text:
Talk:Northern Thai language

Untitled
The reason that Northern Thai people consider Yuan to be pejorative is that they don't know what it means. They confuse it with the now-pejorative term for the Vietnamese, which is a homophone, though the two are spelled differently. In point of fact, the Northern Thai (khon mueang, whatever) never referred to themselves as Yuan or Tai Yuan. The term is a purely literary one, derived from the Pali word Yavana, which in turn is derived from the Greek Ionia. In the original Pali usage Yavana referred to (1) speakers of the Greek language, and (2) the Greco-Bactrian kingdom in what is today Afghanistan/Pakistan. The name was later applied to the Chiang Mai region in the Pali-language chronicles (such as the Camadevivamsa) as part of a general trend to re-map the classical world of Indic Buddhism onto southeast Asia.

--Mrrhum 22:10, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Any Fluent Speakers of Northern Thai Here on WP?
Are there any Fluent Speakers of Northern Thai here on WP? I'd love to see this article expanded to resemble the "Isan Thai" and "Standard Thai" pages. I'd also like to see an article on the tua mueang script.--WilliamThweatt 03:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm semi-fluent in Northern Thai in that I've heard my mother and family members speak it often. (Thus, I've only been introduced to the spoken aspects. I have no clue about the written language, except that I've seen it written on temple signs and have mistaken it for Laos.) I know that students in Chiang Mai learn a few Northern words in school, although mainstream (central) Thai is officially taught.
 * I've expanded the article to include vocabulary differences, but I don't want to take this article the wrong way. I may be treating it as a subset of Thai, rather than considering it a unique language or dialect (not more associated with either Thai or Laos).
 * Wikky Horse 09:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to make at least a reference to the dialect spoken around Pitsanulok ans Sukothai which is half way between Central Thai and Northern Thai with even some influence of Ysaan words. Local people have a name for their dialect but i forgot how is it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.192.79 (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Front or back vowel?
Does anyone know which of the open vowels /a/ in คำเมือง front [a] or back [ɑ]? I changed the transcriptions so they're consistent with the Thai script page. Also, how do you add a macron to "ɑ" to make it a middle tone? We can replace the "˧" tone symbols. Wikky Horse (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

They're not really front or back. In this very common case, the rule is to use /a/. Now, you might want to argue that the short vowel is actually slightly higher, [ɐ], but that should be a sourced aside. For phonemes, we should just keep to /a/ v. /aː/. RichardW57 (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thai Yuan
The tern Thai Yuan is considered pejorative, but I've yet to find a published source to state specifically why. One may get a sense of why from the article on the Dali Kingdom. I added: Historians, however, relate that the "traitor" was the last king of Dali, himself, who first fought and then surrendered to the forces of Kublai Khan, to be spared and later appointed by Möngke Khan (also known as Mengu) as the region's first Native Chieftain.

Du Yuting; Chen Lufan (1989) give ample reason to surmise the last king of Dali was the first Thai Yuan, and that the term subsequently applied to native chieftains subservient to the Yuan dynasty. —Pawyilee (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Gedney Box
We ought to include a Gedney box. Should it go under 'Tones' or 'Similar Words'? If we put it under 'similar words' we can compare and contrast the Siamese and Northern Thai tones. There are two different categories of tone differences - regular differences and irregular differences such as Siamese หญิง v. Northern Thai ญิง. In this particular case, Lao has both forms! RichardW57 (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I put the potentially final version in today. I put it in under 'Similar Words', but I may shift it to the section on tones. The applicability to Chiang Rai would benefit from such knowledgeable input, if only for some citations. RichardW57 (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Challenged Word Kamnoet
I'd like to see a source for the tones and meanings of the NT word /kàm.nɤ̀ːt/. There's no guarantee that the meanings in Khmer and Siamese have transferred to Northern Thai. I can't find the word in the Maefahlunang (MFL) dictionary of Udom Rungruengsi. We could always replace it by by the simplex form /kɤ̀ːt/ ᨠᩮᩥ᩠ᨯ. RichardW57 (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * /kàm.nɤ̀ːt/ is a noun in Northern Thai, although it can be used idiomatically as verb. I know this from my knowledge of Northern Thai (dialect spoken in Wang Nuea District, Lampang and Wiang Pa Pao District in Chiang Rai). I don't see it in the (rather rudimentary) dictionary I have on hand though, so all I have is OR right now. It would be fine to replace it with the verb form /kɤ̀ːt/, which is in my dictionary and would still represent a borrowing from Khmer. It's probably better anyway as it would be more easy for the reader to verify as well.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 07:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Challenged Word Khuan cha
I can't find /xūan/ in my dictionaries. I'd like to see a source, or at least a check, that it isn't a mistake for /kūan/, which I can find. /kuan/ is the form that one would expect, but perhaps it has been replaced by the Siamese form. RichardW57 (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thai-centrism of the article
Perhaps a de-thaification is needed for this article. It is called 'Northern Thai' but that is a neologism, and anachronistic. Since this is a language and not a dialect, it would be best to start with its own definition and history rather than seeing it as an offshoot of Central Thai. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

As most English-speakers who encounter Northern Thai will first encounter Thai, it is useful to have comparisons. The tone identification section on for Chiang Mai helps make sense of the Thai script spellings given. (Possibly we should have some Chiang Rai Tai script spellings as well - there is a very strong bias in the information around towards Chiang Mai speech.)

I've got some regional tone charts and other material to slot in which I'm working on at [User:RichardW57/NT draft] - it's a slow business doing the tables and footnotes, so I'm preparing the material on a temporarily separate page. --RichardW57 (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Agree and disagree (to OP). on a pure definition, "northern thai" is wrong. But language conveys a meaning. And because of the fact of countries and borders, it is intuitive to refer to a Thai-family language of an area inside Thailand, that is currently more influenced by modern Thai, and currently uses Thai script, as "northern thai language".

 * One might consider though to change the title and use various redirect links.
 * What should be the headline?? Kam Mueang?? Lanna? I know both of those, and I will only use kam mueang. but we are writing English here unfortunately, and no headline is clearer and easier to access in English than simply northern Thai. Jazi Zilber (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 * How is Lanna not a dialect of standard Thai? Who among us is qualified to draw that distinction? Source?
 * Kortoso (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As to a formal source, the answer is that it would appear to have met the ISO-693 requirements to be treated as a separate language. It is also a 'recognised minority language' in Thailand, whatever that's worth.  --RichardW57 (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Now, you might also ask whether it is a separate language from Tai Lue. Note that it would probably be a western Tai Lue dialect - it has the same tone system as western Tai Lue, and it seems that 70 years ago Northern Tai and Tai Lue were mutually intelligible in practical terms.  (The facts I'm relying on date to the Second World War.)  Now, Northern Thai seems to be fairly phonetically conservative compared to most Tai Lue - it mostly preserves at least two of the three old diphthongs /ia/, /ua/ and /ɯa/.  Of course, Central Thai has had a pretty massive influence on it, and the same phenomenon may be one of the arguments that Isan Thai (code: tts) is not Lao (code:lo). --RichardW57 (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Kinship words, demonstratives, interrogatives and conjunctions seem to have a lot of differences. Sentence final particles and most of the polite pronouns are quite different from Standard Thai.  I'm not sure how significant that is.  Perhaps it isn't - a lot of the more intellectual conjunctions are very similar, so perhaps there are big differences between Standard Thai and local Central Thai speech. --RichardW57 (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 * Most laymen's definition of "dialect" is what a known linguist called "a language without an army". So in this layman sense, it is a dialect. Northern Thais nowadays use Thai script. Most Northern Thai speakers also speak Thai as a second language, and so on.
 * But linguistically, Northern Thai is as much a "language" as central Thai, Laotian, etc are. I think the above discussion is simply between what "dialect" is meant to be here.
 * Northern Thai has its own script too. It has a massive vocabulary that is either distinct, or semi distinct from central Thai. The thing is that many current speakers are not pure northern Thai speakers, but use a lot of central Thai too. So you have the old people with a large distinct northern vocabulary, and many of the younger generations, who are not as "full speakers" as the older ones. This is yet another quite confusing element. Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Lanna script not working apparently.
I am not sure where the programming of it is located. and not sure why.

Did the whole "lana" script thing in wiki got deleted somehow? Or some changes in html coding?

anyhow, it now cannot show all those lana script letters along the whole article, which is a pity Jazi Zilber (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's still working in Firefox 64.0 on Ubuntu 16.04.3, so what have you changed? Or when did you last see it working?  The text (in Unicode) is wrapped in, and at least on my machine that expands to, for example:

 * You may have a problem with the lack of a generic fallback if you have none of those fonts on your machine, and I think all those fonts have problems with Windows. A few years back, HarfBuzz switched to the Universal Script Engine, and that broke the Lanna fonts that used script-specific OpenType shaping.  Firefox was already using HarfBuzz at the time.
 * Just possibly, you had been relying on a web font. Those don't seem to be be provided any more. --RichardW57 (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 * on the following systems it is not working for me: (forgive me for not checking more extensively)
 * Windows 10 - Chrome latest. IE some version. Firefox some version.
 * Android latest - Chrome latest.
 * I am not sure I understand your webfont term. I am a programmer by history, but not updated..... Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Hmm. Has the script display previously worked without the user having to install fonts on their end? I don't remember. Anyway, you could add the relevant CSS to call the relevant Noto font to your user style sheet, e.g. as I have done here, to enable it for your user. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What Tai Tham fonts do you have installed on your devices? Do you also get a massive failure with incubator:Wp/nod/User:RichardW57/sandbox.  I ask for confirmation, as to my surprise that worked with iPhone and a fairly recent version of iOS.  (I don't have access to the iPhone at the moment to check this page.)  The font looked like Noto Sans Tai Tham.
 * A webfont is a font that may be automatically downloaded to enable the reading of a webpage. It is supposed only to be used for that page.  For example, one test page  downloads the fonts it tests browsers against. (It also tests the browser's default font for Tai Tham.)  --RichardW57 (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Can see it on my iPad now. iOS 12 or 11 relatively new device Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

change name to tai yuan language
this need to be change to tai yuan language because not all northern thai are tai yuan and use tai yuan language Lalalulilalia (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

For reasons not to make the change to 'Tai Yuan language', see mentions of 'Yuan' above. The conclusion is wrong because the English name of the language is 'Northern Thai'. The reason given is interesting. What is the difference? Are you under the misapprehension that 'Northern Thai' means a Thai from northern Thailand? Or are you saying that some ethnic Northern Thais do not speak Northern Thai? RichardW57 (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The usual English name of this language is Northern Thai. 'Nuea' (meaning Northern) is also used by native speakers to refer to the language. Further, there was no consensus to change the title of the article. I have therefore reverted the rename from 'Kam Mueang language. --RichardW57 (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Names of Syllable Types
If one goes by ordinary parlance (check Google), 'live' (c. 1800) is commoner than 'smooth' (c.1200)! --RichardW57 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I did not use Google. That is why I got different results. Targeting nonspecialists who use common speech seems appropriate for this page, so using "live syllables" is a good idea. I used Google Scholar, and "smooth syllables" were mentioned in 217 works, whereas "live syllables" were mentioned in 164 works. "Live syllables (and dead syllables)" (likely translated from Thai พยางค์เป็น [กับพยางค์ตาย]) seem to be used to describe Thai and related languages more compared to tone languages in general. Maybe we can use both "smooth" and "live" syllables here (e.g., X syllable, also known as Y syllable)? --A.S. (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have realized that my original edit had to do with "smooth" versus "unchecked," not "smooth" versus "live." However, I hope my response contributed to the discussion! --A.S. (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I really don't like 'smooth'. Possibly that's because it's not a term I am familiar with.  I really wouldn't trust it for general use.  Is a breathy vowel smooth?  The Cao Bằng dialect  shows a tendency to breathy vowels after the murmured stops resulting from Proto-Tai voiced stops.  Now it's not Northern Thai, but it would be good to have a uniform terminology for articles on Tai dialects.  To me, it's not surprising that the original author settled on 'unchecked'.  It's ugly, but it works, without exposing the reader to specifically Tai (or maybe southern Tai) terminology.  --RichardW57 (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I am not an expert on phonation contrasts, but I think a breathy vowel can occur in a smooth syllable because it is my understanding that whether a syllable is a smooth or checked syllable depends on the type of its coda. If the coda is a sonorant consonant or if there is no coda (i.e., the syllable is open), then the syllable is a smooth syllable. The breathiness mentioned in the work of Pittayaporn and Kirby you cited seems to be coming from an onset, not a coda.
 * "To me, it's not surprising that the original author settled on 'unchecked'." Did you mean the original author of the Northern Thai language page on Wikipedia? It looks like the author may have been me in 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Thai_language&type=revision&diff=587593860&oldid=587592934). If memory serves, at that time, I was personally using "CV(V)O syllables" and "CVV/CV(V)S syllables" instead of "checked syllables" and "smooth syllables" respectively in my reports for school, so I likely was not familiar with "checked" or "unchecked" when I used either word here in 2013.
 * For Wikipedia, we should use a term that is known to the general public. If it is "live" then, we should use that, or we can use more than one term. Perhaps the gap between the general public and the academic world should be bridged especially now that we are becoming more connected through the internet.
 * I am not sure which term is used more often when describing a Tai language. Gedney (1989) used "smooth syllables" (p. 202, ). Pittayaporn's (2009) dissertation used "non-checked" syllables (e.g., p. 273, https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/13855). --A.S. (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Proto-Tai tone + initial consonant category
Based on my searches on Google Scholar, I think this order is more common: DS or DL + initial consonant category. Do you think this is accurate? If it is, "DS1-3, DS4, DL1-3, and DL4" could be used instead of "D1-3S, D4S, D1-3L, and D4L" respectively. --A.S. (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm heavily influenced by Li's Handbook of Comparative Tai (1977). I don't know if you've read it - it seems to have become a collector's item.  (It really ought to be regularly reprinted.)  He tags vocabulary items by tone class (A/B/C/D) and 1 for old voiceless initial and 2 for old voiced initial.  Where relevant, he uses a suffixed H/M/N/G for the split tones, so he has A1H v. A1M for Siamese and I think A1N v. A1G for Northern Thai.  He does make the point that consonant shifts can affect the phonation, so from his *pra:k (I think Pittayapon's *p-ta:k) 'to expose to the sun', we get Siamese and Northern Thai taak_A2, but in T'ien-Pao it's regularly thaaʔ_A1, with the aspiration determining the tone.  He also makes the point that vowel lengths might have changed before tones were assigned, so a word can be D1S in one dialect and D1L in another.  I think there are some examples of that between Siamese and Northern Thai, especially with back unrounded vowels.  Thus, old tone - phonation - length feels better to me.  It wouldn't surprise me if it turns out that the patterns are D1S ~ D2S but DS1 ~ DS2 ~ DS3 ~ DS4. --RichardW57 (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Li's work (which I do not own but read parts of about 10 years ago) was one of the works that inspired me to learn more about tonogenesis. Have you read the origin of tones in Vietnamese (1954)? It is another inspiring work. --A.S. (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, though it took a long time for me to come across Haudricourt's article itself. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I wonder who was the first person to use 1-4 to refer to Gedney's four initial consonant categories across all tones. Was it Gedney himself? Previous studies that used 1-4 such as the studies by Owen (2012, p. 14) (link) and Osatananda (1997, e.g., pp. 168-177) (link) seemed to have used a tone box adapted from the one used in Gedney's (1972 or 1989) article called "a checklist for determining tones in Tai dialects" (link). His box had 1-4 and 5-20 (e.g., his B7 is B3 in the 1-4 system). I like the 1-4 system more than the 1-20 system because it is easier to understand. Do you know who did the adaptation? Thank you. --A.S. (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't got a subscription to see the relevant part of Osatanada's thesis. I first came across the 1/2/3/4 system at http://thaiarc.tu.ac.th/dialect/, which comes from something in 1982, but may have taken its current form in 2001 or 2002.  I note that uses notations such as DS3.  I remember reading the big article on the dialectology of the tones of Southern Thai, and feeling that its use of the numbers 1 to 20 was obfuscatory.

I don't see any split between 1-4 and 5-20 in Gedney's paper. He puts a number 1 to 20 in each box, so modern B2 is his box 7, not 'B7'. --RichardW57 (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC) --RichardW57 (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your explanation. I am not sure why Gandour (1977), who used Gedney's tone box, used B7 and other higher numbers (link). --A.S. (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Gandour is using Gedney's box numbering but adding the tone (and length) numbering to make it clearer. He does this for all 20 boxes, so also has A1 and DL20.  At least, that is the effect.  It significantly improves the readability of the text.  He may have been influenced by a table for Li's system.  The next evolutionary step is to reduce the numbers modulo 4 to 1 to 4, but we still haven't found out who took that step. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Spellings of Initial Clusters
I've just removed a load of spurious initial cluster combinations, or at least, spellings that found no support in Rungrueangsi or the Northern Thai dictionary of Palm Leaf Manuscripts. The one's I removed were combinations with letters primarily for Indic loanwords and ones that use MEDIAL RA to mark aspiration. We have one left which is not supported by them, ᩉ᩠ᩃ᩠ᩅ, which would be an alternative spelling of ᩉᩖ᩠ᩅ for those who do not like ᩉᩖ. Does anyone have source to back up its inclusion? The best I can do is ᩉ᩠ᩃ᩠ᩅᩣ᩠ᨷ in a set of examples of how to decode Tai Tham spellings, but I have no confidence that the list is based on real spellings, as the table it is in includes clusters such as /fw/. --RichardW57 (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

 * I just got a nasty shock when I saw the word quoted as evidence for - the bottom consonants for the two half stacks were overlaid by Noto Sans Tai Tham, and I misread it as   It's one of the many problems to be fixed in that font. --RichardW57m (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Any Fluent Speakers of Northern Thai Here on WP? (2022)
I'm a native speaker of the eastern (sub-) dialect and I'd like to add some audio to the article too. However, I found the article is almost based on the western (sub-) dialect (Chiang Mai dialect) so I'm not sure if it is possible to do so. Here's an example of the audio. Ymrttw (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Chiang Rai data is good to have; just label it as such. --RichardW57 (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How many dead tones does Chiang Rai (and Northern Thai in general, if there is an answer) have for each vowel length? Most studies I can find just assume the Gedney box covers everything.  If we took that approach to Standard Thai, we'd get two tones for each length, whereas we know that Standard Thai has three tones for each length, and that they can be considered the same for each length. --RichardW57 (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To be honest, when I first read your mention about three tones for each length, I just had no clue at all because, for me and some native Standard Thai speakers, it is just two tones for each length. (This is what we learned from high school.)
 * Similar to this section, กาญจนา นาคสกุล (2013) (p. 177, 182) says that this phenomenon occurs only in loanwords and onomatopoeia. She also provides some word examples. I switched them to Northern Thai and read them aloud, then I found that in my Northern Thai, there is no such a special (exclusive) rule for loanwords and onomatopoeia. So I would say that, for dead syllables, there are four tones in total as mentioned in the article. Ymrttw (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that the point is that it is (mostly) new words rather than irregular developments that you would expect to see filling a new word shape. For example, if you look at Standard Thai words starting with ฮ you will mostly find onomatopoeia and foreign (or dialect) loanwords.  Another possible category for Northern Thai would be 4-syllable alliterating intensives, along the lines of the famous ᨸᩃ᩶ᩣᩴᨸᩉᩖᩮᩬᩥᩋ. --RichardW57 (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, let me correct myself. There is indeed such a phenomenon in my native language too. I think almost all long dead syllables of loanwords (from western countries) are pronounced in high level tone, which may not be found in native words.
 * Example 1: 'metre' → [meːt˦] (Standard Thai: [meːt˦])
 * Example 2: 'Mark' → [maːk˦] (Standard Thai: [maːk˦])
 * Example 3: 'notebook' → [noːt˦ buk˦] (Standard Thai: [noːt˦ buk˦])
 * However, it seems that there is no falling tone in short dead syllables which can be observed in Standard Thai. Instead, many of them are pronounced in high level tone, similar to long dead syllables.
 * Example 4: 'make-up' → [meːk˦ ʔap˦] (Standard Thai: [meːk˦ ʔap˦˨])
 * Example 5: 'focus' → [foː˧˥ kat˦] (Standard Thai: [foː˧ kat˦˨], or in younger speakers, [foː˧ kat˦])
 * Example 6: 'trumpet' → [tʰam˧˥ pet˨] (Standard Thai: [tʰram˧ pet˦˨]) - For some reasons I do not yet understand, we don't pronounce as [tʰam˧˥ pet˦], and feel awkward to do so.
 * I uploaded an audio comparing Chiang Rai dialect to Standard Thai here. Ymrttw (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've looked through Udom [Runrueangsi]'s Maefahluang dictionary, and found several words with short vowels and falling tones, and they don't look like English: อั้บ 'to bestow', อิ้บ 'booked, reserved'. It's not a coincidence that they begin with the same letter; a lot of words beginning with the glottal stop are outside the Gedney box.  I  don't know how widespread these words are; for all I know, they could be Chiang Mai words. --RichardW57 (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't know such words before and cannot figure out how to pronounce them correctly. I'll ask my family members and friends later whether they know these words. Ymrttw (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My parents said that they don't know the word 'อั้บ' (or 'อั๊บ'), but they do use the word [ʔip˦] 'อิ๊บ'  (high level tone, not falling tone,) meaning 'to reserve, to book' as in the sentence [pɤn˧˩ ʔip˦ ʔan˧˥ niː˦˨ nɤː˦˨] I'll reserve/book this one. Ymrttw (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As for [tʰam˧˥ pet˨] rather than *[tʰam˧˥ pet˦], the former better matches the overall falling pitch pattern such English words are perceived to have. --RichardW57 (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

ᨯᩁᨽᨡᩫᩉᩧᨿᩫᨦᨳᨲᨻ 65.18.117.174 (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Northern Thai language


text:
James E. Campbell

James Edwin Campbell (July 7, 1843 – December 18, 1924) was an American attorney and Democratic politician from Ohio. He served in the United States House of Representatives from 1884 to 1889 and as the 38th governor of Ohio from 1890 to 1892.

Early life and education
Campbell was born in Middletown, Ohio, where he attended the public schools and then Miami University.

Civil War
He served in the Union Army as a member of the Mississippi River Squadron during the Civil War. He was a master's mate on the gunboats Elk and Naiad until his health gave out and he returned home emaciated.

Early career
James Campbell was admitted to the bar in 1865 and began practicing law in Hamilton, Ohio two years later. Campbell was married to Maud Elizabeth Owens of Hamilton, Ohio on January 4, 1870. They had four children.

He was a Republican who voted for Lincoln and Grant for President, and after 1872 became a Democrat.

Congress
After serving as a prosecutor in Butler County, Ohio, from 1876 to 1880, Campbell was elected as a Democrat to the United States House of Representatives twice from Ohio's 7th congressional district (Forty-eighth and Fiftieth Congresses) and once from the third district (Forty-ninth Congress), a seat once held by his uncle Lewis D. Campbell, serving from 1884 to 1889. In the 49th Congress, he was chairman of the House Committee on Alcoholic Liquor Traffic.

Governor
Campbell then was elected to the Ohio governorship, serving from 1890 to 1892. He was an unsuccessful candidate for re-election in 1891, losing to future president William McKinley. During his term as governor, he signed a bill enacting the Australian ballot in Ohio. He called a special session of the General Assembly to remove the corrupt government of the city of Cincinnati. This action cost him the support of Democrats in that part of the state, and prevented his re-election. He was unsuccessful in a third run for governor in 1895.

Later career
Campbell was a trustee of the Ohio State University 1895–1896. Remaining politically active, Campbell was a delegate to the Democratic National Conventions in 1892, 1920, and 1924. He served on the commission to codify the State of Ohio laws from 1908 to 1911.

Campbell was nominated for Congress in 1906, but lost, and was his party's choice for Senator in 1908, but was again defeated. In 1913, Campbell was appointed a trustee of the Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society, and he was elected unanimously by the Board of Trustees as president on September 25, 1918. He served as president until his death.

He resumed the practice of law in Columbus, Ohio after 1892.

He was a Mason, a member of the order of the Elks, the Columbus Club, the Scioto Country Club, the Presbyterian Church, the Grand Army of the Republic, the American Legion, and the Kit Kat Club of Columbus.

Death
James Edwin Campbell died in Columbus in 1924 and is interred in Green Lawn Cemetery.

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

title: James E. Campbell


text:
Jay Hammond

Jay Sterner Hammond (July 21, 1922 – August 2, 2005) was an American politician of the Republican Party, who served as the fourth governor of Alaska from 1974 to 1982. Hammond was born in Troy, New York and served as a Marine Corps fighter pilot in World War II with the Black Sheep Squadron. In 1946, he moved to Alaska where he worked as a bush pilot. Hammond served as a state representative from 1959 to 1965 and as a state senator from 1967 to 1973. From 1972 until 1974 he was the mayor of the Bristol Bay Borough. Then, in 1974, he was elected governor of Alaska.

He oversaw the creation of the Alaska Permanent Fund in 1976, which, since the early 1980s, has paid annual dividends to Alaska residents. He advocated for fiscal responsibility. When his tenure as governor was over, he continued to be active in public life. He advocated for environmentally and fiscally responsible government and individual civic responsibility. From 1985 to 1992 he hosted a television series called Jay Hammond's Alaska. He wrote three autobiographies.

Early life
Jay Sterner Hammond was born in Troy, New York in 1922. Hammond studied petroleum engineering at Penn State University, where he was a member of Triangle Fraternity. He later served as a Marine Corps fighter pilot in World War II with the Black Sheep Squadron, and in China, until 1946. That year, Hammond moved to Alaska where he worked as a bush pilot and earned a degree in biological sciences at the University of Alaska.

Hammond had one daughter, Wendy, with his first wife, but that marriage ended in divorce. In 1952, Hammond married his second wife, Bella Gardiner, with whom he had two daughters, Heidi and Dana.

Alaska Legislature
Hammond served as a state representative from 1959 to 1965 and as a state senator from 1967 to 1973. Hammond served in the 1st Alaska State Legislature as an independent, joining thirty-four Democrats and five Republicans in the forty-member House. At the time, Hammond believed that a Republican could not be elected in that particular time and place, but that he could not envision running as a Democrat on account of his upbringing and background. He did serve as a Republican in subsequent legislatures, however. He was Senate President in his final two years in the legislature.

Bristol Bay Borough
Hammond was the mayor of the Bristol Bay Borough from 1972 to 1974. He also served as the borough's manager during his time away from the legislature in the 1960s.

Governor of Alaska
Hammond was elected governor in 1974 in a close result over incumbent William A. Egan. The race was complicated by two major factors, amongst others. One was a reversal of roles of sorts, where Hammond and his running mate Lowell Thomas Jr. were identified as conservationists, confusing and splitting the traditional party base. The other was the appearance, for the first time, of a substantial third-party candidate, Fairbanks miner and real estate developer Joe Vogler. Vogler's open contempt for the environmental movement created a further voter rift which no doubt helped Hammond.

As governor during the biggest economic boom in Alaska's history, the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, Hammond oversaw the creation of the Alaska Permanent Fund. The concept of the Permanent Fund, originally championed in 1969 by then-governor Keith Miller and Anchorage Times publisher and editor Robert Atwood on the eve of the Prudhoe Bay oil lease sale, lay dormant for years as a result of the legislature spending the proceeds of the lease sale and construction delays associated with the pipeline. During his first term as governor, Hammond, along with a young state representative from Kenai named Hugh Malone, conceived a program to invest oil royalties to cover future state budget shortfalls as well as create a long-term savings account. Alaska voters approved a constitutional amendment establishing the Permanent Fund in 1976, one of the rare exceptions to the constitutional intent of not dedicating funds for a specific purpose.

Since the early 1980s, the Permanent Fund has paid annual dividends to Alaska residents, under a program in which credit has been variously given to, or taken by, Hammond, Malone, Libertarian state representative Dick Randolph and numerous other Alaskan politicians of the day. At around the same time, Alaska eliminated its state income tax. Hammond is often erroneously credited for this; in fact, he was actually staunchly opposed to the idea. The elimination of the income tax was actually championed by Randolph, who persuaded his fellow legislators to pass the bill after mounting an initiative to force a public vote should the legislature not act. A 1980 episode of the public television program Alaska Review (currently held in the collections of the Alaska Film Archives) prominently featured an edited "debate" between Hammond and Randolph on the subject, centered on the fact that Alaska faced a one-billion-dollar budget surplus that year.

As governor, Hammond advocated for fiscal responsibility, and introduced an amendment to the Alaska Constitution limiting state spending. This was mocked by one legislator as "Spendy Limitation," with an accompanying elegant and obfuscatory statement mimicking Hammond's unique way with the English language. He advocated for another constitutional amendment providing for governors to serve a single 6-year term without possibility of further service. He felt it would allow governors a free hand in accomplishing their goals. He also championed a program which opened large amounts of state-owned lands near Delta Junction for agricultural use. While greater aspects of the program have been variously condemned as a "boondoggle" over the years, Delta Junction has managed to emerge as one of the larger agricultural producing communities in Alaska. He also vigorously fought with the legislature over power struggles between the two branches of government, culminating with four proposed constitutional amendments on the 1980 ballot, all of which failed by large margins.

Later life
After his tenure as governor, Hammond continued to be active in public life. He advocated for environmentally and fiscally responsible government, and individual civic responsibility. Hammond wrote articles for newspapers in Alaska, and appeared in public service announcements on television. He hosted a television series called Jay Hammond's Alaska from 1985 to 1992. Hammond survived a rafting accident on August 6, 1988, while shooting an episode of the series on the Tana River in Wrangell-St. Elias National Park. Killed in the accident were Larry Holmstrom, the show's executive producer, Holmstrom's daughter Maria, and cameraman Ronald Eagle. Three others on the raft besides Hammond also survived, including one who also fell into the water of the Class IV river.

Hammond wrote three autobiographies, Tales of Alaska's Bush Rat Governor: The Extraordinary Autobiography of Jay Hammond, Wilderness Guide and Reluctant Politician, Chips from the Chopping Block: More Tales from Alaska's Bush Rat Governor and Diapering The Devil: How Alaska Helped Staunch Befouling by Mismanaged Oil Wealth; a Lesson for Other Rich Nations. The latter book, published in 2011, was co-edited by Hammond's granddaughter Lauren Stanford. Hammond also wrote the preface to Brother Asaiah, As Remembered by Martha Ellen Anderson and Friends, a memoir of the life of Homer businessman and peace activist Brother Asaiah Bates, which was published in 2006 following the deaths of both Bates and Hammond.

Hammond's last major public appearances were in early 2004, centered around the Conference of Alaskans convened by governor Frank Murkowski. Murkowski, recalling the spirit of the constitutional convention, assembled fifty-five delegates from across Alaska to meet at the University of Alaska Fairbanks to tackle specific questions regarding Alaska's fiscal future. Apart from launching the political career of Mark Neuman, who proclaimed himself to be one of the few ordinary people amongst the delegates and who was elected to the state house later that year, little was accomplished by the conference in the end. Hammond spent much of the conference holding court outside of the Wood Center ballroom where sessions were held, espousing his own solutions, which included doubling the amount of the Permanent Fund dividend and restoring the state income tax, the latter of which was strongly opposed by Murkowski. The delegates responded to Hammond by endorsing an income tax proposal, which delegate Clark Gruening described as a "declaration of independence" from Murkowski. Several weeks after the conference, Hammond spoke before Commonwealth North, proclaiming that he would spend $50,000 of his own money if necessary to campaign for his dividend and income tax plan.

Death
Hammond lived at his homestead on Lake Clark, until his death at age 83 on August 2, 2005. According to his wife, Bella, he died peacefully in his sleep.

title: Jay Hammond


text:
Talk:Point of sail

No-go zone?
"A boat turns through the no-go zone as it tacks. " this is not correct a boat turns through the no-go zone when it gibes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.25.248.185 (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

When the wind is dead astern, the Jib can be "goose-winged" to the opposite side of the boat(a whisker pole comes in handy) so that the main and jib are spread apart and both can fill. this is called sailing by the lee, and can be hazardous if not watch closely. It is also the only point of sail that does not have leeway.

Sailing goosewinged is different from sailing by the lee. Sailing by the lee is when your sail is over the upwind side of your boat - i.e. the 'wrong' side. It's often done on near when sailing lasers (with the boat tilted as well - presumably to put the centre of effort over the boat.)

The article says that running downwind is the "no go zone". The diagram appears to contradict this, as the "don't go zone". The latter makes more sense, and I suspect a typo. However, I am not a sailor, so will not presume to correct it.

 * The picture is right: the no-go zone is on both sides of straight into the wind; when trying to sail farther upwind than close-hauled, there is a "dead angle" where the ship cannot go forward; that's why when the destination is straight upwind, the ship will have to "beat to windward" by sailing close-hauled on both tacks in alternation. Sailors of the old square-rigged three- or four-masters, which couldn't sail closer than 60° into the wind, used to say that going upwind means "twice the way [i.e. twice the path length] and thrice the time". OTOH, sailing before the wind (i.e. straight downwind) is always possible, and depending on how the ship is rigged it may be done with the mainsail on one side and the jib goose-winged on the other side (on a whisker pole), or with or without a jib but with a spinnaker.
 * And contrary to the first message (by 99.25.248.185) in this section, a sailing ship does indeed turn through the no-go zone as it tacks, and her inertia allows her to go from clause hauled on the port tack to close-hauled on the starboard tack or vice-versa. When gybing, the ship continues to be pushed by the wind, there isn't any no-go zone there, the only thing to watch for is that when passing the straight downwind position, the mainsail boom might pass brutally from all the way starboard to all the way port (or vice-versa), possibly even knocking the helmsman unconscious. — Tonymec (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Wind direction for points of sail
The article states: "Wind direction for points of sail always refers to the true wind..."

I have never seen any reliable source make this claim and a few days ago I added a CN tag. It was removed and the following book/page was cited:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Xe_i23UL4sAC&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q&f=false

But I see no support for this claim in that source.

Several years ago this topic came up - I'm not sure if it was on this talk page or another article's - but upon checking multiple sources the consensus was that point of sail was almost always introduced before apparent wind and none of the material bothered to go back and make the distinction. Seeing as how the citations did not clarify the matter we (the editors) agreed to elide over it as well. My take at the time (and still is) was that this isn't mathematics where terms come with precise definitions and while it would be nice to provide one, that's not our role as wikipedia editors.

So, I'm restoring the CN tag. I do not believe use of the word "always" is appropriate. Perhaps "usually" or "often" if we can find support in the reliable sources. Otherwise, "sometimes" may be acceptable if we can find even one source saying that the point of sail refers to the true wind. But I've never even seen that. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 * , interesting question. I've never seen any discussion of point of sail that didn't use a diagram with the true wind to define such terms as close reach, beam reach, etc. "Close-hauled" is really a description of a sail setting, one which pertains to an iceboat on every point of sail, except downwind. Nonetheless, it may be appropriate to rephrase:
 * Wind direction for points of sail always refers to the true wind—the wind felt by a stationary observer. ...., to read:
 * A given point of sail (beating, close reach, beam reach, broad reach, and running downwind) is defined in reference to the true wind—the wind felt by a stationary observer—and, depending on boat speed, determines an appropriate sail setting, as determined by the apparent wind. .....
 * Look at the following references and see what you think:
 * Maximum Sail Power—The Complete Guide to Sails, Sail Technology, and Performance Pp. 272-3
 * The Annapolis Book of Seamanship P. 47
 * Sailing Fundamentals P. 72

 * Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the Anapolis Book of Seamanship or Maximum Sail Power, so I can't comment on those.
 * Sailing Fundamentals engages in the same "writing-around" behavior I've seen everywhere else. The diagram seems to imply that point of sail is relative to the true wind, but the text is silent. For instance, this excerpt:
 * "...a boat cannot sail directly into the wind. Instead, a boat sails at various angles to the wind the closest of which is about 45 degrees... The point of sail closest to the wind is close-hauled. The sails are sheeted in close to the boat, and the vessel is steered as close to the wind's direction as possible without the sails luffing." (emphasis mine)

 * Nowhere does the author clarify whether he is talking about the true wind or the apparent wind when he writes the wind. The mention of 45 degrees implies that he's talking about the true wind, but the next snippet is clearly implying that the apparent wind is what matters i.e. close hauled means sailing as close to the apparent wind as possible. And as per the usual exposition, all this discussion occurs prior to explaining apparent vs true wind so it wouldn't make sense to make the distinction. I assume that at some point the author gets around to apparent wind (I don't have access to the entire book) but if he's like every other source he doesn't circle back to points of sail and state what he meant by the wind.

 * I teach sailing and this question is common - are the points of sail relative to the true wind or the apparent wind? In all my reading, I've never seen a definitive answer. (other than here on this page) In practice, it doesn't really matter - close hauled means that if you turn to windward the boat slows down and you're at the minimum angle to both the true and apparent wind. If you're running,  both true and apparent wind are from the stern unless the wind has suddenly shifted. Whether a beam reach means 90 degrees from the true wind or 90 degrees from the apparent wind probably doesn't matter in practice, so nobody bothers to make the distinction in the reliable sources. Likewise, the same course  may be a "close reach" or a "broad reach" depending on whether one is referring to the true or apparent wind, but few sailors engage in this kind of hair-splitting, so again it probably doesn't matter.
 * BTW, I'd be happy to simply state in the article that point of sail is defined relative to the true wind. But I've never actually seen it stated directly in any of the reliable sources I've read. And my understanding of how Wikipedia works is that we can't make that claim without a reliable source. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your reply, Mr. Swordfish. You're telling me that when you clicked on the following links, you weren't able to see or navigate to the pages cited? They definitely represent true wind, the wind that one sees on the water or on flags, ashore.
 * Maximum Sail Power—The Complete Guide to Sails, Sail Technology, and Performance Pp. 272-3
 * The Annapolis Book of Seamanship P. 47
 * Sailing Fundamentals P. 72
 * Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The links didn't work for me yesterday. Today the Anapolis Book of Seamanship link is working. I found another link for the other book at
 * http://www.brianhancock.org/assets/maximum_sail_power.pdf

 * Both define or describe the points of sail in relation to the wind e.g. from the Max Sail Power glossary Beam Reach entry: "a point of sail where the boat is sailing at right angles to the wind." (emphasis mine).  The Anapolis Book treats point of sail on page 47 and does apparent wind on page 48, but like every other reference I've seen fails to clarify which it was talking about previously.

 * So, I'm not seeing what you're seeing. i.e. a clear statement that "points of sail are defined in relation to the true wind" I could be persuaded that the implication is strong enough for us to be able to make that claim, but it would be better to find an actual example of some reference stating it directly. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Mr. Swordfish, all the diagrams show "the wind", which is clearly the true wind. Is there another interpretation that you see? HopsonRoad (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with your interpretation of the diagram(s). What gives me pause is the fact that I've looked at dozens of reliable sources and have yet to find a single one that states this explicitly. Maybe interpretation and inference is enough here, and maybe it isn't. Curious what other editors think. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Swordfish, I think that the missing link is: In a diagram it's unnecessary to point out that the wind depicted is the "true wind", whereas from the point of view of a person on a moving platform—a sailor in our case—it requires clarification that what feels like the wind, the apparent wind, is different from the true wind and therefore both components of the wind vector diagram need a name to explain what's going on. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Gentlemen, may I give you the point of view of someone who used to sail? Maybe it will be relevant to your discussion, maybe it won't.
 * “Close-hauled” is as close to the no-go zone as the ship can go and still make head. How close that is depends on the construction of the ship and of its rigging: for modern racing yachts it may be as close as 30°, for dinghies such as a Vaurien it may be 45°, for a full-rigged threemaster 60° was a performance, and among their sailors the saying went that beating into the wind was twice the way and thrice the time.
 * Running is of course at 180° from wherever the wind is coming from, and in that case the true and apparent wind blow in the same direction but not with the same force.
 * All the rest (except into the no-go zone) is reaching, but in that case it is difficult to sense exactly from onboard ship where the “true” wind is coming from. All sails on the same tack but “almost” before the wind is broad reaching; a little wider than close-hauled is close reaching; where exactly between them you get the true wind just straight from port or starboard is hard to tell, the only wind that can be felt onboard is the so-called “apparent” wind, which for a sailor is the actual “true” wind, though it is almost always slightly more forward than what meteorologists on ground tell you. So if the navigator logged “beam reaching, port tack” in the logbook, you can bet that it's the apparent wind which was coming straight abeam from port.
 * (probably irrelevant) OTOH when estimating the course made good, all components of the drift (both wind drift and current drift) have to be taken into account, and if you've been sailing on both tacks 30° from the wind you felt, your course made good won't be that close to the point "straight into the wind" toward which you've been beating. Happily the compass tells you where you're heading, the log boat or log fish tells you how fast, but you still need to watch your wake to estimate your angle of drift relative to the current, and then add the current velocity vectorially to your speed on water. — Tonymec (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Iceboat caption
, sorry to trouble you, but I'm a bit confused by | this edit. I wanted to add a picture of a boat in irons, and thought that's what this showed; can you explain? I'd tend to say the sails of these iceboats are slatting (if it was excessively vigorous, I might say "flogging"), but I used "flapping" as I thought readers would be more likely to understand. "Luffing" I tend to think of as what the sail does at the edge of the no-go zone; that is, "You're luffing" is said just as the sail starts to flutter a little, locally. THis could be a regional difference of some sort. HLHJ (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 * No trouble at all, HLHJ! Thank you for engaging here. I struggled with the question of luffing vs being in irons. In reviewing several dictionaries, I agree with your assessment that my usage is off. "Flapping" would be better. There's still the question of whether the boat is in irons. And, upon further consideration, it could be regarded as such. (Although, one could probably get into the iceboat, push the boom outwards and steer in the opposite direction and move forward, unlike recovery from irons when afloat, where one backs up.) I couldn't find a different/better example of being in irons in Wikimedia, so let's work with this. I'll take another stab at the caption to work in the word "irons". Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Thank you, HopsonRoad, the new caption is much better! I like "parked", it's not jargon but it does succinctly give an accurate idea of the situation. I'll try to improve the article body text a bit, but it seems some of the terms have changed over time, so avoiding recentism may be a research task. And maybe a link to Wiktionary would work better. HLHJ (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Order of presentation?
Hi HLHJ and thank you for your extensive work in this article! I wonder at changing the order of presentation from head-to-wind to dead-downwind. Most treatises start at the top of the diagram. I appreciate that you're trying to explain to the uninitiated, but this order seems odd to the "initiated"! Perhaps returning to the original order, but with the easier-to-follow explanations of each is an appropriate compromise. I wonder if some of the current text strays from WP:TONE. I've tried to streamline some of what I've found. I'll be looking at other passages, later. Thanks, again! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 * It's certainly a major re-org, and without prior discussion on the talk page. We should take a critical look at the changes to see if they are really an improvement. I'm definitely of the school that thinks these articles should be written for the uninitiated rather than for people who already know the material.  Not sure if the recent changes are consistent with that view. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Sure, sorry, I should maybe have discussed it. I'm not really attached to any particular wording, order or content. I find it's generally pretty easy to explain why a sailboat goes downwind, and hard to explain why it goes upwind, which is why I re-ordered it (based on verbally explaining it to people). I had no idea that there was a conventional order. We could flip the lede diagram, with the disadvantage that downwind would no longer be down; but I don't think it matters if we cover the diagram in a bottom-to-top order. Mentioning that one can sail faster than the wind on some courses, and some explanation of why in terms of basic physics, would be good. Lots of people understand some physics but not sailing, and I feel it's generally a good idea for an encyclopedia to connect topics. I find the whole lift-vs-drag discussion a bit complex and low in explanatory value, so I'd be fine with moving it to a special section later in the article, with some explanation of what it means in practical terms. I haven't managed to find a suitably-licensed polar plot of sailing speed yet, but I think such a diagram would improve the article. Generally, this is a fairly spatial topic, where diagramsa are useful; if you can imagine any in particular, I'm willing to make some. On tone, I've tried to introduce jargon as I go along; completely removing it would, I think, have an Up-goer Five effect (I assume that it's this, and not, say, the formality level, which strays from WP:TONE). But there's an arguement for just not mentioning more jargon. I'll try and aim at being understandable to people with no background knowledge. HLHJ (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Forms of emphasis?
and, terms in this article are sometimes introduced in "quotation marks", at other times with italics, and sometimes they are linked. I suggest that we identify a preferred convention and stick to it throughout the article. I recommend quotation marks, when a term is introduced and no quotation marks, thereafter as the terms are normally written, leaving italics for other opportunities for emphasis. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good; on first use, quotes, and quotes plus wl where the wikilink is available. HLHJ (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that MOS:WORDSASWORDS specifies: "Use italics when writing about words as words, or letters as letters (to indicate the use–mention distinction)." It provides examples. This means that we should introduce words with italics. HopsonRoad (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Confusion about sail trim vs. point of sail
User:Qtrfoil, sailing terminology does indeed conflate sail trim (e.g. "close-hauled" = "sheeted in") with a point of sail close to the eye of the wind, close-hauled, when ice boats, high-performance dinghies, catamarans and foiling sailboats have their sails trimmed in for a range of points of sail. However, the point of sail remains in reference to the true wind. Increasing speed of the sailing craft brings the apparent wind progressively forward for points of sail where the sail can act like an airfoil (typically 45 to 135 degrees off the true wind) and the craft's speed can exceed that of the wind, rather than a parachute (typically 135 to 180 degrees off the true wind) when the speed of the sailing craft cannot exceed that of the wind, and progressively necessitates sheeting in the sails. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I've sailed foiling Moths and Nacras (poorly), generations of sailboards, raced everything from Lasers through 505s (!) to larger offshore yachts, and am both a parachutist and an aerospace engineer. I'm curious about any recent source for the statement that describes point of sail wrt true wind, especially since, say, 2013's America's Cup 34. I think it's just not universally useful, and a modern citation might be valuable. However, I also can't find a source that explicitly supports my position that the point of sail is wrt the apparent wind (though here we see that reaching is simply described as "the process by which the wind is coming * across the boat * [emphasis added] [¹]) so I'll gladly leave the page as it is, my mistake. Equally, I wonder if the concept of upwind and downwind must now be defined more precisely, as Sir Ben Ainslie speaks to.[²]
 * I'd suggest that any sail, hard or soft, is an aerofoil, with high pressure on one side and low pressure on the other and providing useful motion. Asymmetric camber wings, such as a variable camber hard sail or even fully-battened soft sails, can generate lift even at some negative AOA. Of course, and recognizing that you wrote "typically," efficient fore and aft-rigged sails still "act like an airfoil," continuing to generate lift and even useful VMG, well higher than 45 degrees off true wind.[³][⁴] We know we use this somewhat often, perhaps in racing at the starting line or to juuust make a mark as the wind shifts.
 * And the boat speed of a low-drag craft sailing "downwind" can certainly exceed that of the wind, or an AC72 would gybe instead of tack to a leeward mark.[²] Here we see that an AC72's boat speed ranges from 23 to 45 knots in 20 knots of wind between between 120° and 170° [³] for example, and here an AC35 makes 45+ knots in 17 knots of wind at 130° off true wind and 35+ knots VMG at 150° knots of wind[⁴], while a Moth makes 11 knots boat speed in 10 knots of wind at 130° .[⁵] Fascinating, to me at least, and, rather to my larger point - paradigm shifting.
 * I wonder if we're a little stuck in a concept that has been true for centuries, but is arguable now. I might just remove the word "true" from the lead sentence in the article and leave it at that. Anyway, I'll agree that I'm certainly not the one to "fix" all of humanity, so I'll just watch this discussion in the years ahead. Cheers!
 * ¹ https://asa.com/news/2022/12/06/points-of-sail/
 * ² https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAmUcRdqhjU&t=20s
 * ³ https://8bitbyte.ca/sailnavsim/wind_response/ac72.html
 * ⁴ https://www.researchgate.net/figure/AC35-Challenger-Finals-Race-4-Comparison-of-Race-Data-from-SWE-to-AC50-VPP-output-for_fig8_351615999
 * ⁵ https://www.boatdesign.net/attachments/foils-moth-thesis-boegle-pdf.77496/ pg 21 Qtrfoil (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the above, none of which (including the polar diagrams) contradicts what I described above and is covered in High-performance sailing. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 * I've sailed some sailing dinghies and occasionally some sand yachts, and the way the latter accelerate as you sheet in the sails when broad reaching (relative to the true wind) takes some getting used to. I think that the convention that points of sail are relative to the true wind, even though what the sails feel is the apparent wind, is a useful one, otherwise sand yachts should always be sailed close-hauled except when in the no-go zone or when running straight downwind (and the best route for steering a sand yacht downwind is to tack down the wind, if there is room for it and at low tide there usually is). IMHO in case of doubt we can specify explicitly if we are talking about an angle away from the true wind or about a more or less sheeted-in sail position, or even both in the same sentence, as in When a sand yacht is broad reaching relative to the true wind, its sails should be progressively sheeted in until it is close hauled relative to the apparent wind. — Tonymec (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Inferences on studding sails
I am concerned that User:Top5a has reinstated the implication that studding sails are only for downwind use. That implication is carried in the picture heading "Specialized downwind sails for a fore-and aft rig and a square rig" and the discussion of studding sails in the section titled "Running downwind".

I had presumed that the erroneous nature of this content was a case of WP:BLUE – clearly I am wrong in that, for which I apologise. To make the case for the edit, let's start with some pictures: either photographs or by noted marine artists who would be out of a job if they painted something that was technically wrong.  File:Taeping (clipper, 1863) - SLV H91.325-1033.jpg|Studding sails set on fore and main-masts. Clearly not sailing downwind. File:The Great China Race. The Clipper Ships Taeping & Ariel passing the Lizard Sept 6th 1866 on their homeward voyage from Foo-Chow-Foo PAH8572 S4144 (cropped).jpg|This one is by Thomas Goldsworthy Dutton – read his article for credentials  For a photo, follow this link. Again, this is not a vessel going downwind.

For written sources, the most authoritative is probably Seamanship in the Age of Sail (Harland) (widely quoted by other sources that are well respected). On page 157 there is a section titled Studding Sails on Different Points of Sail. Here the main discussion is about blanketing (one sail interfering with the wind getting to another sail). But it includes, for instance: "On the other hand, once set, they could be hung onto a bit longer as the wind hauls forward." There is also quoted advice that studding sails (versus staysails) are better once the wind is "a full two points free" – so that's a close reach. There are also illustrations captioned "Set of studding sails on the wind", demonstrating correct and incorrect setting of this sail. "On the wind" means sailing to windward. See page 11 of the same source for points of sail terminology. Further discussion on blanketing mentions that the precise rig design meant that this problem could be reduced. That might explain why the Dutton picture of two famous clippers shows these ships sailing quite close to the wind: a lot of care had been put into the design of these rigs.

Harland even makes clear that studding sails can be a problem sailing downwind – again the problem of blanketing. So we can conclude that, whilst some studding sails can be set downwind, this is not the point of sail on which you will see the largest number set. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Thank you for this, . Perhaps the solution is in broadening the claims made about spinnakers and studding sails, which can both be used up to a close reach. Here is a possible revision:

 * Version of existing text with broadened claims:
 * Craft running downwind increase power from the sails by increasing total area presented to the following wind, sometimes by putting out specialized sails for that adapt well to the purpose, such as a spinnaker on a fore-and-aft rigged vessel. Another technique is to place the jib to windward (opposite to the main sail), called "wing on wing" or one of several other terms. In light winds, certain square-rigged vessels may set studding sails, sails that extend outwards from the yardarms, to create a larger sail area for points of sail, ranging from downwind to a close reach.

Sails for a fore-and-aft rig and a square rig in use downwind
 * Downwind

 * HopsonRoad (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we still have some problems.
 * Analysing my instincts on this, part of it is the photo of USS Monongahela. What exactly is she doing? There is barely a hint of any movement through the water. Studding sails on the main would clearly blanket the sails on the foremast if the wind is anywhere near aft. Since she was a training ship, I think what we have is the end result of a "set every sail" exercise for the trainees – having taken the opportunity of a day with no wind on which to do this. So, in terms of what this does for the article, does it illustrate a sailing vessel using studding sails to travel downwind? I think the answer has to be no.
 * Then we have Harland's discussion of the subject. I must reiterate that he is the source that is cited by many other sources that are highly respected in their own right. Whilst no source is infallible, in this instance if we disagree with what he says, the arguments for doing so would need to be impressive. Harland has an illustration that clearly shows studding sails set for "on the wind". He defines that term as sailing to windward. The point is, then, that studding sails can be used on all points of sail. Yes, they are less likely to be used close-hauled – but that is due to blanketing. The photo (linked, above) shows a simpler rig, a topsail schooner. She is carrying a single studding sail, set to windward. There is no blanketing issue in this case. From the position of the headsails, she is close-hauled. So we have the ultimate authority on the subject, a good quality modern photograph and numerous other illustrations, all showing studding sails set when going to windward.
 * The article could still say that "downwind, you need to set more sail, so you might set studding sails if you have them" (that's a paraphrase). But this statement would be alongside mention of a spinnaker that is a downwind and/or reaching sail. However carefully the article is phrased, there is a risk that many readers will take away the idea that studding sails are specialist downwind sails. What is the benefit in running the risk of being misunderstood?
 * Surely the key point is that when going downwind, because the apparent wind speed is lower, and because sails are acting as parachutes, not aerofoils, you need to set more sail. This is demonstrated in the simplest situation: Bermuda sloop going downwind: turns to windward and you find you need a reef and a smaller headsail. We don't need to invoke sails that most yachtsmen have never seen in order to make that point. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * >I am concerned that User:Top5a has reinstated the implication that studding sails are only for downwind use.
 * I would like to first remind you to not cast ASPERSIONS. I did no such thing, and made no such judgment.  Why don't we take a look at what I stated:
 * >WP:AGF temporary revert wrt WP:UCR when removing cited content, please provide an explanation, source passage, or counter-citation, feel free to open a discussion on the talk page
 * You removed a cited statement with no reference to a discussion on the Talk page. Prior to making my revert, I searched Wikilibrary for the book source to see if the source was incorrectly cited or incorrectly interpreted, yet it was unavailable.  Do you have access to the source, or a source that counters it?  Allow me to further remind you of WP:NOR.
 * You starting a discussion here is exactly the purpose of my revert and comment, if you believe there is a problem in the cited source. You might be the foremost authority on a topic, but this is Wikipedia, not your personal website.
 * At any rate, thank you for taking the time to write out this detailed start to a discussion, perhaps other contributors may have opinions on it. Top5a (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A few users who may be interested or have far better access to sources than I HopsonRoad, HLHJ , Mr swordfish.  Top5a (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither you nor I know what the removed citation says. What I did was remove something that at worst is wrong and (more likely) will mislead/confuse the reader. I have explained that I was mistaken in assuming that this would be obvious to other editors in the subject. Use of pictures to illustrate a discussion on a talk page is not WP:OR. (The whole area of correctly captioning pictures in Commons is a whole different subject.) We all know that there are plenty of technical subjects covered in Wikipedia where one needs some level of background knowledge in order to understand issues discussed on the talk page. Interpreting the various illustrations mentioned here may be a case in point. And please do not confuse my passion for getting this stuff right with any sense of ownership. To broaden the net of possible interested editors, maybe User:Ahunt would have an opinion? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you do not have access to the citation, how can you justify its removal prior to starting a discussion without engaging in WP:SYNTH? The same goes for any other such technical subject.  As an exercise to the reader, try removing a cited claim on any other Wikipedia page, and see how far you get.
 * Here's something you could have done. You could have checked blame, which would have yielded https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Point_of_sail&diff=prev&oldid=887512611 as the point of insertion.  You could have then started a discussion here and referenced it in your claim/source removal, or noted counter-citations/claims here on the Talk page while asking if HopsonRoad could either provide more context, or if he thought it was perhaps in error, especially in light of more information.  Once again, I reiterate:  "You might be the foremost authority on a topic, but this is Wikipedia, not your personal website." Top5a (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, I have now been able to check the reference. A Sea of Words is a nautical glossary put together for the readers of the novels by Patrick O'Brian. The only relevance that the citation has to the text is that there is a definition of studding sails. It does not discuss which point of sail they may be used on or suggest that they are a downwind sail. The sentence immediately before the reference says "In light winds, certain square-rigged vessels may set studding sails, sails that extend outwards from the yardarms, to create a larger sail area." That statement is true and is supported by the reference. The problems are that (a) the sentence is in a paragraph that discusses increasing sail area for downwind sailing and (b) the sentence is immediately followed with a picture headed "Specialized downwind sails for a fore-and aft rig and a square rig" which shows a picture of studding sails. In its entirety, the deleted/reinstated text is saying that studding sails are specialised downwind sails, which is incorrect and unsupported by any reference. It is, as we see above, contradicted by an authoritative reference and by observation of some readily available pictures. Using just the sentence "in light winds...", whilst true and supported by a citation, would be confusing for the reader as it could easily be misunderstood to suggest studding sails are sails used downwind only. It is unencyclopedic to write material that can be misunderstood. Furthermore, talking about sails that few living people have ever used has questionable benefit for the article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the ping. I did have a peruse of my sailing library and discovered that Royce's Sailing Illustrated does both describe and illustrate studding sails, but like your other refs cited, does not indicate which points of sail they might be useful on. - Ahunt (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I really, truly hope you see how your singular reply here should have been your initial response to the temporary revert that I made, as it actually addresses my initial statement. Top5a (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, who was that reply intended for? - Ahunt (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It was for ThoughtIdRetired (per the indent/justification). I use the Quick Reply feature, and it may have erroneously pinged you (although probably pinged you because of auto-thread subscription).  If so, sorry about that! Top5a (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for clarifying. - Ahunt (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries! Actually just took a look to verify: "However, all editors who are subscribed to the thread will be notified of your comment even if you don't ping anyone." via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Talk_pages#Reply_tool .  I believe the rationale is to keep people informed on Subscribed or Auto-Subscribed threads, even if they are neither directly responded to nor directly pinged.  It is a rather convenient tool, imho, though I am not entirely sure how it interacts with other thread subscription settings. Top5a (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I thank everyone for engaging here. However, I fear that the focus on the article has been lost in the discussion.

This is an article on points of sail. The images and text are here to support that topic. That said, I'm extremely grateful to for the knowledge and sources that he has provided about studding sails. I am a life-long victim of the misconception that studding sails were exclusively for downwind (below a broad reach) application. I was astonished to see the pictorial examples showing upwind applications. Furthermore, ThoughtIdRetired has provided Harland as a source. Unfortunately, I can't see the the text in Harland, so I provided Luce, wherein one can see many references to "studding sails". I trust ThoughtIdRetired's claim about Harland. On page 433 Luce describes studding sails "in light or moderate weather" and the weather topmast and topgallant studding sails, "with the wind one point free, or forming an angle of seven points with the keel". Elsewhere, he describes setting studding sail overlap in front of the adjacent sail, as one draws closer to the wind. All this information should be in the article Studding sails, not here.

Here, the text and images should be limited to illustrating points of sail, which I believe my proposed text and images accomplish. As to ThoughtIdRetired's forensic examination of the image of the Monongahela, I suggest that it's too much in the weeds to have a bearing on this article. The image ably illustrates the use of studding sails, going downwind. As to the "blanketing" issue in the image, I have to disagree with ThoughtIdRetired. It's clear that all of the sails are drawing wind, otherwise they'd be slack or luffing.

Bottom line, I feel that the above-proposed edit avoids the suggestion that the sails mentioned are exclusively downwind sails, while illustrating the application of sails downwind on both fore-and-aft and square-rigged vessels, and while mentioning that studding sails can be used on windward points of sail. I didn't make such a mention about spinnakers, because not all spinnakers can be brought to a close reach. More details about studding sails belong in that artcle. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at HopsonRoad's revised suggested text, I think this does achieve what we are all trying to do.
 * The 1868 reference titled Seamanship, Compiled from Various Authorities... is an interesting find. It seems to have been missed by Harland. He has an extensive bibliography listing large numbers of contemporary books on seamanship: his own book is a distillation of all those sources.
 * Training ship 1902 (49928533196).jpg Just mentioning a particular prejudice of mine, I really do not think the present picture of USS Monongahela is the best representation of studding sails in use. I have put a few more pictures of the same ship (on probably the same day) on commons. There are other pictures of studding sails through the category of that name. I just raise this in case anyone thinks any other picture is a better choice. I would pick out this one for use in this situation. It was probably taken on the same day as the other one. However, I leave the choice to others. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I used a cropped version of this image. Thanks for providing it! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks great, everyone! Definitely learned a few things!  ThoughtIdRetired HopsonRoad Ahunt Top5a (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice to see this resolved in civilized fashion, and with such interesting discussion. I always expect to learn something when ThoughtIdRetired is involved;-). Just as an aside about point of sail, three of us sailed to Bermuda mostly wing and wing in twenty-foot following seas aboard a sloop the captain had built and rigged himself—I've never felt more like I was on a 40-foot surfboard (at the helm, of course). Carlstak (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In terms of learning, I had not realised that the US English version of the British English "goosewinged" was "wing and wing". Unfortunately, my "first instance" reference for modern sailing/yachting terminology seems a bit mixed up on the page for W - there's a cross reference but no meaningful entry.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A belated comment; I've heard of studding sails being hung out in calms, especially in the doldrums and when there are little convective rainshowers, to rinse and/or dry the sails. These would also be optimal conditions for rowing off and taking a picture of the ship (especially if you have balky early photographic equipment, or a sketchbook). So it might be represented in some old images. HLHJ (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Point of sail


text:
User talk:Pinnerup

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I find useful

 * Policy Library
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Conflict resolution
 * Brilliant prose
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Village pump
 * Boilerplate text

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 22:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Replied anew at User talk:VeryVerily. V V 22:32, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Username change
Your request has been fulfilled. Regards — Dan | talk 20:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship
A revised version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much.Loom91 09:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Daimon is spirit
taken from Agathodaimon

In Greek mythology, Agathos Daimon or Agathodaemon (Greek: "good spirit") was a god of the vineyards and grainfields and of good luck, health and wisdom. It was customary to drink or pour out a glass of unmixed wine to honor him in every meal. He was the spouse or companion of Tyche Agathe (later Agatha). He was represented in art as a serpent or as a young man bearing a cornucopia and a bowl in one hand, and a poppy and an ear of corn in the other. The agathodaemon was later adapted into a general daemon of good luck, particularly of the abundance of a family's good food and drink.

Best regards,--85.97.78.147 18:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Grading in Denmark
Please take a look at Talk:GPA in Denmark. Regards, Waldir talk 11:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Éire Óg (band)
Articles on this apparently defunct band have been deleted no fewer than six times (see ) as duplications of the original article which was deleted for non-notability. I rv the red-linked entry from the disambiguation page for the same reason. Yours, Quis separabit?  20:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

October 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=683846462 your edit] to Arash may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ibn al-Athir, Marashi); a mountain-top in Ruyan (al-Biruni, Abu Saʿīd Gardēzī|Gardēzī), Amul fortress (Mojmal), [[Mount

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Monster
his user believes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is as likely as creationism.

Then the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists because creationism (belief in creation) exists. You should've written "as likely as creation". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.181.228 (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of linguistics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sumerian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Saamelainen
Thanks for flagging this. You're right; the person was talking about Finnish. -Yupik (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of languages by first written account, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brill. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pinnerup


text:
North American Christian Convention

The North American Christian Convention (1927–2018) was an annual summer convention supported by churches, colleges, institutions, and missions programs associated with the Christian churches and churches of Christ, mainly across the United States, but also in other parts of the world. First started in 1927, it grew gradually over the years in both attendance and location. The NACC was held annually after 1927 until the end of that decade; the deprivations brought about by the Great Depression and the dislocations caused by World War II contributed to its being held only three times in the 1930s and four times in the 1940s; it was an annual event from 1950 to 2018. Ministers from churches across the United States came and spoke at the event, as well as other well-known speakers and authors of the Christian community. The NACC Mission statement was "the connecting place providing ideas, inspiration, and identity to New Testament Christian Churches and their leaders." Philosophically this organization gives all their credit to Jesus Christ. It was replaced in 2019 by the spire.network conference.

Adults
Adults were able to participate in three main events: the main session, bible studies, and workshops. The main session was a time of praise and worship, sermons from guest speakers, testimonies, and a time to get to know other people. The bible studies allowed adults to get together with small groups and fellowship one on one. The workshops also allowed adults to choose from various classes in which to learn and grow.

Teens
Teens were involved in the same events as adults but on a level where they could have fun and grow spiritually at the same time. They had a main session with worship from high energy, world-renowned bands, guest speakers, talk sessions, and entertainment from comedians and performance groups.

Children and Toddlers
The NACC also had programs for young children. A day camp allowed children to have fun in groups with others their age. Each small group or camp unit was led by an adult leader who provided games and a learning environment. Daycare (Wee-One-Wigwam) was available for young toddlers and babies.

Bible Bowl
First introduced to NACC at the Tulsa, Oklahoma Convention in 1965, the Bible Bowl drew teens and kids in grades 6–12 every year to compete in scripture memorization and other bible events. It also allowed teens and kids to fellowship with each other and grow through bible studies, guest speakers, and prayer groups. In 2001, Bible Bowl became independent from the NACC and started its own national program as it grew, with separate competitions and events.

Minister and Spouse
This event focused on bringing spouses closer to each other and with God. It was a time where a husband and wife could get away to relax, laugh, smile and enjoy a few days of peace. Guest speakers and talented artists allowed for fellowship and fun while events such as hiking, golfing and shopping let husband and wife enjoy their time away.

Leadership
The NACC Board of Stewards, Committees, and Staff members all ensured adherence to the NACC Mission and supported the NACC through prayer, attendance and commitment to personal financial support.

Staff
The NACC main office was in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Staff were about 7 to 10 members who acted as project managers. They included: There were a few supporting cast members outside the office, like the person who coordinated the Student Convention, and the partner that handled the registration and hotel reservation data entry.
 * Managing director – handled day-to-day operations, finalized contracts, and managed the facility plans
 * Business administrator & church relations – handled the financial matters
 * Special events & workshops coordinator – planned & set up the ticketed & non-ticketed meals & receptions, as well as the workshops
 * Children's convention and marketing/promotions coordinator – coordinated the children's planning committee and the publicity & marketing materials
 * Information Technology Coordinator
 * Registration and office services coordinator – managed registration and customer service on-site, and many other things
 * Executive administration and program/production manager – worked with all the leadership committees and implement the main programming.

Board of Stewards
The Board of Stewards consisted of ten members who are the past President, current President, President-Elect, on average 6 members and the current NACC Executive Director. The ten of them come together and have these duties to accomplish. First, they Set and review corporate policies. Second, they worked to provide review and accountability to the Executive Director and the NACC Staff. Ensure fiscal satiability, including but not limited to, setting budgets and raising funds. Approve the venue and cities for NACC events. Then lastly they focus on long-range and strategic issues.

Continuation Committee
The Continuation Committee consisted of on average 120 members including all eligible past Presidents who represent the Christian churches and churches of Christ across the United States and Canada. They are a group who served as a support system and gave advice to the executive committee and the Board of Stewards. They served a three-year term in this position. These members are from all over the country, they came together every October before the next summer convention and met in the city that it was going to be held at. During the October planning meeting they assisted the executive committee plan for the future NACCs by providing guidance on potential speakers, workshop topics, and workshop leaders.

Executive committee
The Executive Committees were made up of thirteen members including the President, Vice President, Secretary/Treasurer, on average 6 members two local arrangement committee Co-Chairs, National prayer chair, and the NACC Managing Director. The main role the executive committee was to plan and put in order all the NACC programs for their appointed year.

Presidency
The President, Vice President, and Secretary/Treasurer were chosen three years before their convention summer. The current President formed a Nomination Committee in the spring before the new president was elected. After the possible candidates were nominated, the committee prayerfully chose who would fill the new presidential board. The President provided leadership and approved all recommendations for the NACC event. He served as the primary NACC representative to the constituency through travel, writing and speaking engagements.

Volunteers
The President, Vice President, Committee members, and Board members (who had a great part in planning this event) were all volunteers. The Tech teams, teachers of the different workshops, people who watch the kids during the sessions and behind the scenes people are all volunteers. Most of them dedicated one week every summer to attend this event and were volunteers at it. Without the help of volunteers this event would not have been as large and effective as it was.

Location
In 1927 the NACC had its first annual summer event in Indianapolis, Indiana. Since then it was held in 20 other cities across the United States. It was usually held in the Midwest as approximately 85% of the New Testament Churches are in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, and Missouri. The average attendance was 8,000–12,000 for an average of three and a half nights. When the location was moved outside of the Midwest, attendance dropped as much as 50%.

Support and partnership
Churches and Christian organizations from all across the United States funded the NACC. The supporting churches helped the NACC reach out to people all over the world who come to the event. Donations ranged from $200 a year to more than $30,000 a year. Supporting churches included Discover Christian Church in Dublin, Ohio and Savannah Christian Church in Savannah, Georgia. The NACC also partnered with many Christian colleges such as Atlanta Christian College and Cincinnati Christian University, and other organizations like Good News Production International and CMF International. The NACC raised money and support for the program by holding an exhibition every year.

Exhibition
The exhibition allowed for hundreds of organizations such as churches, radio stations, colleges and other Christian organization to set up booths during the event and share what their school or program had to offer.

title: North American Christian Convention