text:
Ram (album)

Ram is the only studio album credited to the husband-and-wife music duo Paul and Linda McCartney, and the former’s second album post-Beatles. Released on 17 May 1971 by Apple Records, it was recorded in New York with guitarists David Spinozza and Hugh McCracken, and future Wings drummer Denny Seiwell. Three singles were issued from the album: "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" (McCartney's first number 1 hit in America without the Beatles), "The Back Seat of My Car" and "Eat at Home". The recording sessions also yielded the non-album single "Another Day".

The album's release coincided with a period of acrimony between McCartney and his former Beatle bandmates, and followed his legal action in the United Kingdom's High Court to dissolve the Beatles partnership. John Lennon perceived slights in the lyrics to songs such as "Too Many People," to which he responded with his song "How Do You Sleep?". Although McCartney felt that he had addressed the criticisms he received with his 1970 solo debut, McCartney, Ram elicited a similarly unfavourable reaction from music journalists. It nonetheless topped the national album charts in the UK, the Netherlands and Canada. Today, Ram is held in high regard by many music critics and is often ranked as one of McCartney's best albums. It has also been recognised as an early indie pop album.

In 1971, McCartney produced Thrillington, an instrumental interpretation of Ram that was released in 1977 under the pseudonym Percy 'Thrills' Thrillington. In 2012, an expanded edition of Ram was reissued (Thrillington included) with over two dozen bonus tracks as part of the Paul McCartney Archive Collection. In 2023, Ram was ranked number 450 on Rolling Stone's list of the greatest albums of all time.

Background
Paul McCartney and his family flew to New York City in October 1970 to begin working on the follow-up to McCartney. While the previous album had featured him playing every instrument, for Ram, McCartney decided to hold auditions for musicians, some of whom were brought in under the guise of recording a commercial jingle. Auditions were held in an attic on 45th Street for three days, where David Spinozza was recruited as guitarist by Linda, before auditions moved to a Bronx basement, where Denny Seiwell was brought in to play drums. McCartney once said he found Seiwell "lying on a mattress" in the basement. Midway through these sessions, Spinozza became unavailable and was replaced by Hugh McCracken.

Songs and production
The basic tracks for the album were taped at Columbia's Studio B from 12 October to 19 November 1970, with additional vocal sessions between 6-11 December at Columbia's Studio D, before the McCartneys returned to their Scottish farm for the Christmas holidays. Work continued at A&R Recording Studios, New York, from the second week of January 1971 through to February. Playing guitar or piano and singing at the same time, Paul chose to overdub his bass later on. Although it was a collaborative project, Linda's vocal duties were mostly limited to singing harmonies and backing Paul, who sang almost all of the lead parts. Linda sang co-lead on "Long Haired Lady". The McCartneys' daughter Heather, who had been adopted by Paul the previous year, sang backing vocals on "Monkberry Moon Delight".

"Ram On", from the album's first side, is reprised on the second side, before the album's final track, "The Back Seat of My Car". A group of New York based freelancers including past and present members of the New York Philharmonic was brought in by McCartney to play on "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey", "Long Haired Lady" and "The Back Seat of My Car", as well as the McCartneys' song "Another Day", with arrangements by George Martin. "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" is in a similar vein to the Abbey Road medley, as the song consisted of several unfinished songs combined into one. Music videos were made for "3 Legs" and "Heart of the Country", from footage that was filmed at High Park, Campbeltown on 5-6 June 1971, and edited together by Ray Benson.

The project moved to Sound Recording in Los Angeles, where much of the backing vocals were recorded. Producer Jim Guercio cancelled his honeymoon to oversee the project, but his direction was not followed by McCartney, and progress stalled. McCartney was unable to choose which of the 20+ recorded songs would be cut from the album. Guercio left the project to honour a previous booking, and Norwegian engineer Eirik Wangberg replaced him, finishing the album over the course of six weeks. McCartney gave Wangberg free rein to mix the songs as he saw fit, and sequence them for the album in any way he chose. Among the creative decisions made by Wangberg was the stitching together of two songs to make "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey", and the introduction of thunder sound effects to that song; the thunder was taken from a monaural film clip, recorded by Wangberg onto two tracks with small differences to make artificial stereo. Paul and Linda were very happy upon hearing the final album mix.

The recording project also yielded the independent single "Another Day" and its B-side, "Oh Woman, Oh Why", released in mid-February 1971. Session songs dropped from the album sequence included "Little Woman Love" and tracks later featured on Wings' 1973 album Red Rose Speedway: "Get on the Right Thing", "Little Lamb Dragonfly" and "Big Barn Bed". "I Lie Around", issued as the B-side to Wings' 1973 single "Live and Let Die", was taped during these sessions. Also recorded was the first incarnation of "Seaside Woman". McCartney also recorded "Hey Diddle", "A Love for You", "Great Cock and Seagull Race", "Now Hear This Song of Mine", "Rode All Night", "Sunshine Sometimes" and "When the Wind Is Blowing".

References to the Beatles and others
According to Peter Brown, the Beatles' former business associate, John Lennon believed that several of the songs on Ram contained personal jibes directed at himself and Yoko Ono, among them "Dear Boy" and, particularly, "Too Many People". McCartney later conceded that some of the lyrics of "Too Many People" had been "a little dig at John and Yoko," with "preaching practices" and "you took your lucky break and broke it in two" being direct references to Lennon. However, he claimed "Dear Boy" was directed at Linda's ex-husband, and not Lennon. Brown also described the picture of two beetles copulating on the back cover as symbolic of how McCartney felt the other Beatles were treating him. George Harrison and Ringo Starr were said to interpret the track "3 Legs" as an attack on them and Lennon.

Release
"Another Day" / "Oh Woman, Oh Why" was released that February and became a worldwide Top 5 hit. In May, Ram was unveiled, on the 17th in the US and on the 21st in the UK. "The Back Seat of My Car" was excerpted as a UK single that August, only reaching number 39, but the US release of the ambitious "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" proved much more successful, giving McCartney his first number 1 single since leaving the Beatles. The album reached number 1 in the UK and number 2 in the US, where it spent over five months in the Top 10 and went platinum. Despite the phasing-out of monaural albums by the late 1960s, Ram was pressed in mono with unique mixes that differ from the common stereo version. These were only made available to radio stations and are among the most valuable and sought-after of Paul McCartney's solo records. The album has sold over 3 million copies.

In July, Northern Songs and Maclen Music sued Paul and Linda McCartney for violating an exclusive rights agreement by collaborating on "Another Day". Although six of the eleven songs on Ram were also co-written with Linda, both parties agreed the issue of royalties for the album could be decided at a later date. In June 1972, Associated Television (ATV), which then owned Northern Songs, announced that "all differences between them have been amicably settled" and the McCartneys signed a new seven-year co-publishing contract between ATV and McCartney Music.

Critical reception
Upon its release, Ram was poorly received by music critics. McCartney was particularly hurt by the harsh reviews − especially as he had attempted to address the points raised in criticism of his earlier album, McCartney, by adopting a more professional approach this time around. In his review for Rolling Stone, Jon Landau called Ram "incredibly inconsequential" and "monumentally irrelevant," and criticised its lack of intensity and energy. He added that it exposes McCartney as having "benefited immensely from collaboration" with the Beatles, particularly John Lennon, who "held the reins in on McCartney's cutsie-pie, florid attempts at pure rock muzak" and kept him from "going off the deep end that leads to an album as emotionally vacuous as Ram." Playboy accused McCartney of "substituting facility for any real substance," and compared it to "watching someone juggle five guitars: It's fairly impressive, but you keep wondering why he bothers." In NME, Alan Smith further called it "an excursion into almost unrelieved tedium" and "the worst thing Paul McCartney has ever done." Robert Christgau, writing in The Village Voice, called it "a bad record, a classic form/content mismatch," and felt that McCartney succumbed to "conspicuous consumption" by overworking himself and obscenely producing a style of music meant to be soft and whimsical. In a slightly more positive note, Chris Charlesworth of Melody Maker found Ram an overall better record than McCartney, but still found it subpar to the recent releases of Harrison and Lennon. Charlesworth concluded: "A good album by anybody's standards and certainly far better than the majority released by British groups and singers. Trouble is you expect too much from a man like Paul McCartney." Writing four years later, Roy Carr and Tony Tyler from NME suggested that "it would be naive to have expected the McCartneys to produce anything other than a mediocre record ... Grisly though this was, McCartney was to sink lower before rescuing his credibility late in 1973."

McCartney's fellow ex-Beatles, all of whom were riding high in critical favour with their recent releases, were likewise vocal in their negativity. Lennon hated the album, dismissing his former songwriting partner's efforts as "muzak to my ears" in his song "How Do You Sleep?" Starr told the UK's Melody Maker: "I feel sad about Paul's albums ... I don't think there's one [good] tune on the last one, Ram ... he seems to be going strange." In addition to conducting a war of words in the British music press, "Crippled Inside", another track on Lennon's Imagine album, was also thought to be directed at McCartney. Early editions of Imagine included a postcard of Lennon pulling the ears of a pig in a parody of Ram's cover photograph of McCartney holding a ram by the horns.

Retrospect
The 2012 reissue of Ram received an aggregate score of 86 out of 100 from Metacritic, based on twelve reviews – a score that the website defines as indicating "universal acclaim". Reviewing this issue, Mojo said that "today it sounds quintessentially McCartney." AllMusic editor Stephen Thomas Erlewine wrote: "in retrospect it looks like nothing so much as the first indie pop album, a record that celebrates small pleasures with big melodies." Pitchfork's Jayson Greene similarly felt McCartney was "inventing an approach to pop music that would eventually become someone else's indie pop," and called Ram "a domestic-bliss album, one of the weirdest, earthiest, and most honest ever made." Simon Vozick-Levinson of Rolling Stone dubbed it a "daffy masterpiece" and "a grand psychedelic ramble full of divine melodies and orchestral frippery."

David Quantick of Uncut felt that, although it is not as "legendary" as publicised, the album is "occasionally brilliant and historically fascinating" as "post-Beatles mish-mash." Steven Hyden, writing for The A.V. Club, said that the "lightweight" style that was originally panned by critics is "actually (when heard with sympathetic ears) a big part of what makes it so appealing." However, Q magazine still found Ram to be "frustratingly uneven." In a retrospective review in 1981, Robert Christgau panned McCartney's songs as pretentious "crotchets ... so lightweight they float away even as Paulie layers them down with caprices."

Reissues
In 1977, McCartney supervised the release of an instrumental interpretation of Ram (recorded in June 1971 and arranged by Richard Hewson) with the release of Thrillington under the pseudonym of Percy "Thrills" Thrillington. Thrillington was later released as part of the 2012 super-deluxe release of Ram.

Ram, along with McCartney's Wings over America and Tug of War albums, was issued in the US on compact disc on 18 January 1988. In 1993, the album was remastered and reissued on CD as part of The Paul McCartney Collection series with "Another Day" and "Oh Woman, Oh Why" as bonus tracks. That same year Digital Compact Classics released an audiophile edition prepared by Steve Hoffman. On 21 May 2012 (in the UK) and 22 May (in the US), the album was reissued by McCartney's current label, Hear Music as part of the Paul McCartney Archive Collection. This reissue included the mono mix, which had never been issued previously on compact disc, except by bootleggers. The mono version was also released commercially in 2012, albeit as a limited edition LP. The 2012 reissue was accompanied by a Record Store Day-exclusive edition of the "Another Day" single.

Tributes
In 2009, two tribute albums featuring all of the songs from the album were put together:
 * Ram On L.A was compiled by the website Aquarium Drunkard and released as a digital download, featuring Los Angeles-based acts.
 * Tom: A Best Show on WFMU Tribute to Ram was put together by WFMU DJ Tom Scharpling for the New Jersey radio station's annual fundraising marathon as a CD made available exclusively to those who donated to his show. Artists included Aimee Mann, Death Cab for Cutie and Ted Leo, among others.

In 2012, Danish rock singer/songwriter Tim Christensen, American singer/songwriters Mike Viola and Tracy Bonham, and Christensen's solo band the Damn Crystals did a one-off tribute show, performing Ram in full, along with other McCartney post-Beatles songs, at Vega in Copenhagen, in celebration of McCartney's 70th birthday. In 2013, this tribute concert was released as the DVD/CD and DVD/2-LP album Pure McCartney.

In 2021, Denny Seiwell teamed up with Fernando Perdomo to produce Ram On: The 50th Anniversary Tribute to Paul and Linda McCartney's Ram. The album has over 100 musicians from all over the world creating a new version of Ram and the single tracks "Another Day" and "Oh Woman, Oh Why". The contributors included Seiwell, Spinozza, and Marvin Stamm from the original sessions, along with Davey Johnstone, Will Lee, Joey Santiago of the Pixies, Eric Dover formerly of Jellyfish, and Carnie Wilson. Cherry Red Records released the album on May 17, 2021.

Track listing
Side one

 * 1) "Too Many People" (Paul McCartney) – 4:10
 * 2) "3 Legs" (P. McCartney) – 2:44
 * 3) "Ram On" (P. McCartney) – 2:26
 * 4) "Dear Boy" (P. McCartney, Linda McCartney) – 2:12
 * 5) "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" (P. McCartney, L. McCartney) – 4:49
 * 6) "Smile Away" (P. McCartney) – 3:51

Side two

 * 1) "Heart of the Country" (P. McCartney, L. McCartney) – 2:21
 * 2) "Monkberry Moon Delight" (P. McCartney, L. McCartney) – 5:21
 * 3) "Eat at Home" (P. McCartney, L. McCartney) – 3:18
 * 4) "Long Haired Lady" (P. McCartney, L. McCartney) – 5:54
 * 5) "Ram On (Reprise)" (P. McCartney) – 0:52
 * 6) "The Back Seat of My Car" (P. McCartney) – 4:26

Additional tracks on the 1993 CD reissue
 * 1) "Another Day" (P. McCartney, L. McCartney) – 3:42
 * 2) "Oh Woman, Oh Why" (P. McCartney) – 4:35

Archive Collection Reissue
Ram was reissued in several packages:
 * Standard Edition (1-CD): the original 12-track album
 * Standard Edition (digital download): the original 12-track album
 * Special Edition (2-CD): the original 12-track album on the first disc, plus 8 bonus tracks on a second disc
 * Deluxe Edition Box Set (4-CD/1-DVD): the original 12-track album, the bonus tracks disc, the original album in mono, Thrillington, DVD of films (including the documentary Ramming narrated by Paul and directed by Ben Ib, as well as the original music videos for "Heart of the Country" and "3 Legs"), 112-page book, 5 prints, 8 facsimiles of lyric sheets, photograph book, and a download link to all of the material
 * Remastered vinyl (2-LP, with a download link to the material): the same tracks as the Special Edition release
 * Remastered mono vinyl (1-LP): a limited edition release of the mono mixes
 * Remastered Record Store Day 2012-exclusive vinyl single of "Another Day" b/w "Oh Woman, Oh Why"
 *  50th Anniversary Half-Speed Remaster Vinyl (2021)

Disc 1 – Ram

The original 12-track album.

Disc 2 – Bonus audio

All songs written by Paul McCartney, except "Another Day", "Little Woman Love", and "Hey Diddle", written with Linda McCartney.

 * 1) "Another Day" (non-album single) – 3:42
 * 2) "Oh Woman, Oh Why" (b-side to "Another Day") – 4:35
 * 3) "Little Woman Love" (b-side to "Mary Had a Little Lamb)" – 2:08
 * 4) "A Love for You" (Jon Kelly mix) – 4:08
 * 5) "Hey Diddle" (Dixon Van Winkle mix) – 3:49
 * 6) "Great Cock and Seagull Race" (Dixon Van Winkle mix) – 2:35
 * 7) "Rode All Night" – 8:44
 * 8) "Sunshine Sometime" (earliest mix) – 3:20
 * Tracks 4–8 are previously unreleased
 * Tracks 6–8 are instrumental jams

Disc 3 – Ram mono

The mono version of the original 12-song album.

Disc 4 – Thrillington

Writing credits correspond to that of the original album.

 * 1) "Too Many People" – 4:31
 * 2) "3 Legs" – 3:41
 * 3) "Ram On" – 2:49
 * 4) "Dear Boy" – 2:50
 * 5) "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey" – 4:56
 * 6) "Smile Away" – 4:39
 * 7) "Heart of the Country" – 2:27
 * 8) "Monkberry Moon Delight" – 4:36
 * 9) "Eat at Home" – 3:28
 * 10) "Long Haired Lady" – 5:44
 * 11) "The Back Seat of My Car" – 4:51

Disc 5 – DVD
 * 1) Ramming – 11:15
 * Making of the album
 * 1) "Heart of the Country" – 2:41
 * Promo video
 * 1) "3 Legs" – 3:03
 * Promo video
 * 1) "Hey Diddle" – 2:48
 * Previously unreleased
 * 1) "Eat at Home" on Tour – 4:31

Digital-only bonus tracks (available only on Paulmccartney.com and iTunes)
 * 1) "Eat at Home" / "Smile Away" (live in Groningen, 1972) – 8:24
 * Performed by Wings
 * 1) "Uncle Albert Jam" – 2:17

Personnel

 * Paul McCartney – lead and harmony vocals, acoustic and electric guitars, ukulele on "Ram On", bass, piano, keyboards
 * Linda McCartney – harmony and backing vocals; co-lead vocals on "Long Haired Lady"
 * David Spinozza – guitar on "3 Legs", "Eat at Home", "The Back Seat of My Car", and "Another Day"
 * Hugh McCracken – guitar
 * Denny Seiwell – drums
 * Heather McCartney – backing vocals on "Monkberry Moon Delight"
 * Marvin Stamm – flugelhorn on "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey"
 * New York Philharmonic on "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey","Long Haired Lady", and "The Back Seat of My Car"

title: Ram (album)


text:
Talk:Barisal Division

Removal
What I meant to say here was remove Barisal Zilla. This is covered in the article about the district. Pahari Sahib 18:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Tripura is a disputed Division??
92.49.111.231 (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Totally lost!! How could Tripura be a disputed division of Bangladesh? Can someone show any link supporting this claim ?

Malware Link Removal
-- Gary  Dee  17:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Potentially Malicious Domain:
 * hxxp://www.amaderbarisal.com/
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/url/ffbb3c4679f2dd97cc1d56420fe901e70dba501cce671ade32105d2640b1bcba/analysis/1373472177/
 * hxxp://www.amaderbarisal.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-polls/polls-js.js?ver=2.63
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/url/e907cda7ee83b0b37dc22d0a57394f79db37a8b2f9e5ffd3bbab99ec9ff0079f/analysis/1373649318/
 * TROJ_GEN.F47V1224
 * https://www.virustotal.com/de/file/e74dc2a2eef5cb64763831eac8a3b3c7e60eec6120b520e40194f8c74d3f0555/analysis/1369489807/
 * SEE ALSO: http://www.UnmaskParasites.com/security-report/?page=www.amaderbarisal.com

Placename changes and Wikipedia policy
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh before moving to a new title. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Spelling Error
The correct spelling of 'Barisal' is BARISHAL. Md. Asfath Ullah (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not on Wikipedia at this time. Nor on Encyclopedia Britannica, nor on Banglapedia: The National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh. Some day the WP:COMMONNAME may change, but it could take years. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

English Spelling Change
Bangladesh Government decision to change the English Spelling ( Barisal to BARISHAL ) Zahid609639 (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh/Archive 7 to understand why Wikipedia uses the spellings it does. The government of Bangladesh doesn't dictate what is correct here. If you wish to change the spelling, you may seek a new consensus (preferably at a general location, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bangladesh, since multiple articles are affected). If you have evidence that the circumstances on which the original consensus was formed have changed, present it there. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Barisal Division


text:
The Architect (2006 film)

The Architect is a 2006 American drama film directed by Matt Tauber. Based on the 1996 play by David Greig, the plot is about architect Leo Waters (Anthony LaPaglia), who is confronted by angry residents of a housing complex he designed. The buildings have created a culture of crime in the neighborhood and the residents want them pulled down. The film had its world premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival on April 26, 2006, and received a limited release in the United States on December 1, 2006.

Plot
Leo Waters is a successful architect, who also teaches architecture at a local university. He has a strained relationship with his family, including his wife Julia, who is a housewife who spends her time tending to their luxurious modern house, their son Martin, who recently dropped out of college and has no interest to follow in his father's footsteps and become an architect, and their daughter Christina, who he watches inappropriately at times.

Tonya Neely is a cleaning lady who lives in a state-funded high-rise public housing project Leo has designed several years ago in Chicago's South Side. Her son committed suicide and her eldest daughter is a young single mom. Meanwhile, Cammie, her youngest daughter attends a prestigious school on a scholarship and lives with a wealthy family Tonya's knows from her work.

Tonya leads a community effort to demolish the housing project and build a new better one instead. In an attempt to gain support for her cause, Tonya reaches out to Leo in a lecture and asks him to sign her petition calling for the demolition of the project. He initially defends his work, but later comes up with an idea on how to improve the project by modifying its current design without the need for a complete demolition. He later invites Tonya to his house to share his vision but she is appalled by his proposed approach, especially as he has not bothered to visit the project since it was first built.

Meanwhile, Martin travels to the housing project to see it for himself, and meets Shawn, young gay prostitute who lives in the project. Shawn had committed suicide by jumping off a roof of a building, in the same manner Tonya's own son killed himself.

Leo goes to the housing project to meet Tonya. He tell her that he agrees to sign her petition, but she informs him that the authorities have already agreed to demolish the project. Martin walks to the roof of one of the building where he unexpectedly bumps into his own father, and they share a silent emotional glaze.

title: The Architect (2006 film)


text:
The Weathermen (band)

The Weathermen are a semi-satirical Belgium-based electronic and pop band.

History
The Weathermen began as a joke. A couple of Americano-Belgians recorded some music and then sent it to a local record company via the US under the pretence they were a couple of enigmatic Americans trying to invade the European music scene. It worked and they were signed to Play It Again Sam (PIAS) Records who put out their first 12" "Old Friend Sam" in 1985. They recruited the assistance of Tuxedomoon's visual specialist Bruce Geduldig who adopted the alias of Chuck B, a debauched playboy vocalist. He brought even more humour and satire to the already amused Weathermen. The name "The Weathermen" was inspired from a line in famous folk/rock artist, Bob Dylan's song "Subterranean Homesick Blues" in which a line goes "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

More singles followed, moving the band away from alternative dancey electronic music into slightly satirical poppy EBM music, but it wasn't until 1987 that the song "Poison" brought them real attention. With tracks such as "Punishment Park", the Black Album as a whole was like the soundtrack of a dark and tongue-in-cheek movie, something like the Marx Brothers remixing William Gibson. By this time, the group had slimmed down to 'Chuck' and 'Jimmy-Joe Snark III'; who was actually mild-mannered producer and keyboardist Jean-Marc Lederman who had worked with the likes of Fad Gadget, The The and Kid Montana.

The band continued in the vein of tongue-in-cheek pop, leaving behind their early harder sound, but they failed to repeat the success of "Poison" on a commercial level.

In 2001, a best of album was almost released by PIAS. Due to frustration and demands from the fanbase and a new generation who had discovered their music through research into other renowned Belgian acts such as Front 242 and A Split-Second, Jimmyjoe Snark III decided to reclaim the album from PIAS and publish it via a website. The only demands made on those downloading it being that they leave a comment in the guestbook. This brought a new legion of fans and enough interest for Jimmy-Joe & Chuck to be thawed out of storage for the creation of some new music.

The album Deeper with The Weathermen was released in 2004, followed by Embedded with The Weathermen in 2006.

In 2007, PIAS released The Last Communiqué from The Weathermen, a compilation of their work from 1985 till 2006.

In 2010, Infacted Recordings released Ultimate Poison, a 15 tracks MCD loosely based around "Poison" and all its remixes, plus some unreleased tracks.

Members

 * Jimmy-Joe Snark III AKA Jean-Marc Lederman – keyboards, programming, production
 * Chuck B AKA Bruce Geduldig – vocals
 * Michel Van Gysel – keyboards, drums

Singles and 12" EP

 * Old Friend Sam  (1985)
 * Deep Down South  (1985)
 * This Is the Third Communique (Berlin)  (1986)
 * Take It Off!  (1986)
 * Poison  (1987)
 * Punishment Park  (1988)
 * Bang!  (1989)
 * Heatseeker  (1990)
 * Once for the Living (1990)
 * Around the World (1992)
 * Daytime TV (2005)
 * Ultimate Poison EP (2010)

Studio albums

 * Ten Deadly Kisses (1986)
 * The Black Album According to The Weathermen (1988)
 * Beyond the Beyond (1990)
 * Global 851 (1992)
 * Deeper with The Weathermen (2004)
 * Embedded with The Weathermen (2006)

Compilation albums

 * The Last Communiqué from The Weathermen (2007)

title: The Weathermen (band)


text:
Victor Ashe

Victor Henderson Ashe II (born January 1, 1945) is an American former diplomat and politician who served as United States Ambassador to Poland. From 1987 to 2004, he was mayor of Knoxville, Tennessee. Ashe is a Republican. Ambassador Ashe concluded his service as Ambassador to Poland on September 26, 2009.

Early career
Ashe was born in Knoxville, Tennessee, where he attended public school. He attended the Groton School in Groton, Massachusetts and subsequently the Hotchkiss School in Lakeville, Connecticut. He graduated from Yale University in 1967 with a BA in history. At Yale, Ashe was a member of the Skull and Bones society, as was George W. Bush. In 1974 he earned his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Tennessee College of Law. Before becoming an elected official, Ashe worked as an intern for Congressman Bill Brock, and as a staff assistant for Senator Howard Baker.

In 1968 Ashe was elected to the Tennessee House of Representatives; he was only 23 years old at the time. Significantly, during that time he championed passage of the 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age to eighteen, and authored legislation that lowered the age of majority to eighteen as well in 1971. After serving three terms in the State House, Ashe won the August 1974 Republican primary for a Tennessee Senate seat representing Knox County, Tennessee. In a lawsuit brought by a former legislator Ashe had defeated in 1972, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled Ashe ineligible to be the Republican nominee as he would not meet the minimum age qualification of 30 on the day of the general election in November. The Knox County GOP then nominated his mother, Martha Ashe, to replace him as the nominee. She was elected by the voters with the promise to resign in January 1975 when Ashe turned 30. Upon her resignation the Knox County Commission appointed Victor Ashe to replace her; he was later elected to the position and served for nine years.

From 1967 to 1973, during the Vietnam War, Ashe was a member of the United States Marine Corps Air Reserves. He was also the Executive Director of the Americans Outdoors Commission from 1985 until 1987.

He ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in 1984 against future Vice President Al Gore.

Mayor
Ashe was elected to be the mayor of Knoxville in November 1987. He served 16 years as mayor, the longest term in the city's history. As mayor, Ashe led several initiatives to improve Knoxville's civic and financial footing. These initiatives focused on such things as waterfront development along the Tennessee River and the building of a convention center to attract tourism and business. The latter was a cause for controversy, with many residents saying that the city of Knoxville did not offer enough amenities to attract would-be events or shows to a convention center. Other initiatives included downtown redevelopment and sign and billboard control.

Ashe stressed diversity within his administration, noting when he left office the growth of minorities and women on commissions and boards during his time as mayor. While Ashe often had the support of the city council, he was unable to get it to institute a Police Advisory Review Committee to perform as a civilian review of police action, something which, in 1998, he felt was necessary to investigate the questionable deaths of three black men at the hands of police officers. At the time, hostility in the black community toward the police department was extremely high due to these deaths. Ashe circumvented the council and established the committee by executive order. Three years later, the council unanimously ratified the order, defusing growing protests for recall elections for Ashe and other councilors.

Parkland and public domain
As mayor, Ashe favored preserving buildings that had possible historic value, at one point threatening to put historic zoning restrictions on a building its owners wished to demolish.

Ashe was a strong supporter of parkland in the city, and during his tenure, parkland in Knoxville was increased from 700 to 1700 acre and 30 mi of greenway was added. He initiated a program called "Penny for the Parks" to create a trust fund that would use a one cent tax and federal matching money to commit $250,000 a year for city parks, greenways and historic preservation. After leaving office, Ashe was awarded a Cornelius Amory Pugsley Medal, which was granted by the American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration in recognition of his work on greenways and public parks.

Ambassador to Poland
Ashe was sworn in as a US ambassador to Poland in June 2004; during Ashe's tenure as mayor of Knoxville he, acting on the advice of Dr. Marek Pienkowski, helped to establish a sister city relationship with the city of Chełm, Poland, and led two delegations to that city.

One of the issues Ashe engaged in when he was appointed ambassador to Poland was the difficulty Poles have getting work and tourist visas for the United States. After Ashe met with President George W. Bush and Polish President Aleksander Kwaśniewski in Washington in 2005, Bush suggested that the visa rejection rate for Poles be lowered.

Ashe has also noted that Poland has a growing economy that offers many opportunities for US businesses. He is interested in having his own area of Knoxville and East Tennessee take advantage of such opportunities, and in 2005 advised a group of 16 Knoxville-area businesses to put together a trade mission to Poland.

On March 16, 2009 he was honoured by President of Poland Lech Kaczyński with Commander's Cross with Star of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland, for his contribution to Polish-American cooperation. He was decorated on September 25, 2009 by Mariusz Handzlik, undersecretary of state in President's Office.

Board memberships
Ashe was appointed as a member of the Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and Community Service in 1996, and he served until 2000.

Ashe serves on the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the body which supervises the federal agencies which broadcast to foreign countries. In a 2013 report by the Office of Inspector General, Ashe was criticized as a board member "whose tactics and personal attacks on colleagues and staff have created an unprofessional and unproductive atmosphere". Ashe was not directly named, but referred to as a "former mayor," a description which fits only him. Ashe called the report "unwarranted, unfair and factually incorrect" and in his defense pointed to his support from labor.

Yale Trustee Candidate
In April 2020, Ashe announced his candidacy for the Yale Corporation, on a platform of reforming the Corporation election process while taking into account alumni voices.

Personal life
Ashe and his wife, Joan née Plumlee, have two children together. Ashe is the uncle of professional basketball players Mason Plumlee, Miles Plumlee, and Marshall Plumlee.

title: Victor Ashe


text:
Simhavishnu

Simhavishnu (IAST: Siṃhaviṣṇu) also known as Avanisimha son of Simhavarman III and one of the Pallava kings of India, was responsible for the revival of the Pallavan dynasty. He was the first Pallava monarch whose domain extended beyond Kanchipuram (Kanchi) in the South. He was portrayed as a great conqueror in Mattavilasa Prahasana (drunken revelry), a drama written by his son Mahendravarman I.

Reign
Sailendra Nath Sen 575-600 AD.

T.V. Mahalingam 575–615 CE.

KAN Sastri 555–590 CE.

He ruled at least for 33 years based on the available Hero stones. However, there is no exact consensus as to Simhavishnu's period on the throne.

Expansion of kingdom
When Simhavishnu ascended the throne, the Pallava dynasty was beginning to reassert its supremacy.

The southern peninsula of India was then ruled by five dynasties. The Pallavas, the Cholas and the Pandyas shared the power in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, parts of southern and eastern Karnataka border and Ceylon; the Cheras controlled Kerala and the Chalukyas controlled Karnataka. Simhavishnu, who was known for his gallant martial courage and judicial wisdom from a young age, overthrew the Kalabhras and conquered the region up to Kaveri, where he came into conflict with the Pandyas and Ceylon. He dispatched a naval expedition and occupied Malaya and Sri Lanka and established Kanchipuram as his capital. The presence of the Pallavas, much before further naval expeditions to Indo-China by their illustrious succeeding and contemporary empires such as the Pandiyans and the Cholas, is attested by the existence of specimen of art bearing striking resemblance in countries like Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, as well as scores of inscriptions in those lands in the Grantha script (a script in which both Tamil and Sanskrit can be written) in which the Pallavas were the first to specialize.

Simhavishnu led the revival of the Pallavas, and the period starting with him came to be known as the Greater Pallavas or Later Pallavas dynasty. The great struggle between the Pallavas and the Chalukyas, which would last for more than two centuries, began during the reign of Simhavishnu.

Contribution to literature
Simhavishnu is known to have been the patron of the Sanskrit poet Bharavi, who wrote of the duel between Siva and Arjuna known as Kirata Arjuneeya, after which Shiva blessed Arjuna with the divine Pashupatastra. The structure of Bharavi's play suggests that it was written for koodiyattam plays for worship in temples during festivals. Kirata Arjuneeya is used as a subject for koodiyattam performances even today.

Religious affiliation
As with most Indian monarchs, Simhavishnu was also religious.

In the Udayendiram copper plates of Nandivarman II, Simhavishnu was a devotee of Vishnu. This is a noteworthy point as his son Mahendravarman I was a Jaina who opposed all the Shaivite practices before being converted to Shaivism. Simhavishnu's portrait can be seen in the stone engraving at the Adivaraha Mandapam, an elegant shrine at Mahabalipuram. The monuments and temples in Mahabalipuram are achievements of the Pallava dynasty, and they still exist in Tamil Nadu. Simhavishnu was succeeded by his son Mahendravarman I.

title: Simhavishnu


text:
Talk:September 11 attacks/Title & comma archive

Missing comma
I'm going to move this article to put in the comma missing after "2001" in the title. Maurreen 12:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * But there is no missing comma 'September 11, 2001, attacks' just looks naff and silly. There's also no grammatical rule that allows for a comma there (September 11 2001 is essentially an adjective here - you don't put commas between adjectives and their nouns!). Personally I'd prefer no comma in the title. Jongarrettuk 13:07, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Nor did the person making the spurious move bother fixing the literally hundreds of links in other articles to what suddenly became a redirect. I've moved it back. - David Gerard 14:15, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I hadn't realized a comma would be controversial. I checked in three books and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers).

 * Perhaps the two of you are used to writing dates in the format "11 September 2001," which would call for no commas at all. Maurreen 15:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * The current style (as if the comma isn't part of the sentence) seems to be the one most used here. The main problem with a change like this is that it's a really popular and heavily-linked page - click on 'What links here' and see. Probably the best thing to do for moves of a popular page is to take a straw poll on the subject. Then convention is that whoever advocates the move gets to go to every linked article and fix the link so it isn't a redirect ;-) (I had to do this when I moved UFO to Unidentified flying object ... and serve me right) - David Gerard 16:56, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Moral of the story: Ask first. If a lot of people scream bloody murder, then don't. Furthermore, I should point out that while the article has no comma, the talk page does. Schism! --Golbez 17:05, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * D'oh! Fixed - David Gerard 17:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've just searched on google under 'September 11, 2001 attacks' - this version wins out easily. Jongarrettuk 20:20, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * The comma is correct. Either "11 September 2001 attacks" or "September 11, 2001, attacks". The year is technically an appositive in the second form and, therefore, requires two commas.

 * It is a pity that carelessness or ignorance has left hundreds of incorrectly written links throughout Wikipedia. Something this important and widespread should be handled correctly as a matter of public education. Besides, I thought that a robot propagated the changes to links. No?

 * I urge that correct usage be instituted. Shorne 06:55, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * See also discussion on the Village Pump. This is not a universal accepted rule, although we have not established its range. Note especially U.S. Senate Resolution 173: Title: A resolution condemning violence and discrimination against Iranian-Americans in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Rmhermen 13:14, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't consider US senators very good arbiters of English usage.

 * I agree that "Attacks of September 11, 2001" is better. Note, however, that a comma is still required after the year in "The attacks of September 11, 2001, were …".

 * There are good reasons to insist on the second comma. Consider "On September 11, 2001 attacks were waged against the US." That means that two thousand one attacks were waged on September 11 of an unstated year. Shorne 17:07, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * That example is completely different, "On September 11, 2001" modifies "were" not "attacks". Rmhermen 19:11, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Comma references, compromise title
The link on the Village Pump discussion goes to the style guide of a German wire service. Germany's a great places, but it's not the best authority on English usage. Nor is the number of Google hits, as someone mentioned in a discussion elsewhere. I have at least three references that say a comma should be used in a construction such as "September 11, 2001, attacks." Does anyone have anything authoritative to counter that?

If the majority of you want to leave the comma out, so be it. But the title will be substandard. Or does anyone want to compromise? Maybe we can find a title none of us disagree with. Maurreen 01:08, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * You have no references that say that there should be a comma when September 11, 2001 is used as an adjective (Shorne is wrong to imply that 'September 11, 2001' could be in apposition to 'attacks' - it is clearly adjectival (see also appositive.) And I'm not sure what you regard as 'authoritative' - if you don't accept google as being a guide to common usage, what do you accept? There is already a redirect on 'September 11, 2001, attacks'. If we go for a 'September 11 2001 attacks' style formulation, the consensus is clearly for just one comma.

 * That said, in my opinion We should just call the page '9/11' on the grounds that that is what it is most commonly referred to as. Jongarrettuk 06:43, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I never said that September 11, 2001 was in apposition to attacks. It is 2001 that is in apposition to September 11. And that is why 2001 requires two commas.

 * Maurreen is quite right. Google is no style guide. Shorne 08:15, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Common usage is not synonymous with correct usage. Here are a few references. I can probably find more without much trouble.
 * 1) From The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual: "When a phrase refers to a month, day and year, set off the year with commas."
 * 2) From The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage: "When day, month and year are given together, use a comma after the day, and use a comma or some other punctuation after the year."
 * 3) From Working With Words: A Handbook for Media Writers and Editors: "Use a comma before and after the abbreviation for a state following a city, and before and after a year following a month and date."
 * 4) From Webster's New World College Dictionary: "A comma is ordinarily used ... to set off the main elements in an address; a title following a person's name; and the year if the month, day, and year are given."
 * None of these references give exceptions.
 * I am OK with calling the page "9/11." Maurreen 15:08, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The two commas are of course correct. But if people can't agree to that, we could just drop the year and use September 11 attacks. Gzornenplatz 15:35, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

 * I am not content with "9/11", which reflects a US bias. That date would be written "11/9" in many other countries. It is commonly used only because it happens to coincide with 911, the telephone number for emergency services in the US (and Canada and a few other countries).

 * I recommend "Attacks of September 11, 2001". It's clearer anyway. Shorne 17:28, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maurreen says 'common usage is not synonymous with correct usage'. Ummm, yes it is. English is a living language, it changes, it does not obey strict rules. If most people phrase something a particular way, it is, necessarily, accepted usage. And accepted usage changes.

Manuals of style, or at least the good ones, seek to report how people actually use language. Just like an encyclopaedia does not determine what something means, nor does a manual of style prescribe - it reports. If the language people use changes so that it is different from a manual of style, the manual is out of date. This may, or may not, mean that the old usage is considered 'wrong', it can never mean the new usage is 'wrong'. In particular, it means that a manual of style can never be a determinant of 'correct' language, it can only report what the authors (one hopes after research) have found, at that time, to be common usage.

So where are we? If two commas is used frequently by the writers above, and by many others - this is strong evidence that it is 'correct' US English. Similarly if one comma is used frequently by others - it may also be 'correct'. Google is, of course, no determinant, but it is indicative of common usage, particularly of US English. It shows one comma as being clearly the more common usage, this is strong evidence that the one comma variant is standard (ie 'correct') US English too. There are, of course, also many articles with two commas - which reinforces the argument that the two comma variant is a commonly accepted usage. Conclusion; on the evidence available, both the one and two comma variants are used in standard US English, and in this sense both may be considered 'correct'.

As far as what the article should be called. I'd still suggest 9/11 as it is the most common way this is referred to in the English speaking world - it's certainly referred to 9/11 in UK English. If the 'September 11 2001 attacks' formula is kept, there are good reasons for just having the one comma version. (1) The one comma version appears to be the most common version; (2) The two comma version is jarring to a non-American - it just looks wrong (even if it is an acceptable variant in US English). This is an International encyclopaedia, so point (2) is a strong argument. The one comma version should prevail. Jongarrettuk 19:13, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Written usage is conservative. Of course it changes over time. But good usage is still that of the people whose standards are the most widely appreciated as being well-informed and proper. It matters not that many people write accomodate and accordian; those are incorrect spellings and will continue to be so regarded for a long time to come.
 * As for "September 11, 2001, attacks", you'll find few people who flatly assert that using two commas is wrong, but you will find many people—people who know what they are doing—who say that using only one comma (or, worse yet, none) is wrong and who can explain their claim.

 * I don't consider Google to be a representative body of good writing. The fact that the four style guides cited by Maurreen, along with my own practice (which, of course, is perfect in every way :-)), agree that two commas are needed is strong evidence that that is the most accepted style for edited text. (Most of what appears on Google is not edited.) Shorne 19:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here's my thinking: "September 11, 2001 attacks" is the name of the attacks. Names don't have to be grammatically correct. Note that a Hello world program ought to be a "Hello, world" program, but no one uses this (correct) construction, so the name should be "Hello world", even though the name uses incorrect grammar. (In a more base example, the Perineum is called a 'tain't, but there is no redirect for 'tisn't.) I think a proper article should say "The 'September 11, 2001 attacks' were carried out on September 11, 2001, by al-Qaida." See the difference? – Quadell (talk) (help)  11:56, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Working toward a compromise: Does anyone object to either of these?
 * 1) September 11 attacks
 * 2) Attacks of September 11, 2001
 * Maurreen 02:13, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The second makes natural linking to hard. Many links would have to be piped links. The first sounds good but maybe "September 11th attacks"? Rmhermen 03:30, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * I like the second. The first is risky: what will we do if some attacks occur on a future September 11? Shorne 03:37, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Summarizing title options

 * September 11, 2001 attacks
 * Rationale for:

 * 1) Simplicity, maintains status quo.
 * 2) Appears to be much more common than the two-comma version (Source: search on google).
 * 3) One opinion is that no second comma is needed because the entire date is an adjective for "attacks."
 * 4) Deutsche Presse-Agentur, a German wire service, supports the one-comma style for dates.
 * 5) The Handbook of Technical Writing, 4th ed., Brusaw, Alred, and Oliu, indicates that dates can be written with or without a comma following the year.
 * 6) One opinion is that names are not required to be grammatically correct.

 * Rationale against:

 * 1) One opinion is that "common usage" is not synonymous with "correct usage." Common usage is often casual usage. It is not the standard for an encyclopedia. Even contractions (such as "can't") are correct, but discouraged by the Wikipedia style guide.
 * 2) Using two commas to set the year off is widely supported by U.S. English reference books. These include the style guides of The Associated Press and The New York Times and Webster's New World College Dictionary. The only known exceptions are cases in which another punctuation mark follows the year and those in which the month is placed between the day and the year. For more guideance, see this Google search.
 * 3) One opinion is that the second comma is needed because the year is in apposition to the date (September 11). The second comma serves to set the year off from the rest of the date. It avoids the appearance that "2001" is either a modifier or subject for "attacks."
 * 4) One opinion is that an encyclopedia should strive to be beyond reproach. Even a perceived error can lead to less credibility. We can avoid that by choosing a title in which the comma question does not arise.
 * 5) The complaint that the second comma is unfamiliar to readers outside the United States, and that it is purely a U.S. construction, is out of place in that the format of the order of the date is a U.S. construction.
 * 6) Google Test says: “Further common sense: The Google test checks popular usage, not correctness. For example, a search for the incorrect Charles Windsor gives ten times more results than the correct Charles Mountbatten-Windsor (see Google test for "Charles-Windsor" and "Charles-Mountbatten-Windsor".”
 * 7) Manual of Style (dates and numbers) says: “In article titles dates will not be converted. It's generally preferable to use the format used by local English speakers at the location of the event.”
 * 8) Manual of Style says: “Articles which focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally aim to conform to the spelling of that country.” Logic would extend that idea to punctuation. Also: If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to an alternative that is often regarded as incorrect.

 * September 11, 2001, attacks
 * Rationale for:

See rationale against the one-comma version.
 * Rationale against:

 * 1) Purely a US English construction. One opinion is that non-US readers will be unfamiliar with it.Jongarrettuk finds the second comma jarring (certainly to non-Americans).
 * The "US English construction" is the date format "M D, Y". Most English-speaking countries prefer "D M Y", a logical form that is increasingly common in the US as well (it has long been used in the military) and that avoids the clutter of commas altogether. If you want "M D, Y", you do need a second comma. Shorne 14:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * which makes it very jarring to someone used to non-US English and no commas;) Jongarrettuk 21:52, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * And there is not a consensus that the comma is required either. older ≠ wiser 15:42, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) Appears to be a less common formulation than the one-comma version (Source: search on google).
 * It may be required by some U.S. grammarians but is probably not commonly used even there. Rmhermen 21:58, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) Not a very popular name for the event. Other attacks took place on September 11, 2001.  Expresses the POV that there were multiple attacks, rather than a single coordinated attack.  We don't say Attacks on Pearl Harbor, do we?

 * 9/11
 * Rationale for:

 * 1) Short.
 * 2) Widely used in the United States, where the attacks happened.
 * 3) Widely used in the United Kingdom (despite DD/MM formula being used for dates generally). [If anyone knows about the rest of the English-speaking world, plase add.]
 * It is widely used because other countries followed the US's lead. There is no other explanation for the use of "9/11" in a country that would write the date "11/9" (even Canada does so) and that has another telephone number for emergency services. Shorne 14:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) Most common phrasing for the events by a long long long way (Source: search on google)
 * 2) One opinion is that encyclopedias are meant to report what people call things. And wikipedia already has articles for 1, 2, 3, etc.
 * 3) Any ambiguity would depend on which country you are in -- there is no ambiguity for British readers, for instance.
 * Rationale against:

 * 1) Ambiguous in various ways. I mean not just whether it means Sept. 11 or Nov. 9, but "911" phone number for emergency calls in the U.S. or $9.11, etc.
 * 2) Formal writing seldom uses numerals in place of the names of months.
 * Agreed. It is inappropriate as a title. I don't mind its use within articles, provided that the context is clear. Another reason to avoid it is that it may lose much of its punchiness as time passes. Will people twenty or thirty years hence know what "9/11" means? Shorne 14:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) Too ambiguous.

 * September 11 attacks
 * Rationale against:

 * 1) Could be a problem if any other notable attacks happen on some other September 11.
 * 2) Not a very popular name for the event. Other attacks took place on September 11.  Grammatically implies that September 11 did the attacking.  Expresses the POV that there were multiple attacks, rather than a single coordinated attack.  We don't say Attacks on Pearl Harbor, do we?
 * Rationale for:

 * 1) But such attacks haven't yet happened and we could have a disambiguation page if there was ever any future possibility that the phrase was unclear.

 * September 11th attacks
 * Rationale against:

 * 1) Could be a problem if any other notable attacks happen on some other September 11.
 * 2) Same as problems with September 11 attacks, sounds like a bad horror movie title (Mars Attacks!).
 * Rationale for:

 * 1) But such attacks haven't yet happened and we could have a disambiguation page if there was ever any future possibility that the phrase was unclear.

 * Attacks of September 11, 2001
 * Rationale for:

 * 1) Avoids adjective pile-up
 * 2) Precise and unambiguous construction of English, grammatically correct
 * Rationale against:

 * 1) Could make natural linking too hard. Many links would have to be piped links.
 * What's wrong with simply redirecting a great variety of other forms to the new page? Shorne 14:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) Not a common formulation (only 82,000 hits on google - which is low compared with the other options here)
 * It's better in a title than in running text. Shorne 14:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopaedia, not a news website or some such agency. Such other sources go with what is "snappy" or makes a catching news headline. Google results are not therefore, representative in this case. zoney ♣ talk 15:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) Inconsistent with other articles (11 March 2004 Madrid attacks, Casablanca Attacks, May 8 Bus Attack in Karachi, 2002 Karachi consulate attack, Rome and Vienna Airport Attacks almost every bombing, hostage crisis and siege on List of terrorist incidents)
 * I would suggest these others have randomly chosen, and in some cases, unencyclopaedic titles. zoney ♣ talk 15:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) Not a very popular name for the event. Other attacks took place on September 11, 2001.  Expresses the POV that there were multiple attacks, rather than a single coordinated attack.  We don't say Attacks on Pearl Harbor, do we?

 * September 11, 2001
 * Rationale for:

 * 1) The attacks are widely known by the date. Culturally, the date symbolizes the event, as the place indicates the event for "Pearl Harbor" and "the Alamo."
 * 2) A Wikipedia search for "September 11, 2001" leads readers to this article.
 * 3) September 11, 2001 already redirects here, and there is no information on events taking place on that day in Wikipedia which are not related to the event.
 * 4) Including a brief section of other things which happened that day wouldn't hurt the article, and would likely improve it by putting things into perspective.
 * Rationale against:

 * 1) The title doesn't help anyone unfamiliar with the attacks, because it does not include that information.
 * 2) *Why is this a job of a title?
 * 3) Sounds like it should be a page covering all current events on September 11, 2001, not just the attacks.
 * 4) *And Attacks of September 11, 2001 sounds like it should be a page covering all attacks on September 11, 2001, not just the one(s) on those airplanes/buildings/people/etc.
 * 5) This represents a pro-US bias.
 * 6) *This needs to be clarified.

Please feel free to add anything needed above. Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) Just a note to say I have felt free to add to the above and have, indeed, done so. Jongarrettuk 06:46, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) as has Shorne

Libraries
FYI, the officially authorized Library of Congress subject heading--which controls what to look under in your library's catalog--is "September 11 Terrorist Attacks, 2001". PedanticallySpeaking 20:50, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't understand this - what has the Library of Congress got to do with my library's catalogue? jguk 06:29, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * It probably has nothing to do with jguk's library. The Library of Congress subject headings pertain to many U.S. libraries. But the Dewey Decimal System is also very common in the USA. Maurreen I forgot to sign this earlier.

Please accept my apologies for forgetting about the rest of the English-speaking world; the Library of Congress's decisions in general control how America's libraries catalog books. Please also understand that I am talking about subject headings and not call numbers--i.e. the Dewey Decimal System and the Library of Congress classification are not at issue. Now, the overwhelming majority of libraries in America do not catalog books themselves but rely on the Cataloging in Publication data supplied by the Library of Congress appearing on the title page verso of books. Second, librarians use what is called a "controlled vocabulary". This entire debate we're having on what to call the September 11th article is a good example. There's several different places we could put this article, just as there's several different phrases to describe "nuclear power" (e.g. "atomic power," "nuclear energy," "nuclear fission", etc.) What the Library of Congress does is create an "authorized" subject heading so that no matter what library you go into, all the books on "nuclear power" will be under that heading; it puts libraries on the same page. Most libraries in America use them exclusively and any library of any size will have the big set of red books containing all the subject headings authorized, fully cross-referenced with alternatives. There are a few libraries that put in additional subject headings beyond what's in the CIP data or create their own subject headings--e.g., the Hennepin County, Minnesota, public library was famous for its cataloging work under the iconoclastic Sanford Berman--but once the Library of Congress has spoken, generally that's what America's libraries use. Now, I know the Canadian Library and the British Library, which do the CIP work in their countries, uses different headings, so sometimes you'll find a book with CIP data from more than one and they never agree. Would be curious to know what the approved British and Canadian subject headings are for this topic. Finally, the entire LC authorities file is available on the web at http://authorities.loc.gov/. PedanticallySpeaking 15:43, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Title poll?
Shall we narrow things down and mark which options we support or oppose?

 * Please update vote counts when voting. zoney ♣ talk 19:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I realized I neglected to set a duration for the poll. I think we can let it run a week from when it opened, Oct. 6 through Oct. 13. Maurreen 09:25, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 attacks (8-5)

 * Support

 * 1) Rmhermen 12:44, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2)   – Quadell (talk) (help)   17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) older ≠ wiser 14:03, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 20:30, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Chuq 22:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) NeoJustin 02:49, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Michael Snow 21:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose

 * 1) Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Shorne 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Gzornenplatz 15:18, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) zoney ♣ talk 15:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) L33tminion 04:34, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 21:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Oh no, September 11 is attacking! anthony (see warning) 18:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

September 11, 2001, attacks (3-10)

 * Support

 * 1) Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Shorne 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Gzornenplatz 15:18, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) L33tminion 04:34, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose

 * 1)   – Quadell (talk) (help)   17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) zoney ♣ talk 19:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Emsworth 01:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) older ≠ wiser 14:05, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:12, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) comma overload! Chuq 22:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) there is too many commas in that title. NeoJustin 02:52 Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Michael Snow 21:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) Clunky feel. J OHN C OLLISON  [ Ludraman] 21:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

9/11 (2-11)

 * Support

 * 1) Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Probably the most common name used for the attacks, and not unencyclopedic, so I have no problem with it. J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 21:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose

 * 1) Shorne 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Gzornenplatz 15:18, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3)   – Quadell (talk) (help)   17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) zoney ♣ talk 19:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Emsworth 01:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Too informal. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:41, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) older ≠ wiser 14:06, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Chuq 22:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Not appropriate interntionaly --NeilTarrant 15:38, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) NeoJustin 02:56, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) Okay to use in text when quoting or paraphrasing people who refer to 9/11, but not for the article title. --Michael Snow 21:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) L33tminion 04:34, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

September 11 attacks (6-7)

 * Support

 * 1) Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Shorne 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) (reluctantly—could become ambiguous)
 * 3) Gzornenplatz 15:18, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) older ≠ wiser 14:07, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) SimonP 15:22, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) L33tminion 04:34, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Simple, common, rolls easily off the tongue (well, keyboard) J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 21:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose

 * 1)   – Quadell (talk) (help)   17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Emsworth 01:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:40, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) zoney ♣ talk 15:32, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Chuq 22:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) NeoJustin 02:57, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

September 11th attacks (4-11)

 * Support

 * 1) Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Rmhermen 12:44, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) older ≠ wiser 14:07, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) SimonP 15:22, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose

 * 1) Shorne 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) ("September 11 attacks" would be better; this form seems to offer no real advantage)
 * 2) Gzornenplatz 15:18, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3)   – Quadell (talk) (help)   17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) zoney ♣ talk 19:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Emsworth 01:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) The "th" is not our usual style. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:39, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) Chuq 22:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) NeoJustin 02:52, Oct 13, 2004
 * 10) Michael Snow 21:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) L33tminion 04:34, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 21:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Attacks of September 11, 2001 (10-6)

 * Support

 * 1) Maurreen 06:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Shorne 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) zoney ♣ talk 19:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) Quite simply, the most encyclopaedic form here.
 * 4) Emsworth 01:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 13:38, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) older ≠ wiser 14:08, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 20:30, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) cohesion [[User_talk:Cohesion|☎]] 08:07, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) NeilTarrant 15:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC), I agree with Zoney
 * 10) L33tminion 04:34, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) J OHN C OLLISON [ Ludraman] 21:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose

 * 1)   – Quadell (talk) (help)   17:39, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Rmhermen 21:22, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Jongarrettuk 12:53, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) SimonP 00:02, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Chuq 22:03, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) NeoJustin 03:26, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) I can understand wanting to combine a number of coordinated events which took place on September 11, 2001, but "attacks" isn't the way to do it. "Terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001" maybe.  Even better, "Terrorist attack of September 11, 2001".  "Airplane hijackings of September 11, 2001" perhaps.  Even Attack on America gets more google hits.  But "Attacks of September 11, 2001"?  I don't get it. anthony (see warning) 18:33, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Title vote tally

 * September 11, 2001 attacks (7-4) (64% support)
 * September 11, 2001, attacks (3-8) (27% support)
 * 9/11 (1-10) (9% support)
 * September 11 attacks (5-7) (42% support)
 * September 11th attacks (4-9) (31% support)
 * Attacks of September 11, 2001 (9-6) (60% support)

Does anyone want a run-off between "September 11, 2001 attacks" and "Attacks of September 11, 2001"? Maurreen 05:01, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since the previous vote has shown there is no consensus for change and it is clear there is no alternative with unanimous or near unanimous support, I think it's time to draw a veil over this discussion and leave the page where it is. I'm also conscious that people who are quite happy with what the article is called now would have had no need to go to the talk page to even see this vote and that in the vote, the current title is the most supported one. jguk 06:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The vote was far from clear-cut. I do indeed propose a runoff between "September 11, 2001 attacks" and "Attacks of September 11, 2001". I remain convinced that the former is grossly incorrect grammatically speaking, with the latter much more encyclopaedic. I suggest in the new vote, people simply vote for one option, or the other. zoney ♣ talk 09:16, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I prefer not to go into detail, but I don't see how a run-off can hurt. Maurreen 15:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As a proper noun it should be September 11, 2001 Attacks. so all of these are wrong! Dunc|☺ 11:28, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Title run-off vote
Please indicate supporting votes for either option and update the tally in parentheses. This poll will run for a week, from Oct. 15 through Oct. 21. Maurreen 15:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Please see the earlier discussions before voting. Reasoning for having a vote: There is disagreement as to whether the first version below is a correct English construction, while the latter is not a construction often used in the media. zoney ♣ talk 23:44, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * September 11, 2001 attacks (18)
 * 1) Tεx  τ  urε  17:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Rmhermen 17:37, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3)   – Quadell (talk) (help)   17:49, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) gadfium 18:22, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 18:47, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) jguk 19:35, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Mild preference for status quo and having the most memorable aspect (the date) come first. But the alternative is also palatable. --Michael Snow 21:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) older ≠ wiser 23:47, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Adam Bishop 04:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) SimonP 06:52, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) RickK 08:18, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) dpen2000 16:26, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) L33tminion 01:41, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 14) jengod 03:14, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 15) mav 20:51, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 16) Chris 73 Talk 23:24, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * 17) Sean Curtin 19:34, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * 18) Stormie 11:45, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) - no reason to prefer one of the other, so I vote for the status quo

 * Attacks of September 11, 2001 (14)
 * 1) Maurreen 15:56, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) zoney ♣ talk 16:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Golbez 19:04, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) NeilTarrant 19:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Gzornenplatz 08:42, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 19:15, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) J OHN C OLLISON  [ Ludraman] 22:31, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) cohesion [[User_talk:Cohesion|☎]] 06:25, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * 9) Mpolo 12:41, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC) (The current title confuses me with no comma after 2001, but I agree that with the comma it's overloaded. This solves that problem.)
 * 10) Vsmith 11:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) The date didn't attack - terrorists did.
 * 11) Triskaideka Clearest. If a redirect is left at the old title, then nothing is lost.   —Triskaideka 16:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 12) ALoan (Talk) 13:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 13) Sharkford 18:28, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
 * 14) --Locarno 19:29, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Oppose both titles (5)
 * 1) anthony (see warning) 16:55, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) *I've looked over the page and can't find your preferred title. Do you have one? - Tεx  τ  urε  17:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) **September 11, 2001 anthony (see warning) 18:19, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) September 11 terrorist attacks. Very Verily  23:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree with Very Verily--198 01:13, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Also agree with Very Verily violet/riga (t) 09:39, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) September 11 freedom-fighter attacks - Sarcasm 23:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Whichever title is chose, the others suggested should become redirects. --L33tminion 01:41, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Sadly, it looks like there wasn't consensus (although the former version received a small plurality). I'm not sure what to do from here. – Quadell (talk) (help)  21:22, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * Ensure a summary of all these votes is put at the top of the talk page, in order that the issue is not accidentally stirred up within a month or two. (i.e. rerun). Of course I'm sure the issue will arise again, but at least people should remain aware how things panned out this time around. zoney ♣ talk 22:02, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text:
Al-Abbās ibn Said al-Jawharī

Al-ʿAbbās ibn Saʿid al-Jawharī (العباس بن سعيد الجوهري; c. 800 – c. 860), known as Al-Jawhari, was a geometer who worked at the House of Wisdom in Baghdad and for in a short time in Damascus, where he made astronomical observations. Born (and probably dying) in Baghdad, he was probably of Iranian origin. His most important work was his commentary on Euclid's Elements, which contained nearly 50 additional propositions and an attempted mathematical proof of the parallel postulate.

Described as having superb knowledge of Greek, which was unusual for a Muslim scholar), Al-Jawhari is credited with a translation into Arabic of the Indian polymath Shanaq al-Hindi's Book of Poisons.

title: Al-Abbās ibn Said al-Jawharī


text:
NCEA

NCEA may refer to:

 * National Certificate of Educational Achievement, New Zealand's main secondary school qualification
 * National Council for Educational Awards, Ireland
 * National Catholic Educational Association, United States
 * National Collegiate Equestrian Association, United States

title: NCEA