text:
Yaqui language

Yaqui (or Hiaki), locally known as Yoeme or Yoem Noki, is a Native American language of the Uto-Aztecan family. It is spoken by about 20,000 Yaqui people in the Mexican state of Sonora and across the border in Arizona in the United States. It is partially intelligible with the Mayo language, also spoken in Sonora, and together they are called Cahitan languages.

Phonology
The remarks below use the orthography used by the Pascua Yaqui Tribe in the United States. There are also several orthographic systems used in Mexico differing slightly, mainly in using Spanish values for several consonants and Spanish spelling rules: "rohikte" would be written "rojicte". There are minor differences in the sounds of Mexican and American dialects, the latter tending to exclude an intervocalic "r" and final "k".

Vowels
Yaqui vowel sounds are similar to those of Spanish:

Vowels may be either short or long in duration. Often, long vowels are shortened when the word they are used in is used constructively: 'maaso' ('deer') is shortened to 'maso' in 'maso bwikam' ('deer songs'). Long vowels are written by doubling the vowel. Long vowels may change tone, but that is not represented in the written language. Yaqui has often been described as being a tonal or "pitch accent" language, but the modern forms of the language do not show any widespread and significant use of tonemes.

Consonants
The following consonantal sounds are present in Yaqui: b, ch, (d), (f), (g), h, k, l, m, n, p, r, s, t, v, w, y, and one or two glottal stops (IPA ), represented by an apostrophe. Except for the glottal stops, most of them are pronounced nearly the same as they are in English, but "p", "t", and "k" are not aspirated. In the IPA, they are respectively.

Many Yaqui speakers pronounce b and v exactly the same, as. That appears to be intrinsic to Yaqui, rather than from the influence of Spanish, which has a similar feature. Additionally, there are two consonants written as clusters: "bw" (IPA ) and "kt" (IPA ), "bw" being a rounded "b" ('bwikam') and "kt" a simultaneous articulation of "k" and "t" ('rohikte'). The "kt" sound is found in many other Uto-Aztecan languages. Pronunciation of the rounded "b" as "b"+"w" and the "kt" as "k"+"t" is acceptable but non-native.

Also, "d", "f", and "g" are present only in English and Spanish loanwords and are substituted with the native sounds "t"/"r"/"l", "p", and "w"/"k", respectively.

In Mexico, many speakers substitute "g" for syllable-initial "w". That is largely because Spanish lacks a /w/ phoneme. The phone [w] is present in Spanish not as an independent consonantal phoneme but as a variant of the vowel /u/ and the consonant /g/ when it is before a /u/ or /o/. The use of "g" in place of "w" is considered by Yaqui speakers as an influence from Spanish and not standard Yaqui usage, even in Mexico.

Glottal stops
There is at least one glottal stop, which is phonemic. There also appears to be a "fainter" glottal stop that is sometimes used between vowels but with apparently little predictability. Whether it is phonemic or not is still unclear.

Sound symbolism
Sound symbolism is present in Yaqui. For example, a word with the phoneme /l/ in it may be pronounced normally, to denote approval from the speaker, or with /r/ replacing the /l/, to denote disapproval or disfavor on the part of the speaker. Either form is correct.

Devoicing
Devoicing occurs at the ends of phrases. That is especially notable with the phoneme /m/ and with vowels. Yaqui speech often sounds "breathy" to English speakers.

Gestures
One word, laute, has two contradictory meanings in translation into English: "quickly" and "slowly". (Incidentally, English has similar words of contrasting meanings: mercurial, which can mean either "unhesitating" or "scatter-brained", and quite which can mean "very" or "a little".)

Laute is often accompanied with a quick or slow open-handed movement to indicate the meaning, or it could be translated as "at a different speed" and requires a hand gesture to indicate the nature of the difference when that is needed for clarification.)

Syntax
Yaqui word order is generally subject–object–verb.

The object of a sentence is suffixed with "-ta".

Inepo hamutta vichu

I woman {look at}

"I am looking at the woman."

Subject object
The following sentences display a variation of the language's structure and the forms allowed. In the following example, we can see an S and an O. This structure of SO is allowable due to a common feature among languages— the verb/ copula to be. 'He' is the subject in this example and since 'he' shows no variation in positioning in the sentence, there will not be further explanation for it. The object in this example 'child' has the possessor 'him' preceding to show ownership, but what is being possessed by 'him' is the child. Therefore, 'child' has a nominalizer for being the object of the sentence and a possession marker on it for being possessed. Having the nominalizer on the 'child' allows the subject 'he' to imply a state of being on the 'child'. This structure SO uses the to be verb/ copula, when information is being stated that x is y.

ʹáapo ʹáʹa Yoém-ia-k

{He (SUBJ)} Him {Child-NZ-POS (OBJ)}

He is his child.

Subject verb object
In the following example, we can see an example of where the primary word order SOV, deviates to become SVO. Note the pronoun 'I' doesn't have any case marking active and is in pronoun form (see Cases on Pronouns). Next, on the first or main verb 'able', there isn't any specification for the type of verb. When the main verb is followed by another verb, it seems the second verb becomes intransitivized. On the object of the sentence 'axe', there are multiple cases active: accusative case (the direct object of the verb), a plural suffix, and an instrumental case (the means by how or with what something gets done) on the noun.

née ʹáa Hi-máʹako Tépwa-m-mea

I(SUBJ) able INTR-chop Axe-ACC:PL-INST(OBJ)

I am able to chop with an axe.

Object subject verb
The following is an additional example that shows variant in word order than previously seen— OSV. In this structure, a suffix called connective is used to show that two constituents are being connected; simply, they function as a conjunction. Although this is a simple function, it is worth mentioning in understanding the way Yaqui functions as a system. The subject comes after the object in the correct subject pronoun form. Following is the verb 'remember', which may be a trigger to the word order. Perhaps this word order implies the topic should be who/what is being remembered.

ʹin malá-be-u ne wáate

My mother-CONN-to(OBJ) I(SUBJ) remember(V)

I remember my mother.

Case
Yaqui is a "noun-heavy" agglutinative language.

For example, the first person singular pronoun "in" or "ne" (which varies by dialect), is more often used in the form "inepo", which can be translated "within me". The "-(e)po" ending is quite common and seems to denote much more than simple physical inclusion.

Cases are marked on the nouns with suffixes. The following is a list of all the cases that are marked in the language.

Nouns
Plural nouns are formed by adding the suffix "-im", or "-m" if the noun ends in a vowel. If the noun ends in a "t", it changes to "ch" when "-im" is added.

 * Tekil - Job
 * Tekilim - Jobs

If a plural noun is the object of a sentence, the suffixation of "-t" or "-ta" is not used.

Inepo haamuchim vichu

I women {look at}

Verbs
Usually, adding the suffix "-k" to a verb indicates past tense, though there are many exceptions. If a verb ends in a diphthong, "-kan" is added. If a verb ends in "-i", "-akan" is added. If a verb ends in "-o" or "-u", "-ekan" is added, and if a verb ends in "-a", "-ikan" is added. If a verb ends in "-k", "-an" is added.

Regularly, "-ne" indicates the future.

Tense and aspect
Yaqui possess a "prior state" or 'used to be, now deceased' suffix. It is -tu-káꞋu. This specific suffix attaches to a nominal noun to indicate a prior existence, but can also attach as a verb to reflect the state of a human noun (not only animate). For example, (suffixed as a verb) to the right.

The following is a table on the various tense markers that act more as aspectual values and epistemic states.

Adjectives
In Yaqui, adjectives very often act as verbs (in Afro-Asiatic linguistics, they would be called stative verbs). For instance, "vemela" or "new", would most often be used to mean "is new". Adjectives have tenses, the same as verbs.

Reduplication
Reduplication is present in Yaqui. Reduplicating the first syllable of a verb indicates habitual action:

 * eta - shuts
 * e'eta - usually shuts

Primary reduplication is also used to pluralize adjectives.

Reduplicating the second consonant of a verb is used to show that an action is performed rarely.

Sample words and phrases

 * o'ow - man
 * hamut - woman
 * tu'i hiapsek - kind (lit. "good hearted")
 * yantela - peace
 * halla'i - friend
 * maaso - deer
 * aamu - to hunt
 * totoi (plural. totoim) - chicken

 * aman ne tevote em yevihnewi - "I extend my greetings"

Greetings often are very formal. The following formula of four phrases is often used even among close friends:
 * Lios em chania - "Greetings!" (to one person, to more than one: Lios em chaniavu) (lit. "God preserves you!", Lios [sometimes pronounced Lioh] is a very early borrowing of the Spanish "Dios")
 * Lios em chiokoe - (the reply to the above, lit. "God pardons you!")
 * Empo allea - "May you rejoice!" (lit. "In you happy", 'allea' is said to be from the Spanish 'alegre', meaning 'happy')
 * Kettu'i - "How kind!"

Language revitalization and teaching
In 2009, the Pascua Yaqui Tribal Council and the University of Arizona collaborated on a program in which tribal elders teach the Yaqui language to families. As of 2010, a revitalization project was underway at the university, "using 30 year old audio tapes recorded by tribal member Maria Leyva." As of 2012, "Any teaching materials, tools, lessons, audio lessons, etc.," on the website of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe were "restricted to 'Tribally enrolled Members' only."

title: Yaqui language


text:
Talk:Donna Brazile

Susan Estrich
The Estrich quotation can be found here. As noted it's flagrant revisionism, Brazile was forced to quit because she repeated a rumor with no underlying basis. Ellsworth 21:45, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * If you delete the characterization of Estrich's remarks, please state why it is not flagrant historical revisionism. A characterization is not inherently removable is POV if it's accurate, is it? Ellsworth 20:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll go with User:JCarriker's edit on historical revisionism - adding that Brazile's own account differs, see Cooking With Grease (her autobio.) Ellsworth 23:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments regarding a possible 2008 Al Gore candidacy
I removed this section because it is unsourced and, in my view, harmful to the article. The article is, of course, about a living person. See Citing_sources for recommended best practices. Jerimee 20:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Frightening Thought That a Person That Biased Is Teaching in Colleges
Given the stunning ideological bias of Donna Brazile, it is frightening to think that she is "teaching" kids and conveying to them her view of life in terms of gender and racial oppression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Brazile supports Obama?
I removed statements that Brazile secretly harbors "contempous feelings" toward the Clintons and supports Obama. The source provided is an alleged email correspondence from a Hillary supporter's blog. Assuming this is a reliable source, Brazile simply does not say she supports Obama or that she would not support Clinton. She explicitly states "If I make a decision to go with Obama" (emphasis mine). Casting her comments as an endorsement is simply POV and SYN. Queerudite (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I think there does need to be a section about current controversies concerning Brazile's statements from this election as well as here animosity towards some supporters. There does need to be a clear and reliable reference source for this but it is true that Ms. Brazile has made statements recently that have become a part of her biographical story. Perhaps this should be handled encyclopedicaly but I think it should be included.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Huffington Post just had an article which used an e-mail from Brazile. However it did not include the ENTIRE e-mail. We shall see this play out soon enough as this is getting media attention and coverage of statements is good enough at this point to add to this page. I will however wait for the full story to hit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.166 (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"equating Atheism to Terrorism"
I'm deleting this as the source quoted doesn't have her saying anything even remotely close to that.

Here's what I heard from the Video (Second video on page, first doesn't even have her appearing.

"You know Wolf, there are alot of believers, I'm one of them, and there are people out there who just don't believe int he existence of a god, and I don't know why because uh clearly there is strong evidence of - we - we there is a god, But I believe that you serve all the people not just those who profess to have faith, but those who have little or no faith, that's how you convert them."

While I find that last sentence somewhat disturbing, nothing in it or the rest of what she says is equating atheism to terrorism or even anything negative at all. If My ears somehow fed me a completely different audio than the video, go ahead and revert my changes, but thats word for word what I heard her say. Nar Matteru (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

 * EDIT: Full Transcript: Nar Matteru (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Date of Birth?
There has just been a change of her year of birth, moving it from 1959 to 1958.

Neither her personal webpage, nor CNN's webpage have the year, in fact they seem to be copies of each other. However, there is a USA Today webpage (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e1861.htm) which says 1959. This is however a badly formatted page, seemingly orphaned but still containing her DOB.

Is this a good enough source quote as authorative?

Gorillatheape (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Brazile volunteered for the Jimmy Carter–Walter Mondale presidential campaigns in 1976 and 1980 as a teenager.[5]

Needs to be revised. "as a teenager" is inconsistent with either a 1958 or 1959 birth year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5E6:E840:799D:F0A0:DE73:3271 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Sherrod Affair
Maureen Downd's op-ed piece in today's NYT says, "It was Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist, who, after hearing the entire speech, pushed to get it out and helped clear Sherrod’s reputation on CNN." Is this worth mentioning if it's correct? Kdammers (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Carville was Clinton's Lead Campaign Adviser, Not Brazile
She only served as one of his advisers. I saw the documentary about his campaign, The War Room, and the movie showed he was definately in charge of Clinton's campaign. Many different sources also say his main campaign staff members were George Stephanopolous, James Carville and Paul Begala.71.63.233.66 (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Education?
What, where and when? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.220.107 (talk) 01:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment (re: LGBT advocacy and sexual orientation)
Substituted at 13:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * https://partners.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/19991212mag-counterculture.html --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This book source says she is "openly lesbian". --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: I added a "LGBT advocacy and sexual orientation" section per the two sources I posted above. Is this enough to add LGBT-related categories and WikiProject LGBT studies? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Per WP:BLPCAT subject must publicly self-identify before that can be even considered:
 * The book is very likely a reliable source, but if it doesn't offer any context, I would rather leave the "Brazile is described as 'openly lesbian'" content out. Politrukki (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * BLPCAT, for the record, does not require a person to constantly walk around shouting "I'M A LESBIAN! I'M A LESBIAN!", waving a rainbow flag all the while, before we can describe or categorize them as LGBT. But in a case like this, where the description and categorization might be disputed, we would indeed require a source in which she openly refers to herself as a lesbian, and not just some third party calling her one — because that third party can be, and sometimes is, wrong about it.
 * For comparable examples, I can name you two Canadian politicians who have been described as gay by third parties in published sources, but actually are not — the third party simply made an erroneous assumption because the politicians had attended LGBT events as allies/supporters; one Canadian politician who has been described as gay by third parties in published sources, actually is gay but lives in a "glass closet" where he doesn't pretend not to be but avoids actually talking about it on the record to the media, and the third parties were accordingly using an advocacy journalism platform to push him out of the closet (which is thus not appropriate sourcing for Wikipedia's purposes); and one who has been described as gay by a third party in a published source but I'm at a total loss to find any other confirmation of whether that source was right or wrong about it.
 * Accordingly, that's why these sources are problematic: the first one describes her involvement in LGBT politics but then lampshades her lack of personal clarity about whether she openly identified as lesbian or not — but again, that could just make her an ally rather than an actual lesbian, for all we can determine from that source in and of itself. And the second just calls her "openly lesbian", in a third party sort of way that for all we know could be based entirely on its author having read the first source and jumped to the wrong conclusion from it. For a living person, the ideal source for their sexuality is always one in which their own words on the matter of their sexual orientation are directly quoted. Not one in which it's debated, or one in which a third party just asserts it as a given. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

DS
Just so people want miss it, especially in regard to this Wikileaks notice, this article falls under the scope of discretionary sanctions. I've added the tag above. Here are the restrictions again:

Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus required: All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.
 * Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period).
 * This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia's general sanctions: All edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

Facts do not require consensus
Content has been removed on this page which was factual and supported by sources. The changes are being tracked and the editor responsible is also watching other DNC officials' pages with edits being contested. Facts supports by works produced by the page subject (Brazile) including her own published emails and her own interview responses are appropriate for inclusion if cited. Do not remove content before engaging the editors in Talk. ConsciousCopyWriter (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see the section about discretionary sanctions right above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Your edit also violates WP:BLP and WP:PRIMARY. Generally, you can't use primary sources for controversial material and you *definitely* cannot use such in a biography of a living person (BLP).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I agree with Volunteer Marek with this. You cannot use an email by her to say that she is implicated in the controversy unless reliable sources say that.  My reading of the email is that Brazile disagreed with the Sanders campaign over their representation in platform committees but did not want to become involved.  Whether her position was right or wrong it does not show egregious bias.  Clinton won the most delegates and wanted to control the platform committees.  Normally a party national committee were allow her to do that.  TFD (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Your dnc overlords no longer determine what is reliable. Put it back in or this will become a problem for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.64.73.23 (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Consensus has nothing to do with truth. Many false beliefs can be, and are supported by consensus. Truth is not determined by votes; assertions are validated/invalidated by the weight of evidence. Consensus is one of the worst ways to determine the facts. Landroo (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

CCNV work?
Why no mention of her work with CCNV and Housing Now(1989), along with other organizing work with Hands Across America(IIRC), etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.159.47 (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Latest WikiLeaks Dump
I have fleshed out the "2016 Presidential Campaign" section, adding her inclusion in the last WikiLeaks email dump. Please feel free to add new information as this story develops, including any calls to step down from her post. Someone may want to add a note about her interview with George Stephanopolous, and her refusal to "open that document" as the WikiLeaks revelations are "postmarked from Russia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hidden Tempo (talk • contribs) 17:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

It appears consensus needs to be reached in the 2016 Presidential Election section. I note with some dismay that a few users, most recently an editor with a history of engaging in edit wars and attempting to advance his/her leftist agenda, have repeatedly sanitized the paragraph in an effort to make Brazile appear as non-culpable in the scandal as possible. First note of consensus: can we agree that the question that she passed to the Hillary campaign and the question she was asked qualifies as "nearly verbatim"? Roland Martin forwarded the question to CNN producers: "19 states and the District of Columbia have banned the death penalty. 31 states, including Ohio, still have the death penalty. According to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, since 1973, 156 people have been on death row and later set free. Since 1976, 1,414 people have been executed in the U.S. That’s 11% of Americans who were sentenced to die, but later exonerated and freed. Should Ohio and the 30 other states join the current list and abolish the death penalty?" Donna Brazile then sent that exact question (wording, capitalization, spacing...all identical) to the Hillary campaign with the subject header "From time to time I get the questions in advance." The next day at the town hall, Hillary was asked the question with slightly different wording, but identical subject matter. If anything the wording in this article is much too tame and unassuming. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hidden Tempo (talk • contribs) 04:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * First, as the header on this article notes, we're editing the biography of a living person, and that means that contentious material — negative or positive — must have consensus for inclusion before it's added. Removing poorly-sourced, tendentiously-written, biased or otherwise problematic material from a biography is not "sanitizing," it's editing. It's what we do.
 * It's not up to us to "agree" — it's up to us to say what the sources say, and the Washington Post source you cited says Note that the question posed by Jackson wasn’t the same exact one that Brazile passed along to the Clinton campaign — but the gist was similar. The other source cited, US News & World Report, says Ultimately, the question posed about the death penalty at the town hall was different than the one in the email. Both sources clearly distinguish the questions and neither one can possibly support a statement that the question was "nearly verbatim."
 * Neither cited source makes the direct claim that Brazile "colluded with CNN," therefore your wording for that section was unacceptable. What I replaced it with is a neutral description of the facts - she sent an e-mail with a particular subject header and particular content. Readers can draw their own conclusions.
 * Moreover, your claim that this incident is a "scandal" is not supported by any reliable sources, and therefore we cannot describe it that way. What we have now is a dispassionate, accurate and appropriately weighted description of what has been said about the issue in mainstream reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I suppose what qualifies as "tendentious" is up for interpretation, but the current version (and past) contains facts only. In either case, I'm fine with removing the "verbatim" characterization.I also chose not to add the Roland Martin angle of the story as it was getting a bit sensationalized. However, the question that he distributed (allegedly) to Brazile was in fact, verbatim. The question asked the following day was slightly different, and I know that WaPo played down the incident by describing the question as having a similar "gist," so I added CNN's own defense that called it "similar." The collusion is indeed alleged, and absolutely took place if Brazile in fact furnished the Hillary campaign with an advance question. Finally, I'm not claiming anything about a scandal. This *is* a scandal. Random House defines a scandal as "an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage." Are you contending that tipping off presidential candidates with campaign questions (abusing role as CNN contributor) is not morally wrong? Or are you saying that there hasn't been any public outrage over this story? In either case, I added more sources and offered Brazile's exact quote ("verbatim" *wink wink*) after the leak. Tapper's reaction has been included as well, to provide the reader with the entire picture.Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC):
 * I'm not seeing "general public outrage" from any of the sources supplied here, nor am I seeing any of them describe it as a "scandal." Neither your personal opinion of what happened here, nor mine is relevant. We cannot go beyond what reliable sources say merely because you personally have a bone to pick with the issue. The current version is accurate and fair, in my opinion, and I'm fine with it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The version I edit had a blatant misrepresentation of the source - the source said "different question" the text said "similar question". Now, I'm sure there are sources which cast it differently but I'm not sure why one sure be favored and the other excluded.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Consensus is only required to restore material removed with "good-faith BLP objections." The argument that we cannot mention any negative allegations into this article unless is ridiculous and tendentious.  I would mention though that the mention could be shorter.  Just say what has been alleged and leave out excessive quotes and details.  TFD (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the clarification +Volunteer Marek. I deleted the US News source you were referring to as that appears to be the only RS on the Internet that stated that it was a "different question." In reality, the questions were near verbatim, but users can review the sources and decide for themselves. Right now the primary source is an article from CNN itself, written by the devout DNC acolyte Brian Stelter, and uses the word "similar" to describe the questions. The only addition I think we could make is the issue with Roland Martin emailing the question to various CNN folks, and then Brazile forwarding that exact question (copy-pasted) to the Hillary campaign.Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

+Volunteer Marek. Your deletion on Nov. 1, 2016 at 14:28 is not justified. There is a consensus that, in the words of the New York Times, "CNN has severed ties with the Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, after hacked emails from WikiLeaks showed that she shared questions for CNN-sponsored candidate events in advance with friends on Hillary Clinton’s campaign." There also is a consensus that CNN stated: "We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor." These are facts -- they do not raise unfair BLP issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebw343 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

 * User:Volunteer Marek Re:, why shouldn't we change the section name per WP:CSECTION, correct any WP:BLP issues and reinsert?  Widefox ; talk 15:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Something should obviously be said about this. The word "scandal" should be avoided, but we should include CNN's statement on the background for her resignation "We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor". Other than that we hardly need quotes. Iselilja (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

 * User:Volunteer Marek User:Ebw343 Not sure what part of WP:BLP including this scandal violates. This is a major, major story, and will probably end this woman's political career. There are numerous calls for her to resign, which she likely will after the election. Volunteer Marek, would you care to justify deleting several people's hard work on this article before we restore it? Thanks.Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

 * User:Volunteer Marek Actually, it seems your deletion constitutes Vandalism. You deleted any mention of the CNN scandal (which Jeff Zucker, President of CNN referred to as "disgusting" today), and left no trace of any information discussing her termination and widely publicized reason for her termination. Reverted the vandalism. You are more than welcome to plead your case for scrubbing and revising history on the talk page, but not to initiate yet another edit war.Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, piece of advice. It's not a good idea to call other editors' good faithed edits "vandalism". That's a pretty good way to get yourself sanctioned for making personal attacks.
 * I removed stuff that was based on and partially sourced to Wikileaks and a couple non-reliable sources which constituted a WP:BLP violation. If you want to propose a different version which avoids using Wikileaks and non-reliable sources be my guest. In the meantime, per discretionary sanctions, you need to self-revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

 * User:Volunteer Marek Thank you for the piece of advice. However, you have still not justified nor explained any alleged violation of WP:BLP. I stand by my characterization of your inexplicable and drastic scrubbing of facts from this article as alarmingly qualifying as Vandalism. Nobody has attacked you personally - only your revisionist editing, so nobody here should feel any danger from flimsy threats of sanctions on Wikipedia. Consensus has been reached for the current version, and to date, not a single user has supported your highly sanitized version of this article.Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed the disputed Wikileaks citation and changed the footnote to an article from the Washington Post that has the same quotes. There are a total of nine footnotes in this section. The sources now are CNN, New York Times, Politico, Washington Post, and Yahoo.com, which are viewed as reliable sources. Ebw343 (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)ebw343
 * Thank you! Current version looks good, let's continue to revise and add to this section as the scandal continues to develop and more information is released.Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed blockquotes used "for readability"; copyright violation
The section "University teaching and affiliations" should be rewritten as it is lifted verbatim from the ref I added.

In the section "Debate question sharing at CNN" I collapsed two inappropriate blockquotes.

While easier to read, a block quote substitutes for quotation marks (for a longer singular verbatim quote). If you have to add quotation marks, it doesn't belong in a blockquote. If the first blockquote (the email to Podesta) didn't include "The mail continued," but used ellipsis, and didn't distinguish the title it might qualify. (Should be a little longer.) The second blockquote couldn't work because it combines different material & sources. see MOS:BQ. — βox73 (৳alk) 11:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Add "acting" to DNC chair in infobox?
Brazile was acting DNC chair and was not formally elected to that role. But that description was repeatedly removed from the infobox. Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Brazile served twice as interim chair, once in 2012 succeeding Tim Kaine and again as a result of the resignation of Wasserman Schultz. During both periods, she was in fact performing the duties of the chair, despite the fact that she succeeded rather than was elected to the role.  The infobox section pertains to both terms, and it isn't necessary to point out that she was interim (not acting) chair.  If you choose to do so, please use the correct term.  General Ization   Talk   22:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The distinction between an interim DNC chair and a formally elected DNC chair isn't one that requires WP:UNDUE attention or one that's worth editwarring over. For example, if the mayor of a city dies in office, the interim mayor who's appointed to replace him until a special election can be held is not excluded from the succession — the dead mayor is "succeeded" by the interim mayor rather than the election winner, the election winner is "preceded" by the interim mayor rather than the dead guy, and the interim mayor does not need to have the title in their infobox denoted as "interim mayor" rather than just "mayor". Internally there are differences — the interim chair doesn't get to stick around for as long as she wants, but serves only until an election is organized and the new chair is chosen — but on a practical basis there's no difference in the rights and responsibilities of an interim chair as compared to a formally elected one. So her interim status should certainly be noted appropriately in the article body, but it is not essential that it be listed that way in the infobox too. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

redundant text
The info on the leaked debate question and the DNC/Podesta leaks is present in both the 2016 campaign section and in the controversies section. Pick one.  Volunteer Marek  06:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you and have reinstated your deletion of the redundant text.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Donna Brazile. 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/20080906235807/http://www.politicswest.com/2008_election/20993/donna_brazile_cuts_loose_2008_campaign to http://www.politicswest.com/2008_election/20993/donna_brazile_cuts_loose_2008_campaign
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090204224709/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/31/1090183.aspx to http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/31/1090183.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Biased and unrelated text.
I think that this edit by is biased and is unrelated to the thing at hand there. I say this because of the fact that we do not need to know the ins and outs of a debate. I say that it is biased because they bolded something that didn't need to be bolded, just to draw attention to controversy, and because the ins and outs of the debate basically criticized the person at hand without adding anything important. Thus, I think that this should be discussed. RileyBugz 会話 投稿記録 22:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with the edits made by PluckyTwo. They add more information about the controversy. Ebw343 (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

"Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC"
Third-party accounts of this article seem due: Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That article has multiplied pageviews here 100-fold. --Nemo 09:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How in the world can this article not contain a mention of early reviews of her book and her own comments about the 2016 election and relationship between the DNC and Clinton campaign? I came here looking for the truth and instead I find..... Nothing.  Really?!? 2602:304:788B:DF50:945E:9A3A:988E:6C1 (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right. There has been enough advance reporting (though not reviews yet) that I have added a couple of paragraphs to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Politico quote
The section in Lima's article: "Brazile also addressed reports that she had contemplated calling to replace Clinton on the Democratic presidential ticket with former Vice President Joe Biden over questions about Clinton's health. 'I had a lot of other combinations. This is something you play out in your mind,' Brazile said, adding, 'The bottom line is she resumed campaigning.'" It was one of "a lot of other combinations" and, as it turned out ("bottom line"), unnecessary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Quoting primary source?
Isn't quoting the open letter original research? If that's permissible, then it would also be OK to count the number of signatories and replace "more than 100" with 216? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you like, we can remove the letter itself as a cited source since it is primary. We'll be able to keep the quotes, since they are also quoted in secondary source references we include. Whether we keep or remove the letter as a source, it is certainly proper to include quotes from a letter in a paragraph about the letter - just as we can include quotes from a speech in a paragraph about the speech.
 * The edit I replaced had quotation marks around an excerpt from a news report about the letter, confusingly making it sound as if they were quoting the letter (and incidentally inserting commentary which was not from the letter, or in fact from anywhere that I could find; actually I'd love to include those comments in the paragraph, if we find and cite a proper source). --MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Unions question
Should a third leaked question, about Unions, also be listed here? Apparently, after the death penalty discussion, Brazile sent two more questions, one for Clinton, and one for Sanders: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/57027. Both were later asked those questions. Since this was released one day before the election, media missed it. Should we list it anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollande97 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Before any material can be added to the article, it first must be covered by reliable, secondary sources. Wikileaks is a primary source, and not a reliable one (on it's own) at that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's the problem. As I said, media missed it. Here's a Politico article (sort of): https://www.politico.com/live-blog-updates/2016/10/john-podesta-hillary-clinton-emails-wikileaks-000011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollande97 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Donna Brazile


title: File:OkanaganBCRegions2.png


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great chesterford school

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

Great chesterford school
A tiny, unremarkable primary school in Essex. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 21:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Misnamed stub with no indication of need. Geogre 22:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Great Chesterford Church of England School if the claims can be substantiated. —[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 23:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, not even if it can be substantiated that they feed the children, that it is a caring Christian environment, and that the head teacher is kind and funny. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the claim of being one of the best schools in the UK. The teacher having a sense of humor (something many here seem to lack) is obviously not noteworthy.  —[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]]
 * Delete. Not notable. Indrian 02:19, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hot dinners or packed lunches? Will wonders never cease? Gamaliel 02:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - I just don't understand why people write these. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not Notable. utcursch 06:16, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I understand why people write these.  What I don't understand is why people vote to keep them. --Carnildo 08:48, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * del. Mikkalai 09:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete on the basis that no notability is apparent. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:34, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The text of the article could apply to any school in the country. Totally non-notable. In fact, probably less notable than most schools. [[User:David_Johnson|David Johnson [ T|C ] ]] 13:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't have much experience in interpreting "Ofsted reports" like the one referenced. Reading this one make the school sound good but not obviously stellar. "Great Chesterford Primary is an effective school. Pupils achieve high standards because of the good teaching that they receive. The headteacher and staff work well together to improve the school and to maintain high standards. The school’s strengths outweigh any weaknesses and it provides good value for money." I'm not familiar with the suite of phrases used in these reports but "effective," "high," and "good" do not sound like superlatives. In 1999 it is said to have gotten "A" in science and English but "B" in mathematics. "Teaching is good overall. It is always at least satisfactory and very good or excellent in almost 30% of lessons." It sounds to me as if the statement "one of the best" is true only only in the same sense as "Wolverhampton is one of the biggest cities in Britain" or "Thomas Kyd is one of the greatest English playwrights."
 * Ofsted reports are basically fluff. Comments like the above are pretty typical as long as the school isn't especially bad. They always put a positive edge on it when possible to spice up the overall government figures. Nothing special here at all. [[User:David_Johnson|David Johnson [ T|C ] ]] 00:30, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually A in English and B in Mathematics is very good in Ofted standards. But this is a primary school with 200 pupils.  They have to make sure that the kids who are capable of learning to read get the books they need and someone to read them at, and that the kids who can learn mathematics get enough beans to count and someone to count them at.  And every week or so the kids get a ride on the bouncy horse.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:36, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete. Demonstrably being one of the best schools would be notable. Claiming to be one of the best schools is not. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel (" Sarah ")]] 20:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * delete'. Yuckfoo 08:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. [[User:Xezbeth| Xezbeth ]] 17:14, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. A tiny unremarkable school is still an institution of significance in people's lives. Dr Zen 02:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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


text:
Paul Moravec

Paul Moravec (born November 2, 1957) is an American composer and a University Professor at Adelphi University on Long Island, New York and also a member of the composition department of the Mannes School of Music. Already a prolific composer, he has been described as a "new tonalist." He is best known for his work Tempest Fantasy, which received the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for Music. Among his compositions are two operas: The Letter (2009) and The Shining (2016).

Biography
Moravec was born in Buffalo, New York, and subsequently attended the Lawrenceville School, graduating in 1975. He received his B.A. in composition from Harvard University in 1980; while there, he performed with the Harvard-Radcliffe Collegium Musicum, one of the Holden Choirs. He won the Prix de Rome and studied at the American Academy in Rome after graduating. He then received the Master of Music (1982) and Doctor of Musical Arts (1987) in composition, both from Columbia University.

Moravec has taught at Dartmouth College (1987–96) and Hunter College (1997–98). He suffered from clinically diagnosed depression that worsened during the time immediately surrounding his departure from Dartmouth College, and underwent electroshock therapy. He is currently a University Professor in the music department at Adelphi University, He also teaches composition at the Mannes School of Music, contributing to what The New York Times has called a "renaissance" in a college that went through academic and financial difficulties in the 1990s.

In 2004, Moravec received the Pulitzer Prize for Music for his work Tempest Fantasy. This prestigious award raised Moravec's profile significantly, and he was appointed to several residencies. He was named the new honorary composer-member of the New York Composers Circle in September, 2006. He was also appointed the composer in residence for the 2007-2008 academic year at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.

In addition to his Pulitzer Prize, Moravec has received a Composer Fellowship from the National Endowment for the Arts, a Rockefeller Foundation fellowship, and the Charles Ives Prize and Goddard Lieberson Awards in American Composition. He was elected to the American Philosophical Society in 2010.

He has been commissioned by such ensembles as the Dessoff Choirs, the Albany Symphony Orchestra, and the Harvard Glee Club.

Musical style
Moravec has been placed into a group called "new tonalists" by the critic Terry Teachout, who describes them as composers who are "neither embarrassed nor paralyzed by tradition. Rather they accept it as a given." Thus, according to this analysis, his style is primarily tonal and neo-romantic. However, Moravec himself asserts: "The term ‘new tonalist’ is a little outdated simply because of the passage of time[.] It had more relevance a few decades ago, when late modernism was dying or even dead. For my work, I regard the term only as a point of departure before considering each composition on a case-by-case basis. As a composer, I try always to make beautiful things, and I use whatever techniques and materials are useful for the particular composition at hand[.] Some of those materials are atonal or nontonal, but the overall harmonic context of my music derives from the tonal tradition, which after all is the lingua franca of Western music — essentially, Monteverdi to the Beatles and beyond."

Critic Jens F. Laurson described Moravec's Pulitzer Prize-winning Tempest Fantasy as "remarkably accessible music. Picturesque, conventionally beautiful at times, but without pandering to the ears’ lowest harmonic expectations. [It is] music that works with all the traditional tools from the composer’s workshop[,] which have changed surprisingly little since Bach - but Moravec uses them to create music anew." He named Federico Mompou, Claude Debussy, Paul Hindemith, Francis Poulenc, and Elliott Carter as clear musical influences in Moravec's music. He also noted a clear disparity between Moravec's music and that of minimalist composers Steve Reich, Philip Glass, and John Adams.

Critic Victor Carr Jr. characterizes Moravec's musical language as "generally tonal--and although it's not consistently melodic, it's always accessible. More than that, it's highly engrossing[.]"

Musical works
His best-known pieces include the Pulitzer-winning, Shakespeare-inspired Tempest Fantasy, a 30-minute chamber work scored for clarinet, violin, cello, and piano, which was premiered on May 2, 2003, at the Morgan Library in New York City by David Krakauer and Trio Solisti, for whom it was written; Northern Lights Electric, a 1994 work that combines a musical illustration of the Northern Lights with a musical depiction of electric light; and the 1998 cantata Fire/Ice/Air, which contrasts the journeys of Captain Robert Falcon Scott, on his expedition to the Antarctic, and Charles Lindbergh, on his trans-Atlantic flight. An oratorio, Blizzard Voices, about the Schoolhouse Blizzard of 1888, was commissioned by Opera Omaha and was premiered there in September 2008. He collaborated with Terry Teachout on The Letter, an opera based on the 1927 play by W. Somerset Maugham that was premiered in 2009 by the Santa Fe Opera.

title: Paul Moravec


text:
Patrol torpedo boat PT-34

Patrol torpedo boat PT-34 was a PT-20-class motor torpedo boat of the United States Navy, built by the Electric Launch Company of Bayonne, New Jersey. The boat was laid down as Motor boat submarine chaser PTC-14, but was reclassified as PT-34 prior to its launch on 14 June 1941, and was commissioned on 12 July 1941.

Service history
PT-34 was placed in service with Motor Torpedo Boat Squadron Two (PTRon 2), and was transferred to Motor Torpedo Boat Squadron Three (PTRon 3) on 12 August 1941. Under the command Lt(jg). Robert B. Kelly (also the executive officer of Motor Torpedo Boat Squadron Three), PT-34 was based in the Philippines.

On 17 December 1941, SS Corregidor, a passenger ship loaded with 1,200 passengers, struck a mine off Corregidor and sank with a large loss of life. PT-34, along with squadron mates MOTOR TORPEDO BOAT PT-32 and MOTOR TORPEDO BOAT PT-35 rescued some 280 survivors, who were distributed between Corregidor and French ship SS Si-Kiang.

On the night of 22 January 1942 during the Battle of the Points, Japanese troops of the 20th Infantry attempted a landing on the west coast of southern Bataan. Intercepted by PT-34, two barges were sunk, disrupting the landings.

On 12 March 1942 the boat evacuated Admiral Francis W. Rockwell, General Richard Marshall (Deputy Chief of Staff, USAFFE), Col. Charles P. Stivers (G-1 [Personnel], USFFEE), Capt. Joseph McMicking (Philippine Army, Asst. G-2 [Intelligence], USFFE) from Corregidor to Mindanao as part of the operation to evacuate General Douglas MacArthur to Australia. On the night of 8 April 1942, off Cebu, the JAPANESE CRUISER Kuma and the torpedo boat Kiji were attacked by PT-34 in concert with MOTOR TORPEDO BOAT PT-41. Both PT boats reported seeing multiple torpedo hits on the Kuma from their attack, but according to Japanese Navy records examined after the war, the Kuma was hit in the bow by one of the torpedoes fired by PT-34, but it failed to detonate.

PT-34 was attacked near Kauit Island by four Japanese F1M "Pete" floatplanes from the Sanuki Maru on 9 April 1942, in the aftermath of the Kuma attack. With three feet of water in the engine room, Lt. Kelly beached the boat, and abandoned it. PT-34 was later strafed by Japanese aircraft, set on fire and destroyed. The crew suffered one KiA, one DoW, and three WiA. Kelly was later transported out of the Philippines along with three other officers of the squadron. The executive officer Iliff David Richardson remained in the Philippines with the guerrilla forces, and later an account of his experiences were published in a book (later made into a film) American Guerrilla in the Philippines.

title: Patrol torpedo boat PT-34


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa Salgueiro

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

Teresa Salgueiro
'''We seem to have come up with a successful solution to this one. Can someone please remove from VfD and archive accordingly?''' -- Jmabel | Talk 21:31, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

This Portuguese text looks like the content of a song, or probably material from multiple songs, by Madre Deus. I see no encyclopedic potential. Since I'm not sure if this is a copyright problem, I'm taking the conservative approach and listing it here. Sietse 21:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * abstain keep  notable singer. I do not think that the lyrics break copyright or that is a serious breach of copyright. Andries 22:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: please consider Wikipedia is not (primary sources section) and Don't include copies of primary sources. Furthermore, this is the English Wikipedia - hardly a place to include Portuguese lyrics without at least an explanation in English. Sietse 22:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sietse, I know, and may be the current content should be deleted but she deserves an article. Andries 22:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete copyvio - lyrics by living authors are most definitely copyrighted. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - have rewritten the article. Salgueiro is the lead singer of Madredeus and has been so since 1987. She also appeared in a prominent role in the Wim Wenders 1994 Lisbon Story I have rewritten the article accordingly. Capitalistroadster 08:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Damnit, this is what I get for trusting people. Now we've got copyvio in the history. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:42, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Capitalistroadster, so that the history will make it clear that the article we have now is yours and so that we can get rid of the copyvio, would you mind cutting and pasting your version to Teresa Salgueiro/Temp? Then I (or some other admin) can delete the copyvio and move yours to the correct title. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:37, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * OK. Will do.Capitalistroadster 10:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Someone seems to have copied the contents to the temp page and blanked the original. Thanks to whoever it was. I apologise for not understanding the implications of a copy violation and will no do this in future. Capitalistroadster 10:37, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - no reason to delete. Brianjd 10:56, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can be expanded. Teresa Salgueiro is notable enough. utcursch 12:54, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - Now that it has been rewritten into an encyclopedic form, it should be kept and expanded as necessary. secfan ([[User_talk:secfan|Talk)]] 13:33, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think this entry can be delisted from VFD when an admin has deleted the version of the article that has a possible copyvio in the history and moved the 'clean' current article back. Sietse 15:38, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've done the move and deletion. I don't know the ritual on what happens with this entry once VfD is closed, so someone else needs to do that part. -- 21:31, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC) unsigned comment by User:Jmabel
 * The VfD period will run its course then the discussion will be moved to the Old page until someone formally closes and archives the discussion. See Deletion process if you're interested in helping with that clean-up.  By the way, even though the question seems resolved, I'd recommend strongly against closing the discussion early.  It tends to create ill will.  Rossami (talk)

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


text:
User talk:Tasok

Unverified images
Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

 * Image:Insane.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License,  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 21:51, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Image source problem with Image:Insane.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Insane.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa November 23:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tasok


text:
Perivolia, Arcadia

Perivolia (Περιβόλια, before 1926: Ρουσβάναγα - Rousvanaga ) is a village and a community in the southwestern part of Arcadia, Greece. It is part of the municipality of Megalopoli, located in a rural area 3 km south-east of downtown Megalopoli. The Greek National Road 7/E55 (Corinth - Tripoli - Kalamata passes southeast of the village. The community consists of the villages Perivolia and Vrysoules.

title: Perivolia, Arcadia


text:
Talk:Elenari

Article needing attention
Besides not mentioning that this article is on a ficticous race, it also contiains very little information on this subculture (if it qualifies as one). This returns 663 hits on Google, meaning that it should (probably) be kept, but it needs major changes. Benji 21:53, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While I am not one and so not sufficiently informed to modify the page, Elenari are not fictitious. If anything, they would come under spirituality. Vashti 07:36 29 Dec 2004 (GMT)

Um, Gabrielsimon, please don't remove the "article needing attention" tag unless you're prepared to actually do something to the article. Vashti 21:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The Corruption
I added info on The Corruption and someone removed it claiming I needed to cite a source. The Elenari FAQ already speaks of it and the source has already been cited. I think The Corruption's relationship to the Elenari is a significant thing to mention. I think it should be back, but please rewrite the entire thing if you don't like what I wrote. Thodin 15:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Another note, I see that Gabrielsimon, who took it out has had all his/her edits reverted in this topic and I've seen them reverted most of the time in Otherkin as well. So maybe it should have stayed. And if anyone else thinks so then they can bring it back. Thodin 15:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I've done a bit of a rewrite and put it back - please feel free to expand and correct it though, this isn't exactly my area of expertise. :) Vashti 21:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Context?
I found this from another article, so I don't have much familiarity here. I wasn't sure which parts of the articles are talking about the Otherkin and which were talking about Tolkien's Elenari. Particularly, do both groups speak the Elenari language? Help from other editors is appreciated. Friday 05:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

nope, the elnari from tolkien dont have any lingusitic traits in common with these elnari...  its just the name sounded close. Gabrielsimon 08:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * This article deals entirely with the otherkin group who call themselves the Elenari, and not with any of Tolkien's works. Vashti 09:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Possibly POV statement
What is the source that says BrightMoon was one of three "primary" Elenari worlds that are recalled? This suggests a level of primacy over Alorya and Shiri that does not seem implied in the Elenari FAQ. My own experience is that more people recall Alorya, in particular, than recall Brightmoon; however, I admit to some bias. If there is no source for this, could we change the language to something less POV like "The Elenari recall living on several worlds, including Sel'ar, Aelveron, BrightMoon, and Alorya; though others including the Charonish Domains are sometimes mentioned." This would seem to more accurately reflect the significance placed on these worlds by the FAQ itself. Shiri seems quite well represented as-is by the seperate reference to Elenari who recall living in Faerie. Jarandhel (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You know what, I think I'm just going to make the change and if people disagree with it they can take it up here and/or revert it... Jarandhel (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the classic verifiability problem. Same thing we frequently get over at Otherkin.  If there's something that differs from the source, it was probably based on an editor's personal experience.  If the Elenari FAQ is the only source, IMO there shouldn't be an article at all. It's nearly impossible to make a proper, neutral article based on one source in cases like these.
 * At one time, my bright idea was to rip out as much OR as possible, even if that meant having shorter articles. If the otherkin subtype articles ended up too short, they could be merged with Otherkin.
 * To me, the options in order of how much I like them are: 1) Get rid of all these articles, due to V and NOR concerns. However, this is a grey area case for purpose of V and NOR.  And the Afd clearly indicated a consensus for keeping Otherkin because it's a real phenonmenom.  I personally feel that most people giving opinions there did not address the real issues of V and NOR, but I cannot change that.  Option 2) is remove most details (we can't give good details when we don't have good sources) and merge them all together.  Otherkin would be an overview of the idea and would have sections on the different kinds.  Option 3) is what we have now: POV, OR, and Verifibility problems spread out over several articles.
 * There may well be other great solutions that I'm not seeing, but that's how it looks to be right now. The problem is, if I write "The Pontiac GTO was reintroduced in 2004" without a source, that's ok.  It's easily verifiable by any adult, as you talked about earlier.  From what I can see, details about Elenari are not easily verified independantly by an average person.  Friday (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * PS. I fully understand that I probably have higher standards of Verifiability than most editors, so option #1 I don't consider much of a possibility. #2 still seems best to me though.  If nothing else, dealing with one article that's an OR magnet is easier than dealing with a handful. Friday (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid I can't agree with your favored approach. It seems to me that "ripping out" what you view as original research, when you have admittedly higher standards of verifiability than most other editors (and are therefor not in consensus), is simply a way to perform an end-run around the consensus on deletion.  Editing the articles down to stubs and merging them is effectively the same as deleting them entirely, if you are removing what others have indicated is substance to be preserved in their consensus.  I would also remind you of the views expressed in such locations as Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/archive3 and User_talk:Antaeus_Feldspar regarding whether or not otherkin websites are proper sources for an article on otherkin, or amounted to original research.
 * I think I can, however, provide you with a fourth alternative: additional sources, which should help make the article more balanced than one with a single source. Rialian.com also has more than a little information on it about the Elenari, and I think some other websites may as well.  There was also an old mailing list on the subject of Corruption which has recently been revived, and a significant portion of the past archives of that list may soon become publicly available, so it may be possible to better source that segment as well; though I'm not certain it would be appropriate for me to do so considering I was and am the owner of that list. Jarandhel (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I understand there's all kinds of different views on this. I don't see that trying to merge into Otherkin is trying to avoid the Afd result in any way, but again, everyone has different views.  I'd personally like to see some degree of encyclopedic standards applied here, but if consensus disagrees, so be it.  Since I put in the Afd and it was soundly rejected, I think I should be conservative in my editing here, purely so it doesn't like like I'm trying to force through my preference in spite of the Afd.  Hence, I've kept it mostly to the talk page and made few article edits.  Maybe I should make even fewer. :)  I'm just saying, based on past experience, whoever wants to try to keep these articles in decent shape will have to fight off a lot of people coming by and putting in their own experiences and opinions.  IMO, this would be less work with a merge.   Friday (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I dunno if this will explain my thoughts on this any more than I already have tried to, but here goes. Collecting and summarizing the views of a loosely associated bunch of people is a great opportunity for inserting bias. Anyone doing so can easily pick and choose the stories from people that support their version of what they believe is "real" Elenari (or Otherkin, or whatever). So, I believe such collection and summarizing should be approached with caution. Trying to say "Most Elenari believe X" is much dicier than saying "The Titanic weighed Y tons". Now, one could easily respond, "You're worrying about a problem that hasn't happened yet". Well, in my opinion, we won't have a way to know if/when this problem occurs, so we should tread carefully.

Christianity varies widely in beliefs too, but we can (somewhat) trust a reputable person who writes "Most Christians believe X". I'm not saying that only scholarly sources would be acceptable; that's much too high a standard. But, if Newsweek does a story on Elenari, I'd consider that a significantly better source than someone's personal website, even though Newsweek is far from a "scholarly" magazine. Dunno if this clarifies or not, but I thought I'd at least attempt it. Friday (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * To some extent I agree, however I think you ignore the fact that the Otherkin and Elenari communities have themselves taken steps towards collecting and summarizing their views in a way which is fair to all involved. The Otherkin FAQ and the Elenari FAQ are both examples of community projects, written by committee, with input from a broad range of Otherkin and Elenari respectively.  They are the products of the prevailing consensus among their respective communities.  I would also question if your newsweek article would truly be more reputable; wouldn't it simply use these same primary sources to verify what beliefs are most prevalent?  The main difference is that it, like the Village Voice article, would interview the authors of the primary sources rather than quoting the sources directly.

 * I would also suggest that we do, in fact, have a way to know if/when this problem of inserting bias occurs; it will have occurred when someone comes along and complains that the article is biased, citing references to prove their side. Wikipedia is completely open, and its content about Otherkin has been duplicated by a broad range of sites so is commonly available; if there is a significant portion of the otherkin community which feels their side of things has been left out or even underrepresented, they can come here and make their case, just like any other editor.  It will be a task to keep such contributions NPOV, but I think it can be done.

 * Ripping everything out and merging articles isn't really going to stop these problems, anyway. To use a metaphor, it's like the mythical hydra.  If you cut off one of its heads, two will eventually grow back.  You pretty much set the stage for endless revert wars between yourself and those who wish to include more content in the article, and having to delete and remerge pages every time someone creates them again.  Short of gaining protected status for the otherkin article, and some sort of special deletion status for the merged pages, you'll have your work cut out for you indefinitely.  By contrast, working to make sure that the article remains NPOV, only makes descriptive claims that are supported by its sources, and makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims while relying on primary sources, will eventually result in an article that is thorough enough and solid enough to stand against most criticisms and can be left more or less alone save for minor updates and revisions to reflect changes in the subculture over time. Jarandhel (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I suspect we're just going to continue to disagree, but at least we might understand why. Here's a perfect example, where you wrote The Otherkin FAQ and the Elenari FAQ are both examples of community projects, written by committee, with input from a broad range of Otherkin and Elenari respectively. They are the products of the prevailing consensus among their respective communities.  You know all this, apparently from your own personal knowledge.
 * I have no such personal knowledge of this subject matter. You're asking me to accept your word that the source is good, based on your own knowledge.  I'm inclined to agree with your assessment, since you seem reasonable and knowlegable, but I have to admit I have no way to judge such a thing.   FWIW, other editors have claimed personal knowledge of the subject matter and disagreed with things in the FAQs before.
 * Ideally, we'd have a better way to know whether a source is reputable or not. Yes, if Newsweek did an article, they would also be faced with the task of deciding which personal stories to use in their article.  How would I know Newsweek would do a good job?  Well, I wouldn't, but I would know their reputation as a magazine, and I would know that they employ professional journalists and editors.  In the end, it comes down to "verifiability, not truth".  Would the Newsweek treatment of Elenari be more true than that of an Elenari-owned website?  Perhaps, but maybe not.  Would a Wikipedia article using Newsweek as a source be more verifiable than one using someone's website?  Most certainly.  Friday (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Except that both FAQs talk about their own origins, so you do not merely have to take my word for the fact they were written by groups rather than individuals:

 * "Contributions: Written by Arhuaine, Miaren Crowsdaughter, Thistle Kachunk, Golden Syrpent, Knight of Ghosts and Shadows, Jarin Dreamsinger and The Crisses--volunteer members of Otherkin community from a number of Yahoo-Groups lists." on the Otherkin FAQ.

 * "Many people contributed a great deal in time and effort, and I thank them for sharing their thoughts. I also thank K'Llayna for making sense of it all and adding the hyperlinks. For more detailed information, please browse the Elenari page. Contributors: K'Llayna, Ashran, Dan O'Dea, Estara, Silvaerin'a, Robin, Syleniel" on the Elenari FAQ.

 * I think you also misinterpret the motto of "verifiability, not truth". One of the most important points on Verifiability is "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources."  If the article claimed that these people actually are from the worlds they claimed to remember, such a claim would be outlandish and demand a strong source, otherkin sites alone would certainly be inappropriate sources for such an article.  However, the claim that they believe they are from such worlds is not, and can be easily verified by reference to their own FAQs and writings.

 * As you have said before, your standards for verifiability are much higher than those of other editors here on Wikipedia, and I believe they are stricter than Wikipedia policy itself demands. The Wikipedia policy page on No Original Research specifically says that there are cases where articles can be written entirely using primary sources, though these are exceptions and require certain criteria to be met; it also says that it is not original research to collect and organize information from existing primary sources.  As another editor put it in the past: "If the Otherkin article were to state that legends of werewolves in the Middle Ages came from Otherkin, not because an editor decided it but because an Otherkin site claimed it to be so -- then we'd definitely run into problems of verifiability. But as long as we're describing what people believe as what they believe, we can usually take people's word on it."  You agreed with this reasoning when he presented it mere weeks ago, I'm afraid I don't understand why you have changed your mind since then. Jarandhel (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * By the way, I also wanted to respond to your statement that "FWIW, other editors have claimed personal knowledge of the subject matter and disagreed with things in the FAQs before." That's always going to happen.  Hell, there are things in the FAQ and in the articles themselves that I disagree with myself.  Right down to the very definition of otherkin, as a matter of fact.  I've written numerous posts, and a [whole essay], on that subject for the Otherkin community before.  However, I also realize that my point of view is not the consensus of the majority of the community.  Until it is, I'll keep trying to persuade others (outside of the forum of wikipedia) around to my point of view, but I won't start describing things as if my thoughts were a common usage, much less represented the consensus of the Otherkin community.  That is the essence of NPOV, right?  Jarandhel (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Elenari


text:
Mus

Mus or MUS may refer to:

Abbreviations

 * MUS, the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country code for Mauritius
 * MUS, the IATA airport code for Minami Torishima Airport
 * MUS, abbreviation for the Centre for Modern Urban Studies on Campus The Hague, Leiden University, Netherlands
 * MUS, abbreviation for Medically unexplained physical symptoms
 * MUS, abbreviation for the Memphis University School
 * MUS, abbreviation for the Movimiento Unión Soberanista
 * MUS, abbreviation for Multiple-use water supply system, a low-cost, equitable water supply systems
 * Mus, abbreviation for Musca, a southern constellation
 * mus, ISO-639 code for the Muscogee language
 * Mus., abbreviation used in music degrees such as B.Mus. and M.Mus.
 * MUs, or million units of energy, used in India for a gigawatt hour
 * MUS (МУС), the Belarussian abbreviation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Belarus)

People

 * Anders Mus (fl. 1501–1535), Danish civil servant in Norway
 * Conny Mus (1950–2010), Dutch journalist, best known as a correspondent for RTL Nieuws in Israel and the Middle East
 * Gus Mus (born 1944), Islamic leader from Indonesia affiliated to Nahdlatul Ulama
 * Italo Mus (1892–1967), Italian impressionist painter
 * Paul Mus (1902–1969), French author and scholar of Vietnam and other Southeast Asian cultures
 * Publius Decius Mus, three ancient Romans from the same family

Places

 * Mus, Gard, a commune of the Gard département in France
 * Mus, Lorestan, a village in Lorestan Province, Iran
 * Mus, West Azerbaijan, a village in West Azerbaijan Province, Iran
 * Muş, a city in Turkey, capital of Muş Province
 * Muş Province, an administrative subdivision of Turkey
 * Mus, Car Nicobar, a village in India

Others

 * Mus (genus), the genus of rodents containing many species of mice
 * Mus (subgenus), a sub-genus of Mus containing the house mouse
 * Mus (card game), a Basque card game

title: Mus


text:
1879 in rail transport

January events

 * January 28 – Construction of the Waimea Plains Railway, the first railway constructed under the District Railways Act of 1878, reaches Inverrcagill, New Zealand.

February events

 * February 10 – The Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railway begins freight operations.

May events

 * May – James J. Hill forms the St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Railway from the assets of the bankrupt St. Paul and Pacific.
 * May 17 – The Texas and St. Louis Railway, a predecessor of St. Louis Southwestern Railway, is organized as a way to ship cotton south to Texas.
 * May 31 – The first electric railway opens at the Berlin Trades Exposition.

July events

 * July 4 – The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, building southwestward from Kansas, reaches Las Vegas, New Mexico.
 * July 17 – Freycinet Plan enacted in France to extend rail and other transportation systems.
 * July 31 – The Caledonian Railway opens the original Glasgow Central station in Scotland.

November events

 * November 1 – The first British dining car service leaves Leeds for London King's Cross. This is provided by the Pullman car Princess of Wales which accommodates just 10 first-class passengers.
 * November 20 – Narrow gauge Sandy River Railroad completed to Phillips, Maine.
 * November 22 – The North Pennsylvania Railroad begins operating the Philadelphia, Newtown and New York Railroad, a subsidiary of Pennsylvania Railroad.
 * November 25 – The Waldenburgerbahn is founded as a separate company and takes over the concession for the railway from Liestal to Waldenburg, Switzerland.

December events

 * December 1 – Solano, the largest rail ferryboat ever constructed, is put into service in California.
 * December 28 – Tay Bridge disaster: The North British Railway's Tay Bridge across the Firth of Tay in Scotland collapses in a violent storm while a passenger train is crossing it. 75 lives are lost. William Topaz McGonagall produces his epic poem The Tay Bridge Disaster to commemorate the event.

Unknown date events

 * Southern Pacific Railroad engineers experiment with the first oil-fired steam locomotives.
 * San Francisco and North Pacific Railroad constructs the Puerto Suello Hill Tunnel in Marin County, California.

March births

 * March 6 – Patrick H. Joyce, president Chicago Great Western Railway 1931–1946 (d. 1946).

April births

 * April 24 – Oris Paxton Van Sweringen, American financier who, with his brother Mantis, controls the Nickel Plate Road and other eastern railroads (d. 1936).

August births

 * August 20 – Ralph Budd, president of the Great Northern Railway 1919–1932 and Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad 1932–1949 (d. 1962).

October births

 * October 18 – Charles Eugene Denney, president of Erie Railroad 1929–1939 and Northern Pacific Railway 1939–1950 (d. 1965).

title: 1879 in rail transport


text: User talk:206.8.191.71

title: User talk:206.8.191.71


text:
User talk:JogiBear

Unverified images
Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

 * Image:Int_Bear_Brotherhood_Flag.gif

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License,  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 21:55, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Image:Int_Bear_Brotherhood_Flag.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Int_Bear_Brotherhood_Flag.gif, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaK 18:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:JogiBear


text:
Ideophone

An ideophone is any word in a certain word class evoking ideas in sound imitation (onomatopoeia) to express an action, manner, or property. The class of ideophones is the least common syntactic category cross-linguistically; it occurs mostly in African, Australian, and Amerindian languages, and sporadically elsewhere. It is globally the only known word class exotic to English. Ideophones resemble interjections but are unclassifiable as such owing to their special phonetic or derivational characteristics, and based on their syntactic function within the sentence. They may include sounds that deviate from the language's phonological system, imitating—often in a repetitive manner—sounds of movement, animal noises, bodily sounds, noises made by tools or machines, and the like.

While English does have ideophonic or onomatopoetic expressions, it does not contain a proper class of ideophones because any English onomatopoeic word can be included in one of the classical categories. For example, la-di-da functions as an adjective while others, such as zigzag, may function as a verb, adverb or adjective, depending on the clausal context. In the sentence 'The rabbit zigzagged across the meadow", the verb zigzag takes the past –ed verb ending. In contrast, the reconstructed example *"The rabbit zigzag zigzag across the meadow" emulates an ideophone but is not idiomatic to English.

Dictionaries of languages like Japanese, Korean, Xhosa, Yoruba, and Zulu list thousands of ideophones. Sometimes ideophones are called phonosemantic to indicate that it is not a grammatical word class in the traditional sense of the word (like verb or noun), but rather a lexical class based on the special relationship between form and meaning exhibited by ideophones. In the discipline of linguistics, ideophones have sometimes been overlooked or treated as a subgroup of interjections.

Characteristics
The word ideophone was coined in 1935 by Clement Martyn Doke, who defined it in his Bantu Linguistic Terminology as follows. "A vivid representation of an idea in sound. A word, often onomatopoeic, which describes a predicate, qualificative or adverb in respect to manner, color, sound, smell, action, state or intensity."

Ideophones evoke sensory events. A well known instance of ideophones are onomatopoeic words—words that imitate the sound (of the event) they refer to. Some ideophones may be derived from onomatopoeic notions. In many languages, however, ideophones do not solely represent sound. For instance, in Gbaya, kpuk 'a rap on the door' may be onomatopoeic, but other ideophones depict motion and visual scenes: loɓoto-loɓoto 'large animals plodding through mud', kiláŋ-kiláŋ 'in a zigzagging motion', pɛɗɛŋ-pɛɗɛŋ 'razor sharp'.

Ideophones are often characterized as iconic or sound-symbolic words, meaning that there can be a resemblance between their form and their meaning. For instance, in West-African languages, voiced consonants and low tone in ideophones are often connected to largeness and heaviness, whereas voiceless consonants and high tones tend to relate to smallness and lightness. Reduplication figures quite prominently in ideophones, often conveying a sense of repetition or plurality present in the evoked event. The iconicity of ideophones is shown by the fact that people can guess the meanings of ideophones from various languages at a level above chance. However, the form of ideophones does not completely relate to their meaning; as conventionalized words, they contain arbitrary, language-specific phonemes just like other parts of the vocabulary.

Grammar
The grammatical function of ideophones varies by language. In some languages (e.g. Welayta, Yir-Yiront, Semai, Korean), they form a separate word class, while in others, they occur across a number of different word classes (e.g. Mundang, Ewe, Sotho, Hausa).

Despite this diversity, ideophones show a number of robust regularities across languages. One is that they are often marked in the same way as quoted speech and demonstrations. Sometimes ideophones can form a complete utterance on their own, as in English "ta-da!" or Japanese jaan (ジャーン). However, in such cases the word ideophone is used as a synonym to interjection. Proper ideophones may occur within utterances, depicting a scene described by other elements of the utterance, as in Japanese Taro wa sutasuta to haya-aruki o shita "Taro walked hurriedly' (literally 'Taro did haste-walk sutasuta '). Ideophones are more like illustrations of events than responses to events. An ideophone like Gbaya kiláŋ-kiláŋ 'in a zigzagging motion' displays a certain resemblance to the event (for instance, its irregular vowels and tones depicting the irregularity of the motion).

Registers
Languages may differ in the context in which ideophones are used. In some languages, ideophones are primarily used in spoken language (e.g. narrative contexts) and are rarely encountered in written language. In other languages (e.g. Ewe, Japanese), ideophones can be freely used in all registers. In general, however, ideophones tend to occur more extensively in spoken language because of their expressive or dramaturgic function.

Japanese
The Japanese language has thousands of ideophones, often called mimetics. The constructions are quite metrical 2-2, or 3-3, where morae play a role in the symmetry. The first consonant of the second word of the reduplication may become voiced if phonological conditions allow. Japanese ideophones are used extensively in daily conversations as well as in the written language.

 * doki doki (ドキドキ) – heart-pounding
 * kira kira (キラキラ) – glittery
 * shiin (シーン) – silence
 * niko niko (ニコニコ) – smile
 * jii (じー) – stare
 * run run (ルンルン) – cheerful

Tamil
The Tamil language uses many ideophones, both in spoken (colloquial) and in formal usage. Ideophones are called irattaik kilavi (இரட்டைக் கிளவி) in Tamil grammar.

 * sora sora (சொறசொற) – rough (the sound produced when rubbing back and forth on a rough surface)
 * vazha-vazha (வழவழ) – smooth, slippery
 * mozhu-mozhu (மொழுமொழு) – smooth (surface)
 * kozhu-kozhu (கொழுகொழு) – plump
 * kozha-kozha (கொழகொழ) – slimy, gooey
 * busu-busu (புசுபுசு) – soft and bushy
 * giDu-giDu (கிடுகிடு) – quickly, fast
 * maDa-maDa (மடமட) – quickly, fast
 * masa-masa (மசமச) – sluggish, lethargic
 * viru-viru (விறுவிறு) – energetically (also, spicy)
 * choda-choda (சொதசொத) – marshy, waterlogged
 * paLa-paLa (பளப்பள/பளபள) – glittering, shiny
 * veDa-veDa (வெடவெட) – shaking, trembling
 * chuDa-chuDa (சுடச்சுட) – piping hot
 * mAngu-mAngu (மாங்குமாங்கு) – laboriously
 * gara-gara (கரகர) – crunchy (as in food), gravely (as in voice)
 * gaba-gaba (கபகப) - wolfing down food
 * doLa-doLa (தொளதொள) - hanging loose (as in loose fitting)
 * taLa-taLa (தளதள) - lush (as in a lush plant/orchard)
 * toNa-toNa (தொணதொண) - annoyingly incessant

Xhosa
In Xhosa, as in closely related Zulu, ideophones can convey very complex experiential impressions or can just strengthen meanings of other words. The ideophone is often introduced using the verb thi say.

Using thi:

 * cwaka – to be silent
 * Lixesha lokuthi cwaka. 'It is time to be silent.' [literally: 'It is time to say cwaka.']

 * gqi – to suddenly appear
 * Bathi gqi abelungu eAfrika. 'The white people suddenly arrived in Africa.' [Literally: 'The white people said gqi in Africa.'])

Without using thi:

Andazi ncam.
 * ncam – exact

{I do not know} IDEO

'I do not know exactly.' Ndime bhuxe phambi kwakhe.
 * bhuxe – to stand motionless

{I stood} IDEO before him.

'I stood motionless before him.'

title: Ideophone


text:
1880 in rail transport

February events

 * February 9 – The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, building southwestward from Kansas, reaches Santa Fe, New Mexico.
 * February 12 – The Tawas and Bay County Railroad in Michigan purchases the Lake Huron and Southwestern Railway.
 * February 18 – Adna Anderson succeeds William Milnor Roberts as Engineer-in-Chief of Northern Pacific Railway.

March events

 * March 20
 * The first Southern Pacific Railroad train reaches Tucson, Arizona.
 * The Miami Valley Railway is sold from receivership to the Toledo, Delphos and Burlington railway.
 * March 27 – The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad, Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway and Union Pacific Railroad reach an agreement to end hostilities over track construction in Colorado; in the Treaty of Boston, the D&RG agrees that it will not build tracks south of Española, New Mexico, the Santa Fe agrees that it will not build tracks into either Denver or Leadville for ten years, and the Union Pacific agrees not to build any track in the Colorado Rockies.

April events

 * April 15 – The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, building southwestward from Kansas, reaches Albuquerque, New Mexico.

May events

 * May 11 – Mussel Slough Tragedy: A land dispute between the Southern Pacific Railroad and settlers in Hanford, California, turns deadly when a gun battle breaks out, leaving 7 dead.
 * May 13 – In Menlo Park, New Jersey, Thomas Edison performs the first test of his electric railway.

June events

 * June 8 – The Miami Valley Railway is reincorporated as the Cincinnati Northern Railway.
 * June 15 – Rebuilt Berlin Anhalter Bahnhof in Germany opened.
 * June 18 – First section of railroad in Guatemala begins operation, connecting Puerto San José and Escuintla ( gauge).

July events

 * July 1 – The Callander and Oban Railway is opened throughout to Oban in Scotland.
 * July 2 – The first revenue trains reach Leadville, Colorado, on the Denver, South Park and Pacific Railroad.
 * July 10 – The California Southern Railroad is organized to build a rail connection between San Diego and a connection with the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad in California.
 * July 20 – Construction on the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad reaches Leadville, Colorado.

August

 * August 11 – The Wennington Junction rail crash in England kills 8 people.

October events

 * October 1 – The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, building southwestward from Kansas, reaches San Marcial, New Mexico.
 * October 23 – Following its organization in July, the California Southern Railroad is officially chartered.

Unknown date events

 * Summer – The Atlantic and Pacific Railroad, later to become part of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad, begins construction west of Albuquerque, New Mexico.
 * Eugene V. Debs becomes the Grand Secretary of American labor organization Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen.
 * The Richmond and West Point Terminal Railway and Warehouse Company is chartered as a holding company to acquire railroads that the Richmond and Danville Railroad itself couldn't.
 * Lima Machine Works ships the first Shay locomotive to Ephraim Shay's design to a logger in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
 * Alonzo C. Mather forms the Mather Stock Car Company to build stock cars of his own design.
 * The Peninsular Car Company delivers the first refrigerator cars to Swift and Company, forming the basis of Swift Refrigerator Line.
 * The Merchants Despatch enters the refrigerated transit business.
 * Mexican President General Manuel González grants a rail concession to Albert Kinsey Owen to build the Chihuahua al Pacífico.
 * Southern Pacific begins service to the Hotel Del Monte; the service will in turn become known as the Del Monte.

June births

 * June 21 – Josiah Stamp, Chairman of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway 1926–1941 (d. 1941).

January deaths

 * January 1 – Morris Ketchum, partner in Rogers, Ketchum and Grosvenor, director of Illinois Central Railroad (b. 1796).

December deaths

 * December 1 – Thomas Seavey Hall, American inventor of railroad signalling systems (b. 1827).

title: 1880 in rail transport


text:
USS Gudgeon

Two ships of the United States Navy have borne the name USS Gudgeon, named in honor of the gudgeon.

 * USS Gudgeon (SS-211) was a Tambor-class submarine, commissioned in 1941 and lost in 1944
 * USS Gudgeon (SS-567) was a Tang-class submarine submarine, commissioned in 1952, sold to Turkey and stricken from the Naval Vessel Register in 1987. As TCG Hizir Reis (S-342), the sub served in the Turkish Navy from 1983 to 2004

title: USS Gudgeon


text:
Skunk City

Skunk City is a Syracuse, New York neighborhood that for a number of years has been known by this name, and before 1886 was a rural part of the Town of Geddes. The area was first inhabited by Irish immigrants but later grew to include a variety of ethnic communities. The neighborhood boundaries are Geddes St. on the east, Grand Ave. and Burnet Park on the north, and West Onondaga St. on the south. Harbor Brook Retention area is to the west. The root of neighborhood's name is not explicitly stated. While some attribute it to the unusually high number of skunks that roam the area at night, others cite the smell given off by the local creek.

title: Skunk City