text:
Talk:Great Depression/Archive 1

(1) Removed "American" from "of American history." Books are written about the history of the Depression in Europe... Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia--has to be, since it's on the Internet!

(2) I cannot parse this sentence, so I can't fix it either: "It was an extended economic contraction that ended with the government induced World War II spending economic expansion." I also wonder how widely-agreed upon this explanation is.

(3) Finally--I'm no historian, so I'm just asking--was it the events in the U.S. that led to the worldwide depression? Is that widely-agreed upon as well?

--LMS

Untitled
I would guess that events in the USA were probably the trigger for the depression, but not the real cause. The economic situation in most parts of the world was a real mess ever since the end of World War 1. The appearance of prosperity 1919-1929 was an illusion. Unemployment was high, a lot of people were poor, and most of the rich had money and shares that turned out to be either borrowed, embezzled, or worthless. The big crash was going to happen somewhere, and no matter where it happened it was going to spread. Also, supposedly world war II ought not get the credit for ending the depression. The economy had already returned to pre-depression status a while before.
 * in some places - added to article -- mike dill

I know little about the depression in other countries, but for the U.S. this is not true. The depression began to ease after the Supreme Court struck down FDR's New Deal legislation, but after they began to uphold his legislation, the economy had another serious downturn in 1937 (I think). The economy was on an improving trend prior to our entry into WWII, but was nowhere near its pre-depression status. Jhanley The Great Depression resulted in deflation, not hyperinflation--right? So says someone on sci.econ. --LMS
 * Hyperinflation is when the paper money you hold becomes worthless, in the depression, money actually gained value, while the price of goods was depressed by deflation.

If that's true, then it should be in the article, shouldn't it? --LMS
 * see the article now, I added this piece. -- mike dill

Deflation in some countries, hyperinflation in others. It depended on which methods the governments used to try to solve the problem. "Business as usual" and budget balancing resulted in deflation. "Spend our way out of trouble by printing money" resulted in hyper-inflation. Neither method worked. Someone who has read Frederick Lewis Allen's 'Only Yesterday' and 'Since Yesterday' more recently than 40 years ago needs to work this article over. There is a great deal to be said about the extreme depth of the depression (25% unemployment in the US at one point), Hoover's unfortunate attempts to maintain budget balance (which I believe he himself abandoned near the end of his term); the failure of the US banking system in 1932, etc. (DJK) - Fixed up the sentence on the causes of the Great Depression. I think that there is a general consensus among economists today that certain policies help create the Great Depression. What's more controversial is the notion that government intervention caused the Great Depression, as opposed to wrong government intervention. Also changed the wording on Smoot-Hawley. The conventional wisdom is that things like Smoot-Hawley turned a stock market panic into something worse. However, the paragraph as it stood seem to imply that Smoot-Hawley caused the stock market crash of 1929 which would have been interesting since it was passed afterward. It's a huge subject, really involving the entire history of the inter-war world economy, and I'm not even going to attempt incorporating these items into the article just yet, but a few thoughts may be worth discussing:

1) European (and particularly German) reliance on the outflow of U.S. dollars in the form of loans and investments (in the absence of buoyant U.S imports of European goods): in this connection the Wall Street boom has to be seen as a cause of the depression in Europe, since the lure of stock market speculation diverted money that might otherwise have gone overseas: Germany was already in recession as the Dow started on its last ascent, sharply cutting the flow of dollars to Europe by mid-1929. As a result, when the crisis came in the States, Europe was in no position to keep the international system afloat with purchases of cut-price U.S. (or other) goods.

2) Deflation vs. inflation: I don't know of any hyperinflations in the 1930s: prices everywhere fell until currencies were freed from gold, and even after currency depreciation, the problem was maintaining prices rather than controlling inflation: hyperinflation requires the belief that today's goods will fetch more (devalued) money tomorrow, which is difficult to achieve in the conditions of the 1930s. Germany's experience under Bruning (1930-32) was actually severely deflationary: I think there's a confusion in paragraph 4 with Germany's 1923 inflation - a very different crisis.

3) The US banking system only failed in February 1933 - i.e. after Roosevelt's election (November 1932) but immediately before his inauguration (March 4). The immediate effect on business was extremely severe but equally short-lived, with U.S industrial output shooting up in March-July 1933 and prices recovering in the wake of de facto devaluation. The banking crisis is really a distinct episode, one which may paradoxically have assisted recovery by allowing the Administrations to show decisiveness and by enlisting public support for dramatic action.

4) While fear of the Administration's regulatory initiatives appear to have contributed to the downturn of July-Novermber 1933, the Supreme Court's decisions of January 1935-January 1936 and its change of heart in April 1937 came too late to cause the 1933-37 recovery or the 1937-38 recession, which I think is generally blamed on a premature over-tightening of fiscal policy: the 1938 contraction was a temporary affair, and national income in 1940 was already above the 1929 peak. Recovery in most of Europe was already well under way, and war preparations at most cushioned European economies against the effects of the 1937-38 U.S. downturn and contributed to the sharp rise in US production in 1940-41.

David Parker

In my view, this article needs a serious rewrite. It almost entirely is devoted to a discussion to the debates over what caused it, could have prevented it, or made it worse (and I might add it seems mostly slanted against the New Deal), while spending almost no time discussing the actual facts about what the Depression was and how it affected people. soulpatch

 * Agreed. Right now this article amounts to a section -- to be called Causes of the Great Depression -- of the even better article which I hope you will help me write!

 * Agreed, and I believe there's an NPOV problem in the later paragraphs, beginning with Because the US was still in a state of depression when it entered World War II, it is hard to make a serious argument that the New Deal was a success. That's advocacy, not description. Many can and do make such serious arguments. For example, it has been argued that the purpose of the New Deal was to "tide people over" to prevent some human suffering until better times.  Others have pointed to the growing unrest in Depression-stricken areas, and suggested that the New Deal actually saved capitalism in the United States, which elsewise might have been overthrown by a seriously discontented populace.  Now, the original author may not like or agree with these arguments, but they're serious arguments. -- April

Maveric149, I mean not to accuse you personally of a whitewash. Roosevelt is still a towering figure in 20th century history, and because of this honest criticism of actions he took is still muted today. His legacy rides on the triumphs of social security and defeating fascism, and the whitewash lies not with you but with the way his legend is told in our national mythology. Despite confiscating private gold, at least he kept the linkage. If you want to look for the true thieves, consider the meaning of -º¡º

I can't help feeling here that this article is somewhat biased and needs more pro New Deal arguments adding. The anti new deal people seem to contradict themselves, they claim that government deficit spending in the new deal worsened the depression. But then they claim that the depression came to an end due to government deficit spending in World War 2.User:G-Man

-- Right now, this is the least NPOV article of which I'm aware. One rightwing user single-handedly hijacked this article, determined to stifle any Keynesian analysis. Granted the previous version was in bad shape, but the current version belongs on the talk page until it can be balanced. Until then, the old article should be posted.

Even monetarist economists acknowledge that many factors were involved; this user was just determined to only elaborate on the points that monetarists emphasize the most. Other issues were the lack of diversification of the US economy, a maldistribution of purchasing power, the credit structure of the economy, and America's position in international trade. Many non-monetarist economists would emphasize these four points, and rebut much of the arguments in the current version.

172

 * Then go through the article and delete the hopeless offending paragraphs, move the really bad but possibly fixable ones here and fix the ones that can be easily fixed. However the version you reverted to is ancient and a great deal of work has been done since then. It is very bad form to take the easy route and simply revert - thus destroying the work of many other people. --mav 02:02 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Having read the article I do not think the rewrite done is salvageable. Its analysis is so biased even Margaret Thatcher would have blanched reading it. It is so inaccurate and POV it is mindblowing; it is the equivalent of the IRA writing an Irish history article or Saddam Hussein (or rather his ludicrous war spokesman) writing an account of the war in Iraq. The version 172 reverted to is deeply flawed, by far less so than the rubbish which there now. IMHO we should use the version 172 reverted to as the starting point and work on it, incorporating from it the less loopy elements of the current article (I'm sure there is something in somewhere that qualifies, though a first and second glance didn't show up much). I would suggest using the 172 revert as a temp into which salvageable bits of the current article can be moved. Using the current version as the starting point would, as Mr. Spock would say, illogical. It is sooooo POV and simplistic as to be comical. Trying to add to a workable but flawed basic article is preferable to trying to take apart a much longer monumentally flawed bit of POV nonsense, most of which is beyond salvation.

I won't claim to be an expert on that area but from the knowledge I do possess, I have rarely read an article that drew more "you can't be serious", "that is Bull Shit" and "for fuckin' sake, that is shit" responses from me as this article. This is to history what the X-files is to science. And keeping what is there now as a template would make wiki a laughing stock among historians of the period. Wiki has many many good points but its weakness is that some people, if no-one notices, can totally agendise an article to the point where it becomes a totally biased loopy polemic, whether extreme right or extreme left. This is one article that had been so agendised, so such an extent that it would be a nightmare trying to salvage it. Which is why I believe the revertion, though an extreme act, in this case is the best, or at least the least worst, route. FearÉIREANN 02:40 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

As I've said before, this is the most one-sided article of which I'm aware. I'm going to restore the older version. 172

 * Fine. Just make sure you incorporate all the valid edits made since the biased one. Who did the hack job and when? A cur from that version should help (but that would only work if the longer version is the current version). --mav

--- The edits were largely copyediting the rightwing rant by Octothorn done in early June.

I have fallen into the traps of too many overly-ambitious topics, which prevent me from working on this page (although it is far more urgent than my unfinished business). I agree with Jtdril that the rant isn't salvageable, meaning that it cannot be restructured to be integrated with the text of the former version. However, the position that it is arguing can go under the heading of a subtopic, say something on the arguments of Milton Friedman.

Until then, I'm glad that I have support now in restoring the less bad version. 172

 * OK - that's not so bad. I thought it was a much earlier version. In retrospect I should have watched this article in the first place (then it would have been me doing the reverting last month instead of you doing so now).--mav

 * My apologies for this. I was going through a rough patch, I will keep my contributions appropriate and try to help rebuild the page.  By the way, 172 and also FearÉIREANN, you don't think your comments are a bit divisive, do you? I mean, how would you feel? Octothorn 10:18 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

-- It's my fault too. Rather than having a broad focus, I've made the mistake of getting bogged down in massive projects. I've neglected it too.

172

Is the point where you guys hug and declare undying love? :-) Wow. Such wikilove. (A slightly merry jtd, having had my first alcohol since the accident! )FearÉIREANN 04:27 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've been working on the causes since we've rescued this article from the ideological hijacking. However, the causes section still requires significant work, along with every other section.

Two problems stand out above all. One is the lack of social history. Impersonal macroeconomic indicators don't tell us the whole story. Second, the article is Amero-centric (something for which I'm partially responsible).

This article should perhaps be redirected to Great Depression (United States).

If anyone's interested in internationalizing this article, I'd be interested in Latin America. I've already written a good deal on the Great Depression in Brazil for the history of Brazil article; perhaps some of that content could be borrowed as a case-study of the Great Depression's impact on Third World monocultural economies. Separate articles on economic history, however, would be useful for Germany and Britain. 172
 * I've been working on the article since the rant was removed. It's in better shape now. But due to me not getting around to doing it, it's still very US-centric and lacks social history. I'll get around to it someday, but some help would be great. 172
 * BTW, the Great Depression had a profound impact on Latin America. I dealt with this in great detil in the History of Brazil article. This article really needs to be turned into series of articles on key countries, such as Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Canada, Mexico, and Brazil. Of course this isn't the entire world, but each country provides a good case study for each its respective regions. 172

I have a problem with this sentence.

Britain adopted far-reaching measures in the development of a planned national economy

Whilst this is partially true, it did not happen until the Postwar Labour government after WW2, Britain certainly didn't make much progress towards a planned national economy in the 1930s, G-Man 21:56 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * yeah, it could be clearer, but notice "in the development..." 172 23:23 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

-- The same user is back trying to restore is propaganda piece little by little. See the bottom of the Votes for deletion for details on this user. 172 14:51, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * For the sake of the people who are not very familiar with this point in history, could you give a few examples which specifically show why Octothorn's text is so bad? --mav 04:23, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

--

I propose the following version to the first paragraph of this page:

 * Grande Dépression

 * The Great Depression is the period of history that followed "Black Thursday", the stock market crash of Thursday, October 24, 1929.

 * It is widely believed that the events in the United States triggered a world-wide depression, which led to deflation and a great increase in unemployment.

 * However, economic data shows that the US Federal Reserve's monetary policy, except for very brief periods in 1929 and 1936-1937 when it turned mildly deflationist, was consistently and unremittingly inflationist in the 1920s and 1930s.

 * On the global scale, the market crash in the USA was a final straw in an already shaky world economic situation. By then, since 1914, Britain, Europe and the United States had been implementing the most extreme interventionist global economic policies in history.  These policies, largely involving Britain and the US, were in dealing with the British Monetary Crisis.  Partly as a result of this, bad fiscal policy and also in part due to demands for reparations for World War I,  Germany was suffering from hyperinflation of currency.  Many of the Allied victors of World War I were also having serious problems paying off huge war debts. In the late 1920s  the American economy at first seemed immune to the mounting troubles, but with the start of the 1930s it crashed with startling rapidity.

My reasons for suggesting these changes are as follows:

The economic data of the period reflect that the depression was not accompanied by a deflation, but a consistently inflationary period. Looking at the data, it's obvious that there were much longer, and more sudden and severe periods of deflation through the 1800's. By comparison with the 1800's, the tiny deflationary blips in the period 1925 through 1940 are minor and trivial. Prior to the 20th century, protracted periods of deflation were an expected part of the business cycle, and did not cause anything like the Great Depression. It is important to highlight these facts.

Also, no account of the leadup to the Great Depression is complete without some mention of the British Monetary Crisis. The US, due to their trading ties with Britain, involved themselves in this issue during most of that time. The British monetary crisis is a perid of economic history that set the scene for the Great Depression. The article already mentions, in several places, that the rest of the world was already suffering severe financial troubles prior to October 1929, so any resistance to expanding slightly on that information does not seem reasonable.

I note that 172 is attempting to supress the update of this page with that information. I do understand why, due to my previous radical changes to this page. However, at the time I was suffering from a nervous breakdown, and was trying to occupy my mind with other things. I guess I just got too obsessed. Those who look at some of the other pages I have edited will see that this type of behaviour is unusual. You will also faind my apology on this page.

I do not think that the alterations I have suggested here are in any way unusual, and I believe they improve NPOV. I am more than willing to back up the information I am attempting to include. -- Octothorn 15:07, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

--

I would also like to make a suggestion with regard to the following paragraph, as it appears in the main text:

 * The US economy had thus been showing some signs of distress for months before October 1929. Commodity prices had been falling worldwide since 1926, reducing the capacity of exporters in the peripheral, undeveloped economies of Latin America, Asia, and Africa to buy products from the core industrial countries, such as the United States and Britain. Business inventories of all types were three times as large as they had been a year before (an indication that the public was not buying products as rapidly as in the past); and other signposts of economic health--freight carloads, industrial production, wholesale prices--were slipping downward.

I think it is important to add that in 1929 the Smoot-Hawley tariff act (a measure aimed at protecting US agriculture) was well known to be progressing through congress. In October of 1929 it passed a critical Senate committee vote.

My reason for suggesting that thisinformation should be added is that throughout 1929 it was probably also well known that there was a high likelihood of the act passing. This knowledge is likely to have affected business decisions in 1929, causing US business to begin preparing for the worst -- battening down the hatches, so to speak, since they were well aware that raising domestic tariffs would cause retaliation from overseas trading nations, and justly predicted that this would lead to a consequent decrease in overseas demand for their production.

It's most likely that the direct effect of this preparation was that businesses began a pre-emptive round of layoffs, but I need to look into that level of detail a little more. In 1930 the act passed, after the financial collapse began, but I am trying to point out that it is likely that the knowledge of the intention to pass the act was sufficient to damage industry and probably contributed to triggering the Great Depression. -- Octothorn 17:11, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

--

The first paragraph of the introduction begins with:

 * International finance never recovered from the strains of World War I. Some believe that World War I caused a dramatic increase in productivity capacity, particularly outside Europe, without a corresponding increase in sustained demand.

This suggests a narrow POV in line with the J. M. Keynes thesis that it was a "failure of demand", which is reflected throughout the article. It is suggested that people stopped buying goods (Since 1918?? What about the roaring 20's, with the accompanying sustained high inflation??), and this caused the Depression in 1929. But the POV is not mentioned that this thesis is also subject to a reversal of causality. It can as well be claimed that nearer to 1929, when the high consumption of the roaring 20's petered out, people spent less because the economy was already in a depression.

I admit that I have never considered the Keynes thesis to be reasonable. It is in effect the claim that people were poor because they already had everything that they needed (and hence stopped buying): they were poor because they were so rich. I mean, people then had a lot less "stuff" than people have today. So why did they have "too much", while today no one has enough?

Basically, the article has a thoroughly Keynsian POV, with little or no consideration for monetarist theory. -- Octothorn 17:45, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

--

There is also no mention of the tactics by FDR when he decided to try to end the depression by burning the crops, killing the livestock, and raising interest rates and taxation. It's strange that the words "tax" or "taxation" do not appear even once in the entire article when it is common to have some discussion of the way taxation levels changed over the period of the Great Depression. I am concerned this also indicates some lack of NPOV in the article. -- Octothorn 17:45, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * There are articles on the New Deal and Roosevelt administration. Please, however, don't annoy us with your POV agendas there. 172 17:55, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in New Deal or Roosevelt. I would expect they would be more matters of history than POV in any case.  Aany mess over there can be for someone else to clear up, I have my hands full just drawing attention to  a blatant lack of NPOV here, thank you very much. -- Octothorn 18:15, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I ran across this article which says "A number of myths that are popular in conventional histories of the Depression are punctured in Parker's book. For example, the Wikipedia echoes many textbooks in saying, "A fundamental misdistribution of purchasing power, the greatly unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920s, was a factor contributing to the depression." None of the economists interviewed by Parker cites this so-called causal factor." Glad to see Wikipedia being quoted, even if in a not so pleasant light. Dori 01:04, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

"In other words, the banking system was not well prepared to absorb the shock of a major recession. The banking system as a whole, moreover, was only very loosely regulated by the Federal Reserve System."

The article is too eager (and certainely biased) here to implify that the crash was worsened, or even created by a lack of FED control over commercial banks. Today FED has the power to control the cash reserve ratio of all the U.S. banks because of the Monetary Control Act 1980 and a crash doesn't look all that impossible in the near future.

On the contrary, the article should state the possibility of FED actually being a major cause of the Great Depression with its power to inflate and deflate and in so control the money supply at its will. It's good to remember that that the actual crash doesn't cause the wealth to disappear, it just moves it around and it is possible that it went into the hands of the private bankers behind the FED. I'm not claiming here to be NPOV, but I think it is important to bring this point of a view into the article. Googling to ' "federal reserve system" "great depression" ' should prove the issue is widely debated. Finlander 00:49, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The article in its present form discusses several supposed causes of the Great Depression, but all of these causes come from the same macroeconomic view (aka the "Keynesian" view). There are at least four distinct theories of what caused the depression.

1. The European fallout theory: The physical and institutional destruction of the War, along with the terms of the Versailles treaty, caused a delayed worldwide collapse of finance and trade. This appears to have been the dominant contemporary view, but it is rare today.

2. The macroeconomic view: Diverse imbalances and weaknesses in the economy produced a financial collapse. Roosevelt's policies were deliberately designed to correct these imbalances and weaknesses. This is the most commonly taught theory today.

3. The Austrian view: Protective tariffs and a cheap credit policy by various central banks during the 1920s distorted business decision-making so as to weaken the economy. A tightening of credit in 1929 made these decisions unsustainable, but government stabilization measures discouraged businesses from correcting their mistakes.

4. The Marxist view: the Great Depression was one of the periodic catastrophes that must occur in capitalism.

 * In the United States, President Herbert Hoover made only half-hearted efforts to control the situation...

Hoover took more action against an economic crisis than any president before him. This is forgotten for two reasons. First is the sheer scale of Roosevelt's programs. Second is the fact that Hoover eschewed federal legislation for his early measures, preferring informal agreements with state governments and private institutions. Therefore focusing on legislative measures misses a large part of the picture. The difference between Hoover and Roosevelt was not over whether the government should act, but whether it could/should be the sole agent of recovery.

 * Many in the Hoover administration believed that as wages fell, the cost of production would drop, and as a result, production would pick up again, and the depression would be self-correcting. For this reason, they saw no need for the government to intervene in the economy....

This is true but misleading. Hoover noted in his memoirs that many in his administration held these views. However he and other officials did not, and his policies were not based on them. The article does not make this clear.

Details of Hoover's response to the Great Depression can be found in Hoover's public papers.

taxcollection
Wasn't it under FDR that the Federal government began the policy of weekly tax payment deductions. Which certainly helped the Federal Government's cash flow and probably had a related impact on the the economy by lowering the amount of interest the government had to pay. reggers vilppu

---

For what it's worth, being a mere amateur economic enthusiast who has read many books on the causes of the Great Depression, it seems to me that the suggestion above regarding mutiple theories seems the most helpful. Clearly, trying to announce that there is a "widely held view" and then reporting that in this article fails to communicate much intersting information. Why not have different sections on different theories? This eliminates the clearly contentious matter of what the "real" reason is, and I think it would be safe to say that no one knows the real reason for sure anyhow! Plus, I think it would be fascinating and quite useful to see how the various theories, including Keynesian, Classical, Marxist, Austrian, etc. compare to each other. I might feel up to writing up a few of the books I have read, presenting them as points of view. I'm sure we could find willing and competent authors for most of the major theories.

Additionally, I would suggest having a separate entry on Causes, and then another on events, life during the Depression, social impact, etc.. Finally, this is my first edit on Wikipedia, so if I have inadvertently broken some ettiquete, please feel free to point it out.

patimen

"Maldistribution"

 * I just read this article for the first time, and was immediately struck by how biased it is. Much of the text is judgmental and does not present a "neutral" point of view. For example, the phrase "maldistribution of purchasing power" contains an assumption about what would be "good" or "bad" distributions. Putting to one side the debate about how purchasing power was actually distributed ( in itself a difficult subject, and one that continues to be debated ), it would surely be more in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia to avoid making judgments of this kind. - IM.
 * Exactly the same as my first thought. - 20:04, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

maldistribution and other questionable claims
I second the writer above about the "maldistribution" section and about the lack of objectivity in this article as a whole.

Another specific example of the lack of objectivity is the bit which blames "Hoover and the Republican Congress" for Hawley-Smoot. The House Ways and Means Committee held hearings which generated 20,000 pages of documents regarding tariff protection. It was thought at the time that tariff protection would not only protect American business but also American jobs. Therefore, Congress passed the legislation and Hoover signed it into law despite his misgivings. It is part of the bias of this article and others related to this era that Hoover is first accused of "doing nothing" (which is extremely inaccurate) and then condemned when he did act.

While it is common in many circles to blame Hoover for "doing nothing" and being a lassiez-faire president (patently false - he rejected lassiez-faire and was an active reformer both as Secretary of Commerce and as President), one must understand the times before passing judgments such as he did little or nothing to help.

Before Hoover, the Federal government did not intervene with direct aid or public works spending to counteract a financial crisis. Many people would have considered it a violation of American republican principles to do so. The idea that a government could spend its way out of contraction was not common. FDR himself promised to REDUCE Federal spending during the 1932 election during which he accused Hoover of reckless and profligate spending.

The following is an outline of just some of the actions Hoover took to end the Great Depression.

1) Signed the Emergency Relief and Construction Act, the nation’s first Federal unemployment assistance.

2) Increased Public Works Spending – some of Hoover’s efforts to stimulate the economy through public works are as follows:

a) Asked congress for a $400 million increase in the Federal Building Program	b) Directed the Department of Commerce to establish a Division of Public Construction in December 1929. c) Increased subsidies for ship construction through the Federal Shipping Board	d) Urged the state governors to also increase their public works spending though many failed to take any 	action.

3) Signed the Federal Home Loan Bank Act establishing the Federal Home Loan Bank system to assist citizens in obtaining financing to purchase a home.

4) Increased subsidies to the nation’s struggling farmers.

5) Established the President’s Emergency Relief Organization to coordinate local, private relief efforts resulting in over 3,000 relief committees across the U.S.

6) Urged bankers to form the National Credit Corporation to assist banks in financial trouble and protect depositor’s money.

7) Actively encouraged businesses to maintain high wages during the depression. Many businessmen, most notably Henry Ford, raised or maintained their worker’s wages early in the depression in the hope that more money into the pockets of consumers would end the economic downturn.

8) Signed the Reconstruction Finance Act. This act established the Reconstruction Finance Corporation which made loans to the states for public works and unemployment relief. In addition, the RFC made loans to banks, railroads and agriculture credit organizations.

9) Raised tariffs to protect American jobs. After hearings held by the House Ways and Means Committee generated over 20,000 pages of testimony regarding tariff protection, Congress responded with legislation that Hoover signed despite some misgivings. Instead of protecting American jobs, the Hawley-Smoot tariff is widely blamed for setting off a worldwide trade war which only worsened the country’s economic ills. This is a classic example of how government actions, despite good intentions, can trigger negative, unintended consequences.

'''In order to pay for these and other government programs, Hoover agreed to one of the largest tax increases in American history. The Revenue Act of 1932 raised taxes on the highest incomes from 25% to 63%. The estate tax was doubled and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15%. Hoover also encouraged Congress to investigate the New York Stock Exchange and this pressure resulted in various reforms'''.

Despite these actions and the massive intervention by his successor, FDR, the economy did not improve. A severe contraction occurred in 1937-38 (a contraction labeled a depression by some economists) and the economy continued to struggle until the 1940’s (unemployment did not drop below 9.9% until 1942).

-

Maybe he should have joined WWII earlier....

Seriously, there has to be a reason why there WAS a depression in the 1930s and there wasn't from the late 1940s to the early 1970s. There is some doubt about how effective FDR's policies were (equally the UK government's policies in the same period) but essentially he saved capitalism by at least appearing to do something. The most successful economies in the 30s were the totalitarian ones, unconcerned with having to keep voters and businesses happy. How long Hitler would have lasted without a war is an interesting question, would the deficit financing have brought him down sooner or later in a huge financial crash?

Exile

-

Just put the numbers there
You may not be able to convince anyone of anything hat they don't want to believe. Just put the numbers there and let people decide for themselves. Here are some of them, , I'll try to find all of them. - Jerryseinfeld 20:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Year  %Change in GNP   President -- 1930    - 9.4%         Hoover 1931    - 8.5          Hoover 1932    -13.4          Hoover 1933    - 2.1          Hoover/Roosevelt 1934    + 7.7          Roosevelt 1935    + 8.1          Roosevelt 1936    +14.1          Roosevelt 1937    + 5.0          Roosevelt 1938    - 4.5          Roosevelt 1939    + 7.9          Roosevelt

Annual Growth of Tax Collections by President (1)

President  Tax Growth -- Roosevelt   121.3% Truman        3.7 Eisenhower    2.4 Kennedy       4.8 L Johnson     6.9 Nixon         0.3 Ford          6.4 Carter        3.0 Reagan        2.4 Bush          0.0

Government Receipts, Combined, Federal, State and Local (Percentage of GDP) (2)

Year  Combined  Federal   State and Local -- 1947    22.9%    17.3%     5.6% 1948     22.6     16.8      5.8 1949     21.1     15.0      6.1 1950     21.4     14.8      6.6 1951     22.7     16.5      6.3 1952     25.7     19.4      6.2 1953     25.5     19.1      6.4 1954     25.7     18.9      6.7 1955     23.9     17.0      6.9 1956     25.0     17.9      7.0 1957     25.6     18.3      7.3 1958     25.4     17.8      7.6 1959     24.2     16.5      7.7 1960     26.2     18.3      7.9 1961     26.6     18.3      8.4 1962     26.4     18.0      8.4 1963     26.8     18.2      8.6 1964     26.7     18.0      8.7 1965     26.1     17.4      8.7 1966     26.6     17.8      8.8 1967     27.5     18.8      8.8 1968     27.4     18.1      9.4 1969     29.8     20.2      9.6   < tax plateau reached 1970    29.7     19.6     10.2 1971     28.1     17.8     10.3 1972     28.9     18.1     10.9 1973     29.0     18.1     10.8 1974     29.5     18.8     10.7   < economy slows down 1975    29.3     18.5     10.8 1976     28.5     17.7     10.8 TQ       28.3     18.3     10.1 1977    29.4     18.5     10.9 1978     29.2     18.5     10.7 1979     29.1     19.1     10.0 1980     29.6     19.6     10.1 1981     30.2     20.2      9.9 1982     30.0     19.8     10.3 1983     28.6     18.1     10.5 1984     28.6     18.0     10.5 1985     29.1     18.5     10.6 1986     29.0     18.2     10.7 1987     30.1     19.2     10.9 1988     29.6     18.9     10.7 1989     29.9     19.2     10.7 1990     29.5     18.8     10.7 1991     29.5     18.6     10.9 1992     29.5     18.4     11.1 1993     29.6     18.4     11.2 1994     30.0     19.0     11.1 1995     30.4     19.3     11.0

Percent of U.S. individual worker productivity (U.S. = 100%)

Country        1950s  1960s  1970s  1980s  1990

United States  100%   100    100    100    100 Canada         77.1   80.1   84.2   92.8   95.5 Italy          30.8   43.9   66.4   80.9   85.5 France         36.8   46.0   61.7   80.1   85.3 Germany        32.4   49.1   61.8   77.4   81.1 United Kingdom 53.9   54.3   58.0   65.9   71.9 Japan          15.2   23.2   45.7   62.6   70.7

I can't find the "unemployment" data before 1948. Does anyone know where it is? For $5 there seem to be some data since 1929 here:. Which is used here:.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Section on Other depressions
Longwave Economics (see Kondraitiev wave) researchers document that similar Great Depressions, Persistent Recessions and Panics have occurred cyclically in regular 40 to 65 year cycles in Capitalist Economies; documented in academic papers and books based on records back to 1763 BCE. The Code of Hammurabi, for example, confirmed that Depressions (periods of high inequity) were corrected by "Jubilees" (wealth distributing Government Policy) every 50-years as required to prevent revolution and social collapse problems proactively.

This section is lacking and does not reference what was originally called the "Great Depression" and now is called the Long Depression. This Depression hit Europe in the late 1800's, and was long and severe there, but mostly missed the US.

Historians seem more then a bit confused on what happened in the US during this period. Some seem to think it was a period of slow growth full of panics, others that is was the most exceptional period of growth in US history. The US passed England as the #1 economic power during this time frame which supports the fast growth camp.71.174.141.198 (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

i noticed that the beginning sentence says the depression was the decade following WWII i think the author meant WWI considering WWII began during the Great Depression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.122.90 (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * it was the decade BEFORE world war two (which started in 1939). Rjensen (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Great Depression/Archive 1. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  22:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Great Depression/Archive 1


text:
Monocular rivalry

Monocular rivalry is a phenomenon of human visual perception that occurs when two different images are optically superimposed. During prolonged viewing, one image becomes clearer than the other for a few moments, then the other image becomes clearer than the first for a few moments. These alternations in clarity continue at random for as long as one looks. Occasionally one image will become exclusively visible and the other image invisible.

In the demonstration, one image is a green grating and the other is a red grating. During prolonged inspection, the viewer can see the green grating as clearer than the red grating for a few moments, then the reverse. Occasionally the green grating will be all that is visible and occasionally the red grating will be all that is visible. Occasionally, at transitions, one will briefly see irregular composites of the two gratings (such as the red and green gratings superimposed but with one or two bars of the green grating invisible).

Monocular rivalry is easier to see when the component stimuli are of opposite colors, but it also occurs when the component stimuli have the same colors. As long as the two component stimuli differ spatiotemporally in some way, such as orientation (as shown), spatial frequency, or direction of movement, monocular rivalry can be seen.

History of monocular rivalry
Monocular rivalry was discovered by Marius Tscherning in 1898. It was independently discovered, and named, by Breese (1899). He called it monocular rivalry to distinguish it from binocular rivalry, a similar phenomenon in which the different images are presented to opposite eyes. Monocular rivalry was rediscovered by Campbell and Howell (1972). They called the phenomenon monocular pattern alternation, but Campbell called it monocular rivalry in later papers, and that is the term that has stuck, even though the phenomenon does not require monocular viewing. Maier, Logothetis, and Leopold (2005)advocated calling the phenomenon pattern rivalry.

After a burst of research activity in the 1970s, monocular rivalry fell out of favour when Georgeson and Phillips (1980) argued that monocular rivalry arises from afterimages and eye movements. They argued that with gratings, prolonged fixation of the stimuli builds up a negative afterimage that will tend to cancel the real images, making both invisible (a form of neural adaptation). An eye movement at right angles to one grating of one half of the period of the grating will make the afterimage reinforce that original image, making it spring into visibility while the other grating remains invisible. A correct eye movement at right angles to the second grating will make it visible and leave the first invisible. Random eye movements, therefore, could be responsible for the random fluctuations in clarity and visibility of the two images.

Although afterimages and eye movements must contribute to monocular rivalry, they cannot be a complete explanation for at least four reasons: First, it occurs with stimuli other than gratings for which afterimages would not cancel or reinforce the original images (e.g., Sindermann & Lüddeke, 1972). Second, it occurs when the stimuli themselves are afterimages; these cannot be cancelled or reinforced by eye movements (Crassini & Broerse, 1982). Third, sometimes a perceptual alternation occurs after an eye movement in the wrong direction for Georgeson and Phillips's explanation (Bradley & Schor, 1988). Fourth, visibility of an irregular composite of the two images cannot be explained by eye movements. To be explained by cancellation of afterimages, such composites impossibly require that different parts of the retina move in different directions.

In 1997, Andrews and Purves revived interest in monocular rivalry by showing that its alternations could be entrained by binocular rivalry alternations in an adjacent part of the visual field.

Explanations of monocular rivalry
Tscherning (1898) pointed out the similarity of monocular rivalry to binocular rivalry. Breese (1899) attributed monocular rivalry to the same mechanism as responsible for binocular rivalry. Leopold and Logothetis (1999) argued that it, and binocular rivalry, are examples of multistable perception phenomena, including the Necker cube and Rubin vase figure.

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

title: Monocular rivalry


text:
Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 2

Re-instate very recent comment from 20JAN05
About the original question:
 * Even a mere trivia like the shared birthday establishes a connection between the two persons that is just not there. It would imply that there is some more of a connection beyond the coincidence. That would be misleading. I even think building those coincidental bridges would actually cast doubts on our selection of the factual data in the article. Unprofessional!
 * The factoid doesnt say anything specific about either Darwin or Lincoln because so many people were born on the same day. And if I keep looking I will find someone else who is considered a historical celebrity born on that day. But if it is not specific it is not interesting or relevant. We might as well include that they both had two hands and needed to eat once in a while.
 * That many people believe in the significance of coincidences and write about it on websites doesnt make something eligible for an encyclopedia.

So, I am for removal.

About the discussion: Floflei6 09:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This is one of those rare examples where a compromise in the decision itself is not an option. Either the factoid is in or not. As there is apparently no one prepared to make a final judgement and Vincent doesnt want to accept the majority vote, but none of the parties want mor e attrition editing, there is only one option left. Someone has to back down! Someone has to go over all the arguments and admit that the other side has got better ones; say f... it, at least I had a good discussion that is preserved for eternity and then move on honourably. Because,
 * This thing has been, and is, sapping resources from wikipedia. A lot of people have devoted a lot of their time and brainpower on this discussion. So, I would ask you to ballance the weight of your cause against the effort that insisting further would demand from everyone. I think it is time to stop now and fight for other causes.

Debate proposal
I'm back again. I propose to make a debate for solving this with a defined structure. How can this help? Mainly, we'll know what the other's saying in an ordered way. I don't like to use the pointing system here (thus, there won't be winners and losers), because debates are not used in disputes resolution.

The idea is: there will be two parties a Proposition (pro trivia) and an Opposition (against trivia), with a max. of 3 members. Both parties will have a section devoted for arguments presentation, where the members of the party expose why or why not the trivia should be in the article. Then, the replying process begins, beginning with a member of the opposition being replyed by one of the proposition. Then, it's the turn for the proposition being replyed by one of the opposition, until each party has done three replies.

If you agree with this, I'll search a judge for this, present it to you, and, if you like him/her, we start! --Neigel von Teighen 17:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I have one question: how are you going to be able to find three people 'pro-trivia'? Given that the vote is now over 5:1 against including the fact at all, and all that Vincent is doing is disrupting Wikipedia in a vain attempt to wear down the thirteen or more people that are prepared to revert him, wouldn't your time be better spent encouraging him to work on improving Wikipedia in the many other areas that he presumably worked on before, rather than stopping us doing that by having to pay special attention to this article?

 * I don't see the point of a debate. All we ask is one more corroborating fact that establishes a linkage between these people.  If Vincent can supply that single fact – they met; they did the same course at university with the same teacher; they both had a keen interest in natural history for a sustained period – then the debate wouldn't be needed. Noisy | Talk 18:35, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think there's much worthy of debating here. This is the case of a single person vigorously pursuing an agenda against a majority which has already established general consensus on the matter.  Previous debate and argument does not seem to have swayed his opinion.  Contrary to his pleadings, I don't think it's necessary to seek a compromise on this matter.  His version of the article, though factually correct, simply makes for bad writing as it goes off on a tangent completely unrelated to a general exposition of Darwin's life and works.  I'm perfectly content to continue reverting his edits until he either gives up or until Wikipedia policy is changed so that his behaviour becomes actionable. Psychonaut 18:55, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * First, there are three pro-trivia: Vincent, Sam Spade and me. Anyway, I said that the maximum is three (this is not an arbitrarily chosen number for giving us an advantage; see debate). The point to do this is for giving a solution to this without the present edit war nor personal attacks (I recognize they have been decreasing). It's a safe way to know the others' arguments. Then, the on-going discussion will consist in discuss who was better and what should be done, after 'hearing' what everyone had to say. In short terms, a kind of Popular Arbitration made by the users after a debate between the involved parties.
 * Obviously, I don't want to impose you to do a debate. It's a proposal to reach the long-wanted solution to a very long edit war. The solution here is not as simply as to revert and keep reverting until we've got an Arbitration made by the against-trivia party against Vincent. --Neigel von Teighen 19:11, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * My impression is that you misrepresent Sam. I don't read that he is pro trivia but that he is against removing stuff which adds to the totality of value that wikipedia presents, in terms of information.  The only difference between Sam and the rest of us is that we make a distinction between adding something that 'trivialises' what should be one of the showpiece articles on Wikipedia: we think it is better to leave out an acknowledged fact in order to present a more scholarly impression.  I have no idea what your motives are for standing in the face of a 5:1 majority.  I note that you also don't try and supply that additional piece of information that might make this whole thing evaporate.  Noisy | Talk 20:00, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

No a debate isn't needed - Wikipedia already has an established range of procedures for dealing with article disputes. This issue has already been decided via and WP:RfC on the issue, as well as a vote. The decission is against the inclusion of birthday coincidences (and potentially other trivia). The fact that some editors are ignoring that decision and continuing a revert war means that they are inviting an RfC against themselves with escalation to arbitration and possibly blocking. As it happens I don't believe that Vincent is being deliberately obstructive. If it wasn't for the fact that he is getting increasingly eloquent in his arguments I might have started the RfC against him myself. -- Solipsist 20:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I've got nothing against votes, but, in this case, it increased the violence in here. I see you don't like the debate, and I accept it. Again, it's a proposal. Anyone with a better idea (and surely there is someone) is welcome if the idea is focused on building consensus between both parties. Also, RfC helped bringing more vandalism, RfM was not answered and RfAr, declined. There's no other method I know that can help (if someone contacted Jimbo Wales, we would have another method). Again, I want this edit war solved with a decission built by both parties. --Neigel von Teighen 21:28, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * There is one more method. That is an RfAr against Vincent himself. It should be apparent that we don't want to take it that far, because that may extend bad feeling beyond this single article.

 * Consensus (a central, mutually agreed path) is not an option, as has been stated by others. This is a yes/no case.  Vincent has closed off the vote by archiving it, so it remains at 5:1 against inclusion.

 * I ask again: can you propose some other corroborating fact? If you can't, what are your reasons for wanting to include this trivia?

 * Please also note, that even though the calendar date of their birth is the same, that doesn't necessarily mean that they were born in the same 24 hour period. Noisy | Talk 09:01, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * I answered you below one hour before you wrote "I asked again". Debate in the absence of a judge doesn't work. You won't listen to my reasons (I claim) just as I won't listen to yours (you presumably would claim). Vincent 09:19, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No debate is required. A few vandals here and there whose spraypaint is consistently washed away is trivial. Adraeus 22:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Noisy wrote "All we ask is one more corroborating fact that establishes a linkage between these people". Please recall that the word "coincidentally" was stressed from the beginning. This means there isn't another linkage, nor did I ever argue there was. However, here's something: Lincoln and Darwin were both against slavery, with Darwin being its more passionate foe and Lincoln its more effective one. Furthermore, Darwin wrote of black slaves in the Americas whom he met while travelling there and was sympathetic to their plight.

Now, I would be the first to agree that creating a section about Darwin's views on slavery simply to add the birthday factoid would be overkill. It's a coincidence, nothing more, but it is an interesting coincidence and it is culturally relevant, as demonstrated by the 4000 Google hits. People out in the world notice the coincidence and mark it. Trivia is a nice bucket for things like this. But if no one wants a Trivia section, a parenthetical mention in the body text is not inappropriate, and because birth is the first public event of one's life (public event I said, so let's not start a life-begins-at-conception debate here!) then it's appropriate to put in in an early life section.

BTW, like Sam Spade I am not so much pro-factoid as I am anti-deletion. The factoid was on Wiki for four months before someone decided to delete it. If I had introduced it into the article myself, I probably would not have made such a case about it.

Concerning other objections, the birthday paradox does not trivialize the coincidence. The paradox refers to finding in a group of people some who share a birth date. There is indeed a high likelihood of this in small groups of people. However, Lincoln and Darwin, two of the most prominent figures of the 19th century, share a birth day. There are 366 dates in a year, but there are 36,524 days in most centuries, making the coincidence more worthy of notice. Vincent 08:00, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On another note, there is massive oppostion to including the factoid, but no one seems opposed to the Darwin award mention. Now what does that have to do with Darwin? Or is it simply that something should be deleted because I include it? Vincent 08:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Darwin award....and Darwin...how are they related? Did you eat lead paint chips as a child? Cburnett 08:52, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, turn it around "Darwin and Lincoln sharing a birthday and Darwin? How is Darwin related to his birthday?" No I didn't eat lead chips as a child. Now aren't you being insulting here? On the other hand the relationship between Darwin and the Darwin awards is that a comedian, whom Darwin has never met, decided to name an award after him.

 * BTW, it took only 12 minutes for someone to change an edit simply because I was the one who added it, citing that the text (about Darwin's interest in fortuitous events) was not part of his legacy. Fortuitous events are part of his legacy, e.g. lungs being both breathing organs and swim bladders, a random coincidence. The random nature of Darwin's theory is also part of his legacy. Before Darwin we thought of ourselves as the result of some divine plan or of an inevitable rise towards perfection. After Darwin we can plausibly think of ourselves as the product of an impersonal process driven by the accumulation of minute random variation.

 * But did the above editor deliberate about this? Or did he just simply change my edit in a knee-jerk response to me? Vincent 09:09, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vincent there are 21,000 Google hits mentioning that Darwin was an Aquarius, so that would seem to be even more relevant than any coincidence with Lincoln. Perhaps we should put discussion of his star sign into the article - its a fact, its true, its got some Google hits. We could include an infobox with astrology readings on all biography articles, and whilst we are at it, list their estimated Myers-Briggs type too (INTP for Darwin?). User:Floflei6 was saying this is a case where compromise isn't possible, but actually I think compromise is possible. Whilst this factoid doesn't contribute to the Charles Darwin article, it would have a place in an article which discussed birthday coincidences. I've given you another birthday coincidence above, along with a link to the maths problem on the likelihood of shared birthdays. Also I for one am not too keen on linking to the Darwin Awards - again Darwin is relevant to those awards, but the awards aren't that relevant to Darwin's biography. - Solipsist 09:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, the astrology point is a better continuation of the debate than previous meandering repetitions have been, I admit. But there are good reasons for not including his sign: astrological signs are seldom mentioned in Wikipedia but birthdays always are, at least when they are known, and there are very few birthday coincidences. I looked up ten dates at random and didn't find one between prominent 19th century personalities. (BTW, what was your birthday example?)
 * I suppose we could start a Notable birthday coincidences page AND include a bullet under "See Also" linking to that page, preferably mentioning why. Vincent 09:52, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The astrology example was to be my next step the the reductio ad absurdum argument (now archived on a sub sub page), but the discussion moved on too quickly for me to keep up. You will find the other birthday coincidence there - and there are bound to be more. It doesn't have to be just birthday coincidences either. Date of death + birthday coincidences are often interesting to people who believe in reincarnation, most especially the Dali Lama. You can look for other temporal coincidences too - for a while I've had a soft spot for the quirky featured article Exploding whale, but recently noticed that the first Oregon beach incident was happening at almost exactly the same time the 1970 Bhola cyclone was killing about half a million people on the other side of the world - for me that rather makes the homour in the Exploding whale article ring a little hollow.
 * I don't know how other people would feel about a 'See also' link to Notable birthday coincidences from here, but I personally wouldn't particularly encourage it. - Solipsist 13:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Hey, the trivia is very trivial but it remains trivially actual :) The proble is that this is getting slowly into a personal war against Vincent over here and that is not acceptable. We want a solution. You may don't want the trivia and I'd like to see it. I don't have any other corroborating fact, I only think it's not anything scandalous nor anti-encyclopaedic nor disrupts the artcile's integrity. I see some reasons of deleting the trivia, and think they're as valid as the reality of the existance of the coincidence. Coincidences are important and, added to the fact that CD and AL were against slavery (I wouldn't make a new section for it), it can increase the style of the article.
 * Noisy, RfAr can't be performed if no one answered the RfM. --Neigel von Teighen 20:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln vs. Queen Victoria
Is the following a common view of Lincoln among UKers?
 * A career politician who is most known for his declaration of war on his own people

Do people object to a trivia section or to Lincoln? If Queen Victoria & Darwin were born the same day, would it be worthy of being trivia? --JimWae 06:41, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

 * I don't believe it is a common view, but I do think there is a slight amount of anti-American bias. I have made this point before. Vincent 07:48, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * No this is a red herring. I would be quite surprised if the majority of users voting against inclusion are not in fact American themselves. If the birthday coincidence involved Darwin and Queen Victoria, the only difference would be that two would more likely have known about it and it could have affected their lives. - Solipsist 09:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm voting against it, I'm an American, I'm against any meaningless coincidences. If the two birthdays in question are people with no connection to one another, even thematically, then it is a meaningless coincidence. Doesn't matter who it is. --Fastfission 16:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I said slight :)

Arbitration or Debate?
Noisy wrote "There is one more method. That is an RfAr against Vincent himself. "

Actually, it would create no bad feeling on my part. I sought arbitration myself if you'll remember. I would welcome arbitration for the same reason that I find my advocate's proposal a good one: a moderated debate to a third party will have a result, but an Us vs. Them argument doesn't always. (Of course, finding an judge we would both agree on would be difficult.) Vincent 09:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Vincent, are you aware that there is a 5:1 opposition to your inclusion of a birthday conincidence? Do you care? Also, I think an ArbCom case against you is warranted, and hopefully would lead to you only being able to edit Charles Darwin once in 24 hours. That would help you not break the 3RR on this article, and stop causing a disruption. It is a red herring for you to say that you will listen to anyone else. You have stated that you will keep inserting this fact every day, no matter what. *sigh*. I had hoped that your block would have given you some time to reflect. In fact, it only meant that the great emancipator wasn't mentioned for 32 hours, in an article about charles darwin. --Mrfixter 12:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * It's clear to me that no one wants the debate, but an arbitration. It sounds good to you, but an arbitration can solve against anyone. Obviously, massive inclutions and deletions of the trivia is not the way. That's clear... I propose (yes, non-official) but good way to keep some order, but you might want arbitration and I respect it (hope Vincent also does). Only a little comment: I'm surprised that no admin is here protecting the page...That's not too official. --Neigel von Teighen 20:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * It's clear to me that only ONE user is consistently trivializing this article. After his three reversions are done, this user usually has the sense to stop. Whether arbitration would 'solve' against me, who knows? I would call it a lukewarm edit war, certainly nothing to protect the page over. Ask on Requests_for_page_protection, why not? Be bold! --Mrfixter 22:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Mrfixter wrote Vincent, are you aware that there is a 5:1 opposition to your inclusion of a birthday conincidence? Do you care?.
 * Yes, I am aware and I stated very clearly that I did find voting inappropriate.
 * I had hoped that your block would have given you some time to reflect.

You forget that I voluntarily stayed off a few days over the New Year, hoping that everyone would take a breather. That did not work, so I have had to continue. Sorry. Vincent 03:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think Vincent should be strung up alongside Sam Spade and Neigel; however, arbitration seems to be a standard procedure when dealing with trolls and vandals such as them. Adraeus 23:14, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Vincent, why do you continue to disrupt wikipedia? Take a deep breath and walk away. Your block for breaking the 3RR has clearly not helped you. You have a choice, you don't have to continue anything. When you were blocked, trivial nonsense was not in this article. The only positive thing I can see is that the talkpages are still being used, there is hope yet...--Mrfixter 03:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Mrfixter, why do you continue to disrupt wikipedia? Take a deep breath and walk away. You too have a choice, you don't have to continue reverting. I am adding an interesting instance of noteworthy trivia, not nonsense. The only positive thing I can see is that the talkpages are still being used, there is hope for you yet as well... Vincent 07:41, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * As far as 27 editors of the Charles Darwin article are concerned, you are indeed disrupting what you call "Wikipedia". Mrfixter is not to blame for your headstrong, unreasonable and irrational crusade. You are responsible for the edit war and the article's recent protection status. Any decently intelligent person would determine you, Vincent, as the problem. Adraeus 00:00, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well I briefly thought the discussion was heading for an amicable solution, but now it looks like the argument is just starting to repeat elements of the previous archived page. I was going to say that the next step is mediation, but I see that has already been tried. Am I right in thinking that User:GK was the mediator? And given that GK seems to have left Wikipedia, the mediation is now dead?

If so, with the page protected and the argument going in circles, I guess we will reluctantly have to go for Arbitration against Vincent. -- Solipsist 09:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmmm, surely User:GK can't have been the mediator he was in the discussion from the start. Was a mediator found? -- Solipsist 09:28, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * So, the actions of one disruptive user has caused the protection of this page. It is clear that Arbitration is the only way forward. An indefinite ban from inserting trivial, non-noteworthy, coincidental nonsense into this article by Vincent would be a satisfactory outcome of arbitration, so lets have our fingers crossed! His block for breaking the 3RR and disruptive behavior certainly count against him already. We should start an evidence page, but I don't know how to do this...Thanks! --Mrfixter 14:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Requests_for_arbitration/Vfp15_and_Charles_Darwin/Evidence Dunno if this is appropriate, but it is a starting place. --Mrfixter 18:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The first person to come forward as mediator was Mgekelly. He takes a low profile. He has blocked the page once before for 24 hours. Blocking is fine, but when the page is unblocked, I will continue with 3rr, and will do so until an acceptable compromise is reached, or until arbitration results in a decision. As long as this remains a battle between two camps, I refuse recognize the opposition's mob mentality as rightful authority. The opposition is wrong and offended and thus wants to shout me down and bully me into submission. I will accept the result of an impartial board, but the opposition cannot be called impartial, can they? Vincent 00:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think you understand the purpose of arbitration. Arbitration rarely if ever settles content disputes — that's why your own request for arbitration was quickly rejected.  If there is a new request for arbitration, it would not even discuss the pros or cons of any proposed content changes; rather, it would focus on your insistence on conducting a pointless and sterile edit war.  Perhaps Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco may serve as precedent.  Based on this precedent, I believe that a possible outcome may be that you could be banned from editing Charles Darwin for a period of time.

 * There is no such thing as an "entitlement" to 3RR daily until the end of time. Especially if there is a open threat to do so blindly and mechanically until you get your way singlehandedly even though you have readily acknowledged that the consensus is overwhelmingly against you. I believe this amply satisfies the definition of a pointless and sterile edit war even if you strictly kept within the 3RR rule, which incidentally you have not.

 * I'm not sure what the next step would be, but one possibility would be filing a fresh request for comments. Unlike the previous RFC, this would not be a question about the content dispute, rather it would focus on your user conduct.  See Category:User conduct disputes for some examples of these.

 * The content-dispute mediation request at Requests_for_mediation appears to be moribund. There has been no edit to it in more than a month, and no mediator has stepped forward.  Is there any evidence that User:Mgekelly is acting as a mediator?  Protecting the page doesn't count, any admin can do that. Since you initiated the request for mediation, you presumably have an urgent desire to see a successful mediation take place to completion, and therefore it is up to you to push the process forward if it seems stalled.  However, it doesn't appear you have done anything beyond initially filing the request — you haven't even specified the names of the "many"... a mediator needs to contact people to see if they agree to mediation, which is hard to do if the mediator doesn't know who these people are!  Unless some significant progress happens there soon, it will be time to declare that mediation process dead and request its removal to the archives.

 * Incidentally, mediation works best when there is a one-vs-one content dispute between only two users; a one-vs-many mediation is unlikely to succeed in finding unanimous agreement among the "many", who will each have their individual point of view.  However, one-vs-many mediation should rarely arise, because a one-vs-many dispute is ipso facto evidence of the existence of a consensus.

 * Formal proceedings can be tedious and everyone would prefer to avoid them. And once again, such formal proceedings would no longer be about content disputes, but about your user conduct.  I hope you will reconsider the course you seem to have chosen.  You have already acknowledged that the consensus is overwhelming against you, but you simply don't care.  But Wikipedia operates on consensus... how else could a website that allows anyone to edit possibly operate?  Will you not acknowledge this?

 * -- Curps 03:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So, lets analyze these two so-called "camps", in this exciting new game called "Lets look at the editors in the past month who have taken out or put in a birthday coincidence!":

Taken out:

User:Robert_Pendray - 00:18, 22 Dec 2004 3 times

User:Noisy - 10:02, 22 Dec 2004 5 times

User:William_M._Connolley - 11:46, 22 Dec 2004 4 times

User:Duncharris - 10:24, 24 Dec 2004 2 times

User:81.179.199.87 - 00:02, 29 Dec 2004 '''1 time '''

User:Solipsist - 10:03, 29 Dec 2004 3 times

User:Fredrik - 23:57, 29 Dec 2004 4 times

User:Jonathunder - 05:36, 9 Jan 2005 6 times

User:Nunh-huh - 03:24, 10 Jan 2005 3 times

User:Steinsky - 20:26, 10 Jan 2005 1 time

User:Adraeus - 05:19, 11 Jan 2005 4 times

User:Mrfixter - 03:28, 12 Jan 2005 2 times

User:Fvw- 07:45, 17 Jan 2005 7 times

User:Psychonaut - 10:25, 21 Jan 2005 1 time

Put in:

User:Vfp15 - 00:13, 22 Dec 2004 37 times

User:218.176.34.86 - 10:30, 24 Dec 2004 2 times
 * For what it's worth, User:218.176.34.86 is almost certainly User:Vfp15 himself. See Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute/Evidence. -- Curps 19:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Sam_Spade - 12:37, 29 Dec 2004 3 times

User:Cburnett - 07:42, 14 Jan 2005 1 time
 * Please make sure you read the summary of my revert that incidentaly put the trivia in. It was a "protest" against Adraeus' incomplete edit summary. Cburnett 08:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is a game you can play at home, dear viewer. Which one of the so-called "camps" represent wikipedia community consensus, and which one represents willful and implacable resistance to wikipedia community consensus?

--Mrfixter 03:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think I've removed the trivia three times too. Adraeus 04:07, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry Adraeus, just did a month, from 22 December onwards. Didn't have the patience to do more. --Mrfixter 04:35, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, I removed the trivia four times between the 10th and 13 of January 2005. Adraeus 05:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * You're right of course. Logging off now, feel free to add yourself! My list was never meant to be authoritative, if there are mistakes, fix 'em! Sorry for leaving you out tho, nothing personal. --Mrfixter 05:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Against trivia
reverts: 18 Fvw, Psychonaut, Mrfixter, Nunh-huh, Jonathunder, Adamsan, Fredrik, Solipsist, aaarrrggh, Robert Pendray, Duncharris, Noisy, William M. Connolley, Adraeus, 80.250.128.5, Mgekelly, gK, PxT

no reverts, but voted against: 15 Floflei6, Cburnett, Curps, Nasrallah, Joe D, BM, Neutrality, Peter O., Zero, Jerzy, Dan100, Morven, Tuf-Kat, Fastfission, PaulHammond

talked against, but no votes or reverts: 9 XmarkX, JamesMLane, Rd232, Cortonin, Janust, dave souza, jguk, Cortonin

Grand total: 42 (or 88%)

For trivia

 * 1) Vfp15 218.176.34.86 (also Vincent:" Fighting the ignoramuses three times day 'til me dyin' day!!!")
 * 2) Neigel von Teighen 21:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) (you forgot me)
 * 3) Sam_Spade
 * 4) Willmcw
 * 5) chocolateboy
 * 6) at0
 * 7) User:LizardWizard (very first edit was for the Charles Darwin trivia and subsequent editing suggest strong familiarity with Wikipedia procedures—possible sockpuppet??)
 * 8) User:Kevink (a grand total of four edits. Probable sockpuppet?)

Grand total: 5 or 6 (or 12%)

Overwhelming concensus:
'No trivia! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! '   Consensus:
 * 1) majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
 * 2) general agreement or concord; harmony.

Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease

—It looks like there is an overwhelming "majority of opinion", although there to be no "harmony". Should a very small minority obstruct the very clear wishes of the majority in this case?

Arbitration unknown for the ArbCom!!
Hey, I think you did the request in the wrong way! There's no request put in the WP:RfAr but a subpage calling for evidence. I don't care who did the requst, but I'm sure he doesn't know how to perform one. Thus, I'll make the request as it must be done. You surely know that the ArbCom must approve (I think now it's by 7 or 6 votes) the request before. --Neigel von Teighen 22:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * No, you are getting confused by the previous WP:RfAr that Vincent started. It was turned down because Mediation hadn't been tried. User:Mrfixter was pointing to it as a starting point for collating the evidence, much of which will be the same. -- Solipsist 22:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm talking about Requests_for_arbitration/Vfp15_and_Charles_Darwin and its subpage Requests_for_arbitration/Vfp15_and_Charles_Darwin/Evidence. I did the request by myself, specially against those who Vincent wanted (I'm his advocate and it's my job. I don't like to do this sort of things...). Now, we're officially making a request. --Neigel von Teighen 22:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, you're openly admitting you're Vfp15's sockpuppet? Okay. Thanks. Adraeus 23:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * No, I'm saying I'm his advocate. Do you remember me? I also was in the Atheism dispute with you. --Neigel von Teighen 17:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration From The Light Side
See WP:RfAr. Adraeus 00:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening
There is now a Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute case before the Arbitration Committee to investigate the behaviour of the disputants here. If you were not contacted via talk page, you may still wish to add evidence toRequests for arbitration/Charles Darwin/Lincoln dispute/Evidence to support your case. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:36, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

jump in or stay out?
I arrived late to this whole dispute, but I have formed a definite opinion as to whether or not the disputed factoid belongs in the article. Since the vote here has already been archived, does it make sense for me to add my opinion to the Arbitration area, or is that really exclusively concerned with user behavior? (I'm wondering to what extent user consensus on the inclusion/exclusion is relevant evidence.) I have no stake whatsoever in either side "winning". Skyraider 01:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * You can find the vote at Talk:Charles_Darwin/Lincoln/LincolnArchive01. I don't think anyone would object if you add your vote (signed and timestamped), but an archived page will be seen by fewer people than before it was archived.

 * I don't think the arbitration will rule in any way on content disputes, I believe it will focus on users' conduct. -- Curps 01:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I had been under the impression that archived material was to be considered frozen, but if I can still get in on the vote there, that seems like the most appropriate action on my part. Whatever the outcome of the arbitration, I hope all involved will be able to accept it and continue to contribute to Wikipedia. -- Skyraider 02:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lamest edit wars ever?
The Charles Darwin/Abraham Lincoln debate has now made it to Lamest edit wars ever. 4.232.141.25 12:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I should start a revert war to put it at the top since it's the lamest one of all! Though, the oddnes of 3 is pretty classic. Congratulations Vincent, huzzah! Cburnett 18:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 2


text:
The Sacramento Union

The Sacramento Union was a daily newspaper founded in 1851 in Sacramento, California. It was the oldest daily newspaper west of the Mississippi River before it closed its doors after 143 years in January 1994, no longer able to compete with The Sacramento Bee, which was founded in 1857, just six years after the Union.

Founding
The birth of this storied newspaper institution began in 1851 when the city of Sacramento was in its infancy.

Under the direction of its first editor, Dr. John F. Morse, who had attracted proprietors through letters to the New Orleans Delta and well-known literary attainments, The Union was initially printed as The Daily Union on Wednesday, March 19, 1851. Upon the front page of this 23-inch by 34-inch paper, Morse addressed the readers of The Union, committing to “publish the first news in the best style and at the lowest prices” and “to have an efficient correspondent in every important town and mining region in the state.”

The paper had evolved through the efforts of four Sacramento Transcript printers. The printers had introduced the idea of The Union's creation a year earlier, due to their frustrations with a labor dispute between the Transcript and the Placer Times, which were the city's first two newspapers. The battle between these two newspapers became so fierce that the papers sold advertising space for below the cost of composition for the mere purpose of undercutting their competition.

Opening its operation at its 21 J St. headquarters, The Union endured very competitive times during its early years, when it was one of about 60 Sacramento newspapers.

Sacramento's status as a newspaper town, however, was short-lived, as all but two newspapers failed, leading to the Union's famous slogan, “The Oldest Daily in the West”. The Union's early years are also recognized for their famous contributors, who included Mark Twain, Bret Harte and Dan De Quille.

The Daily Union evolved quite quickly as a leading newspaper, as its initial circulation of 500 was soon afterward expanded with an even wider circulation and the daily publication was joined by the semi-monthly Steamer Union (1851) for Atlantic states and European readers, the Weekly Union (1852), and the semi-annual Pictorial Union (1853), which featured drawings of towns, landscapes and other scenes of the era.

The Union, which was often referred to as the “Miners’ Bible” during its early years, passed a major test when it overcame a great fire on November 2, 1852, and continued printing on a small press that was saved from the flames. A brick building, which still stands today, was later constructed at 121 J Street to replace the paper's original building, a California Historical Landmark No. 605.

In 1852, Thomas Gardiner, one of the founders of the Los Angeles Times, was publisher of the Union.

On November 17, 1858, The Union became the first California newspaper to issue a double-sheet daily. The publication was also recognized as the largest double-sheet daily in the nation.

The Sacramento Publishing Co. purchased the Sacramento Daily Union, as it was then known, and the Daily Record in 1875, and merged them into one newspaper, calling it the Sacramento Daily Record-Union – a name that was later dropped.

Mark Twain and The Sacramento Union
The Missouri-born Samuel Langhorne Clemens, who is better known by his pen name of Mark Twain, is remembered most for his contributions to The Union. This point was evident through the large bronze bust of Twain, which sat just west of the State Capitol in the lobby of The Union’s latter building at 301 Capitol Mall.

Inscribed on the bust were Twain’s words: “Early in 1866, George Barnes invited me to resign my reportership on his paper, the San Francisco Morning Call, and for some months thereafter, I was without money or work; then I had a pleasant turn of fortune. The proprietors of the Sacramento Union, a great and influential daily journal, sent me to the Sandwich Islands to write four letters a month at twenty dollars a piece. I was there for four or five months, and returned to find myself about the best known man on the Pacific Coast.”

Twain dispatched a series of articles on Hawaii for The Union in 1866. These were very popular, and many historians credit the series with turning Twain into a journalistic star. Because many people thought that Twain wrote in The Union building, whenever The Union was struggling financially during the turn of the 20th century, the owners would drag out an old desk and sell it for a princely sum as "the desk where Mark Twain sat."

Unfortunately, said Charlotte Gilmore, former head of The Unions “morgue” or bound volumes collection, the original Twain articles were cut out and stolen from The Unions bound volumes during the 1970s.

“Sometime after I left in the summer of 1971, it happened,” Gilmore said. “It’s a very disappointing situation, but at least the (Twain) articles were photographed (for microfilm) before this happened.”

The Union's bound volumes, as well as the bronze bust of Twain, are now in the possession of the Shields Library at UC Davis, having been donated by the Danel and Reboin families, owners of the Herald Printing Co. The Twain articles can be viewed on microfilm at the Sacramento Public Library's central location at 828 I St.

Late 20th century
In 1966, the paper was purchased by Copley Press, which brought in millions of dollars that resulted in improvements such as the 1967 construction of the publication's Capitol Mall headquarters and a new long-run, photo-offset press. During those years it was the dominant morning newspaper in Sacramento. Then, in the mid-1970s, the Bee, previously an afternoon newspaper, decided to go head-to-head with the Union as a morning newspaper and promised that the Bee would arrive on the doorstep by 6:00 a.m. The Union circulation department couldn't equal that service, and the Bee quickly became the larger of the two dailies. While the Bee had a much larger staff, the Union beat the Bee on a number of huge stories. Among them were the Dorothea Puente Victorian grave sites and the investigative reporting that led to the resignation of California Department of Education Superintendent Bill Honig.

Copley sold the Union to conservative financier Richard Mellon Scaife in 1977. While there were reports that Scaife lost millions of dollars every year on the newspaper, he enjoyed having a conservative voice in the capital of the largest liberal state in the union. In the late 1980s, the newspaper changed from the standard broadsheet size to a tabloid, and the Union launched a marketing campaign called "Grab the Tab." For the most part, it was a failure and the paper suffered losses in circulation.

In 1989, Scaife sold the Union to local real estate developers Daniel Benvenuti Jr. and David Kassis. They hired Joseph Farah as editor. Under Farah's editorship, the paper veered even further to the right and became, in the words of a former Union journalist, "a mouthpiece for the fundamentalist Christian right, preoccupied with abortion, homosexuals and creationism." Benvenuti and Kassis sold the newspaper's press in 1991 to a Mexican town and had the paper printed at Herald Printing. In 1992, Herald's president Ralph Danel Jr. acquired the Union from Benvenuti and Kassis in November 1992; the selling price was in large part the debt that Benvenuti and Kassis owed Herald for its printing services.

The newspaper in 1991 and 1992 ran a series of investigative reports that revealed that then-state Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill Honig had directed state education officials to contract with a company run by his wife, Nancy, out of their San Francisco home, that was designed to get parents more involved in their children's education. At Honig's direction, state funds were ultimately used to pay employees of Nancy Honig's company, the Quality Education Project (QEP). Bill Honig was later indicted and convicted on conflict-of-interest charges, although the felonies were later reduced to misdemeanors. Honig, who had been rumored to be a candidate for California governor, attributed the investigation to Republicans who didn't want him to win higher office.

In an attempt to reduce losses, circulation was dropped outside of the Sacramento metro area and, two months before its closure, publication was changed from seven days a week to three days a week. The formerly daily Union published its final edition on Friday, January 14, 1994. The cover featured a color photo of the paper's last staff under the blaring headline, "We're History," coined by the newspaper's last editor, Ken Harvey.

2005: Sacramento Union Magazine
The road to the rebirth of The Union in its newspaper form began in early 2004, when the name of the newspaper was acquired for the purpose of restarting the publication.

To meet its goals, the new Union set up offices in Fair Oaks and worked with former Union publishing staff to prepare for its return.

In August 2004, a modernized Sacramento Union returned with bimonthly magazines, then started publishing monthly in May 2005. James H. Smith, a former publisher of the Sacramento Union newspaper and co-founder of the Western Journalism Center with Farah, served as publisher, and Kenneth E. Grubbs Jr., former director of the National Journalism Center who had also worked for the Orange County Register, served as editor.

The publishers did not intend to return as a print daily newspaper, concentrating instead on web and magazine publishing.

Due to its very limited success, the magazine ceased existing after only five issues. Much of the office staff was laid off in May 2005.

Ryan Rose, The Union's current managing editor, served as the magazine's Web editor; he said that many people were confused upon seeing The Union as a magazine.

“We were known in this region for more than 100 years as a newspaper and then less than 10 years after The Union closed as a newspaper, we reissued it as a magazine and I firmly believe that the magazine suffered because we betrayed the brand,” Rose said.

After several months of dormancy, a new print edition of The Sacramento Union appeared on Friday, July 21, 2006, sporting a similar masthead as the magazine and the notation "Since 1851". The volume number in the paper was listed as "Volume 1, Number 1."

2006-2009: Tabloid
In 2006, The Sacramento Union was reborn as a tabloid-sized free weekly newspaper from 2006 to 2009. Published by the Sacramento Union, LLC, the paper also published a daily news website. J.C. Dutra was The Union's publisher and editor-in-chief. The paper was conservative in tone.

The Sacramento Union suspended publication of both the paper and the website in March 2009.

The Sacramento Union was acquired along with 45 other newspapers across the United States by a holding company controlled by Bruce Edgar Slaton Jr. for an undisclosed price.

Newspaper building
In the autumn of 2005, demolition crews razed the old daily Union office building, located at 301 Capitol Mall in downtown Sacramento. The building was constructed in 1967. (Earth Metrics Inc., 1989.) A 53-story high-rise called "The Towers on Capitol Mall" was planned for the Union's previous spot, but by 2007, the developer was struggling to finance the project and plans were scrapped. The former location is currently fenced off and its future is unknown.

Archives
The archives of the daily Union are in the Special Collections of the Shields Library of UC Davis. California Digital Newspaper Collection has in its on-line archives the Sacramento Daily Union (Sacramento, 1851–1899). Sacramento Public Library's holdings contain complete microfilm archives of The Sacramento Union from 1851 (founding) to January 1994 (when publication ceased) and are located at its Central Library.

title: The Sacramento Union


text: Template:Campaignbox Longstreet's Tidewater Operations


text:
Blades of Steel

Blades of Steel, later released in Japan as Konamic Ice Hockey (コナミック アイスホッケー), is an ice hockey video game released by Konami for North American arcades in 1987, and ported to the Family Computer Disk System and Nintendo Entertainment System in 1988. All teams are fictional but based out of real Canadian and American cities. The game is known for its fast-paced hockey action and especially for the fighting. It is a one or two player game. When playing against the computer, there are three difficulty levels to choose from: Junior, College, and Pro (with Pro being the most difficult and Junior being the easiest). Each team consists of three forwards, two defencemen, and a goaltender.

Two sequels were released: NHL Blades of Steel '99 and NHL Blades of Steel 2000. The NES version was re-released on Nintendo's Virtual Console service on December 24, 2007. The arcade version was re-released on Microsoft's Game Room service on November 24, 2010.

Gameplay

At the beginning of the game, players can select either "Exhibition" or "Tournament" matches. An exhibition match is just one game played against either the computer or another player. Tournament matches are similar to the NHL playoffs. It starts out as one team of the player's choice going against other teams in a playoff style tournament. The team that is successful in beating all of the opposing teams is awarded the Cup.

Fighting in the game is initiated whenever two players bump into each other three times in a row without hitting another player. The two players will stop skating and engage in pre-fight confrontation where they are able to exchange punches if they choose. If a player rapidly punches their opponent during the pre-fight, there is a chance they will knock their opponent down and neither player suffers a penalty. If mutual punches are thrown during the pre-fight sequence, then a voice yells "fight", the fight screen appears, and the gamers take control of their players. During the fight a player can punch high, punch low, block high, or block low and is given a health bar of five hits. The loser, the first person to get hit five times, is given a penalty and sent to the penalty box (the winner is not punished ), creating a power play opportunity of 5-on-4 skaters. Up to four players can be penalized, for a maximum of a 5-on-1 advantage. If a fight occurs close to one of the nets, the referee may break up the fight and call a penalty shot.

During the second intermission, either a playable mini-game will appear for Player One to play or a Konami ad will appear featuring a bear shooting the puck into a net mouthing the words "Nice Shot!" The mini-game is actually an advertisement for Contra and other Konami games, in which (at one point) a little spaceship is trying to destroy a much larger spaceship, this being a reference to Gradius.

If the score is tied at the end of the game, a shoot out (similar to a penalty shot) is used to determine the winner. Each team gets five shots. The team with the most goals after five shots is the winner. If, after that, the game is still tied, each team keeps getting one more shot until a winner is determined.

There are a total of eight teams (four from Canada and four from the United States), each one representing a city that housed an NHL team at the time of development. The four Canadian cities are Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and Edmonton. The four American teams are from New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Minnesota. Teams are depicted with jerseys that vary in color.

This game also features distinct voice samples, which were rare at the time in NES games. The voice says "Blades of Steel!" on the title screen, "Faceoff" before each faceoff, "Fight" when a fight breaks out, "It's a pass" after a successful pass is made, "Penalty shot," and an "Aaahhh!" made by the losing player after a fight, or when a player skates into a goalie. The NES passing sound bite is garbled and has been interpreted as "With the pass", "It's a pass", etc. but the arcade passing bite is clearly audible and confirms the phrase as "Get the pass". The arcade version has a greater variety of sound bites and commentary owing to the hardware's better speech faculties and extra memory.

Blades of Steel differs from the professional game in the NHL in the late 1980s in that it has no offside rule, and its interpretation of penalties does not correspond to the rules of real ice hockey. The game's officials only call two penalties. Players who lose a fistfight are penalized for two minutes, an abstract reworking of the five-minute offsetting majors normally assigned in the event of a fight. Should a fight break out in front of one team's net, then the player on offense gets a penalty shot. The penalty shot is administered in the style of a soccer penalty shot, in that the shooting player must stand on the blue line, instead of moving towards the goaltender. The game also recognizes icing infractions, with an appropriate game reset and faceoff in the liable team's zone.

Reception
Blades of Steel has been well received by critics. Allgame editor Skyler Miller described the game as "one of the most enjoyable sports games of its era". Reviews of the Virtual Console release were mostly positive. Marcel van Duyn of Nintendo Life opined that the game has aged fairly well compared to other Konami sports titles on the NES such as Double Dribble. Dan Whitehead of Eurogamer was more critical of the game, stating that "The graphics aren't particularly good, even by 1987 NES standards, with the same model repeated over and over for the players, and some garish colour combinations are used to tell the teams apart." Electronic Gaming Monthly opted to exclude it from their "100 Best Games of All Time" in favor of Ice Hockey, explaining that "We realize Blades of Steel was an excellent game for its time, with far better graphics than Ice Hockey. But the fact is, if you had to pick between these two games today, Ice Hockey is clearly more fun. For sheer realism we can turn to one of the newer NHL games on the 32-bit systems."

Legacy
Blades of Steel was followed by two sequels: NHL Blades of Steel '99 for the Nintendo 64 and NHL Blades of Steel 2000 for the PlayStation. Climax Studios developed Game Boy Color versions for both games.

title: Blades of Steel