text:
Talk:Pomeranian Voivodeship

Gloger, Geografia historyczna
Zygmunt Gloger, Geografia historyczna ziem dawnej Polski. W tekście 63 autentycznych rycin, Kraków 1903

Województwo Pomorskie.

Gdy traktatem Toruńskim z Zakonem Krzyżaków (roku 1466) tak zwane Prusy zachodnie, królewskie, powróciły do Polski, utworzono z nich trzy województwa: dwa mniejsze na prawym brzegu Wisły (Chełmińskie i Malborskie z Warmią), oraz trzecie większe, Pomorskie, na lewym brzegu Wisły, dorównywające rozległością dwom poprzednim, połączonym razem z Warmią. Rozległości tego województwa bardzo ściśle obliczyć dzisiaj nie podobna, w każdym razie wynosiła ona około 300 mil kwadratowych. Północną część województwa stanowiła ziemia Kaszubska, Baltykiem i zatoka Gdańską od północy i wschodu oblana. Wschodnią ścianą była Wisła, odgraniczająca od województw: Malborskiego, Chełmińskiego i ziemi Pomezańskiej, do Prus książęcych należącej. Na południu graniczyło województwo Pomorskie z województwem Inowłocławskiem, czyli Kujawami (w okolicach Fordonia i Bydgoszczy), oraz z zanotecką częścią województwa Kaliskiego, a później Gnieźnieńskiego. Zachodnią i północo-zachodnią linię stanowiła długa i łamana, sucha granica od pomorza słupskiego, czyli Pomeranii Brandeburskiej. Niemcy, dla odróżnienia Pomorza brandeburskiego od Pomorza polskiego, czyli gdańskiego, nazwali to ostatnie Pomerellen, t. j. Pomerelią. Do województwa Pomorskiego należały jeszcze dwie anklawy w granicach Pomorza brandeburskiego, a mianowicie zamki Lauenburg i Bytów z okolicznemi ziemiami. Gdy jednak od samego zaraz pokoju Toruńskiego powiaty te ciągle w posiadaniu pomorskich książąt, jako lenno Polski, pozostawały, a po wygaśnięciu tychże zaledwo przez lat 20, t. j. od roku 1637 do 1657, wcielone do województwa Pomorskiego były i znowu na lenność elektorów Brandeburskich przeszły, opisywać ich tutaj nie będziemy.

Ziemia, z której utworzone zostało za Kazimierza Jagiellończyka województwo Pomorskie, zamieszkana była już w czasach piastowskich przez ludność rdzennie polską, różniącą się swem narzeczem od wielkopolskiej może tyle, co Mazowsze, lub Krakowianie. Badacz przeszłości tego kraju, Ignacy Zakrzewski, powiada, iż od najdawniejszych czasów posiadał on te same urządzenia administracyjne i prawnicze, co inne ziemie, wchodzące w skład Polski. Liczne dokumenta, doszłe do nas z czasów udzielnych książąt pomorskich (ogłoszone przez Perlbacha w osobnem Pomerellisches Urkundenbuch), wykazują taką samą władzę książęcą, ten sam skład administracyi w kasztelanach i wojewodach, te same sądy wiecowe, colloquia, te same ciężary i podatki, rozłożone na różne klasy społeczeństwa, co w Polsce. I tak znajdujemy tam województwa: Białogrodzkie, Gdańskie, Tczewskie, Świeckie i Słupskie; kasztelanie: Białogrodzką, Chmielińską, Tczewską, Lubieszowską, Nowską, Pucką, Rudzińską, Raciąską czyli Zaborską, Sierocką, Sławińską, Świecką, Słupską, Wyszogrodzką i Szczytnowską. Oprócz tego spotykamy tam takich samych dygnitarzy niższych, t. j. podkomorzych, sędziów, chorążych, cześników, stolników, wojskich i t. d., a wszyscy zajmują te same stanowiska, co w całej Polsce.

To też i obyczaj w niczem się na Pomorzu od polskiego nie różnił. Te same prawa i obowiązki szlachty, to samo stanowisko ludności wiejskiej, takie same podziały majątku ziemskiego pomiędzy dzieci i, co za tem idzie, te same podziały kraju całego pomiędzy synów książęcych i nieunikniony tego skutek, ta sama niemoc polityczna na zewnątrz, pobudzająca, zarówno tu jak tam, chciwość sąsiadów. Słowem: ziemia Pomorska zachowywała aż do utracenia swej udzielności wszystkie znamiona narodowe polskie, a lubo przez Świętopełka za Leszka Białego i przez Zakon krzyżacki za Łokietka pod względem politycznym oderwaną została na czas długi, to przecież nie przestała być jeszcze wówczas częścią Polski pod względem narodowym i kościelnym. Wchodziła bowiem w skład archidyecezyi Gnieźnieńskiej, a Świętopełk, rozprzestrzeniwszy jej granice poza rzekę Lebę, wcielił do niej ziemie Sławińską i Słupską, z czego powstał późniejszy archidyakonat Słupski.

Województwo Pomorskie w roku 1764 podzielone zostało na 10 powiatów: Gdański, Pucki, Kościerzyński, Tczewski, Skarszewski, Nowski, Świecki, Tucholski, Człuchowski i Mirachowski. Powiaty: Gdański, Nowski i Starogrodzki liczyły się do Tczewskiego. Sejmiki powiatowe każdy powiat odprawiał u siebie, lubo najczęściej w czterech miastach tego województwa: Pucku, Tucholi, Człuchowie i Świecu, skąd szlachta zjeżdżała się na sejmik ogólny do Starogrodu, jako środkowego miasta w województwie. Na tym generaliku obierała 20 posłów, to jest po dwóch z każdego powiatu, którzy naprzód udawali się na Generał Pruski do Malborga lub Grudziądza, a potem na sejm koronny. Na trybunał piotrkowski wybierało całe województwo dwóch deputatów na sejmiku deputackim, także w Starogrodzie.

Senatorów większych było dwóch, a mianowicie: wojewoda pomorski i kasztelan gdański. Starostwo grodowe Skarszewskie należało do wojewody, który ma swego podwojewodziego i pisarza grodzkiego, a ci sądy grodzkie sądzą w Skarszewie. Niegrodowe starostwa były: Białemburskie, Człuchowskie, Gniewskie czyli Mewe, Hamersztyńskie, Mirachowskie, Nowskie, Osieckie, Parchowskie, Puckie, Sobowickie, Starogrodzkie, Świeckie i Tucholskie, wszystkie noszące nazwiska od miasteczek tegoż imienia. Tczewo było ekonomią królewską dóbr stołowych. Sądy ziemskie odbywały się zazwyczaj tam, gdzie i sejmiki; w Starogrodzie sądziły się trzy powiaty: Gdański, Tczewski i Nowski. Herb województwa wyobraża Gryfa czerwonego ze złotymi szponami i koroną na głowie w białem polu; przednie jego nogi wspięte i skrzydła podniesione.

Stołecznem miastem województwa był Gdańsk, po łacinie nazywany: Gedanium, Gidanie, Dantiscum, Godanum, po niemiecku Danzig. Była to stara osada lechicka, która za Mieczysława I i Bolesława Wielkiego do Polski już należała. Podług żywota św. Wojciecha, przez Jana Kanaparza, Bolesław roku 997 posłał świętego apostoła Prus Wisłą aż do Gdańska, którego był panem. Bolesław Krzywousty nadał wśród Gdańska różne ziemie i dochody biskupstwu kujawskiemu, pragnąc dać mu możność i obowiązek szerzenia chrześcijaństwa na Pomorzu, co papież Eugeniusz III już po jego zgonie w bulli z roku 1118 potwierdził. Miasto leży na lewym brzegu Wisły o milę od ujścia jej do morza, przerznięte rzeczkami Mołtawą, dwiema odnogami wchodzącą do Wisły, i Radunią, wpadającą do Mołtawy, otoczone od północy i wschodu Wisłą, zwaną tu Leniwką; od południa i zachodu trzema górami: Gradową, Biskupią i Cygańską. Gdańsk był najhandlowniejszym portem morza Bałtyckiego i jedną z głównych twierdz w Polsce, posiadał 6 przedmieść, z których tak zwane Szotland zostawało pod jurysdykcyą biskupa kujawskiego, mającego tu niegdyś swój dworzec na górze, Biskupią od tego zwanej.

Do znakomitszych budowli należał starożytny i wspaniały kościół farny N. Panny Maryi, giełda, zwana Artushof, z posągiem Augusta III, dwór szlachecki Junckerhof, sławne na całą Europę gimnazyum, olbrzymi młyn królewski na Raduni o ośmnastu kołach, przynoszący do skarbu królewskiego na godzinę po dukacie za mieliwo. Najciekawszym był jednak ratusz gotycki, miejsce posiedzeń magistratu gdańskiego, pamiętne w dziejach nietylko tego miasta, ale i całej Polski. Mieściło się w nim, niezmiernie ważne dla dziejów polskich i pruskich, archiwum, XIII wieku sięgające, i słynny zegar, opisany przez Gwagnina. W roku 1309, gdy Krzyżacy wydarli za Łokietka Gdańsk Polsce, ludność tego miasta musiała być przeważnie polską i wrogo względem rycerstwa niemieckiego usposobioną, skoro dopuściło się ono na niej strasznej rzezi, upamiętnionej przez dziejopisów. Żądza Gdańszczan ciągnięcia nadmiernych korzyści z handlu polskiego bywała przyczyną nieporozumień, a nawet buntów przeciw władzy królewskiej. Za Władysława IV handel Gdańska miał być najrozleglejszym, a ludność do 80.000 głów wynosiła. Dwa grody nadwiślańskie, Gdańsk i Kraków, były za Zygmunta III najludniejsze w Polsce, a łącznie z Pragą czeską największe w Słowiańszczyźnie i do najludniejszych w Europie należące.

O milę od Gdańska nad jeziorem leży słynne opactwo Cystersów Oliwa, fundowane roku 1170 przez Sobiesława, księcia Pomorskiego. Zygmunt III, przybywszy ze Szwecyi roku 1587 na objęcie tronu polskiego, w kościele tutejszym dnia 7. października Pacta Conventa podpisał. Rok znowu 1660 upamiętnił się niekorzystnym dla Polski traktatem oliwskim. Jan Kazimierz, ratując kraj, zniszczony po srogim napadzie Szwedów i zagrożony rozbiorem przez wszystkich prawie sąsiadów, zawarł tu traktat, którym na rzecz Szwecyi zrzekał się Rygi i Inflant i przyznał elektorom brandeburskim niezawisłość Prus książęcych. Powiadają, że gdy pokój ten podpisywał, łzy potoczyły się z oczu królowi.

Do ważniejszych miast i miejscowości województwa Pomorskiego należały: Pucko z zamkiem mocnym i portem wojennym polskim nad zatoką morza Baltyckiego, zwaną Pucką, założone w wieku XII przez Bogusława, syna Sambora, księcia Pomorskiego. Wejherowo w ziemi Kaszubskiej; Kościerz lub Kościerzyna; Tczewo, po łacinie Dersavia, a po niemiecku Dirschau, nad Wisłą; Skórzewo; Starygród po niemiecku Stargard; Pelplin, nad rzeką Peplą z opactwem Cystersów, fundowanym roku 1274 przez Mszczuga; Gniew nad Wisłą; Nowe, po niemiecku Neuenburg; Świecie lub Swiec, po niemiecku Schwetz, po łacinie Suecia, Suece, nad Wisłą, przy ujściu Czarny; Koronów nad Brdą, gdzie po bitwie grunwaldzkiej powtórnie Polacy (1410 r.) pobili Krzyżaków; Tuchola; Chojnice; Człuchów i Hamersztyn.

Hela, wąski półwysep piaszczysty, 5 mil długi, tworzy zatokę Pucką z części Gdańskiej. W zatoce Puckiej właśnie miała stanowisko flota polska za Zygmunta III i Władysława IV. Na całym półwyspie Puckim, prócz osady rybackiej, Helą zwanej, którą Zygmunt I Gdańszczanom oddał, znajdowały się dwie małe twierdze, przez Władysława IV zbudowane; jedna, Władysławów, z portem; druga, Kazimierzów, dla ochrony floty polskiej i samego Gdańska. Ale podczas wojen za Jana Kazimierza obie zburzone zostały. Nazwane zaś tak były na pamiątkę imion dwóch panujących synów króla Zygmunta III.

History section
I removed the history section because this is an article about the present-day voivodeship, which was established in 1999, and has no connection to anything that existed before. Historical material properly belongs in the article on Pommerania. Otherwise, we risk creating a fork. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 one external links on Pomeranian Voivodeship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061231034546/http://www.woj-pomorskie.pl:80/downloads/ekonomia_en.pdf to http://www.woj-pomorskie.pl/downloads/ekonomia_en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070214110212/http://www.ipaper.com.pl:80/en/index.htm to http://www.ipaper.com.pl/en/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929141418/http://www.polpharma.pl/u235/navi/90;jsessionid=74AB8CF06C20FF14A9D526A4B0 to http://www.polpharma.pl/u235/navi/90;jsessionid=74AB8CF06C20FF14A9D526A4B0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070121123718/http://www.prokom.pl:80/en/index.php to http://www.prokom.pl/en/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929100840/http://www.elnord.eu/index.dhtml?sid=2 to http://www.elnord.eu/index.dhtml?sid=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070120184949/http://www.lpp.com.pl:80/en/firma.htm to http://www.lpp.com.pl/en/firma.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825175605/http://www.urzad.pomorskie.eu:80/pl to http://urzad.pomorskie.eu/pl
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070628051814/http://www.wrotapomorza.pl/res/wizytowka/wersje_jezykowe/memorandum_en_2006.pdf to http://www.wrotapomorza.pl/res/wizytowka/wersje_jezykowe/memorandum_en_2006.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070628051801/http://www.wrotapomorza.pl/res/wizytowka/wersje_jezykowe/folder_hity_pomorza_2006_angielski_.pdf to http://www.wrotapomorza.pl/res/wizytowka/wersje_jezykowe/folder_hity_pomorza_2006_angielski_.pdf

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

).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pomeranian Voivodeship


text:
Talk:Malbork Voivodeship

Gloger, Geografia historyczna
Zygmunt Gloger, Geografia historyczna ziem dawnej Polski. W tekście 63 autentycznych rycin, Kraków 1903

Województwo Malborskie.

Najmniejsze z trzech województw w Prusiech polskich, od północy Baltykiem, a właściwie zatokami Gdańską i Fryską oblane, od wschodu graniczące z księstwem Warmińskiem i Prusami książęcemi, od południa z częścią tychże Prus, która się zwała Pomezanią, od zachodu przedzielone było korytem Wisły od województwa Pomorskiego. Dzieliło się na cztery powiaty: Sztumski, Kiszporski, Elbląski i Malborski. Starostwo grodowe Kiszporskie należało do wojewody, który wybiera podwojewodziego i pisarza, a jeżeli nie sądzi sam, to przez nich sprawuje sądy grodzkie w Kiszporku. Niegrodowe starostwa były: Sztumskie, Tolkmickie i inne. Sejmiki wojewódzkie, sądy grodzkie i ziemskie nie w Malborgu, ale w Sztumie się odbywały. Gród sztumski zależał od starosty w Kiszporku. Na sejmikach wojewódzkich wybieranych jest ośmiu posłów na Generał pruski, to jest po dwóch z powiatu, i dwóch deputatów na trybunał z całego województwa. Sądy ziemskie sprawował sędzia ziemski z ławnikami.

Herb województwa Malborskiego był ten, co Chełmińskiego, zachodziła tylko różnica w barwach, a mianowicie, że w herbie chełmińskim orzeł jest biały na polu czerwonem, a w herbie malborskim orzeł czerwony na polu białem.

Stołecznem miastem województwa był Malborg, po łacinie Marieburgum, po niemiecku Mariaenburg, co po polsku przemieniono na Malborg. Założyli go roku 1274 Krzyżacy we wsi pruskiej Alem, na prawym brzegu Nogatu, o mil 5–6 od Gdańska, a zagrabiwszy Polsce Gdańsk w roku 1309 i zbudowawszy w Malborgu wielkim kosztem zamek, jeden z najwarowniejszych wówczas w Europie, uczynili Malborg stolicą swojej potęgi. Jagiełło, po wielkiem zwycięstwie roku 1410 pod Grunwaldem, zajął miasto Malborg, nie mógł jednak zdobyć zamku. Podczas tego oblężenia, wystrzelona z rozkazu króla kula działowa, mająca zburzyć środkowy filar, utrzymujący sklepienie wielkiej sali, w której zasiadał Wielki Mistrz z Komturami, utkwiła w murze nad kominem, chybiwszy o kilka cali. Kazimierz IV był szczęśliwszy i zdobył twierdzę malborską podczas wojny trzynastoletniej roku 1460, a w sześć lat potem Malborg przeszedł pod panowanie polskie. Tu się odtąd odbywał naprzemian z Grudziądzem sejm Prus polskich, zwany Generałem.

Potężne mury twierdzy dzieliły się na zamek dolny, średni i wysoki. W dolnym jedna z baszt zwała się Babą, druga z bramą Cwetor, a była i mynnica, w której działa lano. W średnim zamku, między wielu innemi, była izba, podobnie jak na Wawelu, kurzą stopą zwana. Ta część zamku obejmowała za polskich czasów mieszkanie Króla i Królowej Jejmości, gdzie pierwej sam Wielki Mistrz Zakonu miał siedzibę i stąd urządzał wyprawy na ciągłe niszczenie Polski i Litwy. W trzeciej części, zwanej zamkiem wysokim, między innymi znajdował się sklep Witolda, to jest mieszkanie, które ten bohater jako więzień lub gość Zakonu pobytem swoim upamiętnił. Cały ogromny gmach zamku malborskiego, obejmujący tyle wspomnień z dziejów Zakonu i dziejów polskich, uległ znacznym uszkodzeniom w wielkim pożarze 1644 r.

Elbląg, po staropolsku Olbiąg, po niemiecku Elbing, nad rzeczką tegoż imienia, do Friszhafu wpadającą, miasto powiatowe w województwie Malborskim. Roku 1237 postawiony był tu przez Krzyżaków, przy pomocy Konrada Mazowieckiego, zamek, koło którego kupcy z Lubeki zabudowali miasto. Roku 1454 Elblążanie, nie mogąc znieść dłużej ucisku krzyżackiego, zburzyli ten zamek, osadzony załogą niemiecką, i poddali się królowi Kazimierzowi IV. Odtąd Elbląg długo był Polsce wierny i roku 1520 mężnie się oparł napaści Alberta, margrabiego Brandeburskiego. Miasto należało do związku hanzeatyckiego i biło własną monetę.

Sztum, Stum, miasto, założone w miejscu lechickiej wsi Postolin, między jeziorami, dwie mile od Malborga, powiatowe i starościńskie; posiadało znakomity zamek krzyżacki, było miejscem sejmików województwa, oraz sądów ziemskich i grodzkich. Gustaw Adolf, podczas wyprawy swojej na Polskę za Zygmunta III, pobity dnia 25. czerwca 1629 roku przez Koniecpolskiego pod Sztumem, dwa razy w sąsiednim lesie dostał się do niewoli, z której jednak zdołał się zawsze wyśliznąć. W pobliskiej miastu wsi Sztumdorf Władysław IV zawarł roku 1635 zawieszenie broni ze Szwedami i rozejm na lat 26.

W widłach Wisły i Nogatu leżała, słynna z urodzajności, nizina, zwana Żuławami. Źródłosłów tej nazwy pochodził zapewne z języka pierwotnych Prusów i tylko został spolszczonym (po litewsku: sała – wyspa, żelu – zielenieje, żolé – trawa). Nazwa używa się zwykle w liczbie mnogiej, ponieważ służy dwom wielkim i kilku pomniejszym wyspom nizinnym. Odróżniano Żuławę gdańską, elbląską i dwie malborskie, ogółem 16 mil kwadratowych mające. Od Malborga ku Gdańskowi ciągną się niziny, Wisłą i Nogatem oblane, a drugie ku Elblągowi, między korytem Nogatu a jeziorem Druznem zawarte. Po osuszeniu kanałami i tamami Żuławy stały się jedną z najżyźniejszych w świecie okolic już za czasów krzyżackich. Żuławy malborskie, do Malborskiej ekonomii królewskiej przynależne, dzielą się na Wielką Żuławę, między Wisłą i Nogatem położoną, i Małą Żuławę, inaczej Fiszawską, od Nagatu do jeziora Druzna ciągnącą się. Podług lustracyi z roku 1649 Wielka Żuława obejmowała 39 wsi na 1728 włókach osiadłych, a w roku 1783 liczono w niej 2130 łanów. Wsi te, chociaż przez Krzyżaków, kolonizowane były jednak przeważnie ludnością polską i dlatego w znacznej części miały nazwiska polskie. Wieś Kościelec założona była przez Kościeleckiego roku 1471 za przywilejem Kazimierza Jagiellończyka. Mała Żuława Malborska miała w roku 1649 wsi 22 na 677 włókach ziemi, a pod koniec XVIII wieku było w niej 966 łanów, zaś na nich, oprócz dawnych wsi, przybyło jeszcze 16 wsi, tak zwanych holenderskich. Roczny dochód królewski, z całej ekonomii malborskiej, to jest miasta, folwarków, czynszów i pastwisk Wielkiej i Małej Żuławy, wniesiony do skarbu króla Jegomości roku 1649, po strąceniu kosztów administracyi i potrzeb kościelnych, czynił złotych polskich ówczesnych 117.384, groszy 9 i szelągów 11. Była to zatem najwięcej dochodu przynosząca królewszczyzna ze wszystkich w Rzeczypospolitej.

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

title: Talk:Malbork Voivodeship


text:
Talk:Protein ligand

Untitled
Why is it that search for "protein ligand" under navigation directs to Ligand -page and clicking at the bottom of the page links to this page. Search link in this Talk:Protein ligands page finds nothing. Maybe there's some peer review approval process I'm not aware yet. Well, just a point.

--85.76.6.124 05:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) Anonymous coward

title: Talk:Protein ligand


text:
Constitution of Austria

The Federal Constitution of Austria (Österreichische Bundesverfassung) is the body of all constitutional law of the Republic of Austria on the federal level. It is split up over many different acts. Its centerpiece is the Federal Constitutional Law (Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz) (B-VG), which includes the most important federal constitutional provisions.

Apart from the B-VG, there are many other constitutional acts (called Bundesverfassungsgesetze, singular Bundesverfassungsgesetz, abbrev. BVG, i.e. without the hyphen) and individual provisions in statutes and treaties which are designated as constitutional (Verfassungsbestimmung). For example, the B-VG does not include a bill of rights, but provisions on civil liberties are split up over various constitutional pieces of legislation.

Over time, both the B-VG and the numerous pieces of constitutional law supplementing it have undergone hundreds of minor and major amendments and revisions.

History
Austria has been governed by multiple constitutions, including the Pillersdorf Constitution in 1848, the "irrevocable" Stadion Constitution from 1848 to 1851, the October Diploma in 1860, the February Patent from 1861 until 1865.

The B-VG was based on drafts whose principal author was Hans Kelsen and was first enacted on October 1, 1920. Since political agreement over a bill of rights could not be reached, the Basic Law on the General Rights of Citizens (Staatsgrundgesetz über die allgemeinen Rechte der Staatsbürger) of 1867 was left in place and designated as constitutional law.

Originally, the B-VG was very parliamentarian in character. The prerogative to enact law was to lie with a comparatively strong parliament, the Federal Assembly composed of two houses, the National Council and the Federal Council. The responsibility for implementing law was to reside with a cabinet headed by a chancellor, who was nominated by the National Council on a motion by its principal committee. A relatively weak president, who was elected by both houses, was to serve as head of state.

In 1929, the constitution underwent a revision significantly broadening the prerogatives of the president. In particular, the president was to be elected directly by the people rather than by the legislature. The president was also to be vested with the authority to dissolve the parliament, a power typically not held by presidents of parliamentary republics. He also had the authority to formally appoint the chancellor and the cabinet. On paper, the president was vested with powers comparable to those of the President of the United States. However, in practice his role remained mostly ceremonial and representative. For example, his right to appoint the chancellor was constrained by the National Council's power to censure the cabinet or individual ministers, meaning the president was all but required to ensure his choice of chancellor had the confidence of the National Council. He exercised many of his other executive functions on the advice of the chancellor. This move away from a government steered predominantly by a fairly large and (by definition) fractioned deliberative body towards a system concentrating power in the hands of a single autonomous leader was made in an attempt to appease the para-fascist movements (such as the Heimwehr, or later the Ostmärkische Sturmscharen and the Social Democratic Republikanischer Schutzbund) thriving in Austria at that time.

In 1934, following years of increasingly violent political strife and gradual erosion of the rule of law, the ruling Christian Social Party, which by then had turned to full-scale Austrofascism, formally replaced the constitution by a new basic law defining Austria as an authoritarian corporate state. The Austrofascist constitution was in force until Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany in 1938, ceasing to exist as a sovereign state. The Constitution of Austria was eventually reinstated on May 1, 1945, Austria having reestablished itself as an independent republic shortly before Nazi Germany's definitive collapse. The modifications enacted in 1929 were not then rescinded, and essentially remain in effect until this day, although the constitution has been heavily modified and amended since then.

Structure
In area, the Republic of Austria is slightly smaller than Maine, Scotland, or Hokkaidō and home to a relatively ethnically and culturally homogeneous population of 8.8 million people. Given that more than one fifth of its inhabitants are concentrated in the city of Vienna and its suburbs, the nation is also naturally unipolar in terms of both economic and cultural activity. Austria's constitutional framework nevertheless characterizes the republic as a federation consisting of nine autonomous federal states:

Like the federation, each of the nine states of Austria has a constitution defining it to be a republican entity governed according to the principles of representative democracy. The state constitutions congruently define the states to be unicameral parliamentary democracies; each state has a legislature elected by popular vote and a cabinet appointed by its legislature. The federal constitution defines Austria itself as a bicameral parliamentary democracy with near-complete separation of powers. Austria's government structure is thus very similar to that of much larger federal republics such as Germany or the United States. The main practical difference between Austria on one hand and Germany or the United States on the other is that Austria's states have comparatively little autonomy: almost all matters of practical importance, including but not limited to defense, foreign politics, criminal law, corporate law, most other aspects of economic law, education, academia, welfare, telecommunications, and the health care system, lie with the federation. The judiciary (including three supreme courts) is almost exclusively federal, with the exception of nine state administrative courts.

Federal legislature
Federal legislative powers are vested in a body the constitution refers to as a parliament. Ever since the somewhat paradoxical 1929 revision of the constitution, which strengthened the formal separation of powers in Austria at the instigation of sympathizers of fascism, Austria's legislature technically bears more resemblance to a congress than to a parliament. As a practical matter, however, it continues to function as a parliament anyway. Austria's parliament consists of two houses, the National Council and the Federal Council. The 183 members of the National Council are elected by nationwide popular vote under statutes aiming at party-list proportional representation. The currently 64 members of the Federal Council are elected by Austria's nine state legislatures under a statute allocating seats roughly proportional to state population size (the largest Bundesland being entitled to twelve members and the others accordingly, but no state to less than three). In theory, the National Council and the Federal Council are peers. As a practical matter, the National Council is decidedly more powerful; the predominance of the National Council is such that Austrians frequently use the term "parliament" to refer to just the National Council instead of to the parliament as a whole.

While bicameral legislatures such as the Congress of the United States allow bills to originate in both chambers, Austrian federal legislation always originates in the National Council, never in the Federal Council. In theory, bills can be sponsored by National Council members, by the federal cabinet, by popular initiative, or through a motion supported by at least one-third of the members of the Federal Council. In practice, most bills are proposed by the cabinet and passed after merely token debate. Bills passed by the National Council are sent to the Federal Council for affirmation. If the Federal Council approves of the bill or simply does nothing for a period of eight weeks, the bill has succeeded. Bills passed by both houses (or passed by the National Council and ignored by the Federal Council) are ultimately signed into law by the federal president. The president does not have the power to veto bills; a signature is a technical formality notarizing that the bill has been introduced and resolved upon in accordance to the procedure stipulated by the constitution. Legislation may be vetoed only on the ground that its genesis, not its substance, is in violation of basic law. Adjudicating upon the constitutionality of the bill itself is the exclusive prerogative of the Constitutional Court.

Provided that the bill in question neither amends the constitution such that states' rights are curtailed nor in some other way pertains to the organization of the legislature itself, the National Council can force the bill into law even if the Federal Council rejects it; a National Council resolution overruling a Federal Council objection merely has to meet a higher quorum than a regular resolution. For this reason, the Federal Council has hardly any real power to prevent the adoption of legislation, the National Council being able to override it easily. The Federal Council is sometimes compared to the British House of Lords, another deliberative body able to stall but usually not to strike down a proposed law. While the House of Lords occasionally exercises its stalling power, however, the Federal Council hardly ever does. Since the parties controlling the National Council consistently also hold a majority in the Federal Council, the latter gives its blessing to essentially everything the former has adopted.

Federal executive
Federal executive authority is shared by the federal president and federal cabinet. The president is elected by popular vote for a term of six years and limited to two consecutive terms of office. The president is the head of state and appoints the cabinet, a body consisting of the federal chancellor and a number of ministers. The president also appoints the members of the Constitutional Court and numerous other public officials, represents the republic in international relations, accredits foreign ambassadors, and acts as the nominal commander in chief of Austria's armed forces.

While Austria's federal cabinet is technically not answerable to the legislature (except for a motion of censure), it would be almost totally paralyzed without the active support of the National Council. Since constitutional convention prevents the president from using his power to dissolve the National Council on his own authority, the president is unable to hector the legislature into doing his or her bidding, and the cabinet is for all intents and purposes subject to National Council approval. The cabinet's composition therefore reflects National Council election results rather than presidential election outcomes.

After elections, it is customary for the president to ask the leader of the strongest party to become chancellor and form a cabinet. The list is then submitted to the president by the chancellor-to-be; the president usually adopts it without much argument, although there has been at least one case in recent history where the president did refuse to install a minister. The president retains the right to dismiss the whole cabinet at will, or certain ministers of it at the request of the chancellor. Although elected for a five-year term, the National Council can dissolve itself at any time, bringing about new elections.

The federal chancellor's dual role as executive officeholder and heavyweight party official well connected to the legislature makes the chancellor far more powerful than the formally senior federal president. Actual executive authority thus lies with the chancellor and his or her ministers, while the federal president is a figurehead rather than an actual head of government. Austria's presidents are largely content with their ceremonial role, striving for the role of impartial mediator and dignified elder statesman, and more or less consistently steer clear of the murky waters of hands-on politics. In recent times, however, former president Heinz Fischer was known to comment occasionally on current political issues.

Judicial and administrative review
Federal and state judicial authority, in particular responsibility for judicial review of administrative acts, lies with the Administrative and Constitutional Court System, a structure essentially consisting of the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court. The Constitutional Court examines the constitutionality of laws passed by Parliament, the legality of regulations by Federal ministers and other administrative authorities and finally alleged infringements of constitutional rights of individuals through decisions of the lower administrative courts. It also tries disputes between the federation and its member states, demarcation disputes between other courts and impeachments of the federal president (serving as State Court in that matter.)

The Administrative Court tries all kinds of cases which involve ex officio decisions by public officials or bodies and which are not dealt with by the Constitutional Court. Note that only the Constitutional Court has the authority to strike down laws.

In recent years, an increasing number of tribunals of a judicial nature (article 133 point 4 B-VG) hade been introduced in a number of areas to improve the review of the conduct of administrative authorities. The most important among them were the Länder independent administrative chambers (Unabhängige Verwaltungssenate - UVS), who decided, amongst other things, on second authority in proceedings relating to administrative contraventions as well as recourses against acts of direct exercise of command and constraint power from administrative authorities. Other such chambers were competent in the area of tax law (Unabhängiger Finanzsenat - UFS), in terms of asylum (Unabhängiger Bundesasylsenat - UBAS), in relation to environmental matters (Unabhängiger Umweltsenat) or in the field of telecommunications (Unabhängiger Bundeskommunikationssenat). Although all these tribunals were formally part of the administrative organization, their members had guarantees of independence and irremovability and their powers may thus be compared to jurisdictions. Their rulings could be challenged before the Administrative or the Constitutional Court. In 2014 these administrative tribunals were abolished in favour of eleven administrative courts—one in each state (Landesverwaltungsgerichte) and two on the federal level (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Bundesfinanzgericht).

The Austrian constitution was the second in the world (nearly contemporaneous with Czechoslovakia) to enact judicial review by a Constitutional Court. It had been established in 1919 and gained the right to revise the laws of the federal states that year. After the new constitution had been adopted in 1920, the court was also entitled to revise national laws according to the constitution. This scheme of a separate constitutional court able to review legislative acts for their constitutionality came to be known as the "Austrian system". After the U.S. and the British Dominions (such as Canada and Australia), where the regular court system is in charge of judicial review, Austria was one of the earliest countries to have judicial review at all (although the Czechoslovak Constitution came into force earlier, the establishment of the Court's new rights itself predated the Czechoslovak Court by a couple of months ). Many European countries adopted the Austrian system of review after World War II.

Judiciary
Judicial powers not committed to the Administrative and Constitutional Court System are vested with the Civil and Criminal Court System, a structure consisting of civil courts on the one hand and criminal courts on the other hand. Civil courts try all cases in which both the claimant and the respondent are private citizens or corporations, including but not limited to contract and torts disputes: Austria's legal system, having evolved from that of the Roman Empire, implements civil law and therefore lacks the distinction between courts of law and courts of equity sometimes found in common law jurisdictions. Civil courts do not try suits against the federation or its states in their capacity as administrative units, but only when acting in the form of private law.

Most cases are tried before District Courts (Bezirksgerichte, abbrev.: BG, singular: Bezirksgericht), with Regional Courts (Landesgerichte, abbrev.: LG, singular: Landesgericht) serving as courts of appeal and the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, abbrev.: OGH) serving as the court of last resort. In cases considered particularly grave or technically involved, the Regional Courts serve as courts of first instance and specialized Regional Courts of Appeal (Oberlandesgerichte, abbrev.: OLG, singular: Oberlandesgericht) serve as courts of appeal, the Supreme Court still being the court of last resort.

Unlike with court systems such as that of the United States federal judiciary, parties have a statutory right to appeal. Although access to the Supreme Court has been successively restricted to matters of some importance in recent years, higher courts can generally not simply refuse to review a decision reached by subordinate courts.

Note that the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof - OGH), the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof - VfGH) and the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof - VwGH) are three separate high courts, none being senior to the other two.

Civil and human rights
Most closely resembling a bill of rights in Austria is the Basic Law on the General Rights of Nationals of the Kingdoms and Länder represented in the Council of the Realm, a decree issued by Emperor Franz Josef on December 21, 1867 in response to pressure by liberal insurgents.

A very important part of Austria's canon of constitutional civil liberties thus originated as an imperatorial edict predating the current Constitution of Austria by roughly fifty years, the reason being that the framers of the Constitution in 1920 could not agree on a set of civil liberties to include in the constitution proper: as a lowest common denominator, they resorted to this Basic Law of 1867. Since then, other civil liberties have been set out in other constitutional laws, and Austria is party to the European Convention of Human Rights, which, too, has been implemented as a directly applicable constitutional law in Austria.

Given the fact that the Constitutional Court has begun to interpret the B-VG's equal treatment clause and other constitutional rights rather broadly since at least the early 1980s, civil rights are, as a general matter, relatively well protected.

Further checks and balances
In addition to their legislative capacity, the members of the two houses of parliament have the authority to impeach the president, who is then tried before the Constitutional Court, serving as State Court, or call for a referendum to have the federal president removed from office. Exertion of these emergency powers is a two-step process: first the National Council requests the president to be impeached or subjected to referendum, then the members of the National Council and the Federal Council convene in joint session, thus forming the National Assembly, and decide on the National Council's motion. If a referendum is held, and the President is not removed from office by popular vote, he is automatically considered re-elected for another six-year term (although he may still not serve for more than twelve consecutive years). The National Council will then be dissolved automatically and new general elections must be held.

The president may also dissolve the National Council, but only once for the same reason during his term of office. Note that the president does not have the power to veto specific acts of legislation: no matter how vehemently he objects to some particular bill, or believes it to be unconstitutional, all he can actually do is threaten to dismiss the government or dissolve the National Council before the bill is actually passed.

None of these emergency powers have been exercised thus far.

Criticism and reform proposals
Perhaps the most unusual aspect of Austrian constitutional law is the relative ease with which it can be changed, combined with the fact that a constitutional amendment need not be incorporated into the main text of the B-VG, or for that matter any of the more important parts of the constitutional body, but can be enacted as a separate constitutional act, or even as a simple section within any act, simply designated as "constitutional" (Verfassungsbestimmung).

In reality, all that is needed is a majority of two-thirds in the National Council. Only in the case of a fundamental change ("Gesamtänderung") of the constitution a confirmation by referendum is required. Austria's accession to EU in 1995 was considered such a change.

Over the years, the Austrian legal system became littered with thousands of constitutional provisions, split up over numerous acts. The reason for this was in many cases that the legislature—in particular when the governing coalition possessed a two-thirds majority in the National Council (such as between 1945–1966, 1986–1994, 1995–1999, and 2007–2008)—enacted laws that were considered "constitutionally problematic" as constitutional laws, effectively protecting them from judicial review by the Constitutional Court. There have even been cases where a provision that had been previously declared unconstitutional by the competent Constitutional Court has subsequently been enacted as constitutional law. Needless to say, the Constitutional Court did and does not like that practice, and has declared that it might, in a not-too-distant future, consider such changes, in their entirety, as "fundamental change" to the Constitution, which would require a public referendum.

From 2003 to 2005, a constitutional convention (Österreich Konvent) consisting of representatives of all parties, representatives of all layers of government and many groups of Austrian society debated whether and how to reform the constitution. There was no general consensus on a draft for a new constitution, however, and some minor points that were universally agreed upon have yet to be implemented.

Former constitutions

 * Pillersdorf Constitution (1848)
 * Kremsier Constitution (1848)
 * March Constitution (1849)
 * October Diploma (1860)
 * February Patent (1861)
 * December Constitution (1867)
 * May Constitution (1934)

Others

 * Judiciary
 * Rechtsstaat
 * Rule of law
 * Rule According to Higher Law
 * Linguistic rights

title: Constitution of Austria


text:
Talk:'Scuse Me While I Miss the Sky

Best Article Ever
This is a great article!

Why?
Is Wikipedia really the place for episode guides? It's starting to look like Wikipedia is trying to duplicate another project that aims to be a clearinghouse for information of all sorts: it's called the Internet.

Well this is the one-stop shopping of information/knowledge (clearinghouse). The goal is all civilization in a box.

--

Wikipedia's articles on Simpson's episodes are useful to me. The plot description helps me figure out whether I've seen it before, and the cultural references typically answer any questions I have when watching (what movie is being alluded to, or what is that piece of music). Granted that an episode guide is not part of the traditional role of an encyclopedia, but being "More useful to more people" (the slogan of a well-known print encyclopedia that Wikipedia has just about killed) is a worthwhile goal in itself. 66.32.148.104 (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Great Hendrix
Wasn't, "excuse me while I kiss the sky," in one of Jimi Hendrix's songs?--suit-n-tie 06:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it was the BeatlesONEder Boy 18:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Jimi Hendrix's, "Purple Haze". (Pavelow235 (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

Websites Discussed
These should be added, PrincipalSkinnerStinks.com, skinnersucks.org, shavedskinner.edu, and skinner-in-a-shredder.com; talked about during the beginning of the episode. (Pavelow235 (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

Tony's hood ornament ?
Is Tony's hood ornament meant to resemble the Emmy award statue? FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:'Scuse Me While I Miss the Sky


text:
Way Out West (duo)

Way Out West are an English electronic music duo comprising Jody Wisternoff and Nick Warren. Originating in Bristol, England, they rose to fame in the 1990s with their UK-charting singles "The Gift" and "Ajare", and their debut studio album Way Out West was released in 1997 to critical and commercial success. Their 2001 follow-up, Intensify, also garnered chart success, along with its singles "The Fall", "Intensify" and "Mindcircus", the latter of which reached number one on the UK Dance Chart.

Way Out West temporarily became a trio in 2004 with the addition of singer Omi (Emma Everett) for their third studio album, Don't Look Now. In 2009, their fourth album We Love Machine was released, and after a near eight-year hiatus, they released their fifth album Tuesday Maybe in 2017.

Additionally, they are known for their remixes for artists such as Sasha, Reel 2 Real, Paul van Dyk, Orbital, BT and Tiësto. They have produced and performed together for over twenty five years, and have both had success as solo musicians and DJs respectively.

1992–97: Way Out West
In the early 1990s, the duo met in a record store that Nick Warren was working in, and discovered their similar direction in music. They then initially produced music under the names Sub-Version 3 and Echo while also releasing remixes as Way Out West, as a side-project. Following the success of their remixes, Way Out West became their main project and the duo signed a deal with Deconstruction Records.

Way Out West began releasing singles in 1994, including "Shoot", "Montana", and "Ajare". "Ajare" became a club hit, initially peaking at #52 in the UK Dance Chart that year. In 1996, the duo released another two singles: "Domination", and the UK Top 15 hit, "The Gift" (which sampled Joanna Law's cover version of "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face"). "The Gift" would later be used for the title theme of the MTV television show True Life.

On 1 September 1997, the duo released their eponymous debut studio album, Way Out West. The album included most of their previous singles, and also spawned the singles "Blue" (a reinterpretation of the theme from the film Withnail and I), and a 1997 re-release of "Ajare", which achieved greater success than the original, charting at position #36 in the UK.

2000–02: Intensify
On 27 November 2000, Way Out West released their single, "The Fall", (which sampled Coldcut's cover of "Autumn Leaves") through BMG; the former parent company of the group's previous label Deconstruction (defunct in 1998). "The Fall" peaked at #61 on the UK Singles Chart and was followed by the group's final release on BMG, the UB Devoid EP. Two of the EP's tracks would later go on to feature on their then-upcoming album.

On 20 August 2001, Way Out West released their second studio album, Intensify. The album's release was marked by a move from the defunct Deconstruction Records to Distinctive Records, and a change in their sound, from club instrumentals and sampled vocals to a mixture of club tracks and original songs. Singles from the album included "The Fall", "Mindcircus" (which reached number 1 in the UK Dance Chart), and the club hit "Intensify". "Activity" from this release also appeared in the 2001 PlayStation 2 game Kinetica and the Paul van Dyk album The Politics of Dancing.

2003–04: Don't Look Now
In 2003, the duo released the song "Killa", which was later remixed by Orkidea and gained club popularity. "Killa" was also featured the 2005 video game Juiced.

In 2004, Way Out West became a trio with the addition of vocalist Omi (Emma Everett), the group's only ever third member.

Later that year, the group then released their third studio album, Don't Look Now. Excluding "Killa", the album spawned two singles: "Anything but You" (featured in the video game Tiger Woods PGA Tour 07) and "Don't Forget Me" (featured in season two of Grey's Anatomy). Other songs from the album include "Melt" (appeared in The O.C. as well as the season 2 episode "Bones of Contention" for the series Numb3rs), and "Just Like a Man" (appeared on season 3, episode 8 of CSI: Miami).

2008–10: We Love Machine
In 2008, Way Out West contributed the song "Evelina" to the Survival International charity album, Songs for Survival.

In 2009, Way Out West returned as a duo and moved to the label Hope Recordings, of which Nick Warren continues to be the A&R manager. The duo's fourth album, We Love Machine, was released on 5 October 2009. The song "Only Love" with Jonathan Mendelsohn performing vocals (their first collaboration with a male vocalist) was the first single from the album, released on 31 August 2009, followed by "Future Perfect" on 7 December. The album was released on Hope Recordings and Armada Music.

In April 2010, Deconstruction Records re-released "The Gift" together with remixes by Logistics, Gui Boratto, Tek-One and Michael Woods; Way Out West themselves also recorded a new remix of the track.

Later that year, We Love Machine – The Remixes was released via Hope Recordings. The release featured remixes of tracks from We Love Machine by producers such as Scuba, Henry Saiz, Jaytech and D. Ramirez.

2017–present: Tuesday Maybe
In April 2017, Way Out West announced their fifth studio album Tuesday Maybe, with the release of three web-exclusive singles: "Oceans" (featuring Liu Bei), "The Call" (featuring Doe Paoro) and "Slam". The album also features their 2016 singles "Tuesday Maybe" and "Set My Mind". The album was released on 16 June 2017 through Anjunadeep.

In January 2018, Wisternoff hosted a Reddit AMA and hinted at upcoming work from Way Out West, claiming "Me and Nick are working on new material together". He also announced a then upcoming remix album for Tuesday Maybe. On 2 February 2018, the remix album, Tuesday Maybe (Remixed), was released on digital download stores.

In 2018, Way Out West announced a five track EP comprising chill-out remixes of songs from Tuesday Maybe, titled Sunday Maybe. The EP's release was supported by the single "Sunday Maybe" on 3 April 2018, and was released on 20 April, on Anjunadeep.

Members

 * Jody Wisternoff - production, mixing, keyboards, synths, samples, programming
 * Nick Warren - production, mixing, engineering

Former members

 * Emma Everett (Omi) - lead vocals (2004)

Live performances
In support of their third studio album Don't Look Now in 2004, the duo expanded from their DJ roots to a full-fledged touring collective, playing at festivals such as Glastonbury 2004, Creamfields, and The Glade. The band had supported Faithless on their Australian tour in October 2004, and embarked on their own tour in the US in May and November 2004.

In September 2017, Way Out West announced a UK concert tour to promote the release of Tuesday Maybe through their social media. The tour commenced in February 2018 and concluded in March the same year.

2001–03, 2016

 * Jody Wisternoff - keyboards, synths, samples, programming
 * Nick Warren - keyboards, engineering
 * Adam Pickard (The Orb, The String Cheese Incident) - drums, electronic percussion

2004

 * Jody Wisternoff - keyboards, synths, samples, programming
 * Nick Warren - keyboards, engineering
 * Omi (Emma Everett) - vocals
 * George Vjestica (Groove Armada, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds) - guitars
 * Joe Allen (Alison Moyet, Roni Size) - bass
 * Damon Reece (Massive Attack, The Orb, Goldfrapp, Spiritualized, Echo & the Bunnymen, Lupine Howl. - drums, electronic percussion

2017-present

 * Jody Wisternoff - keyboards, synths, samples, programming
 * Nick Warren - engineering, electronic percussion

Discography

 * Studio albums
 * Way Out West (1997)
 * Intensify (2001)
 * Don't Look Now (2004)
 * We Love Machine (2009)
 * Tuesday Maybe (2017)

title: Way Out West (duo)


title: File:NamCam-1.jpg


text: User talk:69.105.30.154

title: User talk:69.105.30.154


text:
Promised Land (Chuck Berry song)

"Promised Land" is a song lyric written by Chuck Berry to the melody of "Wabash Cannonball", an American folk song. The song was first recorded in this version by Berry in 1964 for his album St. Louis to Liverpool. Released in December 1964, it was Berry's fourth single issued following his prison term for a Mann Act conviction. The record peaked at #41 in the Billboard charts on January 16, 1965.

Background
Berry wrote the song while in prison, and borrowed an atlas from the prison library to plot the itinerary. In the lyrics, the singer (who refers to himself as "the poor boy") tells of his journey from Norfolk, Virginia, to the "Promised Land", Los Angeles, California, mentioning various cities in Southern states that he passes through on his journey. Describing himself as a "poor boy," the protagonist boards a Greyhound bus in Norfolk, Virginia that passes Raleigh, N.C., stops in Charlotte, North Carolina, and bypasses Rock Hill, South Carolina. The bus rolls out of Atlanta but breaks down, leaving him stranded in downtown Birmingham, Alabama. He then takes a train "across Mississippi clean" to New Orleans. From there, he goes to Houston, where "the people there who care a bit about me" buy him a silk suit, luggage and a plane ticket to Los Angeles. Upon landing in Los Angeles, he calls Norfolk, Virginia ("Tidewater four, ten-oh-nine") to tell the folks back home he made it to the "promised land." The lyric: "Swing low, sweet chariot, come down easy/Taxi to the terminal zone" refers to the gospel lyric: "Swing low, sweet Chariot, coming for to carry me Home" since both refer to a common destination, "The Promised Land," which in this case is California, reportedly a heaven on earth.

Billboard called the song a "true blue Berry rocker with plenty of get up and go," adding that "rinky piano and wailing Berry electric guitar fills all in neatly." Cash Box described it as "a 'pull-out-all-the-stops' rocker that Chuck pounds out solid sales authority" and "a real mover that should head out for hit territory in no time flat." In 2021, it was listed at No. 342 on Rolling Stone 's "Top 500 Greatest Songs of All Time".

Elvis Presley version
In December 1973, Elvis Presley recorded a powerful, driving version. Presley's version of "Promised Land" was released as a single on September 27, 1974. It peaked at number 14 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, and 9 on the UK Singles Chart in the fall of 1974. It was included on his 1975 album Promised Land. The Presley version was used in the soundtrack of the 1997 motion picture Men in Black.

Personnel

 * Elvis Presley – lead vocals, harmony vocals
 * James Burton – lead guitar
 * Johnny Christopher — rhythm guitar
 * Charlie Hodge – acoustic rhythm guitar
 * Norbert Putnam – bass
 * David Briggs – piano, organ; overdubbed tambourine
 * Per Eric “Pete” Hallin – clavinet
 * Ronnie Tutt – drums
 * Randy Cullers – overdubbed cowbell

Other versions
There are numerous other versions of this song:
 * In 1964 Johnny Rivers released his live album In Action including this song..
 * The Grateful Dead notably performed the song live 425 times from July 1971 through the band's last show in 1995; live performances appear on nearly 50 of the band's live albums, including the 1976 United Artists released live album Steal Your Face as well as several of the band's Dick's Picks releases.
 * In 1970 Freddy Weller released a version on an album of the same name. It was a Top 5 country hit in the winter of 1971.
 * In 1971 Johnnie Allan released a Cajun version in the US. It was released in 1974 in the UK.
 * In 1971 Dave Edmunds included it on his album Rockpile, released also as a single in 1972, it reached number 5 in the Australian charts.
 * In 1972 the band Juicy Lucy recorded a version on their album Pieces.
 * In 1973 the Canadian-American rock group The Band recorded "Promised Land" for their sixth studio LP, Moondog Matinee.
 * In 1974 James Taylor recorded a version on his album Walking Man.
 * In 1977 it was recorded by country singer Billy "Crash" Craddock on his album Live!.
 * In 1983 Meat Loaf recorded the song for his Midnight at the Lost and Found album.
 * In 1984 The Black Sorrows recorded a version for their debut studio album, Sonola.
 * In 1984 Mike Read released a cover version but set in and near London. The song was mentioned in the documentary Embarrassing 80s.
 * In 2007 Geno Delafose released a zydeco version on his album Le Cowboy Creole.
 * In 2009 W.A.S.P. recorded a version of this song on the album Babylon.
 * In 2014 Harry Dean Stanton released a version on the soundtrack album for the documentary film about him, Partly Fiction.
 * In 2014 Jerry Lee Lewis released a version of this song on his album Rock & Roll Time

Johnny Hallyday version (in French)
The song was covered in French by Johnny Hallyday, using an adaptation of Presley's arrangement (Hallyday is commonly referred to as the French version of Presley for his contributions to rock and roll in France). His version (titled "La Terre promise") was released in September 1975 for his twentieth studio album of the same name (which would be released four days after the single) and spent one week at no. 1 on the singles sales chart in France (from November 1 to 7, 1975). The single is backed by "La Premiere Fois" ("The first time").

title: Promised Land (Chuck Berry song)


text:
Talk:Rappin' 4-Tay

isn't 4-tay in jail right now thats what it says on his website.. so why is he in jail? I think thats an important piece of information that should be included in the article.

Gangsta Gumbo
You're missing his 2003 release, Gangsta Gumbo.

why not add it then? i added it Lauri Kavallus 18:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rappin' 4-Tay


text:
Stéphane Quintal

Stéphane Yvon Quintal (born October 22, 1968) is a Canadian former professional ice hockey player who played in the National Hockey League (NHL) for 16 seasons. He served as senior vice president of player safety for the NHL from 2014 to 2016.

Playing career
Quintal played 16 NHL seasons before retiring as a player in August 2005. He had been the last Montreal Canadiens player to wear number 5 before the Canadiens retired it in honour of Bernie "Boom-Boom" Geoffrion.

Quintal joined the Department of Player Safety, one of the NHL's disciplinary arms, at its creation at the opening of the 2011–12 season. The head of the department was initially Brendan Shanahan, who left his position after the completion of the 2013–14 regular season to become president of the Toronto Maple Leafs. At the time, Quintal became the head of the department on an interim basis. On September 8, 2014, the NHL named Quintal the permanent head of the department with the title of senior vice president of player safety. Quintal continued Shanahan's practice of releasing videos explaining his rulings on plays that were sent to the league office for review. However, he only narrated French-language videos for incidents involving the Canadiens or Ottawa Senators, a practice dating to when Shanahan ran the department. All other videos are narrated by a deputy, Patrick Burke. He held the post until 2016, when he was succeeded by George Parros.

Director of Player Safety
After taking over the job from Brendan Shanahan on April 11, 2014, Quintal was quickly faced with a repeat offender in the form of Minnesota Wild forward Matt Cooke. Cooke had kneed Colorado Avalanche defenseman Tyson Barrie during round one of the 2014 playoffs, ending his season. Cooke received a 7-game suspension and returned for round two of the playoffs.

Transactions

 * February 7, 1992: Traded by the Boston Bruins, along with Craig Janney, to the St. Louis Blues in exchange for Adam Oates.
 * September 24, 1993: Traded by the St. Louis Blues, along with Nelson Emerson, to the Winnipeg Jets in exchange for Phil Housley.
 * July 8, 1995: Traded by the Winnipeg Jets to the Montreal Canadiens in exchange for Montreal's 1995 2nd round draft choice.
 * July 13, 1999: Signed as a free agent with the New York Rangers.
 * October 5, 2000: Claimed on waivers by the Chicago Blackhawks from the New York Rangers.
 * June 23, 2001: Traded by the Chicago Blackhawks to the Montreal Canadiens in exchange for Montreal's 2001 4th round draft choice.
 * June 27, 2004: Traded by the Montreal Canadiens to the Los Angeles Kings in exchange for future considerations.

Awards and achievements

 * QMJHL First All-Star Team (1987)

title: Stéphane Quintal


text: User talk:203.10.111.38

title: User talk:203.10.111.38


text:
Wikipedia talk:No original research (draft rewrite 5th December 2004 to 5th February 2005)/Archive 2

See also:
 * Wikipedia talk:No original research
 * Wikipedia talk:No original research (draft rewrite -- archive 1)
 * Wikipedia talk:No original research (draft rewrite -- archive 3)

An example
Social structure of the United States is an example of how original research can creep into an article, mixed with established fact but put together in a pattern which is unique to its author. While I would not apologize for the article, I'm not sure anyone could find substantial authority anywhere for the exact way it is put together. Fred Bauder 15:11, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Here's a recent example, "Market based health care systems such as that used in the United States rely on private medical insurance." recently added to Medical insurance. It this just what we all know or original research? I would be at a loss to cite a reference. Fred Bauder 15:29, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * A good example, Fred, that reminds me of issues I often have with new college students. I have a vigorous policy against plagiarism and stress the need to cite.  Students ask if very fact -- even facts from an assigned book -- need to be cited.  For example, if they read a book on Indians in S. America, and in their paper they write, The Ajwe-Xavante live in Brazil," do they need a citation?  This is of course an issue facing researches who write articles, and the general answer is "no, you don't need to cite this."  But why not?  How do I explain this to students?  Usually I tell them that if a fact is essential to an argument, or an element of an argument, it must be cited/sourced.  Is this adequate/appropriate to Wikipedia?  I am not sure.  What do you think? Slrubenstein

 * Well, how is it that "everybody knows" about the Ajwe-Xavante? Presumably if you're not living next door to them in Brazil, you got the info from somewhere. One of things that struck me when comparing modern EB articles to WP are the mundane nature of some of EB's references - they are not some mighty mystical tomes, but simply the standard textbooks that are already sitting on my shelf. My reaction was "gee, is that all there is to it?". I don't think every statement needs citation of a specific page of a specific work, save that for talk pages in the less-likely event that somebody challenges and is unable to find the specific statement for themselves. Stan 21:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The example I was giving was context specific -- I meant that in a particular course I taught, there were some things that students did not have to reference in their papers (the question is, who is "everybody?" In my example, the "everybody" is everyone in my class).  Obviously, I wouldn't have the exact same standard in an encyclopedia article.  I only meant that my dilemma -- where to draw the line -- is analogous to the one Fred mentions (where "everybody" refers to all readers of Wikipedia). Slrubenstein

 * My mental model is of a high-school student in Botswana clicking on random page; context in the lead section is critical. On the plus side, we can exploit linkage, and most references for the "everybody knows"-type info are better located at the linked-to article. Articles like sociology should list the dozen or so best textbooks, so as to ensure that readers develop a common base of understanding. Stan 03:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * A key difference between Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica is that EB authors are generally chosen by the Editorial Board from amongst recognized authorities in their fields, usually people whose reputation and future as academics depends on their accuracy and perceived lack of bias. The EB authors are identified by name.  So when an EB article says the Ajwe-Xavante live in Brazil, you don't need a citation of the source.  You can rely on its being true.    If the same sentence appears in the Wikipedia, without a citation as to the source of the information, you only have the say-so of the anonymous editor. Indeed it might be based on primary reporting (he's been to the reservation in Brazil himself). Or the information may come from the editor's personal fund of knowledge for which he has forgotten the sources.  Some extra digging might produce a citable source but is the editor obliged to do this digging on items that he "knows" to be so before including them in the article.   I think the "no original research" rule should not prevent someone from including facts in articles from their personal knowledge.  But it should prevent the inclusion of information which cannot, even in principle,  be independently verified through existing and reasonably accessible literary sources.  Personally, I don't want the articles to be weighed down by constant citing of sources.  On the Wikipedia, authoritativeness and reliability emerge from the community process.  You have to rely on the fact that if a statement is untrue or biased, that it will be challenged by other editors, and removed if the person putting forward the claim cannot cite acceptable sources.  I don't think one needs a source cited for every fact and factoid. --BM 19:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * How can authoritativeness and reliability emerge if no one ever has to provide any basis for their claims? I've made a bunch of careless statements, realized some of them six months later, and went back to fix - not one person had challenged them in the meantime, although they made spelling fixes around the statement. Writing sloppily in the hopes that someone else will clean up is not a crime, but it's not admired either, and citation of sources should be viewed in the same way. Did you ever look closely at the 1911 EB articles? They all have plenty of citations. So apparently even the big-name authorities hold themselves to the standard of providing the backing for their material. Stan 04:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cite sources
Added section on citation. Used the intro from the style guide as a basis and I think improved it. I think citation should be part of the policy of No Original Research rather than in the style guide. The style guide should quote the policy. :ChrisG

Good work
This has made good progress. I think it's much better than what we hope it will replace. I hope to get back to it and contribute within a few days. Maurreen 01:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Logical inferences
If published information is summarized and sourced, may not a non-partisan logical inference may be drawn that represents a sensible mainstream opinion, even if no specific published source can be found? To exclude natural conclusions seems artificially constraining. Look at the "name origin" of Mayonnaise and the Discussion at Talk:Mayonnaise. Does Wikipedia intend to exclude such material as "theory"?

Where several schools of thought are in conflict, logical inference may establish some parameters that a counter-position needs to refute, in order to be credible. For example, at Gospel of Peter an observable, confirmable character of the text is followed by a logical inference:
 * "Some characteristics of Peter suggest a place early in an oral tradition. To be specific, the developed apologetic technique typical of the final edition of the Gospel of Matthew and of Justin Martyr, which seek to demonstrate a correspondence between prophetic predictions in the Tanakh and their detailed fulfillments in the fate of Jesus, is quite lacking. A credible assessment of Peter as dependant on the synoptic gospels needs to account for this consistent omission of any reference to the fulfillments of prophecy."

These guidelines might address such cases. --Wetman 06:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I think conclusions should generally be left to the readers. Maurreen 06:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Questions
I have added several "invisible" comments or questions concerning points that I'm not sure of. Maurreen 06:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Journalism?
Is anyone interested in discussing the case I mentioned above, in Divulging personal details? From what I know of the case, it at least verges on journalism, and I have some uneasiness about the ethical questions involved (not inherently because of the journalism angle). Maurreen 07:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I looked at that page and it only confirms my strong sense about "no original research." Wikipedians should be doing something akin to scholarly research -- we should not be detectives, and not journalists.  Of course we will have articles on current events and the news, but this is not a place for eye-witness acounts or personal reflections (like Everything2) either.  Do we just need to write this into the policy: Wikipedians are neither detectives nor journalists?" "Wikipedia is not a place for eye-witness accounts?"  You'd think "no orignal research" was clear enough.  To me the importance of the case Maurreen calls attention to is not that we need to answer this person's queries; rather, we need to ask why the "No Original Research" policy as written was inadaquate to answer his questions. Slrubenstein

 * I think the "No original research" as now written at least has a strong implication to just "scientific research."
 * A lot of this stuff, I'm unsure about.
 * But Wikipedia is a different animal than any other, and I'm not sure that's been fully considered.
 * A lot of issues and pages are overlapping in my mind. I started a related but broader discussion at Wikipedia needs special standards. Maurreen 07:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the policy as it stands applies to other forms of research (social science and humanities). However, I think it needs to be strengthened. This is what I think the policy should be: if the article makes no interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims, it can rely on primary sources (and thus, be a secondary source). But if the article is to make interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims, it must rely on secondary sources (and thus, be a tertiary source). Slrubenstein

 * The above paragraph by Slrubenstein does accord with what I have been getting at. Writing history or biography should be purely factual - a recital of the facts, preferably in a readable manner! The question I have been posing is where does information from original sources, such as archives fit?

 * As an example I wrote the article Simon Goodrich, based on articles I had previously written for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and the Biographical Dictionary of Civil Engineers. These were based on a handful of printed sources published between about 1920 and 1950. Since then I have been undertaking extensive research in Goodrich's papers for another project, but have picked up oddments about his life which might flesh out the Wikipedia article. If it is acceptable to use this extra material, with proper referencing, without running foul of the 'no original research' rule, I see little point in attempting to get it into a journal as the prequisite of being able to use the information in the Wikipedia article.Apwoolrich 19:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Just to pick on Simon Goodrich a bit, it says "The Simon Goodrich papers are an incomparable source of detailed information" about his age. Now if you're quoting from the Biographical Dictionary of Civil Engineers, then that's cool; I or somebody else who's dubious can go check it for ourselves. If, however, that is an unpublished opinion you've settled on while examining the papers, that would not be so good to put in here; perhaps an authority more distinguished than yourself will publish a paper next week mentioning that Goodrich's papers are "all rubbish and fabrication", and then you've put us all in the position of trying to weigh your un-peer-reviewed personal opinion against the published opinion of someone else. Suppose you've tired of WP and moved on? Would future editors have to send you letters verifying that you still hold that opinion? This is really all about limiting ourselves to a solid foundation that will outlast individual participation, and eventually even individual lifespans. Stan 05:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, actually, I think the writing of history is much much more than a recital of facts; I happen to know many professional historians who would be insulted by this characterization. They think history requires interpretation and analysis, and I agree. BUT I do not think it is the place of contributors to Wikipedia articles to do this analysis and interpretation. There are books by historians, and journals that publish articles by historians, in which one finds much interpretation and analysis. A contributor to wikipedia should consult those books and articles and then summarize their interpretations and anaylses, and provide the appropriate sources. When writing history articles we should also seek out events the analysis or interpretation of which historians argue, and provide accounts of those arguments/debates. Slrubenstein 21:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Apologies for sloppy writing, what I actually meant in my first para was writing history and biography for Wikipedia. Apwoolrich 08:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, there are historians and biographers that have done a lot of interpretation and analysis; their research (available in secondary sources) should be made available in Wikipedia in an NPOV way, right? Slrubenstein

It seems to me that "original research" is not the appropriate title for this policy. It is more accurate to state that Wikipedia articles are not primary sources. For example, I doubt that it would be acceptable to insert information into articles whose only source was the editor's personal obvservations or reporting; that is, "original reporting". We would want this to have passed through the filter of a journalistic organization, first. For example, the reporting might be published by a newspaper, with the reliability and accuracy of the reporter being vouched for by the newspaper organization. --BM 19:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Various problems
If this is to be reworked, rephrase the following: "Wikipedis is not a primary source. Specific factual content is not the question."So what is the question and who asked it? The phrasing is awkward. Perhaps:"Wikipedia is not the place for any but the most minimal amount of primary source material, however factual that primary source material might be. Primary source material should appear only in short quotations and citations or in summarized form." "Concerning topics of scholarly concern, Wikipedia is a tertiary source ... books published by a legitimate publisher and journal articles ... Concerning any subject that is a matter of academic research, we should exclude unattributed (original) interpretive and synthethic statements." "On topics which have not attracted sufficient academic research, primary source (such as diaries, government documentation, etc.) may be used in addition. In such circumstances, the Wikipedia article is a secondary source."

This would be major change of policy, and a strange one.

What is a legtimate publisher? Is there a list somewhere, or perhaps an Index of publishers whose books are not to be referenced? This just pushes argument onto another issue, especially as reputable publishers (even university presses) sometimes publish assinine books and schlock publishers sometimes publish good material.

Why are there two sets of rules, one for matters of scholarly concern and one for everything else? Does this mean that I can mention that Achilles killed Hector in the film Troy, but not mention that Achilles killed Hector in the Iliad, only mention that in a certain secondary book or article someone claims Achilles killed Hector in the Iliad. What happens when the film Troy becomes subject to academic research somewhere?

What is not of scholarly concern? There are collector journals and hobby magazine and so forth that often contain scholarly articles on areas which are not normally the object of academic study? Books are published in such areas, often very good ones. Why, for example, would it be recommended that one cite a particular author for the information that Christopher Columbus discovered "America" in 1492 but be free in an unacademic article to omit a source for the information that comic artist Jerry Robinson created the cover of Daredevil #5 (Nov. 1941)? The source for the latter is more important to cite, if such a detail is mentioned, because the information is less easily found. All information comes from somewhere. See for example Mario. This article is filled with weasel words and vague claims. But it is no worse sourced than the article Lion (picked at random) and many other articles that some think more central to Wikipedia. But neither article contains any original research of the kind that is forbidden.

The proposed revision seems to miss that one can summarize primary sources and present uncontroversial interpretations, pointing out relationships to other articles and so forth, without doing any original research whatsoever, as original research is defined here. Many articles in Encyclopædia Britannica are just such summaries as anyone who knows the material could write, the kind of secondary material that also fits in Wikipedia. They are secondary material, just normal, standard, vanilla secondary material as found in numerous sources, the kind of thing that knowledgeable scholars dash off in without much thought. People don't write original encyclopedia articles about Napoleon, Joan of Arc and Lion. They mostly just include the secondary information that is found everywhere.

Also, again and again in the areas I mostly write in, I find that going back to the primary sources and creating an article that summarizes and discusses those primary sources is far better than basing my article on changing scholarship. I want to provide information from the original source material that allows a reader to understand scholarship the reader comes across based on such primary data rather than to get deeply into tertiary material. Once that foundation is laid, then discussion of tertiary material can be added to an article. But first provide the secondary material (and even primary material) on which the tertiary material is based, and as much as possible present the primary and secondary data unbiased and raw. Pausanias says this, but Apollodorus says that, and so forth. Write the secondary material based on the secondary material and be unintelligent about it. Then afterwards add what modern scholars agree on or debate about on the matter of provenance, meaning, relations to other material, possible historic truth, and so forth. The numerous new theories that come and go are often just grist for the publish-or-perish mills.

The current rules prohibits original research whether an article is secondary or tertiary, and that should be enough.

Diaries and government documents are forbidden to be cited, if they become the subject of academic research? That seems absurd to me. Does this mean I shouldn't cite Thucydides or Pepy's Diary or Caesar's Gallic War directly because I must be only tertiary. But I and any editor will still select among tertiary sources. Bias will find its way.

I have a feeling this draft is an attempt to solve some particular difficulties, but one which more rules won't solve at all. The current rules would be enough ... if enforced. But they are not enforced. It becomes too much trouble for most to prevent a POV warrior insisting on some original research being included in an article. If old rules are not enforceable then new ones won't help. The POV warriors who don't care about the old rules that aren't enfored won't care about new rules that aren't enforced. And secondary versus tertiary is not the issue in any case.

As to the new long section on citing sources, does it really belong here? Ideally, there should be proper citation for all topics that are either:  "Ideally" is a give away. When I see the word in a ontext like this I know it means that the ideal can be ignored. Bad. And why only for two kinds of articles if we are being "ideal"? This disagrees with the plea later that all material should be sourced.
 * Academic
 * Controversial

"''Wikipedia is not the place for original ideas, therefore the material you contribute must have been learned from an external source or more probably various external sources." "Therefore" is not used logically. "As a contributor, you should therefore list as many of those sources as you can." Overkill. I should list major general sources and sources which provide unique information. "Depending on the details, lack of attribution can constitute plagiarism." Cite or reference the details, otherwise this sounds like legal scare tactics. It is no secret that Wikipedia articles are gravely lacking in source references but the information in them must have come from somewhere. So far no-one is suing and accusations about semi-plagiarism are seldom heard, though edit histories make it clear enough who is adding material without sources. No-one wants to open the can of worms about where the information has come from in so many articles. Over a million articles .... over a million articles .... over a million articles .... "Ideally, you should actively search for authoritative references." "Ideally" again. My mind immediately inserts the phrase "but in reality ..." following the sentence.

Jallan 05:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Related discussion
I started a related but broader discussion at Wikipedia needs special standards. Maurreen 08:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Copy edit
Hi, I did a bit of a rewrite of some of this draft today and added a couple of sections. I've also made a few other sentences "invisible" because I felt they contradicted some of the rest of the article.

I may have labored the verifiability/truth distinction with my long example, but I did this because, time and again, editors don't seem to understand that their firm belief in something being true is not a reason to have it in Wikipedia.

I also said something about the checks and balances a newspaper provides because that partly addresses the issue of what is to be regarded as a reputable publication. And I added material from Jimbo Wales for two reasons: (1) because he expresses the issue well and also (2) because he is the only person in Wikipedia who actually has the power to make these decisions, or decide upon these definitions. The rest of us can only recommend. Slim 18:19, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Pop culture and primary sources
I've put the fourth paragraph back in. Pop culture topics, for instance, often have not attracted any secondary materials. In order to write those articles there needs to be less stringent standards. Exactly, how stringent remains a question. Are authors of pop culture articles allowed to non controversially analyse Star Trek? :ChrisG 13:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi Chris, what is the fourth paragraph exactly? I'm also not sure what you mean by secondary materials.

I meant to say yesterday, by the way, regarding my edit, please feel free to change and/or question it, as I know I added rather a lot. Best, Slim 14:41, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think interpretations are best left to the reader, not the writer. I do agree some areas probably deserve looser standards. Maurreen 17:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

References and sources
Maurreen, I noticed you said in your edit that some editors use the word "references" differently. I thought maybe the article should say something about the definition. To me, a reference is an article, book, paper, website that is referred to the author while he or she is writing an article. References should be noted throughout the text, though there is no clear standard for how to do this, but we can recommend one. At the end, there should be a References section, which should list the full publication information, and of websites, ideally should list the date the information was retrieved. Personally, I find this latter to be unnecessary, but it's apparently a requirement of Featured Articles, as I've recently learned to my cost (objections have only just been dealt with: mostly to do with lengths of paragraphs (!) and various reference formalities (sigh).) Anyhow, I digress. . . We should explain that references are not the same as "bibliography" which I would regard as being a more comprehensive list of works about the subject, excluding the works referred to, as they are listed under "references". People can use the word "bibliography" or "further reading" or "external links" or whatever they choose, but they should stick to the word "references" for works actually referred to by the author in the course of the edit, as it's the references that will allow the reader to check the veracity of the article. Do you agree with my understanding? I don't think we need to labor these points, as they are dealt with elsewhere (though never dealt with clearly), but they do go to the heart of the "original research" issue, in that people must provide decent references.

Also, am I noticing a difference of opinion regarding the definition of primary and secondary sources. Chris has used it, above, in a way that's not clear to me, though I may have misunderstood. If there's a lack of clarity on that point, that might be worth getting into as well. Chris, what do you think?

Also Maurreen, you felt my use of "claims" in the article casts doubt. Would "assertions" be better, or "statements"? The thing about "information" or "facts" or "knowledge," is that, strictly speaking, for something to be any of these things, it must be true. People do use the expression "false information," but that's actually a contradiction, as is "false facts". But perhaps I'm being pedantic. Slim 14:56, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree. :) Specifically, with:
 * Defining "references" as you say. Eventually, this should also be checked so all Wikipedia guidance uses terminology in the same way.
 * Using "assertions" or "statements" instead of "claims."
 * People in this discussion are using "primary source", etc., differently. I don't know whether the answer is to avoid using the terms or come to a consensus on what they mean here. Maurreen 17:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The reference section should be documents used to create the article; but I also tend to think it should be any document used to verify the article. By implication that article has thus contributed to the article. But I offer that as a suggestion not a firm opinion.

 * With regard to primary sources we use the phrase differently; and it seems from discussion here and elsewhere that there are as many interpretations as people. Here's Webster's definition: "any document created by someone with first-hand knowledge of an event, person, place, or thing; any record created at the time of an event or something's existence" from any Dictionary.com.

 * Using this common definition we run into problems with saying Wikipedia doesn't use primary sources in current affairs; because often reporters do use first hand information. Maureen considers newspapers to be a secondary source; but that is really not so clear from a definitional point of view. And certainly there is a difference between a newspaper article and peer reviewed journal. Even within newspapers there are differences in quality between them; and within a specific newspaper differences in quality and seriousness between the articles.
 * We also have major problems with pop culture and other articles, because often there has been no scientific research into subjects like Star Trek, Tottenham Hotspur football club etc. etc. Therefore there are no reputable secondary sources or even any informed debate.
 * A last issue the rewrite doesn't fully address is when writing about fact. Generally I think it better to go back to the original source when describing a theorists point of view. For instance, with JS Mills On Liberty; when describing his theory it is better to summarise directly from the text, rather than pull together summaries from various authors saying what they think he is saying. In writing fact it is better to use the primary source if at all possible.
 * Developing on from that if there has been no academic research into a subject; to what degree is a contributor allowed to make non-controversial criticisms and logical deductions?
 * So to conclude the issue of primary sources is a red herring. The rewrite needs to take a stand on the specific issues above and has to recognise the existing status quo. I suppose as a general point of principle Wikipedia is about knowledge not science or academia. Science produces the most reputable knowledge; but it is not its only source. :ChrisG 11:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Fort Garry (electoral district)

Fort Garry is a provincial electoral division in the Canadian province of Manitoba that existed from 1958 to 2011 and was re-created in 2019. It was first created by redistribution in 1957 from parts of Iberville, Assiniboia and St. Boniface, and formally existed beginning with the 1958 provincial election. The riding is in the south-central and southwestern region of the city of Winnipeg. It is named for the historical Fort Garry which was occupied by supporters of Louis Riel during the Red River Rebellion of 1870.

Fort Garry was bordered to the east by Riel and St. Vital (across the Red River of the North), to the south by St. Norbert, to the north by Lord Roberts, and to the west by Fort Whyte. It was a mostly middle-class residential area, with some small businesses. It contained the University of Manitoba's main campus until electoral redistribution in 2008 took effect at the 2011 Manitoba general election, placing the campus in the new district of Fort Richmond.

The riding's population in 1996 was 20,383. In 1999, the average family income was $50,720, and the unemployment rate was 6.40% (though, conversely, it may be noted that 26% of the riding's residents are listed as low-income). Over 16% of Fort Garry's residents were immigrants, with 5% listing German as their ethnic origin. Almost 23% of the riding's residents have a university degree.

The service sector accounted for 17% of Fort Garry's industry, with a further 12% each in the retail trade and educational services.

Historically, Fort Garry was a safe seat for the Progressive Conservatives, who represented the riding from 1958 to 1988 and again from 1990 to 2003. Future Premier Sterling Lyon was Fort Garry's first member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). In the provincial election of 1999, however, the New Democratic Party (NDP) came within only 30 votes of winning the riding. They made it their primary target in the 2003 election, and won it for the first time in their history.

Fort Garry's last MLA before dissolution was Kerri Irvin-Ross of the NDP, who was re-elected in the 2007 provincial election with 53% of the vote.

Following the 2008 electoral boundary redistribution, Fort Garry was abolished. Most of its territory was divided between the new ridings of Fort Garry-Riverview and Fort Richmond, with a smaller portion going to St. Norbert.

Following the 2018 redistribution, the riding was re-created from Fort Garry-Riverview, Fort Rouge, River Heights, and Fort Richmond. Fort Garry was contested in the 2019 provincial election. It is bordered by River Heights to the northwest, Fort Rouge to the northeast, St. Vital to the east, Riel to the southeast, Fort Richmond to the south, Waverley to the southwest, and Fort Whyte to the west.

title: Fort Garry (electoral district)


text:
Fair Packaging and Labeling Act

The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act is a U.S. law that applies to labels on many consumer products. It requires the label to state:

 * The identity of the product;
 * The name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; and
 * The net quantity of contents.

The contents statement must include both metric and U.S. customary units.

Passed under Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966, the law first took effect on July 1, 1967. The metric labeling requirement was added in 1992 and took effect on February 14, 1994. The law is codified as.

There has been an effort by industry threatened by a European Union directive that would force metric-only labeling starting January 1, 2010, to amend the FPLA to allow manufacturers to use metric-only labeling. An amendment to indefinitely delay metric-only labeling was adopted by the European Commission September 10, 2007, approved by the European Parliament November 29, 2007, and by the European Economic and Social Committee December 12, 2007.

Background of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act
The introduction to Act states that "Informed consumers are essential to the fair and efficient functioning of a free market economy." Here, Congress makes it clear that they are invested in making sure that American shoppers are knowledgeable about the products that they are purchasing in American stores. Senator Philip Hart (D-MI) introduced the Act in the Senate by stating, "The consumer has a right to be able to find out what he is buying, how much he is buying, what it is costing on a per unit basis." Senator Hart earned the nickname "The Conscience of the Senate" from his peers for his tendency to stand up for the average person, defending their rights, and take on big business. Senator Hart worked hard on this bill, he was a strong driving force behind the bill, and he likely knew more about the act than anyone.

The issue of misleading labels and packages had been one ongoing problem as, "Individual consumers have complained for years about confusing labels, shoddy workmanship, dresses that fall apart at the seams, deceptive packaging, "cents off" promotions, high-interest rates." These frustrated consumers sent thousands of letters to Congress requesting solutions. One reason for why this popular discussion emerged at this time was Americans could choose among an unprecedented assortment of products when they went shopping. In the average supermarket in the mid-1960s, a consumer would find 8,000 items, which was more than five times the 1,500 items they found in that same market just 20 years previously.

Before this Act was passed, measurements regarding quantity of goods were not required on packages, there was also no standards in place assuring that similar products had equivalent weights, and there were no regulations in place pledging that packages had a consistent amount of product every time. An investigation was done by the Senate committee that discovered that the manufacturers of potato chips sent them to market in a variation of 73 different weights under 3 pounds." President Johnson voiced his opinion several times on the issue, discussing a common problem, "The housewife often needs a scale, a yardstick and a slide rule to make a rational choice. She has enough to do without performing mathematics in the stores." It was hard to know just how much of an ingredient was needed for a recipe, for example. President Johnson also proclaims, "The Government must do its share to ensure the shopper against deception, to remedy confusion, and to eliminate questionable practices." Johnson was a strong supporter of this act and he believed that it was the government's responsibility to do something to help the American consumer.

Legislative History
The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act was originally introduced in the House on January 3, 1961. The bill lost momentum but was eventually re-introduced into the Senate on February 3, 1965 and it was debated in the Senate first. Senator Philip Hart (MI) introduced the legislation, as he was a main proponent. He also introduced the legislation on behalf of Senators Bartlett, Metcalf, Mondale, Muskie, and Neuberger. The bill was debated for the first time, in the Senate, on May 27, 1966. It was later passed to the House on June 9, 1966. On October 3, 1966, the House made a few amendments and then passed it back to the Senate. The Senate disagreed to these amendments and asked for a conference. A conference report was later created and then submitted to the House, where it was agreed to. The conference report was then submitted in the Senate and agreed to. After, the bill was sent to President Johnson to be signed. When Johnson signed the Fair Packaging Act, he did so alongside three other bills, two education bills and a "slum rehabilitation program" bill. After he signed what he called the "landmark health and education bills", he publicly stated that the four bills would "help us maintain our vitality here at home," and that they "will act as a beacon of hope to people around the world."

Provisions of The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act
The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act required all "consumer commodities" to have a label. Under the act, consumer commodities were defined as any food, drug, device, or cosmetic, that is produced or distributed for sale through retails sales/agencies for consumption by individuals or used by individuals for the purpose of personal care. Further, labels were defined as any written, printed, or graphic matter affixed to a consumer commodity or affixed to a package containing any consumer commodities.

title: Fair Packaging and Labeling Act


text:
Jean-Jérôme Adam

Jean-Jérôme Adam (8 June 1904 – 11 July 1981) was the French Roman Catholic archbishop of Libreville, Gabon, and an accomplished linguist who studied several of the languages of Gabon.

He was born at Wittenheim in Alsace and educated in the seminaries of the Holy Ghost Fathers. He arrived in Gabon on 29 September 1929, and spent the next 18 years as a missionary in the Haut-Ogooué Province. During that time he prepared grammars for the Mbédé, Ndumu, and Duma languages.

In 1947, Adam was appointed Vicar Apostolic of Libreville and bishop of the titular see of Rhinocorura; he became bishop of Libreville when it was elevated to a diocese in 1955, and he was made archbishop of the see in 1958. He retired in 1969 and moved to Franceville, where he died in 1981.

title: Jean-Jérôme Adam


text:
Daniel Hanington

Daniel Hanington (1804 – May 5, 1889) was a farmer, mill owner and political figure in the Province of New Brunswick, Canada. He represented Westmorland County in the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick from 1834 to 1862.

He was born at Shediac, New Brunswick, the son of William Hanington, one of the first English settlers on Shediac Bay, and was educated in Sackville. Hanington became a justice of the peace and a lieutenant colonel in the county militia. In 1831, he married Margaret, the daughter of William Peters, a former member of the legislative assembly. Hanington served for many years as the customs controller for the port of Shediac. He was speaker for the legislative assembly from March 1853 to 1856. He served as a member of the Executive Council from 1848 to 1851 and was named to the Legislative Council in 1867.

title: Daniel Hanington


title: File:Ff2cover.jpg


text: User talk:67.168.127.191

title: User talk:67.168.127.191