text:
Talk:Liberalism/old text classical liberalism/talk

The inclusion of "democracy" as one of the principles of (classical) liberalism should be removed. Classical liberals _detested_ democracy.

--

This is absolutely wrong. Classical liberals did not detest democracy, despite what the propogandists of the modern right-wing libertarian captialist movement (Anarcho-capitalists) want us to believe. Quite the contrary, they were the CHAMPIONS of democracy. I think you are confusing a "tyranny of the majority" with democracy. A democracy must neccisarily be structured so as to protect minority and individual rights. To do otherwise is very undemocratic. I would challenge any of the Anarcho-capitalists to find ONE (just one) quote from a classical liberal which explicitly condemns democracy. Of course, it would be easy to find a quote from one of the classical conservatives like Edmund Burke or Alexander Hamilton which does, but they are not classical liberals.

Classical liberals were also very distrustful of the rich, and of corporations, seeing them as being aristocrats with desires to tyranize the people. If the classical liberals had lived through the industrial revolution of the late 19th century, there is no doubt they would have adopted socialistic tendancies to adjust to the changes in the political economy.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. This issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of the moneyed corporations which already dare to challenge our Government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country" -Thomas Jefferson  (Some Anarcho-capitalist Jefferson was...said sarcastically)

“Those seeking profits, were they given total freedom, would not be the ones to trust to keep government pure and our rights secure. Indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source of corruption in government. No other depositories of power have ever yet been found, which did not end in converting to their own profit the earnings of those committed to their charge…I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom.” -Thomas Jefferson (I guess Jefferson was of the "eat the rich" mentality too...)

“Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” -Jefferson

Yes, that’s right. Jefferson is talking about PROGRESSIVE TAXATION there.

As for Adam Smith, he never once used the word “capitalism” in any of his works. In Smith’s view, there were two types of “political economies”- the agrarian and the mercantilist. Smith was a staunch defender of the agrarian type, and very distrustful of merchants and businessmen. In other words, he disliked what today is known as corporate capitalism.

“To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens.” -The Wealth of Nations

“[Businessmen are] an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.” -The Wealth of Nations

“The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. … Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. … Such combinations, however, are frequently resisted by a contrary defensive combination of the workmen; who sometimes too, without any provocation of this kind, combine of their own accord to raise the price of their labour.” -The Wealth of Nations

“Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality. For one very rich man, there must be at least five hundred of the poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many.” -The Wealth of Nations

"The pretense that corporations are necessary to the better government of the trade is without foundation." -Adam Smith

What the Anarcho-capitalists do not understand is that there have been significant changes in the political economy since the liberal enlightenment of the 18th century. We no longer live in an agrarian economy where each individual can own their own means of production- their farm. Rather, we live in a modern industrial society where most of the means of productions we depend upon are owned by others- by capitalists.

The liberals of today are indeed the true bearers of the ideals of the classical liberals. In fact, if anything they have gotten LESS radical than the liberals of the classical period.

I leave you with this quote, which heartily sums up the attitudes of classical liberals towards the rich.

-CertainKindOfFool

"The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did...they always will. They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by the power of government, keep them in their proper spheres." -Gouvernor Morris, head of the committee that wrote the final draft of the U.S. Constitution

Classical liberalism and US "liberalism"
The word "Liberalism" came to mean something much akin to socialism, in the US, whereas socialism is the very anti-thesis of classical liberalism - this has very much to do with the history of political parties, and little to do with the classical liberal tradition of thinkers: In the 1930s, collectivist ideologies were so strong that there remained very few classical liberals who didn't adulterate their views with some kind of welfare state, and those who remained true to the tradition mostly wouldn't get to express their opinions in public - so the so-called "neo-liberals" of the day were actually welfare-statists. Later, when it became impossible to publicly call oneself socialist or communist in the US, socialist-minded people would call themselves "Liberals" after this kind of liberalism, but without ever sharing anything in common with the classical liberal tradition. Real classical liberals would then come to call themselves libertarians to distinguish themselves from such "left-liberals".

Outside the US, the word "liberal", when applied to ideologies, usually continues to stand for classical liberalism. However, it is sometimes adulterated by the existence of political parties (usually conservative) that stand by the name "liberal", so people also specify "classical liberal" so as to identify their tradition of thought.

 * ''I wouldn't say that socialism and liberalism are opposites. If you believe that lack of government intervention will give people the best opportunity to work to support the worst off in their communities, then you're a liberal and a socialist. If you believe people should follow the instructions of their superiors and the weak will fail, you're neither socialist nor liberal. I see socialism as the antonym of individualism and liberalism as the antonym of authoritarianism. For completeness I'd say the other main dimension is conservatism vs radicalism. Ben Arnold 01:24, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The entry needs a concrete discussion of what classical liberalism is, rather than vague and bald assertions of The One Truth. Right now there's minimal specificity. It also desperately needs an etymology. Who coined this term, and when? It's heavily propagandic. --TheCunctator

The specificity of has helped me for the first time understand what distinguishes classical liberalism from new liberalism, without using loaded language. --TheCunctator

Nice to see Fare's back at work. Fare, we should use the term new liberalism for where you want to slander liberals. It seems the axis is classical liberalism vs. new liberalism. You really need to try to be less disparaging of people you despise. If you can't, you should write about them. --TheCunctator

I removed Nozick, and replaced him by de Jasay. Nozick is definitely not a prominent libertarian, though he's one of the few who's acknowledged by statists, since (1) he accepts many statist claims, so they can claim consensus on these, and (2) his arguments are weak (for the same reason), so they can more easily diss libertarian ideas without having to argue. I think people should be considered as prominent among a movement when they are recognized as such by people within the movement, and not by people outside it. Faré

 * A Commentary on Al Frankin

"I removed Nozick, and replaced him by de Jasay. Nozick is definitely not a prominent libertarian..."

Please don't do that again. This is an entry about *classical liberalism*, not anarcho-capitalism. Classical liberalism included the notion of night-watchman state, which is the same as Nozick's minimal state. Jasay, like any anarcho-capitalist, doesn't support any kind of state. Jasay would certainly be a better match to a page about anarcho-capitalism than Nozick, but anarcho-capitalism, which Jasay represents, is a much more new phenomenom than classical liberalism.

Besides, whose prominent? Somebody who is well-known and whose thoughts has some real influence, or somebody, who is orthodox, but whose thought will have attention = influence only in small circles? De Jasay is recognized only by anarcho-capitalists, who constitute a minority among the libertarian movement, so even that argument fails.

I have not been active in this page, but I notice that a new user, User:Slizor, has made major edits, which have included deletions, including most mentions of libertarianism. Given that "classical liberalism" is a libertarian coinage, that seems perverse. Also, at a quick glance, the article has become more polemical. I noticed this because the same person also made what I consider detrimental edits to Political spectrum.

I'm not going to try to tend to this article beyond raising a flag and suggesting that someone who has been active in this page should carefully work through and evaluate these changes. -- Jmabel 06:23, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC) --- You think the article is polemical? Dude, this is what I study. The last article was just trying to say that Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism are the same thing, when they are not. Libertarianism, or neo-Liberalism is recognised by Political Philosophers (ones that aren't actually Libertarians)as two seperate things. What I have written actually talks about Classical Liberalism.

And my "detrimental edits" was taking things out which are incorrect (that the right supports closer links between church and state) and a bias towards the Nolan spectrum.

 * The usual approach to removing content from an article is not to just edit in a manner that makes it very difficult to see what has been removed. Because you added, removed, and moved around a lot of content in one editing session, and made no remarks here to explain, it is very hard to even know what you have changed. And, by the way, I object to being addressed as "dude"; if you use that again, I guess I'll just have to start addressing you as "whippersnapper."

If you reread my remarks above, you will see that I did not call your edits in this article "detrimental". That was my characterization of your edit in Political spectrum. What I said of your edits here is that they were "major...[and]...have included deletions, including most mentions of libertarianism... Also, at a quick glance, the article has become more polemical," and suggested that they be reviewed by someone more familiar with the article.

Again, I stand by my belief (though admittedly not well researched) that the term "classical liberalism" to refer to the beliefs of Adam Smith et. al. is a libertarian coinage, though I'd gladly stand corrected on that point with a good citation from a competent authority.

And, yes, beyond a doubt classical liberalism and neo-liberalism are two quite different concepts. Among other things:
 * the former puts roughly equal emphasis on personal freedoms and free markets, the latter focuses primarily on free markets and holds an ideological belief that those will facilitate personal freedom.
 * the former arose as a revolutionary philosophy, opposing the last vestiges of feudalism and absolute monarchy, while the latter is a 20th century invention, and grew up as a reaction against what its proponents saw as creeping socialism.

-- Jmabel 17:31, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that but I'm new at this. I mostly move around on Politics Forums. My "edit" wasn't really an edit at all, I just wrote an new article for it, started again from scratch. The entry that was there before was just arguing that Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism are the same thing. It doesn't really matter if "Classical Liberalism" was coined by a Libertarian or not (although I doubt it was.) What matters is that the entry is actually about Classical Liberalism, not Libertarianism.

I also don't feel my edits to the Political Spectrum were detrimental. I highly think that entry needs a re-editing as to decrease its bias, I only did that quickly but that was changed back.

One question: how do you know if I'm younger than you? ("whippersnapper") Another Question: Are Libertarian and Neo-Liberal the same thing in your opinion?

-- Slizor
 * You could be older than me, but it would surprise me. Since you haven't made a home page, I'm only guessing, but if you are older than me and used "dude" in the sense you did, it was pretty pretentious (unless, I suppose, you are from California and barely older than me). I was born in 1954.

No, a libertarian (and I assume we are both using the US sense of this word) and a neo-liberal are two different things, although they'd probably have some economic views in common. I suppose both generally imagine themselves to be in the classical liberal tradition, but they've taken it different directions. As I noted above, to me neo-liberals seem to focus primarily on free markets and hold an ideological belief that those will facilitate personal freedom. Libertarians are very often focused rather directly on civil liberties issues. For many self-declared libertarians, the economic issues are almost an afterthought. (My leftist, class-analyzing heritage would say that neo-liberalism is at root an elite, haute bourgeois ideology, and libertarianism, while also bourgeios, seems to appeal mostly to technocrats.)

Again, I have no idea whether your edits in this article are improvements or not: I was just trying to raise the flag on your having removed substantive material, because you didn't raise it yourself, which is against wikipedian custom. When removing content that is not blatant nonsense, but that you think is wrong, it is customary to do at least some of the following (state your case explicitly, move the deleted material to the talk page and identify it as such, if it can easily be characterized describe your edit in the summary, make your deletions in a separate edit from your additions so that comparing versions makes it easy to see what was deleted, etc.). You did none of these, as far as I can tell, so I gave a shout.

As for Political spectrum, if you want to discuss it (which is fine), let's do it over there so that people monitoring that article know what is going on. OK? -- Jmabel 01:21, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

1954? Jeebus.....I will accept whippersnapper then. Okay, now I recognise a problem in communication. I use Neo-Liberal and Libertarian interchangably, I view Neo-Liberalism as a Right Libertarian ideology (Libertarian being a descriptive word meaning someone who is for Liberty, which means Left-Libertarian are Anarcho-Communists.) Would you say that Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism are the same?

Sorry about not following wikipedian custom, but I was just doing some work and then saw the page, so I joined up and edited it......it was just too biased. It's like the first thing I did when I joined, in fact it was my reason for joining.

Slizor

 * glad to have you aboard. It's (almost) always a little rocky at first: you're joining an enormous community and it has its customs. I don't like every single one of them, but when in Rome...

 * I would say that most libertarians believe that libertarianism and classical liberalism are the same. I am not sure I agree with them - partly because holding certain opinions in the 21st century is not the same as holding them in the 19th. For example:

 * Not all classical liberals opposed slavery; certainly no libertarian today upholds slavery.
 * 19th-century classical liberals generally opposed women's suffrage; again, I cannot imagine a libertarian today holding that opinion.

 * Conversely, the advocacy of free markets when the alternative was French mercantilism is a very different thing that when the alternative might be the existence of the Environmental Protection Agency. That is, the current politically viable alternatives to this general viewpoint are very different. Making the same choice from a different set of alternatives can, in practice be a very different thing. By way of a (very) loose analogy, you'd see a person differently for choosing broccoli over filet mignon and choosing broccoli over dog food.

 * Also, "Libertarian" in American usage doesn't usually include anarcho-communists. (By the way "libertaria" in Spanish usage, same etymology, refers to those anarchists who reject participating in government even when they are welcomed, as for example by the Spanish Republic during the Spanish Civil War. The "anarchistas" chose to serve in a government they saw as a bulwark against fascism, the "libertarias" said not even in those circumstances.) Yes, etymologically it comes from "liber", as does "liberal", and of course people who subscribe to either ideology like that etymology and like saying they "stand for freedom", but one person's "freedom" is often another's "oppression". Again, this is getting off topic to this article, though, and I don't want to eat up its talk page. -- Jmabel 07:20, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Libertarian and Classical Liberal are the same thing, though of course modern libertarians have had a couple of hundred years to further develop their beliefs. -anon

recent anon addition "From 1990th Techno-liberals are focussed on Building a Free Information Infrastructure. Also the Free Software movement is part of this techno-liberal culture" seems true (if poorly spelled), but irrelevant. Does it really belong in the article? -- Jmabel 03:18, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree, unless anyone has an argument for it staying it should be given 24 hours then got rid of. It's just not relevant. Slizor 23:20, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)

Done. -- Jmabel 22:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Another recent addition by an anon: "Another important thinker of classical liberalism is Frédéric Bastiat (See www.bastiatfoundation.org)." I have never heard of Bastiat. A quick web search confirms he is associated with libertarianism. Would someone with a clue either wikify and expand, or delete, as appropriate? -- Jmabel 22:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I had a quick look too, seems like he has a whole host of neo-liberal cheerleaders in the US (It also said that he was largely ignored in France.) I wouldn't include him, there's other more famous thinkers who could be included. Slizor 14:59, 2004 Mar 15 (UTC)

I just want to point out that Bastiat is without question one of the greatest economic thinkers of all time! -- anon

Hi folks, I felt that there was a lot of spin towards liberatarianism => classical liberalism => outdated. I've tried to focus on neutralising the tone, rather than adding content in my edit. The problem with the evolution of political ideas is that they come under strain from issues of modern lifestyles and modern ideas, that their original advocates might have not had to think about.

The main thing to remember about ideologies is that they say what is important, but they don't always make the judgements or boundary calls you need to hold a firm political position. Classical liberalism is fundamentally about freedom. How you balance various forms of freedom is an open question. The article should reflect that ambiguity and follow on to closer discussion of how more modern ideologies have elected to interpret freedom in a contemporary society.

Ben Arnold 00:20, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


text:
List of U.S. cities with large Vietnamese-American populations

The following is a list of U.S. cities with large Vietnamese-American populations. They consist of cities with at least 10,000 Vietnamese Americans or where Vietnamese Americans constitute a large percentage of the population. The information contained here was based on the 2010 U.S. census.

Vietnamese-Americans immigrated to the United States in different waves. The first wave of Vietnamese from just before or after the Fall of Saigon/the last day of the Vietnam War, April 30, 1975. They consisted of mostly educated, white collar public servants, senior military officers, and upper and middle class Vietnamese and their families. The second wave came in the 1980s escaping very precariously in boats from the communist regime as boat people. In the 1990s and 2000s, a third wave came from the US's Humanitarian Operation Program, family members of Vietnamese Americans, former prisoners of re-education camps, and Amerasian children of American servicemen who applied for entry into the United States. Vietnamese Americans vary in income level, with some being upper-class while others, particular those who came later, are working-class.

Vietnamese Americans are mainly concentrated in metropolitan areas in the West, including Orange County, California, San Jose, California, and Houston, Texas.

Cities with more than 10,000 Vietnamese Americans
These cities have more than 10,000 Vietnamese Americans according to the 2012-2016 American Community Survey, sorted by number.

Major cities
These cities have more than 500,000 people consisting of at least 2% Vietnamese American in the 2010 census, sorted by percentage.

Medium cities
These cities have between 100,000 and 500,000 people and are at least 4% Vietnamese American in the 2010 Census, sorted by percentage.

Small cities
These cities have between 10,000 and 100,000 people and consist of at least 6% Vietnamese American in the 2010-15 American Community Survey, sorted by percentage.

Towns
These cities have fewer than 10,000 people and consist of at least 8% Vietnamese American in the 2010 Census, sorted by percentage.

Counties
Ten largest counties with Vietnamese Americans according to the 2010 Census, sorted by number.

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


text: Category:Chrysler platforms

title: Category:Chrysler platforms


text:
Mahanakorn University of Technology

Mahanakorn University of Technology (มหาวิทยาลัยเทคโนโลยีมหานคร, short MUT) is a university in Thailand. The university was established on February 27, 1990 at Nong Chok District, Bangkok. as Mahanakorn College by Prof. Dr. Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom, former Dean of King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang. The objective was to train engineering students in response to the severe shortage of engineers. MUT was then promoted to full university status under the new name Mahanakorn University of Technology .It is the first and still the only university in the country that operates its own low-orbit microsatellite (TMSAT).

Faculties
There are four faculties,
 * Engineering,
 * Information Science and Technology,
 * Veterinary Medicine and
 * Business Administration.

Doctoral and master's degree programs are offered in addition to bachelor's degree courses.

The main campus of the university is located in Nong chok District, Bangkok. Another campus is located at Vanit2 Building on New Petchaburi Road, Central Bangkok.

Overseas cooperation
Cooperation with oversea universities has played an important role in the development of MUT. Partnerships has been established with:

 * Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, South Korea,
 * The University of New South Wales, Australia,
 * University of Sydney, Australia,
 * Imperial College London, England,
 * The University of Surrey, England,
 * Coventry University, England,
 * University of Veterinary Medicine Hanover, Germany.

MUT and Imperial College (London, England) has jointly established an electronic circuit design laboratory in Imperial College. The centre was opened by Her Royal Highness Princess Royal, daughter of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. It is a research centre for Thai doctoral students and a gateway for Thai industry to access advances in Microelectronics.

Notable activities
MUT has designed and constructed a microsatellite. The satellite was built in the University of Surrey by a team of MUT engineers and launched in March 1998. The satellite was named “Thai Paht” by His Majesty King Bhumibol. It is controlled from the ground station on the Nong Chok campus. The station has opened educational centre for communication engineering students and a research centre in satellite engineering. Images downloaded from the satellites are used in the study of regional and environmental features. A program of further satellite construction is underway in cooperation with Chinese and Korean satellite research institutes.

Mahanakorn has established itself as notable research centre nationally and worldwide. MUT staffs have published the largest number of articles among Thai academics in international engineering journals. Several projects have also been recognized for their contribution to society such as mine detector, unmanned aerial vehicle and water filer.

International and national recognitions
MUT was ranked 36th by Asia Week Magazine in category of Asian Best Science and Technology Institution within ten years after it was founded. MUT’s latest achievement is to accomplish a score of 4.86 out of 5 which is the highest score in the category of Research University in an assessment by the office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA), a public organization set up to assess the performance of all educational institutions from schools to universities, in two categories: research and learning qualities and the quality of graduates.

title: Mahanakorn University of Technology


text: Category:Chrysler

title: Category:Chrysler


text:
Talk:Economy of Cuba

Peer Review Comments
The section about before the revolution looks really good so far. Paragraph four is a little choppy, so that could be smoothed out.

For the "citation needed," this source may be worth looking at. http://latinamericanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199366439.001.0001/acrefore-9780199366439-e-4

Cuban sugar quota Looks good to me

Zafra You may want to block the Castro quote, though I'm not certain of what the rules for that are

Overall, the work you've done looks good! Jgriffith19 (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgriffith19 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

5 percent under poverty
5 percent under poverty line gives no citation and google suggests that this information is not actually available. Elliot9000 (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Special Period: comparison with North Korean famine
"A Canadian Medical Association Journal paper claimed that "The famine in Cuba during the Special Period was caused by political and economic factors similar to the ones that caused a famine in North Korea in the mid-1990s,..." when reading the source, I saw that it was an anonymous article posted on a bulletin. Are there reliable resources that state the same conclusion? RenaatPeeters (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The complete second paragraph under Special Period is strange: "mortality rates were not strongly affected" ?? I have never read a source that states that there has been one fatality due to famine. The source cited doesn't exist. RenaatPeeters (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been studying on the subject quite a while now and I haven't encountered any source that speaks about deaths due to the food shortages. Many are the sources that say that due to a different diet the Cubans' health improved dramatically during the years of austerity. Deaths from cardiovascular disease and adult-onset type 2 diabetes fell by a third and a half, respectively. Strokes declined more modestly, and overall mortality rates went down. Referring to the North Korean famine creates a false image. RenaatPeeters (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it creates an undue weight issue with this article. I deleted it. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Venezuela as "Client State" of Cuba
From "Economic Freedom": Cuba ranked 31st among the 32 countries in South and Central America, with the Heritage Foundation rating Venezuela as a "client state" of Cuba's and one of the least free.

Previous sections seem to imply the reverse, that Cuba is economically dependent on Venezuela; for example, As of 2012, Venezuela accounted for 20.8% of Cuba's GDP while Cuba only accounted for roughly 4% of Venezuela's. While the citation given for the Heritage Foundation does not state this claim, I found a document from them that did say this. It seems like this was added in July of 2021, after updating a section sourcing from 2014, while also removing context about the Heritage Foundation's ideological bias.

Should the part about Venezuela being a client state of Cuba be removed, while keeping the rest of the sentence? And should it be framed in the context of the Heritage Foundation's biases? 128.163.248.203 (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Hi IP, in case you're still around, thanks for pointing this out. I have at least trimmed the "client state" clause. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Potential bias in "Economic freedom" section
The first paragraph of the economic freedom section is sourced only to the Index of Economic Freedom, which is published by the Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal. These are both very strongly conservative and pro-capitalism sources, and both have a recent history of pushing outright disinformation - albeit with non-economic subjects, such as climate change denialism. This leads me to doubt the accuracy of their assessment of a country that is primarily perceived as either a mixed economy or socialist - I do not feel that a source which is as strongly conservative as THF is able to accurately and fairly assess the freedom of an economy such as Cuba's, even if they had a history of acting in good faith and providing accurate information, which THF does not.

I believe it would be better for this source to either be replaced with a more neutral one that does not have a history of disinformation, or for it to at least be matched with a more centrist- or left-leaning source. If neither can be found, perhaps it would be best to remove this paragraph?

I'm still new to editing wikipedia, so please let me know if there is a better way to propose this change (e.g. something along the "Citation needed" tags). I would edit it to include one of those sources, but I am not familiar enough with the subject to judge if one is reliable enough. DuskTheUmbreon (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for raising this point in a detailed and thoughtful manner.
 * Yes, there are possibly appropriate templates you could add to the text. Assuming you are editing in visual, go to Insert. Then template. Then type "Better source needed" and select it. Another possible template is "Unreliable source?"
 * Keep in mind that a source having an ideological standpoint does not make a source unreliable per the Wikipedia policies (The RS policy states, "Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."). I recognize you have raised other points as well in this instance, but because you also raised ideology I wanted to orient you to that. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! I greatly appreciate the tip about the template. Haven't had the chance to mess with those yet, on this site or on any other wiki.
 * I'll keep in mind that bias alone isn't enough to say "This isn't reliable". DuskTheUmbreon (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Economy of Cuba


text: Template:Buckley class destroyer escort

title: Template:Buckley class destroyer escort


text: Template:Cannon class destroyer escort

title: Template:Cannon class destroyer escort


text: Template:Edsall class destroyer escort

title: Template:Edsall class destroyer escort


text: Template:Rudderow class destroyer escort


text:
Pet cemetery

A pet cemetery is a cemetery for pets. Although the veneration and burial of beloved pets has been practiced since ancient times, burial grounds reserved specifically for animals were not common until the late 19th century.

History
Many human cultures buried animal remains. For example, the Ancient Egyptians mummified and buried cats, which they considered deities; the oldest known pet cemetery, mainly used for cat burials, was found during the excavation of the Berenice Troglodytica seaport in 2011 and was used between the 1st and 2nd century CE. Archaeologists have found that dogs were buried alongside humans in Siberia as many as 8,000 years ago. The Ashkelon dog cemetery, the largest known dog cemetery in the ancient world, was discovered at the Ashkelon National Park in Ashkelon, Israel.

The Hiran Minar near Lahore, Pakistan is a minaret that was built in approximately 1606 CE by the Mughal Emperor Jahangir in honor of his beloved pet antelope Mansraj.

London's Hyde Park was the site of an informal pet cemetery between 1881 and 1903, in the gatekeeper's garden. From the first burial of "Cherry" until its official closure in 1903, it received 300 burials with miniature headstones, with a final special burial of the Royal Marines mascot dog "Prince" in 1967.

Cimetière des Chiens in Asnières-sur-Seine in Paris, dating from 1899, is an elaborate, sculpted pet cemetery believed to be one of the first public zoological necropolis in the world.

America's largest and oldest pet cemetery is the Hartsdale Pet Cemetery in Hartsdale, New York. It dates from 1896, when a veterinarian working out of Manhattan offered to let a grieving pet owner bury her dog at his hillside apple orchard. Today, it is the final resting place to around 80,000 animals including famous ones like Mariah Carey's cat Clarence and Ming the tiger. The site was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2012. Some other famous American pet cemeteries include Aspin Hill Memorial Park in Silver Spring, Maryland, believed to be the second-oldest in America, as well as the Pet Memorial Cemetery in Calabasas, California, where Hopalong Cassidy's horse, Topper, Steven Spielberg's Jack Russell Terrier, and Rudolph Valentino's dog, Kabar, are buried.

Burial with humans
At some cemeteries, such as Aspin Hill Memorial Park, human and animal remains may be interred alongside each other. In January 2010, West Lindsey District Council gave permission for a site in the village of Stainton by Langworth to inter animal remains alongside human remains as part of a "green burial" site, making it the first place in England where pets could be buried alongside their owners. In 2011, New York State formally adopted guidelines to allow human burials in pet cemeteries as long as the cemetery doesn't advertise it or charge a burial fee.

title: Pet cemetery


text:
Louis Nelson Delisle

"Big Eye" Louis Nelson Delisle (January 28, 1885 – August 20, 1949) was an American early twentieth-century Dixieland jazz clarinetist in New Orleans, Louisiana, United States. He also played double bass, banjo, and accordion.

Early life and education
Nelson Delisle was born into a family who were Creoles of color. He spent most of his life in New Orleans, Louisiana. He studied clarinet with the elder Lorenzo Tio.

Career
By the age of 15, Delisle was working professionally in the music venues of Storyville, an area of brothels and clubs in New Orleans. He developed a style of hot jazz, a.k.a. Dixieland, and was an influence on clarinetists Johnny Dodds and Jimmie Noone.

Early in his career Delisle often played a C clarinet, as opposed to the more common B♭; the C was used by other New Orleans clarinetists of the era, such as Alcide Nunez.

In 1917, Delisle joined the reconstituted Original Creole Orchestra that included Freddie Keppard and Bill Johnson. The band had disbanded in Boston in the spring of that year but was reassembled in New York City in the fall of the same year. Delisle replaced George Baquet, who had toured with the group in vaudeville. After a short while, Delisle was replaced by Jimmie Noone. He was the regular clarinetist with the Jones & Collins Astoria Hot Eight but did not play on their 1929 recording sessions.

He made his only recordings in his later years in the 1940s, by which time he was often in poor health.

title: Louis Nelson Delisle


text:
Andrew Mehrtens

Andrew Philip Mehrtens (born 28 April 1973) is a New Zealand former rugby union player. He was regarded as a top first five-eighth, having played first for Canterbury in 1993, before being selected for the All Blacks (New Zealand's national team) in 1995 when he played in the 1995 World Cup.

After his move to England, and later to France, he helped his first three clubs to promotion into their country's top flight. He first joined Harlequins in England, where in his first season he played a major factor in leading the freshly relegated club to an immediate return to the top-level Guinness Premiership. After seeing Harlequins successfully through their first season back in the Premiership, he went to the ambitious Pro D2 club Toulon for the 2007–08 season. After Toulon won the title to secure an immediate return to the Top 14, he remained in Pro D2, moving to another ambitious side, Racing Métro. For the second straight season, his team won the Pro D2 crown and a spot in the Top 14.

Youth
Mehrtens was born in Durban, South Africa, as his parents lived in South Africa for four years from 1970 and returned to New Zealand when he was still a young child. Mehrtens grew up in Christchurch, attended Christchurch Boys' High School where he played in the 1st XV, and played Junior Grade Rugby for Kaiapoi. He recalled, when he was aged 10, his Kaiapoi team playing a match at Lancaster Park as a curtain raiser to the Ranfurly Shield match between Canterbury and Mid Canterbury. He also represented New Zealand at under-19 and under-21 levels.

Like many players in New Zealand, Mehrtens comes from a family with a long involvement in rugby. His grandfather, George Mehrtens, played for Canterbury in the 1920s as a fullback and was an All Black in unofficial internationals against New South Wales in 1928. His father, Terry, also a first five, represented Canterbury between 1964 and 1976. He was a New Zealand under-23 player in 1965 against the Springboks and again in 1967, and while in South Africa played as a fullback for against the 1970 All Blacks.

Career
New Zealand rugby has had few players who have won such wide popularity and affection as Andrew Mehrtens, who in a 12-year career at first class level became a national figure rather than simply an icon of his Canterbury province. However, there was never total agreement on his ranking in the pecking order of All Black first five-eighths. Some headed by Colin Meads believed that Mehrtens was the best in his position ever produced by New Zealand. Others believed that despite his immense skills, vision, kicking and ability to throw long cut out passes to his outsides he had limitations, especially in the way rugby developed in the professional era. He was seen as lacking the physique or inclination to mix it physically, either taking the ball up or committing himself to the tackle.

Outside the playing field, Mehrtens proved to be a favourite with fans and a large section of the media because of his pleasant manner, his intelligence, and his wit and sense of humour.

Despite his family background Mehrtens only emerged as a rare prospect in his late teens, perhaps because he was a slower developer physically. In his teens Mehrtens showed almost as much promise in tennis, where in various age groups he was nationally ranked.

His first significant rugby selection was in 1992 when he played in the national under 19s against Australia in a side which also included later Crusaders or All Blacks teammates Adrian Cashmore, Norman Berryman, Milton Going, Tabai Matson, Justin Marshall and Taine Randell.

He was first chosen for Canterbury in 1993–94 and in each of those seasons he was in the New Zealand Colts, making his first major impact nationally in the Canterbury side which in 1994 took the Ranfurly Shield from Waikato. His performance that day and in Shield defences later that season against Counties and Otago marked him as a clear All Black prospect.

Though left out of the initial training squads, Mehrtens developed so much that he forced his way into the 1995 World Cup squad, having made his All Black debut in the early season test against Canada when he scored 28 points.

In the World Cup tournament he was a success, one of three youngsters with Jonah Lomu and Josh Kronfeld who gave the All Blacks a dimension which had been lacking for much of the 1994 season. The only quibble about Mehrtens at the World Cup was missing a dropped goal attempt in the extra time of the final.

Over the next six or seven seasons Mehrtens was a virtual automatic selection for the All Black squad, though he was not always assured of a starting position. A knee injury curtailed his 1995 tour of France and in the next few seasons injury and competition from the likes of Carlos Spencer and Tony Brown saw him miss a number of tests.

But he reasserted himself during the 1999 season, both in kicking a record nine penalties in a trans-Tasman test against Australia at Eden Park and then at the World Cup. However, an injury in the quarter-final against Scotland clearly affected him in the latter rounds.

Besides his importance to the All Blacks, Mehrtens from the late 1990s to the mid-2000s fashioned an outstanding record for the Crusaders at Super 12 level. He had key roles in their three title wins in 1998–2000, either through his tactical command of games or, as in the 2000 final against the Brumbies, with a penalty goal under severe pressure. He also played in the Crusaders sides which won the Super 12 titles of 2002 and 2005, even though in the final season he was now playing second fiddle to his protege Dan Carter.

Mehrtens was also a huge contributor to Canterbury at National Provincial Championship (NPC) levels, with his inside back partnership with half-back Justin Marshall becoming celebrated. As well as 1994 against Waikato he played in Shield winning sides in 2000 (against Waikato again) and in 2004 against Bay of Plenty. He played in three NPC winning sides in 1997, 2001 and 2004.

Over the latter stages, especially in 2003, Mehrtens was beset by personal problems which in turn affected his fitness and form. He battled to make the Crusaders then and in 2004 and was left out of the All Blacks for the 2003 season, though many believed he should have been recalled for the World Cup.

He eventually did win his All Black place back for a brief period in 2004, but by then it had become clear that the immediate future belonged to Carter. At the end of the 2005 Super 12, Mehrtens left New Zealand rugby to play for the Harlequins in Britain.

He left behind a formidable record: 281 first class games for 3,178 points, 108 games for Canterbury for 1,056 points, 87 for the Crusaders and 981 points, 72 games for the All Blacks and 967 points in 70 tests. His test aggregate, a record for a New Zealander until Carter surpassed it in November 2009, would have been greater, and well into four figures, had he not missed many of the "softer" tests played during his time in the All Blacks. His understudies – Simon Culhane, Spencer and Brown – all scored heavily in his absence from these matches.

International
Mehrtens debuted for the All Blacks in 1995 and made an immediate impact, scoring 28 points against Canada in his Test debut; at that time, that was the highest point total ever by a player making his international debut. He also featured in the team that played in the 1995 Rugby World Cup final against South Africa and came within inches of claiming victory for New Zealand, with a drop goal attempt veering just wide of the posts at the end of regulation time.

Mehrtens is currently the second all-time points scorer for the All Blacks, with 967 points (7t, 169c, 188p, 10dg), having been overtaken by Dan Carter on 21 November 2009. He has scored 20 or more points in 13 separate Tests, has scored nine penalties in two separate Tests, and is currently the only player to have scored over 300 points in the Tri Nations Series. His 209 points against South Africa is the most ever by one player against one country; he also occupies third place on that list, with 202 against Australia. (Carter is currently second with 207 points against Australia.) Mehrtens is also atop the all-time list for Test conversions, with 167. A supposed drop in form, combined with injuries, saw him miss out on the All Blacks World Cup squad in 2003. Critics of coach John Mitchell felt New Zealand's chances were dealt a blow without the choice of an experienced goal-kicker, an area in which New Zealand could not compete in the semi-final against Australia. Nonetheless, a strong 2004 Super 12 campaign saw him called back to the All Blacks. He was also not included in the 2005 All Black squad to face the British and Irish Lions.

Domestic
In Super 12, Mehrtens was a key member of the dominant Crusaders side that won the competition four times in five years (1998, 1999, 2000, 2002), and in 2005, another successful year for the Crusaders, he also played well, making regular appearances off the bench and starting in a few games. During 2005 he became the competition's leading all-time scorer, a crown he held until 9 May 2009, when the Brumbies' Stirling Mortlock passed his record of 990 points. He was also on three NPC-winning Canterbury sides, in 1997, 2001 and 2004.

Mehrtens is credited with reestablishing the Canterbury region as a force in New Zealand rugby again after nine years in the wilderness when in 1994 he generaled a young team who won the Ranfurly Shield off Waikato. Since that time Canterbury and under his stewardship won numerous NPC championships listed above together with rewinning the Ranfurly Shield in 2000. He won his way into the team having displaced Greg Coffey in the Canterbury A team.

Post All Blacks
Mehrtens played his final match for Harlequins on the final day of the 2006–07 season which fell on his birthday, scoring 24 points in a victory over the Sale Sharks, after which supporters and teammates celebrated his birthday and bid farewell to him after the game ended.

On 23 May 2007, Mehrtens joined French Pro D2 team Toulon, who went on to win the league title that season and gain promotion to the Top 14.

For the 2008–2009 season, Mehrtens signed to play with French Pro D2 team Racing Métro 92.

After two years in Paris, which included the 2009 Pro D2 championship and a Top 14 playoff appearance in 2010 (which also secured Racing a place in the 2010–11 Heineken Cup), his contract was not renewed. He moved to the Fédérale 1 (third-division) side Béziers, signing a three-year deal with the club. Under his contract, Mehrtens has the option to move into the club's coaching staff once he decides to end his playing career.

In 2014 he joined the Waratahs as a kicking coach.

Mehrtens now lives in Sydney, and works as a commentator on Stan Sport, alongside Justin Harrison, and Morgan Turinui.

Honours
In the 2006 New Year Honours, Mehrtens was appointed a Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit, for services to rugby.

title: Andrew Mehrtens


text: Category:Wright County, Minnesota

title: Category:Wright County, Minnesota


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rex071404

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 07:24, 27 Jul 2004), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

 * (Rex071404 | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct.
 * Description:
 * User:Rex071404, in clear contravention of established principles of Wikiquette, consensus-building and NPOV, has consistently inserted biased material into John Kerry, resulting in the eventual protection of the page. After being reverted numerous times by Jgm, Snoyes, Bkonrad and Etaoin as an anon, he got an account. Additionally, he was warned by Karada for not "playing nicely with other users."
 * He never uses edit summaries, even when reverting, and has violated the three-revert rule each day since registering a Wikipedia account. He has also repeatedly posted abusive messages on the talk pages of users Gzornenplatz, Gamaliel, Neutrality, myself, and even Cecropia, apparently before he realised that the latter was on his side. This user clearly hates Kerry, and this has been reflected in practically all of his edits on this site. He regularly "SHOUTS," even after being asked not to, and has posted extended rants about Kerry and those who disagree with his edits on Talk:John Kerry, which has had the effect of largely drowning out attempts by Neutrality, myself, and on the other side of the argument, Cecropia, at resolving this dispute.
 * I've provided four diffs here, but I could easily provide more. Gamaliel's talk page is yet another example of his harassment of a user, while that user tries to work out issues with him in a much more calm tone..

 * Evidence of disputed behavior (provide diffs and links):
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *

 * Applicable policies:
 * NPOV
 * Talk page
 * No personal attacks

 * Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (provide diffs and links):
 *
 *
 * on Talk:John Kerry
 * (once again, I could find more, but I believe this illustrates the point)

 * Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with ~ ):
 * Ambivalenthysteria 07:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Gzornenplatz 07:34, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Gamaliel 07:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Other users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * I disagree with Cecropia on this one. Rex needs to learn how to play nicely with others. older ≠ wiser 12:18, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * john k 16:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Kevin Baas | talk 17:56, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC) Re "learning the ropes": it's not a matter of ropes here, it's a matter of getting along with others; working cooperatively.
 * Neutrality 21:07, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * GeneralPatton 09:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Lacrimosus 09:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Wolfman 08:33, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Lyellin 08:28, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC) I believe I could actually certify this, but I'm not sure of the policies.
 * 172 17:38, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

 * I am new here and none of these complaining persons have tried to help me learn the ropes. Rather, what has occured at John Kerry is the wholsale reversion of well sourced facts simply because pro-Kerry editors don't want it in. I am ready willing and able to learn the ropes. Who among you can show you've made any kind of effort to help me not blunder? By the way, I am the one who 1st opened this "Rfc" link, but did not know that I was supposed to comment 1st (see my other comments below). As a result, the comments made above me have improperly framed the issue as me being the problem. But that is not the case, the problem is the wholsale reversions of a controversal topic by the more exerienced Wikis who refuse to address the facts and refuse to dialog. All they want to do is complain about my approach. However none of them have addressed the truthfulness of the factual basis for my postings.

Before you leap to conclusions about revelancce, please lay out some criteria for measuring it. If not, you are just giving us your opinion. That is how we arrived at paragraph after paragraph of glowing BIO information about Kerry.

But everyone is jumping on me for drawing attention to the FACT that Kerry keps changing his story about notable episodes in the timeline of his life. So them since some off you still don't get it, here it is again:

How do you expect a full spectrum of people to want to participate in (or even read) this Wiki if all the long-timers do is leap to conclusions about how to hound new people who disagree with them into leaving.

For a Presidential Candidate (Kerry) whose whole raison d'etre in this race is to save USA from (as Kerry tells us, ad nauseum) the "lies" of GWB, the fact that Kerry has a verifiable track record of changing his story about controverial issues is very germane to the current situation in America. If people want glossed over BIO's, let them go to CNN or WAPO. People come to the Internet for better control over their information flow. What good is it if you people keep censoring it?
 * Rex071404 20:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * If anyone takes the time to read all the edits made to John Kerry, they would see that there is clearly a pro-Liberal editorial staff staked out there and that certain more experienced Wikis are trying to shift the focus away from the true facts I have been posting there, to the regrettable blunders I have made as a new user.

 * Please take note: Each and every Wiki who presonally pointed out my blunders to me in a polite way, has indeed received an apology.

 * I made mistakes in my editing, but not in my reporting - the facts I have posted are true and verifiable from rreliable sources.

 * Still, I am in favor of dropping the SHOUTING, but the pro-Kerry crowd ought to stop throwing their weight around and start adressing the true facts I have posted from reliable sources such as ABC News and New York Times.

 * By the way, I was the one who originally posted this this "Rfc" and due to my ignorance, should have made the 1st comment, but didn't. I am complaining about the pro-Kerry crowd's unjustified reversal of my 100% factual postings about Kerry. They made no efffort to resolve their complaints about tone, they simply delete me on a wholesale bassis.
 * Rex071404 15:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Once again, we have an article dispute showing up as a user dispute. As a matter of principle I oppose using RfC against individual editors unless the activity is really egregious and spans multiple articles showing the problem is the user, not the article. Rex071404 is new here and has been quite aggressive, it's true (remember we advise newbies to "Be Bold" then jump all over them when they are), but he is trying to move an article that hsa been, IMO, unreasonably POV in favor of Kerry, and has provided a lot of evidence to support himself that other editors have simply shrugged off and reverted.

I note that this behavior on the part of some has also turned up as a user dispute here against VeryVerily concerning the George W. Bush article, another article where Neutrality has been reverting. I'm starting to get the impression that some editors are bating people they don't agree with uncommented reversion en masse and then supporting user actions once the people have been provoked enough, without making a real effort to deal with the user in compromise.

I also note these comments on User talk:Neutrality:

==John Kerry==
 * I've had enough of this. What would you think about filing a RfC? Ambivalenthysteria 12:55, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * And now he's threatened User:Gzornenplatz as well. Ambivalenthysteria 12:56, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I've got Rex ranting on my talk page too. What fun. Gamaliel 21:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I say go for it. Bring it up with RfC and/or ArbCom. Neutrality 21:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is not a game. The examples given so far of trying to resolve the dispute seem to consist of "we're right and you're wrong, so get with the program." This is hardly the collegiality Wikipedia is supposed to promote. It happens Rex snapped at me on my user page. I explained what I did, explained Wikipedia policy, and showed him the right thing to do with an example. He apologized.

My suggested solution is to reject this, set up an alternate page (/Temp or /Draft) to hash out an agreed version, and post a link on RfC article disputes to get other user input. -- Cecropia | Talk 08:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Users agreeing with this perspective:
 * 1) Cecropia | Talk 08:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) Endorsing own summary.
 * 2) Sam [Spade] 06:22, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Discussion
Once again, Cecropia argues that this is an article dispute rather than a user dispute. That is not the case. There was hardly "uncommented reversion". The talk page shows that many users have calmly responded to Rex's points, not at all "we're right and you're wrong", which rather describes Rex's stance. The fact simply is that everyone other than Cecropia and Rex himself more or less agree that, in Ambivalenthysteria's words, "this seems to be an attempt at smearing through guilt-by-association". People have offered compromises, but Rex is not moving one inch and keeps restoring his version. Gzornenplatz 09:01, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * An similarly those opposing Rex have simply reverted, refusing to acknowledge any of his points in the article itself. Having a bunch of pro-Kerry people shrugging off something that might loom large (with Kerry's other VVAW activities) in a Presidential campaign is hardly responsive. There is a frustration factor, especially for a new user. As to article vs. user dispute, the agreement is going with me in the VV case. -- Cecropia | Talk 09:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Please don't insult other editors like that. I'm not pro-Kerry, I'm pro-accuracy, and I consider this whole "assassination" thing as a red herring that has nothing to do with Kerry and can only be intended as a smear by anti-Kerry people. This was explained by several people on the talk page, it wasn't "shrugged off". I'm afraid it's you letting your own POV get the better of you here. Gzornenplatz 09:16, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * By what standard of proof or evidence have you "considered" this to be a "red-herring"? One big point at issue here is how various pro-Kerry people put in what is essentially glowing Kerry campaign BIO details, but leap to expunge well sourced facts that make Kerry look bad. Of course this stuff make Kerry look bad, because it is bad! Tossing your medals away and lying about it makes you a fraud. Knowingly associating with persons planning a crime makes you a conspirator or at the very least, an accessory. Kerry, as a licensed attorney knows this. You want this information - even though it comes from NY Times and ABC News - kept out because it's true, it guts Kerry's credibilty and you know it. The Wiki readers are entitled to have the full story on these two topics so they can draw their own conclusions. You are advocating censorship!
 * Rex071404 16:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * It has been said multiple times, by the party defending the persistence of disputed section(s?) on the kerry page, that these sections are campaign-oriented material. Well then they should be on the campaign page, not the Kerry page.  That's pretty straightforward, NPOV, and consistent with all other political person articles. Kevin Baas | talk 17:43, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

 * I'm not going to drag this page out here, but precisely why its a red herring, and not NPOV, has been gone over countless times on the Kerry talk page. Indeed, two more people, previously not involved, have also pointed this out since I posted this yesterday. However, that is beside the point. This is a user dispute, not an article dispute - I'm more concerned with his behaviour on user talk pages, and Talk:John Kerry than anything else. For that matter, I believe his statement directly above shows his bias against Kerry. Ambivalenthysteria 19:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * The reason this comes down to an article dispute is because there is a tit-for-tat here in the bahvior of other editors on the Kerry page. I also can't treat this in isolation of what is going on on the GWB page, where there is a "user" dispute against VeryVerily, brought by Neutralty, who has been reverting on both articles apparently as an instrument of getting his version. On GWB the issue of consensus is brought up, but in order to achieve consensus on a disputed article, you need neutral editors. "Neutrality" should be brought up on a user dispute for his behavior on both articles, but I'm trying to follow a principle here. I'm disturbed that editors on some articles don't seem to be content with controlling most of the content, but want a veto on any content that displeases them, and then bringing user actions against those that defy them. If the editors who are in denial about the importance of certain of Kerry's actions weren't so bull-headed, this might not have escalated to this point. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:41, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't see what the GWB dispute has to do with this one. To my knowledge, Neutrality is the only one, to my knowledge, who is a party to both. And as I said on Cecropia's talk page, I disagree that this user action "was brought because he defied" anyone on content. For if that was the case, someone would be taking action against Cecropia, who holds exactly the same POV. But no one is doing that, as there is no issue with his/her conduct. Ambivalenthysteria 19:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I will allow that I may not be making my point well enough. My complaint is not whether or not Rex's behavior is proper. My complaint is that an important dispute on an issue of fact is being stonewalled on both sides of the issue, and focusing on a user dispute is merely reinforcing the failure to remove real bias on the article page. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I believe that the two can be dealt with concurrently. Ambivalenthysteria 20:01, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * User and article disputes should be kept separate, so that confusion and bias is not introduced into the dispute. I concur with Ambivalenthysteria: the problem is that multiple article disputes remain unresolved and apparently unresolvable.  The problem seems to lie, not with the issue of the article and the arguments put forth, but rather the attitude and behavior of a single individual - not with his views or beliefs, but with his method of interacting with others in a dispute: it does not work towards resolution, but rather obstructs it.  This is the contention.  This is the contention put forth and supported by the clear majority of those bearing witness, and it is the subject of this request, as specifically elaborated by those concerned.  They have every right to be so concerned and to voice their concern.  You have no right to defer/displace their concerns in defense of your personal motives - that is tacitly suggesting that their thoughts should be a slave to yours, which is clearly unjust.  However, you have every right to voice your independant concerns independantly; post another RfC.  The initiator of the RfC alone determines whether it is an article or a user dispute and it is ipso facto thus. Kevin Baas | talk 20:43, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)

How do you expect a full spectrum of people to want to participate in (or even read) this Wiki if all the long-timers do is leap to conclusions about how to hound new people who disagree with them into leaving.

Before you leap to conclusions about revelancce, please lay out some criteria for measuring it. If not, you are just giving us your opinion. That is how we arrived at paragraph after paragraph of glowing BIO information about Kerry.

But everyone is jumping on me for drawing attention to the FACT that Kerry keps changing his story about notable episodes in the timeline of his life. So them since some off you still don't get it, here it is again:

For a Presidential Candidate (Kerry) whose whole raison d'etre in this race is to save USA from (as Kerry tells us, ad nauseum) the "lies" of GWB, the fact that Kerry has a verifiable track record of changing his story about controverial issues is very germane to the current situation in America. If people want glossed over BIO's, let them go to CNN or WAPO. People come to the Internet for better control over their information flow. What good is it if you people keep censoring it? Rex071404 20:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.


text:
Timbuktu!

Timbuktu! is a musical, with lyrics by George Forrest and Robert Wright, set to music by Borodin, Forrest and Wright. The book is by Luther Davis. It is a resetting of Forrest and Wright's musical Kismet. The musical is set in 1361 in Timbuktu, in the Empire of Mali, West Africa.

Production history
The musical premiered on Broadway at the Mark Hellinger Theatre on March 1, 1978, and closed on September 10, 1978, after 221 performances and 22 previews.

The original production starred Eartha Kitt as Shaleem-La-Lume, William Marshall as Hadji, Gilbert Price as the Mansa of Mali, Melba Moore as Marsinah, and George Bell as the Wazir. Ira Hawkins replaced Marshall prior to the Broadway opening. It was directed, choreographed and costume designed by Geoffrey Holder, with sets designed by Tony Straiges. Alan Eichler was associate producer. Gerald Bordman noted that the sets and costumes had "a Ziegfeldian opulence." New songs based on African folk music were added to provide "some tonal verisimiltude."

Following its Broadway run, it toured for more than a year with Kitt continuing in her starring role as Shaleem-La-Lume, Gregg Baker as Hadji, Bruce Hubbard as the Mansa and Vanessa Shaw as Marsinah.

Songs

 * Act I
 * "Rhymes Have I" - Hadji, Marsinah and Beggars
 * "Fate" - Hadji
 * "In the Beginning, Woman" - Shaleem-La-Lume
 * "Baubles, Bangles and Beads" - Marsinah and Merchants
 * "Stranger in Paradise" - The Mansa of Mali and Marsinah
 * "Gesticulate" - Hadji and Council
 * "Night of My Nights" - The Mansa of Mali and Courtiers

 * Act II
 * "My Magic Lamp" - Marsinah
 * "Stranger in Paradise (Reprise)" - Marsinah
 * "Rahadlakum" - Shaleem-La-Lume and Ladies of the Harem
 * "And This Is My Beloved" - Hadji, Marsinah, The Mansa of Mali and The Wazir
 * "Golden Land, Golden Life" - Chief Policeman and Nobles of the Court
 * "Zubbediya" - Zubbediya, Princess, Marriage Candidates and Acrobat
 * "Night of My Nights (Reprise)" - The Mansa of Mali, Marsinah, Hadji and Nobles of the Court
 * "Sands of Time" - Hadji and Shaleem-La-Lume

Awards and nominations

 * 1978 Tony Award nominations
 * Tony Award for Best Actor in a Musical - Gilbert Price
 * Tony Award for Best Actress in a Musical - Eartha Kitt
 * Tony Award for Best Costume Design - Geoffrey Holder
 * Tony Award for Most Innovative Production of a Revival - Luther Davis

 * 1978 Drama Desk Award nominations
 * Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Choreography - Geoffrey Holder
 * Drama Desk Award Outstanding Costume Design - Geoffrey Holder

title: Timbuktu!


text:
Talk:Unijunction transistor

Circuit Symbol
Added the circuit symbol of UJT Weltanschaunng 15:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Instablity
"Negative resistance" suggests instability. So how is the charge injection process limited? A concise explanation would be nice. Regards, PeterEasthope (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"AC current"
"AC current" means "alternating current current"? :-) -- Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Not really. That would be redundant.  It just means alternating current.  But then what's an AC voltage, I have to ask you. Dicklyon (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

 * "AC voltage" is a horrible jargon. The correct name is "alternating voltage". :-) (In fact, the English "voltage" is also a quite silly word by itself. ;-) ) -- Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I've never heard of "alternating voltage", but AC voltage, or volts AC, is pretty common; you don't have to like it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, dictionaries have "alternating voltage": 1, 2. The fact that (some) people use words without thinking does not mean that the encyclopedia should do the same. ;-) After all, "alternating current" is not any worse than "AC current". -- Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I added some sources about that at Alternating current. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the references! -- Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Description of the device
I don't have access to a semiconductor foundry and I'm not looking to fabricate a UJT from pieces of silicon in the basement. :) I'd suggest the first paragraph might be changed to indicate how the behaviour of these transistors differs from that of the more common types and to list some of the main applications of the device. A preferable (IMO) approach can be found at:- http://www.circuitstoday.com/ujt-uni-junction-transistors Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.202.69 (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Content of suspicious provenance
this edit (from an anonymous editor using an IP address that has never edited before) looks like it maybe came from published text. It has strange header lines and references figures that are not present. Should something be done about it? --Rob* (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

 * In fact, the whole "Construction of a UJT" section looks to be lifted from the Circuits Today page mentioned in the unsigned comment in Talk:Unijunction_transistor added by 27.33.202.69 on 07:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Any thoughts? Or should i do one of the things mentioned on Copyright_violations? --Rob* (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Base 1 or base 2
One of the diagrams shows the emitter as being closer to base 1. The other has it closer to base 2. The can't both be correct. 81.136.202.93 (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

 * It's one of those strange artefacts of circuit symbology. The emitter is closer to base 2 than it is to base 1 in a real live unijunction transistor (which the current physical diagram does not show at all).  However, in the circuit symbol as used in circuit diagrams, the emitter is indeed shown as closer to base 1 than base 2.  Circuit symbols are seldom expected to resemble the actual construction of the device they represent.  86.130.98.251 (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Real UJT doesn't looks like that diagram, but emitter is closer to base 1 (original research) --- [Tycho] talk 23:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

No. The right hand symbol is incorrect. Although the circuit symbol is not expected to depict the actual construction of the device it represents, it at least must make it possible to identify the terminals of the device. B1 and B2 need to be interchanged for the right hand symbol. Or better still the symbol inverted, but the labels stay where they are. 86.145.209.11 (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Has this question been resolved yet? I find it impossible to tell from the article which base is intended to be the more positive of the two. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

 * After spending some time reading the data sheet, I agree that the diagram is incorrect and the description based on it is also erroneous (and, incidentally, lacking any citations). See the Disputed Section section, below. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Disputed section
The Construction section contains a diagram which has base 1 and base 2 interchanged. The text is based on the diagram and is therefore also incorrect. I could edit the text but I can't change the diagram. From the datasheet for the 2N2646, base 1 is the one from which the emitter current flows. Base 2 is the more positive terminal and is usually connected to the metal case. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Unijunction transistor


text:
Subshrub

A subshrub (Latin suffrutex) or undershrub is either a small shrub (e.g. prostrate shrubs) or a perennial that is largely herbaceous but slightly woody at the base (e.g. garden pink and florist's chrysanthemum). The term is often interchangeable with "bush".

Because the criteria are matters of degree (normally of height) rather than of kind, the definition of a subshrub is not sharply distinguishable from that of a shrub; examples of reasons for describing plants as subshrubs include ground-hugging stems or low growth habit. Subshrubs may be largely herbaceous though still classified as woody, with overwintering perennial woody growth much lower-growing than deciduous summer growth. Some plants described as subshrubs are only weakly woody and some persist for only for a few years. Others, such as Oldenburgia paradoxa live indefinitely (though is still vulnerable to external effects), rooted in rocky cracks.

Small, low shrubs such as lavender, periwinkle, and thyme, and many shrub-like members of the family Ericaceae, such as cranberries and small species of Erica, are often classed as subshrubs.

Definition
A chamaephyte, subshrub or dwarf-shrub is a plant that bears hibernating buds on persistent shoots near the ground – usually woody plants with perennating buds borne close to the ground, usually less than 25 cm above the soil surface. The significance of the closeness to the ground is that the buds remain within the soil surface layer and are thus somewhat protected from various adverse external influences. Accordingly, the chamaephyte habit is especially common in stressful environments, for example:
 * ecosystems on nutrient-poor soils or rock
 * exposed alpine or arctic ecosystems where seasonal or perennial wind and freezing conditions are prone to kill vulnerable growing shoots
 * ecosystems subject to frequent fires and burning, where many species of e.g. Banksia or Eucalyptus regrow from a lignotuber or caudex.
 * heavily grazed or overgrazed ecosystems, such as tortoise turf

Examples of chamaephytes
The term chamaephyte is most formally used within the context of Raunkiær plant life-forms' classification. Examples of chamaephytes are many of the species living in the maquis shrubland and other plants of submediterranean dry ecosystems (species such as thyme, Thymus vulgaris, and rosemary, Salvia rosmarinus); others include heather species (e.g. Calluna vulgaris and Ericas), African wild olive (Olea europaea ssp. cuspidata) and edelweiss (Leontopodium alpinum). Chamaephytes also include cushion plants.

title: Subshrub