text:
KBMY

KBMY (channel 17) is a television station in Bismarck, North Dakota, United States, affiliated with ABC and MyNetworkTV. Owned by Forum Communications Company, the station maintains a news bureau and advertising sales office on North 15th Street in Bismarck, and its transmitter is located near St. Anthony, North Dakota.

Although identifying as a separate station in its own right, KBMY is considered a semi-satellite of sister station and company flagship WDAY-TV (channel 6) in Fargo, which operates semi-satellite WDAZ-TV (channel 8) in Grand Forks. Internal operations are housed at WDAY-TV's studios on South 8th Street in Fargo. KBMY clears all network programming as provided through its parent WDAY-TV and simulcasts WDAY-TV's newscasts, but airs a separate offering of syndicated programming; there are also separate commercial inserts and legal station identifications.

KMCY (channel 14) in Minot operates as a semi-satellite of KBMY extending the ABC/MyNetworkTV signal into the northern half of the Bismarck–Minot market; this station's news bureau and advertising sales office are located on 2nd St SE in Minot, and its transmitter is located near South Prairie. KMCY simulcasts all network and syndicated programming as provided through KBMY but airs separate local commercial inserts and legal identifications.

History
KBMY signed on for the first time on March 31, 1985, and KMCY signed on for the first time in June 1985; bringing the full ABC schedule to central and western North Dakota and eastern Montana for the first time ever. Before 1985, this area had been one of the last in the United States without full network service. ABC was limited to off-hours clearances on KX Television (KXMC/KXMD/KXMB/KXMA) and Meyer Television (KFYR/KQCD/KMOT/KUMV). From the 1970s onward, some cable subscribers in western North Dakota received the full ABC schedule from KULR-TV (now NBC) from Billings, KFBB-TV from Great Falls, KOTA-TV from Rapid City or KUSA in Denver. The eastern half of the market was served by Fargo's KTHI-TV (now KVLY-TV) until it swapped affiliations with WDAY/WDAZ in 1983. From 1983 onward, cable systems in Bismarck piped in WDAY-TV, while cable systems in Minot piped in WDAZ.

On paper, western North Dakota had been large enough to support three full network affiliates since at least the late 1960s. However, this region is one of the largest geographic markets in the nation, spilling across large slices of North Dakota, Montana, and South Dakota. It is so vast that KX Television and Meyer Television both needed four full-power stations to adequately cover it. On paper, the FCC collapsed central and western North Dakota into one giant market in 1957. However, due to Dickinson being on Mountain Time, the market was not fully realized until 1980, when Meyer upgraded its low-powered translator in Dickinson to full-powered KQCD, prompting Dickinson's original station, KDIX-TV (now KXMA) to become a separately-owned satellite of KX Television. Additionally, the only available commercial allocations were on the UHF band; UHF stations have never covered large areas very well. By the early 1980s, cable television—a must for acceptable television in much of this vast market—had gained enough penetration for a network affiliate on the UHF band to be viable.

In the early 2000s, KBMY signed on two low-powered translators to serve the smaller cities in the market, K44HR in Williston and K42FY in Dickinson. Prior to K44HR's inception, cable systems in Williston, Dickinson and the western half of the market piped in Denver's ABC affiliate—KUSA prior to 1995 and KMGH-TV after 1995. The Dickinson station directly repeated KBMY, while the Williston station repeated KMCY.

From the 1990s until 2007, KBMY and KMCY were known collectively as "ABC West". That year, the stations changed their monikers in favor of the station identities for their area. From 2002 until 2008, KBMY/KMCY was operated by Prime Cities Broadcasting, owner of western North Dakota's Fox affiliate, KNDX/KXND, in a local marketing agreement. The LMA allowed KBMY/KMCY to share the facilities, staff, and some equipment of KNDX/KXND.

The LMA with KNDX/KXND ended in 2008, with Forum opting to partner with Reiten Television in KBMY/KMCY's local operations via a joint sales agreement. While some local advertising staffers were based at KXMB-TV in Bismarck and KXMC-TV in Minot, most operations have been consolidated at WDAY-TV's studios in Fargo.

Under this arrangement, KBMY and KMCY's programming was transported from WDAY-TV's studios to Bismarck via leased microwave relay bandwidth furnished by Prairie Public Broadcasting's statewide digital terrestrial microwave network (the only permanent full-time video link from Fargo to Bismarck for television broadcasting). The signal was then sent to KXMB from Prairie Public via fiber-optic line, where it then is exported via a studio to transmitter link (STL) from KXMB's studios to KBMY and KMCY's transmitters.

As part of the JSA with Reiten, KBMY/KMCY were picked up on the digital subchannels of KX Television satellites KXMA-TV in Dickinson and KXMD-TV in Williston starting in May 2009, and the translators serving Dickinson and Williston were shut down. The JSA was terminated following the acquisition of the KX stations by Nexstar Broadcasting Group on February 2, 2016. At the same time, the ABC subchannels of KXMA and KXMD were replaced with The CW Plus. Due to the high penetration of cable and satellite in this market, however, few viewers in the western part of the market lost access to ABC programming.

WDAY X
WDAY X is a digital subchannel carried on WDAY 6.3, WDAZ 8.3, KBMY 17.3, and KMCY 14.3, airing as a primary affiliate of MyNetworkTV on KBMY and KMCY and as an independent station on WDAY-TV and WDAZ-TV. This subchannel airs syndicated programming, North Dakota and Minnesota high school sports, North Dakota high school state tournaments, Minnesota State University Moorhead athletics, and select North Dakota State University athletic events. It airs Doppler weather radar and "Storm Tracker" weather loop with easy listening music during overnights.

WDAY X (as WDAY Xtra) became available in HD in 2014, and in 2016, MyNetworkTV programming began airing (in prime time), although on KBMY and KMCY only (in Bismarck and Minot respectively) but not on WDAY-TV in Fargo or WDAZ-TV in Devils Lake–Grand Forks (the most likely reason being that both of those stations broadcast to a viewing area that is currently being serviced by MyNetworkTV affiliate KRDK-TV from Valley City–Fargo).

Starting on August 29, 2016, WDAY Xtra and the Justice Network aired WDAY Xtra News during weekdays at 9 p.m. It is offered on Midco cable channel 594. KBMY and KMCY began carrying this subchannel in 2013.

News and programming
When KBMY/KMCY signed on in 1985, the stations originated and aired a local newscast at 10 p.m. with on-location ENG and studio news coverage for the Bismarck and Minot areas. With fewer reporters than KX Television and Meyer Television, as well as a smaller footprint (only two transmitters to four apiece for their competitors), KBMY concentrated on in-depth reporting. However, despite Forum's resources and legacy in North Dakota (sister stations WDAY/WDAZ are among the strongest ABC affiliates in the nation), KBMY/KMCY made almost no headway against Meyer Television and KX Television. Forum shelved this first attempt at a local newscast in March 1989 due to concerns about costs; a new reporter was to have moved from California before the shutdown. The nationally syndicated USA Today: The Television Show took over the newscast's former timeslot in KBMY/KMCY's schedule.

For the next quarter-century, the stations were among the few Big Three affiliates in the nation with no long form newscasts. From the mid-1990s to 2014, the closest thing to a newscast on the stations was Good Morning West Dakota, a 30-minute morning show produced by Bismarck radio station KBMR. Even then, there were no local cut-ins during Good Morning America.

Starting in 2014, WDAY-TV began reorienting its newscasts to a statewide focus, and gradually began simulcasting them on KBMY/KMCY. The Sunday 5:30 p.m. (Central Time) newscast was the first rolled out to Bismarck, in February 2014. First News broadcasts during weekday mornings from 5 a.m. to 7 a.m. (Central Time) debuted in April 2014, and the stations began airing WDAY's 5 p.m. (Central Time) weekday newscast in August 2014. Local cut-ins during Good Morning America are broadcast from WDAY-TV's studios. WDAY's 6 p.m. newscast debuted on September 14, 2015, with the 10 p.m. news starting on December 5, 2016.

The stations do not produce much local content, mostly serving as "pass-throughs" for automated programming from ABC and WDAY/WDAZ.

KBMY and KMCY sign off on Monday mornings at 4:30 a.m., returning to the air just minutes later.

Subchannels
The stations' signals are multiplexed:

Analog-to-digital conversion
KBMY shut down its analog signal, over UHF channel 17, on June 12, 2009, the official date on which full-power television stations in the United States transitioned from analog to digital broadcasts under federal mandate. The station "flash-cut" its digital signal into operation on UHF channel 17.

KMCY shut down its analog signal, over UHF channel 14, on February 10, 2009, and "flash-cut" its digital signal into operation on UHF channel 14.

title: KBMY


text:
Template talk:New Zealand political parties

Comment
This template is now redundant now that there is a Category system. Category:New Zealand political parties achieves a similar role to this template. Alan Liefting 20:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * That was my view too, but User:Wilfried Derksen disagreed. (I believe he also wanted all elections linked from all party pages, and all parties linked from all election pages, too). Still, if there's sufficient consensus that they should go, I have no objections at all (even though I created this template). See also Template:Historic New Zealand political parties. -- Vardion 21:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a nice template and a handy single click to other parties. I am now undecided as to whether it should stay or go. Alan Liefting 21:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I retract my previous opinion. It is a good template. Alan Liefting 9 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)

Comment
What's the criteria for inclusion inthis template? At present it includes Parliamentary parties, registered parties, unregistered parties, and some which seem to be defunct. It would be nice to have a clear criteria, or to have a further split between registered parties (which can contest the party list) and unregistered onces )which can't). IdiotSavant (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
In the absence of further guidance, I propose the following inclusion criteria for the "unregistered" section:

 * If the party ran candidates in the previous election;
 * If the party was registered at the previous election;
 * If the party has announced its intention to register or run candidates at the next election.

Parties which announce that they will no longer be active should not be included.--IdiotSavant (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

 * That sounds sensible. Once the next election date is announced, then parties which might meet the first two criteria, but haven't been heard of since, might also be dropped, so only parties with some relevance to the upcoming election are included.- gadfium 18:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree with Gadfium's comments.  Schwede 66  19:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

 * With the deregistration of the New World Order Party, they should be (re?)moved. Quadparty (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

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


text:
Talk:Joe Simpson (manager)

References?
I notice that there are no references for this page. How do we know he's a "staunch Republican"? Based on how little content there is here, is this page worth having? Can't we find a reference and include the guy's age, birthplace, when he started managing, etc? -Willmcw 20:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * NYT, 10/3/04: "Mr. Simpson was born 46 years ago in San Antonio..."

 * I'll use that article to expand this one at some point in the future. Everyking 22:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I found his (and his daugher's) birth certificate at Rootsweb.com The 1958 birth references were correct.Vulturell 00:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup
The article seems clean and tidy now. What cleanup needs to be done? It's so short, why not just do it? -Willmcw 04:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Unless anyone can suggest what needs to be cleaned up, I'm going to remove the tag. It seems pointless. -Willmcw 08:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm guessing that whoever added it wanted the article to be expanded. As far as actual clean-up goes, I agree it doesn't really need any. Everyking 10:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

the Arcade Fire
While the MSNBC article referred to in this article asserts that (Antichrist Television Blues) is written about Joe Simpson, it doesn't refer to any clear sources. This interview from the Onion AV Club makes it less than clear that the song is actually based on Simpson, and the other sources online all seem to trace to this post from Fluxblog. While I agree that the lyrics are suggestive, given Win Butler's lack of commitment to the idea, the material ought to be removed, or at least tempered with a "apparent" or "suggests..." type of modifier. 67.185.32.157 09:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for finding those sources and pointing out the problem. I've added the AV Club link and re-written the text to make it clear that the band hasn't confirmed the connection. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I think this connection was confirmed by Win Butler at the Austin City Limits show, before they played the song he said: "Joseph Simpson knelt down in a grove and a dream came to him." Obvious it is going to be hard to use this as a sourse. 213.162.107.4 (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment regarding Jessica's body
One editor keeps removing the ultimate line of her father's infamous adjudication of his daughter's body. It is properly cited, as is the second magazine evaluation of this quote. Please discuss the reasons for further reversions along this line before making them. Thanks. --Vaudedoc (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's junk. The source isn't reliable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The source for which? The original quote by Simpson was reported in The Boston Globe a major, Pultizer Prize-winning paper. The evaluation of his quote was from US Weekly, a magazine with a weekly circulation of 1,850,000. Simpson has never disputed he made the statement, and the Globe's reputation as a major US paper is well-established. As to the second quote, reliability doesn't really enter into it--it's the editorial judgment of Simpson's quote. Would you prefer a different source for the latter (fairly wide-spread) opinion? --Vaudedoc (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's no good. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your reply to Vaudedoc. Are you saying that the Boston Globe is not a reliable source? If so, I believe you're mistaken. It's a well-known mainstream newspaper.   Will Beback    talk    19:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Joe Simpson (manager)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Townsend

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was MERGE. dbenbenn | talk 02:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lauren Townsend
Like Kelly Fleming above, a victim of the Columbine shooting. Slightly more worthy of inclusion than the others, as she apparently inspired a made for TV movie. Still, it's a memorial with a sentence tacked on the end, and falls within the memorial guidelines. -R. fiend 20:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to that movie, Dawn Anna. Samaritan 21:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Megan1967 02:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as per Samaritan, above. 23skidoo 16:12, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Gelasian Sacramentary

The so-called Gelasian Sacramentary (Latin: Sacramentarium Gelasianum) is a book of Christian liturgy, containing the priest's part in celebrating the Eucharist. It is the second oldest western liturgical book that has survived: only the Verona Sacramentary is older.

The book exists in several manuscripts, the oldest of which is an 8th-century manuscript in the Vatican Library, acquired from the library of Queen Christina of Sweden (thus MS Reginensis 316); in German scholarship this is referred to as the Altgelasianum, and is considered the sacramentary used by Saint Boniface in his mid-8th century mission on the European continent. This is the most important surviving Merovingian illuminated manuscript, and shows a synthesis of Late Antique conventions with "barbarian" migration period art motifs comparable to the better known insular art of Britain and Ireland.

In none of its old manuscripts does the book bear the name of Gelasius but is simply called Liber sacramentorum Romanae ecclesiae ("Book of Sacraments of the Church of Rome"). However, an old tradition linked the book to Pope Gelasius I, apparently based on Walafrid Strabo's ascription of what is evidently this book to the 5th-century pope. The sacramentary was compiled near Paris around 750, and it contains a mixture of Gallican and Roman elements. The dating of the liturgical contents are not based on characteristics of the surviving manuscript itself (ca 750): most of its liturgy reflects the mix of Roman and Gallican practice inherited from the Merovingian church. In 785-6 the reforms of Pope Gregory I, Gregory the Great, were supplied to Charlemagne by Pope Hadrian I. The spurious ascription to Gelasius gave an added authority to the contents, which are an important document of pre-Gregorian liturgy.

Among several distinct rites current in the West before the 8th century, the two most influential were the Roman rite used in Italy south of Lombardy and the Gallican in use in most of the rest of Western Europe, save Iberia and the British Isles. By 700 the influence of the Roman sacramentary had modified Gallican usage. This mixture of rites represented in the Gelasian Sacramentary  was superseded when Charlemagne asked Pope Hadrian to provide an authentic Roman sacramentary for use throughout the empire. In 785-86, the pope sent the emperor the Sacramentarium Hadrianum, a version of the Gregorian Sacramentary for papal use, which was adapted for the Carolingian empire.

The "Gelasian Sacramentary" comprises the pre-Gregorian three parts, corresponding to the liturgical year, made up of masses for Sundays and feasts, prayers, rites and blessings of the Easter font and of the oil, prayers at dedication of churches, and for the reception of nuns.

title: Gelasian Sacramentary


text:
Maenalus (Arcadia)

Maenalus or Mainalos (Μαίναλος) was a town of ancient Arcadia, and the capital of the district Maenalia (Μαιναλία), which formed part of the territory of Megalopolis upon the foundation of the latter city. Maenalus was in ruins in the time of Pausanias, who mentions a temple of Athena, a stadium, and a hippodrome, as belonging to the place.

According to the myth it was founded by Maenalus, son of Lycaon.

Its site is tentatively located near the modern Davia.

People

 * Nicodamus (sculptor)

title: Maenalus (Arcadia)


text:
Gilak

Gilak may refer to:

 * Gilaks, an Iranian ethnic group
 * Gilak language, a member of the northwestern Iranian language branch

title: Gilak


text:
Talk:Neo-Confederates/Archive 1

Weasel words

 * Neo-confederate groups are often pro-South and pro-states' rights, and some are accused of practicing bigotry.

 * Neo-confederate groups are normally pro-South pro-states' rights, and in favor of renewed southern secession.

Are there any Neo-Confedrate groups that are not pro-South and pro-states' rights? Why the qualifier? If a group doesn't stand for those things, then it isn't a neo-confederate group, right? Unless there is an example to the contrary, I think it is correct to write that such groups always stand for those things, not just normally or often. -Willmcw 08:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Reason for the qualifier: not all neo-confederate groups have the exact same beliefs but rather are typified by those beliefs. For example, a neo-confederate group could espouse states rights or nullification theory but not desire to secede even though many do desire to secede.Rangerdude 18:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, hypothetically. Are there specific groups you are thinking of?

 * Also, the UDC and SCV uproar over McPherson seems to have been becasue he called them "white supremacists", not because he called them "neo-confederate". I followed the link and there is nothing there about neo-confederacy. Do you have a reference where they deny being NeoCon and complain about McPherson using that term? I think the anecdote belongs in the SCV and UDC articles instead of this one. -Willmcw 23:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * He also uses the term "neo-confederate" in the full interview as do the show's hosts many times. I was searching for a transcript online earlier and came across that UDC link. I'll see if I can locate the full thing though.Rangerdude 00:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * McPherson clearly calls them "neo-confederate" in the interview, that is not the question. The issue is have the SCV and UDT denied being "NC" and created an uproar over it. The page you linked to, on a UDC site, does not mention "NC". -Willmcw 00:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the issue is that the UDC denounced the entire interview. McPherson clearly used the term in a pejorative sense, which is part of the article here, and thus reason for its inclusion as an example of an episode where this happened. That the UDC was unhappy with the entire interview is also plainly evident, which is the purpose of mentioning them.Rangerdude 01:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Groups Labelled Neo-Confederate
One other thing on the header you just added - most of the groups you listed are NOT identified as "neo-confederate" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. I think the only ones they track are the League of the South and the Council of Conservative Citizens, and only the former is described as "neo-confederate" by them.

There is also probably a NPOV problem in putting together a list like that, especially based on the SPLC - which is a controversial organization that espouses a POV of its own. The section should probably mention the League of the South as an example of a well known group that is considered neo-confederate. Some chapters of the Council of Conservative Citizens could possibly be included, but they are more of a segregationist organization and don't particularly have any pro-confederate connection (they were formed out of the White Citizens Council groups that resisted integration in the 60's and the anti-bussing groups in the 70's and aren't a regionally exclusive group like the League of the South).

The UDC and SCV have evidently been called neo-confederate by some, but the SPLC does not consider them this and they are normally treated as mainstream geneology associations like the Daughters of the American Revolution. Those who do call them neo-confederate seem to come from the political extreme (e.g. Pacifica Radio) and use the term in the pejorative sense, so listing them as an example of a neo-confederate group is probably inappropriate here.Rangerdude 02:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll re-word it. Yes, the SPLC only identifies the LOTS as NC (along with a couple of little groups). But others routinely call the CoCC, the UDC, and the SCV NC. (whew, too many acronyms!) I was trying to avoid saying that these were all SPLC-labelled groups, but I'll make that clearer, and provide some attributions. There are scores of lists like this on Wiki, which include assigning people or groups that they may not agree with. I don't think there is a boilerplate template for it, but a disclaimer to the effect that all groups may not agree with the label is sufficient. (cf Category:Lists of people). Cheers, -Willmcw 02:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * A list is okay in some respects, but we have to be careful. Otherwise we risk creating a variant of McCarthy-style labelling, only the label is neo-confederate instead of communist. The list should not include just any and every group that some kook on the internet somewhere or a heavily biased media outlet labels as a neo-confederate. For example I don't think there are many mainstream sources that would consider the UDC or SCV neo-confederate. Most of what they do is geneological and cleaning up old battlefield, monuments, and cemetaries. I think they both also have policies against espousing political positions, which is a characteristic of a neo-confederate group. Again, the ones that do call them neo-confederate are places like Pacifica Radio - which is on the far left - and people like Sebesta, who is only treated as credible by outlets like Pacifica. Mainstream groups such as the Union Veterans ancestor counterparts and most mainstream media outlets don't consider the UDC neo-confederate. Now the League of the South on the other hand should be on the list because they openly advertise their belief in secession and are known for that in public mainstream sources.Rangerdude 02:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, there are (and were) communists. Regarding its definition, does it necessarily include secessionists or not? Earlier I thought you were saying that NC folks often are secession, but not always. If so, a group can be NC without advocating secession, such as the CofCC. We can be sure to say that some groups deny the label. Cheers, -Willmcw 03:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * That is true, but there is a difference between identifying real communists and tarring people at random with the label "communist". The reworked paragraph is better but still needs some clarification. The identity of the person who uses the term is important to establishing the credibility of its use. If somebody were to write an article saying "Vladimir Putin has been accused by some who know him of having a hot temper" and the source is Colin Powell it is VERY different than saying the same thing if the source is Louis Farrakahn. Powell is a mainstream source who met Putin and is qualified to make that assessment while Farrakahn is not. Powell is mainstream and Farrakahn is a fringe leader. Since the source on labelling the UDC as neo-confederate is a fringe radio network (Sebesta), a fringe commentator (Sebesta), and comments by McPherson that were received very unfavorably in the mainstream, any identification of the UDC and SCV as "neo-confederate" should be HEAVILY qualified by noting exactly what kind of sources are making the charges. Perhaps moving that paragraph to the section on the pejorative of the term would be a way of resoliving this, since Pacifica, McPherson et al used it in a pejorative sense rather than to simply identify an undisputed neo-confederat group like the LOTS Rangerdude 04:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * One more thing - I'm still not sure if the CofCC qualifies as neo-confederate. There doesn't seem to be anything that they do or stand for that is explicitly pro-confederacy. Most of their issues are apparently related to affirmative action and opposing desegregation, which are both 20th century issues.

 * I don't know if the CofCC qualifies as being neo-confederate either. In fact, I don't know if any of these groups qualify. Fortuantely, we don't have to make that determination. We're just saying that other sources have called them neo-confederate. I'll look some more - I think that others beside Institute for Southern Studies and SPLC have used the term. Meanwhile I'll add Institute for Southern Studies. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Again that's fine, but we should use a finer toothed comb in screening what other sources we use and how much credibility we give to the sources we do use. Simply posting any and every accusation where somebody called somebody else a "neoconfederate" is irresponsible and reeks of a variant of McCarthyism. It's the difference between quoting William Rehnquist and quoting Lyndon LaRouche - yes, each of them technically say lots of things about current issues but one is credible and the other's a fringer. Same goes for this, and I don't think we should be making a list based on what some nutcase at Pacifica Radio says without making it VERY clear that it's coming from Pacifica radio and being used in the pejorative. I added qualifiers and set up another section to discuss this. The "Institute for Southern Studies" linked to in your source is a far-left organization that, according to its website, includes Cynthia McKinney and Jim Hightower as contributers. It is fine if McKinney and Hightower want to say something in this discussion, but it needs to be noted who these people are and the fact that they are writing with a very strong point-of-view of their own, rather than a mainstream source. Rangerdude 06:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I looked for a site which had a characterization of the Institute for Southern Studies, but didn't find one. "Far-left" is a very POV characterization. If a characterization is required, then "a civil-rights group" would seem neutral. I'm not sure that we need to rely on Pacifica Radio for anything, but if so then it may be well-known enough not to require a characterization, but "progressive" would be a neutral term for it. I don't see any need to add other groups to the list - do you know of any others that should be included? The others on the SPLC list seemed minor. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Look at their website. It openly says it's purpose is to push a liberal agenda in the south. It also openly promotes far left writers like Hightower and McKinney who are indisputably from the left wing of the US political spectrum. See http://www.southernstudies.org/southernexposure.asp Rangerdude 06:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here's the entire page you linked to:
 * While pundits continue to paint the South as a stronghold of conservatism, the award-winning Southern Exposure magazine recently celebrated 25 years of offering "a progressive view of the South" with a special anniversary edition issued. It features 25 leading Southern "change-makers" - including Julian Bond, Chairman of the National NAACP; Texas-based radio host Jim Hightower; and Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) - offering insights into how the South has changed in the last 25 years, and predicting key challenges for the next quarter century.
 * All members of the Institute receive Southern Exposure and deep discounts on Institute reports. For those who want to receive Southern Exposure without joining as a member or who want to order back copies of the magazine, please click here.
 * "Southern Exposure has exposed people to the good news and the bad news about the South," writes Julian Bond in the anniversary issue. "It's been a wonderful resource for people - from the merely curious, to people who want to know how they can get involved and create change."

I don't see where the webpage uses the phrases "liberal" or "far-left". Bond and McKinney aren't even board members, they're just participants at a conference. Anyway, this article isn't about them, it's about "neo-confederates". We're already saying that defenders of these groups rebut the charges of neo-confederalism by asserting that these groups have an anti-confederate agenda. Doesn't that cover it? -Willmcw 06:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * They use euphemistic synonyms like "progressive." Their self identified mission statement is to "provide a progressive view of the south" and their page is covered with traditionally liberal social causes like "environmental justice" and "farmworker justice". They should accordingly be identified as a liberal organization, just as you would have every right to identify a link from the Heritage Foundation as conservative or right wing. There's no need to hide their political perspectives and it deceived the reader if we do.Rangerdude 07:33, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, "liberal" is reasonably acurate and succinct. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I made the aforementioned change, and also removed this clause:
 * ...observe that their accusers often come from extreme ends of the political spectrum,...
 * which I think requires a citation. Who made that observation? -Willmcw 07:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is just from a quick google search but here's a pro-southern group that complains of McPherson being anti-south and a political extremist http://www.patriotist.com/abarch/ab20020708.htm

It's actually a fairly common complaint. I'll try and find some others when I have a little more time.

 * Er, what does that link have to do with this clause? Has the Patriotist been accused of being neo-confederate? - The clause that I deleted said that "many" of these groups (LOTS, CofCC, UDC, SCV, and the Museum of the Confederacy) "observe that their accusers [SPLC and ISS] often come from extreme ends of the political spectrum". "Liberal" is a long ways off from the extreme ends of political spectrum, and McPherson is not the ISS. Since we're only talking about five groups, I'd think that "many" would be at least three.  The Patriotist link may be suitable for adding to the McPherson article, but blogs generally have a low reputation as a source. -Willmcw 08:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Looking at the Patriotist website, I see that they are running what appears to be a special ad for a LOTS newsletter, their sole ad. In that light, I would say that they are LOTS supporters and can be considered as much neo-confederate as the LOTS are. So, if you want, we can include their comments as those of an allegedly neo-confederate blog. -Willmcw 10:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Edits: I edited the Sebesta paragraph - is every opponent of "neo-confederacy" controversial? That's a POV. How frequently does he appear on Pacifica (I could only find the one appearance, with McPherson)? I deleted the parenthetical disclaimer that the CofCC has anything to do with the Confederacy - look at their website - they display the battle flag and are raising money for a confederate monument. I rearranged the paragraphs in the last section to make for a more logical flow. And I provided an actual quote from Benson, who acknowledges himself as a neo-con.  Cheers, -Willmcw 20:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it may be safely said that both people who are identified as "neo-confederate" and their accusers tend to be controversial. Sebesta is also one of those types who hails from a political extreme. Many people call him a kook and some of his political causes are very strange (he once called the mayor of Dallas Ron Kirk - who is black - a neoconfederate sympathizer because Dallas City Council wouldn't listen to his request to remove an obscure Robert E. Lee statue from a park somewhere), so we have to be careful in how he is identified and present him as with everyone else, with a full disclaimer. I've heard him quoted on Pacifica several times - that McPherson interview is just the most famous incident and the one that has an online transcript. I still dispute the characterization of the CofCC as "neo-confederate" simply because some of them wave a bunch of confederate battle flags from time to time. We need a higher bar on what constitutes being neo-confederate, because by the same measure you use to include the CofCC you could also theoretically throw in anybody else who ever uses a confederate flag for something - and that could mean anything from the Klan to the guys who wave them at Lynyrd Skynyrd concerts to historical reinactors to your average redneck in a trailer park. Noting that neo-confederate groups are typified by a belief in secessionism, reconstituting the CSA, and certain forms of states rights views (e.g. nullification theory) makes for a rough set of criteria, and I simply don't think the CofCC - which apparently exists to promote segregation - meets those criteria. Anyway, I think there are some serious dangers in the direction this article could be going that may eventually risk it having a POV of its own based on the types of sources it includes and excludes. If that turns out to be the case, a proper tag on the article should be inserted until there is a resolution.Rangerdude 21:19, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * If you can find other occasions when Sebesta actually was on a Pacifica show, then we can include them. As I said, I could only find a single referenced occasion, which certainly does not merit a description of him "frequently" being on the network. If you can find a buch of quotes, we could say "he is quoted frequently." From where are you getting your definition of "neo-confederate?" Since it is a term applied by groups on the left, it seems like we'll have to go to one of those groups to see how they define it. Are there specific references that you have a problem with? I think this article is fairly NPOV - please indicate exactly what the problem is. I'm sure we can fix it. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, can you please provide some citations for all the Sebesta info you added? -Willmcw 22:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Going to a group with a strong POV to define the term risks introducing a POV into this article itself. That's why we need a general framework of commonly agreed characteristics that most or all neo-confederate groups share. Since pretty much everybody agrees that the LOTS is neo-confederate, we could base it on what they believe - renewed secession, reconstituting the CSA, and nullification-style states rights theory. Simply saying "they have a confederate flag" though doesn't meet the bar. The Sebesta material I added on Barnes, Bush, Ashcroft, and Kirk etc. is drawn from usenet and his website. Unfortunately his site (www.templeofdemocracy.com) is offline right now preventing a means of linking to it here, though you can retrieve a cached copy of his Kirk article from some of the search engines. A quick google groups search shows that he posted the Kirk article on at least eight different usenet forums. Criticism of his tactics may be found on that UDC page and several others.Rangerdude 22:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * "Find them yourself" is not an adequate method of citing your sources. Please provide some links so that the material can be verified. Terms like "frequently" are especally suspect without any indication of actual frequency. -Willmcw 22:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, if "everyone agrees" that LOTS is neo-confederate, then let's move it out of the controvevery over labelling section. Right now, it sounds as if only the SPLC thinks it is neo-confederate. -Willmcw 22:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * It's a simple matter of searching for them on google groups. Try http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=%22ed+sebesta%22+%22ron+kirk%22&qt_s=Search+Groups
 * And if that doesn't fit your demands, try this - http://web.archive.org/web/20021230174437/www.templeofdemocracy.com/RonKirk.htm
 * Add LOTS to the top section as an example if you wish, but leave them in the labelling section as well as a basis of comparison between groups to show what the SPLC considers neo-confederate versus what others do. Rangerdude 22:26, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The link on Ron Kirk does not include Sebesta calling Kirk a neo-confederate. He calls Kirk a "pro-confederate". Do you have another link or are they the same thing? (PS, I've added that the SPLC doies not consider the SCV, etc, to be Neo-confederate). Also, I cannot find the page on the LOTS site where they aly out the platform that you describe above. -Willmcw 22:39, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Sebesta seems to use "pro confederate" and "neo confederate" plus a few other synonyms interchangably. The article also describes the event Kirk attended as a "neo-confederate program" and characterizes his "monitoring" of Kirk as part of the "research" he does on the "neo-confederate movement"Rangerdude 23:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if he didn't call them "neo-confederate" then we shouldn't include it here. It sounds like he criticized them for supporting Confederate causes, but those accusations belong in other articles. Let's just write what he says, not what we think he means. -Willmcw 23:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for cites to support Sebesta allegations. Let's not go beyond what can be verified. I've "remarked" out the paragraph while we work on it to avoid an edit war. This article is not about Ed Sebesta, so only a short comment characterizing him is necessary. -Willmcw 23:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Sebesta uses the terms interchangably and he DID call Kirk's 1997 event a "neo-confederate program". Use a little common sense and it's very clear that he's making the connection - you are grasping at straws and obfuscating through semantics by suggesting otherwise. I'm also beginning to suspect that you may be pushing an agenda or POV of some sorts here. Your discussion has been polite and I thank you for that, but the way you are editing material on Sebesta seems directed toward downplaying the controversy surrounding him and and excluding factual material about him such as the media outlets he has interviewed with. I'm currently trying to keep the language used in this article as close to the NPOV guidelines as possible and hope that you are doing the same, but also without removing pertinent material. Sebesta is one of the main users (some would say abusers) of the "neo-confederate" term and interchangable synonyms in the pejorative sense, and thus belongs in a discussion of them. A single paragraph on him is not excessive by any means. If you cannot accept or acknowledge that Sebesta's opinion on what constitutes a "neo-confederate" is, to put it mildly, a good deal out of the mainstream and properly qualify his comments to the reader by noting this, I will be forced to tag the article with a POV header, and I don't believe that either of us wants that. Thank you for consideration Rangerdude 23:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If Sebesta criticized Kirk for attending a neo-confederate event, then that is what we should say. That is different from calling someone a "neo-confederate". To assert that he uses the term interchangeably with "pro-confederate" is original research, unless you can demonstrate that others have said so. A paragraph on Sebesta's use of the term "neo-confederate" is not excessive, but it should not be devoted to criticizing Sebesta. A detailed critique of his credentials and prejudices belongs in an article about him. That's the same as for any critic of any movement or person. Your issue about whether Sebesta's definition of neo-confederate is mainstream or not hasn't come up before. Have we even figured out what a "mainstream" definition of "neo-confederate" is, much less what Sebesta's definition is? If you can show that his definition is not mainstream then I have no problem with the article saying so. But right now it comes across as an unreferenced smear on a critic. If you would like to add a NPOV tag then that is your right. However I do not understand which issue you are raising it over. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sebesta Paragraph
Here is what the current paragraph reads

 * Ed Sebesta, a controversial self-styled "Neo-Confederate watchdog", has been accused of using the term "neo-confederate" and its synonyms to malign his political opponents. The Virginia UDC chapter describes Sebesta's website as a "hater of all things Confederate" and "especially slanderous" toward their organization . Sebesta frequently applies the term "Neo-Confederate" to people who exhibit an openly southern viewpoint in general as well as some who do not. He has labelled several well known figures in politics and academia as "neo-confederates" or "pro-confederates" (terms he uses interchangably) including President George W. Bush, controversial former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes, Civil War historian Frank Vandiver (the former President of Texas A & M University) and Ron Kirk, an African-American mayor of Dallas, Texas (on account of attending a Texas Confederate History Day speech in {[1997]]). Though these allegations have earned him a reputation for abusively using the term, Sebesta has been quoted as an "expert" on the "neo-confederate movement" by several media outlets on the political left such as Pacifica Radio and Salon.com.

Please post what, if anything, you think needs to be added or changedRangerdude 23:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Ed Sebesta, a controversial self-styled "Neo-Confederate watchdog", has been accused by unnamed critics of using the term "neo-confederate" and its synonyms to malign his political opponents. The Virginia UDC chapter describes Sebesta's website as a "hater of all things Confederate" and "especially slanderous" toward their organization . In particular, Sebesta has used the "Neo-confederate" label on Civil War historian Frank Vandiver (the former President of Texas A & M University). He has labelled Ron Kirk, an African-American mayor of Dallas, Texas "Pro-confederate" on account of making a Texas Confederate History Day speech in {[1997]].. He appeared once on Democracy Now, a Pacifica radio show, with James McPherson.

 * Sebesta frequently applies has applied the term "Neo-Confederate" to people who exhibit an openly southern viewpoint in general as well as some who do not. who? He has made some unknown references to others on unknown occasions, including President George W. Bush, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes.

Here is the revision that I suggest, I recommend omitting the second paragraph entirely. Can we find out what he called Bush, Ashcroft, and Barnes, and when? Once we have citations for those we can add them back. The lead sentence needs a specific critic who has made this accusation. The fact that he is quoted on Salon is just not relevent to describing him. If you want to apply the weasel-word controversial, then it'll have to go on just about every person and organization named in this article. Let's just leave it off and, if necessary, show the controversy rather that say it. In Sebesta's case, I think that the UDC quote is sufficient to show there is controversy. Unless we lay out what the synonyms of Neo-confederate are we should not make a reference to them in this paragraph. Maybe when we get back to improving the definition of "Neo-confederate" we can include a list of synonyms. -Willmcw 00:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, we seemed to have difficulty paraphrasing the Benson declaration so I made it into a straight quote, which is shorter anyway. Being cited on a website isn't exactly a "link", so let's just call it "being cited on a website." Cheers, -Willmcw 00:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A couple comments regarding your proposed changes-
 * 1. I believe it is fair and accurate to describe Sebesta as controversial. If you have another suggestion that is more particular to his case, by all means let me know. Not having a qualifier of some sort would be deceptive to the reader though because he is pretty far from being a mainstream source and, as the subsequent portion of the paragraph indicates, has made lots of controversial statements that have caused him to be criticized. It's not like we're saying "The New York Times says..." where everybody knows who the New York Times and what they think of it. Sebesta is less known, and pertinent facts about the controversy surrounding him need to be stated. Use a little common sense here - agree with Sebesta or not, you have to admit that he's making some pretty far fetched claims. Think about it. He basically accused a Black mayor of Dallas of being a secret confederate sympathizer and he's made similar charges against about half the U.S. government up to and including the President of the United States! Are we going to have to wait until he starts accusing them of being in the illuminati, freemasons, and a secret martian UFO alliance as well?

 * 2. It would appear strange to add in a phrase about his critics being "unnamed" when the very next sentence names a specific critic of Sebesta, the UDC, and quotes one of their criticisms. This makes the paragraph choppy, disconnected and internally inconsistent.

3. I am content to leave it at only "using the term neoconfederate" and added the synonym phrase because you complained that in some cases he used "pro-confederate." But either way, I'm fine with it.

4. Barnes, Ashcroft et all are on the same cached website I linked you to for Kirk. He's got a page called "Elections Web Page" that is described as "All the Confederate and neo-Confederate information about elected officials and candidates, both pro-Confederate and pro-neo-Confederate and anti-Confederate and anti-Neo-Confederate." The specific individuals he lists as neo-confederate are Barnes, Ashcroft, Kirk, Senator Lindsay Graham and Pat Buchanan. It's also got a link to his Election 2000 article, which links to several different pages where he makes all sorts of charges against Bush. One of them is archived here http://web.archive.org/web/20030106013427/www.templeofdemocracy.com/BushBackground.htm

5. To say that Sebesta appeared once on Pacifica on the basis that a google search doesn't show other appearances of him is factually misleading. I've heard him more than once, but if you doubt that I won't press for "multiple times" or something like that. A neutral phrasing does need to be in there though. That's why I proposed listing media sources that have used him as an expert, be it one or many times. That includes both Pacifica and Salon, and they need to be mentioned to show that despite the controversy surrounding sebesta, he is fairly widely quoted on the issues. Rangerdude 00:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * 1. It would be fair and accurate to describe Ashcroft, the SCV, the Museum, and Barnes as controversial too. Applying that term selectively does not improve the accuracy of the article.

Then come up with an alternative that properly and accurately qualifies Sebesta's biases to audiences who are unfamiliar with him.

 * 2. The UDC does not accused Sebesta of "using the term "neo-confederate" and its synonyms to malign his political opponents." Some unnamed critics do that. Either those critics should be named or the sentence should be re-worked or deleted.

No. The UDC accuses Sebesta of maligning his political opponents in general. One of the main ways he does that is labelling everything he doesn't like with accusations of being neo-confederate.

 * 3. Thanks. I do not agree that pro-confederate is a synonym. Another editor was recently calling for raising the bar on the definition, not lowering it. Let's simply use whatever term Sebesta used.

Then you're denying the obvious of his own page. In one paragraph he accuses Kirk of being pro-confederate and a few paragraphs later he describe's Kirk's event as a neo-confederate program. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that you are either trying to hide the dirty laundry of a POV on this topic or perhaps even shilling for that POV. Again, I appreciate your civility while doing so but your editing has a very strong underlying POV that it seems to be pushing. I will designate the article to reflect that shortly.

 * 4. The page you link to talks about "George W. Bush and His Support for Confederate Organizations". Don't tell me that supporting confederate organizations is the same as being a neo-confederate if you are also arguing that the CofCC is not neo-confederate despite raising money for a confederate monument, etc. We can write that Sebesto has criticized Bush for supporting Confederate organizations, because, as far as your citations show, that is what he has done.
 * --4a. I looked around the website and found the Ashcroft page, but the term "neo-conservative" doesn't appear anywhere. The Barnes page is blank.  I did find a page where he pretty-clearly calls Patrick Buchanan a "neo-confederate", so we can add that.  Anyway If you want me to see a cite, I'm afraid you'll have to give me an exact URL to find it. 01:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're grasping at straws and playing semantics games again. Look at the title page on elections, which I quoted for you previously.

 * "All the Confederate and neo-Confederate information about elected officials and candidates, both pro-Confederate and pro-neo-Confederate and anti-Confederate and anti-Neo-Confederate."

Now unless you are arguing to me the absurd proposition that Sebesta classifies Ashcroft, Kirk, and Bush as "anti-confederate and anti-neoconfederate" officials, that leaves precious little differentiation over what he is accusing them of and it is either affiliation with or sympathy for the so-called "neo-confederate" movement.

 * 5. Lots of people are quoted on Salon and Pacifica. Shall we also mention that Bush and Ashcroft are quoted there? Trying to characterize a critic of the neo-confederate movement by saying that he was quoted in some unknown articles on a mildly liberal news site is simply not verifiable or relevent information for this article. -Willmcw 01:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're being intentionally tedious. You know very well that the purpose of mentioning those sources was to give examples of the types of media outlets that give Sebesta a voice, and also demonstrate their and his political affiliations on the left.Rangerdude 02:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * 6. here's a revised version with unnamed critics taken out and Bush added in.
 * Ed Sebesta, a self-styled "Neo-Confederate watchdog", uses the term frequently. In particular, Sebesta has used the "Neo-confederate" label on Civil War historian Frank Vandiver (the former President of Texas A & M University). He has labelled Ron Kirk, an African-American mayor of Dallas, Texas "Pro-confederate" on account of making a Texas Confederate History Day speech in 1997.. He has criticized President George W. Bush of supporting Confederate organizations, on account of Bush's offer to raise funds for the Museum of the Confederacy. He appeared once on Democracy Now, a Pacifica radio show, with James McPherson. The Virginia UDC chapter describes Sebesta's website as a "hater of all things Confederate" and "especially slanderous" toward their organization.

title: Talk:Neo-Confederates/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Neo-Confederates/Archive 2

Further Documentation on Sebesta
Given your unusual and selectively applied stringency on documenting matters pertaining to who Ed Sebesta has slapped with the pejorative slur "neo-confederate", you should check out the following links to google group discussions where Sebesta has done exactly what I said of him previously. Sebesta is the poster known as "crawfish" per his own website.

1. Sebesta post labelling John Ashcroft a neo-confederate entitled "John Ashcroft: Neo-Confederate"

2. Sebesta post labelling Trent Lott "a leading figure in the Neo-Confederate movement"

3. Sebesta describing Ron Kirk's involvement in the Confederate Heritage Day speech part of his "research into the Neo-Confederate movement"

4. Sebesta calling Frank Vandiver a neo-confederate

5. Sebesta calling Pat Buchanan a neo-confederate

6. Sebesta stating the the sole purpose of his website, where all those articles on Bush, Ashcroft, Kirk, Barnes and the others appear, is to track the "neo-confederate movement"

7. Sebesta claiming that the Republican Party and about a dozen or so of its officials are neo-confederates

If you don't see a pattern by now, you are either blind or do not wish to see.Rangerdude 02:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Dude, chill out. I can't see cites that haven't been provided. Thanks for these, I'll take a look. PS, what happened to the NPOV flag? Cheers, -Willmcw 03:06, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They're not exactly difficult to find if you had any inclination to do so. My point is that you're being selectively stringent in the documentation you are demanding for Sebesta's often bizarre and even paranoid allegations, yet you'll post just about any and every little left wing group who has labelled somebody "neo-confederate" without asking any significant questions about their own biases or POV's. The product has been incredibly tedious semantical disputes and edits that remove factual material or defy common sense. Also - I inadvertantly deleted the tag by cutting and pasting a version for edits. It's back now.Rangerdude 03:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * (As I recall, you're the editor who brought Sebresto in, so I'm not sure why you're blaming me for his "paranoid allegations.") Anyway, now that you mention it, this article has become very skewed towards the critics of neo-confederates, but it barely covers the topic of the article: the neo-confederate movement. But hey, the article is getting better and I'm sure it will continue to grow and improve. Thanks for your contributions. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I brought in Sebesta as an example of the pejorative use of the term and to diversify the number of people who categorize others as neo-confederates beyond what it was at the time (the SPLC list). Anyway, you are right and it does seem that the critics are pretty much covered now from all angles so it's time for other stuff. If you're satisfied on the sources etc. I'll pull the POV tag.Rangerdude 05:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let's wait to pull the NPOV tag until we've cleaned the pro-confederate bias out of the article. Also, have any of the groups accused by McPherson or Sebesta actually denied the label? I can't find any, but you might know of a citation. If not, then we should say that the charges haven't been denied. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Using the criteria of whether or not a group has denied the label is a bit of a problem in circumstances like these because it has political consequences. After all, we can't exactly expect George W. Bush to issue a statement denying that he's a neo-confederate because some crackpot on the internet called him one! If all the politicians and groups who were called neo-confederate by Sebesta or somebody else responded with a denial it would dignify the original attack more than it is worth. It's like answering the proverbial "So, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question. Spme of the groups and people who have been attacked, however, have fired back their own criticisms of their accusers - a roundabout way of addressing and rebutting the issue without dignifying the original slur. That's one of the things that the UDC link does. Also, you mention "pro-confederate bias" now. I'm not certain what you are referring to there. Could you state some examples?Rangerdude 06:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I was referring to whether the SCV, UDC, LOTS, the Museum of the Confederacy, or the CofCC had denied it. If the UDC goes out of their way to say, "no, we're not white supremacists" but they don't also go out of their way to say "No, we're not Neo-Confedarates either" then that would count as a missed opportunity. There was a sentence that said "Many groups have denied this," which I pulled waitig confirmation. If they did then we should be able to dig up a couple of denials. Right now there really doesn't seem to be all that much controversy over the term itself. The controversy seems to be that the groups get called other names at the same time. The "Pro-confederate" bias of the article is that this article has mostly attacks those who criticize the "pro-confedarate" movement, rather than discussing the phenomenon of the neo-confederate movement. Now that the critics have been dealt with, maybe we can move on to the main topic. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree. It is not incumbent upon the UDC to respond to or disprove every single little charge that is lobbed in their direction, especially when it comes from elements on the political extreme. A blanket denunciation of their attacker and the gist of his charges more than suffices and to do anything more would dignify a slur. It's also obvious that the UDC et al for the most part aren't running around yelling "look at us - we're neo-confederate!" as it's certainly not a term of endearment. I also disagree with your analysis of bias, as virtually every attack on the critics of neo-confederates/pro-confederates/whatever you want to call them is in response to those attacks themselves, which are also given ample space. If you think for some reason that they are not, then by all means add a quote or something to the paragraph from the SPLC website similar to the way that the Benson quote was added. My object here is to list and give examples of the attackers but also to qualify their biases where present and also make note of the counterattack made by the target groups in response. That's the only way both sides will ever be represented. It's also evident that within the range of attackers some are more credible than others. The SPLC for example has a defined list of groups and a reasonably methodic approach to identifying them, whereas Sebesta is closer to the conspiracy fringe and quite literally seems to be picking out any politician who has ever been seen within 100 foot radius of a confederate flag, reinactor, or statue.Rangerdude 06:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that this article currently suffers from an overall bias. It implies that "neo-confederate" is simply a slur and discusses that aspect at length, while largely ignoring the "neo-confederate" political movement. That's changing as we add more material, but too much space is devoted to "use of the term" instead of stuff like "History of the neo-confederate movement" and similar material. -Willmcw 17:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * PS you referred in your [03:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)] comment above to "...edits that remove factual material..." Have we removed any factual, verified information that is relevent? I hope not. Can you post here the factual material that you think should not have been removed? If it's more info about the shortcomings of the critics then maybe we could create a section for that so it doesn't overwhelm the rest of the article. Apparently there are many shortcomings! Cheers, -Willmcw 06:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I think its all back now. I think I was referring to the politicians Sebesta had targetted but were removed from the list.

Subheaders etc.
Willmcw - I don't know exactly what your angle is in editing this article, but I'm still detecting it in your constant tweaks of the sections on the use of the term. A couple issues: First off, the subheaders were there for a reason and should not be tossed out. They contextualize and correspond with the article on political slurs, which mentions that particular use of neo-confederate for disparagement. They also differentiate the different types of critics of neoconfederates rather than lumping them all together as if they were of equal credibility. It should be plainly obvious that Sebesta and the SPLC are in different leagues, the latter despite its own controversies being a more responsible and credible source. Sebesta also intentionally disparages groups and political figures with the term as a slur that (to put it mildly) he seems very loose about using, whereas the SPLC - at least in theory - is referring to it as a movement with defined characteristics. Differentiating the two also bolsters the credibility of the SPLC in light of somebody like Sebesta and distinguishes the two so that the fringe guy doesn't "poison the well," so to speak, of the watchdog group.

Second, your edits keep removing plainly evident facts and undisputed descriptive terms that, for whatever reason, you believe to reflect unfavorably on something (i'm beginning to think your own POV in the matter). Nobody disputes that Pacifica Radio and Salon are media outlets that write and broadcast from a liberal perspective - they are both open about it themselves! Nor has Sebesta gained much of a media audience outside of these and a few other liberal outlets (the SPLC, by comparison, has). It is also plainly evident from the material in the article that the term's use is controversial, so there should be at least something of an overview sentence stating that much! Nor is it a big secret that Sebesta extends his allegations of neo-confederate-ism well beyond persons who are formally associated with an openly pro-southern political position or movement. I don't recall Bush, or Roy Barnes, Ron Kirk, or Lindsay Graham ever advocating secession, nullification theory, or anything even remotely resembling the reconstitution of the CSA, yet Sebesta has labelled them all as neo-confederate sympathizers! I guess my question is why you keep editing out and attempting to hide the obvious. If it quacks like a duck, call it a duck. Hedging around the pertinent political biases of media organizations, figures, and sources that are being cited is deceptive - especially when it is done in a one-sided way (you have made every effort for example to point out that Benson etc. are affiliated with various southern nationalist causes and biases, and that is fine by me. But it's a double standard to do that and to simultaneously delete, hide, or downplay the causes and biases of the other side). Also - quotation marks referring to Sebesta. The phrase "expert" on the "neo-confederate movement" is what those sources identified him as on the air and in print. Removing them suggests that he has some sort of expertise or special credential to comment, and he doesn't. His claimed expertise is NOT universally recognized, and a great many people like the UDC consider him a paranoid kook for that matter! The most neutral way to address it, then, is to refer to him in quotes the way that he is referred to by the media outlets that use him.Rangerdude 07:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

particular issues
The second sentence has a clause that I don't understand the reason for:
 * Neo-confederate groups are pro-South pro-states' rights (particularly nullification), and in favor of renewed southern secession.

Why "(particularly nullification)"? On what basis are you including that as a "particular" aspect of the neo-confederate movement?

 * Nullification theory is a particular and more extreme form of "states rights" beliefs, which technically includes such benign policies as federal block grants and state jurisdiction control of federal program entitlements. There's very little if anything "neo-confederate" about supporting block grants. Nullification, however, has a material connection to the CSA.Rangerdude 17:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, but which neo-confederate groups have that as their particular cause? Which CSA? Why is it phrased that neo-confederates are particularly pro-nullification? I see that LOTS includes nullification on their list of issues, but it's not at the top. Also, the neo-confederate sites I've been looking at all mention Christianity, often before political issues. Should we include something about that? -Willmcw 17:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

SPLC List
I'm not certain this is accurate in its current form:

 * The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a controversial anti-hate group headed by Morris Dees, is the principal group watching the "neo-confederate" movement. Groups that it lists as part of the neo-confederate movement are: The League of the South, the The American Renaissance, Confederate Society of America, Confederate States of America, Council of Conservative Citizens, The Edgefield Journal, Heritage Preservation Association, Ludwig von Mises Institute, the Rockford Institute, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Southern Legal Resource Center, Southern Military Institute, the Southern Party, and the United Daughters of the Confederacy.

Those are the groups that are said to be neo-confederate by a single SPLC contributer in an issue of their magazine last year. This falsely gives the impression that his views are the same as the SPLC's views on its official list. Yet his list differs substantially with the official list of the SPLC itself, found here http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp?T=13&m=2

The official SPLC list includes only the LOTS plus some minor local groups. The official SPLC list also classifies the CofCC as "Other" http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp?T=15&m=2 Rangerdude 17:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I made the same mistake. What you are referring to as the "official list" is their list of hate groups. LOTS is the only group it lists as a "neo-confederate" hate group. It apparently does not consider the Southern Party, et al, to be hate groups, just part of the neo-confederate movement. The link that has the listing I added is part and parcel of the website - it's official. We can say that " A special "Intelligence Report" on the "Neo-Confederate movement listed these groups:..."  if that would make you more comfortable. -Willmcw 17:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * That may be so, but the article you quote is still not the SPLC's list - it is a list by one of their writers in their magazine. It also conflicts with their hate group list, which DOES NOT list the CofCC as neo-confederate. If you want to include it identify the author and describe the difference (and inconsistency) from the official SPLC hate group list.Rangerdude 17:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see an author listed, which in most publications means it is that much more official. I'll reinstate the paragraph and make it clear that it also lists LOTS and CofCC as hate groups, but not the others. -Willmcw 17:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The author is Mark Potok - the main writer of the "Intelligence Report" magazine. For some reason the online edition doesn't have any names listed at the beginning of the articles individually.Rangerdude 18:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Potok is apparently a regular employee of the SPLC, so it is not as if they were publishing an article by an outside writer. I think the article can be viewed as an official SPLC product. -Willmcw 18:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes - he's the editor and main author of "Intelligence Report" - a newsletter they do. His name should be mentioned though, because it looked as if Dees had written it in based on the existing wording.Rangerdude 18:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * While I do not object to listing his name, I would strongly object to anything else being added. We've gone into denigrating the "critics" quite enough. -Willmcw 18:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * A direct rebuttal of SPLC report is appropriate. General complaints about the SPLC are not. Reminder: this article is about the Neo-confederate movement. -Willmcw 18:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neither article that you linked rebutted the SPLC report - they were both just attacks on the SPLC.

 * You aren't checking the links very closely. Both are direct responses to anti-"neo-confederate" articles in the SPLC's Intelligence Report. The FrontPage Magazine article specifically identifies Intelligence Report by name in the second sentence. The Von Mises one mentions it by name in the first sentence of its second paragraph AND links to the SPLC Intelligence Report website. I honestly do not know how you could've missed this on both of them and once again I'm beginning to believe that you are trying to control this article toward your own POV. There's something seriously wrong when an editor constantly screens out and deletes even the most simple and pertinent additions to the article that don't conform 100% to his own views on the subject. There's also something wrong when other's can't add even the most basic, straightforward information (such as a simple link that clearly and prominently identifies itself as a response to the SPLC's Intelligence Report magazine) without you misidentifying it, removing it, and demanding a lengthy discussion to "prove" its relevance when you are the one who made the error in the first place. I don't know any other way of saying it, Willmcw, but you are acting as a gatekeeper on this article to exclude material that doesn't conform to your political viewpoint and that is a clear violation of wikipedia policy.Rangerdude 19:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * In keeping with the topic's controversy, several conservatives have responded to SPLC "Intelligence Report" articles on "neo-confederates" by accusing the SPLC of slander and guilt by association tactics. Myles Kantor of FrontPage Magazine described the report as a "web of falsehood." Marcus Epstein of the Von Mises Institute compared the report's claims to McCarthyism.

RD, I looked at both pages. I searched for neo-confederate. I found nothing. They do not rebut the neo-confederate series, they respond to other articles by the SPLC. If you believe that these linked articles "respond to...articles on "neo-confederates"", then please post here the quotes where they do so, because I'm just too blind and stupid to see it. The Intelligence Report is a magazine, so referring to it in 2003 is not the same as referring to a specific series or article in 2000. Let's keep looking. Maybe they rebutted the article elsewhere? As I've said, a specific reply to the SPLC "neo-confederate" designation would be appropriate to include. And finally, I do not appreciate your insinuation that I am promoting a POV in this article. If you review the edit history, you will see that all I have been doing is asking that unproven assertions be removed. I have not called the reasoning of those edits into question. Let's stick to the task of making a good Wikipedia article on the topic of "Neo-Confederate", and leave aside questioning motives. We've both spent too much time already writing in this "talk page" - not the most productive Wikitime. Anyway, the article is much better than it was just a few days ago. Thanks for your contributions. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Willmcw - It's all plainly there if you take the time to look at the links. They are both in response to an issue of Intelligence Report that had a followup section on neo-confederate movements that names pretty much the same conservative groups and people. It is found here in the very first sentence:

 * "As the neo-Confederate movement grows more aggressive, 'Honest Abe' Lincoln is depicted as evil personified"

 * I found that with a mere two clicks and do not see why you are having so much trouble doing the same. Once again, there is something seriously wrong when any and every addition to this article by somebody other than yourself is immediately subjected to an inordinate amount of skepticism to the degree that even obvious pertinent material is denied and removed. Wikipedia is an open-editing medium, not a medium where everybody else has to submit their proposals to Willmcw and demonstrate to his personal satisfaction why he should allow them to be included. You've been polite and I'm happy we're getting somewhere with this article, but you're still gatekeeping and that is a problem.Rangerdude 20:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here's what we can do. The Rockwell blog is on the 2003 "Lincoln Reconstructed" article, not the 2000 neo-confederate series. I'll add a line or two about the Lincoln article and put the rebuttal after that. Then everything lines up. Sorry for asking you to cite your sources, but it's a part of wikipedia. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:50, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added that plus the "Gods & Generals" review info. The citations now fit into the context better, I hope. -Willmcw 05:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Neo-Confederates/Archive 2


text:
WXII-TV

WXII-TV (channel 12) is a television station licensed to Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States, serving the Piedmont Triad region as an affiliate of NBC. It is owned by Hearst Television alongside Lexington-licensed CW affiliate WCWG (channel 20). WXII-TV and WCWG share studios on Coliseum Drive in Winston-Salem; through a channel sharing agreement, the stations transmit using WXII-TV's spectrum from an antenna on Sauratown Mountain in Stokes County.

History
The station first signed on the air on September 30, 1953, as WSJS-TV. It is the third-oldest surviving television station in North Carolina, behind Charlotte's WBTV and channel 12's rival in the Greensboro market, WFMY-TV. The station at first was owned by a partnership of Piedmont Publishing, publishers of the Winston-Salem Journal and Twin City Sentinel, and Hollywood star Mary Pickford and her husband Charles "Buddy" Rogers. It took its calls from Piedmont Publishing's WSJS radio (600 AM and 104.1 FM, now WTQR), which in turn took them from the newspapers' initials.

Johnny Beckman, an early employee, recalled working at WSJS-TV in those early years:

"There were three of us, and we all did multiple jobs—the weather, commercials, a teenage dance party. We were all scrambling around trying to make a living. Broadcasting was not high-paying then. The pay has certainly improved, but it was a more enjoyable career than it has become now."

The station has always been affiliated with NBC. ABC programming was shared (through a secondary affiliation) with WFMY until WGHP (channel 8) signed on in October 1963. The station's operations were originally housed from the basement of the WSJS studios on Spruce Street in Winston-Salem. The first broadcast was of the first game of the 1953 World Series between the New York Yankees and the Brooklyn Dodgers. Channel 12 originally broadcast its signal from an antenna near Kernersville. WSJS-TV opened its new transmitter site atop Sauratown Mountain in 1955. In 1959, Piedmont exercised an option agreement to buy out Pickford and Rogers, and gained complete control of the station. The matter ended up in court when Pickford and Rogers felt that Piedmont had undervalued the amount of their shares, but was eventually resolved in Piedmont's favor.

In 1968, Glenn Scott joined the station at a time when weather reporters "climbed" the Shell Weather Tower, used by TV stations around the United States in the 1950s and 1960s.

Piedmont Publishing was sold to Media General in 1968. By this time, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was giving serious thought to barring common ownership of newspapers and broadcast outlets. Gordon Gray, the longtime publisher of both papers, thus formed Triangle Broadcasting to hold onto WSJS-AM-FM-TV. Gray also received the franchise for the city's cable system, Summit Cable. However, soon afterward, the FCC ruled that media companies could not own both a television station and a cable system in the same market. Gray was thus forced to sell WSJS-TV in 1972 to Multimedia, Inc., earning a handsome return on his purchase of the Journal and Sentinel in 1937. The new owners changed the station's call letters to WXII-TV on October 2 (the letters "XII" from "WXII" are the Roman numerals for the station's channel number, "12"). At the time of the call letter change, the station ran a promotional ad parodying the death of Julius Caesar to amplify the Roman numeral theme. Two other stations in the market later switched to Roman numeral call letters (WXLV-TV, channel 45 and WLXI-TV, channel 61; WGSR-LD's previous incarnation also used Roman numerals as WXIV).

Multimedia swapped WXII and WFBC-TV (now WYFF) in Greenville, South Carolina, to Pulitzer in 1983 in exchange for KSDK in St. Louis. Pulitzer sold its entire broadcasting division, including WXII, to Hearst-Argyle Television, now Hearst Television, in 1998.

That same year, Hearst bought WETR (830 AM) and changed its callsign to WXII, and switched it to a news radio format that included audio from some WXII newscasts.

On July 9, 2012, Hearst Television became involved in a carriage dispute with Time Warner Cable, resulting in WXII being pulled from the provider's Piedmont Triad systems and being temporarily replaced with Nexstar Broadcasting Group-owned WBRE-TV from Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania; Time Warner opted for such a distant signal like WBRE, as it did not have the rights to carry any NBC affiliate closer in proximity. The substitution of WBRE in place of WXII lasted until July 19, 2012, when Hearst and Time Warner reached a new carriage agreement.

News operation
WXII presently broadcasts $38 1/2$ hours of locally produced newscasts each week (with $6 1/2$ hours each weekday and three hours each on Saturdays and Sundays).

Long a distant runner-up to WFMY-TV, channel 12's newscast ratings began to increase following a series of severe weather events in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Since then, WXII has regularly traded the number one spot in the ratings with WFMY.

On February 12, 2010, after the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics, WXII began broadcasting its local newscasts in 16:9 widescreen standard definition, becoming the third station to do so after WGHP and WFMY. In-studio segments and news video was presented in widescreen. For a few months after the switch, weather graphics were still presented in the 4:3 format with blue-colored pillarboxing, but were later upgraded to the 16:9 widescreen format. In 2012, WXII began broadcasting its local newscasts in high definition.

On August 13, 2012, WXII debuted a half-hour 10 p.m. newscast on its MeTV-affiliated subchannel on digital channel 12.2, to compete with the longer-established hour-long 10 p.m. newscast on Fox affiliate WGHP. On March 4, 2013, WXII started simulcasting its weeknight 6 p.m. newscast on its former sister radio station, WSJS. The two properties also entered into a news sharing agreement in which members of WSJS's reporting staff provide stories on WXII's newscasts while members of channel 12's news staff would also report for WSJS.

On July 26, 2017, WXII announced that it would move its 10 p.m. newscast to its new sister station WCWG beginning July 31 and expanded it to a full hour on weeknights while remain as a half-hour on weekends.

On September 5, 2017, WXII added an hour-long 4 p.m. newscast, expanding its early-evening news block to two-and-a-half hours from 4 to 6:30 p.m.

Notable former on-air staff

 * John Beard – anchor/reporter (1976–1977); later worked in Los Angeles (KNBC/KTTV) and at WGRZ in Buffalo
 * Paul Dellegatto – chief meteorologist (1986–1990); now chief meteorologist at WTVT in Tampa
 * Monica Malpass – anchor/reporter (joined WPVI-TV in Philadelphia in 1988)
 * Bonnie Schneider – meteorologist (joined CNN in 2005); now with The Weather Channel
 * Jennie Stencel – traffic reporter (resigned on May 14, 2010)

Subchannels
The station's signal is multiplexed: {{legend|#f2d1de|Subchannel broadcast with MPEG-4 video}}

WXII added This TV on digital subchannel 12.2 on June 1, 2009. On July 24, 2012, Hearst Television renewed its affiliation agreement with MeTV to maintain existing affiliations with eight Hearst-owned stations already carrying the digital multicast network through 2015. As part of the renewal, Hearst also signed agreements to add the network as digital subchannels of WXII-TV and four other stations in Sacramento, Baltimore, Boston, and Oklahoma City. Digital subchannel 12.2 replaced This TV with MeTV on August 6, 2012.

Analog-to-digital conversion
WXII-TV ended regular programming on its analog signal, over VHF channel 12, on June 12, 2009, as part of the FCC-mandated transition to digital television for full-power stations. The station's digital signal remained on its pre-transition UHF channel 31, using virtual channel 12.

As part of the SAFER Act, WXII kept its analog signal on the air until July 12 to inform viewers of the digital television transition through a loop of public service announcements from the National Association of Broadcasters.

Out-of-market cable and satellite carriage
In recent years, WXII has been carried on cable in areas outside of the Greensboro television market including cable systems within the Charlotte market in North Carolina and the Roanoke market in Virginia. On DirecTV, WXII has been carried in multiple areas within the Roanoke market in Virginia.

CATV
In the 1970s and 1980s, WXII was once carried in Moore and Richmond counties.

title: WXII-TV


text:
Gilaks

Gilaks (Gilaki: گيلٚکؤن, ) are an Iranian ethnic group native to the south of Caspian sea. They form one of the main ethnic groups residing in the northern parts of Iran. Gilak people, along with the closely related Mazandarani people, comprise part of the Caspian people, who inhabit the southern and southwestern coastal regions of the Caspian Sea.

They speak the Gilaki language, an Iranian language that is closely related to Mazandarani.

History
The region south of the Caspian Sea, what is now called Gilan, was also referred to as Daylam. and the inhabitants of the region were called the Daylamites.

Scholars suggest a link between the Gilaks and the Zazas. Zaza call themselves Dimlī or Dīmla, which derived from the world Daylam. Dimli is the name of the Zaza language.

Economy
Gilaki people live both alongside the Alborz mountains, and in the surrounding plains. Consequentially, those living along the northern side of the Alborz mountains tend to raise livestock, while those living in the plains farm. Gilaks play an important role in provincial and national economy, supplying a large portion of the region's agricultural staples, such as rice, grains, tobacco, and tea. Other major industries include fishing and caviar exports, and the production of silk. In addition to agricultural activities, Gilaks also control other principal sectors of commerce of the province of Gilan such as tourism, and share administrative and government positions with civil servants from other regions of Iran.

People
The population of Gilaks is estimated to be between 3 and 4 million (2006 estimation).

They mainly live along the southwest coasts of the Caspian Sea and are one of the main ethnic groups that reside in the northern parts of Iran. The Gilaks are closely related to the neighboring Mazandarani, and other groups of Caucasus descent, such as Georgians, Armenians, and Azerbaijanis.

Distribution
Gilaks make up approximately 70% of the population in Gilan province.

Gilaki, which has two main dialect types, eastern and western, with the Safidrūd River as the general border, is a member of the Caspian subgroup. There are many subdialects of Gilaki, and, progressing to the east, it gradually blends into Mazandarani. The intermediate dialects of the area between Tonokābon and Kalārdašt serve as a transition between Gilaki and Mazandarani. The differences in forms and vocabulary lead to a low mutual intelligibility with either Gilaki or Mazandarani, and so these dialects should probably be considered a third separate language group of the Caspian area.

In Mazandaran, the Gilaks reside in the city of Ramsar and Tonekabon. There, though their dialects are influenced by Mazandarani, they are still considered dialects of the Gilaki language. Furthermore, the eastern Gīlakī dialect is spoken in the entire valley of the Čālūs river.

In Qazvin province, the Gilaks reside in the northern parts of the province, in Alamut.

Apart from four Turkish-speaking villages higher up, the inhabitants of Alamut speak Gilaki and those of Rudbar Tati.

Language
The Gilaki language is a member of the Northwestern branch of the Iranian languages. It is the main language spoken amongst the Gilak people, although various regional and local dialects of the Gilaki language are common. Gilak people are fluent in both the Gilaki language and standard Persian. Persian is the official language of education in Iran, and since teachers are discouraged from using regional dialects and accents in class, the Gilaki language is taught to children at home.

The Gilaki and Mazandarani languages (but not other Iranian languages) share certain typological features with Caucasian languages. However, with the growth of education and press, the differentiation between Gilaki language and other Iranian languages is likely to disappear. Gilaki is closely related to Mazandarani and the two languages have similar vocabularies. These two languages retain more than Persian does of the noun declension system that was characteristic of older Iranian languages.

Genetics
The Gilaks and their closely related Mazandarani occupy the South Caspian region of Iran and speak languages belonging to the North-Western branch of Iranian languages. It has been suggested that their ancestors came from the Caucasus region, perhaps displacing an earlier group in the South Caspian. Linguistic evidence supports this scenario, in that the Gilaki and Mazandarani languages (but not other Iranian languages) share certain typological features with Caucasian languages. There have been patterns analyzed of mtDNA and Y chromosome variation in the Gilaki and Mazandarani.

Based on mtDNA HV1 sequences, the Gilaks and Mazandarani most closely resemble their geographic and linguistic neighbors, namely other Iranian groups. However, their Y chromosome types most closely resemble those found in groups from the South Caucasus. A scenario that explains these differences is a south Caucasian origin for the ancestors of the Gilaki and Mazandarani, followed by introgression of women (but not men) from local Iranian groups, possibly because of patrilocality. Given that both mtDNA and language are maternally transmitted, the incorporation of local Iranian women would have resulted in the concomitant replacement of the ancestral Caucasian language and mtDNA types of the Gilaki and Mazandarani with their current Iranian language and mtDNA types. Concomitant replacement of language and mtDNA may be a more general phenomenon than previously recognized.

The Mazandarani and Gilaki groups fall inside a major cluster consisting of populations from the Caucasus and West Asia and are particularly close to the South Caucasus groups—Georgians, Armenians, and Azerbaijanis. Iranians from Tehran and Isfahan are situated more distantly from these groups.

Haplogroups
The Gilaks display a high frequency of Y-DNA haplogroups R1b, J2a, and G2a3b.

Assimilated groups into the Gilak people
During the Safavid, Afsharid, and Qajar eras, Gilan was settled by large numbers of Georgians, Circassians, Armenians and by other peoples of the Caucasus, whose descendants still live across Gilan.

title: Gilaks


text:
Numéraire

The numéraire (or numeraire) is a basic standard by which value is computed. In mathematical economics it is a tradable economic entity in terms of whose price the relative prices of all other tradables are expressed. In a monetary economy, one of the functions of money is to act as the numéraire, i.e. to serve as a unit of account and therefore provide a common benchmark relative to which the value of various goods and services can be measured against.

Using a numeraire, whether monetary or some consumable good, facilitates value comparisons when only the relative prices are relevant, as in general equilibrium theory. When economic analysis refers to a particular good as the numéraire, one says that all other prices are normalized by the price of that good. For example, if a unit of good g has twice the market value of a unit of the numeraire, then the (relative) price of g is 2. Since the value of one unit of the numeraire relative to one unit of itself is 1, the price of the numeraire is always 1.

Change of numéraire
In a financial market with traded securities, one may use a numéraire to price assets. For instance, let $$M (t)$$ be the price at time $t$ of $1 that was invested in the money market at time $0$. The fundamental theorem of asset pricing says that all assets $$S(t)$$ priced in terms of the numéraire (in this case, $M$), are martingales with respect to a risk-neutral measure, say $$Q$$. That is:

 * $$\frac{S(t)}{M(t)} = E_Q\left[\frac{S(T)}{M(T)}\right]$$

Now, suppose that $$N(t)>0$$ is another strictly positive traded asset (and hence a martingale when priced in terms of the money market). Then we can define a new probability measure $$Q^N$$ by the Radon–Nikodym derivative

 * $$\frac{dQ^N}{dQ} = \frac{M(0)}{M(T)}\frac{N(T)}{N(0)} = \frac{N(T)}{M(T)}$$

Then it can be shown that $$S(t)$$ is a martingale under $$Q^N$$ when priced in terms of the new numéraire $$N(t)$$:

\begin{align} & {} \quad E_{Q^N}\left[\frac{S(T)}{N(T)}\right] \\ & = E_{Q}\left[\frac{N(T)}{M(T)}\frac{S(T)}{N(T)}\right]/ E_Q\left[\frac{N(T)}{M(T)}\right] \\ & = \frac{M(t)}{N(t)}E_{Q}\left[\frac{S(T)}{M(T)}\right]\\ &= \frac{M(t)}{N(t)}\frac{S(t)}{M(t)}\\ & = \frac{S(t)}{N(t)} \end{align} $$

This technique has many important applications in LIBOR and swap market models, as well as commodity markets. Jamshidian (1989) first used it in the context of the Vasicek model for interest rates in order to calculate bond options prices. Geman, El Karoui and Rochet (1995) introduced the general formal framework for the change of numéraire technique. See for example Brigo and Mercurio (2001) for a change of numéraire toolkit.

Numéraire in financial pricing
Determining an appropriate numéraire has foundation in several financial pricing models such as options and certain assets. Identifying a risky asset as numéraire has a correlation with the number of underlying assets to model. Underlying shifts are modelled by the following:

 * $$ Z_i:= \frac{X_i}{X_0} $$

 * $$ X = (X_0, X_1, ..., X_n) \to Z = (1, Z_1, ..., Z_n) $$

where 1 defines the numéraire.

title: Numéraire


text:
Province of Cagliari

The province of Cagliari (provincia di Cagliari; provìntzia de Casteddu) was a province in the autonomous island region of Sardinia, Italy. Its capital city was Cagliari.

It had an area of 4470 km2, and a total population of 543,310 (2001). There were 71 comuni (: comune) in the province.

The historical province was suppressed by the 2016 Regional Decree Province of Cagliari and replaced by the Metropolitan City of Cagliari.

Geography
The valley of Piscinamanna is in the province.

Major comuni
As of June 30, 2005, the major comuni (municipalities) by population was:

Provincial elections
The Democratic Party (Partito Democratico, PD) is a social-democratic political party in Italy, with The People of Freedom (Il Popolo della Libertà, PdL), it is one of the two major parties of the current Italian party system.

title: Province of Cagliari