text:
Malacorhynchus

Malacorhynchus is a genus of duck within the family Anatidae. It was established in 1831 by English ornithologist William John Swainson, when he proposed moving the pink-eared duck into a subgenus (Malacorhynchus) based on unique characters of its beak and toes. The genus contains one living and one extinct species.

List of species

 * Pink-eared duck (M. membranaceus)
 * †Scarlett's duck (M. scarletti) – extinct

title: Malacorhynchus


text:
Toyota T100

The Toyota T100 is a full-size pickup truck produced by Toyota between 1992 and 1998. It was developed strictly for the US (and Canadian) markets, where larger pickups have a sizable market share.

History

As Toyota firmly established itself in the North American compact pickup truck market in the 1980s through 1990s, the company offered a truck that was larger than the compact as an alternative to the traditional North American full-size pickup truck market. North American Toyota dealers had long been clamoring for a full-sized Toyota truck, especially in light of the high percentage of Toyota Pickup owners who moved on to domestic full-sized trucks. The T100 reflected a philosophy of designing products specifically for localized international markets, where traditional products sold and made in Japan wouldn't sell well. This approach is also demonstrated with the introduction of the mid-size Toyota Camry (XV10) which was larger than the compact Toyota Camry (V30) in 1991, and again in 1997 when the Toyota Sienna replaced the slow selling Toyota Previa.

Rumored for many years before, the 1993 Toyota T100 boasted a full-size (8 ft) pickup bed but retained the engine and suspension setup of its smaller and older sibling, the compact Toyota Truck. Although the T100 was a bit larger than the competitive mid-size Dodge Dakota, it was still markedly smaller than full-size American pickup trucks of the time. This meant that the T100 occupied its own niche in the truck market. Before introducing the T100, the company reflected on its history of commercial truck manufacture and products they offered in the past. Past products started with the Toyota G1, the Toyota FA, the Toyota BX, the Toyota Stout, the Toyota ToyoAce, and the Toyota Dyna, and its market successes with their Hino Division. Though economical, reliable, and practical, the T100 was slow to be accepted by traditional buyers of full-size competitors, while it was larger than both the Toyota Truck followed by the Toyota Tacoma compact trucks. Wary of the market pushback of competing directly with the Big Three, Toyota chose this somewhat smaller size (and limited lineup) so as not to risk blowback and import quotas. The T100 was designed and engineered for the North American market and was not sold in Japan.

Although sales were slow at the start, the T100 sales did reach into the mid 40,000 vehicles sold range (1996) in the United States. Sales of the Chevrolet C/K were roughly 700,000 per year, while sales of the Ford F-Series surged from 550,000 to nearly 850,000 and Dodge from 100,000 to 400,000 with the introduction of the new Dodge Ram in 1993. Sales of the T100 fell approximately 30 percent when the new Ram went on the market in October 1993, 11 months after the T100's launch in November 1992.

Reception
Upon introduction, the T100 was criticized for being too small to appeal to buyers of full-size work trucks, the lack of an extended cab, and the lack of a V8 engine; with the only available engine was a 3.0 liter V6, which was already found in Toyota's compact trucks and in the 4Runner. Although considered criticisms by many, Toyota stated these were all factors that were taken into consideration when designing and producing the T100. They claimed the smaller size was planned to offer a larger truck with a compact "feel", an Xtracab was on the horizon and the 3.0 liter V6 would provide far better fuel economy than the vehicles it aspired to rival. Both the V6 engine and the somewhat smaller dimensions were influenced by environmental concerns, issues that were irrelevant to American pickup buyers.

Despite the criticisms of size and horsepower, the T100 was also praised by the media, acquiring J.D. Power and Associates Initial Quality Survey "Best Full-Size Pickup" award and the "Best of What's New" award by Popular Science magazine in its first year on the market. The T100 was the first vehicle – car or truck – ever to receive an "Initial Quality Survey Award" in its first year of production. For 1994 (the truck's second model year) and 1995 (the third), the T100 was again awarded "Best Full-Size Pickup in Initial Quality" by J.D. Power and Associates. In 1997 the T100 was awarded "Top Three Vehicles in Initial Quality – Full-Size Segment" once again by J.D. Power and Associates.

Design
When it was introduced, the T100 had one cab configuration, a regular cab, and one available engine, a 3.0 L V6 with 150 hp and 180 lbft of torque. In 1993, a 2.7 L inline-four engine with 150 hp - same as for the 3.0 V6 - and 177 lbft of torque was added in the hopes new buyers would be drawn in with promises of greater fuel economy and a lower price than on the initial offerings. The T100 was the first imported pickup truck that could carry a 4 by 8 feet plywood sheet between the wheelwells. The regular cab could seat three abreast in the front bench seat; this was split on the SR5 model. Automatics received a column shift while manuals were floor mounted, where the transfer case shifter was also located on 4WD models.

Toyota ultimately realized there was no alternative but to add more power to the truck and for the 1995 model year Toyota added the 190 hp and 220 lbft of torque 3.4 L V6. An Xtracab model came along several months into the 1995 model year as well, sitting on the same 3094 mm wheelbase with a 6.25 ft bed. This provided a boost in sales of 150 percent for 1995. The T100 received only minor changes throughout its run, aside from the engine changes and the Xtracab addition. A driver-side airbag was installed for MY 1994 (a passenger-side airbag never became available), and larger 16-inch wheels became the norm for most of the 4X4 models starting in 1996. It was evident by late 1996/ early 1997 that Toyota was already investing in its next truck (what ultimately became the Toyota Tundra). At the time (late 1990s) some believed a revamped T100 with a V8 engine was on the way, and there were some reports that altered V8 powered T100s were used as test-mules, but ultimately it never came to pass, and the T100 was superseded by the Toyota Tundra.

Toyota Racing Development (TRD) introduced a supercharger for the 3.4-liter engine in 1996 and it became available for the T100, the Tacoma and the 4Runner with the 3.4-liter V6 (and later the Tundra). Horsepower jumped to the 260 hp range (depending on the generation of the supercharger) and 250 lbft to 265 lbft of torque. This power add on was available for 1997–1998 T100s only. Earlier 3.4 V6 powered T100s have different computer and electrical layouts which do not support the TRD device.

The T100 was manufactured and partially engineered by Toyota-subsidiary Hino. Three trim lines were offered: the base model, the DX, and the top-of-the-line SR5. The maximum towing capacity was 5,200 lb (2,360 kg) and the truck had a payload limit of 2,450 pounds. Although most trucks fell within the 1/2 ton category, a 1-ton model was offered (in two-wheel drive form) for several of its earlier years until finally being dropped because of a lack of interest.

All T100s were assembled in Tokyo, Japan and as a result were subject to a 25% import tariff on all imported light trucks. The T100 was the last Japanese-built Toyota pickup made for North America when production ceased in July 1998, sales being phased out in August and ending with the 1998 model year. The T100 was replaced by the larger V8-powered Tundra which debuted in 1999. Toyota had originally planned to continue the T100 naming system by calling the new truck the "Toyota T-150"; Ford made a successful claim that this was a trademark infringement of their F-150 and the name had to be changed.

Year-by-year changes
MY 1993
 * Standard cab, long bed only
 * 3.0 liter V6 engine only (150 horsepower – 180 lbft of torque)

MY 1994
 * Driver's side airbag added
 * 2.7 liter I4 engine added to lineup (150 horsepower – 177 lbft of torque)

MY 1995
 * 3.4 liter V6 engine added to lineup (190 horsepower – 220 lbft of torque)
 * 3.0 liter V6 discontinued
 * Xtracab model added to lineup
 * Last year for the regular cab 4X4 model

MY 1996
 * Color changes

MY 1997
 * Larger 16 inch wheel added to lineup
 * Color changes
 * TRD introduces 3.4 liter V6 supercharger (approx. 245 horsepower – 285 lbft of torque)

MY 1998
 * Last year for the T100
 * Color changes

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

title: Toyota T100


text:
User talk:UniversalBeliefs

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 06:39, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:UniversalBeliefs


text:
Berber music

Berber music refers to the musical traditions of the Berbers, a diverse grouping of distinct ethnic groups indigenous to North Africa who predate the arrival of Arabs in the Arab migration to the Maghreb. Their main connections are identified by their usage of the mostly mutually unintelligible Berber languages. Berber music varies widely across North Africa. It is stylistically diverse, with songs being predominantly African rhythms and a stock of oral literature.

Ancient Berber music is stylistically diverse, with styles including pentatonic music, such instruments as the oboe and the bagpipes, and African rhythms along with singing. These ancient musical traditions have been kept alive by small bands of musicians traveling from village to village, entertaining at weddings and other social events with their songs, tales and poetry.

Most Berber music is of the village- and urban-folk musical variety. Berber music and culture is influenced by the Berber people's long-standing struggle to achieve basic language rights and identity recognition in modern North African societies, aside from aesthetics and style.

Musical/vocal styles
Berber music is characterized by its use of folk oral traditions, as well as particular scales and rhythmic patterns, which include pentatonic music and African rhythms. All these elements are combined to form one of the main sources of entertainment in Berber social ceremonies like marriages, as well as verses, tales and songs.

Instrumentation
The Berber people are spread out over a large part of Africa, but are mostly concentrated in the northwestern region of Africa. They use a vast array of both melodic and percussive instruments. The following instruments are part of their secular and religious dance and song:
 * Taghanimt, an end-blown reed flute. Used mostly to accompany songs rather than dance, the taghanimt has a rich, breathy texture.
 * Mizwid, a type of bagpipe; the term literally means "bag" or "food pouch".
 * Zukra (Tunisia) or ghaytah (Morocco). In both countries, these instruments are combined with several percussive instruments to create large ensembles which may perform at public festivals or similar occasions.
 * Nafir, a long natural horn, a type of valveless trumpet. This instrument is used mostly as a signaling instrument to send out messages to large groups, although it also has some performance value.
 * Ginbri (Morocco), a fretless plucked string instrument with a skin stretched over its body on the playing side: the skin has the same acoustic function as the membrane on a banjo. Most ensembles have at least one ginbri, although some have more than one.
 * Rebab, a long-necked bowed instrument with a large body. Like the ginbri, it is constructed with a skin on the string side. This instrument has only one string, usually of horse hair, and is commonly played alongside the ginbri.
 * Tabl (e'ṯbel), a cylindrical double-sided drum. Although it has a similar usage and spelling to the tabla of India, no direct connection has been found between the two. The qas'ah is a large shallow kettledrum found mostly in Tunisia. Similar to the qas'ah is the Naqqarah, two ceramic kettledrums played simultaneously by both hands.
 * Bendir (Morocco and Algeria ), a snare frame-drum. A series of bendirs played simultaneously provide the main percussive rhythm for Berber music as the above-mentioned drums are more artistic than bendirs.
 * Qaraqib, a large metal castanet-like musical instrument. Normally one is held in each hand. These may be used to keep a rhythm or to play their own pattern.
 * Tende, a drum made with mortar and pestle.

Algeria
The music of the Kabyle Berbers has achieved some mainstream success outside of its Kabylia homeland, both in the rest of Algeria and abroad. Traditional Kabyle music consists of vocalists accompanied by a rhythm section, consisting of t'bel (tambourine) and bendir (frame drum), and a melody section, consisting of a ghaita (bagpipe) and ajouag (flute).

Development of Kabyle music
In the 1930s, Kabyles moved in large numbers to Paris, where they established cafes where musicians like Cheikh Nourredine added modern, Western instruments like the banjo, guitar and violin to Kabyle folk melodies. Slimane Azem was a Kabyle immigrant who was inspired by Nourredine and 19th century poet Si Mohand Ou Mohand to address homesickness, poverty and passion in his songs, and he soon (like many Kabyle musicians) became associated with the Algerian independence movement.

By the 1950s, Arab classical music, especially Egyptian superstars like Umm Kulthum, had become popular and left a lasting influence on Kabyle music, specifically in lush orchestration. Cherif Kheddam soon arose with the advent of a Kabyle branch of Radio Algiers after independence in 1962, when France called a cease fire on 19 March and enacted the voting upon an agreement during a referendum in June. Included here were the Evian Accords which, for three years with all Algerians gave certain legal protections to colons equally. After the three years however, all Europeans would have to become Algerian citizens or risk being classified as aliens, which would then make them lose rights. Some of the rights discussed in the Accords were the right to participate in public affairs, the right to a full range of cultural and civic rights and the right to own property. Female singers also became popular during this period, especially Cherifa, Djamilla and Hanifa.

Algerian independence did not lead to increased freedom for Kabyle musicians, and these Berbers soon included often covert lyrics criticizing the Ben Bella government, which had little repercussion due to the Evian Accords. Many of these musicians were inspired by other singer-songwriters, including Joan Baez and Bob Dylan, Víctor Jara and Silvio Rodríguez. With the song "A Vava Inouva" (1973), Idir brought international attention to Kabyle music and paved the way for the Algerian raï genre. Ferhat Mehenni, known for his politically uncompromising lyrics, Lounis Ait Menguellet, known for his poetic and inspired lyrics, also became popular during the 1970s and Amour Abdenour, whose ongoing career started in 1969 wrote and performed about kabyle society, nature and more importantly love relationships.

By the time raï became popular in Europe in the 1980s, Kabyle artists were also moving towards sentimental, pop-ballads. Hassen Zermani's all-electric Takfarinas and Abdelli's work with Peter Gabriel's Real World helped bring Kabyle music to new audiences, while the murder of Matoub Lounes inspired many Kabyles to rally around their popular musicians.

Modern singers include Djur Djura and many chawi singers and groups like Houria Aichi, Les Berberes, Amirouch, Massinissa, Amadiaz, Numidas, Mihoub, Massilia, Merkunda, Thiguyer, Salim Souhali (Thaziri), Dihya, and Messaoud Nedjahi.

Morocco
Traditional Moroccan Berber music can be categorised into collective and professional music.

In collective musical performances, men and women from entire families or villages participate in communal dances such as the ahwash and ahidus. A prayer is chanted at the beginning, followed by a response from a chorus of dancers. Accompanied by drums or ) and other percussion instruments, performers dance in two parallel rows or in a circle around the musicians.

Led by an or poet, groups of usually four professional musicians  travel across the region to perform in various villages. The recites improvised poems about current national and world affairs. His fellow musicians accompany the poem with a drum, a single-string and a double clarinet.

A Shluh tradition of community music and dance is performed by the musicians and singers of the style, led by a  or. A performance starts with the, an instrumental session on the rebab or lutar, followed by the tambourine and flute. The sets the basic notes of the melody. The middle section consists of sung poetry, a choreographed overture , a lively song , and dance. The marks the final part, in which the rhythm first accelerates and then ceases abruptly. In 2021, an anthology of the art of the "Rrways - a journey into the realm of Amazigh wandering poet-singers", presenting a booklet and ten compact discs with current recordings, received the ' Prix Coups de Cœur - Musiques du Monde' of the Académie Charles Cross in France.

Famous Moroccan Berber musicians include Ammouri Mbarek, a singer and songwriter active since the 1960s and considered by many Berber music enthusiasts to be the "John Lennon" of the Berbers, and Najat Aatabou, a singer whose debut cassette, "J'en ai Marre", sold an unprecedented half-million copies in Morocco. The Master Musicians of Jajouka tour internationally and have collaborated with Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones and William S. Burroughs.

Many musicians have created fusion styles from Berber and European music, including Hindi Zahra, Hassan Hakmoun, Khalid Izri, Hassan Idbasaid, Thidrin, Med Ziani, Imtlaa, Houssaine Kili, Salima Ziani, Abdelhak Akandouch and others.

Tuaregs
The Berber music of the Tuareg region uses rhythms and vocal styles similar to the music of other Berber, Iberian, and Arab music, while West African call-and-response-style singing is also common. In contrast to many of the region's peoples, among the Tuareg music is mostly the domain of women, especially playing the imzhad, a string instrument like a violin. Tuareg weddings feature unique styles of music, such as women's vocal trilling and special dances (ilkan) of slaves marking the occasion.

title: Berber music


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Florida

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

The result of the debate was - Keep

2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Florida
Because JESUS GOD whatever would we do without more of these goddamn articles! Snowspinner 06:40, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whatever would we do without more of these goddamn users!
 * Delete. For my rationale, see my entry at Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression, most or all of which applies to this article as well. --Slowking Man 06:55, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. JamesMLane 07:03, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some of us are trying to create an encyclopedia, and partisan original research spread across multiple articles on purported irregularities in a single U.S. election that did not even have an impact on the results is in no way helping to achieve that goal. Indrian 07:06, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Those in government are likely to be a little more informed than you are, see for example. The article is neither partisan, nor "original research", it's mainstream and of widespread interest.  Please read the relevant wiki pages before misquoting policies. FT2 20:47, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, as before. - RedWordSmith 07:20, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, because the VfD for this material was already voted on and it already failed. Those who think that it is nothing but "crackpot theories" already had their chance to argue that reason for its deletion.  They failed.  Those who think that it is nothing but irreparable POV already had their chance to argue that reason for its deletion.  They failed.  Nothing has changed; they should not get a second free shot.  I find it deeply ironic that so many of the people who are demanding that the same issues be rehashed over and the vote retaken in the hopes that this will come out the way they want it...  are the ones finding it "crackpot" that anyone should be questioning the voting in the Presidential election.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Feel free to question the results of the election all you want, just be sure to keep it to one reasonably sized article. If one article is good enough for Napoleon, Adolph Hitler, and Jesus Christ, then one article will certainly suffice for such a minor topic as this one. Indrian 07:50, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * How interesting. There is most definitely more than one article about Jesus. Have a nice day. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ditto Hitler. Ditto Napoleon.  All three people listed are the subject of multiple articles. Napoleon gets at least seven.  There's an article on each of ten members of Hitler's immediate family, one on his death, and one on his medical health, and by no means do I intend this list to be an exhaustive catalog of articles about Hitler. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * My mistake, but this does just reinforce the point that multiple articles are reserved for truly important things in world history and not a rather insignificant presidential election. Indrian 17:11, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * The election of a US President is hardly "rather insignificant". --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * the world does not revolve around the United States (see Universe)
 * Oh, clever bit of logic there. So what you're in essence saying is that anything that happens in the United States is not important. Fantastic! I'll be sure to keep that in mind next time I read an article about U.S. culture of topics. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * As a Brit, I'll be the first to agree with you. However, this does not mean that the election of a US President is "rather insignificant", which is what was claim.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete -- Netoholic @ 08:41, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Delete One article about alleged irregularities is plenty. More than that is spamming one's bias across an encyclopedia. For the record, I think the lesser man won the election,and believe there may have been irregularities, but keep it to the article that already exists and keep it written as an encyclopedia entry would be written. These extra articles are just total abuse and nonsense. DreamGuy 11:18, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge into the main election controversies article. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:51, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, From the Wikipedia deletion policy page: "If an article is constantly being deleted and re-created, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article. Administrators should always be responsible with the power that they have. If in doubt... don't delete!"  I should think the same logic would apply to an article which is kept and continues to experience active development despite repeated attempts to delete it.  It is by definition and title a controversy, and repeated requests to delete it are simply part of that controversy and thus show that its existence is warranted.  --Cortonin 13:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Did indeed have a previous vote a month ago (which is hardly "constantly"), but most of the keep votes (apart from a few persons who seem to have signed up to WP specifically for this project) were contingent on it being NPOV'ed or cleaned of original research. Nothing like that has happened in a month, and the more articles they manage to spread it over, the less likely it is to happen. There is no real need for so manya rticles; once the original research is trimmed down, it would fit in 32 kB. Securiger 14:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Second inexplicable VfD listing in a row.  If the people pushing for a delete were to expend the energy in NPOV cleanup, this would in my opinion be more useful for Wikipedia.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * keep. Intrigue 15:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Snowspinner is just going around trying to delete factual articles that don't fit into his worldview. Then a bunch of parrots post the same rationale, using the exact same words, for deleting every page. Zenyu 16:32, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am a Florida voter. I think that my voting concerns and inconsitancies that I have been concerned over were rather accurately addressed in this page. CiaraBeth 17:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge into one (large) article about all the voting problems. Dabbler 17:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC).
 * Keep. From the first VFD: "Those who have voted here have done so and honored the VfD, despite the (unproven but widely held) suspicion by many that the vote was a sham, and a tactic used to damage a disliked article.... In addition, many have commented upon the high level of interest in this article and the harm that this VfD label does it, and that its clarification is urgent to them."  Relisting on VFD after less than three weeks is an abuse. Korath 17:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I suppose I would have to agree with that to an extent (I did not know, nor did I care to know, that these pages were up for a vote three weeks ago), but the far greater abuse here is the spamming of wikipedia that these articles represent. A good man lost; a bad man won; there were glitches; ok, fine, lets have a page on it for posterity, no problem.  Now, the problem comes when a few overzealous partisans with an axe to grind take a minor event in the history of the world (the 2004 presidential election) then take a minor facet of that event (voting irregularities) and write a half dozen subarticles on the topic.  In general, if an article is too long, then the article is a poorly constructed mess.   The history of nations or world religions or individuals such as Jesus Christ that were so important that they changed the entire course of Western civilization are such massive, complex topics that one article may not be enough.  The 2004 election is a footnote in history.

 * Is this election more important in United States history than the 1876 election, when the fate of Reconstruction, race relations, and the preservation of the Union hung in the balance thanks to a few irregularities and the winner had to live with the name Ruthefraud for the rest of his life? Maybe, I am not the one to make that call, but if that controversy can be covered briefly, then so can this one.  What about 1860 when there were not really any irregularities, but the result led to a bloody Civil War?  That one certainly seems to have been far more important in United States history, yet it is also covered succinctly.  The 1824 eletion, when the winner of the popular vote lost because the other candidates got together to deny him the office, is not even remembered today.  This election will be similarly relegated to the backburner of history, making so many articles on the topic seem rather silly.  If a writer went to any professionally produced encyclopedia in the world, even one that was online and had no space constraints like wikipedia, with the idea to produce this many articles on this one event, he would be laughed out of the editor's room.  If the community of wikipedia users does not have the same response, then I think it reflects poorly on the project and shows the world that instead of trying to create a real encyclopedia we are indulging in petty nitpicking and complaining about every insignificant thing that bothers us when we get up in the morning. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or even an election analysis center.  The subarticles do not belong. Indrian 18:30, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep. We should not have to vote on all these subpages to indicate our intent. Instead of as censors, those proposing deletion should have (and have not) contributed their opinions, etc., as authors. They have not, and instead are involved in this noxious behavior. The subpages are an effort to streamline and focus the original article, and compartmentalize the irregularities. The issue, despite some individual's assertions, IS sizable and complex enough to warrant the extent of content, and the subpages must not be seen as new opportunities to poach or 'pick off' areas of this article. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wiki is not a blog. Wyss 19:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not. But that has nothing to do with the issue, as the articles are clearly encyclopedia articles, not journal entries.  --L33tminion | (talk) 06:44, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is improved, for clarity, by being split up, and this was by consensus where people had a chance to state if they wanted it split or didnt. The consensus - and many people contributed to the debate - was that they did. As to the article itself, it was voted keep by about 72 keep - 6 delete a bare few weeks ago. It's not clear in what manner the article is less fit to keep, less encyclopediac, or less or general interest now that more official bodies are taking action.  If there are issues with its size or layout then perhaps consider contributing.  But deletion is inappropraite as deletion criteria are not at all applicable - exactly as they weren't a bare few weeks ago. FT2 20:23, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looking over all these articles, I find myself very impressed by the hard work of whoever has written them, and unable to understand why anyone would want them deleted. Everyking 20:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seperating the original long article in to subarticles is a great idea, as it makes for better organization.  Remeber that this is what hypertext is best for.  Why keep the information in flat format in one very long article when there can be some decent heirarchy where people can click on parts they're interested in and be presented with the detail they want to see? noosphere 21:01, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reene (リニ) 21:40, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mark Richards 01:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Couldn't see a reason for deletion in Snowspinner's ranting. Dr Zen 02:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article should be kept, since these issues are still being actively researched.  If there are concerns about particular facts they should be individually addressed and incorporated.   --Boscobiscotti 03:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Boscobiscotti's vote is not valid. Reene (リニ) 03:50, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Unbelievably strong keep. Andre ( talk )A| 03:21, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's usual and good practice to break out long articles into subarticles. I agree some trimming could be done, but not at a ratio of 6:1 which is what would be needed to remove the need for sub-pages. Shane King 03:42, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Rerdavies 04:02, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Honestly! These numerous VfDs verge on harassment. The mainpage VfD didn't succeed. Why should VfDs on sub-articles succeed?
 * Vote is invalid. Reene✎ 07:23, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Rather, vote validity is disputed. Kevin Baas | talk 07:39, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
 * Keep. Avenue 05:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Legitimate splitting of legitimate (large) article.  --L33tminion | (talk) 06:44, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, a garbage POV article from bullshit sources that would take far too much time to clean up for any usefull information. TDC 07:10, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the Democrats thought there was a legitimate case for a recount or other relevant action in Florida, they would have taken legal action same as they did in 2000. The fact that they didn't suggests that there is very little legitimate doubt that Bush won Florida convincingly in 2004. This article fails comprehensively on NPOV. As for the bit about the 268,169 supposedly false votes and the 58,000 missing votes, how do we know this? Capitalistroadster 09:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable information, does not seem to violate What Wikipedia is not. However, this articles needs serious cleaning up. Johnleemk | Talk 10:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per my comments on Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls.   — Asbestos | Talk 12:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Guettarda 15:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Josquin 17:34, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep --- While there are many sub-articles the main article would be far too long if they would instead be included there. // Liftarn 19:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: DCEdwards1966 19:31, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant. ElBenevolente 23:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep TalkHard 23:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Abuse of VfD process. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 01:21, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant data into the main article, exit polls, vote suppression, or voting machines. Reasons: 1) These state articles aren't that long, and 2) there's a substantial amount of overlap with the other articles. PenguiN42 16:45, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, irrational VfD --Pgreenfinch 17:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 		¡	Keep	!			--	Ŭalabio 03:29, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * Keep Pedant 23:33, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

Note: Voting and discussion on related articles listed for VfD here:
 * 1) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities
 * 2) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls
 * 3) Votes_for_deletion/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy,_vote_suppression
 * 4) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, voting machines
 * 5) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Florida
 * 6) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Ohio

 * Comments

Despite claims by the peanut gallery, none of these sub-pages have been VfD'd before and the VfD for the main article was over weeks ago. Since then the page has grown and changed considerably and has become bloated to the point of absurdity. This is not, however, an excuse to scatter the mess that is this article all over Wikipedia. The issue at hand here is not the main article; for that, go to the appropriate VfD page. The issue at hand is whether or not these subpages need to be deleted. As they've been created as the result of unnecessary bloat and a few zealous editors that I understand have been preventing anyone from cleaning up the page to a reasonable degree, these need to be put BACK in the main article and cleaned up. Reene (リニ) 21:40, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * Again, if you allege that 'a few zealous editors have been preventing anyone...' etc., I'd ask for proof. That kind of behavior is intolerable. Would you like to help to improve the article? Because no-one is prohibited from doing so. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Let's see if Reene's comments are correct. She claimed that "a few zealous editors that I understand have been preventing anyone from cleaning up the page to a reasonable degree."  Let's check that out.  Here is a list of every user who edited this particular article from its inception until Netoholic came along and put a vfd on it:
 * Kevin baas
 * Neutrality
 * Kizzle
 * Gzornenplatz
 * Alex3917

At that point (November 11) Netoholic called the first vfd on this particular page. Note that Reene's belief that the page had not been vfd'd before is thus disproven.

The decision of the November 11 vfd was to keep the article. Editing continued with the following contributors:

 * Kevin baas
 * 144.189.40.222
 * Alex3917
 * Mirv
 * Michael Hardy
 * 81.153.58.235

At this point Snowspinner called the second vfd (the current one).

 * That's it. Not one single attempt has been made by those proposing the deletion to perform a cleanup.  Reene has been misinformed; nobody has attempted to prevent anybody performing a cleanup of this article, and it has indeed been vfd'd before.  The sections may have been subject to an edit war prior to being split; I will investigate that possibility also, on the appropriate VfD page.

 * It's a shame, I think, that since the vfd was placed and while discussion of this article was ongoing, one user has twice today edited the page to a redirect to an article called U.S. presidential election, 2004. I would have preferred to see the user in question show good faith by waiting for a consensus to be reached.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

keep attempting to delete any article in this constellation is an abuse of process, and waste of time. If the article has specific flaws fix them, don't drag 200 users into another vote on this. Pedant 23:15, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

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


text:
Talk:Berber music

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2021 and 22 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Peteryebuzhidaogaiqushenmemingzi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Berber music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090506144420/http://www.classicalarabicmusic.com:80/instruments.htm to http://www.classicalarabicmusic.com/instruments.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Berber music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130819165403/http://al-bab.com/arab/background/berber.htm to http://www.al-bab.com/arab/background/berber.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927002355/http://www.afropop.org/explore/style_info/ID/2/Berber%20music/ to http://www.afropop.org/explore/style_info/ID/2/Berber%20music/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130819165403/http://al-bab.com/arab/background/berber.htm to http://www.al-bab.com/arab/background/berber.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Berber music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160109174406/http://www.fabchannel.com/najataatabou to http://www.fabchannel.com/najataatabou

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Berber music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100815124605/http://www.agraw.com/amazigh-music/ to http://www.agraw.com/amazigh-music/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Berber music


text:
Talk:Ewe music

Je Je Kule
I get it that, most probably, Je Je Kule (aka Che Che Colé) is the best known Ewe song outside of Africa (particularly because of Willie Colón's adaptation of the song from the early 1970's and because of its use as a children's song in various compilation records. Is there an "official" set of lyrics for that song? Can it be at least mentioned here, with some background info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.254 (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ewe music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121123000213/https://home.comcast.net/~dzinyaladzekpo/Myth.html to https://home.comcast.net/~dzinyaladzekpo/Myth.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ewe music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121123000209/https://home.comcast.net/~dzinyaladzekpo/SixFour.html to https://home.comcast.net/~dzinyaladzekpo/SixFour.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ewe music


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. presidential election, 2004, exit polls

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

The result of the debate was - kept

U.S. presidential election, 2004, exit polls
Oh look! More! Snowspinner 06:41, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sheesh...
 * Delete. For my rationale, see my entry at Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression, most or all of which applies to this article as well. --Slowking Man 06:54, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, as above. Indrian 07:02, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, as before. - RedWordSmith 07:19, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, because the VfD for this material was already voted on and it already failed. Those who think that it is nothing but "crackpot theories" already had their chance to argue that reason for its deletion.  They failed.  Those who think that it is nothing but irreparable POV already had their chance to argue that reason for its deletion.  They failed.  Nothing has changed; they should not get a second free shot.  I find it deeply ironic that so many of the people who are demanding that the same issues be rehashed over and the vote retaken in the hopes that this will come out the way they want it...  are the ones finding it "crackpot" that anyone should be questioning the voting in the Presidential election.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Feel free to question the results of the election all you want, just be sure to keep it to one reasonably sized article. If one article is good enough for Napoleon, Adolph Hitler, and Jesus Christ, then one article will certainly suffice for such a minor topic as this one. Indrian 07:53, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * If one article is good enough for Napoleon...From the main article on Napolean, plus linked articles:
 * Napoleonic Code
 * Napoleonic Era
 * Napoleonic medal
 * Napoleonic wars
 * Napoleon and the Jews
 * Napoleon in popular culture (esp. as a by-word for mental ill health)
 * Napoleon complex
 * Napoléon (movie)
 * First War against Napoleon
 * Second War against Napoleon
 * The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon
 * This neither for nor against the article under discussion, but pointing out how poor this particular argument is. --Calton 00:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The 18th Brumaire has nothing to do with Napoleon, but with his nephew. —ExplorerCDT 23:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

keep more abuse of process. Please stop the nonsense, fix the article don't erase it.Pedant 23:38, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
 * Delete One article about alleged irregularities is plenty. More than that is spamming one's bias across an encyclopedia. For the record, I think the lesser man won the election,and believe there may have been irregularities, but keep it to the article that already exists and keep it written as an encyclopedia entry would be written. These extra articles are just total abuse and nonsense. DreamGuy 11:15, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, From the Wikipedia deletion policy page: "If an article is constantly being deleted and re-created, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article. Administrators should always be responsible with the power that they have. If in doubt... don't delete!"  I should think the same logic would apply to an article which is kept and continues to experience active development despite repeated attempts to delete it.  It is by definition and title a controversy, and repeated requests to delete it are simply part of that controversy and thus show that its existence is warranted.  --Cortonin 13:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Claim that this has been listed before appears to be incorrect, you seem to be getting confused because there are so many of these being spawned off so fast. In this case, doubly confusing because of the extremely similar 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls, which is another reason for deletion (in addition to all the others, see above.) Securiger 15:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. My comments on Votes for deletion/2004_U.S._election_voting_controversies%2C_Florida apply here also. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Intrigue 15:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is not about the election controversy. It's about the exit polls in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. Zenyu 16:06, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Which are not important enough to deserve an article separate from the main election article anyway. Indrian 16:58, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. We should not have to vote on all these subpages to indicate our intent. Instead of as censors, those proposing deletion should have (and have not) contributed their opinions, etc., as authors. They have not, and instead are involved in this noxious behavior. The subpages are an effort to streamline and focus the original article, and compartmentalize the irregularities. The issue, despite some individual's assertions, IS sizable and complex enough to warrant the extent of content, and the subpages must not be seen as new opportunities to poach or 'pick off' areas of this article. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. From the first VFD: "Those who have voted here have done so and honored the VfD, despite the (unproven but widely held) suspicion by many that the vote was a sham, and a tactic used to damage a disliked article.... In addition, many have commented upon the high level of interest in this article and the harm that this VfD label does it, and that its clarification is urgent to them."  Relisting on VFD after less than three weeks is an abuse. Korath 17:22, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Noteworthy and relevant. zen master 18:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wiki is not a blog. Wyss 19:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - not because of the controversy but because this is a raw data dump. It might be appropriate in Wikisource but it is not an encyclopedia article.  Rossami (talk) 19:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Securiger that the existence of two articles on the exit poll issue is likely to be confusing, but of course deleting both of them is not a sensible solution.  In this article, aside from the raw data dump, there's some information about possible sampling errors in the early exit polls.  I've merged that information into 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls.  Therefore, this article can now be deleted, provided that the other one is kept. JamesMLane 20:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge into 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls, in a single table. Kevin Baas | talk 20:54, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seperating the original long article in to subarticles is a great idea, as it makes for better organization.  Remeber that this is what hypertext is best for.  Why keep the information in flat format in one very long article when there can be some decent heirarchy where people can click on parts they're interested in and be presented with the detail they want to see? noosphere 21:04, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mark Richards 01:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, a garbage POV article from bullshit sources (come on, DU as a primary source for a Wiki article?). TDC 06:58, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. As for other article.Capitalistroadster 11:36, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh look! More ABUSE!  Keep.  [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: DCEdwards1966 19:52, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete:Unregistered I concur ... Wiki is not a blog. This article is prone to vandalism back and forth.  23:25, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant. ElBenevolente 23:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep TalkHard 23:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Abuse of VfD process. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 01:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge with 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls. I have voted to keep all the other election controversy articles, but I think the exit polls are only of encyclopedic interest because of the controversies. One article on the exit polls is enough. Avenue 11:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge into either 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls or 2004_U.S._presidential_election. This one constitutes blatant abuse of VfD. This article isn't even a spinoff of the "controversy" articles. Snowspinner's reason to delete is "Oh look! More!"? I don't think so. PenguiN42 16:53, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Controversy exit poll is another topic, and both articles have their interest. Irrational and abusive VfD, again! --Pgreenfinch 17:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 		¡	Keep	!			--	Ŭalabio 05:45, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)

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


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Ohio

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

The result of the debate was - Keep

2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Ohio
I think this one should be transwikied to the Toki Pona Wikipedia JUST TO MAKE THINGS MORE INTERESTING. Snowspinner 06:41, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why not ban all Republican-favored articles instead?
 * Delete. For my rationale, see my entry at Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression, most or all of which applies to this article as well. --Slowking Man 06:55, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am upset about the election results too, but I do my venting in more appropriate forums. Indrian 07:09, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Since voting machines reportedly gave one candidate 3,893 extra votes in a suburban Columbus, Ohio precinct where only 638 people voted (AP, 28 November, 2004), there is ample scope for an encyclopedia article on the Ohio voting process and its failings. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That's one single incident. No pattern of similar activity has been shown. Indeed, I would be more worried if there weren't any problems with even a single machine. --Slowking Man 08:04, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's true that I listed was one single incident. It is false to claim that it was the only such incident.  I do not subscribe to the view that such incidents are acceptable or to be expected.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. JamesMLane 07:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, as before. - RedWordSmith 07:20, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, because the VfD for this material was already voted on and it already failed. Those who think that it is nothing but "crackpot theories" already had their chance to argue that reason for its deletion.  They failed.  Those who think that it is nothing but irreparable POV already had their chance to argue that reason for its deletion.  They failed.  Nothing has changed; they should not get a second free shot.  I find it deeply ironic that so many of the people who are demanding that the same issues be rehashed over and the vote retaken in the hopes that this will come out the way they want it...  are the ones finding it "crackpot" that anyone should be questioning the voting in the Presidential election.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Feel free to question the results of the election all you want, just be sure to keep it to one reasonably sized article. If one article is good enough for Napoleon and Adolph Hitler, then one article will certainly suffice for such a minor topic as this one. Indrian 07:51, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * No. No, there was no VfD on the material. There never has been a VfD on the material. There was VfD on an article. But not this article. A different article entirely, and one which, since it exists, should mean this article doesn't have to exist. Snowspinner 09:15, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Your belief that there was no previous vfd on this particular article is false, I'm afraid. November 11, Netoholic submits this article to its first VfD. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Netoholic @ 08:41, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Delete One article about alleged irregularities is plenty. More than that is spamming one's bias across an encyclopedia. For the record, I think the lesser man won the election,and believe there may have been irregularities, but keep it to the article that already exists and keep it written as an encyclopedia entry would be written. These extra articles are just total abuse and nonsense. DreamGuy 11:18, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, From the Wikipedia deletion policy page: "If an article is constantly being deleted and re-created, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article. Administrators should always be responsible with the power that they have. If in doubt... don't delete!"  I should think the same logic would apply to an article which is kept and continues to experience active development despite repeated attempts to delete it.  It is by definition and title a controversy, and repeated requests to delete it are simply part of that controversy and thus show that its existence is warranted.  --Cortonin 13:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, as above. Securiger 14:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. My comments on Votes for deletion/2004_U.S._election_voting_controversies%2C_Florida apply here also.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:08, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Snowspinner should be suspended, trolls are damaging to Wikipedia. Zenyu 17:02, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. We should not have to vote on all these subpages to indicate our intent. Instead of as censors, those proposing deletion should have (and have not) contributed their opinions, etc., as authors. They have not, and instead are involved in this noxious behavior. The subpages are an effort to streamline and focus the original article, and compartmentalize the irregularities. The issue, despite some individual's assertions, IS sizable and complex enough to warrant the extent of content, and the subpages must not be seen as new opportunities to poach or 'pick off' areas of this article. -- RyanFreisling @ 17:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. From the first VFD: "Those who have voted here have done so and honored the VfD, despite the (unproven but widely held) suspicion by many that the vote was a sham, and a tactic used to damage a disliked article.... In addition, many have commented upon the high level of interest in this article and the harm that this VfD label does it, and that its clarification is urgent to them."  Relisting on VFD after less than three weeks is an abuse. Korath 17:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I suppose I would have to agree with that to an extent (I did not know, nor did I care to know, that these pages were up for a vote three weeks ago), but the far greater abuse here is the spamming of wikipedia that these articles represent. A good man lost; a bad man won; there were glitches; ok, fine, lets have a page on it for posterity, no problem.  Now, the problem comes when a few overzealous partisans with an axe to grind take a minor event in the history of the world (the 2004 presidential election) then take a minor facet of that event (voting irregularities) and write a half dozen subarticles on the topic.  In general, if an article is too long, then the article is a poorly constructed mess.   The history of nations or world religions or individuals such as Jesus Christ that were so important that they changed the entire course of Western civilization are such massive, complex topics that one article may not be enough.  The 2004 election is a footnote in history.
 * And widespread concerns over whether there has been potential or alleged defrauding of the votes of the worlds most powerful country isn't. Those in government are likely to be a little more informed than you are, see  for example. FT2 20:47, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * There is obviously a lot of interest from Wikipedia users and editors in these articles, so calling them "spam" is ridiculous. Second calling the 2004 Presidential election, which is one of the most important elections in world history, a "minor event" is insane.  And how could voting irregularities which could have affected the outcome of this election, not to mention land a whole lot of important people in jail, or possibly set off a civil war (ala what is close to happening in the Ukraine) be considered a "minor facet" of the election?  I'd love to hear what you and your partisan buddies have been smoking.  And, until then, please stop trying to censor perfectly legitimate articles.  Thanks.  noosphere 09:40, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * "one of the most important elections in world history"? What? In which alternate reality...what kind of head trauma...which mental disease or defect...how pure are the drugs you must have been using to make a statement like that? And I'd just like to point out, just in case you missed it, that most USians aren't really concerned about the results anymore (the hubub surrounding the 2000 elections was much worse and much more prolonged) and are nowhere near civil war, so comparing it to the situation in the Ukraine isn't really remotely accurate. Also, nobody is trying to censor or suppress anything, despite the cries of some of the people demanding each and every article on this issue be kept. Using loaded words to sway people to do what you want (no matter how inappropriate) might work in some environments, but not here. You're not convincing anybody except perhaps a few gullible sheep, so you can quit it any time now. Reene✎ 11:03, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's even remotely exaggerating to describe 2004 as one of the most important elections in world history. A US administration that has pioneered an aggressive, unlilateralist foreign policy, taken its country into two major foreign wars, and fought tooth and nail to plead executive privilege in the incarceration without trial of one of its own citizens, has been returned to power by the voters.  This was a momentous event; the world will feel the consequences. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:44, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Um, Bush may very well start World War 3 (not to mention complete America's transition to a totalitarian theocracy, bankrupt America and destroy the economy, and finish making bitter enemies of the rest of the world). I'd say that makes whether he gets reselected quite important in world history.  That most Americans aren't concerned about the selection results is a result of the silence of the lapdog mainstream media, and the cowardly, incompetent or complicit Democratic leadership.  If we had some real investigative reporting done from media conglomerates with real resources, or heard John Kerry forcefully allege fraud on Nov 3rd (as the Ukranian opposition candidate did) instead of conceeding... if we'd heard Kerry call for a general strike, and if he'd taken the Oath of Office in Congress, as the Ukranian again did, instead of tucking his tail between his legs and running away; if the Democratic leadership had been ready and willing to fight fraud then yes, we may have seen America come close to something like the Ukranian situation. noosphere 13:00, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
 * Is this election more important in United States history than the 1876 election, when the fate of Reconstruction, race relations, and the preservation of the Union hung in the balance thanks to a few irregularities and the winner had to live with the name Ruthefraud for the rest of his life? Maybe, I am not the one to make that call, but if that controversy can be covered briefly, then so can this one.  What about 1860 when there were not really any irregularities, but the result led to a bloody Civil War?  That one certainly seems to have been far more important in United States history, yet it is also covered succinctly.  The 1824 eletion, when the winner of the popular vote lost because the other candidates got together to deny him the office, is not even remembered today.  This election will be similarly relegated to the backburner of history, making so many articles on the topic seem rather silly.  If a writer went to any professionally produced encyclopedia in the world, even one that was online and had no space constraints like wikipedia, with the idea to produce this many articles on this one event, he would be laughed out of the editor's room.  If the community of wikipedia users does not have the same response, then I think it reflects poorly on the project and shows the world that instead of trying to create a real encyclopedia we are indulging in petty nitpicking and complaining about every insignificant thing that bothers us when we get up in the morning. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or even an election analysis center.  The subarticles do not belong. Indrian 18:10, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * Delete Wiki is not a blog - Wyss 19:08, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete and trim down the main article. In an interesting coincidence, this morning's Plain Dealer (the dominant newspaper in Northeast Ohio) has a detailed article debunking each of these arguments.  It is very specific about the Ohio-based facts.  The author even goes so far as to call them "conspiracy theories".  Rossami (talk) 19:16, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Point of information: The Plain Dealer describes the following claims as "conspiracy theories": "Electronic voting machines were rigged for Bush. Early exit polls showed challenger John Kerry ahead in key states that he eventually lost, proving the fix was in. Voter totals in Cuyahoga County and elsewhere exceeded registrations."  Contrary to Rossami's suggestion, no such claims are reported or examined on the entry 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Ohio, which is an examination of voting discrepancies.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the article included a table of 18 specific allegations (13 Ohio-based and 5 national) and their explanations. Among those are many of the topics covered in this article.  The table was printed in the physical edition.  I have not been able to find the web-version to match the link Tony found for the text of the story.  Rossami (talk)
 * The table may well have listed and even debunked some of the major claims. That is not the point I'm discussing.  It is the case that you claimed that the Plain Dealer described the allegations listed in the article as "conspiracy theories."  The article on December 5th in fact was not referring to those claims but some other claims which I have listed above.  Actual claims that a conspiracy to defraud took place.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Based on the layout of the Plain Dealer page, I interpret the table as an integral part of their article and conclude that the Plain Dealer did intend to categorize the 18 allegations in the table as "conspiracy theories". Rossami (talk)
 * No matter what the opinion of the Plain Dealer is, it's still just an opinion, not an argument for deleting this Wikipedia artcile. So the opinion of the Plain Dealer can be listed on the page along with the other opinions (which may or may not contradict the opinion of the Plain Dealer).  It can even be quoted, as long as it's properly attributed to the source. noosphere 12:49, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is improved, for clarity, by being split up, and this was by consensus where people had a chance to state if they wanted it split or didnt. The consensus - and many people contributed to the debate - was that they did. As to the article itself, it was voted keep by about 72 keep - 6 delete a bare few weeks ago. It's not clear in what manner the article is less fit to keep, less encyclopediac, or less or general interest now that more official bodies are taking action.  If there are issues with its size or layout then perhaps consider contributing.  But deletion is inappropraite as deletion criteria are not at all applicable - exactly as they weren't a bare few weeks ago. FT2 20:23, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, let people continue with their good work in peace. Everyking 21:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seperating the original long article in to subarticles is a great idea, as it makes for better organization.  Remeber that this is what hypertext is best for.  Why keep the information in flat format in one very long article when there can be some decent heirarchy where people can click on parts they're interested in and be presented with the detail they want to see? noosphere 21:02, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reene (リニ) 21:50, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mark Richards 01:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This page is exactly what wiki does well, a living history. As the history evolves, the page can be changed.  This article should be kept, since these issues are still being actively researched.  If there are concerns about particular facts they should be addressed with footnotes to other information.   --Boscobiscotti 03:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Boscobiscotti's vote is not valid. Reene (リニ) 03:50, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Incoherently strong keep. Andre ( talk )A| 03:21, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's usual and good practice to break out long articles into subarticles. I agree some trimming could be done, but not at a ratio of 6:1 which is what would be needed to remove the need for sub-pages. Shane King 03:42, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Rerdavies 04:02, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Honestly! These numerous VfDs are outright harassment. Time to consider a ban for Snowspinner?
 * Vote is invalid. Reene✎ 07:23, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Rather, vote validity is disputed. Kevin Baas | talk 07:39, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
 * Keep. Avenue 05:21, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. What's next? Articles on voter fraud in Cuyohoga County, Ohio etc. Stop this nonsense before it goes any further. Capitalistroadster 10:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I don't like this article terribly much, but as Shane King said, little trimming can be done. *sigh* If only this much effort were poured into improving other articles such as the project for correcting systemic bias. It'd be so cool being able to say we have so much trivia on, say, the Malaysian New Economic Policy, the main article spawned six pages. Oh, well. One can only dream. Johnleemk | Talk 11:49, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per my comments on Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls.   — Asbestos | Talk 12:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Guettarda 15:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Josquin 17:33, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep --- While there are many sub-articles the main article would be far too long if they would instead be included there. // Liftarn 19:13, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: DCEdwards1966 19:36, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant.  ElBenevolente 23:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep TalkHard 23:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Abuse of VfD process. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 01:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant data into the main article, exit polls, vote suppression, or voting machines. Reasons: 1) These state articles aren't that long, and 2) there's a substantial amount of overlap with the other articles. PenguiN42 16:46, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, irrational VfD --Pgreenfinch 18:04, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 		¡	Keep	!			--	Ŭalabio 03:32, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * Keep this article and stop abusing wikipedia process, don't you think that an allegation of an Electoral coup of the presidency of the most militarily powerful nation on Earth might be somewhat significant? If not, can you explain what makes it insignificant? Pedant 23:21, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
 * Calling it abuse doesn't make it so- these are all unnecessary daughter articles to a parent article that is far too large (they only exist for that reason as a matter of fact). And I would say it's pretty damned insignifigant when most major news outlets have virtually ignored the story and the losing side hasn't even contested the results. But of course that doesn't matter when a bunch of blog-babies cry foul. Oh, the wonders of the Internet! Reene✎ 23:37, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Partisan heads-in-the-sand notwithstanding, this issue is indeed significant enough to have been the subject of congressional and public hearings. -- RyanFreisling @ 00:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note: Voting and discussion on related articles listed for VfD here:
 * 1) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities
 * 2) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls
 * 3) Votes_for_deletion/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy,_vote_suppression
 * 4) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, voting machines
 * 5) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Florida
 * 6) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Ohio

Comments
Despite claims by the peanut gallery, none of these sub-pages have been VfD'd before and the VfD for the main article was over weeks ago. Since then the page has grown and changed considerably and has become bloated to the point of absurdity. This is not, however, an excuse to scatter the mess that is this article all over Wikipedia. The issue at hand here is not the main article; for that, go to the appropriate VfD page. The issue at hand is whether or not these subpages need to be deleted. As they've been created as the result of unnecessary bloat and a few zealous editors that I understand have been preventing anyone from cleaning up the page to a reasonable degree, these need to be put BACK in the main article and cleaned up. Reene (リニ) 21:50, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * Posting this comment on every page is awkward wiki form, but here's my reply.

 * Again, if you allege that 'a few zealous editors have been preventing anyone...' etc., I'd ask for proof. That kind of behavior is intolerable. Would you like to help to improve the article? Because no-one is prohibited from doing so. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Let's see if Reene's comments are correct. She claimed that "a few zealous editors that I understand have been preventing anyone from cleaning up the page to a reasonable degree."  Let's check that out.  Here is a list of every user who edited this particular article from its inception until Netoholic came along and put a vfd on it:
 * Kevin baas
 * 209.51.78.26

At that point (November 11) Netoholic called the first vfd on this particular page. Note that Reene's belief that the page had not been vfd'd before is thus disproven.

The decision of the November 11 vfd was to keep the article. Editing continued with the following contributors:

 * Kevin baas
 * Rossami (added disputed tag and made comment on talk page .   This comment was edited the following day by 64.198.212.134.  Rossami, was that you again, or a vandal?  Rossami made no further edits, and no further comments on the talk page until December 5th when second vfd was raised.  (I did not make the anon edit. I was waiting for evidence to become available to refute the allegations.  Then, I'm sorry to admit that I lost track of the discussion and only thought to find it again yesterday after reading the PD article. Rossami (talk))
 * 204.210.230.95
 * Mirv
 * Michael Hardy
 * 152.119.154.168
 * GRider
 * No malrs

At this point Snowspinner called the second vfd (the current one) and inserted a "totally disputed" tag.
 * Again, as with the other articles, I see not one single attempt by those proposing the deletion to perform a cleanup. Reene has been misinformed; nobody has attempted to prevent anybody performing a cleanup of this article, and it has indeed been vfd'd before.  The sections may have been subject to an edit war prior to being split; I will investigate that possibility also, on the appropriate VfD page.
 * It's a shame, I think, that since the vfd was placed and while discussion of this article was ongoing, one user has twice today edited the page to a redirect to an article called U.S. presidential election, 2004. I would have preferred to see the user in question show good faith by waiting for a consensus to be reached.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:32, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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


text:
Nuʻuanu Pali

Nuuanu Pali is a section of the windward cliff (pali  in Hawaiian) of the Koolau mountain located at the head of Nuuanu Valley on the island of Oahu. It has a panoramic view of the windward (northeast) coast of Oahu. The Pali Highway (Hawaii State Highway 61) connecting Kailua/Kāneohe with downtown Honolulu runs through the Nuuanu Pali Tunnels bored into the cliffside.

The area is also the location of the Nuuanu Freshwater Fish Refuge and the Nuuanu Reservoir in the jurisdiction of the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources.

The Nuuanu Pali State Wayside is a lookout above the tunnels where there is a panoramic view of Oahu's windward side with views of Kāneohe, Kāneohe Bay, and Kailua. It is also well known for strong trade winds that blow through the pass (now bypassed by the Nuuanu Pali Tunnels). The Nuʻuanu Pali Tunnels were built in 1958. Before this road opened, people would use what is now known as the Old Pali Road, currently a popular hiking route.

History
The Nuuanu Pali has been a vital pass from ancient times to the present because it is a low, traversable section of the Koolau mountain range that connects the leeward side of the mountains, Honolulu to the windward side, Kailua and Kāneohe. The route drew settlers who formed villages in the area and populated Nuuanu Valley for a thousand years.

The Nuuanu Pali was the site of the Battle of Nuuanu, one of the bloodiest battles in Hawaiian history, in which Kamehameha I conquered the island of Oahu, bringing it under his rule. In 1795 Kamehameha I sailed from his home island of Hawaii with an army of 10,000 warriors, including a handful of non-Hawaiian foreigners. After conquering the islands of Maui and Molokai, he moved on to Oahu. The pivotal battle for the island occurred in Nuuanu Valley, where the defenders of Oahu, led by Kalanikūpule, were driven back up into the valley where they were trapped above the cliff. Kamehamehaʻs warriors forced Maui Chief Kalanikupule's men to their deaths off of the cliff. Roughly 400 warriors died in this battle. After this battle, Kapanui recited a Hawaiian chant as a sign of respect to those who have died there.

In 1845 the first road was built over the Nuuanu Pali, to connect Windward Oahu with Honolulu. In 1898, as this road was developed into a highway, workers found 800 human skulls—believed to be the remains of the warriors who fell to their deaths from the cliff above. This road was later replaced by the Pali Highway and the Nuuanu Pali Tunnels in 1959, which is the route used today.

The now extinct bird, the Oahu nukupuu, was last collected in this valley.

There is also a legend that takes place around the Nuʻuanu Pali. This is The Ghost Dog Legend. This legend states that when people came across this dog on the Pali, they had to turn back around or else they would not make it up the steep mountain. Because of these events, it is said that coming across this dog would lead to kaupe, meaning disaster.

Nuuanu Reservoir
The Nuuanu Reservoir is located up the Nuuanu Pali heading towards Kailua, in the valley jungle. This small body of water holds various species of catfish, and peacock bass. In efforts towards preserving the reservoir, appointments must be made half a year prior to the visiting date. This ensures a controlled number of residents that fish out of the waters, preventing overfishing. A fresh water game fishing license and an entry fishing card are required to fish there. There is a two fish per license limit, and any catfish that is 16 inches or larger must be kept.

Nuuanu Trail
The trail to Nuuanu began at Kalanikahua and led north of Kaumakapili Church to below the stream which flowed out of Kamanuwai pond. There the trail turned slightly to the right, went along the edge of the pond, and down into the water. Then, coming up on the bank onto Waiakemi, it led on to Waakekupua, along the bank of the taro patches, to the Pauoa stream, up to Pualoalo, and on to the gap at Nuuanu Pali.

Superstition
Two large stones near the back of Nuuanu Valley, Hapuu and Ka-lae-hau-ola, were said to represent a pair of goddesses who were guardians of the passage down the pali. Travellers would leave offerings of flowers or kapa (bark cloth) to ensure a safe trip, and parents buried the umbilical cords of newborns under the stones as a protection against evil.

According to legend, the pass is inhabited by a moo wahine, a lizard who takes the form of a beautiful woman and leads male travelers to their deaths off the cliff, similar to a western poltergeist or mermaid.

Hawaiian folklore holds that people should never carry pork over Nuuanu Pali, especially at night. Pele, the volcano goddess, was responsible for preventing passage due to her contest with Kamapua'a, a half human, half hog god, and would not allow him (in the form of pork) to trespass on her side of the island.

Cultural references
"Pali Gap" (Nu'uanu Pali into English) is the title of a track from the posthumous 1971 album Rainbow Bridge by the guitarist Jimi Hendrix.

'The Pali', together with surrounding areas such as Tantalus Crater, is the main setting in the novel Micro by Michael Crichton and Richard Preston.

The 2015 movie Pali Road is named for the old road over the Pali, although most of the action takes place elsewhere on Oahu.

Places of interest

 * Queen Emma's summer palace
 * The summer palace of Kamehameha III
 * Pali Highway
 * Pali tunnels

title: Nuʻuanu Pali