text:
2004 American League Championship Series

The 2004 American League Championship Series was the Major League Baseball playoff series deciding the 2004 season American League champion earning the privilege to play in the 2004 World Series. A rematch of the 2003 American League Championship Series, it was played between the Boston Red Sox, who had won the AL wild card and defeated the Anaheim Angels in the American League Division Series, and the New York Yankees, who had won the AL East with the best record in the AL and defeated the Minnesota Twins. The Red Sox became the first (and to date only) team in MLB history to come back from a 3–0 series deficit to win a best-of-seven series. Prior to the 2004 ALCS, no MLB team had so much as forced a Game 7 under those circumstances – and only one team since 2004 has been able to do so (that team being the 2020 Houston Astros, who after being down 3–0 in the ALCS went on to lose in seven games to the Tampa Bay Rays).

In Game 1, Yankees pitcher Mike Mussina pitched a perfect game through six innings, while the Red Sox recovered from an eight-run deficit to close within one run before the Yankees eventually won. A home run by John Olerud helped the Yankees win Game 2. The Yankees gathered 22 hits in Game 3 on their way to an easy win. The Yankees led Game 4 by one run in the ninth inning, but a steal of second base by Red Sox base runner Dave Roberts and a single by Bill Mueller off Yankees closer Mariano Rivera tied the game. David Ortiz hit a homerun in extra innings for the Red Sox win. In Game 5, Ortiz hit a 14th inning walk-off single for the Red Sox. Curt Schilling pitched seven innings in Game 6 for the Red Sox, during which time his right foot sock became soaked in blood due to an ankle injury. Game 7 featured the Red Sox paying back New York for their Game 3 blowout with a dominant performance on the road, anchored by Derek Lowe and bolstered by two Johnny Damon home runs including an upper deck grand slam. Manny Ramirez was named the Most Valuable Player of the series.

The Red Sox went on to sweep the St. Louis Cardinals in the World Series, winning their first World Series championship in 86 years and ending the so-called Curse of the Bambino.

Boston Red Sox
The Red Sox ended their 2003 season in the previous American League Championship Series with a game seven loss to the Yankees, on a walk-off home run by Yankees third baseman Aaron Boone in the bottom of the 11th inning. During the offseason, they traded Casey Fossum, Brandon Lyon, Jorge de la Rosa, and a minor leaguer to the Arizona Diamondbacks for ace starting pitcher Curt Schilling. Manager Grady Little was also fired and replaced with Terry Francona due to poor decisions that Little made during the previous season's playoffs. The Red Sox also signed a closing pitcher, Keith Foulke, to a three-year contract.

Going into the all-star break, the Red Sox were seven games behind the Yankees for the division lead with a record of 48–38, but led the wild card. In an attempt to improve the team and solidify a playoff decision and in anticipation for a showdown against the New York Yankees, general manager Theo Epstein traded well-liked shortstop Nomar Garciaparra to the Chicago Cubs in exchange for first baseman Doug Mientkiewicz and shortstop Orlando Cabrera in a four-team deal on the trading deadline (July 31). The team fell behind up to $10 1/2$ games in the division during the month of August, but managed to come back in September to within two games. However, the Yankees held strong and won the division, finishing three games ahead of the Red Sox. The Red Sox won the AL Wild Card (the best record among three second-place teams) to obtain a spot in the playoffs. Entering the postseason, first baseman Kevin Millar was asked to compare the team with the previous season's team, to which he responded, "I'm pretty sure we're five outs better than last year." It was a reference to the 2003 American League Championship Series, in which the Red Sox held a 5–2 lead over the Yankees with one out in the eighth inning of Game 7, only to blow the lead and lose the series.

The Red Sox would sweep the Anaheim Angels in three games, but at a cost. In the first game of the series, Schilling would be hurt by a line drive hit off his foot, leaving the rest of his postseason play in doubt.

New York Yankees
The 2004 Yankees began the season in Tokyo with a split against the Rays. Playing a much-anticipated game against the Red Sox, the team lost the game 6–2 and 6 out of the first 7 games to their rivals. After falling as many as $4 1/2$ games behind the Red Sox on April 25, the team would make up the deficit in less than 2 weeks, including an 8-game win streak. By the end of June, they had a commanding $8 1/2$ game lead in the AL East over the Sox after sweeping them with a dramatic 5–4 walk-off 13-inning victory. After the All-Star break, the Yankees traded José Contreras to the White Sox for Esteban Loaiza. Contreras was signed away from the Red Sox before the 2003 season, but he failed to live up to expectations. With a $10 1/2$ game lead in the second week of August, the team struggled and watched their lead dwindle to only $2 1/2$ games on September 3. The team held off the Red Sox to claim the division and set up a playoff rematch with the Twins. The results were pretty much the same, as the Yankees took the Division Series in 4 games, setting up the rematch.

Series build-up
The Red Sox and Yankees had met 45 times in the previous two years, with Boston holding a 23–22 lead. The Red Sox held an 11–8 advantage over New York in 2004, but eight of the games were decided in one of the teams' final at-bats. Boston outscored New York, 106–105. and this was the fifth time that the two teams were on the doorstep of a World Series, with the Yankees winning the previous four, in 1949, 1978, 1999, and 2003.

The Series was widely anticipated, especially given the outcome of the previous October, when the Yankees beat the Red Sox in seven games when Aaron Boone hit the home run off of Tim Wakefield in the bottom of the 11th inning to send the Yankees to the World Series. Yankees General Manager Brian Cashman said that "the two teams in the American League facing each other in this series are the two best teams, period." Fox commentator Joe Buck said as the series began: "Well, it's hard to believe, it was almost exactly one year ago tonight that Aaron Boone hit that 11th inning home run to beat the Red Sox...yet for some reason it seemed predetermined that we would be right back here a year later for a rematch of sort."

Dan Shaughnessy of The Boston Globe wrote that "one year after they (Yankees) jousted to the (Sox's) finish in the Bronx last October in an epic seventh game that appeared to take the clash to its zenith they go at it again..." In this series, Alex Rodriguez seemed to answer the Sox' acquisition of Curt Schilling, as the two veteran stars faced each other, "wearing the uniforms of the ancient rivals in an October game..." Yankees pitcher Mike Mussina summed up the build-up: "This is what everyone was hoping for...It's a rematch of last year, with the best two teams in the American League."

The New York Times said that this was the showdown the Yankees anticipated the entire season, while the Red Sox craved it an entire year. This was the reason why the Red Sox fired Grady Little, traded Nomar Garciaparra, and added Curt Schilling. Outfielder Johnny Damon said of Boone's home run: "If we do advance to the World Series and win, it's a better story that we went through New York. We needed to get back here. This is where a lot of hearts were broken, and we're in a perfect seat to stop the hurting." The Red Sox' Theo Epstein agreed, saying "Now that it's here, we can admit that if we're able to win a World Series and go through New York along the way, it will mean that much more."

Initially, Game 4 was scheduled for the afternoon. However, MLB Commissioner Bud Selig had moved the starting time of Game 4 to primetime, due to the rematch, and Fox had a triple-header, first the Seattle Seahawks–New England Patriots game at Gillette Stadium at 1:00 pm ET, then Game 4 of the NLCS between the St. Louis Cardinals and Houston Astros at Minute Maid Park at 4:30 pm ET.

Game 1
Tuesday, October 12, 2004, at Yankee Stadium (I) in Bronx, New York

Game 1 pitted the Red Sox's star pitcher Curt Schilling against Yankees ace Mike Mussina. Schilling entered the game with a 6–1 postseason career record, but the expected pitchers' duel quickly became a one-sided exhibition. Schilling had sustained a torn tendon sheath in his right ankle during Game 1 of the American League Division Series against the Angels, and proved to be ineffective. In the first, Gary Sheffield doubled with two outs before Hideki Matsui drove him in with a double, then Matsui scored on Bernie Williams's single. In the third, the Yankees loaded the bases with no outs on two singles and a walk before Matsui cleared them with a double. After moving to third on a groundout, Matsui scored on Jorge Posada's sacrifice fly. In the sixth, Kenny Lofton hit a leadoff home run off of knuckleballer Tim Wakefield. Sheffield doubled with two outs before scoring on a single by Matsui, giving him an ALCS record-tying five RBIs in the game.

Mussina, meanwhile, retired the game's first 19 Red Sox batters. Mark Bellhorn ended Mussina's bid for a perfect game with a one-out double in the seventh. After David Ortiz singled with two outs, Kevin Millar's double to left scored two runs. Millar moved to third on a passed ball before scoring on Trot Nixon's single. Tanyon Sturtze relieved Mussina and allowed a home run to Jason Varitek that made it 8–5 Yankees. Next inning, Tom Gordon allowed singles to Bill Mueller and Manny Ramirez before Ortiz's two-out triple cut the Yankees lead to 8–7. The Yankees called upon closer Mariano Rivera, who induced a pop out by Kevin Millar to end the inning. In the bottom half, Alex Rodriguez and Sheffield singled off of Mike Timlin before Williams' two-run double made it 10–7 Yankees. The Sox hit two singles in the top of the ninth inning off of Rivera, but the game ended when Bill Mueller grounded into a double play.

Game 2
Wednesday, October 13, 2004, at Yankee Stadium (I) in Bronx, New York

Game 2 featured Pedro Martínez of the Red Sox facing Yankees pitcher Jon Lieber. Again, the Yankees struck first, as Gary Sheffield drove in Derek Jeter, who walked, in the first inning. The 1–0 score held up for several innings, as Lieber and Martinez put together a classic pitchers' duel.

Martinez got himself in and out of trouble through several innings, but, shortly after making his 100th pitch of the night, walked Jorge Posada and allowed a John Olerud home run, giving New York a 3–0 lead.

Again, the Red Sox rallied. Trot Nixon singled to lead off the eighth off of Lieber, who was replaced by Tom Gordon. A double by Jason Varitek moved Nixon to third before Orlando Cabrera's RBI groundout closed the gap, 3–1. With two outs and a runner on third, however, the Yankees again turned to Rivera, who struck out Johnny Damon to end the inning. Rivera shut down the Red Sox in the ninth by inducing a groundout by Mark Bellhorn, and, after giving up a double to Manny Ramírez, striking out David Ortiz and Millar, ending the game.

Game 3
Saturday, October 16, 2004, at Fenway Park in Boston, Massachusetts

With the series moving to Fenway Park, Game 3 was originally scheduled for October 15, but was postponed a day due to rain. The starting pitchers were Kevin Brown for the Yankees and Bronson Arroyo for the Red Sox.

As in the first two games, the Yankees began by scoring in the first. Derek Jeter walked and scored from first on a double by Alex Rodríguez. Two batters later, Hideki Matsui hit a home run to right field, giving the Yankees a 3–0 lead. The Red Sox answered in the second inning with a leadoff walk by Jason Varitek and a Trot Nixon home run to right field. A double by Bill Mueller, an infield RBI hit by Johnny Damon (his first hit of the series), and a Derek Jeter error led to two more runs. The Red Sox led for the first time in the series, 4–3.

This lead was short-lived, as Alex Rodríguez led off the third inning with a home run over the Green Monster. Gary Sheffield then walked and Hideki Matsui doubled, prompting Bronson Arroyo to be replaced on the mound by Ramiro Mendoza, who immediately allowed a Bernie Williams RBI single and then balked, allowing Matsui to score from third, which gave the Yankees a 6–4 lead. The Red Sox, however, responded in the bottom of the inning, scoring two runs on an Orlando Cabrera bases-loaded double off Yankees reliever Javier Vázquez to tie the game.

In the fourth inning, the Yankees took the lead on a three-run home run to left by Gary Sheffield after a walk and hit-by-pitch. After another double by Hideki Matsui, the Red Sox put in pitcher Tim Wakefield, who volunteered to forgo his scheduled Game 4 start in order to preserve Boston's battered bullpen. Wakefield got Bernie Williams to pop out and then intentionally walked Jorge Posada. Rubén Sierra then tripled to score Matsui and Posada, giving the Yankees an 11–6 lead.

From that point on the Yankees were in total control, with the New York offense continuing to hit and score runs long into the night. In the fifth, Jeter walked with one-out before back-to-back RBI doubles by Rodriguez and Sheffield made it 13–6 Yankees. In the seventh, Miguel Cairo and Sheffield singled off of Wakefield, who was relieved by Alan Embree. Matsui's single scored a run, Williams's double scored two, and Jorge Posada's double scored another. The Red Sox scored their last runs of the game in the bottom of the inning off of Vazquez on Jason Varitek's two-run home run after a leadoff single. Matsui also hit a two-run home run in the ninth off of Mike Myers.

When the game was over, the Yankees had set a team record for postseason runs scored. Rodríguez, Sheffield, and Matsui had prolific hitting nights. Matsui had five hits and five RBIs, tying LCS records. He and Rodríguez both tied the postseason record for runs scored with five. The two teams combined for 37 hits and 20 extra-base hits, both postseason records. At four hours and 20 minutes, the contest was the longest nine-inning postseason game ever played up to that time.

Although the final score was 19–8, Dan Shaughnessy of The Boston Globe said "nineteen to eight. Why not '19–18'?" He was referring to the Red Sox not having won a World Series since, and demeaning chants of that year echoed at Yankee Stadium.

Bob Ryan wrote about the Red Sox in The Boston Globe: "They are down, 3–0, after last night's 19–8 rout, and, in this sport, that is an official death sentence. Soon it will be over, and we will spend another dreary winter lamenting this and lamenting that." However, this would turn out to be the Yankees' last win in this series.

Game 4
Sunday, October 17, 2004, at Fenway Park in Boston, Massachusetts

Game 4 featured Yankees pitcher Orlando Hernández, the 1999 ALCS MVP against Boston's Derek Lowe. For the first time in the series, the Yankees did not score in the first inning. However, they eventually did score first. With two outs and nobody on in the third inning, Derek Jeter singled. Alex Rodríguez then hit a two-run home run over the Green Monster. This hit resembled a home run he hit in Game 3, as it also came in the third inning and went out of the park onto Lansdowne Street. This would be followed by the ball being thrown back into the outfield by fans on the Street, Johnny Damon tossing the ball back over the fence, and the ball once again being tossed back before being pocketed by Umpire Joe West.

Hernández, who had not pitched in two weeks, cruised through the first four innings giving up just one hit and two walks. In the fifth inning, he pitched himself into a jam, walking two of the first three batters. With two men on and two out, Orlando Cabrera singled to right field, scoring Bill Mueller. Manny Ramírez walked to load the bases, and then David Ortiz hit a single to center field, scoring Cabrera and Johnny Damon and giving the Red Sox a 3–2 lead, only their second lead in the series.

The lead lasted less than an inning. Hideki Matsui hit a triple with one out in the sixth, after which Mike Timlin relieved Lowe. Bernie Williams hit an infield single to score Matsui and tie the game 3-3. After Jorge Posada walked, Williams attempted to advance to third on a passed ball but was thrown out by Jason Varitek. However, Rubén Sierra hit another infield single, moving Posada to third. Tony Clark then hit the third infield single of the inning, to score Posada and give the Yankees a 4–3 lead. Miguel Cairo then walked to load the bases for Jeter, but Timlin induced a groundout to escape the inning.

Massachusetts native Tanyon Sturtze pitched two scoreless innings in relief of Hernández. Mariano Rivera, the Yankees star closer, entered the game in the eighth for a two-inning save attempt. In the ninth inning, Rivera allowed a lead-off walk to Kevin Millar, which ultimately turned out to be the turning point of the series. Dave Roberts was then chosen to pinch-run for Millar. With the Red Sox down to their final three outs, Rivera checked Roberts at first base three times before throwing a pitch to Bill Mueller.

On Rivera's first pitch to Mueller, the speedy Roberts stole second, putting himself in scoring position. Mueller's single (through Rivera and into centerfield) allowed Roberts to score, resulting in Rivera blowing the save and the game going into extra innings, tied at four runs apiece.

Both teams threatened for more runs in the 11th inning, but the game remained tied until the bottom of the 12th. Ramírez led off with a single against new pitcher Paul Quantrill, who had relieved Tom Gordon, and Ortiz hit a two-run walk-off home run to right field. Ortiz became the first player with two walk-off homers in the same postseason; his first capped a Red Sox sweep of the Anaheim Angels in the American League Division Series. Red Sox pitcher Curtis Leskanic got the win in relief after being called on to stop the Yankees' 11th inning threat and had pitched the 12th and allowed no runs.

Game 5
Monday, October 18, 2004, at Fenway Park in Boston, Massachusetts

Game 5 began at 5:11 pm EDT on Monday, October 18, just 16 hours after Game 4 had ended. Mike Mussina led the Yankees against Boston's Pedro Martínez. The Red Sox drew first blood this time, as David Ortiz drove in a run with an RBI single after two one-out singles and Jason Varitek walked with the bases loaded in the first inning to give Boston a 2–0 lead. Bernie Williams homered in the second inning to close the gap to 2–1, a score which would hold up for several innings.

Despite seven strikeouts by Martínez, in the top of the sixth inning, Jorge Posada and Rubén Sierra singled with one out. After Miguel Cairo was hit by a pitch to load the bases, Derek Jeter cleared the bases with a double, giving the Yankees a 4–2 lead. The Red Sox threatened again in the seventh inning but came up empty. For the second straight night, however, the Yankee bullpen could not keep the lead. Ortiz led off the eighth inning with a home run off former Red Sox reliever Tom Gordon, making it a one-run game. Kevin Millar followed with a walk and was again replaced by pinch runner Dave Roberts, who went to third on Trot Nixon's single. Gordon was replaced by Mariano Rivera with the lead still intact, but Jason Varitek's sacrifice fly tied the game. The Yankees threatened in the top of the ninth when former Red Sox player Tony Clark hit a ball to deep right with two outs, but the ball took a hop over the short right-field wall for a ground-rule double, forcing Rubén Sierra to stop at third base, where he was stranded to set up another extra-inning marathon.

Each team got its share of base runners in extra innings. Boston's Doug Mientkiewicz doubled in the tenth and moved to third, but did not score. Two Red Sox led off the 11th with singles, but Esteban Loaiza, who had struggled since being acquired by the Yankees mid-season, came in to pitch with one out and got Orlando Cabrera to ground into a double play. Knuckleballer Tim Wakefield came on in relief once again for the Red Sox in the 12th. He allowed a single to Miguel Cairo, who went to second on a Manny Ramírez error, but Cairo was eventually stranded. In the top of the 13th, Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek, who did not normally catch for Wakefield (backup catcher Doug Mirabelli usually did) and who admitted to being poor at catching knuckleballs, allowed three passed balls, but the Yankees stranded runners on second and third when Sierra struck out. Loaiza pitched well over his first two innings, but, in the bottom of the 14th, Damon and Ramírez walked, bringing up Ortiz with two outs. The previous night's hero did his job again, singling to center on the 10th pitch of the at-bat to bring home Damon and setting off another celebration at Fenway. Ortiz's heroics prompted Fox TV announcer Tim McCarver to gush shortly afterwards, saying, "He didn't do it again, did he? Yes he did." The late inning heroics of Ortiz also gave the Red Sox fans a chance to create their own chant, "Who's your Papi?" (Ortiz being known affectionately as "Big Papi"), in rebuttal to the "Who's your daddy?" chant used by Yankees fans in reference to a quote by Pedro Martínez.

The game set the record for longest duration of a postseason game at 5 hours, 49 minutes, a record which was broken the next year by Game 4 of the 2005 National League Division Series between the Houston Astros and Atlanta Braves, which was only one minute longer even though it was 18 innings instead of 14. The current record for longest postseason game is Game 3 of the 2018 World Series between the Red Sox and Los Angeles Dodgers, which was also 18 innings but lasted seven hours and 20 minutes.

Game 5 of the National League Championship Series began at 8:54 pm EST on the same night and was intended to be the second part of FOX's two-game telecast. However, that game proceeded quickly and, despite starting 3 hours and 43 minutes after ALCS Game 5, ended only 24 minutes after the final pitch of this game.

This victory by the Red Sox forced a Game 6. Before this, the 1998 Atlanta Braves and 1999 New York Mets were the only baseball teams ever to be down 0–3 in a seven-game series and force a Game 6, but neither of those teams won that game.

Game 6
"The Bloody Sock Game" Tuesday, October 19, 2004, at Yankee Stadium (I) in Bronx, New York

Game 6 was held on Tuesday, October 19 at Yankee Stadium. The starting pitchers were Curt Schilling of the Red Sox and Jon Lieber of the Yankees. Schilling pitched with a torn tendon sheath in his right ankle, which was sutured in place in an unprecedented procedure by Red Sox team doctors. The teams played the first few innings scoreless as cold, windy conditions, combined with a light drizzle, kept many hard hit balls in the field of play. Lieber, who had been brilliant in Game 2, was the first of the starters to falter, to the surprise of many given Lieber's Game 2 outing and Schilling's injured state. Lieber surrendered a two-out single to Jason Varitek, driving in Kevin Millar. Then Orlando Cabrera singled to left field and Mark Bellhorn, who had struggled the entire series, drove a line drive into the left field stands. The ball struck a fan in the hands in an attempted catch and dropped back onto the field, after which left field umpire Jim Joyce signaled the ball to be still in play, prompting Boston manager Terry Francona to run onto the field and argue the ruling. The officiating crew huddled and ultimately overruled the call. Bellhorn had a three-run home run, and the Red Sox had a 4–0 lead.

Schilling, still injured from the ALDS and Game 1, pitched seven strong innings, allowing only one run on a Bernie Williams home run. To help stabilize the tendon in his ankle, Red Sox doctors had placed three sutures connecting the skin with ligament and deep connective tissue next to the bone, effectively creating a wall of tissue to keep the peroneal tendon from disrupting Schilling's pitching mechanics. Schilling was only forced to field his position once and visibly limped to first base to field the toss from Millar. Nonetheless, the Yankees did not bunt for the duration of Schilling's outing, something Joe Torre later explained as not playing out of the normal character of his team. Torre also admitted that had he known beforehand how bad the injury really was, it might have changed his mind. By the end of his performance, Schilling's white sanitary sock was partially soaked in blood, and he stated later that he was completely exhausted.

Bronson Arroyo took the mound for Boston in the eighth and, with one out, allowed a Miguel Cairo double. Derek Jeter singled him in to close the gap to 4–2, leading up to the series' most controversial play. Alex Rodriguez grounded a ball to Arroyo, who picked up the ball and ran to the baseline to tag Rodriguez out, but Rodriguez slapped Arroyo's arm, knocking the ball loose. While the ball rolled down the baseline, Rodríguez went to second and Jeter scored. After another long conversation among the umpires, Rodríguez was called out for interference and Jeter was ordered back to first, thus wiping out the score. The call further incensed the Yankee fans, already irate over the home run call in the fourth. As Torre and Rodríguez continued to frenetically argue with the umpires, many fans began to throw balls and other debris onto the field. Boston manager Terry Francona pulled his players from the field to protect them. After a delay, order was restored, and Arroyo got out of the inning unscathed. In the top of the ninth, after a leadoff single by Jason Varitek, his third hit of the night, off Paul Quantrill (the game 4 loser), the Yankees attempted to turn a double play. However, on a very close play, Orlando Cabrera was called safe at first base. This was the third time in the game that the frustrated New York fan base had a close call go against their team, and they again showered the field with debris. As the Yankees made a pitching change to insert Tanyon Sturtze into the game to relieve Quantrill, home plate umpire Joe West conversed with New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, MLB security director Kevin Hallinan, and various NYPD officials. Shortly after this, Sturtze was told to stop his warmup, and NYPD officers began streaming out of the dugouts, and took the field in full riot gear. The police remained on the field, near the first and third base walls, for the remainder of the top of the ninth. When the game resumed, Sturtze did get out of the inning, stranding Cabrera. The police vacated the field during the break between innings. Red Sox closer Keith Foulke came in for the bottom of the ninth and allowed a walk to Matsui, striking out Bernie Williams, getting Jorge Posada to pop out to third, and walking Ruben Sierra, bringing Tony Clark to the plate as the potential pennant-winning run, but Clark struck out swinging on a full count to end the game.

Five previous teams had managed to win one game after going down 3–0 in a post-season series. Of these five, two made it to a Game 6. But now the Red Sox, the 26th team in Major League Baseball playoff history to face a 3–0 series deficit, became the first to force a Game Seven.

After the game, Schilling proudly wore his shirt with the Red Sox's motto, "Why Not Us?" in the locker room and during the press conferences.

Game 7
Wednesday, October 20, 2004, at Yankee Stadium (I) in Bronx, New York

For inspiration for their ALCS comeback, the Red Sox gathered in Yankee Stadium's visitors' clubhouse prior to Game 7 to watch Miracle, the movie chronicling the 1980 U.S. men's gold-medal hockey team. The Yankees meanwhile, had Bucky Dent, the hero of the Yankees' one-game playoff against Boston in 1978, throw out the ceremonial first pitch.

Game 7 began at 8:30 p.m. The starting pitchers were Derek Lowe for the Red Sox and Kevin Brown for the Yankees. Johnny Damon led off the game with a single to left and stolen base, but was thrown out at home trying to score on a Manny Ramirez base hit. The very next pitch, however, was lined into the right-field bleachers by David Ortiz to give Boston a 2–0 advantage. After the Yankees went down in order in the first inning, Brown retired Trot Nixon on a groundout to begin the top of the second, but Kevin Millar singled to center field before Brown walked Bill Mueller and Orlando Cabrera to load the bases. Torre then replaced Brown with Javier Vázquez to face Johnny Damon, who hammered his first pitch into the right-field seats for a grand slam to make the score 6–0 Boston. Lowe, meanwhile, on two days rest, pitched six innings, allowing only one run on one hit when Miguel Cairo was hit by a pitch in the third, stole second, and scored on Derek Jeter's single. Vazquez walked Cabrera to lead off the fourth before Damon again homered on his first pitch to make it 8–1 Boston and give him three hits and six RBIs in this game. After walking two batters, Vazquez was relieved by Esteban Loaiza, who allowed a single to Jason Varitek to load the bases before retiring Trot Nixon and Kevin Millar to end the inning. Loaiza then threw three shutout innings, allowing three hits.

Pedro Martínez relieved Lowe in the seventh inning, receiving loud chants of "Who's Your Daddy?," which intensified as he gave up a leadoff double to Hideki Matsui, who scored on Bernie Williams's double. After Jorge Posada grounded out, Williams scored on Kenny Lofton's single, but John Olerud struck out and Cairo flew out to end the inning. In the eighth, Mark Bellhorn homered for the second night in a row off of Tom Gordon to make it 9–3 Boston. Next inning, Nixon hit a leadoff single, advanced to second on a Doug Mientkiewicz single, then went to third on a Mueller fly out before scoring on a sacrifice fly by Cabrera. Mariano Rivera relieved Gordon and retired Damon to end the inning.

Mike Timlin pitched a scoreless eighth and started the 9th for the Red Sox, but allowed a leadoff single to Matsui and walked Lofton with two outs. Alan Embree was brought in to finish the game for Boston. At 12:01 am, on October 21, Rubén Sierra hit a groundball to second baseman Pokey Reese, who threw to first baseman Doug Mientkiewicz to finish the unprecedented comeback. It was their first pennant since 1986. The Red Sox won 10–3 and became the third team in sports history and the first since the 1975 NHL's New York Islanders to win a seven-game series after losing the first three games. For the Yankees, this was their first time losing an ALCS in eight appearances (their last ALCS elimination was in 1980). David Ortiz was named the series MVP.

A riot broke out near Fenway Park in Boston following the series win, in which Victoria Snelgrove, an Emerson College journalism student, was accidentally shot and killed by police with an FN 303 pepper spray crowd-controlling projectile round.

This was the last ALCS game at the Old Yankee Stadium.

Composite box
2004 ALCS (4–3): Boston Red Sox over New York Yankees

The total runs scored (86) makes the 2004 ALCS the highest scoring 7-game series in MLB history.

Records

 * The Red Sox became the first Major League team to win eight straight postseason games in the same postseason (four straight in the ALCS and four consecutive games in the World Series). The Oakland Athletics had won ten straight postseason games, but they were spread out over two postseasons (the 1989 ALCS and World Series, and the 1990 ALCS).  The New York Yankees won 11 straight games also over two consecutive postseasons (the 1998 ALCS and World Series through the 1999 ALDS and into the 1999 ALCS). The 2005 Chicago White Sox repeated this feat, as did the 2014 Kansas City Royals and 2019 Washington Nationals.
 * The Red Sox became the third team in North American sports history to lose the first three games of a best-of-seven series and win the last four, joining the 1942 Toronto Maple Leafs and 1975 New York Islanders of the NHL. Boston's NHL franchise, the Bruins, would find themselves on the wrong side of the feat in 2010, losing to the Philadelphia Flyers in the Eastern Conference semifinals.
 * At 4 hours and 20 minutes Game 3 was, at the time, the longest nine-inning postseason game in MLB history. That record stood until Game 5 of the 2016 National League Division Series between the Dodgers and Nationals, which took 4:32. The current Red Sox record is Game 4 of their 2018 American League Championship Series against the Houston Astros, which took 4:33; the MLB record is now held by the Cleveland Indians and Yankees in Game 2 of the 2020 American League Wild Card Series, which lasted 4:50.
 * In Game 3, Yankee left fielder Hideki Matsui had five hits and five RBIs, tying an American League Championship Series record.
 * Game 5, at 5 hours and 49 minutes, was the longest Major League postseason game in history at the time. The record stood until Game 4 of the 2005 National League Division Series between the Astros and the Atlanta Braves, an 18-inning game that lasted 5:50. The current MLB record is held by Game 3 of the 2018 World Series between the Red Sox and the Los Angeles Dodgers, which also lasted 18 innings and took 7:20 to play.
 * David Ortiz became the first player to hit two walk-off HRs in the same postseason, 2004 American League Division Series Game 3 and 2004 ALCS Game 4.

Aftermath
After dominating much of baseball since 1996, this would be the closest that the Joe Torre-led Yankees would get to going back to the World Series. They would not get back until 2009 (by which point Joe Girardi had taken over the manager position) when they beat defending champion Philadelphia Phillies in six games.

The Yankees signed Johnny Damon away from the Red Sox after the 2005 season. In an interview with Jomboy Media in 2021, Damon stated he wanted to stay in Boston, but he believed Red Sox management weren't interested in keeping him due to the emergence of top prospect Jacoby Ellsbury, who scouts compared to Damon. Ironically, Ellsbury would sign with the Yankees as a free agent after a long and successful career in Boston, like Damon.

This series is often seen as a turning point of the Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, which up until this point, was almost entirely dominated by the Yankees. From the time the Red Sox's owner Harry Frazee traded Babe Ruth to the Yankees for cash on January 5, 1920, through October 2004, the Yankees were the premier team in baseball, winning a record 26 World Series and 39 pennants in between then. On the other hand, the Red Sox, who were Major League Baseball's most successful franchise until the Ruth trade in 1920, only won a handful of pennants, losing every World Series they played in. However, since 2004, the Red Sox have won four World Series compared to just one Yankees World Series (the Yankees still have superior regular season winning percentage than the Red Sox since 2004). The 2010s was the first ever decade the Yankees franchise did not play in the World Series since the 1910s, and the first in which they did not win a World Series since the 1980s. In the same decade, the Red Sox won a World Series in 2013 and 2018. On their way to a championship in 2018, the Red Sox defeated the Yankees, now led by Aaron Boone as manager, in four games in the American League Division Series, which was the first postseason match-up between the two rivals since the 2004 AL Championship Series.

In 2010, ESPN's 30 for 30 featured a documentary named "Four Days in October", which went into depth of the Red Sox's triumph over the Yankees in the 2004 AL Championship Series over the course of 4 days.

In 2020, the Houston Astros nearly came back from a 3–0 series deficit, but lost in Game 7 of the AL Championship Series to the Tampa Bay Rays. It was the closest a team in Major League Baseball had come to pulling off this feat since the 2004 Red Sox. In the National Hockey League, the 2010 Philadelphia Flyers became the first NHL team to comeback from a 3–0 deficit since the New York Islanders did it 1975 (they coincidentally beat a team from Boston, the Bruins, in the 2010 Eastern Conference Semifinals to accomplish the feat) en route to the Stanley Cup Finals. Four years later in 2014, the Los Angeles Kings came back from 3–0 in a series with the San Jose Sharks in the Western Conference First Round en route to winning the Stanley Cup. To date, no NBA team has ever come back from a 3–0 postseason deficit.

In 2021, the Red Sox and Yankees would once again face off in the postseason, with the Red Sox winning the American League Wild Card Game by a score of 6–2. In the 2022 American League Championship Series, prior to Game 4 against Astros, Boone had the team mental skills coach show clips from the 2004 series to the team as an attempt at motivating the Yankees, who were down 3-0 in the 2022 series; the Yankees promptly lost Game 4 and were thus eliminated.


text:
List of law schools in Australia

There are currently 38 law schools in Australia. Only one of the 39 member institutions of Universities Australia has no law school: Federation University.

Current law schools
There are currently 2 non-university providers who offer accredited law degrees:

 * Legal Profession Admission Board
 * Top Education Institute - Sydney City School of Law

There are currently 2 non-university providers who offer practical legal training:

 * The College of Law Australia
 * Leo Cussen Institute

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

title: List of law schools in Australia


text: Category:Australian heavy metal musical groups


text: Category:Austrian heavy metal musical groups


text: Category:Austrian musical groups

title: Category:Austrian musical groups


text:
Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 8

Casualties Talk, US governmental response Talk and Hijackers Talk.

Old talk archived at:
 * Talk:September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Archive
 * Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive2
 * Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive3
 * Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive4
 * Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive5
 * Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive6
 * Talk:September_11,_2001_attacks/archive7

Naming of 7WTC
The latest edit changed the name of "Seven World Trade Center" to "World Trade Center Seven"; I'm pretty sure this is inaccurate, as nearly all references I see for the WTC complex buildings have the number before the letters. 1WTC, 2WTC, 7WTC, etc. If the editor (User:Milk) can justify this change, please do. In fact, the editor should notice that the exact paragraph he edited has the phrase "One and Two World Trade Center." Should 7WTC be treated differently because it wasn't technically part of the WTC development? --Golbez 04:59, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

MEMRI
Why the hell are we using MEMRI as a source? They are obviously heavily biased against Arabs and Muslims, and could almost be considered a hate group.

If there *are* any other sources for the same information that come from groups besides, say, FLAME or any other sort of thinktank-like organization (whether it is pro-israeli or pro-arab), then I'd not object to its use here.

But MEMRI? Come on, people.

--68.110.71.34 18:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

MEMRI is controversial, but it's what they choose to include is controversial. It seems as if their translations are accurate. WhisperToMe 17:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pictures
I have a number of pictures of Manhattan, including by the sealed-off area around GZ, taken a week after the attacks. I've released them under CC-BY-ND, and they are available at. HTH, KeithTyler

If You Were President on 9/11?
Something I wonder about is how other, ordinary Americans would have reacted if they were President of the United States on 9/11? Say what you want about Bush, and I can say quite a bit. But there are a lot of people on this Earth who should thank whatever deity they worship that I was not President of the United States on 9/11. My response would have been Biblical in proportions. It would have been the stuff of legends. Osama bin Laden most certainly would not be free by now. Some nations would probably only be a memory. And I would not have cared what the rest of the world thought of my actions. That's how mad I was on September 11th. It scares me to think of what I would have done if I were in Bush's position. You think Bush is a reckless cowboy, just consider what oridinary Americans, myself included, would have done in his shoes. What would you have done?

 * JesseG 02:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

JesseG, this ain't about opinion. Wikipedia isn't meant to be POV. WhisperToMe 03:47, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * You're right in many ways (though this is nothing to do with the article). I don't know what I would have done. However it disturbs me that what was actually done (among other things) was to continue sitting reading a children's book for several minutes after being told about the attacks. DJ Clayworth 15:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

US/Eurocentric Article Pieces
I find the article to have many moments that are worded from a perspective of the US and it's allies in a tone that is for an audience of the US and it's allies.

Examples:

Earlier revelations ... The setting of that open-ended standard was treated as a refusal based on sympathy with and dependence on Al Qaida, and a coalition led by the United States launched an invasion of Afghanistan on October 7.

''I am concerned that this could be interpreted as meaning the world community held that opinion by someone reading it some considerable time removed from now. I feel we must make sure this doesn't sound like the world was against the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, but the U.S. & the majority of the U.N. at this time.''

Effects ...As well as the invasion of Afghanistan, claims of a strong link between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and the argument that the attack demonstrated the need to preemptively strike at forces hostile to US and western interests, were used by the US Administration as justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and although prior to the 9/11 attacks it was conventional wisdom that such links existed, the issue was hotly questioned afterwards. The official panel investigating the attacks reported that, while contacts were made, it had found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda

There is not enough clarity that the inferred relationship between Iraq & the hijaackers was held mainly by the US and future coalition partners.

Also calling the acts terrorists without qualifying that term as being the US & it's allies' perspective infers that the world-at-large considered it a terrorist attack. There are many people that view the attack as terrifying, but can understand the view from the attackers that it was an unconventional attack in a war they declared. By not being careful in stating it is the US & Allies' view we run the risk of misrepresenting the act. Duemellon

 * I think that the attack was viewed by most countries and people as terrorist - Nethertheless, we should clarify that it is "widely regarded as terrorist". WhisperToMe 17:56, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * However, whether it was popularly regarded as a terrorist attack or not, the terminology of calling it "terrorist" implies a degree of depravity, wickedness, and unwarranted cruelty. I feel that calling it "terrorist" without further qualification of perspective, doees a great disservice to the global minority who refer to it as a revolt, revenge, or an act of war. In other words: An opinion held by the majority is still an opinion. So statements referring to it as "terrorist" without qualification of who's perspective it is, associates an opinion. I think the word "terrorist" Needs to be plastered throughout this article, but it needs to be qualified as a perspective. --Duemellon 12:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I certainly agree with the need to create a more NPOV. I removed the part claiming that the Iraq-Al Quaeda link was conventional wisdom, and am also a little disturbed by the tone of the Arab/Muslim reaction segment.  Perhaps it would be best to flesh out those parts in more neutral wording, I don't think anyone would be against it as long as there isn't a tendency to slant things the other way. Yitzhak 02:53, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Emotional & perspective response
I'm encouraged by the intentional inclusion of some mention of the emotional response to the events were included. I'm also encouraged that they appear to be properly noted for the perspective they have. However, I think we could elaborate more on the emotional/psychological impact of the event & perspectives at the time.

I feel this could be important to properly frame the context for future readers by including the sentiments floating around the event.

Something needs to include the increase in National pride, solidarity, support, concern, and sympathy expressed by the general US citizenry for the duration immediately after the attacks.

Something needs to elaborate about how much the event disrupted daily life throughout the land as fear of a follow-up attack caused widespread anxiety attacks, lost wages due to sick days, drop in all forms of travel, exacerbated an economic downturn, and innundation with information.

A later polarization of the populace into various groups some claiming victimhood of the US and others claiming it was painful retribution (or a range in between).

I think it's important to properly include the emotional reaction of the general population and the way it changed over time. But I'm terrible at writing those things, so I'm wondering what could be said.

 * I support this, as well. It would be highly valuable to convey to those too young to remember or those not in the country at the time, the widespread psychological impact it caused. It was unlike anything I've ever seen. Even more interesting would be a discussion of what impact it still has today. Any sociologists care to bite, please? Miss Puffskein 04:58, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Article's last paragraph
Hi,

The last paragraph of the articles is dubious. It not true that the theories of conspiracy are accurate.

 * I think the addition of the Arabic media's response is appropriate in general. However, I think the presentation of it in this article was not done very well. I propose a new section where we discuss or compare global faction's opinion & perspective on the events & their reaction to the U.S.'s reaction. --Duemellon 12:05, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * You're very right. But that last paragraph is a quote. It's a fact that the Egyptian publication said it, even if what they said is disputed. I'll make it clearer that it's a quote, and remove the dispute notice. (If you object, let me know.) Quadell (talk) 12:45, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * One more thing: It is probably prudent to avoid using relative temporal terms from a basis of contemporary time (In other words, using "recent" to describe the time the article was posted). In twenty years that article will not be recent. ;) --Duemellon 14:13, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories
Should we start a new article on kooky 9/11 conspiracy theories? The supposed Israeli attack on the WTC is coming back again. - Tεx  τ  urε  18:28, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * It's less kooky to believe that Mossad was trailing the 9/11 terrorists to get information on what they were up to. It's well documented that a wide Israeli "art student" spy ring was operating inside the U.S., and was discovered and kicked out, while the 9/11 hijackers were also entering the U.S. Mossad is top-notch -- there's no reason to rule out the possibility that they were onto the 9/11 plot (or at least the fact that there were al-Qaida ops in the U.S. planning something) while our FBI hadn't put the peices together yet. If those Israelis were Mossad agents, and that's at least plausible in my opinion, then you can see why the State Department wouldn't want to make a big fuss about it. No point in making our ally look bad. So those links aren't necessarily of the "The Israelis done it!" variety. Quadell (talk) 19:42, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * There is that September 11 rumours and misinformation page that would have some of the conspiracy theories that you have referred to. Arno 06:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

About the link to 911truth.org
Their onsite Editorial policy and disclaimer says enough, if you ask me:

"We carefully review the articles, books, videos, sites and other resources published and linked at 911Truth.org. Of the many works about 9/11 now in circulation, we strive to promote the best. - We urge everyone to fact-check, engage in due diligence, and research the issues from all angles. It is important to expose mistakes, and we are happy to correct our own when these occur. - Some works about 9/11 forward ungrounded claims based on misinterpretations, distortions or even fabricated evidence. Others reveal racist or extremist biases. We avoid both types of distraction by focusing on the most promising lines of inquiry and bodies of evidence; those that have stood up to the scrutiny of peer review, have been subjected to expert analysis, and as a result are winning in the court of public opinion. - Beyond issues of factual content, we prefer to disengage from individuals who employ vitriol or highly-charged rhetoric. We value positive and sober approaches over heavy-handed ones that might alienate potential allies."

It's called NPOV. That is why Wikipedia will not allow you to label that link that way. NPOV is a non-negotiable policy. WhisperToMe 17:45, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with WhisperToMe, this isn't about NPOV, this is about voting republican. He is one, that much becomes clear to us, and that is why he does not want to believe that things have been covered up. (Unsigned anon comment)

For one, I don't plan on voting for Bush at all -_- - I'm doing this in the name of NPOV. There are people who believe there is a coverup and there are people who don't, so to adhere to the NPOV principle, we must label the link in a factual manner. - And please sign comments with four tildes! WhisperToMe 23:53, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm an anti-Bush activist. I think much of what's on 911truth is probably correct. But I also respect Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and it is not acceptable to call the site "a campaign to educate the public about the Sept. 11th coverup and related facts" on Wikipedia. That's just the way it goes here, like it or not. Quadell (talk) 02:44, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Some OverGeneralization
This article states that Sadam Hussein is a muslim. But it is not the case and Irak was a laic country.

 * While Iraq's government and law were ostensibly secular, Saddam was in fact a Sunni Muslim. --KeithTyler 20:01, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * I expect he still is a Muslim (not "was"). Rmhermen 04:57, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

WhisperToMe
WhisperToMe, why do you think the assertion that al Qaeda was unquestionably involved in the attack should be removed from the lede paragraph? --Golbez 06:24, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't remove that. Come to think of it, I thought I added it back. Some other guy removed it and I added it back, I think. Maybe I made a mistake... WhisperToMe 23:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Nope, I didn't - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=September_11%2C_2001_attacks&diff=5536845&oldid=5536701

Instead of removing it, I'd prefer phrasing it differently, but I was lazy at the time. WhisperToMe 23:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, er, either way, what you put in seems quite good. :) Sorry if I wrongly accused. --Golbez 01:33, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Saddam an enemy of al-Qaida
195.7.55.146, while it's true that the Ba'athist Iraq government was not an ally of the Islamist al-Qaida network, this part of this article isn't the place to say it. If you look through the article on the 2003 invasion of Iraq, you'll see that the topic is fully covered there. Please stop engaging in a revert war. Quadell (talk) 16:32, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

 * But the opposite is implied in that sentence. Surely it should be noted that while one (afghanistan) was connected to Al-Qaida, the other (Iraq) was not - 195.7.55.146

august 6th presidential briefing and CIA failures
What I'm missing here is the briefing the president received on august 6th called 'Osama bin Ladin determined to strike US" Why does the text so far doesn't mention anything about the risk Al-Qaida was to US security? Why doesn't the text mentions anything about failures of the CIA and FBI? Maybe I overlooked something? A source for the august 6th briefing can be found here. Bontenbal 08:59, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What the article leaves out....THE WHOLE TRUTH!
Learning from the September 11 Attacks By Mark Weber - September 15, 2001 With thousands of victims and riveting images of death and destruction, war has come home to America with terrible, devastating suddenness. Together with our fellow citizens, we mourn the many victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon building. But beyond the feelings of grief and fury must come clarity and understanding.

President George W. Bush said on national television that "America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." The next day he said that "freedom and democracy are under attack," and that the perpetrators had struck against "all freedom-loving people everywhere in the world."

But if "democracy" and "freedom-loving people" are the targets, why isn't anyone attacking Switzerland, Japan or Norway? Bush's claims are just as untrue as President Wilson's World War I declaration that the United States was fighting to "make the world safe for democracy," and President Roosevelt's World War II assurances that the U.S. was fighting for "freedom" and "democracy."

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, speculation has been rife about who the perpetrators may have been. That itself is an acknowledgment that so many people hate this country so intensely that one cannot easily determine just who may have mounted these well-organized attacks of suicidal desperation.

These shocking attacks were predictable. In 1993 Islamic radicals set off a bomb at the World Trade Center that claimed six lives. In August 1998 the United States carried out missile attacks against Afghanistan and Sudan, strikes that senior Clinton administration officials said signaled the start of "a real war against terrorism." In the wake of those attacks, a high-ranking U.S. intelligence official warned that "the prospect of retaliation against Americans is very, very high.'" (The Washington Post, Aug. 21, 1998, p. A1)

Our political leaders and the American mass media promote the preposterous fiction that the September 11 attacks are entirely unprovoked and unrelated to United States actions. They want everyone to believe that the underlying hatred of America by so many around the world, especially in Arab and Muslim countries, that motivated the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks is unrelated to this country's policies. It is clear, however, that those who carried out these devastating suicide attacks against centers of American financial and military might were enraged by this country's decades-long support for Israel and its policies of aggression, murderous repression, and brutal occupation against Arabs and Muslims, and/or American air strikes and economic warfare against Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and Iran.

America is the only country that claims the right to deploy troops and war planes in any corner of the globe in pursuit of what our political leaders call "vital national interests." George Washington and our country's other founders earnestly warned against such imperial arrogance, while far-sighted Americans such as Harry Elmer Barnes, Garet Garrett and Pat Buchanan voiced similar concerns in the 20th century.

For most Americans modern war has largely been an abstraction -- something that happens only in far-away lands. The victims of U.S. air attack and bombardment in Vietnam, Lebanon, Sudan, Libya, Iraq and Serbia have seemed somehow unreal. Few ordinary Americans pay attention, because U.S. military actions normally have little impact on their day-to-day lives.

Just as residents of Rome in the second century hardly noticed the battles fought by their troops on the outer edges of the Roman empire, residents of Seattle and Cleveland today barely concern themselves with the devastation wrought by American troops and warplanes in, for example, Iraq.

Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General, has accused the United States of committing "a crime against humanity" against the people of Iraq "that exceeds all others in its magnitude, cruelty and portent." Citing United Nations agency reports and his own on-site investigations, Clark charged in 1996 that the scarcity of food and medicine as a result of sanctions against Iraq imposed by the United States since 1990, and U.S. bombings of the country, had caused the deaths of more than a million people, including more than half a million children.

Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State in President Clinton's administration, defended the mass killings. During a 1996 interview she was asked: "We have heard that half a million children have died [as a result of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima ... Is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "... We think the price is worth it." (60 Minutes, May 12, 1996).

President Bush is now pledging a "crusade," a "war against terrorism" and a "sustained campaign" to "eradicate the evil of terrorism."

But such calls sound hollow given the U.S. government's own record of support for terrorism, for example during the Vietnam war. During the 1980s, the U.S. supported "terrorists" in Afghanistan -- including Osama bin Laden, now the "prime suspect" in the September 11 attacks -- in their struggle to drive out the Soviet invaders.

American presidents have warmly welcomed to the White House Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, two Israeli prime ministers with well-documented records as terrorists. President Bush himself has welcomed to Washington Israel's current prime minister, Ariel Sharon, whose forces have been carrying out assassinations of Palestinian leaders and murderous "retaliatory" strikes against Palestinians. Even an official Israeli commission found that Sharon bore some responsibility for the 1982 massacres of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

Jewish and Zionist leaders, and their American servants, have predictably lost no time exploiting the September 11 attacks to further their own interests. Taking advantage of the current national mood of blind rage and revenge, they demand new U.S. military action against Israel's many enemies.

In the weeks to come, therefore, we can expect the U.S. government, supported by an enraged public, to lash out violently. The great danger is that an emotion-driven, reactive response will aggravate underlying tensions and encourage new acts of murderous violence.

What is needed now is not a vengeful "crusade," but coherent, reasoned policies based on sanity and justice.

In the months and years ahead, most Americans will doubtless continue to accept what their political leaders and the mass media tell them.

But the jolting impact of the September 11 attacks -- which have, for the first time, brought to our cities the terror and devastation of attacks from the sky -- will also encourage growing numbers of thoughtful Americans to see through the lies propagated by our nation's political and cultural elite, and its Zionist allies, to impose their will around the world. More and more people will understand that their government's overseas policies inevitably have consequences even here at home.

In 1948, as the Zionist state was being established in Palestine, U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall, along with nearly every other high-level U.S. foreign affairs specialist, warned that American support for Israel would have dire long-term consequences. Events have fully vindicated their concerns.

Over the long run, the September 11 attacks will encourage public awareness of our government's imperial role in the world, including a sobering reassessment of this country's perverse "special relationship" with the Jewish ethnostate. Along with that, rage will grow against those who have subordinated American interests, and basic justice and humanity, to Jewish-Zionist ambitions.

For more than 20 years the IHR has sought, through its educational work, to prevent precisely such horrors as the attacks in New York and Washington. In the years ahead, as we continue our mission of promoting greater public awareness of history and world affairs, and a greater sense of public responsibility for the policies that generated the rage behind the September 11 attacks, this work will be more important than ever.

Published in The Journal of Historical Review, July-August 2001 (Vol. 20, No. 4), pages 8-9. (This essay has been circulated worldwide, in English, German and Arabic, in print and on numerous websites.)

--- Bah, it's POV. We at Wikipedia use NPOV. Oh, and Al-Qaida has targeted places in France, Singapore, and many other countries. WhisperToMe 21:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Congo Civil War
User:Xed tries to put that Congo Civil War phrase in this article. I feel that all the sentence is doing is marginalizing September 11 in a POV manner. WhisperToMe 20:39, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The Congo Civil War was going on at the same time as the attacks, and was perhaps the most fatal event of the time period. Therefore its an important piece of information which puts  the Sept 11 attacks into a global context.--Xed 21:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Also, that's three million people from 1988 to nowadays. September 11 unfolded within one day. WhisperToMe 21:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 1998, not 88. Your ignorance is baffling. 3 million people have died in the Congo Civil War. That's over over 1000 dead per day over 6 years. 3000 dead is very, very minor compared to that. The Congo Civil War is equivalent in casualty figures to a thousand 9/11s--Xed 21:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also, this was not within the context of a war. The Congo Civil war is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. - Loweeel 21:18, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The war was going on at the same time--Xed 21:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. A lot of things went on at the same time that had nothing to do with 9/11. WhisperToMe 21:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 1998, not 88. Your ignorance is baffling. 3 million people have died in the Congo Civil War and it was the most fatal war of the period. That's over over 1000 dead per day over 6 years. 3000 dead is very, very minor compared to that. The Congo Civil War is equivalent in casualty figures to a thousand 9/11s. Only the worst type of Ugly American would not want it mentioned--Xed 21:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with an attack on America? Why are you comparing a single attack to a war? What you are trying to insert adds nothing to the article. -  Tεx  τ  urε  22:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Hm, you are right about it being 1998, Xed. Still, that doesn't matter in this argument. The phrase doesn't belong there. WhisperToMe 22:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Page is now protected due to the revert war. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I, as an outside party, find completely inadequate the comparison text being repeatedly added by User:Xed. Just my two cents. --Cantus 23:21, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Irrelevant and intrusive. A reference to the Congo Civil War could just as sensibly be inserted into every entry describing contempoaneous events. BTW, see the history of User:Xed: one confrontation after another... Wetman 23:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I added him to the RFC >.< WhisperToMe 23:28, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 8


text:
Talk:National service

Untitled
Dr Ray Edwards BA (Oxon) MA LLM PhD If National Service was simply a "one year" period and not a period of conscripted military service, pray tell me what the hell I was doing serving in No1 Para for just over two years in Malaya chasing Chinese Communist insurgents around IPOH and other regions of the Northern Malayan jungle together with thousands of other British National Servicemen. Oh, and by the way, Tommy Steele ducked out of his duty to his country first by taking up employment as a seaman which kept him out of reach of conscription. I was in Aldershot when Tommy Steele was reprted by the press to have hiiden crying in his managers car because he did not want to leave home, more likley did not want to give up the lucrative gravy train he got himself on - just like John Prescott Deputy Prime Minister of Britain, he preferred working as a steward at sea in the Med and Bahamas in stead of serving his country. For pities sake, sack the researcher who wrote this tripe about National Service and apologise for the insult WIKIPEDIA has handed down to the hundreds of thousands of British National SErvicemen who fought in Malaya, Cyprus, Korea many of whom died and have foriegn graves.

Regarding Silverback's addition. Actually, I meant to move it to an article on 'national service' in the civilian sense. I didn't realize that there was a draft article named this. Why are Singapore & Britain covered in one article anyway? Is it just because of the common name? Seems to me some re-organization of the various draft & any civilian national service articles might be in order. Wolfman 04:31, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I didn't know compulsory boot camp had anything resembling a civilian sense. Chris 04:16, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why categorized as military in UK
As it include description about national service implementation in other countries such as Singapore? Squallwc 08:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can add in the other two categorisations where appriopriate. Meanwhile, I am thinking of having full articles for each of those countries eventually--Huaiwei 19:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. Squallwc 05:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Phrase: 'in Great Britain (but not Northern Ireland)'
The phrase 'in Great Britain (but not Northern Ireland)' does not make sense. Northern Ireland is not part of Great Britain. The article is attempting to inform readers that a particular nation (UK) had National Service with an exception for one of its regions (NI). Bobblewik (talk) 13:13, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it makes sense. A reasonable alternative would be "In the UK, except for Northern Ireland", but the first form is correct as well.  It is just saying "in one place, but not another related place".  An equivalent would be "In the Continental United States, but not Hawaii".  What would be incorrect would be to say "In Great Britain, except for Northern Ireland", or "In the UK, but not Northern Ireland".   (Arwel is correct in saying the formal name of the country is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"). --  User: Wardog

The full name of Britain is United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. is it not? The fact that some people, in Northern Ireland seek independence from Britain, affirms the fact that the northern counties are part of the United Kingdom (was Ireland ever a Kingdom?), while at some time in future history, this reality may change. AlMac|(talk) 17:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No it's not. It's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. "Great Britain" is the name of the 8th largest island in the world, upon which you find England, Scotland, and Wales. And yes, there was a Kingdom of Ireland between 1541 and 1800, which happened to have the same king as England. -- Arwel (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

 * They're quite correct. 'Great Britain' only refers to mainland England, Wales and Scotland. This in now way reduces the fact that NI is a part of the UK, both of which are different entities.

Categories
Bevin Boys should be included under National Service, but shoulkd also be shown as a separate site. EVBThere have been several requests to try to organize Category Military since it has over 50 articles and over 50 sub-categories. I am trying to help out, by adding a new sub-category Politics of Military, which will include this, and other articles, where there is sometimes some controversy, such as the topic of very young children being made into child soldiers, also issues of gender, different religions side by side, conscientious objector and so forth. Category Military is a sub-category of War. We do not need to list all articles in the whole hierarchy, do we? AlMac|(talk) 17:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, Politics of Military doesn't make sense as a category. For a start, it should be Politics of the Military, with an article. Second, it should be Politics of the military with a lower case 'm'. Wouldn't 'Military politics' be better? And also, Conscription is already a category of Military. -- Necrothesp 17:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "Politics within the Military" is a topic for which I have not seen many articles here.  Also there is the topic of Base Closings, and redeploying forces stationed in foreign lands, such as US bases moved out of France and Germany to the new democracies of Central Europe.
 * It is evident that there is a great debate in Wiki, and in other places, between people who believe in a strong national defense, and the means to attain it, and people who are squeamish about some of the measures taken to achieve it. Most of us fall on a political spectrum where we agree certain actions needed when our national defense is threatened, yet not approve of some military action where our nation does not appear to be threatened, and there are no obvious humanitarian reasons to launch a rescue operation.  Even when we support the military decisions, some of us do not support the way in which some things are done.  Thus I proposed this category to encompass this category that is dominated by this recurring political debate. I ended up calling it Politics about Military. AlMac|(talk) 01:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You're still using upper case and no article. -- Necrothesp 21:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Am I missing something?
"National Service was the name given to the system of military conscription employed in Great Britain between 1949 and 1960 (although the system of wartime conscription used between 1939 and 1949 was also officially called National Service)." - so wouldn't it be better to say "National Service was the name given to the system of military conscription employed in Great Britain between 1939 and 1960." and have done with it? DavidFarmbrough 12:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The term National Service is usually taken to refer to the post-war system of conscription. If someone talks about "national service" then that is usually what they mean. It was actually the official term for the system from 1939, but is rarely used outside formal documents for wartime conscription (which was usually referred to as "war service"). -- Necrothesp 19:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah. The parenthesised bit should be noted in a way like "the term is usually used to refer to the post-war period, as during the war National Service was generally referred to as conscription" or the like. Chris Cunningham 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

PoV
"However, many transferred from National Service to voluntary military service and carved themselves an honourable career within the British Armed Forces." Is honourable really appropriate? We could go into a huge argument about the benefits of pacifism and being part of an army, but there's really no need for an adjective at all...except maybe 'successful', which is what was probably intended.

Page name
Through the article and talk page, 'National Service' is always title case, yet the article name isn't... going to fix! Mauls 21:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, not... this is (nominally) a general article. Going to fix the intro paragraph instead. Mauls 21:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Beyond military
Just a heads-up that I will be adding a section on non-military community-building national service activities in Germany, Israel, Nigeria, Sweden and the United States soon. - Freechild 22:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be two articles?
Does anyone else think it feels a bit unbalanced having most of the article devoted to National Service in the United Kingdom? This being an international encyclopaedia, wouldn't it make more sense to have separate articles for each country, and this as a general article? garik 11:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree for the sake of countering systemic bias.--Huaiwei 12:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Were this a particularly long or detailed look at the subject I'd agree, but I'm opposed to premature splitting. Chris Cunningham 12:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations
For the section marked as a copyright violation from http://www.nationalserviceact.org/16.html, the contributor is also the author of the source web site and is releasing the content under the GFDL.  howcheng  {chat} 22:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

new section needs NPOV corrections
Given its source, it's no surprise that the new section on America has a pro-national-service bias. The section needs to be changed to be from a neutral POV.--Cybercobra (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC) I second that and i have propsed changes on the page as well as improving certain sections of the aricle. obama=osama(Yomamma22) (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

National service in the United Kingdom: SPLIT
As per the page wiki page on Recruitment to the British Army during World War I, I propose a seperate page on recruiting WWII, should be created from the section relating to `National service in the United Kingdom during WWII` OR a page dedicated to `National Service in the United Kingdom`. Does anyone have any thoughts on splitting this ?--Rockybiggs (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

'''[[Bold text# d

National service in United States article-Vietnam War pro-conscription bias
In the article of National Service in the United States, the main paragraph in the Vietnam War section shows clear bias towards national service when it says that the reason that the military dropped it was in order to shield criticism of its strategy. It also cites the "military-industrial complex" as fosterine the "technical all-volunteer army". The discssion board directed me to this board so this is why it is here instead of in the National service in United States discussion. I suggest that the section be rewritten to a neutral POV or show the other side of opposition to conscirption in the United States (economists, peace movement, etc). obama=osama(Yomamma22) (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

National Service and Female Conscription
Nogt sure about the statement that Israel was the only country to conscript women in the twentieth century. The article Women in Libya mentions female conscription there in the 1980s onward, and I believe other countries had conscription for males and females as well. Zagubov (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Duration
The article is confusing. Is it about conscription generally (which duplicates another article), or about British national service? If the latter why include references to other countries? If the former, it should be merged with conscription. Royalcourtier (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Royalcourtier, I think the article must have gotten overly chopped up along the way, but I'm too tired to look through the history at the moment. I just tried to rearrange the intro a bit and I put the one quote in the section after it in blockquote tags to highlight there's really in there but a quote! Well, you do what you can do, you know? —Geekdiva (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:National service


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conditionals

Conditionals
Another surrealist game (see also VfD/Describe a Room Game). Delete, and redirect Conditionals to Conditional. It's worth noting that I actually found this article after linking to it accidentally from RTML. If the game is actually deemed notable, this stub could be merged surrealist games. ~leif 04:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unremarkable game. Redirect to Conditional. Geogre 14:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: this game is remarkably similar to "definitions", which claims to be "adapted from Alastair Brotchie's A Book of Surrealist Games". I don't suppose any of us have a copy of that book, or any other way to check for the preexistence of surrealist games?  I abstain for now.  Part of me wants to say merge and redirect, but in truth this article is so short and uninformative that deleting it would hardly be a tragedy—someone could easily write about it at Surrealist games later—and the article name could perhaps be better used as a redirect to Conditional, as Geogre says, with disambiguation at that page if necessary.   —Triskaideka 19:35, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Another problem is that there were a ton of techniques employed by the Cabaret Voltaire folks and the Minotaur authors, from random pastiche to a form of "parody" that involved reading a newspaper laterally (i.e. across columns) for unexpected sense. Part of the joy of it, though, was the invention, and anything like a set of rules for a Surrealist Game is anathema to the project.  If it's a game with rules, it's not a Surrealist game.  What the Surrealists did was invent techniques for uncovering the unconscious, and that would be somewhat historical.  At least that's how it seems to me.  Geogre 01:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text: Category:Breakfast cereals

title: Category:Breakfast cereals


text:
Alismataceae

The water-plantains (Alismataceae) are a family of flowering plants, comprising 20 genera (17 extant and 3 fossil) and 119 species. The family has a cosmopolitan distribution, with the greatest number of species in temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere. Most of the species are herbaceous aquatic plants growing in marshes and ponds.

Description
Most Alismataceae are robust perennials, but some may be annual or perennial, depending on water conditions — they are normally perennial in permanent waters, annual in more seasonal conditions but there are exceptions. The stems are corm-like or stoloniferous. Juvenile and submerse leaves are often linear, whilst more mature and emerse leaves can be linear to ovate or even sagittate. Most have a distinct petiole, with a sheathed base.

The inflorescence is usually compound with whorls of branches, though some are umbel-like, and others have solitary flowers. The flowers are regular, bisexual or unisexual. There are three sepals which usually persist in the fruit. Three petals, usually conspicuous, white, pink, purple, occasionally with yellow or purple spots. The petals rarely last more than one day. In Burnatia and Wiesneria the petals are minute and even occasionally absent in female flowers. Stamens are 3, 6, 9 or numerous. The ovary is superior, comprising 3 - numerous free carpels in one whorl or in a clustered head. Each carpel contains 1 (-2) anatropous ovules.

Fruit is a head of nutlets (except in Damasonium). The seeds have no endosperm and a curved or folded embryo.

Classification
Under the APG III system, the Alismataceae includes three genera formerly members of the Limnocharitaceae. Altogether, there are 17 extant genera and two fossil genera assigned to the Alismataceae:

Cultivation and uses
Several species, notably in the genus Sagittaria, have edible rhizomes, grown for both human food and animal fodder in southern and eastern Asia. They were eaten as food by the indigenous peoples of North America. Most have value as food for wildlife. Some are grown as ornamental plants in bog gardens, ponds and aquariums. The leaves and flower buds of Limnocharis flava are eaten in Southeast Asia as "poor people's vegetable".

title: Alismataceae


text: Category:Politics of Thailand

title: Category:Politics of Thailand


text: Category:Craig County, Oklahoma

title: Category:Craig County, Oklahoma


text: Category:Codington County, South Dakota

title: Category:Codington County, South Dakota


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taku Murata

Taku Murata
Seem like it is a useless article to have. I couldn't really find anything anywhere about this person. Nor do I have any idea what SQUARE is. --ScottyBoy900Q ∞ 04:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, apparently he's a video game programmer for Square Enix. Tricky to figure his notability though. No vote yet. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 04:57, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * If someone can figure out what his actual involvement is or was, i'd say keep it, but so far I can't find anything. --ScottyBoy900Q ∞ 05:06, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the Squaresoft wikilink and have added these two external links: Mini interview on his work in Vagrant Story Moby Games database rap sheet. I added his article (a stub due information about him being difficult to find) because he is sometimes mentioned as one of the more notable people contributing to Vagrant Story, and he is mentioned in the aforementioned game article. I am in favour on keeping in Wikipedia every possible bit of information about artists, despite them not being very famous, and I consider game creators artists. Myself being the starter of Murata's article, my vote is keep, but further expansion of it would be obviously needed. --xDCDx 14:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Not exactly Shigeru Miyamoto, but a reasonably notable figure.   — Gwalla | Talk 20:14, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. All people are notable. anthony (see warning) 16:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text: Category:Finnish heavy metal musical groups


text: Category:Italian historians

title: Category:Italian historians


text: Category:Irish heavy metal musical groups


text:
Wing Luke

Wing Chong Luke (February 18, 1925 – May 16, 1965; ) was a Chinese-American lawyer and politician from Seattle.

Luke served as an assistant attorney general of Washington for the state civil rights division from 1957 to 1962. He was later a member of the Seattle City Council for position 5 from 1962 until his death in 1965 in a plane crash. The Wing Luke Museum is named in his honor.

The first Asian-American to hold elected office in the state, Luke was cited as an inspiration by Gary Locke, the first Chinese-American governor of Washington.

Family background and upbringing
Luke was born on February 18, 1925, in a small town near Canton (modern Guangzhou). His grandfather had run a laundry in Seattle, but exclusion laws forced Luke's father to return to China. When Luke was five, his family moved to the United States, but he did not settle in Seattle until 1931, at the age of six. Upon their arrival in Seattle, the family saved to open a modest laundry and grocery store in the University District. Luke was the oldest of six children.

While in school, Luke was often teased for his Chinese origins and on multiple occasions got into physical confrontations with bullies. After the outbreak of WW2, Luke's family was evicted from their apartment by their landlady for looking Japanese, which would instill in Luke a fire for social activism for the rest of his life. However, he eventually became the Roosevelt High School student body president. In 1944, his grades and civic activities earned him an invitation as a high school consultant for a White House Conference on juvenile problems, though Luke's induction into the army would prevent him from attending.

Military service
Only halfway through his senior year of high school, Luke was inducted into the U.S. Army. Initially in the Army Specialized Training Program, he then joined the infantry and field artillery and was acting first sergeant and regimental S-1 sergeant in the 40th division Field Artillery. He served in Guam, Korea, New Guinea, New Britain and the Philippines, where he received the Bronze Star Medal and six combat stars.

Higher education
Following his service, Luke entered the University of Washington. As in high school, Luke was a prominent leader. He was President of his sophomore class, the U.W. YMCA, the Baptist-Disciples' Student Center, the U.W. Red Cross, U.W. Young Democrats, and the committee chairman of A.S.U.W. Publications. He graduated from the university with a B.A. in political science and public administration. He did graduate work in the same fields at the American University in Washington, D.C. He then attended the UW School of Law to earn an LL.B.

Legal and political career
Luke was appointed Assistant Attorney General of the State of Washington, in the Civil Rights Division and served in that capacity from 1957 to 1962. In 1962, Luke decided to run for an open seat on the Seattle City Council. Running on the slogan "You are not electing a platform, but a Councilman," Luke maintained a pragmatic position on the issues and proved successful at mobilizing young volunteers. Despite having to defend against criticism of "fence sitting," accusations of communism, and racial slurs, Luke won the council seat with a landslide of 30,000 votes and was sworn in on March 13, 1962. He became the first Asian American to hold elected office in the Pacific Northwest as well as the first person of color to hold a Seattle City Council seat.

As a Councilmember, Luke focused on urban renewal, historical preservation, and civil rights. The latter focus proved controversial, and Luke's open-housing ordinance (created to prevent discrimination in the sale or rent of Seattle real estate) faced heavy resistance, though it eventually passed. For support in his community renewal efforts, Luke turned to a variety of local organizations he was active in, such as the Urban League, the Chinese Community Service Organization, the Japanese American Citizens League, and the Jackson Street Community Council.

Generally diplomatic and optimistic in his approach, Luke was notably skilled at appealing to diverse communities, having once learned to sing Norway's entire national anthem in preparation for an address to the local Norwegian community. His political successes and general popularity led to speculation over a potential congressional or mayoral run.

Death and legacy
On May 16, 1965, Luke was killed in a plane crash with two others on Merchant Peak in Snohomish County, while returning from a fishing trip in Okanogan County. The wreckage was not found in the Cascade Mountains for more than three years.

Luke is the namesake of multiple institutions. Friends and other supporters of Luke who raised money to search for him started the Wing Luke Memorial Foundation. The money went to the founding of the Wing Luke Museum in 1966 to present the histories and cultures of Asian immigrants and present-day issues of Asian Americans. Luke had reportedly mused about founding such a museum after observing how Chinese American culture in Seattle was so often swept under the rug. The museum remains located in Seattle Chinatown-International District.

In 2013, the United States Department of the Interior designated the Wing Luke Museum as being affiliated with the National Park Service. Rhea Suh, an Assistant Secretary of the Interior, stated "As a first-generation Asian American and a senior appointee of the Obama Administration, I am humbled and inspired by the public service legacy of Wing Luke".

The Seattle school South Van Asselt School was renamed the Wing Luke Elementary School in 1969. In 2015, the Washington state attorney general's office created the Wing Luke Civil Rights Unit to investigate issues related to discrimination and civil rights.

Gary Locke, the first Chinese-American governor of Washington and U.S. Ambassador to China, has cited Luke as an inspiration.

Views
Luke saw many of his contemporaries forced to live in racialized pockets of Seattle like Beacon Hill (largely Asian Americans) and the Central District (largely African Americans), and felt strongly that the ability to decide where one lived should be a basic right of all citizens. Having firsthand awareness of the effects of racial discrimination, Luke was instrumental in Seattle's passing of an Open Housing Ordinance in 1963 with punitive provisions against racial discrimination in the selling or renting of real estate.

He also fought for civil rights, Indian fishing rights, urban renewal and historic preservation. Luke was particularly concerned with the preservation of Seattle's Central Waterfront, Pioneer Square, and Pike Place Market.

title: Wing Luke


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art-punk

Art-punk
I cannot find any reference to this term anywhere else online. I was going to send this to cleanup originally but decided to let everyone else decide what to do with it. I say delete. --ScottyBoy900Q ∞ 04:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Breathy original research. We had other names for them, at the time.  Art school punks, Art school, etc.  In the US, many of the early bands were also art schoolers (B-52's, some of REM, Pylon) and the author misses a ton of the Manchester bands in the UK.  Point is, it's not really an unknown term as much as it is an unstable one.  It doesn't have a specific meaning.  Geogre 14:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Geogre.   — Gwalla | Talk 20:15, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, ditto. Fire Star 17:07, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete unless an external link to a respectable verifiable source defining this term is added to the article. anthony (see warning) 16:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon

nonsense
This is not an encyclopedia article on Lord Hunsdon. It is random nonsense. john k 04:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * It appears the "nonsense" has been cleaned up some time ago. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 21:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Dates for affair
I've removed "briefly" as it's argumentative. You can't say "briefly" and then also state that the exact dates are unknown. If they are unknown, we don't know how brief it was. Wjhonson 17:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What historians have speculated that Anne "took" Henry to make her more appealing to Henry. Phillipa Gregory is not a historian. I'm taking it off, until someone provides a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.220.146 (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiltshire or Ormonde
A question from WP:AFC Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC): In the entry on Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon of Hunsdon, Wikipedia say on page three that on his deathbed he was offered the Earldom of Wiltshire however, on the entry for Mary Boleyn (his mother) Wikipedia says that he was offered the Earldom of Ormonde - was he offered both titles or is one an error ? 86.192.136.248 18:38, 23 August 2006

He was offered the earldom of Ormonde. The earldom of Wiltshire had been given to the family only in the direct male line, under the condition that when this died out it reverted to the crown. On George Boleyn's death in 1536 (as he had no son), it went to the crown. The earldom of Ormonde had been given with no such restrictions, and should have gone to Henry Carey as the eldest son and heir of Thomas Boleyn's only surviving child. Therefore, it should never have been withheld from the Careys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boleyn (talk • contribs) 13:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

timing
The article currently reads: "The idea that Carey was Henry VIII's secret son has spawned several Tudor legends, even becoming a central part of modern fiction, such as the recent novel The Other Boleyn Girl (loosely based on the life of Mary Boleyn). However, Henry Carey was not born until March 1526 - by which time the affair is believed to have ended." Obviously it's irrelevant if Carey was born when the affair was over; it's only relevant if he was conceived when the affair was over (or ongoing). I don't have Letters & Papers; could someone please check to see if the reference actually discusses time of conception? If not, then this sentence needs to be rewritten; at the least it is not a "however" which suggests some contradiction. --Lquilter (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference

 * I rewrote it to remove the ambiguity and false implication per Talk:Mary Boleyn. Basically just moved the timing information with the rest of the timing of the affair section, and left the rumors-about-bastardy section alone. --Lquilter (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

anne custody section
This section is very confusingly written: "William Carey, Henry's legal father, died suddenly from the sweating sickness on 23 June 1528 when Henry was only two. Carey and his elder sister Catherine came under the wardship of his maternal aunt Anne Boleyn, engaged to Henry VIII at the time and feared she may not be able to have a son of her own. The child still had active contact with his mother, but Anne refused to allow Mary to acknowledge him as her own son, who remained on good terms with her sister, until her secret elopement with a soldier, William Stafford (later Lord of Chebsey) in 1535."

I'm proposing a rewrite (below) but the original is so confusing I'm not sure it's accurate. Let me know; I've bolded and struck out material to make it clear. "William Carey, Henry's legal father, died suddenly from the sweating sickness on 23 June 1528 when Henry was only two. Carey and his elder sister Catherine came under the wardship of his their maternal aunt Anne Boleyn, who was engaged to Henry VIII at the time. and feared she may not be able to have a son of her own. [Striking this last clause because I'm not sure what it has to do with the guardianship.] The children still had active contact with his their mother, but Anne refused to allow Mary to acknowledge his William as her own son. Nevertheless, Anne and Mary, who remained on good terms with her sister, until Mary's her secret elopement with a soldier, William Stafford (later Lord of Chebsey) in 1535." --Lquilter (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a good rewrite but I have never read a suggestion that Henry Carey (not William as you've put above) was denied access to his mother or that Anne said Mary couldn't acknowledge him as her son. This sounds as if it has come from a fiction book, but if anyone has a reference I'd be interested to check it out. I think that point should be removed.. --User:boleyn (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2008
 * Yeah, I don't have a reference for it; I was just trying to retain the original content but in a more understandable form. I'll put the rewrite in for now, with your correction, add a cn to it, and if nobody adduces a reference for it in the next couple of days we can take it out. --Lquilter (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Spoke too soon. Looks like you already removed that assertion. I rewrote to leave it out. If someone wants to put it back in, with a reference, the language is here. --Lquilter (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Heraldic graphic
Looks very nice, unfortunately as it's currently displayed it would have been the arms of the second son of whoever was Baron Hunsdon at the time.

I refer to the crescent. Please look under Cadency article.

It should be redone.

Tonybaldacci (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

 * I observe that similar arms are shown in the article on George Carey, 2nd Baron Hunsdon. Might they relate to a whole branch of a family? The more I look into the rules governing differences, the more I realize that they are not as cut and dried as some writers would have us believe. My knowledge of heraldry is a little rusty, so I do not propose to lay down the law, but neither man was a second son and these arms are said to appear on Henry's monument. See File:Coat of arms of Sir Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon, KG.png. LynwoodF (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Throcking in which county?
Daughter-in-law stated to be from Throcking, Herefordshire. Most WP refs have it in Hertfordshire. Robin Patterson (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 * I agree with you, so I have changed it. LynwoodF (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Henry Carey, 1st Baron Hunsdon


text: Category:Ohio County, Kentucky

title: Category:Ohio County, Kentucky