text:
Wikipedia:Geographical names naming policy (proposed)

Geographical names naming policy (proposed)

There have been many debates on Wikipedia over what title articles should have. Although much of actual effect of having articles at particular names is mitigated by the existence of redirects, the decision as to what title the actual article will be under nevertheless has to be made.

Proposed policy:

Multiple names
Many places are referred to by more than one name. Most places have an "official" name which is different or longer than the name that most people use to refer to a place.

Principle: common names
 * This policy endorses the principle of "common names" which says that the article should be titled with the most commonly used name in English that is used to refer to a place.
 * Examples: Kiev, Milan, Los Angeles

Rejected principle: Official names.
 * English is not a regulated language, and thus "official names" base their existence on a governmental agent which does not have authority over the English language. Were Wikipedia to support a policy of naming articles about places only by the "official" name, it would be intrinsicly supporting the legitimacy of the agent that makes the name official, which is a violation of the fundamental Wikipedia policy of the neutral point of view.

Principle: Google test
 * In cases where there are disputes about what the most common English name for a place is, the standard method of the Google test should be used for measuring which name is in more common use. Where a name returns many results not related to the place a set of exclusionary search terms can be added to the Google query string of all candidate names to ensure a count only of relevant hits. The Google test results shall only be binding if one name has more than twice as many hits as the next-most-common name. In cases where the Google test is inconclusive, because the most common is less than twice as many as the next-most-common or a set of exclusionary serach terms cannot be agreed upon, it is suggested that a naming poll (described below) be instituted to decide the name. As some places from time to time have changed their name or spelling, frequent review of the Google test results should be done to track the progress of a name change, although if a name is decided by poll, then the article shouldn't be moved more than once every six months.

Ambiguous names
Many places share a name with another place, creating an ambiguity as to which place should be described on the article titled with that name.

Principle: internationally well-known places
 * There are a good deal of places that are well-known internationally. By this it is meant that a well-educated person from any city in the world is likely to have heard of this place. These places should not be disambiguated in their title even if other places share a name with these places. Links to articles about the other places with the same name will be found on Placename (disambiguation) which will be linked to in a note at the beginning of the article at Placename.

Principle: disambiguation by largest unambiguous enclosing political entity.
 * An article about a place whose name is ambiguous should be disambiguated by placing at Place, Entity, where Entity is the largest enclosing political entity for which the name would not be ambiguous. "Political entity" means any political entity at the national level or below. We do not want articles at titles like Berlin, European Union

Principle: Entity should provide well-known context.
 * In cases where Entity is not well-known internationally, the smallest enclosing political entity which is well-known internationally should be appended. The principle of unique names don't need disambiguation doesn't apply to Entity because Entity is being used to provide context as part of its disambiguation function. Thus an Entity which is not an internationally well-known place name wouldn't be as valuable of a disambiguator.
 * Examples: In the US some states have two cities with the same name, so they would titled City, County, State, as US counties are not well-known internationally.

Rejected principle: disambiguation by country-specific entity level.
 * Disambiguating either by sub-national unit (such as state or province) or by the national name by default is rejected because it requires deciding for each country which system to use, which is unnecessarily complicated and creates inequality in article naming from country to country.

Principle: unique names don't need disambiguation.
 * Places which have a unique name but are not well-known internationally do not need the encosing entity information. Information about where in the world the place is located will be in the first sentence of the article and as such does not also need to be in the title. People will only be encountering these articles via links from other pages or via a search, and not by thumbing or browsing an index, so including extra information in the title is not necessary.

Rejected principle: non well-known names should be preemptively disambiguated.
 * Places which have a unique name don't need context in the title because the context of where the place is located will be described in the first sentence of the article. Polluting the article namespace with secondary information is undesirable, and the exceptions required by disambiguation are only tolerated because they are necessary.

Exceptions and naming polls
From time to time, there will be places for which application of this policy doesn't make sense. Rather than dogmatically declaring that all articles shall conform to this policy regardless of whether it is sensible, this policy seeks to be flexible in these situation. Also, in the case that there are disputes about which name conforms to this policy, there should be a naming poll to determine what name should be used.

Procedure for naming polls

 * 1) A poll shall take place as to whether an exception to the policy should be made for the particular place. The options of the poll should include the policy-conforming name(s).
 * 2) Naming polls should be kept at a standard subpage of the article's talk page, such as /Naming poll, and should be announced at a centralized place for announcing polls, such as Naming polls.
 * 3) The length of the poll can be decided by the user who opens the poll. Any logged-in user may open or reopen a naming poll. The poll should state how long it will be open, which should be a minimum of two weeks and a maximum of one month.
 * 4) Only users who have made edits before the poll opens are eligible to vote while the poll is open. Sock puppets are not eligible to vote at all.
 * 5) When the poll is closed, the article will be moved to the poll option that had the most votes, regardless of the percentage of the total vote that option had.
 * 6) The article should not be moved to any other name for a minimum of 6 months.

Procedure for reopening a poll:
 * 1) Anyone can vote in the poll after it has closed, but their votes will not count unless the poll is reopened.
 * 2) Any time after 6 months have elapsed after the close of a poll, the poll can be reopened, possibly with new options.
 * 3) Previous votes in the poll should stay, although the original voters can move their votes to different options if they wish. Users should be confident when they vote in a naming poll that their vote will continue to count if the naming poll is reopened. Also, keeping old votes in naming polls should act as a stabilizing force help keep articles at consistent names.
 * 4) Votes from users who have not made any edits in the 6 months previous to the re-opening of the poll should be removed. This means if a poll is re-opened immediately after the 6 month waiting period is over, then no votes can be removed.

It is recommended that the policy for naming polls be adopted for all articles, and not just for articles about places.


text:
Talk:Bow tie

Diagrams
Is it just me or do the two tying diagrams actually shew the same way of tying a bow tie? 129.12.234.51 12:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Many bow ties have a different pattern or color scheme on each side. The top method features the outer side (away from the neck) and the bottom features the inner (touching the neck). My grandfather distinguished between the two styles as "left handed" and "right handed" based on which hand is used most in the knotting. 192.249.47.8 15:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Some bow ties have different fabrics on each end, and the wearer chooses which is in front. (Some bow ties have the left and right hand ends buttoned together; if the wearer has several such ties, he can mix them up intentionally.) Some have different sized ends, where (usually) the smaller end is meant to be the bow in front; some of these are different colors as well.

There's a magician's routine (Carl Ballentine?) wherein a bow tie is repeatedly re-tied by the magician, trying to get the tie to appear to be all black or all white (the tie is black on the inside and white on the outside.) He ties it, the assistant points out it's wrong. Again and again and again .... Careful manipulation of such a tie can produce effects like a black neck band, white bows, and a black center to the knot. Or the other way about. There are a total of 64 possible ways to twist the bits about with such a tie (some of the effects are more difficult and subtle than others, and I am not sure that all of them would be stable, as there would be many twistings inside the knot.) htom 04:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Example photograph
I could take some photos that Requested pictures seems to ask for this. The bow shown on bare skin seems somewhat obscene as this is often portrayed as a part of the "uniform" of male strippers.

I must differ here. The bow tie is NOT a type of uniform for "male strippers" but is the exclusive trade dress for CHIPPENDALES. In fact, the cuffs and bow tie is a registered trademark of CHIPPENDALES. See U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2694613. 12.154.250.67 19:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no tuxedo shirts at hand, but I could use folded collar and maybe some picture of an untied one. Perhaps even provide an original tying diagram. --blades 01:30, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * Obcene? I am no stripper ;-). Hey, what do I care? I often do wikiwork without shirt, and I did this in less than 5 mins. :-). But what can I say if you take a better picture? Go ahead. ✏ Sverdrup 15:57, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * There I was with this imagined image of you completely naked except for the tie. You've shattered my daydream. theresa knott 16:06, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Either way, it should probably be replaced. The article talks about how it's usually worn with formal attire, and then the illustration has a bowtie on a bare neck, which doesn't match the article's description. --Delirium 04:23, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Besides, the picture is of a fake pre-tied effort. Get rid of it (the picture and the tie).

of a bowtie with a normal dress shirt. The photo of a tie on a naked neck that was previously up seems to have been replaced by another picture of a famous bowtie wearer. Perhaps the tie itself should be featured again at the top (since there's a gallery of other people further down on the page now). At any rate, I request that someone else put the picture on the page itself if it seems appropriate. Eric's penguin 15:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Eric's penguin, that looks a great photo. Mine is the one illustrating the types of ends available.  But I must point out that, in the interests of NPOV, we do cover the ready-tied bow tie.  Yes, I think it's a fake too, but as far as i can see, quite a few people would think of one of those if asked to picture a bow tie.  --  (triptogenetica)    (talkpage)   18:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I've added a picture of a pretied bow tie. It's a particularly vintage, velvety one, which doesn't do the pretied type as a whole any favours, but maybe some people like that sort of thing.  --  (James McNally)    (talkpage)   00:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

merging
I think this should be merged into necktee. Also I think "Towards the end of the 19th century the free ends of the bowtie grew longer, and the necktie was born, and the bowtie slowly went out of fashion." is incorrect. The bowtie wasn't the precursor to the modern tie as this sentence suggests. Both (along with the Ascot) were around from about the 1860s and were all decended directly from the cravat. Mintguy (T) 09:04, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Disagree about merging. I think the topics are separate enough to be different articles. BTW, does anybody know more about the different ways how to tie a bowtie? I checked the web and found two different methods, which i created graphs for. -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:16, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

 * There is not enough information on this page to warrant an entire article yet, it is mostly illustrations and most of the other information is a summary of what is on necktie. Necktie covers cravats (and cravat is a redirect to necktie) and the history of ties in general. Mintguy (T)

 * I'd say that the bowtie does warrant its own page, as there is/could be a lot of information on this page (for instance, about the differing shapes available) which someone would not be interested in if they were attempting to learn about neckties. There are overlaps, but the bow tie is sufficiently distinct - in society as well as in its knot.  And the main thing is, people may wish to search directly for information on the bowtie.  --  (triptogenetica)    (talkpage)   18:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * How about this for an argument - if necktie was entitled simply "tie (clothing)", then it'd be appropriate to merge. But since it's not, the title "necktie" wouldn't fit info on bowties very well, since many people think of those as the four in hand kind.  --  (triptogenetica)    (talkpage)   19:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I've tidied the page a lot, moving the images around so that the sections and contents box aren't so badly placed. It now looks more respectable, i think.  --  (James McNally)    (talkpage)   18:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

'Bowtie' or 'bow tie'?
Which is more correct? My vote is for "bow tie". To my eye, the word "bowtie" would be pronounced 'boaty'. Just looks wrong to me. Urbane legend 02:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * in the absence of contradiction (obviously, this isn't a particularly popular page), and in the spirit of being bold I'm moving the article to "bow tie". --Urbane legend 29 June 2005 00:12 (UTC)
 * To go by number of Google hits, the results are:
 * 3,010,000 "bow tie" vs 2,030,000 "bowtie".
 * Of course, Google isn't the best indicator, but i'm in favour of "bow tie" - it's a type of tie, so it should be two separate words, or possibly hyphenated, but not one word. --  (triptogenetica)    (talkpage)   18:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh really? A necktie is also a type of tie, but that is "necktie" rather than "neck tie" or "neck-tie".

Bow ties for mess dress/undress
How much champagne would someone who wears a clip-on bow tie in the mess halls have to buy if found out? $100 worth? $500 worth? Or maybe $2000 worth? (I want the answer to this question to be in New Zealand dollars, please.) Scott Gall 06:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It's not an official rule, so it depends on many things. For example, the regiment in question (cavalry regiments tend to be far more extravagant and flambouyant than, for example, REME), the seniority of the perpetrator (a young subbie with a clip-on at his first dinner night has fucked up far less than the adjutant doing same) and the mood and personality of those present at the time. In addition, the quantity of champagne varies in the British Army depending on whether one is in Britain or Germany, as the tax situation means alcohol is far cheaper in the latter. PeteVerdon 14:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

 * unfortunately, in the u.s. clip-ons and bandeds are probably in the majority. aarrrggghhh!Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I suspect that purchasing a proper bow tie and learning how to tie it would be a lot cheaper. Plus, single or not, the ladies will want to adjust it. The faux ties they ignore, except to quietly disapprove. htom (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Famous Ties
Shouldn't Tucker Carleson be under the famous bow tie people? I would add him myself but I don't know how to do pics....

 * Done. He's now resting comfortably between Earl Blumenauer and Winston Churchill. --דוד ♣ D Monack 09:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Is James Bond famous for bow ties apart from tuxedos? Also, I question the smurfs being bow tie wearers, though I never really watched the show. Alcuin 06:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * agreed. only time bond ever wore a bow tie was with formalwear.Toyokuni3 (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Architects Uniform(?)
A citation for this is needed. I'm a bow tie wearer-and an architectural historian and never heard of this before.

 * I would agree. I'm a medical student, but that hasn't stopped me abandoning the necktie.  So I've looked around for one, and through various searches, i only found these to be of use:
 * Some thoughts on an architectural sociology page.
 * An article about a bow tie collector, of clip-ons, who happens to be an architect.
 * The clincher for me, a page with photos of past winners of an architects' award, going back to 1979.

 * In the award-winning architects, most pictured have open shirts or neckties - the only bow tie I saw was at a black tie event. To quote the article about the collector: "Dr Derham Groves, 47, of West Brunswick, is an architect. This should come as no surprise. Everyone knows architects love bow ties"; this suggests to me that this is some sort of meme, or folk-lore, but I'm unable to back it up.  And on the ArcSoc page, they provide suggestions, links to other info, but no hard evidence.  It does seem to be a quite widely held idea!

 * So, I shall boldly edit the article - i had removed the architect reference entirely, but I'll put it back in as a popular idea/meme. Hope that satisfies.  And while i'm at it, i'll purge the reference to it giving rise to the four in hand; if that's debated, and people think they may have both come directly from the cravat, Wiki shouldn't display it.  --  (triptogenetica)    (talkpage)   19:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Your use of the term "meme" is misleading. You contrast it with verifiable fact, suggesting that you think a meme cannot be a "fact". Epistemological problems with the acquisition of "truth" aside, a meme is merely a discrete unit of cultural information, the seed of a behavior. It can be true or false, its success turns on its adaptability. I think "stereotype" is the word you're looking for. Jag149 23:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed red non-linked names
I've moved these red non-linked names to the talk page to make it easy once there are at least stub articles to put them back on the page. I don't have the time to determine if they are notable persons, but if someone is so interested they are here: Martin Ebner, Siegfried Bracke, Jason Nicholson, Jason Nicholson, Risto Penttinen, Lauri Rauramo, Matti Sillanpää. Doc 20:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Known for"
Doesn't the list of people "known for" their bow ties just read like a big list of everyone who's ever worn one, rather than people for whom it is a recognizable sartorial marker? Tucker Carlson: known for bow ties (and, if I may be a bit NPOV, for being a dick). Alfred Kinsey: just a guy who wore a bow tie. Bill Nye: known for it. Stan Laurel: just a guy with a bow tie (even if Hardy did wear a necktie, I'd say there are other things Laurel is known for). Etc.

 * I'd agree - And I think it needs to be smaller, so the first policy should be - no redlinked names. People sometimes find it amusing to put their name in amongst the valid members of lists, and it can be a difficult type of vandalism to deal with.  This is pretty widely accepted as a name list policy.

 * (Please note that, contrary to some people's thinking, it isn't customary to create a page just because a redlink exists to it. There are a few editors who try to make red into blue wherever they can, and that's great, but we shouldn't let a redlink sway us in the slightest when deciding if a redlinked article would be encyclopaedic).

 * Other than that, perhaps a marked shortening of the list without images, and removal of faces from the table if "wears a bow tie" wouldn't appear on a Family Fortunes (UK) or Family Feud (US) board of notable facts about that person. That would seem sensible to me.  --  (James McNally)    (talkpage)   17:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

References & external links
These are both important as separate sections, IMO. The links to pages with directions on way to tie a bow are useful. Doc ♬ talk 14:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The references are kinda strange. The page that's supposed to be an example of the cravat slowly becoming the bow tie doesnt really give any of that information, it's just a shop with cravats and bow ties etc. The other references about architects are a bit strange too, I dont see them to be of any importance to the article. But the last point is just my opinion --Janzomaster 17:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge suggestion: List of bow tie wearers
The article List of bow tie wearers is duplicative of sections on the same subject at the bottom of this article. Please take a look at each and suggest here which you prefer: A list on that separate page or a list here. I think it's ridiculous to have both lists, but I'm neutral as to whether they should be on a separate page. Is it easier to read one list or the other? Is it better to have a long list with one name per line (as it is on the other page) or in a paragraph as it is here (I like one name per line). If you had one name per line, would that make this article annoyingly long at the bottom for someone who wants to get down to external links, for instance? I dunno, but the list needs to be in one place or the other.
 * Neutral Noroton 00:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge, I think the main bow tie article can support the list. Andrew Levine 01:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge, per above --Alcuin 01:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into "List of bow tie wearers": About the attempt made to delete the List of bow tie wearers, I feel having such a list is quite pertinent, even useful. Showing how many prominent people became closely identified to the garnment certainly conveys its importance and mark upon human culture. It is also amusing. That is not a criteria for deletion on Wikipedia. About the merge, I feel having a seperate list is probably the best option. With the material we have from both Bow tie and List of bow tie wearers, we have enough for a list article of its own. Putting it in the main article will weigh it down too much. --Liberlogos 01:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would tentatively say Merge the lists into this article and prune it here, to a manageable number of persons and fictional characters. (I.e., fewer than are on this page now.) A bare-page list of people noted for wearing bow-ties is better-suited to being a category. My reservation is that if there's any sort of meaningful heirarchy beyond people and fictional characters that could be applied, it should go to a separate page and be allowed to expand ad infinitum. Johndodd 01:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * weak Keep Both - IMHO, redundancy is not a problem. Have short list (three to five) on main article with full list at List of bow tie wearers MPS 01:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: As per MPS's suggestion, if we do it the way he suggests, the list here could be considered a summary of the other list. I've done that with some municipality pages and people pages that have been calved off from them (Greenwich, Connecticut and People of Greenwich, Connecticut for instance. I think it's definitely better to have a longish list somewhere, for reasons I went into on the Talk:List of bow tie wearers page.Noroton 01:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Tally so far: Merge to bow tie article:' (4) Andrew Levine, Alcuin, Johndodd (tentative), Doc (weak); Merge to list (with short list on article page): (4) Liberlogos, Intangible (weak), MPS (weak), Carl.bunderson -- (updated) Noroton 21:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * weak Merge The article can probably carry the list for now, but if it were to get much longer, then perhaps it should split off. I like the photo gallery on the article page. Doc ♬ talk 02:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Merge I like the photo gallery as well. I am not sure how many images will be uploaded with "famous" people sporting a bow tie, but for now, it seems at least the photo gallery can stay. The rest of the names can be merged perhaps into the list article. I doubt a category system will be of any use here, since if an image is available, it will show the corresponding person with his bow tie already :-). Intangible 03:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to list There's no point in having the list repeated in both locations, and it has the potential for becoming too bulky for Bow tie. Having the list in the "List" article will keep it from having to be pruned too much. Carl.bunderson 05:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it's time to move for cloture. Note that there are no votes or comments for keeping the full list on the main article. I would recommend that the migration begin. Leave a couple photo gallery pics but I would say that the photo gallery should not be expanded on the main page. MPS 21:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:MPS, I count four people in my tally who say remove the list page and keep the list on the main article, although Johndodd says move it to the main article and prune it there. Does anyone have any strong objections to MPS' suggestion?Noroton 21:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 * weak keep as per MPS's idea. I like the gallery a lot, and that could be coupled with a short list on the bow tie page, and then a link to full list of famous bow tie wearing folks just above the gallery Cornell Rockey 23:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've sent this message to the four editors who suggested merging the list onto the Bow tie article. I want a resolution to avoid the repetition between these two pages. I think there's limited interest in the subject anyway, so perhaps what I say in my message will clear it up:

 * My idea of polling people on what they want with the bow-tie articles hasn't exactly worked perfectly. I don't see much of a consensus for moving the list to one page or the other, so I'm going to try this: I'll cut down the list on the Bow tie main page to a summary and make sure everything is on the List of bow tie wearers page sometime late this week unless I hear a strong objection from those, like you, who have suggested otherwise. I think (hope) that's an acceptable resolution. Feel free to speak up if I'm all wet.Noroton 20:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

 * weak Merge, I hope i am not late to post my vote. Well here it is anyways, I dont see any problem with having a little bit of redundancy on both articles. In my opinion i am in favor to replace the current list for a short paragraph which mention some notable people known for their use of Bowtie and let the article (the-list) to be more specific on that information. By the way, in my previous contribution i added Steve Jobs, why did he got cutted off from the list? (now added to the list), as far as i can remember from my childhood i used to watch him wearing a bowtie in the 80s computer magazines, cheers :) ! --HappyApple 19:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we get this merged with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_bow_tie_wearers? I was thinking of it luckily someone thought of it six years prior. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Stereotypes of bow tie wearers
I was thinking about ongoing Afd regarding the list of bow tie wearers article... they are thinking of renaming it. Based on this AFD and a review of the original article here, I had the idea that perhaps that the bow tie article could have a separate section about stereotypes of bow tie weareres. This could be easily assembled from current bow tie content on James Bond and architects. The list of bow tie wearers article could then be renamed and reworked as a [Stereotypes of bow tie wearers] article to convey (with an exhaustive list of cited examples) evidence that pundits have used to bolster theories of stereotypes of bow tie weareres. I will be bold and aggregate the content on the bow tie article as y'all discuss. MPS 20:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ok new section creation done. MPS 20:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think casting "List of bow tie wearers" as a "main article" for the subject of stereotypes is fair. It's reasonable, given the contents of that section and the current contents of the List article that there be a link, and a link at this spot isn't a bad idea, as long as there is a link elsewhere in the article (there is, at "See also"; although I think I would prefer that eventually the link be put in a summary list of the most famous bow tie wearers).

 * On the larger subject of stereotypes, someone can state that there is a perception that bow ties are used by a lot of architects, and if that perception exists, it can be right or wrong, but as long as someone is saying "all architects wear them" it's not a stereotype. It's even fair to point out that there is no data to back up the perception. Keep in mind that it's possible that a trend may have been started or spurred on by prominent architects like Le Corbusier and Gropius that led to the perception. Citations from the Web or elsewhere should be able to prove that there is such a perception, any other statements we make should be backed up by sourcing or very small, very sure steps in logic. Noroton 18:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 * As far as the name of that article, I'm going to move (copy, really) your paragraph over there and continue the discussion on that page, since we're talking about the name of that article and I think it will be more natural for interested editors to come upon it over there. I'm grateful for your input, by the way. Noroton 18:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

thistle/bat wing
Would someone mind assigning the classifications within the photo caption to a specific tie (with left/right associations)? Thanx.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 22:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Done. I've always wondered why they were called "batwing", as it's not obvious. Perhaps there was an earlier version, now lost, that was of constant width, but that still doesn't make these look like batwings. htom 04:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

 * they are not correctly called 'batwing', but simply 'bat'. this comes from the shape resembling a cricket bat, or actually a pair of cricket bats,handle end to handle end. if you can't imagine a cricket bat, think of a fraternity paddle. same shape.Toyokuni3 (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Ah. Makes much more sense. Now I wonder where the ...wing was added? There are batwing sails, but those don't look like the bow ties. htom (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

 * there are also 'batwing' brasses, drawer pulls for queen anne and chippendale furniture. when my son was 8, i happened to mention these in conversation with his mother. typical 8 year old boy, he was very anxious to see the bat wings.Toyokuni3 (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

New kind of bow tie
Saw one at Sak's 5th Ave the other day. Comes in two separate parts, a "tie" and a "band". The tie part is like this: |><|><|><| ; the band is straight, of the same fabric, and about 3/4" wide. I presume it's tied by folding the tie part on itself twice, tying the band around it, adjusting the knot, and then fastening the band around your neck like it was a pre-tied bow tie. Weird. htom 22:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Dicky bow
Can anyone tell me why a bow tie is known as a dicky bow? I'm sure there's a perfectly obvious reason, but have no idea what it is!!! Thanks 84.71.108.16 (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A wild guess is that a starched shirtfront, or dickey, is worn with a bow tie in formal dress. htom (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Banded and clip-ons
don't we need to at least mention that only a total philistine would wear either of the above. really! ;-)Toyokuni3 (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Too many 's
as i've pointed out previously in reverting calls for citation, pretty much every other sentence in this article could be seen as needing citation. this last guy was particularly annoying, since he's one of those who edits without actually READING what he's editing.why pediatricians? if you'd read the next sentence - duh.Toyokuni3 (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Still, without citations, each sentence in appears to be original research. The sentence explaining why pediatricians wear them needs sources for:
 * that pediatricians really do wear bowties
 * that the given explanation is in fact the reason for this.
 * Without sources, this entire section can be challenged and removed. The template should not be removed simply because a plausible explanation has been added. I have added  to Stereotypes of bowtie wearers. It might be worth adding  to the article top. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, this is just silly. All of these assertions are not cited from reliable sources.  They must be cited, or they will be removed.  In particular:
 * Who says that bow ties are associated with architects? Who says this? I have never heard of this.  Please provide reliable sources.
 * Who says that bow ties are associated with attorneys? Please provide reliable sources.
 * Who says that bow ties are associated with politicians? (How many politicians nowadays wear bow ties?) Please provide reliable sources.
 * Who says that bow ties are associated with pediatricians? The question is not "why they would wear them", but whether there are sources that say that pediatricians actually do that.  Please provide reliable sources. If there are no sources, I'll delete all of this. 131.111.223.43 (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Oh and by the way the "citation needed" tags do not necessarily mean that the statements are wrong, it simply means that they are not (yet) backed up by reliable sources; it's a request to find and insert these sources. Remember that statements that are not substantiated by reliable sources will be considered original research. 131.111.223.43 (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, I just finished reading the article and my impression was that it was poorly referenced and suffered from worldview problems throughout. For example, the bit about pediatricians did not ring true to me. I have lived in three Asian countries, and I have never seen a pediatrician wearing a bowtie. I suspect this is some kind of U.S. or British stereotype. And yes, this stereotype needs to be referenced.Newzild (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has other-language editions. It is natural that the English language encyclopedia primarily deal with English and American fashion conventions and stereotypes if not explicitly labelled 'world' or 'Continental'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.201.135 (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

WSJ articles/opinions 16 Apr 09
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123924141044503821.html -- Bow Ties are coming back ! ?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123924074857303763.html -- How the Hip knot and style a bow tie.

htom (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This article appears to have been used as a source...
...by the anonymous Daily Telegraph reporter who penned this article. See the eighth, ninth and tenth paragraphs in particular. It's not enough to call it plagiarism, but it's enough to be amusing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Formal attire
i have removed the statement that suggests that bowties are primarily an item of formal wear. it simply isn't so. moreover, a suit is not formal attire, a term which has a fairly specific meaning, including evening wear and such things as morning coats, strollers, etc., although with the latter two, you don't wear a bow tie. a suit, on the other hand, is more properly and completely referred to as a business suit. moreover, there is certainly a body of thought to the effect that a suit is the least appropriate occasion for a bow tie.formal wear? of course. sport coat? certainly. suit? maybe. also, is 'dickie bow' a british term? i have worn bow ties in the u.s and canada for nigh on 40 years, and have never heard the term used. not saying that invalidates it, mind, just curious.Toyokuni3 (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I wear bow ties with suits, but not bolo ties (which I will wear with a sport coat.) 'Dickie Bow' I have not heard, either, or not frequently enough that it's made an impression on me. htom (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Current popularity of bow-ties (WSJ article)
To improve the "current" section, this WSJ article, A Return to Tying the Knot: Bow Ties Are Finding Favor as Day-Wear Accoutrements With a Younger Generation by William Lyons, 2011-07-22, may be of interest. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Please examine last edit here by the undersigned editor
I am a Prof and a bow-wearer of long standing, and came here to have a look at what this fine lot of stylish editors had pulled together. I have made only one edit, and ask it checked—clarification of the intended contrast between a return to style of real bt's, versus negative perceptions of the pre-tied, etc. Also, please note that the bt vs b_t matter is still alive and well (because of Wikipedia spell correction?!)—see, in that same paragraph, "opinions of bow tie wearers are mixed. He observed that bowties…"  With regard, LeProf Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Lavallière
I should be grateful if some contributor with more authority than my poor self could add some reference to the Lavallière - some inspiration may be found with our French colleagues: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavalli%C3%A8re Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bow tie. 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/20150204164003/http://mensfinestpocketsquare.co.uk/new-pocket-squares/being-fashionable/ to http://mensfinestpocketsquare.co.uk/new-pocket-squares/being-fashionable/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

"⧓" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ⧓. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 24 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

String tie
Even though this page displays Colonel Sanders wearing a "string tie," it seems this page doesn't cover that type at all. It's apparently also referred to as a "string bowtie", a "colonel bowtie", and a "Western bowtie." No, I don't know enough about the subject to add in information about it, I just noticed it wasn't mentioned. --UltimateKuriboh (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Bow tie


text:
Kittanning Gap

Kittanning Gap, one of the gaps of the Allegheny, is a now a relatively unimportant wooded ravine (water gap) along the ascent (at the foot) of the Allegheny Ridge (also called the 'Allegheny Front' or 'Allegheny escarpment') in central Pennsylvania in the United States. The gap was one of several optional paths of the Kittanning Path Amerindian trail turned into an emigrant route over the Alleghenies in the day of animal powered technology. The option up the gap was likely the 'better choice' of an ascending route for ox cart and wagon (such as those made downstream in Conestoga, Pennsylvania) encumbered white settlers pouring west across the Alleghenies escarpment. The 1780s–1830s saw an increasing flood of emigrants into the Ohio Country and territories beyond after (and well before) the end of the American Revolution. It is located in Logan Township, Blair County, Pennsylvania just west of Altoona, PA, overlooking the former Pennsylvania Railroad trackage beginning to climb up alongside Glen White Run to the hard hairpin turn that begins at the confluence with the Kittanning Run before its famous traverse bends around in the famous Horseshoe Curve approximately 5 mi (8 km) west of Altoona. The USGS does not use the Kittanning Run stream for an eponymous gap name since it follows local naming conventions and traditions. The Kittanning Gap is formed from the erosion valley of a seasonal freshet, so is lightly eroded compared to other gaps of the Allegheny which have larger flow volumes resulting in narrower, deeper valleys with steeper, harder to traverse walls.

However, topographical analysis shows the climb up from the Altoona Plateau up to the Allegheny Plateau through Kittanning Gap would bend first northerly then curve gradually climbing along several diverse hill sides as to path hooked back to resume a westward heading in the valley of Clearfield Creek coming out in the vicinity of Ashville, Pennsylvania but about a half-mile distant and on the opposite side of the summit that sources the Kittanning Run. In short, climbing more quickly and directly up the escarpment via either the valleys of Kittanning Run or Glen White Run was likely the route of choice (when footing was good) for foot traffic and mule trains, whilst the longer more round about but easier climb up the Kittanning Gap gave animal drawn wagon and carts the better easier path. Any one of these variations were collectively parts of the Kittanning Path as it became known.

History
In the 18th century the Kittanning Path passed through the gap, providing a route between central and western Pennsylvania for Native Americans and early white settlers. Why the gap is left of the Kittanning Run can only be speculated upon, but a topographical examination suggests for 16th-19th century peoples on foot or pulling a cart or Conestoga wagon, turning right up the gap would lead them across gentler climbing terrains, so may have been the path of choice.

The Kittanning Path lower valley was later selected as the climbing approach for the 1845 railroad line chartered (ordered, in effect) to cross the Allegheny Mountains. The challenge of constructing a railroad through the ridge led to the construction of the unique Horseshoe Curve in 1854, once trumpeted as the world's busiest railway, and now designated as a National Historic Landmark.

title: Kittanning Gap


text: User talk:24.34.217.224

title: User talk:24.34.217.224


text:
Camp Bucca

Camp Bucca (سجن بوكا) was a forward operating base that housed a theater internment facility maintained by the United States military in the vicinity of Umm Qasr, Iraq. After being taken over by the U.S. military (800th Military Police Brigade) in April 2003, it was renamed after Ronald Bucca, a New York City fire marshal who died in the 11 September 2001 attacks. The site where Camp Bucca was built had earlier housed the tallest structure in Iraq, a 492-meter-high TV mast.

After the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, many detainees from Abu Ghraib were transferred to Bucca, where U.S. authorities hoped to showcase a model detention facility. Nevertheless, Camp Bucca was the scene of prisoner abuse documented over many years by the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and U.S. Army investigators. It housed numerous prominent Islamic extremists, including a significant portion of the leadership of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, future leader of the Islamic State (IS), who enjoyed good relations with camp authorities while there. Bucca has been described as a breeding ground for Islamic extremism, and has been cited as contributing to the emergence of IS.

On 17 September 2009, the U.S. military announced that the base would be closed. In December 2010, the U.S. military handed the base to the government of Iraq, who, on the same day, gave Kufan Group of Iraq a license to invest in the new Basra Gateway, to provide a hub for Iraq's port.

Units

 * Navy Provisional Detainee Battalion 1
 * Navy Provisional Detainee Battalion 2
 * 800th Military Police Brigade
 * 161st Area Support Medical Battalion
 * 670th Military Police Company
 * 160th Military Police Battalion
 * 160th Infantry Regiment
 * 178th Infantry Regiment
 * 179th Infantry Regiment
 * 185th Infantry Regiment
 * 586th Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron
 * 886th Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron
 * 887th Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron
 * 168th Military Police Battalion

2003
On 18 May 2003, U.S. military forces mistakenly released Mohammed Jawad An-Neifus from the Camp Bucca. An-Neifus is suspected of being involved in the mass murder of thousands of Iraqi Shias whose remains were later found at a mass gravesite in the southern city of al-Mahawil.

2004
On 26 January 2004 three detainees escaped at night during a period of intense fog. An investigation "concluded that the detainees crawled under a fence when visibility was only 10–15 meters due to fog".

On 19 October 2004, a 26-year-old security internee died of unknown causes.

2005
On 5 January 2005, a 31-year-old security internee died of what appears to be natural causes.

In April 2005, in Compound 4, a riot broke out in which detainees threw rocks and fashioned weapons out of tent poles. Detainees held a military soldier hostage until the riot was dispelled by the use of lethal force. Four detainees were killed and six were injured. As is standard procedure in all cases of prison riots and the use of lethal force, the matter was investigated by the U.S. Army's Criminal Investigations Division. The investigation concluded that a detainee leader had incited the riot by making an accusation that camp soldiers were stepping on Korans during a search for contraband. No soldiers were found guilty of any wrongdoing during the incident.

On 5 February 2005, the tabloid paper New York Daily News reported that units at Camp Bucca organized and held a mud wrestling party on 30 October 2004. The party was organized by members of the 160th MP Battalion.

On 25 March 2005, a complete escape tunnel was discovered, though no prisoners had yet managed to escape.

On 1 April 2005, two Iraqis and four U.S. prison guards were wounded in a riot at Camp Bucca near the southern town of Umm Qasr.

On 15 April 2005, a dispute broke out between two groups of detainees at one of the compounds of the Camp Bucca theater internment facility at approximately 11 pm. The fight left one detainee dead, was confined between the detainees in one compound, and was not directed at U.S. forces.

On 16 April 2005, 11 detainees escaped Camp Bucca by cutting through in the facility's exterior fence and crawling through the unfilled portion of a previously discovered 600 ft escape tunnel.

On 19 April 2005, a 51-year-old male security detainee at Camp Bucca died of natural causes.

On 14 May 2005, a 30-year-old male detainee at Camp Bucca died from a heart attack.

On 27 July 2005, a 30-year-old male security detainee at Camp Bucca died as a result of renal failure and other organ failure due to chronic malaria.

On 28 September 2005, Sergeant Steve Morin Jr. assigned to the 111th Engineer Battalion and Air Force Airman 1st Class Elizabeth N. Jacobson assigned to the 17th Security Forces Squadron stationed at Camp Bucca were killed in action when an improvised explosive device detonated near their convoy vehicle near the Iraqi town of Safwan.

In October 2005, the International Committee of the Red Cross began the Family Visitation Allowance Program at Camp Bucca. The program provides monetary assistance to families of detainees held at Camp Bucca to help cover part of the traveling and hotel costs required to visit the facility. The benefits are calculated based on the distance between their home and the city of Umm Qasr. In December 2006 a similar program was initiated at Camp Shaibe, the British internment facility in Shaibah, near Al Basrah.

On 5 October 2005, a 43-year-old male security detainee died of a heart attack.

On 13 October 2005, eligible detainees at Camp Bucca, Abu Ghraib prison and Camp Cropper were allowed to vote in the Iraqi Constitutional Referendum. The rest of the country voted on 15 October 2005.

On 23 October 2005, a 73-year-old male security detainee died of natural causes at Camp Bucca.

On 25 October 2005, it was reported that Specialist Christopher T. Monroe assigned to the Military Police Battalion stationed at Camp Bucca was killed when he was struck by a vehicle operated by Erinys International while pulling security for the United States convoy which was stopped due to an Iraqi vehicle which flipped over while trying to avoid the convoy in the vicinity of Al Basrah, Iraq. In October 2007, a lawsuit was filed in Houston, Texas, by the father of Specialist Monroe against the British private security firm Erinys International. In the lawsuit, Monroe's father alleges that his son actually died after he was struck by a vehicle operated by Erinys International. The lawsuit alleges Erinys personnel passed through a checkpoint where they were warned that there were more troops ahead of them but despite the warning proceeded in the dark at a high speed with only parking lights on until they struck Monroe. Monroe was dismounted and standing guard near the 5-ton vehicle he was driving providing security after the convoy he was in stopped to render assistance to an Iraqi who had been involved in a car accident. The force of the accident sheared Monroe's right leg off and threw him 30–40 feet in the air. Monroe later "died on a Medavac helicopter en route to Shalib Airbase". In a statement in response to the lawsuit, a spokesperson for the company stated "It was a very tragic accident for which Erinys and its employees have been thoroughly exonerated".

On 5 November 2005, a 65-year-old male security detainee died of natural causes at Camp Bucca.

On 12 December 2005, nearly 90 percent of all eligible security detainees in Multi-National Forces-Iraq Theater Internment Facilities participated in the democratic vote on the Iraqi National Ballot.

2006
On 7 January 2006, Sergeant Nathan Field and Specialist Robert Johnson assigned to the 414th Military Police Company were killed in a non-combat vehicle accident just outside Camp Bucca.

On 7 March 2006, a 36-year-old detainee died of natural causes.

11 May 2006, detainees initiated a multiple compound riot that included the burning of their living quarters, burning a Humvee and assaults on other detainees. The reported cause of the riot was detainees being unhappy that their housing areas were searched and that a Qu'ran with Takferi writing had been placed in a clear evidence bag that the detainees presumed was a trash bag. The riot started around 7 am in compound 10. The initial incident was stopped within an hour but around 11 am the theater internment facility exploded with multiple compound riots. Multiple weapons were found during the initial search, and based on the detainees use of weapons against the guard force, multiple weapons were confiscated during additional searches initiated because of the riot.

On 2 June 2006, the Army opened an Iraqi-based detention center training facility at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri called Camp Charlie. This new facility is modeled after the theater internment facility at Camp Bucca. A similar facility was opened at Fort Leavenworth in August 2006.

On 1 July 2006, Airman 1st Class Carl Jerome Ware Jr. of the 886th Expeditionary Security Force Squadron assigned to Camp Bucca died of non-combat related injuries. Initial reports stated that the airmen was killed by an accidental discharge of a gun being cleaned by another airman; however in February 2007, it was reported that Airman 1st Class Kyle J. Dalton, of the 15th Security Forces Squadron, Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii, had been charged on 30 November 2006 with one count of murder and failure to obey a lawful order in relation to the shooting. Dalton also faced a charge of assault for a separate incident that occurred on 30 June 2006 involving Ware and another airman. Dalton, who was deployed in the Middle East at the time the charges were brought, had an Article 32 hearing and was Court-martialed on 23 April 2007 at Langley Air Force Base. As part of a plea bargain deal, Dalton pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and violating a lawful general regulation by drawing or aiming a firearm when deadly force was unnecessary. Dalton was sentenced to 10 years in prison, given a dishonorable discharge, reduced in rank from Senior Airman to Airman Basic and ordered to forfeit all pay and allowances. Dalton admitted to the court that he tracked Ware with his pistol in the barracks and pulled the trigger thinking the weapon was unloaded. He also admitted that he had previously aimed a loaded M4 carbine at another airman.

In July 2006, it was announced that the Army's inspector general had requested an investigation to determine if an Anti-Deficiency Act violation occurred during the building of the detention facility. The Anti-Deficiency Act provides that no one can obligate the Government to make payments for which money has not already been authorized. The inspector general's report was released to Congress on 30 January 2007 and in it concluded: "Army personnel associated with funding of Phases I and II construction of the Internment Facility at Camp Bucca, Iraq, did not implement sufficient controls to ensure military compliance with applicable laws and regulations. As a result, there were two ADA violations with the FY 2004 Army Operation and Maintenance Appropriation. United States Department of Defense Office of General Counsel is completing its review and expects to sign out the report to the Department of Defense Comptroller in the second quarter of FY 2007."

On 12 October 2006, an Iraqi detainee died from a heart attack. The detainee had been hospitalized since 5 October after complaining of chest pains. An autopsy was performed to determine the cause of death.

On 25 November 2006, American forces announced that a detainee died of natural causes. The detainee had been hospitalized since 23 November after complaining of chest pains.

On 24 December 2006, two detainees attempted an escape from one of the U.S. Navy staffed compounds during the dense seasonal fog. One of the detainees was allegedly an improvised explosive device (IED) maker.

2007
On 17 January 2007, U.S. Navy Petty Officer Second Class Joseph D. Alomar, a member of Navy Provisional Detainee Battalion 2, assigned to Camp Bucca died of non-combat related injuries. The sailor is reported to have died from a gunshot wound to the head.

On 11 February 2007 Specialist Dennis L. Sellen Jr. of the 1st Battalion, 185th Infantry Regiment was accidentally shot and killed by a fellow soldier who was cleaning his weapon after a mission. The incident is currently being investigated.

On 2 March 2007 Specialist Christopher D. Young, 20, of Los Angeles, California, died in Safwan, Iraq, of wounds sustained when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. He was assigned to Company C, 3rd Battalion, 160th Infantry Regiment, California Army National Guard, San Pedro, California.

On 15 March 2007 U.S. military officials announced plans to once again expand Camp Bucca and Camp Cropper. Officials stated that this increase in capacity would be necessary to handle the detainees generated from the increased security operations in Baghdad. At the time of the report, Camp Bucca's detainee population stood at 13,800.

On 26 April 2007, an Iraqi detainee died from what MNF-I reports as injuries sustained during an apparent assault by other detainees. He is reported to have been the sixth detainee to have died in MNF-I TIFs as a result of detainee on detainee violence in the past year.

On 9 June 2007, 6 detainees were killed, 68 wounded and one Iraqi corrections officer was wounded when a rocket struck Compound 8, in the Theater Internment Facility located at Camp Bucca. On 10 June 2007, a seventh detainee, who had been medically evacuated to Balad Air Base, died from wounds he sustained in the attack. On 23 June 2007 an eighth detainee who had been hospitalized in critical condition since the attack, died from cardiac arrest.

On 21 June 2007 a security detainee died of cardiac arrest during a routine medical transfer from Camp Cropper to Camp Bucca.

On 25 June 2007 a soldier assigned to the 178th Infantry was injured when the vehicle he was driving drove over a buried explosive.

On 1 July 2007, a detainee died from what is being reported as natural causes while in the intensive care unit at the Theater Internment Facility hospital at Camp Bucca.

On 12 July 2007, a detainee died from what is being reported as injuries suffered in an assault by other detainees. This is the second detainee in coalition forces custody to die from detainee on detainee violence within a week. On the same day, the Associated Press reported that Camp Bucca was among several sites in Iraq that had sensitive information posted on non-secure web sites. The Camp Bucca documents, posted on the web site of CH2M Hill Companies of Meridian, Colorado, revealed locations of where prisoners are held, locations of fuel tanks, and the locations of security fences, guard towers and other security measures. The company has subsequently added password protection to its site.

In August 2007, two separate news articles reported Camp Bucca's detainee populate stood at approximately 20,000 inmates.

In October 2007, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) announced it had suspended its visits to Camp Bucca due to the deteriorating security situation in the area. The ICRC visits all detention facilities in Iraq to monitor the conditions detainees are receiving and make recommendations where they perceive improvements could be made. To maintain their neutral status, they refuse coalition security when traveling in Iraq, which causes them to occasionally suspend visits when they deem conditions too hazardous for their personnel.

On 31 October 2007, it was announced that Camp Bucca would be expanded once again to increase its capacity from 20,000 to 30,000 detainees. The $110 million project will be overseen by The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and would include $17.6 million retrofit of "13 existing compounds to add concrete pads to prevent tunneling, better segregation areas, and better shower and latrine facilities" as well as new housing, a waste water treatment plant, a water treatment plant and a $3.2 million brick factory for prisoner labor.

2008
On January 8, 2008, a QRF squad came under attack and hit by an explosively formed penetrator resulting in 3 coalition WIA and 1 Iraqi WIA. The squad was responding to Umm Qasr to check on a British unit that been attacked by rockets.

On 24 February 2008, Camp Bucca was attacked with rocket fire that killed one Army and Air Force Exchange Service employee and wounded several other civilian contractors. The rocket attack came less than a week after a convoy from Camp Bucca was attacked by an improvised explosive device. No one was seriously injured in that attack.

In August 2008, it was announced that 6 sailors had been charged and would face courts-martial for abusing detainees at Camp Bucca. The abuse allegedly occurred on 14 May and involved beatings of two detainees and the sealing of eight detainees in a cell filled with pepper spray while the cells' ventilation was secured. The abuse apparently occurred after some detainees attacked guards, spitting on them and throwing containers filled with human waste at them. Seven other sailors received non-judicial punishment for failing to report the incidents. Two had their charges dismissed, and the remainder were reduced in rank or faced suspended punishment. In November 2008, the 6 sailors faced an article 32 hearing at Naval Air Station Jacksonville on charges of conspiracy, cruelty and maltreatment and making false official statements. Damage Controlman 2nd Class Adam M. White, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and assault and was sentenced to 89 days confinement and reduction of two pay grades. Adams claims he and other sailors participated in the beating of two detainees at the direction of Chief Aviation Structural Mechanic Tracy Necaise because the prisoners spit and threw feces at guards. Necaise's attorney blamed upper-level Navy officers for the incident because they assigned the sailors to Camp Bucca without any prior experience working in law enforcement or detention facilities. Necaise and the remaining sailors pleaded not guilty and could face trial in 2009.

2009
On 17 September 2009 Camp Bucca closed down detainee operations.

Prisoner abuse scandals
Camp Bucca was the scene of egregious abuse of prisoners by military personnel from its establishment in 2003 until its closure in 2009.

In 2003, prisoners freed from Camp Bucca described "detainees punished by hours lying bound in the sun; being attacked by dogs; being deprived of sufficient water; spending days with hoods over their heads." After leaked pictures of abuse from another U.S. prison in Iraq, Abu Ghraib, stirred outrage and attention to that prison, one former Camp Bucca prisoner said, "I wish somebody could go take a picture of Camp Bucca."

A 2003 report by Amnesty International found that prisoners at Camp Bucca "were held in tents in the extreme heat and were not provided with sufficient drinking water or adequate washing facilities," and that "they were forced to use open trenches for toilets and were not given a change of clothes -- even after two months detention."

A 2004 report by United States Army investigators found "egregious acts and grave breaches of international law" at Camp Bucca.

A 2004 report by the International Committee of the Red Cross described Geneva Convention violations at Camp Bucca and stated that "inmates were routinely treated by their guards with general contempt, with petty violence such as having orders screamed at them and being cursed, kicked, struck with rifle butts, roughed up or pushed around. They were reportedly handcuffed in the back and hooded for the duration of the interrogation and were prohibited from talking to each other or to the guards." A Red Cross representative said that their report documented a "broad pattern" of abuse, as opposed to isolated incidents.

A 2006 report by Amnesty International contained alleged violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention by U.S. military personnel at Camp Bucca. These allegations include that "internees at Camp Bucca are alleged to have been exposed deliberately to extremes of both heat and cold, by being made to wait for hours in the heat of the sun while their accommodation was searched and forcibly showered with cold water and exposed to cold air conditioners."

In 2007, a Canadian citizen and U.S. resident who had been a prisoner at Camp Bucca described abuse by military personnel. The prisoner, Hossam Shaltout, called Camp Bucca a "torture camp" and said that prisoners were beaten and sexually humiliated. Shaltout said that his arms and legs had been hogtied by US soldiers who then placed scorpions on his body.

In 2008, six United States Navy personnel were charged and later convicted of abusing Camp Bucca prisoners after they beat the prisoners and locked several overnight in a room that had been filled with pepper spray.

Role in the growth of ISIS
Camp Bucca has been described as playing an important role in shaping the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). The detention of large numbers of Ba'athists and Islamists during the Iraqi insurgency provided them with the opportunity to forge alliances and learn from each other, combining the ideological fervour of the latter with the organizational skills of the former. Former Camp Bucca detainees who went on to become leaders in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant include Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the former leader of the ISIL before his death in October 2019; Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi who succeeded him; Abu Mohammed al-Adnani, spokesperson and senior ISIL leader; Abu Muslim al-Turkmani, al-Baghdadi's deputy; Haji Bakr, who spearheaded ISIL's expansion into Syria; Abu Abdulrahman al-Bilawi, the military leader responsible for planning the seizure of Mosul; and Abu Ayman al-Iraqi, another senior military leader. Abu Mohammad al-Julani, who founded the Syrian Al Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra Front, was also a Camp Bucca detainee.

title: Camp Bucca


text: User talk:213.37.10.245

title: User talk:213.37.10.245


text:
Accredited investor

An accredited or sophisticated investor is an investor with a special status under financial regulation laws. The definition of an accredited investor (if any), and the consequences of being classified as such, vary between countries. Generally, accredited investors include high-net-worth individuals, banks, financial institutions, and other large corporations, who have access to complex and higher-risk investments such as venture capital, hedge funds, and angel investments. Laws may require that some types of financial offerings may only be made to accredited investors.

Australia
s 708(8) of the Corporations Act 2001 is found in Chapter 6D (Fundraising). It defines "sophisticated investor" so as to exclude them from certain disclosure requirements. That section provides for an accountant to issue a certificate stating that an individual meets the criteria prescribed in the Corporations Regulations 2001, namely net assets of at least $2.5 million, or a gross income for each of the last two financial years of at least $250,000. There is a second definition of "sophisticated investor" in s 761GA of the Corporations Act 2001 in Chapter 7 (Financial services and markets). It defines sophisticated investors so that they can be treated as wholesale (rather than retail) clients. According to ASIC, a person with a sophisticated investor certificate is a sophisticated investor for the purpose of Chapter 6D, and a wholesale client for the purpose of Chapter 7.

Brazil
On December 17, 2014, CVM issued the Instructions No. 554 and No. 555, which became effective from July 1, 2015 according to Mondaq. The definition of accredited investors under the United States SEC’s Regulation D are analogous in Brazil to the combination of two categories of investors, classified by the Comissão de Valores Mobiliários (CVM) as "investidor profissional" (professional investor) and "investidor qualificado" (qualified investor) under Instruction 539, articles 9-A and 9-B.

Canada
An "Accredited Investor" (as defined in NI 45 106) is: Note that as of 2016, many provinces in Canada now allow non-accredited investors to invest in private markets – under specified limits.
 * 1) a person registered under the securities legislation of a jurisdiction of Canada, as an adviser or dealer, other than a person registered solely as a limited market dealer under one or both of the Securities Act (Ontario) or the Securities Act (Newfoundland and Labrador); or
 * 2) 	an individual registered or formerly registered under the securities legislation of a jurisdiction of Canada as a representative of a person referred to in paragraph (a); or
 * 3) 	an individual who, either alone or with a spouse, beneficially owns financial assets having an aggregate realizable value that before taxes, but net of any related liabilities, exceeds $1,000,000; or
 * 4) 	an individual whose net income before taxes exceeded $200,000 in each of the two most recent calendar years or whose net income before taxes combined with that of a spouse exceeded $300,000 in each of the two most recent calendar years and who, in either case, reasonably expects to exceed that net income level in the current calendar year; or
 * 5) 	an individual who, either alone or with a spouse, has net assets of at least $5,000,000; or
 * 6) 	a person, other than an individual or investment fund, that has net assets of at least $5,000,000 as shown on its most recently prepared financial statements; or
 * 7) 	a trust company or trust corporation registered or authorized to carry on business under the Trust and Loan Companies Act (Canada) or under comparable legislation in a jurisdiction of Canada or a foreign jurisdiction, acting on behalf of a fully managed account managed by the trust company or trust corporation, as the case may be; or
 * 8) 	an investment fund that distributes or has distributed its securities only to (i) a person that is or was an accredited investor at the time of the distribution, (ii) a person that acquires or acquired securities in the circumstances referred to in sections 2.10 of NI 45 106 [Minimum amount investment] or 2.19 of NI 45 106 [Additional investment in investment funds], or (iii) a person described in paragraph (i) or (ii) that acquires or acquired securities under section 2.18 of NI 45 106 [Investment fund reinvestment];
 * 9) 	a person acting on behalf of a fully managed account managed by that person, if that person is registered or authorized to carry on business as an adviser or the equivalent under the securities legislation of a jurisdiction of Canada or a foreign jurisdiction; or
 * 10) 	a person in respect of which all of the owners of interests, direct, indirect or beneficial, except the voting securities required by law to be owned by directors, are persons that are accredited investors (as defined in NI 45 106); or
 * 11) 	an investment fund that is advised by a person registered as an adviser or a person that is exempt from registration as an adviser.

European Union
Retail clients requesting treatment as 'elective' professional clients (as defined by Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID)) must satisfy at least two of the following quantitative criteria in assessing the client's expertise, experience and knowledge:
 * the client has carried out trade transactions, in significant size (at least €50,000), on the relevant market at an average frequency of 10 per quarter over the previous four quarters;
 * the size of the client's financial instrument portfolio, defined as including cash deposits and financial instruments, exceeds €500,000;
 * the client works or has worked in the financial sector for at least one year in a professional position which requires knowledge of the transactions or services envisaged.

Israel

 * 1)  An investment trust or fund manager.
 * 2)  A management company or Provident fund as defined in the Israeli Provident fund law.
 * 3)  An insurance company.
 * 4)  A banking corporation and auxiliary corporation as defined in the Israeli Banking law (Licensing), other than a joint services company.
 * 5)  A registered (licensed) investment adviser.
 * 6)  An exchange member.
 * 7)  An underwriter qualified to under section 56(c) of the Israel Securities Act.
 * 8)  Corporation (except a corporation incorporated for the purpose of receiving investment advisory services, investment marketing or portfolio management) with equity of more than ₪50 million. See foreign accounting rules, international accounting standards and generally accepted accounting principles in the United States as defined under Sections 17(b)(1) and 36 of the Israel Securities Act for the definition of "Equity".
 * 9)  A natural person that gave consent in writing to be considered eligible for the purposes of this Law and that meets at least one of the three criterion below:
 * 10) * Owns a total value of cash, deposits, financial assets and securities, as defined in Section 52 of the Israel Securities Act, which exceeds ₪8 million.
 * 11) * Has an annual income of at least ₪1.2 million for each of the last two years (or, together with a spouse, have had an annual income totaling ₪1.8 million for each of the past two years).
 * 12) * Owns a total value of cash, deposits, financial assets and securities as defined in Section 52 of the Israel Securities Act worth, in total, more than ₪5 million and have had an annual income of at least ₪600,000 for each of the past two years (or, with a spouse, having a combined annual income totaling ₪900,000 for each of the past two years).
 * 13) A corporation which is wholly owned by accredited investors based on the criteria above.
 * 14) A corporation incorporated abroad whose activities are similar to those of the corporations set out above.

New Zealand
s 5 of the Securities Act (1978) defines a sophisticated investor in New Zealand for the purposes of subsection (2CC)(a), a person is wealthy if an independent chartered accountant certifies, no more than 12 months before the offer is made, that the chartered accountant is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the person (a) has net assets of at least $2,000,000; or (b) had an annual gross income of at least $200,000 for each of the last two financial years. There is a further section that follows stating that an eligible investor (experienced or sophisticated) is one who has satisfied a financial investor that they meet certain criteria.

Singapore
In Singapore, Accredited Investor is defined in Section 4A(1)(a) of the Securities and Futures Act (SFA), Chapter 289.
 * 1) NET Personal assets exceeding $2 million (or equivalent in foreign currency). Or
 * 2) Income in preceding 12 months of not less than $300,000 (or equivalent in foreign currency). Or
 * 3) A corporation with net assets exceeding $10 million in value (or its equivalent in a foreign currency) or such other amount as the Authority may prescribe, in place of the first amount, as determined by — (A)the most recent audited balance-sheet of the corporation; or (B)where the corporation is not required to prepare audited accounts regularly, a balance-sheet of the corporation certified by the corporation as giving a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the corporation as of the date of the balance-sheet, which date shall be within the preceding 12 months;
 * 4) The trustee of such trust as the Authority may prescribe, when acting in that capacity; or
 * 5) Such other person as the Authority may prescribe.

United States
In the United States, to be considered an accredited investor, a natural person must have a net worth of at least $1,000,000, excluding the value of one's primary residence, or have income at least $200,000 each year for the last two years (or $300,000 combined income if married) and have the expectation to make the same amount this year, or must otherwise be a holder of a specific license in good standing. More broadly, the term "accredited investor" is defined in Rule 501 of Regulation D of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as:
 * 1) a bank, insurance company, registered investment company, business development company, or small business investment company;
 * 2) an employee benefit plan, within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, if a bank, insurance company, or registered investment adviser makes the investment decisions, or if the plan has total assets in excess of $5 million;
 * 3) a charitable organization, corporation, or partnership with assets exceeding $5 million;
 * 4) a director, executive officer, or general partner of the company selling the securities;
 * 5) a business in which all the equity owners are accredited investors;
 * 6) a natural person who has individual net worth, or joint net worth with the person's spouse, that exceeds $1 million at the time of the purchase, or has assets under management of $1 million or above, excluding the value of the individual's primary residence;
 * 7) a natural person with income exceeding $200,000 in each of the two most recent years or joint income with a spouse exceeding $300,000 for those years and a reasonable expectation of the same income level in the current year
 * 8) a trust with assets in excess of $5 million, not formed to acquire the securities offered, whose purchases a sophisticated person makes.
 * 9) a natural person who has certain professional certifications, designations or credentials or other credentials issued by an accredited educational institution, which the Commission may designate from time to time. Presently holders in good standing of the Series 7, Series 65, and Series 82 licenses.
 * 10) natural persons who are "knowledgeable employees" of a fund with respect to private investments.
 * 11) limited liability companies with $5 million in assets may be accredited investors.
 * 12) SEC and state-registered investment advisers, exempt reporting advisers, and rural business investment companies (RBICs) may qualify.
 * 13) Indian tribes, governmental bodies, funds, and entities organized under the laws of foreign countries, that own "investments", as defined in Rule 2a51-1(b) under the Investment Company Act, in excess of $5 million and that was not formed for the specific purpose of investing in the securities offered.
 * 14) Family offices with at least $5 million in assets under management and their "family clients", as each term is defined under the Investment Advisers Act.
 * 15) "Spousal equivalent" to the accredited investor definition, so that spousal equivalents may pool their finances for the purpose of qualifying as accredited investors.

Opportunities
Accredited investors have the legal right to buy securities that are not registered with regulatory bodies such as the SEC. Accredited investors also have privileged access to venture capital, hedge funds and transactions involving complex and riskier investments and instruments.

title: Accredited investor


text:
Talk:Felt

Untitled
I have been working primarily on the section on newer uses and developments in felt. I agree that the historical section could use some help. I will try to come back to this part. Artful inquiry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artful inquiry (talk • contribs) 18:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

See also?
Would it be proper to include a link to Baize under the see also section? In cue sports, this fiber is often called felt (mistakenly at that), as can be noted here and here. I personally feel that this would be fair. However, the article for Baize would have to be expanded to reflect this as well, to prevent misunderstanding. But I'd be willing take time to make the adjustments there. -Poodle of Doom (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Archeological findings, anyone?
History section needs smth more. Has there been any definite historical findings of ancient felts? How they were dated, when and where defintely was felting discovered - sure, legend about st cristoph and his colleague has some real ground, but exactly what and where?BirgittaMTh (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Felt