text:
Forearc

Forearc is a plate tectonic term referring to a region in a subduction zone between an oceanic trench and the associated volcanic arc. Forearc regions are present along convergent margins and eponymously form 'in front of' the volcanic arcs that are characteristic of convergent plate margins. A back-arc region is the companion region behind the volcanic arc.

Many forearcs have an accretionary wedge which may form a topographic ridge known as an outer arc ridge that parallels the volcanic arc. A forearc basin between the accretionary wedge and the volcanic arc can accumulate thick deposits of sediment, sometimes referred to as an outer arc trough. Due to collisional stresses as one tectonic plate subducts under another, forearc regions are sources for powerful earthquakes.

Formation
During subduction, an oceanic plate is thrust below another tectonic plate, which can be oceanic or continental. Water and other volatiles in the subducting plate cause flux melting in the upper mantle, creating magma that rises and penetrates the overriding plate, forming a volcanic arc. The weight of the subducting slab flexes the overriding plate and creates an oceanic trench. This area between the trench and the arc is called the forearc region, with the area behind the arc and away from the trench known as the back-arc region.

The mantle region between the overriding plate and the subducting slab experiences corner flow near the back-arc driven by the down dip motion of the subducting slab. At the same time, the temperature of the mantle wedge closer to the trench is dominated by the denser and colder subducting slab, resulting in a cold, stagnant portion of the mantle wedge.

Initial theories proposed that the oceanic trenches and magmatic arcs were the primary suppliers of the accretionary sedimentation wedges in the forearc regions. More recent discovery suggests that some of the accreted material in the forearc region is from a mantle source along with trench turbidites derived from continental material. This theory holds due to evidence of pelagic sediments and continental crust being subducted in processes known as sediment subduction and subduction erosion respectively.

Over geological time there is constant recycling of the forearc deposits due to erosion, deformation and sedimentary subduction. The constant circulation of material in the forearc region (accretionary prism, forearc basin and trench) generates a mixture of igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary sequences. In general, there is an increase in metamorphic grade from trench to arc where highest grade (blueschist to eclogite) is structurally uplifted (in the prisms) compared to the younger deposits (basins). Forearc regions are also where ophiolites are emplaced should obduction occur, but such deposits are not continuous and can often be removed by erosion.

As tectonic plates converge, the closing of an ocean will result in the convergence of two landmasses, each of which is either an island arc or continental margin. When these two bodies collide, the result is orogenesis, at which time the underthrusting oceanic crust slows down. In early stages of arc-continent collision, there is uplift and erosion of the accretionary prism and forearc basin. In the later stages of collision, the forearc region may be sutured, rotated and shortened which can form syn-collisional folds and thrust belts.

Structure
At the surface, the forearc region can include a forearc basin(s), outer-arc high, accretionary prism and the trench itself. The forearc subduction interface can include a seismogenic zone, where megathrust earthquakes can occur, a decoupled zone, and a viscously coupled zone.

The accretionary prism is located at the slope of the trench break where there is significantly decreased slope angle. Between the break and the magmatic arc, a sedimentary basin filled with erosive material from the volcanic arc and substrate can accumulate into a forearc basin which overlays the oldest thrust slices in the wedge of the forearc region.

In general, the forearc topography (specifically in the trench region) is trying to achieve an equilibrium between buoyancy and tectonic forces caused by subduction. Upward motion of the forearc is related to buoyancy forces and the downward motion is associated with the tectonic forcing which causes the oceanic lithosphere to descend. The relationship between surface slope and subduction thrust also plays a huge role in the variation of forearc structure and deformation. A subduction wedge can be classified as either stable with little deformation or unstable with pervasive internal deformation (see section on Models). Some common deformation in forearc sediments are synsedimentary deformation and olistostromes, such as that seen in the Magnitogorsk forearc region.

Models
There are two models which characterize a forearc basin formation and deformation and are dependent on sediment deposition and subsidence (see figure). The first model represents a forearc basin formed with little to no sediment supply. Conversely, the second model represents a basin with a healthy sediment supply. Basin depth depends on the supply of oceanic plate sediments, continentally derived clastic material and orthogonal convergence rates. The accretionary flux (sediment supply in and out) also determines the rate at which the sedimentation wedges grow within the forearc.

The age of the oceanic crust along with the convergent velocity controls the coupling across the converging interface of the continental and oceanic crust. The strength of this coupling controls the deformation associated with the event and can be seen in the forearc region deformation signatures.

Seismicity
The intense interaction between the overriding and underthrusting plates in the forearc regions have shown to evolve strong coupling mechanisms which result in megathrust earthquakes such as the Tohoku-oki earthquake which occurred off the Pacific coast of Northeast Japan (Tian and Liu. 2013). These mega thrust earthquakes may be correlated with low values of heat flow generally associated with forearc regions. Geothermal data shows a heat flow of ~30–40 mW/m2, which indicates cold, strong mantle.

Examples
One good example is the Mariana forearc, where scientists have done extensive research. In this setting there is an erosive margin and forearc slope which consists of 2 km high and 30 km diameter serpentine- mud volcanoes. The erosive properties of these volcanoes are consistent with the metamorphic grades (blueschists) expected for this region in the forearc. There is evidence from geothermal data and models which show the slab-mantle interface, levels of friction and the cool oceanic lithosphere at the trench. Other good examples are:
 * Central Andean Forearc
 * Banda Forearc
 * Savu-Wetar Forearc
 * Luzon arc-forearc
 * Tohoku Forearc
 * Between Western Cordillera and Peru-Chile Trench

title: Forearc


text:
Farewell Tour (album)

Farewell Tour is the first live album by American rock band The Doobie Brothers, released in 1983. It documents the group's 1982 Farewell Tour and is a double album set.

By the early 1980s, the Doobie Brothers had evolved from the guitar-boogie sound under original band frontman Tom Johnston to a soulful keyboard-driven AOR sound under Michael McDonald. Despite the many personnel changes in the group, Patrick Simmons remained from the original incarnation of the group.

In 1982, Simmons decided to retire from the group after years of constant touring and recording. When the band decided to break up in light of his impending departure, Simmons encouraged the group to make one last tour during the summer of 1982 as a way of thanking the group's loyal fanbase. This tour became known as the "Farewell Tour."

The front cover shows drummer Keith Knudsen cutting the strings on John McFee's guitar as a symbolic gesture. The last two songs on the album were recorded at the final concert of the tour in Berkeley, California, on September 11, 1982, with vocals by original lead vocalist and guitarist Tom Johnston. For a long time the album was available on CD only in Japan, but ultimately it was re-released on CD by Rhino/WEA on August 26, 2008. The reissue deleted approximately 1$1/2$ minutes of onstage talk from Patrick Simmons between 'Jesus' and 'Minute by Minute', including mentioning that the band were going to "light up a 'doobie'" during intermission, suggesting the audience do the same.

Track listing

 * "Can't Let It Get Away" and "Olana" are songs that the band had recorded in the studio but not released on albums. The studio version of "Can't Let It Get Away" was released only in Japan in 1981, while the studio version of "Olana" remained unreleased until it appeared on Long Train Runnin': 1970-2000.

Personnel

 * Patrick Simmons – electric and acoustic guitars, lead and backing vocals
 * John McFee – electric and acoustic guitars, pedal steel guitar on "Steamer Lane Breakdown" and "South City Midnight Lady", electric violin on "Black Water", backing vocals
 * Willie Weeks – bass, backing vocals
 * Michael McDonald – keyboards, synthesizers, lead and backing vocals
 * Cornelius Bumpus – tenor saxophone, soprano saxophone on "Black Water", Hammond organ, synthesizers, backing vocals, lead vocal on "Jesus Is Just Alright"
 * Keith Knudsen – drums, tambourine on "Black Water", backing vocals, lead vocal on "Don't Start Me Talkin'"
 * Chet McCracken – drums, vibraphone on "You Belong to Me" and "South City Midnight Lady", tambourine and timbales on "Long Train Runnin'"
 * Bobby LaKind – congas, bongos, percussion, backing vocals

Guests
 * Tom Johnston – electric guitar and lead vocals on "China Grove" and "Long Train Runnin'" (and "Slippery St. Paul")
 * Joe Crowley – harmonica on "Don't Start Me Talkin'"

Dave Shogren & John Hartman appear, uncredited, on "Slippery St. Paul."

Production

 * Producer: Ted Templeman
 * Engineer: Jim Isaacson
 * Management: Bruce Cohn
 * Mastered by Bobby Hata at Warner Bros. Recording Studios, North Hollywood
 * Production coordinator: Joan Parker
 * Publicity: David Gest & Associates
 * Album recorded by the Record Plant (technicians: Jack Crymes, Mark Eschelman, Gary Singleman, Jim Scott)
 * Tour manager: Joe Crowley, Jeff Mills (assistant)
 * Production manager: Lol Halsey, Rollie Clasen (assistant)
 * Live sound mixer: David Morgan
 * Monitor mixer: Mike Kelley
 * Guitar technician/Stage manager: Mark Brown
 * Guitar, violin, pedal steel technician: David Bowers
 * Keyboard technician: Alan Bartz
 * Drum technician: Greg Winter
 * Live sound technicians: Mark Drale, Alan Bonomo, Philip Ashley at Innovative Audio
 * Lighting director: Martin Wolff
 * Art direction and design: Jay Vigon
 * Photography: Chris Callis, Michael Simpson (assistant)
 * Special thanks to Sam Schniable, Michael Barbieri, Doug Brunkow, Bob Walker, Tad Inferrera, Brent Anderson, Shep Lonsdale, Oscar Harris, Ralph Cain, Dalton Perry, Harry Hughes, Sam & Donna Stewart, Linda Patrick, Leslie Wiener, Bob Gordon, Kathy Nelson, Carol Miller

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

title: Farewell Tour (album)


text:
Talk:List of spacecraft called Sputnik

Fiftieth anniversary coming up
Is it possible to bring this article up to "Featured Article" quality by Oct 4, 2007, the 50th anniversary of Sputnik I and the start of the Space Age? TechBear 21:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This 50th anniversary Newsweek article claims that the U.S. was shocked by the launch is a myth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.117.103 (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Newsweek article is junk, just something one of their staff writers whipped up. Sadly, this article is not very high quality.  I would suggest "featuring" the Sputnik-1 article, which is somewhat better but still not very good.  DonPMitchell 19:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Pic of the Sputnik Arming Key
It's in the Air and Space Museum? How did America get their mitts on the last surviving piece of Sputnik? That's a story that would be handy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittsburghmuggle (talk • contribs) 16:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense vs. Notability
Most of this article is nonsense. There was no central "Sputnik programme". After the first two or three satellites, the designations were made up by Western organisations to allow for the identification of unrelated satellites whose names the Soviet Union had not disclosed. The word "sputnik" appeared in a number of other Soviet programmes, but these were unrelated and were due to the fact that the word "sputnik" is Russian for "satellite". This article should be cut back, and possibly moved to Prosteyshiy Sputnik, which was the name of the programme for the first two satellites. -- G W … 11:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree. Sputnik-1 was a satellite ans Sputnik-2 was a spacecraft carrying a dog! Anyway, the Soviets only designated the development of Sputnik-1 as Sputnik Project or Sputnik Pogramme. Sputnik-1 is actually "Prosteishy sputnik" meaning "simplest satellite" in Russian. The actual Sputnik program or project refered to the development of Prosteishy sputnik and Sputnik-2 was a different and a follow-on programme of the Sputnik Pogramme. More info from Anatoly Zak's website -- --Johnxxx9 (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

 * From what I gather, the official designation for Sputnik 2 was "Prosteyshiy Sputnik 2" -- G W … 21:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Prosteishy means 'simplest' or 'simple' in Russian. It was used to designate Sputnik-1 as the design of the satellite was supposed to be as basic as possible. Sputnik-2 was not designated as Prosteyshiy Sputnik 2. Anyhow, the conclusion is that Sputnik-1 and Sputnik-2 aren't part of the same project so this article is baseless. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few references available for Sputnik 2 being PS-2, if you look. -- G W … 18:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The original satellite design for launch during the IGY was Object D. It was complex, heavy, with extensive experiments and telemetry. it was WAY behind schedule when an opportunity arose due to delays in the development of the re-entry vehicle for Sapwood there were missiles being produced which essentially had no immediate test program mission following the successful launch of 8L71 number Mi-8 in August. Korolev begged the commission controlling the development of the 8K71 to let him to modify to launch a 'simple satellite.' The results in little more than a month was the 8K71 PS and the orbiting of PS-1. A successful re-entry vehicle was not tested until spring of 1958.Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Have no idea on this topic, but do know there are other articles about spacecraft named Sputnik that surely belong somewhere. If Sputnik 10, Sputnik 9, Sputnik 8, Sputnik 7, Sputnik 6, Sputnik 5, Sputnik 4 and Sputnik 3 are notable (and they are if they retain existence here on Wikipedia), they belong somewhere. If not here, then under the proper program name (ie: Vostok programme or whatnot). Again, I don't understand the interrelationships/programs but from my outsider's viewpoint the Sputnik program did indeed exist. If not, someone who understands needs to find homes for Sputnik 10 through Sputnik 3 or flag those as non-notable (if they are, indeed, which I am not suggesting, since I have no idea.) - Ageekgal (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell:
 * I don't know how best to name the articles where the name includes the "#" symbol, since technical restrictions prevent its use in titles. I would suggest either removing it (as I have done above), or replacing it with "no.". Sputniks 11 and 12 are disambiguation pages for correctly named articles, whilst 13-18 and 23 are redirects to the correct names. I feel that 8 should be merged, and the rest moved to the correct locations, with the exceptions of Sputnik 1 and Sputnik 2, which are widely known by their shorter names. -- G W … 10:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You must understand just how propaganda and secrecy driven the Soviet Union space and missile programs were. The term 'Sputnik' was used for cover over the Zenit spy satellites, the Vostok manned space program, and various other military programs.

The USA used the term 'Discoverer' as a cover to hide the Corona and other spy satellite programs.

The list given shows this clearly. There WAS NO SPUTNIK PROGRAM. There was just a term which was useful for propaganda and to obfuscate.Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I should also add that sometimes Soviet satellites lunar, and planetary probes were simply referred to as 'sputnik (insert next number in sequence) by some western "authorities" when the Soviets openly called them by other names. As the 'real' names and purposes of all space probes of the times have now been revealed by both sides this kind of controversy needs to be resolved by dissolving the the fictions. This can be difficult because common usage has often become 'fact' while the real 'fact' has become lost except to the serious student. For example many 'histories' list the rocket that launched Explorer I as a 'Jupiter-C' when it was a similar Juno-I. The Jupiter missile was nothing like the Jupiter-C, but when it was equipped with the upper stages of a Juno-I, it was deemed a Juno-II.

That this article is termed "Sputnik Program" is laughable, but it is what it is named. The best we can do is try to shape it into what it actually seems to address. The first man-made earth satellites launched by the Soviet Union pursuant to the goal of orbiting a satellite during the IGY. Satellites which had a profound effect upon the world all out of proportion to their actual accomplishments.Mark Lincoln (talk)
 * You're preaching to the choir. I can find no evidence that the Soviets used the name Sputnik beyond Sputnik 3. There were some later spacecraft whose name contained the word Sputnik (eg. Korabl' Sputnik), since the word Sputnik became established in Russian as meaning satellite or spacecraft. If you look at the NSSDC entry for "Sputnik 22", it actually states that the Sputnik designations were assigned by the United States Naval Space Command, rather than the Soviet Union. -- G W … 06:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have several books from the time listing the booster as the "T-3." NATO soon gave it the name Sapwood, and designation SS-6. OKB-1 used the sequential R-7, but soon called it Semyorka "old number seven." The GURVO (Main Missile Directorate) used the industrial designation 8K71 (or 8K71PS for the satellite launcher). Later developments were the R-7A, the actual ICBM, which was produced in two versions the 8K74 and 8K710, both of which were also Semyorka!

We had our own confusing system of designations. As with the Soviet's it was largely a matter of bureaucracy and public relations, but lacked the Soviet security fetish. The Army Ballistic Missile Agency had a program called Hermes. One sub-project, Hermes C-1 was developed into a tactical missile designated XSM-G-14, later XSM-A-14, then by it's popular name 'Redstone." Eventually it ended up designated PGM-11 in the great nomenclature revolution under Sec. of D. McNamara. Redstone was modified into Jupiter-C to test sub-scale re-entry vehicles for the "Jupiter" (aka B-76 (after operational use was transfered to the USAF), SM-76, later SM-78, and finally PGM-19 and PGM-19A. 'The times they were a changing'! One had to be an avid worshiper of von Braun's Tomorrow Land shows or have a score card to keep up with the changes.Mark Lincoln (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Henry_Ford
Why is he here?

 * muttnik
 * Kudryavka
 * sputnik
 * Henry_Ford
 * communist_satellite
 * wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Wiki_editor_DonFphrnqTaub_Persina
 * < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=_sputnik_&diff=331511275&oldid=331107334 >.
 * < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=_sputnik_&diff=331511275&oldid=331107334 >.

hopiakuta  Please  do   sign  your  communiqu%c3%a9 .%7e%7eThank You,   DonFphrnqTaub  Persina. 23:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Hopiakuta, the "Henry Ford" was just a vandalism introduced in this edit. I have reverted it.  In future, if you see obvious vandalism such as this you can just revert it yourself. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of the word "sputnik"
Surely the translation "companion" is a bit naive - I would suggest that the better translation would be the more political "fellow traveller" Maelli (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The public name was a political statement. The OKB-1 name was "PS-1" for "Simple Satellite 1."Mark Lincoln (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the article engages in a degree of political correctness in attempting to use strict dictionary meanings at the expense of a colloquial meaning which any Soviet Citizen mid-20th century would have inferred given the context of use. As an avid fan of the old TV series "I Led Three Lives" in the 1950s I am aware of the political use of the term 'Fellow Traveller". As a person who has known a few old members of the CPUSA I can say that I have heard them use the term "Fellow Traveller" for someone who was not a party member, but travelled in the same circle concerning political and social issues. I think it would be neither pandering to the right, or misinterpreting the word given usage, to describe Sputnik as a "Felllow Traveller of Earth."Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Problems Mentioned
Clearly this article is not well documented. i guess some one has to take their books down from the shelves and get to it. I am not a masochist, but I guess that person is myself.

Feedback from others would be appreciated as I try to shape up this article.Mark Lincoln (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope this work satisfies those who questioned the need for more inline citations and references.Mark Lincoln (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Mark Lincoln you have done a wonderful job adding resources I am removing the flag. Sgerbic (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

One problem I see with the article is the spurious reference to 'sputnik 40 and 41." The other is the degree of influence upon people at the times given in the "impact" section. One quaint relic in my library is is a book "Spacepower what it means to you." Published in 1958 is is typically void of fact and speculative as were most publications for the public at the time. It has a chapter "Sputnik's Impact on the free world." It is essentially 'source' material for that subject being written less than a year after the event. It lists 7 separate subjects and discusses the "Impact of Sputnik" upon leadership, strategy and tactics, missile production, applied research, basic science research, education, and democratic culture.

This could be used to slightly elaborate the 'impact' section. If there is a problem with length it might be prudent to slightly abbreviate the list of US Satellites mentioned as reducing anxiety. (Mom was far more impressed by SCORE than I, though I was and am a big fan of Ike).

Input please folks, I don't want to make any changes that will provoke a flame war.Mark Lincoln (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

 * I have got rid of the section on Sputnik 40 and 41. I think we should leave a brief mention of them under "Impact". -- G W … 16:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A Basic Problem With This Article
There never was a 'Sputnik Program." The cultural event and device commonly called 'Sputnik" was not the product of any coherent program.

Sputnik was a term used by the Soviet Government as a name for it's first and some subsequent satellites.

The section on 'Sputnik 40 and 41" involves devices with absolutely NO connection to the Sputniks of 1957-58 aside from an attempt to grasp at some faded glory.

I recommend the article be pruned of utterly unrelated material and be renamed for the object, both technical and cultural that is evoked by the name 'Sputnik."Mark Lincoln (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Naming
Might this article be better named and described by something like "Sputnik - Soviet IGY Satellites and Their Consequences"? Wow, is that awkward! At least it has a smidgeon of truth whilst the idea there was a "Sputnik Program" is without any historic support.

This article is a conflation of technical facts about a few early satellites, the political circumstances and consequences as well as the social and historic effects of those satellites.

To anyone who lived at the time the conflation is most rational.

To historians of the technology or times the conflation is necessary for context.

For Korolev the IGY was an excuse to pursue space flight. For the USA it was an excuse to establish the legal right of free transit above the sensible atmosphere. For both it could be justified on grounds of scientific research.

That both Korolev and von Braun were eager to develop military hardware that could be used to fulfill their dreams is ironic. That the United States decided to build a (theoretically) all "civilian" launch vehicle to establish a legal precedent while avoiding any interference or delay of ongoing military missile programs is also ironic.

That Korolev developed the most important space launch vehicle in history under the guise of the worst ICBM ever developed is another irony. That von Braun and the ABMA were launching space probes in a desperate attempt to survive Pentagon infighting over which service would deploy the long range guided missile gets drowned out in the still lingering resentments of who lost the claim of the "first Earth satellite" for the United States.

That the most efficient of the satellite launch vehicles used for IGY satellites was the 'despised' Vanguard is also an irony as it achieved exactly what it was intended to do.

The Juno is long gone, having passed while another Redstone variant, Redstone Mercury, went on to lob the first American into space a few weeks after a development of the R-7 put the first Soviet into orbit.

Vanguard lives on in a vastly mutated and developed form as unrecognizable and unrecognized as Delta.

Semyorka labors on in it's own greatly improved variant launching Soyuz and Progress missions. Today the old workhorse, the developed version of the 14A14, son of 11A511, son of 8K87, son of 8K71PS, "Old Number Seven," remains in harness, the only means either Russia or the United States have of reaching the International Space Station.

Meanwhile the passions, the shock, fear and pride which swept the world despite the initial modest responses of Dwight and Nikita have passed into history as they have.

What to do with the awkwardly named "Sputnik Program" article?

I have attempted to resolve the need for citations, and make a few additions and alterations that seemed necessary. I think that doing any radical surgery without input would be not only rash, but perhaps feckless.

Input pleaseMark Lincoln (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My preference would be to move to either Prosteyshiy Sputnik (the name of the programme which led to the first two satellites), or Sputnik (over a redirect) if we intend to cover Object D as well. -- G W … 06:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There wasn't even a Prosteyshiy Sputink program. The two "PS" launches were ad hoc and utterly opportunistic. The delays in both the re-entry vehicle and the Object D scientific satellite created the chance which Korolev seized to launch the space age. p.s. one thing that caused both confusion and mirth in OKB-1 in the late summer of 1957 was the pun mixing the initials of Prosteyshiy Sputnik and Sergei Pavlovich. The initials in each case having only slightly different pronunciation.Mark Lincoln (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

 * I feel that the word "Sputnik" fits both the first three Soviet satellites AND the political/diplomatic/social response.Mark Lincoln (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Sputnik suits me. -- G W … 14:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. With the changes made, it is possible that a renomination to a different name could be called for. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sputnik program → Sputnik – Current title is misleading as it implies the subject was a clearly structured and defined programme, rather than a series of loosely related missions, as demonstrated in previous discussion. Sputnik, which currently redirects here, would be a more appropriate title since it is free of those implications. -- G W … 14:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sputnik was a name given the Soviet Government for the PS-1. PS-2 and Object D Earth Satellites. Thereafter it became a generic term applied to satellites of Soviet origin. Even when the Soviet Union gave other names to other satellites, planetary probes and solar orbital vehicles many in the west continued to give them the 'sputnik' name followed by a sequential number.

No one working on the PS-1, PS-2, or Object D satellites thought of them as part of a program as far as I have been able to find out.

"Sputnik" was a generic term, and became a term which describes not only the object, but the world's response to it's launch. I cannot recall anyone in 1957 talking of a 'Sputnik Program.' Indeed I cannot recall ever seeing the term until opening this article.Mark Lincoln (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Perhaps I'm missing something but if there was no such thing as a Sputnik Program in the first place then, regardless of the name we give it, why do we have an article on it in the first place? Couldn't the information in this article simply be merged into those of the specific satellites? ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's actually a good point. Quite a lot of this article duplicates information in Sputnik 1. I would be in favour of either a move, or getting rid of this article altogether. In the event of a merger I feel that Sputnik 1 should become the primary topic for the Sputnik redirect, not a disambiguation page. -- G W … 16:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree Sputnik should redirect to (or even be title of) the Sputnik 1 article. Powers T 17:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be strongly opposed to moving Sputnik 1, its name is established, and there were other Sputniks (2 and 3), so it would make sense to preserve the consistency of numbering. -- G W … 18:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I favor using the common name over maintaining consistency; most people mean the first one when they say "Sputnik". Powers T 18:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it is that much more common, and it would be both confusing and misleading since generally if a number is not present, then it is implied that there are no more highly numbered spacecraft of the same name. -- G W … 20:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow. I've only just realised from this conversation that Sputnik does not point to Sputnik 1! That is clearly unacceptable because at least 9 times out of 10 someone typing Sputnik will mean that one, the first satellite. I suspect the common name guideline would favour Sputnik as the primary for that rather than Sputnik 1 but personally i'm not that fussed, as long as one points to the other.

 * This article cannot be renamed Sputnik as to most people it means something else. I suggest this page is removed as it documents something that didn't actually exist, it feels a bit like historical revisionism by misrepresenting the situation.  Anything worth salvaging should be moved to the appropriate pages. ChiZeroOne (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree with a few editors above that Sputnik should redirect to Sputnik 1. Not exactly sure what should happen to this article. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 17:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Perhaps historical perspective would reflect the times and have a "Sputnik" article with Sputnik I, Sputnik II, and Sputnik III sections followed by an "Impact Page." Sputnik III" was the last of the 'earth shaking" Soviet satellites. It was their only launch in 1958, and by 1959 the US had proven more prolific and diverse in it's launches. If you who were not alive could check some source material you would see that 'Sputnik' was a world changing event, it was set off by a couple of hastily concocted 'Simple Satellites," and subsided after the launch of the much delayed IGY satellite."But it was the appearance of he first Soviet Sputnik in October of 1957, that directed of a startled world to the challenge of space." wrote Dr. Homer E. Newell on page 2 of his 1961 book "Express to the Stars." Sputnik was an event composed of three satellites of that name, each far more advanced than the former. History cannot be viewed without some context. In the case of 'Sputnik' the seminal event in the history of space exploration, a revolution in world thought, as well as a series of technical objects which bore the name.Mark Lincoln (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

For two generations in the world "Sputnik" meant more than just an object. It was an event. Perhaps the whole problem with the name is "Program." There was no 'program.' There was, however, and immensely influential event and resultant response. Most of the people in the world were not "Space Cadets" as people who were eager to see exploration of space were called in the 1950s. Space exploration was seen as 'science fiction' at best, insane at worst.

Suddenly the world woke to the advent of the "Space Age." The effects were global and for both the USA and USSR, formative. Sputnik reformed the Cold War and was the impetus for the 'Space Race" which landed man on the Moon.

Sputnik 1 was an object, device. "Sputnik" was far, far more and it took the USA 12 years to overcome the feelings of shock and fears of inferiority it induced.

The second word is the problem. Perhaps the article should be shaped and named towards the "Sputnik Revolution,' or "Sputnik Era"?70.241.19.66 (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

 * We already have Sputnik crisis documementing the fallout of the launch of Sputnik 1, though that article currently has problems with presenting a more global picture of the event. That article is a much better basis for the information you wish to retain. ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I just checked it. There is more information here and it is better documented. Perhaps it would be best to give this page the name "Sputnik Crisis", move some details and citations to the Sputnik I, II and III pages then merge what additional material which might improve this article from the 'old' Sputnik Crisis page?Mark Lincoln (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the value of an article on the satellites themselves written from an Americanised perspective. -- G W … 16:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'American Perspective'? Do you mean where the name for the booster is given as T-3, M-104, or SS-6 and people pronounce the the word "spuht-nik"?

When I was righting my historiography thesis I had to treat three major weapons development systems, German, British, and American as well as a few minor efforts, and do so with a neutral bias or my professor would have lowered my grade.

When Sputnik went up in October 1957 the world awoke to a series of dramatic changes which affected the course of history.

Ironically the first day neither of the governments of the two super-powers were much concerned.

The rest of the world, including their respective citizens, were.

In the USA there was an orgy of soul-searching, introspection and blame. Soviet citizens were enthralled, elated, and celebrated that there was finally proof the entire world could see, and not ignore, that their society could beat the USA. Europe, both east and west, responded similarly to the super-powers.

For the next decade the US and CCCP engaged in a missile race which made it possible to annihilate each other without any hope of defense. The opening moves of this arms race began with what seemed to many world-wide as a great Soviet lead. It was, however, a great American lead as the 8K74 (R-7A, SS-6) was a lousy weapon while the Atlas and Titans were quickly fielded in large numbers. America also armed allies with Jupiter and Thor missiles. The results was a desperate attempt by the CCCP to balance reality ended up known as the "Cuban Missile Crisis." That Missile Crisis had it's roots in the expanded efforts of the US to address the 'missile gap' which was nothing but twaddle based upon the reaction to Sputnik.

In August 1957 it was only 'space cadets' (to use the derisive term of the times for people who thought space flight possible) noticed when the evening news carried a story about the Soviets firing the first ICBM into the pacific. It was a brief story towards the end of the broadcast. The response was world wide in October. The "Space Age" was on, as was the "Space Race," and it didn't end until July 1969.

The response to Sputnik was a world-wide phenomena which changed history immensely. Is that not a subject worthy of a Wikipedia page?Mark Lincoln (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and we already have two or three articles on it. I'm not saying we shouldn't have such articles, I'm just saying that if we have an article about both the satellites themselves, and the reaction to them, then the nam of that article should reflect the satellites not the reaction. -- G W … 23:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

To those who lived then, or are familiar with source material, the word 'Sputnik' relates to both the object and the response.Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the proposed title "Sputnik crisis" relates primarily to the response. -- G W … 00:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 * For clarification I wasn't proposing "Sputnik crisis" as a desired term, I was pointing out to the other editor that an article discussing the geopolitical impact of the event, which they were fearing would be lost, already existed and covers this concept centrally as opposed to this article where the impact of the phantom programme is a (comparatively large) subsection. I agree the name is not perfect. ChiZeroOne (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

So by way of resolving this, is anyone in favour of keeping this article in (kind of) its present form, which implies that these three missions called "Sputnik" were part of a single program, or if not a "program" as such, then something else (what?) that deserves its own WP article? If not (i.e. if these missions are connected by not much more than sharing the same name), then it seems to me we should create a disambiguation page for "Sputnik", and then argue separately about whether Sputnik 1 is the primary topic for "Sputnik". (In fact, if it is, then we might not even need the dab page; we could just have a "Sputnik redirects here..." hatnote at Sputnik 1.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No response, so I've made Sputnik redirect to Sputnik 1 as everyone seems to think it should, and rewritten the dab page accordingly. That leaves the question of what to do with this page; obviously it's not going to be moved to Sputnik as originally proposed, but how about moving it to something like Sputnik missions (so as not to imply that there was a "program" involved)?--Kotniski (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quality Assessment
Is this page still just 'Start Class'? If not, what need be addressed?70.241.19.66 (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Well it looks to me a bit short, but either way there's not much point putting the effort in assessing if it's going to get deleted. Better to wait for the outcome of the discussions. ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess we sweat hogs will just have to await dictum ex cathedra. May we petition the Gods with prayer?Mark Lincoln (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead image?
The current lead image is an artists depiction of Sputnik in orbit. Now, maybe it's just personal preference, but as we have an available picture of replica hardware (currently in the Early Flights section), I think we should be using that. The current image strikes me as just too stylized for an encyclopedia article. 107.10.43.91 (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

 * The image portrays the thought of Sputnik more than the hardware. The real impact of Sputnik was not the PS-1 itself, but the radical change it made in the perceptions of the people of the world.````

 * It might just be personal preference, but I don't see why we need an artist's impression of Sputnik. For instance, choosing between an image from Apollo 11 and Alan Bean's artistic vision of what Apollo 11 represented, I would choose the Apollo 11 photographs 100% of the time. Now I realize this is a limited analogy (for instance, there don't appear to be any free images of any actual Sputnik hardware), but I think the point still stands that artistic license should be minimized in an encyclopedia. I certainly won't be changing the image if there's no consensus to do so (and as it's stood for 2 years it appears there isn't or won't be), but I did want to bring it up. 107.10.43.91 (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense meaning of the word "sputnik"
It's unbelievable that some editors start to guess idiotic alternative names for foreign words. Sputnik means satellite, nothing more than that. The problem is that who wrote these (I can say the word) do not know what the word satellite means, and associates the name exclusively to astronomy. Satellite means: Person who, entirely devoted to others, is with him at all times and he became an accomplice in the commission of good or evil deeds. Or in other words, a companion. So in English or in Russian Satellite, means exactly the same. If is something related with human nature means companion if is related with astronomy, means "satellite", and not a companion, like someone is trying to invent in the article. Zorglub-PRV (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

 * говорятMark Lincoln (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * говорят, 'They Say' in po-Russkie, more than that, as used, it might carry a strong connotation of unreliability. Sometimes a simplistic translation lacks the color necessary to convey meaning. I had no doubt that 'sputnik' meant 'satellite' in Russian when I first met a bleary-eyed true-believing member of the CPUSA. I also had no doubt what they meant when they referred to a certain liberal as a 'fellow traveler.'

I could dig up my old Russian-English dictionary and look up 'Satellite' and get 'Sputnik." That might indicate a 'fellow traveler of Earth,'' a 'fellow traveler of the party,' or any orbiting anything else.Mark Lincoln (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Name of replacement article
(was: "Waiting for Godot or My Life as an Anxious Editor")

Any word on the fate of this article? Should we plunge into lifeboat mode and try to save what we might for some other use?Mark Lincoln (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've suggested, above, renaming it Sputnik missions. No response yet.--Kotniski (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The link between the missions after Sputnik 2 is tenuous at best, and completely non-existent after Sputnik 3. We don't need an article on a collection of unrelated spacecraft. I say split it between the existing articles on the spacecraft and the cultural impact of their launches. We could probably use articles on PS and Object D, but they can come later. -- G W … 18:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to me there might be a set index page in this, called something like List of Sputnik missions. Then, as you say, we can split the content of this article between the other existing ones.--Kotniski (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think that "Sputnik missions" implies some kind of relationship between the missions. Everything after Sputnik 3 was just a name made up by the US media/military because they didn't know what the satellite was actually called. -- G W … 10:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the point of a set index page - there's no implication that the things are closely related except in as much as they are things of the same type that had the same name. Seems to fit this situation perfectly.--Kotniski (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

So, what about this page? Merge the information into the other articles, and create just a list of Sputnik missions (or maybe List of space missions named Sputnik)?--Kotniski (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, "named" is misleading. How about just including a full list on Sputnik (disambiguation)? -- G W … 11:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that would distract from the other meanings of "Sputnik" on that page, and leave nowhere to provide detailed information (if we have any) explaining how and why these later mission came to be labelled "Sputnik". Is there a title for such a list that you don't consider misleading?--Kotniski (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It has to be something which neither implies that it is a name or a series/programme. Sputnik (satellite) might do at a push. -- G W … 14:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, now that to me would imply just one satellite (Sputnik 1, I suppose). I'll ask at WT:AT and the disambiguation project to see if anyone has any more ideas.--Kotniski (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If we no longer want one article to cover these objects, the road is AfD (or even db-author?).
 * Assuming we do want this article, why not call it List of Sputnik satellites? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've created List of spacecraft called "Sputnik" (hopefully 'called' will be enough to reassure everyone that we don't mean their official 'names'). I don't have a source, just the existing redirects from Sputnik n, which I assume to be accurate - if someone can source/correct the list, that would be great. I think we're now in a position to eliminate this article, by taking the information to the other pages we've mentioned. We should probably also eliminate Category:Sputnik programme while we're about it.--Kotniski (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got rid of the Sputnik program article, and redirected its page to this one. I've also removed the quotation marks from the title, and moved this talk page here to allow any further discussions to stay in one place. -- G W … 11:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work :) What do you think about the category - should it be renamed "Sputnik", or just upmerged into Category:Soviet space program?--Kotniski (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've sent it to CFD. I'm recommending deletion, I don't think we really need a category for this. An upmerge would have effectively the same result though. -- G W … 15:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Sputnik" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sputnik. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 7 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of spacecraft called Sputnik


text:
User talk:Chicago god

Way to remove an appropriate edit via Huggle on the Lancaster General page. If you're going to use an automated tool, please ensure that you pay attention to what you're editing.

24.19.44.58 (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling those edits, i was getting pretty tired of company stooges pulling that. i put in an enormous number of citations and internal documents if you'd like to have a read. perhaps removing the ability for anonymous users to edit that page would be helpful.

Sgeine (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

can you please remove the ability to edit helio's page by anonymous users? its getting a bit ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgeine (talk • contribs) 07:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

From: 69.178.92.85 To: God My comments are only stating the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.92.85 (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What needs to be included on the Making the Band SWHS page? It's definitely worthy of being on wikipedia, and I'm sure it has met your requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miniyou64 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

From: needtoupdatestuff re: Deborah Bialosky page Hi, I thought my statement for the reason of her being up there was due to the relevance of her family members, Marshall Bialosky a multi award winning ASCAP composer and professor at Dominquez and her brother Adam who is the attorney for the Dept. of Treasury. I can't imagine why her being the Oakland deputy attorney isn't relevant. Afterall, you have some pretty shady entertainment people on Wikipedia lying about their relevance who have people write stuff for them. Please advise if you missed this information I typed in the reason for edits summary when I created the page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Needtoupdatestuff (talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Callan
I'm working on it! I just created it seconds ago. --➨ Candlewicke :) Sign/Talk 23:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, I am quick on the trigger button. I think most would agree that your improvements to the article have made it beneficial to the site. Chicago god (talk) 08:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Kuo Yao-chi
Saying that he is a former minister of a national agency of the ROC definately asserts notability. The tag is gone. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, a speedy delete request was premature. My initial criticism of this article should have been presented through the AFD process. However, even that seems unnecessary now. Chicago god (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Re; Speedy deletion of Maz Quinn
It is clear you do not understand the policies on what can be speedily deleted. I have refused the speedy deletion of Maz Quinn on the grounds that notability is claimed (a four-times national champion in one of the world's top surfing nations), and clear secondary references are cited. Pleased take more care with your new page patrolling. If you wish to pursue this article further, I suggest you make a full afd of it - where I am sure the result will be a snowball keep. It appears from the comments above that this is not the onlyn incorrect db template you have placed today. please read Criteria for speedy deletion before placing any more! Grutness...wha?  23:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I do have a good understanding of the policies, but improvement of those understandings is always possible. Even with 99.9% accuracy (and agreement), an eager editor could fall astray 10 times in 10,000 edits. In this case, I agree with you. Any initial criticism of the article would have been better handled through an AFD on grounds of notability. With your improvements, however, that action is not necessary. Chicago god (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

 * You're doing good work on new pages patrol in general (so sorry for my annoyed tone before!) - just a bit overzealous here and there. Thake a break for a coffee every now and again :) Grutness...wha?  11:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Little Joe's Circle Lounge

A tag has been placed on Little Joe's Circle Lounge requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the notability of the subject,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the |the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Anything lacking a reliable source can be reverted by anyone at anytime
Regarding this edit, you'll need to add reliable sources if you want the material to stand. 142.166.214.64 (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chicago god


text:
Atoms for Peace Award

The Atoms for Peace Award was established in 1955 through a grant of $1,000,000 by the Ford Motor Company Fund. An independent nonprofit corporation was set up to administer the award for the development or application of peaceful nuclear technology. It was created in response to U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace speech to the United Nations.

The 23 recipients were:

 * 1957 – Niels Bohr
 * 1958 – George C. de Hevesy
 * 1959 – Leó Szilárd and Eugene Paul Wigner
 * 1960 – Alvin M. Weinberg and Walter Henry Zinn
 * 1961 – Sir John Cockcroft
 * 1963 – Edwin M. McMillan and Vladimir I. Veksler
 * 1967 – Isidor I. Rabi, W. Bennett Lewis and Bertrand Goldschmidt
 * 1968 – Sigvard Eklund, Abdus Salam, and Henry DeWolf Smyth
 * 1969 – Aage Bohr, Ben Roy Mottelson, Floyd L. Culler, Jr., Henry Kaplan, Anthony L. Turkevich, Mikhail Ioffe and Compton A. Rennie
 * 1969 – Dwight D. Eisenhower

title: Atoms for Peace Award


text: Template:LDS-stub

title: Template:LDS-stub


text:
Lithia, Florida

Lithia is an unincorporated community in Hillsborough County, Florida, United States. It is a suburb of Tampa. The ZIP codes are 33547, 33596, and the area code is 813. It is part of the census-designated place (CDP) of Fish Hawk. Lithia is home to the 2963 acre Alafia River Corridor and 5515 acre Chito Branch Reserve.

Description
Lithia is a small unincorporated community and home to Lithia Springs Regional Park, Alderman's Ford Regional Park, and the C.W. Bill Young Reservoir. The elevation ranges from less than 8 ft above sea level at Lithia Springs to 105 ft south of the post office.

The community has a rich history in agriculture, saw mills, and phosphate mining. In the late 1990s, Newland Communities purchased 3000 acre to develop Fishhawk Ranch. Fishhawk Trails was developed by another company, and more public works and retail stores are currently in development.

History
Prior to the advent of white settlers in 1846, Lithia had been variously inhabited by Native American tribes, such as the Tocobaga, Muskogan (Creek), Tomokan, Caloosa, some of whom were mentioned by the Spanish in the 1600s, and later the Seminole. Settlers from Georgia arrived in 1847. In 1848, James Alderman created a ford on the Alafia River at the site of present-day Alderman's Ford Park. By the time of the Civil War, Alderman's cattle ranching operation ran to around 30,000 head of cattle. Around 1900, lithium was discovered in the waters of a spring (now known as Lithia Spring Major), which resulted in the naming of the community to "Lithia".

On February 21, 2017, United Parcel Service tested a vehicle-launched drone delivery in Lithia.

Lithia is the closest community to the coordinates listed as the launch site by Jules Verne in his 1865 novel From the Earth to the Moon.

Geography
Lithia is located at (27.85, -82.19); or about 18 mi ESE of Tampa.

Education
Public schools:
 * Barrington Middle School (6-8)
 * Bevis Elementary (K-5)
 * FishHawk Creek Elementary (K-5)
 * Lithia Springs Elementary (K-5)
 * Newsome High School (9-12)
 * Pinecrest Elementary (K-5)
 * Randall Middle School (6-8)
 * Stowers Elementary (K-5)

Private schools:
 * Foundation Christian Academy (Churches of Christ, K-12)
 * St Stephen's Catholic School (Catholic, K-8)

Economy
Lithia is headquarters for The Mosaic Company's international phosphate division. While most of the community consists of commuters to jobs at MacDill Air Force Base and elsewhere, there is still a large agricultural component with strawberry growers, citrus, tropical fish, blueberries and other crops. Lithia has also become a shooting destination, with one public and several private shooting ranges, as well as a sporting clays range.

Notable people

 * Mike Beltran, politician
 * Orlando Greene, Olympic runner
 * Will Worth, football player

title: Lithia, Florida


text:
McGruff (disambiguation)

McGruff may refer to:

 * McGruff the Crime Dog
 * McGruff (rapper) (born 1975), an American recording artist

title: McGruff (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Abravanel

Untitled
Abarbanel (I assume this is the same name despite the bar-bra thing) is also a mental hospital in Israel. . Gadykozma 03:21, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Abarbanel (the name of this hospital) is one of the three versions of the name given in the article. Jayjg 05:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Judah Abravanel
The reference to Judah Abravanel requires some editing. The text describes a Judah Abravanel who lived in the 14th century, but the name "Leon Hebreo" refers to a later Judah Abravanel who lived in the 15th and 16th centuries, and was a famous physician and writer. If one clicks on the name "Judah Abravanel" on this page, one will find that the link is to a piece about the later Judah Abravanel, not the one of the 14th century. The Abarbanel Hospital in Israel is named after the later Judah Abravanel. Cervantes also referred to the later Judah in his Prologue to Don Quixote:

Si tratáredes de amores, con dos onzas que sepáis de la lengua toscana, toparéis con León Hebreo, que os hincha las medidas.

If you should deal with love, with two ounces you may know of Tuscan you can go to Leon the Hebrew, who will supply you to your heart's content.

Allan Abravanel August 11, 2005

 * There were at least 4 Abravanels with the name Judah, according to . I separated the two mentioned here.--Yms 07:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Fact check (Bat and Bart families)?

 * Other families that are thought to be related to the Abravanel family are the Bat and Bart families.

This was recently added by an anon. I tagged it because I've no idea whether it's true or not. Most of this article is based on the 1906 JE article. But this statement can't rely on the JE for support, so can anyone give more information one way or the other? Jheald (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Relation
My great-grandmother's last name was Abrabanel. I am therefore the great great great great great great great great great great (or so) grandson of Don Isaac Abrabanel. YoterMimeni (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

1632
I added a link to "1632 series". The section I put it in might not be quite appropriate (since 1632 et al is fiction), but I do not know how to add a new section. 108.180.121.113 (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Abravanel


text:
Talk:Jack Kemp/Archive 1

Older entries
I changed this, which I assume was a mistake: "Because Kemp was a comparatively liberal Republican, running on his record of supporting government welfare programs, he was seen as a means to attract conservative and libertarian-minded voters" Dole was the comparatively liberal Republican, and Kemp was the means to attract conservatives. Tooptoo 16:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am going to add some stuff in here, because this guy was a fairly influential politician and most of his entry is about his football exploits. -- amcalabrese

Why is Bill Clinton's My Life listed in the bibliography? Is it of any relevance to Kemp? -- dynzmoar

How did US soccer players react to the content of Kemp's fatuous comment on their sport, apart from the potential financial losses? -- dynzmoar

Aren't the soccer references silly?
there's so much worthwhile stuff one can say about kemp... how do some comedic remarks about soccer rate even a mention on this page? such silliness...

Why not? As far as I can see it breaks no rules, and doesn't harm the value of the article. Many times people become known for silly things. Lehi (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It reads like a campaign ad...
The part about his political career reads like a Republican campaign ad.
 * I hope you feel it is now neutral.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This section appears to be written by a partisan supporter of Kemp's, not in NPOV
"As secretary of HUD, Kemp spearheaded the Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere (HOPE) program, an effort to reform socialized housing, by allowing residents of government housing projects to buy their own unit. Likewise, with his Urban Enterprise Zone program, he promoted market-based urban business district reforms by offering tax breaks and reducing the regulatory burdens for businesses in poor neighborhoods. These ideas were fought by welfare proponents, but their immense success compared to public housing and other attempts to control communities through heavy government, they have become the dominant stances of housing and urban development today, giving rise to modern Urban Renewal systems."

I hope someone will clean up this section and add citations to the broad claims of fact before removing the disputed tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.120.84 (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. I think.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A really bad article
this is one of the worst wiki articles--both poorly written and very thin on content.

plus, it is weak on facts and poorly sourced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.147.5.84 (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I would add that the claims the tax cuts are credited for the growth of the Reagan administration are incredibly biased. While Kemp is loved by conservatives, no economist on either side of the aisle could say the tax cuts did what is claimed with a straight face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.193.159 (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me know what you think of the new breadth and depth as it continues to evolve.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to rewrite this
Kemp is a really complicated and important Republican. Very conservative, but heterodox too. He deserves much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.111.45 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am working on it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Draft citation?
Any source on his receiving a draft notice? Note Kemp had previously served in the Army Reserve, U.S. involvement in Vietnam started in earnest in 1965 when he turned 30, odd time to get a draft notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What was the timeline here? Was the Knee Injury during his athletic career, or at the end of it, or...? DS 14:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Got it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the most biased and devious article I have ever read in Wikipedia
THIS ARTICLE IS REPLETE WITH CITATIONS OF ARTICLES WHICH ARE EXPRESSING OPINION TO PASS ALONG AS FACT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.213.104 (talk) 12:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * THIS DISCUSSION PAGE IS REPLETE WITH EDITS BY PEOPLE WHO CANNOT FORM COHERENT SENTENCES. Ec- 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Ec-Ec- (User talk:Ec-talk • Special:Contributions/Ec-contribs)

GA review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Overall, I'm placing this article on hold until the issues (mainly length and images) can be worked out. Thanks to the editor(s) for all his/her/their hard work. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It's a very well written and well cited, article, however there are some things that I would like to point out:
 * It's too long. I know the Reagan article and others are longer, but Kemp was a congressman, not a president or world leader. It can use some trimming; not a lot of trimming, but some. One of the sections that I would favor removing is "Views on soccer" because it is purely trivial.
 * The main parts of the "career summary" football section should be integrated into the rest of the section, and the minor parts removed.
 * 1) *I will look at this article more closely. However, WRT length it sounds like you are saying, he is only high or mid importance and therefore can not have an article as long as a top importance person.  This is not true.  On my current browser the article gets to the notes on the seventh time I hit page down.  Reagan on the tenth although the article still needs a large template added for his cabinet. Hillary Clinton-tenth, George W. Bush-eleventh, Bill Clinton-tenth, Stephen Harper-ninth, Condoleezza Rice-twelfth, John McCain-eighth, Grover_Cleveland (Buffalo's most important politician)-ninth, Gerald Ford-tenth, Emma Goldman (random person of lesser importance from WP:CHICAGO that I follow closely),  Franklin Delano Roosevelt - thirteenth, Theodore Roosevelt-fifteenth.  Comparatively, Kemp's article is not too long.  The question should be whether the article contains minutia or not.  I went through all 368 articles that show up in a Time magazine search for Jack Kemp.  I got through the first 130 articles in the New York Times search.  This is the article that results from that.  I had thought of going through the 111 Newsweek magazine search results.  I am guessing doing so may add a page or two.  In truth the article might improve via quality rather than be degraded by minutia in so doing.  There are few points that have excessive detail and few that are uninteresting to those wanting to know about the subject.  I am going to review the article, but don't think I will remove much except for reworking the two sections you mention.  Almost every sentence comes from a reliable source.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) *I would argue that the way the football career is sectioned by coaching era certain summary statements are not applicable to any era and should be in a concluding summary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Without more photos, and with long sections, reading articles like this can get very boring for readers (it's not your fault that there aren't very many images, but the articles needs to be shaped around those and the estimated attention span of readers). I'm sorry if it sounded like I was saying that Kemp is not important, because that's not for me to judge. All that I know is that removing trivial sections, such as views on soccer, can help the readability and the article's overall state. If you don;t want to trim a lot in the football career and political career sections, than I would suggest adding in more subsection headings to break up the text. I would also remove little extra details within those sections. I comend your work on the article, but I do think that some of this needs to occur before I can pass it, especially the removal of trivia. Happyme22 (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You know what, if you feel that the summary section is best for the article, I'll ablidge because I really don;t have the time to argue against it right now :) Happyme22 (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have moved soccer from a separate section to the congress section. I did not take text out, but shortened the length by making it one paragraph.  I had intended to request you pass it with the three additional images and the recent changes.  I think it will likely get a lot of specific suggestions at a line by line level of what should be removed at WP:FAC.  I am hoping to make this my next nominee.  I think it meets good standards now.  I will try to run through one more time, but I think it is good now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage, focusing well on Kemp's two main fields. But see above for length issues.
 * 2) It is strikingly NPOV, with numerous mentions of Kemp's good and bad sides.
 * Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable for sure.
 * Great--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It it not well illustrated by images. I understand that not many are available, however a quick google search reveals at least one or two more than are free use.
 * One image added.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do candidates own the rights to their campaign logos. There are things at http://www.4president.org/ocmi1988.htm and http://www.4president.org/ocmi1996.htm that I am wondering about using.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so (see Image:McCain2000logo.gif), but you can probably upload it under fair use using the Non-free logo temp (as the McCain image was). Happyme22 (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added the mag cover because of the story about how they almost missed being on the cover.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on this list, and requests from the nominator, I am passing Jack Kemp as a Good Article, per the GAC. The editor has done a fine job with it. Congrats! Happyme22 (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

MINOR CORRECTION NEEDED: Immediately after footnote number 288, the current text reads: "Later, in 2002, when Lott made caustic remarks about Strom Thurmond, Kemp was upset, and he supported Lott's apology," Lott did not get into trouble for making CAUSTIC remarks about Thurmond, the kerfuffle was over the fact that Lott PRAISED Thurmond, saying something to the effect of:  America would be better off had Thurmond won the 1948 presidential election. Of course Thurmond was a strict racial segregationist at the time. It was this praise that upset Kemp and cause Lott to apologize. I have not changed the original text. 65.32.96.200 (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC) William Malmstrom, Clearwater, FL

Article length
I would like to discourage shortening the article merely for the sake of keeping it from being "too long." As Tony pointed out, all statements are well-sourced. One approach that would make sense if it continues to grow, however, is to make spinoff articles (e.g. Football career of Jack Kemp, or Political views of Jack Kemp). Once such articles have been created, the less-vital stuff can be trimmed in this article without any worry of depriving the reader of information.

Specifically on the "views on Soccer" issue -- I think it was better off as its own section. It's a little unusual, to be sure, but since the issue covers both football and politics (both aspects of Kemp's professional life), it's significant. Much of it is not part of his congressional career, that's just where he made his first House floor speech. Also, I don't think the subject should be introduced by saying he's been an "outspoken critic," considering that the seriousness of his "allegations" is called into serious question a couple sentences later. Some rephrasing is in order.

Regardless of these specific comments, congrats on a good article and a healthy review process! -Pete (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Jr.
Jr. in his name predated my involvement with the article. His fathers name was not Jack. What gives?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

 * The 1990 Britannica Book of the Year article on Jack Kemp, p. 91, identifies his name as "Jack French Kemp" without the "Jr." I hesitate to remove the "Jr." from the article without additional confirmation. Softtest123 (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 * His name isn't Jack either, it's John (as would be expected of any Jack of that age) but according to this article his father's name is Paul. A reference for John French Kemp Jr.:  Bennetto (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected (based on the reference added for the California birth-record website). He is actually named Jack.  A few obits had mentioned John, and (based on experience with the name and understanding of the history) it seemed much more likely other references had missed or ignored it.Bennetto (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Issues with Cabinet section
In the second paragraph of "Cabinet" is the project opposed by Congress the same as the project opposed by Darman? They have the same description. Also, I do not consider the overall wording of this paragraph to be neutral. Take for example the phrase "welfare reform to correct government offsets". Certainly it is a welfare "change". Whether it's a "reform" or not depends on your pov. Similarly with the word "correct". There are also other wording issues. I edited it once, but was reverted so I'll leave the issue here for discussion. Jpmonroe (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw your note at FAC and will respond there where the most eyes are.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality
(Congress: "...The article explained allegations of 1967 Sacramento office Reagan staffer homosexual activity, which apparently did not refer to Kemp who was cleared of all related charges....")

Homosexuality isn't a charge of which one must be cleared. Allegations of homosexuality aren't something of which a person must be cleared.

The text as it stands makes it sound as if he was charged with one or more crimes.

If the allegations were false, say that -- not that he was cleared of possibly being homosexual. If there were other allegations, say what they were.

 * It does seem reasonable to at least mention that he rode out the scandal of having bought a cabin with Reagan's gay chief of staff (Battaglia while he was an intern in Reagan's office, in 1967. See "Governor Reagan: His rise to power", page 251, last paragraph.
 * If anyone less lazy than me agrees, it looks like a good citation to use (you can link to Google Books for it, too)
 * --75.80.187.183 (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that would be reasonable -- if it were discussed as you described it. Instead, words like "allegations" and, now, "implicated" have been used. If it's worth mentioning, perhaps the article should simply say what you've said here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.77.155 (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

FOOT NOTE ERROR? In the section that discusses Kemp's investment in the cabin co-owned with gay Reagan staffers, Esquire magazine is cited, followed by footnote number 12. The link in footnote 12 takes one to a fluff piece on Kemp's college days that was published in LA Daily News, not Esquire. I did a search for the word "Esquire" in the article, found only the one instance in the text, but no "Esquire" in the footnotes themselves. 65.32.96.200 (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC) William Malmstrom, Clearwater, FL

Cancer diagnosis
Probably deserves to be incorporated in post-political material, right? Hekerui (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Republican Vice Presidential nominee in infobox
I'm for not putting this in the infobox - it's in the lead, not an elected position were he was "in office", and it doesn't appear necessary for the other VP nominees either. Hekerui (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We have a captive audience at WP:FAC right now. You can probably get some responses there.  I have included it for three reasons: 1. it is an official democratic party office, 2. he was not in any other office at the time so it does not conflict like it would for Palin/McCain/Biden/Obama who were holding other offices when they ran, 3. It gives a complete picture of his most important offices in the info box and for Kemp it is arguably the most notable office he ever held.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Wendell Willkie, Alton B. Parker, and William E. Miller mention it upfront but without infobox and they look decent. It might be a party office (source?) but it's not an office with official power to do anything with regard to party or country. Also, it's mentioned in the second sentence of the article. And sorry for not going to FAC but that's more for the hard core and they'll probably bite. I'm myself at the moment merely trying to get an article from Stub to B, so that's not my league :-) Hekerui (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it's the third time I've had to comeback & remove those annoying Nominee thingys, from the Infoboxes. Those are not government offices & they make the Infobox bloated. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Better picture
Since he's no longer living, could we replace the main picture with one from when he was holding office or running for office? Something from the late-80s to 96? Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, can someone get us some pictures of him from his football days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Use by Specter and wiki project spam
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/04/specter-claims-kemp-alive-congress-better-funded-medical-research/

I understand that it is Fox News, but surely the quotes are good. I find it rather sickening that he has only just died and Specter is so irreverent as to immediately use him as a political figurehead. Is it worth mentioning that Specter is trying to use him as a rallying call for government-funded cancer research?

--Pstanton (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Meeting with Jude Wanniski
The article says that Jude Wanniski met with Jack Kemp to discuss supply side economics in 1967. Purportedly, this meeting took place in Kemp's Congressional office. Kemp was not in Congress in 1967. While I certainly believe this meeting took place, the year is inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.154.190 (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Legacy
One does not need be an M.D. to know that spending additional money on cancer research might find a cure for various cancers. Senator Specter in a long-serving leader and member of the senator, and his POV should be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs) 23:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Should Arlen Specter statement be included in the article
Should the statement "Senator Arlen Specter claimed that Jack Kemp would still be alive if the federal government had done a better job funding cancer research." be included in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that it is a medical opinion by a person who is not a reliable source for medical opinions and that it is a speculative statement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with including that—Specter's clearly not a reliable source on medical issues, but I think its inclusion would be more about the remark's political significance than its medical significance—but I think it would be undue weight to include it in the present article. If the article was expanded considerably, with new subarticles created, I think there could be a place for it there, but not as the article stands now. Steve Smith (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * RfC comment. I would not create sub-articles, but I agree with Steve Smith that the remark is political rather than medical. The problem with the now-reverted passage is that it just sits there without context, which makes it read like a POV attack. If the Legacy section had a well-sourced paragraph describing how Kemp's legacy includes reductions in federal spending (it comes close to that now, but does not discuss it directly), then the sentence could be part of that paragraph, and would be entirely appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to RFC No. Let this article be about Jack Kemp, not the use of his memory in an uninformed remark in a political debate to which Kemp is entirely peripheral. There might be better grounds for including it in an article about Specter, but even there the specter of recentism arises. Ray  Talk 03:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the statement, as it stands, seems to come out of left field. I also agree that the information is not necessarily inappropriate. The ideal solution here is someone expanding on the significance of the comment and giving it context. If we can get a volunteer to do that, the issue will be resolved (in my opinion). -- MQ Duck (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think it belongs in Jack Kemp's article, as Arlen Specter was not Jack Kemp's physician nor is he a medical researcher who could be reasonably expected to have an informed and reliable opinion on the matter. It might belong in an article on US health care reform or on Arlen Specter himself, however. --NellieBly (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur. Specter's statement should go in Specter's article. Alan (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Arlen Specter has battled Hodgkin's lymphomais, a type of lymphoma (cancer originating from a type of white blood cells called lymphocytes). One can assume that Senator Specter has had access to the latest treatments and has become quite knowledgeable about this cancer.  Also one would think that he has also consulted with the leading doctors in the field, and has first-hand knowledge in formulating his opinion about cancer research.

 * Now what does this have to do with Jack Kemp?  Sometimes a writer or speaker wishes to convey a message that questions or challenges our beliefs.  But to directly confront the establishment could incur the retaliation of those who control or benefit from the status quo.  To avoid direct confrontation and at the same time stimulate the reader to question existing policy, the speaker or writer makes use of explicit statements which have overtones which transcend their immediate context and demand our special attention.

 * Arlen Specter by invoking Jack Kemp name’s so shortly after his death, and Specter claiming that Kemp would be alive today if Congress spent more money on cancer research, and knowing that Jack Kemp advocated less government spending and tax cuts, one could deduce what Specter thinks Kemp’s legacy is.Cgersten (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Reply to RfC. No.  As with similar opinions above, speculative and politically motivated quote adds nothing the section on Kemp's death. --Whoosit (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Closing as consensus to remove. I think the general consensus is to remove this content from Kemp's article with the feeling if it is included on WP it should be added in Specter's article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A clarification: the content could be appropriate here in a different form, with greater context. I think several editors have said that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

 * The biography of Jack Kemp is rather bland; does not promote thought or debate, as to what Jack Kemp’s contribution was to America. Senator Specter’s comment about Jack Kemp being alive if the government had spend more money on cancer research says in a coded statement what Specter thought of Kemp’s policies.  The readers of Kemp’s biography should know about Specter’s statement so that perhaps they will be moved to investigate further Kemp’s contribution to America.Cgersten (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Specter’s comment about Kemp’s legacy is the most profound statement I have ever heard of a politician’s evaluation of another politician. Specter’s statement should be part of Kemp’s biography as it is an indication of what at least some of his colleagues thought of him.Cgersten (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Truman-Reagan Medal of Freedom
If he is the Jack Kemp who received the Truman-Reagan Medal of Freedom (posthumously), please put the info into the article wherever appropriate. - Altenmann >t 01:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jack Kemp/Archive 1


text:
Marvin J. Ashton

Marvin Jeremy Ashton (May 6, 1915 – February 25, 1994) was a Utah politician and a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) from 1971 until his death in 1994.

Ashton was born to Marvin O. Ashton and Rachel Grace Jeremy in Salt Lake City, Utah. His father was a local LDS leader and later became a church general authority. Ashton worked in the lumber business as a youth. He graduated from the University of Utah. He worked as managing director of LDS Social Services. Ashton served as a member of the Utah State Senate from 1957 to 1961 as a Republican. He was also president of Deseret Book and involved in other business ventures including a lumber company.

LDS Church service
Ashton served a mission in Great Britain from 1937 to 1939 during which time he edited the Millennial Star. His mission president was Hugh B. Brown. From 1958 to 1969, Ashton was an assistant to the general superintendent of the church's Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association. He served as an assistant to superintendents Joseph T. Bentley and G. Carlos Smith.

He was named managing director of the then-newly formed Church Social Services Department in September 1969. A month later he was named an Assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Ashton was ordained an apostle on December 2, 1971, after the death of Richard L. Evans. Among his assignments, he was president of the Polynesian Cultural Center and a member of the board of trustees of Brigham Young University–Hawaii.

Ashton died on February 25, 1994, and at the time of his death was serving as chairman of the church's Leadership Training Committee and was also a member of both the Correlation Executive and the General Welfare Services committees. The vacancy created in the Quorum of the Twelve was filled by Robert D. Hales.

Personal life
Ashton married Norma Berntson in the Salt Lake Temple on August 22, 1940, and they were the parents of four children. They won the mixed doubles championship in the all-church tennis tournament in 1954. Ashton was involved with the Boy Scouts of America most of his life and earned Eagle Scout as an adult in 1963. As an adult he was a recipient of the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award, the Silver Beaver Award, and the Silver Antelope Award.

title: Marvin J. Ashton


text: Category:Latter Day Saint movement stubs


text: File:The Doobie Brothers - Cycles.jpg

title: File:The Doobie Brothers - Cycles.jpg


text:
User talk:Andrewbadr

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

title: User talk:Andrewbadr


text:
The Examiner (Tasmania)

The Examiner is the daily newspaper of the city of Launceston and north-eastern Tasmania, Australia.

Overview
The Examiner was first published on 12 March 1842, founded by James Aikenhead. The Reverend John West was instrumental in establishing the newspaper and was the first editorial writer. At first it was a weekly publication (Saturdays). The Examiner expanded to Wednesdays six months later. In 1853, the paper was changed to tri-weekly (Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays), and first began daily publication on 10 April 1866. This frequency lasted until 16 February the next year. Tri-weekly publication then resumed and continued until 21 December 1877 when the daily paper returned.

Associated publications
The Weekly Courier was published in Launceston by the company from 1901 to 1935. Another weekly paper (evening) The Saturday Evening Express was published between 1924 and 1984 when it transformed into The Sunday Examiner a title which continues to this day.

Ownership
Once owned by ENT Limited, The Examiner was owned by the Rural Press group and is now part of Australian Community Media.

The current editor is Simon Tennant.

Readership
For the 12 months ending September 2008, Roy Morgan Research reports a Saturday readership of 100,000 and a Monday-Friday readership of 84,000.

title: The Examiner (Tasmania)