text:
Talk:Karl Wolff

Untitled
Please feel free to revise and expand on the issue of Wolff's knowledge of the Holocaust. --Jstalin 17:02, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Who was involved in the later trial, because Treblinka was something that all humanity simply should be made aware of. 86.149.209.189 23:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, especially the account of Yankel Wiernik should be brought under public attention http://www.zchor.org/treblink/wiernik.htm ! --41.15.221.94 (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Execution of Prisoners
"...Despite this, he openly admits in the television documentary The World At War that he witnessed an execution of Jewish prisoners with Himmler, going so far as to describe the splatter of brains on Himmler's coat...." - There is no mentioning in the World at War episode of the ethnicity or reasons of the prisoners being shot. So please take out the "Jewish" from the article. --41.14.211.41 (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

By any standard, Wolff gets a 'free pass' in this article - much as he did in life. There's no mention of the CIA's role in protecting him in the post-WW2 years.

I believe his son, Thorismond, also went into the advertising game and handled some big tobacco accounts in West Germany. Father and son, both dealers in death. Surely there's material for a TV special. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justwanderinby (talk • contribs) 03:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

 * And you are surely a dealer in bs. 2003:DA:970E:A621:B519:5B0:4A2:8347 (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Friendship?
Heydrich didn't have friend in the SS and not particulary with Wolff !!--Bobybarman34 (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism
Wolff continually displayed his anti-semitism throughout his career. After the war he was interviewed by CIC and others in the US Military, he made bigoted remarks as a matter of course. He complained about his inprisonment, whining about in comparison to the death of thousands of Jews. "A Jew is killed in the gas chamber in a few seconds, without having any idea or knowing it. My comrades and I have been allowed to die once every night for 21 months. This is much more Inhumane than the extermination used on the Jews. Too much has been grossly exaggerated." Jochen Von Lang, 'Top Nazi SS General Karl Wolff: the man between hitler and himmler,' New York, Enigma Books, 2005. Hesweeney (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Matched content
Please see the comparison to web content on http://ahnen.greyfalcon.us/rahn.html (sidebar). It matches word for word the unsourced content from this article. Sometimes it's hard to tell which content is the original one and which one is the mirror cite, but in this case I suspect that "greyfalcon" is the original source, due to unusual word choices such as "Messrs Heidemann and Kujau" and because of generally well rounded prose. Note that the "soap opera" content is not part of greyfalcon's narrative; it must have been added later.

I would like more opinions on this. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would agree with rewrite/removal, Greyfalcon is not an RS source and it does appear to be a copyright violation; which you raise. Kierzek (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I also left a msg for Diannaa, since he has experience with copyvios. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good, as I was assuming the information came first from that site, but it may be the other way around; I await her final verdict. Kierzek (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The text on the left hand sidebar of that other site appears to have been lifted from Wikipedia. The intro paragraph of this article, in particular the part about Wolff serving as Supreme SS and Commander of Italy, was added by me quite some time ago  and wasn't copied from that other site. -O.R.Comms 14:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Checking using the Wayback Machine shows that the material was added to ahnen.greyfalcon.us sometime between May 9, 2013, and August 19, 2013. Looking at the shows we already had the content on that date. The material on Wolff in the left sidebar was copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around. — Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for the information. Then the article needs ce work with RS cites added (like so many articles). Kierzek (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I will use these tools in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have done some copy edit work and added cites; it is in better shape now. Kierzek (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Awards removal
I've restored the awards section and added citations. There has been no less than four attempts in the past few months to blank this information. Karl Wolff is one of the most extensively researched of SS generals and his award information is of academic interest. If there is an effort to blank it, this needs to be discussed with consensus, especially since this is now cited information. -O.R.Comms 02:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As I have said in these discussions in the recent past, especially for high ranking members, awards and decorations should be included; and given it is a bio article on the man it is reasonable to include for that reason, as well. Like everything being considered for inclusion or to be removed, discernment should be used. It is fair that they be cited and that is now done. Kierzek (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is good to have added a citation; though the question has other facets too, the main being: why have we to crowd bio pages with insignificant information?
 * Honour Cross of the World War 1914/1918, Golden Party Badge, Honour Chevron for the Old Guard, SA Sports Badge (Bronze), German National Sports Badge (Silver), Olympic Games Decoration (First Class), Nazi Party Long Service Award (10 years), SS Long Service Award (10 years), Sudetenland Medal (with Prague Castle Bar), Memel Medal, Sword of honour of the Reichsführer-SS, SS Honour Ring, SS Julleuchter (that is even ridiculous here), as well as the long list of rank progress, don't add a penny to the historic figure of this personage, whose distinguishing de-merits lay elsewhere. Letting go of gifts, "awards" of commemorative sort, and other minimalia is only a boon. Carlotm (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Chronology of rank promotions is standard throughout Wikipedia, especially on military figures which Wolff was by the end of the war (he was the default Supreme Commander of all German forces in Italy at the time of the surrender). This section should stick to the awards as there hasn't been an issue (yet) with having his promotion dates in the article. -18:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are all official decorations authorized by the government of the nation in which the person served. Wolff was also technically a military general, since he was granted combat command in Italy as a Waffen-SS general.  So a list of awards is completely normal for this type of article.  The fact that he is an SS general and that these are awards of the Nazi state is neither here nor there.  A good parallel would be the Army Service Ribbon and NCO Professional Development Ribbon which is listed on most articles about U.S. generals.  Those too are minor awards, but is there any effort to blank them from articles? Also, as to the ranks, promotion dates in military articles are standard on this site.  WP:IDONTLIKE I think is something to consider also. -O.R.Comms 00:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

If there is further issue with this, the matter should really be taken up at the military history discussion boards to get consensus. Right now, this appears to be simply the opinion of a few users that these Nazi and SS awards are not noteworthy and should not be included, perhaps simply because they are SS and Nazi awards. There is no basis in Wikipedia policy for this; if there were, then by your own logic, we should be removing the National Defense Service Medal and Air Force Longevity Service Ribbon from all United States military articles. And what of all the service medals and colonial medals of the United Kingdom, to say nothing about the self imposed orders and people's medals of the communist regimes. As one can see, it doesn't stand up. This has also been discussed before and the blanking of Nazi Germany awards and decorations has always been frowned upon. -O.R.Comms 04:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My intervention was not advocating any blanking, rather putting things to a reasonable, balanced level. To bring up a comparison with other military ensembles is quite amiss. Is somebody forgetting this specific case is about a member, of the highest level, of the SS, a criminal organisation, the operating genocidal hand of the Nazi regime? That is not my personal opinion; just read any of the leading scholars. When people use primary sources without any further topical argumentation or reasoning, plain verbatim, they undertake a dangerous game, they may hint at an undeserved eulogy, ultimately changing Wikipedia to a propagandistic conduit of those "good old days". At best it may be considered an unbalanced original presentation. Please, avoid to invoke other misplaced comparisons. Carlotm (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase editor Carltom from this thread, "The presentation of these awards could be warranted in an opus so deep and detailed that the publishing of any primary source may be justified." This is an encyclopedia entry and needs to follow the guideline of WP:summary style, which including an exhaustive list of minor party decorations goes against. Re: "has always been frowned upon" -- frowned upon by whom? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The blanking of Nazi awards has been extensively discussed on such articles as Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich as well as a much older discussion at Rudolf Hoess. In every case, at the end of the discussion, the users pressing the issue were asked to stop and, when they did not, the matter was eventually viewed as disruption and in at least one case (repeated blanking of Nazi and SS decorations against consensus) the user was blocked for vandalism.  There are obvious strong feelings here, but the standard for the inclusion of award lists in publications of military history (per the standards set forth by the major US and UK publication companies of World War II works) is "an official decoration of the national government for which a citation, certificate, or orders have been issued".  This is also the standard the United States National Archives uses when publishing reports on military figures (including German Army and Waffen-SS generals) and such reports do include all Nazi party awards, sports badges, and the German Occupation Medals since these are official decorations of the Nazi state which not only were issued with certificates but also annotated in service records maintained by the state.  We can go around and around about thus, but this is cited academic material, we dont censor things on Wikipedia because we find Nazi Germany and the SS distasteful, and these awards need to stay in this article. -O.R.Comms 16:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That opinion stated above I agree is relevant to the "Wehrmachtbericht reports", but that is comparing apples and oranges here. This is about historical listing which is part of the story of this person's bio, not propaganda. And if one digs deeper in understanding some are important indicators' of the persons life/career, so to speak. The Golden Party Badge tells us he was a Nazi Party member and if he had the upgraded version, it tells one that he was a favored member. The Honour Chevron for the Old Guard tells us he was an early member of the SS; when one has been awarded these, it diminishes later attempts of the person (which Wolff is guilty of) or writers on their behalf to state they were not Party members, nor more deeply involved in the Party or programs of the organization in which he belonged. Remember, we are to look at things objectively and present them in a NPOV way for the readers. Our opinions and WP:OR do not have a place in any articles. With that said, I agree there should be balance in presentation as with any article and believe here that most all should be kept as with any leading bio on a military or para-military figure. Kierzek (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * could you link to the discussion that you referenced? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Its archived on the talk pages I mentioned, I think the direct links are on your talk page. And those are the ones I know of; there have been others over the years. -O.R.Comms 19:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A listing of awards and decorations is antiquarian, not historiographical, let alone academic. Yes, phaleristics has become the subject of historiography, but mainly as a subject of cultural history. Which is not what this article is about. I have heard these arguments before: A list of awards, orders and promotions shows how deeply involved a person was with the Nazi system. Well, if that's important, why not write that comment into the article? Who knows right away what these awards convey about a person's career? I don't and I know a few things about Nazi Germany. What is more, this article elaborates about things which are simply not encyclopedic, like about some private photograph, presumably lost or destroyed, which presumably shows Wolff in a certain uniform. Isn't Wolff's involvement in the Holocaust more important? Is no one interested in what is known of Wolff's role in the Ardeatine massacre or in antipartisan warfare in Italy? What we do learn, however, is that he received the German Cross in Gold, because he managed to destroy partisans in areas "contaminated" by them and upheld the "war production in the Italian territory". Lest we forget, that he approved the project of the Marnate's Bunker. There is no "need" for these awards to stay in this article, and that has nothing to do with "censorship". It's a simple editorial decision, but indeed a problem of WP:NPOV. To maintain a neutral point of view in WP does not mean to remain neutral towards the Nazi system of values as expressed in their awards. I assume no one would suggest that we have to remain neutral towards, for example, Nazi legislation, either. As a guideline NPOV refers to "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Awards are not a reliable source on any topic. If anything they are a primary source. Besides, the display of each and every award gives WP:UNDUE weight to these awards, because they do not feature prominently in the major accounts of Wolff's career by Jochen von Lang and Kerstin von Lingen and if they are mentioned, they are put into context. I will fix some of the issues I have raised, and would suggest to confine the "awards section" to the relevant ones, i.e., those which are mentioned in the main body of the article. (If anyone should bother to ask, I do not discriminate between official decorations of any political system.) --Assayer (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Award and decorations lists are standard on Wikipedia for members of national military forces (of which Wolff was granted a military commission as a Waffen-SS general). As has been said before, the statements that certain awards are "insignificant" appears to be solely the view of individuals and not backed up by any Wikipedia policy nor the standards set forth in academic sources regarding lists of awards and decorations in military articles.  And the idea that we should be removing Nazi awards because they are in some way offensive goes against numerous Wikipedia policies and is a double standard.  One could argue the same for communist decorations, North Korean awards, awards of fascist Italy, Soviet Union, etc etc.  I am making an appeal to editors not to edit war, since blanking of awards from a military article is, unless a substantial consensus can be reached, will be reverted. -O.R.Comms 19:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of academic books which convey such information of promotions and awards, it is part of a subjects biography. There is no whitewash here about this persons life; your arguments Assayer smack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. With that said, like other articles it could use some additional work and both Obenritter and myself have worked on it in that regard. As far as using a "primary source", it is from official documents in the National Archives. Kierzek (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "A listing of awards and decorations is antiquarian, not historiographical, let alone academic." - and your point? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for a general audience. It is not an academic publication. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Of all arguments, the argument "that's the way we've always done it", is the least convincing. First, consensus and "Wikipedia policy" are not the same. Given that there was some agreement between editors within a certain field, such a consensus is not enshrined forever. Second, I would like to learn which academic sources set forth the "standards" regarding lists of awards and decorations in military articles applied in Wikipedia. If there are "plenty of academic books", it should be easy to point out the books that deal with Wolff's awards in that detailed manner. R. James Bender Publishing certainly does not qualify as an academic publisher. Third, I noticed that this "Wikipedia policy", if there is one, is applied unevenly in the Wikipedia. Lists of awards are incomplete or absent in articles on Communist military or political leaders. See Iona Yakir, Nikita Khrushchev, Georgy Zhukov, Erich Mielke, Erich Honecker, Choe Yong-gon (army commander), Kim Il-sung,  Mao Zedong, Zhu De, to name only a few. So even though certainly I did not argue, that Nazi awards should be removed "because they are in some way offensive", there may indeed be a double standard. If the SA Sports Badge, the German National Sports Badge or the Long Service awards were not be mentioned, that would be a "whitewash" of Wolff's biography? Given that Wolff had an appetite for awards and liked to pose with them for TV documentaries as late as the 1980ies, such a suggestion seems rather odd. Not only are official documents in National Archives primary sources, it is OR to infer just from the awards that people were "deeply involved in the Party or programs of the organization in which [they] belonged". Moreover, the article does not even suggest such a reading, but simply lists the awards. Finally, the Waffen-SS always remained a Party formation. Historian Bernd Wegner is very explicit on that. And have I just read a declaration of edit war? As far as I know, it needs at least two editors to wage an edit war. --Assayer (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right, there is no firmly established policy on Wikipedia on when, how, and in what manner awards should be included in articles. However, by practice, they are listed on most articles for military figures as well as political leaders who have amassed large numbers of decorations.  For those who have extensive award histories, articles on the service itself have been created such as Service record of Heinrich Himmler and Service summary of Douglas MacArthur.  As for the issues brought up here (repeatedly) we simply don't pick and choose which awards are listed based on personal feelings about their significance (read the article on the Army Service Ribbon, yet that award appears in every article on U.S. army generals for the past thirty years) or distaste as to the nature of why the award was presented or by what type of governmental regime.  The given understanding is that the award lists may be cited from lists given in biographical texts or, if more practical, simply listed from a service record or a document like the DD Form 214 if its publicly available.  With that said, I thank everyone for remaining civil in this discussion and avoiding edit wars.  I've really said all I can on this subject and have posted the matter to the Military History noticeboard.  That's about as much as I can offer. -O.R.Comms 16:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Assayer, its not my job to educate you are the subject and you confuse how I am using the term "whitewash" here. To suggest that the National Archives, as a "primary source", somehow should not be used herein does not make logical sense in this application and if "[l]ists of awards are incomplete or absent" from other bios/articles (and thereby need additions and work), have at it. I am not going to go 'round and 'round on this when you appear at this point so firmly entrenched in your opinion and position. Nothing personal, and I await input from other editors. Kierzek (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Leave them there. It is common practice for all awards to be listed, and some articles even have a "ribbon farm" depicting the awards. If the awards can be reliably sourced, they should stay. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The context of your posting suggested that your use of the word "whitewash" was to support your argument for the inclusion of promotions and awards. I'll discuss in more detail below, what I consider to be a useful referral to such awards. Documents located in archives are generally not easily accessible, so that the information is not easily verifiable. In case you refer to books based on archival sources - I have frequently seen Wikipedians who used personal files from archives for lists of awards and promotions. Once again, awards alone cannot be used to draw conclusions how "deeply" a person "was involved in the Party or programs of the organization in which he belonged", just like the Knight's Cross  alone does not prove that the recipient behaved particularly bravely on the battlefield.
 * Wikipedia articles should rely on scholarly material when available. I doubt that such lists of awards are for the "general public".--Assayer (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is amazing how easily SS service records are in fact accessible. The entire service record collection of the SS is on microfilm on the fourth floor of the National Archives (Archives II) building in College Park, MD.  They also have a nice little finding aide folder to easily find individual SS members on the microfilm.  It is all open to the public and the printing costs are not too high, I think last time I was there is was something like 30 cents a page but its probably gone up since then.  The only SS members one might have trouble finding are the foreign legion SS members from the Latvian Legions and some of the Soviet conscript units formed out of POWs.  Most everyone else is on those rolls, including all the big names of the SS.  Its well worth the trip; stay in Maryland though, up towards Baltimore to get a cheaper hotel.  Staying in DC up the road from the archives can get expensive. -O.R.Comms 14:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Assayer the "context" of my use of the word "whitewash", you took that way, that is NOT what I meant and if you re-read my post you will see that what I am talking about there is the fact that this article does not have a POV bias and does not omit the facts that this man was both directly and indirectly guilty of war crimes and was involved in the Holocaust. That was my point; as for inclusion of at least 99% of his awards, I stated my position on that separately. Also, you have again raised in argument that "academic" sources are somehow the standard; they are not, as you have been told before. The standard is WP:RS. It is not our place to assume what is of interest and is not of the general reader we write for herein; it is common sense that a person's bio article should be reasonably complete. And lastly, the argument that the official records are not to be trusted here and not to be used as they are "generally not easily accessible" is frankly, misplaced here. If ever a primary source should be used it is here on this subject; further, the veteran editor who provided the citation has shown to be reliable in sourcing and on Wikipedia good faith is assumed; further, he has reviewed the records directly at the National Archives. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Starting to become a dead horse issue. It is obvious from the feedback of several veteran editors that these award lists are permitted and in fact encouraged on Wikipedia for these types of articles. These circular discussions about how certain SS awards should not be in articles, as well as implications that those adding them somehow favor the Nazis, really serve no purpose. -O.R.Comms 14:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Yours is not a "dead horse", but a horse of straw. In this discussion no one critical of the detailed awards section has implicated "that those adding them somehow favor the Nazis". That seems to be the universal way to fend off any argument by shedding a bad light on the other party. Neither did I suggest that this article is about "whitewash". I argued that awards are treated with an undue depth of detail. I also relied heavily on WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which is part of RS, and under the section headline Scholarship it reads Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible, which is very close to my wording "articles should rely on scholarly material when available". Further I refer to WP:INDISCRIMINATE: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. And I do not know of an exception to WP:OR, according to which "veteran editor"s are to be trusted, because of good faith, and because they have personally reviewed the records directly at the Archives. So far I did not claim that "the official records are not to be trusted", although I should have, because dates which are found in personal files of SS-men are not per se correct. You don't have to believe me, of course, although I consider myself to be a "veteran editor" as well, but I can provide a citation by historian Dieter Pohl or just take notice of Rudolf Höß' date of birth. I have to say that I perceive tips and tricks for research trips to the National Archive in College Park as arrogant and disrespectful. Although there is a significant number of editors in support of award lists, I do not see a "general consensus" for such a broad proposal like "lesser decorations such as campaign and service awards" should be included, "when such awards may be cited in reliable sources to include official service records and discharge/retirement government documents". This means nothing else than: Anything goes, because these documents mention pretty much every award imaginable. But now I know how "general consensus" and certain "Wikipedia policies" come about.--Assayer (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of SS trophies in award list
A list of awards is normal, but the SS Honour Ring and SS Julleuchter veer into the indiscriminate, since Wikipedia is geared towards the general reader, and not the collector of Third Reich memorabilia. There's nothing inherently informative about the SS ring, since (as I understand) all SS men received one. Various badges and non-combat decorations, such as the Memel Medal, could also go. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not correct. The presentation of the SS ring and sword were not automatic.  They were decorations for exceptional service to the SS which were personally presented by Himmler.  The SS rings were numbered and returned to a special SS vault upon the death of the bearer.  So, in fact, to have ether the SS ring or sword was considered an exceptional honor.  As for the julleucter, that's  complicated issue as it was originally a trophy but then became an official award around 1936.  It had its own line on official SS records and was no longer issued after 1938. -O.R.Comms 04:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: "So, in fact, to have ether the SS ring or sword was considered an exceptional honor" -- this does not jive with Wikipedia's own articles on the topic: K.e.coffman (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * SS ring: "By 1939, it was available to any officer with 3 years service in the SS, and in World War II virtually the entire SS leadership, including the Waffen-SS and Gestapo, had been given the ring."
 * SS sword: "It was also awarded to officers who graduated from the SS-Junkerschulen (Junker schools) at Bad Tolz and Brunswick."
 * K.E., first of all thank you for your civil discussion here and your raising of some valid points. The inclusion of the sword, ring, and SS julleuchter are definitely worth taking a look at.  I will share what I know of these and how I came to include them in awards lists.

I hope that answers some of the questions here for why these three items should stay in awards lists. -O.R.Comms 16:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * SS Honor Ring: I reviewed the Wikipedia article as well and it mentioned a lot of the same points I had previously made. The SS honor rings were not automatically given out and they were in fact highly coveted by SS members as personal gifts from Himmler.  They were inscribed, indexed, and if the bearer were to die or be killed the rings were to be retrieved from the body, even in a combat zone, and returned to a vault in the SS castle at Wewelsburg where Himmler maintained an archeology college.  The SS rings were indeed considered of such importance as an award that there was a special space on the front of every SS service record reserved for recording its bestowal.  The award of the SS honor ring is also mentioned in nearly every academic and biographical text I have ever read on the history of the SS and its members.
 * SS Honor Sword: The Nazi manner of awarding swords and daggers as personal decorations has also caused some confusion and, with the exception of the honor sword, I agree we should not list them. The reason why the honor sword is a special case is because it was listed with a certificate and set of orders as if it were an actual award.  The reason for this is that, within the Allgemeine-SS the bestowal of this sword was a high honor and seen as personal gift from Himmler for personal sacrifice to the SS.  Not every General-SS officer had the honor sword and to wear it with the black uniform was seen as very prestigious.  This all changed during World War II when the sword was issued by default to Waffen-SS officers.  But, even then, the sword was only presented to regular officers of the Waffen-SS (full members of the primary Waffen-SS divisions) and was still seen as a point of honor to have earned it through the rigorous training at SS officer school rather than having earned a reserve Waffen-SS commission in the field.  For this reason the honor sword isn't seen in the ranks of the later SS divisions and rarely within the Concentration Camp service, whose officers after 1942 were technically full members of the Waffen-SS.  The fact that the sword came with orders and a certificate is what put me over the edge and I now list it on all award lists in professionally published works that I have written.
 * SS Julleuchter: I used to not include this on award lists when I was doing research but then began to look more closely at this item since it was appearing (alot) in SS records as an official decoration. What I found out was that the julleuchter started out as simply a clay decoration given to SS members who attended a solstice ceremony.  However, around 1936 to 1938 the julleuchter started being listed in service records as an award and by 1941 it was showing up with official orders and a letter signed by Himmler.  What pushed me over the top on this one is that Amon Goeth received this award in a highly documented event which describes how it was ceremonially presented as an actual decoration, was issued with an award certificate, and then entered as an award into the SS record.  Apparently only those who received the julleuchter in this fashion had it entered into service records this way.  For that reason, and the julleuchter frequently mentioned in biography texts on SS members, I now record it on award lists and have done so even more in the past five years due to numerous questions about this when I speak academically with peers and students.
 * If they can be reliably sourced, they should stay. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @O.R., this is not quite clear how the ring can be a special honour and "were not automatically given out", when ""in World War II virtually the entire SS leadership, including the Waffen-SS and Gestapo, had been given the ring" -- ? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC
 * I put a "citation needed" tag on that statement. I dont believe its correct that everyone in the senior SS leadership had that ring.  For instance, with the exception of Oswald Pohl, none of the WVHA leaders did (Richard Glucks might have, but there are sketchy records on that point). -O.R.Comms 14:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's irrelevant whether they were a "special honour" or not. Even if they were a campaign medal issued to everyone, if they were issued to this fellow and we have a reliable source for it, there is no good reason why they shouldn't be listed. What possible harm is there in it? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Question: I see the discussion about how many were issued/"how important is it if so many were issued". If we look at the US military decorations as a parallel, take Richard Nixon as an example. His bio lists his 2 Navy commendation medals. The NAVCOM is a lower level award, issued to thousands of people a year since 1943. Jimmy Carter's BLP lists the WW2 Victory medal, issued to every member of the US Armed Forces that served during WW2. If those merit mention in those articles, why would the fact that the Honor Ring was given out to so many negate the mention of it in this one? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Much the same point I was making, but better put. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Awards can be important for a person's biography, but they are not so per se and should be referred to and put into context in the text. Himmler's idea (as documented by a speech of November 1936) was not that every SS-member should receive a Julleuchter, but every married member should have one, because Himmler thought that the SS-member's wife and children would need something in place of the mythology of the church. As an award it is insignificant, although I would be curious about the presentation to Goeth. Nevertheless, it can become significant for a person's biography. When engineer Felix Wankel, a very early Nazi, but one who had run into trouble with other Nazis (he was not an easy person to deal with), was up for denazification, the Spruchkammer discussed how close he was to the SS, mentioning that he not only had received, but also displayed a Julleuchter. Such is not the case with Karl Wolff. His Julleuchter is but one of his many awards. If you are taking Nixon as an example: It seems that he has received no other military awards than the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal. There is no awards and promotions-section, the medal is mentioned in the text and, as I understand it, US presidents' service records are routinely put under scrutiny. My argument is that with Wolff too much weight is put on these awards. That something like Wolff's possible last promotion is mentioned in some literature does not mean that it needs to be detailed in Wikipedia, particularly since Wolff's documented appetite for awards and promotions is not conclusively discussed.--Assayer (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Re: "if they were issued to this fellow and we have a reliable source for it, there is no good reason why they shouldn't be listed" -- what would be the encyclopedic reason for doing so, if they are being cited to a primary source without any context? How does this enhance the reader's understanding of the subject?

 * The significance of the gifts is a valid question as it has been argued that these trophies "were decorations for exceptional service to the SS which were personally presented by Himmler", while the Wikipedia article on the SS ring does not state that. I hope that can clarify. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I have generally been of the opinion that except for long service awards (congrats you failed to quit or be killed!) or 'wounded' awards (congrats! you failed to duck!) awards/medals for X should be included. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Awards for being wounded in combat are usually highly regarded. For instance, in the United States, the Purple Heart allows tax breaks and free vehicle registration in some states.  In Nazi Germany, the Wound Badge in Gold came with a lifetime pension for either the veteran or family member, which I think was maintained even after Germany lost the war. -O.R.Comms 16:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The Wound Badge in Gold did not come with a lifetime pension as such. The eligibility for a pension was determined according to the degree of injury ("Kriegsbeschädigung") suffered. And it is not true that the decorations under review "are all official decorations authorized by the government of the nation in which the person served". Eight of the thirteen decorations initially mentioned by Carlotm are party decorations and not authorized by the German government, unless you want to make the case that the Nazi party, their organizations and the German government were one and the same. Which is not true either.--Assayer (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not authorized by the German government? If the SS was part of the National Socialist Party and they were the party controlling the German government. Even if you were correct under some technical interpretation, it ignores the realpolitik Niteshift36 (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Closing debate
The result of the above discussion appears to be that Wikipedia articles should include lists of official state and military awards and decorations, including lesser decorations such as campaign and service awards, when such awards may be cited in reliable sources to include official service records and discharge/retirement government documents. While there is still some contention about including these lists in articles, there are literally hundreds of Wikipeida articles on military and political figures that provide award lists in this fashion. With that said, I recommend the following:

As this talk page discussion has gotten grossly out of control, I have recommended the above thread by archived in an attempt to end this circular debate which was also starting to infringe upon WP:AGF, WP:CIV, and WP:NPA. I highly encourage subsequent comments should be made in an appropriate discussion page as follows: I highly recommend that this talk page should not spin into another discussion about the merits of including award lists in Wikipedia articles. That is clearly outside the scope of this single article on Karl Wolff. -O.R.Comms 05:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To discuss the merits of including Nazi awards and decorations in articles, please begin a new discussion at the WikiProject Military History talk page.
 * To discuss including minor awards in articles, such as campaign and service medals, please also discuss at WikiProject Military History.
 * To discuss specific awards earned by Karl Wolff, please begin a new talk page discussion at Service record of Karl Wolff.
 * Let me make sure I understand this.... you've closed the debate with the recommendation that we start a new discussion? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at all, the above is a recommendation to close this debate. The issue of discussing the merits of award lists in Wikipedia is off topic and the suggestion above was to take that discussion to another talk page if people still want to pursue it. -O.R.Comms 18:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You altered the original post and made no mention of that, adding a 3rd "directive" and rewording the one that I questioned. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, since the original post was written prior to the creation of "Service record of Karl Wolff", thereafter requiring a rewording to advise of the new article. Users also don't typically need permission nor are required to post notification if they modify their own talk page posts.  These are also not directives, they are recommendations.  In any event, it looks like this discussion can be closed. -O.R.Comms 10:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you needed permission, but making it clear would be polite since I raised a concern, then you went in and edited for clarity, making it appear that I wasn't able to understand it. But you're right, courtesy isn't required -Niteshift36 (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your original question was answered here . The editing of the original comment had nothing to do with your question or any suggestion about what you didn't understand, it was because a new article was created and the links had changed.  That's a pretty normal thing to do; sorry about any confusion! -O.R.Comms 16:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, this discussion has a bad case of mission creep. This is not a forum for a wide-ranging conversation about Nazi awards, it is a place to discuss the Wolff article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karl Wolff. 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/20091014125227/http://www.ptwf.org/Downloads/Did%20Pope%20Pius%20XII.pdf to http://www.ptwf.org/Downloads/Did%20Pope%20Pius%20XII.pdf

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) 14:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Logic ?
''After the war, Wolff was forced to leave the army after the reduction of the German armed forces following the terms imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. In December 1918 Wolff joined a Hessian Freikorps'' - sounds somewhat illogical. Leaving the army, December 1918, because of terms imposed end of June, 1919 - ? --129.187.244.19 (talk) 05:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Section: Alleged plot to kidnap Pope Pius XII
This reads like pop-culture trivia, with sources to match and the language of: Wolff testified...; Wolff maintained... and weak arguments by a nn author. I propose that a shortened version be moved into "Later life" since these claims were popularised by the 1972 documentary. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Since there were no objections, I've implemented the change. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Karl Wolff


text:
Category:Lashing knots

A lashing is the use of a rope, that has been affixed by means of a hitch, for the purpose of holding two poles, staves or other rigid objects together.

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

title: Category:Lashing knots


text:
User talk:Fenice

SCOTW
Hi Fenice,

You'll find that I've taken over Science Collaboration of the Week, which you seemed to be running, for the time being. Give me a nod when you come back! - Samsara contrib talk 10:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

AID
Same thing with AID here. It'd be great if you returned just to help us maintain the stuff, you don't have to edit nothing ;-) --Dijxtra 12:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Bye
May your Wikipedia user account rest in peace. haz (user talk) 19:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring
Just to leave a note that the user page should say "edit warring with violetriga", as Fenice is the one that went against consensus and I merely undid the mistaken edits. violet/riga (t) 20:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Why don't you save it for LiveJournal, Violetrag. I know it's old news, but editing a dead user's page knowing they're gone and won't respond is underhanded and cowardly.  Fenice was a cool girl, and you should be ashamed for using edits as an excuse to drive her away.  Every breath you take is a sin.  FeniceFan 21:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

 * And leaving a psuedo personal attack against another user as your parting shot is the height of good conduct. violet/riga (t) 22:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Anymore and an admin will have to deal with this --DragonWR12LB 18:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Continued anonymous vandalization after retirement?
I have noticed some recent vandalization of blatant deletion which reminded me of past vandalization of blatant deletion. I have warned the IP address who made the changes, and suggested the link to here, as well as on the talk page of Electra complex. I am interested in what those who have had edit wars with this person have to add to this suspicion --Tyciol 08:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Did Fenice not give reasons for her edits? If so, is it proper to call it vandalism? -- Steven 22:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A reason was given, but it was a blatant deletion rather than talking it over to resolve inconsistancies. I was called out on it and I admit, using vandalization was a bad term, I've learned from that to try and amend my wikiquette so as to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially when they do state part of a reason. Even so, if this was Fenice (I don't know, it might be someone entirely different), then it would lower my opinion. As I see it, Fenice wasn't a vandal, but did make the changes too blatantly, while ignoring the fact that much of the rest of the article is similarly unsourced. It's not been semi-sourced anyway. Tyciol 06:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Page name for temperature articles
To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 22:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Protein purification is Science Collab of the Week
Samsara contrib talk 00:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hydrosphere is Science Collaboration
Please also spread the word about, and vote for, next week's collaboration, as we have a three-way tie at two votes each!

User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

SCOTW: Chronospecies finally makes it!
These are the comments on the nomination, which may be helpful in improving the article:
 * Lots of potential for this little article like examples, causes, and general elaboration. Neum 04:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A great fact to include would be the shortest time over which speciation of a sexual organism is known to have occurred. —James S. 21:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In other news:
 * SCOTW needs a new maintainer, and could to with a maintenance bot. If you know of anybody who may be interested in either task, please let them know!
 * It took me a while, but I've learnt how to use these templates now!

User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Latin America won!
Joyous | Talk 18:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Large Hadron Collider is Science Collaboration of the Week
User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Biopharmaceutical is the Science Collaboration of the Week
User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

SCOTM
Since you haven't edited since January, I"m removing you from this list. Feel free to rejoin if you come back. pschemp | talk 03:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:CineVoter
A tag has been placed on Template:CineVoter requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia
Hi, I saw that you collaborated on articles related to Dacia and thought this could be of interest: WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who participate in the European Union collaboration
Category:Wikipedians who participate in the European Union collaboration, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:SCOTMvoter
Template:SCOTMvoter has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Directive Communication Psychology

A tag has been placed on Directive Communication Psychology, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fenice


text:
User talk:Wolfman/Archive 2

Archive 1

Allende's last speech
I just saw your listing on VfD. That English translation got transwikied? Oh, no. :-( It's copyvio, and I'm pretty sure it's an unauthorized translation, too. (There is an authorized one in existence.) I did list it on Copyright problems, but hadn't put the copyvio template on the article, because the template wouldn't work with the printed sources I'd  found — it's designed for web sources. Please see all details here, where I ask for somebody help slap the copyvio template on. What a mess. Of course none of it's your fault, Wolfman, but what do you think is best to do? I would suggest you remove it from VfD, anyway. And how does one un-transwiki stuff? Bishonen 23:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please see my question at Talk:Salvador_Allende -- Jmabel 23:38, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Frances Fisher
I have cleaned it up. Mike H 00:35, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Allende again
Well, the claim is both, since both the original Spanish transcription and a translation (but hardly this one, which is a pretty bad translation) have been published, in the books I mentioned. But I agree that copyright in the original broadcast is a tricky issue, that's why I asked about it on Talk:Copyright problems. (I put a note on the article's Talk page also.) I'm also thinking the text of the article may be getting deleted any minute now, per my request on Talk:Copyright problems, since text deletion comes with putting on the copyvio template. It just doesn't seem the best moment to VfD it. I dunno, though. The VfD is up to you, obviously. But I do know that if the original is copyvio, no translation of it  will be clean, either — please see this comment. Thanks, Wolfman, and maybe I should mention I won't be reachable for some fifteen hours now; it's three in the morning here, and work tomorrow. Bishonen 00:52, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edit war between VV, Rex, KB, Gz, Guanaco, Eloquence, Mike Storm, Style, Blankfaze, Neutrality, Get-Back-World-Respect, etc..
Principle, conduct, equal representation. One person's voice versus 20 people's voices - whose should be heard? How many times does one person have to revert a page before their voice is heard above the voice of 20 people? Trick question, that will never happen: one person, one voice. If vv wants the popularity section to be different, he should discuss it on the talk page, and only make changes that are in agreement with the consensus, regardless of what he thinks or feels. That's what eveyone else here does. I see no reason why he should be an exception.
 * 1) Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_10
 * 2) Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_11
 * 3) Requests_for_comment/VeryVerily2
 * 4) (see also Requests_for_comment/VeryVerily),
 * 5) and look at the page history of GWB. you might want to look back a couple hundred edits - VV's edit war goes back seven page protections; it has caused the page to be protected seven times.

The issue began with a censorship edit by Sevantpol on 02:54, 2004 Jul 14.

I hope this helps answer your question. Feel free to ask more questions. You can also talk to the people endorsing the RFC's, and users on other pages that VV is engaged in revert wars in. Kevin Baas | talk 15:50, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC) Kevin Baas | talk 15:50, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

 * Firstly, I'd like to make clear that the version that is not VV's is not my version, either, it is User:Neutrality's version.

 * I don't know what the specific differences are between the two versions besides significantly->relativity, no paragraph breaks, ommision of some stats, and a minor reformating & rewording that makes it less readable. However, these differences are not the point of dispute.  The point of dispute is conduct and principle.  I will not back down on this.  I am more obstinate than VV.  If he uses due process and respects others, and by so doing a consensus is arrived at, I will be happy to protect that consensus against disruptive editors.  Until then, he will not get his way by force in this forum.  No one will get their way by force in this forum, no matter how annoying they are, no matter how many reversions and page protections they go through.  That behavior simply will not be tolerated.  Either he will learn that he has to use reason and cooperation, or he will get nothing whatsoever accomplished. Kevin Baas | talk 16:17, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

 * Oh, and regard something VV said in a past edit summary: "no one argued any objection to them other than that there was a "poll" about it" - this statement is false. If you look through on the talk page and in the talk page archives, you will see objections that have been raised. Kevin Baas | talk 16:31, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your note. (And I hope you don't mind my fun with the header title.) To answer your question, it is largely procedural, in that I object strongly to anyone reverting every edit I try to make to an article. The supposed "justification" - the twenty, or whatever it is now, people I'm suppoedly against - is absurd. My opponents are two - Kevin baas and Gzornenplatz - and Kb announced his refusal to discuss the issues with me, and Gzornenplatz was one primary author (along with me) of the revisions (!), which we worked out together in Talk. In any case, the claim of Kb's twenty backers is based on a poll between giving detail of foreign popularity or giving a sketchy account, which Kb treats as though it froze the text in stone. To show how absurd this is, note that (a) all that Kerry stuff was added afterwards and not reverted by Kb with cries of "consensus" and (b) as for the word significantly, so heavily pushed, the choice of word there was changed twice while the "poll" was in progress and after half the votes had been cast. Thus the claims this was agreed to by consensus are just absurd. At any rate, polls are no substitute for discussion, and in my opinion are next to useless for finding NPOV (the operative policy) as they simply promote swarming and ideological head-counting. These are simple matters that could be talked about. At this point, however, Kb - if he really believes the things he is saying - seems beyond redemption. Yes, you are right the differences are not substantial, but I chose my wording carefully, while for the purposes of the poll I don't think it was made particularly precise. I hope this clarifies my position. V V 00:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I think it's better with the qualifier (adverb) than without, but I'm willing to let it rest. If indeed that was Kb's primary gripe, his claims of consensus really were wholly empty (for the reasons I mentioned).  Thanks for your help. V V  11:29, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Please see the context of VV's cited refusal of discussion. You'll see that I was responding to a comment that was "Obstinately and blindly attached to some creed, opinion practice, or ritual; unreasonably devoted to a system or party, and illiberal toward the opinions of others." What I meant to say was that, because of the nature of VV's comment, I felt that it would be futile for me to discuss that particular subject, as he had clearly expressed that there was no way for me to make him listen to what I had to say, so I wasn't going to waste either of our time attempting to do so.

 * You'll also see that the polls were accompanied by discussion, and followed up by discussion, in which many supportive arguments were made and not rebutted.

 * You'll also see that I have made more attempts at discussion than VV.

 * I think any reasonable person would see that, under VV's logic, his version is as unjustified as neutrality's. However, there are two exceptions: neutrality's is supported by arguments, and more people agree with neutrality's version.

 * My primary gripe, as I have stated repeatedly, and have made clear through other means (such as RfC, for example), is VV's conduct. Please make a note of this for future reference. Kevin Baas | talk 15:37, 2004 Sep 21 (UTC)

Tom DeLay
I made some changes. I think you injected a very left of center POV. "Fervent" is also sort of prejudicial, but mainly why call him "anti-enviroment" and not "pro-business," also "anti-gun control," but not "pro-gun rights?" Simpler to list the facts and I thought the ratings from interest groups helped illuminate his position without adding my POV. Kaisershatner 17:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Note: I did not make the edits Kaisershatner is referring to. Have contacted him about this error. Wolfman 17:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That is true. Sorry for the misreading; still kinda new around here. :) 146.203.71.124 19:09, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Howls
In fact, after I made that comment, I should have clarified - you do seem to be consistant, it's the other editor there who was not. 04:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

TfT
On TfT, you seem to be insistant that I affirmatively state "all conflicts resolved". However, by driving to that goal, you miss another point which is: Parties to a conflict may in fact decide that the issue is mooted or perhaps insoluble. Either of those views would preclude a person from being able to honestly say "all is now resolved" or "these are my only isues". Wolfman, simply because I don't think you are being disingenuous, does not mean certain others of the editors there have not shown certain "colors" to me which are making be suspect their sincerity. The simple fact is that they are trying to ge me to put a finite limit on the scope of my concerns with TfT and I am declining to do that. I simply will not try to "guess" how things are going to go there - not before I see how some of the others behave towards any edits I might make. And in fact, at this point I am undecided as to whether or not I will even edit TfT again. Why others can't accept ambiguity in my answer, puzzles me. The simply fact is, at this point I am ambivalent in regards to that particluar article. Frankly, I feel that placing demands on me for "certaintiy" at this point, is unfair. 16:03, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

c&p moves
Hey: when you need to change a page's title, please use the "move" link rather than cut-and-pasting; it keeps the edit history intact. —No-One Jones (m) 17:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Response on my talk. —No-One Jones (m) 21:33, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

== Your TfT vote ==

I see you have gone back on your word of "peace" towards me. 23:53, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

TfT pointers
The Wiki pointers you added just now are good. thank you. 17:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merge of Global warming skepticism and Global warming controversy
(William M. Connolley 19:08, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)) I'm not sure I'm convinced by this merge idea. Why did you decide to suggest it?

(move talk to here to keep the conversational flow...)

 * It seems odd to have an article on controversy and a separate one on skepticism. Isn't there controversy precisely because there are skeptics?  Is there something like a 'Global warming believers' page, too?  I assumed this division developed sort of accidentally, for example, until today we had a page on both 'disarmament of iraq' and 'iraq disarmament crisis'.

 * Not a big deal to me, though. I'll defer in this to your expertise as a climate modeler. Wolfman 19:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 19:23, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)) I'm ambivalent. "unfortunately" the skeptics on wiki (mostly Ed Poor... well, you can see the article history) have left the field for the moment so aren't in a position to "defend" themselves or "their" articles. Hmm, thats a lot of quotes. You're right, there is no GW believers page (an I don't want to create one). And maybe you're right about the merge too. I was mostly wondering if you had a really strong reason for it.

some anon
Can't let "vastly increased spending on military weapons systems" go, eh? Well, I put that in as a red herring in order to see how contributors chose what and how to edit. There's no support for this blatantly editorial and comment, and you keep reverting it. Now I have to settle for providing a factual basis for military spending, and that's not enough. If you want to keep plopping in that Bush has increased spending on weapons systems, at least provide some factual basis for the assertion. Some shred of NPOV would be appreciated. User_talk:68.50.202.228

 * your tone is extremely rude. my edit summary was clear as to why i reverted that phrase. "vastly" is not an issue for me, the issue is that this paragraph is about weapons systems, not the Iraq or Afghanistan wars.  you will find that you get a lot farther around here without a hostile and judgemental attitude. do you really think that your comment has encouraged me to edit in a spirit of compromise and good faith? think again. your lack of social skills will serve you as poorly here as they must in real life. Wolfman 17:24, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fine. I'll settle for being rude and lacking in social skills. Still would like to see some discussion of the POV issues raised, but I guess that's too much to hope for.

kizzle/rex
thank you, I apologize for inappropriate personal attacks, some days I don't have the patience to deal with Rex's holier-than-thou attitude. --kizzle 05:22, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

It's me you owe the apology to. And don't attack me about 'holiness' either! 05:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

block
I didn't block you, I just protected the page (for a few minutes until I learned someone else had blocked you, heh). Adam Bishop 03:22, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure, the block log has had too many blocks today and the ones from yesterday are already pushed out. I think it was User:Guanaco though. Adam Bishop 04:46, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Look at this: User_talk:Fred_Bauder - --kizzle 04:52, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

It was Arminius who blocked you. I unblocked you when I saw that it was completely outside the blocking policy. You can see all the blocks and unblocks at the block log. Guanaco 21:22, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your question and comments. The blocked was fully executed despite interuptions by admins who felt differently. I would suggest not engaging in that kind of behavior in the future, or similar results could occur. I hope you took the time off to revalute why you come here to wikipedia. The best way to avoid future conflicts and problems is to be constructive in your editing. Next time try finding another page to edit then continually reverting. Thanks and good luck. Arminius 15:52, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Please resume editing articles constructively.Arminius 16:11, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wolfman/Archive 2


text: Category:Running knots

title: Category:Running knots


text:
Communist Workers' Party of Sweden

Communist Workers' Party of Sweden (Sveriges Kommunistiska Arbetarparti, SKA), initially called SKP (ml), was a communist party in Sweden, formed in 1980 after a split from the pro-People's Republic of China Communist Party of Sweden (SKP). The party was dissolved in 1993.

Formation
In 1980 when a leftist minority (approx. 15% of party cadre) was expelled from the Communist Party of Sweden (SKP), the expellees founded the Communist Party of Sweden (marxist-leninists) (Sveriges Kommunistiska Parti (marxist-leninisterna)) on November 1–2. The group that formed SKP (ml) was critical of the new leadership of the People's Republic of China, effectively under Deng Xiaoping. Per-Åke Lindblom became the chairman of SKP (ml). SKP (ml) began publishing the magazine Kommunistiska Arbetartidningen in January 1981.

Name change
At a party congress on Penecoastal 1981, the name of SKP (ml) was changed to Communist Workers' Party of Sweden (Sveriges Kommunistiska Arbetarparti, SKA). The party motivated the change by three reasons: 1. The name SKP (ml) was easily confused with SKP, 2. SKA was a shorter and more direct name and 3. SKA was more in line with the name of their publication. The congress also adopted a resolution titled 'Build a front against the Super Powers'.

Dissolution
In 1993 SKA as well as the pro-Albanian KPS were dissolved in favor of an informal network. Kommunistiska Arbetartidningen and the KPS mouthpiece Kommunisten merged into Nya Arbetartidningen on May 16, 1993. Nya Arbetartidningen was published in paper until 2009 and still exists as an internet magazine

Electoral politics
SKP (ml)/SKA did not run in elections, but promoted blank votes. It did not find it reasonable to vote for VPK, as VPK had publicly promised never to bring down a Social Democratic government. Moreover it opposed VPKs ties to the Soviet bloc.

International relations
SKP (ml)/SKA never had direct contacts with the Communist Party of China nor the Party of Labour of Albania. It had bilateral contacts with other maoist groups such as MLPD (Germany), AKP (m-l) (Norway) and KFML (Denmark). It participated in international conferences organized by MLPD.

SKP (ml)/SKA considered USA and the Soviet Union as equal threats to the revolutionary forces. It supported the Solidarity movement in Poland, the mujahedin struggle in Afghanistan and opposed Vietnamese intervention in Cambodia.

title: Communist Workers' Party of Sweden


text:
Field Hill

Field Hill is a steep portion of the mainline of the Canadian Pacific Kansas City located near Field, British Columbia. Field was created solely to accommodate the Canadian Pacific Railway's need for additional locomotives to be added to trains about to tackle both Field Hill, and the Big Hill. Here a stone roundhouse with turntable was built at what was first known simply as Third Siding. In December 1884 the CPR renamed it Field after Cyrus W. Field, a Chicago businessman who had visited recently on a special train.

Difficult grades exist in both directions from Field, east through spiral tunnels 137 mi to Calgary, Alberta; and 126 mi west to Revelstoke, British Columbia, through Rogers Pass and the Connaught Tunnel, and where the modern Mount Macdonald Tunnel was opened in 1989.

Following completion of the Spiral Tunnels which eliminated the Big Hill, Field remained an important place as it was still necessary to add helper (bank) engines to get trains over the steep 2.2% (116 feet to the mile, or 22 metres to the kilometre) grade of Field Hill.

Even bigger locomotives were needed and this time six massive 0-6-6-0 Mallet type (see: Whyte notation) were built (one in 1909 and five in 1911). Five were compound engines, the last one a simple engine). These were of a unique design with both pairs of cylinders together at the middle of the boiler. The design was not repeated and eventually these engines were rebuilt (1916–17) into 2-10-0s.

More powerful still were the fourteen 2-10-2s built (1919–20) for work on the mountain. These were followed in 1929 by the most powerful steam locomotives in the British Empire, twenty 2-10-4 Selkirks. A further ten were built in 1938 and a final six in 1949, the last one being 5935, the last steam locomotive built for the CPR.

Diesel-electric locomotives followed, and over the decades bigger and more powerful diesels replaced smaller ones just as was the case with the steam locomotives that had preceded them.

Even though the Spiral Tunnels eliminated the Big Hill, the mountains remained and so too did the Field Hill. The Ottertail revision of 1902 and the five-mile (26518 ft) long double track Connaught Tunnel of 1916 were other improvements made to the original line in British Columbia. It was not until the late 20th century when a major new project of 20 mi including the 9.1 mi Mount Macdonald Tunnel reduced the grade to a very manageable average of 0.82%, (maximum 1%) opened in December 1988.

title: Field Hill


text:
Human furniture

Human furniture is furniture in which a person's body is used as a tray, foot stool, chair, table, cabinet or other item. In some cases a sculpture of a human body is used instead. Examples of human furniture have appeared in modern art. Forniphilia is the paraphilia relating to human furniture, including that seen in fetish photography and bondage pornography.

Art
A model used as human furniture may be nude or semi-nude to add to the erotic or aesthetic appeal. A classic example of the depiction of human furniture as art is the set of three sculptures Hatstand, Table and Chair made in 1969 by British pop artist Allen Jones which show semi-naked white women in the roles of furniture. Allen Jones' artwork was the subject of a feminist protest when it was auctioned at Sotheby's in 2012.

Norwegian artist Bjarne Melgaard created a sculpture called Chair which has the same shape as the Allen Jones' chair but depicts a black woman. In 2014 art collector Dasha Zhukova, the partner of Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich, caused controversy by appearing in a photograph sitting on Melgaard's chair. Zhukova apologized for the photograph saying that she "utterly abhor[s] racism, and would like to apologise to anyone who has been offended by this image".

The Japanese fetish artist Namio Harukawa depicted voluptuous women, who dominated and used men as human furniture.

Bondage

The term forniphilia was coined by bondage artist Jeff Gord who specialized in the subgenre and maintained the website "House of Gord" on the subject. Forniphilia as a form of bondage usually involves the subject being tightly bound and expected to stay immobile for a prolonged period. Gord said that the maximum period he used depended on the bondage techniques involved but it did not generally exceed two hours. Gord also warned that the dangers inherent in forniphilia meant that it should only be carried out by experts. Gord used gags in some of his creations. A forniphilic gag is a type of gag that has the primary purpose of sexual objectification or erotic humiliation. Proper safety requires frequent checks of the submissive's well-being.

In fiction
The 1971 film A Clockwork Orange includes a scene of a gang sitting in the Korova Milk Bar, which is furnished with tables shaped like naked women.

In Episode 7 of the 2021 Netflix Original Korean Drama, Squid Game, the anonymous VIPs invited to watch the show's blood sport are surrounded by human furniture, which are seen wearing elaborate body paint.

title: Human furniture


text:
Seeing Things (TV series)

Seeing Things is a Canadian comedy-drama mystery television series with a fantasy twist, in that the lead character has postcognitive visions that help solve each episode's mystery. The series originally aired on CBC Television from 1981 to 1987. It was also seen in Europe, South Africa, Singapore, Spain, Australia and the United States. In all, 43 episodes were produced. With the exception of "Seeing R.E.D." (90 minutes) episodes were one hour long.

Series star Louis Del Grande (formerly an actor, writer, and co-producer of the hit sitcom The King of Kensington) was also the show's co-creator, with writer David Barlow. Del Grande and Barlow wrote the first three episodes, and thereafter oversaw the writing staff and produced all 43 episodes.

Cast and premise

 * Louis Del Grande stars as Louis Ciccone, a balding, overweight 40-ish newspaper journalist for the Toronto Gazette. Although the manic, motormouthed Louis is generally friendly, in pursuing his stories he's often pushy and self-centered, and is usually somewhat disorganized.  However, Lou is tenacious and dedicated, and he also has limited postcognitive abilities, which help him to solve murders (and get the resultant headline scoops).  Louis can only control his postcognitive abilities by investigating clues given to him in a vision ... only when he discovers new information will further visions occur, which provide increasingly more detail until they finally reveal the murderer.  At the start of the series, Louis' frequently rocky personal life is at a definite ebb—he's recently separated from his wife, and is living in a storeroom above his parents' bakery.  But as career-focused as Louis is, he's equally tenacious about getting back together with his semi-estranged wife and his pre-teen son, and he works hard to stay in their lives.
 * Martha Gibson (Del Grande's real-life wife) co-stars as Ciccone's ex-wife Marge, who, even though she and Louie are separated, reluctantly continues to help him with his cases. Marge even drives Louie around town (Louie, like Del Grande in real life, was too hyper to get a driver's license), though she initially rejected Louie's desire to rekindle their relationship. Marge clearly still loves Lou, but is continually frustrated by Louie's focus on his job, which gives him an unpredictable schedule and takes him away from family life for long stretches.  However, they finally became a couple again in the show's final season. Del Grande and Gibson were married, then divorced in real life; they had re-wed just before the series started.
 * Janet-Laine Green plays assistant crown attorney Heather Redfern. A young, competent prosecuting attorney from an upper-class background, Redfern is one of the very few people who know about Louie's postcognitive abilities, which often relate to cases she's working on.  Though she generally respects Louie's visions, she's often exasperated by their vague or inconclusive nature.  She's even more frustrated by Louie's tendency to, unannounced and uninvited, interrupt Redfern directly in the middle of client meetings, trials, social events, dates, or even in the middle of the night, to share his latest visions and/or theories with her.  Louie's frequent meetings with the gorgeous young lawyer also contribute to feelings of jealousy in Marge, although Louie and Redfern are never more than close working colleagues.  In fact, Louie invariably refers to her as "Redfern", and Redfern always addresses Louie as "Mr. Ciccone".

Other Ciccone family members

 * Al Bernardo plays Alberto Ciccone, Louis' father. Generally cheerful, he encourages Louis to get back together with Marge.  He runs a small local bakery, with his wife.
 * Lynne Gordon plays Anna Ciccone, Louis' mother. She tends to be a little less forgiving of Louis' foibles, and is definitely embarrassed by him having to move back in with his parents in his late thirties.
 * Ivan Beaulieu as Jason Ciccone, the son of Louis and Marge. A pre-teen at the series' start, Jason is an upbeat, fairly well-adjusted kid, despite his odd family circumstances.  He lives with Marge, but sees Louie quite frequently.

Louie's workmates

 * Murray Westgate plays Max Perkins, Louie's demanding, impatient editor at the Gazette.
 * Louis Negin plays Marlon Bede, the Gazette's food writer. Louie often mooches meals that Marlon's preparing (or creating recipes for) in his specially-built on-site Test Kitchen.

Other regulars

 * Ratch Wallace as Kenny Volker, Redfern's most frequent dating partner through the series. Volker, a professional hockey player for the Toronto Maple Leafs, is tall, muscular, wealthy and generally polite ... although on the ice, he's paid to be a no-holds-barred goon.
 * Cec Linder as Crown Attorney Robert T. Spenser, Redfern's boss. Much more conservative than Redfern, Spenser is very concerned with appearances, and maintaining his office's aura of respectability.  Spenser has little use for Louie Ciccone, who he believes is certifiably crazy—and almost no tolerance for Redfern's continued association with him.
 * Frank Adamson as Sergeant John Brown, the Toronto homicide detective most often assigned to the cases Louis has an interest in. He has a mostly antagonistic relationship with Louis, but will begrudgingly admit that Ciccone has given him some good information that has led to the right arrests.
 * John Fox as Officer Falstaff, Brown's clumsy-but-good-natured usual partner.

Seeing Things was a hit, and guest-starred several celebrities, such as Ronnie Hawkins, Bruno Gerussi, Gordon Pinsent and Karen Kain. Another notable appearance is by Mark McKinney of The Kids in the Hall, who played a character working in a morgue in the episode "Another Point of View".

Reception
The show won several awards. In 1983, Del Grande won an ACTRA Award for Best Actor in a Television Drama, and Sheldon Chad won an ACTRA award for Best Writer Television Drama for the episode "Seeing Double".

In Canada, it aired on CBC, typically drawing 1.1 million viewers. In the United States, it was broadcast by PBS.

At the time it first aired, it was the "most successful home-grown program in Canada".

Season 1 (1981)
Season 1 episodes aired on Tuesday nights at 9.

Season 2 (1982)
Season 2 moved to Wednesday nights at 9.

Season 3 (1984)
Season 3 episodes aired Sunday nights at 8.

Season 4 (1985)
Season 4 episodes aired Sunday nights at 8.

Season 5 (1986)
Season 5 episodes aired Sunday nights at 8.

Season 6 (1987)
The final season moves to Tuesday nights at 9. The final episode, broadcast five weeks after the rest of the series, aired on a Friday.

title: Seeing Things (TV series)


text: Category:Mercyful Fate albums

title: Category:Mercyful Fate albums


text:
Communist Labour League of Sweden

The Sveriges Kommunistiska Arbetarförbund (SKA; Communist Labour League of Sweden) was formed in 1956 by a group of Stalinist hardliners who left or were expelled from the SKP during the 1950s. This group had earlier formed "Marxist circles", in which some SKP militants participated secretly. The group was headed by Set Persson, a famous communist from Stockholm who had left SKP at the party congress in 1953.

SKA started publishing the magazine Revolt. In its pages SKA defended Joseph Stalin and criticized the new Soviet regime under Nikita Khrushchev. They criticized SKP for what they considered as "populism". The group also expressed some criticism over the human rights situation within the Eastern Bloc.

In 1958, SKA tried to launch their own list of candidates for the municipal elections in Stockholm but failed to get any seats. Persson died in 1960. After his death the group almost disappeared but a remnant continued to exist until 1967. SKA never played any role in Swedish politics, but the organizational experiences of the people who were active in SKA became important for the later generation of leftists, such as the KFML.

title: Communist Labour League of Sweden


text:
Assam tea

Assam tea is a black tea named after Assam, India, the region of its production. It is manufactured specifically from the plant Camellia sinensis var. assamica (Masters). The Assam tea plant is indigenous to Assam—initial efforts to plant the Chinese varieties in Assam soil did not succeed. Assam tea is now mostly grown at or near sea level and is known for its body, briskness, malty flavour, and strong, bright colour. Assam teas, or blends containing Assam tea, are often sold as "breakfast" teas. For instance, Irish breakfast tea, a maltier and stronger breakfast tea, consists of small-sized Assam tea leaves.

The state of Assam is the world's largest tea-growing region by production, lying on either side of the Brahmaputra River, and bordering Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and very close to China. This part of India experiences high rainfall; during the monsoon period, as much as 250 to 300 mm (10 to 12 in) of rain falls per day. The daytime temperature rises to about 36 °C (96.8 °F), creating greenhouse-like conditions of extreme humidity and heat. This tropical climate contributes to Assam tea's unique malty taste, a feature for which this tea is well known.

Though Assam generally denotes the distinctive black teas from Assam, the region produces smaller quantities of green and white teas as well, with their own distinctive characteristics. Historically, Assam has been the second commercial tea production region after southern China, the only two regions in the world with native tea plants.

The introduction of the Assam tea bush to Europe is related to Robert Bruce, a Scottish adventurer, who apparently encountered it in the year 1823. Bruce reportedly found the plant growing "wild" in Assam while trading in the region. Maniram Dewan directed him to the local Singpho chief Bessa Gam. Bruce noticed local people (the Singhpos) brewing tea from the leaves of the bush and arranged with the local chiefs to provide him with samples of the leaves and seeds, which he planned to have scientifically examined. Robert Bruce died shortly thereafter, without having seen the plant properly classified. It was not until the early 1830s that Robert's brother, Charles, arranged for a few leaves from the Assam tea bush to be sent to the botanical gardens in Calcutta for proper examination. There, the plant was finally identified as a variety of tea, or Camellia sinensis var assamica, but different from the Chinese version (Camellia sinensis var. sinensis). The indigenous Assam tea plant was first mentioned by a historian called Samuel Baidon who published Tea in Assam in 1877.

History
While on a trade expedition through the Assam area with Singpho in 1823, Robert Bruce was introduced to a plant with which the Singpho and Khamti people made beverages and food. Through his brother, Charles Alexander Bruce who was in Sadiya, samples were sent to botanist Nathaniel Wallich who mistook it for camellia kissi. It was not until over a decade later that the Singpho's plant would be recognized as being the same plant as the Camellia sinensis growing in China, after Francis Jenkins and Andrew Charlton responded to the request of the British East India Company's Tea Committee for its agents to review prospects for establishing a source of tea outside of China. Charles Bruce guided a team, including Nathaniel Wallich, William Griffith and John McClelland, dispatched from the Tea Committee in 1836, to review the plant in its natural growing conditions around Sadiya. It was cultivated in the company's experimental garden with the first batch shipped to London in 1838 and auctioned in January 1839. Though it sold well the batch was noted as lacking fragrance compared to the tea from China which had been selectively cultivated for hundreds of years and having a dullness thought to be a consequence of inexperienced processing. That same year, two companies were incorporated to pursue the tea's development in Assam: the Assam Tea Association in London and the Bengal Tea Association in Kolkata, though they quickly amalgamated to form the Assam Company. Despite early proponents such as Maniram Dewan, British-led land reforms such as the Waste Lands Act to clear and privatize plots of land for agricultural purposes, the Assam Company struggled and was forced to reorganize in 1847. Similarly, despite having access to a large source of inexpensive labour, including tea-makers smuggled out of China, indentured Indians, and refugees from famine-stricken areas, Assam at the time was a sparsely-populated, hot and humid undeveloped area and many died of disease. Despite the poor results, investment came from Britain to establish additional tea gardens, such as the Jorehaut Tea Company around Jorhat, in 1860s though by 1870 56 of the 60 companies operating tea gardens in Assam went bankrupt. Industrial mechanization in the 1870s finally resulted in profitable companies as more plucked leaves were able to be dried without rotting in the humid environment. Heated withering tables and steam-powered rolling machines precipitated a need for grading so the British adapted the existing systems of tea leaf grading to sort their products. The Indian Tea Districts Association was established in London in 1879 and in Kolkata in 1881 (as the Indian Tea Association) to organize and advance these tea interests. By 1888 tea imported from India finally exceeded that from China.

Production
Most of the currently operating tea estates in Assam are members of the Assam Branch of the Indian Tea Association (ABITA), which is the oldest and most prominent body of tea producers of India.

Steps
There are between two and seven steps involved in the processing of fresh tea leaves, the addition or exclusion of any of these stages resulting in a different type of tea. Each of these procedures is carried out in a climate-controlled facility to avoid spoilage due to excess moisture and fluctuating temperatures.

Withering refers to the wilting of fresh green tea leaves. The purpose of withering is to reduce the moisture content in the leaves and to allow the flavor compounds to develop. While it can be done outdoors, controlled withering usually takes place indoors. Freshly plucked leaves are laid out in a series of troughs and subjected to hot air forced from underneath the troughs. During the course of withering, the moisture content in the leaf is reduced by about 30%, making the leaf look limp and soft enough for rolling. Additionally, the volatile compounds in the leaf, including the level of caffeine and the flavors, begin to intensify. A short wither allows the leaves to retain a greenish appearance and grassy flavors while a longer wither darkens the leaf and intensifies the aromatic compounds.

Fixing or “kill-green” refers to the process by which enzymatic browning of the wilted leaves is controlled through the application of heat. It is held that the longer it takes to fix the leaves, the more aromatic the tea will be. Fixing is carried out via steaming, pan firing, baking or with the use of heated tumblers. Application of steam heats the leaves more quickly than pan firing, as a result of which steamed teas taste ‘green’ and vegetal while the pan-fired ones taste toasty. This procedure is carried out for green teas, yellow teas and raw pu'er teas.

Oxidation results in the browning of the leaves and intensification of their flavor compounds. From the moment they are plucked, the cells within the tea leaves are exposed to oxygen and the volatile compounds within them begin to undergo chemical reactions. It is at this stage that polyphenolic oxidase, including theaflavin and thearubigin, begin to develop within the leaves. Theaflavins lend briskness and brightness to the tea while thearubigins offer depth and fullness to the liquor that's produced. In order to bring out specific intensities in flavors, tea makers control the amount of oxidation the leaves undergo. Controlled-oxidation is typically carried out in a large room where the temperature is maintained at 25–30 °C and humidity stands steady at 60–70%. Here, withered and rolled leaves are spread out on long shelves and left to ferment for a fixed period of time, depending on the type of tea being made. To halt or slow down oxidation, fermented leaves are moved to a panning trough where they are heated and then dried. Due to oxidation, the leaves undergo a complete transformation and exhibit an aroma and taste profile that's completely different from the profile of the leaves that do not undergo this process. Less oxidized teas tend to retain most of their green color and vegetal characteristics due to lower production of polyphenols. A semi-oxidized leaf has a brown appearance and produces yellow-amber liquor. In a fully oxidized tea, amino acids and lipids break down completely, turning the leaves blackish-brown. The flavors in such a tea are more brisk and imposing.

Rolling involves shaping the processed leaves into a tight form. As a part of this procedure, wilted / fixed leaves are gently rolled, and depending on the style, they are shaped to look wiry, kneaded, or as tightly rolled pellets. During the rolling action, essential oils and sap tend to ooze out of the leaves, intensifying the taste further. The more tightly rolled the leaves, the longer they will retain their freshness.

Drying In order to keep the tea moisture-free, the leaves are dried at various stages of production. Drying enhances a tea's flavors and ensures its long shelf-life. Also, drying brings down the tea's moisture content to less than 1%. To dry the leaves they are fired or roasted at a low temperature for a controlled period of time, typically inside an industrial scale oven. If the leaves are dried too quickly, the tea can turn abrasive and taste harsh.

Aging some teas are subjected to aging and fermentation to make them more palatable. Some types of Chinese Pu-erh, for example, are fermented and aged for years, much like wine.

Separate time zone
Tea gardens in Assam do not follow the Indian Standard Time (IST), which is the time observed throughout India and Sri Lanka. The local time in Assam's tea gardens, known as "Tea Garden Time" or Sah Bagan Time (also used by Myanmar as MMT), is an hour ahead of the IST. The system was introduced during British rule keeping in mind the early sunrise in this part of the country.

By and large, the system has subsequently been successful in increasing the productivity of tea garden workers as they save on daylight by finishing the work during daytime, and vice versa. Working time for tea laborers in the gardens is generally between 9 a.m. (IST 8 a.m.) to 5 p.m. (IST 4 p.m.) It may vary slightly from garden to garden.

Noted filmmaker Jahnu Barua has been campaigning for a separate time zone for the northeast region.

Geography
The tea plant is grown in the lowlands of Assam, unlike Darjeelings and Nilgiris, which are grown in the highlands. It is cultivated in the valley of the Brahmaputra River, an area of clay soil rich in the nutrients of the floodplain. The climate varies between a cool, arid winter and a hot, humid rainy season—conditions ideal for growing tea. Because of its long growing season and generous rainfall, Assam is one of the most prolific tea-producing regions in the world. Each year, the tea estates of Assam collectively yield approximately 680.5 million kg (1,500 million pounds weight) of tea.

Assam tea is generally harvested twice, in a "first flush" and a "second flush". The first flush is picked during late March. The second flush, harvested later, is the more prized "tippy tea", named thus for the gold tips that appear on the leaves. This second flush, tippy tea, is sweeter and more full-bodied and is generally considered superior to the first flush tea. The leaves of the Assam tea bush are dark green and glossy and fairly wide compared to those of the Chinese tea plant. The bush produces delicate white blossoms.

title: Assam tea