosque, visitors in the past few years have reported that the religious site has been transformed into a tourist destination where people at Friday prayers now number only in the dozens. More recently, the mosque’s main entrance has been padlocked. On Tuesday, no one answered calls made to three listed numbers.  That's not the same thing as it ceasing to be a mosque - to use that exact wording, I'd want to see either a source saying it was deconsecrated, or a source specifically describing it as a former mosque rather than just one people are prevented from using. More broadly I feel like this is tiptoeing around the crux of the issue - we should summarize what the Chinese government has done (and what different sources say about it) specifically in the lead, rather than vaguely saying that it has become a tourist attraction and ceased to be a Mosque without saying why. --Aquillion (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope you don’t mind me breaking this out. I agree that we need to do a better job with the lead, currently we make it sound like it closed one day as a mosque and opened the next as a tourist attraction which I’m just not seeing in the reporting, it seems to be inordinately clear that for most of its modern history the mosque has been *both* a tourist attraction and a place or worship (as many grand mosques are). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * At the very least we can accurately say that it is a mosque and tourist attraction, so we should have a sentence saying that much - I don't think that part is controversial; a quick search shows extensive tourist guides mentioning it, plus sources like eg. . However, that leaves half the dispute unsettled, since we probably still need an additional sentence or so summarizing what the Chinese government has done. I would avoid combining the two topics - it seems to have been a tourist attraction for a long time.  There are some sources, eg.  - which sadly only mentions Id Kah Mosque in passing - that discuss the implications of religious structures becoming tourist attractions, but it's not generally treated the same as or as part of the government crackdown; my reading is that Independent, at least, mentions that it is a popular tourist attraction just for the stark profane-vs-sacred contrast resulting from people no longer worshiping there. I also think that it might help to spend some time searching for additional sources unrelated to recent controversies - that isn't to say that we can omit it, but there is a lot more to say; adding more about the mosque in general will make it less undue to mention the closure (or however we describe and source it.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Aquillion and Horse Eye's Back, the phrase former mosque has been repeatedly added by User:MalakiTT, but I have not seen any source stating that it's true. Western sources state there are still worshippers who use the mosque for prayer, and the mosque's imam has stated that the mosque is operational on Chinese media. -Darouet (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "the mosque's imam has stated that the mosque is operational on Chinese media.” they implied it but I don’t think they explicitly said it, from the reporting they don’t seem to be aware of the allegations at all. Personally I don’t think something built as a religious building ever really stops being that so I object to the phrasing of former mosque. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyway, here (or here, same article) is a recent source (published just yesterday) that might help - note that it's from the Associated Press. It says:  A decade ago, 4,000-5,000 people attended Friday prayers at the Id Kah Mosque in the historic Silk Road city of Kashgar. Now only 800-900 do, said the mosque's imam, Mamat Juma. He attributed the drop to a natural shift in values, not government policy, saying the younger generation wants to spend more time working than praying.  That is plainly enough for us to mention Mamat Juma's opinion (attributed to him, since the AP does so), but it also makes it clear that he does acknowledge that there has been a sharp decline in the number of worshipers over the past decade, though he doesn't agree that it's to the point where the mosque is totally or almost-totally unused, as some other sources have stated. At the same time it also says Its imam toes the official line, and he spoke thankfully of the government largesse that has renovated the more than 500-year-old institution and places the whole story in a broader context that might be worth discussing. --Aquillion (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we should include Memet Jume's (I wish the sources would use a consistent Romanization) statements to the AP, with attribution, of course. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, I knew it was only a matter of time before we had a reliable souce for his statement! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If anything this goes to show the Xinhua source was honest about the testimony this entire time, which I hope is taken into account the next time a discussion starts about its usage. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Repeated additions of synthesized material by MalakiTT
It is clear that several active editors of this article object against these additions, either per WP:synth or for going into excessive detail. should be aware that they are violating the WP:3 revert rule, and risking a block. Despite warnings on their talk page, they haven't replied to other editors. This is their final opportunity to attempt to reach a consensus. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Insufficient attribution for the "Uyghur Human Rights Project"
Opinions voiced by the Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP) need sufficient in-text attribution. As the UHRP was founded using funds from the National Endowment for Democracy, an arm of the US government, and continues to be funded by them, "sufficient" attribution in this case means that the connection of the UHRP to the US government has to be mentioned. Describing an organization founded and funded by an arm of the US government as "US-based" obscures this connection. It is a "US government-funded" organization, not merely a "US-based" organization. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This appears to be the same as Talk:Xinjiang cotton industry please do not duplicate discussions across talk pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's hardly a duplication if both articles are failing to use proper in-text attribution of the same source. Would it be a duplication if two discussions were made about two pages having issues with syntax or grammatical constructs? Paragon Deku (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If we'd like to have the discussion in two places at once, I would point towards how WP:RS typically attribute UHRP statements. I've laid out a long list of these sources at Talk:Xinjiang cotton industry, and I would encourage you to read them. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We have a clear requirement to present issues neutrally. When we quote an organization founded and funded by the US government, we have to note this affiliation. I don't see how any Wikipedian who wants to uphold WP:NPOV could object to this. The only possible reason for leaving out such an attribution would be to obfuscate the connection of the organization in question to the US government, and I'm sure that's something that none of us here wants to do. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason to attribute the source just as reliable sources do is to ensure that we reflect coverage of the article's topic in line with how coverage is provided by reliable sources. This is what WP:NPOV and calls us to do. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV is not "a clear requirement to present issues neutrally” its a requirement that we write from a neutral point of view. In the context of wikipedia this "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.” Unless you can show WP:RS which attribute UHRP in the way you wish to then there isn’t an NPOV argument here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy is to attribute biased sources. The RS policy you've cited above does not say anything about leaving out in-text attribution for biased sources. I don't see why you'd want to cite an organization that's closely connected with the US government without noting this connection in-text. Can you explain why you think that concealing this connection advances NPOV? -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We already attribute it, nobody here is arguing against attribution. You appear to want to go above and beyond how we normally attribute sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The question is moot at this page, as the content in question was undue anyways. The comment was published on a US government website (share.america.gov), and is merely the opinion of one person working for a US government-funded entity. Without significant secondary coverage, I'd consider this material undue. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Beijing Review may be an unreliable source
The Beijing Review is operated by the CCP's China International Publishing Group, so its use on this article is questionable. Although it is not a perennial source, I think that the nature of the source as a state media outlet means that the same problems affecting Xinhua, CGTN, and China Daily also affect the Beijing Review. It might be good to swap it out for another source. --DaysonZhang (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We should probably take www.topchinatravel.com out as well. We also seem to have a Frommers from 2003 being used to make a statement in the present tense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Claim that Eid celebrations are forced
Are we giving undue weight by including this claim? There's no reason to believe given the video footage RFA provides that this is a forced mock celebration rather than a genuine one. Paragon Deku (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As Polygraph.info points out, a French journalist working for Le Monde documented video evidence that the celebration was staged. The journalist later wrote a story in the French newspaper, where the journalist notes that there was a mock celebration the day before Eid (during Ramadan). In short, Radio Free Asia's reporting seems to be supported by reporting by a reputable and independent WP:NEWSORG. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is… shaky evidence at best. There’s no evidence this isn’t just a practice session for a community event. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, upon reading the linked sources I would argue including the claim is WP:EXTRAORDINARY, the articles do nothing but incestuously refer to each other and the entire claim is rooted in vague posturing by the WUC rather than any evidence of it being coerced. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If there's anything WP:EXTRAORDINARY, it would be that devout Musliims would be practicing ceremonial dancing in the daytime during the month Ramadan, I agree. But, the sourcing's there; Le Monde is unquestionably a French newspaper of record. When combined with another reliable source in the topic area, I don't see a reason that such a statement is improperly sourced. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There’s video footage of Uighurs dancing during Ramadan in the 70s, don’t be cheeky. The claim that these celebrations are suddenly forced is based on nothing more than the statement from WUC and the claim is extraordinary. Paragon Deku (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats a random tweet... Not a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just above Mikehawk also linked a “random tweet.” Nevertheless the video is clearly from an NHK documentary. If you cannot put two and two together and come to the logical conclusion that these celebrations are normal in the region and that the idea that they are suddenly coerced is extraordinary, I can go dig up the documentary for you. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't link a "random tweet" alone; I linked a tweet that was related to the story. I used the story in my analysis above when I wrote that Radio Free Asia's reporting seems to be supported by reporting by a reputable and independent WP:NEWSORG, not the tweet. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The tweet itself doesn't even say that the video is from Ramadan... it's a celebration of Eid, which takes place after Ramadan ends. Even if it were reliable, it wouldn't support the statement that there's video footage of Uighurs dancing during Ramadan in the 70s. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The claimed coerced celebrations are also Eid celebrations… the only reason I claimed “during Ramadan” is because you were the first to snarkily remark that this behavior would somehow be unusual despite the source you cited mentioning Eid specifically. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC) Paragon Deku
 * The video evidence captured by a reporter of Le Monde is of people dancing the day before Eid, don't they? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The claim and original topic here is about the dancing during Eid. How does some cooreography and direction to a few dancers a day before somehow proof of coercion? At the very least this claim needs to be attributed Paragon Deku (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Its already attributed, perhaps even overly so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In 2021 at the first day of Eid al-Fitr, a staged mass celebration took place outside Id Kah Mosque, as reported by Radio Free Asia and World Uyghur Congress was part of a propaganda facade by Chinese authorities to coverup the ongoing mass Uyghur genocide campaign by China as it currently stands pretty much puts the claim in wiki voice. I amended this (as well as it being grammatically incorrect), but my edit was reverted. I don’t even think it belongs in the article in the first place still. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It most certainly does not put the claim in wikivoice. Would you prefer that the sentence start with the attribution rather than having it in the middle? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ”As reported by” does not dodge putting it in wikivoice. It simply asserts that it is a fact while listing the sources within the article. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry, I thought you were arguing that it was "pretty much” a wikivoice claim... Are you now arguing that it actually is a wikivoice claim? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m sorry, I thought we were here to build an encyclopedia… are we actually supposed to be incredibly pedantic? Paragon Deku (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m asking you to clarify your position in the face of contradictory statements, thats very reasonable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A phrase in the format of "X news agency reported that Y happened" absolutely constitutes attribution of the claim. If it's an RS in the topic area (and there's a community consensus that it is), this seems to be fine, especially since other news agencies have reported similarly. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Except it’s clearly not in the format or “X news agency reported that Y happened.” It’s in the format “Y happened (as told by X news agency.” The average user would interpret this as wikivoice. When I changed it to a proper attribution it was edited out. Paragon Deku (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Evidence of mosque defacing
It is strange that this is being debated, so here is an additional source: a photograph I took in March 2018. You can find the original Facebook post here: https://www.facebook.com/gene.bunin/posts/2129132367318611, or the archived version here: https://archive.ph/2VydU. It should be pretty clear from this photo that the crescent moons are gone (they were removed around December 2017 and were returned around the summer of 2018, in what people believe was a reply to international pressure and foreign tourists). The sign above the entrance is also missing (it was still there back in November 2017). — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeuDRenais (talk • contribs) 17:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Id Kah Mosque


text:
Wellesley, Ontario

The Township of Wellesley is the rural, north-western township of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada. It encompasses 277.79 km2 and had a population of 11,260 in the Canada 2016 Census.

History

By 1805, many Mennonites from Pennsylvania had settled nearby in Berlin but Wellesley Township itself was not surveyed until 1842-43, due to being part of the Queen's Bush a region with a large Black settler population.

In 1837, John Philip Schweitzer from Germany squatted at what is now Hawkesville, and had 40 acre of land cleared over the following nine years. Then, John Hawke received government permission to buy the clearing for $700.00 on the condition that he build a grist mill (for flour) and a sawmill within two years.

The village of St. Clements was settled in 1840, by Michael Spiehlmacker. A post office opened in 1853. By 1864, there was a large Roman Catholic church, two stores, three hotels and some tradesmen, although the population was only about 100. By 1869, the population had increased to 200 and the post office was receiving mail daily.

Records from 1846 about the entire Township indicate that much of the land had been "Queen's Rush, crown land, where fifty acre lots were given away to actual settlers". The Population of the entire township in 1841, was only 254.

The area now the village of Wellesley on the Nith River was first settled in 1847, by John Smith and was originally called Schmidtsville. The post office opened in 1851 and the village was renamed Wellesley after Richard Wellesley, 1st Marquess Wellesley, the eldest brother of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. The community quickly grew to be the largest economic centre in rural Waterloo County, with a wood mill, feed mill, a grain mill (which still stands after being constructed in 1856), leather tanner, cheese factory, restaurants and housing, and many other businesses that also brought much trade to the town from the nearby farms and farming villages. By 1864, the village also had two stores, a flour mill, three wagon makers, boot and shoe shops, a hotel two churches and a school with 78 students. By 1869, the population of the village of Wellesley was 400; the nearest rail station was 9 mi away in Baden.

The village of Heidelberg was settled in the 1840s and had a post office by 1855, receiving mail three times a week. By 1864, it contained two stores, two hotels, a Lutheran Church, and a school; the population was about 250. The township had three Roman Catholic Separate schools. In 1869, the village of Bamberg had a population of 200; it was on the stagecoach line to St. Agatha.

When the Waterloo County boundaries were established in 1852 to include the townships of Waterloo, Wellesley, Wilmot, Woolwich, and North Dumfries, John Hawke was named the first reeve of Wellesley and the first township hall was built in Hawkesville. When the decision was being made for the location of a county seat, Hawkesville originally anticipated being chosen over Berlin and Galt. However, John Hawke had the deciding vote, and he cast it in favour of Berlin. With the railway and the county seat, Berlin began to grow rapidly and kept on growing; Hawkesville flourished only until the end of the century before diminishing.

At the end of the 1900s, the area was home to doctors, blacksmiths, and merchants, as well as a tannery, hotels, and churches. Into the early 1900s, the village carriage and wagon maker, George Diefenbacker (his preferred spelling) would entertain his grandson, John Diefenbaker, each summer.

The first library in Wellesley Village was incorporated in 1900, and except for the period between 1916 and 1921, there has been continuous public library service ever since. The current branch, now part of the Region of Waterloo Library system, is located in the former S.S. No. 16 Wellesley Township public school building. The school closed its doors in 1967. The building gradually came back to life as the library was placed in the left classroom on the main floor in July 1970.

A residential summer camp for children has been located on Paradise Lake, located near Bamberg, since 1924; Camp Ki-WaY was owned by the Kiwanis Club until 2009 when it was donated to the YMCA. The early settlers of Bamberg were from Germany and the village was initially named Weimar; it was changed to Bamberg in 1852. The first settlers were squatters, including the Moser and Kroetsch families. By 1904, Bamberg, had two general stores, various businesses, a brewery, and post office.

Geography
The country scenery and rolling hills, along with its small-town feel, have gradually transformed the township into a growing commuter town with a population mostly living in suburban developments, and travelling into the nearby cities of Kitchener and Waterloo for work.

Hawkesville never would get the railroad. On a hill itself, ringed by the flat of the Conestogo River, itself inside a ring of tall hills, it was deemed too difficult a task to bring the trains through town. Instead of progress, Hawkesville has maintained the charm of the surrounding sugar maple woods and the quiet river banks. Summer mornings are sure to find a few young fishermen reclined on the bank, reeling in northern pike, yellow perch, and rainbow trout.

To the south, the tall hills beyond the river plain shelters a large gravel pit and in the skies over the hills, the river, the village and the woods, are sure to be found the red-tailed hawk and the common sightings of cardinals, blue jays, robins, chickadees, nuthatch, and numerous song sparrow.

Paradise Lake is surrounded by cottages on private land; there is no public access to the water nor a public beach.

Communities
The township of Wellesley comprises the communities of Bamberg, Crosshill, Dorking, Hawkesville, Kingwood, Linwood, St. Clements, and Wellesley. The population was 576 in 2016.

Demographics
In the 2021 Census of Population conducted by Statistics Canada, Wellesley had a population of $11,318$ living in $3,366$ of its $3,444$ total private dwellings, a change of NaN% from its 2016 population of $11,260$. With a land area of 277.74 km2, it had a population density of in 2021.

Economy

Most of the earlier companies have left the town of Wellesley, but many historic buildings still remain that enrich the heritage of the downtown area. A notable business that had its beginning in Wellesley is Erb Transport, which moved to the nearby town of New Hamburg. Presently, the largest businesses in town are Wellesley Apple Products (founded in 1922), two hardware and lumber retailers, two feed retailers, a gas station, a bank, an arena, an accessible playground, a splash pad, a community centre, a grocery store, a drug store, a furniture store, a funeral home, retirement residences, three auto body shops, insurance brokerages, a veterinary clinic, a bakery, a flower shop, a pizza shop, a chiropractor, a catering business, three restaurants, a butcher shop, gourmet meats and deli, an art gallery, and numerous hair dressers.

Hawkesville is home to several small and medium size businesses including the larger Frey Building Contractors and the Country Lane Builders. The town is home to three furniture businesses: Chervin Custom Woodworks, Hawkwoods Custom Furniture, and Homestead Woodworks. Hawkesville was also home to Noah Martin and his famous summer sausage. Since his passing, Noah Martin's summer sausage has been made outside of Hawkesville.

The largest employer in the township is Jones Feed Mill, located in Linwood. They manufacture a large array of livestock and pet feeds as well as edible grains out of four facilities. The mill has been family run for almost 100 years. Currently Jeff Jones, grandson of the founder, is the president and CEO. Linwood is also home to Linwood Veterinary Services, one of the largest farm animal veterinary clinics in southwestern Ontario.

Also, there are many small manufacturing companies in the township such as EMB Manufacturing, makers of the Wallenstein brand of forestry equipment.

Arts and culture
In celebration of some of the town's most well-known exports, the Wellesley Apple Butter and Cheese Festival was first held in 1975, and has been held annually on the last Saturday in September ever since. The festivities include many street market venues, coach rides, remote-controlled boat races, open heritage sites and amusements, horseshoe-pitching contests, guided farm tours, live music, meals that can be purchased on the main street, and a classic car show, all of which now attract thousands of visitors each year.

Linwood hosted its first Elvis festival in August 2008. This features Elvis impersonators from throughout Ontario.

On June 24, 2006, the town held its first annual Art Around the Pond gala where artisans of all kind were able to exhibit and advertise their creations and expertise. Stalls and tables are organized around the north and south sides of the Wellesley Pond while visitors can navigate the trail on the east side to access both ends. Speeches by local governors are given and live music is played on the central island.

The Wellesley Fall Fair is held once every year on the second Tuesday and Wednesday of September following Labour Day. There is a parade at around noon on the Wednesday that the local public school participates in and there are also rides and activities located on the community centre grounds.

Wellesley has also held the Wellesley Santa Claus Parade early in December since 2005 which includes floats created by many local businesses, churches and other organizations from around the area mainly driving down Queen's Bush Road, Nafziger Road, Maple Leaf Street, and Molesworth Street.

Though only the Hawkesville Mennonite Church and the Countryside Conservative Mennonite Fellowship remain, Hawkesville has been the birthplace of several congregations. A Presbyterian congregation worshipped in town from 1868 to 1946. Their old church building was dedicated as Hawkesville Mennonite Church on January 1, 1950.

A United Brethren church also existed in Hawkesville from 1865 until 1904. The gothic windows and rafters are still visible inside the shop of Hawkwoods Custom Furniture.

Another group started meeting in 1931 and completed the building of a Gospel Hall next door to the village's cemetery in 1939. This group became the Hawkesville Bible Chapel, but their Hall became overcrowded and they moved into a new building in Wallenstein in 1968 where the Wallenstein Bible Chapel remains today.

The first Catholic Church built in the township was a log church built in St. Clements around 1840, in 1853, the log church was deemed too small and in 1858, a large brick church was completed. A brass band from Buffalo, New York gave a concert before the church dedication. At the time of its opening, it was said to be the largest and finest church west of Toronto.

The Region of Waterloo Library operates branches in St. Clements, Linwood and Wellesley Village, which host author readings, family storytimes, and a variety of other programs.

Sports
Wellesley is home to the Wellesley Applejacks, a junior hockey team that plays in the Provincial Junior Hockey League.

The Linwood Chiefs are the township's main junior fastball club and play in the South Perth Men's Fastball League.

The Wellesley Fishing Derby is an annual event, held on Labour Day Monday, also located on the pond in which fishers attempt to catch three tagged fish which cash prizes are awarded for.

On occasion, the Canadian Horseshoe Pitching Championships are held in Wellesley at the Kitchener-Waterloo Khaki Club. They've been in town the years of 1983, 1985, 1995, and 2001.

The community hosts an inter-township soap box derby, Wellesley Soap Box Classic that includes numerous teams and individual contestants who race their vehicles down the hill of Nafziger Road, just short of the downtown area.

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

title: Wellesley, Ontario


text:
Atlas Supervisor

The Atlas Supervisor was the program which managed the allocation of processing resources of Manchester University's Atlas Computer so that the machine was able to act on many tasks and user programs concurrently.

Its various functions included running the Atlas computer's virtual memory (Atlas Supervisor paper, section 3, Store Organisation) and is ‘considered by many to be the first recognisable modern operating system’. Brinch Hansen described it as "the most significant breakthrough in the history of operating systems."

title: Atlas Supervisor


text:
Erotic furniture

Erotic furniture, also known as sex furniture, is any form of furniture that is designed to act as an aid to sexual activity. This includes furniture and harnesses designed to aid positioning, assisting with comfort, penetration level and stimulation. Other types of erotic furniture are constructed to be an aid to erotic bondage. The functionality may be obvious or the erotic furniture may be designed to appear as conventional furniture. Some conventional items of furniture such as the four-poster bed and the chaise longue traditionally have erotic associations, but they are not considered to be erotic furniture as their primary use is not erotic. Erotic furniture can also be furniture decorated with erotic art.

History
In ancient Assyria there are examples of furniture decorated with erotic reliefs dating to the 13th century BC.

According to an urban legend, the 18th-century Russian Empress Catherine the Great collected erotic furniture, including tables with penises for legs and other items carved in relief with penises and vulvas.

The 1791 French novel Les Délices de Coblentz describes beds that are designed to increase sexual pleasure by virtue of the elasticity of their springs.

The British king Edward VII, who was heavily overweight, used a specially constructed "love chair" (siege d'amour) when he visited the famous brothel, Le Chabanais in Paris. The piece still exists and a replica is exhibited at the Musée de l'Erotisme in Pigalle.

Edward Gorey's The Curious Sofa, (1961) is a neo-Victorian pseudo-porno satire described as a "pornographic illustrated story about furniture". The book consists of euphemistic illustrations with strategically deployed objects, such as potted plants and tree branches, that block the reader's view of sexual activities taking place on furniture.

The British pop artist Allen Jones has designed erotic furniture. His piece Hatstand, Table and Chair, consisting of scantily clad female mannequins converted to items of furniture, was first exhibited in 1970.

In modern times erotic furniture continues to be produced mainly by small businesses rather than large scale manufacturers.

Types
Specifically designed furniture for erotic purposes can include:
 * Devices to aid impact play activities such as erotic spanking and flagellation. This type of furniture includes spanking benches such as the Berkley Horse. Another example is the X-cross.
 * Sex swings, either freestanding or temporarily installable in places such as doorways.
 * Fisting slings
 * Sex gliders (also known as monkey rockers) – rocking stools with built-in dildos
 * Devices for using gravity to aid in lovemaking without the use of complicated slings.
 * Various types of angled foam wedges or specially designed sex pillows that support various sex positions. Liberator Shapes are an example which can be used to improve g-spot and cervical stimulation. Another example are the ergonomically based Lovebumpers.
 * Bondage equipment such as stocks, pillories and cages.
 * Smotherboxes and other queening stools used for facesitting.
 * Sex chairs and sex sofas, positioning furniture which in some cases have openings to allow for genital or anal access.
 * The Love Chair, a chair made of curved tubular steel, articulated in several ways and designed to facilitate otherwise impossible sexual acts. This device was advertised in men's magazines in the mid-1970s, and is seen in at least one of Nina Hartley's Guide to videos, but it is no longer commercially available.
 * Wooden horses, which are shaped much like the sawhorses used for carpentry, but have a sharpened edge and are primarily sat on to achieve a feeling similar to a crotch rope in bondage.
 * Sybians, a type of sex machine consisting of a vibrating saddle-like seat with an upward-pointing shaft for internal stimulation.

title: Erotic furniture


text:
User:Jwrosenzweig/Current project

Suspicion of banned user's return prompts block war until Jimbo steps in

 * By Jwrosenzweig, 14 March 2005

Another block war resulted in an arbitration request last week, after a user was blocked on a disputed theory that the account was a reincarnation of a permanently banned user. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales settled the issue by banning the account under his authority as the final source of appeal in disputes, but the appropriateness of this intervention was also a matter of debate.

Early allegations of "stalking" and username issues
The incident began with an account named The Recycling Troll (TRT), which was created on 21 September 2004, and had been used sporadically to make small flurries of contributions roughly once every few weeks from that date until late December. Two months later, on the last day of February, TRT returned and began a distinctive editing pattern. Each day, TRT would go to articles last edited by Wikipedia administrator RickK and make minor changes--normally grammatical adjustments or wikilinking existing words and phrases. By the first week of March, RickK had begun to complain that such behavior constituted a form of stalking. When he confronted TRT with this accusation, TRT's response was that RickK was merely a user whose edits he wanted to "check" -- TRT characterized his behavior as "collaborative", but RickK disagreed.

On the 3rd of March, events began to escalate, as Wile E. Heresiarch blocked TRT indefinitely on the grounds that TRT's username violated Wikipedia policy by using the word "troll". The Wikipedia community has long been divided over whether the word "troll" in a username is grounds for a ban, and the Arbitration Committee declined to rule in a previous case that such a name alone could justify a ban. Several editors raised this concern on the Administrators' noticeboard, and after some discussion, the block was lifted by Michael Snow. Snowspinner then applied a 24 hour ban to TRT for "disruptive editing": after this block expired, TRT returned to his editing pattern of making minor edits to articles recently touched by RickK.

Yet another blocking/unblocking war, plus the possibility of a reincarnation
On the 9th of March, TRT again was blocked by Snowspinner, this time for 7 days, on the grounds that he was stalking RickK and therefore being disruptive. Mark Richards lifted this block soon thereafter, on the grounds that the block was not within policy. Discussions began at Requests for comment/Snowspinner and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents concerning the appropriateness of the block on TRT.

A number of users joined Richards in criticizing the block as a unilateral action not supported by community consensus or a decision of the Arbitration Committee. Another group of Wikipedians defended the block as an appropriate exercise of common sense, and contended that such judgment calls are a part of what administrators are needed for at Wikipedia.

Early in this discussion, arbitrator David Gerard presented another argument in support of the block. Convinced that TRT was a reincarnation of previously banned user 24/142.177.etc/EntmootsOfTrolls (142 for short), Gerard then permanently blocked TRT's account on that basis. This block was quickly reversed and reapplied several times, with a number of administrators involved on both sides. Several users felt that Gerard had not offered enough evidence that TRT was a reincarnation, while others either shared Gerard's opinion or felt that TRT's behavior towards RickK warranted a block regardless.

Rholton, one of the administrators involved in unblocking TRT, inquired on the wikitech mailing list to see if a developer could check TRT's IP address. Developer Brion Vibber replied that TRT was not using an IP in the 142.177 range. This technical evidence, combined with Michael Snow's assessment (based on his familiarity with the banned user's modus operandi) that TRT was not a reincarnation of that particular user, convinced the majority of admins in the discussion (David Gerard included) that TRT was not 142. Disagreement continued over whether or not TRT's pattern of editing constituted "stalking" (and, if so, whether or not such behavior was blockable under current policy).

Arbitration and intervention from above
The discussion concerning TRT, which, by March 10th, was already occurring at the Administrators' noticeboard, the Requests for comment page, the wikien-l mailing list, and several user talk pages, branched out further when BM filed a request for arbitration against David Gerard (eventually Neutrality and Cyrius were added to the request), who had blocked TRT on the grounds that he was a reincarnation. BM contended that due process had not been followed, and that insufficient evidence existed to prove that TRT was a reincarnation.

The Arbitration Committee moved almost unanimously to reject with only one member (Fred Bauder) voting to accept the case. The two arbitrators who were named as respondents to the case recused themselves, as did arbitrator Theresa knott, who had been involved in the discussion at WP:AN/I earlier. Knott also finally unblocked TRT after it was generally agreed that he was not a reincarnation. After concerns were raised about the Arbitration Committee ruling on a matter involving its own members, Jimmy Wales stepped in to take over the case.

In a statement posted in place of the arbitration request, Wales blocked TRT permanently for disruptive editing (he singled out TRT's behavior towards RickK) and disruptive posts to the mailing list. He noted that he felt Gerard and others had acted in good faith by blocking the user when they did, and that no consequences were necessary. He further commented that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project, not an experiment in democracy, and that good faith actions taken by administrators to protect the work of building an encyclopedia are therefore allowable even if outside the strict limits of currently established policy.

The aftermath
Wales's comments ended the discussion at the arbitration page, but conversations continued on the Administrators' noticeboard. Rholton said, "I am very relieved that Jimbo decided to take this upon himself. It probably was the only way to achieve a satisfactory conclusion." By contrast, BM argued that the way in which Wales stepped in to take the case "needlessly weakened the consensus and social sinews of the project, and in the end hurt the project." However, the discussion tapered off, and it remains to be seen whether any changes or clarifications to policy will result.

title: User:Jwrosenzweig/Current project


text:
Westwood One (1976–2011)

Westwood One was an American radio network that was based in New York City. At one time, it was managed by CBS Radio, and was later purchased by the private equity firm, The Gores Group. Due to purchases, mergers and other forms of consolidation in the 1980s and 1990s, at one time or another, it had ownership stakes in or syndication rights to some of the most famous brands in network radio, including CBS, NBC, Mutual, CNN, Fox, and Unistar. The company was one of the largest producers and distributors of radio programming in the United States. It broadcast entertainment, news, weather, sports, talk, and traffic programming to about 7,700 radio stations across the United States. The company was the top provider of local traffic reports in the U.S. through its subsidiaries, Metro Networks, Shadow Broadcast Services, SmartRoute Systems, and Sigalert.com. Westwood One also offers weather services; originally using Accuweather, Westwood switched to The Weather Channel in 2009.

Oaktree Capital Management, through its Triton Media Group division, merged with Westwood One in October 2011. Triton then folded Westwood One into its Dial Global subsidiary. The Westwood One name was initially retained for most sports programming. However, starting with the 2011–12 NFL playoffs, Westwood One's sports programming was branded as "Westwood One on the Dial Global Radio Network." After the NFL Playoffs concluded, the Westwood One name was removed altogether in favor of the Dial Global Sports Network, and the sports website was relocated to www.dialglobalsports.com.

On September 4, 2013, Dial Global announced that it was renaming itself Westwood One, citing greater brand recognition.

History
The company was founded by Norman J. Pattiz in 1976. At the time, he was a former advertising sales executive with KCOP-TV, a Los Angeles TV station. He was listening to a local radio station doing a Motown weekend and decided to syndicate The Sound of Motown to radio. The show was a success. He added several more shows during the 1970s, including Dr. Demento and Mary Turner's Off The Record. In 1981 Pattiz started recording live concerts for broadcast with a Chuck Berry performance that January. The company was a leader in live broadcasts and concert recordings for radio until May 2011. By 1982, he was distributing his radio shows via satellite through an arrangement with idb Communications in Culver City. Pattiz took Westwood One public in 1984 and with the money raised by the IPO, he purchased the Mutual Broadcasting System the following year and the NBC Radio Network in 1987. Other highlights in the late 1980s include the purchase of three radio stations, the trade paper Radio & Records, and the hiring of Casey Kasem from ABC.

Although Pattiz long remained a major shareholder and board chairman, control and management shifted to others in the early 1990s. In 1993, operations were shifted to radio station group owner Infinity Broadcasting, headed by Mel Karmazin, who also took over direct management of Westwood. With Infinity already owning and managing competing Unistar Radio Networks (formerly known as the RKO Radio Networks and later as United Stations Radio Networks, which merged with Transtar in the late 1980s), the two companies were combined under the Westwood name in 1994 (later spinning off Transtar in 2006). After the sale of his Infinity Broadcasting to Westinghouse, then parent of CBS, Karmazin went on to become COO of CBS and under his control, CBS took over management of Westwood. CBS also had a significant ownership stake in Westwood, which then purchased Metro Networks in 1999 in a three-way merger including Copter Acquisition Corp. and Westwood. On August 30, 2010, Pattiz was succeeded as chairman by Mark Stone, senior managing director of the Gores Group, which by then was the majority owner and controlled Westwood. A Westwood press release said Pattiz signed a new contract as a company consultant. Pattiz has now started "PodcastOne," providing a hub for listeners to find their favorite radio personalities.

Purchase of Mutual and NBC
In 1985, Westwood One purchased the Mutual Broadcasting System, one of the "Big Four" of the 1940s in American radio, continuing to operate it as a separate network into the 1990s. Thereafter, Mutual became a brand name for certain programming provided by Westwood One. CBS-run Westwood One retired Mutual in April, 1999 dropping it in favor of CNN Radio, to which Westwood One had syndication rights following its 1994 merger with Unistar.

Two years after the Mutual purchase, in 1987, Westwood One acquired the NBC Radio Network and licensed the use of the name NBC Radio Network News (later shortened to NBC Radio News) from General Electric, which was divesting all of the NBC radio properties of its former owner RCA. Like Mutual, NBC ceased operating as a radio network and merely became a brand name, even to the point of being merged into Mutual itself. NBC's other services, The Source and NBC Talknet, would eventually be retired in the late 1990s.

Until the Dial Global merger, the NBC Radio brand was still occasionally used, including twice daily at the halfway point and conclusion of the early morning news magazine First Light (which has since revived the NBC branding throughout the program). In 2003, NBC News began contracting with Westwood One to produce a new radio news service, NBC News Radio, consisting of one-minute updates written by Westwood staffers and read by NBC News talent. Westwood One also distributed Meet the Press, monologues of NBC's late night programming, CNBC radio reports, and localized forecasts for The Weather Channel, which effectively united all of NBC's programming under one network.

Westwood One provided operational, sales, and marketing support for the CBS Radio Network, whose properties were owned by the CBS Corporation. In turn, CBS managed production of Mutual and NBC Radio newscasts from 1998 until the retirement of the original NBC Radio top-of-the-hour newscasts in June 2004. The CBS Radio news and sports broadcasts (the latter specifically branded as "from Westwood One") were distributed from the CBS/Westwood One Master Control at the CBS Broadcast Center in New York City.

Westwood One also provided alternate feeds of NFL football games to Sirius Satellite Radio.

Westwood One expanded into digital media with the hiring of radio veteran Gary Krantz in 2006; he remained with the company until March 2008.

Sale
On May 4, 2007, the New York Post reported that Westwood One had retained investment bank UBS to seek potential buyers for the network.

In October 2007, Westwood and CBS Radio signed a new contractual agreement by which Westwood would hire its own officers and directors, and CBS would use Westwood One programming and trademark licenses. Westwood also had use of CBS trademarks under the agreement, which was filed as part of the companies' public disclosures with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The agreement took effect on March 3, 2008, the same day that Gores Radio Group invested $12.5 million as part of a multi-stage investment takeover of Westwood One. The second stage of the Gores investment happened only two weeks later with another $12.5 million, giving Gores Radio direct ownership of more than 14 million shares of Westwood One stock.

Westwood One stock was traded on the New York Stock Exchange until November 21, 2008, when it was delisted for failing to maintain market capitalization requirements. Thereafter, shares of the company traded publicly on the Pink Sheets under the stock symbol WWON.PK. After further stock losses, the Gores Group bought the company outright in March 2009 and relisted it on NASDAQ later that year under the ticker symbol "DIAL."

Westwood One announced its merger with Dial Global in August 2011, closing it on October 21, 2011.

On September 4, 2013, Dial Global, which had been bought by Cumulus Media, assumed the name Westwood One and absorbed Cumulus Media Networks (previously ABC Radio and Citadel Media).

Overview
The company was one of the largest producers and distributors of radio programming in the United States. It broadcast entertainment, news, weather, sports, talk, and traffic programming to about 7,700 radio stations across the USA. It is America's top provider of local traffic reports through its subsidiaries Metro Networks, Shadow Broadcast Services, SmartRoute Systems, and Sigalert.com. Westwood One also offers weather services, originally using Accuweather before switching to The Weather Channel in 2009.

Notable personalities
Talk radio personalities distributed by Westwood One included at various times Don and Mike, Phil Valentine, Dennis Miller, Jim Bohannon, Billy Bush, Robert Wuhl, Drew Pinsky (Loveline), G. Gordon Liddy, Joe Scarborough, Kevin and Bean, Tom Leykis, Opie and Anthony, and Adam Carolla. The company syndicated these shows across AM and FM affiliates but did not provide the programs to satellite radio. Westwood One distributed the radio news operations of CNN and NBC as well as its corporate cousin, the CBS Radio Network.

In 1988, Casey Kasem moved from ABC Radio Networks to Westwood One after a contract dispute. Pattiz created Casey's Top 40, Casey's Countdown, and Casey's Hot 20 for him. Kasem stayed with the network for nine years, leaving in 1998 when AM/FM Radio Networks (now Premiere Radio Networks) allowed him to bring back American Top 40.

In the early 2000s, Westwood One handled the distribution of Fox News Radio; that has since moved to Premiere Radio Networks. One Fox program, The Radio Factor, hosted by Bill O'Reilly, continued to be distributed by Westwood One until his departure from the show in January 2009. The time slot was later filled by Fred Thompson and Douglas Urbanski.

Imus in the Morning was carried on Westwood One from 1993 until the controversy surrounding his remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team led to his firing in 2007. The program was then heard on Cumulus Media Networks until the show ended in June 2018.

In 2009, the network added several short-form features based on television series syndicated by CBS Television Distribution: The Doctors' Orders, Ask Dr. Phil, Rach on the Radio, and The Insider Radio Minute.

Westwood One attempted to secure the rights to The Savage Nation, but current syndicator Talk Radio Network refused to let host Michael Savage out of what apparently is a perpetual contract. By the time the dispute was settled in Savage's favor, Westwood One had already dissolved.

Rick Dees moved from Citadel Media to Westwood One in 2011.

24-hour radio formats via satellite to affiliate stations
Until 2006, Westwood One distributed a number of 24-hour radio formats via satellite to affiliate stations. These formats included: Adult Rock & Roll (classic rock), Adult Standards (formerly AM Only), Bright AC (hot adult contemporary), CNN Headline News, Hot Country, Mainstream Country, SAM - Simply About Music (variety hits), Soft AC, The Oldies Channel, and Westwood One 70s. The 24-hour formats, originally acquired through Westwood One's purchase of Unistar in 1993, were spun off in 2006 and are currently distributed under the Dial Global brand.

The lone exception is the audio feed of CNN Headline News, which remains part of the CNN Radio branding under Westwood One.

Music programs syndicated
Westwood One syndicated several popular programs for a variety of music formats. Perhaps its most famous alumnus was Casey Kasem, who spent over nine years hosting a weekly radio countdown franchise for the network.

Other shows included The Beatle Years with Bob Malik (originally hosted by Elliot Mintz and later J. J. Jackson), Beatle Brunch with Joe Johnson, Country Countdown USA, Superstar Concert Series, "Absolutely Live," Country Gold (in most markets, also known as Country Gold Saturday Night, but also available on Sunday), Randy Jackson's Hit List with Randy Jackson and Kesha Monk, 106 and Park Weekend Countdown with Terrence and Rocsi, MTV TRL Weekend Countdown, Off the Record with Mary Turner (and later Joe Benson), VH1 Concerts and Specials, Out of Order with Jed the Fish, and the Country Six Pack of holiday music specials. The Dr. Demento Show was carried from 1978 to 1992.

Many of these programs were not maintained in the Dial Global merger; Compass Media Networks picked up the rock-oriented programs, the country programs were split up among various networks, and the fate of the pop programs is unknown.

Live concerts and sports broadcasts
Westwood One was most notable for its coverage and location recording of live concerts and events for broadcast/distribution via LP and eventually satellite. They syndicated the summer solstice Grateful Dead concert on June 21, 1989, a service that currently conglomerated radio stations no longer do. Since the merger with Dial Global, the company no longer records live music and has shut down its mobile recording division.

The company holds exclusive national radio rights for many sporting events including National Football League and college football games, the Olympic Games, the NCAA basketball tournament (this and NFL coverage are co-produced with corporate sibling CBS TV), the Masters and U.S. Open golf, the Wimbledon tennis tournament, the Frozen Four of college hockey, and the GRAMMY Awards. For many years the network also aired Notre Dame football and National Hockey League games.

Westwood One has also handled sales and advertising for the Sports USA Radio Network since 2009. Notable sports announcers for Dial Global include: Scott Graham, Kevin Harlan, Brad Sham, Dave Sims, Kevin Kugler, John Tautges, John Sadak, Ian Eagle, Tom McCarthy, Chuck Cooperstein, Kevin Calabro, and Dave Ryan. Past personalities include Marv Albert, Howard David, Gary Cohen, and Harry Kalas.

Syndicated news and traffic programming
In 2005, Westwood One, Inc. and its traffic subsidiary, Metro Networks, sent several existing officers and directors of Westwood to Canada and Australia to unify a number of helicopter aviation companies that were already providing reports to Westwood One and Metro Networks' affiliates. The result was the formation of the Global Traffic Network, which began taking deliveries of Robinson R44 news helicopters in 2005. The companies signed a three-way content and data sharing agreement in November 2005.

title: Westwood One (1976–2011)


text:
Short film

A short film is a film with a low running time. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences defines a short film as "an original motion picture that has a running time of not more than 40 minutes including all credits". In the United States, short films were generally termed short subjects from the 1920s into the 1970s when confined to two 35 mm reels or less, and featurettes for a film of three or four reels. "Short" was an abbreviation for either term. The increasingly rare industry term "short subject" carries more of an assumption that the film is shown as part of a presentation along with a feature film. Short films are often screened at local, national, or international film festivals and made by independent filmmakers with either a low budget or no budget at all. They are usually funded by one or more film grants, nonprofit organizations, sponsors, or personal funds. Short films are generally used for industry experience and as a platform to showcase talent to secure funding for future projects from private investors, a production company, or film studios. They can also be released with feature films, and can also be included as bonus features on some home video releases.

History

All films in the beginning of cinema were very short, sometimes running only a minute or less. It was not until the 1910s when films started to get longer than about ten minutes. The first set of films were presented in 1894 and it was through Thomas Edison's device called a kinetoscope. It was made for individual viewing only. Comedy short films were produced in large numbers compared to lengthy features such as D. W. Griffith's 1915 The Birth of a Nation. By the 1920s, a ticket purchased a varied program including a feature and several supporting works from categories such as second feature, short comedy, 4–10 minute cartoon, travelogue, and newsreel.

Short comedies were especially common, and typically came in a serial or series (such as the Our Gang movies, or the many outings of Charlie Chaplin's Little Tramp character).

Animated cartoons came principally as short subjects. Virtually all major film production companies had units assigned to develop and produce shorts, and many companies, especially in the silent and very early sound era, produced mostly or only short subjects.

In the 1930s, the distribution system changed in many countries, owing to the Great Depression. Instead of the cinema owner assembling a program of their own choice, the studios sold a package centered on a main and supporting feature, a cartoon and little else. With the rise of the double feature, two-reel shorts went into decline as a commercial category.

The year 1938 proved to be a turning point in the history of film comedies. Hal Roach, for example, had discontinued all short-subject production except Our Gang, which he finally sold to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer in 1938. The Vitaphone studio, owned by Warner Bros., discontinued its own line of two-reel comedies in 1938; Educational Pictures did as much that same year, owing to its president Earle W. Hammons unsuccessfully entering the feature-film field. With these major comedy producers out of the running, Columbia Pictures actually expanded its own operations and launched a second two-reel-comedy unit in 1938. Columbia and RKO Radio Pictures kept making two-reel comedies into the 1950s.

Theater managers found it easier and more convenient to fit shorter, one-reel (10-minute) subjects into their double-feature programs. In the live-action field, RKO's Flicker Flashbacks revivals of silent films ran from 1943 to 1956, and Warner Bros.' Joe McDoakes comedies became a regular series in 1946 and lasted until 1956. By and large, however, the movies' one-reel subject of choice was the animated cartoon, produced by Walt Disney, Warner Bros., MGM, Paramount, Walter Lantz, Columbia, and Terrytoons.

One of the movies' oldest short-subject formats was the adventure serial, first established in 1912. A serial generally ran for 12 to 15 chapters, 15 to 20 minutes each. Every episode ended with the hero or heroine trapped in a life-threatening situation; audiences would have to return the following week to see the outcome. These "chapter plays" remained popular through the 1950s, although both Columbia and Republic Pictures were now making them as cheaply as possible, reusing action highlights from older serials and connecting them with a few new scenes showing identically dressed actors. Even after Republic quit making serials in 1955 and Columbia stopped in 1956, faithful audiences supported them and the studios re-released older serials through the mid-1960s. The 1964 revival of Columbia's Batman serial resulted in a media frenzy, spurring a new Batman TV series and a wave of Batman merchandise.

With the rise of television, the commercial live-action short was virtually dead; most studios canceled their live-action series in 1956. Only The Three Stooges continued making two-reel comedies; their last was released in 1959. Short films had become a medium for student, independent and specialty work.

Cartoon shorts had a longer life, due in part to the implementation of lower-cost limited animation techniques and the rise of television animation, which allowed shorts to have both theatrical runs and a syndication afterlife. Warner Bros., one of the most prolific of the golden era, underwent several reorganizations in the 1960s before exiting the short film business in 1969 (by which point the shorts had been in televised reruns for years). MGM continued Tom and Jerry (first with a series of poorly-received Eastern European shorts by Gene Deitch, then a better-received run by Warner Bros. alumnus Chuck Jones) until 1967, and Woody Woodpecker lasted to 1972; the creative team behind MGM's 1940s and 1950s cartoons formed Hanna-Barbera Productions in 1957, mainly focusing on television. The Pink Panther was the last regular theatrical cartoon short series, having begun in 1964 (and thus having spent its entire existence in the limited animation era) and ended in 1980. By the 1960s, the market for animated shorts had largely shifted to television, with existing theatrical shorts being syndicated to television.

Modern era
A few animated shorts continue within the mainstream commercial distribution. For instance, Pixar has screened a short along with each of its feature films during its initial theatrical run since 1995 (producing shorts permanently since 2001). Since Disney acquired Pixar in 2006, Disney has also produced animated shorts since 2007 with the Goofy short How to Hook Up Your Home Theater and produced a series of live-action ones featuring The Muppets for viewing on YouTube as viral videos to promote the 2011 movie of the same name.

In 2009 the horror short film, No Through Road, that would go viral was released, creating analog horror. The short film would spark 3 sequels, creating No Through Road (web series)

DreamWorks Animation often produces a short sequel to include in the special edition video releases of major features, and are typical of a sufficient length to be broadcast as a TV special, a few films from the studio have added theatrical shorts as well. Warner Bros. often includes old shorts from its considerable library, connected only thematically, on the DVD releases of classic WB movies. From 2010–2012, Warner Bros. also released new Looney Tunes shorts before family films.

Shorts International and Magnolia Pictures organize an annual release of Academy Award-nominated short films in theatres across the US, UK, Canada and Mexico throughout February and March.

Shorts are occasionally broadcast as filler when a feature film or other work does not fit the standard broadcast schedule. ShortsTV was the first television channel dedicated to short films.

However, short films generally rely on film festival exhibition to reach an audience. Such movies can also be distributed via the Internet. Certain websites which encourage the submission of user-created short films, such as YouTube and Vimeo, have attracted large communities of artists and viewers. Sites like Omeleto, FILMSshort, Short of the Week, Short Films Matter, Short Central and some apps showcase curated shorts.

Short films are a typical first stage for new filmmakers, but professional actors and crews often still choose to create short films as an alternative form of expression. Amateur filmmaking has grown in popularity as equipment has become more accessible.

The lower production costs of short films often mean that short films can cover alternative subject matter as compared to higher budget feature films. Similarly, unconventional filmmaking techniques such as Pixilation or narratives that are told without dialogue, are more often seen in short films than features.

Tropfest claims to be the world's largest short film festival. Tropfest now takes place in Australia (its birthplace), Arabia, the US and elsewhere. Originating in 1993, Tropfest is often credited as being at least partially responsible for the recent popularity of short films internationally. Also Couch Fest Films, part of Shnit Worldwide Filmfestival, claimed to be the world's largest single-day short film festival.

Among the oldest film festivals dedicated to short films are Clermont-Ferrand International Short Film Festival, France (since 1979), Tampere Film Festival, Finland (since 1969) and International Short Film Festival Oberhausen, Germany (since 1954). All of them are still considered the most important short film festival in the world to date.

Short Film Conference (SFC) has been in existence since 1970 as a non-profit organization to unite the global short film community. Its network consists of hundreds of members representing over 40 countries from all over the globe. SFC's activities range from organizing industry events and the annual conference to monitoring and researching the short film industry, informing its professionals & lobbying for the rights of short films and their creators. The Short Film Conference's Code of Ethics offers guidelines for short film festivals to consider.

title: Short film


text: User talk:24.234.5.118

title: User talk:24.234.5.118