text:
Peter Morville

Peter Morville is president of Semantic Studios, an information architecture and findability consulting firm. He may be best known as an influential figure and "founding father" of information architecture, having coauthored the best-selling book in the discipline, Information Architecture for the World Wide Web. For over a decade, he has advised such clients as AT&T, Dow Chemical, Ford, the IMF, the Library of Congress, and Microsoft. Morville was a co-founder and past president of the Information Architecture Institute, and has served on their advisory board. He delivers keynotes and seminars at international events, and his work has been featured in major publications, including Business Week, Fortune, and The Wall Street Journal.

Biography
Peter Morville was born in Manchester, England. He holds a graduate degree in Library and Information Science, having graduated from the University of Michigan School of Information in 1993. He has since served on their faculty and received an Alumni Achievement Award for his work in information science.

In the 1990s, together with Louis Rosenfeld, he headed Argus Associates, the consulting firm which supported one of the precursors of the Information Architecture Institute, the Argus Center for Information Architecture. The company began in January 1994 as a full-solution web design business, but Morville and Rosenfeld decided to specialize by applying principles of library science to solve issues of grouping and labeling on the early Web. The two dubbed their work "information architecture," although they did not mean it in the sense of Richard Saul Wurman's use of the term, who according to Morville, "focused on the presentation and layout of information on a two-dimensional page. We focused on the structure and organization of sites." Argus worked with clients such as AT&T, Borders Books and Music, and Microsoft.

In 1998, Morville and Rosenfeld co-authored Information Architecture for the World Wide Web, which was published by O'Reilly Media in 1998. This book, known as the "Polar Bear book" because of the Polar Bear on its cover, became a bestseller and was awarded Amazon.com's "best computer book of 1998." It has been described as the "seminal" book on information architecture. The book sparked enough of a growth in interest in information architecture that two years later, the Association for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) helped organize the first annual Information Architecture Summit.

Along with Christina Wodtke, Rosenfeld, and a number of other information architects, Morville co-founded the Information Architecture Institute in 2002 and subsequently served as its president. He has been an independent consultant since 2001 through his company Semantic Studios, which focuses on information architecture and user experience for a wide range of clients.

title: Peter Morville


text:
User talk:Insomniacity

Hello, "Insomniacity" and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:

. Note: Thanks for your work in creating the Anonymous remailers article... but note that we already have an article at Anonymous remailer. Perhaps you could incorporate any relevent additions into the older article and make your title a Redirect to there? Cheers, -- Infrogmation 22:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Peruse Welcome, newcomers and associated pages, such as
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * You can experiment in the Sandbox.
 * Sign talk page entries with ~, which is automatically converted to a name and date.
 * If you have any questions, see Help, or you can a question at the Help desk.
 * I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.

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

title: User talk:Insomniacity


text:
2006 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF)

Listed below are the dates and results for the 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification rounds for Africa. 51 teams took part (only Comoros and Djibouti did not enter), competing for 5 World Cup places.

Format
The qualification was composed of two rounds. Nine teams entered the competition directly on the second round: the five teams that qualified for the 2002 World Cup Finals (Cameroon, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, and Tunisia) and the four highest-ranking teams in the 25 June 2003 FIFA world rankings (Congo DR, Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, and Morocco). The other 42 teams were paired to play knock-out matches home and away. The 21 winners would advance to the second round.

In the second round, the 30 teams were divided in five groups of six teams each. Teams in each group would play against each other in a home and away basis. The team with most points in each group would qualify to the World Cup.

The competition also constituted the qualification competition for the 2006 African Nations Cup with the top three nations of each group qualifying (except for Egypt, which qualifies as the host nation, the fourth nation in Egypt's group qualifying in Egypt's place).

The African qualifying zone saw four out of five finals places going to World Cup debutants (Angola, Togo, Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana). Nigeria missed out on a fourth consecutive finals appearance while Cameroon did not reach their fifth consecutive finals.

The African zone also featured a group of death — Group 3, which brought together Africa's most frequent World Cup qualifier Cameroon with the two eventual finalists of the 2006 Africa Cup of Nations: Egypt and the Ivory Coast.

First round

 * }

Qualified teams
The following five teams from CAF qualified for the final tournament.

 * 1 Bold indicates champions for that year. Italic indicates hosts for that year.

Top goalscorers
Below are full goalscorer lists for each round:

 * First round
 * Second round

title: 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF)


text:
Rearviewmirror (Greatest Hits 1991–2003)

Rearviewmirror (Greatest Hits 1991–2003) is a two-disc compilation album by the American rock band Pearl Jam, released on November 16, 2004 through Epic Records. The album has been certified platinum by the RIAA in the United States. It was reissued in 2013 as The Essential Pearl Jam.

Overview
The compilation debuted at number 16 on the Billboard 200 chart, selling 96,000 copies in its first week of release. rearviewmirror (Greatest Hits 1991–2003) has been certified platinum by the RIAA.

The album's two discs are both devoted to different sides of the band's catalogue: the first disc, or "Up Side", contains heavier rock songs while the second disc or "Down Side" consists of slower songs and ballads. Both discs are in chronological order, with the exception of the last song on the "Down Side", regular show closer "Yellow Ledbetter".

The tracks "Once", "Alive", and "Black" were remixed by Brendan O'Brien. Pearl Jam's version of the Victoria Williams song "Crazy Mary" was supposed to appear on disc two, but was replaced with "Man of the Hour" before release. This release marked the end of Pearl Jam's contractual agreement with Epic Records.

AllMusic staff writer Stephen Thomas Erlewine gave the album four and a half out of five stars. He said that the album "does an expert job not only of capturing the moment when Pearl Jam were monstrously popular, but proving that they still turned out good music even when they were fading from the spotlight. Unlike most career-spanning, multi-disc retrospectives, Rearviewmirror does not emphasize latter-day albums in order to achieve a sense of balance that's inherently phony." Rolling Stone staff writer Christian Hoard gave the album four out of five stars, saying, "Pearl Jam have spent much of this decade courting devotees with a series of live bootlegs, so Rearviewmirror is a welcome concession to casual fans, rounding out the hits with concert staples and non-album cuts. The rockers on the "Up Side" disc sum up the band's continually evolving relationship with effects pedals and emotional catharsis; the slower "Down Side" disc offers gold sounds that are long on big choruses and well-worn sincerity."

Pearl Jam

 * Stone Gossard – guitars
 * Jeff Ament – bass guitar, album concept, additional booklet photos
 * Eddie Vedder – vocals, guitars
 * Mike McCready – guitars
 * Dave Krusen – drums on Ten, "Yellow Ledbetter"
 * Dave Abbruzzese – drums on Singles: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack, Vs., Vitalogy
 * Jack Irons – drums on Merkin Ball, No Code, Yield
 * Matt Cameron – drums on "Last Kiss", Binaural, Riot Act, "Man of the Hour"

Additional musicians and production

 * Matt Bayles, John Burton, Caram Costanzo, Don Gilmore, Dave Hillis, Sam Hofstedt, Adrian Moore, Adam Samuels, Kevin Scott, Trina Shoemaker, Ashley Stubbert – engineering
 * Tchad Blake – production, mixing
 * Nick DiDia – mixing, engineering
 * Brett Eliason – production, mixing, engineering
 * Boom Gaspar – Hammond B3, Fender Rhodes on Riot Act
 * Adam Kasper – production, engineering
 * Brad Klausen – design and layout
 * Bob Ludwig at Gateway Mastering – mastering
 * Lance Mercer – photos
 * Brendan O'Brien – production, mixing, engineering; bass guitar on "I Got Id", pipe organ, Hammond organ, piano; remixing on "Once", "Alive", and "Black"
 * Tim Palmer – mixing
 * Rick Parashar – production, engineering
 * Pearl Jam – production
 * George Webb – equipment manager
 * Neil Young – guitar on "I Got Id"


text:
Talk:Rearviewmirror (Greatest Hits 1991–2003)

Change of tracklisting
Tracklisting for disc 2 was changed to reflect what was actually on the album. 11/18/04

Page move
This page should be at rearviewmirror (Pearl Jam album) (actually, it should probably be at rearviewmirror (Pearl Jam compilation), but I think naming conventions are against me on that), with a note about the technical limitations— which should not even exist anymore, at this point in the timeline of MediaWiki maturity. The only reference to the "greatest hits" portion of the title is located on the spine. It reads "rearviewmirror (greatest hits 1991-2003)," i.e., not following a colon, and that only exists as a descriptive parenthetical, not the compilation's canonical title. kthx --129.15.131.246 (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I said that the spine is the only reference to the "greatest hits" portion of the title, in contrast to the album cover and discs themselves. The Pearl Jam website catalogues the compilation as "rearviewmirror" as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.131.246 (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I've never seen an article that starts with a lower case letter.-5- (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Plenty exist, but they use a hack rather than being taken care by MediaWiki . --129.15.131.246 (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that this isn't worth worrying about. I've seen it listed this way on several websites. It looks better capitalized to me.-5- (talk) 02:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, what matters is which is correct. Secondly, the move request is comprised of two parts:
 * dropping the second portion of the page's current title
 * using Template:lowercase to make the page title appear correctly
 * Of the two, the first is the bigger issue to me. --129.15.131.246 (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want this page moved I would suggest using this template: -5- (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
Here's a proposed solution: leave the article name as it is (to maintain Wiki standards), and change the article text to "rearviewmirror." There's nothing that says that the introduction to the article has to match the name. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

 * First, I don't think that would satisfy anyone. How would inconsistencies between the article title and the content of the article itself in any way uphold the standards of Wikipedia, rather than having the opposite effect and degrading them? Even if your second claim is true, that claim being that such a thing isn't disallowed, it's strongly suggested that such a thing not occur. Articles with a proper noun as a subject should use that proper noun for the article name.

 * Secondly, the request for a third opinion was regarding the edit dispute, not the issue of the page move. As such, I'll move your comment to the appropriate heading and re-list this on WP:THIRD. --129.15.131.246 (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Watch your tone. Have you seen the template ? I'll apply it to the page; see what you think. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

 * From the existing page move discussion:
 * ...the move request is comprised of two parts:
 * dropping the second portion of the page's current title
 * using Template:lowercase to make the page title appear correctly
 * Of the two, the first is the bigger issue...
 * I also do not appreciate being told to "watch [my] tone." The comment itself is far more patronizing than any tone, real or perceived, in my response. --129.15.131.246 (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit dispute with User:-5-
I posted a comment about correcting the article title and a follow-up clarification. I then made some edits that were unrelated to the move, but changed the article's references to the title anyway, in order to reflect the correct title. In this edit, I left a notice in the edit summary, directed at no one, to take the unrelated changes into account if there was issue with the name change (which made up a small portion of the total changes), because such a thing I've seen happen on a few different occasions, and I wanted to alert and curb potentially gratuitous use of the undo feature by inattentive editors.

After my second response to User:-5- on the talk page, he or she noticed my changes to the article regarding the name change and reverted them, along with the unrelated changes that had been made. Upon noticing this, I presumed it to be unintentional on the part of -5-, and so reincorporated said unrelated changes back into the article, with no change to references to the article title (i.e., references to original title intact).

-5- Then re-reverted that edit, the highlight of the summary: revert unneeded changes. This is, to be frank, bullshit. I've never seen this before. "Revert unneeded changes..." Really? I don't even know how to respond to that.

It's easy to see what happened here: after my reincorporation of the unrelated changes, User:-5- took my comments in the edit summary to be hostile and reverted the edit out of spite—a revert that I contend would not have taken place under different circumstances. --129.15.131.246 (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I genuinely felt that your edits didn't improve the article. For one thing, you added information that had Fact tags. I don't understand why you would add information in the first place if you knew it was unreferenced.-5- (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

 * You genuinely felt that my edits changing the arbitrarily capitalized "certified Platinum" and providing a helpful link to music recording sales certification made no improvement to the article? You genuinely felt that aggregating the notes about disparity with earlier releases into a section called "Disparity with earlier releases" rather than embedding them throughout the rest of the article, allowing the track listing to function as a track listing made no improvement to the article?

 * Regarding your comment about the citation needed tag, that statement already existed in some form, added to the article in an edit on 2006 June 10, I just didn't feel it was necessary to single out Jeremy as the sole altered mix (compared to a remix). Furthermore, I produced a comparison of "Daughter" used on rearviewmirror and the original track from vs., but neglected to upload it lest I violate WP:NOR, of which I planned to make a note on the talk page, but I got distracted by this tedium. The plan was to get a third-party to independently look into the issue, compare the findings, and if said findings matched the claim, use it as a source.

 * And regardless of whether you felt my changes actively improved the article, that isn't justification to revert. The effect these changes have on the article are neutral at worst. --129.15.131.246 (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

3O/Comment: First off, -5-'s first revert is acceptable per WP:BRD, though the second revert was a bit hasty, I'll admit. Next: the Disparity section is technically WP:OR or WP:SYN and don't really add anything to the article. Statements like "the highest rank achieved by a Pearl Jam song to date" need to be backed up with sources. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

 * There still seems to be a lot of confusion about what's going on here, so I just want to point out that my changes were merely copyediting. Let me clarify that, again: my edits introduced no original content to the article.

 * The contents of the Disparity sections include rewrites of claims that already existed in the article, and, in fact, remain there now.

 * My edit tagged two claims as needing citations, tags which were removed when the edit was reverted. These claims were already in the article, and, in fact, remain there now.

 * I fully agree, aside from the first line, that the contents of the disparity section definitely qualify as original research (although in no way qualify as advancing any one editor's subjective agenda; so don't be silly). --129.15.131.246 (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
rearviewmirror: Greatest Hits 1991–2003 → Rearviewmirror: Greatest Hits 1991–2003 — The only sources that I can find that spell "rearviewmirror" in lowercase are the album cover and the band's official website. All other sources capitalize "Rearviewmirror." It appears to me that the band is trying to enforce a stylistic spelling of "rearviewmirror," but since no other source cares to spell it lowercase there isn't a good reason Wikipedia should spell it lowercase either.

In cases such as janet. and moe., media sources commonly spell them in lowercase, allowing Wikipedia to ignore WP:MOSTM. However, since media sources don't seem to commonly spell "Rearviewmirror" in lowercase, WP:MOSTM overwhelmingly applies here. — Xnux   the   Echidna  18:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Article title is broken
Why is the title so messed up? Yesterday I moved it to "Rearviewmirror (Greatest Hits 1991–2003)" instead of "Rearviewmirror: Greatest Hits 1991-2003", since the colonized form of the name is completely manufactured. That is, it's debatable whether the article should be "Rearviewmirror (Greatest Hits 1991-2003)" or simply "Rearviewmirror"—ignoring capitalization for the moment—but there is absolutely no reason why it should have been "Rearviewmirror: Greatest Hits 1991–2003". So now that's taken care of, and links have been fixed, assuming we are going with the inclusion of the phrase in the title.

Now then, the issue of capitalization. Again, it's debatable whether it should be "Rearviewmirror (Greatest Hits 1991–2003)" or "rearviewmirror (greatest hits 1991-2003)", but there is absolutely no basis for the mixed case we have now. The only grounds for using lowercase is that the title appears lowercase on the album, but it's lowercase in its entirety. Whether we choose lowercase or not is an issue of separation of presentation and content, but we need to pick one and stick with it; don't use mixed case.

Given the Manual of Style recommendations on capitalization, I say we go with the capitalized form. In either case, however, the title can't remain as it is now. -- C. A. Russell ( talk ) 19:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 04:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Rearviewmirror (Greatest Hits 1991–2003). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212214443/http://charts.org.nz:80/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Pearl+Jam to http://charts.org.nz/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Pearl+Jam
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111223010655/http://www.portuguesecharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Pearl+Jam&titel=Rearviewmirror+%28Greatest+Hits+1991%2D2003%29&cat=a to http://portuguesecharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Pearl+Jam&titel=Rearviewmirror+%28Greatest+Hits+1991%2D2003%29&cat=a
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071005094550/http://www.australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Pearl+Jam to http://www.australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Pearl+Jam

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Rearviewmirror (Greatest Hits 1991–2003). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070504193449/http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/pearl-jam/rearviewmirror.htm to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/pearl-jam/rearviewmirror.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411075938/http://www.sonymusic.com/artists/PearlJam/rumorpit/pit59.html to http://www.sonymusic.com/artists/PearlJam/rumorpit/pit59.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://charts.org.nz/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Pearl%20Jam
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://portuguesecharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Pearl%20Jam&titel=Rearviewmirror%20%28Greatest%20Hits%201991-2003%29&cat=a
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160917185202/http://www.billboard.com/artist/328459/pearl%20jam/chart?f=938 to http://www.billboard.com/artist/328459/pearl%2Bjam/chart?f=938
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.australian-charts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Pearl%20Jam

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rearviewmirror (Greatest Hits 1991–2003). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626051113/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS to http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS&title=Rearviewmirror&artist=Pearl+Jam&perPage=25&go=Search

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


text:
Cray-3

The Cray-3 was a vector supercomputer, Seymour Cray's designated successor to the Cray-2. The system was one of the first major applications of gallium arsenide (GaAs) semiconductors in computing, using hundreds of custom built ICs packed into a 1 cuft CPU. The design goal was performance around 16 GFLOPS, about 12 times that of the Cray-2.

Work started on the Cray-3 in 1988 at Cray Research's (CRI) development labs in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. Other teams at the lab were working on designs with similar performance. To focus the teams, the Cray-3 effort was moved to a new lab in Colorado Springs, Colorado later that year. Shortly thereafter, the corporate headquarters in Minneapolis decided to end work on the Cray-3 in favor of another design, the Cray C90. In 1989 the Cray-3 effort was spun off to a newly formed company, Cray Computer Corporation (CCC).

The launch customer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, cancelled their order in 1991 and a number of company executives left shortly thereafter. The first machine was finally ready in 1993, but with no launch customer, it was instead loaned as a demonstration unit to the nearby National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder. The company went bankrupt in May 1995, and the machine was officially decommissioned.

With the delivery of the first Cray-3, Seymour Cray immediately moved on to the similar-but-improved Cray-4 design, but the company went bankrupt before it was completely tested. The Cray-3 was Cray's last completed design; with CCC's bankruptcy, he formed SRC Computers to concentrate on parallel designs, but died in a car accident in 1996 before this work was delivered.

Background
Seymour Cray began the design of the Cray-3 in 1985, as soon as the Cray-2 reached production. Cray generally set himself the goal of producing new machines with ten times the performance of the previous models. Although the machines did not always meet this goal, this was a useful technique in defining the project and clarifying what sort of process improvements would be needed to meet it. For the Cray-3, he decided to set an even higher performance improvement goal, an increase of 12x over the Cray-2.

Cray had always attacked the problem of increased speed with three simultaneous advances; more execution units to give the system higher parallelism, tighter packaging to decrease signal delays, and faster components to allow for a higher clock speed. Of the three, Cray was normally least aggressive on the last; his designs tended to use components that were already in widespread use, as opposed to leading-edge designs.

For the Cray-2, he introduced a novel 3D-packaging system for its integrated circuits to allow higher densities, and it appeared that there was some room for improvement in this process. For the new design, he stated that all wires would be limited to a maximum length of 1 foot. This would demand the processor be able to fit into a 1 cuft block, about $1/undefined$ that of the Cray-2 CPU. This would not only increase performance but make the system 27 times smaller.

For a 12x performance increase, the packaging alone would not be enough, the circuits on the chips themselves would also have to speed up. The Cray-2 appeared to be pushing the limits of the speed of silicon-based transistors at 4.1 ns (244 MHz), and it did not appear that anything more than another 2x would be possible. If the goal of 12x was to be met, more radical changes would be needed, and a "high tech" approach would have to be used.

Cray had intended to use gallium arsenide circuitry in the Cray-2, which would not only offer much higher switching speeds but also used less energy and thus ran cooler as well. At the time the Cray-2 was being designed, the state of GaAs manufacturing simply was not up to the task of supplying a supercomputer. By the mid-1980s, things had changed and Cray decided it was the only way forward. Given a lack of investment on the part of large chip makers, Cray decided to invest in a GaAs chipmaking startup, GigaBit Logic, and use them as an internal supplier.

Describing the system in November 1988, Cray stated that the 12 times performance increase would be made up of a three times increase due to GaAs circuits, and four times due to the use of more processors. One of the problems with the Cray-2 had been poor multiprocessing performance due to limited bandwidth between the processors, and to address this the Cray-3 would adopt the much faster architecture used in the Cray Y-MP. This would provide a design performance of 8000 MIPS, or 16 GFLOPS.

Development
The Cray-3 was originally slated for delivery in 1991. This was during a time when the supercomputer market was rapidly shrinking from 50% annual growth in 1980, to 10% in 1988. At the same time, Cray Research was also working on the Y-MP, a faster multi-processor version of the system architecture tracing its ancestry to the original Cray-1. In order to focus the Y-MP and Cray-3 groups, and with Cray's personal support, the Cray-3 project moved to a new research center in Colorado Springs.

By 1989, the Y-MP was starting deliveries, and the main CRI lab in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin, moved on to the C90, a further improvement in the Y-MP series. With only 25 Cray-2s sold, management decided that the Cray-3 should be put on "low priority" development. In November 1988, the Colorado Springs lab was spun off as Cray Computer Corporation (CCC), with CRI retaining 10% of the new company's stock and providing an $85 million promissory note to fund development. Cray himself was not a shareholder in the new company, and worked under contract. As CRI retained the lease on the original building, the new company had to move once again, introducing further delays.

By 1991, development was behind schedule. Development slowed even more when Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory cancelled its order for the first machine, in favor of the C90. Several executives, including the CEO, left the company. The company then announced they would be looking for a customer that needed a smaller version of the machine, with four to eight processors.

The first (and only) production model (serial number S5, named Graywolf) was loaned to NCAR as a demonstration system in May 1993. NCAR's version was configured with 4 processors and a 128 MWord (64-bit words, 1 GB) common memory. In service, the static RAM proved to be problematic. It was also discovered that the square root code contained a bug that resulted in 1 in 60 million calculations being wrong. Additionally, one of the four CPUs was not running reliably.

CCC declared bankruptcy in March 1995, after spending about $300 million of financing. NCAR's machine was officially decommissioned the next day. Seven system cabinets, or "tanks", serial numbers S1 to S7, were built for Cray-3 machines. Most were for smaller two-CPU machines. Three of the smaller tanks were used on the Cray-4 project, essentially a Cray-3 with 64 faster CPUs running at 1 ns (1 GHz) and packed into an even smaller space. Another was used for the Cray-3/SSS project.

The failure of the Cray-3 was in large part due to the changing political and technical climate. The machine was being designed during the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and ending of the Cold War, which led to a massive downsizing in supercomputer purchases. At the same time, the market was increasingly investing in massively parallel (MP or MPP) designs. Cray was critical of this approach, and was quoted by The Wall Street Journal as saying that MPP systems had not yet proven their supremacy over vector computers, noting the difficulty many users have had programming for large parallel machines. "I don't think they'll ever be universally successful, at least not in my lifetime".

Logical design
The Cray-3 system architecture comprised a foreground processing system, up to 16 background processors and up to 2 gigawords (16 GB) of common memory. The foreground system was dedicated to input/output and system management. It included a 32-bit processor and four synchronous data channels for mass storage and network devices, primarily via HiPPI channels.

Each background processor consisted of a computation section, a control section and local memory. The computation section performed 64-bit scalar, floating point and vector arithmetic. The control section provided instruction buffers, memory management functions, and a real-time clock. 16 kwords (128 kbytes) of high-speed local memory was incorporated into each background processor for use as temporary scratch memory.

Common memory consisted of silicon CMOS SRAM, organized into octants of 64 banks each, with up to eight octants possible. The word size was 64-bits plus eight error-correction bits, and total memory bandwidth was rated at 128 gigabytes per second.

CPU design

As with previous designs, the core of the Cray-3 consisted of a number of modules, each containing several circuit boards packed with parts. In order to increase density, the individual GaAs chips were not packaged, and instead several were mounted directly with ultrasonic gold bonding to a board approximately 1 inch square. The boards were then turned over and mated to a second board carrying the electrical wiring, with wires on this card running through holes to the "bottom" (opposite the chips) side of the chip carrier where they were bonded, hence sandwiching the chip between the two layers of board. These submodules were then stacked four-deep and, as in the Cray-2, wired to each other to make a 3D circuit.

Unlike the Cray-2, the Cray-3 modules also included edge connectors. Sixteen such submodules were connected together in a 4×4 array to make a single module measuring 121 × 107 × 7 mm. Even with this advanced packaging the circuit density was low even by 1990s standards, at about 96,000 gates per cubic inch. Modern CPUs offer gate counts of millions per square inch, and the move to 3D circuits was still just being considered.

Thirty-two such modules were then stacked and wired together with a mass of twisted-pair wires into a single processor. The basic cycle time was 2.11 ns, or 474 MHz, allowing each processor to reach about 0.948 GFLOPS, and a 16 processor machine a theoretical 15.17 GFLOP. Key to the high performance was the high-speed access to main memory, which allowed each process to burst up to 8 GB/s.

Mechanical design

The modules were held together in an aluminum chassis known as a "brick". The bricks were immersed in liquid fluorinert for cooling, as in the Cray-2. A four-processor system with 64 memory modules dissipated about 88 kW of power. The entire four-processor system was about 20 in tall and front-to-back, and a little over 2 feet wide.

For systems with up to four processors, the processor assembly sat under a translucent bronzed acrylic cover at the top of a cabinet 42 in wide, 28 in deep and 50 in high, with the memory below it, and then the power supplies and cooling systems on the bottom. Eight and 16-processors system would have been housed in a larger octagonal cabinet. All in all, the Cray-3 was considerably smaller than the Cray-2, itself relatively small compared to other supercomputers.

In addition to the system cabinet, a Cray-3 system also needed one or two (depending on number of processors) system control pods (or "C-Pods"), 52.5 in square and 55.3 in high, containing power and cooling control equipment.

System configurations
The following possible Cray-3 configurations were officially specified:

Software
The Cray-3 ran the Colorado Springs Operating System (CSOS) which was based upon Cray Research's UNICOS operating system version 5.0. A major difference between CSOS and UNICOS was that CSOS was ported to standard C with all PCC extensions that were used in UNICOS removed.

Much of the software available under the Cray-3 was derived from Cray Research and included for instance the X Window System, vectorizing FORTRAN and C compilers, NFS and a TCP/IP stack.

title: Cray-3


text:
Talk:Achievement gaps in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HK khawaja. Peer reviewers: AbiL7, Mgmari19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Plan for article
This is the first in a series of articles I plan to put together about U.S. education reform. Here's where I'm going with it:
 * History of the gap
 * Evidence of the gap
 * Problems discussing the gap (e.g. inconsistent classifications of race)
 * Explanations of the gap
 * Proposed solutions
 * Political implications
 * Similar patterns in other nations

I would like to acknolwedge that some have no interest in "closing the gap," but I'm not sure how to fit that into an article about an issue where "both sides" of the mainstream debate agree that something should be done.

Feedback and assistance VERY much appreciated, as this is my very first article.

Lottelita 22:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Since the title at least for now isn't yet "Achievement gap in the US"... I've found this about low achievement in british schools: Tackling low educational achievement. A collection of documents with short summaries. I hope it's going to be useful, but I didn't look at depth at all. --Extremophile (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"IQ tests have been largely banned for use in education in states such as California." -- Quote from the WE article. This sentence has no real meaning. It begs the question "what is a state that has characteristics such as California?" One state is named, but how many other states are "such as California?" Zero? One? Two? 25? 40? The answer is not even suggested, nor is their any hint at what defines the category "such as California?"

Sep. 2, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.28.202 (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Achievement gap
Both articles are rather slim, so it's probably a good idea to discuss any kind of achievement gap based on race, gender, etc. on the achievement gap page. Also any disparities between the education of the subgroups too. That would make for a better article. Just an idea. Chris53516 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's slim now, but the intent is to create one for each ethnic group. Comparitive numbers will be the same, but rather than noting where every group is all the time, you would concentrate on just one group. For example, with African Americans, the concern is low grade point average and test scores. For Asian Americans, there might be an issue with admission quotas, or weak verbal scores, and for Hispanics, low high school graduation rates, etc. Issues such as desegregation and multiculturalism also differ for different groups. --Sugarcaddy 23:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Good idea, but there's not enough content for an encyclopedic entry. I would have them on one page rather than multiple. My suggestion is write what you want on the achievement gap page, and if that gets too big, then move them to separate pages. Chris53516 13:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Be my guest then, but keep the redirect. I'd ask the folks over on the other page what they think too. That page isn't very good for discussing educational practices designed for addressing the gap, such as Title 1, bilingual education, multiculturalism, affirmative action, desgregation, etc. --Sugarcaddy 18:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Effort gap
This article should examine whether there is an "effort gap" that corresponds with the "achievement gap" between the groups of people discussed in the article. People are not going to achieve unless they put in the effort to make it happen. --Jagz 19:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

First reference
Seems like the first reference isn't a reference to anything, just an institution and a name. I think we need a more specific source before claiming that gaps exist at every income level. --JereKrischel 06:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Class and economics
The big unmentionable here is class/economics, although some school districts have begun to approach it. The issue is less the problems of all African Americans and other minorities, than the problems of poor African Americans and other minorities. Some school districts have begun to address programs of extra help, etc. to districts/sections in which families meet certain economic criteria. This is more focused and may lead to more progress. I don't have the sources at hand but people interested in this area should look in that direction.--Parkwells (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Article name change
I suggest changing the article name to "Achievement gap in the United States". Comments? --Jagz (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC) I think it should be "Achievement gaps in the United States." Jimlech

Standards Based Reform
The section on standards based reform needs some significant revision. The first sentence is outright silly--beliefs do not refute findings--and at least one other sentence was completely incoherent (as someone took the liberty of noting in brackets in the article text). Other parts, such as the section about IQ tests being made illegal need clarification and the part about ACT and SAT tests being condemned needs sources. More significantly, the whole section looks as though it was penned by an individual or a small group, possibly with a stilted view of education reform. Someone with some perspective needs to weed out the facts from the rhetoric and make it clear to readers which is which. 68.46.233.83 (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the recent addition of the substanitally documented math-verbal achievement gap to the list.

Gender Gap in Mathematics
This subject was added in order to address one of the more prominent gender gaps that we see in the US. The subject is also of interest because of gender stereotypes and could be tied into females in the STEM fields.

--141.152.124.42 (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Gender Gap in Physics
I have added this subject into this article as it has the largest disparity achievement and representation wise. I realize the article is on achievement so the representation section may be out of place however I could not find another article in which I thought it fit better. This indicates that there is a need for a whole article on female representation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Once such an article is in place then it would be appropriate to move the section on representation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.9.169 (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing
I have posted a bibliography of Intelligence Citations for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research and to suggest new sources to me by comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Article name change
The article deals with several different gaps, so its name should be Achievement gaps in the United States, no?--Victor Chmara (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. So moved. -- Beland (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Explanation for additions/reorganization
First off, this is my first time editing, so please be kind! I attempted to edit the first half of this article (before the "Gender gap" section) as part of a Wikipedia Public Policy Initiative project. My goal was to add some information about the origins of the (black-white and Hispanic-white) achievement gap in early childhood. While I was at it, I took the liberty to reorganize some of the existing information into subheadings to try to lend more structure to the article - however, I did not delete anything major. I did combine one section on "Standards-based reform" with another on NCLB, since both sections talked about NCLB and somewhat overlapped but appeared in different parts of the article. Other edits were mostly minor for grammar, readability, etc. Please let me know if you have any concerns/issues. My major remaining issue is with the shifting definition of the gap throughout this article. Should the "Gender gap" section somehow be even more separated from the rest (separate article??), and can it be more clear how the gap is being defined in the first half of the article (e.g. be more explicit about racial vs. income groups)? MPM12 (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

De-tracking
I only fixed the grammar of this sentence. As the sentence stood, it suggested that “all students” might de-track students. I’m not sure how long a specific claim like this, clearly open to dispute, should be allowed to stand without citation, so I will leave its citation or removal to those who know more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenwarlocks (talk • contribs) 21:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Too large of a focus?
I think that this entry as it stands now tries to cover too much material. By explaining both the racial and gender achievement gaps (which have different causes and implications), it doesn't allow for a thorough examination of either of the gaps, especially in terms of the strategies that have been used in attempts to close the gap. I think it would make more organizational sense to have a specific article that focuses on the racial achievement gap. Much of the information here could be moved to that article and better expanded on. For example, we could better explain the different and very complex causes of the racial achievement gap, the social and economic implications of the gap, and the strategies and programs that have been tried to close the gap (for example, KIPP schools). Kebarnes91 (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We now have Racial achievement gap in the United States for offloading details. -- Beland (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Improving upon Gender Section
As it stands now, the gender sections of this article could be much better organized in order to be easier to understand and to educate a larger audience about this educational achievement gap. I will make four main improvements to the gender education gap section:

1. Create a subsection that focuses on possible causes of the gender achievement gap, including cultural, economic, and biological factors. The gender education gap is a complicated topic, and it is important for people to understand the theories about why this gap exists. Existing research on the gender achievement gap in education proposes several possible causes, and I will try to include as many valid theories as possible.

2. Create a subsection that focuses on evidence of the gender achievement gap in education in a variety of subjects and fields. Extensive research has proven that there are differences in gender achievement in a variety of measures of educational achievement, including test scores, graduation rates, and representation in different fields. Right now, there are subsections on gaps in literacy, mathematics, and physics. I will create a subsection that provides evidence of the gender achievement gap in these fields but also in the social sciences, and include information about gaps in standardized test scores and high school and college graduation rates. Finally, I will include graphs that will provide visual evidence of these gaps.

3. Create a subsection that focuses on the potential implications of the gender achievement gap. The gender achievement gap can have a variety of negative impacts on a country; for example, whichever gender is better-educated has a better chance of securing well-paying jobs, which can lead to a wage gap between men and women. Because a well-educated citizenry increases the stability and success of a country's economy, it is important that both men and women are well-educated and that one gender is not performing significantly better than the other.

4. Create a subsection that addresses both successful and unsuccessful efforts at reducing the gender achievement gap in education. A variety of endeavors have been created to address this gap, such as initiatives to increase girls' interest in STEM fields. I will include examples of these programs and provide evidence about whether or not the programs had an impact on reducing the gap. It is important to include this information so that people are aware of the action that has been taken to address the gender gap in educational achievement.

Kebarnes91 (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Great expansion on gender! Overall, this article is very informative and well-written. I do have a few points of change or ellaboration, though. In "Gender gap in literacy," the scale for the 2002 National Writing Assessment should be added to create more significance in the gaps between the points. Under "Teacher interactions and evaluations," I think expanding on the second view of how teachers can indirectly impact their students would be beneficial to exploring both possible views. Also, is history really considered a "feminine" subject? I, personally, have always imagined it as a "masculine" field, but maybe others don't. The "Implications of the gap" paragraph needs more citations - there are many separate ideas that are presented, and I am unsure if they all come from the same source or different. Personally, I would love it if you expanded on the "Values affirmation" subtopic because I'm intrigued: Why does this intervention work? How does it work? Thank you for bringing more information on the gender gap in achievement to Wikipedia! Rachelpop- (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Hey Kaitlin! Just a few things to possibly add to this already wonderful and comprehensive addition. First, it might be beneficial to clarify that when discussing point differences that this all occurs on a hundred-point scale. I absolutely love the way you divvy up your article, however, I feel like there is a bit of room for even more divisions. For example, in the section on Gender gap in math and science you may want to add a subsection title for the area detailing Hyde’s counter-argument. Another knit-picky suggestion is to possibly include a greater variation of transitions, such as exchanging however for although, while, etc. Also, it may be important to cite certain statements, like the assertion that “Males and females also have vastly different labor market histories based on type of job and time spent in each job” at the end of the Gender gap in graduation rates section. I noticed that this talk page is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, so it is important to remain cognizant of that with regards to maintaining a neutral viewpoint and carefully citing sources. I especially enjoyed the section on Teacher interactions and evaluations, but just out of curiosity are these findings asserting that teachers carry out acts of gendered favoritism implicitly or intentionally? If it is implicit, it might be important to specify. Lastly, it may also be beneficial to link the stereotype threat page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat) to the section on stereotyping and parent socialization, because the impact of stereotype threat is lesser known. Overall, great work! I look forward to the finished product! Avo92 (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input guys! Rachel, I will look into expanding the "Values affirmation" subsection. I know a similar practice has been used in other subjects and grade levels, so I will find citations and insert that information. Both of you mentioned specifying the scale that the evaluations were done on, which is something that I didn't even think about but is definitely important information. Ashlin, I will also go back and specify whether the teacher favoritism is implicit or explicit. Kebarnes91 (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Kaitlin, you've done a great job so far comprehensively covering the topic of the gender achievement gap. I would like to reiterate a bit of what Ashlin said in that I think it might be beneficial for your to further split some of your sections. This is mostly for readability, in case someone wants to scan the article for some specific information. Another point that I think you should be careful about that Dr. S mentioned in class is stating very clearly that your information comes from specific sources rather than stating it as fact and merely citing the source. I'd be especially careful about this in the sections that are most likely to be challenged, such as the sections on causes and implications. In addition, I would avoid saying "researchers think" and instead just name the people who've conducted a specific study, although that might just be a personal preference thing. Especially because this article is being arbitrated, I would air on the side of over-citing rather than citing sparsely throughout the paragraphs. If any given section only has one citation, perhaps you can look for another one to further back up what you're saying (if it is something that might be controversial).
 * For the article on "Occupational segregation" that I have been working on, I've added it to some categories (which are kind of like WikiProjects), so I'm just going to go ahead and add your article to the "Inequality" category. In addition, I added a link to the "Occupational segregation" page to your article.
 * You've done a great job so far! K Gagalis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC).

Thank you for your comments! I will look at the sections again and figure out where it would be appropriate to create more specific subsections. I will also go back through the article and be sure to reference specific sources within my writing, and add more citations where appropriate. Kebarnes91 (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Asians
Why is there no talk of Asians in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixarnation (talk • contribs) 22:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Coverage in prose and statistics has since been added. -- Beland (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal
The article Education outcomes in the United States by race and other classifications has been proposed to be merged with this one, since May 2009. I'm copying below some of the previous discussion on this matter. Personally I am neutral at this point.--KarlB (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

copied from Talk:Education outcomes in the United States by race and other classifications
Both articles are rather slim, so it's probably a good idea to discuss any kind of achievement gap based on race, gender, etc. on the achievement gap page. Also any disparities between the education of the subgroups too. That would make for a better article. Just an idea. Chris53516 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's slim now, but the intent is to create one for each ethnic group. Comparitive numbers will be the same, but rather than noting where every group is all the time, you would concentrate on just one group. For example, with African Americans, the concern is low grade point average and test scores. For Asian Americans, there might be an issue with admission quotas, or weak verbal scores, and for Hispanics, low high school graduation rates, etc. Issues such as desegregation and multiculturalism also differ for different groups. --Sugarcaddy 23:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Good idea, but there's not enough content for an encyclopedic entry. I would have them on one page rather than multiple. My suggestion is write what you want on the achievement gap page, and if that gets too big, then move them to separate pages. Chris53516 13:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Be my guest then, but keep the redirect. I'd ask the folks over on the other page what they think too. That page isn't very good for discussing educational practices designed for addressing the gap, such as Title 1, bilingual education, multiculturalism, affirmative action, desgregation, etc. --Sugarcaddy 18:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

merge proposal discussion
Both of these articles are very long and merging them is certainly going to be a monumental task. However, both articles appear to be covering very similar information, and there is likely a content fork issue by having both of them separately. Both articles seem to rely quite a bit on graphs and charts, especially the educational outcomes one. I'm not sure if it's the best use of the wiki to simply repeat graph and chart data that's published elsewhere without discussing the impact. So, I think the first step is to work on cleaning up both articles, and once that's done, if a merge is applicable, then it can be done. WTF? (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

PC much?
Why isn't genetically lower innate intelligence being discussed as a potential causative factor? Is Wikipedia conforming to political correctness?
 * It's unclear those are significant drivers, but we do have entire articles on those topics, and since people keep bringing it up I've added cross-references for gender. It was already discussed for race; I've added a subsection header to make that easier to find. -- Beland (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Newly updated source list for this and related articles
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Reorganization and addition of LGBT section
I am currently working on a Wikipedia project for my college coursework in Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities. I want to add a section to this page on the LGBT achievement gap, but first I think we should address some organization issues.

First, I would like to delete the stub on the math-verbal achievement gap. As this article deals with cross-identity achievement gaps, not cross-subject achievement gaps, this section does not particularly belong here. Furthermore, it links to an article that is not very well written.

Next I propose that every achievement gap (racial, gender, and LGBT soon) be uniformly organized into the following subsections: 1. (Identity here) achievement gap, which will include evidence; 2. Causes of the (identity here) achievement gap; 3. Implications of the (identity here) achievement gap; 4. Efforts to reduce the (identity here) achievement gap.

By organizing the article this way, it will be easier to navigate, and will cover everything currently in the article. This will also mean either eliminating or consolidating the extraneous "Racial achievement gap" section (currently number 7) further down in the article. Parts of this section are not well cited, and those that are could easily be rewritten into the other racial section. Naturally, due to available research and literature, every section of this article cannot be arranged perfectly the same way, and there will be different subsections depending on the information available. However, making the skeleton of the article consistent could improve readability.

I also propose reducing the section on the racial achievement gap to an introduction and providing a link to the parent article Racial achievement gap in the United States, rather than trying to keep this section extensive.

Finally, I will be adding a section on the LGBT achievement gap. LGBT issues are big in the U.S. right now, and while adult issues are well-represented (marriage laws, violence, etc.), issues regarding youth are not really found on Wikipedia.

As a side note, I also like the idea of renaming this article "Achievement gaps in the United States," and as no one has given a counterargument to this idea, I will likely do so.

If anyone has any input, please let me know.

Santatijay (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you're looking for input, it would help to have more information on what an LGBT section would entail. Gaps between cis and queer students? Make sure you have good sources before you add text. This article's kind of a mess, and I haven't read through it, but a section (within "gender"?) to that effect would make sense. The article is 47 kB when articles are usually 30–50 kB max, so it could use some paring down. That's hard for a first assignment, but go for it if you feel comfortable. I recommend bringing sections and sources here for discussion before deleting them outright, at least while you're getting started. I don't think the article needs to be renamed since it describes "achievement gap" as a phenomenon and is just localized to the US. The article really needs a history section more than anything, describing how it came to be a buzzword, how these issues were discussed before the term, then the article can go into specific achievement gaps but the point of the article isn't their comparison or listing (i.e., it's the "achievement gap" as studied in the US, with examples by race and gender). Summary style would make this article the parent to the racial achievement gap article (which should most likely be "Race-based achievement gap" or something else similar, but that's a different topic). I added a link to make that relationship more clear. Everything in this article could use more summarization, not just that section. I'd focus on paring everything down before totally rewriting into new sections—that way you can salvage the most content. Let me know how I can help. czar  ♔  01:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks, User:Czar! I've been focusing on the addition of the LGBT achievement gap, but I hope to add a history section in the future, and start trimming down the racial achievement gap section. The main Wiki article, Racial achievement gap in the United States, is getting better, so we can probably make this article a lot easier to read. 128.42.75.238 (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Editing for final Contribution
Overall, good article. However, try incorporating more examples in your article. Try to find more studies to back up the points that you make in the article. However, I don't think any new content/ideas should be added into the article, just more detail on what is already written. The article is already quite long, and if more sections would be added it would just bog down the readers with too much information. Additionally, make sure you cite frequently. The amount of citations is ok, but it wouldn't hurt to cite more frequently.

Popekp740 (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)popekp740

Good article. Just added a citation [63]. HK khawaja (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC).

Suggestion on expanding your contribution
I think your contribution really helped add some substance to the existing article with regards to providing information about the LGBT achievement gap in secondary schools and colleges, the causes of such disparities, and potential solutions to this issue. My main recommendation would be to consider adding a section covering how the existing achievement gap for LGBT individuals influence their employment and other opportunities in the future. Also, explaining concepts such as "gender-conforming" can help enhance reader comprehension.

Dmillar23 (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

TA comments
Hi Santatijay! Great job on the article, you've added a lot of important information. I would suggest that you do more to emphasize the gap between LGBT and gender-normative students, since that's the gap you say you're emphasizing at the beginning on that section. For example, the paragraphs about verbal and physical harassment under "LGBT performance in secondary schools" and about schools with safety policies vs without under "Possible solutions" both compare LGBT students to other LGBT students, which is not exactly the achievement gap. Also, are there any studies comparing bullied LGBT youth to bullied non-LGBT youth? That's not necessary since you clearly established that LGBT youth are more likely to be bullied, but it would add more depth to the article.

Best of luck with the article! Let me know if you have any questions! Nadhika99 (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Nadhika99. I can probably do better with emphasizing the difference between LGBT and gender-normative students in the first section, but any research on solution only compares LGBT students in schools with implemented solutions to LGBT students in schools without such solutions. I'll do better to emphasize the main point here! 128.42.75.238 (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Some great writing here! I copyedited your recent edits and edited for other Wikipedia policies (e.g., some of the phrases were not completely neutral). I spotchecked some of the sources for verifiability and copyvio. Forgetting what else I wanted to add now... The latter parts might be better in a different article, to keep this section concise and on the achievement gap itself. czar  ♔  21:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Strange Science
Socio-cultural, income, student-teacher relations - bla, bla, bla. - Genetic differences - between races and also between genders are not even taken into consideration, let alone talked about. It is as if people are talking about climate and day and night and do not even consider that the earth may turn around the sun and also around itself. Or as if searching in a pitch dark room for a needle in a haystack while there is no needle in the haystack nor even a haystack in that room. - ROTFOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.103.126 (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The article now has subsections that discuss possible biological influences, though these hypotheses are not well supported by scientific studies. -- Beland (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Plagiarism
At least one paragraph is copied without attribution from Closing the Achievement Gap from an International Perspective, edited by Julia V Clark. I have tagged the artcile accordingly. See https://books.google.co.il/books?id=pHfGBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=These+schools+do+not+offer+simple+answers+or+easy+solutions,+but+several+common+strategies+emerge+from+their+practices.&source=bl&ots=K2sj9jGB_N&sig=T5OgTnen9MDyVeHLMiFXqqBmhlU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTrbvitY3KAhWFiRoKHVY7AqkQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=These%20schools%20do%20not%20offer%20simple%20answers%20or%20easy%20solutions%2C%20but%20several%20common%20strategies%20emerge%20from%20their%20practices.&f=false Mikedelsol (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , I think this goes a little deeper. The paragraph in question was modified to the language in question in 2011 and the book was apparently published in 2013. That alone would indicate that the copyvio is the other way around. Both sources cite https://edtrust.org/resource/success-stories/ but the language appears to be specific to WP. czar  17:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Possible causes of the gender achievement gap in the United States
The absence of IQ and aptitude differences being a possible explanation is very notably missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added a summary of and link to Sex differences in intelligence. -- Beland (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding new section
Hello all I will be adding a new section within the next two days. This section will talk about how parental involvement helps the child succeed in school, which then helps close the achievement gap. Look for the addition and please let me know how i can change it if needed. Thank you! Snashashibi (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Snashahsibi 11:51 13 August 2017

Annotated Bibliogrpahy
Carr, M., Gray, N., & Holley, M. (2007). Shortchanging Disadvantaged Students: An Analysis of Intra-District Spending Patterns in Ohio. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 7(1), 36-53.

Eichelberger, Brenda, Mattioli, Heather, & Foxhoven, Rachel. (2017). Uncovering Barriers to Financial Capability: Underrepresented Students' Access to Financial Resources. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 47(3), Journal of Student Financial Aid, 2017, Vol.47(3)

Henry, Gary T., Fortner, C. Kevin, & Thompson, Charles L. (2010). Targeted Funding for Educationally Disadvantaged Students: A Regression Discontinuity Estimate of the Impact on High School Student Achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 183-204.

Lee, J. (2012). Educational Equity and Adequacy for Disadvantaged Minority Students: School and Teacher Resource Gaps Toward National Mathematics Proficiency Standard. The Journal of Educational Research,105(1), 64-75.

Lowry, R. (2018). The Effects of State Higher Education Policies and Institutions on Access by Economically Disadvantaged Students. Research in Higher Education, 1-20.

Monks, James. (2018). Institutional Variation in Enrollment of Low-Income Students. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 48(1), Journal of Student Financial Aid, 2018, Vol.48(1).

Kezar, A., Lester, J., & Yang, H. (2010). Nonprofits Partnering With Postsecondary Institutions to Increase Low-Income Student Access. Educational Policy, 24(3), 500-533.

Zelinski, N. (2015, May 20). "Path Not Found": Report Says Low-income Students Lack Computer Access. Oakland Post, p. 3,8.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cg511570 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

 * These should probably be turned into footnotes in the article if they are documenting something specific. -- Beland (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

More info needed on students with disabilities
I managed to find some data on the achievement gap for deaf vs. hearing students. It would be interesting to see similar charts on students with physical disabilities. After a brief search, I only saw data that included students with lots of different types of disabilities. There are somewhat different policy discussions around say, why students who use wheelchairs don't reach proficiency at the same rate as the general population, vs. the same question for students with severe cognitive disabilities. -- Beland (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The page is too large: better split into several articles
For example, the racial archievement gaps can be in one article. And the gender archievement gaps can be another. The original article can still be preserved but with added links to the new separated articles. Liao 05:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Coleman Report is online
Maybe I missed a reference or direct link to the Coleman Report. The full text is here: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED012275.pdf Charles Juvon (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Improving race section
I think this page could benefit from more details about the impact of institutional racism on the achievement gap. It needs information on the link between school to prison pipeline, discipline gaps, and racial segregation in connection to the achievement gap. Additionally, I would like to add more details on the role of teachers and community education. It would also be helpful to bring up ideas to consider in making solutions (from a racial achievement gap perspective). My references are also linked on my User page. Thank you! Heatherkong (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Generalrelative (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed the tag about the race section needing cleanup, and per Summary style, I have started moving content to the main article - Racial achievement gap in the United States. I just wanted to make sure others are ok with this before I go ahead with moving more of the content over? Stonkaments (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Generalrelative (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've completed the migration, leaving just a short summary of the main article. Unless there are any objections, I plan to remove the template message about the section requiring cleanup. Stonkaments (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Educational inequality in the United States into Achievement gaps in the United States, as it appears to be a WP:CONTENTFORK. Both articles cover the same topic, but the Educational inequality in the United States article is significantly newer, has fewer edits, and in my view has a lot of issues with WP:POV and WP:V. Stonkaments (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify why you thinking moving the whole article "Educational inequality in the United States" to "Achievement gaps" makes sense? I understand moving information from the section on Achievement gap, but I feel the rest of the article has information that wouldn't be relevant in this one.Vanchu22 (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What about merging in the other direction? It seems to me that Educational inequality in the United States is a more neutral title because it avoids implying that the gap/inequality is due to students' failure to "achieve". Generalrelative (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I will add that I don't see the WP:POV and WP:V issues at Educational inequality in the United States. Indeed, it seems to me like a much better written and more coherent article than Achievement gaps in the United States at this point. It also seems to me that it accurately reflects the mainstream academic understanding on the topic, and is for the most part decently well sourced. Stonkaments, can you point to specific places where you see these issues cropping up? If you'd like to continue this conversation at that article's Talk page that would be fine with me. Generalrelative (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that "Educational inequality in the United States" seems to be a more neutral title, but the "Achievement gaps in the United States" article is more established, so I thought the merger made more sense in this direction. But I could be convinced that it makes more sense to go in the other direction instead.
 * In terms of WP:POV and WP:V issues:
 * The layout puts undue emphasis on history, when the article is presumably about present-day inequalities
 * Educational_inequality_in_the_United_States: citations are an undergraduate honors thesis and a non-peer-reviewed essay; claims that early education in the U.S. was "primarily religiously motivated"
 * Educational_inequality_in_the_United_States: uncited claim that integration "continues to be a relevant issue in debate about modern American education"
 * Educational_inequality_in_the_United_States: whole section has strong bias and unsupported claims such as "U.S. school curriculum is structured by white supremacy".
 * Educational_inequality_in_the_United_States: three paragraphs full of uncited claims
 * Educational_inequality_in_the_United_States: another three (poorly written) paragraphs with just one citation
 * Educational_inequality_in_the_United_States: uncited claim that "early intervention in a child's education can have drastic effects on future growth and development in children"
 * Lack of any mention of potential cognitive factors. Many studies have shown "intelligence is the strongest predictor of academic achievement with correlations ranging from .30 to .70".
 * etc. Stonkaments (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Let's see if we can work through these issues to improve the article. It looks like a number of other editors are already on the task! The one place I disagree is that I don't think "cognitive" factors belong in Educational inequality in the United States, since that article is about unequal access and the unequal outcomes that result. We can leave aside methodological quibbles for the time being (i.e. that educational and related environmental inequalities account for group-level disparities in IQ test performance –– including g-loaded tests –– so the two are in no way independent variables; see [] and []). Generalrelative (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As for the merge, one article focuses on inequalities in education access (and the differences in outcomes they may lead to), while the other article focuses on the differences in outcomes (and the inequalities they may stem from). Isn't that a clear case of a WP:CONTENTFORK/WP:POVFORK—two articles with different slants on the same topic? Stonkaments (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Educational Inequalities is a broader topic than achievement gaps, as it is possible to have inequalities that have adverse affects not related to achievements, and historical inequalities can have cumulative affects in dimensions that go beyond achievement gaps. If there were to be a merger, it would be much better to incorporate achievement gaps into the Educational Inequalities page.  However, as both pages currently have a lot of material, I recommend instead that that the Inequalities page simply provide a link to the Achievement gap page and that excessive overlap be minimized. DStrassmann (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with DStrassmann here. Generalrelative (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just wanted to add that I wrote the initial material in Educational Inequality that needs some tweaking, and I plan on fixing the issues brought up by Stonkaments this afternoon. Hopefully I will be able to address all the concerns. MBJAnderson (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! In response to the issues with sourcing in the Colonial Era, Integreation and Early intervention sections, I have now added appropiate citations to the claims that were verifiable. Some work in the article was done by previous wikipedians, so it may be unsourced. I am currently working through editing and citing these claims. Thanks! Melired (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Race in America, sec 2
— Assignment last updated by Yarayaya1 (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


text:
Category:Towns in Scotland

This category comprises articles relating to towns in Scotland.

For a more complete list of towns in Scotland, including towns which do not yet have articles, see the List of towns in Scotland.

Subcategories are by the present day council areas of Scotland.

title: Category:Towns in Scotland


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Thomson

Jamie Thomson
Non-notable game designer. RickK 22:15, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity.   — Gwalla | Talk 00:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable person. jni 08:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article fails to establish notability. Average Earthman 08:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * In its current form, I'd vote delete. However, if someone tidies it up and improves it then I'd change to keep. He is actually relatively well-known in the RPG field. -- Necrothesp 10:37, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep -- fairly well known, in his field. Needs work, but thats not a viable reason for deletion.  -- GWO 17:58, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep He is notable. As well as the books listed here he has worked on other RPG books and I think also computer games - including Warrior Kings.  But need confimation that it's the same person before it's added to the entry.--Tomheaton 18:48, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete this article. If someone writes a better one, it would be kept.  This, however, is an in-the-know article for people who already know and appreciate him.  As someone who only plays the games, I learn nothing whatsoever about why I should care about this fellow or why he should replace James Thomson in my head as bearer of that name.  (James Thomson was called Jamie.)  Geogre 17:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The article isn't bad quality, it's just a substub. You don't have to care about the person for them to have an entry.  And the fact that he shares a name with someone else is surely irrelevant.  The only issue on which it could be deleted is whether he's notable enough to be included.  As the author of several books - I counted 9 on Amazon, but I believe there are more - I would argue he is.--Tomheaton 18:54, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Which James Thomson? There are three listed there. And just because you associate the name with one person doesn't necessarily mean that everyone does. I don't see any more (or less) evidence that the two with articles are notable than that Jamie Thomson is. Are poets automatically more notable than game designers? -- Necrothesp 19:24, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, Necrothesp, they are. Poets who manage to influence the whole course of world literature are especially more notable than people who design games that have the lifespan of mayflies.  Secondly, though, it isn't my foolishness that has me thinking of James Thomson the poet as "the" Jamie Thomson.  It's a question of standing in the canon of world literature vs. a journalist.  As for the quality of the article, what this article tells me is that he went to college and wrote for one magazine and worked on a redlinked game format.  Ok.  So why is that a part of the world?  What part of the history of the human race is this?  In other words, what is the encyclopedic value of this information?  One learns nothing more than that he went to college.  Why is he important?  "James Joyce was an author in Ireland who went to Trinity College, Dublin and who wrote the following books" is not encyclopedic.  It's a gazette entry or a dictionary entry.  Encyclopedias explain the context of knowledge.  Geogre 20:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It's a stub--Tomheaton 21:13, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * You misinterpret me, Geogre. I said that the articles do not necessarily establish any greater notability for one than for the other. That being the case, there is no particular reason why a poet should be automatically more significant than a games designer. There are many poets in the world with no notability whatsoever. I was not doubting the significance of whichever James Thomson you were referring to, simply questioning your assertion that one is automatically better known because you think he is and because you happen to favour one field of endeavour over another. I, for one, as an historian not a literary scholar, have never heard of James Thomson the poet, but as a roleplayer I have known of Jamie Thomson the games designer for many years. -- Necrothesp 22:32, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Grr. I see what you mean.  The James Thomson article for the poet needs fixing in a bad way.  I wish the folks who've been pasting in stubs on the poets would kind of quit it. The Seasons is pretty important (and horribly dull) for making the Churchyard Poets possible, who made the Romantic movement possible.  Thomson also wrote the words to "Rule Britania."  Also, for that matter, his wretched Sophonisba is notable for one of the funniest lines of bad verse ever: "O Sophonisba, Sophonisba O."  Anyway, Seasons, "Rule Britania," and The Castle of Indolence, pretty important.  Present article needs attention.  I will go there now. Geogre 00:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text: User talk:65.210.100.13

title: User talk:65.210.100.13


text:
Elections in Georgia (U.S. state)

Elections in Georgia are held to fill various state and federal seats. Regular elections are held every even year. The positions being decided each year varies, as the terms of office varies. The State Senate, State House and U.S. House will typically be up for election, as all of those positions have two-year terms. Special elections are held to fill vacated offices. Georgia is one of seven states that require a run-off election if no candidate receives a majority of the vote in a primary election. Uniquely, Georgia requires a run-off election for state and congressional offices if no candidate wins a majority of the vote in a general election; only Louisiana has a similar requirement, but it operates under a different election system.

In a ranking of U.S. states by electoral integrity by PEI electoral integrity project conducted in 2018, Georgia ranked 51st among all U.S. states and District of Columbia. While all other states' electoral integrity was valued at very high, high or moderate- Georgia was the only state in the rankings to be designated as a state with low electoral integrity. It scored 49 out of 100 in the PEI index, getting lowest marks in voting boundaries (18 out of 100) and the highest in Party and candidate registration (67 out of 100).

In a 2020 study, Georgia was ranked as the second most difficult state for citizens to vote in.

History
Following the end of martial law and readmission to the Union during Reconstruction, Georgia was overwhelmingly dominated by the Democratic Party for a hundred years, as were many other states of the Confederacy. White voters often perceived the Republican Party as the party of the North standing for Yankee values, growing industrialisation, and an excessively powerful and interfering federal government, all arrayed against their localized agricultural society. The abolition of slavery by amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the legacy of an economy damaged by war and social upheaval led many to bitterly oppose a wide variety of national policies.

Elections to the U.S. Congress during this period saw almost exclusively Democratic senators and either totally or almost-totally Democratic House rule. From 1872 to 2002, Georgia voters consistently elected Democrats as governor and Democratic majorities to the state legislature. Like many other Southern states, the Democratic-controlled legislature established run-off elections for primaries in which no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote. In addition, the Democratic primaries were further defined by their usage of the white primary to exclude African Americans and other ethnicities from participation, as well as the usage of the county unit system from 1898 to 1963 to allocate votes to winners along rural-biased lines.

Historically, elections at all levels of government in the U.S. state of Georgia were dominated by conservative white Democrats in the period between Reconstruction and the end of the New Deal Coalition. For decades, Republicans were a tiny minority, generally associated with Union military victory at the end of the Civil War. Indeed, for several years, the Republicans did not even field a candidate for governor or any other statewide elected office.

Beginning in the 1950s, the credible enforcement of new laws inspired by the Civil Rights Movement began to steadily erode the preponderance of Democrats in elective office in Georgia. The repeal of Jim Crow laws allowed previously disenfranchised African Americans to vote in elections and be active in politics. As many of these people joined with some white Democrats to work for more immediate liberal and pluralistic policies, a growing number of conservative white Democrats who supported either gradual change or none at all either began splitting their tickets at the national level or switching outright to the GOP. The strong showing in Georgia by Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1956 presidential race proved to be a turning point. Georgia would remain competitive at the national level for most of the rest of the 20th century. the Republican Party appeared positioned to gain even more ground in the coming years. The Democratic Party did not carry the state from the 1960 election until Jimmy Carter ran for the White House 16 years later.

Modern times and the shift to Republican dominance
Beginning with Barry Goldwater's presidential bid in 1964, the Republican Party began making inroads in Georgia. The state swung over dramatically to support Goldwater—the first time it had gone Republican in a presidential election in American history. In time, the Republican Party of Georgia would field competitive candidates and win races for seats in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. Republicans also began making gains at the state level, mostly in the Atlanta suburbs. However, conservative Democrats continued to hold most offices at the local level well into the 1990s.

In presidential races, Georgia has given its electoral college votes to the Republican candidate all but five times since 1964: in 1968, segregationist George Wallace won a plurality of Georgia's votes on the American Independent Party ticket; former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter won his home state by landslide margins in 1976 and 1980 (sweeping every county in the state in 1976); then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton won a plurality of votes in 1992 against incumbent Republican George H. W. Bush and Independent Ross Perot; and former Delaware Senator and Vice-President Joe Biden won a plurality of votes in 2020 against incumbent Republican Donald Trump. Republican George W. Bush won Georgia by double digits in 2000 and 2004, with 54.67% and 57.97%, respectively, of the vote, making him the only Republican presidential candidate to carry Georgia twice. In 2008, John McCain won the state by a narrower margin of only 5 points, winning 52% to Democrat Barack Obama's 47%. In 2012, Mitt Romney won the state with 53% to Obama's 45%. In 2016, Donald Trump won the state with 51% to Hillary Clinton's 46%.

By 2007, conservative Republicans had become the dominant force in state elections, with Republicans holding the offices of governor and lieutenant governor and significant majorities in both houses of the state General Assembly.

As in many states, Democratic strongholds in Georgia include urban and minority-dominated areas. Democrats typically fare well in cities such as Atlanta (and its suburbs such as Gwinnett County), Macon, and Columbus, which have large minority populations, as well as Athens, home of the University of Georgia. The Republican Party dominates state elections through its hold on rural south Georgia, with a very notable exception in the southwestern part of the state; the Appalachian north; and many of Atlanta's further suburbs and exurbs. Former Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Newt Gingrich, co-author of the Contract with America and architect of the 1994 "Republican Revolution," represented a district in Cobb County, a suburban Atlanta county which has since flipped to supporting Democratic candidates since 2016.

A feature of Georgia elections is the requirement for 50%-plus-one majorities in general and primary elections, triggering runoff elections if no candidate receives a majority. From 1898 to 1962, the Democratic Party used a combination of the white primary and the county unit system to ensure that only white rural voters' preferences were reflected in the de facto election of political offices across the state, although the white primary was abolished in the federal case King v. Chapman (1945). After the county unit system was struck down by the Supreme Court case Gray v. Sanders (accompanied by the election of Carl Sanders, who became the first Democrat to be nominated for governor by popular vote since the establishment of the county unit system), the General Assembly passed a bill to switch future Georgia elections to runoff voting. The bill was introduced and sponsored by Macon legislator Denmark Groover, who proposed that runoff voting "would again provide protection which … was removed with the death of the county unit system" and warned that "[W]e have got to go the majority vote because all we have to have is a plurality and the Negroes and the pressure groups and special interests are going to manipulate this State and take charge."

However, the following ascendance of the Republican Party culminated in the 1992 defeat of incumbent Wyche Fowler by Republican Paul Coverdell by runoff, despite Fowler leading the first round by a plurality. This led the Georgia Legislature, then controlled by Democrats, to change the state's laws requiring a run-off election only if the winning candidate received less than 45% of the vote. In the 1996 Senate election, the winner, Democrat Max Cleland won with only 48.9% (1.4% ahead of Republican Guy Millner) thus avoiding a run-off. In 2005 after Republicans took control of the legislature, the run-off requirement was changed back to 50%, in the same bill which implemented a requirement for Voter ID.

Current status
The current Governor of Georgia is Brian Kemp, who was elected as a Republican in 2018. The Lieutenant Governor is Burt Jones. Other elected state executive officials include Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Attorney General Chris Carr, Commissioner of Insurance Jim Beck, and Superintendent of Schools Richard Woods.

The Georgia General Assembly has been controlled by the Republicans since 2004. They have majorities over the Democrats in both the Senate and House of Representatives by margins of 33 to 23 and 101 to 78 respectively as of 2023. In congressional elections, until the 2021 runoffs, Georgia was represented in the U.S. Senate by David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, both Republicans, with Loeffler having been appointed by Governor Brian Kemp after Johnny Isakson announced his retirement in 2019. The state also sends 14 members to the U.S. House of Representatives, which in 2019 included 9 Republicans and 5 Democrats.

However, in 2018, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams received 49% of the vote, resulting in the closest gubernatorial election since 1966; a following runoff for Secretary of State was the first time that a statewide constitutional office was subjected to a runoff election.

In the early 2020s, despite a Republican trifecta in the state government, the state became a competitive swing state, with Democrats, including two progressive senators, winning all three statewide federal races. The state voted for Joe Biden for president‚ and senators Jon Ossoff, the state's first Jewish senator, and Raphael Warnock, the state's first Black senator. The win was reported to be due to the increased turnout in African-American voters due to the work of Stacey Abrams and LaTosha Brown. Raffensperger announced in 2020 that about 1,000 Georgians face investigation for voting twice in primary elections on 9 July. According to him, those voters returned absentee ballots and then showed up at polling places on election day. In 2022, Georgia swung back substantially to the right towards Republicans with incumbent Republican Governor Brian Kemp winning reelection by almost double digits at 7.6% over Democrat Stacey Abrams with a raw vote margin of over 300,000 votes. Every other Republican statewide in Georgia won their elections by a margin of 5-10% in 2022. However Raphael Warnock narrowly won election to his first full term in a December runoff against Republican opponent Herschel Walker who came within 1-2 points of Warnock but fell short. Indicating Georgia has significantly moved into being a red leaning purple state with a PVI of R+3 and regarded by many to be one of, if not the most competitive states in the country. Republicans continuing to dominate and maintain complete control at the state level in Georgia, but the federal level is extremely competitive.

Presidential elections

 * 1964 Presidential election
 * 1968 Presidential election
 * 1980 Presidential election
 * 1984 Presidential election
 * 1988 Presidential election
 * 1992 Presidential election
 * 1996 Presidential election
 * 2000 Presidential election
 * 2004 Presidential election
 * 2008 Presidential election
 * 2012 Presidential election
 * 2016 Presidential election
 * 2020 Presidential election

Presidential primaries

 * 2008 Democratic Primary
 * 2008 Republican Primary

title: Elections in Georgia (U.S. state)


text:
Acoustic (John Lennon album)

Acoustic is a compilation album of John Lennon demos, studio and live performances that feature his acoustic guitar work and was released in 2004. Although it failed to chart in the United Kingdom, Acoustic reached number 31 in the United States with sales of 27,858 copies, becoming John Lennon's best charting posthumous US release since 1988's Imagine: John Lennon soundtrack. It spent eight weeks on the chart.

In keeping with the overall theme of the album, the booklet contains the lyrics and guitar chords for each track, as well as a chord index on the last page.

Track listing
All tracks written by John Lennon, except where noted.
 * 1) "Working Class Hero" – 3:58
 * 2) "Love" – 2:30
 * 3) "Well Well Well" – 1:14
 * 4) "Look at Me" – 2:49
 * 5) "God" – 2:38
 * 6) "My Mummy's Dead" – 1:13
 * 7) "Cold Turkey" – 3:26
 * 8) "The Luck of the Irish" (Lennon/Yoko Ono) – 3:41
 * 9) "John Sinclair" – 3:22
 * 10) * Tracks 8-9 recorded live on 10 December 1971 in Ann Arbor, Michigan
 * 11) "Woman Is the Nigger of the World" (Lennon/Ono) – 0:39
 * 12) "What You Got" – 2:24
 * 13) "Watching the Wheels" – 3:04
 * 14) "Dear Yoko" – 4:05
 * 15) "Real Love" – 4:00
 * 16) "Imagine" (Lennon/Ono) – 3:08
 * 17) * Recorded live on 17 December 1971 at the Apollo Theater, Manhattan, New York City, New York
 * 18) "It's Real" – 1:04

Reception
The album received much criticism from both critics and fans, as nine of the sixteen tracks had previously been released on the 1998 John Lennon Anthology box set, while the remaining seven recordings had been available on several different bootleg CDs for years.

Recording notes

 * Tracks 1–2, 4, 8–10, 12 & 15–16 first released on John Lennon Anthology
 * Tracks 1–6 taken from 8-track John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band sessions (1970)
 * Track 7 taken from home demo September 1969
 * Tracks 8 & 9 taken from John Sinclair benefit concert (1971)
 * Track 10 taken from home recording (1972)
 * Track 11 taken from June 1974 work-outs
 * Tracks 12–14 taken from home recordings (1980)
 * Track 15 taken from live performance at the Apollo (1971)
 * Track 16 taken from home recordings (1979)

title: Acoustic (John Lennon album)