text:
Talk:Federal Marriage Amendment/Archive 1

Inaccurate?
Under the Campaign Issue header it reads:

"In general it appears that the American public does not consider the same-sex marriage issue to be a political priority; one poll showed it ranked 22nd in a list of 23 political issues, sorted by "importance" to the questionee"

I encourage you to read this from the AFP today: []

"Moral Values" was a big issue in this election, and the Gay Marriage Amendements effectively brought Bush's base to the polls in many swing states (Ohio for example..)

I've went ahead and edited for a more NPOV, I encourage people to add or edit. message me.

Howrealisreal 15:12, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why is Russ Feingold listed under "see also"? --Goobergunch 21:31, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't see any reason so I'm removing, feel free to revert --Goobergunch 21:34, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Should gay rights activists' objections to the FMA be here, or in gay marriage or both?

They should at least be here. On the other page, you can put "Gay rights activists are opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment which they claim...." Just one sentence should be enough. Just a thought. -- RM

Kerry
Kerry supporters have argued that his position is more in line with the sentiments of the majority of Americans at this time

Lol. Is this an intentional tongue-in-cheek attack on Kerry, or did the author not realize that it sounds that way? --Andreidude 18:59, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gay rights POV
The article's lead sentence states:

 * The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) is a proposed change to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage legally as involving people of different sexes.

This makes it seems like it's a change from

 * recognizing only same-sex unions as "marriage"

to

 * allowing people of opposite sex to "marry" as well

Am I reading too much into this, or is it poorly worded?

I suspect someone placed this wording in there, deliberately. My 30 years' experience of talking with gays taught me the value of loaded and tricky language. Why, they're worse than communists!!

In particular, the amendement does NOT define marriage as "involving people of different sexes" but only as "the union of a man and a woman". I don't know who stuck in that involving stuff, but I'm too angry to look it up; just fix it, okay? --Uncle Ed 16:21, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's not the best wording, but it is technically accurate - the marriage would have to involve people of both sexes to be legal under the proposed wording. I'm not an expert on the subject - perhaps this should be listed as an article needing attention? It could do with some formatting changes too I feel. akaDruid 16:30, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

While it works well in normal circumstances, the wording becomes a bit of a problem if we include androgynes, non-operated intersexuals et cetera in the equation - though admittedly these groups are too small to be much of a factor. (Mind you, it is interesting to see where they will end up should the amendment pass. Male? Female? A freak show circus cage? But that's off-topic entirely.) --Kizor 16:41, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

POV in disguise
The article says:

 * Some supporters of the amendment claim that supporting only heterosexual marriage is strictly a matter of public interest. They believe that the government has an important role to promote heterosexual marriage because having and caring for children is vital to the public interest in various areas such as the economy. Although the existence of same-sex marriage would not interfere with the continued public support of heterosexual marriage, they assert that extending the principle of human rights to a previously excluded group in this area would constitute a case of legislating morality.

To me, this reads like an argument by opponents of the amendment. ":Akadruid|akaDruid]] 17:31, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Took at stab at NPOV and simplification. Davodd 19:01, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)

 * Nice work! I reckon this is a much better article now, and much more NPOV.  I'm going to remove the NPOV message I put at the top. I hope this new edit covers the concerns raised above too. akaDruid 10:07, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

-

If you move this down ....
 * "To others, it is designed to defend the marriage of opposite-sex couples and to reaffirm that homosexual couples cannot marry."

Then you better move this down too ...
 * "To some, it is designed to restrict the right of marriage to opposite-sex couples and to deny that right to same-sex couples."

JDR 00:06, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The only problem with that JDR is that there is no "right of marriage". I know at least one person who would be contacting the White House about their demand for a government supplied spouse if there were. The "right of marriage" is a ficticious "right" made up by the homosexual community so they can claim that someone is denying them something and come off as being oppressed. Nice propaganda job they've done too, since it seems to be working in the mind of some otherwise sensible people. DavidR 15:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do you know anything about how the constitution of this country is set up? All rights are given to people (even a right of marriage) unless specifically taken away by the government (ie, the right to murder). The constitution and the bill of rights wasn't created to "give rights to the people", it was written to "make sure the government cannot, under any circumstances, take certain rights away". Try being educated, instead of believing blatantly homophobic bullshit spewed by the "moral majority" of this country. In summation: ALL RIGHTS ARE GIVEN UNLESS SPECIFICALLY TAKEN AWAY. This amendment is designed to take away rights.

Disputed format or facts:

 * 1) Inclusion of DOMA facts in the FMA definition is not germane to the definition of what the FMA is.
 * 2) Inclusion of POV arguments in the explaination of the text of the FMA.
 * 3) Format dispute: Inclusion of External links within the body of the article.

Davodd 00:14, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) Inclusion of DOMA facts is important in relation of FMA (3/4 on both).
 * 2) POV arguments were already present in the explaination of the text of the FMA.
 * 3) Inline external link citation is acceptable.

JDR 00:17, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * POV agruments, though valid, belong in the arguments section of the article; not the definition part. Maybe you should NPOV the definition if you find it to be POV. As for external links in article text, please read Guide to Layout; especially the Guide to Layout part. Davodd 00:25, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * Then put BOTH in the arguments section, not just one. That is why the other sentence was included (to balance the oppositional tone that was there).
 * External links in article text can be inline [just like current events]. It's easy ... LATER it can be put into a reference section.
 * I full well know about all the pages that you linked to.
 * JDR 00:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) (PS. read Cite your sources)

 * I added two external links -- in the external links section:Alliance for Marriage web site (a pro-amendment site) and DontAmend.com web site (an anti-amendment site). Of course you know "full well" what I linked to, as can anybody who reads the page history. Anyway, I do hope we can resolve this dispute and edit this article in a collaborative, NPOV way. Davodd 00:41, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * I did a formal reference section. JDR [PS. I didn't mean in the article, but W:GtL link here in talk]

 * Great job! Davodd 18:02, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Some minor wording issues

 * To some, it is designed to restrict the right of marriage to opposite-sex couples and to deny that right to same-sex couples.

I had to read this a couple of times before I understood it. At a glance, it seems to suggest that even the rights of straight people are being restricted. I thought about replacing restrict with confine but that doesn't sound entirely correct either. Thoughts?

 * To others, it is designed to defend the marriage of opposite-sex couples and to reaffirm that homosexual couples cannot marry.

This I feel needs clarification. It's not so much about defending straight marriages themselves as defending the institution or sanctity of marriage. Nobody, to my knowledge, is suggesting that any individual straight marriages will somehow be endangered by same-sex marriages occurring.

In fact that whole paragraph seems like splitting hairs. The 2 views seems like a distinction without a difference. Perhaps it could be better phrased thus:

 * Some see the FMA as a defense of straight marriage, while others see it as a pre-emptive block on gay marriage.

Though even this I think is a bit weird. It's clear to me that the FMA's sole purpose is to prevent gay marriage. It doesn't help heterosexuals in any way, as far as I can see.

Anyway, these issues of wording are so minor I'm not even going to edit the page until I've seen some thoughts about all this. I've had enough edit wars for one week. Evercat 00:35, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * The FMA may ban state courts to require local governments to confer marriage or domestic partnership status

should be ban state courts from requiring, but it looks like it was originally force, hence the to require. has that been edited?

So-called Right of Marriage
The only problem with that JDR is that there is no "right of marriage". I know at least one person who would be contacting the White House about their demand for a government supplied spouse if there were. DavidR

 * One would think the "right of marriage" is the right to marry anyone who will consent (given certain provisions about age, unrelatedness, neither person already being married, etc), not a right to get married even if nobody wants to marry you. Your rhetoric is ridiculous. Evercat 08:25, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And no, I don't feel that my rhetoric is ridiculous. That's what a "Right" means, it's a guarantee of something you get to do. DavidR 01:51, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Marriage is licensed, just like driving. You don't have a "right to drive" therefore you don't have a "right to marriage".  You can not marry a blood relative (3rd cousin or closer?).  This privilege is licensed by the state.  It is not a right.  Reverting your changes.  Please engage in discourse prior to making changes, read the part about this being a controversial article.  I posted my comments at least a day prior to making changes to the article.  DavidR 20:56, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd also like to add that the comment you made with your edit shows that you are trying to make this POV, Evercat. I quote:  "Since we're talking about what this means to some people, go with a stronger statement of that particular side's position."  This is about the facts and the fact, whether anyone likes it or not, is that there is no "right" to marriage.  DavidR 22:34, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Since whether or not it can properly be considered a right is a matter of debate (e.g. the license seems largely a formality to me) the sentence "To some, it is designed to restrict the right of marriage" etc) is perfectly NPOV, because it's perfectly true, and even someone like yourself can agree that some people see it this way. NPOV articles generally tell you about the actual beliefs of the people on either side of a debate. Evercat 22:39, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If the license "seems" such a formality to you why the big fuss? Just ignore it and go on. DavidR 01:51, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The "right of marriage" is a fictitious "right" made up by the homosexual community so they can claim that someone is denying them something and come off as being oppressed. Nice propaganda job they've done too, since it seems to be working in the mind of some otherwise sensible people. DavidR 15:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The above is my reply to an earlier comment on the so-called Right of Marriage. Since this seems likely to start a reversion war I thought I would start a new section to try and head that off with civil discourse. Respectfully, - DavidR 17:46, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * You're gonna love this. U.S. Supreme Court ruling, 1967, Loving v. Virginia:
 * http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

 * I quote the then-Chief Justice:
 * "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

 * I think this proves adequately that there are some who regard marriage as a right. You may disagree with the position, but you cannot deny the existence of the position. Evercat 23:01, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I might also add that I don't deny that some people take the position that the Earth is flat. If someone attempted to document that position as a valid position in any article other than one on the Flat Earth Society I would put precatory language in front of it as well.  DavidR 01:34, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I never denied the existence of the position, I categorically deny the validity of the position. I have a "right to life", no license require, "Liberty," again no license required, "and the pursuit of Happiness" again no license required.  As for the drivers license being a formality, get arrested for DUI, then go drive and get pulled over with your license suspended.  Just tell the nice officer that the license is a "formality" and see what he says.

 * I don't recall saying that a driver's license was a formality. I said a marriage license was a formality. Please read and understand straw man.

Evercat, my bad. I wasn't setting up a strawman, I got distracted about 27 times while trying to write that paragraph and I didn't go back and reread your comment. DavidR 01:21, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Chief Justice Warren expressed an opinion under one set circumstances and may have been less than careful in his phrasing. Such opinion does not have the weight of law.

 * [added later] But it does have the weight of law; that's precisely what it has. It's a ruling from the highest court in the U.S.

 * I could also point you to Zablocki v. Redhail and Turner v. Safley. Perhaps all these Supreme Court judges are incompetent.

 * No, I don't say all these Justices are incompetent. I do say however that many people in high politic ol office do not always consider the long term ramifications of their words.  I decline to cite instances from the Internet, I have seen dozens or more in print.  I might also add that all these decisions were made before the "Gay 90's" and consider that the possibility that same-sex marriage might ever be considered legal never entered the Justice's minds.  I also notice that in the 1987 decision the Justice in question keeps citing a Constitutional right, but being quite familiar with the US Constitution I can say that I am completely unaware of such a clause.  Perhaps he is citing the Missouri Constitution, but his comments never make that clear.

 * I might also add that you are hardly engaging in discourse before making your unilaterally changes, your changes are POV, and do not reflect the facts. Please note the first entry in the Table of Contents for this article.  DavidR 23:13, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * You just said you don't deny the existence of the position. So we're in agreement. The existence of the position is all the contested sentence in the article claims. Evercat 23:25, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * (note that I will not currently dispute your removal of talk of rights from the 1st paragraph, though you can't call it a privilege either. I hope you'll accept my new 1st paragraph, at least. Evercat)

 * Your rewritten 1st paragraph is well worded, thanks. Apologies for editing in haste earlier.  DavidR 01:21, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * OK. I still maintain that, given Supreme Court rulings, it's just a fact that there is a right to marry in the U.S., but for the sake of resolving this dispute, I will bend to what I perceive as your unreasonableness, and reword the still-contested bit so it does not use the word "right" at all. Evercat 19:37, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel I am being unreasonable. However the Judicial Branch of the US Government does not make laws. Only a vote of the citizenry or their duly elected representatives can do that. DavidR 13:26, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Nevertheless, it's clearly true that the Supreme Court interprets the law, and in many cases, clarifies what rights people have. For example, a week or two ago, it ruled that the Guantanamo inmates have the right to challenge their detention. Now anyone who says they don't have that right is incorrect. They do have that right - the Supreme Court has made it so. Anyway, enough of this. Evercat 19:01, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On rights

I'm not sure exactly what definition is being used here for "right"; here's what I got off the Wikipedia article on the subject:

''At its most fundamental, a right is a claim, on other persons, that is acknowledged and reciprocated among the principals associated with that claim. ... A libertarian approach might be to invoke conventions of arbitration where disagreements or uncertainty arose with respect to rights. This could be considered the natural or contractual basis for rights, such that no formal third party is necessary for a right to exist. ... A statist or authoritarian approach would rest on the assumption that rights exist only if they are dispensed by an authoritative body.''

On the basis of this, I'd say you could make an argument either way. Reference to a "right to marriage" is perhaps incorrect or misleading; however, I don't think it's false to call this an issue of civil rights. It's simply an issue of whether to add a right, rather than an issue of whether to revert to pre-existing rights. We frequently refer to the "right to vote," yet voting requires registration, and is a man-made institution. Sorry to drag up a (somewhat) dead issue, but I'm curious what this group considers "rights" and for what reasons. Mariko

 * Yes, you have to register to vote, but that is to protect that right for yourself and others by preventing fraud. This right is established in the U.S. Constitution.  I see little or nothing about marriage in the Constitution. DavidR 12:11, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * That wasn't precisely my point, though I thank you for the input. If I am interpreting your remarks correctly, you believe a "right" is something that is codified as being available to a certain subset of the population in the Constitution. According to the Wikipedia article on right, this is not the only definition.
 * In fact, this definition would require that women's suffrage not be called a matter of "civil rights," since at the time the right of women to vote was not codified in the constitution. Looking at the text of the Amendment, actually, it simply says The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex -- meaning that the right exists outside the Amendment and the Constitution; it is merely upheld by the Constitution.
 * I respectfully argue that the matter of whether something is a "right" is not entirely based on its presence or absence in the Constitution. Additionally, if same-sex marriage were defined as legal in the Constitution, it would be a right by your definition as well -- meaning same-sex marriage proponents are involved in a "civil rights" issue; the issue is simply whether to add a right, as I stated in my previous comment. Mariko

If the word "Right" is not good, how about wording Liberty of Marriage or Freedom to Marry??

And, speaking about liberties not enumerated in the US constitution, actually the established legal doctrine speaks that there are Unenumerated Liberties, something like natural rights. Further, a some point in constitution (Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution) guarantees such unenumerated rights (after Justice Kennedy's writings, perhaps should be said "Liberties") as enjoyed by the populace. 213.243.157.114 01:36, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

pointing out democratic votes
I removed the sentence "Three Democrats voted in favor of the cloture" because I really don't see why this needs to be mentioned, especially since there is no mention of republicans voting for it (I guess since it's obvious that they would?).

I'm not sure how to word what I want to say, but I really don't think it needs to be there.

Grimey 00:14, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, the number of republicans is sort of mentioned also, isn't it? If 3 out of 48 senators who vote for cloture are democrats... 67.171.37.22 01:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * It just doesn't seem like a neutral statement. Grimey 01:22, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * It's notable to point out how the two majors tended to vote on the amendment. That only 3 of the 48 who voted for the cloture are Democrats is significant --Simoes 02:19, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I think a good wording may be "A number of Republicans joined Democrats .... managed by states, and a few Democrats voted in favor of the cloture." That eliminates any POV that I sensed.  It brings it more in line with a single thought about parties voting atypically. Grimey 03:21, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I think the direction of the votes within parties is interesting and noteworthy -- what I don't understand is why it didn't go the other way as well. How about this? "x Democrats voted for cloture and y against; for Republicans, the figures were z and a, respectively." Mariko

 * I initially added the phrase to balance the phrase that was (and still is) in the article saying "A number of Republicans joined Democrats in voting against..." Whatever you decide to do with it is fine with me (I personally like Mariko's suggestion), but right now it reads to me as if every Democrat voted against cloture, which is not true. - Jonel 21:54, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Why not mention the Democrats who voted for, and the Republicans who voted against? It's fairly significant in regards the vote. Ambivalenthysteria 01:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Marriage in the U.S. vs. Marriage
I rephrased a sentence in the text section: "To some, this is a reasonable measure which defends the family and the institution of marriage as it has recently been practiced in the U.S." A quick look at the marriage page shows that the proposed amendment would not support all types of marriage that are present in the world; I think it is clearer this way, since it gives the place where the definition came from. Any thoughts? Mariko

Marriage has been one man to one woman for the bulk of human cultures throughout history. Yes, there have been exceptions but I do not believe that any culture has ever recoginzed same-sex marriage as valid, so I have reverted that part. If I am mistaken please post some sources and change it back. Respectfully - DavidR 12:04, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Frankly, your first line is incorrect. According to the Wikipedia article on marriage: Globally, societies that sanction polygyny as a form of marriage are far more common than those that do not, while monogamy between one man and one woman is by far the most common in western cultures. Whether same-sex marriage is sanctioned in other places is irrelevant; the form of marriage defined in the Federal Marriage Amendment (one man and one woman) has not been practiced by the bulk of human cultures throughout history, and it is not the only definition. The Federal Marriage Amendment does not aim to protect all marriages, since it does not allow polygyny, possibly a more common type of marriage than monogamy; its aim is to maintain the Western practice of heterosexual monogamy. I agree, however, that it might be better to rephrase the qualification as "practiced in most Western cultures" rather than "practiced in the United States." Edited to add: I should have provided a link to the marriage page in my previous comment. I saw your comment by the reversion asking for a citation; the marriage page on Wikipedia is intended to be my citation and justification for the change. Mariko

I would recommend keeping the qualification, since the current American practice of monogamous heterosexual marriage is not the exclusive model of marriage for the entire world. Polygamy is found in traditional societies around the globe; Islam and pre-Revolutionary China spring to mind as examples. One could argue that monogamy is actually a minority practice, if you look at "the bulk of human cultures throughout history." The FMA would disqualify heterosexual polygamy (whether Islamic, LDS, or whatever) equally with same-sex monogamy. JHCC 15:45, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Page Organization
It seems to me that "process" doesn't belong under "opponent arguements." Maybe it should be on the same level as "opponent arguements?"

Another opponent arguement
The Constitution is designed to be a document that lays out the rules of the government's relationship with it's citizens. Marriage is an institution under which individuals (not necessarily just the members of the married couple) deal with each other in a certain way. Therefore, the Constitution (and the federal government, for that matter), ought not have anything to do with marriage.--1pezguy 01:21, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

ROFL
DLR commented: "rm unsubstantiated POV regarding attitudes. If popular attitude supported same-sex marriage we wouldn't have had a proposed Constitutional Amendment against it."
 * This is rather silly. A lot of people seem to agree that the proposal was simply a political move, given its context, and the underlying logic in the above statement might also be applied to other silly causal relationships: "If it wasnt true, I wouldnt have said it"..."They said so, so it must be true." -Stevertigo 00:44, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ed wrote:

 * so that no U.S. state would be required to recognize a marriage license which another state issue to a same-sex couple (see same-sex marriage).

I don't think this is quite what the amendment was supposed to do - rather, by saying that a marriage was between a man and a woman, it meant it's not even possible for there to be any marriages between same-sex couples. So the question of recognising other states' same-sex marriages is moot, because there can't be any. Isn't that right? Evercat 20:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * It's my understanding that this is (recent) federal law, "protection of marriage act" or something like that, that no U.S. state would be required to recognize a marriage license wich another state ussues. The constitutional amendment was supposed to thwart a Supreme Court decision against the law. --1pezguy 23:57, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Evercat, thanks for making the distinction. I see now that there are two related motives behind the FMA: I was so focused on the first that I wasn't even thinking in terms of the second. I'll have to ask around, but I think it's the prspect of being forced to give any sort of social approval to ss couples that has conservatives up in arms. I'm not discriminating against you if I don't let your partner Bruce come to the office Christmas party for employees and spouses only (if FMA passes) and I'm committing a hate crime if I say that my church calls homosexual relationships sinful if judicial activism finds a way around the DOMA. --Uncle Ed 19:41, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) My state cannot be forced, by some court claiming Constitutional grounds, to recogninize YOUR STATE'S gay marriage (in any form); as well as,
 * 2) Your state is not allowed to call same-sex partnerhip "marriage" or force businesses, local governments, etc. to treat ss couples the same way as mf couples.
 * You are reading too much into the amendment. It simply defines marriege as between a man and a woman and prevents legislative and court action from extending marriage rights to unmarried people. There is nothing in it that addresses interstate law since it overturns all in-state laws that extend incidents of marriage to unmarried couples. Therefore your state would not have to recognized my states gay marriage, domestic union, inheritance rights, hospital visitaion, or child custody rulings since my state's laws would be effectively overturned as extending marriage rights to unmarried couples. Davodd 00:33, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Marriage Protection Act
This article perhaps should cover this legislation that was just passed by the House. No matter what anyone thinks of "same-sex marriage", this legislation seeks to bar access to federal courts by a segment of the American people. Clearly unconstitutional, and merely a ploy to delay a plausibly inevitable reversal of the Defense of Marriage Act by the Supreme Court. -- Stevietheman 19:06, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm thinking this should perhaps be a separate article, but at the very least linked, and probably briefly covered in this article. Politically, they were tied.  As for it's constitutionality, though, you're quite wrong in your assessment.  I don't want to get into a debate here, but read Article III, Section 2 of US Constitution again.  As far as precedent goes, the USC Title 28, Sections 1251 - 1631 already do similar restrictions of jurisdiction. --patton1138 17:17, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Yannick Duchese

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * Featured pictures
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. About, Help desk, and Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

16:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Yannick Duchese


text:
Operation Deliverance

Operation Deliverance was a Canadian military operation in Somalia that formed part of the United Nations peace-making deployment to that country during the early part of the Somali Civil War. The mission began on December 3, 1992, and involved about 1,400 Canadian troops, a helicopter unit and the supply ship HMCS Preserver (AOR 510).

While Canada's mission objectives were largely completed, including the freeing of a captured Canadian journalist and the defeat of the Somali warlord Mohamed 'Tiger' I. Barre, Operation Deliverance turned into a political disaster for the Canadian Forces after several Somali civilians were brutally killed or injured in what became known as the Somalia Affair. The Somalia Affair was largely responsible for the disbandment of the Canadian Airborne Regiment in 1995 and additionally resulted in numerous dismissals and resignations along the chain of command up to, but not including, the Minister of Defence

One Canadian soldier died during the mission, Corporal Michael David Abel of the Canadian Airborne Regiment. He was killed when a rifle being cleaned by a fellow soldier discharged accidentally.

title: Operation Deliverance


text:
Alor Archipelago

The Alor Archipelago (Kepulauan Alor) is part of Indonesia and is located in the eastern part of Lesser Sunda Islands.

Alor is the largest island in the archipelago which is located at its eastern end. Pantar is the second-largest island in the archipelago. Smaller islands in the group include Kepa, Buaya, Ternate (not to be confused with Ternate in the North Moluccas), Pura and Tereweng. Administratively, the Alor archipelago forms its own regency (Indonesian: kabupaten) within the province of East Nusa Tenggara. The Regency is divided into seventeen districts and 158 villages, and has an area of 2,928.88 km2 and a population at the 2020 Census of 211,872; the official estimate as at mid 2022 was 216,626.

To the east of the archipelago is the Ombai Strait, which separates it from the islands of Wetar and Atauro, the latter belonging to East Timor. To the south, across the Strait of Alor, lies the western part of Timor. To the north lies the Banda Sea. To the west lies the rest of the Sunda Islands.

title: Alor Archipelago


text:
User talk:Bullneck

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * Featured pictures
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. About, Help desk, and Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

16:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Nypd-highway.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nypd-highway.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use or fairuse. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. -- SCEhard T 05:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Howdy, this is user Bullneck responding to your post about Image:Nypd-highway.jpg -- this was a photo taken by a friend of mine which he shared with me via e-mail last year. I'm not sure where exactly that places its copyright status; it was a pic he took while visiting NYC, and he doesn't run a photography business relying on copyright or anything. Which copyright status message does this case fall under? Any info would be appreciated; please feel free to reply with any info on user talk page. Thanks! Bullneck 02:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me about this! Even though your friend is not a professional photographer, he still owns the copyright to the picture.  Just ask him if he is willing to release the picture under the GFDL, a Creative Commons license, or into the public domain.  If he agrees, we can put the correct image tag with the photo and credit him as the photographer.  If you need any more help with this, just let me know! - SCEhard T 02:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No prob about getting back to you on this -- my friend (Tony) said it's fine to use the picture under GFDL, credited to T. Morelli. I'm going to insert this into the Image copyright section text following the instructions in the image copyright tags article you linked. Let me know if I enter it in correctly or if it needs to be changed, thanks! Bullneck 17:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks great! - SCEhard T 18:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bullneck


text:
User talk:Igor Zarebski

Welcome!
Hi Igor Zarebski, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

""

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

""

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 16:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

File:Non-circular gear.gif listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Non-circular gear.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Non-circular gear.gif listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Non-circular gear.gif, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ATTENTION : This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Non-circular gear.gif listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Non-circular gear.gif, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. ATTENTION : This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Igor Zarebski


text:
User talk:IMeowbot/3

Moving goats
Hi. Wow. That's. .. um. . . a nice animated goat image you made. : ) – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 03:03, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Bihar.jpg
Thanks for redoing that! However, the spelling of Lika-Krbava is wrong. Can you put the PSD file somewhere so that we can edit it easier? Also, it should be exported to PNG, using JPEG for this is quite wasteful. --Joy [shallot]   21:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Krbava is the native Croatian spelling for that karst field, and Corbavia is a typical medieval Latin rendition of it. The other forms are either typos or malignant mutations :) "Kravaba" in particular really looks like an error, "Krabava" would make sense, but it seems someone mistakenly swapped the two consonants (b and v).

Thanks for the link. I'll also upload a version with a different color scheme, because the bright yellow / bright green one is very... shiny :) --Joy [shallot]   10:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your image recreation dedication
For your image recreations, unparalleled in both quality and quantity, I hereby award you this barnstar. (The Stalingrad map is really top-notch.) – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:09, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Also, just to add, you are thorough when it comes to finding out the copyright status of stuff. If I may say so, you are the MEOW! – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:36, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

30-06
Thanks, ya- i screwed up a couple, will be fixed in a little bit.Duk 00:44, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry
Hi! This is Bluedame, yeah, I kinda borrowed those articles. I could somehow edit those articles I made when I have time. Again, thanks for informing me.

Thanks
Noticed you replaced my 10-second pieces of art on the fishing lure articles, nice work!

Image deletion
Greetings! Over at the Commons, some images I've uploaded are being considered for deletion. I'd be interested in hearing your honest opinion on the matter. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 13:07, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate the LEGO guy :-) Ta bu shi da yu 21:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Yeah, that was a pretty bad typo in the proposed policy... - Ta bu shi da yu 21:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Map
On the one hand, by Penda's time Anglo-Saxon territory had extended further west than is shown on that map. On the other hand, that map has the advantage of not showing definite borders and also shows some of the smaller peoples who factor into the story, such as those who came to be known as the Middle Angles. I don't know, I'll have to think about which is better. Everyking 07:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Sure, that looks excellent, go ahead and upload it and I'll add it to the article. Everyking 12:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm being kinda picky here, but the Mercians of the time were divided by the river Trent into northern and southern parts. So I'd suggest perhaps moving the "Mercians" label a tad south. Everyking 12:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * And the Hwicce label should probably be a bit north, by the lower river Severn... Everyking 12:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Quite good! Whatever our past disagreements, I'm glad to see we work together on this. Hopefully this will address one of the two remaining FAC objections. Everyking 19:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:IMeowbot/3


text:
Canadian Airborne Regiment

The Canadian Airborne Regiment (Régiment aéroporté canadien) was a Canadian Forces formation created on April 8, 1968. It was not an administrative regiment in the commonly accepted British Commonwealth sense, but rather a tactical formation manned from other regiments and branches. It was disbanded in 1995 after the Somalia affair.

The concept of the Airborne
The main proponent of the Airborne was General Jean Victor Allard who, as commander of the Army (i.e. Mobile Command) and then Chief of Defence Staff, created it between 1965 and 1968 as a large rapid-reaction, light mobile force, suitable for overseas brigade-size missions. It was designed as a flexible short-term immediate response available to the government when it accepted an overseas reinforcement or intervention mission within NATO, or elsewhere. It would be replaced in a brigade's proposed mission area, after no more than a few weeks, once the main body of a heavier brigade was mobilized and transported with its fighting vehicles and support to the area. (See General Allard's memoirs, Chap. 12.)

Over time, and a succession of chiefs of defence, the Airborne remained an object of conflicting concepts of operations, military structure and linguistic identity. Originally designed as a quick-reaction immediate-response force that could, if absolutely necessary, use parachutes, it was quickly transformed into a highly specialized parachute force, to be used for special parachute missions in the regular order of battle. (See Allard's memoirs.) This, in turn, created controversy since there was no accepted requirement for such a Canadian Forces capability in operational plans, other than the rather pedestrian task of jumping into remote locations in the Canadian Arctic including Baffin Island, Moose Factory and other locations.

The original concept of the Airborne envisaged a rotation of young infantry soldiers and officers through its units, serving a maximum of two years. It was to be an essential and exciting posting for all young infantry leaders prior to their promotion to sergeant or captain in their own regiment. Allard wrote: "this regiment would not reflect the identity of a Victorian-era regiment because its members would serve in it for only a short period (Chap 12)." However, under Allard's successors, the Airborne became instead another separate regiment, specializing in parachuting, and keeping its members for as long as possible. It adopted all the symbols of a line regiment, including badges, colours, and history (creating a historical link with Canadian war-time parachute battalions). In particular, it sought to replace the identity of its members from Canada's line regiments with that of the Airborne. This aborted the original operational purpose of the Airborne and, significantly, planted the seeds of an ongoing conflict of identity and loyalty within the Canadian infantry family. Allard wrote that "those who took this route showed an absolute ignorance of the requirement for quick-reaction in today's world."

Captain W.D "Bud" Nelson CD was the first quartermaster of the Airborne, receiving commendations and a trophy for the most jumps. Captain Nelson was also the first to don and model the new unification uniform in 1968.

Location
On General Allard's retirement, the unit was established at CFB Griesbach in Edmonton, Alberta, in 1968. This was a large Air Transport Command base. The prairie weather is ideal for specialized parachute training, and Edmonton is the "gateway to the North". But the location in western Canada was disputed by some for operational reasons in that Canada's rapidly declining troop strength was consequently heavily skewed to that part of the continent where neither its population nor its NATO commitments justified. There was a full brigade in the West, plus the Airborne. In central and eastern Canada, there were only four battalions of infantry.

The Edmonton location also created linguistic problems. The Airborne's French-speaking elements had initially been left at CFB Valcartier in Quebec, but they have also moved to Alberta in 1970. There, it became difficult to keep them up to strength, particularly as many married leaders refused to make their career in an environment unsuitable for their families.

Finally, in the face of recruiting and retention problems, as well as operational concerns, the Airborne was moved to CFB Petawawa in Ontario, where it remained until it was disbanded.

In 1970 a mechanized infantry battalion was added to the regiment and was named 3rd Canadian Mechanized Commando. This unit was an element of the 4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade and was stationed in CFB Baden, Germany. Although it was part of the regiment it did not have a parachute role. It was disbanded in 1977.

Organization, size, and identity
The Airborne Regiment also suffered from frequent reorganizations. Initially conceived as a small brigade, its lack of resources forced it from the start to become a rather large tactical "regiment" with two infantry "commandos", one English-speaking and the other mostly French-speaking, as well as one artillery battery, one field engineer squadron, one signal squadron, and a service company.

A tug-of-war thus started between advocates of an exclusive "airborne" identity versus Canada's other infantry regiments, whose support was needed to promote a flow of soldiers and, in particular, leaders. An uneasy compromise was reached after 10 years, in 1979, when the Airborne was reorganized into three infantry commandos each identified with, and supported from, one of Canada's three line infantry regiments. Over time, this support was generally excellent, and the commandos became a legitimate part of their regimental family of origin. There were, however, occasions when the quality of that support was questioned (see Somalia Affair).

The resources provided for the Airborne continued to dwindle. In 1977, when the regiment moved to CFB Petawawa from Edmonton, it became the core of the Airborne Battle Group within the new Special Service Force, an all-arms light brigade group, tasked with the rapid reinforcement of NATO forces in Norway or Denmark. Its airborne artillery and engineer elements were reassigned to their parent units of the brigade. The total peacetime strength of the regiment was down to 750 all ranks.

In 1992, the Canadian Airborne Regiment was reduced to battalion size (601 members). Its commandos lost their status as distinct administrative units commanded by Commanding Officers and became companies of the Airborne, commanded by an Officer Commanding, albeit maintaining their links with their regiments of origin.

In the 1970s a mechanized infantry battalion had been created within Canada's downsized brigade in Germany and named 3 Canadian Mechanized Commando; its dress, colours and other symbols were those of the Canadian Airborne Regiment. This designation was a convenient mechanism for manning it from Canada's two English-speaking infantry regiments, allowing both to maintain NATO expertise. However, its role was strictly that of a mechanized infantry battalion and had nothing to do with the parachute operations of the regiment in Canada.

The Canadian Airborne Regiment was ordered to be disbanded by the Minister of National Defence after the Somalia Affair on September 1, 1995. This move occurred during a period marked by severe defence budget cuts and internal reorganization. Although General John de Chastelain, Chief of Defence Staff, publicly disagreed with the minister on this decision, it is likely that the lack of an obvious role in the force structure outlined in the 1994 Defence White Paper, as well as a record of controversy during its peace-time history, allowed much of National Defence Headquarters leadership to tacitly concur with the minister's reaction to the Somalia Affair.

In Canada
The Airborne Regiment deployed multiple times domestically: once in response to the October Crisis in Quebec in 1970, then in 1976 to provide counter-terrorism support during the Montreal Olympics, and finally in 1987 to assist local emergency services in search and rescue operations and later recovery operations following the Edmonton Tornado.

The regiment was also placed on three-hour standby as a quick reaction force during the final day of the Oka Crisis during Operation Salon, but they were not called in. Prior to the standby order, the regiment had conducted training for six weeks for a possible deployment to the crisis after receiving authorization from Lieutenant-General Kent Foster.

Cyprus
The Canadian Airborne Regiment's first overseas tour was to Cyprus in April 1974, viewed at the time as an ordinary peace-keeping task. The contingent was structured around its 1er Commando and its field (engineer) squadron.

However, in July 1974, an attempt by agents of the dictatorship then ruling Greece to seize power and unite the island with Greece was met by military intervention from Turkey, which invaded Cyprus on July 20. In a two-stage offensive, Turkish troops took control of 38% of the island. Many Greek Cypriots fled south while many Turkish Cypriots fled north.

In the first phase, the 1er Commando consolidated its positions on the Green Line in Nicosia, while the rest of the regiment deployed rapidly from its base in Edmonton. On 14 August the second wave of the Turkish invasion began and both sides began to target UN positions. After the ceasefire, the Turks and Greeks began building defensive positions. Meanwhile, the Airborne troops, with British support, took command of the international airport to deny further troop movement, then intervened with patrols to prevent escalation of the conflict, patrolling the buffer zone between the lines, assisting with the delivery of relief supplies to refugees and organizing exchanges of PoWs. The Airborne lost two killed (Paras Berger and Perron of the Royal 22e Régiment) and 30 wounded, while also earning several significant decorations.

The Airborne continued its peacekeeping rotations to Cyprus, returning to the island in 1981, 1985 (3 Commando under 2nd Regiment Royal Canadian Horse Artillery) and 1986 (less 3 Commando).

Somalia 1992
Since the Airborne was designed to deploy rapidly into "hot" situations, its 1, 2, and 3 Commando units, with attached support—a total of 900 soldiers—were sent to Somalia late in 1992. The operation was called Operation Deliverance and formed part of the overall U.S.-led Operation Restore Hope.

The unit had recently been reduced to battalion size and was still in the throes of reorganization as well as the severe cut-backs by the government at the time. Its positive accomplishments in Somalia have been overshadowed by the torture and murder of Somali teenager Shidane Arone by CAR soldiers, which became known as the Somalia affair. In the wake of the Somalia affair a number of videos became public showing members of the regiment participating in brutal hazing rituals, and displaying white supremacist symbols. The unit was subsequently disbanded.

Lineage of The Canadian Airborne Regiment
The Canadian Airborne Regiment traces its origin to the Second World War–era 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion (1 Can Para) and the First Special Service Force (FSSF) which was administratively known as the 2nd Canadian Parachute Battalion. The regiment bears battle honours on its Regimental Colours from both units, including Normandy Landing, Dives Crossing and Rhine in the case of the former, and Monte Camino, Monte Majo, Monte La Difensa/Monte La Remetanea, Anzio and Rome in the case of the latter.

1st Canadian Parachute Battalion
The 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion was Canada's original airborne unit, formed on July 1, 1942. Volunteers completed jump training in England then underwent four months of training at Fort Benning, Georgia, and the Parachute Training Wing at Shilo, Manitoba. Part airman, part commando, and part engineer, the paras underwent dangerously realistic exercises to learn demolition and fieldcraft in overcoming obstacles such as barbed wire, bridges, and pillboxes. By March, Canada had its elite battalion, which returned to England to join the 6th Airborne Division as a unit of the Britain's 3rd Parachute Brigade.

The battalion's service in the European theatre included the airborne invasion on D-Day, a short reinforcement stint in Belgium and the Netherlands, the airborne crossing of the Rhine and the subsequent advance to Wismar where they met the Russians.

With victory in Europe and the Pacific War ending in August, the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion was disbanded. The battalion was perpetuated in the infantry commandos of The Canadian Airborne Regiment, whose colours carried the battle honours: Normandy Landing, Dives Crossing, The Rhine, and North-west Europe 1944–1945.

First Special Service Force
The Canadian Airborne Regiment also drew much inspiration from the history of the First Special Service Force. The Regiment bears the FSSF battle honours Monte Camino, Monte Majo, Monte La Difensa/Monte La Rmetanea, Anzio and Rome on its Regimental Colour. As well the unconventional nature of the First Special Service Force, similar to the British SAS and the current U.S. Army Special Forces and elsewhere, was not replicated in the more conventional role of the Canadian Airborne Regiment. Nevertheless, its accomplishments served as a model for many members of the new "Airborne".

The First Special Service Force was a unique joint formation of Canadian and American troops assigned to perform sabotage operations in Europe in World War II. Simply named "special forces" to conceal its "commando" or "ranger" purpose, this unit later gained fame as the "Devil's Brigade". The Canadians were designated the "2nd Canadian Parachute Battalion".

Members were handpicked and sent to Helena, Montana, for special training. The Canadians wore American uniforms and equivalent ranks to eliminate any questions of command among the troops. Their work-up took place in three phases, with extensive physical training throughout the program. The first phase included parachute training, small unit tactics and weapons handling—all officers and ranks were required to master the full range of infantry weapons from pistols and carbines to bazookas and flame throwers. Next came explosives handling and demolition techniques, then a final phase consisted of skiing, rock climbing, adapting to cold weather, and operation of the Weasel combat vehicle. Exercises in amphibious landings and beach assaults were added later.

The first deployment of FSSF to the Aleutian island of Kiska disappointed the troops when it was found that the Japanese forces expected there had already evacuated, but the exercise was considered good experience. The force was next sent to Italy, where German forces entrenched in two mountains were inflicting heavy casualties on the 5th US Army. The first regiment, 600 men, scaled a 1000 ft cliff by night to surprise the enemy position on Monte La Difensa. Planned as a three- to four-day assault, the battle was won in just two hours (the events of this battle were famously portrayed in the 1968 film The Devil's Brigade). The force remained for three days, packing in supplies for defensive positions and fighting frostbite, then moved on to the second mountain, which was soon overtaken. In the end, FSSF suffered 511 casualties including 73 dead and 116 exhaustion cases. The commander, Colonel Robert Frederick, was wounded twice himself.

FSSF saw continued action throughout the Mediterranean, at Monte Sammucro, Radicosa, and Anzio. For the final advance on Rome, 1SSF was given the honour of being the lead force in the assault and became the first Allied unit to enter the "Eternal City". Their success later continued in southern France and then at the France-Italian border. Often misused as line troops, the force suffered continuously high casualties until it was finally withdrawn from combat.

On the December 5, 1944, in the town of Menton in southern France, the First Special Service Force was disbanded. Its battle honours included Monte Camino, Monte La Difensa, Monte La Remetanea, Monte Majo, Anzio, Rome, Advance to the Tiber, Italy 1943–44, Southern France and Northwest Europe. The Canadians rejoined their home units and the Americans were assigned to either Airborne units or the newly formed 474th Infantry Regiment. Frederick became the youngest Major-General ever in the American army, at the age of 37, and took command of the 45th Division.

The success, esprit and discipline of FSSF became a template for building modern special forces worldwide.

Post-war parachute units
In 1947, the Canadian Special Air Service Company was created with former members of the 1 Can Para and FSSF at its core. It was commanded by Major Guy D'Artois, a Canadian veteran of the Royal 22e Régiment, First Special Service Force and "F" Section Special Operations Executive.

However, in 1950, Canada was once again mobilizing, this time for Korea and NATO Europe. Each of Canada's three traditional Regular Force regiments (The Royal Canadian Regiment, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and Royal 22e Régiment) expanded to three battalions. A brigade commitment, consisting of airborne and air-delivered troops to defend Canada's North, was undertaken. Battalions of this Brigade were all airborne. It was structured, over the next 20 years, into the "Mobile Strike Force" and subsequently reduced in size to the "Defence of Canada Force". This parachute role, was switched from one battalion to another within each of Canada's regular infantry regiments, as they rotated to and from Korea and, subsequently, to Europe. The brigade's elements remained garrisoned in their respective bases across the country and seldom exercised as a complete brigade.

Each of the battalions was trained to fly into Canada's North, and seize an airhead or location that could be developed for airlanded operations. When the role changed from one battalion to another, within each regiment, a small nucleus of specialized instructor-planners and riggers generally transferred over to the new battalion; however, the rest of the unit quickly undertook the requisite parachutist qualifications, generally with much enthusiasm; the requirement that parachutists be "volunteers" was rarely an issue in converting these tightly-knit infantry units. There were also airborne artillery, signals, medics, and engineer elements in the brigade.

In 1958 the "Mobile Strike Force" was restructured as "The Defence of Canada Force", resulting in a reduction to one parachute company in each battalion. At this time the airborne artillery was disbanded and other support elements reduced. The parachute component in each battalion consisted of battalion tactical headquarters, and a large company group (i.e. four platoons) with support detachments of mortars, machine guns, pioneers and reconnaissance detachments. A large reserve of trained parachutists was built up in the other companies.

In 1968, many of the officers and soldiers of the "Defence of Canada Force" provided the nucleus of expertise for the new Canadian Airborne Regiment, being created at CFB Griesbach, Edmonton, Alberta, with its French-speaking element at CFB Valcartier, Quebec.

Current parachute capability of the Canadian Forces
After the disbandment of the Canadian Airborne Regiment in 1995, the Canadian army reverted to its former practice of maintaining a parachute company within one of the battalions of each of the regular infantry regiments. The commandos, at that time, returned to their regimental "homes" and became a company of the light battalion of each of their regiments (the 3rd Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment, the 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and the 3rd Battalion Royal 22e Régiment). As of 2018, only the 3rd Battalion RCR is an airmobile and air assault capable battalion (the first and by now only one in Canada), having been converted to that role in 2011, as part of the growing international deployments of the Army outside Canada (formerly only M company was assigned to the parachute role within the battalion). Unlike the British Army, while personnel of each of the Primary Reserve infantry regiments are parachute trained in the platoon level, aside from the reserve battalion of The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada (which is airborne capable), no other regiment in the Primary Reserve infantry has any parachute-ready nor air assault companies in their ranks.

In April 2005, the Canadian government's new defence policy statement was made public. It included a concept of first responders for international tasks consisting of "special forces" (such as Joint Task Force 2) supported by one of the light battalions (presumably on a rotational basis), including the parachute capability of its integral para company.

As a result, the Canadian Special Operations Regiment (CSOR) was formed, which unlike the CAR is a joint-service formation, composed of special forces-trained personnel of the Armed Forces. Unlike the CAR, it was awarded a tan Regimental Standard, similar to the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps armoured regiments designated as horse guards and dragoon guards, which carry crimson standards on parades. Only the FSSF service honours are shared by this regiment with the CAR, as well as its lineage.

Thus, since the 3rd Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment is as of the present the only airborne battalion in the Regular Force, as part of the more senior regular regiment of the Royal Canadian Infantry Corps it takes part in public parades as the 9th place overall in the Canadian Army according to the Canadian Armed Forces order of precedence, and 1st in the line of march as part of the infantry. The parachute companies of the other two Regular Force infantry regiments march as part of their respective battalions and as such these battalions, as part of their regiments, are ranked as nos.10 and 11 in the Army order of precedence (nos.2 and 3 in the order of precedence of the entire RCIC). (Unlike the CAR, save for regimental ceremonies, the CSOR does not parade in public owing to their role, nor are they part of the official precedence list.)

Battle honours
The Canadian Airborne Regiment was granted the perpetuation of both the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion, CIC; and the 1st Canadian Special Service Battalion, CIC (was also known as the 2nd Canadian Parachute Battalion: the Canadian component of the First Special Service Force aka The Devil's Brigade); and in turn was granted the following battle honours:

 * Normandy Landing
 * Dives Crossing
 * The Rhine
 * Monte Camino
 * Monte La Difensa-Monte Remetanea
 * Monte Majo
 * Advance to the Tiber
 * Anzio
 * Rome
 * Southern France
 * Ardennes
 * North-West Europe, 1944-45

Legacy

 * Into Action (1988) by André Gauthier marks the 20th anniversary of the Canadian Airborne Regiment; the sculpture at the entrance to Canadian Forces Base Petawawa's Airborne Forces Museum depicts a Canadian paratrooper in winter combat gear.

Media

 * The Canadian Airborne Regiment in Somalia: A socio-cultural inquiry : a study by Donna Winslow (1997)
 * What Manner of Man: Darnell Bass and the Canadian Airborne Regiment by James Ogle (Jan 2006)

title: Canadian Airborne Regiment


text:
User talk:Kriegman

Yoism to VfU
Honestly, I could be wrong. Take it to WP:VfU and make your case. Wikibofh 04:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yoism deletion review
I have requested a deletion review for Yoism. You can find the discussion here. Respectfully. Wikibofh 15:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Kriegman,

Attacking those who vote against you won't help. You really know how to burn bridges, don't you? Also, creating your own Wikipedia article and "religion" smacks of vanity and self-promotion. I really don't care to discuss this further.→ R Young {yak ł talk } 01:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Responded to on RYoung's talk page. He deleted the response. Kriegman 02:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

 * As I indicated in the page, it is my intention to delete User:Wikibofh/Yoism from my user space. If there is information there you would like to preserve, get it while it's hot.  Let me know (here is fine) if you've gotten what you want or there is nothing you wish to salvage.  Wikibofh 06:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the warning. I already got it.  Is it typical to leave no message after a VfU?  Did you think it was so clear?  Kriegman 06:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Wikibofh's last response

 * To be honest, I'm not sure on the VfU. The process changed when VfD changed to AfD.  I certainly would have expected something to show up in an edit summary showing the close.  I'm not sure it was obvious, but since this was more process than content oriented I understand the decision.  My recommendation is that yourself and the others (Orion, um...the person who signed up for an account :) continue to edit and contribute here.  In a few months, recreate the article as NPOV as possible with the sources you have cited, and indicate this on the talk page.  If you are consistent contributors, no one is likely to dismiss as sock/meat puppets.  I have to say, even now with Orion having so few edits not related he could be discarded.  Don't think of it as "Hyper editors vs. not" but more the case of broad contributors having no risk of being labeled s/m and narrow contributors risking being discarded out of hand.  You'll notice I don't include you on this for instance, your contributions are broad enough I don't see them being discounted.  My last word of advice is to try to be more succinct.  You sometimes write so much that people will discount based on volumn (this is different than a volumn discount :).  I probably tend to far to the other side (ie too brief).  Now, it's bedtime for Wikibofh.  Respectfully.  Wikibofh 06:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Mufti quote
Kriegman, the standard of verifiability for quotes benefits both sides of the conflict, as Israel, certainly gets more than its share of "well documented" false quotes, see Ouze Merham. I think Wikipedia is generally better off with the highest standards of verifiability, even if that means letting the Mufti quote go. Just my thoughts. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I think unless we can prove it is correctly attributed to the Mufti we should just say he may or may not have said it, but it is still widely believed today, and was then as well so it had a definate impact on the population. Do you agree?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Kriegman, I wasn't the one that said consensus had been reached that was Polonius. I find that I usually agree with him and Humus, who both think that quote shouldn't be included. I am starting to agree with their point- That if we can't even find for sure that even the accusation of the quote occurred before the end of the 1948 war, then maybe we should put it somwhere else instead-maybe on the Mufti's article. Do you still disagree?

Oh and on a sidenote have you heard of the Judaism WikiProject, you seemed to edit related articles, you can join and contribute to both.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment removal
FYI, it's considered poor form to remove comments from your talk page. Friday (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

1948 War
What do you think of Ian's recent addition to the Great uprising section. As always Ian has adaquately sourced all the controversial passages he has included. However, I still feel that much of it is inappropriate, I understand that it is reflecting the arab point of view but still referring to the war as "The Catastrophe" is ridiculous. What do you think about all this?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have once again reverted Ian Aidens edits to your version. Still, I think you would agree that both versions are heavily biased with extensive use of pro-Arab sources. I am considering to add an NPOV tag, with an adequate explanation on the talk page. I would appreciate it if you review my draft. Feel free to expand and improve the draft. --Heptor 22:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your contribution to the 1948 war. Please see what I am against in Talk:Palestinian_exodus Zeq 14:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Settlement Police
Hey Kreigman, Ian Pitchford has pretty much edited to this article into a peice of propaganda. It is a fact that Wingate couldn't really be classified as a "christian Zionist" the way that Ian insists, also he basically makes the group sound like evil men who terrify arabs for no reason. Anyways, I could really use your support edited the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

1948 Arab-Israeli War
Kriegman, I have just noticed that you have added disputed claims to this article once more. I am copying my message to Heptor and Zeq below as I suspect there is some confusion about the nature of references. --Ian Pitchford 14:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Zeq;Heptor – I’d like to clarify what is meant by a reference as you both seem to believe you have included them in the article. References to verifiable sources are normally given so that readers who are interested in a particular issue can go directly to the original source to verify that it does in fact make that claim and/or to find out more. The claims you are adding to this article do not have sources. For example, where would a reader go to find out more about the mufti being “one of the few identified leaders of the Palestinian Arabs”? Where would a reader go (i.e., author, publication and page number) to find the specific claim that the mufti made “radio broadcasts exhorting Muslims to ally with the Nazis in war against their common enemies” and how would they find and verify the specific quotation given? At the moment there is just a link to two entire books. It’s not clear whether the quotation is in both books and if it is there are no page references to make it easy to find the specific quotation. What source would a reader consult to verify that in “the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements by Arab leaders (along with the Mufti's violently antisemitic history) led to a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy.” Who is making reference to the Holocaust? Who claims that the mufti was “violently anti-Semitic”; who claims that there was a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a genocidal enemy? Without sources readers have no reason to accept these claims and no way of checking them. --Ian Pitchford 14:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

 * That's fine Kriegman. Thank you. --Ian Pitchford 15:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Reason - a general observation about the world
In this world there are people that you can never reason with. don't try. Zeq 19:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems like Ian made himself a habit to discuss article on people's talk pages. Firstly, such discussions may become both lengthy and hot-tempered, and I want neither on my talk page. Secondly, any user who reads the article may be interested in the discusson, and he should not have to go to some users talk page. As far as I am concerned, I will give Ian some time to place his comments where they belong, and then remove them from my talk page. --Heptor 20:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

HoW do I send you e-mail ? Zeq 20:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC) Not sure whether the question is to me or to Kriegman, but to send an e-mail to a user, you go to his user page. Then, in the toolbox below the search field on the left of your screen, you will find a link named E-mail this user. --Heptor 21:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed edits to 1948 Arab-Israeli War
Kriegman, I am asking you one final time to please desist from adding extremely controversial claims to this article without any supporting references. If you do find suitable references I will support the changes, but if you revert the article again with adhering to Wikipedia policies WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V I will refer the matter to the Arbitration Committee. --Ian Pitchford 09:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year
All the best wishes for 2006! -- H eptor  talk 16:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Bias
Thank you for your thoughtful essay. I have mixed feelings about most of the issues you raise. Fred Bauder 14:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Zeq
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Zeq. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Zeq/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Zeq/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Brackets I removed
yea sorry, I didn't know the brackets had to do with the quote, I thought they were just like a failed link or something, I'll put them back.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Mattar

 * Also note that Zero and Ian quote Mattar extensively, despite the clear propaganda agenda he is associated with:

 * He is considered by many "the academic wing" of the PLO and he wrote the Mufti biography that left out the Mufti's Nazi collaboration. I.e., he can hardly be considered an unbiased academic.  Why should ties to Zionist/Israeli orgs discredit an author when Mattar's ties to the PLO don't discredit him? Kriegman 03:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

We are considering writings produced by writers affiliated with nations which are at war. Propaganda is a part of war. Mattar's work, if what you say is true, should be viewed with the same scepticism which would be applied to a production of the Israeli government. It should not be viewed a priori as false, but the facts in it need to be checked. We will from time to time be fooled, but we have a duty to try to puzzle these matters out the best we can. Fred Bauder 03:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Viewing Videos
Hey Kriegmen the link didn't work, my operating system is Windows XP and I use Mozilla Firefox.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I downloaded it but it still doesn;t work, It alright though, I can still watch most videos.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes that one worked, thank you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Intersubjective verifiability article

 * Hello Kriegman: you make an excellent and very important point more readily grasped by those with a firm handle on the core philosophy issue than among those just familiarizing themselves for the first time. It is indeed only roughly akin to "objective verifiability" in that the expectation is for a set of terms that can be readily shared without constant confusion and wrangling over the meaning of terms for which a standard is required to be meaningful.  Since I linked to the IV article from the Pseudoscience article, my concern was creating further confusion upon possible half-understanding or partial understanding (the old "know enough to get into trouble but not enough to get out of it" problem)-- hence the cleanup tag.  I agree the tag's debatable and will remove it.  Thanks for being in touch...Kenosis 14:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I will take a shot at integrating the material in the IV article for more accessibility in the opening sentence or two of the article as soon as I get a chance; at that point it may be helpful to review it and determine if it is properly explanatory for all the needed slants, including those who only quickly pass through without dwelling in the Sartrean barbershop mirrors or the Cartesian-type solipsism--honestly, as you must know from your practice, folks do get lost in this stuff upon cursory analysis...Kenosis 14:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect request
I responded to your request and made one of my own on my talk page.  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! 16:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * After going over what you've written on my talk page, I believe it's time to revisit the deletion of Yoism; I'm sure you'll want to head over to the deletion review and add your two cents.

 * By the way, regarding maintaining Yoism as a user subpage... I would personally have no problem with it, and I think many other admins would feel the same. I prefer to userfy well-written articles that find themselves headed for deletion, if for no other reason than to maintain the user's work. Of course, you've done the equivalent by keeping the content on Yoism's website, so it's not necessary — and as you mentioned, it may save you from being accused of... something.  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! 09:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Psychology Wiki
Hi there Kreigman,

I noticed that you are a clinical psychologist, and thought you might be interested in this project which I am involved in, The Psychology Wiki.

I won't say too much, as I'd like you to judge it for yourself, but you should find that it is different from Wikipedia, because approximately 90% of our contributors so far are psychologists, either professionals like yourself, academics, or students and trainees.

Its hosted by a company called Wikia, which was founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley. There are Google Ads on the site, but we dont make money from the project, they're just to pay for the bandwidth, storage and technical support that Wikia give us.

Have a look and see what you think

Mostly Zen 23:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: I think you would feel at home at our site. Our founder is a Clinical Psychologist practicing in the UK, and one of our other Admins has a great deal of interest in Evolutionary Psychology. Even if you just contributed to our site by adding some APA style references about your work, it would be greatly appreciated. Mostly Zen 23:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Open source religion
I would certainly look at it again, and my opinions are not inflexible, but the article seems to be gone. Did it change names? My opinion is only one opinion anyhow. Mattisse 13:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 * That does seem much clearer and better referenced. I haven't finished checking the whole article out yet -- but your second footnote doesn't work. Since it is a Boston Globe article, maybe you can get it directly from them. Some articles they leave up forever. Mattisse 13:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 * It seems to me using that link would be O.K. since it seems clearly to be a Boston Globe article and copyrighted as such. Mattisse 13:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 * But I don't get the Reboot link. What does that link have to do with the article? Also, the Boston Globe article does not have that Yoan quote in it.  A working link needs to reference that quote.  Mattisse 14:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Regarding the Boston Globe link: The quotation begins in the fifth paragraph and continues in the sixth.  Regarding the Reboot link:  That link merely lets the reader know what "Reboot" is.  The next sentence is the connection to the OSR article in which it is explained that the origins of Reboot and the attempt to develop Open Source Judaism were coterminous. Kriegman 14:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Why do people have to know what Reboot is? And the Boston Globe article is a quote from you! The Yoams have to be a real phenomenon over and above you and articles about you. The concept of open source generalizing beyond the computer world is an interesting one, and perhaps genuine as some of your references suggest.  Why don't you write an article giving several examples of open source generalizing to other areas. Open source religion could be one example, but you would need other verifiable examples that are independent of you. Mattisse 14:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Boston Globe link
I started to put the link in for you, but I am wondering if the Boston Globe authorized you to use their article on that site. Mattisse(talk) 17:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Boston Globe article
It's one thing to link directly to an article on the newspaper's website. It's another thing if the open source religion site just lifted the html format from the Boston Globe and posted it on their website without the newspaper's permission. Mattisse(talk) 22:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

David Oaks
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your, but for legal reasons, we CANNOT accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material.

As a consequence, your article will most likely be deleted; in fact, it may already have been deleted.

Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text - which means allowing other people to modify it - then you have to prove that it's yours (because people can and do lie) by adding, on the external site, the statement that "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I irrevocably release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, for use on Wikipedia and elsewhere."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.
Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis, currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

'''Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone!''' :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link: tsikerdekis.wuwcorp.com/pr/survey/?user=18229828 (HTTPS).

Best Regards, --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.

UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me.PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Image on Turtles all the way down
I wanted to thank you for updating the image on Turtles all the way down to something that's quite amusing yet not unencyclopedic or otherwise inappropriate. It gave me a laugh, which I appreciate every now and again, so thank you. Rutebega ( talk ) 18:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Edgeline Films
Hello, Kriegman. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Edgeline Films, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kriegman


text:
File:HamiltonHouse.jpg

Hamilton House (Guest House) - Dhahran City

title: File:HamiltonHouse.jpg


text:
Carrick, Scotland

Carrick (from the Scottish Gaelic carraig, meaning 'rock') is a former comital district of Scotland which today forms part of South Ayrshire.

History
The district of Carrick originally formed part of the 11th- to 12th-century Kingdom of Galloway, whose lords ruled it until 1186, when it was granted to Duncan, son of Gilbert of Galloway. He became the first to hold the Earldom of Carrick. His son Neil became the second Earl, but he had no male heir - accordingly, his daughter, Margaret (also known as Marjorie of Carrick) inherited and became Countess of Carrick.

Upon her death in 1292 the earldom passed to her son Robert de Bruce, later to become King Robert I of Scotland ((r. 1306 – 1329)).

Carrick saw some involvement in the Scottish wars of independence under the said Robert the Bruce, which culminated in his victory over the English at Bannockburn (1314). It witnessed much inter-family feuding during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, with various branches of the powerful Kennedys contending for land and honour.

Carrick's scattered villages and rugged terrain made it a favourite haunt of the persecuted Covenanters in the seventeenth century, and its rocky coastline with its many hidden coves and inlets has made it a favourite location for smuggling. Robert Burns made his living as an exciseman along that coastline in the late-eighteenth century.

In 1469, the title "Earl of Carrick" became one of the lesser titles of the heir-apparent to the Scots (later British) throne; this title is borne by William, Prince of Wales, whose principal Scottish title is "Duke of Rothesay".

The name Carrick comes from the Gaelic word carraig, meaning 'rock' or 'rocky place', and may preserve an earlier name from Brittonic carreg, which has a similar meaning (cf. modern Welsh carreg). Compare the English crag, from the Celtic.

Maybole functioned as the historic capital of Carrick. The county was eventually subsumed into Ayrshire, which was divided naturally according to its river valleys into the three districts of Cunninghame (in the north along the River Irvine), Kyle (in the centre along the River Ayr), and Carrick (in the south along the River Doon). These three districts formed Ayrshire, one of the counties of Scotland. A major reorganisation took place in the wake of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889; this Act established a uniform system of county councils and town councils in Scotland, and restructured many of Scotland's counties.

Kyle and Carrick was the former name (1975–1996) of a local-government district in the Strathclyde region of Scotland. In 1996, it was re-constituted as a council area, but renamed South Ayrshire.

title: Carrick, Scotland