text:
Talk:Red Line (MBTA)

Station articles
It wouldn't be such a bad idea to merge all of the red line station articles into this article. I doubt that any of them will grow beyond a few paragraphs or so. jdb 08:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The usual Wiki alternative is to create an article such as "Red Line blah-blah-blah Stations" and put all the station info into that. But I certainly agree with your point. Atlant 23:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Some of the station articles may eventually be quite significant, but the the real problem with merging them into an article on Red Line Stations is that many of these facilities serve transit other than the Red Line. South Station, Porter Sq., JFK UMass, and Braintree, also are commuter rail stations.  Park St., Downtown Crossing and South Station also are used by other underground mass transit.  Harvard is a major bus station, etc.  Putative consolidation in the manner suggested would result in multiple entries for many articles on the various routes they serve.  I think separate station articles is preferable.  -- DRT  ïllberġ Talk 16:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Zoetrope Ads
Currently, the article mentions that a zeotrope like system is used for the in tunnel ads between South Station and Broadway. One day, I was riding in the last car of a train and took an opportunity to scope out the ads as the train was pulling away--so I could see if they were posters or whatever. Anyway, I'm pretty sure I saw a long line of flatscreen monitors! There were definately no strobe lights--the monitors appeared to be backlit, and switched off a few seconds after we passed them. It seemed like the monitors were all just playing a video clip, and every monitor was displaying the same thing at any given time. Can someone else verify this, and either make the edit or respond here? Thanks. Michaelwsherman 20:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The ads are actually a long stripe of static images, much like a filmstrip. Strobe lights are most certainly used, as can be seen clearly when riding from the front of a Bombardier and viewing through the front windshield (older trains are constructed differently making viewing difficult at best). The strobing effect appears to be created by white LED lights instead of incandescent flash bulbs.

 * Also, the article's reference to the zoetrope is incorrect, as there is no masking system to cause the zoetrope effect - the riders are moving at the same speed as the train.

 * The appearance of the posters being continuously animated as if they where flatscreen monitors is a side effect of the strobe light - for the same reason you can see several "copies" of the ad playing at once outside the windows of the train, you can view a large portion of the strip in this way appearing animated as wel l from the front or rear of the train.

 * Does anyone know if the ads are triggered by the ATC systems?
 * 24.60.154.9 (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If you ride from the Harvard Square end going inbound you can see them. Sometimes there are delays and the trains drive slow which is the best time to see the inner works.. When the train leaves Harvard there is one as it heads towers Central. It is closer to the Harvard End than the Central station. From what I observed they were posters that change slightly (again) like a film strip. The strobe lights look like they were shielded underneath a little black bar (like a lamp shade) above the posters. Also if the train is traveling at the wrong speed the ads may not look clear and may appear jerky in appearance.CaribDigita (talk) 07:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Genesis
A tour guide once told me that this particular line was selected to be red because it passed by Harvard, a bastion of liberalism. If there is any truth to this anecdote, should it not be mentioned? --Adoniscik 23:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Harvard's school color is crimson (red). The MBTA claims that as the reason for the color. --SPUI (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Rolling stock
A nice addition to the page would be a section describing the rolling stock of the Red Line. This should include the current older mainline trains, the newer Bombardier mainline trains, and maybe the PCC streetcars run on the Ashmont-Mattapan High Speed Line (although that's probably better left to the sub-article). Atlant 16:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Good idea. There's a table of the car quantities at at http://members.aol.com/rtspcc/roster/MBTAroster.html jdb ❋ 20:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm confused about the photo, which the article describes as aluminium-bodied (1969-1970) equipment. I rode the Boston subways a lot in 1970-71-72, and recall that at that time, there were old cars and new cars both in service. The new cars were unpainted and I thought they were of stainless-steel construction. The photograph shows a painted car, and it resembles what were the old cars at the time --- judging by the lists on the MBTA roster page and the links from it, 01400 series. Can you clear up my confusion?

The 1970s unpainted cars were painted the old 1400 series red colors after a rebuild, and new stainless-steel cars were introduced in the 1990s. --71.124.173.134 (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"No smoking, please!"
I added the trivia item (which has now been expanded to):
 * * At the Harvard station, the electronic voice used on the newer (Bombardier-built) trains makes a special announcement: "No smoking, please!"

I haven't checked in the last few months, but it was definitely true the last time I've been the distance between Alewife and JFK/U.Mass that the announcement was only made at Hahvud. I always found it amusing; the synthivoice is *SO* emphatic about it.

Atlant 20:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Odd that it's only at Havahd. The only other place I've heard it was on a B-line Type 8 Green Line car entering Boylston inbound. jdb ❋ (talk) 16:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I did some field research yesterday afternoon and what I said is still true: Between JFK/UMass and Alewife, it's only Hahvud that gets the special announcement. They have been making tweaks to the synthevoice announcements, though, with a female voice now added to the ordinary Charles/MGH announcement: she adds "Mass Eye and Ear". Quelle difference!

Atlant 13:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The high-pitched female voice saying "Mass Eye and Ear" at Charles/MGH was there for a while in the mid-1990s, when the Bombardier trains were new. It seems to come and go. --Matt McIrvin 14:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * I wonder if the Mass Eye and Ear announcement got installed on some train cars but not all of them. JNW2 (talk) 04:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It says it going inbound at Harvard (towards Park Street), and at Broadway going inbound (towards Park Street). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.44.86.189 (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect roll signs?

A recent editor added this image and caption.

The caption led me to wonder whether, during the construction of the Alewife extension, there was a time when the trains reached Davis but not yet Alewife? This would explain the roll sign.

Atlant 11:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, between December 8, 1984 and March 30, 1985. --SPUI (talk) 11:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I remember being on an older Red Line train earlier this year with really old roll signs - one of them read "Harvard/Park Street". I have a feeling that they don't pay much attention to what these older signs inside trains read anymore.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.19.252 (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll take that as an explanation for this roll sign and edit the article to reflect that fact.

Atlant 12:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Right. I've no doubt that the sign was printed correctly, but it was certainly set incorrectly, since I took the photo this year. jdb ❋ (talk) 17:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oops!

Atlant 17:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if it's worth noting in this article that when trains fall behind schedule, the MBTA tends to run ``express'' between Harvard and Alewife, not stopping at Porter or Davis. This invariably feels like doublespeak, since riders generally don't have to wait nearly as long for non-express Red Line trains, and thus express trains do not tend to get the rider to the destination faster when factoring in wait time. Express trains generally blow their horn repeatedly while going through the station, and in the last year or two with the new train arrival announcements, there's generally an announcement something along the lines of ``Attention passengers, the next red line train to does not take passengers. Please stand back from the yellow line.'' JNW2 (talk) 04:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Map request
A map showing the complex geography of the historical portions and expansion of the line would be very helpful. -- Beland 05:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Under header 'Station listing'

 * There's a listing of train stations on the Red Line. The so called "Stadium" exit?  Was that actually exiting on the *Boston*(Allston?) side of the Charles? As in near Harvard Stadium  CaribDigita 19:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

 * My mother says if her memory serves her correctly, she believes the stadium exit came out at the current positing of the Charles Hotel. Just beyond the current alley where the trackless trolley buses go now to turn around.(Close to the Harvard Square Post office.) CaribDigita 20:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There's more info about this also on nycsubway.org See area about Eliot Station. CaribDigita 23:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

to
I have changed the template to a new  template (which is identical to the old  template) so that  can be used for, in the same way that  can be used for  — Mets 501  (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

1944? for Tom Lehrer song
I tend to doubt that the song "Boston" was written in 1944: Lehrer would have been pretty young at the time, and he started performing about a decade later. Perhaps that was 1954? -- BRG 19:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ride times
All the "time to park street" info is WP:OR and should be removed. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 00:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the talk of "Stadium Station" is also OR. Grandmothers, while generally WP:RS, are still WP:OR. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 00:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Shawmut Station
According to the book Boston's Red Line: Bridging the Charles from Alewife to Braintree, Shawmut existed as a Shawmut Branch Railroad station. The book has pictures of the station prior to the conversion, so I'm inclined to believe it. --71.124.173.134 20:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Trivia heading removed
I've removed the trivia heading, but other than cleaning up the advertising stuff a bit, I haven't gotten rid of text that was under that section. And I think this article might benefit from a little bit more work in that area; the exact set of things that are in this article don't feel like they quite match the most important things to know about the Red Line. In some cases, expanding on those points may be a good way to end up with something that's reasonably well balanced. JNW2 (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Train width
Someone put in the edit, without reference, that claimed that the MBTA would probably replace some Red Line cars with Orange Line cars. The substitution with the latter would not be possible, as the Orange Line cars are narrower than the Red Line cars. See Brian Cudahy's book. The writer was assuming that many transit cars are replaceable, line to line, as with the interoperability of the IND cars with the BMT cars in the New York City transit system.Dogru144 (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what it said. It said that the new orange and red line cars will share some elements. This is a true statement because procurement for both replacements are being grouped under a single contract for one manufacturer. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Rolling stock Type vs. Series
I have been doing a lot of needed cleanup of the entire article. The info box mentions Types 1, 2, and 3, but there is no explanation of the meaning, and the text talks about Series 1400 through 1800 cars. Either there should be a translation of the "Type" designation, or it should be deleted. Reify-tech (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Take a look at the NETransit inventory - it's the gold-standard source for every piece of rolling stock that the MBTA has ever owned, and goes back to the end of the 19th century for most equipment types. While an unofficial source, it is updated almost daily with rather inside information; discussions elsewhere indicate that the MBTA allows this because they use it as an informal source internally. In short, every piece of rolling stock has both a type and a series; the correlate approximately but not exactly 1:1.

 * The heavy rail type designators reset from line names (the 1400s were #5 Cambridge-Dorchester type) to colors (the 1500s and identical 1600s are #1 Red Line type, the 1700s #2 Red Line, and the 1800s #3; the as-yet-unnumbered-but-probably-1900s cars to be delivered in 2019 will be #4 Red Line type) post-1967. Streetcars have a weird history based on surface cars versus tunnel cars (which eventually became identical); the BERy had Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, Type 4 plus derivatives, Articulated (rebuilds formed from pairs of 1890s streetcars), Center-entrance cars, Type 5, and finally the PCCs; the MBTA tested a mockup Type 6 before settling on the Boeing LRV, then went back to standard numbering with the Type 7, Type 8, and now-ordered Type 9 cars.

 * I've been putting off heavy overhauls of the subway line article for a variety of reasons, but when I get a chance I'll try to turn that section into a more useful chart complete with images. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your customary helpful info that includes accessible sources! At least the Series can be inferred from the car numbers painted on the rolling stock itself, but there is no way to know the Type without a conversion table. If the Type designation is to be useful, a chart would indeed be helpful.   Reify-tech (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

 * The Type information should definitely be included; that's the name that appears on official documentation. That said, the series is far more obvious to the public eye; that's why the Commons categories and such are under those names. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Cambridge Tunnel built by private capital
The Cambridge Tunnel was built entirely by private capital. This fact should be mentioned in the article. (see: Cheney, Frank. (2002) Boston's Red Line: Bridging the Charles from Alewife to Braintree. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, page 7).

This was one of only three U.S. subways to be built entirely by private capital (the others were the Market Street Subway and Elevated, Philadelphia, and the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad, now Port-Authority Trans-Hudson, aka PATH).

In 1920, shortly after the beginning of the period of public control over the Boston Elevated, the Cambridge Tunnel was sold to the Commonwealth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.208.114.61 (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Zoetropic ads
, you sure that isn’t worth a sentence? Qwirkle (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I don't personally think so, and certainly it's not worth a top-level heading. At most it's a minor historical curiosity (here's a source for the installation); I don't believe the ads are still there. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Agree on the top-level heading, but I suspect this is a bit like the neonized moving walkway connector between O’Hare’s United terminals in terms of noticeability. Qwirkle (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

 * It's an interesting story, but the cited source doesn't mention the Red Line. Dicklyon (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet the one just 7-8 lines up does. Qwirkle (talk) 03:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * True that. Could be worth a mention. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Cambridge subway lowercased based on a single cite?
In reverting this edit (and others) you asked whether this is based on a single cite (since my edit summary said something about the cited source there). Fair question. But no, it's based on surveying uses in books over many years. See early usage that shows it was not capped back in the day, and more recent usage that shows a few spurts in capitalization in a couple of years, but still not approaching the "consistently capitalized" threshold of MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that you're typically asked to prove why each of these "fixes" is valid, I would encourage you to make a note on the talk page of each article with customized links similar to above for every term you are going to change. My watchlist is full of new changes by you every day, most of which appear to be undiscussed and just as controversial (likely to be reverted). Grk1011 (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm typically not asked about my case fixes; maybe a percent or two. So sticking WP:BRD seems OK.  If you think some of my fixes are wrong, revert and let's discuss. Dicklyon (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can find, the only case edits of mine that you've questioned were where you wanted to cap bus route descriptions as titles. Was there something else I did that you noticed and thought was sketchy? Let me know. Dicklyon (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Ngrams tell us nothing about those usages: whether they are reliable sources, whether they are useful indicators of capitalization, and whether they even refer to the subject in question. They are also heavily skewed by a number of factors: multiple scans of certain documents, limited selection of modern books, and limited types (almost no post-1925 periodicals and government reports, etc). Using them is no substitute for actual familiarity with reliable sources, which consistently use "Cambridge Subway." Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I've looked at a lot of sources. See for example these.  Do you see any uses of "Cambridge subway" referring to something other than the subway we're talking about here?  See for example:, , , , , .  The books that cap it are the railfan books.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So, we have a children’s book, a selfpublished...whatever you want to call it, a person who conflates Harvard Square with “the Cambridge subway station” (DOS tip: There’s more than one!), a mention of the “subway yards”, a source which uses both capitalization, and one that unequivocally uses l.c.. Kewl. Qwirkle (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * More importantly, we have usages that aren’t about a particular piece of concrete, steel and wood that was built a little over a century ago, which is what this article is quite narrowly about. Qwirkle (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Finally, only one source you give there seems railfanish, the juvenile. Which others do you see in that category? Qwirkle (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't cite the ones that cap it. The recent ones are (mostly) railfan books. Dicklyon (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In reverting this edit (and others) you asked whether this is based on a single cite (since my edit summary said something about the cited source there). No, I asked that once, about a single edit. Qwirkle (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * On the others you asked "Based on what?" Those are what I'm answering.  Based on usage and stats.  Modern uses are pretty thin, and yes the one I linked that says "Cambridge subway station" is probably one I should not have picked.  The contemporary uses are more dominantly lowercase.  See whole timeline, smoothed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You are seriously citing “evidence” the term took off in the 1860s, and reached near peak by 1880. The sealion act needs work. Qwirkle (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The way the running-average smoothing and normalization work in the ngram plots does lead to some misinterpretation possibility like that, yes. Reduce the smoothing to see what years those hits are coming from. Dicklyon (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also note that the ngrams count occurrences, not sources. In the 21st century, this one 2002 book makes a big spike with its 6 occurrences, which you can see here.  Smoothing with a running average is not a very useful way to characterize the trend, but it's all they offer there. Dicklyon (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They offer the ability to look at the cites from various time frames in detail. what does this say, for instance? Qwirkle (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and you can set whatever dates you like, and you get a non-case-sensitive search. That one shows that caps were not consistent in the 1920-1932 period, consistent with the graph shows caps running a bit ahead in those years. Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Gentle reader, look at the hits, and then consider whether it is not fairly consistently capitalized in them. Qwirkle (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The of MOS:CAPS (and WP:NCCAPS) is that WP does not employ capitalization on anything that is not capitalized with near-uniformity in reliable sources.  So the answer, to use lower case here, is obvious.  This is not about a simple majority of recent sources. Unless lower-case usage is virtually unattested in reliable sources, WP uses lower case.  I think everyone here knows this, given the large number of lower-casing RMs we have been through, in transport/transit topics in particular, with the end result always being to use lower case when source usage is mixed/inconsistent.  If someone is going to engage in a "never give up, never surrender" pattern of WP:TE/WP:POINT activism and resistance against any guideline, especially if there's a "my pet topic is magically different" special pleading air to it, then a topic ban is probably in order.  We spend way too much time having to re-re-re-argue the exact same style matters over and over again after they have already been settled years ago in guidelines and reaffirmed in hundreds of RMs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Even after the consensus to lowercase Tremont Street subway and Boylston Street subway in the RM discussion (wow, 20 months ago already: Talk:Boylston_Street_subway), these guys kept fighting to cap subway on those in articles.  That eventually petered out; now they want another go at interfering against guidelines at the Cambridge subway.  It's exasperating. Dicklyon (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Consider... you have faced essentially the same complaint/opposition by multiple editors at multiple articles. Perhaps it is time to accept that the problem is with the guideline, and not with individual editors. At a minimum, we should consider making an exception to the guideline for this topic area. Blueboar (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Like "Wikipedia capitalizes words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in reliable sources, plus words describing infrastructure that trains run through or on, such as Subway, Branch, Line, Incline, Portal, etc." Maybe that would fly... Dicklyon (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm so tired of this bullshit. It's the same pattern every time: you make capitalization changes on an article you've never otherwise contributed to. You're reverted by editors who do actually contribute to the article, and you edit war about it. If you don't win by exhausting the other editors, you make talk page claims based on flimsy evidence, entirely based on cherry-picking results from Google Books. When consensus is still against you, you bring in other MOS editors who also have no intention of making actual contributions to the article.

 * Someone who is openly dismissive of any sources written by anyone with an actual interest in the topic, regardless of the actual quality and reliability of the source, is unqualified to be making judgement calls about any disputed aspects of the topic. Someone who believes that two minutes searching a topic gives them greater understanding than editors who have spent substantial periods of time researching that topic is unqualified to be making judgement calls about any disputed aspects of the topic. Someone who believes that every editor in a topic area is mistaken is unqualified to be making judgement calls about any disputed aspects of the topic.

 * And yes, MOS:CAPS is a problem. Instead of the common sense "nouns should be capitalized when that style is used in the majority of reliable sources, particularly those sources with substantial coverage, and with the understanding that capitalization rules substantially changed during the 20th century", you use it to mean "nouns should only be capitalized when that style is used in an overwhelming majority of sources, regardless of how trivial the coverage is or when the source is from." The reason you constantly clash with other editors over railroad-related topics is because reliable sources - including government agencies and historical organizations - usually treat railroad infrastructure as proper nouns. No matter how much you dislike that, editors following those sources will also capitalize those names. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with this sentiment. Grk1011 (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like someone has an ownership issues? The point of the ngram stats is to avoid cherry-picking, and just look at trends.  The trend for the last 50 years is near 50/50 caps for subway there, with a blip that I pointed out in 2002 for a book with it capped 6 times; most of the other counts are 1 or 2 per years, so not over 2 per book usually.  Yes, a few of those are like "Cambridge subway station" and "Cambridge subway line", but most are actually about the Cambridge subway itself; if that were accepted as a proper name, by more than the railfan authors, we'd see it capped a lot more often.  The reality is that most things called subways are not proper names (the SF MTA's Central Subway being a notable exception; that one is always capped in sources). Dicklyon (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, please note that style gnoming is contributing. I have 17 edits to this article, mostly uncontroversial style fixes, mostly lowercasings.  And this constitutes only about one ten-thousanth of my edits; I am not focused on rail infrastructure or the MBTA or you, but yes I do have a focus on over-capitalization and other style issues. Dicklyon (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A textbook example of begging the question.Qwirkle (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Another problem is a confusion between descriptives and proper nouns. It is possible to refer, for example to “the Boston-Cambridge subway”, which describes rather than names the thing, and quite rightly uses l.c. for the word “subway”. “Cambridge subway line” is also parsable as a descriptive. Qwirkle (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If most of the lowercase uses were in the context of "Cambridge subway line" or "Cambridge subway station", not specifically about the "Cambridge subway" itself, then you might have a point. But that's not what I'm seeing in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The majority of the cites you gave as examples above are either simply descriptives, or parsable as descriptives. Would you like to go through them one by one here? Qwirkle (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it might be more illuminating if you'd show capped examples that you think are not "parsable as descriptives". Dicklyon (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sophistry. By that standard, neither the White House nor Penn Station could be capitalized. Qwirkle (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is way we prefer to look at source stats. Dicklyon (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is to say you, because your view is a minority outside your club, prefer to use an oversimplistic rubric which generates the answer you want already. The overwhelming bulk of the supposed counterexamples you’ve given here reflect that. Qwirkle (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So what's your rubric? Something like a rail infrastructure except, as Blueboar proposed? Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Most native english speakers do not need a rubric to figure out when a phrase is being used as a proper noun. If you can not, perhaps you should pass on the sort of “gnoming” that suggests bridges rather than caverns. Now, there is a real enough problem with folks who mistake proper capitalization for disrespect of their pet subject, or who overuse clippings of proper name phrases, which do not belong in every context. When the members of the 15th Field Snurdlewonger Regiment (Grytpype-Thynne‘s Own) toast “The Regiment”, with capital letters that can be heard even in speech, they are doing something grammatical in context. Using that to demand capitalization in other contexts would not be. In this case we have a particular entity which is almost always capitalized when referred to as such. The Cambridge Subway runs from Park Street Under to Harvard. It does not go to Alewife. [It] wanders not in Dirty Dot... hell Hell, it doesn’t even make it past whatever they are calling Washington this week. It stops clean, as it ever has, at these two points, for values of “ever” that approximate “1912.”. It is a particular thing, differentiated by construction, and by ownership, and by place. There are other subways in Cambridge. They are not the Cambridge Subway, even if they are, in fact Cambridge subways. References to “the Boston/Cambridge Subway” or to “the Cambridge subway line” do not necessarily refer to this particular place and thing, and their capitalization is not relevant. Qwirkle (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I hear you, but the evidence seems to contradict you. Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you really do not. You have presented no evidence against the idea that the Cambridge Subway is a proper noun, and capitalized; you have presented evidence that the same component words can be used in constructions that are not capitalized. No one has disputed this, largely because it isn’t material. The “Boston /Cambridge subway”, for instance, is a descriptive...and a singularly inept one, since it is entirely unclear what it refers to. It could be the whole Red Line at certain points in time; it could be the whole rapid transit system at others. What it almost certainly is not is the Cambridge Subway as a discrete entity. The “Cambridge subway line” could refer to one direction of the entire Red Line to this day, since, with a minor excursion into the (former) wilds of (the former) Slummerville, the whole end of the this thing is in Cambridge. These phrases have different referents besides “the Cambridge Subway.” Qwirkle (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 * And per the edit that started this, the cited source 62 from 1979 does not cap it; it's far from the only such. Source 64, too.  I don't have 63 handy to check. Dicklyon (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fischler isnt a bad cite in many ways, but did you read the actual claim made? Harvard is distinctly absent, as is Central. Makes you wonder what else is off. Qwirkle (talk) 05:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I did not. Dicklyon (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization of proper nouns, based on clarity and readability
We should not lose sight of the overall educational goals of Wikipedia, which prioritize clarity and readability over rigid adherence to unchanging rules regardless of context and meaning. For a global English-language encyclopedia, Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MoS) has been the locus of many disputes among British, American, Canadian, South Asian, Australian, South African, and other native speakers, who naturally tend to prefer their own styles of expression. To prevent such disputes from becoming endless tugs-of-war for symbolic dominance among different cultural subgroups, the overriding goals of clarity, readability, and simplicity have taken precedence over parochial arguments to the effect of "we've always done it that way", or "the majority of people in important country So-and-so do it this way". Compromises in historical "purity of style" are constantly made in Wikipedia writing in the interests of advancing its educational goals; clarity, readability, and simplicity are among the best ways to communicate effectively with a world-wide audience of readers.

Turning to the immediate question at hand here, The Little, Brown Handbook recommends "Capitalize common nouns used as essential parts of proper nouns". The Prentice Hall Handbook for Writers recommends capitalization of "Common nouns used as an essential part of a proper noun". The key word to note in these guidelines is essential.

A useful test for whether a given word is essential is to delete it or substitute another equivalent word for it, and note if this transformation changes substantially the meaning of the expression or the overall sentence. For example, look at the factual sentence, "Harvard Square Station is located near the center of the Harvard University campus." To test whether certain words are essential, let us delete them to produce, "Harvard Square is located near the center of the Harvard campus." Either of these deletions radically changes the meaning of the sentence, so the deleted words are essential. In this example, Harvard may denote a certain exurban town west of Boston, so University is an essential component of Harvard University, and should never be uncapitalized or omitted from its first usage, even if implied context may allow its abbreviation in later references.

By contrast, if one holds that the word campus should be capitalized, note that its deletion alone does not completely change the meaning (though it does slightly mangle the grammar). The words location or neighborhood could be substituted and still convey the same concepts. In the example here, the words Station and University are essential, and should therefore be capitalized as inherent parts of their proper nouns.

Applying this test to the proper noun Cambridge Subway shows that Subway is essential to identifying a particular underground structure, as distinguished from the pedestrian subway passage from one side of Massachusetts Avenue to the other via Harvard Square Station in Cambridge, or the currently-closed subterranean passage crossing under the same street at Hynes Convention Center Station in Boston. Note here that the generic term subway can and has been replaced by the generic words subterranean passage without fundamentally changing the meaning of the expression.

As a reasonable concession to the anti-capitalizationists among us, let us note that the Prentice Hall Handbook for Writers further recommends that "When the generic term is used in the plural, it is not usually capitalized", giving the example of "the Atlantic and Pacific oceans". This rule cannot be applied globally or blindly, and must exempt a full proper name, such as a hypothetical "Atlantic and Pacific Ocean Shipping Company", but not a hypothetical "Atlantic and Pacific Ocean Shipping company", nor a hypothetical "Atlantic and Pacific Ocean Shipping firm". In the latter two examples, note that the uncapitalized words are not essential parts of the proper name.

In summary, capitalization is used to indicate to the reader which words are an essential or integral part of a proper name. The important distinction is between specific and generic references; the deletion/substitution test can help the editor decide this difference.

Remember, our overall goal is not merely to engage in endless arguments over which or how many putatively authoritative sources used whatever capitalization at whatever date. The overriding Wikipedia goals are to write an encyclopedia with clarity and readability (simplicity does not weigh in heavily on this particular question). Reify-tech (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I'm not familiar with those guides, but it's clear that "Capitalize common nouns used as essential parts of proper nouns" is inviting a lot more capitalization than is typically found in sources; pretty much the opposite of Wikipedia style, which is to avoid unnecessary capitalization. I think we can mostly agree that the "Cambridge subway" or the "Cambridge tunnel" as it's often called, is no less clear for lack of capping the generic.  The trouble with capping there is that it implies that these terms are accepted as proper names by the vast majority of sources, which is counterfactual here. Dicklyon (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 * No, thrice. To begin with, you are begging the question on what level of capitalization is “unnecessary”, defining that by Wiki itself, never a good thing. Next, you are conflating the Cambridge Subway and the Cambridge Tunnel. The CS consisited of the Beacon Hill Tunnel, a small El-like bridge section, the separated, but roughly at grade median section on the Longfellow Bridge, and the Cambridge Tunnel itself, which runs out to Harvard Square. You sometimes see metastasistic usages, but the two are actually not, properly speaking, identical. Finally, the idea that every source out there is authoritative on every possible subject is not something we use elsewise; it need not be for this either. For instance, the Cambridge Subway, in the proper sense, is only of interest to historians (and folks interested in history), lawyers, state budget officials, and so forth. Most people, and most sources, don’t talk about the Cambridge Subway, but of the subway in or to Cambridge, a rather different thing. Qwirkle (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Unnecessary" is defined by evidence in sources, as MOS:CAPS describes. If there's a definition of "Cambridge Subway" of the sort you describe in which the caps are needed to point out that that's the one meant, please show us a source or two that makes that clear. Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No. “Unnecessary” is defined as “not required.” You are mistaking the map for the territory. There are any number of sources just above here that make it quite clear that the initial project which begins at Park Street Under and ends at Harvard was called the Cambridge Subway, as a capitalized proper name, predominantly. No matter how many descriptive counterexamples you give, it will not change that; it will only suggest that you are either sealioning (sealyoning?), or lack the ability to make the distinction, or don’t even bother to read the cites. Qwirkle (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we can agree that we all know that “Unnecessary” is defined as “not required.” I was referring to how WP decides that w.r.t. capitalization, which is defined in MOS:CAPS.  I'm sure you understood so not clear why you throw back distractors.  As for that particular stretch of subway, fine, you're not going to cite evidence, so I'll show some that have it lowercase: , , , , etc.  I'm sure you can pick on each of these for being old, or whatever, but I'm equally sure I could pick on your choices if you pointed any out. Dicklyon (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

 * No, we surely can not agree that you know that “Unnecessary” is defined as “not required.”, since you are defining it by a styling rubric which does not at all address utility. Obviously, those are far better examples than those you Google-dredged earlier, and equally obviously they are old, and reflect slightly different capitalization standards - note the variance with “street” in proper names seen also. Qwirkle (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that over time we tend to cap more things. "Street" is now universally capped where 100 years ago it was considered unnecessary to do so (it was mixed).  But I find nothing to indicate that capping "Subway" conveys a different meaning, or is considered necessary, by modern authors.  If there's utility in the caps indicating a different object than the lowercase, I've been unable to see that in sources, and you've been unwilling to try to show it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet you are writing this supposedly in response to ’s explanation of how fuller capitalization of proper name phrases can provide clarity to the reader, sourced to fairly respectable sources, and after discovering that some uses of “Cambridge subway” did not necessarily refer to the 1912 project. This does not suggest a failure in transmission, but reception. Qwirkle (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * His proposal was theoretical, and of a style contrary to Wikipedia's. I'm trying to emphasize the approach suggested by our own style guide. Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I greatly doubt he created a whole new section here simply to discuss theoretical aspects of writing. Your style guide -for it is not “ours”, you and the other myrmidons of the minuscule are at war with actual content creators at all corners of Wikipedia- seeks to eliminate “unnecessary capitalization”. Above are two far more authoritative cites than anything on Wiki itself suggesting that capitalization is, in some cases, necessary for clarity. Qwirkle (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The theory that "essential" words (words that can't be removed without changing the meaning) should be capitalized is obviously nonsense. By embedding it like "as essential parts of proper nouns", one just comes back to the question of what's a proper noun.  Our style guide says we treat things as proper nouns when sources do so pretty consistently, and otherwise not.  I'm not aware of cases where this hurts clarity; when one says the Cambridge subway, it's as clear as the Cambridge Subway, which is why sources don't distinguish (in spite of your claims, unsupported as far as I can find, that the capped version means something different from the lowercase one).  I'm sorry you don't feel like you're part of the community that adopted these guidelines, but that doesn't give you license to adopt your own style in your corner of WP. Dicklyon (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your drive for consistency, but blindly following the guideline is not helping anyone. The MOS:CAPS page says right up at the top that it is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Combining Reify-tech's extremely convincing explanation (learned this in elementary school!) with other editors' common sense approach on these MBTA articles, I honestly don't see how lowercase is even an option. We don't debate "Bridge" being capitalized as part of the names of bridges, yet you believe that "subway", "station", "incline", etc (all used in the same exact way) are somehow different. Your position is based purely on looking at what sources use across centuries, which I find very flawed. This isn't about "our own style", in fact it's not even a style. It's about common sense and actual usage; aligning with reader expectations. The guideline explicitly allows this type of flexibility. It seems we're either going to have to leave this as a stalemate and the status quo, or a larger discussion about changing the guideline needs to take place. (I'm fine with the guideline as is because I believe it allows us to follow best practices.) I've been watching these discussions play out for days/months (a year?) and all I see is disagreement with no end in sight. Dicklyon, no matter how many times you start discussions and whip out the term usage graphs and cite random books/articles/examples, it's very clear that the other editors here, including myself, don't believe that they're relevant nor do they establish your position with certainty. Shall we keep wasting each others' time, or? Grk1011 (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * These terms are not different "somehow". They're different in how reliable sources treat them and cap them.  I'm not making this up, or proposing any novel theory.  There is absolutely no problem that would be caused if we just followed our style guidance.  Nobody is going to be surprised to see lowercase subway or portal or incline (indeed, most such fixes have not been commented upon).  Why these guys are so attached to this particular one is a bit of a mystery to me, as sources clearly get away with not capping it pretty often.  And the lowercasing of "station" is something that came from within the trains project, not from me or the MOS, so if you can't understand that, go back and review it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

 * writes: obviously nonsense, yet folk far more expert than you (or I) insist otherwise. An expert cite disagreeing with an inexpert wikipedian should be a slam-dunk, no-question-about-it closed case, and yet... Qwirkle (talk) 23:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm pretty sure nobody insists that essential words be capitalized. That was an intentionally nonsensical strawman. Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So, Little, Brown and Prentice Hall are nobodies. Kewl. Qwirkle (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you're just stretching what you think they said to match my ridiculous strawman. They didn't say that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Gentle Reader, read and see which version of this is true. Qwirkle (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Another obvious problem is that you are conflating “proper name” with “thing that must be capitalized”. These are related, but not identical. Qwirkle (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tend to do that. I'm much more concerned with what should be capitalized than with the theory of what's a proper name; I tend to not distinguish those. Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ll let this res loquitate for its own damned ipsa. Qwirkle (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Response to OP Hi, an interesting argument. I am not familiar with the two sources you have quoted. The sections quoted might benefit from fuller context and or any examples cited therein. In the simple subject-verb(phase)-object sentence construction, each part can consist of a single word (a noun or verb) or a phrase, which consists of two or more words. In a noun phrase, there will be the "noun" and modifiers, that serve to describe the particular "thing" in fuller (more precise or specific) detail. Such descriptive words are generally adjectives but can include "attributive" nouns, which are nouns acting descriptively- eg He hit the red ball. "Red" and "ball" are both nouns, where "red" is acting attributively and "ball" is the "primary" noun being described. If we remove the "primary" noun from the noun phrase, the sentence will not make sense. In some cases, what is considered a proper noun can act attributively. In such a context, it is not acting as a proper noun but because it is derived from a proper noun, it is still capitalised - hence: Bill drove the London bus down the street. It is a particular "London bus" that Bill was driving (and not any old [generic] London bus) because of the definite article. And of course, if we take out "bus" from the sentence it wont make sense but "London bus" isn't a proper name|noun - where a "proper name" is a phrase (more than one word as distinct from a "proper noun", where a noun is a single word). The guidance you have quoted fails unless we first know that we are applying it to a specific case which is a proper name. How do we know this?

Most of us have an understanding instilled (or beaten) into us by our grade 4 teacher, Mrs McGillicuddy (insert your actual teacher's name). This was based on "simple rules" that a nine-year old "should" be able to understand with sufficient pedagogical encouragement. This was the limit of teaching on the subject. While it serves most of us well most of the time, it avoided complexities (such as herein) and by its simplicity, conflates uniqueness, specificity or a perceived need to "distinguish" with being a proper noun, while fostering a "false equivalence" that capitalisation = proper noun (and vice versa). While there is an orthographic convention to capitalise proper nouns in English, what constitutes a proper noun is a matter of linguistics - they are not the same. What constitutes or defines a proper noun is more complex that simply hitting the shit key. While the guidance at MOS:CAPS may perpetuate (to a degree) the simplistic and false equivalence between what is a proper noun and capitalisation, it nonetheless relies on empirical evidence to resolve what should be capitalised and thereby avoids trying to explain all of the complexities that Mrs McGillicuddy couldn't thrash into any successive class of bright-eyed nine-year olds (even if she knew them or her teacher new them when she was a bright-eyed nine-year old - no matter how inconceivable it is that Mrs McGillicuddy was ever either bright-eyed or nine years old).

Generally, proper nouns are not descriptive or, if they are, they could equally be replaced (renamed) with something that isn't descriptive - the name does not rely on it being descriptive. Hence, I may have an Persian cat called "Fluffy". While it may be fluffy, I could equally have called it "Bob" or my cat, Fluffy, could be Sphynx cat. The question becomes muddied because many geographical names are descriptive. Returning to the sources cited, what is an "essential part of a proper noun [proper name]", where we are dealing with a compound name consisting of more than one word? The answer lies in the compound being a unit phrase - eg The Rocky Mountains, which is descriptive (they are both "rocky" and "mountains"). "Rocky" is an adjective. It inherently needs to attach to a noun to make a noun phrase. They are also known as "the Rockies" but this is not just dropping "mountain" - it is an alternative name like "Bill" is to "William". The Rocky Mountains could also be given an alternative name - the Catskills? But this is taken you say? - uniqueness is not a property of a proper name. How many Will Smiths are there? But they are called the "Catskill Mountains" you say? Well, go back to the "rule" quoted. Does "mountain" need to be capped? Is it "essential"? No. But "Catskill" isn't the same as "Catskills" you say? All that has happened is that the plural has moved!

Consider the following:
 * I sailed across the Pacific [Ocean].
 * I rowed along the [River] Thames [River]. Can put river either before or after.
 * I trecked across the Sahara [Desert].
 * I went to Stradbroke [Island] for the week-end. A local holiday spot for me - substitute Catalina

Each of these cases are geographical names that are often used together with a descriptive common noun. In each case, the proper noun can be used without the need of the descriptive common noun. They donot meet the guidance referenced to capitalise the descriptor yet we do commonly capitalise ocean, river and island (but not desert) in each case.

To the example: "Harvard Square Station is located near the center of the Harvard University campus." and the removed words: "Harvard Square is located near the center of the Harvard campus." For me, removing "University" (leaving "the Harvard campus") really doesn't in any way convey a different meaning. That part of the example does not serve to support the case being made. That "Harvard may denote a certain exurban town west of Boston" is a hypothetical but also ignores that proper nouns while specific, do not need to be unique (per "Will Smith" or "Kansas City", of which there are two). On the otherhand, I might write: "I got off the train at the Harvard Square [station] to attend my lecture at the Harvard [University] campus." The argument in the OP starts with the premise that we are dealing with a proper noun phrase. It does not resolve whether the phrase in question is actually a proper noun phrase as opposed to a common noun phrase with a proper noun being used attributively (as in "the London bus" example). There are simply too many holes in the proposition of the OP for it to be of any utility in addressing the issue generally. Nor does it help specifically with the question of whether "the Cambridge Subway" is a proper noun phrase or whether an appelative (common) noun phrase (such as "the London bus"), which is referring "the subway" running through Cambridge. The guidance from MOS:CAPS is to consider how it is used in independent reliable sources.

As to the section heading premise of clarity and readability. The presence of capitals in text actually reduces readability and for that reason, usage should be limited to what is necessary. We do not hear capital letters. It would be a poor article that relied on capital letters for clarity, since it would be ignoring the issue of accessibility for the visually impaired. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

 * None of this rambling across multiple threads makes any difference. MoS is clear that we do not capitalize that which is not consistently capitalized across the vast majority of independent, reliable sources. And we have hundreds of transit/transport-related RMs concluding that this category is not some kind of magical exception, no matter how tendentious various railfans and trainspotters get about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Tunnel capping
the "Cambridge tunnel" terminology, capped or not, seems to be rather rare compared to "Cambridge subway". What sources do you find using that term? I don't see any cited. The paragraph that starts with "Construction of the Cambridge Tunnel, connecting Harvard Square to Boston, was delayed..." cites Change at Park Street Under, which does not use that term at all, right? Of the books that do use that term, none cap it, as far as I've found by searching so far. What have you found? I will go ahead and fix it to lowercase again until we have sources to the contrary. Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Cambridge Subway, as mentioned here(?) before, consisted of several component parts. A tunnel under Beacon Hill, a short elevated section, an at....grade isn’t exactly right for a bridge, but it’ll do, and a tunnel out to Harvard Square. The Cambridge Tunnel, unsurprisingly, was the c&c work in Cambridge. It would only be seen as a separate thing in contract documents, public records, histories and so forth. Why would you expect otherwise? Qwirkle (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're trying to say. That is not at all the way Cambridge Tunnel is being used in this article, or others; Pi says it refers to the whole line, if I understand him correctly.  And even if it does refer just to the Main Street dig, it's still not capped in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It has referred to the whole line at various times...and, in at least some of those cases, it was used more descriptively than nominatively. But when the Commonfilth and Mr Berry were talking cash, the term was used pretty narrowly. Qwirkle (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, no idea what you're trying to say. Sources could help. Dicklyon (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Red Line (MBTA)


text:
Talk:Yadav

Article on Abhira reference in 13th century book [Yadavabhyudaya]
Vedanta Yadavabhyudaya book Desikan was a Sri Vaishnava Acharya who lived in the 13th century. He was instrumental in saving the Sri Rangam temple from the Muslim invasions. Vadakalai Sri Vaishnavas follow Vedanta Desikan’s teachings, in contrast to Thenkalai Sri Vaishnavas who follow the teachings of Pillai Lokacharya and Manavala Mamunigal.

In any case, the Yadavabhyudayam is a Sanskrit epic poem composed by Vedanta Desikan about the story of Krishna’s childhood. It is modeled after Kalidasa’s Raghuvamsa, a Sanskrit epic poem about the life of Rama.

निक्ात्ययस्नानसष्ठचतानां निश्िप्तमाभीरक्रिशोर्किणाम् ।

कूलादुपाद्‌ाय दुङ्लजाहं इन्दाषिषूठो पु्दे भृङन्दः ॥ ४७ ॥ chapter 4.

Sri Krishna rejoiced (by freely seeing them naked) having ascended a Kunda tree, taking a number of silk sarees from the bank, kept there by the abhira-cowherd-Virgins, when they entered the water to bath in the early morning (as part of their vow).

suggestion to who so ever, trying to protect the article, please update the page as necessary for thankless effort. Clrsitusinsall (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Articles on Abhira or Ahir
One can refer gamit of articles Yadav_(disambiguation) by various communities including historical, mythological reference, pre-sanskritization, sanskritization, modern, post-indepdence. Good to improve this articles using pre-sanskritization reference for example:
 * A book written long before sanskritisation by James Todd "Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan 1829"

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2024
non-elite ==> Elite Sushilyadav27 (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Liu1126 (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The use of the phrase “non-elite” seems to be based on discriminatory bias and is unacceptable. There is no such reference in the India literature both mythological and genealogical.
 * It should be removed AkkuDreamz (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @AkkuDreamz The phrase "non-elite" is included in a quote from one of the sources. —C.Fred (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @C.Fred: According to Lucia Michelutti, the Yadavs are elite and non-elite community. 2409:4085:9D89:8255:0:0:8149:B906 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What's the quotation to back that up? —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * According to Lucia Michelutti, Amongst the Ahir/Yadav caste we find rajas, zamindars, sepoys, and cowherders who have been conceived and categorised either as warriors and as belonging to the Kshatriya varna, or as lower caste and belonging to the Shudra varna.https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Vernacularisation_of_Democracy/sOYJEAAAQBAJ?hl=en 2409:4085:9D89:8255:0:0:8149:B906 (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @C.Fred please look into this there is only one source that is mentioning non elite, most of the sources describe yadavs as traditionally agricultural and well to do community. 2409:4050:EB8:A49A:54BA:BC28:F5C3:D683 (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * you need to wait for some admin to cross the human age, and AI to take over and fix the mistake of few bunch of political admins, who can not see through thecm3ss created in the article.
 * The article become abstract of a preferred author of the idiotic admin practice.
 * sorry to see wikipedia is still taken seriously by anyone.
 * just declare wikipedia page is hijacked by few interest groups, and no meaningful change is possible, until all theses folks live through old age and time and AI take over to fix this page.
 * I am waiting. Clrsitusinsall (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2024
change "traditionally non-elite, peasant-pastoral communities" to traditionally agricultural community. As most of the castes identified along with Yadavs like Jat, earlier the page Jat had non elite as well but it is now removed or the other castes like Gujjar which are even considered lower in hierarchy than Ahirs and Jats also do not mention something like this. I think this is the Major problem in this page, seniors edtors may have a look. Refrences Brandon42Paul (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Supporting Refrences
 * Page Number 28 of Government of India Official District Gazetteer of Gurgaon
 * 2409:4050:2ECD:BEBA:E9F1:C933:AD5F:26E3 (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Supporting reference
 * Martial Races of undivided India by Vidya Prakash Tyagi 2409:4050:2E33:6440:496F:1C74:4C85:D621 (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: However, I think your 6th reference is the strongest reason to remove it: "The general OBC category was, in fact, often used by a Yadav elite to promote its interests.". Only because this argument has been going on for over a decade, I'm loathe to change it on my own., I noticed you closed a few of these out recently, any thoughts? – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 23:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 July 2024
The Mahabharata and other authoritative works use the three terms-Ahir, Yadav and Gopa synonymous. 2409:4085:8595:1D21:0:0:23E8:48AD (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

 * ✅ Added to the "Origins" section. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Yadav


text:
Economic interdependence

Economic interdependence is the mutual dependence of the participants in an economic system who trade in order to obtain the products they cannot produce efficiently for themselves. Such trading relationships require that the behavior of a participant affects its trading partners and it would be costly to rupture their relationship. The subject was addressed by A. A. Cournot who wrote: "...but in reality the economic system is a whole in which all of the parts are connected and react on one another. An increase in the income of the producers of commodity A will affect the demands for commodities B, C, etc. and the incomes of their producers, and by its reaction will affect the demand for commodity A." Economic Interdependence is evidently a consequence of the division of labour.

David Baldwin conceptualizes international economic interdependence as the opportunity costs incurred from potential exit costs that incur as a result of breaking existing economic ties between nations. Others argue that it entails the degree of sensitivity of a country's economic behavior to policies and development of countries outside its border. Global economic interdependence has grown in the post-World War II period as a result of technological progress (e.g. computerization, containerization, low-cost travel, low-cost communications) and associated policies that were aimed at opening national economies internally and externally to global competition.

Some international relations scholars posit that economic interdependence contributes to peaceful relations between states. Other scholars argue that the relationship is more nuanced or emphasize the ways in which interdependence can contribute to conflict between states. For example, through their work on "weaponized interdependence", Abraham Newman and Henry Farrell have outlined how states that possess effective jurisdiction over central economic nodes can use these nodes for coercive economic leverage against adversaries. Viktor Cha has argued that economic interdependence in East Asia can both be a tool of coercion by China but can also be exploited by China's neighbors to deter China if they all work together against China.

Economic interdependence and conflict
International relations scholars are divided as to whether economic interdependence contributes to peace or conflict. Statistical analyses indicate that economic interdependence can lead both to war and peace, with various factors that condition the effect of interdependence. Dale C. Copeland argues that expectations about future trade affects whether economic interdependence is likely to lead to peace or conflict; when leaders do not believe that future trade patterns will be favorable, they are more likely to engage in conflict and competition than when they believe that future trade patterns will be beneficial to their state. According to Henry Farrell and Abraham L. Newman, states can "weaponize interdependence" by fighting over control of important nodes in global networks of informational and financial exchange. Realists such as John Mearsheimer and Joseph Grieco argue that interdependence increase the risk of conflict by creating dependencies and vulnerabilities that states will seek to rid themselves off; for example, states will fear that other states cut off access to key resources.

Beth Simmons and Patrick McDonald argue that interdependence creates groups in liberal capitalist states with vested interests in the status quo, which makes conflict less likely. However, illiberal states or states where domestic groups benefit from trade barriers may be more likely to end up in conflict over trade relations. According to Stephen G. Brooks, globalization of production has had a pacifying impact on great powers by (i) making it hard for great powers to have cutting edge military technology without being part of global supply chains, (ii) reducing incentives to conquer the territory of economically advanced countries, and (iii) facilitating regional integration.

The outbreak of World War I during a period of unprecedented globalization and economic interdependence has often been cited as an example of how economic interdependence fails to prevent war or even contributes to it. Other scholars dispute that World War I was a failure for liberal theory.

According to a 2005 assessment of existing research, the existing research indicated that trade linkages reduce conflict.

Approaches to measure international economic interdependence
As economic interdependence may be perceived differently depending on the scale and context involved, various methods are used to measure the degree of interdependence between and within countries. The below documents some of the approaches that have been adopted to measure the degree of economic interdependence.

Hierarchical Network Approach
This approach is based on the precept that globalisation increases the integration and interdependence between the economy of different countries. The Hierarchical Network Approach is used to measure economic interdependence by analysing growth clusters and cross-country liaison, and business cycle synchronisations. The cross-country liaison or economic interaction between countries or states is most commonly measured by Pearson's cross-correlation coefficient. The correlation matrix is a methodical method which exhibits the mutual relationship of countries over a specified time period. To measure growth clusters, economists need to get hold and analyse changes in GDP for each country over a specified period of time. The relationship between interdependence and business cycles is calculated by the distance correlation matrices over a period of 10 years. The combination of results from the data presents the economic interdependence of countries over time. By this measure, trends from the data has shown that the degree of world economic interdependence is growing due to globalisation.

Geopolitical Approach
Another way of measuring the degree of economic interdependence is via a geopolitical approach, which is based on the presumption that economic interdependence may exist because states trade with each other to obtain strategic goods that are needed for national industry and defence. The geopolitical approach is based on both vertical and horizontal interdependence. Vertical interdependence measures how a change in the price of a good in Country X will affect Country Y (or how changes in price in State A will affect State B), whilst horizontal interdependence calculates the degree of bilateral trade, transactions and investment involved between both countries. Both vertical and horizontal interdependence data must be used to measure economic interdependence. This is because that in the given situation that there is a high correlation of vertical interdependence between country X and country Y, if there is no horizontal interdependence (transaction of goods, services or capitals) between both countries, country X and country Y will have little/no economic interdependence. Vertical interdependence without horizontal may arise due to other factors such as changes in worldwide economic forces. For instance, consider the case of trade and the flow of factors among Arab states (which is typically very limited); whilst we observe parallel movements in factor prices, this may just be due to the effect of global market forces that affect all economies in the same fashion.

Exit Model Approach
As suggested by Baldwin and Crescenzi, economic interdependence may be modelled as a function of potential economic exit costs, which may deter, motivate or fail to affect political conflict. A key challenge that is faced is the need for a valid method to measure exit costs and interdependence, whilst maintaining a systematic approach with many countries involved (a large-n analysis). Crescenzi addresses this by interacting bilateral price elasticity data with trade activity data, to represent both market structure and the intensity of potential economic exit costs. Whilst the price elasticity data reflects one state's ability to react to economic change that is initiated by another state, its interaction with trade share data is vital as it indicates how intense the interdependent relationship is relative to each state's economy and trade portfolio within the global market. Given these two components, Crescenzi furthers his study by explaining the relationship between economic interdependence and its association with political conflict.

title: Economic interdependence


text:
Binondo

Binondo is a district in Manila and is referred to as the city's Chinatown. Its influence extends beyond to the places of Quiapo, Santa Cruz, San Nicolas and Tondo. It is the oldest Chinatown in the world, established in 1594   by the Spaniards as a settlement near Intramuros but across the Pasig River for Catholic Chinese; it was positioned so that the colonial administration could keep a close eye on their migrant subjects. It was already a hub of Chinese commerce even before the Spanish colonial period. Binondo is the center of commerce and trade of Manila, where all types of business run by Filipino-Chinese thrive.

Noted residents include Saint Lorenzo Ruiz, the Filipino protomartyr, and Venerable Mother Ignacia del Espiritu Santo, founder of the Congregation of the Religious of the Virgin Mary.

Etymology
Numerous theories on the origin of the name "Binondo", and that of "Tondo", its neighboring district, have been put forward. Philippine National Artist Nick Joaquin suggested that the names might have been derived from the archaic spelling of the Tagalog term "binondoc" (modern orthography: binundók), or mountainous, referring to Binondo's originally hilly terrain. French linguist Jean-Paul Potet, however, has suggested that the river mangrove (Aegiceras corniculatum), which at the time was called "tundok" ("tinduk-tindukan" today), is the most likely origin of the term, with the 'Bi-" prefix in "Binondo" indicating Binondo's location relative to Tondo.

History

Founded in 1594, Binondo was created by Spanish Governor Luis Pérez Dasmariñas as a permanent settlement for Chinese immigrants (the Spanish called the Chinese sangleys) who converted to Catholicism. It was across the river from the walled city of Intramuros, where the Spaniards resided. Originally it was intended to replace the Parian near Intramuros, where Sangley Chinese merchants and artisans were first confined. The Spanish gave a land grant for Binondo to a group of Chinese merchants and artisans in perpetuity, tax-free and with limited self-governing privileges. The area also served as a midpoint in between Parián (modern-day Arroceros Urban Forest Park) and San Nicolas, since way before the Spanish conquest of Manila in the Battle of Manila (1570), a Sangley Chinese community had already settled in Baybay (former name of San Nicolas, Manila) near Tondo on the north bank of the Pasig river directly on Binondo's west.

The Spanish Dominican fathers made Binondo their parish and succeeded in converting many of the residents to Catholicism. Binondo soon became the place where Chinese immigrants converted to Catholicism, intermarried with indigenous Filipino women and had children, who became the Chinese mestizo community. Over the years, the Chinese mestizo population of Binondo grew rapidly. This was caused mainly because the lack of Chinese immigrant females and the Spanish officials' policy of expelling or killing (in conflicts) Chinese immigrants who refused to convert.

In 1603, a Chinese revolt took place led by Juan Suntay, a wealthy Chinese Catholic. It was put down by joint Spanish and Filipino forces led by Luis Pérez Dasmariñas. In the aftermath most of the 20,000 Chinese that composed the colony were killed. The revolt took place right after a visit to Manila by three official Chinese representatives who disclosed they were searching for "a mountain of gold". This strange claim prompted the Spanish to conclude that there was an imminent invasion from China in the making. At the time the local Chinese outnumbered the Spaniards by twenty to one, and Spanish authorities feared that they would join the invading forces. The Chinese afterward played down those events in an attempt to preserve their commercial interests. In 1605, a Fukien official issued a letter claiming that the Chinese who had participated in the revolt were unworthy of China's protection, describing them as "deserters of the tombs of their ancestors".

During the brief British occupation of Manila, between 1762 and 1764, Binondo was damaged during the capture of the city. The new governor of Manila, Dawsonne Drake, formed a war council which he termed the "Chottry Court". Drake imprisoned several Manilans on charges known "only known to himself", according Captain Thomas Backhouse, who denounced Drake's court as a sham. Binondo became the main center for business and finance in Manila for the ethnic Chinese, Chinese mestizos and Spanish Filipinos. During the Spanish colonial period, many esteros (canals) were constructed in the Binondo area, from where they entered the Pasig River. Among the many who married at the historic Binondo Church was Andres Bonifacio in 1895, who became a hero of the Philippine Revolution.

Before World War II, Binondo was the center of a banking and financial community which included insurance companies, commercial banks and other financial institutions from Britain and the United States. These banks were located mostly along Escólta, which used to be called the "Wall Street of the Philippines".

After the war and new development, most businesses began to relocate to the newer area of Makati. During the financial crisis of the early 1980s, it had the moniker "Binondo Central Bank", as the local Chinese businessmen engaged in massive black market trading of US dollars, which often determined the national peso-dollar exchange rate. Given its rich historical and financial significance, Binondo is said to have one of the highest land values nationwide.

The Binondo was plot setting for the episode "Mata" and "Mukha" of the 2010 horror film Cinco.

Barangays
The most populated barangay in Binondo is Barangay 293. Zone 27: 287, 288, 289, 290, 291 Zone 28: 292, 293, 294, 295, 296

Places of interest and events

 * Plaza San Lorenzo Ruiz
 * Plaza Moraga
 * Plaza Cervantes
 * Binondo Church
 * Escolta Street
 * Ongpin Street - Various Chinese vendor establishments and Chinese commercial space/building on the area. Several tea houses, restaurants, and hawker-style stalls that serve authentic dimsum and Chinese cuisine can be found along Ongpin Street. As such, this area has become popular as a gastronomic and cultural hotspot. Locals and tourists are known to embark on a what is called as a Binondo Food Crawl to sample the cuisine along Ongpin Street.
 * Chinese New Year
 * Lucky Chinatown Mall
 * Chinatown Arch
 * Jones Bridge

In literature
Binondo was mentioned several times in the novels of Dr. José Rizal, for example, in Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo.

title: Binondo


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Milligan

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

Another ESPN dream job contestant. Non notable. Sortior 08:23, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Reality show contestants are not notable. Glad he's doing well and that his wife is pregnant.  Any thoughts on the name?  Geogre 14:50, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Being a reality gameshow loser is not inherently notable. If/when he parlays the appearance into a notable career, write the article then about that. Mulligan Milligan? Killigan Milligan? Niteowlneils 18:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can't see anything to suggest he's notable. [[User:David_Johnson|David Johnson [ T|C ] ]] 23:58, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Reality shows and covering high school sports does not make you notable. Gsd97jks 04:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge into Dream Job - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ] ]] 19:27, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

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


text:
Is Everybody Listening?

Is Everybody Listening? is a live album by the English rock band Supertramp, released in 2001.

Overview
Is Everybody Listening? is credited as being the 1976 recording of a concert that took place in Cleveland, Ohio. In fact, the actual concert took place on 9 March 1975 at London's Hammersmith Odeon during the Crime of the Century tour (as John Helliwell confirmed on his website).

Is Everybody Listening? features the entire Crime of the Century album and some tracks from the then still-to-be-recorded Crisis? What Crisis? album making up the middle third of the concert.

This recording was previously released as a bootleg prior to this release.

The mastering engineer Ray Staff has remastered this album as a part of the Crime of the Century Deluxe Edition 2CD-format reissue on 9 December 2014.

Track listing
All songs written by Rick Davies and Roger Hodgson.
 * 1) "School" – 6:17 – Lead vocals by Roger Hodgson and Rick Davies
 * 2) "Bloody Well Right" – 6:50 – Lead vocals by Rick Davies
 * 3) "Hide in Your Shell" – 6:52 – Lead vocals by Roger Hodgson
 * 4) "Asylum" – 7:05 – Lead vocals by Rick Davies and Roger Hodgson
 * 5) "Sister Moonshine" – 5:21 – Lead vocals by Roger Hodgson and Rick Davies
 * 6) "Just a Normal Day" – 4:09 – Lead vocals by Rick Davies and Roger Hodgson
 * 7) "Another Man's Woman" – 7:47 – Lead vocals by Rick Davies
 * 8) "Lady" – 8:58 – Lead vocals by Roger Hodgson
 * 9) "Dreamer" – 3:30 – Lead vocals by Roger Hodgson and Rick Davies
 * 10) "Rudy" – 7:25 – Lead vocals by Rick Davies and Roger Hodgson
 * 11) "If Everyone Was Listening" – 4:35 – Lead vocals by Roger Hodgson
 * 12) "Crime of the Century" – 6:08 – Lead vocals by Rick Davies

Personnel

 * Rick Davies – piano, keyboards, harmonica, vocals
 * Roger Hodgson – guitar, electric piano, keyboards, vocals
 * John Helliwell – saxophone, clarinet, keyboards, vocals
 * Dougie Thomson – bass, additional backing vocals
 * Bob Siebenberg – drums

Production

 * Project coordinator: Carlton P. Sandercock
 * Design: Christian Thompson
 * Photography: Christian Thompson, Rick Walton
 * Illustrations: Christian Thompson
 * Liner notes: John Kirkman

title: Is Everybody Listening?


text:
Borøya, Tvedestrand

Borøya or Borøy is an island in Tvedestrand municipality in Agder county, Norway. The 3.4 km2 island lies along the Oksefjorden between the islands of Sandøya and Tverrdalsøya. Some of the villages on the island include Sandvika, Borøkilen, Utgårdstrand, and Snarsund. The island has about 240 residents (in 2015) and it has one bridge connecting it to the mainland.

Name
Ancient written works often spell the name with an "e" (e.g. Berøy). The origin of the name could be derived from the Old Norse word beri, bjørn, or bær.

title: Borøya, Tvedestrand


text:
Talk:Is Everybody Listening?

Not A Bootleg
As allmusic.com list this album as official release, I've removed the bootleg link.

Ttenchantr 19:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

BALLSSSSS
BALLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSsssssssssssssss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.87.71 (talk) 08:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Is Everybody Listening?


text:
Harold Pender

Harold Pender (13 January 1879, Tarboro, North Carolina – 6 Kennebunkport, Maine1959) was an American academic, author, and inventor. He was the first Dean of the University of Pennsylvania's Moore School of Electrical Engineering, a position he held from the founding of the School in 1923 until his retirement in 1949. During his tenure, the Moore School built the ENIAC, the first general-purpose electronic digital computer, and began construction of its successor machine, the EDVAC. Pender also proposed the Moore School Lectures, the first course in computers, which the Moore School offered by invitation in the summer of 1946.

Pender was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1913 and the American Philosophical Society in 1917.

The Harold Pender Award is named after him.

He and his wife Ailsa had one son, bridge player and figure skater Peter Pender.

title: Harold Pender


text:
Rolland D. McCune

Rolland D. McCune (June 3, 1934 – June 17, 2019 ) was an American theologian and ordained Baptist minister (First Baptist Church of Warsaw, Indiana). He was professor of Systematic Theology at the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in Allen Park, Michigan, where he had been the President of the Seminary for ten years and then Dean of the Faculty for six years. He was active at the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary from 1981 to 2009.

He is the author of several books and numerous articles and course syllabi in Christian theology and related topics.

Dr. McCune was born and raised near Berne, Indiana. He earned the Bachelor of Arts degree at Taylor University, Fort Wayne Campus (Indiana), and the Bachelor of Divinity, Master of Theology, and Doctor of Theology degrees at Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana. He has made six trips to the Middle East, visiting such countries of the Bible as Italy, Turkey, Greece, Jordan, Israel, and Egypt. Twice he participated in the Bible Geography Seminar at the Institute of Holy Land Studies in Jerusalem. He was ordained to the ministry by the First Baptist Church of Warsaw, Indiana.

Dr. McCune pastored churches in Missouri, and Indiana, and has had numerous interim pastorates in Indiana, Minnesota, and Michigan. For fourteen years he was on the faculty of the Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Minneapolis, serving in the capacities of Professor, Registrar, and Dean. He at one time served on the Board of Trustees of The Minnesota Baptist Association and on the faculty of the Indiana Baptist College in Indianapolis. In 1977 he was chosen by his college alma mater for honorary membership in the Delta Epsilon Chi, the honor society of the American Association of Bible Colleges. In 1986 he was conferred with an honorary Doctor of Divinity Degree by Pillsbury Baptist Bible College, Owatonna, Minnesota. He began his ministry in Allen Park in 1981. Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Plymouth, MN conferred an honorary degree, Doctor of Humane Letters, upon McCune in May 2019.

Dr. McCune has written numerous articles and extensive course syllabi in Systematic Theology, Presuppositional Apologetics, New Evangelicalism, History of Israel, Basic Bible Doctrine, and Dispensationalism, and a teacher's handbook on the Book of Daniel. Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism was published by Ambassador-Emerald in 2004, and has been described as "the most penetrating evaluation of the new evangelicalism [to date]".

Dr. McCune was married to the former Daisy Heller of near Berne, Indiana, and they have three married children. He died on Monday June 17, 2019 at his home in Florida at the age of 85 after a brief struggle with pancreatic cancer.

Publications

 * A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity: Volume 1: Prolegomena and the Doctrines of Scripture, God, and Angels, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009, ISBN 978-0-9822527-0-3.
 * A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity: Volume 2: The Doctrines of Man, Sin, and the Holy Spirit, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009, ISBN 978-0-9822527-1-0.
 * A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity: Volume 3: the doctrines of Salvation, the Church, and Last Things, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2010, ISBN 978-0982252727
 * Promise Unfulfilled: The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism Ambassador Emerald International, 2004, ISBN 978-1-932307-31-3.
 * "The Self-Identity of Fundamentalism" Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Spring 1996
 * "Doctrinal Non-Issues in Historical Fundamentalism" Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Fall 1996
 * "The Formation of the New Evangelicalism (Part One): Historical and Theological Antecedents" Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Fall 1998
 * "The Formation of the New Evangelicalism (Part Two): Historical Beginnings" Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Fall 1999
 * "The New Evangelicalism and Apologetics" Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Fall 2001
 * "The Younger Evangelicals: A Review Article" Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Fall 2003
 * "The New Evangelicalism: Evaluations and Prospects" Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Fall 2003

title: Rolland D. McCune


text:
Atlante

Atlante or  Atlantes may refer to:
 * Atlantes, the plural of Atlas (architecture), an architectural support in the form of a man
 * Atlante San Alejo, a Salvadoran football club
 * Atlante F.C., a Mexican football club
 * Atlante (private equity fund)
 * Atlante-class tugboat
 * Atlante (keelboat), a French sailboat design
 * Atlantes (sorcerer), a fictional character in various chansons de geste and in the poem Orlando Furioso

title: Atlante


text:
Hilla Limann

Hilla Limann, (12 December 1934 – 23 January 1998) was a Ghanaian diplomat and politician who served the President of Ghana from 24 September 1979 to 31 December 1981. He served as a diplomat in Lomé, Togo and Geneva, Switzerland.

Education
Limann, whose original last name was Babini, was born in the northern Gold Coast town of Gwollu in the Sissala West District of the Upper West Region. Limann completed his basic school education at the Government Middle School, Tamale, in 1949. Between 1957 and 1960, he studied political science at the London School of Economics. He subsequently completed a diploma in French at the Sorbonne University, France. He also obtained a BA (Hons) degree in history at the University of London and a Ph.D. in political science and Constitutional Law at the University of Paris.

Foreign service
Dr. Limann worked as the head, Europe Desk, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ghana between 1965 and 1968. During 1967, he was a member of the Constitution Commission which drafted the 1969 Constitution of Ghana. In 1968, he became the head of Chancery/Official Secretary at the Ghana embassy in Lomé, Togo. He was appointed counsellor at Ghana's Permanent Mission in Geneva, Switzerland in 1971. He assumed the position of head, Europe, the Americans Southeast Asia Desk back in Ghana at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in June 1975.

Politics
Following the 1979 coup led by Jerry Rawlings, Limann was elected President on the People's National Party ticket and had strong support among followers of former Ghana President Kwame Nkrumah. He stood for the elections following the disqualification of Alhaji Imoru Egala by the then ruling Supreme Military Council and won 62% of the popular vote in the second round of voting.

Dr. Limann assumed office as president on 24 September 1979. He was an economic moderate, and supported democratic values and Pan-Africanism. He was deposed in a coup by Rawlings on 31 December 1981. He thus was the only president of the third republic of Ghana.

In 1992, at the end of the PNDC military rule that overthrew him, Dr. Limann once again found himself involved in politics and stood as the candidate of the People's National Convention, a new party he founded, in the presidential election that year. He received 6.7% of the popular vote in the elections, coming third. He remained active among the Nkrumahist political movement in Ghana until his death.

Addendum
After the handover ceremony in 1979, Military intelligence personnel consistently reported destabilising activities of former members of the AFRC. Dr. Limman insisted that there were no legal justifications to hold them in custody under a democratic dispensation. This decision eventually cost him the presidency and the years of humiliation and alienation he suffered at the hands of the Rawlings administration.

Death and burial
Limann had chronic health problems and later died of natural causes. He was survived by his wife, Fulera Limann, and seven children: Lariba Montia (née Limann), Baba Limann, Sibi Andan (née Limann), Lida Limann, Daani Limann, Zilla Limann and Salma Limann. He was buried at private burial ceremony in his home town, Gwollu in the Sisala District of the Upper West Region at midnight on 1 March 1998. A government delegation led by the then Minister of Defence, Alhaji Mahama Iddrisu were present to mourn with the family.

Hilla Limann Foundation
The Hilla Limann Foundation is a charity that was launched on the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of his presidency in September 2019. Its aims are to end the abuse of human rights through education, championing the cause of human development for the poor and vulnerable, engender enlightenment about true democracy and promote the awareness of human rights.

Honours
Limann was honoured with the Knight Grand Cross of St Michael and St George by Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom in 1981. The same year, he was awarded the Order of the Yugoslav Great Star.

title: Hilla Limann


text:
Narvaez

Narvaez is a surname of Spanish and also Basque origin, and may refer to:

 * Darcia Narvaez, American psychologist
 * Francisco de Narváez (born 1953), Colombian-born politician and businessman
 * Kiko (footballer, born 1972), born Francisco Miguel Narváez Machón, Spanish football player
 * Frankie Narvaez (1939–2004), Puerto Rican boxer
 * Israel Narvaez, gang leader in New York
 * José María Narváez (1768–1840), Spanish explorer and navigator
 * Leonardo Narváez (born 1980), Colombian track cyclist
 * Luis de Narváez (fl. 1526–1549), Spanish composer
 * Luis Pacheco de Narváez (1570–1640), Spanish author
 * Manuel Narvaez (born 1981), Puerto Rican basketball player
 * Omar Andrés Narváez (born 1975), Argentinian boxer
 * Omar Narváez (baseball) (born 1992), Venezuelan baseball player
 * Pánfilo de Narváez (1478–1528), Spanish conquistador and explorer
 * Paula Narváez (born 1972), Chilean psychologist and politician
 * Ramón María Narváez y Campos, 1st Duke of Valencia (1800–1868), Spanish general and statesman
 * Juanjo Narváez (born 1995), Colombian footballer

title: Narvaez


text:
File:Supertramp - Slow Motion.jpg

Licensing

Fair use rationale for Slow Motion (Supertramp album)

 * It is believed that the use of this image on the English-language Wikipedia to illustrate an article on the audio recording in question falls under the "Non-profit educational" clause of the Fair Use doctrine currently upheld by United States law. (17 U.S.C. § 107)
 * The image is irreplaceable; a free analogue is impossible to produce as the original will be covered by copyright for the foreseeable future
 * Owing to the limited web-resolution of the image, only a small portion of a copyrighted work is used
 * For the same reasons, the portion of the copyrighted work used is of inherently lower quality than the original, reducing the risk of competitiveness and therefore the effects of this copy on the market for or value of versions held by the owner of the copyright

title: File:Supertramp - Slow Motion.jpg


text:
Slow Motion (Supertramp album)

Slow Motion is the eleventh and final studio album by the English rock band Supertramp, released in April 2002.

Overview
In North America, Slow Motion was only available via mail-order from the band's website, released on their own label.

The song "Goldrush" was actually written in the early 1970s under the first Supertramp line-up, by original guitarist Richard Palmer-James, and was used as the opening number in all their shows prior to Crime of the Century. The band had tried to record it on several previous occasions, but had never before been able to recreate it in the studio to their satisfaction. While the album credits the song to Davies and Palmer-James only, Roger Hodgson supposedly co-wrote it.

Reception
AllMusic praised the songs and diversity in styles, but criticized the production and runtime.

Track listing
All songs written by Rick Davies, except where noted.

 * 1) "Slow Motion" – 3:50
 * 2) "Little By Little" – 4:30
 * 3) "Broken Hearted" – 4:28
 * 4) "Over You" – 5:06
 * 5) "Tenth Avenue Breakdown" – 8:57
 * 6) "A Sting in the Tail" – 5:17
 * 7) "Bee in Your Bonnet" – 6:27
 * 8) "Goldrush" (Rick Davies, Richard Palmer-James) – 3:06
 * 9) "Dead Man's Blues" – 8:26

Personnel

 * Supertramp
 * Rick Davies – keyboards, lead vocals, harmonica
 * John Helliwell – saxophone, woodwinds
 * Lee Thornburg – trumpet, backing vocals, trombone
 * Carl Verheyen – guitars
 * Mark Hart – keyboards, backing vocals, guitars
 * Cliff Hugo – bass
 * Bob Siebenberg – drums
 * Jesse Siebenberg – percussion, backing vocals

Production

 * Producers: Rick Davies, Mark Hart, Jay Messina
 * Engineer: Jay Messina
 * Mastering: Greg Calbi
 * Pro-tools: Seth McClain
 * Photography: Jean Ber, Richard Frankel

title: Slow Motion (Supertramp album)


text:
Talk:Slow Motion (Supertramp album)

Eleventh and final album
Since Rick Davies has made it clear that Supertramp is over after their failed attempt at a tour in 2015, I believe we should lift the restriction of describing this album as the “eleventh and final”. ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Slow Motion (Supertramp album)


text:
King Leopold's Soliloquy

King Leopold's Soliloquy is a 1905 pamphlet by American author Mark Twain. Its subject is King Leopold's rule over the Congo Free State. A work of political satire harshly condemnatory of his actions, it ostensibly recounts a fictional monologue of Leopold II speaking in his own defense.

Content
King Leopold II raves madly about the good things that he says he has done for the people of the Congo Free State, including the disbursement of millions on religion and art. He says he had come to Congo with piety "oozing" from "every pore", that he had only wanted to convert the people to Christianity, that he had wanted to stop the slave trade.

Leopold II says that he did not take any of the government money, that he did not use the revenues as his personal "swag", and that such claims by the "meddlesome American missionaries", "frank British consuls", and "blabbing Belgian-born traitors" are wholly false. He asserts that for a king to be criticized as he has been is blasphemy—surely, under the rule of God, any king who was not doing God's will would not have been helped by God.

The book mentions the critical report by the missionary William Henry Sheppard on an 1899 massacre of over 80 people by Zappo Zaps sent to collect taxes. Leopold claims that his critics only speak of what is unfavorable to him, such as the unfair taxes that he levied upon the people of the Congo, which caused starvation and the extermination of entire villages, but not of the fact that he had sent missionaries to the villages to convert them to Christianity.

Publication
The book was published in English, French, German and Italian. Two German-language editions were published in East Germany in 1961 and 1967 and a further edition was published in 2014. The American publisher P. R. Warren Company from Boston, donated all surplus to relief and aid in the Congo atrocities.

title: King Leopold's Soliloquy