text:
Talk:DSM cautionary statement

Mention vs Categorize
I have changed this entry. We should not get bogged down in what DSM mentions. It's the categorization that's important. --CloudSurfer 18:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * It should be merged with the DSM page. JFW | T@lk  23:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * keep: The fact that the diagnostic labels used in the DSM are not strictly scientific in nature underscores the significance of the black box warning label the tome well deserves.  The reason for the split between neurology and psychiatry boils down to the lack of any verifiable psychopathology for virtually all DSM diagnostic labels.  To shove the issue off of its own well deserved Wikipedia page would be a disservice to the Wiki community.  Ombudsman 06:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a small page unlikely to grow and conceptually a child of DSM. It is also likely to become a POV fork. Why do you oppose the merge? JFW | T@lk  09:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the DSM cautionary statement should be merged with the page, or, at the very least, a link to it should be maintained on the wikipedia site. Beyond the obvious argument to this end--i.e., to prevent unintended use of the DSM code system--it highlights an ongoing and important debate in the psychological community--that of the subjectivity of "mental health" v. the rigidity of DSM codes. Perhaps a section on this debate could be added to the cautionary statement page. --laminado 16:05, 16 Aug 2005 (PST)

Can a redirect point to a Cautionary Statement section within a larger DSM article? If so, then I would agree that this page should be merged for the reason that the information contained within the cautionary statement is specifically intended to address the layperson reviewing the DSM without clinical supervision. Since the majority of wikipedia readers are in this category, I think the cautionary statement belongs in the main text of the main article. My only concern about merging the articles is that many pages that reference diagnostic criteria about specific disorders should have a specific link that helps the reader quickly and easily access the information in the cautionary statement without scrolling through the history of the DSM. -- Erik 9:49, 23 Aug 2005 (PST)

Ya but does anyone really care about this? I mean so what am irght

POV tag
I've added a tag to this article. Specifically, I believe it constitutes a POV fork, though there is not POV problem with the body of the article (which I actually wrote myself, but into a different article). Also, the title is a self-reference and overtly indicates a POV. For further explanation, please see the ongoing discussion at Talk:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Thanks. –Sommers (Talk) 17:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just took it off, the original DSM cautionary statement is part of the DSM itself see It's not a POV, it's a caveat, REMOVING it is more POV than retaining it, there are also other issues: see Talk:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. --Zeraeph 20:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Please do not remove POV tags until the disagreement has been resolved. The fact that the actual DSM has a cautionary statement does not mean that it's NPOV for Wikipedia to give the same caveat. I still contend that this article is a POV fork. I'd like to make a proposal: rewrite the article "DSM cautionary statement" into a stub about the APA's statement linked to above. After that it would probably need to be merged into the DSM article for style reasons anyway, but at least then we'd be including the same information while describing the opinion of the APA, which is much more agreeable to WP:NPOV than reflecting the opinions of some Wikipedians. What do you think? –Sommers (Talk) 15:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Sommers, I genuinely think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Trouble is that it involves the APA, who, as far a Wikipedia are concerned, are a powderkeg waiting to go up.

 * As for the rest, I am pernickety about valid premise. Currently the DSM Cautionary statement article is three or 4 lines.

 * I do not want to see you put that POV tag back until you can explain your exact premise for calling it POV and show the words you feel are POV line by line. Explaining why you feel they are POV. Because I can't see anything remotely POV or not neutral about it, and if you can't show cause for POV from the actual content of those lines you have no business tagging it at all, if you can, I will leave the tag there whether I agree with you or not.

 * "Because I think so" or variations of same, does not qualify as "valid premise". --Zeraeph 14:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I said at the top of this section that I do not think any of this article's actual content is POV. I wrote that content. Rather, I placed the POV tag because putting said content in an article by itself, in order to highlight the limitations of the DSM, is POV forking per "Content forking". Please read this page and tell me how I am wrong. I gave this exact justification quite clearly when I first added the POV tag, so please do not accuse me of doing so "because I think so". –Sommers (Talk) 14:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps now you would like to give a similar depth of explanation as to how you see the article as a POV Fork, because, after careful perusal, I really cannot see that either. Sorry but I just don't see it. I would have thought the reason for putting the content in a seperate article was pretty obvious...clarity! But even if you can (which I beg leave to doubt, for instance at least "Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View." would seem to apply) make a valid case for claiming this article as a POV fork, that still doesn't justify using a POV tag, that you admit yourself does not apply. It makes little to no sense to tag articles inaccurately!--Zeraeph 22:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The POV tag does apply. It reads "The neutrality of this article is disputed" and by calling the article a POV fork, I was disputing its neutrality. I really don't see any inaccuracy in that. Does it matter that I was objecting to the title and existence of the page and not the actual words and sentences that made up its body text? (I understand that my use of the tag didn't carry quite the same connotation as a typical instance, in which someone is writing biased text, but I'm not aware of any different POV tags that would have been more specifically suited to what I meant.) I've already tried in good faith to explain why this page is a POV fork, but to reiterate in a nutshell: it takes certain facts about the DSM and sets them aside in order to advance a particular view of the DSM, namely, a cautious one. (I have always conceded that this was done with the purest of intentions, to prevent harm to the reader, but unfortunately this is not an excuse for being unencyclopedic.) Saying that this is done for the sake of the "clarity" of that information doesn't change the fact that it's being given preferential treatment over other information about the DSM. Also, the cautionary statement is not a "sub-article giving greater detail" (if anything, it gives less detail), nor is "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" a "summary-style article", and the cautionary statement is far too short to justify separating it from the main DSM article purely for reasons of style and organizations. Also, my objection to the inherent POV problem in making a statement to the reader (which I explained in more detail in my most recent post to Talk:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) has not yet been addressed. If you think the statement is NPOV, I'd really like to hear an explanation of how this is acceptable. Thanks. –Sommers (Talk) 16:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * It's not POV, it is a description (or "sub-article giving greater detail" ) of a part of the DSM IV TR. However CLAIMING that part of the DSM IV TR is POV would be a POV statement --Zeraeph 22:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

 * But right now the text of "DSM cautionary statement" isn't describing that part of the DSM. It's describing (and giving a caution about) the DSM as a whole. It doesn't even mention the DSM's own cautionary statement.–Sommers (Talk) 22:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, and easy enough fixed, as it is now --Zeraeph 11:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

 * And I have no idea what you mean by "CLAIMING that part of the DSM IV TR is POV". At no point have I tried to say that the DSM's cautionary statement was "POV" (nor would it really make any sense if I did); I've been saying that the Wikipedia page "DSM cautionary statement", which is a completely different thing, is unencyclopedic and a POV fork. –Sommers (Talk) 22:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I read the POV fork page, and cannot see for the life of me how it applies here, but even if it did, it would be squeaking in on a technicality that did not actually mean the article is POV at all, which means it is a bit senseless to use a tag that states it IS. Find another tag that actually applies or make a template, otherwise you might as well tag it "pornography" (is there such a tag?).--Zeraeph 11:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment
I have listed this page at Requests for comment because of a persistent disagreement about this page's suitability. This disagreement has been civil and constructively-minded so far, but unfortunately, it also seems to be at an impasse. My suggestion in this matter is to redirect DSM cautionary statement to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (merging its contents, if and where necessary) and remove all reference to the statement from other articles.

Most of the discussion regarding this page has taken place at Talk:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. I'm afraid that, because this issue is so complex and went through many stages of discussion, my opinions were not expressed very concisely as they evolved there and here. So, for the sake of clarity for anyone who steps in from RFC, here is an itemized (and hopefully briefer) summary of my arguments in favor of the above suggestion:

 * 1) It is inherently unencyclopedic, and it represents a point of view, for an article to (a) caution the reader or (b) make a statement to them. The DSM cautionary statement, by its own title, explicitly does both.
 * 2) The statement takes information that supports a negative view of the DSM and corrals it into a separate page, for the stated purpose of highlighting the DSM's weaknesses. Therefore, even if this information is presented in a neutral tone, it is a POV fork.
 * 3) The links in other articles to the statement, whether they are meant to or not, reflect a POV critical of the DSM. Qualifying every citation of the DSM by saying "(See the DSM cautionary statement)" strongly implies that Wikipedia thinks the statement is necessary because the DSM is not necessarily trustworthy.
 * 4) It has already been decided at No disclaimer templates that no special warnings need to be given to the reader above and beyond the "Disclaimers" link at the bottom of every page. (The TFD for Template:Medical in particular is relevant here.)

I will also summarize my rebuttals to some of the argument that have been raised against what I'm suggesting. (It's not my intent to speak for those making the arguments, but to expedite the discussion by summarizing what I've said in response.)

 * Argument: There is a real problem of laypeople harmfully misusing the information in the DSM, treating it like an incontrovertible reference book instead of one source of diagnostic opinions. The average reader won't dig deep enough to learn and recognize the facts that would prevent them from doing this. Rebuttal: I agree that this is a problem. The responsible thing is for Wikipedia to neutrally provide these facts and characterize experts' criticisms of the DSM, which can and should be given quite a bit of prominence under WP:NPOV. Hopefully this will be done in such a way as to prevent any dangerous misunderstandings. But it's still POV to make a statement directly to the readers, shaking them by the lapels and making sure they get the point, even if there's a potential for harm otherwise. I point again to Medical disclaimer and No disclaimer templates.
 * Argument: The DSM itself has a cautionary statement much like the one in Wikipedia, which contains much of the same information. Rebuttal: Although that statement and its contents should indeed be covered in the article, this does not mean that it's NPOV for Wikipedia itself to issue the same caveats.
 * Argument: When the APA gives permission for someone to reprint material from the DSM, it does so under the condition that the DSM's real cautionary statement must be linked to. Rebuttal: Wikipedia has been given no such permission (and shouldn't be reprinting this material beyond fair use) and is therefore under no such obligation, and ours isn't the same statement anyway.

Thank you for your attention and replies. I apologize again if I'm still being verbose, but as I've said, this matter is both important and subtle. I look forward to getting it figured out once and for all as soon as possible. Thanks.

–Sommers (Talk) 02:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

 * In response:

 * 1) It is not unencyclopaedic, in any sense, to STATE that the DSM makes a cautionary statement, because it does.
 * 2) It is not a POV fork, in any sense, to STATE that the DSM makes a cautionary statement, as a seperate article, because it does.
 * 3) It is clearly only the DSM's Statement, not any statement from Wikipdedia, that you suggest could be interpreted as suggesting the DSM is "untrustworthy".
 * 4) No disclaimer templates is, in fact an agrugument in favor of retaining the article as a disclaimer template was one of the alternatives to retaining the article (I believe you suggested it yourself at some point?)

 * Argument 1: Irrelevant, it is not POV to state that the DSM makes a statement, which it does.
 * Argument 2: Irrelevant, Wikipedidia is not "issuing a caveat" just pointing out that the DSM does.
 * Argument 3: Wikipedia has been refused permission to reprint this material at all, the APA contests "fair use", not least on the grounds that any material reproduced is subject to alteration, which would be a very strong case. The APA loves to litigate, and has huge funds at it's disposal to do so. Common sense suggests that the less sticks we poke up the APA's nose the better.

--Zeraeph 22:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that the changes to the article of March 31 do address some of the concerns I presented above. I wrote the previous statement in regard to the statement as it was for some time before that, when it was not at all an article about the DSM's actual cautionary statement, but a separate statement unto itself. (This is especially true of my three rebuttals, which concerned arguments meant to support the old version.) I apologize for not being aware of the changes made to the current version; I've been largely inactive for the past week or so and I didn't see them on my watchlist.
 * However, there are still two problems with the current version that I think need to be addressed:
 * There's no reason to have a tiny article concerning one section of the DSM separated from the article Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. (For this reason, I'm adding merge tags.)
 * Most importantly, everything I said in "3" above still stands. As you say, the links to DSM cautionary statement in other articles may (now) simply be (indirectly) citing a statement by the APA, but this doens't solve the problem: it's not the APA who chose to put those links there, but Wikipedia editors. This reflects the opinion on the part of those editors that citations of the DSM need to be qualified with special, up-front warnings—doesn't that sound like a POV to you? (The fact that the APA would agree with those editors is no excuse.) We don't warn people against the weaknesses of Windows by saying "(see also Criticism of Microsoft)" every time it's mentioned. We don't encourage critical thinking of George W. Bush by directing readers to Movement to impeach George W. Bush every time he's quoted. And we shouldn't be urging readers to question the trustworthiness of the DSM by saying "see DSM cautionary statement" every time it's cited in another article. Put information about the cautionary statement in the main article, along with everything else about the DSM, and let the readers decide.
 * –Sommers (Talk) 23:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

 * 1 Because most of the DSM article is not relevant to the DSM Cautionary Statement
 * 2 When I get round to replacing all the links, with no personal opinion, or agenda, one way or the other, soley because the APA will bust b*tts, sooner or later, on a wide variety of infractions if somebody doesn't (which is a fair enough synonym for "the APA chooses to put them there" to my mind). That will no longer be a problem. --Zeraeph 02:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

 * "1" doesn't make any sense. Firstly, this is no reason to leave the article unmerged. Even if the rest of "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" doesn't directly concern the cautionary statement, that doesn't mean the statement needs to be covered in a separate article. (By analogy with a recent featured article, the biological information covered in the first three sections of Kakapo has nothing to do with the "conservation" section, yet "conservation of the Kakapo" is not its own article.) Secondly, how can you argue that the article about the DSM isn't relevant to a statement in the DSM about the rest of the DSM? "DSM cautionary statement" is a tiny, one-paragraph stub that does not cover a topic independent from the DSM itself. There is no reason that the statement needs to be covered in its own article. As for "2", I don't really understand what you're saying. Could you clarify what you're actually suggesting be done or saying that you'll do? But as for your concerns about the legal situation, this really is not relevant to the merge. You are concerned that other articles may be infringing on the copyright of the DSM, and I believe you may be correct about that. The proper action in that case is to remove the offending material from those articles, or to take one of the other actions described in WP:COPYVIO and WP:C. (Of course, you'll have to explain such actions on the corresponding talk pages, and you'll likely encounter some disagreement. I'm probably not the only Wikipedian who believes that individual diagnostic criteria can be cited within fair use.) However, none of that has anything to do with this article, and does not give us any reason to give the cautionary statement special treatment or undue emphasis in its own article, except for your own unsubstantiated guess that mimicking the requirements over at BehaveNet will somehow appease the APA lawyers into not pursuing legal action. While I'm sure you have the best intentions, no one seems to share this assumption. Please do pursue any potential copyvio problems according to Wikipedia's existing guidelines, but inventing your own remedies, such as the links to this article, is unnecessary. And if the APA does decide to bring the wrath of God down on Wikipedia, I'm sure that the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers will be more than able to handle it. I think I've made my case very clearly and unless you can produce a reason under Wikipedia's normal policies and guidelines that the cautionary statement needs to be treated in its own article – and I don't believe one exists – I'll be carrying out the merge shortly. Thank you, however, for your continued civility and willingness to discuss this. Hopefully, soon we'll be able to cooperate on improving the article on the DSM and the related psychological topics, which is certainly needed. Thank you. –Sommers (Talk) 12:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

 * 1 The fact remains that most of the DSM Article IS NOT RELEVANT to the DSM cautionary statement, though, arguably, perhaps not as irrelevant as your refutation of this point?
 * 2 Very simple, when I replace all the links you have deleted, to impartially avoid antagonising the APA, the following point on your part will no longer apply:

 * "Most importantly, everything I said in "3" above still stands. As you say, the links to DSM cautionary statement in other articles may (now) simply be (indirectly) citing a statement by the APA, but this doens't solve the problem: it's not the APA who chose to put those links there, but Wikipedia editors. This reflects the opinion on the part of those editors that citations of the DSM need to be qualified with special, up-front warnings—doesn't that sound like a POV to you? (The fact that the APA would agree with those editors is no excuse.) We don't warn people against the weaknesses of Windows by saying "(see also Criticism of Microsoft)" every time it's mentioned. We don't encourage critical thinking of George W. Bush by directing readers to Movement to impeach George W. Bush every time he's quoted. And we shouldn't be urging readers to question the trustworthiness of the DSM by saying "see DSM cautionary statement" every time it's cited in another article. Put information about the cautionary statement in the main article, along with everything else about the DSM, and let the readers decide. "

 * You haven't proven any of your points at all as yet, in any context, but regardless of that, you must merge as you feel your conscience dictates...as I will, no doubt, later unmerge, in accord with mine. It would be far better to place this as RFC, or even raise a Copyright issue, and try and get the whole DSM situation resolved sitewide, once and for all.--Zeraeph 18:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I certainly agree that it would be good to get the situation resolved on a wider basis. However, your assertion that I haven't proved any of my points is ridiculous – I've tried in very good faith, and at greater length than I would have liked, to present a clear explanation of why this article needs merging and why the qualifying links to it carry a POV implication. If you have any specific questions or objections I'd be more than happy to answer them, but if I tried to answer your vague challenges about not proving my points, I'd only be repeating myself, which I've done plenty of already. Incidentally, I've already listed this under "clinical and medical topics" at RFC (hence the name of this section), but no one seems to have responded yet. Regarding your concern about the perceived threat of lawsuit from the APA (which, as far as I can tell, is your only reason for wanting to prevent this merge and keep the links intact) – please do deal with any perceived copyright problems in the manner prescribed in Copyrights, but please do not try to appease the APA into not suing by inserting extraneous "(See the DSM cautionary statement)" links into articles that already refer to the rest of the DSM. (And I strongly suggest you skim Copyright paranoia as well.) The whole point of WP:NPOV is that no point of view gets preferential treatment, and by succumbing to copyright paranoia about the DSM and directing readers to learn about the cautionary statement in particular, you're giving preferential treatment to a point of view that is mildly but significantly wary of the DSM. This is unacceptable. And in the unlikely event that the APA does bring legal action against Wikipedia, the matter can be resolved then under the normal method of removing infringing content. This preventative measure that you've made up is unnecessary and harmful to NPOV, and frankly I don't see why it would change the APA's mind anyway. –Sommers (Talk) 14:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

But you haven't proved your points at all, that's fact, you've just tried to bend a few rules to breaking point to support your assertion, and, truth is, you have failed. If you had made your points you would have convinced me and you haven't even come close.

It really isn't for you to say what is, or is not, my "only concern", that is for me to say...but with regard to the APA suing or not suing, you only get the "final word" on how people should act, think, and behave about that when it is YOUR personal *ss they will sue.

That references to the DSM link the DSM article is not remotely relevant to the need (as perceived by the APA within the DSM) for a caveat.

I will in turn politely request that you refrain from antagonising the, already litigation-happy APA by removing that caveat. --Zeraeph 00:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

 * By "bend a few rules to breaking point to support your assertion", I have to assume you're referring to my description of this page as a POV fork. I was only trying to describe the situation with an existing and well-understood term; if my use of the term didn't fit perfectly, it doesn't mean I was trying in bad faith to abuse the rules. Please remember to assume good faith. As for the much more significant problem of the cautionary links to this article, I don't think I've bent any rules, especially considering that there are no relevant rules to bend, only policies and guidelines (which, by their nature and WP:IAR, are meant to be "bent" in any case, if you can call it that). I never did say what was or wasn't your only concern or otherwise speak for you. Please note the words "as far as I can tell" in my previous post. I was talking about what you've told me, not attempting to read your mind. As for your assertion that I haven't proved my points, I can only direct you to my previous post, in which I told you that I feel I have explained myself quite thoroughly and that, after the tremendous number of words that have already been expended on this subject, I have nothing new to say in response to your vague challenges. If you can give me any specific questions, or even some idea of what sort of further "proof" you expect, I can work with that. Otherwise, scroll up. Now I'd like to, in turn, ask you to offer some more support for your points. You mention "the need (as perceived by the APA within the DSM) for a caveat". That need as perceived by the APA may exist (or at least, that's what you tell me), but is there a need as required by Wikipedia policy or guidelines for such a caveat? If so, please prove it. If not, let's get rid of it. WP:COPY provides established policy on what measures are necessary to protect Wikipedia, and these caveats go beyond that to the point of harmfulness. (If you are genuinely concerned that WP:COPY is insufficient, by all means take it up at the village pump or the appropriate talk pages.) So, I don't think it's necessary to "refrain from antagonising the, already litigation-happy APA"—in fact, it would be unacceptable. Surely many groups feel antagonized by Wikipedia, but we follow WP:NPOV and the other policies regardless of what they may want. Should we give the APA special treatment merely because it (according to you) might threaten litigation? Certainly not; that would seriously compromise Wikipedia's integrity. So unless you can come up with a better justification for keeping the cautionary links intact and DSM cautionary statement unmerged, I'll expect you not to revert the edits when I make them. –Sommers (Talk) 19:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Sommers, it seems to me you are a long way out of line now and still hell bent on travelling.

 * In the first place how on earth can you justify informing me what to assume? That's something I like to decide for myself.

 * In the second place it is quality, not quantity, of words that proves points, and, in spite of all the words, you ain't proved nothing yet that I can see.

 * In the third place, you can "expect" whatever you like, because I will do as I see fit, not as you expect --Zeraeph 00:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm here via the RfC. First, I must say that I completely misunderstood the current wording of the article (version I see). I thought it was saying that the DSM carries a cautionary statement (presumably in the foreword or in big letters at the top of the first contents page or something!); and that this article was describing this cautionary statement. On re-reading the article and re-reading this talk page and Talk:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, I now think I misunderstood, and that the problem is: some Wikipedians think we need a big "self-diagnosis is bad" reminder for those people who type things into Google; that this page was created to hold a warning to that effect; and that now there is debate on whether this should be done here, or in the article on the DSM itself. Further, whilst the APA itself would caution against self-diagnosis, we can't actually quote anything they say. Is that right? I fear that if I re-read again, I shall come up with a new understanding :(

 * I do have a slight (and dated) knowledge of mental health issues, but from a European perspective. I don't understand enough about US law to know whether the APA position on copyright and fair use is tenable. So not so helpful so far! That said, I am personally wary of many very small fragments being split off a page. Summary style is one thing, but I think wide-ranging topics require wide-ranging articles. There is a comment that "much of the DSM article is not relevant to this one", but it doesn't all have to be. It would be the other way around, I think: all of this article ought to be relevant to the DSM one. I would be inclined to get rid of this page and keep all the information on the page about the DSM itself.

 * Telsa (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am responding to the RFC. Should there be a separate page for every drug's black box warning...probably not! This article, which seems to be serving in the role of a POV fork, should be merged with the main article for DSM. Andrew73 11:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:DSM cautionary statement


text:
Monte Azul

Monte Azul is a municipality in the north of the state of Minas Gerais in Brazil. The population is 20,696 (2020 est.) in an area of 994 km². The elevation is 582 meters. It became a municipality in 1878. The postal code (CEP) is 39500-000.

The municipality contains part of the 53264 ha Caminho dos Gerais State Park, created in 2007. Monte Azul is part of the statistical microregion of Janaúba. It is 627 km. from the state capital, Belo Horizonte and about 30 km. south of the state boundary with Bahia. It is connected by paved roads to the regional center of Janaúba to the south. It is on the Minas Gerais-Bahia railroad line, which last had passenger service in 1996.

The main economic activities are cattle raising (30,000 head in 2006) and farming with modest production of rice, beans, corn, and sorghum. In 2006 there were 2,531 rural producers with a total area of 66,342 hectares. Cropland made up 8,500 hectares and natural pasture 67,000 hectares. There were only 67 tractors a ratio of one for every 70 farms. In the urban area there were 2 financial institutions as of 2006. There were 1,212 automobiles, giving a ratio of about one automobile for every 19 inhabitants. The Gross Domestic Product was R$ 63,578,000 (2005), which was mainly generated by services. Health care was provided by 17 public health clinics. There was one private hospital with 17 beds (2005).

Settlement of this region goes back to colonial times. The first name was Tremedal and it belonged to the capitania of Bahia. The first chapel was built in 1818. In 1840 the district of Tremedal was transferred from Formiga (present day Montes Claros) to Grão Mogol. In 1850 it was a district of Rio Pardo de Minas. In 1878 it separated from Rio Pardo and became the municipality of Boa Vista do Tremedal. In 1887 it became a city. In 1938 the name was changed to Monte Azul because of the color of the nearby mountains.

Municipal Human Development Index
 * MHDI: .657 (2000)
 * State ranking: 723 out of 853 municipalities as of 2000
 * National ranking: 3,664 out of 5,138 municipalities as of 2000
 * Life expectancy: 67.8
 * Literacy rate: 72.0
 * Combined primary, secondary and tertiary gross enrollment ratio: .760
 * Per capita income (monthly): R$88.75 (For the complete list see Frigoletto)

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

title: Monte Azul


text:
Salt Lake Tabernacle

The Salt Lake Tabernacle, formerly known as the Mormon Tabernacle, is located on Temple Square in Salt Lake City, in the U.S. state of Utah. The Tabernacle was built from 1863 to 1875 to house meetings for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). It was the location of the church's semi-annual general conference until the meeting was moved to the new and larger LDS Conference Center in 2000. Now a historic building on Temple Square, the Salt Lake Tabernacle is still used for overflow crowds during general conference. It is renowned for its remarkable acoustics and iconic pipe organ. The Tabernacle Choir has performed there for over 100 years.

Background
The Salt Lake Tabernacle was inspired by an attempt to build a Canvas Tabernacle in Nauvoo, Illinois, in the 1840s. That tabernacle was to be situated just to the west of the Nauvoo Temple and was to be oval-shaped, much the same as the Salt Lake Tabernacle. However, the Nauvoo edifice (never built) was to have amphitheater-style or terraced seating, and was to have canvas roofing.

Construction
The Tabernacle was built between 1864 and 1867 on the west center-line axis of the Salt Lake Temple. In 1892 it was the largest assembly hall in the United States. The roof was constructed in the lattice-truss arch system, which was devised by Ithiel Town and is held together by dowels and wedges. The building has a sandstone foundation, and the dome is supported by forty-four sandstone piers. Prior to its refurbishing in 2007, the overall seating capacity of the building was around 7,000, which included the choir area and gallery (balcony).

Henry Grow, a civil engineer, oversaw the initial construction of the Tabernacle, where the domed roof was the most innovative portion of the building. Brigham Young, church president at the time, wanted the Tabernacle roof constructed in an elongated dome shape with no interior pillars or posts to obstruct the view for the audience (the gallery was added later). When Young asked Grow how large a roof he could construct using the style of lattice that he had used on the Remington bridge, Grow replied that it could be "100 feet wide and as long as is wanted." Eventually, Grow engineered the Tabernacle roof to be 150 feet across and 250 feet long. Skeptics insisted that when the interior scaffolding was removed, the whole roof would collapse. The roof structure was nine feet thick, formed by a "Remington lattice truss" of timbers pinned together with wooden pegs. Green rawhide was wrapped around the timbers so that when the rawhide dried it tightened its grip on the pegs. When the roof's structural work was completed, sheeting was applied on the roof, which was then covered with shingles. The interior was lathed and then plastered; the hair of cattle was mixed with the plaster to give it strength.

Construction of the Tabernacle began on July 26, 1864, but construction of the roof did not begin until 1865, when all 44 supporting sandstone piers designed by William H. Folsom were in place. Grow rapidly built the roof structure from the center out, but encountered difficulty engineering the semicircular ends of the roof. This difficulty dragged structural work on the roof into the fall of 1866 even as other parts of the roof were being shingled. However, Grow finished and shingled the entire roof by the spring of 1867, before the interior of the building was finished. The Tabernacle was first used for the October 1867 conference. The roof has lasted for over a century without any structural problems, though the shingles were replaced with aluminum in 1947.

The original benches and columns supporting the balcony were made from the native "white pine" (Engelmann Spruce) that the Mormon pioneers found in the area. Because they wanted to "give their best to the Lord", they hand-painted grain on the benches to look like oak and the pillars to resemble marble. During the renovations completed in 2007, the original benches were replaced with new oak pews, and legroom was increased from nine to 14 inches, causing an overall loss of capacity of 1000 seats.

The Salt Lake Tabernacle organ has its case positioned at the west end above the choir seats, and is the focal point of the Tabernacle's interior. The original organ was made by Joseph H. Ridges in 1867 and contained 700 pipes. The organ has been rebuilt several times with the total pipe count being 11,623, making the Tabernacle organ one of the largest pipe organs in the world. The current organ is the work of G. Donald Harrison of the Aeolian-Skinner organ company, and was completed in 1948. The organ was renovated and restored in 1989 with a few minor changes and additions. The largest 32-foot display pipes in the façade are made of wood and were constructed in the same manner as the balcony columns.

Architecture
The structure was an architectural wonder in its day, prompting a writer for Scientific American to comment on "the mechanical difficulties of attending the construction of so ponderous a roof." In 1882, while on a lecture tour of America, Oscar Wilde noted that the building had the appearance of a soup kettle; he added that it was the most purely dreadful building he ever saw. Some visitors around the beginning of the 20th century criticized it as "a prodigious tortoise that has lost its way" or "the Church of the Holy Turtle," but Frank Lloyd Wright dubbed the tabernacle "one of the architectural masterpieces of the country and perhaps the world."

Art and statuary
For several years the Tabernacle had various pieces of art on its walls. There was a mural depicting Joseph Smith receiving the Gold plates from an angel. There was also a portrait of Joseph Smith that hung between the organ's largest pipes. In 1875 there was a fountain placed in the middle of the building, "it represented the 'living water' offered by Christ and His gospel." In the same year, a statue of an angel sounding a trumpet was placed between the Organ's two largest pipes. The highest pulpit was lined with Lion statues to represent Brigham Young as the "Lion of the Lord."

Decorations
After its initial construction the structure had little paint so decorations were often used. Some examples include a blue banner with a gold beehive on the rear wall (1875), a star with the word Utah, a banner that read "Under the everlasting covenant God must and shall be glorified," American flags (one of the largest measured 75 ft by 160 ft), bunting, garland, festoons, and flowers. Some people complained because the decorations were left up for extended periods of time.

Purpose
The Tabernacle was the location of the church's semi-annual general conference for 132 years. Because of the growth in the number of attendees, general conference was moved to the new and larger Conference Center in 2000. In the October 1999 General Conference, church president Gordon B. Hinckley gave a talk honoring the Tabernacle and introducing the new Conference Center. The building is still used for overflow crowds during general conference.

The Tabernacle is the home of The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square, and was the previous home of the Utah Symphony Orchestra until the construction of Abravanel Hall. It is the historic broadcasting home for the radio and television program known as Music and the Spoken Word.

Acoustics
Built at a time before electronics and audio amplifiers, the Tabernacle was constructed with remarkable acoustic qualities so the entire congregation could hear sermons given there. The roof was constructed in a three-dimensional ellipse with the pulpit at one focus of the ellipse. The elliptical concept came from church president Brigham Young, who reportedly said that the design was inspired by "the best sounding board in the world ... the roof of my mouth." The elliptical design causes a large portion of the sound from the pulpit end of the building to be concentrated and projected to the focus at the opposite end of the building.

Several years after the initial construction was completed, Truman O. Angell was brought in to further improve the building's acoustics, and was responsible for adding the gallery (balcony) in 1870 that resolved the outstanding acoustical issues. The building has an international reputation as one of the most acoustically perfect buildings in the world. A pin drop can be heard from one side of the building to another over 250 feet away.

Refurbishing
The Tabernacle was closed from January 2005 to March 2007 for seismic retrofitting and extensive renovations. The baptistry, which was located in the lower portion at the rear of the Tabernacle, was removed as part of the renovation. New gold leafing was applied to the visible organ pipes, the ceiling was repaired and repainted, new dressing rooms and a music library for choir members were created, three recording studios were built underneath the main floor, the rostrum was remodeled to accommodate a secondary seating arrangement or a stage for performances, and all plumbing was replaced. The building was reopened in March 2007, and rededicated for use on March 31, 2007. An opening gala concert with the Tabernacle Choir was held on April 6–7, 2007.

As part of the renovation, all 44 piers that support the Tabernacle's roof were reinforced with steel bars, which were inserted into the piers from the bottom. The foundation of each pier was also reinforced with concrete. Steel boxes were used to connect trusses, and were also attached to the piers, clinched tight with structural steel.

Notable speakers and guests
Twelve presidents of the United States have spoken from the Tabernacle pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt (1903), William Howard Taft (1909 and 1911), Woodrow Wilson (1919), Warren G. Harding (1923), Franklin D. Roosevelt (1932, then Governor of New York), Herbert Hoover (1932), Harry S. Truman (1948), Dwight D. Eisenhower (1952), John F. Kennedy (1963), Lyndon B. Johnson (1964), Richard Nixon (1970), and Jimmy Carter (1978).

Other notable people who have spoken in the Tabernacle include Susan B. Anthony (1895), Charles Lindbergh (1927), and Helen Keller (1941). Along with praising the decision to allow women equal voting rights in Utah Territory, Anthony praised the Tabernacle itself: "It is just about twenty-four years ago that I was present in this great Tabernacle on the day upon which you dedicated it to the service of the Lord, and every nook and corner, of this great building was packed on the occasion with people from every part of the Territory, many being unable to gain admittance. It was the most magnificent gathering I ever saw."

In 1980, James Stewart guest-conducted the Tabernacle Choir in the building as part of the filming of Mr. Krueger's Christmas, a television special broadcast on NBC.

Tourism
Initially tourists were discouraged from visiting the Tabernacle because it was considered as holy as the Temple or Endowment House. There were even some debates among church leadership in the late 19th century about disciplining members of the church who led tours, but tours were led through 1900.

Currently tours are offered to anyone who would like one. It is common for LDS Church missionaries tour guides to demonstrate the acoustic properties of the Tabernacle by dropping a pin on the pulpit or tearing a newspaper there, which can be heard throughout the building.

title: Salt Lake Tabernacle


text:
Talk:Tibia (video game)

Talk page archived + new revisions
Hello, I have been working on some revisions for this Tibia page to get it up-to-date. I archived the old talk page since many years have passed since anyone talked there. I'm planning to extensively rework a lot of the wiki. The current plan is to move the Gameplay section to the top, and combine the History and Development sections. I'm basing this on wikis for other MMOs like WoW. I'm also planning to add some screenshots. I'd like to show a few very old screenshots and then some modern ones for comparison. I think the Legendary Players section needs to be removed or reworked since it seems like frivolous information for an encyclopedia entry, but I am leaving it up for now. Mikehain (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tibia (video game)


text:
Monte Castelo, São Paulo

Monte Castelo is a municipality in the state of São Paulo in Brazil. The population is 4,166 (2020 est.) in an area of 234 km². The elevation is 375 m.

The municipality contains 18.7% of the 9044 ha Aguapeí State Park, created in 1998.

Media
In telecommunications, the city was served by Companhia de Telecomunicações do Estado de São Paulo until 1973, when it began to be served by Telecomunicações de São Paulo. In July 1998, this company was acquired by Telefónica, which adopted the Vivo brand in 2012.

The company is currently an operator of cell phones, fixed lines, internet (fiber optics/4G) and television (satellite and cable).

Religion
Christianity is present in the city as follows:

Catholic Church
The Catholic church in the municipality is part of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Marília.

Protestant Church
The most diverse evangelical beliefs are present in the city, mainly Pentecostal, including the Assemblies of God in Brazil (the largest evangelical church in the country), Christian Congregation in Brazil, among others. These denominations are growing more and more throughout Brazil.

title: Monte Castelo, São Paulo


text:
Monte Mor

Monte Mor is a municipality (município) in the state of São Paulo in Brazil. It is part of the Metropolitan Region of Campinas. The population is 60,754 (2020 est.) in an area of 240.57 km². The elevation is 560 m.

Media
In telecommunications, the city was served by Telecomunicações de São Paulo. In July 1998, this company was acquired by Telefónica, which adopted the Vivo brand in 2012. The company is currently an operator of cell phones, fixed lines, internet (fiber optics/4G) and television (satellite and cable).

title: Monte Mor


text:
Eaton Township, Warren County, Ohio

Eaton Township was a township of Warren County, Ohio, United States. It was created on June 26, 1806, from the eastern part of Wayne Township beyond Caesars Creek. When Clinton County was created in 1815, most of the land became part of Clinton County.

title: Eaton Township, Warren County, Ohio


text:
User:Ed Poor/anagrams

Fun with anagrams
Want to have a tilde sig like mine? Sure you do! --Uncle Ed (El Dunce)

To create a two part sig, put the following in your preferences:

User:Ed Poor|--Uncle Ed]] [[user talk:Ed Poor|(El Dunce)

 * Uncle Ed is my nickname. Click on that to get user:Ed Poor
 * El Dunce is a silly anagram. Click on that to get user talk:Ed Poor

Note carefully that you DO NOT include the ' at the beginning or the ' at the end.

title: User:Ed Poor/anagrams


text: Category:1521 births

title: Category:1521 births


text:
Aragalur

Aragalur ("six moat place") is a village in Salem district, Tamil Nadu, India. It is about 6 km from Thalaivasal and 70 km from Salem.

Etymology
Aragalur literally means "six moat place" or the village having six moats. The moats were historically located near Kuyavar Street, Pullaakulam (North), Soleswaran Temple, Kottikulam (North), Kavarai Street & Uppulimedu. One of the records suggest that the moats could have been in concentric circles. Most of the moats have been filled and flattened to keep up the population growth.

History
Aragalur (Arakalur / Aragaloor / Aragazhur) was the capital of Magadai mandalam ruled by the well known Bana Chieftains around 1190-1260 CE. Aragalurudaiya Ponparappinan Rajarajadevan alias Magadesan was the greatest in this dynasty. Pallava inscriptions say, Chief Vanakovaraiyan Rajarajadevan Vannenjan alias Vannenja, a subordinate of Kopperunjingadeva - Kadava dynasty, lived in Aragalur around 1254 CE. The chief at Aragalur also has a family title of 'Ponparappinan'- referring to the gilding of the central shrine of the Arunachaleswara Temple at Tiruvannamalai and 'Bana' the clan / family title. Aragalur Udaya Iraratevan Ponparappinan had refurbished most of the parts and rebuilt some parts of Thillai Nataraja Temple, Chidambaram in 1213 AD. This dynasty ruled at the same period as Kulothunga Chola III, and Jatavarman Sundara Pandyan I. Pandian won over Magadesan in 1251 CE but returned the kingdom back. Magadesan ruled Aragalur without being subordinate and hence was captured and kept at Sankagiri fort. Magadesan's insignia was Rishabha the sacred Bull and the Garuda the sacred eagle and his elephant was called Airavata.

Government
Village Panchayat election 2020 brought onboard President VIJAYAN

Politics
Aragalur is part of the Gangavalli (SC) State Assembly seat and Kallakkurichi (SC) Parliament seat. There are more scheduled castes and scheduled tribes constituencies near Aragalur. State ST: Yercaud, Sendamangalam & Uppiliapuram. State SC: Thalaivasal, Perambalur, Veeraganur, Tittagudi & Ulundurpettai. Parliament SC seats: Rasipuram, Perambalur & Chidambaram.

Geography
Vasishta Nadi carries the drainage of Kalrayan Hills and flows through Attur, Thalaivasal and Cuddalore district with check dam at Pakkampadi and Periyeri / Aragalur border. This river flows in Tiruchirapalli and joins Sweta Nadi before flowing into the Bay of Bengal. Vasishta Nadi flows on the north and east part of the village. The Eri (agriculture reservoir - diverted from river) feeds many parts of the wet lands. Other areas are feed by and deep open wells or borewells tapping the aquifer. There is also a concern that the ground water table is going down in this region due to excessive exploitation of ground water for agriculture.

Neighborhoods
Anna Nagar Santhu, Bazaar Street, Meenavar Street, North Street, Boyar Street, Theepetty Colony, Marriyamman Kovil street, Velippalaiyam, Palaiya Colony, West Colony, East Colony, Kattukottaikal, Tharodum Street, Kavarai Street, Kottai Street, Kuyavar Street, Solisvaran Kovil Street & Mannathi Street. As an elder put, this village is very well organized based on the labor skills that they provided. It can also be seen as segregation based on caste system.

Regions include: Agraharam, Raja Vedi, Valayalkara theru, Kottai (Fort?) Street, Vannara Street & Cheri.

Economy
Aragalur is primarily an agriculture village. Cattle (Cow, Buffalo, Goat, and Chicken) are grown for the milk, meat, leather and as working animal. Also as a hub for the neighboring villages, the village Sandhai (Farmers' market) is held on the Wednesday. There, you can get the fresh farm produce sold mostly by the farmers themselves. The market street has small businesses that cater to the daily needs of the population. There are private medical practitioners and a veterinarian to take care of the people and the large cattle population. The Village is ATM Facility Available in 24 Hours at 3 ATMs available on this area and two petrol bunk also available.

Transportation
The mode to reach Aragalur is by taxi from Thaliavasal or Attur. Alternatively, you can also reach it by a bus from Attur/Thalaivasal that runs approximately once every hour.

 * chinnasalem to tirupathi bus available at (5:30pm and 8pm at chinnasalem, 5:20am at tirupathi).

Nearest railway station: Thalaivasal (TVSL) and Chinna salem.

Train
The Chinnasalem town's railway station serves trains on the route to Mettur, Cuddalore, Nagore, Pondicherry, Salem, Coimbatore, Mangalore, Bangalore, Chennai and Mumbai.

 * Salem to Vriddhachalam passenger
 * Bangalore to Karaikkal Fast passenger
 * Salem to chennai egmore to dadar express
 * Puducherry to Mangalore weekly express
 * Yeshwantpur (Bangalore) to Puducherry garib rath
 * Erode to chennai egmore special daytime intercity express

Aragalur is landlocked and depends on the Port of Chennai for most oceangoing freight.

Nearest airport is Salem Airport (IATA: SXV – ICAO: VOSM) which is 70 km away.

early morning 8:10am aragalur to chennai bus facility available, every night 09:30pm aragalur to chennai bus facility available Early Month Theipirai Ashtami Yester Night Boojai... at the day Morning to Night 3 Am regular bus facility at attur to aragalur

Communication
Indian Postal Service operates a Sub-Office (636 101) at Aragalur. There is a telephone exchange catering to the land line telephones. Recently the usage of mobile phones has increased in the village and shops selling them are available.

Education
Educational institutions include Tagore Educational Institutions
 * 1) Sri Venkateswara Matric & HR.Sec.School
 * 2) Bharathi Vidya Mandir Matriculation School
 * 1) Panchayat Union Elementary School
 * 2) Government Boys Higher Secondary School
 * 3) Government Girls High School

Nearest Colleges

 * 1) Maha Barathi Engineering College
 * 2) Kailash Women's College
 * 3) Bharathiyar Women's Engenering college of Education

Demographics
People of Aragalur are predominantly of Hindu faith speaking Tamil language. There is a significant number of Sengunthar community who are primarily weavers. This village has many temples including Sri Kamanada Eswar and Solesvara (Ashlar walls)- dedicated to Lord Shiva and Karivarada Raja Perumal dedicated to Lord Vishnu. There is also a 6 ft Buddha idol and a 3 ft idol in the village of Thiyaganur on the outskirts of the Aragalur.

Flora and fauna
Lake fed areas are cultivated with rice and cotton, while the dry lands are more suitable for peanuts (groundnuts) and cassava. Coconut is one of the common tall trees. The eri is planted with trees to retain the soil and also retain water due to improved cover from hot sun. The wild animals in this area include lizards, crows, sparrows and rarely rabbits. கறிவேப்பிலை karivepallai, Curry Tree, was introduced in the early 2000s in and around Aragalur.

Tourism

Temples are primary attraction and few select days in the year are special for each of the big temples. Taking the god for a tour in the evening happens on auspicious occasions around the Raja Vedi. Aragalur celebrates many festivals like Pongal where the friends and relatives of nearby villages are invited.

Shiva: Bhairavar puja is celebrated in a grand way at the Sri Kamanada Eswar temple 11.56272°N, 78.78824°W on the 8th day after the new moon day (Ashtami) at midnight. This is probably the only temple having like this Bairavar pooja in Tamil Nadu. On the day before Panguni Uthiram, morning sun-ray directly falls on the Lingam and is worshiped at this time by small number of traditional local families. This next occurs on 12 April 2014 6:00am to 6:30am IST. This temple has a Temple tank, though dry for most part of the year. Kameshwara temple stala Purana indicates that the Kamadeva woke up Siva at this place. There is a village named Kaamakkaapaliyam in this locality. Sri Kamanada Eswar temple was built prior to 1206 CE and hosts many Epigraphs of historic and Archaeological importance and it is maintained by Tamil Nadu Government Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments ministry. The epigraphs were collected by the British Raj in 1931CE and numbered it 408 - 455. Bhirava pooja here is recent phenomena - since 17 September 1993CE, and it is getting very popular and the village bustles with transient business, including Aragalur traditional Paniyaram dish. The vimana is of 3 levels and it has Temple tank. Saint Vashistha, is believed to have worshipped the shiva Linga here.

Aarudhra Darisanam is celebrated in December each year (Tamil month of Margazhi on Tiruvathira).

Ashta Bhairavar icons installed at Aragalur are : Asitanga, Kala, Kapala, Krodha, Rudra, Ruru, Samhara & Unmatta.

Vishnu: Rajaraja Vanar Kovaraiyan built Karivaradha Perumal Kovil (Vishnu) 11.5624°N, 78.78907°W in the 12th century that is facing West. There are nice Dasavatara murals with the 9th avatar as Budha. This temple has a Temple tank having water. Its water is not used or minimally used for the ritualistic activity. This is parrikara sthalam for the people with stars Uthiradam, Thiruvonam, Avittam & Moolam. The vimana is of 3 levels and it has Temple tank.

Both the Sri Kamadada (consort's temple pillar) and Karivaradha Perumal (roof) temples have the sun, moon and the dagger Royal Insignia of the Vijayanagara Empire embossed on the granite wall/pillar. Solesvaran Temple: 11.562°N, 78.7874°WThis temple gives the old name for the village as 'Thayinum nalla chozhiswaram'. The temple is constructed using Granite stones with no mortar. There is one inscription in the temple, Nandi in separate Mandapa. There is another small temple for the goddess adjacent to the Solesvaran temple and the construction is similar to the mail temple. Locals believe that this was constructed by/in honor of Kulothunga Chola III. In 2007, volunteers have cleared the vegetation over growth on the roof of this temple.

Subrahmanyan temple in the Market street (Kadai Veedhi) celebrates Soora Samhaaram every year on the 6th day of Karthika lunar Tamil month.

Ambairamman temple11.57115°N, 78.78811°W, on the Vasishta Nadi, has 2 Vinayakars that's not as common.

Temple cars: (Donated by Eramanchi Tulukanna Nayaka 1518 under Vijayanagara Empire ruler Krishnadevaraya) in ruins - not maintained. The art work is brilliant even in the current condition.

Buddha temple: The Budha 11.56093°N, 78.77996°Wtemple and Buddha statues are found in the neighboring village Thiyaganur is another attraction to visitors.

For the visitors who have extra time on their hand there is no shortage of temples, small and big, in this small village. There are 21 temples for the tiny population of this village.

Bronze Jain statues were present in this village. They are probably moved to Salem museum.

There are couple of restaurants that provide basic food to the locals and tourists. For accommodation, Attur is the nearest desirable place.

There are 12 Siva temples located on villages through which Vasishta Nadi flows. These include the panchaboodhas (Five Classical Elements or Tattva worshipped by Vashistha Rishi: Belur Thandodreswarar (land), Ethapur Sambavamoortheswarar (water), Attur Kottai Kayanirmeshwarar (Fire), Aragalur Kamanadeshwarar (Air) & Koogayur Swarnapurieswarar (Sky).

title: Aragalur


text: Category:1520s births

title: Category:1520s births


text: Category:1590 deaths

title: Category:1590 deaths


text:
Crosswick, Ohio

Crosswick is an unincorporated community in central Wayne Township, Warren County, Ohio, United States, located just outside Waynesville where Bellbrook Rd. meets Old Stage Rd.

History
Crosswick (also known historically as Crosswicks) was platted by James Jennings in July 1821.

title: Crosswick, Ohio


text:
.218 Bee

The .218 Bee is a .22 caliber centerfire rifle cartridge designed for varmint hunting by Winchester in 1937. The cartridge was originally chambered in the Winchester Model 65 lever-action rifles, which may have ultimately led to its lack of popularity. The cartridge is named for the bore diameter of the barrel in which the cartridge is chambered rather than the usual practice in the United States of having the cartridge's nomenclature reflect in some way the bullet diameter.

History
The .218 Bee cartridge was designed by Winchester for use in their Model 65 lever-action rifles. Winchester designed the cartridge by necking down the .25-20 Winchester cartridge to accept a .224 diameter bullet. Just as the .32-20 can be considered to be the parent cartridge of the .25-20, it can also be considered the parent cartridge to the .218 Bee. The cartridge was introduced as a commercial cartridge by Winchester in 1937 in their Model 65 lever action rifle, which was also chambered for the .25-20 and .32-20 Winchester cartridges. However, while the .25-20 and the .32-20 Model 65 rifles have 22-inch (560 mm) barrels, the rifles chambered for the Bee have 24-inch (610 mm) barrels.

Despite showing some early promise, the cartridge never really caught on, even though it was later chambered by Winchester in their new bolt-action Model 43 rifle and by Sako in their L-46 rifle. There was some question about the accuracy of the .218 Bee as compared to the .222, but that was likely due to the difference of inherent accuracy between the bolt-actions rifles commonly chambered for the .222 and the lever-actions commonly chambered for the .218 Bee. Although not in common use, it is still a very effective cartridge in its class, for small to medium varmints out to about 200 yard. Production ammunition and rifles are still available from a few manufacturers.

Performance
In terms of relative performance, the .218 Bee falls between the smaller .22 Hornet, and the larger .222 Remington and the more popular .223 Remington.

title: .218 Bee


text:
.22 Hornet

The .22 Hornet or 5.6×36mmR Hornet is a varminting, small-game hunting, survival and competition centerfire rifle cartridge commercially introduced in 1930. It is considerably more powerful than the rimfire .22 WMR and the .17 HMR, achieving higher velocity with a bullet twice the weight of the .17 HMR bullet. The Hornet also differs significantly from these in that being a centerfire cartridge makes it reloadable, and thus more versatile. It was the smallest commercially available .22 caliber centerfire cartridge until the introduction of the FN 5.7×28mm.

The .22 Hornet should not be confused with the 5.6x35mmR Vierling. As per C.I.P., the Hornet case has a longer shoulder length, case length and thicker rim than the Vierling. This makes it very difficult to chamber the higher pressure Hornet cartridge in a Vierling rifle.

The .22 Hornet fills the gap between such popular varmint/predator cartridges as the .22 WMR and the .223 Remington. In regard to muzzle velocity, muzzle energy and noise, it is well suited to vermin and predator control in relatively built-up areas.

History
Prior to the development of the modern .22 Hornet, there was a conceptually similar but physically different cartridge by the same name invented in the 1890s by Reuben Harwood (nicknamed "Iron Ramrod)", sometimes called the ".22 Harwood Hornet" to avoid confusion, as the two rounds are not compatible. Harwood's cartridge was formed by necking down .25-20 brass to .22 caliber, and was initially loaded with black powder.

The modern .22 Hornet's ancestry is generally attributed to experiments done in the 1920s using the black-powder .22 WCF at Springfield Armory. Winchester adopted what had so far been a wildcat cartridge in 1930, producing ammo for a cartridge for which no commercially made guns yet had been built. It was not until 1932 that any company began selling commercially made guns for the cartridge.

Wildcat variants of the .22 Hornet, such as the .22 K-Hornet (designed by Lysle Kilbourn) and .22 Ackley Improved Hornet, can boost bullet velocity and energy considerably above factory .22 Hornet levels, but performance still falls short of what is deer-legal in the Netherlands or the United Kingdom, although it is legal for deer in some other countries and some American states.

Performance
Factory ammunition is widely available from all major manufacturers, with bullets generally weighing 34, 35, 45, or 46 grains (2.2, 2.3, 2.9, or 3.0 g), with bullets invariably either hollow point or soft point. Muzzle velocity typically is in the 2,500 to 3,100 ft/s range, and muzzle energy is just over 700 ft·lbf (950 J) for factory ammo fired from a rifle. Velocities and energies are less when Hornet ammunition is fired from short-barreled firearms.

Published handload data from major handloading-product companies shows how versatile the .22 Hornet can be. According to the Hodgdon Powder Company reloading data, the heavier bullets show an affinity for Lil'Gun smokeless powder to produce much higher velocities than other powder with heavy bullets in this small case.

Survival
Beginning during World War II, aircrew survival rifles in .22 Hornet were developed and issued by the U.S. military. They were a bolt-action rifle with collapsible stock (M4 Survival Rifle), a break-open rifle/shotgun over-under (M6 Aircrew Survival Weapon), and a takedown bolt-action rifle (AR-5/MA-1). Military survival issue .22 Hornet ammunition was loaded with soft-point expanding jacketed bullets, not complying with the Hague Convention. The United States was the only exception to a complete prohibition of the use of expanding bullets in war, due to its ambiguous policy. However, the cartridge boxes were labeled "Under no circumstances is the ammunition to be used for offensive or defensive measures against enemy personnel. This ammunition is provided for use with your emergency survival rifle for the killing of game for food under emergency survival conditions only."

Competition
The .22 Hornet is a popular cartridge for the Field/Hunter's pistol category in IHMSA and NRA metallic silhouette shooting.

Hunting
Survivalist Mel Tappan on the .22 Hornet: "It is accurate, has virtually no recoil and a light report.... [I]ts performance limits its use to small game and pests within 150 or 175 yards. It is by no means a reliable deer cartridge, even with handloads."

Sam Fadala of GUNS magazine calls it "perfect for mid-range varmints of all stripes," everything from small game, mountain birds (e.g., blue grouse), turkey, javelina, peccaries, coyote, and Australian wild pigs and goats.

The Hornet is considered an optimal cartridge for turkey hunting, though it is not as powerful as modern .22 centerfires. At mid-century, southern sportsman Henry Edwards Davis pronounced the Winchester Model 70 chambered for the Hornet "the best commercial rifle for wild turkeys the world has ever seen". In 2011, Lane Kinney was awarded the "Top Turkey in the World" award by Safari Club International for a record-setting Osceola turkey taken with a T/C Contender pistol in .22 Hornet.

The Hornet's virtual absence of recoil has made it even quite popular among deer hunters in some areas, although it is generally regarded as very underpowered for deer unless bullet placement is absolutely precise. American hunter Jack O'Connor decried this practice in the 1950s, stating the Hornet could "under no circumstances" be considered a deer cartridge. Many jurisdictions such as the Netherlands, the UK (other than England and Wales) and some states in the USA currently prohibit the Hornet (and other .22 caliber cartridges) for use on deer.

The .22 Hornet also proved popular among the Alaskan Inuit due to low cost, who used it for hunting seals, caribou, and even polar bears.

Firearms
Rifles are currently (2007) being chambered in .22 Hornet by Ruger, New England Firearms, CZ and various other mass-market manufacturers. Most current-production rifles in .22 Hornet are either bolt-action or single-shot designs, with the exception of a very few "survival" rifle/shotgun over-under designs such as the Savage Model 24 from Savage and a few European-made kipplauf break-action single-shot rifles, and drilling break-action shotgun/rifle combinations consisting of two side-by-side shotgun barrels and a rifle barrel underneath. Older guns generally have a slower twist rate of 1-16" (or one turn in every 16 in of barrel length) for lighter bullets with a .223 caliber dimension. Newer guns feature a faster 1-14" twist in the .224 bore diameter.

Revolvers have been produced in .22 Hornet by Taurus, Magnum Research, and others with Ruger releasing a large frame version in 2024. Single-shot pistols in .22 Hornet have been made by Thompson Center Arms. Muzzle velocities are somewhat less for this cartridge in short-barreled handguns than in rifles.

title: .22 Hornet


text:
User:Fropuff/Drafts/n-sphere

Draft in progress.

In mathematics, an n-sphere is a generalization of a ordinary sphere to arbitrary dimensions. For any natural number n, an n-sphere of radius r is defined the set of points in (n+1)-dimensional Euclidean space which are at distance r from a fixed point. The radius r may be any positive real number. Spheres for n > 2 are sometimes called hyperspheres.
 * a 0-sphere is a pair of points {p − r, p + r}.
 * a 1-sphere is a circle of radius r.
 * a 2-sphere is an ordinary sphere.
 * a 3-sphere is a sphere in 4-dimensional Euclidean space.
 * and so on...

The n-sphere of unit radius centered at the origin is called the unit n-sphere, denoted Sn. The unit n-sphere is often referred to as the n-sphere. In symbols:
 * $$S^n = \left\{ x \in \mathbb{R}^{n+1} : \|x\| = 1\right\}$$

Elementary properties
Take an (n−1)-sphere of radius r inside Rn. The "surface area" of this sphere is

 * $$A = \frac{2\pi^{n/2}}{\Gamma(n/2)}r^{n-1}$$

where Γ is the gamma function. The "volume" of the n+1 dimensional region it encloses is

 * $$V = \frac{\pi^{n/2}}{\Gamma(n/2+1)}r^n$$

Structure
The unit n-sphere Sn can naturally be regarded as a topological space with the relative topology from R n+1. As a subspace of Euclidean space it is both Hausdorff and second-countable. Moreover, since it is a closed, bounded subset of Euclidean space it is compact according to the Heine-Borel theorem.

The n-sphere can also be regarded as a smooth manifold of dimension n. In fact, it is a closed, embedded submanifold of Rn+1. This follows from the fact that it is the regular level set of a smooth function (namely the function R n+1 → R that sends a vector to its norm squared). Since S n has codimension 1 in R n+1 it is a hypersurface.

In addition to its topological and smooth structure, Sn has a natural geometric structure. It inherits a Riemannian metric from the ambient Euclidean space. Specifically, the metric on Sn is the pullback of the Euclidean metric by the inclusion map Sn → Rn+1. This canonical metric on Sn is often called the round metric.

Together with the round metric, Sn is a compact, n-dimensional Riemannian manifold which is isometrically embedded in Rn+1. For specific values on n, Sn may have additional algebraic structure. This will be discussed further below.

Coordinate charts
As an n-dimensional manifold, Sn should be covered by n-dimensional coordinate charts. That is, an arbirtary point on Sn should be specifiable by n coordinates. Since Sn is not contractible it is impossible to find a single chart that covers the entire space. At least two charts are necessary.

Stereographic coordinates
The standard coordinate charts on Sn are obtained by stereographic projection.

Topology
In topology, any space which is homeomorphic to the unit n-sphere in Euclidean space is called a topological n-sphere (or just an n-sphere if the context is clear). For example, any knot in R3 is a topological 1-sphere, as is the boundary of any polygon. Topological 2-spheres include spheroids and the boundaries of polyhedra.

To do

 * topological constructions (e.g. one-point compactification, balls glued together, ball with boundary identified)
 * homology groups and cell decomposition
 * homotopy groups and connectivity
 * exotic spheres and differential structures

Geometry
Spheres occupy a special place in Riemannian geometry. For n ≥ 2, the n-sphere can be characterized as the unique complete, simply connected, n-dimensional Riemannian manifold with constant sectional curvature +1. The n-sphere serves as the model space for elliptic geometry.

The round metric
The round metric on Sn is the one induced from the Euclidean metric on Rn+1. Concretely, if one identifies the tangent space to a point p on Sn with the orthogonal complement of the vector p in Rn+1 then the round metric at p is just the Euclidean metric restricted to the tangent space.

In stereographic coordinates, the round metric may be written
 * $$ds^2 = \left(\frac{2}{1+\|u\|^2}\right)^2\left((du^1)^2 + \cdots + (du^n)^2\right)$$

To do

 * curvature tensors and traces
 * isometry group
 * geodesics, great circles, and spherical distance

Specific spheres

 * 0-sphere : The pair of points {±1} with the discrete topology. The only sphere which is disconnected. Has a natural Lie group structure; isomorphic to O(1). Parallizable.
 * 1-sphere : Also known as the unit circle. Has a nontrivial fundamental group. Abelian Lie group structure U(1); the circle group. Topologically equivalent to the real projective line, RP1. Parallizable. SO(2) = U(1).
 * 2-sphere : Complex structure; see Riemann sphere. Equivalent to the complex projective line, CP1. SO(3)/SO(2).
 * 3-sphere : Lie group structure Sp(1). Principal U(1)-bundle over the 2-sphere. Parallizable. SO(4)/SO(3) = SU(2) = Sp(1) = Spin(3).
 * 4-sphere : Equivalent to the quaternionic projective line, HP1. SO(5)/SO(4).
 * 5-sphere : Principal U(1)-bundle over CP2. SO(6)/SO(5) = SU(3)/SU(2).
 * 6-sphere : Almost complex structure coming from the set of pure unit octonions. SO(7)/SO(6) = G2/SU(3).
 * 7-sphere : Topological quasigroup structure as the set of unit octonions. Principal Sp(1)-bundle over S4. Parallizable. SO(8)/SO(7) = SU(4)/SU(3) = Sp(2)/Sp(1) = Spin(7)/G2 = Spin(6)/SU(3).

Related topics

 * hyperbolic space

title: User:Fropuff/Drafts/n-sphere


text: User talk:24.21.219.30

title: User talk:24.21.219.30


text:
KOVR

KOVR (channel 13) is a television station licensed to Stockton, California, United States, serving as the CBS outlet for the Sacramento area. It is owned and operated by the network's CBS News and Stations division alongside KMAX-TV (channel 31), an independent station. The two stations share studios on KOVR Drive in West Sacramento; KOVR's transmitter is located in Walnut Grove, California.

After an application process stretching back to 1948, KOVR began broadcasting in September 1954 from studios in Stockton and a transmitter atop Mount Diablo. This facility provided wide coverage from San Francisco to Sacramento and beyond, but KOVR could not obtain a network affiliation in the San Francisco market, and it had to pay higher programming costs as a San Francisco station. To remedy these issues, the station moved transmitter sites in 1957, becoming fully a Stockton- and Sacramento-area station, and obtained an affiliation with ABC. It partly merged with Sacramento's original ABC affiliate, KCCC-TV, a struggling UHF station.

After moving, the station was sold twice before being acquired by newspaper publisher McClatchy in 1963. This made KOVR a sister to the KFBK radio stations in Sacramento as well as The Sacramento Bee newspaper; it marked McClatchy's entry into local television after an unsuccessful attempt to win channel 10 in the 1950s. McClatchy sold the station in 1980 under intense government pressure on owners of newspaper-broadcast combinations, and it changed hands another six times from 1983 to 1996. The station became a CBS affiliate in 1995 as the result of an affiliation switch and was purchased by CBS in 2005; uniquely, it broadcasts prime time programming one hour ahead of other West Coast stations. Traditionally a third-rated station in local news, ratings have gradually improved for its newscasts since the 1990s.

The Mount Diablo years
On March 5, 1948, Radio Diablo, Inc. (later Television Diablo) filed an application for a new television station to broadcast on channel 13, first assigned to San Francisco and then to San Jose, from Mount Diablo in Contra Costa County. From Mount Diablo, the principals in Radio Diablo operated FM station KSBR, which had an effective radiated power of 250,000 watts and, having just moved to the mountaintop, claimed it was heard from the Oregon state line to Bakersfield. Two other groups applied for the channel by late 1948, but the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) imposed a freeze on new television station grants that October.

When the freeze ended in 1952, channel 13 had been removed from San Jose to Stockton, where it could still cover the city of license from Mount Diablo. Stockton radio station KXOB filed a competing application for channel 13. Radio Diablo, headed by O. H. Brown, estimated it could serve 3.5 million people in San Francisco, Stockton, and Sacramento from its mountaintop site. The owners of KXOB ultimately received shares in Radio Diablo in exchange for the dismissal of KXOB's competing application in a settlement agreement. Broadcaster and furniture store owner Edward Peffer entered into a similar agreement, paving the way for the FCC to grant Radio Diablo the construction permit on February 11, 1954. Leslie Hoffman, who had become the new president of the company, was to have the station named for him as KHOF, but when Hoffman thought of the possibility of "cough" puns based on the designation, the call sign was changed to KOVR, for "coverage".

KOVR began broadcasting September 6, 1954; after an opening night telecast produced in the Stockton studios, it aired live coverage from the California State Fair. It had studios in Stockton on Miner Avenue, as well as a converted bus that served as a remote broadcast van along with two other mobile units. KOVR was the second television station in Stockton; an ultra high frequency (UHF) outlet, KTVU (channel 36), had gone on the air the previous December. As an independent station without network affiliation, the program schedule was heavy with local programming. Lynn Taylor hosted a talent show, a weeknight "Do It Yourself" show, and a teen program. Sportscaster Bob Fouts began commuting to Stockton from San Francisco to host a sports show, leaving KGO-TV in that city, and regional news coverage and a bingo program were also slated. Art Finley hosted an afternoon children's program, Toonytown, on the station for several years before moving to San Francisco's KRON-TV.

By 1955, the station had opened offices in San Francisco, where at one point it was proposed that NBC might try to affiliate with or purchase KOVR given discord with KRON-TV, its San Francisco affiliate, and a desire by NBC to own its San Francisco outlet. An attempt to move its main operation from Stockton to San Francisco was denied by the FCC as it would have stripped Stockton of its lone very high frequency (VHF) television station and there were already several television channels allotted to the Bay Area. The company did announce it would add a studio in San Francisco on a secondary basis. This studio was located in the Mark Hopkins Hotel, where the San Francisco offices were also relocated. In December 1955, Variety magazine reported that CBS, which coveted a VHF owned-and-operated station to serve San Francisco but had affiliate KPIX-TV there instead, was bidding on KOVR.

As time went on, it became clear that a network affiliation was necessary to provide KOVR with adequate programming and secure its economic viability. Bob Foster, the media critic for The Times newspaper in San Mateo, described the station as "suffering from the lack of sponsors, the lack of network affiliation—at least one that meant anything—and from a lack of good programs". The station found itself paying for films and syndicated programs at San Francisco market rates while selling advertising at rates befitting its city of license, the much smaller Stockton; if it were to move out of the San Francisco market, it could cut its film acquisition costs by half. KOVR had no prospect of obtaining a network alliance in the San Francisco market. However, opportunity lay in Sacramento. By 1956, there were three television stations in Sacramento itself. On the VHF band were CBS affiliate KBET-TV (channel 10) and NBC affiliate KCRA-TV (channel 3), which had begun the year before, and a UHF station, KCCC-TV (channel 40), which was the local outlet for ABC and had been in service since 1953. As not all television sets could receive UHF, UHF stations were generally at a disadvantage to VHF stations, which networks and advertisers preferred to air their programming. In a bid to obtain the ABC affiliation while eliminating overlap to ABC-owned KGO-TV in San Francisco, KOVR filed in August 1956 to move from Mount Diablo to Butte Mountain near Jackson in Amador County, a proposal that blindsided KCCC-TV. This application was initially approved by the FCC in November, though KCCC-TV management protested the decision as a Stockton station encroaching on the Sacramento market. As a result, the FCC stayed its grant of the construction permit in January 1957.

KOVR blindsided KCCC-TV again in February 1957 when it announced that, beginning February 17, it would become an ABC affiliate, something that the network had previously promised KCCC-TV as not forthcoming until after the Butte Mountain move was approved. The relocation application was granted again in April after KCCC-TV withdrew its opposition.

On May 31, 1957, KCCC-TV ceased broadcasting in what amounted to a partial merger with KOVR. The Stockton station became the ABC affiliate of record for Sacramento—already simulcasting many ABC programs with channel 40—as KCCC-TV owner Lincoln Dellar purchased stock in Television Diablo. The move to Butte Mountain became effective on October 28, 1957, taking KOVR out of conflict with the Bay Area television stations and cementing its status as a Stockton station serving Sacramento instead of San Francisco.

Gannett and Metromedia ownership
As work continued on the Butte Mountain transmitter, Television Diablo began to seek a buyer for KOVR. It first proposed to sell the station to the Hudson Valley Broadcasting Company of Albany, New York—which was in the process of buying a television station in Durham, North Carolina, and renaming itself the Capital Cities Broadcasting Company; despite the FCC's blessing, this sale was not consummated and was dismissed in November. Weeks later, the Gannett Company of Rochester, New York, entered into an agreement to acquire the station, taking ownership in February 1958. For Gannett, KOVR was far-flung compared to its other media properties. It owned radio and television stations in New York and Illinois as well as newspapers in those states, New Jersey, and Connecticut. The next year, KOVR reopened KCCC-TV's former Sacramento studios on Garden Highway, also providing use of the facilities by new educational station KVIE.

After less than two years of ownership, as well as the end of talks between Gannett and 20th Century Fox, Gannett applied to sell KOVR to the Metropolitan Broadcasting Company, owned by John Kluge, in 1959. This company renamed itself Metromedia in 1961. During Metromedia's ownership of KOVR, the station participated in the Trans-Tower project that built a common transmission facility for Sacramento's three commercial television stations in Walnut Grove. Expanding production of commercials and other programming in Sacramento eventually led KOVR to leave the Garden Highway facilities and renovate a former Red Heart bakery on Arden Way to serve as its Sacramento studio and news center, operating alongside the Miner Avenue plant in Stockton.

The McClatchy years
On October 4, 1963, Metromedia announced it would sell KOVR for $7.65 million to McClatchy Newspapers, publisher of The Sacramento Bee and The Modesto Bee newspapers and owner of radio stations KBEE (970 AM) in Modesto and KFBK (1530 AM) and KFBK-FM 92.5 in Sacramento. For McClatchy, the contract to buy a television station serving Sacramento fulfilled a long-held dream of the company. McClatchy had desired to build a station in Sacramento since 1948, when it applied for channel 10. While an FCC examiner's initial decision favored McClatchy for the station, its competition, a group known as Sacramento Telecasters and consisting of non-broadcast interests, successfully objected the award on diversification of media ownership grounds, with the FCC unanimously overturning the examiner and granting Sacramento Telecasters the permit for what signed on as KBET-TV. McClatchy continued legal action to try and force a rehearing on its proposal until February 1958.

Several groups expressed concern about concentration of media ownership. The sale was initially opposed by a group calling itself the Citizens Committee to Promote Fair Coverage, which felt that a McClatchy purchase of KOVR would result in a "monopoly of news", while the Stockton city council, fearful of the station reducing its presence in its city of license, initially voted unanimously to request an FCC hearing before rescinding the resolution after Eleanor McClatchy wrote to the body, assuring them that the station would not leave. The FCC initially indicated the deal would require a hearing, an action recommended by commission staff, but reversed course in July 1964, approving the acquisition on a 5–2 vote.

McClatchy's ownership of KOVR was dogged by groups seeking to force the matter on antitrust issues as early as the late 1960s. In 1969, McKeon Construction, a Sacramento firm, asked a U.S. district court to void the FCC's 1964 approval of the sale, which it claimed enhanced an existing monopoly on regional advertising; McClatchy sources told Broadcasting magazine that the firm's ire had likely been provoked by unflattering coverage of its owner and of political pressures placed by Sacramento construction companies. The lawsuit was dropped in 1971. Similarly, in 1974, the San Joaquin County Economic Development Association appealed to the FCC and asked it to review whether KOVR was adequately serving Stockton.

Cross-ownership woes
A new tenor taken by federal regulators toward cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations significantly escalated the public pressure on McClatchy to act. In 1975, the FCC moved to bar future acquisitions that created cross-ownership and ordered 16 such groups in small markets to break up their holdings, though others were allowed to remain grandfathered. Two years later, on March 1, 1977, a federal appeals court amplified the policy; instead of merely barring future purchases against the rule, it ordered the divestiture of all such pairings except those that were in the public interest.

Within days, McClatchy announced an agreement with Multimedia, Inc., designed to extricate both groups from their heaviest cross-ownership burdens. Where McClatchy owned a newspaper, AM, FM, and TV stations between Sacramento and Stockton, Multimedia had a similar situation in Greenville, South Carolina: two newspapers (morning daily The Greenville News and the afternoon The Greenville Piedmont), WFBC and WFBC-FM radio, as well as WFBC-TV, an NBC-affiliated TV station. McClatchy and Multimedia proposed a straight trade whereby the former would acquire WFBC-TV and Multimedia would receive KOVR; as a result, neither company would own a newspaper and a TV station in the same market. Petitions were lodged against the deal by organizations in Greenville and Sacramento, as well as the San Joaquin Communications Corporation. The former two groups emphasized the unfamiliarity of the companies to their new markets, calling McClatchy "totally foreign" to upstate South Carolina and Multimedia "completely unknown to the Sacramento community". The latter had been in a legal battle since 1974 seeking to wrest KMJ-TV in Fresno from McClatchy control. While the community organizations abandoned their opposition to the trade, San Joaquin Communications Corporation refused to yield, and the transaction reached its deadline date of March 1, 1978, without being adjudicated by the FCC. Negotiations to extend the term failed, and the deal was called off by mutual agreement later that month.

McClatchy entered into an agreement to sell KMJ-TV to the San Joaquin Communications Corporation in May 1979, seeking to avoid a lengthy legal battle over the Fresno outlet. The company then decided to put KOVR, its only other television station, up for sale. Citing "increasingly strong government opposition" to cross-ownership, president C. K. McClatchy II noted that he felt it was in the community interest to ensure an "orderly transition" of ownership at KOVR.

Changing ownership, falling ratings
On July 5, 1979, McClatchy announced it would sell KOVR to The Outlet Company of Providence, Rhode Island, for $65 million. C. K. McClatchy noted that Outlet was selected despite not making the highest offer because it had committed to ensuring local minority ownership in KOVR by selling 10 percent of the station's stock to minorities. The deal, consummated in May 1980, was the second-most expensive single-station TV station transaction ever at the time. To reduce debt incurred in the KOVR purchase, Outlet sold 91 department stores. During Outlet ownership, ratings for KOVR's newscasts fell to third place, behind KXTV and far behind a dominant KCRA. This occurred despite an infusion of resources to improve KOVR's news ratings.

The Outlet sale was the first in seven different ownership transactions involving KOVR between 1980 and 1996. In what was the second-largest group station deal for its time, in 1983, Outlet was purchased by the Rockefeller Group after Coca-Cola walked away from a purchase agreement the year before. After the Rockefeller purchase, KOVR became the first station in Northern California to broadcast in stereo sound, doing so in February 1985. It also became the first local broadcast home of the newly-relocated Sacramento Kings basketball team in 1985.

In a management buyout that restored Outlet Communications to separate status, Rockefeller Group sold the firm in 1986 for $625 million. To raise capital, some stations were immediately divested, among them KOVR, which was sold on for $104 million to another Rhode Island concern, Narragansett Capital Corporation, as its first television property. Amidst these two transactions, KOVR laid off 10 employees, and morale was low due to poor ratings in part attributable to the national underperformance of ABC at the time. The Kings telecasts had been one of the station's bright spots, but the team sued KOVR in August 1986 for breach of contract, alleging the station owed it hundreds of thousands of dollars and had tried to renegotiate the pact; it was another three years before a judge ruled in favor of the Kings. Also in 1986, the station broke ground on its present transmission tower, a 2049 ft mast in Walnut Grove, in a joint venture with KXTV. Otherwise, Narragansett—a holding company, not a broadcasting firm—generally underinvested in KOVR; one rival broadcaster commented that the company had "stripped the station clean".

AnchorMedia ownership and move to West Sacramento
In 1988, Narragansett received between seven and eleven offers, all unsolicited, for KOVR, and it opted to cash out by selling the station to AnchorMedia, a broadcasting company owned by Texas billionaire Robert Bass, for $162 million—a price considered to be "top dollar". The Bass Group had been making major business investments in Sacramento, including a purchase of land in Roseville and the acquisition of the insolvent American Savings and Loan in Stockton. AnchorMedia sued Narragansett for allegedly withholding information and taking away key employees.

The immediate task facing AnchorMedia management was one of procuring a new facility, as the Arden Way site had become overcrowded and insufficient for KOVR's needs. Outlet had bought land in Natomas for a potential new studio site, but Narragansett sold the parcel; Anchor began scouting property in West Sacramento. In late 1990, the new $8 million, 43000 ft2 facility opened, featuring two studios and a helipad for the station's news helicopter.

River City and Sinclair ownership; affiliation switch to CBS
In 1994, AnchorMedia—by then known as Continental Broadcasting—was purchased by River City Broadcasting, a St. Louis-based owner of television and radio properties. The three ABC affiliates owned by Anchor represented River City's first major network affiliates. River City found itself navigating an affiliation switch shortly after its purchase. Amid a major national realignment, the A. H. Belo Corporation and ABC renewed their agreement for Belo's ABC-affiliated stations in Dallas and Norfolk, Virginia, including the move of ABC's Sacramento affiliation to the higher-rated KXTV. As a result, KOVR aligned with CBS. The switch took place on March 6, 1995. Uniquely for the market, KOVR adopted an early prime time schedule and air weeknight CBS programming from 7 to 10 p.m. instead of from 8 to 11 p.m. At the time, KPIX-TV, the CBS affiliate in San Francisco, programmed on a similar basis (abandoning the practice in 1998), and KCRA-TV had done so with NBC programming between 1991 and 1993. The early prime move was designed to help KOVR's ratings by airing its late news for one hour at 10 p.m. and counterprogramming the 11 p.m. newscasts with The Late Show with David Letterman. River City Broadcasting president and KOVR interim general manager Rick Blangiardi had previously been the general manager of KPIX and saw the scheduling practice as an opportunity. For the seventh time in 16 years, KOVR was sold again in 1996 when River City Broadcasting was acquired by Sinclair Broadcast Group of Baltimore.

CBS ownership
By 2004, Sinclair was eyeing the creation of duopolies in as many markets as possible and seeking to sell stations in markets where it had no feasible options to create one. One of those markets was Sacramento. As a result, Sinclair agreed to sell KOVR to the Viacom Television Stations Group—the owned-and-operated stations division of CBS—in December 2004 for $285 million. This created a duopoly with then-UPN affiliate KMAX-TV (channel 31). In order to remain under ownership limits for radio stations in Sacramento, Viacom sold San Francisco radio station KFRC (610 AM).

While operations of KMAX-TV moved in with KOVR in West Sacramento, resulting in the layoffs of 11 newly redundant employees, $7 million was spent on capital improvements at the studios, where some of the equipment had not been replaced since AnchorMedia built the facility 15 years prior. Though speculation emerged at the time of the sale that CBS might abolish the early prime scheduling that KOVR had used for a decade, thereby bringing the station in line with its other West Coast outlets, CBS ultimately preserved the practice and even expanded it by shifting weekend programming up an hour in 2006.

News operation
Local news started with the station in 1954; the original news department consisted of three full-time employees and a part-time photographer, with Mel Riddle as news anchor and editor. In the early years, the station provided extensive film footage of events and used its remote vans to cover such events as flooding in Marysville.

Traditionally, KOVR's newscasts placed third in the Sacramento market. At times, not even KXTV and KOVR combined could equal KCRA-TV's news ratings. Newscasts were produced from both the Stockton and Sacramento studios, and the geographic distance between the news crews sometimes hampered the functioning of the news operation. Even though KOVR's news budget often exceeded that of KXTV, KOVR typically tied that station or was narrowly edged out.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, despite a general lack of investment from Sinclair—which stripped the station of its helicopter and satellite truck and abandoned having a weeknight sports anchor—and a comparatively underresourced position, the lean KOVR news operation began to show signs of improvement and increased ratings. In 1994, longtime KCRA-TV anchor Stan Atkinson moved to KOVR and presented the station's weeknight newscasts until his retirement in 1999.

As part of Viacom's remake of KOVR's news department, Sam Shane, a former KCRA-TV anchor who spent two years at MSNBC, was hired to anchor the station's newscasts, and personnel were shuffled on other programs; a 4 p.m. newscast was also added. Between 2006 and 2010, KOVR surpassed KXTV in morning and early evening news.

In addition to its noon and evening news offerings, the KOVR-KMAX news operation produces Good Day (formerly Good Day Sacramento), which is simulcast weekday mornings from 4:30 to 7 a.m. on KOVR and KMAX (as CBS 13 Mornings) and then airs on the latter station until 11 a.m. every morning. By 2019, KOVR was also airing an 11 p.m. late local newscast.

As part of a rollout of streaming news channels across the CBS station group, CBSN Sacramento (now CBS News Sacramento) began operating on June 16, 2021.

Notable former on-air staff

 * Stan Atkinson – anchor, 1994–1999
 * Claudia Cowan – anchor/reporter
 * Kristine Hanson – meteorologist
 * Lois Hart – anchor
 * Bob Hilton – anchor
 * Kinsey Schofield – anchor/reporter for Good Day Sacramento, 2017
 * Steve Somers – sports anchor
 * Dave Walker – anchor
 * Jim Wieder – reporter/anchor

Subchannels
The station's signal is multiplexed:

Though it does not host any additional subchannels, KOVR is part of Sacramento's ATSC 3.0 (NextGen TV) deployment on KQCA, which began operating in July 2021.

Analog-to-digital conversion
KOVR shut down its analog signal, over VHF channel 13, on June 12, 2009, as part of the federally mandated transition from analog to digital television. The station's digital signal remained on its pre-transition UHF channel 25.

title: KOVR