text:
Talk:Confederate Memorial Day

Official state holiday?
Does anybody which, if any, states consider CMD to be an official U.S. state holiday? Traditional Catholic 16:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Until I know its legal status I'm gonna change its category of Holidays of the United States. Thanks. jengod 20:58, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Confederate Memorial day in Maryland is also on June 3rd.Traditional Catholic 16:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

South Carolina
most state offices are Closed in observance --Jober14 15:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

South Carolina schools take this day off. It is an "offical holiday" for the school system. Dorchester county district 4 does not observe this day but the Dorchester county government does observe it.

May 10th is legally declared Confederate Memorial Day by the state of South Carolina. Refer to South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 53 - Sundays, Holidays and Other Special Days; SECTION 53-5-10. Legal holidays enumerated; state employees. http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t53c005.htm.

Even MUSC (Medical University of South Carolina) in Charleston basically shuts down for CMD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.15.106.85 (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed
The history section looks more like fanciful fiction or a regional piece of folk lore. I don't have historical record of this holiday's origin, but surely there must be a more scholarly source. I would suggest that the original "history" be relabled as "associated lore" or what-have-you, it's clearly not objective historical fact.

Consult http://www1.va.gov/opa/speceven/memday/history.asp Traditional Catholic 16:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Having lived in Mississippi for my whole life and never having heard about this "holiday", it seems to be just some paltry attempt at either humor or insult to people south of the Mason-Dixon Line. --J. S. Freeman 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what cave in Mississippi Mr Freeman is living in, but CMD has been celebrated every year for the 30 years I've lived in Mississippi. (Ray) 22:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I live in Atlanta, GA. The state recognizes this as a holiday and all state offices are closed - including my employer, the State Credit Union. ~Michael Cyr 28 March 2007

(to the above) That's interesting, because having lived in GA all of my life I never once had a day off from work or school on that day. And, if you read one of the links posted below, it says that from 1984 on the state government only observes federal holidays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.122.61.124 (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an excellent book entitled Confederate Memorial Days 1866-1985 describing the observances in Fredericksburg VA during those years. I don't think there is any real doubt that Confederate Memorial Day exists and has existed since the end of the WBTS. CsikosLo 17:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to a great write up from the University of Georgia about Confederate Memorial Day http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/confmem.htm A link from timeanddate.com http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/us/confederate-memorial-day AND a link from MS Secretary of State about CMD becomeing an official Holiday: http://www.sos.state.ms.us/pubs/Proclamations/Confederate.asp About.com http://genealogy.about.com/b/2006/05/10/confederate-memorial-day.htm There can be no dispute about it in MS. There are too many sources to list them all but the OFFICIAL MS State site makes it indisputable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.209.4 (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

i do not think that quoting "From the May, 1893 issue of "Confederate Veteran," the Origin of Memorial Day" is useful. perhaps some expert can put a real citation perhaps with a link or library of congress reference. also, as a structural format issue, the beginning and end of this citation is not clear. maybe it should be indented in different font. also, i would assume there must have been a similarly contrary writing that disputes the relgiously and geographically biased reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Data87 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

CMD
Here is a link to an article about the observance of CMD in 2007. http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/stories/20070430/localnews/171018.shtml s20130 I also live in Atlanta and know of no Confederate Memorial Day in which offices are closed. However, I have gone to "Decoration" all my life at a family church in Alabama, but there is no Holiday other than the federal "Memorial Day" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.160.4 (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You can go to the State of Georgia website, and it lists all state holidays. This includes Confederate Memorial Day, celebrated April 26th: http://www.georgia.gov/00/channel_modifieddate/0,2096,4802_64437763,00.html. Also, the holiday is tacitly codified at O.C.G.A. 1-4-1; to wit: "the Governor shall include at least one of the following dates: January 19, April 26, or June 3, or a suitable date in lieu thereof to commemorate the event or events now observed by such dates." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.6.30 (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the State of Georgia website now calls it simply "State Holiday", and it's been moved to Monday April 24 this year. -NoApostropheInIts (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

That is not a sufficient source.
First, the source quoted for the history section directly contradictsWikipedia's own Memorial Day entry re: origins; second, it displays a clear bias for the southern states, and Georgia in particular, as does the link you provide.

Until someone can provide a scholarly historical source, I'm changing the "History" heading to "Folk Lore," which more accurately describes that content.

Also: what in the heck does Leo Frank have to do with Confederate Memorial Day???

Finally: in my actions above I am disputing the factual accuracy of specifically the history section. It either needs to be reconciled with the history of Wikipedia's Memorial Day entry, or removed, or edited to include scholarly/reliable sources, not society rags from the turn of the century.

I'm going to reaffirm my changes above (when I was an anonymous user). If someone wants the society rag to appear as History, I'd like to see some discussion on this page justifying that move.

Again, the article about the history of Confederate Memorial Day's birth is full of florid prose and angels and what-not. It's not an academic source. It's speculative fiction posing as society rag journalism. I'm leaving it in, but marking it as what it is: folklore. King Mongo 23:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are your Academic sources: University of Georgia http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/confmem.htm

And one from the US Embassy in Stockholm http://stockholm.usembassy.gov/holidays/celebrate/memorial.html

And if you search the net more looking for .edu sites there are 475 pages with information on C.M.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.209.4 (talk) 05:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "scholarly"? Thats a pretty subjective word, and it seems pretty obvious it was designed to cause anger. There are several links to sites from colleges, which is about as "scholarly" as you can get. Just because the colleges are in the south doesn't make them any less legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.113.132 (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that by "scholarly" it is meant [peer reviewed] or [primary sources] (publications in peer reviewed journals or original documents, respectively--check out the respective wikipedia articles). A university's web page, whether in North, South, or elsewhere, doesn't qualify. I don't doubt that CMD exists or has existed, but I don't think any offense was intended by a request for "scholarly" sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.196.249 (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Tennessee
Confederate Decoration Day, June 3rd, is a "day of special observance" pursuant to Tennessee code Annotated 15-2-101 and it is the duty of the Governor to proclaim it as such annually. It is not an official holiday.

Texas
Just a note to say that the "table" is somewhat misleading as refers to Texas. To wit, the "see Arkansas" notation...which in turn states that MLK and the Confederate holiday are combined. In Texas, Confederate Heroes Day is ALWAYS on January 19 (Robert E. Lee's birthday), whereas MLK Day is officially observed on the 3rd Monday in January...which may or may not fall on the 19th.

Confederate Heroes Day is a state holiday and should not be confused with Confederate Memorial Day which is April 26th.

January 19 - Confederate Heroes Day (partial staffing holiday) House Bill 126, 42nd Legislature Regular Session. Chapter 8. Approved and Effective January 30, 1931 as Robert E. Lee's Birthday.

Senate Bill 60, 63rd Legislature Regular Session. Chapter 221. Approved June 1, 1973 and Effective August 27, 1973 as Confederate Heroes Day. This bill deleted June 3rd as a holiday for Jefferson Davis' birthday and combined the two into Confederate Heroes Day.

3rd Monday - Martin Luther King Jr. Day Senate Bill 485, 70th Legislature Regular Session. Chapter 159. Approved May 25, 1987 and Effective August 31, 1987 as an optional holiday.

Senate Bill 134, 72nd Legislature Regular Session. Chapter 445. Approved and Effective on June 11, 1991 as an official state holiday.

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/holidays.html

I understand what Senate Bill 60 says, but I would think the intention was to combine Lee's B-day and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson's B-day (January 21) into Confederate Heroes Day. That seems to make more sense.204.58.248.32 11:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

>>As a little clarification on the original intent behind Confederate Heroes Day (as I have been able to research it), prior to 1973, the State of Texas observed both Robert E. Lee's birthday (January 19) AND Jefferson Davis' (June 3) as official state holidays. When Lyndon Johnson died that year, the state wanted to honor the former president's (and native sons) birthday, however the number of legal holidays was limited by law (I am a little shaky on this one). To solve the problem, Lee and Davis' birthdays were combined into one single observance in order to make room for one for LBJ. It was renamed Confederate Heroes Day so as to not only honor Lee and Davis, but all who wore the Gray and/or served the Confederacy. Hope that might help a bit! TexasReb 16:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Alabama
Confederate Memorial Day is included in the Constitution of Alabama http://www.legislature.state.al.us/codeofalabama/1975/1-3-8.htm

Apparently there are some changes afoot in Alabama. CMD has always been a state holiday, but now CMD and Jeff Davis' birthday, another state holiday, will no longer be mandatory days off for state employees. Though the holidays will stay on the books, state employees will now get two personal days off that will compensate for the loss of the official time off on those days. State offices will now officially remain open on those days. DesScorp 22:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Copy and Paste Article?
The "History of Confederate Memorial Day" section is a direct cut-and-paste, and not just sourced from, the Department of Veterans' Affairs website, complete with unformatted section headlines. It would also appear that the same thing happened with the "Folklore" section (from a different source), and that section has severe NPOV issues and is written in a florid sentimental style that could work as a quotation, but not an actual Wikipedia article. Is a reformat, if not a complete rewrite, called for here? --Enwilson 01:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite
I'm working on rewriting this article. So far I've summarized the History section. Without another source, it's little more than a paraphrase of the original, but I think it's a little better, and I removed the unnecessary history of Decoration Day; people can read the Decoration Day article if they want more on that. Here it is:

 * By the time Decoration Day was established by the Grand Army of the Republic in 1868, local springtime tributes to the Civil War dead had already been held in various places. In Columbus, Mississippi on April 25, 1866, a group of women decorated the graves of Confederate soldiers who fell at the Battle of Shiloh.  Graves of Union soldiers had been neglected because they were the enemy, but the women placed flowers at those graves as well.

 * Today, approximately 25 cities claim to be the birthplace of Memorial Day in 1866, including Macon, Georgia; Columbus, Georgia; and Richmond, Florida. Boalsburg, Pennsylvania claims to have started the holiday in 1864.  Most of the cities claiming connection with the holiday are in the South, where most of the war dead were buried.

But I think we need more specifically about Confederate Memorial Day.

--69.161.146.61 13:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see the relevance of the GAR info (which is still here, by the way) in an article about Confederate Memorial Day. CsikosLo 17:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

For any rewrite, there is some good information in a book called Confederates in the Attic. If you don't have the book or access to it, let me know through this page, and I would be more than happy to put up some of their history of the holiday as presented in the book. (65.15.106.85 (talk)Victoria, Charleston, SC65.15.106.85 (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 04:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Decoration Day in Tennessee stems farther back than this, to Revolutionary War and War of 1812 soldiers as a day of honor for the fallen for our country. Families & friends would decorate the cemetaries of the lost family members especially of the ones lost that never made it back home. It has been a time honored tradition in Tennessee for each cemetery to have a Decoration day and the families come together to honor the our forefathers, mothers,kin, and friends. This is a stupid debate who did it first. This is a tradition for time memorial in the south. All southern people did it prior to the 1861-1865 War due to the sacrifices made to make this country from the Initial War of Independence and the Second war of independence that we almost lost this country in the War of 1812. They did it to honor the ones that gave their all and honor all family members. So many women & children & workers in both wars that did so much, that was never credited nor honored for all they did to keep the men in the ranks of the army and navy. Grow up and think how they lived back then. They made a Confederate Memorial Day to honor the fallen or the ones that served. So honor them as the intent, not this retoric. It was a horrific war that tore families apart and give them their day in the sun for their beliefs. If we lost the Revolutionary war or War of 1812 we would want the same for them. This was started by family members & friends to honor them. Not one person did this. It was the families, widows, orphans that started this from all over the south and it was only natural for a day to be named in each state for it by the state legislatures. All races, creeds, and beliefs served the Confederacy read history and find out not political retoric or personal opinions. This is a mute point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.14.43 (talk • contribs)

secretary of state isn't charlie daniels.
the link to the Arkansas secretary of state's website incorrectly names him as Charlie Daniels. The Arkansas sec. of state is Mark Martin. Looks like someone was having fun with links. I couldn't figure out how to change it, but I could figure out how to make a comment here, so here we go. 96.35.159.51 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Useless columns in the table
I think the three columns giving the date in three years is useless and it makes the remarks column too narrow. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Changed. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Confederate Memorial Day. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110408082243/http://www.legis.state.la.us:80/lss/lss.asp?doc=74097 to http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=74097

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Revisions based on link from external source- Motivation and definition of Confederate War efforts
There have been several revisions that I believe have spawned from this page being linked to the front page of the popular social media site Reddit. Many of the corrections have been to include "treason" or "warring against the United States" as their contribution.

First, should this article receive some sort of protection status? What is the protocol when external brigading brings vandalism and revision with questionable sourcing?

Second, is the nature of the war necessary to this article? The United States Civil War page treats the conflict as an internal conflict and I would be hesitant to offer anything further on this page as it's subject matter seems pretty narrow. A discussion of the motives and whether or not the Confederacy was treasonous seems better suited for the for the United States Civil War page.

Moosedontgomoo (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't call those edits vandalism. Perhaps good faith edits with which you disagree. Treason is a crime defined in the US Constitution ("Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them...") and it's pretty hard to argue the CSA was not treasonous. Whether it belongs here.....that's going to be an interesting discussion. My gut feeling is that I agree with you but I am always wary of whitewashing history. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change second paragraph
The holiday is observed in late April to recall the surrender of the last major Confederate field army at Bennett Place on April 26, 1865. The holiday is observed officially in Alabama and Mississippi, and widely, but unofficially, in other Southern states.

Any problems? deisenbe (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

 * I did go check that Websters Dictionary reference. The cited edition doesn't mention the surrender. Maybe another edition has it? We do have Georgia's Landmarks, Memorials, and Legends, a quaint volume from 1914, to attest to the connection though, so it's already covered. Mobi Ditch (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Observed dates for Confederate Memorial Day
At one time there use to be a table of all the dates Confederate Memorial Day is observed, because some states have different dates, this appears long gone and assumes only two dates. More interesting that North Carolina and South Carolina observe Confederate Memorial Day on May 10th, yet its not mention here fully; only a piece about South Carolina state government providing a holiday. Is there a reason for missing information here or was there just an editor that didn't like the fact that there was not consistent holiday so forced it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Why so much on Logan?
This article, which purports to be about Confederate Memorial Day spends over half of its space talking about Gen Logan and Memorial Day, which already has its own page. CsikosLo (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Texas and Martin Luther King Jr. Day
Is Texas's date of January 19 intentionally set on or near Martin Luther King Jr. Day, or is that just a coincidence? — Red XIV (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The article can obviously be greatly expanded to explain the rational for each date used per state, but at this time we do not have a reason for Texas and we should not speculate. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The article does specifically mention that Tennessee chose its date to coincide with Jefferson Davis's birthday, so it stands to reason that the reasoning (if any is documented in reliable sources, of course) for other states' dates seems worthy of inclusion. — Red XIV (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Very misleading lead ("to remember the estimated 258,000 Confederate soldiers who died in military service")
Many of these holidays are meant to honor Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, which is why the holiday is celebrated on their birthdays. Neither of those men died in the civil war. Robert E. Lee died in 1870 from a stroke and Jefferson Davis died in 1889 from bronchitis.--Craigboy (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is specifically about Confederate Memorial Day and those that died for the Confederacy. If the holiday is for other people, then it should be removed from here; for example, Robert E. Lee Day is not Confederate Memorial Day. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "The article is specifically about Confederate Memorial Day and those that died for the Confederacy." If that's the criteria then several of the holidays mentioned in this article do not belong here. "Confederate Heroes Day" (Texas) for example does not meet your criteria. It is held on Lee's birthday and the description reads "in honor of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and other Confederate heroes". No mention of those that died and the only people mentioned by name did not die in the Civil War.--Craigboy (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You mention several, but only bring up Texas. If that is the only offending holiday, then it should be removed (or at least I am all for it); if there are others then we need to go through the list to confirm first. --WashuOtaku (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--Craigboy (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Listing holidays which are for heroes in addition to or instead of the dead under "Related holidays" makes sense; they shouldn't be removed from the article completely, as it's helpful to explain the distinctions for readers. -- Beland (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

"See Also" Missing Pages

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template(s) or module(s) below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Approved. After a year, enough editors weighed in on the issue that agree that the relationship does exist. --WashuOtaku (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Lost Cause of the Confederacy is clearly relevant to this article and it's the reason why the majorities of these "Confederate Heroes" holidays exist.--Craigboy (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - First sentence in the article states that the Lost Cause it is a belief that the cause of the Confederate States was heroic, just, and not centered on slavery. Confederate Memorial Day specifically honors the war dead, which is fact; it is also a societal norm to honor the dead, regardless if they were heroic or cowards and the other points do not apply. Not everything that has the word "Confederate" means its also part of they Lost Cause mythos. Also, you already brought up the fact that Texas probably should removed and I support it; if the state holiday is not specifically a day for the dead, then it should be removed. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The reasoning behind this is articulated here, far better than I could. The two topics are inextricably linked. Wes sideman (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support i wasn't aware of this discussion when I took the initiative to add the link Lost Cause of the Confederacy to the article recently.  for what its worth, the article for national memorial day also obscures confederate history. Jaredscribe (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - It doesn't matter whether the Lost Cause is the reason for this holiday or not. Both are related to how the American Civil War is remembered from the Confederate or Southern perspective, and so a fair number of readers interested in one can be reasonably expected to be interested in the other. -- Beland (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The actual motivation behind Confederate Memorial Day, according to historians
It's a consensus among historians that Confederate Memorial Day has a "public face" reason for existence while the actual reasons are to reinforce the Lost Cause myth and solidify white supremacy in the South. Most (not all, but most) of the push for such holidays came in the Jim Crow era and in the 1950's Civil Rights Movement era. This is sourced. You can't erase that. Sources are in the lead and there are more coming. Wes sideman (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Tagging previously-involved editors to this page:    Wes sideman (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently this is the text added to the intro by Wes sideman and removed by Washuotaku who noted "not entirely correct as memorial services started a decade before the Jim Crow era":
 * While the holiday is publicly presented as a day to remember the estimated 258,000 Confederate soldiers who died rebelling against the Union, writers and historians have pointed out that the holiday's establishment often coincided with the height of Jim Crow racism around the United States, decades after the war ended.
 * The Vox piece points out Florida established the holiday in 1895. I don't have complete access to the encyclopedia, but I do see a bit that says the holiday was a "rallying point" during Jim Crow. Was there a different quote there that would help document the claim? The body of the article points out it wasn't officially recognized until 1874, when Georgia made it official. The end of Reconstruction and the beginning of Jim Crow was in 1877, so if it took a few years for other states to recognize it (implied by the statistic of ten states by 1916), then the claim seems reasonable. The claim is referring to government recognition, not cultural establishment (which did take place in 1866, much longer before Jim Crow), and it would be worthwhile to make the distinction more clearly. Given this is a controversial issue, it would be better to show in addition to telling. And in general it would be useful reference information to add a table with dates of establishment and disestablishment in each state. -- Beland (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

 * I hope will reword their paragraph regarding the relationship between the holiday and its relation of Jim Crow; after all, the article already points out its existence predating Jim Crow and not a result from it. While there is no doubt there was those that used the date for nefarious reasons in the following years, the original start was of good intention of honoring those that died and I agree with 's comment on the matter. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether the Confederate dead should be honored for fighting for their new country, right or wrong, or condemned because they fought to preserve slavery, is a controversial issue Wikipedia can't take a position on, though it can explain various opinions. -- Beland (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have clarified the phrasing as proposed, and added a table showing the dates of statutory establishment and disestablishment. There are still three states I couldn't find the establishment dates for, but I'm sure they can be dug up with a bit more effort and perhaps looking in some more specialized databases or law archives. -- Beland (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look into that, though I can't promise I'll get to it fast. For the moment, I think your approach is entirely reasonable, consistent with sourcing and a good way to flesh out the topic altogether. SnowRise let's rap 06:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

SPLC mention in intro
Just pinging   and  to call attention to this removal of sourced info from the lead. I've reverted it. Wes sideman (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I made an attempt to discuss this with Washuotaku, but he simply deleted it without replying. Wes sideman (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This quote from the SPLC was not sourced in the intro, but only the body. It is rather strong, so it's not surprising someone would ask for it to be cited, even though it's already cited in the body. As WP:LEADCITE says, "controversial subjects may require many citations". Rather than re-adding it with no source, I would have re-added it with a cross-reference to the source in the body, and there would have been no need to discuss. Using phrases like "unless, of course, you were masking your actual reasons for the removal" is not assuming good faith, and may have contributed to your message being received as hostile. I see that Washuotaku deleted the user talk page message after adding that cross-reference, which is a perfectly fine thing to do after a dispute seems to be resolved.  It should have been clear from the start that there was sourcing in the body, as Wes' original edit summary said "added summation of paragraph in the body to the lead", and it appears you read that because you knew whose edits you were reverting. After Wes pointed out in another edit summary and that user talk page message that sourcing was present in the body, removing the text a second time with the edit summary "Then cite it correctly." comes across as a bit passive-aggressive and no doubt contributed to Wes' accusation that you were edit warring. I'm glad that in the end, the article is better off - having the cite in the lead probably contributes to stability - for having both of you contributing, but I'm sad that we didn't get there more quickly and cooperatively. What's done is done, but I just hope thinking about what happened here can help make future interactions more pleasant and productive. -- Beland (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks I agree with your summation of the situation. I would add that it's difficult for me to assume good faith with this particular editor, given his past edits on this article. They all just happen to be edits that remove sourced info that points out the holiday's connection to racism. While it's plausible that that's coincidence, I don't believe that to be the case. So in this instance, I hope you understand why I made the assumptions that I did. It was based on a pattern of editing, and not arbitrary judgement. Wes sideman (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Everyone has their own perspective, and it's easier to see certain problems from certain perspectives. That's why having a diversity of editors is an important part of writing balanced articles. WP:AGF is asking us to assume other editors aren't driven solely by their point of view, even when it's starting to look that way, or at least to keep that opinion to ourselves. For example, a legitimate concern plus annoyance with another editor can incorrectly appear to be POV pushing to a person with a different perspective. Acting as if other editors have good intentions can actually also encourage them to do so; if people are accusing you of bad behavior even when you are trying to do good, why bother doing good? -- Beland (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Decorating graves is "racial terror?" That's the grandest idiocy I've ever heard. It's laughable. Somebody's been taking too many woke pills. Actually, back in the day (late 19th/early 20th century) it was not uncommon for both white and black to celebrate memorial days and decorate graves - both Union and Confederate. -Topcat777
 * If graves are being decorated with white supremacists symbols, that certainly seems like one plausible interpretation. Wikipedia doesn't take sides on such issues; it merely documents notable points of view. The SPLC is certainly a notable commentator, and other points of view are also extensively documented in the article. Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing whether or not we personally agree or disagree with various opinions, so if you want to express your opinion about the SPLC, I would recommend either speaking to them directly or finding a more suitable forum. -- Beland (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hidden text
There seems to be some dispute about HTML comments in the article telling articles not to change the intro or the "See also" section without getting consensus on the talk page. While getting consensus for controversial changes can be helpful, unless there's a consensus on the talk page that the entire intro should remain unchanged after a hard-fought consensus, it's not appropriate to put a note saying it shouldn't be changed. Certainly there are many changes to the intro and "See also" list that would not be controversial and would be helpful to make without asking permission. The relevant guideline is Manual of Style/Hidden text. -- Beland (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing the relevant guideline on this topic, to which I was not aware. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment on wording in lead and infobox
Should the wording of the sentence in question be:

A: a day to remember the estimated 258,000 Confederate soldiers who died rebelling against the Union

or

B: a day to remember the estimated 258,000 Confederate soldiers who died during the American Civil War.

Please discuss below. Wes sideman (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Editor preferences
A: That wording is factual and more specific than "B". We should always pick the option that is more specific. "B" seems to be preferred by editors that wish to gloss over the fact that the American Civil War was, at its core, a rebellion against the United States. Not helpful to use a euphemism here. Wes sideman (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

B as a non American B seems to be more informative. ACW is not a euphemism, it is the name of the war. Also there had been more than one rebellion in the USA. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

B Per. A non-American who might not be familiar with the American Civil War can more easily understand what the sentence is referring to through Option B. Option A is more vague and less neutral. Display name 99 (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

B per Slatersteven and Display name 99. Hog Farm Talk 16:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

B as above. American Civil War is the term used in Wikipedia to describe that conflict, we should use it here too. It would also give us a good opportunity to link to the American Civil War article. Chuntuk (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Withdraw and restart later – Wes, unfortunately you have completely shot yourself in the foot with the way you worded the Rfc question, and are strongly drawing votes *away* from the 'A' position which you prefer. I was all ready to vote 'B' with everyone else, until I realized this sentence fragment is from sentence number two of the lead, and sentence #1 already uses the expression Civil War. (The awkward phrase, rebelling against the Union made it worse, complicating things unnecessarily this also draws votes away from your preference, but more to the point, it makes the Rfc quesetion non-neutral in my opinion.) I recommend you withdraw the Rfc, think about how you want to word it neutrally, and start again after a pause of some time. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I still think it is a poor choice of words, as they were not in revolt against the union, but the united states. I will also say that from a non-Amerian viewpoint that sentence still reads a bit uninformative, as (well I do, but then I have a union and confederate army) I doubt many even know what "the Union" stands for.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's yet another reason to withdraw, namely, because for non-Americans it isn't clear here that "union" is synonymous with "United States". So, as far as the word "Union" goes, I agree with you; but that's part of another question in this confusingly worded Rfc. Mathglot (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

B. The first option is awkwardly worded and assumes knowledge which might not be obvious to a non-American reader. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

B. per Saltersteven Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  17:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Order of paragraphs
I rearranged some text because the second and third paragraphs essentially started with the same train of thought. WashuOtaku objects, apparently because they feel "what the day is supposed to be about" should be introduced before "that its condemned". Two problems with this: the lead already introduces "what the day is supposed to be about", and also, the vast majority of coverage of this subject deals with criticism of it. If anything, the criticism of it should be summarized in the first paragraph, but I wasn't making an editorial edit, just one for better flow and sense. Wes sideman (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki ignores Confederate Memorial Day as a protest strategy
Confederate Memorial Day is a state sanctioned protest against Martin Luther King Day and Juneteenth in both Florida as well as Mississippi. Wiki should focus on CMD as a state protest, and not on its origin story or how it is viewed by any one organization. Calling CMD a 'holiday' is like calling 9/11 'a day in September.' This entire page need to be re-written. Mrisaac57 (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That is fine if you want to include that, as long it is properly sourced to validate your statement. As for the article explaining its origin story, that is very important to understanding the motives behind it. It is a controversial topic and it needs to be addressed in an honest and neutral position, as best we can. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * CMD's origins should be included, but not at the expense of its contemporary relevance. Here, CMD's origins take up 50% of the intro, followed by another completely redundant section called 'Origins.' Meanwhile the pithy "Controversy" section makes no mention of red states glorifying CMD as a holiday as they simultaneously and triumphantly deny MLK and Juneteenth holiday status. Omitting CMD's current political use is not objectivity, it's just omission. I do not know how to put reference articles below into a Wiki page to neutrally expand the "Controversy" section. Can you help me with that please? Thanks.
 * https://news.yahoo.com/florida-recognizes-three-confederate-holidays-200455915.html
 * https://www.mississippifreepress.org/34014/mississippi-closed-state-offices-for-confederate-holiday-but-not-juneteenth#:~:text=a%20Juneteenth%20statement.-,%E2%80%9CIn%20Mississippi%2C%20Confederate%20Memorial%20Day%20and%20Confederate%20Heritage%20Month%20are,statewide%20offices%20remained%20open%20today. 162.231.194.73 (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So I incorporated you provided and rewritten the best I could with it. Please give it a read and provide feedback, or make your additional changes. I will not discuss red/blue state politics here since there are several red states that have the Juneteenth holiday already and most do not have Confederate Memorial Day; also note that the sources provided gave no mention of it. --WashuOtaku (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Florida recognizes three Confederate holidays as ‘official’ state holidays, but not Juneteenth'
 * I cut and pasted the above headline from the source I provided. It's straightforward, so I'm not sure what you mean when you say "...sources (you) provide make no mention of 'IT.' To me, "IT" is the official, state, weaponization of CMD to protest MLK and Juneteenth. I understand and vigorously support avoiding red/blue politics on Wiki. We do not want Twitter page. However, omitting the act (Florida, Et al, weaponizing CMD) and the response to the act is not neutral. It is as if Wiki is hiding CMD's real time essence. Furthermore, the Southern Poverty Law Center reference is untimely and offpoint - SPLC conflagates CMD with Confederate statues, flags, etc. There are better anti-CMD organizations, and more specific and timely quotes to be had. Let me give it a swing - with a heavy emphasis on neutrality - and see what you think. Thanks. Mrisaac57 (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind this article is about one Confederate holiday and not other Confederate holidays; this is also not about one state in particular. This is also not about Juneteenth, which was a recently established Federal holiday at this time of this writing. The holiday has always been controversial and is stated as such, but to say it has been recently weaponized is ignoring the fact it may always have been. The goal is not to hide anything, but to stay neutral; the problem is that we have facts on what the holiday is supposed to be, but a lot of conjecture on what the holiday actually is. Statements from people and organizations show where they stand on the topic and those are facts that can be easily referenced. If there are other anti-CMD organizations, then please quote their position/stance and properly source it; but a warning, please stay on topic, there is already an article regarding the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. --WashuOtaku (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. Wow, you learn things when you edit! I never saw CMD as a precursor to Memorial Day, and I think that needs to be stated upfront (as I have done.) After eliminating the many redundancies and improving the flow by re-ordering some paragraphs, I find that I have added very little and kept most of the page. See what you think. Thanks.
 * P.S. I don't know how to hyperlink Mary Logan who has a Wiki page. I also don't know how to do footnotes in Wiki. Where do I find the tutorials for editing? Thanks again. Mrisaac57 (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what's going on here, but I do know that removing long-standing sourced material summarizing CMD's official widespread recognition as coinciding with the height of Jim Crow isn't going to fly. Whitewashing such material isn't going to fly. You want that stuff gone, you're going to have to get consensus for its removal. Wes sideman (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Hi Wes. The ChatBot NG must have removed that, and recently too. I got an email from the Bot that it made changes which I talk about on the ChatBot page. There, I complain that it removed the name of John Logan's wife, Mary, and reverted to the original "his wife," which I thought was sexist. When I saw that change, the Jim Crow part was still in there, I'm pretty sure. Now I see that the whole CONTROVERSY section has been botted - if that is word - though, like you, I can't be sure. I've received no new Bot-mail. I hope you don't mind if I continue on your page, because we may have a bot problem. Mrisaac57 (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I restored the last good version and then I added in Mary Logan's name, and linked it. Wes sideman (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Mary says thanks. I'm fine with this page. Mrisaac57 (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

ClueBot NG's sexist edit
In my edit of CMD, I added the actual name of the woman who was originally listed only as 'his wife.' The woman in question, Mary Logan (nee' Simmerson Cunningham) has her very own Wiki page and was an accomplished author (please visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Simmerson_Cunningham_Logan.) I felt uncomfortable making an edit without bothering to at least try and respect the lady with a pronoun. Apparently ClueBot didn't agree with me. The bot actually removed Ms. Logan's name from my edit and reverted back to the original and dismissive 'his wife' wording. Why? That's simply flabbergasting. I can't see any other changes to my edit. Now look, I'm not going to get into an edit war with a bot, so I'm going to just leave it. However, I am also going to contact New York University and University of Washington. These schools are doing excellent work on racism and sexism in algorithms. Their focus of course has been on Google and Meta. I'm going to do my very best to make sure that they put Mr. ClueBot NG on their radar as well by reporting the following: 1. The sexist ClueBot edit. 2. Wiki's ClueBot NG team has no women on it. 3. Wiki indicates no awareness of the crusade against systemic racism and sexism in algorithms. 4. Wiki does not seek support from its community to ensure ClueBot NG avoids racist and sexist edits. Finally, I am new to the Wiki community, and admit that I may be completely off-track here. Sadly, I don't think so. Mrisaac57 (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears Cluebot took issue with this edit, in which you removed a significant amount of sourced material. Cluebot cannot discern whether you did this accidentally or on purpose. I'm not a programmer but I assume it acts to remedy a situation, when a lot of sourced material is removed, by reverting the edit - which it did. Wes sideman (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It didn't revert the edit. It took paragraphs from "Origins" and "Controversy" sections and put them in intro. Without the redundancy, origins and controversy are shorter now. Some original paragraphs were removed as well. Not a bad page though. Mrisaac57 (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Confederate Memorial Day


text:
Category:Vatican City

Articles relating to Vatican City, an independent city-state which is enclaved within Rome, Italy. Established with the Lateran Treaty (1929), it is distinct from, yet under "full ownership, exclusive dominion, and sovereign authority and jurisdiction" of, the Holy See

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

title: Category:Vatican City


text:
Ritsuko Okazaki

Ritsuko Okazaki (岡崎 律子) was a Japanese singer-songwriter born on Hashima Island, Nagasaki Prefecture. She first made her professional debut with the single, Kanashii Jiyū / Koi ga, Kiete Yuku. She is also known as the Shelby Flint of Japan.

Early life
Okazaki was born in Hashima Island, Nagasaki Prefecture on December 29, 1959. She was born left-handed. During her childhood, she was forced by her mother to use her right hand. However, after hearing that it was bad to force her to use her right hand, her mother quickly advised her to use her natural hand. During her school days, she spent time in the bakery where she worked part-time, and practiced with her band, Eleanor. She was then in charge of the chorus and piano.

Career
Okazaki made her debut as a singer-songwriter in 1993. During the nineties, she continued singing and also wrote songs for various voice actors. As she became more involved with anime she composed songs for Wedding Peach, Fruits Basket, Princess Tutu, Symphonic Rain, and Love Hina. She formed the duo Melocure in 2002 with singer-songwriter Megumi Hinata.

In the following two years, the duo released several singles and an album, Melodic Hard Cure. Okazaki also produced songs during these years for artists such as Megumi Hayashibara, Mayumi Iizuka, and Yui Horie. According to her fans, the lyrics of Okazaki's songs are characterized by poetic imagery, depth of emotion, gentle optimism and simplicity.

Death
She was diagnosed with stomach cancer in 2003 but still continued with her work. During this time there was little information released about her. The news was revealed to the public in the liner notes of the CD soundtrack re-release of the visual novel Symphonic Rain, which was released a year after her death.

On May 5, 2004, Okazaki died suddenly at the age of 44 from septic shock as a result of sepsis. She was unable to speak any last words, and left her work unfinished.

Albums
Source:

title: Ritsuko Okazaki


text:
User talk:AdamAtlas

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

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

Good luck!

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

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

The Cradle of American Civilization
Hi Adam - Adam here, too.

You may find it hard to believe, but Kingston, Massachusetts is indeed the "Cradle of American Civilization."

Kingston, as you know, was originally part of Plymouth when "Plymouth" stretched from what is now Bourne, Massachusetts in the south, all the way north into Scituate, Massachusetts. The towns of Marshfield, Duxbury (where the colonists hunted for "ducks") and Kingston along the coast were all parts of Plymouth.

In 1726 modern-day Kingston broke away from Plymouth due to a tax dispute This brave act inspired many colonists in their zeal to gain independence from the British Crown.

The "Cradle of American Civilization" label comes from Kingston's unparalleled contributions to the Revolutionary War.

Here are just a few of those contributions:
 * The shipyards in Kingston along the Jones River produced more than 11,000 ships, most of which were warships, in the Colonial period through the early Federalist period.
 * Apple cider was invented in the vast apple orchards of west Kingston, as were several innovative (and patented) long-term storage/bottling solutions.
 * Commercial cranberry production began in Kingston and Kingston remains the the town with the largest cranberry harvest per acre (by tonnage) in the United States.
 * The second battle of the King Philips War was fought in Kingston.
 * The Boston Tea Party plot was hatched in Kingston and all but three of the participants in the actual event itself were residents of Kingston.
 * Kingston was represented at the Continental Congress by two of its residents.
 * The Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles has created a red, white and blue "Kingston: The Cradle of American Civilization" vanity plate available to Kingston residents (or non-residents for a fee) starting June, 2007.

It's hard to picture Kingston today as having been anything more than a sleepy coastal bedroom community for Boston. Kingston's history is far richer than one may imagine. In its day, Kingston's star shone brightly across the entire Western world. --AStanhope 00:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Rocker
Greeting Fellow Rocker,

I have revamped the userbox for SRC. You can view it at:. If you add this to your user page, your user page will be placed in Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Simon's Rock College of Bard. For instructions on how to add this userbox to your user page and more information see WP:Userboxes.

Share and enjoy, GabrielF 23:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Apple II survey
I'm conducting a survey about the Apple II -- any former users are invited to participate. I found you were active on Apple II related articles.

Come to User:Applephreak/survey

Applephreak 19:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Play Attention, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Corvus cornix 17:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:AdamAtlas


text:
Paycheck (disambiguation)

A paycheck is a paper document issued by an employer to pay an employee for services rendered.

Paycheck may also refer to:
 * "Paycheck" (short story), a 1953 short story by Philip K. Dick
 * Paycheck (film), a 2003 film adaptation of the Philip K. Dick short story
 * Paycheck (collection), a 2004 collection of stories by Philip K. Dick
 * Beyond Lies the Wub (collection) or Paycheck and Other Classic Stories, a 1988 collection of stories by Philip K. Dick

People with the surname

 * Johnny Paycheck (1938–2003), American country music singer

title: Paycheck (disambiguation)


text:
User talk:Ei røyst i øydemarki

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

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

Good luck!

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

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

title: User talk:Ei røyst i øydemarki


text:
Talk:Artabazos I of Phrygia

Untitled
I don't know what Tigranes this page is referring to. It's not Tigranes the Great of Armenia, but beyond that I'm unsure. Isomorphic 21:04, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This Tigranes was one of the main Persian commanders during Xerxes' invasion of Greece, and commanded the garrison in Ionia that was defeated at the battle of Mycale. I'm not sure how he's formally distinguished from the many other people named Tigranes in history. No other articles here (not even the one on the battle!) have mentioned him.

Artabazos / Artabazus
I have noticed that his name is being referred to (in this article and other linked articles) interchangeably as Artabazos/Artabazus. Are both spellings correct? Regardless, I think we should consider harmonising the spelling, at least within this article. DMew92 (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Artabazos I of Phrygia


text:
Secondary mandate

The secondary mandate is a proposed system for indirectly electing the UK parliament's second chamber, as espoused by singer-songwriter-activist Billy Bragg.

The Secondary Mandate works by counting up the first past the post General Election votes by party at a regional level, and then distributing each party a number of seats roughly proportionately, through closed list proportional representation.

The system has attracted support from a number of Government ministers including Peter Hain and Lord Falconer of Thoroton. It has however been criticised for being little more than a system of appointment as the closed list system it uses puts too much power into the hands of the political parties themselves. It also greatly disadvantages smaller parties who may not field candidates in all constituency seats.

title: Secondary mandate


text:
Guatemala national football team

The Guatemala national football team (Selección de fútbol de Guatemala) represents Guatemala in men's international football and is controlled by the Federación Nacional de Fútbol de Guatemala. Founded in 1919, it has been affiliated to FIFA since 1946, as a member of CONCACAF.

The team has made three Olympic tournament appearances, competing at the 1968, 1976, and 1988 Olympic Games. Guatemala have yet to qualify for the finals tournament of the World Cup, although they have reached the final round of qualification on four occasions.

Guatemala won the 1967 CONCACAF Championship and the 2001 UNCAF Nations Cup. The team's best performance in a CONCACAF Gold Cup was in 1996, when they finished fourth. More recently, the team almost beat their best at the 2023 Gold Cup in fifth place. Guatemala has also earned a bronze medal at the 1983 Pan American Games in Caracas, Venezuela. The national team kits are supplied by Umbro, which in the past have been supplied by Atletica, Adidas and Puma. Since the 2000s, Guatemala's home kit have featured a light blue sash on a white shirt.

Beginnings
Guatemala created its first football team, made up of 22 players, on 23 August 1902. The team was split into two sides, blue and white. With time, clubs were made and eventually the Guatemala national team, nicknamed "la Azul y Blanco" (the blue and white), was created in 1921. Guatemala had its first game on 16 September 1921, in the Independence Centenary Games held in Guatemala City, against Honduras. Guatemala beat Honduras 9–0. In the final, Guatemala were defeated 6–0 by Costa Rica.

Guatemala had success in several editions of the CCCF Championship, the precursor of the Gold Cup, by being the runners-up in 1943, 1946, and 1948. In 1958, Guatemala began participating in the qualifying rounds of the World Cup. They finished last, without a point, in a group with Costa Rica and the Netherlands Antilles.

Success in the 1960s
Guatemala's performance in the World Cup qualifying rounds began to improve in the 1960s. In 1962 they drew against both Costa Rica (4–4) and Honduras (1–1). However they again finished last in their qualifying group.

Guatemala did not participate in the qualifying round in 1966, as FIFA refused their participation for administrative reasons.

Guatemala joined CONCACAF in 1961. In 1967, they again showed the progress they had made when by participating by winning the Gold Cup for the only time in their history. In that tournament, hosted by Honduras, Guatemala began with a 2–1 win against Haiti, followed by a 1–0 win over the defending champions, Mexico, a 0–0 draw against Honduras, a 2–0 win over Trinidad and Tobago, and a 2–0 win over Nicaragua. The forward Manuel "Escopeta" Recinos was Guatemala's top scorer with four goals, including the goal against Mexico.

Guatemala were also the runners-up in the CONCACAF Championship in 1965 and 1969.

Results

In 1967, Guatemala showed further progress by qualifying for the 1968 Olympic football tournament in Mexico City. In the first round, they won 1–0 against Czechoslovakia, and 4–1 against Thailand, and lost to Bulgaria 2–1. They went on the next round, where they lost 1–0 to the eventual champions, Hungary.

2006 World Cup
Before the 2006 World Cup qualifiers, Carlos Ruiz was the main focus in providing goals for the national team along with Juan Carlos Plata. Many other stars such as Fredy Garcia, Gonzalo Romero, Guillermo Ramirez, and Martin Machón were expected to play huge roles as well. In the 2006 World Cup qualifying, Guatemala advanced to the third round by beating Suriname 4–2. There they finished second in Group B, behind Costa Rica, with 10 points each. In the fourth round they started with a 0–0 draw against Panama and a 5–1 win against Trinidad and Tobago. Then followed a 2–0 loss against the United States and Mexico and a 3–2 loss against Costa Rica, and a 2–1 win against Panama. They lost against Trinidad and Tobago 3–2, drew against the United States 0–0 and then lost to Mexico 5–2. Guatemala had 8 points with one game left, and a win alongside a Trinidad and Tobago defeat against Mexico would send them into the play-offs. They won 3–1 against Costa Rica but Trinidad and Tobago beat Mexico 2–1. They finished in fifth place, two points away from the play-off spot. Juan Carlos Plata and Martin Machón announced their retirement from International Football in 2006.

2010 World Cup
After a third-place finish at the 2007 UNCAF Nations Cup, and reaching the knockout stage in the Gold Cup of the same year, along with a couple of satisfying friendly matches, including a 3–2 win against Mexico, Hernán Darío Gómez was to be the next coach to lead Guatemala into the Hexagonal in the World Cup qualifying stage. However, after losing 5–0 in early 2008 against the under-23 Argentine team, the Colombian soon departed. During 2010 World Cup qualifying, expectations of qualifying for the finals were set among the national team as Ramon Maradiaga returned as coach. They began well by advancing to the third round by defeating Saint Lucia 9–1 on aggregate.

In the third round, Guatemala began with a 1–0 home loss to the United States, with controversies surrounding the Panamanian referee Roberto Moreno, including not awarding a penalty to Guatemala in the first half after a handball from Steve Cherundolo, as well as Gustavo Cabrera being sent off after colliding with Eddie Lewis in the second half. In their second match, Los Chapines salvaged a draw in the closing minutes of the game against Trinidad and Tobago in Port of Spain after Carlos Gallardo deflected a free kick by Marco Pappa. On 10 September, Cuba shocked the Guatemalan supporters by taking the lead after Roberto Linares scored in the 25th minute, but by half-time, Carlos Ruiz had equalised, and in the second half, Ruiz scored again. Mario Rodríguez and José Manuel Contreras also scored and Guatemala won 4–1.

On 11 October, many fans gathered around the Estadio Mateo Flores for the game against Trinidad and Tobago. Despite being reduced to 10 men, the Soca Warriors were able to hold Guatemala to a 0–0 stalemate. Guatemala then lost in Cuba, falling behind 1–0 after Jaime Colome scored a penalty. Marco Pappa volleyed in an equalizer in the 80th minute, but Urgelles won the match for Cuba in the 90th minute. Meanwhile, the Trinidadians defeated the United States 2–1 at home, putting them in second place. Maradiaga was fired and Benjamin Monterroso was appointed, focusing on the Copa UNCAF the following January. A 2–0 away loss against the United States confirmed the elimination of the national team from the World Cup.

At the UNCAF nations cup, Monterroso wanted to introduce more youthful players into the starting line up such as Minor Lopez, Ricardo Jerez and Wilson Lalin, but Guatemala lost both group stage matches against Costa Rica and also lost 2–0 to Nicaragua in the play-off match for the final berth to attend the next Gold Cup; Minor Lopez was the lone goal scorer for Los Bicolores. As a result, the national team were inactive for the next two years and Monterroso stepped down after two months in charge.

2014 World Cup
In May 2010, the Uruguayan-born Paraguayan Ever Hugo Almeida was appointed as the Guatemala's next coach. At the 2011 Copa Centroamericana, formerly known as the "UNCAF Nations Cup", Guatemala finished in fifth place, losing 2–0 to Costa Rica and 3–1 Honduras before defeating Nicaragua 2–1 to qualify for the 2011 Gold Cup.

At the Gold Cup, Guatemala drew 0–0 against Honduras despite being reduced to nine men. They lost against a physically superior Jamaica 2–0, but managed to redeem themselves by beating Grenada 4–0, with goals from José Javier del Águila, Marco Pappa, Carlos Ruiz, and Carlos Gallardo. In the quarter-finals, they lost to 2–1 the reigning champions Mexico, after Ruiz had given them the lead in the first half.

For the 2014 World Cup qualifiers, Guatemala began in the second round with six wins in six games, advancing to a third round group alongside the United States, Jamaica and Antigua and Barbuda. Before the third round, three key players – Guillermo Ramirez, Gustavo Cabrera and Yony Flores – were sent home during a practice session after their team-mates Ruiz and Luis Rodriguez heard of their involvement in money laundering and bribery in fixing multiple fixtures; they were subsequently banned for life.

The team began with an away loss to Jamaica, with Dwight Pezzarossi only managing to pull back one goal in stoppage time. In the next match, Guatemala drew at home against the United States, with Marco Pappa's free kick salvaging a draw for the Guatemalans. At home against Antigua and Barbuda, Guatemala again fell behind, but after the Antiguan goalkeeper Molvin James was sent off for wasting time, Ruiz scored a brace and a goal from Pezzarossi sealed a 3–1 victory. Four days later, a goal from Ruiz sufficed for an away win against the same opponents in North Sound.

Guatemala beat Jamaica at home 2–1, leaving them needing a draw against the United States to progress to the final stage of the qualifiers. After they took the lead in the first five minutes thanks to Ruiz, the United States scored three unanswered goals, and Guatemala finished behind Jamaica on goal difference.

In January 2013, still led by Almeida, Guatemala participated in the 2013 Copa Centroamericana. With a team of mainly younger players, they could only manage three draws in their group play (1–1 against Nicaragua, 0–0 against Belize and 1–1 against Costa Rica), losing out to Belize for direct qualification for the 2013 Gold Cup. They faced Panama in the fifth place match, but lost 3–1, and Almeida stepped down in favour of the technical director, Victor Hugo Monzón.

2016 FIFA suspension
On 28 October 2016, the Guatemalan football federation was suspended indefinitely by FIFA, after the international football governing body had appointed an oversight committee to look into allegations of corruption. FIFA stated that the Guatemalan federation (FEDEFUT) had rejected the committee's mandate to run FEDEFUT's business, organize elections, and modernize its statutes, and would remain barred from international competition until FEDEFUT ratified an extension of the mandate. The football team missed their chance on qualifying on the 2017 and 2019 CONCACAF Gold Cup tournaments (2017 Copa Centroamericana and 2019–20 CONCACAF Nations League qualifying) as they missed deadlines to have their suspension lifted.

The suspension was lifted on 31 May 2018 after FEDEFUT's normalization committee became fully operational.

2018 World Cup
After their FIFA suspension, Guatemala resumed normal operation and went through World Cup Qualification. They did not advance beyond qualification for the 2018 FIFA World Cup. Guatemala drawed in the first leg against Bermuda, and won 1-0 in the second. After a loss of 0-1 to Antigua and Barbuda in the first leg, they won 2-0 in the second leg. Overall, they placed 3rd in their table and failed to advance further.

2022 World Cup
Between 2018-2022, Guatemala had mixed results in their international meetings, losing 0-3 to intracontinental neighbors, Mexico, and 0-2 to Panama. However, they did beat Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, French Guiana, and El Salvador by large margins, those being 10-0, 2-0, and 4-0 respectively.

Before qualification, they had lost twice, drawn once and won only 3 of 6 matches in early 2020 before 2022 World Cup qualification.

Guatemala did not advance beyond qualification for the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Guatemala won 1-0 against Cuba with a goal from Luis Martinez in the 60th minute. They then won 0-3 against British Virgin Islands. Guatemala then scored 10 goals by 10 different players against Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. They drawed 0-0 against Curaçao, leading to Curaçao and Guatemala being drawn with 10 points each in the table, and Curaçao went on to the next round of qualification due to having more goals scored, thus eliminating Guatemala from further eliminatory matches in qualification.

Road to 2026 World Cup
Guatemala had a historic run in the 2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup, topping Group D, where they beat Cuba 1-0, drawed against Canada, and won 2-3 in their final group stage game against Guadeloupe. They lost in the quarter-finals against Jamaica with a 0-1 score. They ended in fifth place at the tournament. In the following tournament, the 2023-24 CONCACAF Nations League, Guatemala finished 4th in Group A of League A, finishing below Martinique and Panama. They only won 1 of 4 matchdays with a 2-0 win against El Salvador, losing against Trinidad and Tobago and Panama.

At the beginning of 2024, Guatemala played a friendly against European national team Iceland, where they lost 0-1 in a late winner by Ísak Þorvaldsson in the 79th minute. In March, they played against South American national team Ecuador, losing 2-0 from an early 8th minute goal by John Yeboah and a late finisher 86th minute goal by Gonzalo Plata. Guatemala were winless in their first four national fixtures of 2024. Guatemala saw victories during the 2026 FIFA World Cup Qualification, in their first 2 games. They lifted strong score lines, winning 6-0 against Dominica and 0-3 against the British Virgin Islands. In June, Guatemala played against 2022 FIFA World Cup champions Argentina, losing 4-1 with their only goal being by Lisandro Martinez, who scored an own goal in the fourth minute after a Guatemalan freekick. It is the first and only goal Guatemala has ever scored against Argentina. Nicholas Hagen recorded 6 saves against Argentina, with 5 being in the penalty box. Hagen saved an attempted bicycle kick from Ángel Di María, preventing an Argentinian goal.

Home stadium
The Estadio Nacional Mateo Flores, also known as Coloso de la Zona 5, is a multi-use national stadium in Guatemala City, the largest in Guatemala. It was built in 1948, to host the Central American and Caribbean Games in 1950, and was renamed after long-distance runner Mateo Flores, winner of the 1952 Boston Marathon. It has a capacity of 26,000 seats.

Used mostly for football matches, the stadium has hosted the majority of the home matches of the Guatemala national football team throughout its entire history. Its highest record attendance was of 82,000 during the 1950 Central American and Caribbean Games.

Results and fixtures
The following is a list of match results in the last 12 months, as well as any future matches that have been scheduled.

Current squad
The following players were called up for the friendly matches against Ecuador and Venezuela on 21 and 24 March 2024.

Caps and goals are correct as of 28 June 2024, after the match against Argentina.

Recent call-ups
The following players have been called up for the team in the last twelve months.

INJ Player withdrew from the squad due to an injury. PRE Preliminary squad. RET Player retired from the national team. SUS Player is serving suspension. WD Player withdrew from the squad due to non-injury issue.

Records
. Players in bold are still active with Guatemala.

Olympic Games
Note: Football at the Summer Olympics has been an under-23 tournament since 1992.

Pan American Games
Note: Football at the Pan American Games has been an under-23 tournament since 1999.

Head-to-head record
As of 14 June 2024 after the match against 🇦🇷 argentina.

Honours
Major competitions

 * CONCACAF Championship
 * Champions (1): 1967
 * Runners-up (2): 1965, 1969

Other competitions

 * Copa Centroamericana
 * Champions (1): 2001
 * Runners-up (5): 1995, 1997, 1999, 2003, 2014
 * Third place (3): 1991, 2005, 2007

 * CCCF Championship
 * Runners-up (3): 1943, 1946, 1948
 * Third place (1): 1953

 * Central American and Caribbean Games
 * Runners-up (1): 1950

 * Pan American Games
 * Bronze medal (1): 1983

 * U.S. Cup
 * Third place (1): 1999

 * Marlboro Cup
 * Champions (1): 1988

title: Guatemala national football team


text:
Talk:Junior Certificate

2004/5 posts
As the government slogan goes - a lot done - more to do. --CGorman 21:07, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * What needs added at this stage? zoney ♣ talk 00:06, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know... choosing 'Junior Cert' for the week does'nt look like it was such a good idea any more - theres noting to really add (compared to last weeks Geography of Ireland) - I suppose extension/addition of drink culture, results, media, drop-out rates, course info, etc may give us some room to develop the article - as my English teacher used to say of us "Its like trying to get blood out of a turnip!" --CGorman 20:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Or cash from an Enniscorthy man :-) J OHN C OLLISON | (Ludraman) 18:52, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * It has to be said that the article has grown, but the Criticisms section is clearly going to fail the weasle words paper; who are these 'many people'? BTW, I think that a bit more work on Geography of Ireland will bring it up to FAC standard if anyone is interested in helping. Filiocht 07:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * the Criticisms section is clearly going to fail the weasle words paper - im sorry, I was in a bit of a hurry when I added that, I'll rewrite and expand it ASAP --CGorman 17:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think we could create an article "List of optional subjects of the Junior Certificate" or something similar to rid us of that list? Just list compulsory subjects and broad overview. Djegan 14:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

To Do List

 * Expand After the Exam to include more about dropouts, apprenticeships, discos, drink...
 * Perhaps get a photo of a typical teenager with a caption about the age at which the exam is sat, or a picture of a school.
 * Back up and expand Criticism section.
 * Expand the Grading
 * Create pages for the red links in Subjects available
 * Perhaps reorganise Subjects available to look more visually appealing.
 * Elaborate on 1st year, 2nd year and 3rd year within The Courses.
 * Add information on Transition Year to After the Exam.
 * Add a short history section dealing with changes over the last few years, e.g. in 2004 students could access their results online for the first time, this facilitated students who changed schools or dropped out...
 * The appeals procedure is currently dealt with twice. Perhaps everything to do with marking, grading, and appeals should go into the "After the Exam" section? -- Picapica 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Typewriting!?
Is this still actually on the curriculum? And more importantly, do any schools even do the subject any more? I never heard of it as a Junio Cert subject, nor did it appear on the Junior Cert exam timetable of 2000 --Zilog Jones 23:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Typewriting is indeed a subject on the Junior Cert. I just did mine this year and it was timetabled aswell as on the departments subject forms. Not many schools seem to actually teach it though, my school (for example) doesn't teach it and discouraged students from doing it because of that. - No user name - 15 September 2005

 * I'll hopefully be doing it for my JC. Best subject ever. J OHN C OLLISON (An Liúdramán) 19:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to do Typewriting as a J.C subject but my school doesn't do it. Also, I'm just finishing 2nd year now so I think it might be too late to start anyway, even if I can/could — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.254.178 (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Geography and history
Are these subjects mandatory? I was under the impression it was just English, Irish and Maths. 83.147.171.12 15:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

 * It depends on the school. I will update the page accordingly. Djegan 16:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

 * That's what I was thinking. Surely the list should only be actual Department-mandatory subjects. Ludraman 17:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

 * The issue is really quite complicated as their are different mandatory subjects for different types of schools (community, voluntary, vocational all vary) which makes it difficult to summarise on the page. For instance vocational school or community college student must choose from Technical Graphics or Art, Craft and Design or Home Economics or Business Studies - this specific range would not be mandatory on other schools (unless they were the only ones available). Thats why I have grouped them into the basic compulsory and treated all others as optional with the basic reference in the paragraph that it varies. Djegan 20:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, but that's all concerning specific schools. The only 'real' mandatory subjects- i.e. those which are a mandatory part of doing the Junior Cert according to SEI, are English, Irish and Maths. Ludraman 17:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Thats correct, only English, Irish and Maths are mandatory for all (indeed Irish is subject to limited exemption). If you want to make changes then by all means propose. Djegan 18:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

CSPE is also mandatory for everybody, I think. Also, some schools have other subjects mandatory other than English, Irish, Maths and CSPE e.g Geography, History, Science or more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.254.178 (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Criticism and Controversy
This section reeks of political correctness. I probably sound like an old fusspot here, looking back through rose-tinted spectacles, but when I was in school we just got on with it... Anyway, this section badly needs citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.3.50.254 (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree; it reads as if it was written by some indignant fourteen-year-old. I'll attempt to clean this up at some stage - any useful citations would be appreciated. Some of the criticisms could also be incorporated into the article on the Leaving Certificate. --78.16.91.92 (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

GCSE Equivalent
Is the Junior Certificate truly the Irish equivalent of the GCSE? Miel et Soufre (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nooooo not at all. I'd say the Leaving Cert is...but GSCE has the A levels with it...so the leaving cert would probably be the GCSE and A levels combined —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.182.107 (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
It looks to me like Junior Cycle is a WP:CONTENTFORK of this article. Should it be merged into this article?

 * (Notifying some of the editors who contributed higher percentages of the page(s) or edited them in the last year:, , , , , , .) Normal Op (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree with merging the two articles on the basis that there is not much difference between the two systems at this point in time, considering they are being run concurrently in schools. Keelan •  Talk  |  Contribs  20:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to merge them too. I think notionally the Junior Cycle is a broader form of assessment than the Junior Certificate, but in the minds of most people they are almost interchangeable. David Malone (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Junior Certificate


text:
Wojciech Świętosławski

Wojciech Alojzy Świętosławski ( Polish pronunciation : ; 1881–1968) was a Polish physical chemist, who is considered the "father of modern thermochemistry". He developed a static method of cryometric measurement and a new method of testing coal. Świętosławski was vice-chairman of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and created the foundations for a new branch of physical chemistry: polyazeotropy. In 1933 he became a member of the Temporary Scientific and Advisory Committee

Early years
Świętosławski was born on 21 June 1881 in the village of Kiryjowka, Volhynia Governorate, Russian Empire. He spent his early years in Kiev, where he graduated from high school (1899). In 1906, he graduated with an engineering degree at Chemistry Department of Kiev Technical University. His first research paper, "Thermochemical Analysis of Organic Compounds" was published in 1908, in "Polish Yearly Magazine ("Rocznik Polski"). In appreciation of his work, Świętosławski was awarded the Mendeleyev Award by Russian Scientific Association. In the 1910s, Świętosławski went to Moscow, where he took a job at Chemical Laboratory of Moscow University. In 1917 he completed his thesis, writing about oxymes.

In the mid-, and late 1910, Świętosławski remained in Moscow, working, among others, on Aromatic hydrocarbon, Nitric acid, Nitro compound, Amine, and burning in bomb calorimeters.

Interwar Poland
In 1918 Świętosławski returned to Poland, leaving his laboratory in Moscow and urging other highly qualified Polish scientists to follow him. In 1919, he was named Professor of Physical Chemistry at Warsaw University of Technology, and returned to scientific research, working on enthalpy of vaporization. In 1920, at the Conference of International Chemical Union in Rome, he made a motion to accept benzoic acid as an international standard of marking the bomb calorimeters. In 1922, his motion was accepted, and Świętosławski was named head of the Thermochemical Data Commission, which coordinated research on marking the heat of combustion.

In the early 1920s, Świętosławski developed a new direction in the calorimetrical research, which he called microcalorimetry. He constructed microcalorimeters, which worked in isometric and adiabatic conditions as well as microcalomieters based on partial heat exchange with the surroundings. Due to his research, it became possible, among others, to mark the value of radiation of uranium aperture. Later on, he worked on measuring of Vapor pressure and boiling temperature. Furthermore, he constructed the ebulliometer.

In 1928, Świętosławski was named deputy chairman of International Chemical Union. In 1934 he was appointed chairman of Commission of Physical-Chemical Data. At the same time, he held the post of dean of Warsaw University of Technology. He also was chairman of Polish Chemical Association (1925 - 1926), wrote for "Chemical Annual", was a member of Warsaw Scientific Society, Polish Academy of Learning, Academy of Technical Sciences and Temporary Advisory and Scientific Committee.

From November 1935 until 1939, Świętosławski was Minister of Religious Denominations and Public Enlightenment in the governments of Marian Zyndram-Kościałkowski and Felicjan Sławoj Składkowski. Also, in 1935 - 1939, he was a member of the Polish Senate.

World War II
After the outbreak of World War II, Świętosławski left Poland for the United States, where he remained until the end of the war. He worked at the University of Pittsburgh, and was a Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Mellon Institute of Industrial Research. He also wrote three monographies of Polish science in the English language, contributing to popularization of Polish scientific achievements in the USA.

After the War
In 1946 Świętosławski returned to Poland. He re-created Physical Chemistry Department at the Warsaw University, also returned to work at the Warsaw University of Technology. Upon the creation of Polish Academy of Sciences he became the manager of Department of Physical Chemistry of Organic Raw Materials. Furthermore, he wrote several scientific papers, and continued working until 1960. Twice nominated to the Nobel Prize, he received a number of important Polish and international awards and was named doctor honoris causa of eight Polish universities.

Wojciech Świętosławski died in Warsaw on 29 April 1968 and was buried at the Powązki Cemetery in Warsaw.

In 2013, a monument dedicated to Świętosławski was officially unveiled at the Kyiv Polytechnic Institute where he used to study.

title: Wojciech Świętosławski


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Manifesto for the Intellectual Freedom Movement

A Manifesto for the Intellectual Freedom Movement was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

Delete: Orphan, non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a political soapbox. andy 21:09, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * This is a prime candidate for Managed deletion. Until then, we can do it the old-fashioned way. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 21:11, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a prime candidate for speedy deletion. In fact, I speedy-deleted it about 10 minutes ago, but it was re-created and vfd'd. DELETE - DavidWBrooks 21:42, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete it, it doesn't adhere to the guidelines. My fault.
 * Delete. Doesn't fit the project's mandate, doesn't even try. CJCurrie 21:54, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. Something about this looks suspiciously familiar.  Has this been previously deleted?  If so, it's a speedy candidate.  (If not, then it is definitely not a speedy candidate.  See Patent nonsense bullet two - partisan screed masquerading as fact.) Rossami 22:01, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It says right up front that it is a manifesto. It was therefore not intended to be an encyclopaedia article. As such, delete. Fire Star 22:59, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research; source text; "intellectual freedom movement" in quotes gets only 14 Google hits so it's not a recognized term for anything. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:17, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Speedy, since it was already deleted once.   — Gwalla | Talk 20:55, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about DavidWBrooks' decision to speedy it just now, I disagree. A prior speedy is not sufficient to automatically re-speedy.  If it went through the full VfD discussion, then you're right but I still can't find proof that it did. Rossami

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.