text:
Talk:Indian peace medal

Untitled
I am in the process of editing this article, and should have a complete draft ready for comment and criticism by the evening of March 17th, 2017. Thank you! Hgaba (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Submitting drafts for approval is not how Wikipedia works. You should do incremental changes then wait for consensus. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 03:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hgaba. Peer reviewers: Meghankreidy, Cmbyrd.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Annotated Bibliography for Planned Changes
Butler, Amos. “An Old Indian Peace Medal.” Indiana Magazine of History 31, no. 4 (December 1935): 317-323. Accessed February 12, 2017. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27786762.

This article begins with the author describing a peace medal that has been passed down within a family of a close friend. He then describes a historical arc of the discovery of his friend’s medal in particular, but also medals in general. He writes as though he is learning with the reader, and his text is quite accessible as a result. Butler also offers a detailed physical description of the medals in general that I plan on incorporating into my article towards the beginning. I also plan on using his article to show where the medals are today, as he describes the passing down of medals within families, organizations, and museums.

Engeman, Richard. “The Jefferson Peace Medal: Provenance and the Collections of the Oregon.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 107, no. 2 (Summer, 2006): 290-298. Accessed February 12, 2017. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20615640.

This article focuses on the Jefferson medal, and therefore helps fills my content gap concerning Louis and Clark’s usage of the medals. The Jefferson medal seems to be the most well-known peace medal, so I may include a sub-section devoted to Jefferson peace medals. The article includes a physical description of the Jefferson medals, their usage, along with an allusion to the journal entries of Louis and Clark on their expedition, documenting their gifting of the medals to Indian chiefs.

Johnson, Kendall. “Peace, Friendship, and Financial Panic: Reading the Mark of Black Hawk in “Life of Ma-Ka-Tai-Me-She-Kia-Kiak”.” American Literary History 19, no. 4 (Winter 2007): 771-779. Accessed February 12, 2017. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4497012.

Johnson outlines the opinion of Black Hawk, a Sauk chief, and his refusal to wear or accept peace medals from the US government. Black Hawk offers a criticism of these medals, diversifying the many ways in which these medals were accepted (or rather, not accepted) by Indian communities. After preliminary research I think I may like to add an entire sub-section to my Wikipedia article devoted to such criticisms, and also other demonstrations of Native resistance such as that of Black Hawk. Given how rich this source is, I may even devote an entire sub-section to Black Hawk.

Julian, R. W. “The First Indian Peace Medals of the United States.” Museum Notes 21 (1976): 257-259. Accessed February 12, 2017. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43566286

This article describes the context in which the first peace medals were issued in the United States: in 1785 to the Cherokee nation in accordance with the Treaty of Hopewell. According to Julian, records are unclear whether of not the issued medals were actually passed out. The article also debates the technique of making the physical medals, as the large size of the medals (74mm) seems to have been too big for a coinage press of that time. I may not be able to extrapolate on European usage of Indian peace medals, as I intended to in my Wikipedia Editing Worksheet, but I may describe the earliest usage of the medals by Americans instead.

Lubbers, Klaus. “Strategies of Appropriating the West: The Evidence of Indian Peace Medals.” American Art 8, no. 3/4 (Summer-Autumn, 1994): 78-95. Accessed February 14, 2017. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3109173.

This is another article that offers a critical perspective of the peace medals. It demands the reader asks themselves what “peace” really means, and who does this “peace” really belong to. It uses images of tribal leaders wearing the medals and the medals themselves to argue the bias nature of the awarding of these medals. For example, he analyzes the “Tomahawk and Pipe” theme common to Jefferson medals, and its eventual replacement with the two round, overlapping medallion approach seen in Benjamin Harrison medals.

Pickering, Robert. Peace Medals: Negotiating Power in Early America. Tulsa, OK: Gilcrease Museum, 2011.

Pickering is also critical of the medals. He sees “peace and friendship” as a romantic portrayal of Indian relations, and the medals as a technology of power used by the US government to assert superiority over native populations. He also demonstrates the symbolic power that the medals had to both American-Europeans and Native Americans. This book consists of many articles compiled by Pickering, each offering their own analysis of the medals. According to preliminary research, this text will be most helpful in filling my content gap concerning European usage of the medals, as it discusses British, French, and Spanish medals and negotiating strategies in America.

Pond, Ronald. “The Jefferson Peace Medal: A Cultural Phenomena Passed Down from Chief to Chief in Walla Walla Culture, Circa 1805-1986.” (dissertation, Washington State University, 2004). Accessed February 12, 2017. ProQuest.

This is a very long dissertation found on ProQuest. I am unsure whether or not it is published, because it does have copyright information but is nonetheless a dissertation. I am therefore unsure whether or not I may use it in my Wikipedia article. Regardless, the dissertation includes information on both the history of the tribes in the Pacific North West, the Presidential peace medals (specifically Jefferson), the Louis and Clark expedition, and how the medals were accepted and passed down by Walla Walla chiefs. This is a very comprehensive source, but I must remember that it focused on a few tribes in one particular region of the United States.

Prucha, Francis Paul. “Early Indian Peace Medals.” The Wisconsin Magazine of History 45. no. 4 (Summer 1962): 279-289. Accessed February 18, 2017. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4633775.

I used a brief section of this article to add to my Wikipedia article as part of the Wikipedia editing assignment in which we practiced citation styles. In other words, there is still a lot of relevant information in this article that I have not used. In this article, Prucha outlines many customs within the practice of giving medals. For example, the size of the medal corresponded to the relative importance or status of the recipient. He also describes the change in medals from Washington medals, to Jefferson medals, to Monroe medals. The latter part of his article is a quite detailed account of the issuing of medals under Monroe. Given that I can’t possible include all my research in the final article, I will not be including this information in my Wikipedia article as it neither aligns with my original goals nor does it complicate them in any pressing way.

Prucha, Francis Paul. Indian Peace Medals in American History. Bluffton, SC: Rivilo Books, 1994.

This text is already cited in the bibliography of the Wikipedia article, but not within the text itself. I hope this general, over-view book allows me to add proper in-text citations to information already in the article (because supposedly, this is the source of much of that information).

US Congress. House of Representatives. The Department of the Interior. Letter from The Secretary of the Interior Asking for an Appropriation for Medals for certain Indian Chiefs. 38th Cong., 2d sess., 1865. Ex. Doc. 47.

This short document contains two letters of communication between Committees and Departments in the House of Representatives, asking for an appropriation for medals that will be gifted to “influential Indian chiefs.” The first correspondence explains that it has been “customary” on the inauguration of each President to issue and distribute these new medals. I will use this document to describe how the medals were viewed by the US government. My Wikipedia article alludes to this already, but both dimension of perspective and citations are lacking currently.

US Congress. Senate. Committee on Indian Affairs. Medals for Certain Indian Policemen Who Arrested Sitting Bull. 60th Cong., 1st sess., 1908. Report. 461.

This report issues by the Committee on Indian Affairs documents the awarding of medals to a group of Indian men who helped arrest Sitting Bull. This further diversifies the various ways these medals were used by the US government to “keep the peace” (whatever that may entail). I might also use this document in accordance with critiques by Indians of the medals, as this report is an example of the government rewarding Indians arresting other Indians, largely for the benefit of the US government. I understand that I will have to be very careful as to not construct an argument within my article in doing so.

Hgaba (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Preliminary Blueprint for Planned Changes
This blueprint reflects both my original blueprint outlined in my Wikipedia Editing Worksheet, and my current intentions given the research I conducted to compile my Wikipedia Literature Review.

Introduction

The intro of the Wikipedia article should include a physical description of the medals. This will have to be general, of course, as medals varied greatly in design. The intro should briefly allude to European usage of peace medals to negotiate with Native American populations, and then the American usage, as this is where most of the literature concentrates. I want to note that most medals featured the bust of the President in office when they were issued, and that Louis and Clark were known to distribute the Jefferson medals throughout their journey. I will quickly acknowledge the controversy that surrounds the medals, and how well they kept “peace.” And finally, the last line of my intro will allude to where they can be found today.

Early Medals

Here I will talk more about European usage and very early American usage of the medals. I will also include a description of the physical design of these medals, including a picture if I can find one.=

Presidential Medals

Presidential medals are the focus of a majority of the literature and research conducted on Indian peace medals. Here I can talk about how the US government used these medals (citing the Congressional documents I included above), and how their use differed from the use of earlier medals. I will also include a description of how the medals changed in physical appearance and quality. After a general over view, one paragraph will be devoted to Jefferson medals and Louis and Clark’s usage of Jefferson medals on their expedition. The final paragraph in this section will describe how the medals were positively accepted by native communities.

Criticisms of Peace Medals

This section of my article will discuss the many criticisms of the medals, and the controversy surrounding them. I will devote a paragraph in this section to Black Hawk and his refusal to wear or accept them.

Indian Peace Medals Today

The final section will discuss where the medals are today, along with how they are used or displayed. The article currently mentions that bronze replicas of the medals are issued by the United States mint as part of a presidential medal series (but with no citation). If I am able to find information on the Presidential Medal series, I will include it here.

Hgaba (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

True or false??
True or false: the Monticello nickel will return after a while. 66.32.249.191 21:49, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian Peace Medal. 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/20110724045458/http://numismatics.org/search/category/medals--indian_peace_medals/images to http://numismatics.org/search/category/medals--indian_peace_medals/images

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) 04:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Indian peace medal


text: User talk:80.139.21.139

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

title: User talk:80.139.21.139


text:
Talk:Annuit cœptis

Latin Issues
a. Coepi is usually considered a defective verb in Latin; it lacks a present system. Most dictionaries will list the verb under coepi, coepisse, and perhaps that is what should be done here. Present forms such as "coepio" are rarely seen and are not classical. b. Pronunciation in classical Latin (as opposed to Anglicized Latin): 'an-noo-it 'koyp-tees. -T. Gnaevus Faber @ la wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.246.15 (talk) 08:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Aeneid
I'm fairly certain these two phrases are taken directly from Virgil's Aeneid. Shouldn't that be mentioned? ~Neil

I'm almost certain that the phrase means: Annual Copper Annuit Coeptis And of course in 1776, the basic continental dollar was made up of copper.

MT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.247.213 (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirect
Current version of the article is little more than a dictionary definition. I have redirected to List of Latin phrases. If/when someone has enough more to say to turn this into a full stand-alone article, please revert this redirect to the prior version. Rossami 21:49, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
The wording of this article exudes a bias using phrases such as "as some Right-Wingers want us to think". It is also in desperate need of wikification.glocks out 20:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Fixed. The problematic paragraph had been copied directly from its source, so I simply removed it and improved what was left. — Elembis 08:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Very good. glocks out 23:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Pronounciation
How is this phrase pronounced? If someone can post a phonetic representation, I could attempt an IPA transliteration. =David ( talk )( contribs ) 16:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Question
Why is it, that every time I translate this phrase it comes up as "to obliterate to begin" or "Out of Chaos, Order"? Mika'el (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Significance of Thirteen Letters: This Is not in Dispute Among Experts
The rejection by Clindberg of the fact that the motto was chosen for having 13 letters runs counter to recent scholarship, official government explanations, and common sense. The seal contains the following: Clindberg would have us to believe that the fact that Annuit Coeptis also has thirteen letters was purely by coincidence and that there is no evidence that it was chosen to fit the theme. However, the official government historians of the Great Seal. Patterson and Dougall, The Eagle and the Shield, published by the Department of State, 1976, makes it clear that the motto "Annuit Coeptis" was in fact chosen BECAUSE of the number of letters. There is consensus that Thomson drew the expression from Virgil, who wrote, "Jupiter omnipotens, audacibus annue cœptis." Patterson and Dougall explained that Thomson changed the expression to the third person in order to arrive at the thirteen letters (see Patterson & Dougall, cited by Hieronimus; Guillard Hunt, a previous historian of the State Dept. is also cited therein, The Great Seal of the United States, also published by the U.S. State Dept. http://books.google.com/books?id=NnVIt8rpkrcC&pg=PA111#v=onepage&q&f=false Clindberg suggests that the diphthong oe as printed on the dollar should be only counted as one letter. But no such single letter exists in Latin. Oe is a ligature, like the ampersand "&" (cursive "et") at best. It is found in no Latin alphabet as a singular letter in any age. The implication that Barton exchanged "Deo Favente" for "Annuit Coeptis" in order to excise "God" from the motto runs contrary to historical consensus of experts; it is likely a preferred alternative interpretation posed by those with a religious or anti-religious agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 13 stars in the crest
 * 13 stripes in the shield
 * 13 olive leaves
 * 13 olives
 * 13 arrows
 * 13 feathers of the arrows
 * 13 levels of stone in the Pyramid
 * 13 letters in the motto E Pluribus Unum

 * I own of a copy of the Patterson and Dougall book; which page is that assertion on? I don't recall any conclusion of theirs supporting the statement, but I may have missed it.  Rather, they attribute the spelling to the particular edition of Eclogue IV that Thomson owned, as that appears to affect the spelling both of this motto and Novus Ordo Seclorum, both derived from Virgil as you say, both of which Thomson came up with (not Barton).  This is on pages 89-90.   The authors suspect that if Thomson had owned a different edition, the mottoes would have been spelled a bit differently (possibly without the œ ligature in the case of this motto, but as "oe", or perhaps spelled "adnuit"). As for that link, I think that's reading a lot more into the Patterson text than what is there.  Here is the statement from the book: Thomson changed the imperative annue to annuit, the third person singular form of the same verb in either the present tense or the perfect tense.  At no point do the authors speculate as to why -- that appears to be a pure invention of the author of the book you link, and so I'm not sure I would consider that a reliable source.  Very misleading.  Patterson/Dougall then discuss the situation of the missing noun, and do note that Hunt suggested the subject was the eye itself, and note that in later publications it has been construed to mean God, without anything further nor offering their own speculation.  I also own a copy of Hunt's brochure; he actually did two versions, one of which had a bunch of significant errors, the second better but not perfect.  I don't remember the 13-letter discussion there either, but I'll have to go back.    As for the implication that the mottoes were changed to excise "God", I'd have to agree that isn't there either.  I thought about removing that other passage from the article too, but it is cited.  It's not supported at all in the Patterson and Dougall book.  I don't think there is any evidence either it was changed for that reason; rather, Thomson's own description links this motto and the Eye of Providence (a generally religious symbol) together.  This all took place well before the Constitution was created anyways; that is really the first point that there was a conscious attempt to separate church and state, I'm pretty sure.   If I had to guess, Thomson probably changed the two mottos simply to be more scholarly (he was a Latin teacher), as the two of them are both from Virgil quotes.   As for the overall theme of "13", yes it's there, but not to that extent.  The various contributors gave their reasonings for many things; I don't recall any evidence that E Pluribus Unum was chosen because it had 13 letters; rather that appears to be coincidental, as does Annuit Cœptis.  The 13 stripes, 13 stars in the crest, and 13 arrows are absolutely references to the 13 colonies, and documented as such.  They even intentionally violated the rules of heraldry to get the mention of 13 stripes in the blazon.  The 13 olive leaves and 13 olives however were not a feature until the 1885 rendition of the seal, a full century later, and were not in the original symbolism discussions whatsoever, and any argument which tries to use that as evidence as to Barton's and Thomson's intent is pretty immediately suspect.  (The first version of the seal had no olives at all, and 15 leaves.)  While blazons during the design process did specify 13 levels to the pyramid, that is not in the final version, and is simply an artistic choice of whoever makes a particular version, though admittedly that aspect is pretty conventional by now.   I have not seen any real evidence that the mottos were there because they had 13 letters (Novus Ordo Seclorum sure doesn't), and there is a certain amount of documentation and discussion available from the principals, without any such mention as far as I'm aware.  It is not supported at all in the Patterson and Dougall book, from what I can find, which is about as authoritative source as you can get -- it's several hundred pages, and you don't get the feel they left any stone unturned.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Though I concede that your scope is impressive, I cannot concur with your conclusion of "coincidence" with regard to the 13 letters both in E Pluribus Unum and Annuit Coeptis. Do you think that counting letters was something that Thomson would have never thought of? If he's drawing from Virgil, why did he not just lift Annue Coeptis from the text? As far as citing T. Jeremy Gunn as both expert and impartial, I have serious reservations. Gunn is a director of the ACLU--a notoriously politically biased interest group. More importantly, his translation of Annuit Coeptis as "our undertakings have been favored" does tremendous injustice to the fundamental conventions of Latin. Gunn takes Annuit, a third person singular present indicative (he nods, favors), and turns it into a past passive perfect ("have been favored"). Certainly a Latinist such as Thomson would never have intended such violence to the translation. I seriously question Gunn's qualifications as a classicist. Can we agree that for the sake of this article, that the readers be exposed both to Gunn's strict separationist interpretation of the motto, as well as that which has been embraced broadly by numerous writers who note the dual presence of 13 letters and, like me, cannot, in light of common sense, dismiss it as a mere coincidence. That seems to be the most even handed and responsible way to resolve our difference, and most in keeping with Wiki principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.188.20 (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If Thomson (or du Simitiere, who first suggested the E Pluribus Unum motto) thought the 13 letters were significant, you would think they would have mentioned it in some of the documentation surrounding their work. They apparently did not.  Any suggestion that they did choose them due to 13 letters needs a reliable source, and I don't think there is one.  Any such suggestion would seem to be complete speculation, and the gut feel to me is that they are both coincidences (happy coincidences perhaps, but that does not explain why Novus Ordo Seclorum was not 13 letters, if that aspect was truly important).   Perhaps Thomson merely wanted to change the verb tense, and nothing more.  His symbolism was that it alluded "to the many signal interpositions of providence in favour of the American cause"; the imperative mood doesn't make much sense there, and really would seem almost arrogant.  I share your reservations on Gunn.  That source is at least far more circumspect and accurate in its description of the original sources, but the thought that Thomson (or Congress) was intentionally removing mention of God is similarly unfounded and is just his personal opinion, and is not supported by the mainstream sources from what I can see.  Congress had rejected the entire seal (primarily the obverse side); I can't fathom they would reject based on a motto on the relatively insignificant reverse (which they ended up never using anyways; it was just in case Congress wanted to use pendant seals, which was done from 1814-1871 but they never bothered imprinting the reverse even then).  For my personal guess, Thomson probably just found the Latin in the two reverse mottoes to be bland, and changed them to something fancier, but keeping similar meanings.  He even re-added the triangle around the eye, which I think refers to the Trinity, though left the rest of that design alone -- his contributions were primarily in the obverse, to get something that Congress actually liked.  I have nearly removed Gunn's passage from the article on a couple of occasions, and think we should.  However the solution is not to add another (basically unsourced) personal opinion, particularly when not described as one person's opinion.  Neither opinion is supported whatsoever in the Patterson and Dougall book from what I could find, nor the Hunt brochures.  The two Hunt brochures are online, actually -- Google Books has the many-mistakes 1892 version here (also on archive.org here), and the better-but-not-perfect 1909 version here (also on questia.com as a free preview here).  Charles Totten (who had a seriously mystical bent to his ideas) wrote quite a bit on the seal back in the 1870s through 1890s and did a lot of research; in an 1897 book here (page 113) he does mention the 13 letters, but also notes that fact seems to have entirely escaped the creator's (i.e. Thomson's) notice. I'm not sure the best way to treat these fringe theories -- there is lots of discussion out there, and it may be best to acknowledge that in some way -- but they do not belong in the main body, since the mainstream sources (such as the Patterson book, and others) don't support them at all.  Removing them both is better than the current situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the rigor of only including that which can be supported with original documentation, but I believe it is helpful to the readers to be aware of various interpretations, too. Those kinds of discussions are common in Wiki articles (e.g., theories about Jefferson's sources in the Declaration of Ind.) Gunn has every right to his theory for why Deo Favente wasn't retained, and I don't think it needs to be erased (my experience with Wiki is that someone else will post it again eventually anyway). There are a multitude of other publications, however, that have connected the number 13 to Annuit Coeptis, even though the connection is not explicitly in Thomson's remarks. In the interest of full disclosure and to let readers decide, I think it valuable to retain both ideas (perhaps others if they emerge). You can even add your suspicion that it was entirely coincidence. This will prevent others from adding either theory in the future. If the section in the article needs to be labeled something like "theories for why 'Deo Favente' was scrapped" that would make sense. I suppose your "coincidence" theory may appeal to some, but to simply excise the fact from the article that E Pluribus Unum and Annuit Coeptis both have 13 letters, in my opinion, is to not let readers decide for themselves whether or not there is any connection. It's disingenuous. No matter what you believe to be the explanation, it is a fact worthy of mention in the article in some way. Historical claims don't always need explicit primary source documentation if there is a clear and recognizable pattern. If a Civil War widow showed up to a funeral in a black dress, we don't need to have her written explanation to make the highly rational claim that "she wore the black dress as a result of the pattern/custom of the ritual." It would be pure buffoonery for someone to push back by saying "It may just have been coincidence that she put on a black dress that day." This would be one of those issues where the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" fits. Now you may say that the widows dress example is not parallel to the 13 letters of the motto. But my point is not to prove the case, but to show that there are some claims that don't need primary source documentation. I say let the readers see the evidence and decide for themselves whether there is a pattern or whether it's coincidence, rather than hiding it under the pretension of "removing any opinions that are not linked to original sources." An author's partiality and bias is not only revealed in what is posted, but also by what is ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.26.214.62 (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

 * There are guidelines such as WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOR to conform to. I can understand if you were misled into believing that trying to make the mottos 13 letters was supported in the primary reliable sources, but it's not.  Currently, Dunn's viewpoint has undue weight given to it in the article, violating that guideline in my opinion, but again the solution is not to add another section which also has undue weight. While a statement like "Annuit Cœptis and E Pluribus Unum have 13 letters and Novus Ordo Seclorum has 15 letters" does not need a reliable source, it's a pretty meaningless statement by itself.  To ascribe any further significance to it would require a reliable source.  All of the primary sources for people studying the Great Seal do not mention any connection; in fact one (who would have certainly wanted to find such a connection) noted specifically that Thomson seemed completely oblivious to that fact.  While I'm sure lots of people have speculated, I'm not sure any of them qualify as a reliable source to anything other than their own speculative opinions.  If we want to create a separate section called "Speculation", giving brief mention to these, that may be OK -- but readers should also be made aware there is basically zero support for those theories both in the primary evidence and in the significant researchers on the matter since.  Thus, the "coincidental" opinion has some backing in the sources; not much else does.  Feel free to bring up any reliable sources that I (or others) have been unaware of, though -- there could always be something else out there.  But the article should represent the mainstream view, and anything beyond coincidental does not appear to be that view, nor do they seem to be scholarly significant theories.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Given your pretensions of only stating in the article what is explicit in the primary sources, I would challenge you and any of your sources to provide primary source evidence that Thomson was in fact borrowing from Virgil's Georgics. I have never seen that in the remarks and explanations of Thomson or in any of the minutes of Congress. It is entirely an inference made by those who look at what does exist, and what it clearly seems to reflect. If the standard of proof for a claim is "the horse's mouth," then the info about Virgil should be extricated from the article. If left in, then why can't another inference that is just as logical and compelling be included? If your only grounds is the authority of Patterson and Dougall, I would allege a fallacy ad verecundiam unless you can support the inference made thereby. On what grounds can anyone assert that Thomson lifted Annuit Coeptis from Virgil? The only argument that can be made is the pattern... the similarity... the fact that Thomson was abundantly familiar with classics. But beyond that, nothing. Why then not conclude that it was just as likely a "coincidence" that Virgil and Thomson used similar expressions? The standards you want to employ seem to be rather arbitrary, convenient, and selective to your own agenda. I won't continue to argue the point; I've tried to compromise and to collaborate; you are obviously set on your personal interpretation that, in my view, is highly questionable. And you don't seem to be much open to anyone questioning your personal interpretation. So edit the article as you see fit. I've tried to compromise. This conversation will serve for posterity my objections to your narrow interpretation. I don't have the desire or energy to argue with a wall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 20:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not primary sources necessarily, but reliable. It should be noted that the Virgil angle is a guess, to be honest -- Richardson and Dougall do that, but they note that nobody has offered any competing theories in the intervening decades, and that one appears to be correct.  But that is discussed in all of the main publications and research about the seal, whereas the 13-letter thing really is not mentioned anywhere in those sources -- and one specifically pointed that out, that it appeared to be a coincidence.  Why does Novus Ordo Seclorum have 15 letters then?  That would need to be explained, as well.  If that is insignificant, then so well may be the 13 letters.  Thomson changed two mottos; is the number of letters significant in only one case?   None of the main researchers on the seal have suggested that was likely a reason for choosing Annuit Cœptis; so that really represents the mainstream views, which is what Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent, and anything else is not mainstream speculation but more fringe theories.  They should not be given undue weight -- just as you were frustrated yourself by giving Dunn too much weight (which I think you were correct on).  Readers should be aware that they are not mainstream theories, and that most seal researchers do not share either view.  The title of this section was "This Is not in Dispute Among Experts" -- but that is incorrect, as most experts don't even bother mentioning it (though I guess it's not really a dispute in that case).  The views of people who have seriously studied the seal do not include the 13-letters inference, as "obvious" as you think that is, which is different than the Virgil references (which also represent a common thread between the two mottos that Thomson chose, at least).  They have even identified the actual Virgil edition that Thomson probably had based on the spelling. But really, the criteria is reliable sources -- no matter how obvious it may seem, it should be a mainstream view to be represented that way in the article text, and neither Lossing, Totten, Hunt, nor Richardson/Dougall seem to think it was relevant enough to include in their books or writings.  I don't see why we should be including it either, except to note the fringe speculation, which does exist of course.  The WP:UNDUE guideline states: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views.   I'm not sure Dunn or the 13 letters angle are truly significant viewpoints; if so, why would none of the main researchers over the past 160 years mention it?  If you want to bring up reliable sources which do discuss it, by all means, please do so.  I'm certainly open to having my interpretation questioned, but I'm not as open to have the interpretation of seal experts changed.  Your original rationale in this discussion was However, the official government historians of the Great Seal. Patterson and Dougall, The Eagle and the Shield, published by the Department of State, 1976, makes it clear that the motto "Annuit Coeptis" was in fact chosen BECAUSE of the number of letters.  That would be a great reason to include it in the article; however that is turns out to completely not be the case, rather they don't mention it at all, in a several hundred page book on the seal which actually does discuss (and debunk) a few other fringe theories, just about anything that people had brought up over the years.  I agree with your original contention that the article should rely on the "historical consensus of experts"; the 13-letter theory is not included in that.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 * You are a hoot! You change the bar to suit your agenda. Now you've changed the standard to "reliable" sources. Well, what makes a reliable source reliable? Expertise in the field? Research in the field? Degrees in the field? Publications in the field? If you agree that those are what makes a "reliable" source, then you'd have to concede that a person who did a Ph.D. dissertation on the Reverse of the Great Seal would be among the world's leading experts--certainly would have to be considered among "people who have seriously studied the seal" (your words). Well who did a Ph.D. Dissertation on the reverse of the great seal? http://www.unitedsymbolismofamerica.com/page.php?id=9 Whose research has been cited by White House, the State Department, and the Department of the Interior, the History Channel, Discovery and National Geographic Channels? Who has published on the topic? All of these are the qualification of Dr. Robert Hieronimus who published the connection between Annuit Coeptis and 13 http://books.google.com/books?id=NnVIt8rpkrcC&pg=PA111#v=onepage&q&f=false That is why I posted the headline on this thread in a matter of fact way. You may not like Hieronimus' expert conclusion, but you can't deny his credentials. He would easily be admitted in court as an expert on the topic. But I know what you will do at this point--you'll change the bar back to a "primary source" standard. You'll say "I don't care what Dr. Hieronimus says, I want to see the primary source to verify his conclusion." But when I then ask you for the primary source for Patterson & Dougall's Virgil claim, you'll say "well, they are reliable sources, and that's enough." You see--and anyone who reads this conversation will see--you simply are a moving target. You contradict yourself, change your standards arbitrarily, and you elevate yourself as the divine arbiter of reliability and accuracy. I don't know what your credentials are, but I have a strong suspicion that you didn't do a Ph.D. dissertation on the reverse of the great seal. Hieronimus did. And it was more "recent" than Hunt or Patterson. That actually qualifies him more appropriately for what Wiki calls RECENT scholarship. And it certainly makes him among those who have "seriously studied the seal" (your words). If T. Jeremy Gunn is an expert (you've wrongly called him "Dunn" again and again, just like you keep wrongly writing that there are 15 letters in Novus Ordo Seclorum), then Hieronimus is certainly an even superior expert. At one point I thought you might actually have some degree of acumen and erudition on the topic; now I suspect that you are pathological. You probably don't have many successful relationships in your life as a result of your intransigence. Pity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilltoppers (talk • contribs) 03:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Reliable sources. It's not my bar; that has always been the Wikipedia standard.  Sorry if I implied anything else above; I linked earlier to several relevant guidelines including that one.  Primary sources would probably be needed to definitely say "Thomson intended X" though.  As for my credentials, I have basically just read the books in question, that's all, and am fairly familiar with the content. Sorry, yes, I meant Gunn above, and 17 letters in Novus Ordo Seclorum.  The point is the same though.  Hieronimus does bear mention, more than Gunn.  While I don't doubt some of his research was used, what research? As mentioned, Totten had some similar views, though his actual research was fairly scholarly and separate from his personal views -- the factual research was certainly valuable and referenced, even if his personal beliefs are not all that mainstream.  Your Hieronimus link though, again, states that Hunt and Patterson and Dougall explained that to get to the preferred 13 [letters] Charles Thomson used the imperative Annuit in the third person present tense. That is a bad mischaracterization of the source, as I explained above.  The sources merely say that Thomson changed the imperative Annue, but without speculating why, and never mention the thirteen letters.  I linked to the Hunt pamphlets above; is there something in there that I missed?  Leaving it as annue would result in a motto (I believe) of "[God,] favor our undertakings" which has a rather different connotation as a motto, I'd think, so changing to annuit ("[God] favors our undertakings", or if it is considered the perfect tense as Patterson also mentioned as a possibility, then "[God] has favored our undertakings") makes sense in and of itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Boo! on the controller of this article. Boo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.132.87.111 (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

He = God
I think that this article downplays the fact that the third-person singular of "Annuit" refers directly to God. I think the use of the word "Providence" is an attempt to mask what the U.S. is really saying with the Great Seal..."God approves of our undertakings to create a new world for ourselves". In other words, the U.S. is claiming divine rights, which is the basis for Monarchism. This is not a new idea for America. One the main ideas of Manifest Destiny in the 19th century was that the settlers were under the direction of the Christian God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.145.104 (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Seeing how the proposals that explicitly stated God (including "God" and "Deo") were rejected, this indicates that the ambiguity was intentional. As concepts evolved, in both the seal designs as well as documents released, the crystallization of the concept of separation of church and state can be observed.  The switch from "God" to the implied [He] has been taken to be an important step toward that end.

 * And how the new government was completely different from the one it broke from was that it severed the notion of divine rule of a monarch with hereditary succession. The leadership of this new nation was chosen by the people.  Those leaders were chosen from the equal ranks of the people.  And the purpose of the government was to the benefit for the people.  This concept was brand new.  Lexington & Concord was the "shot heard round the world", as they say.--Tdadamemd (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What does "In 1782, Sam Adams created the third Congress " mean?
What does "In 1782, Sam Adams created the third Congress" mean? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No idea, so I've removed it. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Our
There is no mention of our in the Latin original. Шурбур (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Article contains no info about Deo Favente
The section of this article headed "Change from Deo Favente to Annuit Cœptis" contains nothing about the change, though this "Talk" page does contain a good deal. Someone who knows something about the change (I know nothing.) ought to edit the page to make the content of the section match the heading.

Jonrysh (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Use in the US Capitol building
Recent events have disclosed the phrase in use above a door in the US Capitol building. No mention has been made of it in the article, only on the US currency.

at 01:35 of 03:14

Jplvnv (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Annuit cœptis


text:
Talk.origins

talk.origins (often capitalised to Talk.Origins or abbreviated as t.o.) is a Usenet discussion forum concerning the origins of life, and evolution. Its official purpose is to draw such debates out of the science newsgroups, such as sci.bio.evolution and sci.bio.paleontology. With the general decline of evolution/creationism debate and discontinuation of Google Groups support for Usenet in February 2024, Talk.Origins is now largely defunct.

History
The first post to talk.origins was a starter post by Mark Horton, dated 5 September 1986.

In the early 1990s, a number of FAQs on various topics were being periodically posted to the newsgroup. In 1994, Brett J. Vickers established an anonymous FTP site to host the collected FAQs of the newsgroup. In 1995, Vickers started the TalkOrigins Archive web site as another means of hosting the talk.origins FAQs. It maintains an extensive FAQ on topics in evolutionary biology, geology and astronomy, with the aim of representing the views of mainstream science. It has spawned other websites, notably TalkDesign "a response to the intelligent design movement", Evowiki, and the Panda's Thumb weblog.

The group was originally created as the unmoderated newsgroup net.origins as a 'dumping ground' for all the various flame threads 'polluting' other newsgroups, then renamed to talk.origins as part of the Great Renaming. Subsequently, after discussion on the newsgroup, the group was voted to be moderated in 1997 by the normal USENET RFD/CFV process, in which only spam and excessive crossposting are censored. The moderator for the newsgroup is David Iain Greig (and technically Jim Lippard as alternate/backup).

Culture
The group is characterized by a long list of in-crowd jokes like the fictitious University of Ediacara, the equally fictitious Evil Atheist Conspiracy which allegedly hides all the evidence supporting Creationism, a monthly election of the Chez Watt-award for "statements that make you go 'say what', or some such", pun cascades, a strong predisposition to quoting Monty Python, and a habit of calling penguins "the best birds".

Apart from the humor, the group includes rebuttals to creationist claims. There is an expectation that any claim is to be backed up by actual evidence, preferably in the form of a peer-reviewed publication in a reputable journal. The group as a whole votes for a PoTM-award (Post of The Month), which makes it into the annals of TalkOrigins Archive.

title: Talk.origins


text: User talk:80.58.19.172

title: User talk:80.58.19.172


text: User talk:209.232.147.200

title: User talk:209.232.147.200


text: User talk:168.103.232.64

title: User talk:168.103.232.64


text:
The Irish News

The Irish News is a compact daily newspaper based in Belfast, Northern Ireland. It is Northern Ireland's largest-selling morning newspaper and is available throughout Ireland. It is broadly Irish nationalist in its viewpoint, though it also features unionist columnists.

History
The Irish News is the only independently-owned daily newspaper based in Northern Ireland, and has been so since its launch on 15 August 1891 as an anti-Parnell newspaper by Patrick MacAlister. It merged with the Belfast Morning News in August 1892, and the full title of the paper has since been The Irish News and Belfast Morning News. T.P. Campbell was editor from 1895 until 1906, when he was succeeded by Tim McCarthy, who served as editor until 1928. Appointed in 1999, Noel Doran is the current editor.

The Irish News saw a dramatic growth in its circulation with the beginning of The Troubles in 1969; this peaked around the time of the peak in violence in 1971, and declined thereafter.

In June 1982, the paper came under the control of the company's present owners.

In May 2023, the newspaper relocated from its premises at 113-117 Donegall Street, its home for more than a century, to modern offices on College Street. The Irish News's departure from Donegall Street marks the end of the street's association with print journalism, which earned it the nickname of Belfast's Fleet Street. The Donegall Street building was sold to Ulster University.

In September 2023, the newspaper got its first new look since March 2005.

title: The Irish News


text:
User talk:Mestric

Adaptations
When you say that you adapted stuff from some web site, what exactly does that mean? :) If it's translation and slight rephrasing of a paragraph or two of something like history or geography, I don't think that's a copyright issue, but if it's a larger text, I don't think that just an acknowledgement is enough... --Shallot 21:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the warning, but I still din't "steel" a complete text. Anyway, I will have this in mind. I plan to fill up Croatian geographial data, and of course I have to take data from somewhere. Do you think I should ask the source?  --Mestric 22:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * If you rephrase everything and use general, widely-available facts, then no. But if you just translate whole texts, then yes, you have to ask the source to give you explicit permission. --Joy [shallot]   23:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Ok, thanks again. But what if I do not rephrase every sentence? Now, on the article Varazdin county I copypasted ONLY the third section form www.hgk.hr, is it allowed? I think you are allowed to reproduce, in generally, some percent of text and not to violate copyrights.--Mestric 23:15, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Yep, if you replicate a small portion and attribute it, that's fair use. However, you can simply rephrase it all and drop the attribution, too :) --Joy [shallot]

Image copyrights
Thanks for uploading Image:Pag1.jpg and Image:Pag2.jpg. I notice they currently don't have image copyright tags. Could you add one to let us know their copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much,   — Edwin Stearns | Talk 19:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I added because they came from promotional site of the Town of Pag. I hope it is correct? --Mestric 15:35, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also Image:Dubrovnik in croatia.jpg Denni ☯
 * I added, I created it myself. --Mestric 15:35, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Varazdin
My pleasure. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:38, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contribution
You can intervene in Talk:Josip Broz Tito whit your opinion about criminal Josip Broz! I have your same opinion! I think so: your contribution is valid. --PIO 17:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Location maps
I've replaced Image:Varazdin in croatia.jpg with an automatically generated map, so that image is now at Images and media for deletion. --Joy [shallot] 11:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Also Image:Knin in croatia.jpg. --Joy [shallot] 13:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Also Image:Ciovo in croatia.jpg. --Joy [shallot] 15:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:I KAUZLARIC VARAZDIN 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:I KAUZLARIC VARAZDIN 1.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. YellowDot 02:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Same with Image:I KAUZLARIC VARAZDIN 5.jpg YellowDot 02:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Pag1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Pag1.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 23:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Pag2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pag2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Calliopejen1 23:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Duknovic virgin and child.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Duknovic virgin and child.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Sibenik in croatia.jpg

The file File:Sibenik in croatia.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mestric


text:
3850 Peltier

3850 Peltier, provisional designation, is a Florian asteroid and suspected interloper from the inner regions of the asteroid belt, approximately 4 kilometers in diameter. It was discovered on 7 October 1986, by American astronomer Edward Bowell at Lowell's Anderson Mesa Station, near Flagstaff, Arizona. The asteroid was named after American amateur astronomer Leslie Peltier.

Orbit and classification
In the SMASS taxonomy, Peltier is a V-type asteroid but possesses the orbital characteristics of a member of the Flora family, which is one of the largest groups of stony S-type asteroids in the main-belt. It is therefore thought to be an unrelated interloper that does not origin from the Flora family's parent body. Peltier orbits the Sun in the inner main-belt at a distance of 1.9–2.6 AU once every 3 years and 4 months (1,220 days). Its orbit has an eccentricity of 0.16 and an inclination of 5° with respect to the ecliptic. In 1949, it was first identified as at Johannesburg. The body's observation arc begins at Crimea-Nauchnij in 1979, when it was identified as, 10 years prior to its official discovery observation at Anderson Mesa.

Rotation period
A rotational lightcurve of Peltier was obtained by Czech astronomer Petr Pravec at Ondřejov Observatory in October 2006. Lightcurve analysis gave a rotation period of 2.4287 hours with a brightness variation of 0.09 magnitude (U=2). In December 2013, photometric observations by Australian amateur astronomer Julian Oey gave a concurring period of 2.4289 hours and an amplitude of 0.10 magnitude (U=3).

Diameter and albedo
Peltier has not been observed by any space-based surveys such as the Infrared Astronomical Satellite IRAS, the Japanese Akari satellite, or NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer with its subsequent NEOWISE mission. The Collaborative Asteroid Lightcurve Link assumes a standard albedo for V-type asteroids of 0.40 and calculates a diameter of 4.00 kilometers using an absolute magnitude of 13.6.

Naming
This minor planet was named in memory of American amateur astronomer Leslie Peltier (1900–1980), who has discovered 12 comets and several novae including Nova Herculis 1963. Naming citation was provided by David H. Levy and published by the MPC on 20 May 1989 (M.P.C. 14633).

title: 3850 Peltier


text:
San Rafael River

The San Rafael River is a tributary of the Green River, approximately 90 mi long, in east central Utah, United States. The river flows across a sparsely populated arid region of the Colorado Plateau, and is known for the isolated, scenic gorge through which it flows.

Description
The river rises in northwestern Emery County, approximately 5 mi southeast of Castle Dale, by the confluence of Cottonwood, Huntington and Ferron creeks, which provide its headwaters in the Wasatch Plateau region. It flows east-southeast along the north side of the Coal Cliffs and the prominent anticline called the San Rafael Swell, passing north of Window Butte (Window Blind Peak) and through two narrow slot canyons in Coconino Sandstone called the Upper and Lower Black Box. This area is known as the San Rafael Gorge, sometimes called the "Little Grand Canyon". (Actually, the "Little Grand Canyon" is a few miles upstream where the San Rafael passes between the Wedge on the north and Sid's Mountain and No Man's Mountain on the south). After passing through the San Rafael Reef it enters the 15 miles (24 km) long San Rafael Valley, where it joins the Green River from the west, approximately 10 mi south of the town of Green River. The San Rafael is the last major tributary of the Green River before it joins the Colorado River in Canyonlands National Park.

Diversion tunnels at the headwaters of the river in the Manti-La Sal National Forest provide irrigation water to Sanpete County on the west side of the Wasatch Plateau.

title: San Rafael River


text:
Digging stick

A digging stick, sometimes called a yam stick, is a wooden implement used primarily by subsistence-based cultures to dig out underground food such as roots and tubers, tilling the soil, or burrowing animals and anthills. It is a term used in archaeology and anthropology to describe similar implements, which usually consists of little more than a sturdy stick which has been shaped or sharpened and sometimes hardened by being placed temporarily in a fire.

Fashioned with handles for pulling or pushing, it forms a prehistoric plough, and is also described as a type of hoe. Digging sticks more than 170,000 years old, made of boxwood by Neanderthals, have been found in Italy.

Americas
In Mexico and the Mesoamerican region, the digging stick was the most important agricultural tool throughout the region.

The coa stick normally flares out into a triangle at the end and is used for cultivating maize. It is still used for agriculture in some indigenous communities, with some newer 20th-century versions having the addition of a little metal tip.

Other digging sticks, according to Native Americans of the Columbia Plateau, have been used since time immemorial to gather edible roots like balsamroot, bitterroot, camas, and varieties of biscuitroot. Typical digging sticks were and are still about 2 to 3 feet in length, usually slightly arched, with the bottom tip shaved off at an angle. A 5 to 8 inch cross-piece made of antler, bone, or wood was fitted perpendicularly over the top of the stick, allowing the use of two hands to drive the tool into the ground. Since contact with the Europeans in the 19th century, Native Americans have also adapted the use of a metal in making digging sticks.

Australia
Digging sticks are used by many of the Aboriginal peoples of Australia, for digging up roots and tubers and for ceremonial use.

The Gunditjmara people of western Victoria used digging sticks, also known as "yam sticks", for digging yams, goannas, ants and other foods out of the ground, as well as for defence, for settling disputes and for punishment purposes as part of customary law.

New Guinea
The Kuman people east-central New Guinea were horticulturists who used basic tools such as the digging stick, wooden hoe, and wooden spade in their daily lives. Eventually they started to use more sophisticated tools such as iron spades and pick-axes.

Two main types of digging sticks both shared a similar shape but differed in size:

 * A larger and heavier digging stick with a diameter of about 4 cm and 2 m in length, used for the purpose of turning over the soil surface for new gardens; and
 * A smaller and lighter digging stick with a diameter of about 2 cm and 1 m (or less) in length, mainly used for basic horticulture tasks.

New Zealand
The Māori people traditionally use digging sticks, known as a kō 2 m to 3 mlong pole was made of strong and long-lasting wood, with a footrest tied to the shaft and one end fashioned into a narrow blade. They were used for tilling soil ready for planting tubers,  as well as for digging for roots or tubers, and in ceremonial use.

Ethiopia
The most common digging stick found in Ethiopia is the ankassay in Amharic, a Semitic language spoken in Ethiopia and the second-most spoken Semitic language in the world. The ankassay is a single shaft that is about 4–5 feet in length with a socket-hafted pointed iron blade as the tip.

Two other digging sticks are unique to the Harar region located in East-Central Ethiopia, which are considered to be unusual due to their function beyond the basic use of other digging sticks, and the use of one as a plough.

The deungora is a particularly long digging stick is about 110 centimetres, or approximately 3.6 feet, in length with a socket-hafted pointed iron blade as the tip. What's unique about this digging stick is that a bored stone, about 15 centimetres in diameter, is attached at the opposing end. This stone shares the same form as other bored stones that have been discovered in archaeological sites in Africa.

Maresha is the Gurage name, also the same word used by the Amhara, for a digging stick that differs in construction because of its forked form. It is used primarily to dig holes for construction, planting, and harvesting roots and tubers. This tool is used as a plow to turn over the soil of an entire field before planting. It is used to break clods of soil in areas where the soil is hard or in areas that may be too steep for ploughing, and to dig holes for construction or to transplant domestic plants. When compared to the ankassay, this digging stick can perform the same duties and in addition can be used as a hoe.

title: Digging stick


text:
Talk:Bolivarian Circles

Untitled
Oh my God, this is biased against the Venezualan government! and I'm not even a Chavez supporter. The first pharagraph is ok but the second seems to have been written by a different person, one with bad grammer at that, probably some anti-Chavez person from a Hispanic country. and again, I myself am anti-Chavez. Pimpalicious 01:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, no one has yet edited this article. I don't have enough information to re-write it myself but if no one does soon I'm just going to take out the second paragraph. Pimpalicious 01:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

So Biased!!
This is such bad information, completely slanted towards the wrong side. If you seriously beieved this article, you should double check this info with some other sites. You'll see.

 * I assume you mean it's biased in favor of Chavez. I don't see anything wrong with the information there myself. I do see problems with the information that's not there, it should include more about what the opposition claims. Pimpalicious 01:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

recent changes

 * I deleted a lot of criticism because it was uncited and I couldn't find reliable sources but also inserted some criticle stuff and sources
 * a lot of restructuring
 * deleted a lot of content because it was mentioned twice
 * I will also delete now the section Bolivarian Youth because it seems to be only PR for one local group in Florida and constitutes the impression that this term is exclusively used by this group. If someone wants to reinsert it, please consider to rewrite it more neutral, showing the connection to Bolivarian Circles and giving a more general view of the entire movement(including Venezuela and other countries).

present Bolivarian Youth part: "The Bolivarian Youth is a revolutionary anti-capitalist youth organization. The organization was founded on Mayday (May 1st), 2005 in Miami and was born from the local Bolivarian Circle. Inspired by Venezuela's peaceful and democratic Bolivarian Revolution, the "Youth" was organized to educate and mobilize revolutionary minded young people in South Florida for unity, solidarity, and political action. The Bolivarian Youth has chapters at Florida International University and Florida Atlantic University.bolivarianyouth.com" -- Stan talk 03:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Some problems
Riothero, bobrayner (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Stop revert-stalking me.
 * 2) You know that Venezuelanalysis is not a reliable source; it has been explained to you repeatedly. So why do you keep on removing content based on reliable sources, and replacing it with stuff based on Venezuelanalysis?
 * 1. so much for assuming good faith! when you make changes to pages that are on my watchlist, i am notified, whereupon i make subsequent changes when appropriate. i ground these changes in wikipedia's principles, as explained in my edit summaries. engaging in ad hominem will not win you any arguments.

 * 2. it has not been decided that venezuelanalysis.com is not a reliable source, as you claim. when the material is uncontentious, or when a chavista POV is needed, the website is clearly a valid source. however, to demonstrate my good faith in this case, i'll agree to removing the one reference on this page.

 * 3. to the core issue, would you now care to defend your cherrypicking/misrepresentation of the BYU study?--Riothero (talk) 23:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * specifically, i am concerned that the statement "These organisations help the government identify opponents, who are then denied services" (for which the BYU study is cited as a reference), and your description of the BYU study itself in the new 'criticism' section cherrypick and misrepresent that study's actual findings. the closest that the study comes to saying this is when it describes the circles as "new clientelistic brokers, ensuring the provision of these programs in neighborhoods that supported Chavez". this is a far cry from identifying opponents and shutting down their services!
 * however, in addition to this criticism, the study also had positive things to say that are selectively omitted (as a result of cherrypicking). mainly, its conclusion begins: "The results of our surveys and interviews indicate that the Círculos made a mixed contribution to Venezuelan civil society and democracy. As their supporters claimed, the members of Círculos that we interviewed had strong participatory democratic values and were engaged in significant social work." i believe my proposed revision more accurately reflects the "mixed" findings of the study.
 * >According to a study by two Brigham Young University scholars, the "Bolivarian circles" embodied highly democratic goals and methods, in addition to "a charismatic mode of linkage to Chávez" that thwarted their institutionalization; they performed valuable social work, but also tended to reinforce "clientelistic relations between Chávez and the voters, and they did not significantly enhance the level of pluralism in the broader civil society."--Riothero (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bolivarian Circles. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/13221493.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bolivarian Circles. 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/20070702060307/http://bolivariancircle.org:80/ to http://www.bolivariancircle.org
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040222120955/http://www.zmag.org:80/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=3971 to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=3971

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) 14:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hugo Chavez.jpg

title: Talk:Bolivarian Circles


text:
Wikipedia:Main Page/French2

Face book Book dolly and yizwile and sphokophele p

title: Wikipedia:Main Page/French2


text:
Category talk:Biology

suggestions?
Shall the Linné-classification be an own root category or under botany and zoology ? Any suggestions? // Rogper 22:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) blood cells — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.43.143 (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

subdividing biology
what s the criteria for determining what is a subcategory and what is a category here? is there a wiki policy in place for establishing this/categorizing or is it up to the page maker / editor? at any rate the subdivisions here are somewhat at odds with those on List of academic disciplines article. -- Mayumashu 06:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

there is no organization here
There is a lot of useful information here but no real organization. since there doesn't seem to be much interest in organizing it I'll do it myself. If anyone has a beef with this or any suggestions let me know. I'll have it done in a week.

I'm a biologist and educator who wants to make this an awsome site. I could use some help. right know it's crap wrapped around gold -- anonymous user Jan 11, 2006

A little (or a lot) of organization can't hurt! Andrewjuren 18:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Medicine
Certainly they are related, but is Medicine really a sub-category of Biology? That relationship seems a bit unusual to me. Thoughts? --Alan Au 08:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I think that medicine is a sub-category of Biology. It is obvious. --Meno25 15:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Subcatting

 * This category is unwieldy. I propose subdivision Category:Types of biology as a start, to include cryobiology, ethnobiology, developmental biology, molecular biology, microbiology, and so on. Other ideas? --lquilter 22:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I filtered out a lot and hopefully improved it, but may have been overaggressive. User:ragesoss pointed out that "For the main articles of the subcategories, you shouldn't remove it from the supercategory according to Categorization_and_subcategories" - I undid those that I took out per this rule. Second, I took out Cell (biology) which was a bit too aggressive. Any other mishaps, please correct.  --lquilter 02:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So I tried have a look - Those two I did brought back, should be the only in need, I think:
 * Microbiology
 * Neuroscience
 *  R eo  ON   |   + + +  03:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Yep, you got them as I was finishing them up. --lquilter 03:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

abandoned testiclusm
Abandoned testiclusm may refer to the dysfunction of the testicles making the penis shrink

Categorizing
Heads up to anybody watching this page. I'm going to be bold and start organizing it.OakRunner (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Organization
I agree with other users that the organization of the page seems a little confusing. The subcategories and categories feel slightly random. I do also feel the word "cell" should be mentioned in the first paragraph as cells are the fundamental unit of life and ergo biology. Zeen Aleaf (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Biology


text: Category:Fictional governments

title: Category:Fictional governments


text:
List of rivers of Nevada

List of rivers of Nevada (U.S. state).

By drainage basin
This list is arranged by drainage basin, with respective tributaries indented under each larger stream's name.

Great Basin

 * Amargosa River
 * Carson River
 * Humboldt River
 * Little Humboldt River
 * Reese River
 * South Fork Humboldt River
 * Huntington Creek
 * North Fork Humboldt River
 * Marys River
 * Quinn River
 * Kings River
 * Thousand Springs Creek
 * Truckee River
 * Walker River
 * East Walker River
 * West Walker River

Columbia watershed

 * Columbia River (OR)
 * Snake River (ID)
 * Owyhee River
 * South Fork Owyhee River
 * Little Owyhee River
 * Bruneau River
 * Jarbidge River
 * Salmon Falls Creek

Colorado watershed

 * Colorado River
 * Muddy River
 * Meadow Valley Wash
 * White River
 * Virgin River

Alphabetically

 * Amargosa River
 * Bruneau River
 * Carson River
 * Colorado River
 * East Walker River
 * Humboldt River
 * Huntington Creek
 * Jarbidge River
 * Kings River
 * Little Humboldt River
 * Little Owyhee River
 * Marys River
 * Meadow Valley Wash
 * Muddy River
 * North Fork Humboldt River
 * Owyhee River
 * Quinn River
 * Reese River
 * Salmon Falls Creek
 * South Fork Humboldt River
 * South Fork Owyhee River
 * Thousand Springs Creek
 * Tongue Wash
 * Truckee River
 * Virgin River
 * Walker River
 * West Walker River
 * White River

title: List of rivers of Nevada


text:
Andersonstown News

The Belfast Media Group's Andersonstown News is a weekly published (Wednesdays) Belfast, Northern Ireland newspaper, which focuses on news and issues in west Belfast. The paper was founded in 1972.

Its stablemates, the North Belfast News and South Belfast News, are published weekly.

According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the Andersonstown News has an average circulation of 8,457 for the Monday edition and 16,453 for the Thursday edition

title: Andersonstown News


text:
Belfast News

The Belfast News is a weekly free-sheet spin-off from the Belfast News Letter. It is published by Johnston Publishing (NI), a holding company for Johnston Press who owns thirty-seven titles across Ireland.

title: Belfast News


text:
User:Armisteadbooker

I'm a museum educator, freelance designer, artist-in-residence, nonprofit champion, moonlighting superhero, purveyor of vanilla, and a great listener. Official Site

title: User:Armisteadbooker


text: Category:German politicians

title: Category:German politicians