text:
Canaima National Park

Canaima National Park (Parque Nacional Canaima) is a 30000 km2 park in south-eastern Venezuela that roughly occupies the same area as the Gran Sabana region. It is located in Bolívar State, reaching the borders with Brazil and Guyana. The park was named a World Heritage Site by UNESCO.

History
Canaima National Park was established on 12 June 1962. As early as 1990, the countries that participate in the Amazonian Cooperation Treaty had recommended expanding the Canaima National Park southward to connect it with Monte Roraima National Park in Brazil, with coordinated management of tourism, research and conservation.

In 1994, the Canaima National Park was named a World Heritage Site by UNESCO. The International Union for Conservation of Nature performed a conservation assessment in 2017, which listed Canaima National Park as an area of significant concern, citing ineffective protection and management.

Location
Canaima National Park is the second largest park in Venezuela, after Parima-Tapirapecó, and sixth biggest national park in the world. It is roughly the same size as Belgium or Maryland. The park protects part of the Guayanan Highlands moist forests ecoregion.

About 65% of the park is occupied by plateaus of rock called tepuis, which are a kind of table-top mountain millions of years old, with vertical walls and almost flat tops. These constitute a unique biological environment and are also of great geological interest. Their sheer cliffs and waterfalls including Angel Falls, which is the highest waterfall in the world, at 979 m.

The most famous tepuis in the park are Mount Roraima, the tallest and easiest to climb, and Auyantepui, the site of Angel Falls. The tepuis are sandstone and date back to a time when South America and Africa were part of a super-continent.

The park is home to indigenous Pemon Indians, part of the Carib linguistic group. The Pemon have an intimate relationship with the tepuis, and believe they are the home of the 'Mawari' spirits. The park is relatively remote, with only a few roads connecting towns. Most transport within the park is done by light plane from the airstrips built by various Capuchin missions, or by foot and canoe.

Fauna
Canaima has a varied fauna, which is distributed throughout the park according to multiple environmental factors such as altitude and vegetation type. Among the species found are:

Canaima National Park is among one of several dozen regions in Venezuela that has been identified as an Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBAs) by BirdLife International, a global cooperative of non-governmental organizations focused on the conservation of the world’s birds and their natural habitats.
 * Giant armadillo (Priodontes maximus)
 * Giant otter (Pteronura brasiliensis)
 * Giant anteater (Myrmecophaga tridactyla)
 * Cougar (Puma concolor)
 * Jaguar (Panthera onca)
 * Linnaeus's two-toed sloth (Choloepus didactylus)
 * White-faced saki (Pithecia pithecia)
 * Brown-backed bearded saki (Chiropotes israelita)
 * Roraima mouse (Podoxymys roraimae)
 * Tyleria mouse opossum (Marmosa tyleriana)
 * Harpy eagle (Harpia harpyja)
 * Red-shouldered macaw (Diopsittaca nobilis)
 * Dusky parrot (Pionus fuscus)
 * Yellow-banded poison dart frog (Dendrobates leucomelas)
 * ParqueNacionalCanaima.png iguana (Iguana iguana)
 * Hummingbirds (Trochilinae)
 * Toucans (Ramphastidae)
 * South American bushmaster (Lachesis muta)
 * Green acouchi (Myoprocta pratti)
 * Bush dog (Speothos venaticus)

Flora
There are over 300 botanical species endemic only to La Gran Sabana.
 * Endemic flora includes Achnopogon, Adenanthe, Chimantaea, Mallophyton, Quelchia, Tepuia.
 * Endemic carnivorous plants include the Heliamphora (South American pitcher plants) and Brocchinia (a type of bromeliad), as well as several local species of Drosera (sundews), Genlisea (corkscrew plants) and Utricularia (bladderworts).

Hydrography
The park includes the entire watershed of the right bank of the Caroní River and two of the highest waterfalls in the world, the Angel Falls and the Kukenán, as well as plenty of waterfalls of lower altitude.

Land forms
The only land form are the tepuis, that are plateaus which are unique features, among which are its vertical and nearly flat tops, although there are several tepuies that do not meet these rules. Geologically are remnants of a sedimentary cover composed of very ancient sandstone that is superimposed on a base of igneous rocks (mainly granite) that is even older (nearly 3 billion years). On its summit is home to a substantial amount of specific endemic species, both plant and animal. Some endemic plant species are categorized as "carnivorous", which are thus the food supply (mainly insects) that are so scarce in the mountains. These have a geological formations ranging between 1.5 and 2 billion years, which makes them one of the oldest formations in the world. The best known tepuies are: the Auyantepuy (where it follows the Angel Falls), the Roraima, the Kukenan and the Chimantá among many others.

Eastern Sector
Canaima National Park is spread in south-eastern Venezuela along the border between Guyana and Brazil. The best-known feature of Canaima National Park is its characteristic flat-topped mountain formations known as 'tepuis' which cover roughly 65% of the park. The tepuis constitute a unique biogeological entity and are of great geological interest.

As of 1993, Canaima National Park was reported to receive approximately 100,000 tourists every year, with 90% visiting its plateaus. Only a select few of its tepuis are accessible to visitors, with those including Roraima and Auyán-tepui. Angel Falls is also a popular tourist spot, where visitors can canoe through the park’s vast rainforest.

Popular culture
Canaima is the name given to the fictional Californian coastal town where the movie Arachnophobia is supposed to take place.

title: Canaima National Park


text:
Nova Generacia

Nova Generatsia (Нова генерация) is a Bulgarian cold wave band. It was founded in 1987 by Dimeter Voev and existed in different lineups until Voev's death in 1992 at the age of 27.

History
During Voev's life, and especially after his death, Nova Generacia achieved cult status.

In later years, the band appeared in front of 40,000 people in Sofia, opening for Depeche Mode on 21 June 2006. Dimiter Voev's vocal duties were taken up by his younger brother Simeon Voev.

Members

 * Dimeter Voev – lead vocals, bass guitar (until 1992)
 * Kristiyan Kostov – guitar
 * Kiril Manchev – drums
 * Mihail Peshev – synthesizer
 * Alina Tringova – vocals
 * Lyudmil Milovanski – drums
 * Dimitar Bozhidarov – guitar
 * Katya Atanasova – synthesizer, vocals
 * Simeon Voev – lead vocals (since 2006), guitar
 * Georgi Stoilov – drums

Discography

 * 1987 – Вход Б (Vhod B)
 * 1989 – BG Rock I
 * 1991 – Forever
 * 1992 – Отвъд смъртта (Otvud smurtta)
 * 1998 – Завинаги ‘98 (Forever '98)

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

title: Nova Generacia


text:
Talk:Executive Order 6102

Redirects
We need to make this page easier to find. I read a PDF of the original announcement distributed by the Postmaster General and so no mention of 6102. I suggest creating a "Gold Confiscation Executive Order" article that redirects to this one, or something similar. I don't know how to create one though. 137.201.247.20 (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Russel Fugal

 * There are several similar redirects to this article already: US Gold confiscation • U.S. Gold confiscation • Gold Repeal Resolution • United States Executive Order 6102.  I think you need to create an account and use that to be able to create redirects (and pages).  —EncMstr 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

POV?
"and helped to stabilize the economy by eliminating large private hoards of wealth and centralizing gold commerce."

Utter POV garbage. Confiscating gold helped "stabilize" the economy by eliminating presumable greedy hoarders? Someone needs to fix this revisionist nonsense.

what was the emergency? - Omegatron 01:57, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * The emergency, Omegatron, was The Great Depression. Unemployment was over 30%. Most of the population of Oklahoma, Kansas and surrounding states were starving, not hungry, but famine-type starving, which was exacerbated by the Dust Bowl. The situation was no better in cities. Don't forget the military veterans from World War I who weren't getting benefits that they were promised. This didn't happen overnight. The stock market crash was in October 1929, and Roosevelt wasn't elected until November 1932. Roosevelt had been in office for less than two months when he issued Executive Order 6102. It was an action based on dire necessity. 250,000 hungry, homeless WWI veterans were camped out in front of the White House at the time. Roosevelt had to do something. I have no idea if this was the best thing to do, but there was certainly an emergency. --FeralOink (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think what needs to be done is state the facts, then have sections "arguments for", rebuttal, and "arguments against", rebuttal. I'm starting work on it in my word processor.

Rfugal (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I am boldly changing this page to state the facts in the first paragraph and "arguments for" in the second paragraph.
 * Rfugal  —Preceding comment was added at 05:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

68.252.245.86 notes that the text of the executive order as quoted differs significantly from at least one contemporary publication of the order. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I think it's safe to assume that the version currently in the article is bogus. (Has there ever been a law written in the history of mankind, let alone the United States, that suddenly shifts into second person part way through?)

Also, odd punctuation aside, "U.S. Gold confiscation" strikes me as a pretty loaded title. "Confiscation" may be literally accurate, but the word has a strong negative connotation and suggests that the owners were not confiscated for the taking, when in fact they were as required by the 5th Amendment. I am therefore boldly rewriting the quote from the executive order and moving the article to a more neutral title, "United States Executive Order 6102." --Paul 00:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The text of mentions the above captioned USCode. However, that chapter and section doesn't appear to exist anymore. Is it possible that sometime between 1974 and now that the section was relocated within the code? or has the Gold Clause Resolution of 1933 been repealed?

I have removed that citation from the main article. Maybe someone with more interest in this can track it down. --G1076 00:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dollar De-valued
The text mentions the dollar was de-valued by 69%. This is wrong.

If the price of gold was raised from about $20.67 to $35, you get this number (69%) if you subtract 20.67 from 35, then divide by 20.67. This represents the percentage increase in the price of gold. It does not mean the percentage of value lost. To get that, one should subtract from 100% the ratio of the old to the new, ie ( 1 - 20.67/35 ), or 41%.

Imagine you had $1 and wanted to sell it to the US in 1933. You would receive 0.0484 ounces of Gold. The next day, EO 6102 goes into effect. Now you want to sell another $1. You get 0.0286 ounces of Gold. By what percent did your dollar lose value? Well, it could now purchase 41% less gold than before. Or, in other words, it could purchase only 59% of the amount of gold that same dollar puchased the day before. The inverse of this number (169%) is the percentage difference between the new value and the old value. Subtracting 1 from that number (69%) is the percentage increase between the old and new values.
 * --Otheus 19:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Otheus is wrong. The devaluation was 69%. I do these financial calculations all the time. If you could get .0484 of something one day, and .0286, you'd get a 41% decline. That would be the correct inference is the baseline amount were .0484. It isn't. DocGov (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Reworded to fix. Also eliminated notion that gov't "profits" when it takes currency out of circulation. --69.231.75.56 09:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * The somebody profits in this transaction. Hiking the price of gold from $20.67 to $35 by legislation creates money out of thin air. Devaluing the dollar is done by printing more money. That money can be loaned to banks, in which case banks profit, of spent by the federal government, in which case the government profits. Inflation is a tax.
 * 137.201.247.20 (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Russel Fugal
 * The government didn't "take currency out of circulation," it added 69% more currency to circulation. The way the government profits from this is easy to understand. By creating inflation, governments are able to service debts they are otherwise unable to pay. Of course, the downside to inflation is that the money held by citizens is devalued. 2600:1700:7CC0:4770:513F:6DC2:CBB0:8EA3 (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Dollar Devalued...?
I don't know if we should say so baldly "the dollar was devalued to 69.3%". Against what? Rice? Palladium? Wood? This is true against gold. I don't know...was it usual in 1933 to measure the value of paper currencies only against gold, as the US WAS fully or partially on the gold standard...? I suggest we add "...against gold" to the sentence. What do others think?Chris. Fulker 02:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right -- the wording was incorrect. The dollar was devalued against its former value as equivalent to $1 in gold. It was devalued by 41% or it was devaluted to 59% of it is former value. See previous section.--Otheus 07:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The dollar was devalued by the Federal Reserve. In layman's terms; the Fed had x dollars of gold in it's possesion that it could lend against. Then one day they decided that they had 1.69x dollars of gold to lend against. The Fed created money out of thin air (which is the sole function of the Fed). More gold on the books ment the Fed could lend (i.e. print) more money. The dollar was devalued by 41% because the Fed pumped %69 more fiat money into the economy cause inflation. Think of it as a 41% tax on the American people that year. It's supply and demand, increase supply without increasing demand and the value goes down. Understand economics if you are going to talk about them. 137.201.247.20 (talk) 11:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Russel Fugal

fixed price contracts unlawful?
Toward the end it says "...Gold Clause Resolution of 1933, which makes unlawful any contracts which specify payment in a fixed amount of money or a fixed amount of gold" Does "fixed amount of money" really belong there, the implication is that all fixed-price contracts are unlawful. Does the term "money" mean something different here than the common usage? If so it should be clarified, if not, removed. Herostratus 15:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I was confused on this matter as well. I haven't been able to find any specific information on the Gold Clause as of yet but if someone does have this information maybe you could correct it.  It would also be good to create a article for the resolution if were going to have a link for it.Mantion (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If the contract says I can pay you $1000 or 1 ounce of gold, for say, a used car that you will deliver 1 months from now, then that's what it covers. If gold is $1100 when delivery time rolls around, I'd pay you in USD.  If gold is $900, then I'd pay you in gold.  Such contracts cancel out federal reserve tinkering with the value of money, restoring the stability to the value of money.  The US government doesn't want this, because they rely on the fed being able to control the money supply, inflating and deflating at will. Gigs (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

How can an executive order impose criminal penalties?
Of course the Executive Order was unconstitutional and so were the Acts of Congress also - but that does not matter if only four our of the nine Judges on the Supreme Court try to enforce the Constitution. If five Justices of the Supreme Court say an Executive Order to execute all people over five feet tall is Constitutional then it goes into effect. Ditto with an Act of Congress to execute everyone over five feet tall - this reliance on the, government appointed, Supreme Court to limit government power is the problem.94.0.66.230 (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Who were the Justices serving on the Supreme Court in that September 1933 - January 1934 time frame? Which presidents appointed them? bd2412  T 17:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Executive orders are not laws, they're simply directives of executive policy. Only Congress can define an activity as criminal. 71.203.209.0 14:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet. This one probably was illegal.  The Ninth Amendment probably made it illegal, the Tenth Amendment may have, it's clearly a violation of Due Process.
 * Imagine an arrest being made, and someone asking what law he's being charged of breaking.
 * The Great Depression was an interesting time in the US legal system. 69.12.143.197 16:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Executive orders are the mechanism by which the Imperial Presidency overrides the rule of law - in this case to seize all personally owned gold. Who said America was a democracy?

 * America WAS a democracy during the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (don't ask me about what it is now). FDR did not override the rule of law. The article addresses InternetLawyer a.k.a. user 69.12.143.197's objection, which seems to me, as another non-lawyer, like a reasonable point! This is what the article says now:
 * "There was only one prosecution under the order [on 27 September 1933], and in that case the order was ruled invalid by federal judge John M. Woolsey, on the grounds that the order was signed by the President, not the Secretary of the Treasury as required."
 * Roosevelt's Executive Order was NOT law, and was not enforceable. The one case, the prosecution of New York attorney F.B. Campbell, eventually resulted in gold being confiscated. But this was how it was effected:
 * "The case forced the Roosevelt administration to issue a new order under the signature of the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., which was in force for a few months until the passage of the Gold Reserve Act on January 30, 1934."
 * There is a matter of timing, between 28 September 1933, then Morgenthau's order, then the Gold Reserve Act passage on 30 January 1934. If I were leading a Congressional inquiry or commission investigating FDR, I would track that down. I'm not though. --FeralOink (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously nobody bothered to read the actual order & the cited authorities. Like most EOs, it begins with the basis of the authority for what follows in the rest of the order....
 * "By virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended by Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, entitled “An Act to provide relief in the existing national emergency in banking, and for other purposes”, . . . "
 * So in short, Congress had already outlined the possible criminal penalties, etc., and the delegation of the responsibility of how & when the President can enforce those provisions, in the Trading with Enemy Act of 1917 as amended by the Emergency Banking Relief Act a month or so before this order was issued. All FDR did was follow what Congress had already authorized any President to do without any further need for Congress to sign off it (again) by clarifying a particular circumstance (relating to the hoarding of gold during a national emergency) which fell under those provisions of previously enacted law(s). -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interest concerns.
FYI: I've been having trouble with User:Esoule who has been editing elsewhere under circumstances in which there is a clear conflict of interest. I thought to check that user's edit history and I noticed an edit to this article from 30th November 2007 in which that user added:

 * "On the evening August 15, 1971 in New Orleans, Louisiana, James U. Blanchard, III and Evan R. Soulé, Jr. founded the National Committee to Legalize Gold (NCLG) in response to President Nixon's announcement that the United States was abandoning the gold standard. Over the next several years, the NCLG waged a national campaign to enable American citizens to again own gold in any form. The campaign included repeated national mailings and regional press conferences in which the U.S. Treasury Department was challenged to act when an illegal bar of gold bullion was displayed to the newsmedia. The NCLG hired a 1926 Steerman bi-plane to continuously fly over Washington, D.C. during Nixon's Inauguration in January 1973 with a banner that read "LEGALIZE GOLD" -- an action which received national publicity. In New Orleans in February 1974, the NCLG held the largest (up to that time) privately-sponsored monetary symposium entitled "Investing Towards Freedom". That symposium further galvanized actions in support of proposed Congressional legislation to legalize private ownership of gold in any form. Several decades later, derivatives of that first symposium continue every Fall in New Orleans."

(Note my highlighting).

You might want to investigate the accuracy and relevence of this (somewhat autobiographical) addition in the light of this editor's history.

SteveBaker (talk) 12:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As it was unsourced, i just now removed it from the article. DGG (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference the following URL: http://www.coinmag.com/archive/spring99/tribute.html which includes reference to "Confessions of a Gold Bug" (Adam Smith Publishing 1990). That book describes the origins and campaigns of the National Committee to Legalize Gold (NCLG) which began on August 15, 1971. ESoule (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

 * This article is about an executive order to end the gold standard. The above information though interesting isn't really proper in this article.  I suggest someone making a new article about the NCLG or PL 93-373 and include the above information.Mantion (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

 * The EO is not about ending the US gold standard (which continued until 1971) but about preserving the Federal Reserves holdings of gold. Rod57 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

6260
In the book "Investing in Gold and Silver" by Michael Maloney it mentions Executive Order 6260 as the one that outlawed ownership of Gold. From doing a little bit of research, I guess 6260 succeeded exec order 6102. -- Suso (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

False Rumors, Frederick Barber Campbell, etc
I substantially added to the clarity and factuality of this article by citing the two most important gold cases in the 1930s, the Frederick Barber Campbell case and the Josefowitz case (1936). I also deleted two paragraphs on monetary policy which appear to have to been written with the view of explaining the rationale for the order but really were just unclear and more or less irrelevant to the subject matter.

Also, I think it is important to address the false "gold seizure" rumors which are very widespread on the internet so I added a section to debunk those myths. I should also mention that I read every issue of the New York Times in April of 1933 for mentions of this topic of which there were several. The gist of these articles is basically that the gold turn in was voluntarily. There is absolutely no mention of safety deposit boxes being seized in any issue of the New York Times during the month of April 1933. Also, it is worth mentioning that in June or July of 1934 Time Magazine had an article on gold turn ins to the Treasury stating the substantial amounts of gold turned in since the enactment of the Reserve Act on January 30th, 1934. This article reinforces the voluntary nature of the turn ins.

John Chamberlain (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed parts of the hoax (a/k/a rumor), as many people have cut-and-paste that section from the Wikipedia page into forums, and either assumed or wanted others to believe it was real. Hopefully, the "..." sections will make it a bit more clear that that it isn't the real 6102 text.

FWIW, the first version of this article was just the text of the hoax. AboutSilver (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Still in effect?
I don't think it says anywhere if this is still in effect today or if it's not being enforced anymore. Shadowcelibi (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The last paragraph of the lead reads ''The limitation on gold ownership in the U.S. was repealed ... legalizing private ownership of gold coins, bars and certificates ... December 31,1974. —EncMstr (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Constitution's gold clause??
What is the gold clause in the US Constitution?Mulp (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Like a lot of things, they make it up as they go along...all in the "national interest", of course. RRskaReb  talk 04:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Reasons?
Nothing is said about the reasons. A opening paragraph about it, why actually this act was introduced? Merewyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.124.19 (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 * The reason was to ensure that the us dollar maintained its value (aka so it did not inflate during the depression) - since gold and silver were the primary forms of currency beyond dollars, by restricting these -> they ensured dollars would be used instead. Also it helped keep big businesses and banks from converting their wealth into gold/ silver during hard times - which would have spelled the end for the dollar.  --74.69.2.116 (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Can we have sources for those reasons and logic please. Was there any public discussion of the justification in 1932/33 ? Also, EO6102 only mentions gold and not silver so maybe the reason was more to do with the US trying to maintain the gold standard ? Rod57 (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

 * ... Transcript of FDR radio broadcast FDR says "What, then, happened during the last few days of February [1933] and the first few days of March? Because of undermined confidence on the part of the public, there was a general rush by a large portion of our population to turn bank deposits into currency or gold—a rush so great that the soundest banks couldn’t get enough currency to meet the demand. The reason for this was that on the spur of the moment it was, of course, impossible to sell perfectly sound assets of a bank and convert them into cash except at panic prices far below their real value. By the afternoon of March 3, a week ago last Friday, scarcely a bank in the country was open to do business. Proclamations closing them in whole or in part had been issued by the governors in almost all of the states." FDR doesn't say what caused the undermined confidence but posssibly there were rumours of banks being near collapse. Rod57 (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

 * The March 6th proclamation declaring a 4 day bank holiday to reorganise shaky banks does mention silver as well as gold. The proclamation states that "speculative activity abroad in foreign exchange has resulted in severe drains on the nation's stocks of gold". (possibly USA had issued too many paper dollars causing inflationary pressures requiring US to deliver gold to maintain the gold standard of $20/oz gold) Rod57 (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Opening para could say that the EO6102 followed on from the March 6 proclamation that essentially froze gold and silver holdings. Rod57 (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Great Depression says "One reason why the Federal Reserve did not act to limit the decline of the money supply was regulation. At that time, the amount of credit the Federal Reserve could issue was limited by the Federal Reserve Act, which required 40% gold backing of Federal Reserve Notes issued. By the late 1920s, the Federal Reserve had almost hit the limit of allowable credit that could be backed by the gold in its possession. This credit was in the form of Federal Reserve demand notes. A "promise of gold" is not as good as "gold in the hand", particularly when they only had enough gold to cover 40% of the Federal Reserve Notes outstanding. During the bank panics a portion of those demand notes were redeemed for Federal Reserve gold. Since the Federal Reserve had hit its limit on allowable credit, any reduction in gold in its vaults had to be accompanied by a greater reduction in credit. On April 5, 1933, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6102 making the private ownership of gold certificates, coins and bullion illegal, reducing the pressure on Federal Reserve gold.[28]" Rod57 (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Removal of the constraint on the Federal Reserve is surely the main rationale for the executive order, as per the preceding para. As this is currently missing from the article, I propose to incorporate it via an appropriate edit Clivemacd (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Unconstitutional (and criminal!) nature
This act seems to contravene basics tenets of private property. If I walked into somebody's house and demanded they surrender one of the home entertainment systems they have hoarded in their house to me for a price that I determine (or more to the point, on an IOU that I write on a rubbish piece of paper), I would be thrown into jail for stealing. This would be the case in just about any country on earth. Despite the fact that there are reasons given : "to stabilize the economy... etc...", I think those excuses are extremely weak. In a system of competing currencies (dollar vs gold etc); a weak currency should be allowed to fail. There is also a marked irony in that instead of gold being hoarded in a distributed fashion throughout the economy; the government would now hoard instead - only, in an even greater concentration.

To my mind; this was a crime of extraordinary proportions; probably aimed at profiting only a very small few. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexBehrman (talk • contribs) 03:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

 * This is not an Act [of Congress] but an executive order issued by the President under the authority granted to him previously within some already standing law. The focus of your concern and/or displesures with this order's particulars should probably be laid at the feet of Section 2 of the Emergency Banking Relief Act instead, which is the statutue that originally provided the Congressional authority for the President to issue this and similar executive orders lawfully during what was at the time a period of declared national emergency.

 * The later Banking Act of 1933 allowed for pretty much the same authorities being granted by Congress to the President as the EBR Act did. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

 * AlexBehrman, that makes no sense. You said that it was unconstitutional and criminal:
 * "to stabilize the economy... etc..., I think those excuses are extremely weak. In a system of competing currencies (dollar vs gold etc); a weak currency should be allowed to fail."
 * We're talking about the U.S.A.'s own currency. This was monetary policy within the United States. Why would the U.S. (or any country) say, "Our currency is weak. We should allow it to fail."? (Gold is not part of a system of competing currencies. What country uses gold as its currency? None, not that I know of.)
 * A sovereign nation is allowed to determine its own monetary policy. Cyprus took whatever measures were necessary just recently in an effort to prevent the collapse of its banking system. The U.S.A. took similar extreme measures, in equally dire circumstances, in 1933. There are similarities, in that Cyprus was tied to the EU, could not devalue its currency, which has some resemblance to the U.S.A. when on a gold standard, see the previous section of the talk page prior to this, but that is secondary.
 * There was no "crime of extraordinary proportions". In 1933, the U.S.A. was a disaster, full of homeless, starving people. FDR's policies led to greater employment and increased prosperity, which was fairly distributed, in the years that followed. The current government spending and so-called recovery is resulting in greater UNemployment and DEcreased prosperity (for all except a very, very few). That isn't FDR's fault! --FeralOink (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

А как же "священное и неприкосновенное право частной собственности"?
И господа амеркианцы ещё пытаются учить нас, русских, демократии! ЧуваевНиколай (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

 * First of all, this is the English Wikipedia, so we expect discussions to be in English.
 * Secondly, this is a talk page for discussing improvements to the article, not chat about the topic. Please see the talk page guidelines.  —EncMstr (talk) 06:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Bias?
The article headline "Invalidation and reissue" suggests that there were no consequences to the prosecution of Frederick Barber Campbell, but later in the article, it is made clear that the feds came in and confiscated the gold anyway! A better title might be "Lawyer's Gold Confiscated." 106.56.135.47 (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleted "500 tonnes sold" text
Approximately 500 tonnes of gold were sold to the U.S. Treasury in 1933 at the rate of $20.67 per troy ounce A "sale" is a voluntary act between two willing parties, and the Executive Order 6102 confiscated privately owned metal and gave them what the government determined was compensation.Jonny Quick (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Prosecutions section
I'm not sure what the value of the prosecutions section is; most of them seem to be disconnected newspaper clippings found by random internet searches, and most are skimpy enough on the details that it's hard to tell whether this order was the primary reason for the prosecution. Additionally, since they're essentially disconnected anecdotes, they don't really give a comprehensive view of the order, its effect, and the way it was enforced -- it's just a bunch of random stories put together to form some sort of arbitrary narrative. Shouldn't it be removed and replaced with something that draws on scholarly analysis rather than a random selection of primary sources? --Aquillion (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Putting the "order" in its proper historical context will always be an uphill battle as long as the conspiracy theory folks feel the need to point to it for any number of generally absurd modern-day reasons - just search Google for it.

 * The authority to carry out the provisions outlined in the order, including the possibility of prosecution for non-compliance, etc. was delegated to the President by Congress in an amendment or amendments to the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 via the passage of the Emergency Banking Act of 1933 into law.

 * The order is just a vehicle that provides notice to all the affected Federal departments and/or agencies to be made aware of the fact that new authority or authorities have been delegated to the Executive by Congress. It is merely merely a trigger and not the gun - the legislation was. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Section on "Similar laws in other countries" is very thin
Australia was by no means the only other country to have such a law. Britain, for example, had a similar law, though I'm not sure of the dates (1931(?)-1980 (?) ). I wonder if someone who is well informed on the subject could add a list (with relevant dates) of other countries that have had similar laws. Norvo (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I should mention that the Australian law is still in effect, merely suspended. Its' operation could theoretically be resumed at any "expedient" time should Australia's "currency or public credit" be threatened. But yes, it would be good for someone to include details on similar laws in the UK and elsewhere. Any takers? 110.149.165.69 (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Section request - Public Reception
Not sure if this request would be appropreiate for this article, but I would be interested to learn what the American Publics reaction to this Executive Order was. That is, were people accepting of it due to the destructive nature of the Great Depression? Were there violent protests? Did news outlets cover it negatively or positively? Did they cover it at all, or was it barely a blip on their radar?

I'm only vaguely aware of this Executive Order in a modern context, and it is usually a topic which I only hear it brought up in a negative conditions (with the Nixon follow through in '71, and the Ford repeal in '74), I'd be very interest to know how it was received by the public at the time. Did any elected officials attempt to put up resistance against the EO, or speak out against it after it's enactment, or was it seen as a good thing?

It may be difficult to keep personal opinions at bay for a section like this, but I think it would do some good in giving a historical perspective to the reader. Sawta (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Price of gold
″The price of gold from the Treasury for international transactions was thereafter raised to $35 an ounce ($648 today[4]).″ That’s wrong. The given reference is not supporting this false claim. As far as I know 1 ounce in the FED books is still 35$. Ju52 (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Need for a re-write
A ban on gold was in force from 1939 to 1979 in Britain. The section should be re-written. 2A00:23C7:99A5:9E01:6589:2D50:1E5F:D49B (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Executive Order 6102


text:
West Side Park

West Side Park was the name used for two different ballparks that formerly stood in Chicago, Illinois. They were both home fields of the team now known as the Chicago Cubs of the National League. Both ballparks hosted baseball championships. The latter of the two parks, where the franchise played for nearly a quarter century, was the home of the first two world champion Cubs teams (1907 and 1908), the team that posted the best winning percentage in Major League Baseball history and won the most games in National League history (1906), the only cross-town World Series in Chicago (1906), and the immortalized Tinker to Evers to Chance double-play combo. Both ballparks were primarily constructed of wood.

The first West Side Park (1885–1891)
The initial stadium was the club's home beginning in 1885, succeeding Lakefront Park. Although the park's useful life turned out to be as short as the ball club's stay at the Lakefront (seven years), it was also memorable, as the team won back-to-back National League pennants in its first two seasons there.

The park was located on a small block bounded by Congress (north, left field), Loomis (east, center field), Harrison (south, right field) and Throop (west, home plate) Streets. The elongated shape of the block lent a bathtub-like shape to the park, with foul lines reportedly as short as 210 ft. The stadium held roughly 10,000 fans. In addition to the diamond, the park held a bicycle track which encircled the playing field, at the height of the contemporary bicycle craze.

The lumber from the stands at the lakefront ballpark was disassembled and reconfigured as the new stands at West Side Park.

The Cubs (then known as the White Stockings) had had to secure a new property after 1884, and it took longer than anticipated. The season began on April 30, a month later than it does today, for a 112-game schedule, 50 fewer games than today's major-league schedule. The club spent the first five-plus weeks of the 1885 season on the road, and the park was finally opened on June 6 with a victory over the St. Louis Maroons, late of the Union Association. Despite being "wanderers" early in the season, the powerful Chicago club, under player-manager Cap Anson, came home with an 18–6 record. They would sweep a four-game set in their first homestand and romp through the league schedule, finishing at 87–25. The only team that gave them any problem was the New York Giants, who won 10 of the clubs' 16 meetings and finished just two games behind Chicago in the standings. If projected to a modern 162-game schedule, that translates to 125 and 123 wins, respectively, in a very lopsided league (the third-place club finished 30 games back).

Chicago captured the National League pennant that season and also went on to win the league crown in 1886. The site saw postseason action those two years, as the White Stockings squared off in 19th-century World Series play against the St. Louis Cardinals, then playing in the rival American Association and known as the St. Louis Browns. The championships of the 1880s were disorganized in comparison to the modern World Series, exemplified by the 1885 contest, which ended in dispute with no clear winner. The 1886 World Series was more conventional, and was won by the Browns. Those matchups were the first on-field confrontations of the Cubs and Cardinals clubs, which remains one of baseball's strongest rivalries today.

The site also saw "bonus baseball" in 1887, as a neutral site for Game 14 of that year's unique 15-game "traveling" World Series between the Browns and the Detroit Wolverines. In 1891 the team split its schedule between West Side Park and South Side Park (II). The first West Side Park was abandoned after the 1891 season, with the team playing at home exclusively on the South Side in 1892.

The site of the first West Side Park is now occupied by the Andrew Jackson Language Academy, whose address is 1340 West Harrison.

Dimensions
Information about the dimensions is contradictory in local newspapers. In the reports of the opening game of June 6, 1885, when Chicago player George Gore homered near the right field corner, the St. Louis Maroons complained (or "kicked", in popular slang of the time) that the foul line was shorter than the minimum allowed, 210 ft. A yard tape measure was then used to painstakingly measure the distance while the crowd booed. The exact result was reported differently. One paper quoted Chicago club owner Albert Spalding as stating the distance to be 216 ft, implicitly confirmed by the measurement.[Chicago Tribune, June 7, 1885, p. 14] Another paper reported that the distance was found to be 225 ft.[Chicago Inter Ocean, June 7, 1885, p. 3]

However, upon the announcement of West Side Park (II) in 1893, the new park's foul lines were stated to be 340 ft, "130 ft further than the old west side fence." [Chicago Inter Ocean, April 16, 1893, p. 8] That would indicate distances of 210 ft at West Side Park (I).

The second West Side Park (1893–1915)

The second West Side Park was a few blocks west-southwest of the first one, on a larger block bounded by Taylor, Wood, Polk and Lincoln (renamed Wolcott in 1939) Streets. It was located at 41.87028°N, -87.6725°W.

A ballpark on the site was first constructed in 1888 for the Garden City Athletic Club. (Chicago is "The Garden City".) It was also the part-time home of the Chicago Maroons minor league club that year. The Maroons' first game on the new lot came on May 5, 1888. During the next few years, the ballpark hosted a variety of Chicago City League ball games and other events.

On May 14, 1893, the National League club played their first game at West Side Park (II). During May and June, they split their schedule with South Side Park (II), playing Sunday games on the West Side and weekday games on the South Side. By mid-summer they had abandoned the South Side park and moved into the West Side park full-time.

Home plate for this ballpark was in the northwest corner of the property, toward the Polk and Lincoln intersection. The right field fence paralleled Taylor, with flat apartments between the alley behind the right field area, and Taylor itself. There were also flats across Wood Street to the east, behind left field, giving the park (for a few years, at least) a degree of the ambiance that Wrigley Field would later be famous for. Cook County Hospital was across Polk Street to the north, behind third base. Like the first West Side ballpark, the new facility was restricted by the streets around it, creating a rectangular playing area.

The field layout was reported in the Inter Ocean on April 16, 1893: "The diamond is 90 ft from the grand stand, and the right and left field fences are 340 ft from the home plate, 130 ft further than the old west side fence. The distance from the home plate to the extreme center field is 560 ft. The club will play all their Sunday games at the new grounds during the World's Fair, and after the fair is closed will probably play all their games there."

An artist's conception of the new field includes a rooftop tier of private seating on the grandstand, and roofed bleachers beyond first and third base. Photographs from the early 1900s suggest those plans were left dormant until starting in 1905, when the team began playing well and expansion of the ballpark seating was begun.

Although the 340-560-340 sounds symmetrical, the left field side was much more spacious, and the distance to center was actually very deep left-center, possibly the far corner of the property.

The original layout of the park seated about 12,500 patrons. As with other parks of the era, fans were often permitted to stand along the outer perimeter of the playing field itself. When the team began playing winning ball under Frank Chance, overflow crowds became more frequent.

On August 5, 1894, during its first full season as home to the Cubs (at that point known as the Colts), West Side Park suffered severe damage from fire during a game against the Cincinnati Reds. As the fire spread through the first-base side stands, panicked fans trying to escape pressed up against the barbed wire fence separating them from the playing field. Only quick action by several players in wrenching the fence open averted a major tragedy. The burnt stands were simply roped off, and the season resumed the next day, with the burnt area fenced off, and the spectators sitting on the left side of the diamond. Despite that near-disaster, the club rebuilt the burnt portion out of wood.

One highlight, albeit for the visitors, occurred on July 13, 1896, when Philadelphia Phillies outfielder/firstbaseman Ed Delahanty smacked four home runs in one game, only the second player to do so. In contrast to Bobby Lowe's feat two years earlier, which was aided by a short foul line, two of Delahanty's were inside-the-park. After Delahanty's third, center fielder Bill Lange drew a laugh by calling "time", stationing himself in deep-deep center, near the clubhouse, seemingly a mile away, and then waving the pitcher to continue. Delahanty then got the laugh on Lange by knocking it between the clubhouse and the fence, again circling the bases while Lange scurried for the ball. The normally partisan home fans cheered Delahanty's effort. Chicago got the last laugh, winning the game, 9–8.

As the park entered the new century, it featured a small covered grandstand behind home plate. Behind the home plate stands, the team and ticket offices were housed in a fairly ornate two-story brick building topped with statues of baseball players. Uncovered bleachers extended along both foul lines and into left field. Beyond left-center field, the bleachers gave way to a small clubhouse. The right-field bleachers were only nine rows deep, sitting underneath a free-standing billboard that ran above the length of the bleachers. The billboard frequently featured large ads for the sports pages and the sportswriters of local newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Daily News. A scoreboard was located on the extreme right end of the billboard, toward the right field corner. Much like today at Wrigley Field, several of the rooftops beyond the outfield bleachers offered bleacher seating of their own, at least for a few years.

The second West Side Park was the home of the Cubs' most successful teams of the 20th century. From 1906 through 1910, the Cubs won four National League pennants and two World Series championships. The 1906 World Series between the Cubs and the Chicago White Sox featured the first cross-town matchup in Series history. Although the Cubs had one of the most successful seasons in major league history, winning 116 contests against just 36 losses, they were defeated by the light-hitting White Sox four games to two. The Cubs finally brought a championship to West Side Park the following year when they swept the Detroit Tigers after ending the first contest in a tie. In 1908, West Side Park became the home of the first repeat world champions when the Cubs again bested the Tigers. After a one-year absence, the Cubs returned to the Series in 1910, only to lose in five games to the Philadelphia Athletics. The 1908 championship turned out to be the franchise's last World Series championship until 2016, ending a staggering 108-year drought for the franchise.

The ballpark expanded with the club's rising fortunes. For 1905, several rows of private box seats were built on top of the original grandstand roof behind home plate. That same year saw the construction of a new two-story brick clubhouse structure, fronted by columns, out in far left-center. After just two seasons, jury-box bleachers were built directly in front of and over the clubhouse. During the 1908 season, the bleachers along the first and third-base lines were gradually covered and topped by more private box seating.

By the early 1910s the wooden ballpark was showing its age, in large part due to neglect by Charles Murphy, the unpopular owner of the Cubs (one of whose alternate, media-driven nicknames was the unflattering "Murphy's Spuds"). In 1910, the neighborhood view beyond the nearby right field bleachers was blocked off by an enormous billboard. In 1912, the more distant left field view was similarly obstructed by a large billboard, which also served as the new scoreboard. The enclosure of the park was completed with the installment of billboards in dead center. At this time, the jury box bleachers in left-center field were removed, adding to the new claustrophobic feel of the outfield. With gambling becoming an increasing problem in baseball, starting in 1911 the playing field was adorned with large signs (as with some other major league ballparks) reminding both fans and players, "No Betting Allowed." Additionally, the dilapidated park found itself competing unsuccessfully with new steel-and-concrete baseball venues. The Chicago White Sox inaugurated Comiskey Park in 1910. Four years later, the upstart Federal League placed a franchise on the North Side and began play in Weeghman Park. By 1915, the Cubs were the third most popular team in a three-team city.

When the Federal League collapsed after the 1915 season, Charles Weeghman, owner of the now-defunct Chicago Whales, was allowed to buy a substantial interest in the Cubs. One of his first acts was to abandon West Side Park and move the Cubs to Weeghman Park for the 1916 season. Weeghman Park survives today as Wrigley Field.

One of the few items the Cubs took with them, besides normal operational properties, was a set of large letters comprising a sign that had run across the back of the grandstand and was to be read from the outside of the park: "". This sign was placed along the top of the Weeghman Park wall bordering Sheffield Avenue, visible to everyone in the park, and of course reading backwards to the spectators. This oddity lasted a few years at Weeghman / Cubs Park until it was brought down during an early remodeling.

West Side Park continued to host semipro and amateur baseball events for a few years. It even served as a setting for Buffalo Bill's Wild West, thus converting the entire former ballfield into a different kind of "bull pen". The ballpark was torn down in 1920. Murphy, who still owned the property, sold the leftover lumber for scrap. He sold the property itself to the University of Illinois. The site is now occupied by the University of Illinois Medical Center.

This West Side Park was the only park that witnessed the Cubs as World Series Champions from 1908 to 2016. The Cubs won back-to-back titles here in 1907 and 1908. In June 1909, a flag-raising ceremony was held, celebrating the Cubs second consecutive World Series. Newspaper reporters commented that the crowd seemed less enthused than they had the previous summer, as if they were getting complacent: "Chicago fans are a peculiar lot... When the Cubs raised their title banner last year there were big doings. This year it seemed to be an old story."[Chicago Tribune, June 17, 1909, p.4]

title: West Side Park


text:
Tawatinaw

Tawatinaw is a hamlet in Alberta, Canada within Westlock County. It is located on Township Road 614, 2 km east of Highway 2 and approximately 70 km north of the City of Edmonton.

Demographics
In the 2021 Census of Population conducted by Statistics Canada, Tawatinaw had a population of 15 living in 6 of its 7 total private dwellings, a change of NaN% from its 2016 population of 5. With a land area of 0.13 km2, it had a population density of in 2021.

As a designated place in the 2016 Census of Population conducted by Statistics Canada, Tawatinaw had a population of 5 living in 3 of its 3 total private dwellings, a change of NaN% from its 2011 population of 10. With a land area of 0.13 km2, it had a population density of in 2016.

Amenities
Tawatinaw Valley Alpine and Nordic Centre is a local destination for downhill and cross-country skiing. Spread over 140 acres, there are over 20 km of cross-country ski trails with views of the Tawatinaw Valley and Landing Trail.

Pine Valley Resort is located in the hamlet and offers a gymnastics centre and is destination for the surrounding rural communities in Northern Alberta. Pine Valley Resort also has a large hall that is often used for social gatherings and has accommodations on site.

title: Tawatinaw


text:
Free particle

In physics, a free particle is a particle that, in some sense, is not bound by an external force, or equivalently not in a region where its potential energy varies. In classical physics, this means the particle is present in a "field-free" space. In quantum mechanics, it means the particle is in a region of uniform potential, usually set to zero in the region of interest since the potential can be arbitrarily set to zero at any point in space.

Classical free particle
The classical free particle is characterized by a fixed velocity v. The momentum is given by $$\mathbf{p}=m\mathbf{v}$$ and the kinetic energy (equal to total energy) by $$E=\frac{1}{2}mv^2=\frac{p^2}{2m}$$ where m is the mass of the particle and v is the vector velocity of the particle.

Mathematical description
A free particle with mass $$m$$ in non-relativistic quantum mechanics is described by the free Schrödinger equation: $$ - \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \nabla^2 \ \psi(\mathbf{r}, t) = i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \psi (\mathbf{r}, t) $$

where ψ is the wavefunction of the particle at position r and time t. The solution for a particle with momentum p or wave vector k, at angular frequency ω or energy E, is given by a complex plane wave:

$$ \psi(\mathbf{r}, t) = Ae^{i(\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}-\omega t)} = Ae^{i(\mathbf{p}\cdot\mathbf{r} - E t)/\hbar} $$

with amplitude A and has two different rules according to its mass:   if the particle has mass $$m$$: $\omega = \frac{\hbar k^2}{2m} $ (or equivalent $E = \frac{p^2}{2m} $ ).   if the particle is a massless particle: $$\omega=kc$$.

The eigenvalue spectrum is infinitely degenerate since for each eigenvalue E>0, there corresponds an infinite number of eigenfunctions corresponding to different directions of $$\mathbf{p}$$.

The De Broglie relations: $$ \mathbf{p} = \hbar \mathbf{k}$$, $$ E = \hbar \omega$$ apply. Since the potential energy is (stated to be) zero, the total energy E is equal to the kinetic energy, which has the same form as in classical physics:

$$ E = T \,\rightarrow \,\frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{2m} =\hbar \omega $$

As for all quantum particles free or bound, the Heisenberg uncertainty principles $ \Delta p_x \Delta x \geq \frac{\hbar}{2}$ apply. It is clear that since the plane wave has definite momentum (definite energy), the probability of finding the particle's location is uniform and negligible all over the space. In other words, the wave function is not normalizable in a Euclidean space, these stationary states can not correspond to physical realizable states.

Measurement and calculations
The integral of the probability density function

$$ \rho(\mathbf{r},t) = \psi^*(\mathbf{r},t)\psi(\mathbf{r},t) = |\psi(\mathbf{r},t)|^2$$

where * denotes complex conjugate, over all space is the probability of finding the particle in all space, which must be unity if the particle exists: $$ \int_\mathrm{all\,space} |\psi(\mathbf{r},t)|^2 d^3 \mathbf{r}=1$$

This is the normalization condition for the wave function. The wavefunction is not normalizable for a plane wave, but is for a wave packet.

Fourier decomposition
The free particle wave function may be represented by a superposition of momentum eigenfunctions, with coefficients given by the Fourier transform of the initial wavefunction:

$$ \psi(\mathbf{r}, t) =\frac{1}{(\sqrt{2\pi})^3} \int_\mathrm{all \, \mathbf{k} \, space} \hat \psi_0 (\mathbf{k})e^{i(\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}-\omega t)} d^3 \mathbf{k} $$

where the integral is over all k-space and $ \omega = \omega(\mathbf{k}) = \frac{\hbar \mathbf{k}^2}{2m}$ (to ensure that the wave packet is a solution of the free particle Schrödinger equation). Here $$\psi_0$$ is the value of the wave function at time 0 and $$\hat\psi_0$$ is the Fourier transform of $$\psi_0$$. (The Fourier transform $$\hat\psi_0(\mathbf k)$$ is essentially the momentum wave function of the position wave function $$\psi_0(\mathbf r)$$, but written as a function of $$\mathbf k$$ rather than $$\mathbf p=\hbar\mathbf k$$.)

The expectation value of the momentum p for the complex plane wave is

$$ \langle\mathbf{p}\rangle=\left\langle \psi \left|-i\hbar\nabla\right|\psi\right\rangle = \hbar\mathbf{k} ,$$

and for the general wave packet it is

$$ \langle\mathbf{p}\rangle = \int_\mathrm{all\,space} \psi^*(\mathbf{r},t)(-i\hbar\nabla)\psi(\mathbf{r},t) d^3 \mathbf{r} = \int_\mathrm{all \, \textbf{k} \, space} \hbar \mathbf{k} |\hat\psi_0(\mathbf{k})|^2 d^3 \mathbf{k}. $$

The expectation value of the energy E is

$$ \langle E\rangle=\left\langle \psi \left|- \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \nabla^2 \right|\psi\right\rangle = \int_\text{all space} \psi^*(\mathbf{r},t)\left(- \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \nabla^2 \right)\psi(\mathbf{r},t) d^3 \mathbf{r} .$$

Group velocity and phase velocity
The phase velocity is defined to be the speed at which a plane wave solution propagates, namely

$$ v_p=\frac{\omega}{k}=\frac{\hbar k}{2m} = \frac{p}{2m}. $$

Note that $$\frac{p}{2m}$$ is not the speed of a classical particle with momentum $$p$$; rather, it is half of the classical velocity.

Meanwhile, suppose that the initial wave function $$\psi_0$$ is a wave packet whose Fourier transform $$\hat\psi_0$$ is concentrated near a particular wave vector $$\mathbf k$$. Then the group velocity of the plane wave is defined as $$ v_g= \nabla\omega(\mathbf k)=\frac{\hbar\mathbf k}{m}=\frac{\mathbf p}{m},$$

which agrees with the formula for the classical velocity of the particle. The group velocity is the (approximate) speed at which the whole wave packet propagates, while the phase velocity is the speed at which the individual peaks in the wave packet move. The figure illustrates this phenomenon, with the individual peaks within the wave packet propagating at half the speed of the overall packet.

Spread of the wave packet
The notion of group velocity is based on a linear approximation to the dispersion relation $$\omega(k)$$ near a particular value of $$k$$. In this approximation, the amplitude of the wave packet moves at a velocity equal to the group velocity without changing shape. This result is an approximation that fails to capture certain interesting aspects of the evolution a free quantum particle. Notably, the width of the wave packet, as measured by the uncertainty in the position, grows linearly in time for large times. This phenomenon is called the spread of the wave packet for a free particle.

Specifically, it is not difficult to compute an exact formula for the uncertainty $$\Delta_{\psi(t)}X$$ as a function of time, where $$X$$ is the position operator. Working in one spatial dimension for simplicity, we have: $$(\Delta_{\psi(t)}X)^2 = \frac{t^2}{m^2}(\Delta_{\psi_0}P)^2+\frac{2t}{m}\left(\left\langle \tfrac{1}{2}({XP+PX})\right\rangle_{\psi_0} - \left\langle X\right\rangle_{\psi_0} \left\langle P\right\rangle_{\psi_0} \right)+(\Delta_{\psi_0}X)^2,$$ where $$\psi_0$$ is the time-zero wave function. The expression in parentheses in the second term on the right-hand side is the quantum covariance of $$X$$ and $$P$$.

Thus, for large positive times, the uncertainty in $$X$$ grows linearly, with the coefficient of $$t$$ equal to $$(\Delta_{\psi_0}P)/m$$. If the momentum of the initial wave function $$\psi_0$$ is highly localized, the wave packet will spread slowly and the group-velocity approximation will remain good for a long time. Intuitively, this result says that if the initial wave function has a very sharply defined momentum, then the particle has a sharply defined velocity and will (to good approximation) propagate at this velocity for a long time.

Relativistic quantum free particle
There are a number of equations describing relativistic particles: see relativistic wave equations.

title: Free particle


text:
Talk:Fiat S.p.A.

History section is in the wrong page
Fiat spa was founded in 2011 (https://www.google.it/search?q=fiat+spa+1+gennaio+2011&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=IobKWbbFD4jA8ge3lZmACw) while Fiat Automobiles in 1899, but the history section said that it was founded in 1899; the page is wrong! Fiat S.p.A. and Fiat Automobiles are two different manufacters; The section must be moved in the Fiat Automobiles page (see the page in the other languages). --Howard "Dib" Montjio, 26 september 2017

In Popular Culture/Works of Fiction
Reading the article I see that FIAT were not involved with china until recently, which surprised me initially. In the popular 1960's movie "The Italian Job", the gold that was stolen was a payment from the Chinese Govt to FIAT for a planned factory in China. I'm not sure if this is the sort of info that belongs here, but I do see "in popular culture" sections for most other subjects in Wikipedia.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fiat S.p.A.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116004017/http://www.fiat.it/it/mondo-fiat/chi-siamo to http://www.fiat.it/it/mondo-fiat/chi-siamo

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2018
Remove mention to Fiat Gesco. This activity was sold to Reply S.p.a and became Eos Reply, in 2005.

http://www.reply.com/en/investors/news/the-shareholders-meeting-approves-the-annual-financial-statements Giona LoRe (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Reference fails verification. The source says only that Reply bought "...a branch of Fiat Gesco..." (emphasis added).  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fiat S.p.A.


text:
Talk:Panic Room

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

Resources

 * Cause For Alarm
 * For 'Panic,' Foster plays it cool as a tough mom
 * Panic Room & The Others: Home sinister home
 * Diabetes in the Movies
 * Opening a Door to Panic Rooms

Nicole Kidman - Uncredited voice on the phone
If Nicole Kidman is uncredited, how can she be listed here? Is there something to back this up? DVD extra, perhaps? If nothing can be found, I'll delete the line.--ML5 (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed.--ML5 (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible error in "plot" section of article
In the plot section of the article, it says that the girl / daughter (played by Stewart) character has "diabetes". I believe what it should say is that she has "hypoglycemia". Diabetes = HIGH blood sugar Hypoglycemia = LOW blood sugar if you watch the movie it's pretty clear that her blood sugar is going too low. Hence, hypoglycemia. As a counterpoint it is possible i suppose that she does in fact have diabetes and took too much insulin before going to bed, and that is the reason that her blood sugar is crashing, but it seems an overly complicated explanation. Occam's Razor and all that. I hope I did this correctly. I have never ever edited a page or posted to a talk thingy before, so if i did something incorrectly, i apologize for my noob-itis. 76.28.0.253 (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have searched and it appears that it was portrayed as diabetes in the film, but that they got it all wrong and backwards—there are multiple websites complaining bitterly and going down a list of many things they got wrong. So, you are quite logical in your deductions but you didn't count human error in as one of the simplest explanations:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Analysis section rather useless
I am quite baffled by the Analysis section. Maybe it could be rewritten as a Mentions list, but it might also need some trimming. Right now it reads like a summary of 3 undergrad sociology papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.211.36 (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "a Mentions list". It is appropriate to have such sections, and the sources are reliable: Journal of Medical Humanities, Surveillance & Society, Visual Anthropology, and The Journal of American Culture. These are hardly undergraduate papers or even thesis dissertations. The Featured Article American Beauty (film) has a similar section. MOS:FILM has guidelines about these kinds of sections. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

i have to agree, it's essentially free advertising for writers and political pundits that doesn't really add anything to the article and isn't particularly relevant to something that's supposed to be encyclopedic. 47.182.145.242 (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not free advertising. The academic commentary was not written to be included in Wikipedia articles. The commentary was published in reliable sources and qualifies for use here. WP:PLOT says, "Wikipedia treats works of fiction and art in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." Contemporary reviews reflect the reception at the time, but significance is best established retrospectively, and the commentary in these sources do that. See American Beauty (1999 film) and Tender Mercies, which are Featured Articles that have such commentary, meaning that such commentary has been validated in the Featured Article Candidacy process. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference here is that whilst the American Beauty analysis section is somewhat balanced and relevant, and transcribes generally relatable angles of perception of the movie, this section here is consistently terrible and contains multiple personal POVs that are given undue weight for no apparent reason, some of them being ridiculously unrelatable (the first one, namely). Visual Anthropology has a -terrible- SJR of 0.21, and the article in question has been cited a meager amount of 7 times. This do not and cannot represent sufficient authority to push such an absurd and personal POV. I definitely recommend heavily rewriting that whole section, and banning the troll responsible for it from making further edits (somehow, this guy finds funny to revert any edit done here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.35.196.253 (talk) 04 August 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Panic Room. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005205005/http://www.adg.org/?art=2002_award to http://www.adg.org/?art=2002_award
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307155929/http://www.goldentrailer.com/awards.gta3.php to http://www.goldentrailer.com/awards.gta3.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Panic Room


text:
J. Lawton Collins

General Joseph Lawton Collins (May 1, 1896 – September 12, 1987) was a senior United States Army officer. During World War II, he served in both the Pacific and European Theaters of Operations, one of a few senior American commanders to do so. He was Chief of Staff of the United States Army during the Korean War.

Collins' elder brother, Major General James Lawton Collins, was also in the United States Army. His nephew, Brigadier General James Lawton Collins Jr. served in World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Another nephew, Michael Collins, was the command module pilot on the Apollo 11 mission in 1969 that put the first two men on the Moon and retired from the United States Air Force as a major general.

Early life and military career
Collins was born into the large Irish Catholic family of New Orleans dry goods store and pub owner Jeremiah Bernard Collins and Catherine (Lawton) Collins on May 1, 1896. He attended the Catholic schools of Algiers and graduated from Boys High School in New Orleans in 1912. He attended Louisiana State University and competed for a congressional appointment to the United States Military Academy (USMA) at West Point, New York. Selected as an alternate by Representative H. Garland Dupré, Collins received the appointment after the first choice failed to qualify. He attended from June 1913 to April 1917, with his class graduating early because of the American entry into World War I. He graduated 35th of 139, and was commissioned shortly before his twenty-first birthday. His classmates included several future general officers, including Matthew Ridgway, Bryant Moore, Ernest N. Harmon, William C. McMahon, Norman Cota, Laurence B. Keiser, William W. Eagles, William Kelly Harrison Jr., Frederick Augustus Irving, and Mark W. Clark. Clark and Collins shared a birthday and as the two youngest cadets were known as the "class babies".

Collins was commissioned as a second lieutenant into the Infantry Branch of the United States Army and was assigned as a platoon and later company commander with the 22nd Infantry Regiment. He was promoted to first lieutenant in May 1917, and temporary captain in August. He attended the United States Army Infantry School of Arms at Fort Sill, Oklahoma and served with the regiment at various locations between 1917 and 1919. He was promoted to captain in June 1918, and to temporary major in September, and took command of the 3rd Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment the following month. World War I came to an end soon afterwards, on November 11, 1918. Unable to fight overseas during the war, Collins commanded the 3rd Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment in France in June 1919, and was assistant chief of staff, as a G-3 staff officer with the American Forces in Germany from 1920 to 1921. During this time, Collins served in the Army of Occupation in Germany.

Between the wars
Collins reverted to the rank of captain in 1920. He married Gladys Easterbrook, a daughter of Army chaplain Edmund P. Easterbrook, on July 15, 1921, and was instructor in the department of chemistry at the USMA from 1921 to 1925. He graduated from the company officer course at the United States Army Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia in 1926, and from the advanced course at the United States Army Field Artillery School at Fort Sill, Oklahoma the year after. He was an instructor in weapons and tactics at the United States Army Infantry School from 1927 to 1931. It was during this time where he first encountered George C. Marshall, the future U.S. Army Chief of Staff, who was to play a significant role in Collins's future military career. Promoted to major in August 1932, he was executive officer of the 23rd Brigade in Manila, and assistant chief of staff, as a G-2 staff officer, with the Philippine Division from 1933 to 1934.

Collins graduated from the United States Army Industrial College in 1937, and the United States Army War College the following year. He was then an instructor at the Army War College from 1938 to 1940. He was promoted to lieutenant colonel on June 25, 1940 and, now a full colonel (having been promoted on January 15, 1941), was chief of staff of VII Corps in 1941.

World War II

By the time the United States entered World War II in December 1941, Collins had been a temporary colonel since January. On February 14, 1942, he was promoted to the one-star general officer rank of brigadier general and the two-star general officer rank of major general on May 26.

Pacific theater
Collins was chief of staff of the Hawaiian Department from 1941 to 1942 and served as the Commanding General of the 25th Infantry Division—nicknamed the "Tropic Lightning" Division—on Oahu and in operations against the Japanese on Guadalcanal between 1942 and 1943 and on New Georgia from July to October 1943. At the time of his appointment in May 1942 he was the youngest division commander in the United States Army, aged 46. To serve as his assistant division commander, Collins specifically selected Brigadier General John R. Hodge, a decision he never came to regret as Hodge, who later became a full general, proved himself to be up to Collins's high standards.

It was during the campaign in Guadalcanal that Collins gained his nickname of "Lightning Joe", for his dash and aggression. It was also during this campaign that saw Collins awarded with the Silver Star, the citation for which reads:

"The President of the United States of America, authorized by Act of Congress July 9, 1918, takes pleasure in presenting the Silver Star to Major General Joseph Lawton Collins (ASN: 0-2274/0-5247), United States Army, for gallantry in action against the enemy while serving as Commanding General, 25th Infantry Division, in action on 11 January 1943 at Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands. To visit the command post of an infantry battalion of the Division commanded by him, General Collins walked through some 800 yards of recently captured ground infested with enemy snipers. Upon arriving on Hill 52, to gain better points of observation, he voluntarily exposed himself to intermittent rifle, machine gun and mortar fire, without regard for his own personal safety. From there, he located an enemy machine gun nest and personally assisted in placing mortar fire on it and on other areas likely to be occupied by the enemy, while bursts of enemy machine gun fire hit many times but three yards away. His calmness and fearlessness under fire was an inspiration to the officers and men of the infantry regiment in that sector. His example and words of praise and encouragement with which he continually encouraged the men in the forward units spurred them on and contributed materially to the success of the offensive operation. His gallant actions and dedicated devotion to duty, without regard for his own life, were in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army."

Western theater
Collins was later transferred to the European Theater of Operations (ETO), where he commanded the VII Corps in the Allied invasion of Normandy and on the Western Front through to the end of World War II in Europe in May 1945. Collins was chosen by Lieutenant General Omar Bradley, who had served with Collins at the Army Infantry School before the war and was then commanding the First Army in England, as a replacement for Major General Roscoe B. Woodruff, the original commander of VII Corps and one of Bradley's West Point classmates. Woodruff was senior to Collins but had no experience in amphibious operations. Collins was appointed after a brief interview with Bradley and General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander, about his combat experience after Collins summed up his tactical approach in the Pacific as always targeting the high ground in an attack. Bradley turned to Eisenhower, claiming that Collins "talks our language." At the age of 47, this made Collins the youngest corps commander in the United States Army. Among the units serving under Collins' command in Normandy was the veteran 82nd Airborne Division, commanded by Major General Matthew Ridgway, a fellow graduate of the West Point class of 1917.

VII Corps played a major role in the Normandy landings in June 1944 and the subsequent Battle of Normandy, including Operation Cobra. Collins was a favorite of the 21st Army Group commander, General Sir Bernard Montgomery, who after Operation Goodwood laid the path for VII Corps to break out in Operation Cobra on 27 July 1944. After Cobra was the Battle of the Falaise Pocket, which completed the destruction of the Wehrmacht in Normandy, the corps then took part in the liberation of Paris and the Allied advance from Paris to the Rhine. In early September VII Corps took approximately 25,000 prisoners during the Battle of the Mons Pocket. It later broke through the Siegfried Line and endured heavy fighting in the Battle of Hürtgen Forest. VII Corps later played a major role in the Battle of the Bulge, the largest battle on the Western Front during World War II, and finally took part in the Western Allied invasion of Germany. VII Corps is perhaps best known for the leading role it played in Operation Cobra; less well known is Collins' contribution to that plan.

One of the few senior United States commanders to fight in both Europe and the Pacific, against the Germans and Japanese respectively, Collins contrasted the nature of the enemy in the two theaters of war: "The German was far more skilled than the Japanese. Most of the Japanese that we fought were not skilled men. Not skilled leaders. The German had a professional army... The Japanese.. didn't know how to handle combined arms – the artillery and the support of the infantry – to the same extent we did. They were gallant soldiers, though... They fought very, very hard, but they were not nearly as skillful as the Germans. But the German didn't have the tenacity of the Japanese."

Collins was promoted to temporary three-star rank of lieutenant general in April 1945 and permanent brigadier general in June. He was very highly regarded by General Omar Bradley, Collins' superior for most of the war, and many German senior commanders believed Collins, along with Lieutenant General Troy H. Middleton, commanding the VIII Corps, to be one of the best American corps commanders on the Western Front. Bradley commented that "Had we created another ETO Army, despite his youth and lack of seniority, Collins certainly would have been named the commander." For his service during the war Collins was three times awarded the Army Distinguished Service Medal, twice awarded the Silver Star and twice the Legion of Merit.

Postwar
After the war, Collins was deputy commanding general and chief of staff of Army Ground Forces from August to December 1945. Later, he was director of information (later chief of public information) of the United States Army from 1945 to 1947. He was deputy, later Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army from 1947 to 1949 and was promoted to temporary general and permanent major general in January 1948.

Collins was Chief of Staff of the United States Army from August 16, 1949, to August 15, 1953; as such he was the Army's senior officer throughout the Korean War. As a wartime chief of staff his primary responsibility was to ensure that adequately trained and equipped soldiers were sent to fight in Korea. He directed the Army's operation of the railroads, brought the first Special Forces group into the order of battle, and was closely associated with the development of the army's contribution to the newly established North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Collins was representative of the United States to the Military Committee and the Standing Group of NATO from 1953 to 1954. He was special representative of the United States in Vietnam with ambassadorial rank, 1954 to 1955, and returned to his NATO assignment. He retired from active service in March 1956, after almost 40 years of military service.

General Joseph Lawton Collins died in Washington, D.C., on September 12, 1987, at the age of 91. He is buried at Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia.

title: J. Lawton Collins


text:
Talk:Capitol Steps

The China controversy
I really think it's inaccurate to discuss the Capitol Steps without acknowledging the controversy over their 2001 skit. (They later actually had to issue a formal apology over it.)

http://asianweek.com/2001_04_20/opinion1_voices_amyleang.html

http://www.poynter.org/uncategorized/1936/on-the-other-side-of-hurt-and-anger/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.83.11 (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Untitled
I've fleshed out the article quite a bit, drawing primarily on the Steps' official book, Sixteen Scandals. However, the book was published in 2002; it doesn't really give a lot of information on what the Steps are up to now, other than saying that, at the time, they consisted of four troupes. (Their website doesn't seem to indicate exactly how many they have now.) If someone could find a source with more current information, that would be very nice. --LostLeviathan 02:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Notable or not?
There are apparently some editors who don't feel that the group and their albums are particularly notable (probably largely because they are not widely known outside of the United States, mostly because of their political humor). In addition, the group does NOT publish sales figures (at least not that I've been able to find easily). So that said, what counts here? A Google search for reviews, discounting allmusic.com and capsteps.com DOES lead to several reviews printed on blogs and a couple of other sites. Altavista shows over 13,000 websites that link to capsteps.com, the troupe's home page. There are also a few "customer reviews" for each album on sites like Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Is that notable, or not? --JohnDBuell 18:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, the relavent criteria is WP:BAND, and they seem to qualify under multiple criteria... They have a 30 or 60 minute special they do 4 times a year that gets played on National Public Radio (criteria 12), have a quite a number of reviews out there (criteria 1), they have multiple nationwide tours usually going on (criteria 4), arguably is the most prominent representative of a notable style with political satire, and probably second only to "Weird Al" Yankovic for parody (criteria 6), and so on. They have more than enough albums, but since they seem to self-publish, that doesn't fit. - Fordan (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Not Funny?
posts removed, Wikipedia is not a forum and debate over whether this group is funny or not has no place here  LazyBastard Guy  07:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly idiotic. Regardless of whether one thinks it is funny or not, this evaluative judgment has absolutely no place here. _Nacre_10

Weird Al reference
I removed the reference to Weird Al and non-political parody artists, because: A. Weird Al does not seem to be listed in the actual decision as having filed an amicus. B. The court decision quite specifically protects non-political parody artists as well. I mean, the case is about 2 Live Crew parodying "Pretty Woman" with lines like "Hairy Woman" and "Bald headed woman" - I hardly think that qualifies as political. and C. Weird Al makes all his money from parodying music, why would he want to make it harder to parody things? But I admit I don't know caselaw very well about parody and sampling in general, so if there's been a shift from the Court's 1994 position I wouldn't know about it. Adoubleplusgood (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Capitol Steps


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money-creation primer

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - kept

Money-creation primer
An interesting essay in the form of a recipe. Not encyclopedic. -- Hoary 02:06, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)
 * del Mikkalai 02:38, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: DCEdwards1966 07:33, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * delete: The information is already found elsewhere in wikipedia. No need for a seperate article
 * Merge into Money, this is a notable aspect of modern economics. Wyss 19:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing wrong with this article. Perfectly encyclopedic. Wikipedia should have more like that. --Pgreenfinch 07:45, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete  --fvw *  07:52, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
 * Merge perhaps to Money supply. keep or re-merge to federal reserve. This is a useful step-by-step explanation Kappa 08:45, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep This was previously a part of Federal Reserve (and still is). It's now sort of a sub-article of it . - Jerryseinfeld 21:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keepmydogategodshat 20:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree withPgreenfinch. No problems with the article. --Stuff ign 15:25, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
User talk:Pmeisel

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 02:07, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thanks Pmeisel 02:22, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Working a little on Lee Iacocca; some of the material appears inaccurate to my memory of the times but I am having trouble finding my reference materials, my library is a mess. If anyone can offer help let me know.Pmeisel 15:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rumours ain't fact
I see! If you can do some research to find something to back up your claim, I see no reason it shouldn't be included. Facts are facts and rumours are rumours. :> Inter 11:07, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

De Lorean vote
Because you voted at Talk:De Lorean on whether or not to move that page to De Lorean Motor Company, I thought you might like to know that another vote has been started at Requested_moves. SamH|Talk 18:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blitz contribs
I am quite happy with your contribution. Now that is what I call 'constructive rewriting' - much tnx for your efforts, keep up the good job. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great Lakes Storm of 1913
I've posted this article at Featured article candidates. -- brian0918 ™  23:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks!! -- brian0918 ™  23:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Voting Warschau/Warsaw
Hi. Since you have edited on pages with disputes about the names of German/polish locations, I would invite you to vote on Warsaw/Vote to settle the multi-year dozends-of-pages dispute about the naming of Warschau/Warsaw and other locations.--Schlesier 08:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New article; please contribute
Hi, I have created the article List of former automotive manufacturing plants.. your automotive expertise might be a real asset in the expansion of this article. Can you give it a look and see if you can help it out? Thanks! Autoplant 01:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Brigade
Hello, good work on Brigade, and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. From what websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Brigade? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? You can simply add links, or see WP:CITET if you wish to review some of the different citation methods. Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 23:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Babel
Could you consider adding this template to your userpage? It is very helpful in case translators are needed and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Important WikiProject Automobiles Discussion
Hello! As a WikiProject Automobiles member, I just thought you might want to input your opinions on an important discussion we're currently having about whether articles regarding similar vehicles should be merged into one or split by brand. If you would like to comment or read further, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. Thank you in advance for your thoughts and feedback. Airline 23:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Automobiles Notification
Hi Pmeisel, you were on the list of members at WikiProject Automobiles and we are introducing a new way of listing members, as the old list was becoming too long. Our new method involves having all of our members in a category.

To add yourself to the category just add the userbox to your user page by putting   where you want the userbox. Alternatively if you don't like the userbox you can add   to your userpage.

If you no longer wish to be a member of the project, simply don't add the userbox or category, there's no pressure. Thanks for your time, James086Talk 04:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Pmeisel! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Buddy Bell -

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:American labor leaders has been nominated for discussion
Category:American labor leaders, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. TM 14:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Grey Baskerville has left the building
After surviving AfDs, Doug Thorley and Magoo are still up, but both could use better sourcing. I'm wondering if you've got back issues of Hot Rod, Car Craft, National Dragster, & the like that would help. Ditto on Jake, Showboat, The Mantaray, Ed Donovan, Donovan hemi, Silhouette, and a few others I've created lately. (Have a look at my userpage under the "Open Vanity" 3&4.) Any help you can be would be very much appreciated. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  00:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:American labor leaders has been nominated for discussion
Category:American labor leaders, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. TM 20:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Leaders of American trade unions has been nominated for renaming
Category:Leaders of American trade unions has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 17:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pmeisel


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election timeline

2004 U.S. election in progress was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

This kind of already happened, if memory serves. We have plenty of pages and information on the event without keeping this around and looking silly. Wally 02:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Retain data by any means necessary.  —[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 03:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This should absolutely not be deleted. Dozens collaborated to make that page work, and it contains abundant information, including on authorship in the page history.  However, since the election is arguably no longer "in progess", a merge and redirect might be called for.  That would be a task, however. Very Verily  04:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * keep, or merge with the main 2004 US election article or change the title from "in progress" to something like "timeline". zen master 04:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The information should probably be merged in with something, but the page and its history should be kept indefinitely for historical purposes.  This will be a footnote in someone's PhD thesis in 2022. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 05:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Concur. Even if we merge the information elsewhere and move this out of the main namespace, it should be preserved with full history. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:00, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep data. Re-titling or merging seems in order--if not timeline, maybe something like 2004 U.S. election as it progressed. Niteowlneils 06:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. For obvious reasons.  See above.  --Randy 17:59, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong keep; though perhaps the page could be moved, as suggested above. "In progress" may not be so applicable anymore. Estel (talk) 18:14, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep (or reshuffle & rename). I do not understand why we would consider deleting this page now? Over the last few days, I have been updating the state-by-state results to match the official Statements of Ascertainment.  Seventeen states have not yet filed the paperwork with the National Archivist and the President of the Senate.  Shouldn't we keep this page as an event "in progress" until the official popular and electoral vote tallying ends (i.e., January 6, 2004)?  Maybe we could start re-sorting the other information on the page to more appropriate pages?  We could move the "events" to the main page on the election and move the "election incidents" to the pages on the election irregularities.  Then we might re-name this page something like "U.S._presidential_election_results,_2004."  I think this would be helpful because the main page links here just by saying it's for information in progress.  Readers might not realize that this is the page to go to for the results. -- khg
 * Keep. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 18:20, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. A note can be added that this is a historical record, after, in fact, it *is* a historical record -- after the Electoral College is *counted* on 6 January -- not before.  Or it could be merged into the non-event page.  A standardized protocol ought to be developed.  [I see I forgot to sign this] -- Baylink 03:29, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs to be moved or merged or something of course, but in no way should this be deleted. Shane King 00:21, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * keep Yuckfoo 04:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Rename to 2004 U.S. presidential election timeline; cleanup where necessary.  --fvw *  07:54, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with fvw. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to, something. — Jeandré, 2004-12-20t20:32z

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