text:
Allison (surname)

Allison is a surname of English and Scottish origin. It was a patronym, in most cases probably indicating son of Allen, but in other cases possibly from Ellis, Alexander, or the female given name Alice/Alise.

Alison, variant form Alizon, is a surname of French origin.

With the many variants of spelling through history, as well as the likelihood of phonetic spelling changes and variations through time; names such as Alison, Allason, Ellison, Allyson, Alasoune, Allinson and in some cases McAllister have been found to be interchangeable and variants of the different families using the same family name of 'Allison'.

Origins
The surname was first recorded in England in 1248, when a "William Alisun" is recorded in the Documents of the Abbey of Bee in Buckinghamshire. In Scotland, the earliest record dates from 1296, when "Patrick Alissone, Count of Berwick" paid homage to the ruling council of Scotland in the absence of a proclaimed king.

List of people with the surname

 * Alison
 * Archibald Alison (author), Scottish priest and essayist
 * Sir Archibald Alison, 1st Baronet, historian
 * Sir Archibald Alison, 2nd Baronet, British Army officer
 * Charles Hugh Alison, British golf course architect
 * Charlie Alison, cricketer
 * Dorothy Alison, Australian actress
 * Ewen Alison, New Zealand politician
 * Francis Alison, minister in Synod of Philadelphia
 * Gilbert Alison, Australian politician
 * James Alison, Catholic priest, theologian and author
 * James Alison (1862–1932), Scottish architect
 * Jane Alison, Australian novelist
 * Joan Alison, writer
 * John R. Alison, American air force general
 * Michael Alison, British politician
 * Roberta Alison, American tennis player
 * Thomas Alison (1860–1931), painter
 * William Alison, Scottish physician and philanthropist
 * Diezani Alison-Madueke (born 1960), Nigerian politician

 * Allison
 * Allison family, passengers on board the RMS Titanic
 * Abraham K. Allison (1810–1893), American businessman and politician
 * Aimee Allison (born 1969), American author, public affairs television host and political activist
 * Anne Allison, cultural anthropologist
 * Anthony Allison (soccer) (born 1987), Liberian-born American soccer player
 * Anthony Clifford Allison (1925–2014), South African medical scientist
 * Art Allison (1849–1916), American Major League Baseball player
 * Aundrae Allison (born 1984), American footballer
 * Ben Allison (born 1966), American jazz, rock bassist/composer
 * Bernard Allison (born 1965), American blues musician
 * Bill Allison (actor), American casino owner and actor
 * Bill Allison (baseball) (1850–1887), American professional baseball player
 * Bill Allison (footballer) (1908–1981), English footballer
 * Bob Allison (1934–1995), American baseball player
 * Bobby Allison (born 1937), American race car driver
 * Brett Allison (born 1968), Australian rules footballer
 * Brian Allison (born 1988), Scottish footballer
 * Brooke Allison (born 1986), American pop singer
 * C. FitzSimons Allison (born 1927), American Episcopal bishop and an author
 * Charles Gary Allison (1938–2008), American screenwriter and film producer
 * Chris Allison (born 1961), British record producer
 * Chris Allison (police officer), British senior officer of the Metropolitan Police Service
 * Clay Allison (1840–1887), American cattle rancher and gunfighter
 * Clifford Allison (1964–1992), American stock car racing driver
 * Dale Allison, American Christian theologian
 * Darren Allison (born 1968), English record producer, musician, and recording engineer
 * Davey Allison (1961–1993), American race car driver
 * David Allison (disambiguation)
 * Dean Allison (born 1973), Audiobook Editor based in the UK
 * Dean Allison (born 1965), Canadian politician
 * Donnie Allison (born 1939), American race car driver
 * Dorothy Allison (born 1949), American novelist
 * Dorothy Allison (psychic) (1924–1999), American self-proclaimed psychic detective
 * Dot Allison (born 1969), Scottish singer/songwriter
 * Doug Allison (1846–1916), American professional baseball player
 * Doug Allison (soccer) (born 1962), English footballer and coach
 * Elmer Allison (1883–1982), American radical activist and newspaper publisher
 * Emery Allison, American politician
 * Fran Allison (1907–1989), American television and radio personality
 * Fred Allison (1882–1974), American physicist
 * Gary Allison (born 1952), German-born American soccer player
 * Gene Allison (1934–2004), American R&B singer
 * George Allison (1883–1957), English football journalist, broadcaster and manager
 * Glenn Allison (born 1930), American professional ten-pin bowler
 * Graham T. Allison (born 1940), American political scientist
 * Hank Allison (born 1947), American professional football player
 * Henry Allison (cricketer) (1828–1881), Australian cricket player
 * Herbert M. Allison (1943–2013), American financial expert, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability
 * Humberto Guerra Allison (born 1940), Peruvian physician and scientist
 * Jacob Allison (born 1998), Australian rules footballer
 * James Allison Jr. (1772–1854), American lawyer and politician from Pennsylvania
 * James Allison (motorsport) (born 1968), British aerodynamicist, Technical Director of the Lotus Formula One team
 * James Allison (theatre) (1831–1890), theatre manager in Australia
 * James A. Allison (1872–1928), American businessman and industrialist
 * Jason Allison (born 1975), Canadian ice hockey player
 * Jay Allison, American radio producer and broadcast journalist
 * Jeff Allison (born 1984), American baseball pitcher
 * Jennifer Allison (born 1966), American author of mystery novels
 * Jeremy Allison (born 1962), computer programmer
 * Jerry Allison (1939–2022), American musician, drummer for The Crickets
 * Jim Allison (American football) (born 1943), American football player
 * Joe Allison (American football), American football player
 * John Allison (disambiguation)
 * Joseph Allison (disambiguation)
 * Kevin Allison (born 1970), American comedic writer and actor
 * Kyle Allison (born 1990), Scottish professional footballer
 * Lelah Allison (1893–1956), American educator, folklorist
 * Lincoln Allison (born 1946), English writer
 * Luther Allison (1939–1997), American blues musician
 * Lyn Allison (born 1946), Australian senator
 * Mack Allison (1887–1964), American professional baseball player
 * Malcolm Allison (1927–2010), English football manager
 * Mary Bruins Allison (1903–1994), American physician
 * Mary Emma Allison (1917–2010), American school librarian and UNICEF fundraiser
 * Matt Allison (racing driver) (born 1983), English racing driver
 * May Allison (1890–1989), American stage and film actress
 * May Allison (athlete) (born 1964), Canadian long-distance runner
 * Mike Allison (born 1961), Canadian ice hockey player
 * Monica Allison, American actress and voice actor
 * Mose Allison (1927–2016), American jazz pianist and singer
 * Odis Allison (born 1949), American basketball player
 * Oliver Allison (1908–1989), English Anglican missionary bishop
 * Olivia Allison (born 1990), British synchronized swimmer
 * Peter Allison, Australian writer and African safari guide
 * Ray Allison (born 1959), Canadian professional ice hockey player
 * Rebecca Allison (born 1946), American cardiologist
 * Richard Allison (disambiguation)
 * Robert Allison (disambiguation)
 * Robin Allison, New Zealand architect
 * Rodney Allison (born 1956), American college football coach
 * Samuel King Allison (1900–1965), American physicist
 * Scott Allison (born 1972), Canadian ice hockey player
 * Stacy Allison, American mountaineer, the first American woman to climb Mount Everest
 * Stephen Allison (born 1971), American politician
 * Stub Allison (1892–1961), American football, basketball, and baseball coach
 * Susan Allison, American editor-in-chief and vice president at Ace Books
 * Susan Louisa Moir Allison (1845–1937), Canadian author and pioneer
 * Tom Allison (Australian footballer) (born 1944), Australian rules footballer
 * Tomilea Allison (born 1934), American politician
 * Vera Allison (1902–1993), American Modernist jeweler, painter
 * Wade Allison (disambiguation)
 * Wayne Allison (born 1968), English footballer and coach
 * Wick Allison (1948–2020), American magazine publisher and author
 * Will Allison (born 1968), American author
 * William B. Allison (1829–1908), American politician
 * William D. Allison (1861–1923), American lawman
 * William Henry Allison (1838–1934), Canadian politician
 * Wilmer Allison (1904–1977), American amateur tennis champion
 * Young E. Allison (1853–1932), American writer and newspaper editorials
 * Allyson
 * June Allyson, American film and television actress

title: Allison (surname)


text:
Talk:Bar (establishment)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ragetest 25.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Bar vs Pub
"In the UK 'bar' used to mean a wine bar, but now, 'Style Bars', trendy and generally high-quality drinking establishments are more common. However the main type of establishment selling alcohol for consumption on the premises is the public house or pub. Pubs are not usually referred to as bars, though the distinction is becoming blurred."

This doesn't seem entirely right, as i know for a fact that bars withing colleges are always refered to as "bars" even when they are otherwise indistinguishable from a pub. I would guess (although I don't know) that the same is the case with bars within other sors of institutions, such as hotels and resteraunts, with "pub" being a more specific term. Snowboardpunk

 * That's accurate. A pub is a freestanding establishment while a 'bar' can either be a specific room within a pub, or a drink-selling establishment in something else such as a hotel, a conference centre, a students union etc. etc.Vortinax (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Surely a "pub" (public house) is a building in which alcoholic drinks are sold. A "bar" is either a room where alcoholic drinks are consumed (this may or may not be a standalone establishment), or an item of furniture from which such drinks are served. A pub may contain one or more bars. 217.155.20.163 23:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

 * True and does not contradict the foregoing.Vortinax (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between a "topless bar" and a "titty bar"?
Currently, topless bar redirects to bar (establishment), whereas titty bar redirects to strip club. I'm curious as to the difference. 217.155.20.163 23:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

A strip club features nude dancing, and a price structure for interaction between customer and staff. If the bar is just a topless female bartender and/or waitstaff serving drinks, it becomes more self-explanatory. IMHO MMetro 20:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol?
This page used to say
 * A bar is a business that sells alcoholic beverages ….

While this is basically true, it leaves out things like temperance bars and juice bars, making statements like, "A temperance bar is a bar that does not sell alcoholic beverages.", strictly speaking, false.

I have changed this to read
 * A bar is a business that sells drinks, typically alcoholic beverages, ….

Is there a better way to say this? I can't think of one. Tugbug 20:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think how you left it is ok. HeffeQue 16:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Video bar
I was hoping this article would expound a bit on the concept of a video bar. They seem to be popular in American gay bars, but more details and context would be helpful. -- Beland 02:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?
uhm... "Often frequently populated by drunks the most well known of which is Luke menner who is often seen there before operating on the elderly and disabled. Menner, a sophomore at Indiana Wesleyan University, is also known to have many girlish tendencies. Many modern bars have recently added anti-Luke protocol to their company policies." Somehow I doubt that one can be backed up with any evidence. I'm going to go ahead and remove that. Mad Gouki 04:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)]

Pub Task Force
Anyone interesting in working for a while on improving the pub articles? Sorting out the stubs. Organising the categories. Creating a Pub InfoBox. Drawing up some kind of notability guideline, and checking that pub articles are meeting the guidelines. Drawing up a Style guideline. Working on the editing of the main articles - Public house,List of public houses in the United Kingdom, Bar (establishment), etc. Considering how to integrate all the drinking establishments around the globe. Perhaps create a new parent article: Drinking establishment. I've started working on the pub articles, but I would really like to work with other people to bounce ideas and keep within consensus. Check in at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer, or respond here or drop a message on my talkheader. Cheers!  SilkTork  *YES! 18:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was hoping being on the "Pub Task Force" involved going to pubs. )c: - House of Scandal (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Fictional bars
The Fictional bars list was tagged for cleanup per WikiProject_Beer/Guidelines and Embedded list. Embedded lists within articles are discouraged. A list of fictional bars could stretch to several thousand entries, and would be of little value. I have removed it; however, someone may consider if they can make a paragraph of prose about fictional bars, which is also supported by reliable sources and is not original research.  SilkTork  *YES! 18:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Etymology or origin of the noun "bar"
The article mentions that the word "bar" is used as a synecdoche to refer to the "specialized" counter, but what is the origin of the name for said counter? It is something that I was curious about, but perhaps no one knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miuq (talk • contribs) 18:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Don't know for sure because I haven't checked any references, but it was probably because it "barred" people from intruding into private space behind the bar.Wahrmund (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The word "bar" has it origins from the fact that cautious shopkeepers in the United States (Early Settlers) used to barricade their fragile goods against vandalism from brawling alcohol consumers. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varun m4 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Its use in English to refer to an establishment serving alcoholic beberages originated in UK in the 1590s. George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

 * The 'bar' refers to a foot-rest at the bottom of the counter and running along its length upon-which the standing patrons could rest their other foot. They were common in Victorian pubs. Later the term 'bar' came to refer to the room in which the counter was situated.
 * I have observed that foot-rest (despite the fact I can count with one hand's fingers the times I've been into one). Nonetheless, etymological dictionaries might read something like "in reference to the bars of the barrier or counter over which drinks or food were served to customers". Most So, this counter or barrier has bars or, at least, used to. The questions that arise are: Does it refer to the whole counter (barrier)? Or, does it refer to the bars that such counter has and where are such bars? Most counters at such places currently look like solid bodies with no horizontal or vertical bars. The only bar I most times see is that foot-rest you mention. In contemporary Spanish, the establishment is called "bar" and the counter, "barra". George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

 * Such pubs usually had two 'bars', i.e., rooms, the 'Public Bar' which was for men, and the 'Saloon Bar' which was for both men and women, i.e, where a husband could safely take his wife. The latter was due to the bad-language or behaviour sometimes found in the men's bar, and which a gentleman would not wish to subject his wife to.
 * It seems that "saloon bar" was shorten to "saloon". Nonetheless, Western saloons, contrary to their UK counterparts, were no place for respectable women but prostitutes would have no problem to be there and work. So, men would be at the saloon and their wives at the beauty salon. (The French word has a single "o" and I guess both English words come from the same French one.) George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

At-home bar
Many homes in the US have an area (usually located in a "finished" basement) that serves as a bar counter for entertaining guests. This sort of scenario doesn't seem to be discussed in this or any other related article... unless I have missed something. Is that correct? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

 * Information about home bars would have to be contained in a separate article. The title of this article is "Bar (establishment)", so that would exclude any content here about home bars. Wahrmund (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 * If what you are saying is that the title qualifier "establishment" in this article was especifically chosen to "exclude any content here about home bars", then I have to disagree with your rationale for excluding at-home bars from this article. The fact is that the title of this article needed a qualifier anyway in order to differentiate it from the "bar" (association of lawyers), the "bar" (the diacritical mark used in many laguages), the "bar" (the unit of pressure), and so on. Yes, another article could be started on the subject, but I see it equally acceptable to add a section in this article to describe at-home bars, especially since from a "purpose perspective" they have a lot in common with stuff discussed in this article - a nothing with the other "bar" articles. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Yes, I am saying that the qualifier "establishment" excludes any content about home bars. A "Bar (establishment)" is a business establishment that is open to the public and has a license to serve liquor granted by the government. None of that applies to home bars -- not open to the public, doesn't have a license -- and therefore such material is excluded from this article. Expanding its content to include home bars would completely vitiate the meaning of the title. If you want to write an article titled "At-home bars" (or some similar title), there is nothing to prevent your doing so. Wahrmund (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Ugh? No offense but you seem hung up on the establishment thing as if the world didn't know what that is. In fact, a bar establishment is a bar that is established,,, - somewhere, anywhere - and that includes the at-home variety as well. There's nothing in the word establishment to limit it to businesses, as you, no pun intended, are trying to establish. An establishment is anything that has been establsihed. End of discussion.

 * All I am saying is many homes have established bar areas AND adding a short entry on at-home bars will make the article more complete.

 * Yeah, you have pointed out TWO lonely differences between the business bar and the at-home bar, but that's about they all end. There are far more similarities than differences, and I am listing some for your benefit:
 * "they both serves alcoholic drinks — beer, wine, liquor, and cocktails — for consumption on the premises.[1] They both provide stools or chairs that are placed at tables or counters for their patrons. Hey, they both could even have entertainment on a stage, such as a live band, comedians, go-go dancers, or strippers -- especially if children are not around. They both can range from dive bars[2] to elegant places of entertainment for the elite. They both derive from the specialized counter on which drinks are served. They both have a set of shelves of glasses and bottles behind that counter. In both cases the back bar is elaborately decorated with woodwork, etched glass, mirrors, and lights." Well if you have read the article, you should get the idea, because they all came from the article.

 * Point is, the article is incomplete without a discussion of at-home bars.

 * My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Apparently at least part of the world doesn't know what an establishment is. You dismiss "not open to the public" and "no license" as just so much fluff. I submit that either one of these characteristics is sufficient to bar at-home bars from this article. Under your definition of "establishment," my wife's garden and my dog's doghouse are establishments.

The point is that you are not allowed to invent ad hoc new meanings of a word. End of discussion. Wahrmund (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 * The point is the article is missing discussion of a related type of bar. You appear to have just discovered the entire world doesn't think the way you do, my fellow Wikipedian. You accuse me of inventing my own definition; I say you fail to see the bigger picture by restricting yourself to your limited-view definition of this type of bar.

 * 1. Go to the wiki dictionary definition of "establishment" (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/establishment). Nowhere does it say anything about license and open to the public being pre-requisites. These are your own inventions. Adamantly sticking to an obsolete, grabbed-off-the-net definition is not the way to provide information. Yes, I dismiss open to public and no license, and for a fair reason: because they do not apply to at-home bars, but that doesn't mean that at-home bars are not liquor-dispensing locales nevertheless, which is the basic premise of this article - a place where alcoholic beverages are served. You are defining "bar" as a place where alcoholic beverages are sold, and this is not correct.  We are not talking here about gardens or doghouses, so let's stick to the topic of bars.

 * 2.The DAB page (HERE) defines the "bar (establishment)" (though granted for directional, not semantical, purposes) as the place that "serves alcoholic beverages, also the counter at which drinks are served by a bartender". Both of these apply to at-home bars. Everyone knows that an at-home bar is not "retail"-based, but that doesn't mean it is not a bar either.

 * 3. And finally, nowhere does it say in the WP:TITLE policy that parenthetical qualifiers are definitions on their own right; no, their purpose is to provide a basis for disambiguation. The purpose of the qualifier "(establishment)" in the title is to differentiate it from other meanings of "bar", nothing else.

 * My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

First, I will say that I do not get definitions from Wiktionary or from any other on-line source. I prefer to use real dictionaries. Let's take a look at the Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus, 2nd edition, copyright 2008 by Oxford University Press. Under "establishment" it lists: "business, firm, company, concern, enterprise, venture, organization, operation; factory, plant, store, shop, office, practice."

What part of that makes you think of an at-home bar?

Contrary to what you wrote above, the DAB defines "Bar(establishment)" as "a retail establishment that serves alcoholic beverages, also the counter at which drinks are served by a bartender." The counter at which drinks are served is fully dealt with in a section of the article.

Definitions have limits. That is why they exist. You cannot expand a definition indefinitely to suit your purposes.

The title of an article defines what the article is about, and a qualifier, if there is one, is an integral part of that definition. Of course, "establishment" does differentiate from other meanings of "bar" -- every definition of a word must differentiate it from other possible uses of the word.

If this discussion is to continue any further, you will have to submit an RfC. Wahrmund (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 * Ho ho ho ho,,,,slow down. What sort of ultimatum is that on your last statement? Give your self a chance to wait for answers to your questions.

 * Now give me my chance and hear my answer to your "What part of that [definition of establshment] makes you think of an at-home bar?":

 * "The problem is the qualifier in the article has been haphazardly picked without thought to the fact that bars are not limited to commercial locales. That is, the title parenthetical qualifier is too restrictive - it assumes that a bar is only an "establishment" and, as such, of a commercial/retail nature only, and that is not correct. This is precisely why I skipped that section of the, again, directional but not sematical "definition" of bar."

 * So, what I am proposing is that the title be slightly modified to accomodate both of the two existing needs: (1) the need to disambiguate it from other types of bars (bar (law) (law), bar (unit) (physics), bar (music) (music), etc) and (2) the need to accommodate both commercial and non-commercial types of bars (where "at-home" bars could be discussed). This can easily be accomplished by moving the title to, say, Bar (locale), since neither the legal, scientific, musical, etc. contexts of "bar" have anything to do with locales. That way the article can focus on describing what a bar is for (for serving alcoholic drinks, of course) rather than what it results in (income for someone, etc.).

 * If this will help, consider a tiki bar: it could be a commercial locale or your neighbour could have one in his backyard,,, but they are both still tiki bars.

 * Any objection to my proposal above?

 * My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Much against my better judgement, I will respond once more.

This article was created in July, 2003. At that time, it was named "Bar (establishment)". In the intervening nine years, you are the only person who has hit upon the bizarre notion that its title should be changed to include (as well as I can understand this) something like “bars” that are “non-commercial locales.”

Your reasoning seems to be that since liquor is served in at-home bars and there's a bar there (i.e, a counter), and there are people there who drink the liquor, then at-home bars ought to be included in an article about actual, real bars.

Frankly, that makes absolutely no sense to me, and I don't think you will find many people who support your idea.

Following your line of reasoning, one would have to conclude:
 * (1) that because meals are served in the dining room of your house, therefore your dining room is a restaurant,
 * (2) that if you have a pool table in your basement, and people play pool there, therefore your basement is a pool hall.

I hope you can see that are very compelling objections to your proposal. Wahrmund (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I am no Newton or Einstein, but the mere fact that someone in the only individual in 100 years to state a certain law of physics or a certain theory of relativity, doesn't automatically define their notions as "bizarre". (Well, hey, maybe it does,,, but it's bizarre only to those who will be overrun by time.) So please so much for that line of adjectives.

 * You seem to imply that at-home bars are not "actual, real bars." How you got there, I don't know...

 * Regarding your "line of reasoning" statements: I see why it can be easy to get lost in this "bar" world...that's because in the retail world the word "bar" is used with 2 meanings: a bar can be (1) the entire edifice (when referenced from the exterior) or (2) the counter/drinks area within that edifice (when referenced once you are in the interior of the edifice). (This situation is unlike a "pub" --and other such alcohol dispensing places-- which is the locale only and nothing else and, so, there is no chance for ambiguity when we are dealing with other such retail establishments where alcoholic drinks are also served.) However, at home, the word "bar" has only one meaning: the counter area where drinks are served. To be exact, in the residential arena the bar IS the counter and the counter IS the bar.

 * But this is sidetracking. We can either leave the title as it is (my preference actually) and throw in a small section of at most 2-3 sentences dicussing at-home bars, or we can modify the title slightly to something like "Bar (locale)" if that will help you better digest the presence of 2-3 sentences discussing at home bars. Or we can take the whole thing to an RFC. By default or not, it's your call.

 * My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

It will have to go to RFC. Wahrmund (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Full bar redirection
Is it really necessary to have a redirect notice heading the page for one episode of an animated comedy show? Talk about imposing trivial, dumbed-down worldviews. Whoever put this on the page, you do realize you can get professional help for your diet of televisual crap? Meanwhile stop inflicting everyone else with it!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.46.230.153 (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree.

Canadian Bars
I wish People who write stuff on Canada would realize that THERE IS MORE THAN ONE CANADA. If you are from the maritimes (as you wrote about Nova Scotia) realize that you have more English traditions, that took longer to die. modern Central Canada is aligned with cultural trends in the U.S. I had never heard the a bar referred to as "pub" in Ontario until I visited the UK. It was called a tavern like in the U.S. until the 1980's...when the term bar took off to mean any drinking spot. Also a tavern and a pub are similar, bother started from the TAVERN in the UK(there are still old colonial taverns still standing), In the they UK started calling taverns public house but U.S and Canada generally continued calling it a Tavern well into the 70's. But the North American tavern never developed like the family friendly UK Pubs, they pretty much stayed being places where men when to drink and if they were luck by change maybe get something to eat. And thats where the term BAR comes fromStarbwoy (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Largely agreed.

Jimmy wales
Hi,

So this page has an image of Jimmy Wales at a bar, and I'm kind of wondering why. The image doesn't really add anything to the article, and it just seems odd to me. It kind of feels like it is there as sort of a nod to fellow Wikipedians, with no real purpose for the actual audience. Would there be any opposition to it being removed, or switched to something more relevant?-- Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Errata: Bar / Bar Rail
Early bars frequently didn't have seats. There was a wooden or metal rail installed along one wall at about elbow-heighth, and the standing patrons leaned against this rail as they drank. The rail is what the term "bar" originally referred to in this context. As drinking establishments evolved, seats were added, then tables, then a counter-top in place of the rail, which many establishments nonetheless retained as a foot-rail against the counter. the term "bar" eventually transferred from the rail, to the counter, to the establishment itself.

But it is the rail that was originally the "bar", and not the counter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge from Ouzeri
I don't think the concept of Ouzeri is independently notable - instead I think it could be discussed here under a section dedicated to Greece. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Difference
Is there a distinct difference between Bars and Pubs? this is something that is being discussed at c:Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/04/Category:Pubs.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 06:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Early uise of "bar"
I removed the folowing section from the article because the cited source does not support it: "The word "bar" in this context was already in use in 1591 when Robert Greene, a dramatist, referred to one in his A Notable Discovery of Coosnage.

The two occurrences of "bar" that I see in the source are references to the "bar" in court, not to a "bar" in a drinking establishment. - Donald Albury 00:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Number of bars in Spain
Spain is the country with the highest ratio of bars/population with almost six bars per thousand inhabitants, three times UK's ratio and four times Germany's, and it alone has double the number of bars than the oldest of the 28 members of the European Union.

I'm not sure what is meant by the phrase "double the number of bars than the oldest of the 28 members of the European Union". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Errando (talk • contribs) 22:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

United States in the time of COVID
"In most places, bars are prohibited from selling alcoholic beverages to go, and this makes them clearly different from liquor stores."

This statement is now out-of-date, at least in NYS, where one can not go into bars, but can only purchase drinks to-go and must refrain from loitering outside to consume what one has purchased. WordwizardW (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bar (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Unclr Barry's bar BKNY.jpg

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) 06:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Unclr Barry's bar BKNY.jpg

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

title: Talk:Bar (establishment)


text:
Ang Thong

Ang Thong (อ่างทอง, ) is a town (thesaban mueang) in Thailand, capital of Ang Thong Province. The town covers the entirety of tambon Talat Luang and Bang Kaeo as well as parts of tambon Sala Daeng, Ban Hae, Ban It, Pho Sa, and Yansue, all of Mueang Ang Thong District. it had a population of 13,738. The town is on the Chao Phraya River.

History
Ang Thong was originally known as Muang Wiset Chai Chan. The original location of Muang Wiset Chai Chan was on the Noi River. Muang Wiset Chai Chan was a frontier outpost of Ayutthaya during the war with the Burmese, and the site of a Burmese encampment en route to the Battle of Bang Rachan in Singburi. During the Thonburi period, Muang Wiset Chai Chan was moved to the left bank of the Chao Phraya River at Ban Bangkaeo and was renamed "Muang Angthong."

title: Ang Thong


text:
Talk:Confederate States Army

Wayhey!
Haha, the army of a country that Lasted for less time then the Annoying Orange and "States Rights to do what?...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:DB80:A101:6C7C:48F3:B718:7A7B (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Confederates marching through Frederick, MD in 1862.jpg

Ahem
, that rather idiotic (if not downright racist) "boy" was introduced in this recent edit by (it used to be "bodyservant"). Since you're improving this article, please have a closer look at their various copy edits--I see a bunch of things wrong with em, including the "correction" of quotations from primary sources. I do not know what they were thinking. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, Drmies, I was shocked when I saw that. It's late here and my eyes are getting bleary, but I'll take a look tomorrow. I'm a bit obsessive-compulsive and working on several articles at once, as well as replies to a friend's blog posts. Most of the work is in checking sources or in finding them, as I'm sure you know, but it's my pleasure and curse both. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

"Dunbar's Guerillas" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dunbar&. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Need for consensus
From second paragraph of CSA article lede - "Convinced that white supremacy and the institution of slavery were threatened...the Confederacy declared its secession." I don't see what was controversial about adding this here. Konli17 (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I support the addition of this text above. The sources, and consensus as established on the main page, makes it clear that what you said was the purpose of that CS. Garuda28 (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems correct. Just read A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * White supremacy was a given in the United States in toto, this seems to be a contemporary spin to me, as it infers that white supremacy was not a concern in any other part of the US. African-Americans were not citizens, which is why we needed the 13th-15th amendments to the constitution, they could not vote in any state. Slavery was the issue. If it is put in then it should be phrased in such a way to let uninformed readers understand. If you look at Union (American Civil War) it doesn't even mention African-Americans and their position in society. Dubyavee (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Dubyavee, I was tending to agree with you then I re-read the section titled "Slavery_and_white_supremacism", which puts it into perspective. A common question is why non-slaveholding whites fought for the Confederacy, and that section gives the answer. The intro just reflects the article. Mobi Ditch (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. The status of race relations in the loyal states is irrelevant to why the folks in the CSA decided to revolt. As you note, the reason why non-slaveholding whites supported the CSA is firmly rooted in maintaining their status as superior to blacks in the Southern social and economic hierarchy. The number of new single issue users and IPs disrupting the page and ignoring this discussion is interesting and disturbing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Re: "The number of new single issue users and IPs disrupting the page and ignoring this discussion is interesting and disturbing." We can probably thank Trump and the Republican outrage machine for that—white supremacists and historical revisionists feel empowered now, and the removal of monuments to Confederate generals has them riled. I daresay most white Southerners (I'm a Southerner) still believe that the Civil War was about states' rights rather than the issue of slavery. For them, it's a matter of the "right" of southern states to chart their own course; they're completely oblivious of the inherent contradiction in upholding the principle that states should have had this "freedom", which entailed the enslavement of other human beings, while denying freedom to those people who were enslaved. They simply won't acknowledge that this principle of "freedom" they hold as sacrosanct was for white people only, or else they openly declare that it was justified. Carlstak (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Suggestion - how about the following tweak: '...was the military land force of the Confederate States of America (commonly referred to as the Confederacy) during the American Civil War (1861–1865), fighting against the  to secede from  the United States forces in order to uphold white supremacy and the institution of slavery in the Southern states.'

 * Firstly, a disclaimer, I'm not an expert on the topic - I've just sat down to think about whether the wording could be improved. I can see why people may find the existing sentence provocative, even though it is factually accurate, as it (correctly) implies that regardless of individual motivations, soldiers essentially fought against the Union army to uphold white supremacy. While this isn't a problem (the truth sometimes does provoke reactions), I think placing the army's purpose (upholding slavery) in the context of the CSA's attempted secession retains the truth of the statement and partly explains why it was fighting to protect racism, making it clearer that the statement isn't about the motivation of every individual soldier, but the army as an institution. This also better reflects the sentence in the CSA lead. Do others agree this is an improvement? Jr8825  •  Talk  17:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK with me, but there are smarter editors than me around here. Mobi Ditch (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 * While I think that the "white supremacy" issue is important to keep in the article, maybe it doesn't need to be in the intro. It's a source of considerable irritation to nameless editors, who delete it regularly. Mobi Ditch (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Quote farm and white supremacy
Morale and motivations section, including the Slavery and white supremacism sub-section, looks like a Quote Farm. You really need to work those concepts into original prose.

Secondly, I get what you're saying about white supremacy and the war, but white supremacy was not the over-riding factor of the institution of slavery. Slavery was an economic institution, and the south depended on its income. Remember, we had some presidents whose plantations were worked by slaves - it was economic for them, and they didn't free their slaves. They had monetary value. When plantation owners died, their slaves were listed in the inventory of their estates, with a monetary value placed on each one. Please don't get sidetracked on the white supremacy buzz phrase. If the white slaveholders had captured white slaves (and white slavery does still exist), the outcome would have been the same. The over-riding factor of slavery was that if they freed their slaves, their plantations would go bankrupt for lack of unpaid labor. Economics. — Maile (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're missing the fact that upholding the idea of white supremacy was essential to maintaining the institution of slavery, and the planter class were vociferous in using it to justify owning slaves. The Southern plantation owners were only a small minority of the population, but the yeoman class and the hardscrabble farmers did most of the dying in the war.

 * The declaration of secession by the state of Mississippi perfectly embodies the rhetoric of the planters, and yours too:
 * "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

 * And the state of Texas even more explicitly reflected the sentiments of the slave-owning planter class:
 * "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable." Carlstak (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Is white supremacy really the focus or slavery? Throughout history slavery has been relevant all the way back to Egypt. This "White Supremacy" term seems to be thrown around in contemporary times as a focus of discussion. Even appearing within the first paragraph of this article. Other languages of this article do not seem to focus on this term, or even mention it at all, hence, it would seem there's an implied bias right from the start instead of bringing information to the surface as a socio economic system challenged by new ways of thought and letting the reader decide for themselves.Douken (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement of white supremacy, in this context, implies that the North was fighting to end "white supremacy" and didn't itself support forms of what we now call white supremacy. For example in the Union, blacks weren't full citizens until 1870, years after the Civil War ended. The line being in this page is simply out of place. 0BlackEclipse0 (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Another editor made a good point in the section above - that the reasons why Union soldiers fought aren't relevant to this article. This article is just about the CSA army. And the political statements by CSA leaders make their motives pretty clear. Mobi Ditch (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 * The article suffers to much disruption, everybody has an original source . See above at post:  The article’s discussion of ‘white supremacy’ is located in the section, “Morale and motivations”, subsection “Slavery and white supremacism”. (1) It is overly documented with primary sources, it is poorly written as a matter of encyclopedic style: wp:MOS deprecates a “narrative” that amounts to a wall of multiple quotes and lengthy authoritative citations that belong allocated among article “Notes” and “Citations” footnotes. (2) Instead of editor wp:cherry picking original sources, it would benefit from ACW history RS , such For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, and Billy Yank and Johnny Reb: Soldiering in the Civil War.
 * Wikipedia recommends editors inform themselves about other RS encyclopedia approaches to an article topic. At Britannica online, “The Civil War: Why They Fought]”, is written by the American scholar James M. McPherson. It addresses small unit commitment, self-respect, religion, ideology (he looks at eight). Compared to the potential there, the existing Wikipedia article is “slim pickin’s”.
 * Nationalism was a related motivation in a nation 30% black overall, 44-49% black in SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, and LA . A minority in the Army and in the Confederate Congress saw blacks as the key to army manpower, slave loyalty , and foreign recognition . In their view, all rested on adopting George Washington’s post-1777 policy for enlisting free blacks and slaves into the Continental Army. See the ill-fated General Patrick Cleburne division officer corps petition to Congress for allowing black recruitment and conditional freedom. See the belated Robert E. Lee proposal surfaced only (a) after Congress had granted him dictatorial powers, and (b) after half the members of the "Confederate (not-a-quorum) Congress" had self-exiled from Richmond before the encircling General Ulysses S. Grant. - - - One might argue the "Confederate Government" chose slavery over its existence , but I've found no RS to put it that way. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A discussion of white supremacy has a place in an article about the Confederate States Army, but I agree that it doesn't need to be mentioned in the lede. I responded to Maile's oversimplification of the economics of slavery and his simplistic, incomplete description of the white slaveholders' motivations; there are no constraints on using primary sources on a talk page to make a point. TheVirginiaHistorian makes some good points, which I agree with as well, why doesn't he rewrite the "Morale and motivations" section and then we can proceed from there? I'd do it myself, but I'm busy doing other stuff. Carlstak (talk) 21:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the vote of confidence. I likewise have three irons in the fire at my Wikipedia hobby. But I'll certainly put the item on my dance card. Oh, and I'm almost two-thirds through standardizing the citations into Harvard Reference format at Battles of Lexington and Concord. The others are sort of ongoing, so as I finish up that one, I'll return here if no further progress has been made. I'll be back. Cheers and OORah - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"Fought to uphold the institution of slavery"
It is wildly disputed that they fought only to uphold the institution of slavery. That's like saying the colonial revolutionists fought in order to kill and take Indian's Land's. Even if slavery were mentioned by confederate officials it does not mean it was the sole reason they fought Crazando (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Few, if any, of the founding documents mention slaughter of Native Americans as being a principle cause of the Revolutionary War, so that seems like a straw man argument. Regarding the CSA Army, they fought because their civilian and military leaders wanted to go to war. And we have lots of documents about why they went to war. Please read Confederate States Army for a full discussion. If you have additional sources maybe we can add more. Mobi Ditch (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please bear with me to make six (6) points: I reverted the edit of here. I meant the rationale to say,
 * (1)  These u nited States" were federalized by the People of the United States at the ratification of the Constitution. The agency of new government was the People of the United States in each State,  without the intervention of their state legislatures. The Articles Congress dissolved itself, after recommending to the state legislatures to enact conventions for their residents on the single question, Shall the Constitution as submitted to the States be ratified by the People in each State?
 * (2) In the Virginia Ratification Convention, for example, those resident in Virginia among "the People of the United States", directly chose their delegates with a wider franchise than the State legislature allowed, including Virginia militia and Continental Army war veterans who were not eligible to vote for their Virginia Assembly. They could not vote for representatives in either house due to property requirements that few enlisted soldiers in Virginia could meet.
 * (3) Virginia ratified, not by the Pennsylvania-style steam-roller Yankee up-or-down vote, but allowing Patrick Henry and his out-voted Convention minority a voice in the ratification document itself; they sought Amendments immediately after federal government establishment. Virginia's first two US Senators were legislators from Henry's caucus at the Convention; both approved of and voted for the Bill of Rights to protect Virginians from federal government abuse. Side note: The 14th Amendment "federalized" those same citizen rights by applying them to the State governments as well as the national government - for the first time truly "federal" protections for resident citizens, nationally and for every state, you see.
 * (4) The Secessionist Caucuses in the 36th Congress proposed bills to allow one-state cession without a Constitutional Amendment in both the US House and in the US Senate. Each bill failed to receive the Constitutionally required two-thirds majority in both houses, with all state delegations from every section present, representing the federalized "People of the United States of America" of the 1788 Constitution.
 * (5) In 1798, Virginia and Kentucky directly petitioned Congress and sued in federal court to stop the Federal Administration from expelling its citizens, naturalized in Virginia who were not yet US citizens. Virginia won at the ballot box, and at court. In 1860, Lincoln released no slaves, there was no 20-year "long train of abuses" by central government as at the Declaration). In December the Chief Justice of South Carolina publicly declared that state's "secession convention" illegal by South Carolina law and federally unconstitutional.
 * (6) The secessionist convention in Montgomery acted without ratification from the people, but solely on the authority of rump-legislatures of secessionists, stole federal property ceded to Congress by their state assemblies: post offices, treasury mints, armories, naval yards and forts. Davis called up 100,000 for "defense", Lincoln called up 75,000 to "protect federal property".
 * And so here we are at Confederate States Army . It's all about slavery, and not about any "States rights". That's my case. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised that a student at Liberty University would disrespect WP policy and try to impose his preferred view on the article, nor that he projects this imposition onto the editors who revert his edit that has no consensus. It seems appropriate that he is studying political science at the Jesse Helms School of Government, which of course was named after the infamous racist, Jesse Helms. TheVirginiaHistorian is correct. Carlstak (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

 * The states themselves stated that the reason for secession was the institution of slavery, per their own Declarations of Secession: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." Do a search for slavery on that page, and then do a search for states rights or any other similar phrase and tell me they didn't secede because of slavery. - Aoidh (talk) 02:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 * And Lincoln himself declared that he would let slavery remain if the South would not secede. He made it clear, even though he strongly opposed slavery, that his priority was keeping the states together. But of course he was a Republican, so his view doesn't count. And winners write the history, so who cares about being neutral and presenting both sides of the issues? BilCat (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes but the article is stating why the south seceded, not what Lincoln wanted to do to keep the Union together; his political leanings aren't relevant to this. Also, the "winners" did not write the secession declarations of the seceding states, they did, unless the Northern states went back and rewrote these documents, it's not a "winner writes the history" issue; these aren't Northern sources I'm citing. It also isn't a "both sides" issue; the "it was about States' Rights, not slavery" is an attempt to whitewash the actual reasons, a Lost Cause rewriting to downplay the slavery aspects of the civil war's cause. - Aoidh (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 * No, the passage in dispute states slavery was the reason the South fought, not why it seceded. And Lincoln was the President, so his views are entirely relevant. But that doesn't matter here. Just accuse every one who disagrees with you of trying to white-wash history and hope they'll shut up out of embarrassment. We know how oppression works. BilCat (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 * "We know how oppression works." Really? Are you a black or a Native American person in the United States? I think they know best how oppression works here in the US, certainly not white historical revisionists and white supremacists who plead "states rights" and "liberty", when the whole crux of the issue before the Civil War was the "rights" of the states that seceded to oppress their black inhabitants with the institution of slavery. "Liberty" my ass. Carlstak (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Stick to the content, rather than trying to attack me personally. The Lost Cause whitewashing is a verifiable fact, that is well sourced and has its own article documenting it. So is the fact that the south seceded and fought over slavery. I'm not even going to comment on the oppression bit. - Aoidh (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 * You accused me of whitewashing history and supporting slavery simply because I disagree with the Orthodox History. That's a personal attack. BilCat (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 * you acknowledge that the "orthodox" view among historians is that the South seceded and fought primarily on the basis of retaining slavery. The contrary view (that the South has been victimised and didn't fight for slavery) consequently "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field" and is therefore the definition of a fringe theory. Fortunately we've got a policy on what to do in cases like this. Jr8825  •  Talk  06:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 * If you think me stating that the Lost Cause narrative is an attempt to rewrite history is an attack on you personally, feel free to take that to WP:ANI. However, it wasn't directed at you personally, but the Lost Cause narrative itself. I was talking about the content of that narrative, not you. However, I never accused you of "supporting slavery." Accusing me of personal attacks without cause is itself a personal attack. Unless you're going to take it to WP:ANI or somewhere actionable, please don't accuse me of personal attacks, as I did not make any. I'm not talking about you specifically, so you stop talking about me specifically, and we can discuss the content itself, which has been my intention all along. - Aoidh (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Name of army
When was the title 'Confederate States Army' first applied? Valetude (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Enlisted Member
Many of the officer - especially the more senior were prior members of the United States Army, and had to resign their commission, to follow their state, or their convictions in joining the Confederate Army. What of the Enlisted - did any mid-grade to senior enlisted have prior service in the United States Army? Wfoj3 (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Confederate States Army


text:
The Adventure of the Cardboard Box

"The Adventure of the Cardboard Box" is one of the 56 short Sherlock Holmes stories written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The story was first published in The Strand Magazine in the United Kingdom in January 1893, and in Harper's Weekly in the United States on 14 January 1893. It is the second of twelve stories collected in The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes in most British editions of the canon, and the second of the eight stories from His Last Bow in most American versions.

Synopsis
Miss Susan Cushing of Croydon receives a parcel in the post that contains two severed human ears packed in coarse salt. Inspector Lestrade of Scotland Yard suspects a prank by three medical students whom Miss Cushing was forced to evict because of their unruly behaviour. The parcel was sent from Belfast, the city of origin of one of the former boarders. Upon examining the parcel himself, Holmes is convinced that it is evidence of a serious crime. He reasons that a medical student with access to a dissection laboratory would likely use something other than plain salt to preserve human remains, and would be able to make a more precise cut than the roughly hacked ears suggest. The address on the package, roughly written and with a spelling correction, suggests to Holmes that the sender lacks education and is unfamiliar with Croydon. The knot in the string suggests to Holmes that they are looking for someone with sailing experience.

Holmes considers the solution so simple that he asks Lestrade not to mention his name in connection with it. A few simple questions to Miss Cushing, a few observations, a cable to Liverpool, and a visit to Miss Cushing's sister Sarah (Holmes was denied admittance by the doctor because she was having a "brain fever") convince Holmes that the ears belong to Miss Cushing's other sister, Mary, and her extramarital lover, and that they have been murdered. He is convinced that Mary's estranged husband, Jim Browner, is the murderer, and that Browner had sent the cardboard box containing the ears to the Cushings' house in Croydon (addressing it merely to "S. Cushing"), not realizing that Sarah was no longer resident there. Browner, who is an unpleasant man when drunk, had meant to horrify Sarah (rather than Susan) because he ultimately blamed Sarah for causing the trouble that culminated in his murder of his wife and her lover.

Browner is indeed a sailor, and Belfast was the first port where he had the chance to post the parcel. Lestrade, acting on Holmes's information, is waiting to arrest him when his ship reaches London. He confesses everything. He is presented with considerable sympathy, a simple man so tormented by guilt at his act that he would welcome being hanged. The real villain of the story—morally if not legally—is Sarah Cushing, who fell in love with and tried to seduce Browner herself; then, when he rejected her advances, set out to wreck his marriage with her sister Mary, by poisoning her mind to her own husband and by introducing and pushing her onto a new lover, which she easily took to, especially given her husband's propensity for getting drunk (and being rather rough when so intoxicated). In the end, her husband's inability to accept her betrayal, and sheer jealousy at discovering the affair, causes him to commit what Holmes considers a "crime of passion".

Publication history

The story was published in the UK in The Strand Magazine in January 1893, and in the US in Harper's Weekly on 14 January 1893. It was also published in the US edition of the Strand in February 1893. In The Strand Magazine, the story included eight illustrations by Sidney Paget. It did not include any illustrations in Harper's Weekly.

"The Adventure of the Cardboard Box" was not published in the first British edition of The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, but it was published in the first American edition, though it was quickly removed because of its controversial subject matter. The story was later published again in 1917 in His Last Bow. Even today, most American editions of the canon include it with His Last Bow, while most British editions keep the story in its original place, within the Memoirs.

When "The Adventure of the Cardboard Box" was removed from publication, Conan Doyle moved a passage from it that showed Holmes "mind reading" Watson to "The Adventure of the Resident Patient". (The text of the moved passage runs from "Our blinds were half-drawn, and Holmes lay curled upon the sofa" to "I should not have intruded it upon your attention had you not shown some incredulity the other day.") This passage reveals Dr. Watson to be an avid admirer of Henry Ward Beecher, whose portrait he keeps at his home. The passage seems to have little to do with the mystery but may be a subtle reference to the theme of adultery as Beecher was famously put on trial for the offense in 1875, an event many contemporary readers would have remembered.

Film and television
The story was adapted as a short silent film titled The Cardboard Box in 1923, as one of the short films in the Sherlock Holmes film series by Stoll Pictures. It starred Eille Norwood as Sherlock Holmes and Hubert Willis as Dr. Watson. Hilda Anthony played Mary Browner and Johnny Butt played James Browner.

The Granada TV adaptation with Jeremy Brett, televised on 11 April 1994, was generally faithful to the original. In it, Browner was portrayed by Ciaran Hinds.

The Elementary episode "Ears to You" is a loose adaptation of this story.

The 2018 HBO Asia/Hulu Japan series Miss Sherlock loosely adapts this story as the episode "Stella Maris."

Radio
The story was adapted by Edith Meiser as an episode of the radio series The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. The episode, which aired on 5 November 1931, featured Richard Gordon as Sherlock Holmes and Leigh Lovell as Dr. Watson. Another production of the story aired in September 1936, with Gordon as Holmes and Harry West as Watson.

Meiser also adapted the story for The New Adventures of Sherlock Holmes for episodes that aired in January 1940 and August 1943 with Basil Rathbone playing Holmes and Nigel Bruce playing Watson.

The story was adapted for the BBC Light Programme in 1960 by Michael Hardwick, as part of the 1952–1969 radio series starring Carleton Hobbs as Holmes and Norman Shelley as Watson.

"The Cardboard Box" was dramatised by Roger Danes for BBC Radio 4 in 1994 as an episode of the 1989–1998 radio series starring Clive Merrison as Holmes and Michael Williams as Watson (in the series for His Last Bow). It featured Kevin Whately as Browner and Teresa Gallagher as Mary Browner; it also introduced Stephen Thorne as Inspector Lestrade, who had previously been played by Donald Gee.

In 2010, the story was adapted as an episode of the radio series The Classic Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, with John Patrick Lowrie as Holmes and Lawrence Albert as Watson.

title: The Adventure of the Cardboard Box


text:
Talk:Pinwheel Galaxy

Image
I think that the main image of the galaxy should be changed to a smaller version, or a warning should be put up on the page. My computer came to a standstill for almost ten minutes when it tried to load the image.

Structure and Composition section
I am of the mind that Wikipedia may be jumping on the bandwagon of quoting spurious and dubious articles that may over inflate the apparent size of the Milky Way as it might appear to an outside observer. The particular galaxy referenced in this article may be enormous, perhaps among some of the largest spirals known. Yet if we don't know the size of the Milky Way, how can we reasonably compare this galaxy with our own? I think this section should be rewritten to compensate for the insanity in the 'Milky Way' article. 71.222.77.213 (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree there is a problem here: this galaxy is noted as being significantly smaller than the Milky Way, but having twice as many stars. Given they are similar spirals, it is unlikely that this galaxy is 4x more dense than ours, which is what is implied here Fig (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Notes on 13 Aug 2006 Edits
I decided to make a few general edits to this page, performing some of the tasks that I now normally perform on many nearby galaxy pages (including the addition of data from the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database and the rearrangement of categories). This page still has some problems. Much of the information is unreferenced. In particular, the page should contain references for the given distance (which, despite the Hubble law, is still difficult to calculate) and for the information on the triggers of the spiral density waves (which I rewrote for clarity but which I did not find a reference for). If references cannot be found for either of these pieces of information, the information should be deleted. GeorgeJBendo 19:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

 * Pinwheel Galaxy → Messier 101 —(Discuss)— Pinwheel Galaxy should be a disambiguation page. This disambiguation page already exists as Pinwheel Galaxy (disambiguation). Google shows that about 1/3 of uses refer to a different galaxy, and Messier 101 is consistent with other Messier objects. The way, the truth, and the light 20:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Further, this article was originally at Messier 101 (it was moved before moves were logged), most of the article uses 'M101', and the disambiguation page refers to it as 'Messier 101'. The way, the truth, and the light 04:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I just checked the first 100 returns from Google, excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors:

 * 46 used it for M101
 * 37 used it for M33
 * 2 used it for both
 * 1 was unclear
 * 9 for 'Southern Pinwheel' (M83)
 * 4 for something else (a music album)

 * I believe that demonstrates my case here. The way, the truth, and the light 19:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Oppose WP:COMMONNAME The common name is "Pinwheel Galaxy" and your other galaxy is known as "Triangulum Galaxy", not Pinwheel. Even if this is renamed to Messier 101, Pinwheel Galaxy should still redirec to Messier 101 and not be a dab page. 132.205.44.134 21:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

 * The most common name for this is M101, I would think. I just placed the move request here; please read it. Also, you have created another thread on this topic at another board. Leave this discussion in one place.

 * To respond to your comments on the other board, I want 'Pinwheel Galaxy' to go to the current disambiguation page, as stated in the proposal. The way, the truth, and the light 23:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Oppose this is without a doubt the most common use for "Pinwheel Galaxy". There is already a tag for other uses at the top of the page. Nothing more is necessary. IrishGuy talk 18:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

 * The above comment by Irishguy should be ignored as he admittedly knows nothing about the subject. The way, the truth, and the light 00:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Excuse me? Please read WP:CIV and WP:ATTACK before making such accusations. I have said nothing of the kind. IrishGuy talk 01:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Why not answer the question then? Do you have any personal knowledge of the usage of the names, which would require some interest in astronomy? The way, the truth, and the light 20:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Oppose and it appears that The way, the truth, and the light does not comprehend how WP:RM functions. Discussions on another board? Anything not found on this discussion page are not germaine to consensus on the move. Attacking 132.205.44.134 for doing what WikiProject members do is not very nice. The nominator attacks IrishGuy for lack of knowledge but at Talk:Triangulum Galaxy admits to be not an astronomer, but attacks a professional astronomer for not knowing astronomy (User Dr. Submillimeter) 70.51.11.143 22:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

 * The preceding post gives no actual reasons for opposing. I have never claimed that Submillimeter didn't know astronomy, I have never attacked 132.205.44.134, and my amateur knowledge is just as valid as his as a professional. The way, the truth, and the light 22:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I've watched this dispute with sincere interest, but left off commenting until now because I didn't wish to be attacked too much by TW,TT,TL, seeing as their habit seems to be getting defensive and insulting/belittling the intellects of others when they find opposition (I've witnessed this on people's talk pages and in myriad other places too, one time directed at me as an IP, incidentally (I tend to edit or contribute anonomously to discussions). But seriously, I do oppose the move. As someone with a small degree of background in astronomical study (I'd call myself a rank amateur, really), and also as someone with a slightly larger degree of knowledge about maintaining and storing information, I can't stress enough how important it is to have concision in nomenclature! The easiest way to maintain the projects and pages on astronomical bodies IS to use professional databases like SIMBAD and NED. It sets a good standard, and allows for a single -authoritative- name for things. Truth is, inserting every amateur club's stance on it will mean we'll need 400 redirects or so per star system, one per google hit, to the point where searching "That Wavy One Over There" gives you M33! I'll peek back in later, but this is seriously getting a tad out of hand as regards TW,TT,TL... sorry. I hope I don't get insulted for "just being an anon". 142.227.104.65 13:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I keep responding to comments like this because they seem to be personal comments on me, and this is no exception. Your comparison, intended to ridicule my position, is ludicrous. I provided not one Google hit, but 37 of the first 100 - that's qualitatively different from a name made up by 'an amateur club'. The way, the truth, and the light 20:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Nope. It's quantitatively different. Qualitatively speaking, it's the same. It's not from an official database, and hits which do not show up from reliable sources (periodicals of note which are scientifically reviewed, or, notably, SIMBAD and NED), are qualitatively the same as a name my buddies and I use for a particular star system. Nothing more, nothing less. More hits does not equal more right, and the Google test often has fundamental flaws. I'd like to add that the purpose of using SIMBAD and NED, as the wikiproject on astronomy has agreed, is to delineate naming and insure concision. Interfering with that does not benefit the project, and is in and of itself disruptive. Additionally, they're not comments on you, TW,TT,TL: I don't even know you. I just know about your edits and opinions, and, seriously? Your edits are not aiding the project, and you're working against concensus in favor of a point which, if it were upheld, would disrupt the way nomenclature of astronomical objects is typically handled here, to the net detriment of all involved. 24.224.195.30 22:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

 * This is ridiculous quibbling. Your comments are in fact directed toward me, even if you think they're justified. What do you think the 'flaws' in the Google test are? In this case, the people using the name for M33 and those using the name for M101 seem to be statistically the same, therefore Google results should have no significant bias. The way, the truth, and the light 23:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Easy, because it doesn't matter -how many- hits you get on Google, as each hit would have to be confirmed to come from a reliable source about the matter. Commonly used names are not the kind of thing you can use unless they come from peer-reviewed publications or else from other reliable sources. Nonetheless, community concensus and the efforts of the individual members of the Wikiproject will determine if it goes in. Trying to unilaterally insert your point of view without community concensus is kinda out of the blue here: I wouldn't advise continuing to push this, but I won't bother you about it. I'll simply continue to contribute to the discussion. 24.224.195.30 23:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

 * The concept of reliable sources is relative, not absolute. For names Google is a reliable source as it is verifiable and impartial. Also, even if it were true that professional astronomers only used the name for M101, it would be irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not designed for professionals but for everyone, and amateur astronomers far outnumber professionals. The way, the truth, and the light 04:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 09:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Section break
Quote: ''The preceding post gives no actual reasons for opposing. I have never claimed that Submillimeter didn't know astronomy, I have never attacked 132.205.44.134, and my amateur knowledge is just as valid as his as a professional. The way, the truth, and the light 22:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)''

I feel obliged to comment on the above with that most underrated of internet acronyms: lol. No, on Wikipedia, an amateur's opinion can be seen as equal to an equally well-presented conclusion from a professional, but in the real world, or the internet outside of Wikipedia, a professional, a confirmed professional, does indeed carry much more weight about the reasoning of their statements than an amateur, no matter how firmly they hold their convictions on naming. Since no concensus evolved, though, the move will not occur, and the name is not accepted as common, so it all works out, for such IS the benefit of Wikipedia: The best presented, founded, and logical stance works out. This is not in allusion to anything other than Submilimeter and Irishguy upholding the policy of utilizing reliable sources to derive information. Note also that personal websites, such as those inevitably erected by non-professional astronomy clubs who would use the name in this fashion, are not generally allowed to be considered reliable sources. 142.227.104.65 13:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Do you have a user account, or are you just here to troll me? You said it yourself: on Wikipedia, an amateur opinion is ewual to a professional one. This doesn't negate the guideline on reliable sources. Rather, reliable sources are (for scientific matters) the means by which we get professional opinion when we need it. It is obvious that a professional would have no better idea than an amateur about common names - likely worse, indeed, as professional astronomers don't use these kind of common names, that's why there is no official standard on them. As far as logical reasoning, anyone can see that I have presented just about every argument there is, many multiple times because you people will not listen, whereas your side has used no reasoning at all. The way, the truth, and the light 20:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

 * IF you think the above is trolling, rather than, say, a reasoned opinion, you have clearly not been trolled enough to tell the difference. I've never trolled, and was legitimately making an effort to point out that it would be foolish and unmanageable to allow every amateur labeling to stand, especially since it equates to fan-made sites being used for a topic. It's simpler and far more logical to use the official databases. Also, the accusations of no reasoning, trolling, etcetera, bug me a bit. Of course, I'm not so petty as to respond in kind. Yes I have a user account, but I'm somewhere far from my home computer, at a friend's, and I don't wish to use it from here. Though anonomous editing doesn't invalidate viewpoints. In fact, it makes them more relevant, because I'm, say, not counting on edits or a reputation to back up what I'm saying, just merits on their face. 24.224.195.30 02:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate description - redundant ?
The information on the ESA composite image using 51 other images, mentioned in the leading section, is repeated in the Structure and Composition section; the redundant one should be removed ¨¨¨¨ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.115.10.98 (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

2011-08 supernova
Should the 2011-08 supernova be added to the article? Reference --Mortense (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Definitely relevant; this is a major astronomical event. I've added it, with the two circulars for references. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As to the magnitude 10, it hasn't reached that yet. Therefore, the verb tense isn't right. After it has peaked, if I remember to do it, & if no one else has done so, I'll restore the verb tense. Oaklandguy (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC) ps: I also added a ref., which was prepared for a less specialized audience. Oaklandguy (talk) 23:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Found a nice ref. for peak magnitude. Oaklandguy (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

'Pinwheel Galaxy'
These silly nicknames should be avoided (except as footnotes), as they are ambiguous and not in widespread use except among the most novice of amateur astronomers. In the 1980s and earlier 'Pinwheel Galaxy' was M33, not M101. The article should be entitled 'M101' or 'Messier 101'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.94.221 (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See the rejected proposal from 2007, above. - Rod57 (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

File:M101 hires STScI-PRC2006-10a.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:M101 hires STScI-PRC2006-10a.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 4, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-04-04. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

seven more possible satellites
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2041-8205/787/2/L37?fromSearchPage=true

©Geni (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Ah no it looks like follow up work suggests 4 of them are too far away

 * ©Geni (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed image
Is the removed overview image "unnecessary space" ? --Bautsch (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Observability
"To observe the spiral structure in modern instruments requires a fairly large instrument, very dark skies, and a low-power eyepiece."

What does this mean please? It's a particular qualitative point of view that is repeated across several Messier objects in Wikipedia. I have a consumer DSLR, a modest lens and a general-market sidereal mount, and the spirals show up quite easily in suburban Britain with average seeing conditions in less than 30s exposure, which is what 'modern instrumentation' now means I submit. No large instrument, no dark sky, no eyepiece.

At the very least, this text and its cited reference are surely 20 years out of date. The reference majors on finding and seeing objects in a way few modern observers will be depending upon I suggest. Atconsul (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Obviously, eyes (using a small ~8mm pupil) do not collect light for 30 seconds before sending your brain a signal. I have added "without a camera" to the text. I still known many visual observers, but they can not post an image to social media unless they want to draw what they see. As light pollution continues to get worse, visually seeing faint objects will become more difficult. Visually, even at 200x power with a 16" telescope (Bortle 3.5 skies) the galaxy is not a very good display piece for the general public. -- Kheider (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * All reasonable, but I suggest the observation would be better quantified or at least more definitely qualified. After all, the context of much of the rest of the article is either historical of state of the art. Here you are describing the situation for a special group of enthusiasts. Atconsul (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Without being too crazy, targets brighter than say magnitude 15 asteroids (which are moving against the background sky) or magnitude 18 galaxies (which are in a fixed position), can be seen with a 4" smart telescope now-a-days. -- Kheider (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. I think you've moved on to general chatting now, which is fine by me.
 * Perhaps you have already offered here the material the article needs to be sharper on this (assuming this is all covered by the existing reference), e.g.:
 * "   The galaxy can be detected with binoculars or a small telescope (e.g. a 2" refracting telescope).
 * To visually observe the spiral structure requires a high-end amateur instrument, very dark skies, and a low-power eyepiece, e.g. 200x power 16" telescope in Bortle Scale 3.5 sky."
 * I'd want to go further, e.g.
 * "    The spiral structure can also be rendered by a DSLR in a sidereal mount at tens of seconds exposure time, or by a 4" smart telescope"
 * But I don't have good references to offer that to hand just now. Atconsul (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Referencing might get difficult if the article gets too detailed. -- Kheider (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Pinwheel galaxy
A massive galaxy. 180.195.225.113 (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pinwheel Galaxy


text:
Talk:Lenticular galaxy

Article needs expansion
Please help to expand this article, if you can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.43.139 (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming major edit
Just a quick note to let everyone know. The Astronomy 533 graduate astronomy class at the University of Michigan is updating a small number of astronomy-related wiki pages, this is one of them. The page will be significantly changed; please feel free to have a look when it comes online in mid-December. EFBell (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks good overall. Thank you for the expansion. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lenticular galaxy


text:
Talk:Messier 4

Untitled
I took away the expansion tag but couldn't find it in the list of requests for expansion. I think this article is decent enough now. --Kalsermar 20:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move all. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * Globular Cluster M2 to Messier 2
 * Globular Cluster M4 to Messier 4
 * Globular Cluster M9 to Messier 9
 * Open Cluster M21 to Messier 21
 * Open Cluster M26 to Messier 26
 * Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy M32 to Messier 32
 * Open Cluster M34 to Messier 34
 * Open Cluster M35 to Messier 35
 * Open Cluster M36 to Messier 36
 * Open Cluster M37 to Messier 37
 * Open Cluster M39 to Messier 39
 * Open Cluster M41 to Messier 41
 * M43 (nebula) to Messier 43
 * Open Cluster M46 to Messier 46
 * Open Cluster M47 to Messier 47
 * Open Cluster M48 to Messier 48
 * Open Cluster M50 to Messier 50
 * Open Cluster M52 to Messier 52
 * Globular Cluster M53 to Messier 53
 * Globular Cluster M54 to Messier 54
 * Globular Cluster M55 to Messier 55
 * Globular Cluster M56 to Messier 56
 * Spiral Galaxy M66 to Messier 66
 * Open Cluster M67 to Messier 67
 * Globular Cluster M68 to Messier 68
 * Globular Cluster M69 to Messier 69
 * Globular Cluster M70 to Messier 70
 * Globular Cluster M72 to Messier 72
 * M73 (star group) to Messier 73
 * Globular Cluster M75 to Messier 75
 * Lenticular Galaxy M84 to Messier 84
 * Elliptical Galaxy M87 to Messier 87
 * Spiral Galaxy M91 to Messier 91
 * Globular Cluster M92 to Messier 92
 * Open Cluster M93 to Messier 93
 * Spiral Galaxy M100 to Messier 100
 * Open Cluster M103 to Messier 103
 * Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy M110 to Messier 110
 * Most of these go against the typical Wikipedia convention to disambiguate articles by using parentheses after the article name, and discussion on WikiProject Astronomical objects has come to the view that the format should be Messier #. Many of the destination pages are redirects with more than one item in the history. Chaos syndrome 20:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Please discuss this move at Talk:Globular Cluster M2.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

SETI TARGET?
Has SETI directed any radio surveys at Messier 4?

67.190.27.217 (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Distance
I just read Caputo, Castellani, & Quarta, and nowhere do they say the distance is 2,200 parsecs. It's an interesting paper, but it doesn't mention distance. It does offer up some distance modulus's (moduli?) which give values of 2,600 parsecs, but those moduli are ... hypothetical. Currently, the best article I can find is Neeley, J.R et al. 2015, ApJ, 808, 11, which give a modulus of 11.399. What do other people think?
 * NASA says it is 5,500 light-years away (1,686 parsecs). https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/messier-4 --Gronk Oz (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Millisecond pulsar
I removed the unreferenced info about a 3.0 millisecond pulsar. I'm pretty sure the object in question is PSR 1821-24 which is in M28, not M4 (see DOI 10.1038/328399a0). The website https://www.messier.seds.org/m/m004.html erroneously places that object in M4, which is probably how this error worked its way into Wikipedia.PopePompus (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

In fiction
Although Arthur Clarke quite deliberately does not mention any specific globular cluster in his famous short story "Nightfall", for some reason, that story has come to be associated with this one. 2001:8003:E490:7D01:B14E:7243:B4B4:7D29 (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reliable references to support this. Lithopsian (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Messier 4


text:
Buriram

Buriram (บุรีรัมย์,, ; Northern Khmer: มฺืงแปะ) is a town (thesaban mueang) in Thailand, capital of Buriram Province, about 300 km northeast of Bangkok. The town occupies tambon Nai Mueang of Mueang Buriram District. In 2012 it had a population of 27,862.

History

Almost a thousand years ago, the present-day Buriram was part of the Khmer Empire. Ruins from that time attest to its destruction. The most significant of them is on an extinct volcano and is protected in the Phanom Rung Historical Park. According to inscriptions found, Buriram's ruler recognized the hegemony of the Khmer Empire's emperor. Before the ascent of Bangkok, little was known about Buriram. In the early Bangkok Period, in the early-19th century, the town originally called Muang Pae was renamed Buriram. After administrative reforms in the late 19th century, Buriram was incorporated into Siam as a province.

Administration divisions
There are 18 chumchons (villages) (ชุมชน) in Buriram.

Geography
Buriram is in the centre of Buriram Province. Buriram has no significant waterways. It has a creek, Huai Chorakhe Mak, the Buriram moat (or Khlong Lalom), Nong Prue, and Huai Chorakhe Mak and Huai Talat reservoirs.

Communications
Buriram has a post office, TOT, the national telecom company, a CAT office and two radio stations: Radio Thailand AM and Radio Thailand FM.

Electricity
All of the houses in Buriram area (6,097 in total) have access to electricity. The Buriram Provincial Electricity Authority (Buriram PEA) is the main supplier.

Water supply
There are 6,097 houses which use municipal water in Buriram. Total consumption is 18,000-19,000 cubic meters a day. Huai Chorakhe Reservoir is the source of Buriram's water. Huai Talat Reservoir is the reserve water supply.

Health
The main hospital in Buriram is Buriram Hospital, operated by the Ministry of Public Health.

Economy
The bulk of the local economy is agricultural and the tourist industry that is a prominent feature in much of the rest of the country has yet to make a significant impact. Key agricultural crops include rice and cassava. The main languages spoken in Buriram are central Thai, Lao, and Khmer.

Sports
Buriram has a football club, Buriram United F.C., which plays at Chang Arena.

The construction of top-tier racetrack Chang International Circuit started in March 2013 and opened on 4 October 2014. The track is an FIA Grade I certified circuit, suitable for Formula One racing, and hosted a Japanese Super GT round in 2014. From 2018 on, the circuit will host MotoGP for the first time. It also hosts rounds of the World Superbike Championship (WSBK). Other racetracks are being planned, such as a motocross circuit. The Buriram Marathon, a silver label class event, is held in January every year. Over 25,000 participants are expected in 2023.

In 2013, Newin Chidchob, developer of the Buriram's new CIC F1 racetrack, has said that, "Buriram doesn't have the sea like Pattaya, doesn't have mountains like Chiang Mai, so we will make Buriram the city of sports."

Airports
Buriram Airport is the only airport in Buriram Province. Thai AirAsia serves Buriram from Don Mueang International Airport (DMK).

Highways
Highways 218, 219, 226, and 2074 pass through Buriram.

Intercity transit

The State Railway of Thailand (SRT), the national rail system, provides service from the Buriram Railway Station. Buriram is on the northeastern railway line.

The national bus company, The Transport Co., Ltd., operates a bus depot at Buriram Bus Station. Nakhonchai Air has its bus terminal adjacent to the bus station.

Demography
As of 30 April 2010.
 * Male 13,555
 * Female 14,620

Total population of 28,283 and 6,097 family units.

title: Buriram


text:
Euskirchen

Euskirchen (Ripuarian: Öskerche) is a town in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, capital of the district Euskirchen. While Euskirchen resembles a modern shopping town, it also has a history dating back over 700 years, having been granted town status in 1302. As of December 2007, it had a population of 55,446. Its local football club is called TSC Euskirchen.

Culture
Parts of the ancient town wall, and three of its defensive towers, are still standing. Tourists are also attracted to Euskirchen due to the proximity of two large cities, Cologne and Bonn, to the northeast, and the hills of the Eifel region to the south. It is also the birthplace of Emil Fischer, born 1852, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1902. The local theatre in The Emil-Fischer-Gymnasium offers a wide variety of cultural events. The City Forum and the Parkhotel Euskirchen also contribute to the town's cultural offerings.

The word Euskirchen means Kirche auf der Aue ("church on riverside lowland"). The Martinskirche is the oldest church in Euskirchen.

Biggest local sports clubs in Euskirchen are the TSC Euskirchen, LGO Euskirchen/Erftstadt and Lauf Club Euskirchen. Sports facilities are the Erftstadion, gym Ohm-Mirgel, Jahnhalle, Willi-Maurer-Halle, gym Emil-Fischer-Gymnasium, Sportanlage Im Auel (since 2021 Heinz-Flohe-Sportpark) and gym Marienschule.

Twin towns – sister cities
Euskirchen is twinned with:
 * 🏴 Basingstoke, England, United Kingdom (1986)
 * 🇫🇷 Charleville-Mézières, France (1964)

Industry and Commerce
Euskirchen has a diversified and balanced economic structure and can therefore provide jobs for a large catchment area. Euskirchen is a rural town with large, open fields serving agricultural purposes. Sugar beets are widely cultivated, and Euskirchen has been home to a sugar factory (Pfeifer & Langen) since 1879. Until a few decades ago, a further important branch of industry was cloth manufacturing, but this was unable to survive due to competition from large international corporations.

Well-known industrial enterprises (e.g. Procter & Gamble, Miele) are located within the town's industrial and commercial sites. These can also offer attractive possibilities to new enterprises. The town's central location and good road and rail links to the international transport network are important factors in this context.

The two largest industrial and commercial sites in Euskirchen, accounting for a total of 21,000 jobs between them, are:
 * IPAS ("IndustriePark Am Silberberg") with four million m², of which 3.6 m² million lie within the boundary of the town of Euskirchen
 * EURO-Park (located between Euskirchen and Roitzheim) with 1.5 million m².

At IPAS, in the districts Wüschheim/Großbüllesheim, the consumer goods corporation Procter & Gamble has a production plant as well as a warehouse from which it conducts its logistics operations all over the world. At EURO-Park the German company Nestlé Purina PetCare (pet food) and the "T-Versand" division of Deutsche Telekom have their headquarters, the sugar factory Pfeifer & Langen is based at EURO-Park and the building materials chain Mobau ("Moderner Baubedarf") – which has now merged into Eurobaustoff – was established.

Immediately adjacent to "Industriepark IPAS" is the "PrimeSite Rhine Region", an area reserved exclusively for major investors. With a total area of 205 hectares, which is equivalent to about 300 football fields, the "PrimeSite Rhine Region" is the first unbuilt and available industrial and commercial site of this size in North Rhine-Westphalia to date. Around 85 percent (177 hectares) of the site lies within the boundary of the town of Euskirchen, while about 15 percent (28 hectares) belong to the municipality of Weilerswist. The already well developed large area will be reserved up to 2019 for space-intensive large-scale projects in excess of 80 hectares. It is being marketed internationally by the state economic development agency NRW.INVEST.

Notable people

 * Emil Fischer (1852–1919), chemist, 1902 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
 * Karl Eschweiler (1886–1936), a Catholic theologian and religious philosopher
 * Willi Graf (1918–1943), member of the resistance group White Rose
 * Heinz Flohe (1948–2013), former Germany national football team player (world champion 1974)
 * Silke Rottenberg (born 1972), former Germany national football team player
 * Bettina Wiegmann (born 1971), former Germany national football team player
 * Sonja Fuss (born 1978), former Germany national football team player
 * Sebastian Schlemmer (born 1978), actor
 * Andreas Wolff (born 1991), handball goalkeeper
 * Erdoğan Yeşilyurt (born 1993), professional footballer for Antalyaspor
 * Lukas Klünter (born 1996), professional footballer for Waldhof Mannheim and the German National Football Team

title: Euskirchen


text:
Talk:Margin buying

Redirect
Why was this redirected to the great depression? Does it lead to depression when people borrow to buy? - Jerryseinfeld 22:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Need an explanation
I take an example. Someone buys securities for $100 ($30 in cash + $70 from a loan). If the margin is the portion of cash, and the value of the securities drops to this margin ($30), the buyer will default on his loan, won't he? I mean, the margin is not a guarantee for the lender to be paid back here.
 * I think the margin call would trigger if the stock fell to $70. Then the broker will force the sale of the stock to cover the loan.  The lender gets his or her $70 back, and the buyer loses the entire cash deposit.  This is ignoring the effect of interest rates, of course.  Terry 01:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sounds clear now. :-)

title: Talk:Margin buying