text:
User talk:Yoshiah ap/Archive 1

Karaites.
Hi Yoshiah, I appreciate your concern about Karaites. Can you please let us know as ACCURATELY as possible how many actual Karaites there are in Israel and the world? It is important to have a sense of proportions since the Karaites are a very small group and it is no use trying to make them sound like a huge group. Thanks. 12.75.140.205 20:01, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I never said that we are a large group. I said that we once comprised 40% of Jews, but I actually found that out from a variety Rabbinic Sources, just as at one time Rabbinic Jews numbered less than 10,000. Numbers outside of Israel are hard to estimate because every so often new Karaite communities that were disconnected from other Karaites are found. There are 30,000 Karaites in Israel. My purpose on this site is to clear up misconceptions/lies about Karaites, such as the misconceptions that we were founded by Anan ben David or that we only hold the Shema to be Divine. --Yoshiah ap 09:49, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Israelite
You have my sincerist apologies for the mistakes I previously made when I added the Karaite section to the Israelite article. Thank you for correcting them. I hope we can continue to work together to clarify our different traditions regarding the Israelites. Gilgamesh 22:04, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

 * No problemo. If it'd help, I can cite some of the rulings made by the Israeli Cheif Rabbinate regarding the status of Karaites as Jews. --Yoshiah ap 23:17, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Sure, if you think it would be relevant to the "Karaite" section of the Israelite article. Personally, not knowing much about it, I don't care much.  But if you feel it's important, go ahead. :) Remember that each subsection needs to convey the same level of relevant information; it was exactly because the "Mormon" section got too big (first I added stuff, then BoNoMoJo made it much bigger) that it was moved to a separate article altogether (Mormonism and Judaism). - Gilgamesh 00:35, 4 May 2004

Yay!
Thrilled to see a Karaite contributor on Wikipedia. :) Jdavidb 13:09, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks! --Yoshiah ap 23:17, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Question about the Karaites and the Israelites
This question is primarily just to satisfy my personal curiosity; I hope you don't mind. :) Do the Karaites believe in Israelite tribal affiliation? Are they descendants of the Jews, or adopted into Judah, or are they Gentiles who adopted the Law of Moses?  Or is such definition of affiliation not an issue at all?  And what is believed to be the historical relationship of Karaites to the Khazars? - Gilgamesh 03:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) Yes
 * 2) Karaites are Jews, though we have had converts from time to time, most of them :being from Rabbinic Judaism.
 * 3) I don't know much about the Khazars. I do know that a lot of them converted to :Judaism in the past (to both Karaite and Rabbinic Judaism), but that's about it. I'm sorry I couldn't be of further assistance here. --Yoshiah ap 05:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Great, that answers all my questions. I believe in both tribal lineage and tribal adoption too. - Gilgamesh 06:14, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Tiberian masoretes
Hi Yoshiah! I'm also thrilled that there is a Karaite contributor to WP. I hope to be able to learn a lot from you.

At the same time, I don't agree with your recent edit to Hebrew Bible. So that we can have an open discussion, I'm copying my comments here:

Hebrew Bible: The main point of this article is to clarify the term, its usage and its importance. Therefore I agree that it should mention and be linked to Masoretic text. But I removed the mention of the Tiberian masoretes (Ben Asher Family) because not all "masoretic" text (for the purposes of Hebrew Bible) is Tiberian: Are Hebrew Bibles based on the Babylonian mesorah not masoretic? Is the medieval Ashkenazic rescension (with its strong influence on the printed Tanakh) not masoretic?

Further, the question of whether the Ben Asher family were Karaites or not is a significant one that a number of scholars have dealt with. There is not a lot of hard evidence either way, but there are some rather inconclusive arguments (which lean towards that they were not Karaites). Be that as it may, the whole issue, if it is to be discussed, should not be here but rather under Masoretic text or under a new article on the Ben Ashers.Zabek 03:29, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * Your new version is accurate enough. I've been on the impression that all
 * Hebrew Bibles today come from the various versions of the MT existing, such as
 * the Leningrad Codex, the Allepo Codex, etc. Was I mistaken?
 * I've never heard of even the possiblity that the Ben Asher family were not :Karaites. Could you supply a link or two that supports this position? --Yoshiah ap 06:02, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of even the possiblity that the Ben Asher family were not :Karaites. Could you supply a link or two that supports this position? --Yoshiah ap 06:02, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Monotheism and Reform Judaism
Reform Judaism does not reject the existence of God; in fact, mainstream Reform organizations, such as the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, leans in favor of theism, and monotheism in particular. However, Reform acknowledges the right of people to have an opinion on whether or not God exists, as it puts upon the individual the decision of whether to follow a tradition or not. The tradition is monotheistic, of course. Just pointing that out. Rickyrab 21:19, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

New Hebrew Names article
Hello, Yoshiah ap. If it pleases you, I'd like to invite you to help me refine the new Hebrew names article in whatever way you feel able. In particular, an expansion of the Hebrew names list at the bottom of the article page. It'll be fun! RSVP - Gilgamesh 22:55, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Welcome back, Yoshiah ap ^_^
I haven't seen you edit in a while. I look forward to seeing more of your input to Abrahamic articles. ^_^ - Gilgamesh 04:31, 14 June 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks! What articles would you like me to look into?--Yoshiah ap 22:36, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, I don't know. :P I'm just welcoming you back. ^_^; Though I had no articles in mind, I have been recently working on Names of Jerusalem with Mustafaa. :) And I also revised the general list conventions at List of Hebrew names, so that long and variant forms of each name are listed in the same entry (sooooooo many variants of "Joshua"). Other than that, I've been running around adding articles to Category:Jerusalem, including buildings and landmarks in the city. And, as always, I keep NPOVing Israelite when someone tries to use the term "gentile" as if it were NPOV, and I added lots of little "-ite" names of the Tribes.  If you have any additional insights, maybe you could just give them a quick once-over, if there's anything relevant to say. :) But none of that is why I welcomed you back. :P I welcomed you back because you've been very helpful in the past and it's good to see you back. ^_^ - Gilgamesh 23:19, 15 June 2004 (UTC)

 * How is "gentile" not NPOV? It's just a general term for non-jews, IMO. Also, check the addition of "Ariel" to the names of Jerusalem :) (I probably should have been more detailed, but oh well)--Yoshiah ap 23:37, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)--Yoshiah ap 23:22, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I can respect how it could be perceived as NPOV, but it's POV because different religious philosophies have different definitions for it. For example, Jews would probably call LDS gentiles, but LDS don't consider themselves (nor Jews nor Samaritans) to be gentiles.  This shows that the very definition of the word gentile is esoteric, tied to a religious philosophy.  Attempting to use the word as NPOV would imply to some people that the article endorses the definition of one belief over another, and therefore seem POV, though I understand that this is often not the intent.  Therefore, a more NPOV term concerning the Jewish definition of gentile could be "non-Mosaic" or something like that, while a more NPOV term concerning the LDS definition of gentile could be "non-Israelite".  With 14 million Jews and 12 million LDS, a good NPOV compromise of terminology is probably in everyone's best interests. :) - Gilgamesh 00:01, 15 June 2004 (UTC)

What constitutes a "Gentile" and to whom
''The following essay on this thought is a bit long, but I hope it makes you, me and everyone else a better Wikipedian and thinker of NPOV-concern issues. :)'' I've given this subject a lot more thought on this issue.  Consider this:  How would an Orthodox Jew define a "Gentile"?  And how would a secular Jew?  A Reform Jew?  And a Karaite Jew?  And a Samaritan?  And a Falasha?  It would seem to me that each different school of Jewish thought has different approaches to what defines a Gentile, and what defines a non-Gentile.  (Like, for instance, would Samaritans consider Jews to be Gentiles because they are not Samaritans? Rhetorical question, though I don't know the answer if it were a non-rhetorical question anyway. :P) Now, while labels are very rude sometimes, in the context of Wikipedia we need a good collection NPOV terms (preferably not too long-winded) to represent a person who constitutes a "member" or a "Gentile" in each philosophy.  In regards to Jewish perceptions of what constitutes a Gentile, I read up on the issue, including the Law of Moses, which seems to be the most fundamental law in this case (correct me if I'm wrong).  So I thought, maybe "non-Mosaic" is a good term for this.  On the other hand, Christians and Muslims (and LDS) believe that the Law of Moses is (or was) the law, but believe it has been amended, whether by Jesus of Nazareth as believed to be the Messiah or by Muhammad as believed to be the Prophet of God.  Once originally a sect of Judaism, the followers of Jesus adopted new beliefs and abandoned some older rites in favor of new ones, making them no longer considered to be Jews (again, correct me if I'm wrong). And in most cases, these religions are in agreement and call themselves "Gentiles". But a few (such as the mentioned LDS religion) hold on to many traditions common in both Judaism (Priests of the Rite of Aaron, Holy Temples believed to be after the manner of Solomon's Temple, the 12 Tribes, etc.) and in Christianity (such as Jesus, the Christian Atonement, etc.), and believe in a sacred role of Israel, and call themselves "Israelite", and recognize Jews, Samaritans, etc. also as Israelites, but call everyone else "Gentile". But since "Gentile" has already been suggested as NPOV and ambiguous (not to mention politically-charged in some cases), then what could be a NPOV term everyone adopt that defines a person who does not believe themselves to be part of Israel? "Non-Israelite" may not work, because it would seem to imply POV that LDS are attested as part of Israel in a perceived fact that no one would dispute, which is not (and will probably never) be the case. At times like these, I wish I knew more Greek and Latin prefixes so I can coin new technical terms for complex+wide distinctions such as these. :) The key here being, while everyone can dispute who is a Gentile and who is not, there has to be NPOV terms that imply who BELIEVE they are not Gentiles. We're not all "in the clear" here anyway; a lot of skeptical thinkers question whether there was originally an "Israel" to begin with, or whether they were merely an invention of myth and legend (obviously I don't believe it's a myth though).  Thank you for your attention, and I apologize for my complete failure in structuring coherent paragraphs, and I hope you have thoughts on this matter. ^_^;; - Gilgamesh 05:16, 17 June 2004 (UTC) (also double-posted at Talk:Israelite)

Who is a Jew?
The definition of a Jew, within Rabbinism,Karaism,Samaritanism,and Falasha are all the same, the difference being controversies of paternal vs. maternal lineage. Actually, the Shomerim (Samaritans) don't consider themselves to be Jews, but Israelites, as they believe they are from the tribe of Joseph. As to Mormons, how many do you know who go around claiming to be "Jews"? They all claim to be Ephraimites (also a trend within "Hebrew Christianity"). All of the LDS people I know use the term "Jews" to refer to people who practice Judaism, and the rest of the world generally does also.

 * Well, it's true that the majority claim to be Ephrathites or Manassites. But every single tribe is believed to varying degree, either by descent or adoption (as with people like the Biblical Ruth).  And yes, Mormons usually use "Jew" to apply to "Judaism", but there are Mormons who believe they are part of Judah, without necessarily even recorded Jewish ancestors (such as my brother's wife, who is believed to be Tribe of Judah).  However, there are "Jewish Mormons", but there are not many of them.  The only remotely famous Jewish Mormons I know of are Daniel Rona and Marvin Goldstein, and they both Ashkenazic.  And as for "Hebrew Christianity", I've honestly never heard that term before. :P LDS don't regard Israel as strictly ethnic, but more like a sacred role of faithful gathering and family sealing and stuff... - Gilgamesh 01:51, 18 June 2004 (UTC)

 * You could also add in Avraham Gileadi - he was studying to become an Orthodox Rabbi when he became a Mormon. I've met him once or twice before. He's a very, very courteous person. "Hebrew Christianity" or "Hebraic Christianity" was the original term used by those who now go by the name of "Messianics"--Yoshiah ap 03:25, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Ahh, Messianic Judaism. I've never had a friendly conversation with a Messianic Jewish person.  Been harassed by them plenty of times, but never met in a peaceful-enough context to have a friendly conversation with one.  As soon as they find out who I am, they keep saying "You're going to hell" and grill me out of a desire to "save me." :p Despite the unpleasantness of being grilled, I have nothing against them, but we do have a great deal many differences. - User:Gilgamesh 04:46, 18 June 2004 (UTC)

In the kindest of ways, your priests and temples are entirely different than Jewish priests and temples. Any male can become a priest in Mormonism, whereas it is determined by lineage according to the Torah. As far as I know, none of the ceremonies and requirments outlined in the Torah are carried out in your temples.

 * You're right, and yes you were very kind. ^_^ Actually, the LDS believe the Aaronic Priesthood to be a special divine restoration to faithful non-Levites to fill the niche until the Levitical Cohanim can make a sacrifice in the Temple again (or something like that, I'd have to read up again). And many traditions are different because LDS believe (whether anyone else agrees or not; this isn't an argument and I'm not trying to convince anyone on theological points ^^) that doctrine is amended throughout time through divine prophesy, as it was with Abraham, and Moses, and Isaiah and the other OT Prophets, and with the belief in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and with the belief Joseph Smith Jr. as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator. - Gilgamesh 01:51, 18 June 2004 (UTC)

 * Wait a second - you're saying that your church believes that your Priesthood is a "fill-in" until we can make proper sacrifices again? (Something many of us are preparing for) If you can dig up more about this, I'd be interested in reading about it.--Yoshiah ap 03:25, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, at least that has been my understanding. I don't know if the Aaronic Priesthood is retractable after such a future event...but yeah, we too are waiting for the Levites to make a proper sacrifice once again.  As for sources, I can think of the Aaronic Priesthood article, and most of the rest I can think of is perhaps in the Doctrine and Covenants, though I couldn't immediately say where. - User:Gilgamesh 04:46, 18 June 2004 (UTC)

However, I do see your point about the word "gentile". Perhaps the different definitions could be listed on a page somewhere?--Yoshiah ap 21:55, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, there's already a fairly simple explanation at Gentile, but only the esoteric religious definitions. We still seem to be short of NPOV alternatives that-don't-require-lots-of-words-and-dashes. :P - Gilgamesh 01:51, 18 June 2004 (UTC)

 * I'll probably take a look at it then.--Yoshiah ap 03:25, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yoshiah ap/Archive 1


text:
Cass Ballenger

Thomas Cass Ballenger (December 6, 1926 – February 18, 2015) was an American politician. A Republican, he represented North Carolina's 10th congressional district, centered in the foothills of North Carolina, in the United States House of Representatives from 1986 to 2005.

Biography
Ballenger represented the 10th congressional district of North Carolina from 1986 to 2005. He was also the founder and former Chairman of the Board of Plastic Packaging, Inc., a manufacturing company with plants in Hickory and Forest City. He also served in the North Carolina Senate (1977–1986), the North Carolina House of Representatives (1975–1977) and on the Catawba County Board of Commissioners (1966–1974). In 38 consecutive years in elective office, serving at the local, state and federal levels, Ballenger never lost an election.

He was a member of the Republican leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives, serving as a Deputy Whip and as a member of the House Steering Committee. He was also a member of the Board of Directors of the National Council on the Arts.

During Ballenger's time in the U.S. Congress, he was a renowned expert on business issues and foreign affairs, especially on issues dealing with Central and South America. Ballenger served on the Committee on Education and the Workforce and as Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections. During his Chairmanship, he authored legislation, which was later enacted, to reform the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to make it less adversarial and more collaborative while still ensuring worker safety. It was the first major legislative revision to OSHA workplace rules since the agency was created.

Other notable legislation Ballenger authored included a bill making the use of hypodermic needles safer for healthcare workers and a bill to designate Wilson Creek in Caldwell County a Wild and Scenic River. He secured major funding for the completion of US321 between Hickory and Gastonia, and also established the Future Forward Economic Alliance, a regional economic development initiative serving 11 counties in western North Carolina. Through Future Forward, Ballenger led the effort to secure funding to create the North Carolina Center for Engineering Technologies in Hickory. He was also instrumental in the creation of the Hickory Metro Higher Education Center (now the Appalachian State University Center at Hickory.)

He also served on the International Relations Committee and as Chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, where he worked to promote democracy and human rights, fight poverty and improve relations with developing countries in Central and South America.

In 1990, he and his wife Donna founded the Ballenger Foundation to continue their longtime charitable work in Central America. They established several medical clinics in high-poverty locations, sponsored an orphanage, sent school furniture and textbooks and delivered loads of other relief supplies. Their efforts began after the devastating earthquake in Managua, Nicaragua, in 1972 and continued for decades thereafter.

Ballenger prioritized constituent service in the U.S. House of Representatives. A Comprehensive Guide to Constituent Service, his benchmark publication, is still updated for each new Congress and used to train new congressional staff members.

As a member of the North Carolina Senate and former Minority Leader, he introduced the government in the Sunshine Act of 1976, which was enacted into law. It was the first substantive Open Meetings law enacted in North Carolina. He also authored legislation, known as the Ridge Law, to protect scenic vistas in the North Carolina mountains. He was recognized as the Most Effective Republican Legislator by the North Carolina Institute of Government in 1981.

Ballenger previously served as Chairman of the Catawba County Board of Commissioners and was recognized as North Carolina's County Commissioner of the Year in 1974. Both Catawba Memorial Hospital (now Catawba Valley Medical Center) and Catawba Valley Community College (formerly Catawba Valley Technical Institute) were established during his two terms as a County Commissioner.

He was at one time Chairman of the Catawba County Republican Party and also served on the Jim Martin for Governor Steering Committee; the North Carolina Reagan-Bush Campaign (Western Co-Chairman, 1984); and was a co-founder and former Chairman of the North Carolina Legislative Forum.

He was active in many community organizations, including the Community Ridge Day Care Center in Hickory (co-founder); Greater Hickory United Fund (Chairman); Western Piedmont Council of Governments (Board Chairman); Greater Hickory Chamber of Commerce (Director); the North Carolina School of the Arts (Sustaining Member); the North Carolina Symphony (Patron) and the North Carolina Arts Society (Patron).

He also served on the Board of Development and Board of Directors at Lenoir-Rhyne College; the Board of Directors for the Salvation Army and the Board of Trustees for the Florence Crittenton Home.

After graduating from Episcopal High School, he attended the University of North Carolina and later received a liberal arts degree from Amherst College in Amherst, Massachusetts, where he was initiated into the Delta Kappa Epsilon (DKE) fraternity. He served in the U.S. Naval Air Corps during World War II. He also volunteered as a Lay Reader for the Episcopal Diocese of Western North Carolina, traveling to lead services in parishes without rectors. He was a longtime active member of the Episcopal Church of the Ascension in Hickory.

Ballenger retired in 2004 and was succeeded by one-term Republican state representative Patrick McHenry.

Ballenger died on February 18, 2015, aged 88.

Ballenger was the great-great-grandson of Lewis Cass, a former U.S. Senator, Secretary of State, and Democratic presidential nominee in 1848.

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

title: Cass Ballenger


text:
Geeshie Wiley

Geeshie Wiley was an American country blues singer and guitar player who recorded six songs for Paramount Records, issued on three records in April 1930. According to the blues historian Don Kent, Wiley "may well have been the rural South's greatest female blues singer and musician". Little is known of her life, and there are no known photographs of her. She may have been born Lillie Mae Boone (November 14, 1908–July 29, 1950), later Lillie Mae Scott.

Recordings
In April 1930, Wiley traveled with the singer and guitarist Elvie Thomas from Houston, Texas to Grafton, Wisconsin, to make recordings for Paramount Records. Wiley recorded "Last Kind Words Blues" and "Skinny Leg Blues", singing and accompanying herself on guitar, with Thomas providing additional guitar accompaniment. Thomas also recorded two songs, "Motherless Child Blues" and "Over to My House," with Wiley playing guitar and singing harmony. Some sources suggest that in March 1931 Wiley and Thomas returned to Grafton and recorded "Pick Poor Robin Clean" and "Eagles on a Half."

Steve Leggett at Allmusic states, "Wiley's vocal on "Last Kind Word Blues" is by turns weary, wise, angry, defiant, despairing, even wistful, and is simply one of the best performances in early country blues."

It is believed that fewer than ten original copies of Wiley's records have survived.

Biographical uncertainties
Little is known about Wiley, and the few details of her life provided by various sources are inconsistent. "Geeshie" (sometimes spelled "Geechie" or "Geetchie") was probably a nickname.

There have been several conjectures about her life. The musician Ishmon Bracey, a contemporary of Wiley's, stated that she came from Natchez, Mississippi, and was romantically linked with the Delta blues musician Papa Charlie McCoy. It has also been suggested that in the 1920s she worked in a medicine show in Jackson, Mississippi, and that she may have married Casey Bill Weldon after his divorce from Memphis Minnie. The singer and bass player Herbert Wiley, of Oxford, Mississippi, stated that she was a cousin on his father's side and that her family had farmed in South Carolina; his father had told him that she died in 1938 or 1939, and he believed that she may have been buried in the family burial plot in Oxford. The musicologist and genealogist Eric S. LeBlanc suggested that her name was Wadie May Wiley and that she was born near Oxford in 1906.

Research by Robert "Mack" McCormick was developed and publicized by John Jeremiah Sullivan in The New York Times in 2014. McCormick told Sullivan that he had visited Wiley's former home and spoken to members of her immediate family when he was conducting fieldwork in Oklahoma in the 1950s. McCormick also interviewed Wiley's recording partner, L. V. "Elvie" Thomas, in Texas in 1961. Thomas began performing with Wiley in the early 1920s and remembered her as Lillie Mae Wiley; she claimed to have given Wiley her nickname. The nickname "Geechie" (spelled in various ways) was common among people from around coastal South Carolina and Georgia (it is also an alternate name for the Gullah ethnic group of that region), but more generally was an affectionate nickname for a young woman of rural origins in the American South. Thomas said that a few years before the interview (that is, in the 1950s) she had heard that Wiley was living in West Texas. Later research reported by Sullivan suggests that Wiley was born in Louisiana on November 14, 1908, and that she was the same Lillie Mae Scott who stabbed her husband, Thornton Wiley, to death in Houston in 1931. Wiley was nonetheless performing again with Thomas about 1933, on their last tour together. According to McCormick, Thomas said, "I haven’t seen [Wiley] since 1933. I left her in Chico, Oklahoma [presumably Checotah]. ... We’d gone out playing around together, traveling, and I left her up there and came on back." Sullivan also spoke to a Houston musician, John D. "Don" Wilkerson, who claimed to remember Wiley and "implied that there was something funny about her background. He said that she'd been 'maybe Mexican or something.'”

According to researcher Caitlin Love, who worked with Sullivan, Lillie Mae Wiley ( Boone) died from a head injury in 1950, and was buried with her mother Cathrine Nixson in Brushy Cemetery in Burleson County, Texas.

Legacy
"Last Kind Words", "Motherless Child Blues", "Skinny Legs Blues", and "Pick Poor Robin Clean" are included on the compilation album Mississippi Masters: Early American Blues Classics 1927–35 (Yazoo Records, 2007).

In the documentary film Crumb (1994), by Terry Zwigoff, the artist Robert Crumb plays Wiley's recording of "Last Kind Words Blues" and sits down to listen as a sequence of his cartoons is shown.

"Last Kind Words Blues" has been covered by several other artists:

 * David Johansen and the Harry Smiths covered it on their 2002 album Shaker. Johansen also sang a portion of "Last Kind Words" in the movie Searching for the Wrong-Eyed Jesus (2003).
 * C. W. Stoneking included a faithful cover of the song on his 2006 album Mississippi & Piedmont Blues 1927–1941.
 * Dex Romweber Duo released a version featuring Jack White, on White's vinyl-only label, Third Man Records.
 * Ransom Riggs used the song in his video "Talking Pictures", in which he talks about vintage photographs.
 * Rhiannon Giddens, of the traditional black music group Carolina Chocolate Drops, sang the song on her solo debut album, Tomorrow Is My Turn.
 * The Kronos Quartet performed an arrangement of the song at their fortieth anniversary concert, broadcast in 2013.
 * Hogan & Moss recorded their version of "Last Kind Words" in 2016 on the album You've Been That Friend To Me.
 * "Last Kind Words Blues" appeared on the Robert Plant / Alison Krauss album Raise the Roof, released in November 2021.

title: Geeshie Wiley


text:
Pilatus PC-7

The Pilatus PC-7 Turbo Trainer is a low-wing tandem-seat training aircraft, designed and manufactured in Switzerland by Pilatus Aircraft. The aircraft is capable of all basic training functions, including aerobatics, instrument, tactical, and night flying.

The PC-7 was developed from the preceding piston-powered Pilatus P-3, largely differing by the adoption of a turboprop engine, a bubble canopy, and a new one-piece wing. Introduced during the 1970s, it has since developed a sizable presence of the global trainer market. The type has been adopted by in excess of twenty air forces as their ab initio trainer, as well as multiple civilian operators. Over one million hours have reportedly been flown by PC-7s worldwide. In addition to training operations, some aircraft are armed and have been used for combat missions by several customers, including Chad, Iran, and Mexico, often in violation of the relevant export agreement between the customer and the Swiss government.

An improved model of the aircraft, the PC-7 Mk.II M, was developed during the 1990s, by combining the newer airframe and avionics from the PC-9 with the PC-7's smaller turbine engine. Reportedly, in excess of 600 PC-7s have been sold to various operators, the majority of which are in service. In Pilatus' range of aircraft, the PC-7 has been succeeded by the newer PC-9 and PC-21 trainers.

Origins
Work on what would become the PC-7 commenced during the 1960s. It was based on the earlier piston-powered Pilatus P-3, the initial prototype being produced from the existing prototype P-3, principally differing by the substitution of its Lycoming O-435 engine with a Pratt & Whitney PT6A-20 turboprop power-plant. On April 12, 1966, the modified prototype performed its maiden flight. However, the PC-7 programme was abruptly shelved following an accident involving the aircraft. The termination of work was reportedly driven by a lack of market interest.

During 1973, it was decided to restart work on the programme; factors for its revival had included the 1973 oil crisis, the launch of the rival Beechcraft T-34C Turbo-Mentor, and the increasing age of existing trainer aircraft. To support the relaunch, another P-3 was obtained from the Swiss Air Force. After modifications, this aircraft first flew on May 12, 1975. Further extensive modifications followed later in the programme, including the adoption of a new one-piece wing complete with integral fuel tanks, along with an altered tail fin and a bubble canopy. The flight test programme came to a close during Autumn 1977.

On August 18, 1978, the first production aircraft made its first flight. On 5 December of that year, Switzerland's Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) issued civil certification for the PC-7; immediately thereafter, initial deliveries of production aircraft commenced to customers Burma and Bolivia. Over time, sales of the PC-7 generated considerable profits, allowing the company to finance the development of further types of aircraft.

Further development
The PC-7 Mk.II M is a development of the PC-9's airframe and avionics, which was powered by the PC-7's smaller turbine engine, which reportedly achieved lower operating and maintenance costs. This variant was developed at the behest of the South African Air Force (SAAF), who later adopted the type. A batch of 60 PC-7 Mk.II Ms were locally assembled in South Africa using kits supplied by Pilatus for the SAAF; due to political considerations, these aircraft were not fitted with the armament hardpoints. Deliveries to the SAAF took place between late 1994 and 1996.

In addition to Pilatus' own improvement programmes, several third-party companies have independently developed their own upgrades for customer's PC-7. During the late 1990s, Israeli engineering firm Radom began offering a kit of new avionics for the type, which included a new mission computer, a wide-angle head-up display, along with various replacement communications and weapons-delivery systems.

During July 1998, Pilatus announced that it has come to an agreement with American company Western Aircraft, for the latter to act as a distributor for the PC-7 across the North American civil aviation market. At this time, there were already five civil-registered PC-7s in operation in North America; Pilatus believed that the region could be a viable market for both remanufactured and newly built examples of the type, which would be priced between $1 million and $2 million respectively. It was recognised that this market was limited, Western Aircraft expected to sell only a few aircraft per year.

General use
All export sales of the PC-7 are subject to approval by the Swiss Government, whose authorisation is required prior to any delivery taking place. The sale of combat-capable aircraft has been a controversial matter at times, and political pressure has been applied for PC-7s to be shipped without the fittings for armaments being installed. The Swiss government has occasionally held up or outright refused to issue export licences for some nations, a move which has reportedly led to the loss of several potential sales, such as to South Korea and Mexico.

In addition to its adoption by numerous military customers, the PC-7 has also been used by private customers. It has been certified for civil use by both the Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as compliant with regulations pertaining to general aviation (GA) operations in both Europe and the United States. Amongst its uses in the civilian sector has been aerobatic displays.

During the 1990s, the PC-7 Mk.II M was adopted as the basic trainer of the Royal Brunei Air Force (RBAirF) alongside the BAE Systems Hawk jet trainer; the acquisition was seen a key to its expanded operations with fixed-wing aircraft.

During June 2011, the Indian Air Force (IAF) selected the PC-7 Mk.II M as its new basic trainer, signing a contract for an initial batch of 75 aircraft, with an option for buying an additional 38 PC-7 Mk.II Ms; the Indian military had a total requirement of 181 trainers. The fast-tracked decision to procure a foreign aircraft over a domestically developed alternative proposed by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) was a controversial one; retired Air Marshal Anil Chopra argued that HAL had no viable design for the role, and that the IAF could not have reasonably afforded the delay involved in the development of such an aircraft. The procurement of an additional 106 trainers under the 'Make & Buy' (Indian) category was repeatedly deferred. In 2017, the maintenance agreement with Pilatus lapsed, resulting in the IAF becoming solely responsible for performing these activities. During 2018, India announced that it had chosen to exercise the option of buying a batch of 38 trainers.

Combat use
A number of PC-7s were employed by the Guatemalan Air Force in air strikes and for close air support (CAS) during the Guatemalan civil war, starting in 1982, until the end of the conflict in 1996. The PC-7s were typically deployed from the airfield in La Aurora, being armed with a mixture of gun pods and rocket pods.

During the lengthy Iran–Iraq War of the 1980s, amid tensions between Iran and the United States, it is alleged that Iranian officials threatened to arm its PC-7 fleet with explosives and use them to launch suicide attacks against United States Navy (USN) vessels present in the Persian Gulf. Iran reportedly trained a number of suicide pilots and flew some operational missions, training was performed at Bushehr Air Base in Iran and overseas in North Korea. In early 1984, an Iranian attack helicopter AH-1J Sea Cobra was shot down by an Iraqi PC-7 during Operation Khyber (Iranian pilots Reza Moghadam and Mohammad Yazdi were rescued).

In 1994, the Mexican Air Force used several armed PC-7s to attack units of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation during the Chiapas conflict in Mexico. This action was considered illegal by the Swiss government because the aeroplanes were sold for training purposes only, and as result, Switzerland issued a ban on the sale of additional units to Mexico. At the time, the Mexican Air Force was the largest single export operator of the type, and had been seeking to acquire further PC-7s, thus the sales ban was viewed as an economic blow to Pilatus.

During the mid to late 1990s, Executive Outcomes, a private military contractor led by Eeben Barlow, utilised three armed PC-7s (ex-Bophuthatswana Air Force aircraft) to provide close air support (CAS) during its operations in Sierra Leone.

During the late 2000s, the Chadian Air Force reportedly used its small fleet of PC-7s to bomb rebel positions both in their own territory and in neighbouring Sudan. The Swiss government summoned the Chad's ambassador to request an explanation for these reports, as these actions breached the export agreements previously struck for the sale of the type to Chad.

Variants

 * PC-7 : two-seat basic trainer aircraft, powered by PT6A-25A engine rated at 410 kW.
 * PC-7 Mk.II M : a development of the PC-9's airframe and avionics, retaining the PC-7's wing to mount external stores. Powered by PT6A-25C of 522 kW rather than more powerful PT6A-62 of PC-9.  Developed for the South African Air Force (SAAF), and known as the 'Astra'; the aircraft is a hybrid PC-7 and PC-9, either a PC-7 'Heavy' or a PC-9 'Lite', depending on point of configuration.
 * NCPC-7 : upgraded version of the standard PC-7 with fully IFR glass cockpit avionics, developed for the Swiss Air Force. The designation NCPC-7 has been provisionally used in the Swiss Air Force to differentiate modernized PC-7s (NC for New Cockpit) from those which were not yet done. It was removed after the improvement of the last of the 28 aircraft in 2009. Consequently, all the Turbo-Trainer took again the designation PC-7.

Military operators
An incomplete list of the users of the PC-7:
 * National Air Force of Angola: 12 PC-7 ordered in 1981, with deliveries starting in 1982, 25 total aircraft by October 2008.
 * Austrian Air Force: 16 PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, 13 aircraft remain in service as of December 2021.
 * Bolivian Air Force: 24 PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, 2 remain in service as of December 2021.
 * Botswana Defence Force Air Wing: seven PC-7 (delivered from 1990) aircraft in service as of October 2008, to be replaced by five PC-7 Mk.II M in 2013; five PC-7 Mk.II M aircraft formally accepted into service on 8 February 2013, removing six original PC-7s from service.
 * Royal Brunei Air Force: four PC-7 Mk.II M aircraft in service as of October 2008, currently operated by No. 73 Squadron, and are also used by the RBAirF Alap-Alap Formation aerobatic display team.
 * Chad Air Force: two PC-7 aircraft remaining in service as of December 2021.
 * Chilean Navy: ten PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, seven aircraft remain in service as of December 2021.
 * Direction générale de l'armement: six PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008.
 * Guatemalan Air Force: 12 PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, one aircraft remaining in service as of December 2021.
 * Indian Air Force: 74-77 PC-7 Mk.II M, India has cancelled ordering 38 more and placed orders for HAL HTT-40. One was lost in a crash in December 2023.
 * Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force: 35 PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, 34 aircraft remain in service as of December 2021.
 * Royal Malaysian Air Force: 30 PC-7 Turbo Trainers out of a first order of 44 (delivered from 1983), 45 PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008; 17 PC-7 Mk.II M out of a second order of 19 (delivered in two batches, nine from 2001 and ten from 2007); total of 47 currently in service; the type is also used by the Taming Sari aerobatic display team.
 * Mexican Air Force: 88 PC-7 aircraft (first delivery May 1979) in service as of October 2008.
 * Myanmar Air Force: first customer of the PC-7, deliveries in early 1979, 17 PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, 16 aircraft remain in service as of December 2021.
 * Royal Netherlands Air Force: 13 PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, 13 aircraft remain in service as of December 2021.
 * South African Air Force: first customer of the PC-7 Mk.II M delivered 30 November 1994, 60 PC-7 Mk.II M aircraft in service as of October 2008, the type is also used by the Silver Falcons aerobatic display team.
 * Swiss Air Force: 40 (delivered from 1979) PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, 28 PC-7 upgraded with new cockpit in service in 2011; the type is also used by their aerobatic display team PC-7 Team.
 * United Arab Emirates Air Force: 31 PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, 31 aircraft remain in service as of December 2021.
 * Uruguayan Air Force: 6 PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, 5 aircraft remain in service as of December 2021.
 * Indian Air Force: 74-77 PC-7 Mk.II M, India has cancelled ordering 38 more and placed orders for HAL HTT-40. One was lost in a crash in December 2023.
 * Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force: 35 PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, 34 aircraft remain in service as of December 2021.
 * Royal Malaysian Air Force: 30 PC-7 Turbo Trainers out of a first order of 44 (delivered from 1983), 45 PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008; 17 PC-7 Mk.II M out of a second order of 19 (delivered in two batches, nine from 2001 and ten from 2007); total of 47 currently in service; the type is also used by the Taming Sari aerobatic display team.
 * Mexican Air Force: 88 PC-7 aircraft (first delivery May 1979) in service as of October 2008.
 * Myanmar Air Force: first customer of the PC-7, deliveries in early 1979, 17 PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, 16 aircraft remain in service as of December 2021.
 * Royal Netherlands Air Force: 13 PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, 13 aircraft remain in service as of December 2021.
 * South African Air Force: first customer of the PC-7 Mk.II M delivered 30 November 1994, 60 PC-7 Mk.II M aircraft in service as of October 2008, the type is also used by the Silver Falcons aerobatic display team.
 * Swiss Air Force: 40 (delivered from 1979) PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, 28 PC-7 upgraded with new cockpit in service in 2011; the type is also used by their aerobatic display team PC-7 Team.
 * United Arab Emirates Air Force: 31 PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, 31 aircraft remain in service as of December 2021.
 * Uruguayan Air Force: 6 PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, 5 aircraft remain in service as of December 2021.
 * Royal Netherlands Air Force: 13 PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, 13 aircraft remain in service as of December 2021.
 * South African Air Force: first customer of the PC-7 Mk.II M delivered 30 November 1994, 60 PC-7 Mk.II M aircraft in service as of October 2008, the type is also used by the Silver Falcons aerobatic display team.
 * Swiss Air Force: 40 (delivered from 1979) PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, 28 PC-7 upgraded with new cockpit in service in 2011; the type is also used by their aerobatic display team PC-7 Team.
 * United Arab Emirates Air Force: 31 PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, 31 aircraft remain in service as of December 2021.
 * Uruguayan Air Force: 6 PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, 5 aircraft remain in service as of December 2021.
 * United Arab Emirates Air Force: 31 PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, 31 aircraft remain in service as of December 2021.
 * Uruguayan Air Force: 6 PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, 5 aircraft remain in service as of December 2021.
 * Uruguayan Air Force: 6 PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, 5 aircraft remain in service as of December 2021.
 * Uruguayan Air Force: 6 PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008, 5 aircraft remain in service as of December 2021.

Civilian operators
At least seven PC-7 aircraft are in service by various unspecified civilian operators as of October 2008.

Former military operators

 * Flag of Bophuthatswana.svg Bophuthatswana
 * Bophuthatswana Air Force: two PC-7 (delivered from 1989), later transferred to South Africa Air Force and subsequently served in the Sierra Leone civil war and Chad)
 * 🇮🇶 Iraq
 * Iraq Air Force: 52 PC-7 (delivered from 1980)
 * Nigerian Air Force had two aircraft in service.
 * Suriname Air Force had two PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008 (one transferred to civilian operations).
 * Suriname Air Force had two PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008 (one transferred to civilian operations).
 * Suriname Air Force had two PC-7 aircraft in service as of October 2008 (one transferred to civilian operations).

Former civil operators

 * 🇨🇭 Switzerland
 * Swissair

Accidents and incidents

 * The South African Air Force (SAAF) grounded their fleet of PC-7 Mk.II M aircraft after a crash on 15 January 2008. The aircraft went down shortly after takeoff from Overberg Air Force Base in the Western Cape Province.  SAAF Lieutenant-Colonel Chris Meiring, 58, died shortly after the crash. The aircraft was flying to Langebaanweg Air Force Base for maintenance but shortly after takeoff it rolled and flew into the ground.  The cause is believed to have been a structural problem.
 * In March 2010, a pilot was killed when his Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) aircraft exploded and caught fire in midair during a solo airshow. This is the fifth accident involving Royal Malaysian Air Force PC-7 aircraft.
 * In June 2010, two Mexican pilots were killed when their Mexican Air Force PC-7 crashed after taking off from Pie de la Cuesta, a district in the resort city of Acapulco, Mexico. The PC-7 crashed into the sea near Acapulco.
 * On 20 October 2011, two PC-7s of the Botswana Defence Force were involved in a mid-air collision over Letlhakeng 100 km west of Gaborone. Two of the four aircrew involved were killed in the accident.
 * On 12 September 2017, a pilot was killed when his Swiss Air Force PC-7 crashed at the Schreckhorn in Canton Bern on its way from Base aérienne Payerne to Base aérienne Locarno.
 * On 4 December 2023, a PC-7 of the Indian Air Force crashed in Medak, Telangana, India. Both pilots died in the crash. The aircraft had taken off on a training flight from Hyderabad. The crash is currently under investigation.

title: Pilatus PC-7


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 2

Use of the term "fundamentalist"
To equate Orthodox Jews with Christian or Islamic fundamentalists is appalling, misleading, disgusting and insulting, particularly since a number of people present here may be Orthodox and intellectually academic at the same time. Dr. de Wolff JFW for one is both a competent medical doctor and an Orthodox Jew and is rational and capable of NPOV to the hilt in spite of his Orthodoxy, and has accordingly been chosen by Wikipedia as an admin. Please apologize to him now! IZAK 17:06, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Izak, no one may work on any Wikipedia article unless they adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which demands that we all adhere to scholarly modes of discussion. The word fundamentalist has a very specific and technical meaning in the study of religions, and it is this specific, technical meaning that we use this word. Orthodox Judaism, by definition, is a fundamentalist religious denomimation. All of our articles state this. Please see the Wikipedia article on this topic so you can lanr how and why this word is used. The word fundamentalist is not an ad homenim attack nor an insult, and we can not rewrite our entire encyclopedia to appease the fears of people who don't understand this. RK 21:36, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * Your citation "proves" nothing. One paragraph on a Wikipedia page about what Orthodox Jews "believe" does not give you the right to make sweeping judgments or cast aspersions on the Wikipedian capabilities of Jews, who may be Orthodox, to espouse a NPOV. Are you saying that only non-Orthodox Jews are capable of being Wikipedians? Probably you wouldn't mind it, unfortuantely for you Wikipedia is far too broad a tabula rasa for anyone to dominate it, INCLUDING non-Orthodox fundamentalists. Have you not heard of the phrases "Fanatical Reformers" or "Extreme Secularists" or "Dyed in the wool Conservatives" or "Confused Reconstructionists" are they also not FUNDAMENTALISTS too ??? IZAK 06:37, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * IZAK, (A) You must stop your ad homenim attacks. That is a serious violation of Wikipedia etiqutte. (B) My citation does prove something...the problem is that you admit that you are essentially ignorant of the real world reading on this issue. In the real world, scholars of religion use the word "fundamentalism" in this way. Any claim to the contrary is unconnected with reality. If you cannot handle using the English langauge properly, without imaginging slander being hurled against you, then you are not yet ready to work on these articles. Please approach this project as a scholar of religion, and learn the terminology.

RK 12:30, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "real world"...which "world" is that exactly? Judaism does NOT, and has never relied on "scholars of religion". Judaism relies on its own ChaZaL (Our SAGES of Blessed Memory) and it is from them, and those present sages who are able to correctly and authentically interpret and teach the Torah that Jews learn what Jews and Judaism are about, not from "scholars of religion" who come and go with the (academic) fads of each decade. That is "Judaism 101" I think. Which yeshiva is it that teaches with the "commentaries" of "scholars of religion"? Do we want to convey synthetic and false information about Judaism concocted by professors or by the learned and scholarly rabbis over the millenia who have always been the accepted and acceptable teachers of the Jewish traditions? IZAK 01:11, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * If that is your point of view, then you may not contribute to Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles may not be written in accord with your (or my) personal religious beliefs. If you think that our articles must teach Judaism the way that Orthodox Jews do, then every on of your edits will be reverted on sight. You still don't get it, do you? This is not an Orthodox Jewish project, and we are not here to convert people to Orthodox Judaism. This is an NPOV encyclopedia. That means we include more than one point of view. If you can't handle this, then work elsewhere, on an exclusively Orthodox website. RK 14:47, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * On the contrary, when one has had an all-around education, one is aware what the 3,300 year old traditions of Judaism are about, which academic scholars may miss. One has greater perspective, not less. Is it a "crime" to have been educated in a yeshiva? Then if that is your attitude, your are guilty of the same cultural anti-Orthodox anti-Semitism that you are so fond of accusing so many others of when they say thing that you don't like. Who said anything about writing articles that are "in accord with your (or my) personal religious beliefs"? And who said anything about excluding other points of view? The discussion is about how to organize, present and package all those contradictory views without confusing the intelligent reader. After all, we are not out to create animosity towards traditional Judaism either by advancing self-defeating viewpoints if they arise, after due discussion. The point was being made that one can quite safely provide the views of classical Jewish scholars within Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. Wikipedia is NEUTRAL but it is NOT "ANTI" anything. And no-one can be "forced" via your POV to accept that what "scholars" think is a brand of Judaism they don't like is "Fundamentalist" just because they have invented that term out of the thin air. IZAK 03:08, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Izak is now not only abusive, but ranting and raving about people accusing him of some sort of "crime". He is so clearly out of touch with reality, that he is hysterically attacking statements that no one has made. RK

Yawn!IZAK 00:17, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * 1)Are you equating Anti-Semetism with Anti-Orthodoxy? 2)RK has never claimed it's a crime to be Yeshiva educated. 3) You're missing RK's point. The Secular POV is not going to be kicked out just because the Orthodox POV says differently.--Josiah 05:24, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1)When someone issues serious threats against a person because they praised Orthodox rabbis it may be a form of cultural anti-Semitism, as anti-semites also hate Orthodox rabbis. 2) So then no need to get hysterical when one cites the insights of the yeshiva world. 3) Who said anything about "kicking out" anything. We are talking about creating balanced informative articles on Judaism that should at least do justice to the topic and NOT serve as vehicles for back-handed swipes aimed at the subject at hand, which would be self-defeating.IZAK 05:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I am wondering if Izak may have some sort of mental illness. As readers of this page can see, no one is threatening him, or anyone else. His hysterical rants are totally out of control, and he may need to be temporarilly banned until he pulls himself together. RK

Ugh!IZAK 00:17, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * IZAK might have interpreted this statement of yours "If that is your point of view, then you may not contribute to Wikipedia." as threatening. In any event, I don't think accusing people of mental illness is productive or appropriate. Jayjg 18:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Izak is acting unhinged. He has been screaming at other users for months, has been making up statements and attacking these non-existent statements, and lives in a state of self-created persecution. I haven't seen anyone able to reason with him. Until he calms down, he should excuse himself. RK 18:46, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Anything else you would like to add...can't get worse can it? IZAK

 * IZAK, saying that the Rabbis are the only ones "who are able to correctly and authentically interpret and teach the Torah" shows extreme POV by saying that no one else can. Remember, this is not an Orthodox Judaism project. This is supposed to be a NPOV project. Futhermore, Rabbis have not "always been the accepted and acceptable teachers of Jewish traditions". The fact that the Pharisees numbered only 7,000 out of 2,000,000 during the 2nd temple times is sufficient evidence of that.--Josiah 03:24, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First of all this is the discussion page, and we are free to air ideas openly. I am NOT a Karaite and I am not a Conservative either. We are who we are, period. That is the world. Sure, you are personally free to quote whoever you like. Anyone can go ahead and quote Maddona on Judaism if they like, she is also a person with views on Kabbala, but would that be smart or responsible? Or whilst they're at it, a contributor can cite the New Testament's diatribes against the Pharisees in a Judaism or Torah article, if they like, but would that help the articles if they quote every last Christian's view of rabbis (Pharisees)? Please be serious Josiah, this is not a game of some sort. What is wrong with quoting rabbis as long as it's done in a NPOV fashion? Does one have to "convert" to being a Karaite or a Conservative before being "qualified" to give opinions? Obviuosly not. You are quite set in your own Karaite ideology yet seem to think that you are able to espouse a NPOV. How is that? If you and RK, an avowed Conservative, can do it, so can anyone else have their own personal views yet also be serious NPOV scholars on Wikipedia. Please do not confuse Wikipedia's NPOV policies with notions of PC: "political correctness" as each person comes with their own background to the table. IZAK 03:08, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * IZAK, 1)I never said there's anything wrong with quoting Rabbis. Don't put words into my mouth. 2)How do I espouse an NPOV? By working with others. Something that you still haven't gotten a grasp on.--Josiah 05:24, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Again, Izak is putting views in Josiah's mouth, and attacking him for beliefs that Josiah does not have. This is rather disturbing. RK

1) Ok good, we are making progress. 2) We have ALL been "working with others", in spite of what you may think or want to believe, for along time on Wikipedia, otherwise we would have left Wikipedia a long time ago. IZAK 05:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The word fundamentalism has become so utterly loaded I would abstain from using it in any context. JFW | T@lk  17:30, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * What can we say? This is not an Orthodox Jewish publication. Outside of Orthodoxy, scholars of religion use the word in this way. If your religious beliefs prevent you from using the same technical religious terminology that everyone else uses, then you may not yet be ready to work on these articles. Izak already is having serious problems, seeing these words as personal atacks against him and his religion, even though he has repeatedly been told otherwise. RK 12:30, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * Even the word "Jew" has become utterly loaded with negativ context; but we do not stop using the word "Jew". Instead, we educate readers by explaining what it really means. RK

I agree with you completely, JFW, and I wonder how anyone with common sense could think otherwise. Sorry, RK, the best academic scholars don't describe people and movements by throwing around loaded terms like "fundamentalism." I will also try to refrain from using it in any context, and to remove it if and when I see it. This, by the way, is despite the fact that I know certain Orthodox Jews personally who are proud to be called "fundamentalists" (but I know a great many more who are horrified by the thought). In a way, it is kind of like the term "Orthodox" itself - what began historically as a prejorative term used by reformers eventually became adopted as a badge of honor by Rabbi S. R. Hirsch himself! But I think that this is not likely to happen with the term "fundamentalist" for a variety of reasons. Better that it be avoided, and that we find more careful, nuanced terms to describe individuals and groups.Dovi 03:42, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * Dovi, who told you all that nonsense? What sources did you learn this from? These people lied to you. All the best scholars of religion, both Jewish and non-Jewish, often do use the word "fundamentalism". This is an indisputable fact, and only a hysterically ignorant, or dishonest, person will tell you otherwise. You really need to spend a few years reading through multiple journals and books by scholars of religion. You will find thousands of such referenences; and these references are non-polemical, non-hateful. The word "fundamentalism" is used by them in a technical sense. RK 14:47, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * RK, please provide some citations for your assertion that Fundamentalism is currently used in multiple journals and books by scholars of religion. Thank you.  153.90.199.52 17:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Dovi, this is not funny. Unlike you, I have studied in the real world. Countless thousands of religious journals and scholarly books use the term "fundamentalism" in precisely this way. The way you deny this is sort of like claiming that scientists don't write boks that say that the Earth revolves around the sun. They do write such books. You must take the time to learn about the topic you are talking about. I've spent years doing studying in univerisities on this topic, and these thousands of jouranals and books exist despite anything anyone claims. RK

 * RK, I feel that you are evading the question. If there are thousands of references, then you should find it easy to provide citations to a handful.  Please provide references for your assertion that "fundamentalism" is used as you claim in scholarly research.  Thank you.  153.90.199.52 18:18, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Dovi, you know you are lying. Stop it. This isn't a matter of debate. You are now clearly harassing me, in order to stop me from editing articles, so that you can push your religious beliefs. I will not allow you to do this. RK 18:46, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * RK, you have claimed multiple times on this page that you have thousands of scholarly references that use "fundamentalism". I request that you list several of them (perferably with the relevent portion quoted).  You have claimed that you own books that have this use.  Perhaps you could walk over to your personal library that you have and list the titles and authors of those books that use "fundamentalism" in this way?  If you have listed multiple sources for your claim in other places, than I request that you provide a link to this, and I apologize in advance for not finding it myself.  I have not found such list of references, despite your repeated claims of being able to back up your use of the term "fundamentalism".  I request that you back up your claim with evidence, and when you have provided good evidence for your claim I will be happy for you to go back to editing.  Thank you.  153.90.199.52 19:10, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The above nutcase is simply harassing me. I never claimed to have thousands of references with me. I live in a home, not an academic library. RK

 * The person above does not appear to be either a "nutcase" or harrassing you, but is rather making a reasonable request that you support your claims. I strongly object to your abusive language towards his rather mild statements, and in particular to your censoring his comments from this Talk: page. I will be restoring them. Jayjg 16:53, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Dovi, RK is correct. Many of the Orthodox pages that I have visited use the word "fundamentalist" in describing Karaite Judaism. Do they mean we are known for perpetuating terror or for damning everyone to "hell"? No. They use it in it's true, correct, scholarly meaning and I have absolutely no disagreement with it. I have even used the word to describe my beliefs before.--Josiah 22:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * RK, I may be a nutcase, but I am not Dovi. You have claimed: "You will find thousands of such referenences; and these references are non-polemical, non-hateful. The word 'fundamentalism' is used by them in a technical sense.", "Countless thousands of religious journals and scholarly books use the term 'fundamentalism' in precisely this way." and "In fact, come to my personal library and you will find many books by Orthodox, Reform and Conservative authors specifically referring to these rabbis as "fundamentalist". And they are not doing this as an ad homenim attack, but merely as a technical description." I intepreted this to mean that you knew of thousands of references and that some of those references exist in your own home. So, since you have claimed that there exist thousands of references that use "fundamentalism" and that some of those references are in your own home, I again request that you provide some evidence for your claim that "fundamentalism" is used scholarly. Thank you. 153.90.199.52 03:30, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Updated: 153.90.199.52 13:36, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC))

 * RK, thank you for providing the below sources for your claim. 153.90.199.52 12:17, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Academic sources which use the word "fundamentalism"
The following are a brief list of academic sources which use the word "fundamentalism" to describe certain forms of Judaism. These articles use this word in a technical and scholarly fashion, and not as an ad homenin attack. RK 15:49, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

The Battle for God Karen Armstrong

The Jewish Study Bible Ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettle, Oxford Univ. Press, 2004

Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism Ed. Brenda E Brasher, Routledge, 2001

A Living Tree: The Roots and Growth of Jewish Law, Elliot Dorff and Arthur Rosett, SUNY Press, 1988

Matters of Life and Death: A Jewish Approach to Modern Medical Ethics Elliot Dorff, JPS 1998

The Dynamics of Judaism: A Study in Jewish Law, Robert Gordis, Indiana Universoty Press, 1990

Rereading the Rabbis: A Woman's Voice Judith Hauptman, Westview Books

A False Prophet Armed Arthur Hertzberg, Reform Judaism Magazine March 1996

The Halakhic Process: A Systematic Analysis Joel Roth, Ktav, 1986

Conservative Judaism and Jewish Law Ed. Seymour Siegel, The Rabbinical Assembly, NY, 1977

The Lonely View From the Middle Ground: An Orthodox Leader's Work Argues for the Compatibility of Tradition and Modernity Review by Lawrence Grossman, The Forward, May 31, 2002

One People, Two Worlds : A Reform Rabbi and an Orthodox Rabbi Explore the Issues That Divide Them Ammiel Hirsch and Yaakov Yosef Einman, 2003

A Tree of Life: Diversity, Flexibility and Creativity in Jewish Law, Louis Jacobs, Littman Library of Jewish Civilization

God, Torah, Israel: Traditionalism Without Fundamentalism Louis Jacobs, 1990

Piety & Power: The World of Jewish Fundamentalism David Landau, Hill and Wang, 1993

The Beginnings of Orthodoxy, in Modern Judaism, Moshe Samet, Vol.8, No.3 October 1988, pages 249-269

The Sinai Argument Shlomo Tal, 2001

Rachels Daughters: Newly Orthodox Jewish Women, Debra Renee Kaufman, Rutgers University Press

Tradition and Change, Ed. Mordecai Waxman, The Rabbinical Assembly, 1958

OOOOPH! (That is modern Hebrew for Yiddish "Oy Vey" or English for "Why do I get involved in these things?") I've been "lied to" by "hysterically ignorant" or "dishonest" people? I need to spend a few more years in an academic library?

But to the point at hand: "Fundamentalism" is a relatively new term with deep roots and very heavy baggage in American political discourse. As time goes on it, like any new term, gets used more and more, including by academic writers both in the social sciences in general and by those who study Jewish communities in particular. And then it is indeed given a "technical" sense that is indeed meant by many writers to be non-polemical and non-hateful. But academic writers are not all the same. I once again assert that the "best" scholars are careful, nuanced, and usually avoid bombastic, laden terms. (In other words, they strive for "NPOV" in the academic world, for even there it all too-often remains an ideal that is not always real.) RK and I may very well disagree as to whom the "best" scholars are, or what the "best" kind of academic writing is (even by the very best scholars). In any case, I challenge RK to cite serious researchers in either the social sciences or in Jewish studies who would glibly label the following people as fundamentalists (this is completely ad-hoc): Yechiel Weinberg, Joseph Soloveitchik, Abraham Isaac Kuk, Moshe Feinstein, Isaac Hutner, Meir Bar-Ilan, Ben-Zion Uzziel, Nechamah Leibowitz, Norman Lamm, Shlomoh Riskin, Emanuel Rackman, Yehezkel Cohen, Nachum Rabinovitch, Yuval Sherlow - can one do justice to any one of them with "a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles"? It's ridiculous.

 * No, it is not ridiculous. You are mistaking your own bias for facts. In the real word, many scholars of religion, including Jews, describe the viewpoint of all those Orthodox rabbis as fundamentalist. In fact, come to my personal library and you will find many books by Orthodox, Reform and Conservative authors specifically referring to these rabbis as "fundamentalist". And they are not doing this as an ad homenim attack, but merely as a technical description. Your claims that these quotes do not exist is hystercially false. You can't just deny that books exists if they disagree with them. In the real world, you are going to have to find a way to deal with poeple who have others points of view. If you can't then, you will spend the rest of your life believing that people are insulting you (when they really aren't) and you will continue to be defensive when you do not need to be. RK 17:30, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

I am not going to continue debating this, especially since it has not remained civil. I am in fact quite peeved with myself for getting involved in the first place. The common sense of JFW's suggestion that we avoid the term is clear to me (also see further comments below). If and when this comes up for a vote, I will vote "No" to the use of "fundamentalist" as an objective, descriptive label for streams within Judaism.

 * There is no vote. Wikipedia NPOV policy demands that we note when a religion's beliefs are defined as fundamentalist. You may not censor are encyclopedia to push your religious beliefs. If you do this, you will eventually be bannned. Of course, we can also note that many Orthodox Jews do not approve of this terminology. This is not an "either or" situation. We can do both (and NPOV policy demands that we must do both.) RK 17:39, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

As I have yet to see a NPOV use of the term fundamentalist (at least in relationship to Judaism), nor have I seen any evidence of its use in a consistent way in academic literature (again in relationship to Judaism), nor have I seen any real justification for its use to described Orthodox Judaism in the fundamentalism article, I'm afraid I cannot currently agree with its use. And just so we know what we're talking about here, in the Fundamentalism article the Judaism section has the following text:

 * Jews believe that the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible, Old Testament) cannot be understood literally or alone, but rather needs to be read in conjunction with additional material known as the oral law; this material is contained in the Mishnah and the Talmud. Orthodox Judaism, especially Haredi Judaism, is a fundamentalist Jewish denomination, as opposed to Reform Judaism, Reconstructionist Judaism, and Conservative Judaism, which are theologically opposed to fundamentalism. No Jews, even the Orthodox, read the Tanakh in a literal fashion, but most Orthodox Jews read the Mishnah and Talmud in what may be termed a fundamentalist way. All Haredi Jews, and many Modern Orthodox Jews, hold that these texts are divine and infallible. Hasidic Jews usually ascribe infallibility to their rebbe's interpretation of the traditional sources of truth.

I see every single sentence in this description as being at best inaccurate. The first sentence is wrong because plenty of Jews do not believe in the oral law. The second sentence is merely an assertion, which does not explain how any of the movements express either their theological approval for or opposition to fundamentalism. The third sentence is again incorrect, as many Jews do read the Tanach that way, and concludes with hand-waving; what the heck is "what may be termed a fundametalist way". The fourth sentence is inaccurate, since Orthodox Judaism of any kind does not consider the Mishna and Talmud to be either divine or infallible. The fifth sentence is another unsupported assertion. Jayjg 15:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I think that you misunderstand what NPOV means. If you think that there are factual mistakes, then we can work on correcting them. I have no problem with this, and in fact I appreciate the time you take to help improve all of our articles. NPOV is about an entirely different issue; it means that we say that "According to one group, such and such is true, while according to another group, such and such is true." NPOV only means that we fair present different points of view, without the article taking a particular side. RK 17:39, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * However, I disagree with your last sentence. A great many Orthodox Jews do consider the Mishna and Talmud to be divine and infallible! In fact, I have received much personal abuse on Orthodox Jewish discussion lists due to just this point. I (and several other Modern Orthodox and Conservative Jews) were slandered as heretics precisely because we did not have this point of view. I guess we can change the paragraph to say that man Orthodox Jews feel this, but others do not. Again, presenting the full diversity of POVs witin Orthodoxy is part of NPOV. I am glad that you mentioned this, because this reveals an opportunity to illustrate the spectrum of beliefs within Orthodoxy itself. RK 17:39, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Notice to Dovi about RK's "tactics"
Dovi please do not be intimidated by RK's personal insults, attacks, threats or bullying tactics. Unfortunately RK has a poor reputation on Wikipedia when it comes to respecting the rights of others on Wikipedia in general. For examples, even though the contexts were different, but RK always functions in controversial ways that have seem him partially banned at times. See Requests for comment/RK: "user:RK's aggressive editing tactics in the Wikipedian community of reverting articles, engaging in personal attacks in edit summaries, trying to goad editors into flaming him, trying to goad editors into wasting time engaging in edit wars over his reverts, and RK's use of editing tactics that should be classified as vandalism, even if they are currently not classified as vandalism. -- John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 05:22, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)". And see Requests for comment/RK2: "This user frequently engages in slander, distortion of issues, distortion of history of and reasons for edits, repeated insertion of non-NPOV material, and time wasting edit wars without rational or agreeable discussion. Description: This user has 1) repeatedly called users anti-Semites or accused them of spreading anti-Semitic viewpoints 2) misrepresented user views on Talk pages and maliciously spread libel about users on the Talk pages of various other users 3) engaged in rapid edit wars without adequate discussion 4) all subsequent discussion has consisted mostly of misrepresentation of other user views and of libel 5) made it difficult for users to focus on other work by maligning them and obliging them to respond 6) continued to emphasize opinionated, inaccurate and non-NPOV material in articles and rejected all differing views 7) repasted the same material in several places in the same article 8) when requested for sources, repeated the non-verifiable material as a source and claimed censorship upon removal of latter material." See also: "Eloquence temporarilly banned RK for "vandalizing" other contributors' user pages, and talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation, blanking them and replacing them with personal attacks. RK apparently did this in response to other contributors' leaving messages on his user talk page. User:AxelBoldt un-banned RK the next day. RK announced on the WikiEN-l mailing list that he was leaving Wikipedia." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RK/Departure#Ban_RK.3F And so on and so forth. IZAK 04:22, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Also Dovi, read IZAK's post a second time and replace "RK" with "IZAK". It's equally applicable for the majority of the writing.--Josiah 05:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Josiah, now what a great JOKE that is!!! What would you call that in psychological terms, inversion or projection? Pretty pathetic Josiah when you begin to "imagine" that I am someone else out there. Wow. Shows how out of perspective you are. Too bad. So far my record on Wikipedia is excellent. I work hard at it and do my NPOV job. IZAK 05:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gentlemen:

איזהו חכם? הלומד מכל אדם.

הווי מתלמידיו של אהרן הכהן: אוהב שלום, ורודף שלום, אוהב את הבריות ומקרבן לתורה.

First and foremost to remind myself.Dovi 12:43, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

IZAK spamming his arguments to his blog
Pardon me if i'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the discussions of this project (and other wikipedia discussions) were supposed to stay on Wikipedia. Is it appropriate to put it on a blog, without notification of the people involved? http://simshalom.blogspot.com/

 * Well, all contributions to Wikipedia are protected by the terms of GNU Free Documentation License. IZAK has the right to use the content as long as he follows the rules of the license. - Gilgamesh 2:07, 17 July 2004 (UTC)

 * The use of the word "spamming" is not applicable or justified. It is not even accurate. What on Earth can be wrong with placing verbatim PUBLIC discussions on a Blog, as no changes are made to the words of anyone? IZAK 20:51, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, maybe nothing. I'm fine with it.  I keep in mind that everything I post anywhere on Wikipedia becomes subject to the GNU Free Documentation License.  In short (but not complete details), it means that you are free to copy content here, as long as you adhere to the terms of the license (requiring it to be free information), and make the license readily available in all derivative works.  So, if you post it on your blog, you need a copy of the license and adhere to it.  And anyone who copies that blog will need a copy of the license too and adhere to it as well.  The GNU FDL ensures that free information remains perpetually free, so it restricts making it proprietary.  All information posted at Wikipedia becomes covered under the GNU FDL as a condition for it being posted.  So I suppose all you need to ensure is that the logs you post on your blog are posted with a disclamation of the GNU FDL, and a requirement that anyone who copies the text must also read it and adhere to it. - Gilgamesh 23:17, 19 July 2004 (UTC)

Gilgamesh: Done. Thank you for your gracious insight. I have placed the applicable links for info on GNU Free Documentation License at the start of the relevant articles. IZAK 00:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I'll be honest IZAK. Mainly I'm annoyed because you lied to me when you said you had only posted certain argument about Karaism a while back on my user talk page, and the Jew talk page, when in fact you also posted it to your blog as I recentely found out, and other areas.--Josiah 03:25, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Josiah face it, if all you can resort to is name-calling and acting like a cry-baby about public posts that inherently do NOT have "privacy" restrictions on them, then it's just nit-picking. I think that what YOU are doing on Wikipedia is far more serious: Every reference to Karaism is being twisted and altered to reflect YOUR own POV which is a very narrow and limited interpretion of the TRUTH, if it's that at all, (time will tell, I guess). IZAK 03:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Practicing Ad Hominem again? Assuming I twist every reference to Karaism (which I don't), you are accussed of the exact same things in regards to Orthodoxy often. However, the fact is that I've worked with others on the Karaite pages I work on to show *both* sides. The current Karaite Judaism page is a perfect example. This shouldn't have spilled on to here, and for that I apologize to everyone. All I ask is, in the future IZAK, tell me the truth when you tell me something. [even if it "is a very narrow and limited interpretion of the TRUTH, if it's that at all, (time will tell, I guess)"] --Josiah 05:14, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Josiah, you make it sound like we are in some sort of "relationship" or something. Is there anything else on your personal "menu" for me? I guess you must get a kick out of talking with me, a cute little "rabinite" as you call them elsewhere... IZAK 05:20, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Not even in my worst nightmares would that happen. You must get a kick out of putting words into my mouth.--Josiah 05:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:City of Palaces

From VfD:

Assuming that this isn't a copyvio, merge into Calcutta. RickK 19:38, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * hm. We have pages for Second city and the Big Apple; on one hand this would seem to be a parallel, on the other I don't see anything here that wouldn't be better off in the main article.  If there was something a bit more notable about the phrase or its history (as there is for Big Apple) I'd vote keep; as it stands I abstain.  Jgm 19:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Information is of some value but I agree with Rick. It should be merged into Calcutta. Arevich 21:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge into Calcutta. - Kenwarren 21:37, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I just copy-pasted into the "City of Palaces" subsection that was waiting at Calcuuta and it seems fine. Edit it there and delete this orphan stub. Wetman 21:39, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) comment moved off main vfd page. Rossami
 * Keep it separate. Link it to Calcutta. anon comment moved off main vfd page. Rossami
 * If merging, use the City Of Palaces page as a redirect though    - Master Of Ninja 21:59, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep in its present form, just link it to Calcutta. No need to make the reader search Calcutta for the info. A tag line like "City of Palaces" or "The Windy City" or what-have-you serves as a nice point of departure for an article about the city proper. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:35, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep—obviously enough information to discuss nickname in its own right. Postdlf 13:17, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

calcutta is NOT the city of palaces... pl name 2 palaces that r in calcutta.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.99.55.27 (talk) 07:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:City of Palaces


text:
Heckler & Koch UMP

The Heckler & Koch UMP (Universale Maschinenpistole, German for "Universal Machine Pistol") is a submachine gun developed and manufactured by Heckler & Koch. Heckler & Koch developed the UMP as a lighter and cheaper successor to the MP5, though both remain in production. The UMP has been adopted for use by various countries including Brazil, Canada, and the United States. Some of the weapons saw limited service in the early years of the Iraqi insurgency, making them one of the more popular submachine guns being deployed by the U.S. military personnel in recent conflicts around the world.

The UMP can be converted from 9×19mm Parabellum, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP by changing the barrel, bolt, and magazine. The UMP was previously available in multiple calibres, however with a decline in global use of .40 S&W and .45 ACP, only the 9mm Parabellum variant is in production. Parts are still available for the .40 S&W and .45 ACP calibre variants.

History
The UMP was designed in the 1990s by Heckler & Koch (HK), as a cheaper, lighter alternative to the MP5, which made heavy use of polymers. The UMP first entered production in 2000. It was designed primarily for use by American military and law enforcement units, as the MP5 was not available in .45 ACP, a round which was popular in the United States, but not in Europe. Despite the UMP's improvements and reduced cost, it did not replace the MP5, which ended up outselling the UMP.

Recall
In 2000, H&K recalled certain UMP and USC serial numbers due to faulty operating handles. The faulty handles, made of polymer, could break off, making the weapons inoperable.

Design details
The UMP is a blowback-operated, magazine-fed submachine gun that fires from a closed bolt. The closed bolt design increases the accuracy, which is particularly desirable in a law enforcement context. However, the simple blowback design of the UMP makes it less controllable than the MP5.

The UMP was originally designed for larger cartridges such as the .40 S&W and .45 ACP, to provide more stopping power against unarmoured targets, with slightly lower effectiveness at longer ranges. A larger cartridge produces more recoil and makes it harder to control in fully automatic fire. To mitigate the excessive recoil, Heckler & Koch designed the UMP to have a cyclic rate of around 600 rounds per minute, though the rate of fire increases up to 700 rounds per minute if (+ P) ammunition is used.

The UMP9 (the 9×19mm variant of the UMP) is almost 0.2 kg lighter than the MP5. It has a cyclic rate of around 600–750 rounds per minute. Its predominantly polymer construction reduces both its weight and the number of parts susceptible to corrosion.

The UMP is available in four trigger group configurations, featuring different combinations of semi-automatic, 2-round burst, fully automatic, and safe settings. It features a side-folding buttstock to reduce its length during transport. When the last round of the UMP is fired, the bolt locks open, and can be released via a catch on the left side. The iron sights consist of an aperture rear sight and a front ring with a vertical post. It can mount four Picatinny rails (one on top of the receiver, and one on the right, left, and bottom of the handguard) for mounting accessories such as optical sights, tactical lights, or laser sights. Vertical foregrips can be attached to the bottom rail for better control during burst and automatic fire.

Variants

The UMP is interchangeable between three different calibres:

The UMP9, chambered in 9×19mm Parabellum

The UMP40, chambered in .40 S&W

The UMP45, chambered in .45 ACP

Apart from the different chambering, all versions feature the same design model, the exterior differences being the curved magazine used on the UMP9, while both the UMP40 and UMP45 each use a straight magazine. All three versions of the weapon can be cross-converted to any of the round chamberings via replacing the bolt, barrel, and magazine.

The USC or Universal Self-loading Carbine is a semi-automatic-only variant of the UMP designed for civilian use. It was created following the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 in the United States and was introduced in 2000. Changes from the original UMP include a "thumbhole" type stock/grip instead of the pistol grip of the UMP, a longer barrel without the flash suppressor, a magazine limited to 10 rounds, and a semi-automatic-only trigger group and action. Originally available in grey, as of 2008 the USC came only in an all-black finish.

Production of the USC was halted in 2013. In 2018, H&K announced a limited production run of new USC rifles.

Clones

 * Omega Gideon Shadow - American clone of the UMP released in 2017.
 * Tommy Built Tactical TMP/KSM - American clone of the UMP.

Modern closed-bolt blowback submachine guns

 * Beretta Mx4 Storm
 * Brügger & Thomet APC
 * CS/LS5
 * CS/LS7
 * PP-19-01 Vityaz
 * Taurus SMT
 * CZ Scorpion Evo 3
 * Floro MK-9
 * FAMAE SAF-200

title: Heckler & Koch UMP


text:
Charles Taylor (North Carolina politician)

Charles Hart Taylor (born January 23, 1941) is an American politician and businessman who served as a member of the United States House of Representatives, representing North Carolina's 11th congressional district from 1991 to 2007.

Early life and education
Taylor was born in Brevard, North Carolina. He attended Wake Forest University, where he received his BA in 1963 and his Juris Doctor from Wake Forest University School of Law in 1966.

Career
He served in the North Carolina General Assembly as a Republican from Transylvania County from 1967 to 1975 — serving in the State House from 1967 to 1973 and the State Senate from 1973 to 1975. He then returned to his business interests until entering Congress.

In 1988, Taylor ran against Democratic incumbent Jamie Clarke and lost by just over 1,500 votes. He sought a rematch against Clarke in 1990 and won by 2,700 votes. He was reelected with 54 percent of the vote in 1992, even as Bill Clinton carried the district. He was reelected six more times from the 11th, which includes most of North Carolina's share of the Blue Ridge Mountains.

In his first term, as a member of the Gang of Seven, a group of first-term Republican Representatives, Taylor worked to expose the 1992 House banking scandal.

In 2006, Taylor's Democratic opponent was Heath Shuler, a native of Swain County and a former quarterback for the University of Tennessee and the Washington Redskins.

Shuler defeated Taylor, earning 54 percent of the vote to Taylor's 46 percent. In December 2007, Taylor announced that he would not seek a rematch with Shuler in 2008.

Positions
Taylor was one of the most conservative members of the House. He had a lifetime rating of 92 from the American Conservative Union. He was a member of the Republican Study Committee, a caucus of conservative Republican congressmen.

Environment
Taylor was the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, on the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations.

Taylor served on the advisory board of the National Wilderness Institute, a "deceptively named" pro-timber group which worked to promote timber companies' private property rights and reduce environmental safeguards.

Spending
In 2005 and 2006, Taylor made national headlines for delaying full funding by the federal government for a $60 million memorial to United Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001. Taylor's preference was for federal funding to be lowered and supplemented by private donations. After pressure from a variety of people, including President George W. Bush, Taylor ended his opposition and allowed funding for the memorial; he had used his Appropriations subcommittee chairmanship to block the funding. At the time of his protest, private donors had only donated $7 million towards the cost, and Taylor feared that the government would be forced to come up with the other $53 million.

Taylor supported spending over $600 million for a road through the Great Smoky Mountains National Park to settle a 1943 agreement with the federal government. Proponents of the road argue that if it were built, it would provide better access to ancestral cemeteries inside the park, as well as providing a tourist draw to the region. Critics call the project the "Road to Nowhere", and argue that if the road were built, it would cut through the largest roadless tract east of the Mississippi River; and prefer, instead, a cash settlement with the federal government.

Free trade
Taylor had been outspoken in his opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and other trade agreements that he argues would hurt his district, which has suffered from the closing of textile, furniture, and other plants when production has been moved abroad where labor costs are cheaper. However, he failed to register a vote during final approval of the agreement by the House, which passed 217–215. According to GOP aides, Taylor cast a no vote with a deactivated voting card. The glitch registered with the House Clerk's office, but Taylor had left the House floor and aides said attempts to locate him during the 62-minute vote were unsuccessful.

Russian student exchange program
Taylor started exchange programs for Russian students and internships for aspiring bankers and entrepreneurs in 1994, at colleges in his district.

In 2005, Taylor secured $100,000 in federal money for the International Trade and Small Business Institute, which brings foreign students to the U.S. to study at seven colleges and universities in western North Carolina. The 2007 federal budget contains a $1-million earmark for the program. In August 2006, 20 students arrived in the U.S. to attend six colleges and universities in western North Carolina.

The Russia-based coordinator of the study program is Marina Bolshakova. She and her husband are partners in the Russian bank owned by Taylor, and Taylor's Russian investment company. Taylor said Bolshakova earns no salary for her work, calling her a natural choice for the job because of her prior job as an English teacher.

Taylor made 11 trips to Russia between 1997 and 2005 as part of his Congressional travel, paid for by the U.S. government.

Iraq
In July 2005, at a town hall meeting in his district, when asked about the Iraq War, Taylor mentioned the terrorist bombings in London that occurred the prior week and said "Just like any murderer, they have to be dealt with and justice has to be brought." American troops, Taylor said, were doing a "job that should be done" in Iraq.

When asked for a time line of when he thought American troops might pull out, Taylor estimated that a reduction in American forces should occur in 2006. But he said American troops could spend another two years in Iraq training the country's new army.

Taylor was one of a handful of Congressmen who have had children serve in Iraq. His son Bryan is a US Army Captain who served in Iraq from mid-2004 until late 2005.

Businesses
According to Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, Taylor was worth more than $55 million as of the end of 2005, making him one of the wealthiest members of Congress. Taylor founded and remains majority owner/chairman of the board of Blue Ridge Savings Bank in Asheville, NC. In 2006, he reported owning stock in Financial Guaranty Corporation, the holding company for the bank, that was worth more than $50 million. The holding company also owns a Russian bank (see below).

In September 2006, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Taylor one of the "20 most corrupt members of Congress", saying his ethics issues arose "from his lucrative outside business interests". Shuler also accused Taylor of using his House seat to enrich himself, claiming that every earmark he placed in a transportation bill was for a project owned either by Taylor or one of his companies. Despite various accusations from political opponents, there were never any charges brought by the House Ethics committee against Taylor.

Blue Ridge Savings Bank
In January 2005, Hayes Martin, who had been bank president as well as Taylor's campaign treasurer, and Charles "Chig" Cagle, a former district Republican chairman who had taken out fraudulent loans from the bank, were sentenced for conspiracy to commit bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Martin pleaded guilty in 2001. During the 2003 trial of attorney Thomas Jones, who handled the closing of the loans, Martin said that Taylor had first-hand knowledge of the loans. Cagle and Jones also said Taylor knew of the fraud.

Taylor has refused to comment on the case. Congressional staff routinely said the fraud was bank business and referred questions to Blue Ridge President Dwayne Wiseman. Following the sentencing, Taylor press secretary Deborah Potter said Taylor still had no comment, and reviewed a statement by Wiseman: "For a number of years there has been an effort on the part of certain political opponents of Congressman Charles Taylor to slander him and Blue Ridge Savings Bank by indicating that neither he nor the bank or any present officers of the bank had any prior knowledge," Wiseman said in the statement. "This went on for some nine years with the encouragement of the press. We would hope that the settlement of this case would put an end to such speculation." Taylor was never targeted by authorities as having any involvement in helping Martin defraud Blue Ridge Savings Bank, which Taylor owned.

Russian investments
Starting in the mid-1990s, Charles Taylor began financing small businesses in and around Ivanovo, an industrial city of almost 500,000, about 150 mi northeast of Moscow. In 2003, Taylor purchased the Commercial Bank of Ivanovo with a Russian partner, Boris Bolshakov, a former KGB colonel and Supreme Soviet deputy, and Bolshakov's wife Marina. Taylor owns 80 percent of the bank as well as Columbus, a Russian investment company.

In December 2005, the Bank of Ivanovo opened a new four-story headquarters, its second office, in the city's downtown. Taylor said at the time that he didn't consider the bank to yet be particularly profitable. In mid-2006, Bolshakov said the bank's hard currency balance was more than $22 million and its loan portfolio was more than $18.6 million.

One of the 2005 participants in the Russian student exchange program told Associated Press that she had a summer work-study internship at the Bank of Ivanovo after she returned to Russia. Taylor's office said that was a mistake because Institute policy forbids participants to work in "any business venture with which Congressman Taylor is associated." The bank has since ended its participation in the work-study program, Taylor's office said.

Bank of Ivanovo had its license revoked on April 5, 2019, by the Central Bank of Russia for regularly breaking anti-money laundering regulations, misrepresenting the size of its provisions and using "schemes" to artificially inflate its capital, according to a central bank statement.

Cattle and tree farms
In 2000, Jackson County's tax collector asked the U.S. House of Representatives to garnish his wages to collect more than $3,583 in back taxes resulting from a dispute over parcels owned by Transylvania Tree Farms, a Taylor business. The county said that Taylor had failed to file a management plan for his property, despite repeated requests from the county, and so it could not be assessed at a lower rate through a forest land tax deferment. Taylor's attorney disputed the authority of the county to require such a plan.

In May 2006, Champion Cattle and Tree Farm, located in Transylvania County, was issued a notice of violation because rental property of the company had become a "public health nuisance."

Taylor owned 8000 acre on the North Carolina side of Sassafras Mountain, the highest point in South Carolina. In June 2010 it was announced he planned to sell the property to the Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy for $33 million. It had a market value of $63 million and the difference was considered a charitable gift for tax purposes. Most of the property was used to create Headwaters State Forest.

Affiliations

 * Congressional Coalition on Adoption
 * North Carolina Board of Transportation
 * North Carolina Energy Policy Council
 * Board of Visitors, United States Military Academy, West Point
 * Vice Chair, Western North Carolina Environmental Council.
 * Member and Past International Justice of Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity