text:
Talk:Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

Broken links
Please note that all of the "red links" on this page linked from other pages too (ex. Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and Breastfeeding link to American Academy of Pediatrics). --Hcheney 22:58, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fair use for Mission statements
Does anyone know if expanded mission statements fall under fair use? The "Mission" section of the article is copied darn near word-for-word from the CSGV website. Arthurrh 22:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-write
It would work better if major changes were discussed here, before removing cited content. Also, this is not supposed to look like CSGV's own website; it is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Cites from other than CSGV's website should be used, too. Yaf (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop deleting cited content, and copying the CSGV's website verbatim and pasting here. There are copyright problems in doing that. Have reverted to the cited version, with cites and references. Yaf (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Full protection
As you probably have by now realized, I have protected this page for two days from all non-admin editing because of the recent heated edit warring. Please use this time to discuss the changes here - especially the anon IP, who apparently hasn't tried this talk page idea out yet. As far as I'm concerned, there will be no reason to unprotect the page in the meantime, so try to use the time to come to a compromise or consensus. Thanks! Tan  |   39  20:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think it would be best to revert to Yaf's revision in order to encourage the anon IP to take part in the discussion? Artichoker[talk] 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I was trying to stay neutral in the discussion. Also, see the latest section on my talk page - the IP isn't happy yet, apparently. I think it will be all right the way it is - if this all resumes in two days when the protection expires, we can take further action. Tan   |   39  20:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have tried to engage with "anon IP", but no luck thus far... A revert might get him to come out of the woodwork.  I want a balanced article, with content coming from other than from CSGV's own talking points website, along with cited references, too.  The "anon IP" kept deleting everything, cites, content, etc., coming from anywhere than other from CSGV's website... A traceroute is most illuminating on this "anon IP". Yaf (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is meant as a description of an individual organization's description and initiatives. I constructed this by briefly summarizing the goals of CSGV using their web page, without offering any further commentary about whether these are good or bad goals.  Yaf on the other hand has injected into this organizational summary his own political views about the merits of requiring background checks at gun shows, whether microstamping technology works etc.  This page is not the appropriate venue, and furthermore the philosophical debate which he is engaging in is entirely inappropriate.  If Yaf would like talk about the merits of microstamping etc, he is free to write on those articles or those articles talk pages.  This however is the wrong page. This article is merely an organization description.  For example, CSGV lists one of its goals as opposing a proposed rule change that currently prohibits loaded weapons in national parks.  Yaf edited this to note that some people believe that the rule change is good, because they believe that guns are needed to protect against wildlife.  This more to do with the debate about the rule change than what CSGV's initiative is on this issue.  It is very clear: CSGV opposes the proposed rule change.  Right or wrong.  If I were to behave in Yaf's manner I may respond by saying that violent crime is extremely rare in national parks and that more guns would lead to more dangerous situations, or that the caliber gun commonly carried on the person would be ineffective at taking down a large animal and could even enrage it further.  I did not include such things in my version because this is not a debate about the merits of allowing guns in parks, but rather an organizational summary that factually describes what the organization does.  The page should be left simply at that, a description as sterile as possible.  The debates about these issues should be saved for other pages. 216.15.42.55 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Find it funny Yaf would right that he tried to engage me but failed. As you can see I have written on this page, and I engaged him numerous times on his own talk page.216.15.42.55 (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right now, stop with this bullshit attitude. Discuss changes to this article here. You have not responded to concerns regarding copyright violations. You have not shown one bit of good faith in your fellow editors - apparently everything you say is right, and everyone else is wrong. Unless you engage the other editors regarding this article on this talk page, and show some respect and civility, you will not be allowed to edit this article. Tan   |   39  20:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dont forget WP:AGF or WP:CIV here. We already have an edit war, we don't need a flame war as well! At least give him credit for being a responsive IP. 95% of the IP's never responds to any inquiry, or only response with a bunch of swears which is not the matter in this case.  Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 20:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am trying to be helpful. I checked into the copyright issue, there is no verbatim quoting of the organization's goals, rather 2 or so sentence summaries.  As far as suggestions for the page, please see my first reply in which I suggested that debates about the merits of CSGV's goals be moved to more appropriate areas.216.15.42.55 (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that you were deleting valid, sourced content. This page is not an advertisement of CSGV. Wikipedia articles need a variety of sources including third-party ones. For example, if there is sourced criticism of this organization, it should be included. You talk in such a way that it makes me think there might be a conflict of interest. Artichoker[talk] 20:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then there should be a proponent/opponent section a la Brady and the NRA articles where each side can list their issues. If you think about it though, that would just be a rehash of all of the other gun issue pages.  Yaf wants to combine two aspects that should remain separate.  CSGV's goals should be listed, and then another section could be included for opinions for and against those goals.216.15.42.55 (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion is about this article. Go ahead and be my guest, add that info to the articles you mention. But your revision of this article is just not the way Wikipedia works. We are WP:NPOV, which this article clearly is not currently. It should describe how other people view the CSGV as well. Artichoker[talk] 20:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 * My proposed content on microstamping was: Microstamping: CSGV supports the implementation and research relating to firearm microstamping, an emerging and much-disputed ballistic identification technology, on state and federal levels.  Simply calling it a proven or comprehensive or even an emerging technology does not provide balance. Similarly, the National Park rules change content was similarly not balanced.  Copying verbatim from CSGV's website is not the way to achieve a balanced article.  The goal is neutrality, not a one-sided, white-washed CSGV talking points website. Yaf (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

References

 * I never saw the word 'proven' used on the page. How about dropping "emerging" and "much disputed."  People can view the microstamping article if they wish to learn more.  There was no POV in the national parks thing for it to be unbalanced.  CSGV opposes a rule change, that is a fact.  Like I said earlier both sides on the national park debates have their arguments.  Perhaps a separate page could be created for that purpose, because it is an inappropriate argument to be had in an area that simply describes CSGV's goals. 216.15.42.55 (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Another idea for a proposal. If Yaf wants to add why proponents of the proposed rule change for national parks then below that someone should respond with a summary of why some people favor keeping the current rule.  I personally think that this discussion has a better place (as I have said before), but if Yaf writing for the proponents is allowed, then writing by the opponents should also be allowed.  This is just an example for one of the disputed CSGV goals and could be applied to microstamping, terrorist watch list, etc.  Again I think it would be better to create (or if they already exist update) pages in a separate area  216.15.42.55 (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm going to let loose, though WP:CIV might seem to apply, this Anon seems to be hiding behind his anonymity (he's only been editing TODAY and only this article!). While one can assume good faith, it's hard to do when the opposite side of the argument seems not to want to play by the rules.  You can't let Sarah Brady write this article, Mr/Mrs 24.55.  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it is much different to post as anonymous (or I guess not since I think the IP address is displayed) then to register a username, which I will get to in the future. If you want to talk about issues of good faith, look at the history of my IP address in getting in trouble for unfair editing versus the person on the other side of the issue who has been blocked for unfair edits of other firearms pages.  I don't think offering a description of the organizations goals goes as far as letting Sarah Brady write the page.  That would look like:  CSGV supports closing the gun show loophole because it is the right thing to do, etc.  For the comment below I don't deny that "comprehensive" was used, just "proven." 216.15.42.55 (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 * "Comprehensive" was used earlier, too, here. All of these phrases (emerging, comprehensive, etc.) imply more than what is actually fact.  I would prefer to leave "emerging and much disputed", with full cites, to avoid misleading readers, and to present a balanced article.  Yaf (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 * As for copyright violations, the current article follows exactly the breakouts, with titles, as seen/contained on the CSGV website. It then points to each subpage on the CSGV website, in order, as they are listed on the CSGV website, with some copied content, too. We need to work this to avoid copyright problems. Also, the article version I wrote (last one) at least had the References, at the bottom of the article, with names, and I had started putting them into WP webcite format, but the "anon IP" kept deleting these cites, leaving just bare, un-named links to the CSGV website, and deleting all content that was the least bit balancing to the one-sided rhetoric and talking points that was copied from the CSGV website.   Our goal as editors should be neutrality, not one-sided-ness.  Lets address this imbalance. Yaf (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are not copyright violations in the current version. It does not break a copyright to list the programs of an organization.  Furthermore the descriptions themselves are paraphrases (with citations) of what the organization tries to do.  When this article unlocks I think it would be fair to make it similar to the NRA page.  The NRA page has an organizational description of what their goals are, and then a section at the bottom for criticism.  I think the page would be most clear if CSGV's goals are described in one section, and then the merits of these goals discussed in a criticism or opponent/proponent section. 216.15.42.55 (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a copyright violation to discuss the programs of an organization. However, when the discussion follows exactly the same sub-sections, with the same titles, in the same order, and follows the same breakouts as an organization's website, this is a copyright violation.  An article on an organization should be written in Wikipedia style, not in the copied website style of the organization.  As for calling microstamping comprehensive or emerging, this comment is not worth having to dedicate an entire section later to balance the content.  It is easier to simply identify microstamping as disputed, too, (with a cite of course), in the mention of the technology, along with the other language (i.e., "emerging").  Attempting to present a single-sided presentation that is entirely favorable to an organization, while neglecting to mention where controversy exists, or attempting to push any discussion of controversy to another article, is not considered to be neutral or balanced.  Yaf (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute
This page has been overrun by individuals from the Wiki Firearms Project that vehemently oppose the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence's mission (and gun control in general). I currently serve as the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and there are no "copyright issues" with correctly stating our mission and the purpose and scope of our current projects. I will continue to challenge the neutrality of this page until our mission is stated correctly and opponents of our organization stop using this space to expound on their views on issues like concealed handguns in National Park that are tiny part of our overall work as an organization. And I want to see citations for ridiculous and broad statements such as "CSGV opposes all private firearms ownership." That is nothing but gun lobby propaganda with the purpose of discrediting our organization. CSGV (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

 * please see WP:COI. you have a conflict of interest in editing this article. i have reverted your contributions. Anastrophe (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Also, the claim that CSGV opposes all private handgun ownership is precisely correct. A review of the stated purpose of the CSGV, and its documented history seems to be in order.  Yaf (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Your citation for the claim that "CSGV opposes all private handgun ownership" is not even technically correct for the date of the citation you provide: 1989. CSGV supported exceptions even during that period for licensed security guards and individuals in pistol clubs, as your own quotation proves. Furthermore, the organization stopped advocating for a national ban on handguns in 1991, when the name was changed to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. That was 17 years ago. You, like other members of the Wiki Firearms Project are clearly trying to discredit groups on Wikipedia that aim to strengthen gun control laws, as your bald-faced lie that "CSGV opposes all private firearms ownership" conclusively demonstrates. You essentially are circulating "Confiscation Myth" propaganda on this public domain website that right-wing gun groups like the NRA use for fundraising and membership recruitment purposes. CSGV (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As for the claim that I should review the Conflict of Interest guidelines, I find that suggestion absolutely laughable coming from a member of the Wiki Firearms Project. Even a cursory look at the activity of your members on Wikipedia will reveal that you have consistently used these pages to discredit groups that wish to strengthen gun control laws and used their individual pages to disseminate your own heavily-biased and one-sided views on gun control policies and issues that, in many cases, have their own individual pages at Wikipedia.

What is perhaps most striking is that, despite the overwhelming body of contemporary public statements and testimony available from CSGV leaders, you have instead chosen to use this page to circulate outright lies about the organization ("CSGV opposes all private firearms ownership"), cite 20 year-old statements from CSGV leaders that have no relevance to the work the group is engaged in today, and to editorialize on a series of issues that have no direct relevance to the subject at hand, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. This has included expanded commentary on gun shows and concealed handguns in national parks, which Wiki Firearms Project suddenly decided was no longer "relevant" on this page when a federal court issued an injunction against a Bush Administration rule that allowed concealed handguns in America's National Parks. CSGV's involvement in the issue changed in absolutely way, shape or form with that ruling. We were never involved in that litigation and have consistently opposed legislation to allow concealed handguns in National Parks and continue to do so. You simply decided the issue no longer played well for your side on Wikipedia and made yet another subjective and biased decision as to how to edit this page.

I have no interest whatsoever in using this page to "promote" CSGV, but I will continue to act to ensure that the information on this page is both accurate and non-biased. We will no longer sit still and watch members of the Wiki Firearms Project, again and again, try to dominate the content on this page and use it as a sounding board to disseminate clearly biased and one-sided views that are obviously hostile to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and its mission to reduce gun death and injury in America.

Wikipedia strives for its articles to have a "Neutral Point of View," stating, "The ideal Wikipedia article is well-written, balanced, neutral, and encyclopedic, containing comprehensive, notable, verifiable knowledge." We will seek to ensure that standard is enforced on the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Wikipage and look forward to working directly with the moderators on this page to do so.CSGV (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * your tone is highly aggressive and inflammatory. before pointing fingers further, i recommend that you review the following wikipedia core policies: WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. you've violated all of these core policies above. attacking other editors, rather than their edits, is not acceptable. frothing at the mouth about the evil wiki firearms project (of which this editor is not a member, nor is this editor a member of the NRA or the second amendment foundation or or the brady campaign or csgv or any other gun rights or gun control organization, thank you very much) is not going to persuade people that you are interested in a neutral article yourself. i have reverted all of your edits because you have a conflict of interest. i would recommend that you cease editing here, as you are violating wikipedia policy with each and every edit you make. Anastrophe (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I will not cease making edits, and any neutral and unbiased observer will see in a matter of seconds that Wiki Firearms Projects members have used this page repeatedly to slander the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and offer heavily biased and one-sided views on issues that we advocate on (in many cases which are outright lies that are totally unsupportable). That is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy which strives for neutrality in its public editing process. We already have a call into the Wikimedia's San Francisco's offices and will pursue this situation doggedly until it is resolved and this page has ceased to be a platform for attacks against this organization by those who clearly oppose the regulation of firearms. CSGV (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * again, you have a clear and obvious conflict of interest. you are not neutral on the subject. your desire to remove material from the article that does not present CSGV in a sympathetic light is certainly not neutral. so while you argue that others are violating policy, you are doing so yourself. i look forward to the outcome of your call to wikimedia. i look forward to your account being blocked. Anastrophe (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

We very much look forward to taking the matter up with Wikimedia staff, and to offering primary source evidence--including public statements, testimony, and documents--for every revision we have made to this page in order to ensure its accuracy. We also greatly look forward to reviewing the activity of Wiki Firearms Project members on this page and on the pages of other organizations that advocate for strengthening gun laws to prevent gun violence in order to see if their activity has reflected a "conflict of interest" or not. And since you have been involved in defending content on this page (and others relating to gun issues) that is clearly biased, it would be an appropriate point to review your activity as well. CSGV (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * threats are not helpful. primary sources are generally not used in wikipedia. this further demonstrates that you need to spend more time familiarizing yourself with wikipedia's core policies and values. i have zero conflict of interest, you have complete conflict of interest. my edits will stand up entirely to review and i'm unconcerned about such review; yours, not so much. i'm genuinely amused by the notion that you can call wikimedia to try to bully editors away from editing this article. bon chance. Anastrophe (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly never made any "threats," but I think what has gone on on this page will be of great interest to Wikimedia staff, particularly some of the outright lies that have not only been published, but defended here. I greatly look forward to a thorough review of the history of this page and how it stands up to the Wikipedia regulations concerning Neutrality. CSGV (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * again, bold talk, not backed up by facts. outright lies rarely survive on wikipedia, because all material must be properly sourced. are you saying that sources have been falsified? that would be quite a claim in itself. not that you care, but i've removed biased material from this article that was improperly sourced on several occasions - biased material that presented 'unfavorable' commentary or opinions about CSGV. i would again strongly recommend that you familiarize yourself with wikipedia's core values and policies. you do not own this article, regardless of your desire to do so formally. rather than slinging epithets and ad hominem, you could try detailing the specific issues with the material that you feel are lies, misrepresentative, whatever, and work with your fellow editors to craft an NPOV article. NPOV does not mean that the article will present your organization favorably or unfavorably - thus, your desire to scrub the article of perceived unfavorable facts (the past name of the group, the past policies of the group) will not stand. Anastrophe (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Sorry, User:CSGV has just a few dozen total Wikipedia edits, and fairly can be described as an new-comer editor. Yet, Yaf and Anastrophe appear to be biting the newcomer.  Check the talk page history of both Anastrope and Yaf and judge for yourself whether these editors have a long history in this regard.    SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Probably, this is not actually true. If you look at the traceroute of the anon IP editor who previously edited extensively here, it traces to the same CSGV organization.  It looks like the CSGV/anonIP editor rather has a long history editing on this article.  Running edits continuously like a PR press release campaign, in both cases, while deleting all content sourced to other than the CSGV website, and while copying article text verbatim from the CSGV site as a copyvio problem, by a professional Director of Communications, is hardly the mark of an average newcomer. Let's be fair here.  Yaf (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * i'd love to see actual valid evidence that i was biting the newcomer, saltyboatr. the newcomer came charging in here, being uncivil, not assuming good faith, hostile, and making personal attacks. i was polite and unemotional in advising the user of these problems, perhaps with the exception of "i look forward to your account being blocked", which admittedly was due to being repeatedly verbally bludgeoned by this 'newcomer'. have you no criticisms of this user's methods and manner? Anastrophe (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

irrelevant content?
now that the following material has been corrected to match what the cite says, it seems that it is irrelevant to this article: "On March 19, 2001, a federal judge repealed the new rule allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry firearms concealed within National Park Service lands within states where their permits are valid, based upon environmental concerns, in response to concerns by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.[15]"

it appears that csgv was not involved in this matter, so i don't see a need for it...? Anastrophe (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is not relevant to CSGV. By the way, the date should be March 19, 2009. --Hamitr (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree. Out it goes.  Yaf (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

gun interest groups
Isn't it possible to transform that odd-shaped box into a proper nav-box, so it go at the bottom of articles rather than be randomly placed inside of them? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"anti-gun"?
I notice in the lede sentence this organization is described as "anti-gun", yet I don't see that mentioned in the www.constitution.org webblog pdf file. This, among other problems, seems to be unsourced and may be viewed as a pejorative. Comments? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, what about the content of the cite:  Don B. Kates, Henry E. Schaffer, John K. Lattimer, George B. Murray, and Edwin H. Cassem (1994). "GUNS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: EPIDEMIC OF VIOLENCE OR PANDEMIC OF PROPAGANDA?". Tennessee Law Review 61: pp. 513-596. http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/58tenn.pdf. "“The position of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns is very clear... [We support] ban[ning] the manufacture, sale and possession of all handguns, except for police, military, licensed security guards and pistol clubs. “ Michael K. Beard, testimony on behalf of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns in support of 8-132 Before the Committee of the Judiciary 3 (Mar. 22, 1989) (transcript on file with the Tennessee Law Review;...".  Isn't "banning the manufacture, sale and possession of all handguns, except for police, military, licensed security guards and pistol clubs" an anti-gun position?  What would you rather call it?  Yaf (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Do you have some more recent source material? That 1994 article appears far out of date and doesn't seem to describe the present policy of the organization.  At best that info should be covered down below in the article under a "history" section. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Let me get this straight. You, SaltyBoatr, are supporting the position that between 1994 and 2009, the Coalition to Stop Handgun Violence has denounced its anti-gun ways?  You are saying that the CSGV is now either pro-gun or neutral?  Hmmm.  Given the strength of the references provided by Yaf to support his contention that they are an anti-gun organization, then you must provide equally strong references to say that they are, giggle, pro-gun or, at best, neutral.  I'd really like to see them. Of course I know they don't exist.  You really can't question the verifiability and reliability of his sources without first providing your own.  Good luck. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Why lead with 35 year old history?
It seems odd that such a high emphasis is given to the 35 year old history of this organization in the lead section, and the current status of the organization is treated as an afterthought. This, maybe coincidentally, seems to match a gun-rights advocacy point of view and could be viewed as a WP:NPOV violation. Isn't there a better way to write the lead? SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * are you asking for permission to contribute to this article? none is needed, you know. feel free to actually edit the article and make a positive contribution. Anastrophe (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * rather than waiting for your participation, i took the step of splitting out the history details into their own history section, rather than them being stuffed in the lede. i've rigorously cited the material, scrubbed as much promotional/copyvio material that i can at this late hour, and removed several external links (they may be of interest in the body of the article, but are inappropriate at bare links).
 * you're welcome. Anastrophe (talk) 07:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Under the "History" section, the editor claims that CSGV was formed with the goal of "getting handguns banned" and then that this goal was later "refined" to include certain exceptions for private citizens. But the source provided for the earlier assertion actually lists those exact exceptions as being included in the original Methodist Church resolution on the topic (the cited source is "Book of Resolutions," 1976, pp. 63-64). This section should be clarified to indicate that the Methodist Church and NCBH included these exceptions from the very first time they issued a public document on the topic. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

 * This section has been edited to work these issues. See any remaining problems?  Yaf (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem was still there, yes. How did the coalition "refine" its position? The exceptions for private handgun ownership described in the earliest Methodist resolution on the topic are the same exact ones described in 1989 in testimony by Mike Beard (the two sources you cite). The organization's position actually remained entirely consistent over this period. I have edited these two lines and simply reduced it to one, but maintained both citations. Forward Thinkers (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

 * the timelines of this history seem to be at odds. the article states that the organization was formed in 1974, but the source in question suggests that the resolutions, and the NCBH, were formed contemporaneously in 1976. perhaps the comm. director can point us to a reliable source for when the organization was formed.
 * further, i've reviewed the current CSGV website and can't find any position statement regarding whether the organization still supports banning handguns. obviously, lack of evidence isn't evidence in itself, so if there's some reliable source that can verify the organizations stand on the matter, it would be welcome. likewise, whether the organization still believes there's no constitutional personal right to bear arms. Anastrophe (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have one other question. Someone provided a quote here from Kristen Goss' book "Disarmed" that reads as follows: "In 1989, the National Coalition to Ban Handguns changed its name to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, in part because the group felt that 'assault rifles' as well as handguns, should be banned." Ms. Goss has a citation for that claim, citation no. 26 in Chapter Four of her book. Mysteriously, when I went to page down to check that citation on the GoogleBooks link you provided, that page is missing (without any explanation as to why, all the other reference pages appear to be there). What is the citation for this claim and did you verify it before posting this quote to this page? Forward Thinkers (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

 * the citation for ms. goss's book meets WP:V and WP:RS. if you dispute ms. goss's source, take it up with ms. goss. Anastrophe (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I have a copy of that book, and on pg 112 the sentence reads "In that year, the National Coalition to Ban Handguns changed its name to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence to reflect its view that assault rifles, as well as handguns, should be outlawed." This sentence is footnoted #26 in the book (on page 237) as "Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Timeline" (Washington, D.C.: Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, 1999).  Hopefully that is helpful.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much. That primary source, which Ms. Goss cites in her book as validation in that quote, was exactly what I was looking for. Forward Thinkers (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the COI tag
Is that COI tag really necessary? It appears that all the COI offending text has already been deleted out. Which COI offending text remains? Be specific please, thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a valid tag, for at least a while. Some of the extant text that is still in the article has resulted from user CSGV's prior edits that hasn't yet been validated with cites. If problems are found in the course of adding cite tags and cites, then there is definitely a problem.  I don't think this tag will need to remain for long.  Probably less than a month.  Yaf (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Be specific please. I see no cite requested tags. I see nothing particularly suspect either.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * the tag is a notice that an editor with a COI has been at work here. it is an advisory. it should stay up until all issues surrounding this editor's work have been resolved. since the editor's username, actions, and behavior are still being addressed, here and elsewhere, it is premature to scrub the article of this important advisory. thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Be specific please. What text needs fixing?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * not sure yet. the editor in question may have made previous anonymous edits, and it's also quite likely that this editor will be back, in one form or another, though it's impossible to know whether they'll continue attempting to scrub material from the article that is 'unfavorable' to the organization. it will take time to sort through these issues and the article. if you would kindly reread the COI tag, it is an advisory, plainly stating that there may be issues with the article. please allow your fellow editors the time and space to investigate. badgering is not helpful.thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

 * There is no need to be specific with a general tag. That's three editors telling you the same thing.  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * SaltyBoatr, I'm sure you don't intend to, but your comments in this section are coming across as pushy and a bit hostile. Let's try to stay cool.  --Hamitr (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Asking as gently as I know how: Does anybody see any specific effect of the COI editor in the article at present?  When I look I see that all the COI edits have presently been fixed.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

 * not sure yet. the editor in question may have made previous anonymous edits, and it's also quite likely that this editor will be back, in one form or another, though it's impossible to know whether they'll continue attempting to scrub material from the article that is 'unfavorable' to the organization. it will take time to sort through these issues and the article. if you would kindly reread the COI tag, it is an advisory, plainly stating that there may be issues with the article. please allow your fellow editors the time and space to investigate.thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I get your point, no problem. I just don't see that "a major contributor" has any COI contributions which have not been already edited out.    SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Looks like all previously-extant COI issues have been addressed. Have removed COI tagline.  If a new COI issue arises, then it can be re-tagged. Yaf (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

removal of POV tag
The section above specifies a few points of contention:
 * 1) correctly state CSGV's mission statement
 * 2) disallow editing by "opponents of our organization"
 * 3) citations for statements such as "CSGV opposes all private firearms ownership."

I've addressed point #1 here. Point #2 isn't going to happen. And point #3 has been addressed with cites in the History section and throughout the article.

As these points have been addressed, I have removed the POV tag from the article. --Hamitr (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Give this a bit of time for interested editors to consider the end of the dispute. I agree that the recent edits have improved the problem. Leave the tag in for long enough for this to happen.  SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Looks like all the issues have been addressed. Removing tagline. If new issues arise, then the tag will obviously go back.  Yaf (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

bad link
I noticed that citation 15 went to a bad link. I tried to find the statement on the organization's website to add the correct link. Turns out the information is incorrect, based on the organization's website. I'm going to delete the incorrect statement. --PFS (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Me again - in adding the citation, I noticed that a plank was missing on concerns about carrying concealed weapons. I added that. --PFS (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about the "Criticism" section
This section criticizes CSGV for an incident that allegedly occurred on Twitter in May 2011. However, the only evidence provided for it are links to pages on two blogs. Given WP:BLOGS, this doesn't seem to be very appropriate. As a rule, we require significantly higher quality sources than that, especially when the content is potentially damaging to the reputation of a person or organization. Without more reliable sources, that entire section should be removed, shouldn't it? -- Hux (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

 * I kind of agree about this, blogs are generally not reliable sources around here. It has been a month of time passed since Hux question, which should be enough time to improve the sourcing.  SaltyBoatr get wet 23:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081127023900/http://www.csgv.org/site/c.pmL5JnO7KzE/b.3509285/k.B594/Gun_Show_Loophole.htm to http://www.csgv.org/site/c.pmL5JnO7KzE/b.3509285/k.B594/Gun_Show_Loophole.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding external link to "Others" category
How do I add this external link to the Others category: http://report-us.org/about.html Gaw54 (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Coalition to Stop Gun Violence


text:
Potassium permanganate

Potassium permanganate is an inorganic compound with the chemical formula KMnO4. It is a purplish-black crystalline salt, that dissolves in water as K+ and permanganate, an intensely pink to purple solution.

Potassium permanganate is widely used in the chemical industry and laboratories as a strong oxidizing agent, and also as a medication for dermatitis, for cleaning wounds, and general disinfection. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines. In 2000, worldwide production was estimated at 30,000 tons.

Properties
Potassium permanganate is the potassium salt of the tetrahedral transition metal oxo complex permanganate, in which four O(2-) ligands are bound to a manganese(VII) center.

Structure
KMnO4 forms orthorhombic crystals with constants: a = 910.5 pm, b = 572.0 pm, c = 742.5 pm. The overall motif is similar to that for barium sulfate, with which it forms solid solutions. In the solid (as in solution), each MnO4− centre is tetrahedral. The Mn–O distances are 1.62 Å.

Color
The purplish-black color of solid potassium permanganate, and the intensely pink to purple color of its solutions, is caused by its permanganate anion, which gets its color from a strong charge-transfer absorption band caused by excitation of electrons from oxo ligand orbitals to empty orbitals of the manganese(VII) center.

Mechanism of action
Potassium permanganate functions as a strong oxidising agent. Through this mechanism it results in disinfection, astringent effects, and decreased smell.

Clinical use
Potassium permanganate is used for a number of skin conditions. This includes fungal infections of the foot, impetigo, pemphigus, superficial wounds, dermatitis, and topical ulcers. Radioactive contamination of the skin can be cleaned with potassium permanganate and vigorous scrubbing. For topical ulcers it is used together with procaine benzylpenicillin. Typically it is used in skin conditions that produce a lot of liquid. It can be applied as a soaked dressing or a bath.

It can be used in children and adults. It can be applied as a soaked dressing or a bath. Petroleum jelly may be used on the nails before soaking to prevent their discoloration. For treating eczema, it is recommended using for a few days at a time due to the possibility of it irritating the skin.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not recommend its use in the crystal or tablet form. It should only be used in a diluted liquid form.

Historical use
Potassium permanganate was first made in the 1600s and came into common medical use at least as early as the 1800s. During World War I Canadian soldiers were given potassium permanganate (to be applied mixed with an ointment) in an effort to prevent sexually transmitted infections (resulting mostly in violet stained genitals.) Some have attempted to bring about an abortion by putting it in the vagina, though this is not effective. Other historical uses have included an effort to wash out the stomach in those with strychnine or picrotoxin poisoning.

Side effects
Side effects from topical use may include irritation of the skin and discoloration of clothing. A harsh burn on a child from an undissolved tablet has been reported. Higher concentration solutions can result in chemical burns. Therefore, the British National Formulary recommends 100 mg be dissolved in a liter of water before use to form a 1:10,000 (0.01%) solution. Wrapping the dressings soaked with potassium permanganate is not recommended.

Potassium permanganate is toxic if taken by mouth. Side effects may include nausea, vomiting, and shortness of breath may occur. If a sufficiently large amount (about 10 grams) is eaten death may occur.

Concentrated solutions when drunk have resulted in acute respiratory distress syndrome or swelling of the airway. Recommended measures for those who have ingested potassium permanganate include gastroscopy. Activated charcoal or medications to cause vomiting are not recommended. While medications like ranitidine and N-acetylcysteine may be used in toxicity, evidence for this use is poor.

Pharmaceuticals
In the United States the FDA requires tablets of the medication to be sold by prescription. Potassium permanganate, however, does not have FDA approved uses and therefore non medical grade potassium permanganate is sometimes used for medical purposes.[citation needed]

It is available under a number of brand names including Permasol, Koi Med Tricho-Ex, and Kalii permanganas RFF. It is occasionally called "Condy's crystals".

Veterinary medicine
Potassium permanganate may be used to prevent the spread of glanders among horses.

Industrial and other uses
Almost all applications of potassium permanganate exploit its oxidizing properties. As a strong oxidant that does not generate toxic byproducts, KMnO4 has many niche uses.

Water treatment
Potassium permanganate is used extensively in the water treatment industry. It is used as a regeneration chemical to remove iron and hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg smell) from well water via a "manganese greensand" filter. "Pot-Perm" is also obtainable at pool supply stores and is used additionally to treat wastewater. Historically it was used to disinfect drinking water and can turn the water pink. Modern hiking and survivalist guides advise against using potassium permanganate in the field because it is difficult to dose correctly. It currently finds application in the control of nuisance organisms such as zebra mussels in fresh water collection and treatment systems.

Synthesis of organic compounds
A major application of KMnO4 is as a reagent for the synthesis of organic compounds. Significant amounts are required for the synthesis of ascorbic acid, chloramphenicol, saccharin, isonicotinic acid, and pyrazinoic acid.

KMnO4 is used in qualitative organic analysis to test for the presence of unsaturation. It is sometimes referred to as Baeyer's reagent after the German organic chemist Adolf von Baeyer. The reagent is an alkaline solution of potassium permanganate. Reaction with double or triple bonds (-C=C- or -C≡C-) causes the color to fade from purplish-pink to brown. Aldehydes and formic acid (and formates) also give a positive test. The test is antiquated.

KMnO4 solution is a common thin layer chromatography (TLC) stain for the detection of oxidizable functional groups, such as alcohols, aldehydes, alkenes, and ketones. Such compounds result in a white to orange spot on TLC plates.

Analytical use
Potassium permanganate can be used to quantitatively determine the total oxidizable organic material in an aqueous sample. The value determined is known as the permanganate value. In analytical chemistry, a standardized aqueous solution of KMnO4 is sometimes used as an oxidizing titrant for redox titrations (permanganometry). As potassium permanganate is titrated, the solution becomes a light shade of purple, which darkens as excess of the titrant is added to the solution. In a related way, it is used as a reagent to determine the Kappa number of wood pulp. For the standardization of KMnO4 solutions, reduction by oxalic acid is often used. In agricultural chemistry, it is used for estimation of active carbon in soil.

Aqueous, acidic solutions of KMnO4 are used to collect gaseous mercury in flue gas during stationary source emissions testing.

In histology, potassium permanganate was used as a bleaching agent.

Fruit preservation
Ethylene absorbents extend storage time of bananas even at high temperatures. This effect can be exploited by packing bananas in polyethylene together with potassium permanganate. By removing ethylene by oxidation, the permanganate delays the ripening, increasing the fruit's shelf life up to 4 weeks without the need for refrigeration.

Survival kits
Potassium permanganate is sometimes included in survival kits: as a hypergolic fire starter (when mixed with glycerol antifreeze from a car radiator); as a water sterilizer; and for creating distress signals on snow.

Fire service
Potassium permanganate is added to "plastic sphere dispensers" to create backfires, burnouts, and controlled burns. Polymer spheres resembling ping-pong balls containing small amounts of permanganate are injected with ethylene glycol and projected towards the area where ignition is desired, where they spontaneously ignite seconds later. Both handheld helicopter- unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) or boat-mounted plastic sphere dispensers are used.

Other uses
Potassium permanganate is one of the principal chemicals used in the film and television industries to "age" props and set dressings. Its ready conversion to brown MnO2 creates "hundred-year-old" or "ancient" looks on hessian cloth (burlap), ropes, timber and glass.

Potassium permanganate can be used to oxidize cocaine paste to purify it and increase its stability. This led to the Drug Enforcement Administration launching Operation Purple in 2000, with the goal of monitoring the world supply of potassium permanganate; however, potassium permanganate derivatives and substitutes were soon used thereafter to avoid the operation.

Potassium permanganate is used as an oxidizing agent in the synthesis of cocaine and methcathinone.

Potassium permanganate is one of a number of possible treatments for Ichthyophthirius multifiliis (commonly known as "ich"), a parasite that infects and usually kills freshwater aquarium fish.

History
In 1659, Johann Rudolf Glauber fused a mixture of the mineral pyrolusite (manganese dioxide, MnO2) and potassium carbonate to obtain a material that, when dissolved in water, gave a green solution (potassium manganate) which slowly shifted to violet and then finally red. Glauber, Johann Rudolph, Prosperitas Germaniae (The prosperity of Germany), part 3 (Amsterdam, (Netherlands): Johann Jansson, 1659), pp. 93–94. From pp. 93–94: " … donec tandem Magnesiam istam nitro fixo permixtam, in crucibulo forti coctione a nitro reseratam vidi, unde elegans color purpureus provenit, massam hanc effusam in pulvere redegi, aqua calida extraxi, per filtrum liquorem transmisi. Tandem vero elegantissimum purpureum, igneumque liquorem accepi, qui fere singulis horis in frigore tantummodo consistens colorem permutavit, sic ut jam viridis, jam caerulei, jam sanguinei coloris sponte sua factus sit, mox iterum alios elegantissimos colores receperit." ( … until finally I saw [that] by mixing that magnesia [i.e., magnesia nigra, pyrolusite, the ore containing manganese dioxide ] with fixed niter [i.e., inert niter, potassium carbonate], by cooking [it] in a strong crucible, [the colored compound was] released by the niter, whence a fine purple color arises; this mass [was] poured out, reduced to powder, extracted with hot water, [and] the solution passed through a filter. Then I got a truly most elegant, purple, and fiery solution, which nearly every hour ([while] standing just in the cold) changed color, so that it was spontaneously made now green, now blue, now red in color; soon again it received other most elegant colors.) Translated in:  The reaction that produced the color changes that Glauber observed in his solution of potassium permanganate and potassium manganate (K2MnO4) is now known as the "chemical chameleon". This report represents the first description of the production of potassium permanganate. Just under 200 years later, London chemist Henry Bollmann Condy had an interest in disinfectants; he found that fusing pyrolusite with sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and dissolving it in water produced a solution with disinfectant properties. He patented this solution, and marketed it as 'Condy's Fluid'. Although effective, the solution was not very stable. This was overcome by using potassium hydroxide (KOH) rather than NaOH. This was more stable, and had the advantage of easy conversion to the equally effective potassium permanganate crystals. This crystalline material was known as 'Condy's crystals' or 'Condy's powder'. Potassium permanganate was comparatively easy to manufacture, so Condy was subsequently forced to spend considerable time in litigation to stop competitors from marketing similar products.

Early photographers used it as a component of flash powder. It is now replaced with other oxidizers, due to the instability of permanganate mixtures.

Preparation
Potassium permanganate is produced industrially from manganese dioxide, which also occurs as the mineral pyrolusite. In 2000, worldwide production was estimated at 30,000 tonnes. The MnO2 is fused with potassium hydroxide and heated in air or with another source of oxygen, like potassium nitrate or potassium chlorate. This process gives potassium manganate:

(With sodium hydroxide, the end product is not sodium manganate but an Mn(V) compound, which is one reason why the potassium permanganate is more commonly used than sodium permanganate. Furthermore, the potassium salt crystallizes better. )

The potassium manganate is then converted into permanganate by electrolytic oxidation in alkaline media:

Other methods
Although of no commercial importance, potassium manganate can be oxidized by chlorine or by disproportionation under acidic conditions. The chlorine oxidation reaction is

and the acid-induced disproportionation reaction may be written as

A weak acid such as carbonic acid is sufficient for this reaction:

Permanganate salts may also be generated by treating a solution of Mn2+ ions with strong oxidants such as lead dioxide (PbO2), sodium bismuthate (NaBiO3), or peroxydisulfate. Tests for the presence of manganese exploit the vivid violet color of permanganate produced by these reagents.

Organic chemistry
Dilute solutions of KMnO4 convert alkenes into diols. This behaviour is also used as a qualitative test for the presence of double or triple bonds in a molecule, since the reaction decolorizes the initially purple permanganate solution and generates a brown precipitate (MnO2). In this context, it is sometimes called Baeyer's reagent. However, bromine serves better in measuring unsaturation (double or triple bonds) quantitatively, since KMnO4, being a very strong oxidizing agent, can react with a variety of groups.

Under acidic conditions, the alkene double bond is cleaved to give the appropriate carboxylic acid:

Potassium permanganate oxidizes aldehydes to carboxylic acids, illustrated by the conversion of n-heptanal to heptanoic acid:

Even an alkyl group (with a benzylic hydrogen) on an aromatic ring is oxidized, e.g. toluene to benzoic acid.

Glycols and polyols are highly reactive toward KMnO4. For example, addition of potassium permanganate to an aqueous solution of sugar and sodium hydroxide produces the chemical chameleon reaction, which involves dramatic color changes associated with the various oxidation states of manganese. A related vigorous reaction is exploited as a fire starter in survival kits. For example, a mixture of potassium permanganate and glycerol or pulverized glucose ignites readily. Its sterilizing properties are another reason for inclusion of KMnO4 in a survival kit.

Ion exchange
Treating a mixture of aqueous potassium permanganate with a quaternary ammonium salt results in ion exchange, precipitating the quat salt of permanganate. Solutions of these salts are sometimes soluble in organic solvents:

Similarly, addition of a crown ether also gives a lipophilic salt.

Reaction with acids and bases
Permanganate reacts with concentrated hydrochloric acid to give chlorine and manganese(II):

In neutral solution, permanganate slowly reduces to manganese dioxide (MnO2). This is the material that stains one's skin when handling KMnO4.

KMnO4 reduces in alkaline solution to give green K2MnO4:

This reaction illustrates the relatively rare role of hydroxide as a reducing agent.

Addition of concentrated sulfuric acid to potassium permanganate gives Mn2O7. Although no reaction may be apparent, the vapor over the mixture will ignite paper impregnated with alcohol. Potassium permanganate and sulfuric acid react to produce some ozone, which has a high oxidizing power and rapidly oxidizes the alcohol, causing it to combust. As the reaction also produces explosive Mn2O7, this should only be attempted with great caution.

Thermal decomposition
Solid potassium permanganate decomposes when heated:

It is a redox reaction.

Safety and handling
Potassium permanganate poses risks as an oxidizer. Contact with skin can cause skin irritation and in some cases severe allergic reaction. It can also result in discoloration and clothing stains.

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

title: Potassium permanganate


text:
Raisin bran

Raisin bran (sultana bran in some countries; see sultana grape) is a breakfast cereal containing raisins and bran flakes. Raisin bran is manufactured by several companies under a variety of brand names, including the popularly known Kellogg's Two Scoops Raisin Bran, General Mills' Total Raisin Bran, and Post Cereals' Raisin Bran. Though Raisin Bran is generally perceived as a healthier alternative to more sugary cereals, most popular brands of raisin bran contain high amounts of sugar.

History
Skinner's Raisin-BRAN was the first raisin bran brand on the market, introduced in the United States in 1926 by the Skinner Manufacturing Company. For 17 years, Skinner had ownership over the product's name, until Kellogg's and Post began to sell their own versions of raisin bran. With concerns of losing money within grocery store sales, Skinner filed a cease-and-desist in an attempt to keep ownership over his raisin bran product.

The name "Raisin-BRAN" was at one time trademarked by Skinner, however in 1944 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found:

 * The name "Raisin-BRAN" could not be appropriated as a trade-mark, because: "A name which is merely descriptive of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of an article of trade cannot be appropriated as a trademark and the exclusive use of it afforded legal protection. The use of a similar name by another to truthfully describe his own product does not constitute a legal or moral wrong, even if its effect be to cause the public to mistake the origin or ownership of the product."

Now, any brand or manufacturer may create their own version of raisin bran and name it just that.

Ingredients
Ingredients vary from producer to producer, market to market and over time.

In 2020 Kellogg's raisin bran in the United States contains the following ingredients: whole grain wheat, raisins, wheat bran, sugar, brown sugar syrup, malt flavor, salt, and assorted vitamins and minerals. The cereal's vitamin D3 supplementation is made from lanolin, which is an animal product, rendering it as a non-vegan breakfast cereal.

Health
Raisin bran cereal is commonly referred to as a "healthy" breakfast cereal because of its high fiber content, but according to Consumer Reports, Kellogg's Raisin Bran, for example, has a low nutrition rating.

In 1991, Kellogg's complained that the guidelines for the USDA's supplemental assistance WIC program did not allow for the purchase of Kellogg's Raisin Bran for containing too much sugar. Currently, with 17 grams of sugar per cup, it has a higher content of sugar than Lucky Charms, Reese's Puffs, and Cocoa Krispies (all known to be "sugary" cereals).

A serving of Kellogg's Raisin Bran provides 80% of the Daily Value of manganese and 6% of the Daily Value of potassium, both important nutrients for the body.

Research suggests that eating commercially produced raisin bran containing sugared raisins produces acid which can lead to cavities, while home-made raisin bran, created by adding plain, unsugared raisins to bran flakes, produces less of this acid.

While Kellogg's sultana bran received 4.5 stars out of 5 on the Australian Government's Health Star Rating System, sugar is the fourth largest ingredient after wheat, sultanas and wheat bran.

Manufacturers
Other smaller manufacturers exist worldwide.
 * Kellogg's – Split into the following two companies in 2023:
 * Kellanova – While consisting mostly of the snack food business of the original Kellogg's, it continues to manufacture and sell cereals, including raisin bran, outside North America.
 * WK Kellogg Co – The North American cereal division of the original Kellogg's, operating in the United States, Canada, and the Caribbean.
 * Post Consumer Brands
 * General Mills

title: Raisin bran


text:
User:Audin/thor

Thor missile development
First operational american ballistic missile.

Missile initiated in 1954 as a Tactical Ballistic Missile with range between 1150-2300 miles CEP 2 miles (thus it could reach Moscow from a launch site in the UK).

1955 became IRBM.

Initial IRBM design study headed by Cmdr. Robert Truax (US. Navy) and Dr. Adolph K. Thiel (Ramo-Wooldridge Corp, formerly Redstone Arsenal).

Initial numbers:
 * 8' diameter, 65' long (could be carried by Douglas C-124 Globemaster)
 * 1750 mile range
 * 10,000 mph max during reentry
 * gross weight 110,000 lbs (with fuel and warhead)
 * use half of the Navaho-derived atlas booster engine (due to lack of any alternatives)
 * AC Spark Plug inertial guidence system with radio backup (for low susceptability to enemy disruption)

Three companies challanged to bid on 30 Nov 55: Douglas, Lockheed, and North American. Given one week to reply. Contractor expected to create "a management team that could pull together existing technology, skills, abilities, and techniques in 'an unprecedented time.'" Douglas awarded contract on 27 Dec 55 for airframe and integration. Rocketdyne div of North American Aviation awarded engine contract, AC Spark Plug inertial guidance, Bell Labs backup radio guidance, GE nose cone/reentry shield.

XSM-75 -> WS-315A -> Thor.

Tapered fuel tank to improve aerodynamics, bolted tank bulkheads.

MB-3 engine is a direct decendant of the Atlas MA-3. Remove one thrust chamber, rerouted plumbing. Turbopump development problems. Engine tests as of march 56 at Santa Susana Mountains. First example engine in June. First flight engine in Sept 56.

101. First airfram, 101, Oct 56. First launch from LC17-B. Pad B completed just barely before flight. Atlas blockhouse design borrowed. Pad A not complete at first launch. First flight 25 jan 57. Apogee of 6 inches. Contamination destroyed a LOX supply valve to fail, causing engine to lose thrust. Vehicle slid back down onto pad and exploded on thrust deflector below launch table.

102. apr 57. 35 second flight. ended by range safety officer working from a faulty instrament which indicated an inbound flight, not outbound.

103. may 57. Exploded on pad during tanking due to faulty main fuel valve resulting in tank overpressurization leading to tank rupture.

104. aug 57. 92 seconds. broke up due to loss of guidance.

105. 20 sep 57. 21 months after start of construction. flew 1100 miles downrange. Removing weight of R&D instruments, range would be 1500 miles.

Later flights in 57 (10 all total) reached 2700 miles.

Deployed to UK in aug 58.

Atlas reentry system. Thor flew first, so tested atlas reentry vehicle designs.

June 4, 1962? A nuclear warhead atop a Thor rocket booster falls into the Pacific Ocean when the booster has to be destroyed.?

June 20, 1962 ? A second Thor rocket booster fails, and the nuclear device falls into the Pacific. ?

9jul62. Starfish Prime Event. Thor missile 195 launches Mk4 renentry vehicle containing W49 thermonuclar warhead to an altitude of 248 miles. Warhead detonates at altitude with yield of 1.45 MT. Dominic-Fishbowl.

Thor as launch vehicle
116. Thor-Able. Carried Aerojet AJ-10-40 using Vanguard second stage engine (UDMH/inhubited white fuming nitric acid). Called Able. Three vehicles used to test GE advanced Atlas reentry vehicle. 116 lost due to turbopump failure in thor main engine.

"Bearing Walking" - movement of turbopump bearings axially in their mountings.

127. Thor-Able-Star. Three stage, Thor, Able I (upgraded), Altair X-248 solid upperstage. 84lbs Pioneer. Enter lunar orbit, take pictures with Tv camera. Launch 17 aug 58, exploded at 77 sec due to turbopump failure.

Thor-Agena
Developed for Corona program.

Thor as NASA vehicle
7 aug 59 Thor-Able III launches Explorer 6 to study Van Allen belts and take pictures with tv camera.

jan 59, The National Space Vehicle Program. "Our approach up to this ptime has been much too diverse in that we fire a few vehicles of a given configuration, most of which have failed to achieve their missions, and then call on another vehicle to take the stage. In this situation no one type of vehicle is tested with sufficient thoroughness and used in enough firiing to achieve a high degree of reliability."

Proposed four vehicles:
 * Vega: atlas + vanguard derived vehicle. never flew.
 * Centaur: First high-energy upper stage.
 * saturn I (rocket)
 * Nova (rocket), never flew. Prompted the development of the F-1 (rocket engine), which powered the Saturn V.
 * Delta: Based on Thor-Able. as "an interim general purpose vehicle" meant to be "used for communication, meterological, and scientific satellites and lunar probes during '60 and '61".  To be replaced by Vega and Centaur when they came on-line.  To emphasize reliability rather than performance by replacing components which have caused problems on Thor-Able flights.  Name from radio code word for 'D', as it was the fourth alteration of Thor as a luanch vehcile behind Able, Able-Star and Agena.  Variously known as Delta and Thor-Delta.

Original NASA Delta vehicle
april 59 nasa and douglas sign contract for development and production of 12 Delta launch vehicles.

Stage 1: Modified thor irbm. MB-3 Block I RP-1/LOX producing 152,000lbf. gas generator also lox/rp-1, exhaust out of pipe next to nozzle. Gimble mounted, two vernier for roll control.

Stage 2: Aerojet AJ-10-118, 7700lbf, UDMH/nitric acid. Pressure fed via helium. Gas jet attitude control system (had been deleted from earier variants of Able). Aerojet engine cost $4million to build, 4 times initial bid. Very reliable, still flying. Used Bell Labs BTL-300 radio guidance system.

Stage 3: 'Altair' Spin stabalized by turntable on top of second stage. Spun up to 100rpm by two solid rockets before seperation. Unguided otherwise. ABL X-248 solid rocket motor. 2800lbf for 38 seconds. weighed 500 lbs. Wound fiberglass casing.

Performance: place 650 lbs into leo of 115 to 230 miles or 100lbs to GTO.

11 of 12 flights successful. $43 million development and launch support cost. $3million over budget. Goddard spaceflight center orders 14 more deltas during <=62.

Flights:

Delta A
Block II MB-3 engine, 170,000lbf vs. 152,000lbf.

13. EPE2

14. EPE3

Delta B
Upgraded AJ10-118D upper stage--3 foot tank stretch, higher energy oxidizer, solid-state guidance system. Delta program goes from 'interim' to 'operational' status. 200lbs to GTO.

15. 13dec62. Relay 1, second nasa communications sat. nasa's first active one.

16. 13feb63. pad 17b. Syncom 1. Thiokol Star 13B solid rocket as apogee kick motor.

20. july63? Syncom 2. Geosyncronous orbit, but inclined 33degrees due to the limited performance of the Delta.

Delta C
Third stage Altair replaced with Altair 2--its engine having been developed as the ABL X-258 for the Scout vehicle. 3" longer, 10% heavier, but 65% more total thrust.

Thrust Augumented Thor-Agena D
Developed to handle the growing recon sats of the Corona program. Three Castor solid rocket strapon boosters. 53,000lbf each. Lit on the grouns and jettisoned after burnout.

Delta D
Thrust Augumented Delta. A Delta C with the TAT core+boosters.

25. 19aug64. Syncom 3. First true Geosyncronous sat. 26.   Intelsat 1

Delta E
Thrust Augumented Improved Delta. 1965. 100lbf more to GTO than Delta D. Castor II vs Castor boosters. Same thrust, longer duration. MB-3 Block III core engine, 2000 lbf more thrust. AJ10-118E second stage widened from 33 to 55 inches diameter. Double burn time. Additional helium tanks allow for almost unlimited restarts. Two available third stages: Altair 2 or FW-4D. The latter caused the delta to be known as a Delta E1. New payload fairing from agena.

First Delta E. 6nov65. launches GEOS 1.

Delta G
Two stage delta Es. used for Biosatellite 1 and 2 flights.

1. 14dec66. biosatellite 1. 2. 7sep67. biosatellite 2

Delta J
4jul68. Explorer 38. Used larger Thiokol Star 37D motor as third stage.

Long Tank Thor
Tapered fuel tank changed to cylinderical. Both tanks lengthened. Core stage 14 feet longer. 49,000lbs more propellant.

Delta L
FW-4d motor fir third stage.

Delta M
Star 37D for stage 3.

Delta N
Two stage version.

'Super Six'
Deltas with three extra strap ons. 1000lbs to GTO.

External Link

 * Thor from Encyclopedia Astronautica
 * Thor IRBM History site

title: User:Audin/thor


text:
Family Portrait

Family Portrait may refer to:

Portraiture painting

 * Family Portrait (Hals, four persons), a 1635 painting by Frans Hals
 * Family Portrait (Hals, five persons), a 1648 painting by Frans Hals
 * Family Portrait (Kralj), a 1926 painting by France Kralj
 * Portrait of the Family Hinlopen, a 1663 portrait by Metsu
 * Portrait of the Vendramin Family, a 1540s portrait by Titian
 * The Bellelli Family or Family Portrait or, an 1860s portrait by Degas

Photography

 * Family Portrait (Voyager), a February 1990 image of the Solar System
 * Family Portrait (MESSENGER), a November 2010 image of the Solar System

Literature

 * Family Portrait (novel), a 1976 novel by Graham Masterton
 * "The Family Portraits", an 1813 story in Tales of the Dead

Music

 * Family Portrait (album), a 2018 album, or the title song, by Ross from Friends
 * "Family Portrait" (song), a 2001 song by Pink
 * "Family Portrait", a 1996 song by Rachel's from Music for Egon Schiele

Stage and screen

 * Family Portrait (1950 film), a film by Humphrey Jennings
 * Family Portrait (2004 film), a Sundance Film Festival award winner
 * Family Portrait (play), a play revived in 1959 starring Ellen Demming
 * "Family Portrait" (The Munsters episode), a 1964 episode of The Munsters
 * "Family Portrait" (Modern Family), a 2010 episode of Modern Family
 * "Family Portrait", a 2006 episode of Brothers and Sisters

title: Family Portrait


text:
Colin Quinn

Colin Edward Quinn (born June 6, 1959) is an American stand-up comedian, actor, and writer. He first gained widespread attention for his work as a cast member and writer on Saturday Night Live from 1995 to 2000, and he became known for anchoring Weekend Update, the show's news parody segment. Prior to SNL, he was best known as the announcer/sidekick on MTV's 1980s game show Remote Control. Following his departure from SNL, Quinn went on to host Comedy Central's late-night panel show Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn, where he and a panel of New York's big names in stand-up comedy discussed and debated news stories of the day. Notable film work includes his role as Dooey in A Night at the Roxbury, Dickey Bailey in the Grown Ups films, and playing Amy Schumer's father in the film Trainwreck. Comedians such as Jerry Seinfeld, Tina Fey, Chris Rock, and Dave Attell have cited Quinn as the quintessential "comic's comic" and New York comedian.

Quinn has also become known for his comedic one-man shows that offer his unique takes on history and growing up in New York City. As of 2020, he has written and starred in seven stage shows: Irish Wake, My Two Cents, Long Story Short, Unconstitutional, The New York Story, Red State Blue State, and The Wrong Side of History, two of which he collaborated on with Seinfeld as director. Long Story Short was filmed as an HBO special that aired on April 9, 2011, and Unconstitutional, The New York Story, and Red State Blue State were released as Netflix specials.

Early life
Quinn was born on June 6, 1959, in the Park Slope neighbourhood of Brooklyn, New York City, where he was raised, the son of teachers. He is of Irish descent. Quinn's paternal grandparents arrived from Belfast around 1920. He attended Stony Brook University, in Stony Brook, Long Island, but did not graduate. He stopped drinking in the early 1980s after several bad experiences with alcohol, including blackouts and arrests.

Early career
Quinn began performing stand-up comedy in 1984. He first achieved fame in 1987 as the sidekick announcer of the MTV game show Remote Control, which lasted five seasons. In 1989, he hosted the A&E stand-up showcase Caroline's Comedy Hour, and wrote and acted in the comedic short/music video "Going Back to Brooklyn" (a parody of LL Cool J's "Going Back to Cali") with Ben Stiller. He wrote for In Living Color, and co-wrote and produced the movie Celtic Pride, which starred Damon Wayans and Dan Aykroyd.

Saturday Night Live
Quinn was hired as a writer and featured player on Saturday Night Live (SNL) in 1995 and became a full cast member during the 1997–1998 season. He established himself on the show with recurring characters and segments such as "Lenny the Lion", "Joe Blow", "Colin Quinn Explains The New York Times", and "Weekend Update".

Quinn began hosting "Weekend Update" in January 1998 after Norm Macdonald was fired, and anchored the segment until his departure from SNL in 2000. He commented on a number of highly publicized media circuses, including the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal and the Microsoft anti-trust trial.

During his tenure on SNL, Quinn turned down an offer for the role of Scott Evil in fellow cast member Mike Myers's film Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery. Quinn has called the role, which was ultimately played by Seth Green, the only project he has regretted turning down.

Television and film work and stand-up
After leaving SNL, Quinn hosted the short-lived The Colin Quinn Show on NBC in the spring of 2002. The show combined sketch comedy and stand-up in a live-to-tape format. Despite mostly positive reviews from critics, it was cancelled after three episodes.

Quinn had greater success with his subsequent show, Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn, which ran on weekdays on Comedy Central from 2002 to 2004. The show featured a panel of four comedians, with Quinn as host, discussing the social and political issues of the day. The show ran for over 200 episodes.

His stand-up was also used in the animated series Shorties Watchin' Shorties.

In 2005, Quinn participated in a USO tour of American military bases around the world, performing stand-up to entertain the troops.

He was the "unofficial co-host" on the Nick DiPaolo show on the now-defunct 92.3 Free FM in New York City, airing Monday–Friday from noon to three. Quinn and DiPaolo were originally slated to host the show together on WJFK-FM, but the station decided not to pick up the show. Quinn was also a regular guest on The Opie & Anthony Show until its run ended in 2014.

Quinn played Dickie Bailey, the childhood rival to Lenny Feder (Adam Sandler's character) in Grown Ups and Grown Ups 2. He also had a recurring role as Hermie on the HBO series Girls.

Quinn wrote and starred in the L/Studio web series Cop Show, which premiered in February 2015. The series stars Quinn as a satirical, pompous version of himself, starring in a New York City-based crime drama. The show's guest stars have included Jerry Seinfeld, Dave Attell, Chris Rock, Steve Buscemi, Jim Gaffigan, Michael Che, Tom Papa, Jim Norton, Pat Cooper, Irina Shayk and Amy Schumer.

Quinn had a supporting role in Amy Schumer's film debut, Trainwreck, as her character's father. He was critically praised for his performance.

One-man shows
Quinn made his Broadway debut in 1998 in a one-man show, Colin Quinn: An Irish Wake, co-written with Lou DiMaggio. The show reflected Quinn's upbringing within the Irish-American community of Brooklyn; it was set at a wake in 1976, with Quinn portraying family members and acquaintances who show up for the event.

In 2009, Quinn premiered his second one-man show, My Two Cents, which covers the economic crumbling of the American empire.

In 2010, Quinn premiered his third one-man show Colin Quinn Long Story Short on Broadway, directed by Jerry Seinfeld. The show covered world history from prehistoric times to the present, offering satirical takes on the rise and fall of various world empires. Quinn recorded a special performance of the show that aired on HBO on April 9, 2011. A Brazilian version of the show featuring comedian Bruno Motta has the title 1 Milhao de Anos em 1 Hora ("1 Million Years in 1 Hour").

In 2013, Quinn premiered another one-man show on historical themes, Unconstitutional, which covers the United States Constitution, its creation, and its impact on the American psyche.

Quinn starred in his fifth one-man show, The New York Story, in July and August 2015 at the Cherry Lane Theatre. The show was based upon the experiences chronicled in his book, The Coloring Book: A Comedian Solves Race Relations in America. It delves into his growing up in the ethnically diverse Park Slope neighborhood of Brooklyn and how it has changed over the years into its current state. Seinfeld, who directed Long Story Short, returned as director.

In early 2019, Quinn premiered his sixth one-man show, Red State Blue State, at the Minetta Lane Theatre. The show explored contemporary politics in the United States on both sides of the primary political spectrum.

In 2020, Quinn released his second book, Overstated: A Coast-to-Coast Roast of the 50 States, and directed the HBO Max comedy special Colin Quinn & Friends: A Parking Lot Comedy Show.

Personal life
In conversation with Judd Apatow in 2015 for the David Lynch Foundation Trainwreck tour, Quinn said he had been practicing Transcendental Meditation for five years.

On February 14, 2018, Quinn suffered a heart attack in New York. On Twitter several days later, he said he was doing well but if he dropped dead "you would see a funeral like Al Capone!"

On June 8, 2019, Quinn married Late Night with Seth Meyers producer Jen Sochko.

Awards and honors
In 2004, Quinn was named No. 56 on Comedy Central's list of the 100 greatest stand-up comedians of all time.

He was named one of the Top 100 Irish Americans of the year in 2004 and 2011 by the magazine Irish America.

title: Colin Quinn


text:
Major League

Major League may refer to:

Sport

 * Major League Baseball, the highest level of play in professional baseball in the U.S. and Canada.
 * Major League Cricket, the franchise cricket league in the U.S. Formerly referred to a U.S. company that ran professional cricket competitions.
 * Major League Eating, organizes top-level competitive eaters, eating events, television specials and merchandise, mostly in the U.S.
 * Major League Gaming, a professional league dedicated to video game competition in the U.S.
 * Major League Lacrosse, the highest level of play in professional field lacrosse in the U.S.
 * Major League Quidditch, the highest level of play in quidditch in the U.S. and Canada
 * Major League Rugby, the highest level of play in professional rugby union in the U.S. and Canada.
 * Major League Soccer, the highest level of play in professional soccer in the U.S. and Canada.
 * Major League Wrestling, a popular professional wrestling promotion that described itself as hybrid wrestling
 * Major Hockey League (disambiguation)
 * Major Soccer League, an indoor soccer league in the U.S. from 1978 to 1992
 * Tonga Major League, the highest level of association football in Tonga
 * Ukrainian Major League, former semi-professional ice hockey league in Ukraine, known only as the "Major League"

Films

 * Major League (film), 1989
 * Major League II, 1994
 * Major League: Back to the Minors, 1998

Music

 * Major League (band), a rock band from New Jersey, U.S.
 * Major League, a musical project of Armin van Buuren with Tiësto
 * Major Leagues (EP), by Pavement, 1999, and a song

title: Major League


text:
North-West Frontier Province

The North-West Frontier Province (NWFP; شمال لویدیځ سرحدي ولایت, ) was a province of British India from 1901 to 1947, of the Dominion of Pakistan from 1947 to 1955, and of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan from 1970 to 2010. It was established on 9 November 1901 from the north-western districts of the British Punjab, during the British Raj. Following the referendum in 1947 to join either Pakistan or India, the province voted hugely in favour of joining Pakistan and it acceded accordingly on 14 August 1947. It was dissolved to form a unified province of West Pakistan in 1955 upon promulgation of One Unit Scheme and was reestablished in 1970. It was known by this name until 19 April 2010, when it was dissolved and redesignated as the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa following the passing of the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan, by President Asif Ali Zardari.

The province covered an area of 70709 km2, including much of the current Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province but excluding the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and the former princely states of Amb, Chitral, Dir, Phulra and Swat. Its capital was the city of Peshawar, and the province was composed of six divisions (Bannu, Dera Ismail Khan, Hazara, Kohat, Mardan, and Peshawar Division; Malakand was later added as the seventh division). Until 1947, the province was bordered by five princely states to the north, the minor states of the Gilgit Agency to the northeast, the province of Punjab to the east and the province of Balochistan to the south. The Kingdom of Afghanistan lay to the northwest, with the Federally Administered Tribal Areas forming a buffer zone between the two.

Formation
The northwestern frontier areas were annexed by the East India Company after the Second Sikh War (1848–49). The territories thenceforth formed a part of Punjab until the province, then known as North West Frontier Province, was created in 1901 from the north-western districts of the Punjab Province. This region, along with the 'Frontier Tribal Areas', acted as a buffer zone with Afghanistan.

Inside Pakistan
Before the Partition of India, the 1947 North-West Frontier Province referendum was held in July 1947 to decide the future of NWFP, in which the people of the province decided in favor of joining Pakistan. Chief Minister Dr Khan Sahib, along with his brother Bacha Khan and the Khudai Khidmatgars, boycotted the referendum, citing that it did not have the options of the NWFP becoming independent or joining Afghanistan.

As a separate province, the NWFP lasted until 1955 when it was merged into the new province of West Pakistan, under the One Unit policy announced by Prime Minister Chaudhry Mohammad Ali. It was recreated after the dissolution of the One Unit system and lasted under its old nomenclature until April 2010, when it was renamed the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

Government
The offices of Governor and Chief Minister of the North-West Frontier Province lasted until 14 October 1955.

Population
Historical population, language, and religious counts in North-West Frontier Province were enumerated in all districts (Hazara, Mardan, Peshawar, Kohat, Bannu, and Dera Ismail Khan), detailed in the population, language, and religious tables above and below. Separate population counts were taken in the Agencies and Tribal Areas, as detailed on the respective article page.

At independence, there was a clear Muslim Pashtun, Hindkowan, and Punjabi majority in the North-West Frontier Province, although there were also significant Hindu and Sikh Pashtun, Hindkowan, and Punjabi minorities scattered across the province.

Language
The languages of the North-West Frontier Province included Pashto, Hindko, Kohistani and others, although most of the population spoke either Pashto or Lahnda/Western Punjabi (primarily Hindko and Saraiki). Prior to the arrival of the British, the official language, for governmental uses and such, was Persian.

Religion
Religious counts below is for the entirety of NWFP (Hazara, Mardan, Peshawar, Kohat, Bannu, and Dera Ismail Khan). The Agencies and Tribal Areas constituted a separate administrative division where religious composition was not enumerated, except at small Trans-Frontier Posts in the region.

Adherents of Islam who were indigenous to frontier regions that continued to have relatively large Hindu populations, and who were also relatively recent converts, were influenced by some traditions of Hinduism; in contrast, Muslims in frontier regions that had been further influenced by orthodox Islam and converted at a much earlier date were noted in their relatively different cultural habits. "'The high road, along which the Mohammedan conquerors and rulers of India passed and repassed lay through the north (the Khyber, Kurram and other routes); and it is probable that Islam never took so firm a hold of the inhabitants of the southern district as of the people to the north of them. In this connection it is interesting to notice that the Mussalman of the Derajat is less strict in his observance of the duties of his religion, such as fasts, prayers and the like, than his northern neighbours. Through Hazara lay the road by which the Emperors of Delhi went to and fro between the capital and their summer retreat in Kashmir, and it was natural that Islam should thoroughly permeate the district. Similarly Kohat, from its situation with regard to the Kurram Valley, which at no very distant period was, nominally at least, a portion of the Afghan kingdom, has been more influenced in the past by its Mohammedan neighbours to the west than have the districts to the south of it. There is no need to consider here the probable date at which the bulk of the Pathans living in the Province, or rather their ancestors, were converted to Islam. It is enough to notice that they had long been Mohammadan when they settled in their present homes, and that their fanaticism and intolerance, especially in the districts where they are strongest, rendered the Province no very inviting place of residence for settlers of a different creed. If no fanaticism in its inhabitants acted as a bar to the settlement of Hindus in Hazara, the absence of any large trade centres was at least equally efficacious. The only other district in which there is a non-Pathan element in the population in any way commensurate to that of Hazara is Dera Ismail Khan. The population here is mainly composed of tribes of Indian origin. Its conversion to Islam is of much later data; fanaticism does not exist, and no particular dislike to the Hindu seems to have existed.'"

Similarly, adherents of Hinduism who belonged to the various castes and tribes who were indigenous to the frontier regions had considerable Islamic influence, owing to their status as a religious minority in the region for centuries, and thus formed religious syncretism that incorporated aspects from both faiths into their cultures and traditions. "'Hinduism, as it exists in the North-West Frontier Province, is but a pale reflection of the system which flourishes in the United Provinces and other areas to the east. Even of the Derajat, where, as we have seen, the Hindu population is proportionately most numerous, the writer of the Dera Ismail Khan Gazetteer notes, 'the Hindus of this district are less particular in the matter of caste prejudices and observances than down country Hindus. Most of them will drink water that has been carried in Mussaks (skins for carrying water) or out of lotas detached from a working well. They habitually ride on donkeys and do a multitude of other things which an orthodox Hindu would shrink from. All idolatrous observances are kept very much in the background. Except a few small images (thakurs) kept in their mandirs they have no idols at all. Nor is it their habit to take their gods about in procession. No one, in fact, sees anything of their worship. They burn their dead, and throw the ashes into the Indus. They always keep a few of the bones, and take them, when the opportunity offers, to the Ganges... There are a good many dharamsalas, mandirs, and dawaras at Dera Ismail Khan and in the cis-Indus tehsils.'"

Lastly, decadal census reports throughout the colonial era frequently detailed the difficulty of differentiating adherents of Hinduism with adherents of Sikhism, owing to the traditional ability of the former in assimilating and integrating followers of varied thought into Hinduism. "'The Sikh religion was born out of Hinduism, and fears have been expressed of its being reabsorbed into it. Truly wonderful is the strength and vitality of Hinduism. It is like the boa constrictor of the Indian forests; when a petty enemy appears to worry it, it winds round its opponent, crushes it in its folds, and finally causes it to disappear in its capacious interior. In this way, many centuries ago, Hinduism on its own ground disposed of Buddhism which was largely a Hindu reformation in this way in a prehistoric period it absorbed the religion of the Scythian invaders of Northern India; in this way it has converted educated Islam in India into a semi-paganism; and in this way it is disposing of the reformed and once hopeful religion of Baba Nanak. Hinduism has embraced Sikhism in its folds; the still comparatively young religion is making a vigorous struggle for life, but its ultimate destruction is, it is apprehended, inevitable without State support. Notwithstanding the Sikh Guru's powerful denunciation of Brahmans, secular Sikhs now rarely do anything without their assistance. Brahmans help them to be born, help them to wed, help them to die and help their souls after death to obtain a state of bliss. And Brahmans, with all the deftness of Roman Catholic missionaries in Protestant countries have partially succeeded in persuading the Sikhs to restore to their niches the images of Devi, the Queen of Heaven, and the Saints and gods of the ancient faith.'"

Districts
With rapid population growth occurring across all districts in the province, Mardan District was added to the North–West Frontier Province in 1941.

title: North-West Frontier Province


text:
Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois

Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company v. Illinois, 118 U.S. 557 (1886), also known as the Wabash Case, was a Supreme Court decision that severely limited the rights of states to control or impede interstate commerce. It led to the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission.

The court
The majority's opinion was written by Justice Samuel Miller; joining him were associate justices Stephen Field, John Harlan, William Woods, Stanley Matthews, and Samuel Blatchford. Dissenting were Chief Justice Morrison Waite and associate justices Joseph Bradley and Horace Gray.

The case
The case was argued on April 14, 1886 - April 15, 1886 and was decided on October 25, 1886, by vote of 6 to 3. Associate Justice Miller wrote for the Court with Associate Justices Field, Harlan, Woods, Matthews, and Blatchford concurring; Associate Justices Bradley and Gray, along with Chief Justice Waite, dissented.

In Wabash, "direct" burdens on interstate commerce were not permitted by the Export Tax Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 9); however, those "indirect" burdens were permitted under the Commerce Clause. This was a standard enacted in Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852).

Effects of decision

 * The Wabash decision led to the creation in 1887 of the first modern regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission.
 * It clarified the "direct" v. "indirect" test (though this doctrine was abandoned in the 1930s).
 * It was one of the first instances in government assuming responsibility for economic affairs that had previously been delegated to the states.


text:
Back-rank checkmate

In chess, a back-rank checkmate (also known as a corridor mate) is a checkmate delivered by a rook or queen along the opponent's back (that is, the row closest to them) in which the mated king is unable to move up the board because the king is blocked by friendly pieces (usually pawns) on the second rank.

Introduction
Back-rank mates occur quite often in games at fairly low levels. This is because beginners typically fail to anticipate an impending mate on the back rank. At higher levels of play, though the mate itself does not occur very often, play is often affected by the possibility of it—the fact that a player has to spend time guarding against the mate may leave them vulnerable to other threats and tactical ideas.

Back-rank mates are often guarded against by a friendly rook or queen protecting the back rank. However, it may be possible for the attacking side to deflect one of these pieces away from defensive duties, sacrifice a queen for one of them, or exchange one of them, or the pieces may simply be overworked. In the example shown to the left, White can play 1.Qxc6 and black cannot reply 1...Rxc6 because of 2.Rd8+ Rxd8 3.Rxd8# with a back-rank mate. Black therefore loses his bishop for no compensation—and Black has no good continuation because of the threat of Qxa8 or Qxc8, for example, 1...Qa6 2.Qxa8! Rxa8 3.Rd8+ Rxd8 4.Rxd8#. If Black tries to defend the back rank so that White's queen and bishop are skewered, White can keep an extra piece, for example 1...b5 (defending d8 with the queen) 2.Qf3! keeping the rook on c8 stuck to the defense of the rook on a8, or 1...g6 (creating luft) 2.Qf6! and Black still cannot take due to the back-rank mate.

Back-rank threats can be guarded against more permanently by moving one of the pawns in front of the king to give the king a flight square (or luft). If it were Black to play in the example to the left, he could counter White's threat with, for example, 1...g6, giving the king a square on g7 to which it can safely move. Note, however, that 1...h6 in this example would not do the job, as after the d3-rook moves, the h7-square is covered by the white bishop. Black cannot move the bishop to safety first either, due to a situational pin, e.g. 1...Bb7? 2.Qxc8+! Rxc8 3.Rd8+ Rxd8 4.Rxd8#, or 1...Bd7 2.Rxd7 when the queen once again cannot be taken due to the back rank threat.

It is often not a good idea to play such pawn moves unless there is a pressing need to do so, as they can not only represent a loss of time, but may also allow enemy penetration around the squares weakened by the pawn advance. In many chess openings, however, they are often played for some other purpose, before any back-rank threat has emerged (...h6 is often played to "put the question" to a white bishop on g5, for example; see also Fianchetto).

Examples
In high-level games, a deflection is often necessary to force a back rank mate. Below are two famous examples.

Bernstein vs. Capablanca
One of José Raúl Capablanca's most famous games featured a variety of back-rank threats at the end. It was an exhibition game played in Moscow in 1914 against Ossip Bernstein (Capablanca had the black pieces). The position shown to the right was reached after White's 29th move. Capablanca now played 29...Qb2! The simplest point is that 30.Qxb2 is not possible because of the back-rank mate 30...Rd1#, but there are several related ideas: for example, 30.Qe1, apparently defending the threatened rook, loses to 30...Qxc3 (if 31.Qxc3 then 31...Rd1+ 32.Qe1 Rxe1#); 30.Rc2 fails to 30...Qb1+ 31.Qf1 Qxc2; and 30.Qc2 loses to 30...Qa1+ 31.Qc1 Rd1+ 32.Qxd1 Qxd1#, or 30...Qxc2 31.Rxc2 Rd1#. After 30.Rc8 it looks like white may turn the tables as 30...Rxc8? allows 31.Qxb2 to win a queen for a rook, however Capablanca has 30...Qa1+ (or Qb1+) when instead White loses a rook after 31.Qf1 Qxf1+ 32.Kxf1 Rxc8. Similarly, 30.Qd3 loses to 30...Qa1+ (not 30...Rxd3?? 31.Rc8+) 31.Qf1 Qxc3. So Bernstein had to resign.

Note that had Capablanca played for the back-rank mate more directly with 29...Qb1+ 30.Qf1 Rd1?? (30...Qxa2 would be sensible), he would himself have lost to the back-rank mate 31.Rc8+ Rd8 32.Rxd8#.

Adams vs. Torre Repetto
This game was most likely never played, instead being composed by Carlos Torre Repetto as a tribute to his instructor Edwin Ziegler Adams. In this position, Black's rook on c8 and queen on d7 are all what prevent White from mating with Rxe8+, so White begins deflecting the black queen or rook by force:
 * 18.Qg4! Qb5

If 18... Qd8, then 19.Qxc8! wins a rook, since the rook on e8 now cannot move off e8 to recapture and thus cannot add to the defense of e8. Black cannot play 18...Rxe2 because 19.Qxd7 wins the queen for a rook, as the white knight guards the other rook on e1. Neither rook can move to defend the queen, as after 18...R(either)d8, the rook is overloaded and 19.Qxd7 simply wins a queen.
 * 19.Qc4!!

As with the previous example, the perpetrator of the back rank mate must be careful to not themselves fall for one: 19.a4?? allows 19...Qxe2! when 20.Rxe2 allows 20...Re1+ 21.Ne1 Rxe1+ 22.Rxe1 Rxe1#. With this and the following move, White obstructs the c-file with tempo.
 * 19... Qd7 20.Qc7!! Qb5

At no point can Black take the queen with either rook or queen, because of Rxe8+.
 * 21.a4!

White must once again be careful with their own back rank: the immediate 21.Qxb7?? loses to 21...Qxe2! since 22.Rxe2 allows 22...Rc1+ 23.Re1 R(either)xe1+ 24.Nxe1 Rxe1#. With this move, White prepares the following move, removing their rook from e2 with tempo.
 * 21... Qxa4 22.Re4!

Black's queen has only one remaining safe square to defend e8 from.
 * 22... Qb5

If 22...Qxe4, then 23.Rxe4 and neither black rook can take either white major piece, as the other black rook then falls with check and subsequently back rank mate.
 * 23.Qxb7! 1–0

Black's queen has no remaining safe squares from which to defend e8 and is hanging, so Black must either lose at least a queen for a rook or be checkmated on the back rank.

title: Back-rank checkmate