text:
Earl Anthony

Earl Roderick Anthony (April 27, 1938 – August 14, 2001) was an American professional bowler who amassed records of 43 titles and six Player of the Year awards on the Professional Bowlers Association (PBA) Tour. For over two decades, his career title count was listed as 41. The count was amended to 43 in 2008, when the PBA chose to retroactively award PBA titles for ABC Masters championships if won by a PBA member at the time. He is widely credited (along with Dick Weber) for having increased bowling's popularity in the United States. He was the first bowler to earn over $100,000 in a season (1975), and the first to reach $1,000,000 in lifetime PBA earnings (1982). His ten professional major titles—six PBA National Championships, two Firestone Tournament of Champions titles, and two ABC Masters (now USBC Masters) titles—are the second most all time, tied with Pete Weber and five behind Jason Belmonte.

Anthony is one of only three bowlers in history (with Walter Ray Williams Jr. and Norm Duke) to have reached the 40-title plateau on the PBA Tour. He is also one of three bowlers (with Williams Jr. and Pete Weber) to earn at least 50 combined titles between the PBA Tour and PBA Senior Tour (now PBA50 Tour).

Never brash or flashy in a crew-cut and plastic-frame "marshwood" style eyewear (which he abandoned for more modern frames later in his career), Anthony was dubbed "Square Earl" by fellow pro bowlers.

A new biography of Earl (focusing more on his bowling career but with a few personal insights) was published in October 2019 by Luby Publishing. Compiled by sportswriter Barry Sparks, it is titled Earl: The Greatest Bowler of All Time.

PBA career
Anthony's bowling career began when he hesitantly joined his company's bowling league, West Coast Grocery, after serving in the United States Air Force. In his first season bowling, Earl achieved an official league average of 165. By his third season, his average had surged to 217. In 1963, he bowled three PBA summer tournaments in the Pacific Northwest to get a feel for what it would take to successfully compete on the tour. Though he did not cash in any of the three events, he had succeeded in learning how much he would need to improve before he could entertain any idea of going out on the PBA Tour full-time. In order to prepare himself for the tour Anthony practiced between 300 and 350 games a week, up to eight hours a day, and often without any pins (in order to save money). After six years of diligent practice, Anthony began his professional bowling career in January 1970 as a 31-year old rookie. He led that season's first tournament going into the televised finals at Crestview Bowl in Wichita, Kansas, but lost the championship match to Skee Foremsky, finishing in second place.

Anthony won the first of his 43 PBA titles on June 7, 1970, when he defeated Allie Clarke at the Heidelberg Open in Seattle, Washington. His final PBA title was a major — the 1983 Toledo Trust PBA National Championship (until his 1984 ABC Masters title was added retroactively in 2008). Six of his titles were achieved by a pair of improbable "three-peats" in the PBA National Championship, the first three from 1973 to 1975 and the other three from 1981 to 1983. Earl also finished runner-up to fellow lefty Mike Aulby in the 1979 PBA National Championship.

After a nine-month layoff, Anthony won his second ABC Masters tournament in 1984, which at the time was not part of the PBA Tour. Anthony had also won the Masters in 1977. The PBA later added ABC Masters titles as PBA titles, giving Anthony at least one PBA title in 15 consecutive seasons (1970–84). That stood as a PBA record until Walter Ray Williams Jr. won at least one PBA Tour title in 17 consecutive seasons (1993 through 2009–10).

Anthony joined the PBA Senior Tour in 1988 and accumulated another seven titles there, giving him 50 total PBA titles.

By 1988 Anthony had 25 career 300 games. Sadly, not one was on television in the United States; he did, however, bowl two televised 299 games, leaving a solid 9-pin on the last shot in one and a 6-pin on the other. Although he didn't drop to the floor like Don Johnson, Anthony would remark about the 9-pin on a PBA telecast years later, saying, "to this day, I can't believe that pin stood." Earl Anthony did shoot a televised 300 game on national TV in a PBA Tournament in Japan in front of over 50 million viewers.

After retiring, Anthony moved to the broadcast booth as a color commentator and operated a bowling center in Dublin, California.

Personal life and death
Anthony was born in Tacoma, Washington to Earl Anthony and Laura Davis. He was a minor league baseball pitcher with the Baltimore Orioles organization before his days as a professional bowler. He was also an excellent golfer, achieving a near-scratch handicap at the age of 60. He once set the course record at Crow Canyon Country Club in Danville, California with a scratch score of 64.

He was married to Susie Anthony; and had a son, Mike, and two daughters, Tracy and Jeri.

Anthony missed some time on the PBA Tour during the 1978 season after suffering a heart attack in June of that year. Less than three months later he was back on Tour, finishing third in the Waukegan (IL) Open.

Earl Anthony died in 2001 due to head injuries sustained from falling down a flight of stairs at his friend Ed Baur's home in New Berlin, Wisconsin. He was 63 years old.

The "Earl Anthony Memorial Scholarship Fund" was established through funding by the ABC Championship Tournament, in order to provide scholarships to young bowlers. It is now administrated by the Bowling Foundation.

In January 2002, the PBA began the year with a tournament named after Anthony, "The Earl Anthony Memorial Classic." It was first held at TechCity Bowl in Kirkland, Washington. It was won by left-handed pro bowler Parker Bohn III, who beat Patrick Healey, Jr. in the final match 235 to 215. It later moved to Medford, Oregon and re-titled as "The Earl Anthony Medford Classic." In 2010 and 2011, the event took place in Dublin, California and was titled the Earl Anthony Memorial.

Legacy
Anthony was voted into the PBA Hall of Fame in 1981 and the ABC Hall of Fame in 1986. In 2000 he was voted "Master of the Millennium" by a wide margin in a nationwide vote conducted by Bowling Magazine. In a Sports Illustrated Magazine national vote he was named the 2nd Greatest Athlete in the history of the State of Washington (behind only former Gonzaga and NBA star John Stockton).

The late bowling legend Dick Weber dubbed Anthony "the greatest speed-control bowler ever." When Anthony won the 1978 Tournament of Champions to become the first bowler to ever reach 30 titles, Weber was in the broadcast booth and proclaimed Anthony to be "the undisputed King of Bowling." Earl's record of 41 titles stood for 23 years before it was broken by Walter Ray Williams Jr. in 2006, though it increased to 43 in 2008 when the PBA started including ABC Masters titles if they were won by a PBA member. In 14 seasons, Anthony made the top five for the televised final round a record 144 times. Said Bowlers Journal editor Jim Dressel, "When Earl was in the house, everybody else knew there were only four other spots for TV."

In 2008, the PBA celebrated fifty years in existence by commissioning a panel of experts to rank the "50 Greatest Bowlers of the Last 50 Years." Anthony was ranked #1 on the list over Walter Ray Williams Jr., despite the fact that Williams had broken many of Anthony's records. However, Williams himself said, "I feel Earl's record is better than mine because it was more condensed. Earl bowled 14 years and 400 or so events. I’ve bowled well over 600 by now, maybe 700." Williams also added, "When Earl Anthony retired, he didn't have anyone to push him. He probably would have kept going to 50 if that were the case. It's hard to say what would've happened then."

The United States Bowling Congress testing robot for bowling, similar to golf's "Iron Byron," is named "E.A.R.L." (Enhanced Automated Robotic Launcher). The name was given by USBC Junior Gold youth bowler Melissa Stewart of Roswell, Georgia, who said the name was based on Anthony and his "machine-like characteristics." The PBA World Championship now uses the 43-foot Earl Anthony oil pattern, in honor of the man who won the event a record six times.

Awards and recognition

 * Six-time BWAA Bowler of the Year (1974–76 and 1981–83)
 * Six-time PBA Player of the Year (1974–76 and 1981–83)
 * Twelve-time First Team All-American (1972–83)
 * Five-time George Young High Average award winner (1973–75, 1980, 1983)
 * Established a record for most consecutive PBA seasons winning at least one tournament (15), which stood until 2008 when it was broken by Walter Ray Ray Williams Jr.
 * Holds PBA record of 15 televised finals appearances in one season (1975, 1981)
 * Holds a record six wins in the PBA National Championship among his ten major tournament titles
 * Inducted into PBA Hall of Fame, 1981
 * Inducted into ABC (now USBC) Hall of Fame, 1986
 * Voted "Bowler of the Millennium" in a 2000 poll conducted by Bowling Digest
 * Voted the greatest PBA player ever, when the PBA announced its "50 Greatest Players of the Last 50 Years" list in the 2008–09 season.
 * The Earl Anthony Bowl in Dublin, California is named in his honor.
 * The PBA's "Earl Anthony 43" oil pattern is used at the PBA World Championship, which he won a record six times. The oil pattern is 43 feet in length in honor of Anthony's 43 PBA Tour titles.

PBA Tour Titles
Major championships are in bold text.

 * 1) 1970 Heidelberg Open, Seattle, Washington.
 * 2) 1971 Cougar Open, New York, New York.
 * 3) 1972 Portland Open, Portland, Oregon.
 * 4) 1972 Japan Starlanes Open, Redwood City, California.
 * 5) 1972 American Airlines Open, St. Louis, Missouri.
 * 6) 1973 Seattle Open, Seattle, Washington.
 * 7) 1973 PBA National Championship, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
 * 8) 1974 PBA Tournament of Champions, Akron, Ohio.
 * 9) 1974 PBA National Championship, Downey, California.
 * 10) 1974 Home Box Office Open, San Jose, California.
 * 11) 1974 Fresno Open, Fresno, California.
 * 12) 1974 Canada Dry Open, Cleveland, Ohio.
 * 13) 1974 Winston-Salem Hawaiian Invitational, Honolulu, Hawaii.
 * 14) 1975 Greater L.A. Open, Arcadia, California.
 * 15) 1975 Long Island Open, Garden City, New York.
 * 16) 1975 PBA National Championship, Downey, California.
 * 17) 1975 Quad Cities Open, Davenport, Iowa.
 * 18) 1975 Jackson Open, Jackson, New Jersey.
 * 19) 1975 Waukegan Open, Waukegan, Illinois.
 * 20) 1975 Buzz Fazio Open, Battle Creek, Michigan.
 * 21) 1976 Midas Open, Windsor Locks, Connecticut.
 * 22) 1976 AMF Dick Weber Five-Star Open, Tamarac, Florida.
 * 23) 1976 Fresno HBO Open, Fresno, California.
 * 24) 1976 Waukegan Open, Waukegan, Illinois.
 * 25) 1976 Buzz Fazio Open, Battle Creek, Michigan
 * 26) 1976 AMF Grand Prix of Bowling, Allen Park, Michigan.
 * 27) 1977 Miller Lite Classic, Torrance, California.
 * 28) 1977 ABC Masters, Miami, Florida.
 * 29) 1977 Waukegan Open, Waukegan, Illinois.
 * 30) 1978 AMF Magicscore Open, Kissimmee, Florida.
 * 31) 1978 PBA Tournament of Champions, Akron, Ohio.
 * 32) 1979 Long Island Open, Garden City, New York.
 * 33) 1980 Long Island Open, Garden City, New York.
 * 34) 1981 Rolaids Open, Florissant, Missouri.
 * 35) 1981 AMF Magicscore Open, Peoria, Illinois.
 * 36) 1981 PBA National Championship, Toledo, Ohio.
 * 37) 1981 Long Island Open, Garden City, New York.
 * 38) 1982 ARC Alameda Open, Alameda, California.
 * 39) 1982 PBA National Championship, Toledo, Ohio.
 * 40) 1982 Miller High Life Open, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
 * 41) 1983 True Value Open, Peoria, Illinois.
 * 42) 1983 PBA National Championship, Toledo, Ohio.
 * 43) 1984 ABC Masters, Washington, New Jersey.

title: Earl Anthony


text:
Talk:Plosive

oral stop vs. nasal stop
I direct Eequor to some elementary phonetics. Stops occlude the oral cavity, Eequor. That's the accepted definition. If you want to suggest that "nasal stops" are so-called, bring some cites.Dr Zen 06:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Lecture notes do not form a compelling argument, and these happen to be incorrect. Stops block airflow completely; otherwise they are not "stops".  In both English and the International Phonetic Alphabet, the nasal stops are all digraphs.  Neither "m" nor "n" represents a stop.  --[[User:Eequor| ᓛᖁ  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]] [ ᑐ ]]] 06:40, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Rubbish. Bring a cite, Eequor. I don't have to make a compelling argument. You do. I'm stating the commonly held view. I did you the favour of posting something elementary for you to begin with. Have another. Another. Another. Even my dictionary so defines a stop and of course so does Britannica. What does being a digraph have to do with it? Do you know what a digraph is. Give you a clue. The sound written in English "ch" is a digraph in the IPA. None of the sounds written "m", "n" or "ng" is. All are written with one character.Dr Zen 06:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I had given a source, but I guess you reverted too quickly to see it. For what it's worth, my dictionary contains the unambiguous definition "an articulation that interrupts the flow of air from the lungs".  If you're going to define a stop as "closing the oral cavity", then you'll have to find a way to explain how the glottal stop affects the mouth at all.  Besides, in the current article, claiming that "m" and "n" are stops contradicts the definition of "stop" in the articulation section.

 * First, the oral cavity is closed.

 * This is at least true of "m" and "n".

 * then, it stays closed causing pressure to build up;

 * Okay, where is there a pressure build up? These still allow airflow.

 * Finally, the closure is suddenly opened; the released airflow produces a sudden impulse in pressure causing an audible sound. This third phase is called release of the stop.

 * When are these considered to have a release? Where is the release in "wing"?

 * It should be quite obvious that this definition is in contradiction with your idea of nasal stops. Unless the definition can be changed to accommodate both the glottal stop and the nasals (I doubt that it can), you will only confuse readers.

 * Now, consider what it means that IPA uses a digraph for "proper" nasal stops. These are [mb], [nk], [kn], etc.  They are recognized as a nasal and a stop and composed of two distinct sounds, not a single "nasal stop".  This should indicate that nasals and stops are, in fact, not the same thing.

 * This almost, but not quite, corresponds to English usage; the main differences in English are words like "numb" or "wing", which used to contain stops but do not anymore ([nʌm] and [wɪŋ]). Notice that English "ng" is often a single character [ŋ] in IPA, and a nasal.

 * Leaving the nasals to their own article allows us to make a meaningful definition of "stop"; including them in this article leads one to ask "What makes these stops?" --[[User:Eequor| ᓛᖁ  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]] [ ᑐ ]]] 19:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The thing is, both definitions are found in Linguistics. Some use one definition, some the other. So we shouldn't elect one of them, but show both. And I thought the article did show both before your correction.

 * One thing is sure: the term nasal stop is not used for clusters like [mb], [nk], [nt]. These are either called clusters or, if they're not considered clusters, prenasalized stops.

 * Nasals do have releases (but in English, final nasals may lack it). If you say nose but hold your nose, you'll pronounce something like dose, with a clearly audible release. (The release is also audible if you don't hold your nose, of course.)

 * As for the second phase: I hesitate to drop the formulation with the pressure, since I think that also with the nasal way open, the inside pressure still needs to be bigger than the outside pressure. If it weren't, the air wouldn't flow outside, and no sound would be produced at all. J. 'mach' wust 21:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The mention of pressure is dubious; there exist implosive stops. In these, there is an internal decrease in pressure, not a buildup.  We might say there is a significant pressure difference.  --[[User:Eequor| ᓛᖁ  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]] [ ᑐ ]]] 22:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think that phonoaesthetics link is appropiate. There's nothing about the articulation of stops, and it's a very disputed theory. I guess most wouldn't consider it cientific. J. 'mach' wust 21:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The way the page currently reads and the discussion of nasal stops, prenasalized stops, and postnasalized stops is correct. I don't have my copy of Ladefoged and Maddieson's Sounds of the World's Languages with me here at work, but I have it at home and will post relevant quotations later. Dictionary definitions etc. that define a stop as a complete blockage of airflow doesn't reflect the technicalities considered by most phoneticians. The term nasal stop is frequently (and not necessarily incorrectly) used to refer to the sounds [m], [n], etc. Stop as considered by phoneticians, refers to occlusion in the vocal tract, not the cessation of airflow. The flow of air through the nasal cavity is not generally considered relevant to whether a particular articulatory configuration constitutes a "stop". On the other hand, most sounds that are considered stops do have complete stoppage of airflow, and so one often finds defintions that define stop that way. But those definitions don't really account for the fact that people often talk of "nasal stops". It is this very confusion that caused the IPA to adopt the term plosives in lieu of stop, as plosives are defined not by the occlusion of airflow, but by the release of built-up pressure, which can be from reduced airflow in a nasal stop, or from complete occlusion of airflow.

Also, I would add that from an articulatory perspective, oral stops and nasal stops are very similar—the only difference is in the position of velum. It often makes sense to group them together and the word "stop" works well for this. Nohat 22:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll say. When I did articulatory phonetics, my tutor demonstrated this by simply having us articulate a "d", holding it and then "nasalising" it (which we know to do without being told by simply lowering the velum). It astonished us, because you don't think of "n" that way.Dr Zen 00:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For an example of this dispute within the linguistics community, see. Nohat 22:14, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, Ladefoged and Maddieson eschew "stop" for nasals, but importantly they acknowledge that the word is used that way by some linguists. The matter is therefore one that is disputed. This article should present that dispute neutrally, offering both points of view without acknowledging either as "correct". The quotation, from page 102, is "Note that what we call simply nasals are called nasal stops by some linguists. We avoid this phrase, preferring to reserve the term 'stop' for sounds in which there is a complete interruption of airflow." So, certainly some linguists (prominent phoneticists, even) take Eequor's view that it's only a stop if there's complete interruption of airflow. But plenty other linguists call them nasal stops. Nohat 04:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, Eequor should cite Ladefoged and Maddieson and then I will cite just a few of the many, many linguists who disagree with that view. (I have even seen people quoting Ladefoged and pointing out that by "nasals" he means "nasal stops"! This is because, one must assume, the authors do not want to give the impression that they are talking about nasal vowels.) There's no problem at all with noting that there is a view that "stop" should be restricted to sounds that involve a complete interruption of airflow, but a definite one in making that the upfront viewpoint of this article.Dr Zen 05:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually the article should have no "upfront viewpoint". Indeed the only viewpoint it should should be the neutral one. The article should present the sounds that everyone agrees are stops, then it can discuss nasal stops and say that the status of nasal stops as stops is disputed, and some linguists call them just "nasals". Wording it neutrally will be tricky, but it must be done. And in order to do that, we must first accept that there is no "right" answer, just two different ones that must be handled equally. Nohat 06:09, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Clearly, if it is to say what "stops" are it must give an upfront view. I refer you to the following: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view." In fact, this article does not "compare views". The facts are what is in dispute. On the one side is Eequor and Ladefoged (the latter rather tenuously so -- I can't remember how exactly he distinguishes "n" from "d" on their features, although I'm familiar with his feature system as an item of history), on the other, everyone else. It's a flat earth thing. We say that the earth is a planet that orbits the sun, not that it's a planet and maybe it does orbit the sun, maybe it doesn't. We do justice to the alternative view by mentioning it, not featuring it. Dr Zen 06:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think that this is really a fair description of the dispute. Ladefoged and Maddieson are widely considered to be two of the foremost experts in the world on phonetics. Their position on what is and isn't a stop is well-respected and even held by many linguists. This isn't a absurdly illogical idea like flat Earth theory—they're just clarifying the definition of a technical term in a particular way that not all linguists agree on. These guys are considered the experts and SOWL is the reigning reference book on phonetics. If ever there were a dispute where both views deserve equal time, this is it. For example, in the Handbook of the International Phonetic Alphabet, the word stop is very carefully never used to describe sounds. They use only plosive and nasal. Do you really think they would have done that if there were only one crackpot at UCLA who didn't think nasals were stops? Look, I agree that grouping oral and nasal stops together often makes sense, but defining stop as a complete stoppage of airflow is really not totally unreasonable. Nohat 20:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I totally agree that both positions need to be described from a neutral point of view. However, I don't see whether we have to change anything, since it seems to me that the article currently describes both positions without giving preference to either. I'm not able to judge whether either position is more popular than the other. I suppose this would require a great amount of research. I also believe that there's no unique answer, but that there are different preferences in different cultures of linguistics. J. 'mach' wust 11:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The problem with Eequor's position is quite simply that she is insisting that because the word "stop" is used for these consonants, they must involve a complete stoppage of airflow. This has never been a commonly held view in linguistics quite simply because it does not capture the relationship between dental, alveolar or velar consonants and nasals (many languages make use of nasalisation as a means of marking syntactic relations -- Welsh is a good example -- and this makes a lot more sense when analysed as the addition of a feature rather than as a completely different articulation.) Dr Zen 00:03, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

voicing
i think that more could be said about VOT. one thing i want to mention is that phonological voicing may not correspond to phonetic voicing, as in English and many other languages (i.e. voiced stops are not voiced).

any thoughts about where to discuss this? here or a separate Voice Onset Time article?

- Ish ishwar 21:07, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Nonexplosive stops
I'd like to add a link to nonexplosive stop to the artitcle, but I'm not quite sure where to put it. Under "airstream mechanism"? --Ptcamn 10:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

/n/ and /m/ are not stops
Reading Answers' definition of "continuant" clears the air without doubt. And for those still confused "n" and "m" are sounds that can be continued as long as you have breath in your lungs... hence they are quite obviously called "continuants" because you can continue them. "Stops" imply something abrupt so any sound that cannot be continued but is rather described as a sudden sound is a "stop". --Glengordon01 01:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 * By the way, we can't pretend that it's more common to say "nasal stops". When people say "stops", more often *total* cut-off of airflow is implied, not partial. So "nasal continuant" is the greater norm as per this article.

 * Plus, there's a marked difference between the class of sounds that stop airflow completely (/d/, /t/, etc, aka "true stops") and those that allow nasal airflow (/m/, /n/, etc, aka "continuants") so these two classes of sounds should not be mixed together as equivalent. It's really really confusing. --Glengordon01 02:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay, after googling, I notice that there's a war going on about the definition of "nasal stop". The funny thing is, studying Indo-European for so long, I don't recall "m" or "n" refered to as "stops" so it seems like these definitions differ between different areas of linguistics? Odd.

 * So I think we really need to try to word this to be sensitive to the differing definitions of "nasal stop" and yes, /n/ and /m/ are also called "nasal continuants" which is the term I'm more familar with. Sigh. Crazy world. Sorry. --Glengordon01 02:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi. Nasal is a short way to say nasal stop, stop is short for oral stop. This is not always made clear in introductory material. The term nasal continuant appears to me to be an older term that predates modern phonological theory's concept of distinctive features. However, I havent looked into the history of this usage. The paper you cite is indeed from an earlier time. If you look at an introductory phonology textbook (published in the last 20 years), you will see that nasals are considered to be non-continuants (i.e. stops). This is common at least since Noam Chomsky & Morris Halle's Sound Pattern of English (1968) with the feature of [-continuant]. The feature [continuant] means that the primary constriction in vocal tract does not block air flow. You can capture what you say about air flow with the feature [sonorant], which in Chomsky & Halle's terms means that the vocal tract configuration allows for spontaneous voicing. Anyway, you will need to look in a phonology book rather than in a dictionary or on the internet (unless you can find a book on the internet). peace – ishwar  (speak)  17:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

-- Your belief that nasal continuant is outdated seems to be a little hasty.

 * Discontinuous Nasal Spread In Yaminahua, Eugene E. Loos, Dallas: SIL International, 2006:
 * "Acoustically, the consonants [m] and [n] are continuants (in the nasal cavity); articulatorily, they are stops (in the oral cavity)."

 * Fusion and the Acquisition of s-nasal Clusters, Rebecca Hanson, University of Calgary:
 * "The proposal that nasals can be represented in two ways is offered by Piggott (1992). Research into the cross-linguistic behavior of nasality led him to propose that [nasal] could be a dependent of either the SV node or what he calls the Soft Palate (SP) node.  My proposal is very similar, but instead of adding an SP node to the hierarchy in (6), I will make use of the Airflow node.  Briefly, I suggest that continuancy can be either oral or nasal depending on the direction of the air flow (which is, incidentally, determined by the action of the soft palate), therefore nasals do not actually involve a total obstruction of the air.  It is for this same reason that Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996) avoid using the term ‘nasal stop’ to refer to nasals."

And then we must ask why Ladefoged & Maddieson avoid the term "nasal stop", having published something only in the past decade if it's true that this view is outdated. On the contrary, the confusion has just begun!

It looks like the article "Nasal consonant" on Wikipedia currently explains that a "nasal stop" is also a "nasal sonorant". That's great if you don't think about that... but sometimes I need to drink my arse off just to stop my brain from thinking at night ;) The same article says that a "sonorant" contrasts with the term "obstruent" to which the category of "stop" belongs. Say what? So... does that mean "sonorant" should also be subdivided into things like "stops"? And then if so, how can it be said that they truly oppose each other?

Then this article currently says:
 * "Nasal stops are acoustically sonorants, as they have a non-turbulent airflow and are nearly always voiced, but they are articulatorily obstruents, as there is complete blockage of the oral cavity." Okay, so it seems that we've come full circle only to realize that these terms are all... meaningless >:P

I think the real problem lies in the fact that many of us here are looking at this from different areas of study within linguistics, using the terms for different purposes. It sounds like your area is specifically structural linguistics. However as I explained above, my area of knowledge is specifically comparative linguistics and comparative linguists have their own secret code. They've been known to stretch the general usage of common linguistic terminology. For example, IEists use "labiovelar" to only refer to labialized velars like '''
 * kʷ'''. It's a shorthand kinda thing. Other reconstructed sounds called "laryngeals" are not necessarily laryngeal either but this has become part of the "code" which to an outsider would naturally seem confusing.

So back to my point, this article is a minefield of potential confusion if things aren't worded just right, whether it be for linguistic neophytes or for people delving in specialized areas. Sorry, I'm a badNewsBear. --Glengordon01 01:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Hi. Well, we should look at what these L&M actually say. Here are is a quote from Ladefoged's phonetic textbook (pp. 8-9, 3rd ed.):

 * " Nasal stop If the air is stopped in the oral cavity but the soft palate is down so that it can go out through the nose, the sound is a nasal stop.... Although both the nasal sounds and the oral sounds can be classified as stops, the term stop by itself is almost always used by phoneticians to indicate an oral stop, and the term nasal to indicate a nasal stop.... Although the term stop may be defined so that it applies only to the prevention of air escaping through the mouth, it is commonly used to imply a complete stoppage of the airflow through both the nose and the mouth."

 * Here are quotes from L&M:

 * "A nasal consonant is one in which the velum is lowered and there is a closure in the oral cavity somewhere in front of the velic opening. Hence, air from the lungs is directed out through the nasal passage alone. Note that what we call simply nasals are called nasal stops by some linguists. We avoid this phrase, prefering to reserve the term 'stop' for sounds in which there is a complete interruption of airflow.... Nasals have an articulatory similarity to stops by virtue of their oral closure, but in other respects they are similar to approximants. This is because there is an uninterrupted outward flow of air that does not pass through a constriction sufficiently narrow to produce local turbulence." (pp. 102-103)

 * "The aerodynamic and acoustic consequences of a lowered velum depend very much on whether or not there is a concurrent oral or glottal occlusion. In accord with this, we follow traditional phonetics and make a strict distinction between nasals and nasalized sounds. Only when a lowered velum is combined with a forward oral occlusion are members of the class of consonants we call nasals produced. Accompanying any other articulation a lowered velum produces a nasalized sound. In traditional phonetic classification the major consonant manner classes consist of those based on degree of stricture, i.e. stops, fricatives, and approximants, plus nasals. In this classification these classes form a mutual exclusive set. A segment cannot be both a nasal and a stop; similarily it cannot be both a nasal and a fricative or a nasal and an approximant. The significance of these classes is shown by the fact that the great majority of the world's languages include members of each class, whereas nasalized consonants are comparatively rare in the world's languages, and frequently are only derived surface segments. In nasalized sounds, the major manner class of a segment is determined by the degree of stricture of the oral articulation. Although nasality is an accompanying feature, a nasalized fricative, say, is still a fricative acoustically as well as in terms of distributional privileges and syllabification. Although what we call nasals have been called 'nasal stops' by others, they are not straightforwardly the nasalized equivalents of plosives in the same way that ṽ and j̃ are the nasalized equivalents of v and j. Nasals are acoustically continuant, characterized by a steady state. And they are often distributed in a way that is parallel to liquids and other sonorants, rather than to stops.

 * "Nonetheless, the same articulatory property, a lowered velum, distinguishes nasals from plosives as distinguishes nasalized fricatives and approximants (and vowels) from their non-nasalized counterparts. In articulatory terms a single classificatory feature [nasal] is all that a phonetic theory requires to account for both nasal and nasalized segments. Furthermore, there is no need for more than the indication of the presence or absence of nasality. At least as far as consonants are concerned, we need to indicate only whether the velic aperture is open or closed, since there is no evidence that degrees of opening are linguistically relevant.... We recognize that nasals are characterized by the [stop] value of the feature [Stricture]; they are distinguished from stops by being [+nasal], a specification that applies also to nasalized consonants.

 * "Using the same feature may appear to overlook the differences between nasals and nasalized fricatives, nasalized approximants and nasalized glottal stops that we have stressed above. However, there are very close relationships between nasals and nasalized segments, especially in assimilatory rules, that require expression. Nasalized segments often occur contiguous to nasals, and in a few languages, such as Niaboua, nasals occur in place of voiced plosives in the environment of nasalized vowels. Nonetheless, nasalized consonants have the distributional properties of their non-nasalized counterparts, whereas nasals do not pattern in the same way as (non-nasal) stops. The task for a linguistic phonetic theory is thus to express the articulatory and temporal relationships between nasals and nasalized segments while accounting for the differences in their distributional patterns and markedness that are based on their acoustic nature. We would consider nasals to be distinguished from stops by being sonorant, giving an acoustic definition to this property. Nasals and nasalized vowels and approximants are all [+sonorant], but fricatives are obstruents and the acoustic signature of their obstruency is poorly compatible with nasality. The similarities between nasals and nasalized consonants arise from articulatory considerations, whereas the differences arise from acoustic considerations." (pp. 134-136)

Yes, maybe my statement of nasals as continuants is hasty. I am not an expert on feature geometry. However, I often see people following Chomsky & Halle in defining nasal stops as [-continuant, +sonorant] (i.e. they are stops and non-obstruents) and oral stops as [-continuant, -sonorant] (i.e. they are stops and obstruents). And I have seen nasals referred to as continuants in the pre-generative era.

L&M consider nasals to be continuants in an articulatory sense and in their discussion of a featural representation of nasals they consider them to be sonorants in an acoustic sense and stops in an articulatory sense, with the added feature of [+nasal]. It is interesting that they discuss nasals from a "traditional" sense and later when they must assign them phonological/phonetic features, they call them nasal stop sonorants, which is similar to Chomsky & Halle's representation (although C&H's featural system is rather different from what Ladefoged has proposed).

The problem with nasals is that they can be defined according to different criteria. So, an obstruent can be defined articulatorily as a stricture, while the sonorance-obstruency dimension can be defined acoustically in terms of air pressure differences. The terms are not meaningless, as you say, but rather can be used from different perspectives. L&M say that nasals must be viewed (and represented in a featural description) from both perspectives. The differences result from this rather than from different areas of linguistic research.

What the article needs to do, if it does not, is to make clear that nasals are interestingly borderline stops and their connections with non-stop sonorants, and how these terms are defined through articulation and acoustics. peace – ishwar  (speak)  18:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
stop consonant to plosive consonant. Nearly all the articles on specific plosives have "plosive" in that title e.g. voiced bilabial plosive, voiceless alveolar plosive etc. For consistency, this article should similarly be at plosive consonant.

 * not all stops are plosives. Some are imploded. Some are clicks. Sometimes affricates are called affricated stops. So, this suggestion is not so good. peace – ishwar  (speak)  18:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

 * If not all stops are plosives, then plosive consonant should be a separate article like click consonant, not merely redirecting to this article. Topses 21:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No consensus to move. — Mets 501 (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Geminates

 * In languages where stops are only distinguished by length (e.g. Arabic, Ilwana, Icelandic), the long stops may last up to three times as long as the short stops.

Arabic and Icelandic do have phonation contrasts in stops. But is the "three times" only supposed to apply to languages without any, or all languages with geminate stops at all? We'll need to kno that to fix this. --Tropylium 12:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Aspirated stops

 * Voiced stops have a negative voice onset time, meaning the voicing begins before the stop is released. ... Aspirated stops have a voice onset time greater than zero

This would seem to deny the possibility of voiced aspirated stops: however these do exist in Hindi and many other Indian languages. Maybe change to "voiceless aspirated stops have a voice onset time greater than zero"? Grover cleveland 06:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Yeah, we've been calling those 'murmured' rather than 'aspirated'. I just pulled a redundant paragraph, so the whole thing needs to be gone over. (Here it is, as the wording's different — kwami (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)):
 * In aspirated stops, the voice onset (the time when the vocal cords begin to vibrate) comes perceivably later than the release of the stop. The duration between the release of the stop and the voice onset is called voice onset time (VOT). Tenuis stops have a voice onset time close to zero, meaning that voicing begins when the stop is released. Voiced stops have a negative voice onset time, meaning the voicing begins before the stop is released. A stop is called "fully voiced" if it is voiced during the entire occlusion. In English, however, initial voiced plosives like [b] or [d] are only partially voiced, meaning that voicing picks up sometime during the occlusion. Aspirated stops have a voice onset time greater than zero, so that there is a period of voiceless airflow (a phonetic ) before the onset of the vowel.

Occlusive vs. Obstruent
What is the difference? Also, why does the talk page for Occlusive redirect here? ZFT (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Say what?
The second sentence reads:

 * The occlusion may be made with the tongue blade ([t], [d]) or body ([k], [?]), lips ([p], [b]), or glottis ([?]).

Is this saying that an occlusion is made with the body and the glottis when the phrase "question mark" is pronounced? Or does the question mark in the brackets stand for something?

If the latter, perhaps use the term itself, instead of the question mark? Or at least include an explantory footnote for the intended meaning of the question mark.

As it stands, it makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.206.184.85 (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ʔ != ? GamerGeekWiki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Not quite; that is indeed what the second ? in the OP's quote means, but not the first. Since the IPA symbol used is the single-story ɡ rather than the double-story g, I'm guessing that this issue arose from the lack of the symbols ɡ and ʔ in the OP's fonts. Double sharp (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

"P:b" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect P:b. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 04:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per the proposal. Primefac (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Primefac (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

– Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Literature seldom talks about a "plosive consonant" or "fricative consonant" or what have you. Unlike with lateral, trill, etc., dictionaries show that the phonetic meanings are the only ones these terms have—except approximant, but even then Approximant has been a redirect to Approximant consonant since 2004 and the article has no hatnotes, indicating the phonetic definition is indeed the primary topic. We also already have Obstruent, Occlusive, and Sibilant, which are always consonants (at least in the phonetic sense). Nardog (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Plosive consonant → Plosive
 * Affricate consonant → Affricate
 * Fricative consonant → Fricative
 * Approximant consonant → Approximant
 * Support all. For the first three, supporting per WP:CONCISE, since they can be nothing but consonants. For Approximants, since as the article lede says they "fall between fricatives [...] and vowels [...]" and form a class that includes semivowels it is simply inaccurate to title the article as "". (As a that page name is fine.) 85.238.91.38 (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ... since they can be nothing but consonants.
 * Occasionally fricatives may function as vowels/syllabic nuclei too. For example, in Standard Mandarin and  have been described as possible realizations of  (or, depending on analysis). — The terms vowel and consonant are of course ambiguous. Simplifying a bit, they can refer to "realizational"/etic units, which Pike called vocoids and contoids, or to phonotactic/emic units: phonemes that function as nuclei vs. phonemes that don't. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 07:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and (as you'd expect) I'll still support all. Depending on the analysis, "consonant" is either redundant or imprecise. 85.238.91.38 (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Support all per WP:COMMONNAME. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 07:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support all per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Btw, I have grown so used to the redundant tail "...consonant", that I mechanically make superfluous pipes in tables and prose, even if redirects exist. –Austronesier (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There's a hole in our coverage of releases
Currently, Release (phonetics) redirects here. While the term “release” occurs 25 times here, it is not explicitly explained and there is no dedicated section. By contrast, we do have articles on subtopics of release, such as No audible release. Would it not be better if we had an article for the lemma “release” itself? (Such an article could include the distinction between ‘fricative releases’ (as mentioned here) or ‘fricated releases’ (as mentioned here) and (true) affricates. ◅ Sebastian 13:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Plosive


text:
Farm Fresh (band)

Farm Fresh was a Canadian hip hop group from Brandon, Manitoba made up of Mcenroe, Pip Skid and DJ Hunnicutt.

History
Farm Fresh first came together in 1991. They later moved to Winnipeg, and in 1994 released their first recording The Space EP. This was followed by a full-length album named Crazy Friction in 1995.

Soon after, the group stopped developing new material. They released a compact disc called Played Out, containing previous recordings and a few unreleased songs, in 1996. The band also appeared on Rheostatics' album The Nightlines Sessions, collaborating with that band on an improvised live track called "Trans Jam".

Farm Fresh reunited for an anniversary album named Time Is Running Out, which was released in March 2005. The album was recorded in a basement studio in Brandon.

All of their albums have been released on Peanuts & Corn Records, a label founded and operated by Mcenroe.

title: Farm Fresh (band)


text:
Category talk:Stargate characters

Untitled
Should this category contain all characters from the Stargate universe including those from Stargate Atlantis, or should this be limited to SG1 and movie characters only? Steve the Wraith seems to be the first Atlantis addition, and before it gets completely mixed, I was wondering if moving this category to Stargate:SG1 characters and creating Stargate Atlantis characters would be preferable, or if mixing would be fine. If anyone cares. --ABQCat 06:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Stargate characters


text:
Lake Horowhenua

Lake Horowhenua is in the Horowhenua District, an area of the southern Manawatū-Whanganui region in New Zealand's North Island. It covers an area of 3.9 km2.

The lake, also known as Punahau, is an aeolian lake that lies on a sandy plain 2 km west of Levin and 5 km from the coast of the Tasman Sea. It is a shallow lake, only some 2 m deep, fed by various small streams, and is drained by the Hokio Stream.

History
The lake was once surrounded by podocarp forest as the centre of a rich wetland ecosystem. Today the trees are gone and the wetland has been substantially drained. The lake is owned by the Māori Muaūpoko iwi, who, with the help of the Horowhenua Lake Trust, are actively attempting to restore the wetland system (which also contains the smaller Lake Papaitonga) to its former state, as a conservation area.

In the 1820s the Muaūpoko were attacked by Te Rauparaha and the Ngāti Toa. Two island pā on the lake were destroyed.

Water quality
Between 1952 and 1987 treated sewage from Levin was dumped into the lake. This has contributed significantly to the current eutrophic state of the lake. Between 2020 and 2030, the water of Lake Horowhenua is allowed to be maintained below some national bottom lines for water quality.

title: Lake Horowhenua


text:
Ministry for State Security

Ministry for State Security or Ministry of State Security (often abbreviated to MSS) may refer to:

 * Ministry of State Security (China)
 * Ministry of State Security (North Korea)
 * Ministry for State Security (East Germany), more commonly known as the Stasi
 * Ministry of State Security (Soviet Union)
 * Ministry of State Security (Transnistria)
 * Ministry of Public Security (Poland)

Similar agencies

 * South African Bureau of State Security
 * State Security Agency of the Republic of Belarus
 * Committee for State Security in the People's Republic of Bulgaria
 * KGB (Committee for State Security), in the Soviet Union
 * Sigurimi (Directorate of State Security) in the Socialist People's Republic of Albania
 * Main Directorate of State Security in the Soviet Union
 * People's Commissariat for State Security (Soviet Union)
 * State Security Council in South Africa
 * Securitate (State Security Department) in Communist Romania
 * UDBA (State Security Directorate) in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
 * State Security Intelligence in Egypt
 * Belgian State Security Service
 * State Security Service Nigeria
 * Reich Security Main Office (Nazi Germany)

title: Ministry for State Security


text: User talk:129.2.238.186

title: User talk:129.2.238.186


text:
Rick Aviles

Rick Aviles (October 14, 1952 – March 17, 1995) was an American stand-up comedian and actor of Puerto Rican descent, best remembered for portraying the villainous Willie Lopez in the film Ghost.

Career
Born in Manhattan, Aviles worked as a street performer and stand-up comedian on the Greenwich Village night-club circuit in New York in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1978, a Variety reviewer called him "a comic with a future". He was frequently seen in the NYC subways, doing his act for the riders. In 1981, he landed the role of Mad Dog in the film The Cannonball Run. He went on to act in fourteen more film productions. In 1987, Aviles landed a small part as the maintenance man in the film The Secret of My Success, starring Michael J. Fox. That same year he became the host of It's Showtime at the Apollo, and continued as host until 1991.

A Variety review of his stand-up act in 1990 noted, "Utilizing masterful ethnic impersonations and a remarkably rubbery face, Puerto Rican comic Rick Aviles comes off as one of the brightest and most consistently clever stand-ups working the circuit today".

In 1990, Aviles landed his most memorable role: Willie Lopez in the film Ghost, a smash hit at the box office that received multiple Oscar nominations. He also appeared in Jim Jarmusch's Mystery Train (film) (1989) as Will Robinson; Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather Part III (1990) as Mask #1; Brian De Palma's Carlito's Way (1993) as Quisqueya; in Waterworld (1995) as the Gatesman, and in Joe's Apartment (1996) as the voice of a cockroach.

Among the television series in which he appeared are Mr. & Mrs. Dracula (1980), The Day Women Got Even (1980), The Carol Burnett Show (1991) and Stephen King's The Stand (1994).

Death
On April 17, 1995, Variety reported that Aviles had died of heart failure on March 17. Eleven years later, a 2006 article in Entertainment Weekly listed him as among the celebrities who had contracted HIV and died from complications of AIDS.

title: Rick Aviles


text:
Mitsubishi 6G7 engine

The 6G7 series or Cyclone V6 engine is a series of V6 piston engines from Mitsubishi Motors. Five displacement variants were produced from 1986 to 2021, with both SOHC and DOHC, naturally aspirated and turbo charged layouts. While MIVEC variable valve timing has also been implemented in some versions the 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5 L versions were also available with gasoline direct injection. This engine has been the flagship powerplant of the company except when they briefly built a V8 in 1999–2001. The staple of their high-end sedans, it was given twin-turbos for the Mitsubishi GTO, and became the most powerful car ever built by the company at the time.

6G71
The 6G71 model featured SOHC and produced 88 kW at 5,500 rpm and 172 Nm at 4,500 rpm. It was installed with two valves per cylinder, and used Mitsubishi's ECI-Multi multiple port fuel injection fuel delivery system. The compression ratio was 8.9:1. An earlier version, with single-point fuel injection, only had 105 PS at 5,000 rpm and 16.1 kgm at 4,000 rpm.

A supercharger was installed and exclusive to the Debonair. It produces 150 PS at 5,000 rpm and 221 Nm at 3,000 rpm. The compression ratio for the supercharged model is 8.0:1. The 6G71 engine was also converted to run on LPG, a version which was only available to the Debonair and mainly intended for commercial (taxi) use.

Applications

 * 1986–1990 Mitsubishi Galant
 * 1986–1992 Mitsubishi Debonair
 * 1990–1992 Mitsubishi Diamante/Mitsubishi Sigma

6G72
The 6G72 was manufactured in three different models which featured SOHC with 12 valves, SOHC with 24 valves, and DOHC with 24 valves.

The latest version was used in the Mitsubishi Eclipse GT and Galant. Output in 2004 was 210 hp at 5500 rpm with 278 Nm of torque at 4000 rpm. In the older version, used in many Chrysler models since 1987, this V6 was an SOHC 12-valve developing 141 hp at 5000 rpm and 172 lbft of torque at 3600 rpm. The Mitsubishi models were with a 3.0L 6G72 engine SOHC 24-valve developing 195 hp at 5000 rpm and 205 lbft of torque at 4000 rpm. For the MIVEC engine, output was 273 PS at 6000 rpm and 304 Nm at 4500 rpm.

The SOHC 12-valve for the second generation of Pajero could produce up to 109 kW and 235 Nm, whereas the SOHC 24-valve could produce up to 133 kW and 255 Nm.

The DOHC 24-valve was used in the Mitsubishi Debonair, 3000GT, and Dodge Stealth producing 222 hp and 205 lbft of torque with a 10.0:1 compression ratio in naturally aspirated form, and as much as 320 hp and 315 lbft of torque in turbocharged form. The turbocharged variant had the lowest compression ratio at 8.0:1, with each bank of the V6 having its own independent turbocharger and intercooler. Turbochargers were built by Mitsubishi.

Applications

 * 1986–1992 Mitsubishi Debonair
 * 1987–2000 Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager
 * 1988–1989 Chrysler New Yorker
 * 1988–1990 Dodge Raider
 * 1988–1990 Mitsubishi Sigma
 * 1988–1993 Dodge Dynasty
 * 1988–2021 Mitsubishi Pajero (aka Montero/Shogun) (except in the GCC and Oceania)
 * 1989–1995 Dodge Spirit/Plymouth Acclaim/Chrysler Saratoga
 * 1990 Chrysler Town & Country (early 1989 production only)
 * 1990–1991 Chrysler TC by Maserati
 * 1990–1993 Dodge Daytona
 * 1990–1993 Dodge Ram 50
 * 1990–1995 Chrysler LeBaron
 * 1990–1996 Mitsubishi Mighty Max
 * 1990–1998 Hyundai Sonata
 * 1990–1999 Mitsubishi GTO (aka Mitsubishi 3000GT, Dodge Stealth)
 * 1990–2002 Mitsubishi Diamante
 * 1990–2006 Mitsubishi L200
 * 1991–1996 Dodge Stealth
 * 1991–1996 Mitsubishi Verada (Australia)
 * 1992–1994 Dodge Shadow/Plymouth Sundance
 * 1993–2001 Mitsubishi Magna (Australia)
 * 1994–2007 Mitsubishi Delica
 * 1997–2007 Mitsubishi Pajero Sport (aka Montero Sport/aka Challenger in Australia)
 * 1999–2003 Mitsubishi Galant
 * 1991–1999 Mitsubishi 3000GT
 * 2000–2005 Mitsubishi Eclipse
 * 2001–2005 Dodge Stratus/Chrysler Sebring Coupe
 * 2008–2011 Dodge Caravan (China)/Chrysler Grand Voyager (China)

6G73
The 6G73 is a 24-valve SOHC design with two valves running off a single cam lobe on the exhaust valves using a forked rocker arm and each intake valve actuated with two cam lobes, with a smaller bore than the 3.0L version of the same block. Bore and stroke are 83.5 x; it is a 60-degree V6 and weighs around 155 kg. The engine has low-profile cast aluminum heads which help it to fit into compact engine bays, while pent-roof combustion chambers increase efficiency and make room for four valves per cylinder, arranged in a cross-flow pattern with a "tumble" intake port for both strong breathing and low emissions. Spark plugs are centered in the combustion chambers. The intake valves are 33 mm in diameter while exhaust valves are 29 mm. The SOHC 24 valve version of the 6G72 uses these same cylinder heads. A toothed timing belt is used. The output of 6G73 is 163 PS at 5,900 rpm with 221 Nm of torque at 4,350 rpm.

Applications

 * 1990–2002 Mitsubishi Diamante
 * 1993–1996 Mitsubishi Galant
 * 1995–2000 Chrysler Cirrus
 * 1995–2000 Chrysler Sebring
 * 1995–2000 Dodge Stratus
 * 1995–2000 Dodge Avenger

6G74
The 6G74 is a 24-valve unit available with either SOHC, DOHC, or MIVEC DOHC. Output for the SOHC version varies from 139 kW at 4,750 rpm with 306 Nm of torque at 3,750 rpm in the Pajero to the highest output of 164 kW at 5,250 rpm with 318 Nm of torque at 4,500 rpm in the Australian-made Magna Sports, VR-X and Verada GTV/GTVi and 180 kW at 5,500 rpm with 333 Nm of torque at 4,000 rpm in the Magna Ralliart. For the MIVEC, only available in the Mitsubishi Pajero Evolution, the output is 209 kW at 6,000 and 324 Nm at 4,500 rpm. It uses Multi-port fuel injection and uses forged steel connecting rods.

The gasoline direct injection version of the 6G74 was launched in April 1997 as the first GDI V6 engine ever produced. It differed from the basic 6G74 in many ways apart from its unique fuel injection system—it had a crown-curved rather than flat piston head, upright intake ports rather than angled, and a 10.4:1 rather than a 10.0:1 compression ratio. Mitsubishi claimed 30 percent better fuel economy, a 30 percent reduction in emissions, and higher power outputs than diesels.

Applications

 * 1992–1998 Mitsubishi Debonair (Japan 256 hp)
 * 1993–2021 Mitsubishi Pajero (a.k.a. Montero/Shogun) (Only available in GCC area now)
 * 1997–2004 Mitsubishi Diamante
 * 1999–2001 Mitsubishi Proudia
 * 1999–2004 Mitsubishi Montero Sport
 * 1999–2005 Mitsubishi Magna/Verada
 * 1999–2011 Mitsubishi Pajero Sport/Mitsubishi Challenger
 * 2005–2015 Mitsubishi L200/L200 Sportero (Japan, General Countries)
 * 2008–2015 Mitsubishi Triton (Japan Domestic, Thailand, Brazil and Middle East)

6G75
The 6G75 's output varied from 160 kW and 339 Nm to 205 kW and 393 Nm depending on application. In the interest of durability, the pistons were high-pressure castings attached to forged steel connecting rods that swing from a heat-treated forged steel crankshaft. Intended to be used with 95 RON fuel, lower octane fuels would be detected by the vehicle's knock sensors, and the engine detuned to compensate.

Specifications

 * Engine type: V type, single overhead camshaft
 * Bore × stroke: 95x90 mm
 * Displacement: 3828 cc
 * Combustion chamber: pentroof type
 * Compression ratio: 10.5:1 (MIVEC), 10:1 (Non MIVEC)
 * Firing order: sequential 1-2-3-4-5-6
 * Lubrication system: Pressure feed, full-flow filtration
 * Lash adjusters on intake and exhaust
 * Fuel delivery system: Electronically controlled MFI
 * Fuel grade: Factory-tuned for 95 RON unleaded petrol
 * Ignition system: Electronically controlled 6-coil (non-distributor)
 * Lubrication system: Pressure feed, full-flow filtration
 * Oil pump type: Trochoid type

Applications

 * 2003–2021 Mitsubishi Pajero/Montero
 * 2004–2011 Mitsubishi Endeavor
 * 2004–2009 Mitsubishi Galant
 * 2005–2008 Mitsubishi 380
 * 2006–2012 Mitsubishi Eclipse

title: Mitsubishi 6G7 engine


text: User talk:202.152.233.226

title: User talk:202.152.233.226


text:
Bart Maves

Bart Maves (born October 30, 1964) is a politician in Ontario, Canada. He was a Progressive Conservative member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from 1995 to 2003. In 2010, he was elected as a Regional Councillor representing Niagara Falls for the Niagara Regional Council.

Background
Maves worked as a legislative assistant to federal MP Ken Atkinson, who represented St. Catharines from 1988 to 1993. He also worked as a planning secretariat for Alberta's Education ministry. Maves is a nephew of W. Bart Maves who was elected to as a Niagara Falls City Councillor in 2006 and re-elected in 2010.

Provincial
Maves was elected to the Ontario legislature in the provincial election of 1995, defeating Liberal Marg Germano and incumbent New Democrat Margaret Harrington in the riding of Niagara Falls. In 1997, he was appointed as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour.

In the provincial election of 1999, Maves was re-elected by about 1,500 votes over Liberal candidate Selina Volpatti. He held other parliamentary assistant positions in the parliament which followed, but was not appointed to cabinet. In 2002, he supported Jim Flaherty's unsuccessful bid to replace Mike Harris as party leader.

In the 2003 provincial election, Maves lost to Liberal Kim Craitor by over 3,000 votes. He was the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario's candidate for the Niagara Falls riding again in the 2007 provincial election but lost again to Craitor.

He tried to regain the seat in a February 2014 by-election after Craitor retired but lost to NDP candidate Wayne Gates by 1,025 votes. He was defeated once again by Gates in the 2014 provincial election, this time by 7,429 votes.

Regional
In the 2010 municipal election, Maves ran for and was elected as one of the three regional councillors representing Niagara Falls on the Niagara Regional Council. Maves topped the polls, winning 13,695 votes, more than any other candidate for any municipal office in Niagara Falls. Elected alongside Maves as a regional councillor was Selina Volpatti, who had been his Liberal opponent during the 1999 provincial general election. Maves attempted to become the chair of the Regional Council. The position is not directly elected but is selected by a runoff ballot process amongst the members of the council. Maves lost to Gary Burroughs by a vote of 19 to 11 on the 4th ballot.

title: Bart Maves


text: User talk:68.108.214.227

title: User talk:68.108.214.227


text:
User talk:Eclecticlibrarian

I like tater tots.

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Wishing Chair albums

A tag has been placed on Category:Wishing Chair albums indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Singredwolves.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Singredwolves.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Eclecticlibrarian


text: User talk:66.25.81.89

title: User talk:66.25.81.89


text:
Benoît Joachim

Benoît Joachim (born 14 January 1976) is a retired professional road racing cyclist from Luxembourg.

Biography
Joachim started his professional career at the age of 18 for a small Italian cycling team, Sonego Sport. After racing with them for three months, he was noticed by the bigger, De Nardi who were interesting him. After riding with De Nardi for 3 years, he joined the Us Postal Pro Cycling Team and rode as a super-domestique for the team. He has competed in eleven Grand Tours, including the Tour de France (2000, 2002), the Giro d'Italia (2005, 2006, 2007), and the Vuelta a España (1999, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006). His career highlight is becoming crowned many Luxembourg National Road Race Champion titles and Luxembourg National Time Trial Champion. In addition, Joachim became the first Luxembourger to wear the race leader's golden jersey at the 2004 Vuelta a España. Joachim wore the jersey for two days. In 2007, Joachim transferred to the Astana outfit, but left them after two seasons, and rode for Differdange during 2009. At the end of the season, he ended his professional career.

His younger brother Aurélien is a Luxembourg international footballer.

Major results

 * 1998
 * 1st stage Tour de L'avenir

 * 1999
 * PruTour
 * 1st Stage 1
 * 2nd overall

 * 2000
 * 1st – MaillotLuxemburgo.PNG National Road Race Championship
 * 2nd overall – Tour de Luxembourg

 * 2004
 * 1st – MaillotLuxemburgo.PNG National Time Trial Championship
 * 9th overall – Tour de Wallonie
 * 1st stage 1 (TTT) Tour of Spain
 * General classification leader (Stages 3 and 4) – Vuelta a España
 * 24th Time trial Olympic Games in Athens

 * 2005
 * 7th, Prologue – Tour of Benelux

 * 2006
 * 1st – MaillotLuxemburgo.PNG National Time Trial Championship

 * 2007
 * 1st – MaillotLuxemburgo.PNG National Road Race Championship

Tour de France
2 participations
 * 2000 : 92nd
 * 2002 : 89th

Giro d'Italia
3 participations
 * 2005 : 107th
 * 2006 : 83rd
 * 2007 : 99th

Vuelta a España
6 participations
 * 1999 : abandon
 * 2001 : 42nd
 * 2003 : 59th
 * 2004 : 57th, Jersey gold.svg golden jersey during 2 days
 * 2005 : non-runner at the 13th stage
 * 2006 : 66th

title: Benoît Joachim


text:
User talk:Roleypolinde

File source problem with File:OkanaganBCRegions.png
Thank you for uploading File:OkanaganBCRegions.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Roleypolinde


text:
User:Alphax/AoW1 Map Review

A long long time ago, I did a lot of rating of maps from AoWH. My aim was to find and rate all maps which did not have a rating. Well, Real Life™ caught up to me. So I urge you: go forth and rate the maps! If I ever get time, I may resume my task. Until then, farewell... Alphax τεχ 08:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: User:Alphax/AoW1 Map Review


text:
Talk:Water turbine

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Misplacedkey. Peer reviewers: Rdery.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal
I removed the Quasiturbine additions to this page. Any positive displacement pump or engine can be plumbed up to pressurized water, and the Quasiturbine is not notable for this application. Duk 06:19, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Most positive displacement engine concepts are not quite suitable for hydraulic for 2 reasons : 1) they require the fluid to go through a valve or a check-valve ; 2) the flow has to go forward and then backward (a severe inertial flow restriction). The Quasiturbine accept quasi-continuous flow at intake and at exhaust without any valve or check-valve. Furthermore, the flow is tangential and quasi-unidirectionnal, which make it less sensitive to fluid inertia reversal of direction. In fact, the Quasiturbine can act as a dosimetor valve, where the flow is proportional to the rpm. For water hydo-electric dam, the Quasiturbine offer a high efficiency at variable power level (conventionnal turbine works efficiently only at near fix design power) and because the Quasiturbine is a reversible hydraulic engine, it could be use to pump the water back-up outside peak consumption period ?

 * Good points. However, I will continue to object to noting Quasiturbine as a water turbine until it is notably used as one; a commercially successful application that is comparable to the other types listed, for example. Duk 20:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The first part of the response contains some good points. The second is pure speculation. This appears to be typical of the promoters of this (and similar) engine developments. Andrewa 19:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Head
Some anon editor changed the ranges for the various types. I've just checked Hydro Electric Engineering Practice and figure 1.2 is more consistent with the 17:47, 13 July 2005 edition, so I've reverted it. Anyone revising, please cite sources! --Wtshymanski 14:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Environmental Impact
The authors of this article are propagating the myth that hydropower must always kill fish. In a properly designed dam and intake system (for example, one that utilizes wedgewire screening over a coanda effect intake for down-swim protection and fish ladders for up-swim protection) there is absolutely no fish kill required to produce clean power. Using modern technology (which is admittedly quite expensive) a completely wildlife-friendly hydropower system can be built, and such systems require less cleaning which makes them cost-competitive on an ongoing basis with systems that produce slightly more power by being much more environmentally damaging.

Dams are not inherently bad for the environment - many ecosystems, such as that of the fall line of the USA East Coast - are adapted to heavy impoundment by beavers and are not suffering from too many dams but rather from improperly constructed man-made dams. Hydropower, similarly, is not inherently bad for the environment, but rather antique methods and poor planning are bad for the environment.

Specific Speed
" Specific speed is defined as the speed in revolutions per minute at which a turbine would run at the best efficiency...under a head of one foot, its dimensions being adjusted to produce one horsepower." - the definition from "Hydro Electric Engineering Practice, Vol.II,", 2nd Ed., J. Guthrie Brown, Editor, Blackie and Son Ltd. London, 1970. Not flow, power. --Wtshymanski 23:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The two definitions are almost the same, differing only by the density of the fluid: (one unit volume) (through one unit head) per (unit time) x (density) = (power)
 * From Layman's (see reference in the article)
 * Some manufacturers define the specific speed nq of a turbine as the speed of a unit of the series of such magnitude that it delivers unit discharge at unit head... is not a dimensionless parameter and therefore its value varies with the kind of units employed in its calculation. The dimensionless parameter is the specific speed Ns given by the equation:... P.165
 * from
 * Specific speed is defined as "the speed of an ideal pump geometrically similar to the actual pump, which when running at this speed will raise a unit of volume, in a unit of time through a unit of head".
 * I think we need to look at the units choose the definition that matches $$ n_s $$ in the article --Duk 23:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Impulse turbines are not the same thing with water turbines.

Tidal Turbines
I have a question about where the various forms of turbine which are under rapid development at the moment to capture tidal stream energy fit into the categorisation of water turbines presented in this article. They don't seem to be either reaction or impulse turbines so is there another category that should be added? If so, does it have a conventional name? Chris55 (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Buoyancy turbine
http://picasaweb.google.ca/evexano/UntitledAlbum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.199.26.97 (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Definition
How exactly differs a turbine from a bladed rotor (as used in windmills, ...). Is the difference that a rotor also has plating to direct water into the rotor (eg like a funnel). Depending on the answer here, the article definition is to be changed or the article needs renaming.
 * Don't rename the article. Read the literature. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to change the name, just make the article more coherent at turbine its says:

A turbine is a rotary generator that extracts energy from a fluid or air flow and converts it into useful work. The simplest turbines have one moving part, a rotor assembly, which is a shaft or drum, with blades attached. Moving fluid acts on the blades, or the blades react to the flow, so that they move and impart rotational energy to the rotor. Early turbine examples are windmills and water wheels.

This makes it sounds as if there is no difference, which is wrong ? Anyhow, the article needs to become more clear on this subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.90.148 (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Found own composed definition:

A turbine is the whole of a rotor and stator (or a electrical generator without the blades). Turbines are thus only used in electrical generators.

I'm guessing this is correct; if so change the definition of this article and change the image to make it more clear

81.245.90.148 (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Time Line
In § "Time Line" it states that the early Roman designs "were found at Chemtou ... dating to the late 3rd or early 4th century AD", but in the uploaded photo in this section it says C.114 AD:

"Vertical axle watermill at Chemtou, Tunisia c.114 AD. The date is taken from the inscription CIL VIII, 10117. While the inscription was not attached to this structure, it is reasonably sure that the two are related."

Not sure which is correct?

WhiteMonkey (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Diagram
Please can someone correct the spelling of "wicket" on the diagram at the top of the article? I can't believe they really meant "wicked"!Clampower (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed—thanks for spotting this. This was a quick and dirty edit, so apologies to both of the original contributors! --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Power section in water turbine page
The maths in this section appears to be wrong, Power output, given the inputs in the page should be in kilojoules and kilowatts. This is important because I have found many people on the net using this equation, which is leading to a lot of confusion. If density of water is given in kg per cubic metre then the output will be in Kilowatts and not watts as mentioned. For instance if head or height of water is 150m, density of water is 1 (i.e.,1000kg/cubic metre) and flow of water is 0.095 m^^3/sec (i.e., 95 litres/sec) and gravity is taken as 9.8m/s^^2. Then output will be 105.717 kW and not 105.717 Watts which would be ridiculous. Kindly advise if my point is pertinent and valid. If no objection is received I will edit the section to show the correct units, although ideally mass should be shown in Newtons to get an output in Watts or Joules. DDjames — Preceding unsigned comment added by DDjames (talk • contribs) 11:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Use SI units for everything and everything is in SI units. It just works. Mass kg, length m, volume m³, gravity N/kg (same thing as m/s^2 but better expresses the concept), density kg/m³, volume flow rate m³/s, power W.

Stating that the density of water is 1 without a unit is meaningless. The calculation assumes 100% efficiency and so overstates the power output but not enormously so. Using the numbers given then the actual power, assuming 100% efficiency, is 139793W, 140kW. Malcolm Boura (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Rotary engine
I agree that we probably shouldn't say it's a "rotary engine." While technically it does rotate and it is a type of engine, "rotary engine" has a meaning of its own that's different from a water turbine. I'm not too crazy about "rotary motor" either. Maybe "rotating machine"? Or "turbine driven by water", which is a bit vacuous but is what my dictionary says? Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't like "rotating machine" because it doesn't distinguish turbines from pumps. "Turbine driven by water" is fine by me, and it links nicely to turbine and hydraulic power, but I know that some dislike it in a lead as too obvious a tautology. Rotary motor is correct, although the term is most commonly applied (for water-powered motors) to those with pistons used for distributed hydraulic networks. Motor is better than engine (even under current WP target articles) as the definition of engines as fuel consumers and motors as energy transformers works here. Rotary engine is just wrong, and still wrong no matter how many times you add it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see your point, but the sentence does go on to say "...that converts kinetic and potential energy of water into mechanical work" thus distinguishing it from a pump. At Turbine we have "a rotary mechanical device" which seems a bit jargon-y, and at Turbomachinery "machines that transfer energy between a rotor and a fluid." I checked a few textbooks but none come right out and define "water turbine" in a clear way. I'm going to change it to "rotary machine" for now because "rotary engine" is no good, but let's see what else we can come up with. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well now that I've done that I looked at Machine and I'm not very happy with that either. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Comparison with water wheel
Quote "All common water machines until the late 19th century (including water wheels) were basically reaction machines; water pressure head acted on the machine and produced work. A reaction turbine needs to fully contain the water during energy transfer."
 * I can't make any sense of the term "water pressure head".
 * Stream wheels do not contain the water during energy transfer and undershot wheels arguably do not.
 * Breast shots wheels are both reaction and impulse. Overshot and backshot wheels predominantly reaction. Undershot and stream wheels are predominantly impulse.

Other

 * (turbulent) vortex turbine (Turbulent's micro hydropower plants) Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Water turbine


text:
Talk:Holy Saturday

Midnight
"Midnight on Holy Saturday": does this refer to SAT 00:00 or SUN 00:00?

 * Easter Vigil normally begins at sundown. That time may vary by state/country, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.88.131 (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

 * The Easter Vigil is not always at midnight, but it is always late in the day on Saturday (Easter Even) or very early Sunday (Easter Day). Jonathunder 00:27, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Linking
I'm de-wikifying some of the recent links that were put in. I'm sorry, but I really think this is over-doing it. Do we really need to link ordinary English words like "flowers" "leaves" and such? I think not. Csernica 20:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Greek
And another thing -- "Greek" was rewiki'd to "Greek Orthodox" which isn't a helpful choice. First, it resulted in a redirect to "Greek Orthodox Church", so that's where it should have gone directly. Second, it contains no helpful content. It's a disambiguation page where you can find links to both the Orthodox Church of Constantinople and the autocephalous Church of Greece among others, none of which fell within the meaning intened to be conveyed by "Greek". Rather it is supposed to mean those Churches within a Hellenic "sphere of influence", particularly those that still use Greek as an official liturgical language even when it stands alongside others such as Arabic in the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. The choice for the more general disambiguation page Greek was therefore made deliberately, and the new link was actually less informative. The point is to please take the trouble to understand what you're doing before you start throwing links all over the place. Csernica 04:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Silent Saturday
The link here from Easter says it is also called "Silent Saturday". Is this correct, or should the Easter page be changed?Chunkyrice 13 21:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Translations
For some reason the KJV is changed into the NRSV version, two times already. The reason for this is unclear to me. The KJV version is much closer to the original text, and since there is some controverse about 1 Peter 3:19-20a, to me it seems better in this case to use the most reliable translation.Dingeman (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Can you be specific by what you mean about "closer to the original text"? Is this a general assertion, or is there some issue you have in this particular verse? I would be happy to see a discussion of the Greek here, rather than just an assertion.  The KJV is a poor version for Wikipedia discussions because it is not in contemporary English. Tb (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, like stated in my first comment: 1 Peter 3:19-20a. Unfortunately I'm not able to read Greek, but I know the Trinitary Bible Society in London and Wycliffe Bible Translators always use the KJV as their reference source. Contemporary English is wonderful as long as it keeps the original text as intact as possible. The KJV and the NRSV readings are quite different. Dingeman (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm prepared to discuss the particular translation of the verse, but not a generic objection based on no specific facts. The NRSV is the standard translation for scholarly use in the United States; in Britain the NRSV gets used together with the Revised English Bible.  You seem to be assuming that the KJV is "more accurate" without any particular understanding or any particular question about this verse in particular.  In that context, I can see no reason for you objecting to the NRSV, which, AFAICT, has no difference in meaning for the verses in question. Tb (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not seem to assume, but I assume the KJV is more accurate than the NRSV. Check the wikipedian article NRSV. Besides this, during my time in Miami the Zondervan NIV study Bible was used as scholar version, not the NRSV. I haven't got any statistics, but I wouldn't be surprised if it would outnumber the NRSV. I've seen them using it quite regularly.
 * About the verses: just now I reread them, but (on the contrary of what I first thought) there are no major differences in the two translations. The phrase 'This verse is consistent with the doctrine...' is a bit strange though, it kinda suggests that the doctrine is the (instead of a) explanation. Dingeman (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I put the phrase "this verse is consistent" as a replacement for "this verse produced/led to" the doctrine, something like that is what an editor put in. That involved a doubtful claim that the doctrine was based solely upon the one verse.  I'm really quite confused about what your motivations have been all along here; in particular, why does this need to make any doctrinal claims about "where Jesus soul was"?  Is it not sufficient to say that the day commemorates Jesus' burial, and is associated with the Harrowing of Hell, and leave it at that?  Maybe if you'd address that question, I could understand and we could better find a consensus.  I agree completely that the current text is imperfect.  Tb (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wonderful proposal. So; On this day the church commemorates the time that the dead body of Jesus Christ lay in the tomb and that He descended into hell (see Dingeman (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Ah! How wonderful, yes that's fine.  I would prefer just saying "the time that Jesus lay in the tomb" if that's ok too, but the current wording is also ok with me.  Tb (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, but you can't capitalize pronouns. That's POV, and not allowed (as well as being deprecated English style nowadays). Tb (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is even better, indeed. I wasn't aware of the pronouns. Will change it in a minute. Dingeman (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

not sure about the psalm chanted, but psalm 119 is the longest, not 118 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.179.118 (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Septuagint (LXX) version of the Old Testament, which the Eastern churches use, it is Psalm 118. The numbering schemes differ between the LXX and Masoretic Text, which Protestants use.  The section is correct.  --24.11.104.84 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Easter Eve reference
I'm not sure that the reference cited for Easter Eve as an alternative is used appropriately here. The link is to a complaint made to the Australian Broadcasting Commission about the phrase 'Easter Saturday' being used to describe the day; the complainant says "the correct use is Easter Eve". The ABC agrees that "Easter Saturday" is incorrect usage (true in religious terms if not in commmon Australian parlance), but doesn't say anything about 'Easter Eve' itself. It's a good reference for demonstrating how Australians use the term 'Easter Saturday' (and is used in that context elsewhere on Wikipedia), but in terms of demonstrating that 'Easter Eve' is a common alternative, it basically amounts to just one radio listener's opinion. A better reference for the broader use of the term 'Easter Eve' should be sought, I think. Thoughts? Gusworld (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. The reference is an important one for demonstrating the incorrect use of "Easter Saturday", but we need better support for "Easter Eve". For that matter, we should have a reference for the "Black Saturday" usage. StAnselm (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that reference is not supportive of the text. I suggest the unsupported words be removed, with the link, leaving only words that are used in the rest of the text. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

No evidence provided for article's claim that the name "Easter Saturday" is incorrect
Article currently says
 * Holy Saturday is sometimes mistakenly referred to as Easter Saturday

with the following reference:
 * For example, the New South Wales Public Holidays Act 2010

There is no source given for the assertion that the name "Easter Saturday" is mistaken; indeed, the reference given is evidence that it isn't mistaken at all - the name "Easter Saturday" is the official legal name of the day in the State of New South Wales, Australia, and is also (in my experience) the name by which the day is commonly known in Australia. This website by the Australian Federal government uses that name to refer to the day, and notes that it is a legal public holiday under that name in ACT,NSW,NT,Qld,SA,Vic (but not Tas or WA). So this is the legal name of the day in most of Australia. So I cannot see how the name can be mistaken when it is enshrined by Australian law and recognised by Australian governments. So I am going to delete the adverb "mistakenly" as unjustified. SJK (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The state governments in Australia have simply chosen to enact something into law which is unrecognized generally. The churches have never named it so, and it is in reference (and relation) to the church calendar. It is a mistaken usage, except where mandated by a mistaken law. WP must give precedence to wider recognition, which it does in the second paragraph of the lead, where it also does mention the peculiarities in Australia. Evensteven (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Western practice: new "citation needed"
I'm not confident enough to overturn this recent edit, but it seems to me questionable that a tag is needed here. Especially under emergency circumstances, it seems to me that the local bishop would be the primary authority any Catholic would turn to in questions of how the Church would operate. And it also seems to me that kind of authority of governance is very widely shared in Christendom, Orthodox or Catholic; it used to be much more pronounced even in American Anglicanism than it is today. Surely the Pope could grant the dispensation, but wouldn't it be the local bishop who would seek one from him if he thought it necessary? Others would ask the local bishop first, yes? So, why is this detail so questionable that it requires a citation? Evensteven (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, upon reflection, I'm more confident than that. Is this tag question not simply a matter of time-blindness, caused by modern developments in transportation and communication? Consider a similar situation 200, or even 150 years ago. It would have been unthinkable to have to apply to the Vatican, months away, for such a dispensation. How did the Church handle such things then? Does it not have a tradition that a bishop exercises all authority within his diocese/see? Higher authority exists, yes, but not immediately, not in emergencies or unforeseen circumstances. Throughout most of its history, the Church, facing such a thing locally, would have placed its guidance in the hands of its bishop, and any problems would have been dealt with after the fact as questions of ecclesiastical discipline. The real question here is: has Church governance changed in the last 150-200 years to such an extent? I would argue that the local bishop's authority to grant a dispensation remains intact as a necessity of governance. Even today's communications can be knocked out for a time. Therefore, I am removing the tag from the article. If anything needs a citation to back something up, I think it would be a claim that the local bishop does NOT have such authority. Evensteven (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Holy Saturday. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.litcom.net.au/liturgy_lines/displayarticle.php?llid=356

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Orthodox perspective
I added a globalize/western tag because the article seems to focus primarily on Roman Catholic perspectives of Holy Saturday in its content and not enough of the Eastern Orthodox perspective.--  Sıgehelmus   (Talk) |д=)  00:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

In between Saturday
This article lists a number of alternative names for Holy Saturday, but does not include In Between Saturday. I could be wrong, but I thought I heard some one BBC Radio Four saying that this day is also known as In Between Saturday.Vorbee (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Epitaphios Procession Beginning at Great Saturday Mattins.jpg

Name in Czech and Slovak??
Holy Saturday is traditionally known as "White Saturday" (Bílá / Biela sobota) in Czechia and Slovakia. Since the Portuguese and Filipino names are mentioned, why not these? Should I add those to the article?

State laws or similar documents in Czechia and Slovakia make no mention of the Holy Saturday, since it's not a designated holiday of any kind. The name White Saturday is used by various Christian churches in both countries, although in 2022 the Roman Catholic Church in Slovakia announced an official renaming of this day to Svätá sobota (Holy Saturday), in accordance with the original Latin version used worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyjanko (talk • contribs) 09:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Black Saturday
UPDATE: I went ahead and edited it, deleting the statement that says it is the last day of fasting for Catholics in the Philippines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaivineOrodrim (talk • contribs) 17:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I would like to edit this portion as it is not entirely accurate:

"It is the last day of fasting for Catholics in the Philippines. It commemorates the day that Jesus lay in his tomb."

Holy Saturday is not a day of fasting for Catholics in the Philippines. Catholics in the Philippines are, under Church law, required to fast only on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. Please see this website.

Also, I noticed the footnote cites the Siquijor Tourism Office website, which is not an authoritative source for the subject matter.

Cheers, LaivineOrodrim. LaivineOrodrim (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Holy Saturday


text: User talk:64.81.101.3

title: User talk:64.81.101.3