text:
Yamana Sōzen

Yamana Sōzen (山名 宗全) was originally Yamana Mochitoyo (山名 持豊) before becoming a monk. Due to his red complexion, he was sometimes known as Aka-nyūdō, "the Red Monk". He was one of the daimyōs who fought against Hosokawa Katsumoto during the Ōnin War in Heian-kyō.

Biography
Yamana Sōzen was born to Yamana Tokihiro (1367–1435), head of the Yamana clan. Tokihiro was the shugo governor of Tajima, Bingo, Aki, and Iga provinces. Tokihiro, who was often in bad health, retired in 1433 and passed his numerous lands to Sōzen. Sōzen went on to defeat Akamatsu Mitsuhide (1373–1441) in the Kakitsu Incident, and became governor of Harima Province the same year.

The Yamana clan had seen many defeats over the years, while the Hosokawa clan was one of the three families which controlled the position of kanrei, deputy to the shōgun. Thus, Yamana Sōzen resented the wealth and power enjoyed by his son-in-law, Hosokawa Katsumoto. Unwilling to engage him in open warfare until he was sure of his strength, Yamana chose to intervene in a number of succession disputes and other political affairs, thwarting Hosokawa's plans and desires, and slowly gaining allies for himself.

In 1464, a succession dispute erupted over the shogunate itself. The shōgun, Ashikaga Yoshimasa, was considering retirement. Hosokawa supported the Shōgun's brother, Ashikaga Yoshimi as the successor. Hino Tomiko, who was the mother of Ashikaga Yoshihisa, was against her husband's decision to give the shogunate to Yoshimi, so she sought military support to secure the succession of her son Yoshihisa. Yamana chose to support Yoshihisa, the Shōgun's infant son.

In 1466, both sides having spent several years gathering forces, both Yamana and Hosokawa felt ready to engage the other, and skirmishes began to break out.

In 1467, the first year of Ōnin by the Japanese calendar, both men began to prepare more seriously for the coming conflict; they sought safehouses and planned for fighting in the streets. Yamana took Yoshimi to the shōgun's residence, where Hosokawa, who supported Yoshimi's claim to the shogunate, could not get at him. He was essentially a hostage.

Seeing that open war in the capital would spread to the provinces, the shōgun declared that the first to make an attack within the city would be labeled a rebel against the shogunate, and enemy of the state. Thus, for several months, the conflict quieted, neither side willing to make a move. Finally, in March 1467, the home of a Hosokawa officer was destroyed by fire. After several more minor attacks and political maneuvers, in May, Hosokawa attacked outright the mansion of one of Yamana's generals. Nevertheless, Yamana, not Hosokawa, was labeled a rebel, and enemy of the state. Some of Yamana's followers deserted, joining Hosokawa's morally superior side, but many more switched sides as a result of the work of Hosokawa's emissaries to the provinces where Yamana and his allies drew their armies.

By New Year's of 1468, nearly a year since the war began, the fighting tapered off. For much of that year, the two forces engaged in glaring contests and limited sorties, both desiring to rebuild and to act only defensively. Both spent the next several years in political, not military, conflict, and in 1469, the shōgun named his son Yoshihisa his heir. But Hosokawa was weary of battle, and wished for peace. However, by 1473, both Hosokawa and Yamana were dead.

title: Yamana Sōzen


text: Template:Provinces of Thailand

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

title: Template:Provinces of Thailand


text:
CBCT-DT

CBCT-DT (channel 13) is a CBC Television station in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada. The station's studios are located on University Avenue in Charlottetown, and its transmitter is located on Route 1 near Bonshaw. It is the only full-fledged television station based in Prince Edward Island; all other television service in the province is provided by repeaters of stations from New Brunswick.

History
CBCT first went on the air on July 1, 1956 as CFCY-TV, under the ownership of the Rogers family and their company, Island Broadcasting, along with CFCY radio (AM 630, now FM 95.1). Family patriarch Col. Keith Rogers had begun laying the groundwork to bring television to PEI earlier in the decade, but died two years before channel 13 went on the air. His widow Flora Rogers, daughter Betty Rogers Large and son-in-law Bob Large took over his dream and signed on the station as a Dominion Day present to Prince Edward Island.

By the late 1960s, it was obvious that PEI's population was too small to warrant a second full-fledged television station. With this in mind, CJCH-TV in Halifax made plans to set up a rebroadcaster in hopes of bringing CTV to the island. The Rogers feared that they would not be able to compete with CTV, and sold CFCY-TV to the CBC in 1968. The CBC closed on the purchase on August 1 of that year and changed its calls to CBCT. As it turned out, CBCT would remain the only television station in the province until CKCW-TV in Moncton set up a rebroadcaster in Charlottetown in 1972.

News programming
The flagship local newscast, CBC News: Compass, is anchored by Louise Martin, and enjoys very high ratings throughout Prince Edward Island. As the only PEI-specific newscast in the province, it consistently outdraws CTV's local newscasts in the ratings by a wide margin. The program airs each weeknight from 6 to 7 p.m.

In addition to Compass, CBCT also co-produces and simulcasts pan-regional newscasts for the Maritimes. Maritimes at 11 (Sunday–Friday) and Maritimes Saturday (7 p.m., Saturday) are broadcast from CBHT-DT in Halifax also along with CBAT-DT from Fredericton.

Transmitters
CBCT had two analogue rebroadcasters located in St. Edward and Elmira.

Due to federal funding reductions to the CBC, in April 2012, the CBC responded with substantial budget cuts, which included shutting down CBC's and Radio-Canada's remaining analogue transmitters on July 31, 2012. However, due to the extremely high penetration of cable and satellite in the province, actual loss of access to CBC programming in the province was limited.

title: CBCT-DT


text:
Huron River

The Huron River is a 130 mi river in southeastern Michigan, rising out of the Huron Swamp in Springfield Township in northern Oakland County and flowing into Lake Erie, as it forms the boundary between present-day Wayne and Monroe counties. Thirteen parks, game areas, and recreation areas are associated with the river, which passes through the cities of Dexter, Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Belleville, Flat Rock and Rockwood that were developed along its banks.

The Huron River is a typical Southeast Michigan stream; mud banks, slow stream flow and a low gradient define this river. It runs through the following counties, in order from the headwaters to its mouth: Oakland, Livingston, Washtenaw, Wayne, and Monroe. There are 24 major tributaries totaling about 370 mi in addition to the mainstream. The Huron River watershed drains 908 sqmi. It is the only state-designated Country-Scenic Natural River in southeast Michigan. This includes 27.5 mi of the mainstream, plus an additional 10.5 mi of three tributaries.

The river was named after the Huron band of Native Americans who lived in the area. In Native languages, it was called cos-scut-e-nong sebee or Giwitatigweiasibi. It was part of a Native American trade route.

The river has many dams, 19 on the main stream and at least 96 in the entire system. Most dams are only a few feet high, built to slightly increase and maintain water levels in existing lakes to provide drought protection and flood control, a use that is now environmentally controversial. However, at least a dozen dams were built for mill or hydroelectric power and several formed large new lakes behind them. Some of these on the Huron River mainstream are Kent Lake, Barton Pond, Argo Pond, Ford Lake, Belleville Lake, and Flat Rock Pond.

The Huron River flows through numerous parks and is a prime canoeing river with a generally slow current and only a few minor rapids or obstructions, except for the short Delhi rapids which is runnable by experienced canoeists and kayakers except during low water.

The river is heavily fished by sportsmen for rock bass, sunfish, bluegill, black crappie, white bass, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, northern pike, walleye, catfish, trout, muskie, and below Belleville Dam, Coho salmon, Chinook salmon, and Steelhead. Suckers and carp are also common fish in the river.

In 2009, faculty and students from the University of Michigan produced "Mapping the River," a multimedia presentation combining dance, poetry, music, and projected images which explored the role of the Huron in communities along it.

History
The Huron River was declared navigable by Congress in the 19th century, and for a time, there was flat-boat traffic from Ypsilanti to Lake Erie. This was discontinued as the railroads penetrated the region and milling developed along the river. By the 1880s, the Huron River was considered peculiar among the rivers in the region because it was intensely exploited for water-powered manufacturing. The census reported a total of 17 developed mill dams on the river, many providing power to multiple mills. Flour milling dominated, but there were also sawmills and woolen mills. As the 20th century began, the Detroit Edison Company and Ford Motor Company began acquiring and developing dams along the river for electric power.

Floods
Notable floods have occurred in 1904, 1918, 1968 and 1982.

Tributaries
Significant tributaries of the Huron River are listed below, in order of progression upstream. Sub-tributaries are indented below their parent watercourse.

 * Smith Creek
 * Silver Creek
 * Port Creek
 * Willow Run
 * Fleming Creek
 * Swift Run
 * Malletts Creek
 * Traver Creek
 * Allen Creek
 * Boyden Creek
 * Honey Creek
 * Millers Creek
 * Mill Creek
 * Portage River and Portage Creek
 * Livermore Creek
 * Arms Creek
 * Honey Creek
 * Hay Creek
 * Chilson Creek
 * Horseshoe Lake Creek
 * South Ore Creek
 * Davis Creek
 * Woodruff Creek
 * Mann Creek
 * Pettibone Creek
 * Norton Creek

Path
The river flows through the following parks and cities in this order starting from the headwaters:

 * Indian Springs Metropark
 * Pontiac Lake Recreation Area
 * Proud Lake State Recreation Area
 * Milford
 * Camp Dearborn
 * Kensington Metropark
 * Island Lake Recreation Area
 * Huron Meadows Metropark
 * Hudson Mills Metropark
 * Dexter
 * Dexter–Huron Metropark
 * Delhi Metropark
 * Ann Arbor
 * Nichols Arboretum
 * Ypsilanti
 * Lower Huron Metropark
 * Willow Metropark
 * Oakwoods Metropark
 * Lake Erie Metropark
 * Pointe Mouillee State Game Area

Historical name confusion with Clinton River
The Clinton River was also known as the Huron River until 1824. The Clinton River, which drains into Lake St. Clair north of Detroit, shares about 10 mi of watershed boundary with the Huron River system. It was renamed in 1824 by the Michigan Territorial Council to avoid confusion between the two rivers.

title: Huron River


text:
Kosiv

Kosiv (Косiв) is a city located in Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast, in western Ukraine. It is the administrative center of Kosiv Raion (district). Kosiv hosts the administration of Kosiv urban hromada, one of the hromadas of Ukraine. Population: Its distinctive ceramics were inscribed to UNESCO's Intangible Cultural Heritage List in 2021.

Names
, Kossow, Kosów, Cosău, קאסאוו. From 1918 to 1945, the town, which at that time was part of the Second Polish Republic, was officially called Kosów Huculski.

History
Initially, a small Hutsul settlement with the remnants of a small castle destroyed by the Turks, Kosiv was founded on the Ribnica (river). The first written mention of it is in the Grant Charter of Lithuanian Duke Svitrigaila, on September 31, 1424. At that time, the village was in the territory of what is today Old Kosiv. In 1565, not far from modern-day Kosiv, Starosta of Sniatyn, Tenczynski founded a town named Rukiv (Polish: Rukow). Polish Crown Hetman Jerzy Jazlowiecki, the owner of Kuty, later destroyed it. Some years later, the town was recovered and named Kosiv (the earlier village of this name thus became Old Kosiv). Until 1772, Kosiv/Kosów was under Polish control.

As a result of the first of Partitions of Poland (Treaty of St. Petersburg dated 5 July 1772), Kosiv was attributed to the Habsburg Empire, as part of Austrian Galicia.

Since 1867, Kosiv was the administrative center of the Kossow Bezirkshauptmannschaft (Austrian name of the district). In 1919, after the Great War, the area returned to Poland and was turned into a powiat seat within the Stanisławów Voivodship. In the Second Polish Republic, Kosów emerged as one of the most popular spas. The Kosów spa was founded in 1891 by doctor Apolinary Tarnawski. Here, in 1911, one of the first units of the Polish Scouting and Guiding Association was created by Kazimierz and Witold Lutosławski, and Olga Drohnowska. Kosów Huculski, as it was called, attracted top names of the interbellum Poland. The spa was visited, among others, by Roman Dmowski, Ignacy Daszynski, Wojciech Korfanty, Gabriela Zapolska, Juliusz Osterwa, Maria Dabrowska, Melchior Wankowicz, Xawery Dunikowski, Karol Adwentowicz, Leon Schiller, Stanisław Dygat, Jozef Pankiewicz, and Lucjan Rydel.

In 1939, Kosów Huculski became part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) as a result of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and the Invasion of Poland. Here, in September 1939, the government of Poland crossed the Romanian border. Despite this pact, Kosiv was occupied by Nazi Germany from July 1, 1941, until April 2, 1944. After that time it was, again, a member of the Soviet Union, until the independence of Ukraine in 1991.

At the beginning of World War II, around 3700 Jews lived in Kosiv. In October, 1941, the German security police, leading on Pidzamche street to the so-called "Town Mountain", rounded up and shot more than 2000 Jews, burning them in mass grave. In April 1942, the authorities forced 1000 Jews to move to Kolomyja, though some returned to Kosiv. In September, most of the remaining Jews in Kosiv were rounded up. Some were shot in Kosiv, 500 were sent to prison, and the rest sent to Kolomyja and from there to Belzec where they were immediately murdered. In October and November, the Jews left behind and in hiding were murdered in Kosiv. About 100 Kosiv Jews survived, some hiding with sympathetic local inhabitants, others by fleeing the area.

The distinctive painted ceramics from Kosiv originated in the 1700s and reflect the history and culture of Hutsul people. They were inscribed to UNESCO's list of Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2021.

Location

 * Local orientation

 * Regional orientation

Today, the town of Kosiv borders on the towns and villages of Babyn, Horod, Smodna, Cherhanivka, Staryi Kosiv, Verbovets and Pistyn. The distance from the railroad station in Vizhnytsa is 12 kilometers, from Zabolotiv is 25 kilometers and from Kolomyia — 35 kilometers. Roads with all neighbouring districts connect the city. The total length of roads is 362 kilometers. 160 kilometers of these roads are paved.

Notable people

 * Ivan Andreikanich – sculptor
 * Natalka Andrusiv – Ukrainian opera singer
 * Volodymyr Blavackiy – Ukrainian actor, director
 * Vasyl Bovych – master wood carver
 * Rostyslav Derzhypilsky - ukrainian theatre director and actor
 * Menachem Mendel Hager – Hasidic rebbe
 * Ostap Havrysch – Ukrainian composer
 * Mykhailo Horboviy – painter, master wood carver
 * Bogdana Matsotska – Ukrainian Olympic skier
 * Volodymyr Kovalyuk – professional Ukrainian soccer player
 * Myroslav Laiuk – writer
 * Julian Jaworski – Polish scientist, deputy mayor of Kraków, deputy to the Sejm in 1961 – 1965
 * Kazimierz Moklowski – Polish architect
 * Tadeusz Moklowski – Polish chemist
 * Illia Mykhavchuk – Ukrainian designer
 * Anna Pavlyk – Ukrainian activist and writer

title: Kosiv


text: Template:Auditory and vestibular anatomy


text:
Talk:Page's trend test

"Page Test"
Hands up who was ready to redirect this to the Sandbox, before they clicked on the link? ;o) --bodnotbod 20:49, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * ha ha... but you have a point, maybe we should make the main title Page's trend test or something. seglea 01:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

 * It's way out of my expertise. But the usual way would be to put something in brackets after the name I think.  So Page test (maths) or Page test (statistics).

 * Although the second of those would probably leave people thinking it will give some kind of Wiki usage statistics or something.

 * It's a tricky one. If you're familiar with the subject perhaps you can reach a decision with the help of naming conventions. --bodnotbod 02:01, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * Changed name to Page's trend test. It's as good a name, and it's worth the change to avoid what is a genuine risk of confusion in a multidisciplinary encyclopaedia seglea 05:28, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Page's trend test


text:
Flavor Aid

Flavor Aid is a non-carbonated soft drink beverage made by The Jel Sert Company in West Chicago, Illinois. It was introduced in 1929 and sold throughout the United States as an unsweetened, powdered concentrate drink mix, similar to Kool-Aid brand drink mix.

Flavors
Flavor Aid came in cherry, raspberry, grape, berry punch, tropical punch, orange, pineapple-orange, lemonade, pink lemonade, lemon-lime, strawberry, mango, and kiwi-watermelon flavors.

The manufacturer has also introduced several flavors of Flavor Aid designed to appeal to the Latino population with bilingual packaging and various exotic flavors. The Latino versions do not include cherry or berry punch, and instead include root beer, mango, apple, Jamaica (hibiscus), tamarindo, tangerine, and pineapple-orange.

Jonestown massacre
The drink became infamous for being linked to the Jonestown mass murder-and-suicide when it was learned that the cyanide poison taken by or forcibly administered to the commune's members was placed in Flavor Aid. Large barrels filled with the grape variety, laced with the cyanide and a variety of tranquillizer drugs, were found half-consumed amidst the hundreds of bodies. Kool-Aid, rather than Flavor Aid, is usually erroneously referred to as the drink used in the massacre. The association with Kool-Aid has spawned the figure of speech "drink the Kool-Aid". Criminal investigators testifying at the Jonestown inquest spoke of finding packets of "Kool aid" (sic), and eyewitnesses to the incident are also recorded as speaking of "kool aid" or "Cool Aid."

title: Flavor Aid


text:
User:TheListener

About me I'm just an average guy who is starting to get into Wikipedia. I am currently editing to help improve my writing skills and technique, as well as to contribute back to the community that gave me such a grand database of information.

title: User:TheListener


text:
Cable ferry

A cable ferry (including the types chain ferry, swing ferry, floating bridge, or punt) is a ferry that is guided (and in many cases propelled) across a river or large body of water by cables connected to both shores. Early cable ferries often used either rope or steel chains, with the latter resulting in the alternative name of chain ferry. Both of these were largely replaced by wire cable by the late 19th century.

Types
Cable ferries can be typified by their size and construction, their usage (passenger, animal, vehicle) and requirements (length of crossing, amount of other shipping), their cables (wire rope, chain, or both), and their propulsion (water current, engine, manual).

The choice of cable depends partially on the requirements of the crossing but also on the historical context. For example, the numerous cable ferries across Australian and Canadian rivers seem to use wire rope exclusively, whereas the older crossings across busy tidal rivers in England all use chain. In Germany, several river crossings were originally reaction ferries and later kept a wire rope for holding position but introduced a chain for propulsion.

The reaction ferry uses the power of the river to tack across the current; the powered cable ferry uses engines or electric motors (e.g., the Canby Ferry in the U.S. State of Oregon) to wind itself across; or is hand-operated, such as the Stratford-upon-Avon chain ferry in the UK and the Saugatuck Chain Ferry in Saugatuck, Michigan, United States.

Powered cable ferries use powered wheels or drums on board the vessel to pull itself along by the cables. The chains or wire ropes can be used with a sufficient amount of slack to allow sinking below the surface as the ferry moves away, allowing other vessels to pass without becoming snared or trapped. Chain ferries in strong tidal currents use two chains, those in inland rivers often only one chain on the upstream side. Some cable ferries use a wire rope on the upstream side in order to hold the position and a chain on the downstream side for propulsion.

A special type are electrically powered overhead-cable ferries like Straussee Ferry, which have an onboard propulsion unit and can float free, but are connected to the overhead wire for the power supply, using an electrical cable that slides along the cable as the ferry moves.

A very rare type are cable-ferries that are not propelled by themselves but rather are pulled from land side. An example of such a cable ferry was the Kungälv – Fästningsholmen ferry in Sweden. Today, the Jonen ferry in the Netherlands is pulled by a winch on the banks. These cable ferries can be operated electrically without having to provide electricity by rechargeable batteries or an overhead wire. Saving the weight of the engine on board, these ferries can also be operated using less energy.

Two or more ferries can be provided in order to increase availability and capacity and as a backup during maintenance, as with the Torpoint Ferry.

History
Cable ferries have probably been used to cross rivers and similar bodies of water since before recorded history. Examples of ferry routes using this technology date back to the 13th century (Hampton Ferry in England).

In 1831 James Meadows Rendel introduced chain ferries worked by steam and in 1832 constructed one crossing the Dart at Dartmouth. Between 1832 and 1836 similar chain ferries were implemented between Torpoint and Saltash across the Tamar, and between Woolston and Southampton across the Itchen. The Woolston Floating Bridge switched from chains to wire ropes between 1878 and 1887 and was replaced by a bridge in 1977.

In the early 1900s, Canadian engineer William Pitt designed an underwater cable ferry in New Brunswick, which would later be installed on the Kennebecasis River in order to connect the Kingston Peninsula to the Kennebecasis Valley. There are now eight cable ferries along the Saint John River system in southern New Brunswick. In Canada a cable ferry is proposed to transport automobiles across the Ottawa River in Ontario. There are several in British Columbia: two on the Fraser, one at Lytton, one at Big Bar (reaction ferries), three on Arrow Lakes. A suspended cable ferry worked until the 1980s in Boston Bar. A small seasonal reaction ferry carries cars across the Rivière des Prairies from Laval, Quebec (Sainte-Dorothée neighbourhood) to Île Bizard (part of Montreal).

Cable ferries were particularly prominent in early transportation in the Sacramento Delta of California. Dozens of cable ferries operated on the Columbia River in the US northwest, and most have been rendered obsolete by bridges. A suspended cable ferry for railway cars crossed the American River in Northern California.

Most of the road crossings of the Murray River in South Australia are cable ferries operated by the state government using diesel engines. The platforms at the ends can be moved up or down according to the water level. At one time, cable ferries were a primary means of automobile transportation in New South Wales in Australia. In Tasmania, for a century before 1934, the Risdon Punt at Hobart was the only fixed method of crossing the Derwent River within Hobart city limits.

In the fishing village of Tai O on Lantau Island, Hong Kong, the Tai O Ferry (橫水渡) crossed the Tai O River before a bascule bridge was built.

The largest and busiest cable ferry is the Torpoint Ferry in Plymouth, England. It was first converted to cable operation in 1831 and currently operates 3 ferries, carrying 8000 vehicles per day.

The longest cable ferry link is MV Baynes Sound Connector south of Courtenay, British Columbia, Canada with a length of 1961.48 metres.

Ownership
The earliest punts were privately owned by local landowners, and charged a toll. As governments started to build roads, they started to build and operate punts as required. Private punts might be bought out, or made to impose more standard tolls.

Energy requirements
The energy needed for operating cable ferries is in general especially small, as the crossing distances are mostly short, the speeds low, and there is almost no maneuvering. Whereas a free ferry is especially inefficient when starting off or moving slowly against a current or wind, a cable ferry is more or less rigidly connected to the ground with side forces held by the cable(s).

As the frictional drag of a displacement hull decreases with about the third power of the speed, even the smallest amount of power can effect movement with enough leverage or if suitably geared down. The majority of the world's cable ferries are indeed manually propelled either with a crank turning a chain wheel or by pulling directly on a cable. For example the Saugatuck Chain Ferry taking up to 24 passengers is cranked by a single person at about 0.3 m/s. The former cable ferry at Malgas in South Africa even carried several cars, pulled by a couple of men at a slow walking speed. Ferries of this size that were hand-operated, such as the Reedham Ferry, have since been motorised in order to reduce the level of hard work and increase the speed. For these and other ferries of up to 20 t or so displacement, typical installed motor power in kilowatts ranges from single figures to low double figures. For example, the 22 meter, 22 tonne Pritzerbe Ferry has 23 kW installed. This allows comparison with free ferries. The motor ferry "Luise" on the Wannsee near Berlin, of similar tonnage, size and construction, has 290 kW installed.

With electric drive the installed power requirements are reduced further. A very low-power installation is in the chain ferry Föri for up to 75 passengers. It uses battery-supplied twin electric motors. The average power during continuous operation (crossing two minutes and docking one minute) is given as 3 kW in summer and 4 kW in winter with thin ice, thus when moving 4.5 kW in summer and 6 kW in winter.

Side forces from strong water currents or winds are held by the cables, yet when moving introduce extra friction in these that can considerably exceed the water resistance. Also in deep water with heavy chains or long cables not lying on the ground, large tension forces with corresponding friction are created. The world's longest cable crossing, nearly 2 km with the 750 t MV Baynes Sound Connector uses three wire ropes pretensioned with 200 kN. In spite of careful planning, the expected large energy savings compared to the former free ferry are not realised, also due to fouling and a speed of 8.5 knots. 998 kW engine power is installed, in the former 1099 t MV Quinitsa it is 1416 kW.

With dependable water currents, most cable ferries are or were reaction ferries, powered by the current. Some of these are or were hybrid ferries with the cable passing through moveable pulleys or belaying points whose location sets the ferry's angle. In order to set off, manual work is required to initially pull the cable and also to maneuver, as described in the referenced video. Another hybrid seems to be the cable ferry at Sendelingsdrift with adjustable tethers to a high wire rope and also two outboard motors.

Effect on Navigation
Cables can hinder other navigation or pose a hazard. Whether a risk exists, and to which degree, depends on the situation (nature of body of water and extent of shipping) and on the type of cable(s): Only the first type normally presents no risk for other vessels, as evident in the 15 reaction ferries of this type in Switzerland. Suspended cables near the water surface block navigation and are dangerous especially in strong currents and if difficult to see. The ropes of reaction ferries attached to one shore and suspended by buoys block the river on one side of the crossing ferry and can be made highly visible. The greatest risk comes from cables that are held underwater to a lesser degree than anticipated or are not visible at all.
 * Overhead wire ropes suspended over shipping height.
 * Ropes suspended at operating level, permanently or temporarily.
 * Ropes held on the water surface by buoys.
 * Cables suspended underwater, permanently or temporarily.
 * Ground cables normally resting on the bottom, pulled to the surface near the ferry.

Suspended cables (ferry to shore or to water bottom) form catenaries of a shape (entry angle and depth) that depends on the cable weight and amount of tension. Chains are in general rather heavy and can function even with very steep catenaries going to the bottom within very short distances, except very near the shore. As they are also easy to see, the risk to other navigation is usually minimal, as is evident with the 6 or so chain ferries in southern England operating in waters with heavy shipping. In strong water currents, the catenaries become more stretched and chain collisions have occurred. Wire ropes are lighter than chains of the same strength and may be operated under strong tension, both giving rise to shallow catenaries which may be difficult to judge or even see.

Some cable ferry operators warn vessel operators to exercise caution. They may indicate distances to keep clear, special lights, or that the depth of the cable is unknown, both when the ferry is stationary and when it is operating.

List of cable ferry routes
Current cable ferry routes include:

Albania

 * Butrint Ferry, across the Vivari Channel near Butrint

Australia

 * Berowra Waters Ferry, at Berowra Waters in New South Wales
 * Blanchetown Punt
 * Bombah Point Ferry, at Bombah Point
 * Cadell Ferry, across the Murray River at Cadell, South Australia
 * Daintree River Ferry, across the Daintree River in Queensland
 * Hibbard Ferry, across the Hastings River near Port Macquarie, New South Wales
 * Lawrence Ferry, across the Clarence River in New South Wales
 * Lower Portland Ferry, across the Hawkesbury River near the village of Lower Portland, New South Wales
 * Lyrup Ferry, across the Murray River at Lyrup, South Australia
 * Mannum Ferry, across the Murray River at Mannum, South Australia (two parallel ferries)
 * Moggill Ferry, across the Brisbane River near Ipswich, Queensland
 * Morgan Ferry, across the Murray River in Morgan, South Australia
 * Mortlake Ferry, across the Parramatta River in Sydney, New South Wales
 * Narrung Ferry, across the Murray River at Narrung, South Australia
 * Noosa River Ferry, across the Noosa River in Queensland
 * Purnong Ferry, across the Murray River in Purnong, South Australia
 * Raymond Island Ferry, chain ferry from Paynesville to Raymond Island in Victoria
 * Sackville Ferry, across the Hawkesbury River near the village of Sackville, New South Wales
 * Settlement Point Ferry, across the Hastings River near Port Macquarie, New South Wales
 * Speewa Ferry, across the Murray River between New South Wales and Victoria at Speewa
 * Swan Reach Ferry, across the Murray River in Swan Reach, South Australia
 * Tailem Bend Ferry, across the Murray River in Tailem Bend, South Australia
 * Ulmarra Ferry, across the Clarence River in New South Wales
 * Waikerie Ferry, across the Murray River in Waikerie, South Australia
 * Walker Flat Ferry, across the Murray River in Walker Flat, South Australia
 * Webbs Creek Ferry, across the Hawkesbury River in the village of Wisemans Ferry, New South Wales
 * Wellington Ferry, across the Murray River in Wellington, South Australia
 * Wisemans Ferry, across the Hawkesbury River in the village of Wisemans Ferry, New South Wales
 * Wymah Ferry, across the Murray River between New South Wales and Victoria

Austria

 * Rollfähre Klosterneuburg, across the Danube River at Klosterneuburg
 * Drahtseilbrücke Ottensheim, across the Danube River at Ottensheim

Belgium

 * Belgium has about 20 cable ferries. 7 of them are small manual self-service ones.

Belize

 * Xunantunich Ferry, across the Mopan River at Xunantunich

Canada

 * Adams Lake Cable Ferry, across Adams Lake in British Columbia
 * Baynes Sound Connector, across Baynes Sound from Buckley Bay to Denman Island in British Columbia. The longest cable ferry in the world.
 * Belleisle Bay Ferry, across Belleisle Bay in New Brunswick
 * Big Bar Ferry, across the Fraser River at Big Bar, British Columbia
 * Bleriot Ferry, across the Red Deer River near Drumheller, Alberta
 * Clarkboro Ferry, across the South Saskatchewan River near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
 * Country Harbour Ferry, across Country Harbour near Port Bickerton, Nova Scotia.
 * Crowfoot Ferry, across the Bow River in Alberta
 * Ecolos Ferry, across Ottawa River between Clarence-Rockland ON and Thurso QC
 * Englishtown Ferry, across the mouth of St. Anns Bay in Nova Scotia
 * Estuary Ferry, across the South Saskatchewan River near Estuary, Saskatchewan
 * Evandale Ferry, across the Saint John River in New Brunswick
 * Finnegan Ferry, across the Red Deer River in Alberta
 * Gagetown Ferry, across the Saint John River in New Brunswick
 * GladeFerry, across the Kootenay River in British Columbia
 * Gondola Point Ferry, across the Kennebecasis River in New Brunswick
 * Hampstead Ferry, across the Saint John River in New Brunswick
 * Harrop Cable Ferry, across Kootenay Lake in British Columbia
 * Howe Island ferries, across the Bateau Channel, St Lawrence River, Ontario
 * Kennebecasis Island Ferry, across the Kennebecasis River in New Brunswick
 * Klondyke Ferry, across the Athabasca River in Alberta
 * LaHave Cable Ferry, across the LaHave River in Nova Scotia
 * Lancer Ferry, across the South Saskatchewan River near Lancer, Saskatchewan
 * Laval-sur-le-Lac Île-Bizard Ferry, across the Rivière des Prairies between Montreal and Laval, Quebec
 * Lemsford Ferry, across the South Saskatchewan River near Lemsford, Saskatchewan
 * Little Fort Ferry, across the North Thompson River in British Columbia
 * Little Narrows Cable Ferry, across the Little Narrows of Whycocomagh Bay in Nova Scotia
 * Low Bar Ferry, across the Fraser River at High Bar, British Columbia
 * Lytton Ferry, across the Fraser River at Lytton, British Columbia
 * McLure Ferry, across the North Thompson River in British Columbia
 * Needles Cable Ferry, across Lower Arrow Lake in British Columbia
 * Quyon Ferry, across Ottawa River between Fitzroy Harbour ON & Quyon, QC
 * Riverhurst Ferry, across Lake Diefenbaker, Saskatchewan
 * Rosevear Ferry, across the McLeod River near Edson, Alberta
 * Simcoe Island Ferry, between Wolfe Island and Simcoe Island, St Lawrence River, Ontario
 * Usk Ferry, across the Skeena River at Usk, British Columbia
 * Westfield Ferry, across the Saint John River in New Brunswick

Chile

 * Balseo de San Javier, across San Pedro River, Los Ríos Region.

Croatia

 * Medsave Ferry.jpgve Ferry, across the Sava River (Medsave–Zaprešić) in Zagreb County, overhead cable
 * Otočanka Ferry, across the Sava River (Otok Samoborski–Savski Marof) in Zagreb County, overhead cable
 * Oborovo, across the Sava River (Oborovo–Vrbovo Posavsko) in Zagreb County, overhead cable
 * Martinska ves, across the Sava River (Dubrovčak Lijevi–Dubrovčak Desni) in Sisak-Moslavina County, overhead cable
 * Tišina, across the Sava River (Tišina Kaptolska–Tišina Erdedska) in Sisak-Moslavina County, overhead cable
 * Sunjanka, across the Sava River (Graduša Posavska–Lukavec Posavski) in Sisak-Moslavina County, overhead cable
 * Kratečko, across the Sava River (Kratečko–Sunjsko Selište) in Sisak-Moslavina County, overhead cable
 * Pitomača Jelkuš Ferry, across the Drava River, in Virovitica–Podravina County
 * Pitomača Križnica, across the Drava River, in Virovitica–Podravina County
 * Osijek Zoološki vrt, across the Drava River, Osijek-Baranja County

Czech Republic

 * Dolní Žleb Ferry, reactive ferry across the Elbe at Dolní Žleb near Děčín, lower cable
 * Vrané nad Vltavou – Strnady, reactive ferry across the Vltava before Prague, with overhead cable
 * Klecánky – Roztoky ferry over the Vltava under Prague, secured by overhead cable
 * Máslovice, Dol - Libčice ferry over the Vltava under Prague, secured by lower cable
 * Lužec nad Vltavou ferry over the Vltava, secured by overhead cable
 * Zlenice - Senohraby swimming pool, ferry over the Sázava river, overhead security cable installed but usually unused
 * Oseček ferry, Elbe river, formerly secured by overhead cable, now without it
 * Kazín ferry, Berounka river, 1992–2007 propelled through lower chain, since 2015 unsecured boat
 * Nadryby ferry, Berounka river, secured by the overhead cable
 * Darová ferry, Berounka river, propelled through the overhead cable

Denmark

 * Østre Ferry, across Isefjord between Hammer Bakke and Orø. Uses cables for steering, but propellers for propulsion.
 * Udbyhøj Ferry, across Randers Fjord.

Estonia

 * Kavastu Ferry, across Emajõgi in Kavastu (manual mechanism, more than century old flywheel)

Finland

 * Ahvionsaari Ferry, from Kiviapaja to Ahvionsaari in Savonlinna
 * Alassalmi Ferry, across Alassalmi strait on lake Oulujärvi between Manamansalo island and mainland
 * Arvinsalmi Ferry, across Arvinsalmi strait between the municipalities of Rääkkylä and Liperi
 * Barösund Ferry, across Barösund strait between Barölandet and Orslandet islands
 * Bergö Ferry, in Bergö
 * Eskilsö Ferry
 * Föri in Turku
 * Hanhivirta Ferry, in Enonkoski
 * Haukkasalo Ferry
 * Hirvisalmi Ferry, across Hirvisalmi strait between the mainland and Paalasmaa island in Juuka
 * Hämmärönsalmi Ferry, across Hämmärönsalmi strait (Rimito-Hanka) in Rimito, Nådendal (part of r. road 1890)
 * Högsar Ferry, between Högsar and Storlandet islands in Nagu, Pargas (part of r. road 12019)
 * Karhun Cable Ferry, between the mainland and the island of Karhu, Ii
 * Keistiö Ferry, between Keistiö and Iniö islands in Iniö, Pargas
 * Kietävälänvirta Ferry, between Partalansaari and Viljakansaari in Puumala (part of road 15176)
 * Koivukanta Ferry, to Kesamonsaari in Savonlinna
 * Kokonsaari Ferry, from Kesamonsaari to Kokonsaari in Savanlinna
 * Kivimo Ferry, between Roslax on mainland Houtskär and Kivimo islands in Houtskär, Pargas
 * Kokkila Ferry, between Kokkila on the mainland and Angelniemi on Kimitoön (part of r. road 1835)
 * Kuparonvirta Ferry, between Hirvensalo and Anttola in Mikkeli (part of road 15147)
 * Kyläniemi Ferry, between Utula and Kyläniemi
 * Mossala Ferry, between Björkö and Mossala islands in Houtskär, Pargas (part of regional road 12003)
 * Pellinki Ferry, between the mainland and the island of Pellinki
 * Pettu Ferry, between Pettu and Utö islands in Finby, Salo
 * Pikkarala Ferry, across Oulujoki river in Pikkarala, Oulu
 * Potkusalmi Ferry, to Ritosaari in Savonlinna
 * Puutossalmi Ferry, in Kuopio
 * Rongonsalmi Ferry, between Viljakansaari and Lieviskä in Puumala, (part of road 15170)
 * Saverkeit Ferry, between mainland Houtskär and Västra Saverkeit islands in Houtskär, Pargas (part of r. road 12005)
 * Skagen Ferry, between Jumo and Iniö islands in Iniö, Pargas (part of r. road 12230)
 * Skåldö Ferry, between Degerö and Skåldö islands in Ekenäs, Raseborg
 * Tappuvirta Ferry, Tappuvirrantie
 * Tuohisaari Ferry, from Liistonsaari to Tuohisaari in Savonlinna
 * Vartsala Ferry, between Vartsala and Kivimaa islands in Kustavi (part of r. road 192)
 * Vånö Ferry, between Vånö and Attu islands in Pargas (part of r. road 12027)

Åland

 * Björkölinjen, across Björkösund strait between the islands of Korsö (in Kumlinge municipality) and Bockholm (in Brändö m.)
 * Embarsundlinjen, across Embarsund strait in Föglö municipality, between the islands of Finholma and Jyddö
 * Töftölinjen, across Prästösund strait between the islands of Töftö (in Vårdö municipality) and Prästö (in Sund m.)
 * Seglingelinjen, across the strait between the islands of Seglinge and Snäckö (both in Seglinge village in Kumlinge municipality)
 * Simskälalinjen, across the strait between the islands of Alören and Östra Simskäla (both in Vårdö municipality)
 * Ängsösundlinjen, across Ängösund strait between the islands of Lumparland (in Lumparland municipality) and Ängö (in Vårdö m.)

France

 * Bac du Sauvage Ferry, across a branch of the Rhône in the Camargue

Gambia

 * Bansang Ferry, across the River Gambia at Bansang in the Central River Division

Germany

 * Aken Ferry, across the Elbe at Aken in Saxony-Anhalt
 * Barby Ferry, across the Elbe at Barby in Saxony-Anhalt
 * Caputh Ferry, across the Havel at Caputh in Brandenburg
 * Coswig Ferry, across the Elbe at Coswig in Saxony-Anhalt
 * Ellikon–Nack Ferry, across the Rhine from Lottstetten in Baden-Württemberg to Marthalen in Switzerland
 * Ferchland Grieben Ferry, across the Elbe between Ferchland and Grieben in Saxony-Anhalt
 * Gräpel Cable Ferry, across the Oste at Gräpel in Lower Saxony
 * Ketzin Cable Ferry, across the Havel at Ketzin in Brandenburg
 * Kiewitt Ferry, across the Havel at Potsdam in Brandenburg
 * Maintal–Dörnigheim Ferry, across the Main near Maintal in Hesse
 * Friesenheimer Insel – Sandhofen Ferry, across an old arm of the Rhine in Mannheim
 * Pritzerbe Ferry, across the Havel between Havelsee and Kützkow in Brandenburg
 * Rathen Ferry, across the Elbe at Rathen in Saxony
 * Räbel Ferry, across the Elbe between Räbel and Havelberg in Saxony-Anhalt
 * Rothenburg Ferry, across the Saale at Rothenburg in Saxony-Anhalt
 * Sandau Ferry, across the Elbe at Sandau in Saxony-Anhalt
 * Straussee Ferry, across the Straussee at Strausberg in Brandenburg
 * Teterower See Ferry, to an island in the Teterower See in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
 * Veckerhagen Ferry, across the Weser between Veckerhagen in Hesse and Hemeln in Lower Saxony
 * Westerhüsen Ferry, across the Elbe at Magdeburg in Saxony-Anhalt

Hong Kong

 * Nam Sang Wai Ferry, at Nam Sang Wai in northwestern New Territories

Hungary

 * One cable ferry across the Danube between Csepel and Soroksár, in Budapest
 * A cable ferry crosses the Tisza between Tiszalök and Tiszatardos

Ireland

 * A cable ferry serves Little Island and Waterford Castle in the River Suir

Italy

 * Two cable ferries across the port of Cesenatico, in Romagna
 * One cable ferry across the port of Bellaria-Igea Marina, in Romagna
 * An engineless cable ferry (Traghetto di Leonardo) between Imbersago (Lecco) e Villa d'Adda (Bergamo), in Lombardia, in the Ecomuseo Adda di Leonardo da Vinci river museum
 * Another "Traghetto di Leonardo" across the Tevere river, in Lazio, in the Riserva Naturale di Nazzano natural reserve

Mozambique

 * Ferry across Shire River, 37 km south of Malawi's southernmost border

Netherlands
There are about 150 cable ferries in the Netherlands,. About 111 of these are small hand-powered self-service ones and of these 24 use chains.

Some examples:
 * Cuijk ferry, across the Meuse at Cuijk
 * Genemuiden ferry, across the Zwarte Water at Genemuiden
 * Jonen ferry, across the Walengracht at Jonen, only taking foot passengers and cyclists, winched to the other bank by an electric motor on one of the banks.
 * Lexkesveer, across the Nederrijn near Wageningen, first mentioned in 1426
 * Oijen Ferry, across the Meuse at Oijen
 * Wijhe Ferry, across the IJssel at Wijhe
 * Wijk bij Duurstede ferry, across the Lek. This one uses a floating cable.

New Zealand

 * Tuapeka Mouth Ferry, in Tuapeka – South Island, on the Clutha River

Norway

 * Fjone ferry, across lake Nisser in Nissedal, Telemark
 * Espevær Ferry, in Bømlo, Hordaland
 * Duesund–Masfjordnes, in Nordhordland
 * Mjånes-Hisarøy, in Gulen, Sogn og Fjordane

Poland

 * Biechowy Ferry, across the Warta between Biechowy and Piersk
 * Borusowa Ferry, across the Vistula between Borusowa and Nowy Korczyn road no. 973
 * Brody Ferry, across the Oder at Brody road no. 280
 * Brzeg Dolny Ferry, across the Oder between Brzeg Dolny and Głoska
 * Ciszyca Ferry, across the Vistula between Tarnobrzeg and Ciszyca road no. 758
 * Czchów Ferry, across the Dunajec between Czchów and Piaski Drużków
 * Czeszewo Ferry, across the Warta at Czeszewo
 * Dębno Ferry, across the Warta between Dębno and Orzechowo
 * Gniew Ferry, across the Vistula between Gniew and Janowo road no. 510
 * Grzegorzowice Ferry, across the Oder between Grzerorzowice and Ciechowice road no. 421
 * Janowiec Ferry, across the Vistula between Kazimierz Dolny and Janowiec
 * Korzeniewo Ferry, across the Vistula between Korzeniewo and Opalenie road no. 232
 * Kozubów Ferry, across the Warta between Kozubów and Osina
 * Krzemienna Ferry, across the San between Krzemienna and Jabłonica Ruska
 * Milsko Ferry, across the Oder between Milsko and Przewóz road no. 282
 * Nozdrzec Ferry, across the San between Nozdrzec and Dąbrówka Starzeńska
 * Opatowiec Ferry, across the Vistula between Opatowiec and Ujście Jezuickie
 * Otfinów Ferry, across the Dunajec between Otfinów and Pasieka Otfinowska
 * Pogorzelica Ferry, across the Warta between Pogorzelica and Nowa Wieś Podgórna
 * Połaniec Ferry, across the Vistula between Połaniec and Gliny Małe
 * Połęcko Ferry, across the Oder between Połęcko and Chlebowo road no. 138
 * Pomorsko Ferry, across the Oder at Pomorsko road no. 281
 * Siedliszowice Ferry, across the Dunajec between Siedliszowice and Wietrzychowice
 * Sławsk Ferry, across the Warta between Sławsk and Węglewskie Holendry
 * Świniary Ferry, across the Vistula between Baranów Sandomierski and Świniary road no. 872
 * Waki Ferry, across the Warta at Waki

Slovakia

 * Perec Ferry, across the Perec distributary of the river Hron, between Starý Tekov and Nový Tekov in Levice district - Foot ferry, came into use in the late 18th century and ceased operations in 2014, replaced by a bridge.

South Africa

 * Malgas Ferry for 2-3 cars, 120 m across the Breede River at Malgas, Western Cape, powered by 2-4 men walking a rope, in operation from 1860 to 2019, when it was replaced by a diesel-powered ferry in spite of a petition with over 21000 signatures appealing to save the unique historic crossing.
 * Octha Ferry at Sendelingsdrift, for 2 cars, across the Garib (Orange) River to Namibia, guided by tethers on high rope, powered by two outboard motors and possibly the water current.

South Korea

 * Abai village ferry in Sokcho

Spain

 * Pas de barca de Flix, across the Ebro river, in Flix, Catalonia
 * Pas de barca de Miravet, across the Ebro river, in Miravet, Catalonia

Sweden

 * Adelsön Ferry, in Lake Mälaren from Munsö to Adelsö
 * Ammerö Ferry, in Lake Revsund from Ammer to Stavre
 * Ängö Ferry, between Ängön and Fruvik on Bokenäset
 * Arnö Ferry, in Lake Mälaren from Oknö to Arnö
 * Avan Ferry, across Lule River from Avan to Norra Sunderbyn
 * Boheden Ferry, across Djupträsket from Sandudden to Boheden
 * Bohus Malmön Ferry, from Malmön to Roparöbacken
 * Bojarkilen Ferry, across Bojarkilen in Strömstad
 * Bolmsö Ferry, across Lake Bolmen from Sunnaryd to Bolmsö
 * Hamburgsund Ferry, across Hamburgsund from Hamburgsund to Hamburgön
 * Högmarsö Ferry, from Högmarsö to Svartnö
 * Högsäter Ferry, across Byälven from Högsäter to Fryxnäs
 * Isö Ferry, across Storsjön from Isön to Norderön
 * Ivö Ferry, across Ivö Lake between Barum and Ivö Island
 * Kornhall Ferry, across the Nordre älv between Kornhall and Brunnstorpsnäs
 * Kostersundet Ferry, across Kostersundet from Nordkoster to Sydkoster
 * Lyr Ferry, between the islands of Lyr and Orust
 * Malö Ferry, between the islands of Malö and Orust
 * Rödupp Ferry, across the Kalix river at Rödupp
 * Stegeborg Ferry, across the Slätbaken between Slottsholmen and Norrkrog
 * Sund-Jaren Ferry, across the Stora Le lake
 * Töreboda Ferry, across the Göta Canal in Töreboda
 * Torpön Ferry, across Lake Sommen from Torpön to Blåvik
 * Vaxholmen Ferry, from the town of Vaxholm to Vaxholm Castle
 * Ytterö Ferry, from Ytterön to Yttre park

Switzerland
All reaction ferries:
 * Basel Ferries, four routes across the Rhine in the city of Basel
 * Ferry across the Sitter at Bischofszell
 * Bodenacker Ferry, across the Aare
 * Ferry across the Doubs at Tariche
 * Ellikon–Nack Ferry, across the Rhine from Marthalen to Lottstetten in Germany
 * Fahr Abbey Ferry, across the Limmat river at Fahr Abbey, since 1896.
 * Ferry Mumpf–Bad Säckingen across the Rhine to Germany
 * Ferry Reichenbach across the Aare at Zollikofen
 * Ferry across the Reuss at Sulz
 * Fähre Wolfwil–Wynau across the Aare
 * Ferry Zehendermätteli across the Aare near Bern
 * Ferry Zurzach-Kadelburg, across the Rhine to Germany

United Kingdom

 * Butts Ferry, across the River Exe in Exeter, Devon
 * Cowes Floating Bridge, across the River Medina on the Isle of Wight
 * Dartmouth Higher Ferry, across the River Dart in Devon
 * Hampton Ferry, across the River Avon near Evesham in Worcestershire
 * Hampton Loade Ferry, across the River Severn in Shropshire (closed 2016)
 * King Harry Ferry, across the River Fal in Cornwall
 * Normanton-on-Soar Chain Ferry, across the River Soar in Nottinghamshire
 * Reedham Ferry, across the River Yare in Norfolk
 * Sandbanks Ferry, across the entrance to Poole Harbour in Dorset
 * Stratford-upon-Avon Ferry, across the River Avon at Stratford-upon-Avon in Warwickshire
 * Symonds Yat river crossings, a pair of hand powered ferries across the River Wye in Herefordshire
 * Torpoint Ferry, across the River Tamar between Devon and Cornwall.
 * Trowlock Island Ferry, a hand powered ferry to Trowlock Island in the River Thames in south-western Greater London
 * Windermere Ferry, across Windermere in Cumbria

United States

 * Akers Ferry, across the Current River near Salem in Missouri
 * Avoca Island Ferry, across the intracoastal waterway to Avoca Island near Morgan City in Louisiana
 * Bemus Point-Stow Ferry, across Chautauqua Lake in New York
 * Buena Vista Ferry, across the Willamette River in Oregon
 * Canby Ferry, across the Willamette River in Oregon
 * Los Ebanos Ferry, across the Rio Grande between Los Ebanos, Texas and Gustavo Díaz Ordaz, Tamaulipas
 * Elwell Ferry, across the Cape Fear River in North Carolina
 * Fredericktown Ferry, closed in 2013 across the Monongahela River in southwestern Pennsylvania
 * Green River Ferry, across the Green River in Mammoth Cave National Park
 * Hatton Ferry, across the James River in Virginia
 * Ironton Ferry, across an arm of Lake Charlevoix in Michigan
 * J-Mack Ferry, across an arm of the Sacramento River in California
 * Merrimac Ferry, across the Wisconsin River in Wisconsin
 * Merry Point Ferry, across the Corrotoman River in Virginia
 * Parker's Ferry, across the Meherrin River in North Carolina
 * Princeton Ferry, across the Sacramento River in California
 * Reed's Ferry, across the Green River northeast of Rochester, KY
 * Rochester Ferry, across the Green River in Rochester, KY
 * Sans Souci Ferry, across the Cashie River in North Carolina
 * Saugatuck Chain Ferry, across the Kalamazoo River in Michigan
 * Sunnybank Ferry, across the Little Wicomico River in Virginia
 * Sycamore Island Ferry, across the Potomac River in Maryland
 * Fort Ticonderoga Ferry, across Lake Champlain between Ticonderoga, New York and Shoreham, Vermont
 * Upper Ferry, across the Wicomico River in Maryland
 * Valley View Ferry, across the Kentucky River in Kentucky
 * Wheatland Ferry, across the Willamette River in Oregon
 * White's Ferry, across the Potomac River in Maryland
 * Whitehaven Ferry, across the Wicomico River at Whitehaven, Maryland
 * Woodland Ferry, across the Nanticoke River in Delaware

Zambia

 * Chambeshi Ferry, across the Chambeshi River near Mbesuma
 * Kabompo Ferry, across the Kabompo River 80 km south-east of Kabompo
 * Kafue Ferry, across the Kafue River 4.5 km west of the Zambezi

Zimbabwe

 * Ekusileni Ferry, across the Insiza River downstream of Filabusi

title: Cable ferry


text:
Talk:Mass comparison

What of the example table?
The text seems to explain that by mass comparision we could estabilish a relationship between languages H and I. What of A thru G, however? -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 12:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

POV
This article consists mostly of blatant Greenberg apologetics - in other words it is wildly POV. Some sections like the "myth of Mass comparison" is clearly Synthesis/OR and ripe with pro-Greenberg editorializing. As it stands that section should rather be removed than be allowed to stand as is. It is unencyclopedic in style to have an article about a very widely criticized methodology that clearly aims to reivindicate the method rather than just describe what it is and why it is controversial. ·Maunus· ƛ · 03:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Maunus, I appreciate your comments. I would like you to be happy with this article. We are on difficult ground given that feelings run high on this subject. However, I have known some articles on equally controversial subjects to have achieved stability and this can happen here. Please note that I respected your recent edits to Joseph Greenberg while copy-editing them and if you feel that I changed anything essential in them I invite you to put it back.

 * As the subject of mass comparison is relatively large, I suggest focusing on the "Myth of mass lexical comparison" section, at least to begin with. As you know, the essential Wikipedia criterion is not truth but verifiability. After scrutinizing this section, I personally don't feel it violates verifiability: everything is referenced and the references seem to hold up. It states, as I understand it, that many linguists believe Greenberg's method was "mass lexical comparison", and provides evidence that this was not so, both because he never used the term and because he also relied on grammatical comparison. Do you dispute any of these facts? If so, the POV tag may be able to stand. If not, I submit it should be removed. In my opinion, it is legitimate to oppose Greenberg's methods but not to misrepresent them.

 * I also think the article does "describe what it [mass comparison] is and why it is controversial". Namely (1) mass comparison is both lexical and grammatical and (b) contrary to the prevailing approach among linguists, it does not check its results by establishing regular sound correspondences.

 * Finally, the article clearly states upfront, in a sentence to which you have helpfully added a reference, that "The method is generally rejected by linguists (Campbell 2001:45)".

 * Hoping we can pursue the discussion in all amity and comity, if you wish VikSol 05:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article for a while and was pleasantly surprised to find detailed exposition of both pro and anti views. This is exactly what NPOV is about, and this article is a great example of how to treat a controversial topic.

If particular statements are uncited they should be tagged as such, or if a particular linguist's views are misrepresented, that should be fixed. Simply tagging the whole article is not useful. --JWB (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I have read the article again and I am now certain that although the "The Myth of Mass Lexical Comparison" is a particularly blatant example of POV, the entire article, lead included, suffers form the same problem. Lets start by looking at the "Myth" section.
 * Title: the very title implies that mainstream linguists are subject to a false belief that Greenberg used Mass Lexical Comparison. However both of the underlying presuppositions of this title, namely 1. that G did never use Mass Lexical Comparison and 2. that his critics believe that G never compared grammatical but only lexical material are unfounded which I shall show under the next point.
 * Content: The section argues that because Greenberg did sometimes use grammatical material in his comparison, and never himself used the word "mass lexical comparison" it is unjust when his critics call his method this. However it does neither justify these conclusions or trace them to reliable sources. Instead it sets up quotes by G himself and quotes by his critics in order to show that the critical characterizations of his method are not compatible whith how he himself described his methods. Hardly a suprise - but it is however Synthesis and Original Research when the article author then uses the discrepancy between the critics description of G's methods and G's own explanations to conclude that the critics are wrong. If a source could be found that states what most linguists believe about G's methods and that they are wrong in this belief, then we could write it in the article. Here it is nothing more than the editors conclusion made by synthesising different writings by G and his critics. Some degree of synthesis is sometime admissible, but it sets extremely high demands on the editors' neutrality and capability of not misrepresenting his sources. Here however the anti-Greenberg side is clearly misrepresented. One issue is for example that judging from the aticle here mainstream linguists are unaware that Greenberg used grammatical material in his comparisons - this could only be true if his detractors had not read his books. A Lyle Campbell quote is used to show that his critics accuse him of only relying visual inspection of lexical items. The quote seems to say exactly that - but any one who has read Campbells criticisms of G will know that he is fully aware that Greenbergs tries to use grammatical elements - for example Campbell spends quite a lot of paper explaining that Gs grouping of all nearly amerindian languages in one family is based almost exclusively on a little group of grammatical affixes: for example a prefix n- for first person a prefix m- for second person. So Campbell knows very well that G uses grammatical morphemes as well as purely lexical material. Then why does Campbell say what he says in that quote? Because to most linguists grammatical affixes is ALSO a kind of lexical material, even if they are not independent roots! So the entire section is based on a false dichotomy pretending that mainstream linguists accuse G of only using independent lexical roots where in fact he does also use grammatical material. A secondary issue is the term Mass Lexical Comparison which is said to refer to something that never existed - a bold and unsourced claim in it self - G called his method Multilateral Comparison and whether or not his critics use the same word or not it is still the same method. The only thing that the supposed myth of Mass lexical comparison is used for here is to make G's critics look like idiots who haven't even bothered to read his works.
 * Phrasings:
 * "It is widely believed among linguists that Greenberg's method of language classification was limited to comparisons of words alone, to the neglect of grammatical elements, which could often provide more decisive evidence for language relationship or non-relationship." followed by "in reality Greenberg never used ..."
 * Who says that it is widely believed? Who says what G "used in reality"?
 * "In sum, mainstream historical linguists believe that Joseph Greenberg advocated and practiced a technique limited to lexical comparison. Greenberg's published writings show that he advocated the use of both lexical and grammatical data and that he carried out this theoretical desideratum in practice. No such technique as "mass lexical comparison" has ever existed."
 * This phrasing show beyond a shadow of doubt that the argumentation is OR and belongs to the editor rather than to any published scholar.

 * If you look at the history of this article in Wikipedia, it started out as an article Mass lexical comparison which was very anti-Greenberg and not very well argued. This seems to be what the author of much of the present article text was responding to.
 * Are you saying that Greenberg did not use any grammatical or typological material other than affixes? --JWB (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A very anti-greenberg article would be much closer to given a balanced view of the viewpoints. The method is rejected by the large majority of linguists, and by nearly all of those working in what one might call the "mainstream" of linguistics. In short a pro-greenberg article which is what we have now - gives immensely undue weight to that particular viewpoint - while an anti-greenberg article would suffer less from undue weight. Of course we should have a neutral article that shows what the method is and why it is rejected by most historical linguists.And no I am not saying that he didnt use other kinds of grammatical material than affixes - although I am fairly sure that that would be close to the truth. I am saying that nobody has accused him of not considering grammatical material - everybody knows that there were ghrammatical lexical elements represented in his notebooks. However what G never does but which is fundamental to real historical linguistics is to compare and reconstruct grammatical systems!

 * '''Other problems:
 * Lead''':
 * "In spite of widespread skepticism about his method, some of the relationships established by Greenberg gradually came to be generally accepted (e.g. Afro-Asiatic and Niger-Congo). Others are widely accepted though disputed by some (e.g. Nilo-Saharan), others are predominantly rejected but have some defenders (e.g. Khoisan), while others continue to be widely rejected and have only a handful of defenders (e.g. Amerind)." While the facts here are about right (except that G's critics do not ascribe the succefulness of A-A and N-C to a succesful application of the method but rather to those groupings relying on previous welconducted research made by other scholars), the phrasing is blatant POV. The weasel opening makes it clear that the entire phrase is couting up the method's merits instead of giving an objective evalutation.

 * Theory of Mass Comparison
 * "The basic relationships can be determined without any experience in the case of languages that are fairly closely related. Knowing a bit about probable paths of sound change allows one to go farther faster. An experienced typologist — Greenberg was a pioneer in the field — can quickly recognize or reject several potential cognates in this table as probable or improbable." Again this gives G's viewpoint unquestioned. The basic assumption that closely related languages have cognate sets that are immediately recognizeable is of course false as anyone of G's critics would retort and secondly it does not mention the even greater point of criticism: that there is no way to distinguish look-alikes from cognates this method and look-alikes are the biggest problem for establishing genealogical relationships! The assumtion that because two languages have words that look a like and have somewhat similar meanings those two languages must be related is FALSE! Thirdly the linguistic discipline of typology has nearly nothing to do with knowing which kinds of soundchanges are more or less likely - and Greenbergs endeavours in Typology certainly had nothing to do with the phonological level he became famous for starting the field of syntactical typology! The statement that Greenberg was a typological pioneer is just an attempt to justify his subjective assumptions of possible reconstruction with establishing sounchanges.
 * "Critics of mass comparison generally assume that mass comparison has no means to distinguish borrowed forms from inherited ones, unlike comparative reconstruction, which is able to do so through regular sound correspondences." Again the phrasing is intended to make it look like G's critics haven't read his books. His critics do not assume, they have repeatedly proven that Grenberg DID NOT distinguish borrowed forms in his data even when their history as borrowed terms had appeared in print. The method of course doesn't have a way to distinguish borrowing but that wouldn't as big a problem if G actually tried to eliminate borrowings - but he didn't. Secondly all the assumptions Greenberg made in 1957 about what is borroweable and what isn't have been shown to be false, but here they are allowed to stand alone (see Kaufman & Thomason (1988 Language contact, creolization, and genetic linguistics) and Thomason (2001). Language contact: an introduction for the most recent work on borrowability and language contact studies.)
 * "Greenberg considered that the results achieved through this method approached certainty (39): "The presence of fundamental vocabulary resemblances and resemblances in items with grammatical function, particularly if recurrent through a number of languages, is a sure indication of genetic relationship."" Greenberg was wrong in his consideration and his critics have proven that - why isn't that supplied here?
 * The place of sound correspondences...
 * "It is often reported that Greenberg sought to replace the comparative method with a new method, mass comparison (or, among his less scrupulous critics, "mass lexical comparison")." This weasel phrase speaks for itself. Whether or not he intended to replace the comparative method is irrelevant - the criticism is that his method doesn't do what he says it does, namely suggest groupings to submit to further in depth study by the comparative method. One might as well chose arbitrary languages and obtain the same result (which has in fact been tried).
 * Summary:
 * Here we are allowed to see all Gs flawed assumptions again - again without any of the arguments against the assumptions being provided.
 * Position of Greenbergs detractors
 * "For instance, one could prove that Spanish is related to Italian by showing that many words of the former can be mapped to corresponding words of the latter by a relatively small set of replacement rules — such as the correspondence of initial es- and s-, final -os and -i, etc. Many similar correspondences exist between the grammars of the two languages. Since those systematic correspondences are extremely unlikely to be random coincidences, the most likely explanation by far is that the two languages have evolved from a single ancestral tongue (Latin, in this case)." This is not the comparative method! The comparative method establishes history based on regular sound changes and reconstruction of proto-forms, not just by looking at two pairs of vocabulary, finding them similar and stating that they are related: that is much closer to mass comparison (except here for ease of explanation the example just uses two languages). Apparently the editor who wrote this hasn't read the wikipedia article about the comparative method or any other description of the method by someone who is not a Greenbergian.
 * Response of Greenbergs Defenders
 * "The actual development of the comparative method was a more gradual process than Greenberg's detractors suppose." So G's critics also do not know how the method they cherish so much was developed? Boy they really are ignorant.
 * "Indo-European was recognized by scholars such as William Jones (1786) and Franz Bopp (1816) long before the development of the comparative method. Furthermore, Indo-European was not the first language family to be recognized by students of language. Semitic had been recognized by European scholars in the 17th century, Finno-Ugric in the 18th. Dravidian was recognized in the mid-19th century by Robert Caldwell (1856), well before the publication of Schleicher's comparative reconstructions." This misrepresents the difference between "recognized" and "proved" - it also fails to show that inclusion of the more interesting branches in those families was only achieved through strict application of the comparative method.
 * "Finally, the supposition that all of the language families generally accepted by linguists today have been proved by the comparative method is untrue." Weasel anyone?
 * "For example, although Eskimo-Aleut has long been accepted as a valid family, "Proto-Eskimo-Aleut has not yet been reconstructed" (Bomhard 2008:209)." Hmm I suppose someone shoould have told Mike Fortescue, Kaplan and Jacobson and Knut Bergsland that they were not really using the comparative method when they published their "Comparative Eskimo Dictionary with Aleut Cognates" and "Comparative Eskimo-Aleut phonology and lexicon." in 1994 and 1986 respectively.
 * "Conversely, detailed comparative reconstructions exist for some language families which nonetheless remain controversial, such as Altaic and Nostratic." Nowehere has any proponent of the comparative method stated that making a reconstruction is enough for a proposal to be proven. It also has to be a valid reconstruction!
 * "According to Greenberg’s critics, genetic classification arises from the identification of sound correspondences or (others state) the reconstruction of protolanguages." Not "or" And. And please substitute Greenbergs Critics with mainstream historical linguists (or if you like just "the majority of historical linguists")here.
 * These examples are by no means all that is wrong with trhe article but only the most blatant POV breaches in the aticle as it stands. Generally it needs to include much more of what the critics actually say and why they say it, and this of course also needs to be presented in a fair way and not just retorted by painting them as morons. I hope you can see now that the article is by no means neutral or "a great example of how to write an article about a controversial topic"·Maunus· ƛ · 22:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

 * You have outlined some responses by the anti-Greenberg side - feel free to add those to the article. Both the pro- and anti-Greenberg material also need to be referenced.
 * I can see how you don't like the tone of parts of the article, but it is a representation of the pro-Greenberg POV, and the article should explain both POVs as well as possible. --JWB (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I am sorry but that is not a response. Of course I can add referenced material to the article, and of course I will - but this is a questrion about the quality of the parts of the article that are already there. I have shown that the article it self is fully biased, not just that it only represents the pro-greenberg side of the argument which would be bad enough. It consistently misrepresents  the opposing majority view and paints the scholars who espouse it (the majority of historical linguists) as amateurs who know nothing neither of Greenbergs writings or of historicval linguistics in general and are unable to present cogherent arguments. In short it gives the rerader a completely false image of the actuakl state of the discussion.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, presenting both POVs of an issue as if they were on equal footing is not always the same as being NPOV. See WP:UNDUE, particularly: "In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint ... the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear ... that [the minority view] is, in fact the minority view[.] The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail so the reader understands how the minority view differs from the widely-accepted one. ... Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view". This article needs to be far more clear on the fact that Mass Comparison is a minority-viewpoint, disavowed by nearly all historical linguists. --Miskwito (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Greenberg's mass comparison is espoused by a very small proportion of historical linguists, albeit a very vocal minority and, unfortunately, the side of the issue that usually gets the best press.  But it is a minority viewpoint, nonetheless.  (Taivo (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

 * I think this article needs to attain a state where it is accepted as NPOV by all parties concerned. This can be done. A variety of issues have been raised which will require some time to address. But the task is not infinite. At some point all necessary issues will have been vetted.

 * Maunus has, I believe, flagged three levels to address: (1) What are the facts? (2) Original research / synthesis. (3) Whether the argument is structured so as to produce a given result. To these JWB has added (4) the question of tone. Each section of the article needs to be discussed on these levels in turn.

 * Majority / minority issues have also been raised and will obviously need to be considered further.

 * I will have more to say on these points, as I am sure others will as well. I am currently hesitating whether we need to go to the most controversial issues first, or first pick the low-hanging fruit, which may consist of the "Position of Greenberg's detractors" section, which illustrates the comparative method with an example drawn from French and Spanish that I agree with Maunus is very flawed. I think we should put in an example taken directly from one of the standard manuals of historical linguistics, such as those by Anttila, Hock, or Trask. VikSol (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Another (comparatively minor) problem I've come across is the misrepresentation of a source's claims. Specifically, the article currently states "In spite of the apparently intractable nature of the conflict between Greenberg and his critics, a few linguists have begun to argue for its resolution. Edward Vajda, acclaimed for his recent demonstration of Dené-Yeniseian, attempts to stake out a position that is sympathetic to both Greenberg’s approach and that of its critics, such as Lyle Campbell and Johanna Nichols, and links to this paper of Vajda's (PDF): . The article makes it sound as though Vajda accepts aspects of both traditional historical linguistics and mass comparison. But that's not Vajda's position. He is in favor of resolving conflicts between traditional historical linguists and more aggressive, long-range lumpers (the paper is dedicated to both Lyle Campbell and Joseph Greenberg). But he doesn't accept both the comparative method and mass comparison as equally-valid: "I think that future scholarship will fully vindicate Lyle Campbell's judgments on linguistic methodology as well as Greenberg's goal of a comprehensive genetic classification." In other words, longer-range comparisons can be successfully demonstrated, but not by mass comparison! Of course, this is a relatively minor point compared with many of the issues in the article, but there are many other more minor issues like this that we'll need to deal with as well, as VikSol points out above. --Miskwito (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Starting from things said above, I'd like to make a couple of preliminary points and then start moving on to substantial issues.

 * 1. If we are to conduct this discussion according to the standards of Wikipedia, we need to have access to basic source materials. In the case of Greenberg, this means his Genetic Linguistics (2005), which contains his most essential methodological essays, and preferably his works of language classification: Studies in African Linguistic Classification (1949-54 = 1955), The Languages of Africa (1963 = 1966 = 1970), "The Indo-Pacific hypothesis" (reprinted in Genetic Linguistics), Language in the Americas (1987), and Indo-European and Its Closest Relatives (2000-2002). The best-known defense of Greenberg is Merritt Ruhlen's On the Origin of Languages (Stanford 1994). In the case of Greenberg's critics, there is no one source we can cite as primordial, but I would think Lyle Campbell's Historical Linguistics would be on anyone’s short list. Terence Kaufman and Sarah Thomason’s  Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics (1988) and Sarah Thomason's Language Contact (2001), mentioned by Maunus supra, are relevant at several points.

 * 2. The point has been raised above that NPOV guidelines require that the majority point of view be proportionally emphasized more than the minority point of view in cases of conflict. This does not mean, however, that the minority point of view should be presented from the majority point of view: rather, both should be presented from neutral point of view, but it should be clear to the reader which is which.

 * Some of the most relevant guidelines are (from Neutral point of view 2.3, to which Miskwito very usefully steers us, underlining added):

 * Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

 * In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views are allowed to receive more attention and space ; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should ) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant , and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view (and that it is, in fact the minority view). The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail so the reader understands how the minority view differs from the widely-accepted one , and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should clearly be identified and explained.

 * For example, it is unacceptable to rewrite the Out of Africa article to present the multiregional hypothesis as of equal popularity among scientists in relevant disciplines (as some have been doing), but it would not be permissible to present the multiregional hypothesis purely from the point of view of its critics: rather, the arguments that have been made for and against it should be presented from neutral point of view, the opinion of the majority of scientists presented, and the reader left to make up her/his own mind (cp. Neutral point of view).

 * In other words, Wikipedia makes a distinction between articles on general subjects (such as the comparative method, where Greenberg's views are not even mentioned) and "articles specifically on the minority viewpoint" (such as mass comparison).

 * I am mentioning these guidelines because it would not be acceptable to write the article from the POV of Greenberg's critics because they are in the majority. Nor is there any principle on Wikipedia that in articles "specifically on the minority viewpoint" the majority viewpoint should receive more space. The guidelines seem to imply that each viewpoint should receive enough space for it to be clear to the reader and that the amount of space required to do so will vary from article to article.

 * Does the article currently conform to these guidelines? That is one of the principal things at issue. The guidelines themselves (if I am not mistaken) are clear enough.

 * 3. I think we have at this point an acceptable framework for discussion. More could be said on certain points, and may be, but I think it’s time to go to substantive issues. Maunus has raised certain points on "lexical comparison" that need to be considered. Namely:

 * (a) "Lexical" refers to both vocabulary items and grammatical items.

 * (b) Greenberg at times engaged in vocabulary comparison to the exclusion of grammatical comparison.

 * In conclusion, the term "mass lexical comparison" is justified, first because "lexical" items include "grammatical" items, second because Greenberg in fact engaged in vocabulary comparison at times.

 * I think there is some truth to each of these points. Every now and then, I come across a use of "lexical" to mean both roots and affixes. Furthermore, we all know that many affixes are grammaticalized forms of roots. The relation is sometimes etymologically transparent, eroding the boundary between root and affix. The use of personal pronouns to recharacterize verb endings is especially frequent. So there is no absolute boundary here, either terminologically or in the process of language change.

 * Furthermore, Greenberg had a high opinion of vocabulary comparison as a means to provide instant classifications. He was prepared to classify even languages for which the only evidence is a word list, often based on casual contact. So it could be argued that he assigned a higher role to lexical comparison than most linguists would be willing to endorse.

 * There is some truth to these points, but not enough.

 * Although some linguists occasionally use "lexical" in an expansive sense, including both roots and affixes (and other elements of speech – accent, tone), this is not by any means the usual acceptation of this term. "Lexemes" are usually opposed to "affixes", "inflections", "grammatical formatives", and the like.

 * That this is how both Greenberg and his critics take the word "lexical" is clear from their writings. For example, Greenberg states (quoted in the article):

 * When the morphemes involved are roots this is called lexical comparison, when they are affixes, grammatical. There is no contradiction in the results attained by lexical and grammatical comparison and both methods are employed as far as possible.

 * Likewise, Lyle Campbell uses "lexical items", "'words'", and "vocabulary" to designate the same thing (also quoted in the article, boldface added):

 * The best-known of the approaches which rely on inspectional resemblances among lexical items is that advocated by Joseph Greenberg, called 'multilateral (or mass) comparison'. It is based on 'looking at ... many languages across a few words ' rather than at 'a few languages across many words ' (Greenberg 1987: 23). The lexical similarities determined by superficial visual inspection which are shared 'across many languages' alone are taken as evidence of genetic relationship. (...) In short, no technique which relies on inspectional similarities in vocabulary alone has proven adequate for establishing distant family relationships.

 * Such quotations could be multiplied very easily at great length. At the end of the day, it will have to be accepted that (a) Greenberg didn’t advocate or practice a method of purely lexical comparison and (b) many linguists have in fact said he did.

 * There is, however, some truth in the claim: Greenberg rated lexical comparisons higher than most linguists would be prepared to do, and the evidence he considered decisive would not be accepted as decisive by most linguists. We could perhaps add a section expressing this nuanced view. VikSol (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

 * A couple of comments. Campbell has a very detailed discussion of Greenberg and his critics in American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America--I think much more detailed than that found in Historical Linguistics, but I'll check (I have both at hand).  I'll also ask him which he thinks is the better discussion and if he has a preference.  Your comments, VikSol, vis a vis policy and how to write an article on the minority view are quite right, but you asked the question about whether this article neutrally describes the minority view and its critics as it is currently written.  No, it does not.  Right now, the article is written in a rather reverential POV and dismisses the critics as almost a medieval cabal bent on smothering the ray of light that Greenberg offers.  So the article as it now stands does not conform to the guidelines for writing an article about the minority position.  (Just as an aside, Joseph Greenberg was in the audience when I read my first professional paper at a linguistics conference.  He was a very nice, polite, and warm man who asked a couple of very good questions.  I disagree with the way he did historical linguistics.)  (Taivo (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC))
 * (A quick note--I'll address the more substantial stuff tomorrow, when I'll have time--I have both books as well, and the discussion in American Indian Languages is indeed much more detailed and in-depth.) --Miskwito (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With regard to bibliography, we should probably give pride of place to Campbell and Poser's Language Classification: History and Method (Cambridge University Press, 2008), as the most recent statement on the subject. VikSol (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately due to weight limitations on transatlantic flights I left all my books on the topic in Denmark and won't have access to them untill october. I agree very much with every thing that has been said about how the changes to the article should be implemented - and I wish to commend VikSol for his extremely colaborative and reasonable attitude towards the process.I wish more editors behaved like that. ·Maunus· ƛ · 02:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Maunus.

 * On a very minor note, I have reverted the change of some author-date citations to footnotes on the following grounds: (From Citing sources: ) "The following are methods of inline citation used in Wikipedia: Footnote system (...) Parenthetical referencing". "Once a style is selected for an article it is inappropriate to change an article to another unless there is a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style." (From Manual of style:) "An overriding principle on Wikipedia is that style and formatting should be applied consistently within articles, though not necessarily throughout the encyclopedia as a whole. One way of presenting information may be as good as another is, but consistency within articles promotes clarity and cohesion. (...) Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Regards, VikSol (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! --Miskwito (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now I have time for a more thorough response. First off I'll echo Maunus' comment about how collaborative and helpful VikSol is being throughout this. I really do think we can come to a reasonable compromise solution when we're approaching the situation with those kinds of attitudes! Briefly, my reactions to your above points, VikSol, are as follows.

1. All good suggestions, and Taivo has also mentioned Campbell's American Indian Languages, in which a lengthy chapter is dedicated to discussing the methods underpinning Greenberg's Amerind grouping (and similar long-range groupings of other linguists in the past), and the method's weaknesses (in Campbell's view). I'd add that Ringe's publication(s) on the statistics of language comparison have been quite significant (again on the anti-Greenbergian side), as the article already notes--if anyone has access to any of them. Personally I only have Campbell's two books and some minor papers from the International Journal of American Linguistics, but I have easy access to Ruhlen's books, and I should be able to get ahold of most of Greenberg's stuff at the library.

2. I agree with your basic point here, and hopefully we're all in agreement that the article should ultimately give both viewpoints a fair hearing, as it were. In fact, there are some areas where opposing views are, in some sense, given too much prominence. Having such a long section on combating the notion that mass comparison is just comparing lexical items (rather than spending a shorter time simply describing what mass comparison is, and not focusing so much on opponents' views of MC) not only becomes tedious and inaccurate, but gives more prominence to the dispute than is really necessary or warranted (see below).

3. With regard to the "lexical" of "mass lexical comparison", I have two points. First, that Campbell quote, I would argue, doesn't actually suggest that Greenberg only compared lexical items (as Maunus notes, Campbell has spent a lot of time disputing some of Greenberg's proposed grammatical similarities; although, Campbell is indeed claiming that Greenberg places a great emphasis on vocabulary). Rather, the other key in that quote is "no technique which relies on inspectional similarities in vocabulary alone has proven adequate for establishing distant family relationships"--as opposed to one which relies on regular sound correspondences. My more significant point would be related to #2 above: while it's important to describe what mass comparison consists of, and to note disagreements over what it entails and/or various misunderstandings of it, a very long discussion specifically about just this issue isn't very useful.

Now, a few thoughts on where we should go from here. First of all, I'd suggest we come up with ideas for what the overarching framework of the article should look like. Having constant back-and-forths between "supporters of mass comparison say this, other linguists say this, then supporters of MC say this...", I think, isn't the best format we could have. I'd suggest something along the lines of:
 * Intro
 * History of MC, especially:
 * Greenberg's African classification, and the theoretical writings contained in his African publications
 * Greenberg's American classification
 * Ruhlen
 * The Moscow School MC-supporters
 * What MC consists of and how it's performed
 * The views of mainstream historical linguistics, including:
 * Rejection of most groupings arrived at by MC, but especially:
 * Mixed degrees of acceptance of Greenberg's various African families (though most Africanists still aren't supporters of MC itself, and Greenberg was building on earlier proposals)
 * Essentially universal and vehement rejection of Amerind
 * The chance of random matches (Ringe) and other theoretical objections

This is very simplified and skeletal, of course, and leaves a lot out (in particular, while I'm not a fan of the "X says and Y says and X says..." format, I'm having trouble visualizing how to remain fair to both views with just a section for each view). I'd also suggest that we make (a) new section(s) on the talk page soon, for ease of navigation. --Miskwito (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also say that we can't forget the stab Greenberg made at "Indo-Pacific" based on mass comparison--found in the Current Trends in Linguistics volume that covered New Guinea. (Taivo (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

 * Replies to Miskwito's proposals:

 * I think the addition of a history section is a good idea and I agree that it should follow the intro. A history of Greenberg's classifications is already present in Joseph Greenberg. To avoid duplication, I think the mass comparison article should provide a brief summary and that, generally speaking, any more extensive material should be put in the Joseph Greenberg article. However, it may be worth including material specifically relevant to MC.

 * It seems reasonable to add a mention of Ruhlen in this context.

 * The Moscow school has friendly relations with the Greenbergians but does not accept mass comparison. (Cp. Nostratic languages.) It may be worth noting this.

 * The section "The myth of mass lexical comparison" needs to be reviewed and may have to be toned down and retitled. We can work out the details further on.

 * Beyond this, I find it hard to visualize the ultimate organization of the article in the abstract. I suggest we start going through the article sentence by sentence. I believe that as we do so it will become apparent what should be kept, changed, or reorganized.

 * I suggest we simply begin with the first sentence and work our way through to the last. VikSol (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Is article name biased?
In my opinion the title Mass lexical comparison itself was biased against Greenberg, by singling out one part of his method that was not meant to stand alone and criticizing it using exaggeration enabled by the isolation. Mass comparison is improved but still shows the same bias.

Surprisingly, there is presently no article on the entire subject, Long-range comparison or Long-range linguistics, that integrates specifics. But no survey article covering the field. --JWB (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are articles on constructs like Macrofamily or Superfamily (linguistics).
 * There are articles on specific examples of those, like Nostratic, Eurasiatic, Dene-Caucasian, Borean.
 * There are articles on techniques like Mass comparison, Glottochronology, Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time (which uses typology not vocabulary)
 * There are articles on practitioners like Joseph Greenberg, Sergei Starostin, Johanna Nichols and others.

The problem is that communis opinio itself is "biased against Greenberg". Therefore, writing apologetic of Greenberg such as this one are not really appropriate for Wikipedia. You don't need to worry about "long range comparison" getting too little or too unsympathetic press here. We have lots of editors touting this topic. What you do need to worry about is proper adherence to WP:DUE. We can cover obscure topics, but we must always take care to depict them from the perspective of the academic mainstream. --dab (𒁳) 16:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You can talk about that all you like, but this article is a great example of Wikipedia failing to distinguish between mainstream viewpoints (i.e. that mass comparison (under whichever moniker you like) doesn't actually work) and non-mainstream ones, and judging by this talk page, it's been like this for years. Honestly, it'd never happen, but Wikipedia would be better off nuking the article from orbit and starting fresh. I certainly don't have the energy to try to fix this pile of POV. Excalibre (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree. For example, Maunus's criticism above of the claim that families are sometimes generally accepted or not indepedent of reconstruction is still not vbeen addressed. All parties have evidently abandoned the article since April 17, 2009. It's irresponsible to leave the article in this state and allowing it to misinform or mislead the reader. This is where Wikipedia fails and one solution I can think of is simply to hide the article from the general reader, perhaps, as a quick-and-dirty solution, by turning it into a redirect to Joseph Greenberg's article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Seriously it's still drenched in POV you guys
Although I did like this bit: "Greenberg replied that he had considered this very possibility in his previous work, which Ringe had failed to cite and thus, presumably, to read (Greenberg 1993, p. 79)." OOOOOH IT'S ON NOW. I think this conflict can only be resolved by a dance competition! Excalibre (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I've re-added it because the massive POV issue remains, and no one seems to be addressing it.50.46.148.182 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing POV tag (again)
I've gone ahead and removed the POV tag which was recently restored by an IP editor with no substantive commentary.

I have no previous involvement here, but I looked at the talk from a few years back and it looks like most of the issues discussed then were fixed. The IP stated that there was still a big POV problem, but didn't give us any idea about what s/he felt that issue was.

In any event, if there's still indeed an active dispute go ahead and put the tag back in, but please restart a substantive discussion here to let folks know specifically *what* is being disputed. Thanks! -Helvetica (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mass comparison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080518115445/http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/docs/dy_vajda_perspective.pdf to http://www.uaf.edu/anlc/docs/dy_vajda_perspective.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mass comparison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060627150544/http://brettkessler.com/~bkessler/TimeDepth_review/ to http://brettkessler.com/~bkessler/TimeDepth_review/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060627150318/http://brettkessler.com/McDonald/ to http://brettkessler.com/McDonald/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mass comparison