text:
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time, released as Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles: Turtles in Time in Europe, is a beat 'em up arcade video game produced by Konami and released in 1991. A sequel to the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles arcade game, it is a scrolling beat 'em up type game based mainly on the 1987 TMNT animated series. Originally an arcade game, Turtles in Time was ported to the Super Nintendo Entertainment System in 1992 under the title Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles IV: Turtles in Time, continuing the numbering from the earlier Turtles games released on the original NES. That same year, a game that borrowed many elements, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Hyperstone Heist, was released for the Sega Genesis.

In 2005, the arcade version of Turtles in Time was rereleased on newer consoles. A slightly altered version of the arcade game was included as an unlockable bonus in the 2005 game Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3: Mutant Nightmare. On August 5, 2009, Ubisoft released a 3D remake of the game, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time Re-Shelled, available as a download for Xbox 360 via Xbox Live Arcade. A downloadable PlayStation 3 version was later released via PlayStation Network on September 10, 2009.

Plot
The introductory cut scene of the game details the game's plot. It begins with the Turtles watching a TV newscast on a Sunday evening, with April O'Neil reporting from Liberty Island. Krang flies in using a giant exosuit and steals the Statue of Liberty, moments before Shredder hijacks the airwaves to laugh at the Turtles.

The Turtles jump into action in downtown New York and pursue the Foot to the streets and the city sewers (then to the Technodrome in the SNES version ), where Shredder sends them through a time warp. The Turtles must fight Shredder's army in both the past and the future in order to get home. They defeat Shredder and the Statue of Liberty is returned to its place.

Gameplay
Like its predecessor, Turtles in Time was available for the arcades in two- and four-player versions. In the two-player versions, each player gets to choose which of the four turtles they wish to control, whereas in the four-player versions the characters are assigned to the control panel from left to right in the following order: Leonardo, Michelangelo, Donatello, and Raphael. Each playable character has his own strengths and weaknesses. New features include the ability to execute a power attack by hitting an enemy several times in a row, and the ability to slam foot soldiers into surrounding enemies.

The game features the same control scheme of the previous arcade release. It uses a joystick for movement, an attack button and a jump button. Certain joystick/button combinations can make a Turtle run, perform a slide or dash attack, jump higher, perform a stationary or directed air attack, or perform a special attack.

Players guide the turtles through a series of levels. The first takes place in the streets of New York City, others transport the turtles to representations of various historical eras. In each level, players face enemies from both the 1987 cartoon and the feature film Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze, including foot soldiers, and stone warriors. Bosses featured in the arcade version are Baxter Stockman in his fly form, Metalhead, a group of Pizza Monsters, Cement Man, the duo of Tokka and Rahzar, Leatherhead, Krang (first in his android suit, then in a huge UFO) and Shredder.

Development
The original music of the game's soundtrack was composed by Mutsuhiko Izumi, a TMNT veteran who also composed the music for the previous arcade game in the series. It was arranged for the SNES version by Kazuhiko Uehara and Harumi Ueko, both of whom went on to produce several Konami games, including the following TMNT game, Tournament Fighters.

During development, the game's working title was "something like TMNT Time Travelers", according to Konami USA's Steve Kaufman in early 1991.

In addition to an original musical score, the attract mode of the arcade game is noted for featuring the song "Pizza Power", which was taken from the TMNT live concert, known as the Coming Out of Their Shells Tour. The game's music was released as part of the compilation album Konami All-Stars 1993 ~ Music Station of Dreams, published by King Records in 1992.

The 2005 version of the game included in Mutant Nightmare features new music and voices updated to match the 2003 TMNT series. This was also the case for Turtles in Time: Re-Shelled.

Arcade
Like the original Turtles arcade game, Turtles in Time was released for the arcades as a dedicated 4-player cabinet, as well as a 2-player conversion kit. Unlike the first game, Turtles in Time was not distributed for the arcades in Japan.

SNES

The SNES version was retitled Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles IV: Turtles in Time in North America and Australia and Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles IV: Turtles in Time in Europe in order to continue the numbering from the first three Turtles games on the NES (despite the fact that Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III: The Manhattan Project was never released in the PAL region). However, the Super Famicom version in Japan retained the original unnumbered title.

Much like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Arcade Game for the NES (a conversion of the first arcade game), the SNES version of Turtles in Time has some notable differences in presentation. While the SNES version is missing some animations and graphics effects from the arcade version, it made extensive use of the SNES's Mode 7 forward scrolling effect in the "Neon Night-Riders" level, changing it to an over-the-shoulder perspective. Contrary to popular belief, mode 7 is not used for throwing the enemy foot soldiers, as it cannot scale sprites nor is any scaling actually shown.

Sounds also differ between the arcade and SNES versions. The SNES version is missing certain voice samples for both the turtles and boss characters. In addition, the arcade version's title theme song, "Pizza Power", was replaced with an instrumental version of the cartoon theme song.

Various alterations were made to the SNES version's gameplay. "Sewer Surfin'" and "Neon Night-Riders" were changed to bonus levels of a sort and a new Technodrome stage was added, which features a boss battle with Shredder sitting in a battle tank in the foreground which requires the player to hit the tank with foot soldiers thrown at the screen. Several enemies were changed in the SNES version. Four other bosses were added: the Rat King was added at the end of the "Sewer Surfin'" level, Slash replaced Cement Man in the prehistoric level, and on the pirate ship level, the duo of Bebop and Rocksteady replaced Tokka and Rahzar, who were moved to the new Technodrome level. The game changes the final battle with Shredder to Super Shredder from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze. The SNES version adds two regular enemies: Roadkill Rodneys (which replaced the boxing robots) and Mousers.

The SNES version features a time-trial mode and a two-player versus fight mode. Like the arcade version, each turtle was given unique attributes in areas such as speed and strength. In addition, the move to throw enemies off-screen can now be performed intentionally (instead of just randomly), a technique specifically required at the end of the Technodrome level.

Emulated re-releases
An emulated conversion of the original arcade game can be unlocked after completing the first batch of missions in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3: Mutant Nightmare. The game is emulated from the four-player version. Differences include the lack of a score counter, an entirely new soundtrack (likely due to rights issues with the original soundtrack), altered voices, and a slightly choppy frame rate compared to the arcade. Much like the version it was based on, the characters are assigned by controller. This means that Donatello and Raphael are not playable in the PlayStation 2 version without a multitap, as the base console only has two controller slots. The new soundtrack is a re-arranged version from the Nintendo DS version of Mutant Nightmare.

The arcade and SNES versions of the game were re-released as part of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Cowabunga Collection in 2022.

Reception
Following its release, Turtles in Time became Konami's best-selling arcade title. In the United States, the home console conversion was the top-selling Super NES game in September 1992.

Reviews
The arcade game received positive reviews. Although critics found that the second game was largely similar to the previous arcade game, they felt that it was a net improvement over its predecessor on all points, including graphics, music and gameplay. Overall, the game was hailed for staying true to its source material.

The SNES version was praised for its additional stages and gameplay modes. The four reviewers of Electronic Gaming Monthly gave it unanimous scores of 9 out of 10 each, applauding the fun gameplay, the new moves, the accurate recreation of the arcade version's graphics, and the two-player versus mode, though they criticized that the game is too easy. The SNES game was lauded in Allgame for its visuals, which replicate the cartoon's art style. The game's music and sound effects have also been praised. However, the game was criticized by The Armchair Empire for its repetitive gameplay and short length. Nintendojo called Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles IV: Turtles in Time the best Ninja Turtles game of all time.

Entertainment Weekly wrote that "The Turtles may have peaked on the big screen, but in video-game land they're just reaching their potential."

Game Zero magazine's four reviewers gave the game a combined review score of 84.5 out of 100, they praised the graphics and the option to switch between the animation and comic book style graphics and gave praise to the game's music, improved moveset and voice acting. The only criticism given was the game being too easy even when played on hard mode. Super Gamer gave an overall review score of 90% calling the game “Highly impressive cartoon platform beat-em-up.”

Accolades
Nintendo Power ranked the game 7th in their "Top 10 in 1992" praising the characters being well animated concluding: "the popularity of Konami's TMNT series with players and the new theme of time travel put this one into our year end top 10." IGN ranked the game 39th in their “Top 100 SNES Games of All Time” praising the bright graphics that captures the look and personality of the classic cartoon and praising the utilization of mode 7 when throwing enemies into the screen. GamesRadar ranked the game #24 in their "Best SNES Games of All Time", they praised the game music and commenting that Turtles in Time improved everything the original Turtles game did and made it better and felt the game was "one of the best action games on the SNES" In 2013, Arcade Sushi ranked Turtles in Time 10th on their "10 Best Retro Beat 'Em Ups." They praised the game's aesthetics staying true to the franchise's cartoon series. In 2018, Complex listed the game 9th in its "The Best Super Nintendo Games of All Time." In 2023, Time Extension included the SNES version on their top 25 "Best Beat 'Em Ups of All Time" list. They called it the best game in the series.

Remake
The 2009 remake, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time Re-Shelled, features new graphics and sounds. The graphics were remade in 3D, with players moving in and out of a true 3D camera. The opening and closing cinematics were remade with a stylized 2D look. The vocal quips of the arcade version return, re-recorded by the cast of the 2003 cartoon. The music was also re-done.

Re-Shelled was based on the original arcade machine, rather than on the SNES version. As a result, the extra stages and enemy characters from the earlier home version were excluded. The gameplay remained similar, except that players can attack in eight directions. The game can also be played online with up to four players. This version also features a Survival mode, Quickplay mode, multiple difficulties and Achievements/Trophy support.


text:
Al-Muntasir

Abu Ja'far Muhammad (أبو جعفر محمد; November 837 – 7 June 862), better known by his regnal title al-Muntasir bi-llah (المنتصر بالله, "He who triumphs in God") was the caliph of the Abbasid Caliphate from 861 to 862, during the "Anarchy at Samarra". The power struggle between al-Muntasir and his brother, al-Mu'tazz, backed by different factions, climaxed with the Turkic leaders plotting the murder of his father al-Mutawakkil. Following the assassination in 861, al-Muntasir assumed the caliphate with Turkic support.

His reign, lasting only six months, saw a shift in policies, including a more favorable stance towards the House of ʻAlī and the lifting of the ban on pilgrimage to the tombs of Hassan and Hussayn. Al-Muntasir engaged in military actions against the Byzantines, led by his general Wasif al-Turki, but his sudden death in June 862 resulted in a change of leadership, and al-Musta'in succeeded him as caliph. The military campaign continued briefly, with Wasif achieving success before returning to Samarra due to the change in government.

Early life

Al-Muntasir was the eldest son of Abu al-Fadl Ja'far (future Abbasid caliph al-Mutawakkil). At the time of his birth, his father was fourteen years old. His given name was Muhammad. Al-Muntasir's mother was Hubshiya, a Greek slave.

In 849, al-Mutawakkil arranged for his succession, by appointing three of his sons as heirs and assigning them the governance and proceeds of the Empire's provinces: the eldest, al-Muntasir, was named first heir, and received the governorship of Egypt, the Jazira, and the proceeds of the rents in the capital, Samarra; al-Mu'tazz was charged with supervising the domains of the governor in the Khorasan; and al-Mu'ayyad was placed in charge of Syria.

Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari records that in 236 AH (850–851) al-Muntasir led a pilgrimage. The previous year al-Mutawakkil had named his three sons as heirs and seemed to favor al-Muntasir. However, afterward, this seemed to change and al-Muntasir feared his father was going to move against him. So, he decided to strike first. Al-Mutawakkil was killed by a Turkish soldier on Wednesday 10 December 861.

Involvement in the assassination of al-Mutawakkil
Al-Mutawakkil had appointed his oldest son, al-Muntasir, as his heir in 849/50, but slowly had shifted his favor to his second son, al-Mu'tazz, encouraged by al-Fath ibn Khaqan and the vizier Ubayd Allah ibn Yahya ibn Khaqan. This rivalry extended into the political sphere, as al-Mu'tazz's succession appears to have been backed by the traditional Abbasid elites as well, while al-Muntasir was backed by the Turkic and Maghariba guard troops. In late autumn 861, matters came to a head: in October, al-Mutawakkil ordered the estates of the Turkic general Wasif to be confiscated and handed over to al-Fath. Feeling backed into a corner, the Turkic leadership began a plot to assassinate the Caliph. They were soon joined, or at least had the tacit approval, of al-Muntasir, who smarted from a succession of humiliations: on 5 December, on the recommendation of al-Fath and Ubayd Allah, he was bypassed in favor of al-Mu'tazz for leading the Friday prayer at the end of Ramadan, while three days later, when al-Mutawakkil was feeling ill and chose al-Muntasir to represent him on the prayer, once again Ubayd Allah intervened and persuaded the Caliph to go in person. Even worse, according to the historian al-Tabari, on the next day, al-Mutawakkil alternately vilified and threatened to kill his eldest son, and even had al-Fath slap him on the face. With rumors circulating that Wasif and the other Turkish leaders would be rounded up and executed on 12 December, the conspirators decided to act.

According to al-Tabari, a story later circulated that al-Fath and Ubayd Allah were forewarned of the plot by a Turkic woman, but had disregarded it, confident that no one would dare carry it out. On the night of 10/11 December, about one hour after midnight, the Turks burst in the chamber where the caliph and al-Fath were having supper. Al-Fath was killed trying to protect the Caliph, who was killed next. Al-Muntasir, who now assumed the caliphate, initially claimed that al-Fath had murdered his father and that he had been killed after; within a short time, however, the official story changed to al-Mutawakkil choking on his drink.

Reign
On the same day as the assassination, al-Muntasir succeeded smoothly to the throne of the Caliphate with the support of the Turkic faction. The Turkic party then prevailed on al-Muntasir to remove his brothers from the succession, fearing they would seek revenge for his involvement in the murder of their father. In their place, he was to appoint his son as heir apparent. On 27 April 862, both brothers wrote statements of abdication, although al-Mu'tazz did so after some hesitation.

Al-Muntasir became caliph on December 11, 861, after his father al-Mutawakkil was assassinated by members of his Turkic guard. Although he was suspected of being involved in the plot to kill al-Mutawakkil, he was able to quickly take control of affairs in the capital city of Samarra and receive the oath of allegiance from the leading men of the state. Al-Muntasir's sudden elevation to the Caliphate served to benefit several of his close associates, who gained senior positions in the government after his ascension. Included among these were his secretary, Ahmad ibn al-Khasib, who became vizier, and Wasif, a senior Turkic general who had likely been heavily involved in al-Mutawakkil's murder.

Al-Muntasir was lauded because, unlike his father, he loved the house of ʻAlī (Shīʻa) and removed the ban on pilgrimage to the tombs of Hassan and Hussayn. He sent Wasif to raid the Byzantines.

War with Byzantines
Shortly after securing his position as caliph, al-Muntasir decided to send an Abbasid army against the Byzantines. According to al-Tabari, this decision was prompted by Ahmad ibn al-Khasib; the vizier had recently had a falling out with Wasif, and he sought to find an excuse to get him out of the capital. Ahmad ultimately decided that the best way to accomplish this was to put him at the head of a military campaign. He was eventually able to convince the caliph to go along with the plan, and al-Muntasir ordered Wasif to head to the Byzantine frontier.

Having completed their preparations for the campaign, Wasif and the army departed for the Byzantine frontier in early 862. Upon arriving at the Syrian side of the frontier zone, They set up camp there in preparation for their incursions into Byzantine territory.

Before Wasif had a chance to make any serious progress against the Byzantines, however, the campaign was overshadowed by events back at the capital. After a reign of only six months, al-Muntasir died around the beginning of June, of either illness or poison. Following his death, the vizier Ahmad ibn al-Khasib and a small group of senior Turkish commanders met and decided to appoint al-Musta'in as caliph in his stead. They presented their decision to the Samarran military regiments and were eventually able to force the soldiers to swear allegiance to their candidate.

The death of al-Muntasir did not immediately result in the termination of the military campaign. Wasif, upon learning of the passing of the caliph, decided that he should still persist with the operation, and led his forces into Byzantine territory. The army advanced against a Byzantine fortress called Faruriyyah in the region of Tarsus. The defenders of the fortress were defeated and the stronghold was conquered by the Muslims.

Ultimately, however, the change of government in Samarra brought the expedition to a premature conclusion. The ascension of al-Musta'in could not be ignored indefinitely by Wasif; having already missed the opportunity to play a role in the selection of the new caliph, he needed to make sure his interests back in the capital were protected. As a result, he decided to abandon the Byzantine front, and by 863 he was back in Samarra.

Death
Al-Muntasir's reign lasted less than half a year; it ended with his death from unknown causes on Sunday, 7 June 862, at the age of 24 years (solar). There are various accounts of the illness that led to his death, including that he was bled with a poisoned lancet. Al-Tabari (p. 222-3) states that al-Muntasir is the first Abbasid whose tomb is known, that it was made public by his mother, a Greek slave girl, and that earlier caliphs desired their tombs to be kept secret for fear of desecration. Joel L. Kraemer in his translation of al-Tabari notes on page 223:

"'Ayni comments, citing al-Sibt (b. al-Jawzi), that Tabari's statement here is surprising since the tombs of the Abbasid caliphs are in fact known, e.g., the tomb of al-Saffah is in Anbar beneath the minbar; and those of al-Mahdi in Masabadhan, Harun in Tus, al-Ma'mun in Tarsis, and al-Mu'tasim, al-Wathiq and al-Mu'tawakkil in Samarra."

Succession
His father, caliph al-Mutawakkil (r. 847–861) had created a plan of succession that would allow his sons to inherit the caliphate after his death; he would be succeeded first by his eldest son, al-Muntasir, then by al-Mu'tazz and third by al-Mu'ayyad. During al-Muntasir's short reign (r. 861–862), the Turks convinced him into removing al-Mu'tazz and al-Mu'ayyad from the succession. When al-Muntasir died, the Turkic officers gathered together and decided to install the dead caliph's cousin Ahmad al-Musta'in on the throne.

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

title: Al-Muntasir


text:
Turtles in Time (disambiguation)

Turtles in Time may refer to:

 * Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time, an arcade video game produced by Konami
 * Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time Re-Shelled, an enhanced remake of the 1991 arcade game
 * Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III, of which "The Turtles are back... in time" was one of this movie's marketing slogans.
 * "A Turtle in Time", a season 10 episode of the 1987 TV series Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

title: Turtles in Time (disambiguation)


text:
Category:Phosphate minerals

Phosphate minerals contain the phosphate, PO43−, anion.

In standard mineral classification systems (in both the Dana and Strunz systems) the phosphate class includes the arsenates, vanadates and the polyvanadates. Strunz includes the vanadates(V, VI) in the oxides class.

title: Category:Phosphate minerals


text:
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Hyperstone Heist

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Hyperstone Heist, released in Europe as Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles: The Hyperstone Heist and in Japan as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Return of the Shredder, is a 1992 side-scrolling beat 'em up game developed and published by Konami for the Sega Genesis, based on the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles comic book characters. It was Konami's debut title for the Genesis. The game was re-released as part of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: The Cowabunga Collection in 2022.

Plot
April O'Neil is reporting from Liberty Island when, in a sudden flash of light, she and her audience witness Manhattan Island suddenly starting to shrink. Shredder then hijacks the airwaves and announces to the world that this was only a demonstration of the power of the Hyperstone, the treasure of Dimension X. With the Hyperstone in his possession, he now has the power to take over the world. The Turtles have no choice but to go after Shredder and stop him.

Gameplay
The gameplay of The Hyperstone Heist is heavily based on the second TMNT arcade game, Turtles in Time, which was ported to the Super NES during the same year. The controls are similar to Turtles in Time, but the ability to dash is assigned to a specific button and the player can't throw enemies towards the screen.

The game shares nearly the same soundtrack and sound effects as Turtles in Time, but the music plays faster in The Hyperstone Heist. Though there are less than half as many levels as Turtles in Time, each level is longer. Furthermore, The Hyperstone Heist has a more aggressive enemy AI and faster-moving gameplay.

There are a total of five levels ("New York City", "A Mysterious Ghost Ship", "Shredder's Hideout", "The Gauntlet", and "The Final Shell Shock"), which comprise a combination of new levels created specifically for this game and ones based on levels from the first arcade game and Turtles in Time. The bosses include Leatherhead, Rocksteady, Tatsu, Baxter Stockman, Krang, and Super Shredder.

Reception
The game received positive reviews upon release. In GameFan magazine, Dave Halverson (Skid) said "Konami brings the arcade thrill home" with "a beat 'em up blast-a-minute" that has "some of the best character animation you'll ever see" while Brody said it has some of the "most hilarious 2 player beat 'em up action ever" seen. N. Somniac of GamePro magazine called it "a 16-bit graphic and game playing work of art" and said it "brings excellent arcade-quality graphics, sound, game play to your home unit."

The most common criticisms of The Hyperstone Heist focused on its difficulty, length, and repetitiveness. MegaTech magazine gave an overall 87% score, praising the graphics and sound but commenting that the gameplay wasn't hard work and experienced players would be able to beat the game easily. Four reviewers of Electronic Gaming Monthly gave the game positive ratings, praising the graphics and the animation, although there was criticism for the game being too easy and not having enough levels. Mega Action criticized the game for being too easy and gave praise to its graphics, calling it "fairly impressive." They also commented that The Hyperstone Heist had a lot of potential but used it very sparingly, stating that "Hyperstone Heist isn’t a terrible game, but the Turtles do deserve better." They concluded with a 78% review score. Kirk Rutter of Mega Guide praised the game's action, graphics, and the two-player mode, but felt that The Hyperstone Heist was similar to Turtles in Time. Conceding that the action was fun at first, he criticized it for becoming repetitive and the difficulty for being too easy, concluding: "The lack of real challenge knocks a big dent in its lastability. But it’s still a laugh." Power Unlimited gave a score of 90% and recommended the game to those who are fans of TMHT, but criticized the repetitive gameplay.

ScrewAttack named The Hyperstone Heist the 19th best Genesis game ever in their top 20 list, though they considered it a clone of Turtles in Time, which they considered to be the best beat 'em up ever. Complex ranked the game number 68 in their "The Best 100 Sega Genesis Games".


text:
Al-Musta'in

Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad (أبو العباس أحمد بن محمد بن محمد; 836 – 17 October 866), better known by his regnal title al-Mustaʿīn (836 – 17 October 866) was the Abbasid caliph from 862 to 866, during the "Anarchy at Samarra". After the death of previous Caliph, al-Muntasir (who had not appointed any successors), the Turkic military leaders held a council to select his successor. They were not willing to have al-Mu'tazz or his brothers; so they elected Ahmad ibn Muhammad (أحمد بن محمد), a nephew of al-Mutawakkil, who took the regnal name al-Mustaʿīn bi-ʾllāh (المستعين بالله  "he who looks for help to God").

Arab and other troops based in Baghdad, displeased at the choice, attacked the assembly, broke open the prison, and plundered the armory. They were attacked by the Turkic and Berber soldiers, and after some fighting in which many died, succumbed. Baghdad had yet to learn that the Caliphate no longer depended on the opinions of the Arabians, but had passed into other hands.

Birth and background
Ahmad ibn Muhammad (future al-Musta'in) was the son of Abbasid prince Muhammad ibn al-Mu'tasim and his mother was a concubine from province of Sicily called Makhariq. Al-Musta'in was the grandson of caliph al-Mu'tasim (r. 833–842). He was the nephew of caliph al-Wathiq (r. 842–847) and caliph al-Mutawakkil (r. 847–861).

His uncle, caliph al-Mutawakkil (r. 847–861) had created a plan of succession that would allow his sons to inherit the caliphate after his death; he would be succeeded first by his eldest son, al-Muntasir, then by al-Mu'tazz and third by al-Mu'ayyad. In December 861 al-Mutawakkil was assassinated by a group of Turkic military officers, likely with the support of al-Muntasir. During al-Muntasir's short reign (r. 861–862), the Turks pressured him into removing al-Mu'tazz and al-Mu'ayyad from the succession. When al-Muntasir died, the Turkic officers gathered together and decided to install the dead caliph's cousin al-Musta'in on the throne.

Reign
The new caliph was almost immediately faced with a large riot in Samarra in support of the disenfranchised al-Mu'tazz; the rioters were put down by the military but casualties on both sides were heavy. Al-Musta'in, worried that al-Mu'tazz or al-Mua'yyad could press their claims to the caliphate, first attempted to buy them off and then threw them in prison.

The governor of Baghdad persuaded the city to submit, and the succession was thereafter acknowledged throughout the land. Al-Mu'tazz and his brother, threatened by the Turkic and Berber troops, resigned their titles to succeed, and were then, by way of protection, kept in confinement. After a second attempt to overturn the decision made by the Turks, al-Mu'tazz and his brother would have been put to death, but the vizier intervened and saved their lives, for which act of mercy, his property was seized by the Turkic soldiers, and himself banished to Crete. The Empire, in fact, both at home and abroad, had passed into the hands of Turks.

In 863, the Muslim campaign against the Christians was going badly. Two whole corps in Armenia and Asia Minor, some 8,000 strong, with their leaders, were killed during the Battle of Lalakaon. The tidings created anger and riots in Baghdad. The ancient cry for a Holy War rang through the streets. People blamed the Turks that had brought disaster on the faith, murdered their Caliphs, and set up others at their pleasure.

With such cries the city rose in uproar; the prisons were broken into and bridges burned. But Baghdad could no longer dictate to its rulers; it could only riot. The fighting spirit was, however, strong enough to draw men from the surrounding provinces, who flocked as free lances to fight against the infidel. But the Turks cared for none of these things, nor did the Caliph.

In 864, his forces put down a rebellion by the Alid Yahya ibn Umar and a revolt in Hims.

In 865, the end for al-Musta'in himself was now at hand. After some disagreements between the Turkish leaders that placed al-Musta'in in much danger, he, along with two other Turkic leaders, Bugha al-Sharabi (known as Bugha al-Saghir) and Wasif al-Turki, left Samarra on a boat to East Baghdad. The Turks sent after him a party of their captains, requesting him to return to Samarra. But the Caliph refused, and hard words followed between the two sides, in the heat of which one of the Turkic speakers received a blow.

The insult rankled the Turkic officers, and on returning to Samarra, the Turkic troops rose together, and bringing forth al-Mu'tazz from his confinement, saluted him as Caliph. Within a few weeks, his brother Abu Ahmad al-Muwaffaq, with 50,000 Turks and 2,000 Berbers, besieged Baghdad, a siege that would last throughout the year 865.

Abdication in favor of al-Mu'tazz
As the siege of Baghdad wore on, it began to have its intended effect. Food and money slowly became scarce, and discontent among the populace began to emerge. As early as August, a group of members of the Abbasid family complained to Muhammad ibn 'Abdallah that their stipends were not being paid. As conditions in the city deteriorated, Muhammad gradually became convinced that victory through force of arms was impossible. By November at the latest, and without the knowledge or permission of al-Musta'in, he had opened negotiations with al-Mu'tazz regarding al-Musta'in's surrender.

Muhammad and al-Mu'tazz had already started negotiating with each other when the former launched his failed sally. After the battle, al-Mu'tazz criticized Muhammad for acting in bad faith, and the Samarran army intensified the siege. Soon the city was running low on resources. Crowds began appearing before Muhammad's palace, crying "hunger!" and demanding a resolution to their problems. Muhammad held off the crowds with promises, and at the same time sent an offer of peace to al-Mu'tazz. This was responded to favorably, and beginning on December 8 a representative from Abu Ahmad's camp began meeting Muhammad in private to discuss how to end the conflict.

As the siege progressed into December, the population of Baghdad became more agitated. On December 16, some of the regular infantry and commoners gathered together, with the former demanding their pay and the latter complaining about how food prices had skyrocketed. Muhammad was able to convince them to temporarily disperse, but riots broke out in the city two days later and it was only with difficulty that they were quelled. Meanwhile, negotiations between Muhammad and Abu Ahmad continued; emissaries were sent by Muhammad to Abu Ahmad's camp, and Samarran prisoners of war were released. Toward the end of December, a provisional agreement between the two sides to depose al-Musta'in was reached, and Abu Ahmad sent five ships loaded with foodstuffs and fodder to relieve the shortages in the city.

When the citizens of Baghdad learned that Muhammad had agreed to depose al-Musta'in, they angrily assembled outside his palace. Out of loyalty to al-Musta'in and fears that Muhammad's surrender could result in the Samarrans plundering the city, they attacked the palace gates and fought against the guards. In order to calm the protestors, al-Musta'in appeared above the palace gate with Muhammad at his side, and he gave assurances to the crowd that he was still caliph and that he would lead the Friday prayers the next morning. The following day, December 28, he failed to appear; in response, the houses of Muhammad's subordinates were looted and a large crowd again approached Muhammad's palace, forcing al-Musta'in to make another public appearance. Shortly after this he moved out of Muhammad's palace to another residence in the city, and on January 2, 866, he led the prayer for the Feast of Sacrifice.

Muhammad, for his part, strove to convince the people that he was still acting in al-Musta'in's best interests, while at the same time continuing to negotiate with Abu Ahmad regarding the terms of surrender. On January 7, Muhammad and Abu Ahmad met in person under a canopy outside the Shammasiyah gate, and the two men agreed that the state revenues would be split among the parties, with two thirds going to the Turks and one third going to Muhammad and the Baghdadi army, and al-Musta'in should be held liable for part of the soldiers' pay. On the following day, Muhammad went to al-Musta'in and attempted to convince him to abdicate. At first al-Musta'in adamantly refused, but when the Turkish officers Wasif and Bugha stated that they had sided with Muhammad, he agreed to step down.

As part of the terms of al-Musta'in's abdication, he was to be given an estate in the Hijaz, and allowed to travel between the cities of Mecca and Medina. On January 12, Muhammad brought a group of judges and jurists to witness that al-Musta'in had entrusted his affairs to him. Delegates carrying the terms of abdication were sent to Samarra, where al-Mu'tazz personally signed the document and agreed to the conditions. The delegates returned to Baghdad with the signed document on January 24, accompanied by a group of emissaries sent to secure al-Musta'in's allegiance to al-Mu'tazz. On Friday, January 25, al-Mu'tazz was acknowledged as caliph in the mosques throughout Baghdad.

Death
By the beginning of 866, with plots and treachery all around, al-Musta'in was persuaded by alternating threats and promises to abdicate in favor of al-Mu'tazz. He was to live at Medina with a sufficient income. The conditions signed, the Governor of Baghdad received the ministers and courtiers of al-Musta'in, and, having assured them he had done what he had for the best and to stop further bloodshed, sent them to Samarra to pay homage to the new Caliph. Al-Mu'tazz ratified the terms and took possession of Baghdad in the early days of 252 AH (866 CE). He also sent to al-Musta'in his mother and family from Samarra, but not until they had been stripped of everything they possessed.

Instead of finding a refuge at Medina, al-Musta'in found himself kept in Baghdad. There he was put to death on 17 October 866 by the order of al-Mu'tazz. Carrying al-Musta'in's head to the Caliph, "Here," cried the executioner, "behold thy cousin's head!" "Lay it aside," answered al-Mu'tazz who was playing chess,—"till I have finished the game." And then, having satisfied himself that it was really al-Musta'in's head, he commanded 500 pieces to be given to the assassin as his reward.

Source

 * This text is adapted from William Muir's public domain, The Caliphate: Its Rise, Decline, and Fall.

title: Al-Musta'in


text:
Al-Mu'tazz

Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar (أبو عبد الله محمد بن جعفر; 847 – 16 July 869), better known by his regnal title al-Muʿtazz bi-ʾllāh (المعتز بالله, "He who is strengthened by God") was the Abbasid caliph from 866 to 869, during a period of extreme internal instability within the Abbasid Caliphate, known as the "Anarchy at Samarra".

Originally named as the second in line of three heirs of his father al-Mutawakkil, al-Mu'tazz was forced to renounce his rights after the accession of his brother al-Muntasir, and was thrown in prison as a dangerous rival during the reign of his cousin al-Musta'in. He was released and raised to the caliphate in January 866, during the civil war between al-Musta'in and the Turkish military of Samarra. Al-Mu'tazz was determined to reassert the authority of the caliph over the Turkish army but had only limited success. Aided by the vizier Ahmad ibn Isra'il, he managed to remove and kill the leading Turkish generals, Wasif al-Turki and Bugha al-Saghir, but the decline of the Tahirids in Baghdad deprived him of their role as a counterweight to the Turks. Faced with the assertive Turkish commander Salih ibn Wasif, and unable to find money to satisfy the demands of his troops, he was deposed and died of ill-treatment a few days later, on 16 July 869.

His reign marks the apogee of the decline of the Caliphate's central authority, and the climax of centrifugal tendencies, expressed through the emergence of the autonomous dynasties of the Tulunids in Egypt and the Saffarids in the East, Alid uprisings in Hejaz and Tabaristan, and the first stirrings of the great Zanj Rebellion in lower Iraq.

Early life
The future al-Mu'tazz was born to the Caliph al-Mutawakkil ((r. 847 – 861)) from his favourite slave concubine, Qabiha. In 849, al-Mutawakkil arranged for his succession, by appointing three of his sons as heirs and assigning them the governance and proceeds of the empire's provinces: the eldest, al-Muntasir, was named first heir, and received Egypt, the Jazira, and the proceeds of the rents in the capital, Samarra; al-Mu'tazz was charged with supervising the domains of the Tahirid governor in the East; and al-Mu'ayyad was placed in charge of Syria. However, over time the favour of al-Mutawakkil shifted towards al-Mu'tazz. Encouraged by his favorite advisor, al-Fath ibn Khaqan, and the vizier Ubayd Allah ibn Yahya ibn Khaqan, the Caliph began contemplating naming al-Mu'tazz as his first heir, and excluding al-Muntasir from the succession. The rivalry between the two princes reflected tensions in the political sphere, as al-Mu'tazz's succession appears to have been backed by the traditional Abbasid elites as well, while al-Muntasir was backed by the Turkish and Maghariba guard troops.

In October 861, the Turkish commanders began a plot to assassinate the Caliph. They were soon joined, or at least tacitly supported, by al-Muntasir, whose relations with his father deteriorated rapidly. On 5 December, al-Muntasir was bypassed in favor of al-Mu'tazz for leading the Friday prayer at the end of Ramadan, at the end of which his father's advisor al-Fath and the vizier Ubayd Allah demonstratively kissed his hands and feet, before accompanying him on the return to the palace; and on 9 December al-Mutawakkil, among other humiliations inflicted on him, threatened to kill his eldest son. As a result, on the night of 10/11 December, the Turks killed al-Mutawakkil and al-Fath, and al-Muntasir became caliph. Almost immediately, al-Muntasir sent for his brothers to come and give the oath of allegiance (bay'ah) to him. Thus, when the vizier Ubayd Allah, upon being informed of al-Mutawakkil's death, went to the house of al-Mu'tazz, he did not find him there; and when his supporters, including the abna al-dawla and others and numbering several thousand, gathered in the morning and urged him to storm the palace, he refused, with the words "our man is in their hands". The murder of al-Mutawakkil began the tumultuous period known as "Anarchy at Samarra", which lasted until 870 and brought the Abbasid Caliphate to the brink of collapse.

Pressured by the Turkish commanders Wasif al-Turki and Bugha al-Saghir, both al-Mu'tazz and al-Mu'ayyad renounced their places in the succession on 27 April 862. However, al-Muntasir died in June 862, without having named any new heir. The Turks now strengthened their hold over the government and selected a cousin of al-Muntasir, al-Musta'in ((r. 862 – 866)), as the new caliph. The new caliph was almost immediately faced with a large riot in Samarra in support of al-Mu'tazz; the rioters included not only the "market rabble" but also mercenaries from the Shakiriyya troops. The riot was down by the Maghariba and Ushrusaniyya regiments, but casualties on both sides were heavy. Al-Musta'in, worried that al-Mu'tazz or al-Mua'yyad could press their claims to the caliphate, first attempted to buy them off by offering them an annual subsidy of 80,000 gold dinars. Shortly after, however, their properties were confiscated—according to al-Tabari, that of al-Mu'tazz was valued at ten million dirhams—and imprisoned under the auspices of Bugha al-Saghir in one of the rooms of the Jawsaq Palace.

Caliphate
Rivalries between the Turkish leaders led to a split in 865, when al-Musta'in, Wasif, and Bugha left Samarra for Baghdad, where they arrived on 5/6 February 865. There they were joined by many of their followers, and allied with the city's Tahirid governor, Muhammad ibn Abdallah ibn Tahir, who began fortifying the city. The bulk of the Turks, however, remained in Samarra. Their position was threatened by this coalition, so they released al-Mu'tazz and proclaimed him caliph. On 24 February, al-Mu'tazz placed his brother Abu Ahmad (the future al-Muwaffaq) in charge of the army, and sent him to lay siege to Baghdad. Abu Ahmad played a leading role in the siege, which created a close and lasting relationship with the Turkish military, that would later allow him to emerge as the virtual regent of the caliphate alongside his brother al-Mu'tamid ((r. 870 – 892)).

The siege dragged on until December 865, when a combination of privations, lack of money to pay its supporters, and the price hikes caused by the siege eroded support for al-Musta'in's regime. As a result, Muhammad ibn Tahir opened negotiations with the besiegers, and a settlement was reached, which amounted to a mutual compromise over the sharing of the empire's proceeds: the Turks and other troops of Samarra received two-thirds of annual state revenue, while the remainder would go to Ibn Tahir and his Baghdad forces. As part of the agreement, al-Musta'in would abdicate, in exchange for an annual pension of 30,000 dinars. Thus on 25 January 866, after the surrender of Baghdad, al-Mu'tazz became officially the sole, legitimate caliph.

Although he was placed on the throne by the Turks, al-Mu'tazz proved a capable ruler and was determined to restore the authority and independence of his office. He appointed as his vizier Ahmad ibn Isra'il, who had formerly served as his secretary during al-Mutawakkil's reign. Al-Mu'tazz moved quickly to sideline any potential rivals. Thus, despite his pledge of safety to al-Musta'in, in October/November 866 al-Mu'tazz had his predecessor assassinated at al-Katul in Samarra. In the same way he had his younger brother al-Mu'ayyad executed, even after forcing him to again renounce his rights to succession. Finally, Abu Ahmad, although initially welcomed with much honor by the Caliph for his role in winning the civil war, was also imprisoned along with al-Mu'ayyad. However, his support from the military saved his life. He was eventually released and sent to Basra before being allowed to settle in Baghdad. The Caliph then targeted the powerful Turkish commanders Wasif al-Turki and Bugha al-Saghir. The first move against them in late 866 failed due to the opposition of the army, and the two men were restored to their posts. In the next year, however, Wasif was killed by Turkish troops that had mutinied demanding the payment of their arrears, while Bugha was imprisoned and executed on the Caliph's orders in 868. Another powerful Turkish commander, Musa ibn Bugha al-Kabir, was effectively exiled to Hamadan at the same time.

Despite these successes, the Caliph could not overcome the main problem of the period: a shortage of revenue with which to pay the troops. The financial straits of the Caliphate had become evident already at his accession—the customary accession donative of ten months' pay for the troops had to be reduced to two for lack of funds—and had helped bring down the regime of al-Musta'in in Baghdad. The civil war and the ensuing general anarchy only worsened the situation, as revenue stopped coming in even from the environs of Baghdad, let alone more remote provinces. As a result, al-Mu'tazz refused to honor his agreement with Ibn Tahir in Baghdad, leaving him to provide for his own supporters; this led to unrest in the city and the rapid decline of Tahirid authority. The turmoil in Baghdad was worsened by al-Mu'tazz, who in 869 dismissed Ibn Tahir's brother and successor Ubaydallah, and replaced him with his far less capable brother Sulayman. In the event, this only served to deprive the Caliph of a useful counterweight against the Samarra soldiery and allowed the Turks to regain their former power.

As a result, by 869 the Turkish leaders Salih ibn Wasif (the son of Wasif al-Turki) and Ba'ikbak were again in the ascendant and secured the removal of Ahmad ibn Isra'il. Finally, unable to meet the financial demands of the Turkish troops, in mid-July a palace coup deposed al-Mu'tazz. He was imprisoned and maltreated to such an extent that he died after three days, on 16 July 869. He was succeeded by his cousin al-Muhtadi.

Legacy
Despite his efforts to strengthen his position and restore control over the military, al-Mutazz's reign is marked by instability and insecurity, and by his ultimate failure to subdue the military. This weakness in the center fed the centrifugal tendencies already evident in the Caliphate's provinces. In Egypt, the talented Turkish commander Ahmad ibn Tulun was appointed governor in 868 and proceeded to establish the autonomous Tulunid dynasty. Although it fell to the Abbasids in 905, the Tulunid regime had established Egypt as a distinct political entity for the first time since the Pharaohs. Restored Abbasid rule proved volatile; another local dynasty, the Ikhshidids, took power in 935, followed by the country's conquest by the Abbasids' rivals, the Fatimid Caliphate, in 969. In the east, Alid uprisings weakened Tahirid rule, and led to the establishment of a Zaydi state in Tabaristan, under Hasan ibn Zayd. At the same time, Ya'qub ibn al-Layth al-Saffar began his assault on the waning Tahirids, which would lead him to control over the eastern provinces of the Caliphate, and even an unsuccessful attempt to seize the caliphal throne itself in 876. Closer to home, Kharijite revolts shook the Jazira to the north, and in the south, around Basra, the first stirrings of the great Zanj Rebellion began.

title: Al-Mu'tazz


text:
Daniel Amos (album)

Daniel Amos is the self-titled debut album by Christian rock band Daniel Amos. The album was issued in 1976 by Maranatha! Music and was produced by Al Perkins. It is typical of the country rock sound the band performed in the mid-1970s before their switch to alternative rock in the early 1980s.

Background
Heavily influenced by the Band, Steely Dan and the Byrds' Sweetheart of the Rodeo, Daniel Amos' debut full-length album temporarily leaves behind the rock roots of the band members earlier bands although many of the songs came from those days. Baxter's "The Bible" and "Love in a Yielded Heart" (then known as "Freedom") were both performed in the early days of Jubal's Last Band, the band that was formed in late 1972 and eventually evolved into Daniel Amos. Taylor's "William", "Dusty Road," and "Ain't Gonna Fight It" date back to 1971 and his early band Good Shephard, and "Skeptic's Song" (then known as "Resurrection") dates back at least to 1972 and his band, Judge Rainbow and the Prophetic Trumpets.

The band's recording contract with Maranatha! resulted from Jubal's Last Band's audition for the label sometime in mid-1975. Another band at the meeting, led by Darrell Mansfield, had a similar name - Jubal. The two bands decided to change their names to avoid confusion. Mansfield renamed his band Gentle Faith, and Jubal's Last Band became Daniel Amos. Not long after, D.A. recorded its first song for Maranatha!, Taylor's "'Aint Gonna Fight It." That track was released on the Various Artists album, ''Maranatha! 5'' towards the end of that same year. That December, D.A. entered Mama Jo's Studio and began work on their first album. The album was released in early 1976.

Reissue
In 2004, work began on a special 30th Anniversary Deluxe two-disc version of the album. The collection, released on June 26, 2006, includes the full newly remastered album, never before seen photos, bonus material, interviews and more. The second disc traced the band's evolution from various bands in the early 1970s to the formation of Daniel Amos in 1975. Also included for those who pre-ordered the collection was third disc of bonus material similar to the second. This edition was repackaged and re-released in 2011 on Born Twice Records with expanded artwork and a larger booklet.

Track listing
Disc one: The Remastered Album
 * 1) "Jesus Is Jehovah To Me" (Chamberlain, Dieckmeyer, Taylor)  – 3:18
 * 2) "The Bible" (Baxter)  – 4:20
 * 3) "Abidin'" (Taylor)  – 3:24
 * 4) "William" (Taylor)  – 2:52
 * 5) "Prelude: Servant's Prayer" (Baxter) :47
 * 6) "Don't Light Your Own Fire" (Taylor)  – 4:28
 * 7) "Losers And Winners" (Taylor)  – 3:52
 * 8) "Walking On The Water" (Taylor)  – 4:38
 * 9) "Ridin' Along" (Baxter, Chamberlain, Dieckmeyer, Taylor)  – 2:10
 * 10) "Dusty Road" (Taylor)  – 3:25
 * 11) "Love In A Yielded Heart" (Baxter)  – 2:34
 * 12) "Skeptics' Song" (Taylor)  – 2:22
 * 13) "Happily Married Man" (Bonus track from Maranatha Country Roundup)  – 3:09
 * 14) "Ain't Gonna Fight It" (Bonus track from Maranatha! 5)  – 4:27

 Disc two: bonus material
 * 1) "Don't Light Your Own Fire" (live) 1977, Daniel Amos  – 4:11
 * 2) "Walking on the Water" (live) 1977, Daniel Amos  – 4:47
 * 3) Interview Segment: "Katy"  – 3:15
 * 4) "Calvary Road" (demo) 1971, Terry solo  – 3:09
 * 5) "New Life" (demo) 1972, Judge Rainbow & the Prophetic Trumpets  – 3:20
 * 6) Interview Segment: "Cardboard Scheme/Scarlet Staircase/Down Home"  – 3:37
 * 7) "Walkin With My Lord" (demo) 1971, Terry with wife Debi  – 2:27
 * 8) "Knock Knock" (demo) 1972, Terry solo :58
 * 9) "Heavenly Home" (demo) 1972, Judge Rainbow & the Prophetic Trumpets  – 2:11
 * 10) "Love Sings A Song In My Heart" (demo) 1971, Terry solo  – 1:50
 * 11) "Jesus Saved My Soul" (demo) 1971, Good Shepherd  – 3:45
 * 12) Interview Segment: "Expressing faith in music"  – 3:35
 * 13) "Aint Gonna Fight It" (demo) 1973, Jubal's Last Band  – 3:54
 * 14) Interview Segment: "The Lost Dogs record Ain't Gonna Fight It"  – 1:06
 * 15) Interview Segment: "The Move/Jubal’s Last Band"  – 1:56
 * 16) "Love Has Open Arms" (demo) 1972, Terry and Debi with Judge Rainbow  – 3:40
 * 17) "Resurrection" ("Skeptics Song" demo) 1972, Judge Rainbow & the Prophetic Trumpets  – 2:18
 * 18) "Meal" (demo) 1972, Terry solo  – 2:36
 * 19) Interview Segment: "The Name Daniel Amos"  – 3:37
 * 20) "Dear Captain/The Bible" (demo) 1973, Jubal's Last Band  – 5:51
 * 21) "William" (demo) 1972, Judge Rainbow & the Prophetic Trumpets  – 2:38
 * 22) Interview Segment: "Al Perkins"  – 3:26
 * 23) "Freedom" ("Love In A Yielded Heart" demo) 1973, Steve Baxter and Jubal's Last Band  – 3:40
 * 24) "For Me To Live Is Christ" (demo) 1972, Terry and Debi  – 2:49
 * 25) "Jesus Is Still Crying For The World" (demo) 1971 Terry solo  – 1:55
 * 26) "In Everything Give Him Thanks" (live) 1975, Daniel Amos  – 2:59

All Songs 2006 ASCAP/Zoom Daddy music.

Disc three: additional bonus material
 * 1) "Wanna Be Ready" (demo) 1972, Terry solo  – 2:19
 * 2) "He Touched Me" (demo) 1972, Terry solo
 * 3) "Walking On the Water" (demo) 1972, Judge Rainbow & The Prophetic Trumpets
 * 4) Interview Segment: "On Bonus Tracks, the Lost Dogs & the Beatles"
 * 5) "Love Won't Wait Forever" (demo) 1972, Terry solo
 * 6) Interview Segment: "Early Bands"
 * 7) "Glory Road" (demo) 1971, Terry solo
 * 8) "The Bible" (demo) 1974, Jubal's Last Band
 * 9) "Light of the World" (demo) 1974, Jubal's Last Band
 * 10) Interview Segment: "The Other Guys In the Band"
 * 11) "You Can't Go Around the Cross" (live) 1976, Daniel Amos
 * 12) "Nicodemus" (live) 1976, Daniel Amos
 * 13) "Meal" (live) 1976, Daniel Amos
 * 14) "Holy Rollin Again" (live) 1976, Daniel Amos
 * 15) Interview Segment: "First Guitar"
 * 16) "Losers and Winners" (live) May 10, 1974, Jubal's Last Band
 * 17) "Takes A Heart Ache" (live) May 10, 1974, Jubal's Last Band
 * 18) "Ridin Along" (live) 1976, Daniel Amos
 * 19) "Dusty Road" (live) 1976, Daniel Amos
 * 20) "Farther Along" (live) 1976, Daniel Amos

Personnel
Daniel Amos
 * Steve Baxter – 6-string steel-string acoustic guitar, harmonica, Jew's harp, whistle, lead vocal on "The Bible", "A Servant's Prayer", "Ridin' Along" and "Love in a Yielded Heart", master of ceremonies for "Skeptic's Song"
 * Jerry Chamberlain – electric lead guitar, background vocals, co-lead vocal on "Jesus Is Jehovah to Me"
 * Marty Dieckmeyer – bass guitar
 * Terry Taylor – 6 and 12-string guitars, harmonica, lead vocals on remaining tracks

Additional musicians
 * Dave Angel – sax solo, clarinet
 * Mike "Pooh Bear" Baird – drums
 * Jonathan David Brown – harpsichord, organ
 * Brian Carroll – nylon string lead and rhythm guitar
 * Dave Diggs – piano, horn arrangement
 * Joann Grauer – Fender Rhodes
 * Alex MacDougall – percussion
 * Al Perkins – pedal steel guitar, banjo
 * Jerry Waller – piano
 * John Ware – drums, "Hoo-Doo Meat Box"
 * Bob Warford – pull-string guitar, 6-string acoustic guitar
 * John Wickham – bell monitor
 * Dan Amos – other percussive embellishments

Production
 * Al Perkins – producer, mixing
 * Jonathan David Brown – engineer, mixing
 * Mama Jo's, N. Hollywood, California – recording location
 * Independent Recorders, Hollywood, California – recording location
 * Mama Jo's – mixing location
 * Bernie Grundman at A&M – mastering
 * Dan Del Isla at DLI Studios – remastering
 * Billy Taylor – remix engineer
 * Dale G. Waters – illustration
 * Hosmer C. McKoon – photography
 * Dan Agulian – photography
 * MPS Photographic Services, Inc. – photography
 * Daniel Amos Archives – photography
 * Tom Gulotta – design and layout, interviews
 * Jason Townsend – additional design and layout, discs two and three compilation and editing
 * Eric Townsend – additional design and layout, discs two and three compilation and editing
 * Katy Haselden's living room – recording location for original demos
 * Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa, California – recording location for live tracks

title: Daniel Amos (album)


text:
Talk:McKinsey & Company

Issues section
We've been slowly hacking away at the "Issues" section (previously called "Criticisms") by re-writing, trimming and distributing it to be more in line with WP:CRITICISM among other basic policies (NPOV/V/etc.). I think we're in a good spot to finally finish off this section-title by re-distributing the rest of the content. My suggestions are as follows:

 * Add the "Notable works" draft I started at User:CorporateM/McKinsey as a replacement for the Insurance and Enron sections, which are re-written and incorporated into the draft as part of a more balanced section.
 * Move "Environmental considerations" into a sub-section of "Consulting services" and call it something like "Marginal abatement curves" or "Environmental consulting".
 * Merge the content of "Criticism of management advice" to the new "Notable works" section, because they are all related to specific client projects.

I'll still need to polish off the Notable works section at some point, but there are a lot of projects recorded in reliable sources and it will take quite a bit of research to determine which are most notable. The Fortune quote in the draft will provide me with a starting point of the most significant projects up to 1993. CorporateM (Talk) 02:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't "notable works" in itself POV? "Works" would be more NPOV IMHO. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Crisco 1492 The word "notable" refers to the selectivity of only including the most well-known projects, whereas Works sounds like an indiscriminate collection. I always create a section like that for professional services firms (see Waggener Edstrom and Fluor Corporation). However I don't have a strong opinion and it's WP:COIMICRO anyway. I trust your judgement. CorporateM (Talk) 14:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:PEA is more or less with me on this one. Does the running prose need any edits, or just the section head? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yah, I rewrote the content as well. Both sections were written with a specific focus on criticisms, not noting that McKinsey was also given partial credit for Enron's rise, that the government did not find enough of a connection with their work to include them in their investigation, or that their advice to insurance companies that led to lawsuits also led to doubling profit margins. It'll take more work to get that section up to GA standards by rounding out the most significant projects, but I took a quick stab at a better starting point. CorporateM (Talk) 14:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'm off to bed now, but I'll do this tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Done the first two. How, exactly, do you want the third one merged in? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't vetted it yet. I was going to suggest just adding it to the bottom for now, but I'm taking a closer look
 * The Enron bit can be taken out, as the source is already included in the Enron section and the material is redundant
 * The AT&T bit could probably be removed, as the source only briefly mentions McKinsey and Fortune actually included AT&T in one of the "current era's great successes" consulted by McKinsey. This section should be reserved for a high-level summary of the most historically significant works, not an indiscriminate collection and the material appears to be misrepresentative.
 * GM is included in Fortune's list of McKinsey clients that did poorly. Suggest we do something like "Early 1900s", "Late 1900s" and "Recent work" and move GM to "Late 1900s"
 * I'll have to do more research on the Swissair thing, but I think I have seen that one in other sources. Suggest keeping it in the Works section somewhere.
 * CorporateM (Talk) 01:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'll let you finish that draft, and take care of the other two. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking this over, I believe this is all cited to Sternbergh (with supporting info from other sources). If other publications disagree, that's a reason to include this as an example of mixed reception. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the best possible source to use, or that it really conflicts that much with stronger sources though. It mentions GM and Enron, but not AT&T. It reads like an op-ed. The author appears to be a "contributor" to several publications and only wrote four articles for BW. + the book itself that he is reviewing is a much better source and I have a physical copy. I would go with Fortune's list to bring us up to the 90s (researching each one individually) and then use the book he is referring to in order to gleam the most significant ones since then. CorporateM (Talk) 03:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And the book discusses "failures"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Successes and failures, yes. I'd say that's a substantial portion of the entire book, but it's been a while since I originally read it. You can see a similar book review with a promotional rather than critical bias here, but the book itself is neutral and balanced. I can provide a copy of the book if you like. CorporateM (Talk) 05:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather than apply a temporary fix (like removing, reworking, etc.) would it be possible to provide a summary of successes / failures based on the book, or other sources? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Early history
✅ This section is GAN-ready. CorporateM (Talk) 15:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Establishment
✅This section is also GAN-ready. CorporateM (Talk) 19:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent history
This section needs a bit of expansion I think if it is to cover all the major aspects:
 * Gupta opened new international offices aggressively in cities including Moscow, Beijing and Bangkok.
 * Done, but expanding on "aggressively" would be nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 * The growth led to an internal debate as to whether the firm was or could hold on to its founding principles at a much larger scale.
 * Re: Gupta's expansions? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm..... The prior paragraph in the source credits Gupta directly for some of the re-structuring, but the following paragraph on growing pains does not directly attribute the concerns to him. I can scan the page and provide a copy if you prefer. CorporateM (Talk) 17:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 * McKinsey created practice areas for manufacturing and business technology in the late 1990s.
 * Worked in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 * In addition to the structure developed by prior directors, Gupta created 16 industry groups charged with understanding specific markets. He also instituted a three-term limit for the managing director.
 * Worked in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 * During the internet boom of the 1990s, McKinsey performed more than 1,000 e-commerce projects from 1998-2000 alone.
 * Worked in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 * The dot-com bust also led to a decline in revenues and losses from equity-based payments as stock interests lost their value. This was followed by a recession in 2001 that forced McKinsey to reduce its prices, cut expenses and reduce hiring.
 * Worked in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 * By 2002 McKinsey's revenues were 50, 20 and 30 percent from strategy, operations and technology consulting respectively.
 * Worked in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Suggest moving this from the Structure section to Recent history: "It started a Social Sector Office (SSO) in 2008. The SSO is divided into three practices: Global Public Health, Economic Development and Opportunity Creation (EDHOC) and Philanthropy."
 * Done... I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

 * The Galleon insider trading scandal should probably go here - currently there is a gap in Current history from 2004 to present and this is the most significant event from a media coverage perspective that happened during that time period.
 * Done... I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's possible I have a skewed point of view, but I think the article contains an excess focus on controversial events, as evidenced by the extensive section on the Galleon scandal (which has its own article), on its environmental work, and regarding the healthcare research they did (at the bottom of the Publishing section). Most of this content was written by me originally, but I often cover controversies in-depth at first and trim down over-time. I thought I would check-in with another editor to see if they agree before taking a look at how we can shorten them if a disinterested editor feels that would be the right way to go. CorporateM (Talk) 00:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Culture
This seems to have been cut out accidentally by North8000 when implementing my draft history content and should probably be put back in (the 1937 memo is in a lot of profile stories on McKinsey)

 * " Marvin Bower is credited with creating McKinsey's core values and principles, which he initially established in a 1937 memo. The memo said McKinsey consultants should put the interests of clients before McKinsey's revenues, not discuss client affairs, tell the truth even if it means challenging the client's opinion and only perform work that is both necessary and that McKinsey can do well.

GAN-ready draft
Based on a discussion with user:FreeRangeFrog regarding hammering out the rest of the GAN-preparation edits, I prepared an annotated draft of all my remaining suggested edits at User:CorporateM/McKinsey. FreeRangeFrog has reviewed the edits and found them to be appropriate, but wisely asked that I share the draft here for any interested editors to comment. In particular, user:My2011 I know has an interest in compensation and the galleon scandal, which I have proposed modifications and trims to in the draft. I know he/she said they were busy IRL, but if they do have time to take a look, it would be great to get your input first! Naturally anyone else is also welcome to comment. CorporateM (Talk) 03:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Repetitious
Do we need to be told three times that they have an up or out policy, four times that they employ recent graduates? 31.52.254.118 (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Images and misc
I just got copyright permissions for a couple images (see below):

CorporateM (Talk) 21:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest adding the image of James McKinsey (the org's founder) to Early History and to the page on James McKinsey
 * Suggest adding the Marvin Bower image to Organization/Corporate culture and replacing the non-free image on Marvin Bower
 * I'm not sure the image "McKinsey Office in Bucharest, Romania" is really pertinent, but I am somewhat indifferent. HQ images are usually considered appropriate and have a place in the infobox, but McKinsey does not have an official headquarters and this appears to be of a random location.
 * The Lead says "headquartered in New York City in the United States" though the company actually has no official HQ location. Its "CEO" operates out of London and it was founded in New York City.

 * Suggestion for when you next upload images; try and make the names unique. I've had to delete the non-free Bower image to let the other one through (I would have had to delete it anyways, but by doing that you wouldn't have had to use a non-free image on the talk page).
 * Images added, lead trimmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Cell towers

 * In the 1980s, AT&T reduced investments in cell towers due to McKinsey's prediction that there would only be 900,000 cell phone subscribers by 2000. According to The Firm this was "laughably off the mark" from the 109 million cellular subscribers by 2000.

I would like to know more about this bad prediction. Is it possible that the consultants were deliberately favoring landlines over towers? I think anyone familiar with technology would have seen where this was going, so it's hard to believe this recommendation was made in all seriousness. In any case, I'm surprised this is a good article as the material is poorly structured and the narrative is almost nonexistent. I wonder if this would pass if it went to reassessment. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"American"
The current Lead says "McKinsey & Company is an American multinational...", however McKinsey no longer has an official headquarters, its CEO is actually based in London, and the majority of its revenues are from outside the US. A quick look at their global locations map looks like they may have more locations in Europe than in the US.

Can we trim this word "American". Not sure where it's coming from. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 16:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Per who we are "We have no headquarters in the traditional sense." While I am sure there is some legal domicile somewhere, that is a technicality. Most multinationals have a main headquarters; this company appears not to have one.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone has, once again, added New York City as the company's headquarters and labeled the organization as "American" in the Lead rather than "multinational". The provided sources to justify claiming its headquarters are in New York City are things like Hoovers (not reliable) and a link to McKinsey's website. Both of these websites identify New York City as a location, but not specifically as their headquarters. As previously discussed just above this post, McKinsey's own website says they have no headquarters, so it's a bit ironic to cite them as saying the opposite. Do you mind taking a look once more? I think also dealt with this same exact issue on this page a while back. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 19:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to look but I glanced through the latest five edits and didn't see it - can you track down the edit?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was done by an IP here. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 21:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Headquarters revisited
The article once-again lists New York City as McKinsey's headquarters in the infobox and as a Category: "Companies based in New York City". You may remember from prior discussions that this edit was recurring, even though McKinsey states on its website that it has no headquarters and the sources used were usually not reliable. This time however, they did find a reliable source (Forbes) that does list NYC as their headquarters in contradiction to the company's own claims. I've asked McKinsey to request a correction from Forbes, but often such requests are a lost cause with press that isn't current. Thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 23:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

, I notice that you added New York as an entry for the headquarters of this organization edit. (You may or may not be aware that CorporateM has a conflict of interest and cannot edit the article directly. I have some history with both the article and the organization, although not enough to create a conflict of interest, so I offered to help talk through this edit.)

While it's a bit of an affectation, McKinsey claims that they do not literally have headquarters. I've looked at that claim before but I just checked to make sure that it is still current. Who we Are We have no headquarters in the traditional sense. Most organizations do have headquarters, so it isn't at all surprising that some publications who try to keep track of organizations might insist on filling the blank even if they don't have solid evidence. If they truly do have a headquarters, it might be our responsibility to include that information in our article, but if they don't have a true headquarters and some publications simply mistakenly pick up a location incorrectly, we shouldn't support that error.

Your edit included two references:
 * 1
 * 2

The first of these references is not about McKinsey&Company as a whole but about one specific region in which New York is located. Not surprisingly, that page has a physical address in New York but I don't see anything on that page the claims that New York is the global headquarters. It simply claims it is the single largest office.

The second reference is an entry in Hoover's, which contains contact information for the organization. Many organizations are required to maintain contact information and it is not unusual that such an address would correspond to the headquarters but it doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Thus, the Hoover entry is narrowly a place to write to the company to get information or pass along information but it in no way means that this address is the global headquarters.

I'm also aware that Forbes does have an entry for McKinsey which states that the headquarters are in New York. This would normally be strong evidence and would certainly be acceptable if not contested. However, as noted, the organization claims that it does not have headquarters and it is highly likely that someone working for Forbes simply entered the contact address. It is my understanding (see above) that McKinsey may be in the process of requesting a correction from Forbes. It is my opinion that we do not need to wait for such a correction. When sources disagree, we ought to be able to use common sense. In my opinion, common sense is that if McKinsey explicitly states that they do not have formal headquarters than it is quite plausible that reliable sources may mistakenly pick up their contact address and use it as a headquarters address.

I am fully aware that personal experiences are not controlling when it comes to edits. However, I will share a personal experience because it is relevant and timely. I recently became president of an organization. One of my first duties was to fill out a directory listing asking for all kinds of the usual information. One of the fields requested was the location of our headquarters. I had to scratch my head and double check with other officers of the organization to confirm my understanding that we literally did not have a headquarters. We do have a mailing address, which I supplied and I won't be surprised if somebody, somewhere will claim that our headquarters corresponds to the mailing address. Also coincidentally, an item on our next board meeting is to address an offer by an organization to provide us with a physical headquarters. If we accept, we will have a physical headquarters but the expectation is that we will reject the offer. Again this isn't necessarily controlling, but I offer it as evidence that organizations do exist without physical headquarters.

I think I could justify removing the headquarters information on the argument I've laid out, but I prefer to start with a discussion and persuade you that I've identified the right course of action.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 * See the differences between edits. "New York City" was already there as the headquarters—I merely supplied the references to (I thought) back up that assertion.  However, I have no personal attachment to or knowledge of that "fact", so if you know better, then go ahead make the change (to "hq_location = none")—just be sure to include a citation or two to that effect. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I misread the edit - I have to run, will say more when I get home.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I made the change-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Number of employees?
What's the actual current number of employees? Forbes lists 11,000 in their company listing. Big Three (management consultancies) notes 17,000, contradicting the main article here with 14,000. An IP-editor just suggested 29,000 based on LinkedIn data (but I have reverted this change without a specific verifiable and reliable source). Maybe the numbers have fluctuated recently (or different numbers are based on different methods of calculation). It would be great, if someone more knowledgeable could clarify these differences and update both articles accordingly. Also, if the numbers often fluctuate, it would probably be helpful to always add a specific month and year to such values - just to reduce the inevitable inaccuracy with variable statistics. GermanJoe (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

 * I got some useful clarification on the variance in employee-counts from McKinsey today. According to McKinsey, they have 12,000 consultants and another 2,000 research and information professionals(source), but more than 20,000 total employees(see McKinsey Fact Sheet found here). The employee-count reported in secondary sources often varies depending on what year they are reporting for, and whether they are actually reporting number of consultants, rather than total employees. For example, 11,000 was probably the number of consultants a year or two ago, whereas 17,000 was probably the total number of employees a year or two ago. CorporateM (Talk) 15:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the clarification. I suggest to give it a few days, but if noone objects to the self-sourced number of 20,000, we could probably use it (assuming other consultancy articles also use "total number of employees" and not "number of consultants" as statistical value?). If clarity is needed, we could also explicitly note the differing calculations in a footnote. GermanJoe (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks . I never would have noticed the need for a correction if you hadn't spotted it. Good catch. CorporateM (Talk) 14:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Done - added a short footnote as background information as well. As always, feel free to tweak my English :). GermanJoe (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Separate top level "corruption" section?
It appears the the two incidents listed did not directly involve the firm. So their relevance is "once removed"; probably still worth including, but through the sequence of events at the article, you have a big "corruption" section at the article on the company that covers things (not counting vague allegations) that neither the company nor it's employees did. This makes the article give a distorted impression. The best way to fix it is probably more complex, but as an interim or quickie pseudo-fix, I plan to just move those incident subsections into the history section.  North8000  (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight for alumni statistics in lead - removed
Such detailed statistics to highlight the company's prestige are undue weight for the lead, which should serve only as a brief overview for the topic. Please discuss here, if you disagree. GermanJoe (talk) 11:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the paragraph is undue weight for the lead. It would be appropriate to include a 1-sentence summary in the lead and leave the more detailed information in the Influence section. Is it typical to describe former employees as "alumni"? –dlthewave ☎ 17:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A short 1-sentence mention could work, if anyone has a good neutrally-phrased suggestion. The problem is really not the fact itself, but its overly detailed promotional presentation in undue weight. However, I strongly disagree with any usage of Vault or similar sources in the lead, these "awards" are the result of trivial popularity polls with no evidence of any deeper professional analysis, and the whole site is little more than a thinly-veiled PR platform for the companies. GermanJoe (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Just took a quick look, forgive me if I'm missing the background. Agree that for several reasons the whacked material should not have been in the lead. Most of those reasons apply specifically to being in the lead. Probably borderline (and still needing some work) if it was in the body of the article. IMO simple deletion and deletion of the large amount of references is an awfully big and fast change. IMO a good course of action would be to move it to the body and then edit if further. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Parts of it are already covered in "Influence" further down. While the tone could use a bit of additional work, this seems like a fair coverage of the company's status in the branche, especially in combination with other related sections like "Culture". Of course nobody is denying that the company has significant influence in its branche and beyond. GermanJoe (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't notice that in my "quick look". North8000 (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Creeping WP:Undue issues
At first glance this appears to inched into undue territory regarding controversies. A quick read seems to indicate that the article is being inched towards stretching too far to include such stuff. In perspective, for a $10 billion 92 year old company, there seems to be too much material on small scale negative areas where the firm wasn't even directly involved. Even mere allegations from individual groups have just been added. I did not revert because I'm not deep in enough on this to know it well. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

 * The problem seems to be getting worse. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

 * And worse. The recent addition makes it appear that the US imposed sanctions as a part of the corruption investigation while it was actually for sanction violations. North8000 (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Alumni listcruft
I have removed the recently added section as it contained non-neutral language, low-quality sources, and unsourced listcruft per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Without independent expert sources and additional encyclopedic context, such an indiscriminate trivial list is just PR fluff that doesn't add to an encyclopedic overview of the topic. The general observation, that several McKinsey alumni have later been appointed as CEOs or other high-level executives, is already covered in the "Influence" section in sufficient detail. Please discuss here if needed. GermanJoe (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The content has now been moved to List of former employees of McKinsey & Company. Atleast it doesn't clutter up the main article then - a slight improvement imo. But the basic point still stands of course: are such alumni lists for companies (especially without independent sources and verifiable substantial correlation) appropriate encyclopedic content or excessive listcruft? Anyway, I have asked at WP:Companies for additional opinions and will leave the current situation as is for now. GermanJoe (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

"CEO factory"
With a little digging I found the original USA Today article about McKinsey as "CEO factory": the link is. First of all this is not a "study", but a reader editor's article based on primary data and some random odd comparisons to create a spicy interesting article. Secondly the number of "produced" CEOs is far too low to create any meaningful statistical result, let alone a comparison with competitors (quoted from the article: "With numbers, you can make any point you want"). Lastly, the article fails to show any substantial correlation behind this data. In short, the results of this so-called "study" are not of encyclopedic relevance. GermanJoe (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Pete Buttigieg
Did U.S. presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg formerly work for McKinsey & Company? 76.189.141.37 (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead should obviously mention some of the controversies
An enormous part of the body is about various scandals and controversies related to McKinsey. Numerous COI accounts have sought to remove this content from the lead. A regular editor then aided the COI accounts in the whitewashing. The content should be restored ASAP. Puffery such as McKinsey advising the "world's leading businesses and nonprofits" should also be removed. We are not here to write an ad for this company. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi How are you? The reasons I removed it, mostly I think because these kinds of things must be enormous and world shaking before they are put in the lede, particularly in such a huge article. The article itself has increased in size by 40k since 2015 and needs to be drastically reduced I think. The days of being a good GA are long gone. For example, why is it discussing at length the number of employees it has in the lede, and using a low-quality Forbes reference to support it. From the lede: 1930s, the company's core values and principles and values were established.. I would sincerely like to have time to do it.    scope_creep Talk  18:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 * I started watching / got involved a bit here when there was a declared COI editor involved who went 200% by the rules and did excellent work. Now they seem to have left. Seems like it's always slipping into being a hit piece (with overemphasis on local scandals considering the size and scope of the company and length of its history) or a PR piece. If there are other editors here who just want the article to be good then there's hope and I'll stick around.North8000 (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * A phrase like the world’s leading businesses is empty corporate PR-speak, and the company's core values and principles and values were established is somehow even worse. ("You said values twice!" "That's because it takes twice as many values as principles.") The writing in the lede is disjointed and not even copy-edited. XOR'easter (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yip, that's what I was alluding to, but it's not the only type of article that I seen of this condition. There is the Ogilvy (agency) article which is in similar condition, but is almost half the size with similar-ish length of history. There is really no need for article be so big. The people who write these articles know this, once it get to this size, it virtually impossible to break it up, but when I finish these two reviews I'm doing, I'm going to shrink it drastically.  scope_creep Talk  00:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it needs reorganization as much as it needs shrinking; sections that should logically belong together are separated. For example, why is "Influence" a subsection of "Organization", while "Recruiting" is separate? "Media coverage and publications about McKinsey" seems to be a junk drawer. XOR'easter (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, regarding my previous post, this looks encouraging.  I think that the current article is a bruised and abused mess from conflicting sources.   Earlier IMO it was done well by a a wiki-good declared editor.  Later I think that it was a product of people who wanted to make it a "hit piece" including overwhelmingly large section on local controversies, plus maybe 1 or 2 undeclared COI pro-company editors.  North8000 (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The laudatory content is vague, the description of the controversies is disorganized, and the business history jams in details without any sense of why they might or might not be important. For example, Its revenues were 50, 20, and 30 percent from strategy, operations, and technology consulting, respectively. So what? How are those divisions even defined? Are they industry-standard terms, or are they divisions particular to McKinsey's? The "practice areas" are first defined as Strategy, Operations and Organization, and then manufacturing and business technology are added. Did "organization" consulting contribute no revenue? Was that 30% from "technology consulting" derived from the manufacturing tech or the business tech side? XOR'easter (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Go for it! North8000 (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyedit
I have removed about 5k of it on a copyedit, which has been much puff, multiple references as many as five per line, obvious statements, peacock terms, unsupported claims, unstructured list with encyclopedic benefits and names drops with no benefits and an undue section/quote with no academic balance.  scope_creep Talk  09:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Too long lede
Several former employees of McKinsey have moved on to prominent roles in the private, public, and social sectors. Notable examples include CEOs of bulge bracket banks: James P. Gorman at Morgan Stanley, Tidjane Thiam at Credit Suisse and Jane Fraser at Citibank; business leaders in the high tech sector: Sheryl Sandberg, COO at Facebook and Sundar Pichai, CEO of Alphabet; and politicians such as: Pete Buttigieg, the current U.S. Secretary of Transportation and Bobby Jindal, the former Governor of Louisiana.

Vault.com rankings and COI tag (June 2022)
See WP:ANI — Ⓜhawk10 (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

 * I'm an uninvolved editor and saw it there. I've commented there that I think this is an overreaction, that rather than some nefarious coordinated UPI, what we probably have are some random, unccordinated keen current or soon-to-join employees proud of where they work/will work, just like students tend to be proud of unversities where they study. As to the substance, I gather it's an edit war about whether to include a statement that Vault ranks McKinsey very highly among consulting firms/places to work. I haven't looked it up, but am pretty sure this is correct, and if sourced properly think it should be included in the article, since (for better or worse) Vault rankings are important in hiring new consultants. Yes, the inclusion of this casts McKinsey in a positive light, but that does not mean it is promotional. Many years ago, I worked for some time for McKinsey. So one could call me slightly-COI in that I guess I have an interest in having prior employers appear in a positive light. But I don't think I'm COI enough to preclude me from being able to edit or discuss editing this article. Martinp (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

 * Returning a day later to add: the Vault rankings to me seen worthwhile enough to add somewhere in the article (e.g. the Recruiting section, since Vault.com is primarily about ranking employers), but not important enough to have in the lede. Thoughts from others? And I'm going to remove the big COI tag at top of article since it's really overkill for a tempest in a teapot debate about whether one fact should or shouldn't be in the lede, while the template adds text making it sound like a major contributor to the article has a COI (and therefore the whole text is suspect?) I'm pretty sure this can be sorted pretty easily with a bit of talk page discussion. Martinp (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Returning again 5 days later. There have been no comments, so I have reinstated the Vault.com material, but rather than in the lede (given multiple comments in the revert war edit summaries that it is not important enough for the lede...) I have put it in the recruiting section (given my opinion, as uninvoled editor but endorsed by other edit summaries) that it is notable in terms of university recruiting. Note that while it does indeed put McKinsey in a positive light, that in itself does not mean it is promotional content. If people disagree, let's discuss here and reach a consensus rather than continuing the slo-mo edit war on this sentence of recent months. Martinp (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on this because there is a piece of info that I don't know and in a quick look was unable to find out.  If vault is big/prominent regarding these types of ratings or if the vault rating is consistent with other similar ratings, then this is real information and good for the article.  If it fails one or both of those criteria, then it is likely bias-based cherry picking and then it is not informative and possibly misleading. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Vault is certainly prominent among consulting job applicants from universities (MBAs and undergraduate), though some would argue it preys on candidates' insecurities in selling them so-called "inside information" and "interview prep" materials of limited value. And I think there is a general understanding that McKinsey ranks either top or in the top-3 in strategic consulting firms. So I feel that this is a noncontroversial 3rd party source for a noncontroversial bit of information. Martinp (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

New book When McKinsey Comes to Town
I created a draft for Draft:When McKinsey Comes to Town. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CRISIS COMMUNICATION
— Assignment last updated by Kgl49! (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

what is the process of producing steel from pig iron 129.0.205.233 (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Non-representative picture
The picture shows all of 3 WTC -- 80 floors. McKinsey and Company occupy only 5 floors, about 6% of the building ... but the picture implies the building is their entire office. I've changed the caption to draw attention to the partial occupancy, but should the image be used at all? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:McKinsey & Company


text:
Al-Muhtadi

Abū Isḥāq Muḥammad ibn al-Wāthiq (أبو إسحاق محمد بن هارون الواثق; c. 833 – 21 June 870), better known by his regnal name al-Muhtadī bi-'llāh (Arabic: المهتدي بالله, "Guided by God"), was the Caliph of the Abbasid Caliphate from July 869 to June 870, during the "Anarchy at Samarra".

Early life
Al-Muhtadi was the son of Abbasid caliph al-Wathiq. He was born in 833. Al-Muhtadi's mother was Qurb, a Greek slave. After the death of his father, Caliph al-Wathiq ((r. 842 – 847)) in August 847, there were some officials who wanted to elect the young al-Muhtadi as caliph, but in the end, their choice fell on his uncle, al-Mutawakkil ((r. 847 – 861)).

Background
Despite the successes of caliph al-Mu'tazz, He could not overcome the main problem of the period: a shortage of revenue with which to pay the troops. The financial straits of the Caliphate had become evident already at his accession—the customary accession donative of ten months' pay for the troops had to be reduced to two for lack of funds—and had helped bring down the regime of al-Musta'in in Baghdad. The civil war and the ensuing general anarchy only worsened the situation, as revenue stopped coming in even from the environs of Baghdad, let alone more remote provinces. As a result, al-Mu'tazz refused to honour his agreement with Ibn Tahir in Baghdad, leaving him to provide for his own supporters; this led to unrest in the city and the rapid decline of Tahirid family. The turmoil in Baghdad was worsened by al-Mu'tazz, who in 869 dismissed Ibn Tahir's brother and successor Ubaydallah, and replaced him with his far less capable brother Sulayman. In the event, this only served to deprive the Caliph of a useful counterweight against the Samarra soldiery, and allowed the Turks to regain their former power.

Accession
By 869 the Turkic leaders Salih ibn Wasif and Ba'ikbak were again in the ascendant, and secured the removal of Ahmad ibn Isra'il. Finally, unable to meet the financial demands of the Turkic troops, in mid-July a palace coup deposed al-Mu'tazz. He was imprisoned and maltreated to such an extent that he died after three days, on 16 July 869. He was succeeded by his cousin al-Muhtadi.

Caliphate
After the deposition and murder of his cousin al-Mu'tazz ((r. 866 – 869)) on 15 July 869, the leaders of the Turkic guard chose al-Muhtadi as the new Caliph on 21/22 July. As a ruler, al-Muhtadi sought to emulate the Umayyad caliph Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, widely considered a model Islamic ruler. He therefore lived an austere and pious life—notably removing all musical instruments from the court—and made a point of presiding in person over the courts of grievances (mazalim), thus gaining the support of the common people. Combining "strength and ability", he was determined to restore the Caliph's authority and power, that had been eroded during the ongoing "Anarchy at Samarra" by the squabbles of the Turkish generals.

Al-Muhtadi faced Alid risings in the provinces, but the main threat to his power were the Turkish commanders. The dominant figure of the first months of his rule was Salih ibn Wasif, but he too failed to provide enough revenue to pay the troops. Although he executed the previous vizier, Ahmad ibn Isra'il, and his extortion of the secretaries (kuttab), his power continued to wane. His main rival, Musa ibn Bugha, used the opportunity to return from his semi-exile in Hamadhan, arriving in Samarra in December 869. There he constrained al-Muhtadi to take an oath to punish Salih for having robbed the treasures of Kabiha, the mother of al-Mu'tazz. Salih went into hiding, whereupon the Turks mutinied and almost deposed al-Muhtadi. They relented only when he promised them to pardon Salih, but when Salih did not appear, his soldiers began to pillage Samarra, until Musa and his troops scattered them. Soon after, Salih was discovered and executed by Musa's men. Musa thus established himself as the leading official of the government, with Sulayman ibn Wahb as his chief secretary. Historian Khatib states that he adopted perpetual fasting from the day of his leadership until his murder.

Downfall and death
When Musa left to campaign against the Kharijites, al-Muhtadi took the opportunity to incite the people against him and his brother, Muhammad. Muhammad was brought to trial on accusations of embezzlement and was condemned. Although al-Muhtadi had promised a pardon, Muhammad was executed. This cemented the rift with Musa: the latter marched on the capital with his army, and defeated the troops loyal to the Caliph. He refused to abdicate, but tried to preserve his life and office by recourse to the religious status of the caliph, and the support of the people. He was nevertheless murdered on 21 June 870, and replaced by his cousin, al-Mu'tamid ((r. 870 – 892)).

Ja'far ibn Abd al-Wahid ibn Ja'far led the prayers at the funeral of the caliph al-Muhtadi.

title: Al-Muhtadi