text:
Income trust

An income trust is an investment that may hold equities, debt instruments, royalty interests or real properties. It is especially useful for financial requirements of institutional investors such as pension funds, and for investors such as retired individuals seeking yield. The main attraction of income trusts, in addition to certain tax preferences for some investors, is their stated goal of paying out consistent cash flows for investors, which is especially attractive when cash yields on bonds are low. Many investors are attracted by the fact that income trusts are not allowed to make forays into unrelated businesses; if a trust is in the oil and gas business, it cannot buy casinos or motion picture studios.

The names income trust and income fund are sometimes used interchangeably even though most trusts have a narrower scope than funds. Income trusts are most commonly seen in Canada. The closest analogue in the United States to the business and royalty trusts would be the master limited partnership. The trust can receive interest, royalty or lease payments from an operating entity carrying on a business, as well as dividends and a return of capital.

Types
There are four primary types of income trusts:

Investment
Investment trusts (aka "mutual funds") are trusts established for communal investment in securities, encapsulated under the umbrella of a flow-through entity and typically managed by a 'fund sponsor', usually an investment firm, asset management firm, or investment bank. These trusts invest in a variety of investments including stocks, bonds, futures, etc., and are often marketed to the public directly when authorization has been received from provincial securities regulators to do so. This type of trust has not been affected by the recent changes in Canada concerning income trust taxation; like Canadian REITs, mutual fund investment trusts have been exempted from taxation. Some investment trusts have been specially structured with leverage in order to amplify cash yields paid to investors, while others deplete their assets to pay distributions to investors on a regular basis.

Real estate investment
Real estate investment trusts (REITs) invest in real estate: income-producing properties and/or mortgage-backed securities. The REIT structure was designed to provide a similar structure for investment in real estate as mutual funds provide for investment in stocks.

Royalty/energy
Royalty trusts, "resource trusts" or "energy trusts" exploit natural resources such as oil wells. The amount of distributions paid will vary from time to time based on production levels, commodity prices, royalty rates, costs and expenses, and deductions.

Business
Business income trusts are individual companies that have converted some or all of their stock equity into an income trust capital structure for tax reasons. Business income trusts are used in many sectors, such as manufacturing, food distribution, and power generation and distribution. They are not investment trusts in the classic sense, since they represent a single company's assets and not a pool of investments.

Among business trusts, utility trusts that invest in or operate public utilities such as electricity distribution or telecommunications are sometimes put in a separate category as they are inherently less growth-focused.

In the US, the business trust structure typically takes the form of publicly traded partnerships (PTPs) or master limited partnerships (MLPs), essentially limited partnerships (LPs) with units that trade on public securities exchanges. Those were very popular in the mid-1980s but are rare today. Revised IRS tax treatment of MLPs made the structure inefficient and infeasible, in light of the special tax that is levied on MLP owners who hold them in tax-deferred or exempt accounts such as 401(k)s, IRAs, and Roth IRAs. A more recent alternative called income depositary shares (IDS) has also failed to attract investor attention due to the trust activity being focused on the Canadian market.

By country
The tax advantages offered to trusts in certain jurisdictions have fueled investor interest in this type of investment vehicle.

Australia
Resource-rich Australia has had royalty trusts (and REITs) for a long time but in the early 1980s, a wider range of firms sought the same tax benefits and started converting into income trusts. Yield-hungry investors jumped on the bandwagon and rewarded the trusts with higher valuations. When Queensland Coal converted to a trust in 1984, its stock price tripled overnight.

The Australian government, citing ever-increasing (but unquantified) losses of tax revenues, clamped down in 1985. All trusts except REITs and royalty trusts were given 3 years to find an exit strategy: to either keep the current structure at higher tax rates, or convert (back) to a public company. As unit prices started to collapse, the majority dropped the trust structure.

It is notable, however, that the legal trust structure and the public trust structure persists in Australia to this day. As of December 2006, the Australian government was revisiting the income trust issue to consider whether further legislation was needed to address the many thousands of trusts that have been maintained and developed since taxes were imposed in the mid-1980s.

Canada
The first Canadian tax ruling enabling the income trust structure, inspired by the American PTPs, was awarded in December 1985 to the Enerplus Resources Fund royalty trust. The first corporate conversion into a proper business trust, using the 1985 ruling, was Enermark Income Fund in 1995. The move attracted little attention at the time as the vast majority of trusts were still REITs and royalty trusts (the so-called "CanRoys").

A substantial historic and status report on the Canadian income trust market was published at the end of 2006 coinciding with the announcement of new taxes on income trusts proposed by the Canadian Minister of Finance

The trust structure was "rediscovered" after the dot-com crash of 2000, as investment banks were searching for new sources of fees after the initial public offering (IPO) market had dried up. The first high-profile conversion was former Bell Canada Enterprises unit Yellow Pages Group becoming the Yellow Pages Income Fund and raising Can$1 billion in the process. By 2002, trusts accounted for 79% of all money raised through IPOs in Canada, with only 38% in the traditional sectors of petroleum and real estate. By 2005, the income trust sector was worth Can$160 billion (approximately US$135 billion at October 2005 rates). The mere announcement by a company of its intention of converting could add 10-20% to its share price.

Trusts received another boost in 2004-2005 as the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba implemented limited liability legislation that shields trust investors from personal liability. (Such legislation existed in Quebec since 1994.)

Partly as a result of this ruling, Standard & Poor's then announced plans to add the largest income trusts to the S&P/TSX Composite Index (which it eventually did on December 19, 2005), starting with a 50% weighting and gaining full representation on March 17, 2006. A new equity-only composite index would be created that will resemble the present structure without trusts. This move is seen as a strong gesture of support for the trusts, who would see increased demand from index fund managers and institutional investors replicating the index. However, the S&P, as a major bond rating agency, has expressed concerns about the sustainability and the quality of the accounting concerning many trust entities as going concerns in the future.

Business trusts came to the attention of the government. In the March 2004 federal budget, Liberal Finance Minister Ralph Goodale had tried to prohibit pension funds from investing more than 1% of their assets in business trusts or owning more than 5% of any one trust. Powerful funds led by the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan, which at the time had a significant stake in the Yellow Pages Income Fund, fought the proposed measure; the government backed off and suspended the restrictions.

On October 31, 2006, Goodale's successor, Conservative Jim Flaherty announced a new 34% tax on income trust distributions in a bid to stem the growing number of companies that were converting to trusts. Since January 2011, all Canadian income trusts (except REITs) are considered as Specified Investment Flow-Through (SIFT) entities that are subject to double taxation at a rate approximately equal to corporate income tax rates.

Suspension of advance tax rulings
On September 8, 2005, the Canadian Department of Finance issued a white paper suggesting that the trusts had cost it at least Can$300 million in tax losses the preceding year, with provincial governments possibly losing another $300 million. The markets barely reacted and on September 13, Gordon Nixon, CEO of the Royal Bank of Canada, mentioned in passing that he was not opposed to Canada's largest bank converting into a trust. One week later on September 19, the Department of Finance announced that it was suspending advance tax rulings – essential for investor confidence – on future trusts.

The resulting uncertainty caused an immediate slump with the trust market losing approximately $9 billion in market capitalization during the following week. This caused CanWest Global Communications to reduce its proposed $700 million IPO spin-off to $550 million. CI Fund Management also showed hesitation regarding its planned trust conversion. Previous plans by ACE Aviation Holdings to spin off Air Canada Jazz into a trust were suspended indefinitely. "Traditional" Canadian REITs, once content to ride the trust boom, tried to distance themselves from the new business trusts, to avoid regulatory "collateral damage".

In the day following the change in working tax policy, the unit price for all income trusts and REITs on the TSX dropped by a median of more than 17% according to the iTrust Report published by TrustInvestor.com and its iTrust Index. Studies by Leslie Hayman, publisher of the Report, indicated that the change in advance tax rulings in 2005 was the most statistically significant volatility event in the history of the trust market.

According to RBC Dominion Securities, yearly trust cash distributions amounted to Can$16 billion in 2005, not including potential capital gains taxes on trust conversions. Of that amount, $3.3 billion was collected in tax. RBC estimates that taxing trusts like regular companies could slash the market value of Canadian business trusts by as much as 30% – again, not counting the loss of the share price premium of companies that had announced their conversion and would then back off.

Following the announcement, Goodale and the Department of Finance declined to comment or answer questions on the future of income trusts. Intense lobbying efforts to "save the trusts" were undertaken by the business community and the Conservative Party. They demanded that if equal treatment is to be granted to trusts and traditional companies, it should be implemented by leaving the trusts alone and cutting corporate and/or dividend tax to match the trust advantage. That solution would cost the government an additional Can$1 billion, which the lobbyists claim would be a small price to pay for stabilizing the market and satisfying the public investors/voters.

Since any decision was to affect the finances of an unknown proportion of the government's voting base, the trust debate turned into an important issue in the 2006 election. Analysts were trying to estimate the political repercussions, mostly depending on how much retail investors, especially seniors saving for retirement, were involved in the market. Some analysts put this at 60-65% of the market, up to 80% when counting mutual funds. If this is the case, a pre-election decision unfavorable to income trusts would have proven hazardous to Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority Liberal government.

Dividend tax cut announcement
The government found itself under increasing pressure throughout November as the opposition moved towards a vote of no confidence that meant the Liberal government might not remain in place by the time the trust consultation and review concluded on December 31. After the close of the markets on November 23, 2005, Mr. Goodale made a surprise announcement that the government would not tax the trusts, and would instead cut dividend taxes; the advance tax rulings were also resumed. The announcement described the proposed cut:

 * "To accomplish this, the Government proposes to introduce an enhanced gross-up and dividend tax credit (DTC) for eligible dividends received by eligible shareholders. An eligible dividend will be grossed-up by 45%, meaning that the shareholder includes 145% of the dividend amount in income. The DTC in respect of eligible dividends will be 19%, based on the 2010 federal corporate tax rate as proposed in the 2005 federal budget. The existing gross-up and tax credit will continue to apply to other dividends."

The markets rallied in the hours leading to the announcement (the government denied any leaks, see below) and on the following days as well, sending the S&P/TSX Composite Index to a new five-year high. The day's biggest gainers were income trusts, income-trust candidates, high dividend-paying companies, and the TSX Group itself. Former trust candidates such as Air Canada Jazz announced that they were considering a trust conversion or spinoff once again.

The decision, while applauded by financial circles, was widely seen as confused and hurried (an earlier government statement on the same day had mistakenly suggested a slight tax on the trusts).

The Liberal government had come under fire for the very strong stock market rally that immediately preceded the announcement, suggesting leaks from government insiders to financial circles. Opposition parties requested an official investigation on insider trading activity on that day. The Ontario Securities Commission has rejected the suggestion, saying it amounted to political interference; however, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police launched an inquiry on December 28, 2005. On February 15, 2007, the RCMP announced the conclusion of the income trust investigation and laid a charge of 'Breach of Trust' against Serge Nadeau, an official in the Department of Finance. Finance Minister Goodale was cleared of any wrongdoing.

New rules
Following announcements by telecommunications giants Telus and Bell Canada Enterprises of their intentions to convert to income trusts, on October 31, 2006, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty proposed new rules that would end the tax benefits of the income trust structure for most trusts. The new rules broke the Conservative Party's election promise to avoid taxing income trusts.

Brent Fullard of the Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors pointed out that at the time of the announcement Telus and Bell Canada Enterprises did not pay any corporate taxes nor would they for several years. According to his analysis, had Bell Canada Enterprises converted to a trust it would have paid $2.6 to 3.17 billion in the next four years versus no taxes as a corporation.

Subsequent to the October 31 announcement by Flaherty, the TSX Capped Energy Trust Index lost 21.8% in market value and the TSX Capped Income Trust Index lost 17.6% in market value by mid-November 2006. In contrast, the TSX Capped REIT Index, which is exempt from the 'Tax Fairness Plan', gained 3.2% in market value. According to the Canadian Association of Income Funds, this translates into a permanent loss in savings of $30 billion to Canadian income trust investors.

In the month following the tax announcement, the unit price for all 250 income trusts and REITs on the TSX dropped by a median of almost 13% according to the iTrust Report published by TrustInvestor.com and its iTrust Index. Studies by Leslie Hayman, publisher of the report, indicated that the tax news at the end of 2006 was the second most significant volatility event in the market following only the suspension of advance tax rulings by the Minister of Finance, Ralph Goodale in 2005. In Hayman's report entitled Breach of Trust, published as the 2006 year-end market review in Forum magazine by Advocis, the Financial Advisors Association of Canada, detailed analysis showed the substantial value to investors of the income trust structure and Canadian market being erased through new taxation.

Income trusts, other than real estate income trusts, and mutual fund investment trusts, that were formed after that date were to be taxed in the same way as corporations: Income trusts formed on or before that date were not subject to the new rules until 2011 to allow a period of transition. Real estate income trusts are not subject to the new rules on real estate income derived in Canada (the non-Canadian real estate operations of existing REITs are subject to the same taxation as business trusts).
 * income flowed out to investors were subject to a new 34% tax as of 2007 (which fell to 31.5% in 2011), which approximates the average corporate income tax paid by corporations—this is equivalent to the current prohibition against deducting dividends paid to investors in determining corporate taxable income; and
 * income flowed out to investors are eligible for the dividend tax credit to provide equivalent treatment to dividends paid by corporations.

Flaherty proposed to reduce the federal corporate income tax rate from 19% to 18.5% in 2011. The 34% tax on distributions is split between the federal and provincial governments.

Flaherty also introduced a $1000 increase to the amount on which the tax credit for those over 65 (the "age amount") is based, and new rules to allow senior couples to split pension income in order to reduce the income tax they pay. Flaherty said these changes were designed to mitigate the impact on seniors of the new income trust rules.

The legislation to implement these proposals was included in the 2007 federal budget, which was presented to Parliament by Jim Flaherty on March 19, 2007.

Department of Finance role in decision
While at the Department of Finance, Mark Carney engineered the federal Conservative government's plan to tax income trusts at source. Carney was a Senior Associate Deputy Minister of Finance, and expected to succeed David A. Dodge as the Governor of the Bank of Canada on February 1, 2008. Carney was appointed by Finance Minister Flaherty on October 4, 2007.

The Department of Finance also eliminated a 15% withholding tax on foreign leverage buyout loans, and created capital insertion rules that restrict growth on Canadian trusts. Brent Fullard claimed that this creates conditions which favour foreign entities who purchase Canadian income trusts and are not required to comply with rules that restrict growth. that constituted Mark's idea of accountability and transparency."

Support
The Conservatives had the support of the Jack Layton and the New Democratic Party, and a majority of provincial finance ministers on this issue. The Conservatives lost Bloc Québécois support because of Bloc concerns of capital losses to small Canadian investors.

Jack Mintz of the C.D. Howe Institute noted in a December 2004 brief that the dividend tax credit changes were not sufficient to level the playing field between income trusts and corporations, and that the tax system continued to distort the efficiency of capital markets. Further, he wrote that "The tax system encourages excessive distributions since trusts that retain taxable profits are subject to onerous taxation."

The C.D. Howe Institute issued a report in October 2006 in which Mintz indicated that since 2004 "the income trust market has grown by about a third from $62 billion to $83 billion in issuance". He estimated that the total reduction in federal and provincial taxes to be $700 million annually, and that with the proposed conversion by BCE and Telus to trusts, the total federal and provincial tax reductions for investors would rise to $1.1 billion annually.

In a November 2006 The Globe and Mail's survey of business leaders (CEOs, CFOs and the like), 58% supported the proposed changes. Most support was related to different tax treatment of trusts over other corporate structures. The CEO of EllisDon was quoted as saying "I just don't see the logic in allowing a group of companies to pay dramatically lower taxes than private companies or companies that aren't organized that way. I really don't see how [the government] had any choice."

When the final vote on the Conservative budget was held, the Bloc supported the taxation of income trusts in the "Tax Fairness Plan" as a quid pro quo for receiving a huge allocation of cash from the Conservative government. Canada's Senate later passed this budget as law. Gwyn Morgan former President and CEO of Encana continued to support the changes in taxation in an October 31, 2007, interview on BNN.

Opposition
Criticism of the new tax rules included:
 * The effect of the rules on the sector, on owners of income trust units, and the breaking of an explicit campaign promise by the Conservative Party.
 * The lack of consultation by the government, and criticism of the execution of the decision (timing of the announcement, the way in which it was announced, and potential malfeasance by insiders).
 * The substance of the decision and the reasoning and data provided by the government to justify the decision. These reasons include, in particular, challenges to the government's calculation and methodology of 'tax leakage'.

Economist Yves Fortin has challenged the reasons for the change in tax regime announced by Flaherty and disputed the Harper government assertion that the trust structure has led to loss of tax revenue because of trust conversions in a research paper.

The December 2006 report, Breach of Trust, summarized the facts underlying previous and subsequent presentations made by Leslie Hayman to the government on behalf of more than 4500 income trust investors, fund managers and analysts who subscribed to Reports on the market by TrustInvestor.com. Its on-going in-depth analysis indicated that flow-through structures provided generally greater contractual transparency in business management and better total overall returns to investors than other equity issuers and issues in general, while providing relatively high and growing tax revenues to governments compared to other public equities and securities. Government regulation caused market volatility that broke the confidence of investors, many being retired do-it-yourself investors who rely on investment income: Government-driven volatility caused by both the Liberal government in 2005 and the Conservative government in 2006-2007 not only hurt the assets and diminished quality of life for Canadian investors. The Conservative Party won the Federal election on the basis that they and their leader, Stephen Harper promised to protect income trusts from additional taxation. By frightening investors into professionally managed funds, their policy-driven volatility strengthened the oligopoly among Canadian banks and financial services.

In a January 12, 2007 paper Fortin outlined his concerns regarding the claim of tax leakage. Flaherty stated in his October 31, 2006, policy statement "If left unchecked, these corporate decisions would result in billions of dollars in less tax revenue for the federal government to invest in the priorities of Canadians, including more personal income tax relief" but Minister Flaherty has not documented the claimed losses nor the methodology used to estimate them. Fortin's paper gives several examples on how the tax on income trusts could lead to a loss in government tax revenue.

Analyst Gordon Tait also raised concerns about the lack of consultation and misconceptions surrounding the change in tax policy on trusts in "The Inconvenient Truth About Trusts", although Mr. Tait also notes that he recognizes "the dilemma the Finance Minister found himself in," and that "the potential for a large number of corporate conversions to income trusts necessitated some kind of action."

A December 11, 2006 "Income Trust Report" by PricewaterhouseCoopers reviewed the surveys and studies conducted in 2004 and 2005, the economic benefits and impact of income trusts in Canada. The report concluded that income trusts do have a place in Canadian capital markets and the 'Tax Fairness Plan' is unfair to Canadian investors who hold trusts in a tax-deferred Registered Retirement Savings Plan or a registered retirement income fund.

Analyst Cameron Renkas examined the Department of Finance assertion that the United States and Australia have taken action to shut down flow-through structures. In his research paper "Digging Deeper" he gives a perspective on how the United States taxes publicly traded flow-through entities and master limited partnerships, the US equivalent of Canadian income trusts.

Analyst Dirk Lever wrote on January 15, 2007: "We cannot understand why any Canadians would support double taxation of retirement benefits - it affects all of us eventually." Mr. Lever also looked at the Conservative government's policy in his research paper "Deep Dive into Tax Issues: Canadian Pensioners Taxed Twice on Canadian Corporate Dividends". In the report Mr. Lever questions the logic behind double taxation of dividends, and claims that foreign investors pay less tax on distributions than domestic investors. The proposed solution, however, is not to retain the existing benefits of income trusts, but to have identical tax regimes for both corporate and income trust distributions (dividends). The report does not address the benefit received from tax deferred savings plans (such as RRSPs and pensions) at the time of contribution, nor the tax-free accumulation throughout the life of these plans.

Hearings on the proposed changes to income trust taxation by the House of Commons' Finance Committee commenced January 30, 2007. John McCallum, the Liberal Finance critic, called on Minister Flaherty to explain the reasoning behind the change in income trust tax policy. In a February 8, 2007, news release McCallum said that "essentially they released close to a thousand pages of public documents, not one of which brings Canadians any closer to understanding what type of information or calculations led the Minister break his election promise and tax income trusts, either the Minister is in contempt of the committee's motion or he had absolutely no data from his own department before shutting down the sector and destroying tens of thousands of Canadians' life savings."

In a July 9, 2007, interview on Business News Network, former Conservative Alberta Premier Ralph Klein criticized Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Flaherty for their mishandling of the income trust issue and for not keeping their word on income trust taxation. According to the Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors, the change in tax rules cost investors billions of dollars in market value. Harper had promised "not to raid Senior's nest eggs" by changing taxation rules for income trusts only a few months earlier during the 2006 federal election.

Standing Committee on Finance report
On February 28, 2007, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance released a report "Taxing Income Trusts: Reconcilable or Irreconcilable Differences?"

Challenge under NAFTA
On October 30, 2007, American citizens Marvin and Elaine Gottlieb filed a Notice of Intent to Submit a Claim to Arbitration under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The couple claimed that thousands of U.S. investors lost a total of $5 billion in the fall-out from the Conservative government's decision to tax income trusts in the energy sector at the same rates as corporations, removing the tax advantage of the income trust structure.

Under the NAFTA, Canada is not allowed to target other NAFTA citizens when they impose new measures. The NAFTA also stipulates that Canada must pay compensation for destroying investment by U.S. investors. Prime Minister Harper made a public promise that his government would not tax trusts, as had the previous Liberal government. Canada's tax treaty with the United States also says that trust income will not be taxed at more than 15%.

The Gottliebs maintain a website for American and Mexican citizens interested in filing a NAFTA claim against the Government of Canada.

Examples of publicly traded royalty trusts

 * Baytex Energy Trust (Canada: oil and natural gas)
 * BP Prudhoe Bay Royalty Trust (US: Prudhoe Bay oil field, Alaska)
 * Canadian Oil Sands Trust (Canada: oil sands)
 * Enerplus Resources Fund (Canada: oil and natural gas; properties both in Canada and the U.S.)
 * Harvest Energy Trust Canada: 70% oil, 30% natural gas, and also owns a refinery)
 * Permian Basin Royalty Trust (US: Texas, oil and gas)
 * Penn West Energy Trust (Canada: oil and gas)
 * Pengrowth Energy Trust (Canada: oil and gas, including oil sands)
 * Precision Drilling Trust (Canada: drilling contractor to the oil and gas industry)

Private energy income trusts

 * Petrocapita Income Trust (Canada: western Canada, oil and gas)

United States
In the US, the business trust structure appeared with publicly traded partnerships (PTPs; also known as master limited partnerships or MLPs) which were limited partnerships with units that trade on public securities exchanges, combining the tax advantages of partnerships with the liquidity of public companies. PTPs started in the early 1980s in the oil and gas and real estate industries. As the decade went on, a variety of other businesses, from manufacturers to the Boston Celtics basketball team, began using the PTP structure.

In 1987, there were more than 100 PTPs and Congress estimated that the trend was costing Washington $245 million a year in lost revenue. A law was enacted that treated PTPs as corporations unless they derived 90 percent of their income from so-called "passive sources", which included interest, dividends, capital gains, real estate rents, income and capital gains from real estate (e.g., developers and homebuilders), income and gain from natural resources activities, and commodities. All existing PTPs whose income did not qualify (roughly a third of them) were given 10 years before they would be taxed as corporations. Just like in Australia, many of these eventually changed structures, went off the market, etc., but the decade-long transition meant fewer sharp losses for investors. Others such as Cedar Fair received a special tax rate at the end of the ten years on the condition that they would not be allowed to diversify outside of their core businesses. Only three of these "grandfathered" PTPs exist today; however, those with qualifying income, primarily in the energy sector, have thrived, and there are roughly 100 trading today.

With the Canadian income trust market booming in the 2000s, American investment bankers have tried to import the Canadian model in a structure called income depositary shares (IDS). A handful of small IPOs have used this model since late 2003; but due to lack of investor demand, interested companies have preferred to go public directly in the hot Canadian market.

Tax characteristics
In a typical income trust structure, the income paid to an income trust by the operating entity may take the form of interest, royalty or lease payments, which are normally deductible in computing the operating entity's income for tax purposes. These deductions can reduce the operating entity's tax to nil.

The trust in turn, "flows" all of its income received from the operating entity out to unitholders. The distributions paid or payable to unitholders reduces a trust's taxable income, so the net result is that a trust would also pay little to no income tax. The net effect is that the interest, royalty or lease payments are taxed at the unitholder level.

 * 1) As a flow-through entity (FTE) whose income is redirected to unitholders, the trust structure avoids any possible double taxation that comes from combining corporate income tax with shareholders' dividend tax.
 * 2) Where there is no double taxation, there can be the advantage of deferring the payment of tax. When the distributions are received by a non-taxed entity (like a pension fund), all the tax due on corporate earnings is deferred until the eventual receipt of pension income by participants of the pension fund.
 * 3) Where the distributions are received by foreigners, the tax applied to the distributions may be at a lower rate determined by treaty, that had not considered the forfeiture of tax at the corporate level.
 * 4) The effective tax an income trust owner could pay on earnings could actually be increased because trusts typically distribute all of their cashflow as distributions, rather than employing leverage and other tax management techniques to reduce effective corporate tax rates. Certain investors, particularly those in the highest tax brackets, could be significantly worse off investing in income trusts compared to traditionally structured corporations. While the benefits of trusts for tax-deferred and tax exempt entities are clear, trusts are clearly less attractive for other investors facing high marginal rates.

Investor risks
Generally, income trusts carry the same risk levels as dividend paying stocks that are traded on stock markets. And since income trusts or dividend paying stocks sometimes pay out a portion of their profits every month, investors get the equivalent of a capital gain (in the form of monthly distributions) on their investment without having to sell their stocks. Income trusts are equity investments, not fixed income securities, and they share many of the risks inherent in stock ownership, but often not the same rights and responsibilities, especially concerning corporate governance and fiduciary responsibility. Investors in Canadian income trusts cannot rely upon provisions in the Canada Business Corporations Act allowing for derivative actions and the oppression remedy, and often do not even have the right to elect a board of directors. Each trust has an operating risk based on its underlying business; the higher the yield, the higher the risk. They also have additional risk factors, including, but not limited to, poorer access to debt markets.

 * Valuation: When distributions include return of capital the investor is receiving excess capital back from operations of the trust. A trust unit with high return of capital distributions will often attract a higher market value because the return of capital portion of the distribution is tax deferred until the unit is sold.
 * Lack of income guarantees: similar to a dividend paying stock, income trusts do not guarantee minimum distributions or even return of capital. If the business starts to lose money, the trust can reduce or even eliminate distributions; this is usually accompanied by sharp losses in units' market value.
 * Exposure to interest rate risk: since the yield is one of the main attractions of income trusts, there is the risk that trust units will decline in value if interest rates in the rest of the cash/treasury market increase. This risk is common to other dividend/income based investments such as bonds.

Interest rate risk is also present inside the trusts themselves on their balance sheets since many trusts hold very long term capital assets (pipelines, power plants, etc.), and much of the excess distributable income is derived from a duration mismatch between the life of the asset, and the life of the financing associated with it. In an increasing interest rate environment, not only do the attractiveness of trust distributions decrease, but quite possibly, the distributions themselves decrease, leading to a double whammy of both declining yield and substantial loss of unitholder value.

 * Sacrifice of growth unless more equity is issued: because most income is passed on to unitholders, rather than reinvested in the business. In some cases a trust can become a wasting asset. Because many income trusts pay out more than their net income, the shareholder equity (capital) may decline over time. For example, according to one recent report, 75% of the 50 largest business trusts in Canada pay out more than they earn. However a PriceWaterhouseCoopers study indicated that contrary to opinions expressed elsewhere, Income Trusts were efficient at reinvestment in their businesses and added significant value for their unitholders.
 * Exposure to regulatory changes: to the extent that the value of the trust is driven by the deferral or reduction of tax, any change in government tax regulations to remove the benefit will reduce the value of the trusts. See Canadian income trusts below on how changes in Canadian taxation rules diminished market values.

title: Income trust


text:
User:Vrubinstein

''My name is Vali Rubinstein, i am a Junior at Da Vinci High School. It's a really nice school, don't you wish you were me j/k. well, moving on, I was born in Russia, then moved to Isreal. After growing up there I moved to chicago, and from there to Davis, CA. I love faries, and psychology. i hope to be a psych. major and someday a therapist. That's me in a nut shell, can u break it?''

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

title: User:Vrubinstein


text:
John Morrissey

John Morrissey (February 12, 1831 – May 1, 1878), also known as Old Smoke, was an Irish American politician, bare-knuckle boxing champion, and criminal.

He was born in 1831 in Ireland. His parents moved to New York State when he was a young child. In the early 1850s, he went to San Francisco at the time of the California Gold Rush. In California, he became a bare-knuckle boxer and on his return to New York, he challenged and defeated "Yankee Sullivan", who was then recognized as the American boxing champion. He became a professional gambler, owning gambling houses in New York City in the 1850s and 1860s. He emerged as a powerful politician and a U.S. Congressman from New York, between 1867 and 1871, backed by Tammany Hall. However, he later fell out with the Tammany Hall political machine and became Democratic State Senator for New York between 1876 and 1878, running as an anti-Tammany candidate.

Early life
Morrissey was born in Templemore, County Tipperary, Ireland on February 12, 1831. Around 1833 his parents emigrated to the United States and settled in or near Troy, New York. According to a newspaper obituary, Morrissey's father, Timothy, worked as a laborer to support his large family, having 7 daughters to support in addition to his only son, John. The same source states that after little formal education, Morrissey started work at the age of 12 in a wall-paper factory. He subsequently worked at an iron-works and a stove foundry. By 1848, Morrissey was taking a leading part in factional fighting in Troy between the "Down-Town" and "Up-Town" gangs. Morrissey reportedly became the "king-pin" of the faction "hailing from the lower part of the city" and was involved in fighting the rival group's leader, Jack O'Rourke as well as "most of the up-town" people.

Morrissey moved to New York City in 1848, becoming a deck-hand on a steamer running between Albany and New York. He married the daughter of a ship's captain, Sarah Smith, around 1849. It was during his time in New York that he is said to have acquired his nickname, "Old Smoke" as a result of a fight. According to one story, during a fight with Thomas McCann, a noted rough-and-tumble fighter, Morrissey was said to have been pinned on his back atop burning coals from a stove that had been overturned. Morrissey endured the pain as his flesh burned, fought off McCann, and got back on his feet. Enraged, Morrissey beat McCann senseless as smoke from his burning flesh rose up from his back. The event earned him the nickname "Old Smoke", which stuck with him through the rest of his life.

In 1851 Morrissey sailed to San Francisco, seeking fortune during the California Gold Rush. While he didn't have any luck in that endeavor, Morrissey became a renowned gambler and made a fortune winning gold from prospectors.

Winning the heavyweight championship
It was during his time in California that Morrissey appeared for the first time in a professional prizefighting ring. On August 31, 1852, he defeated George Thompson at Mare Island, California in the 11th round, earning $5,000 (~$ in ). This success encouraged him to return to New York to fight the American Champion, Yankee Sullivan.

Morrissey returned to New York and challenged Sullivan repeatedly until the latter finally agreed. Due to the violent nature of the sport, boxing was illegal in most places during the 1850s. The first boxing rules, which were developed in the 19th century into the London Prize Ring Rules, were introduced by heavyweight champion Jack Broughton to protect fighters in the ring where deaths sometimes occurred. Under these rules, if a man went down and could not continue after a count of 30 seconds, the fight was over. Hitting a downed fighter and grasping below the waist were prohibited. Fights usually lasted for 20-30 rounds. Rounds continued until one fighter touched the ground with his knee, or simply fell down.

Articles for the fight between Sullivan and Morrissey were signed on September 1, 1853. The stake money was $1,000 a-side and it was specified that the new rules of the London Prize Ring would be applied. Morrissey went into training 2 days after signing the articles, Orville Gardner being selected as his trainer. The fight between Morrissey and Sullivan took place on October 12, 1853, in the hamlet of Boston Corners, which was then in Massachusetts, but out of reach of its authorities, and thus a good location for the illegal match. The fight took place in a field, reportedly viewed by over 3,000 spectators. Sullivan dominated the match for most of the fight, but Morrissey held his own. The fight continued until the 37th round, when a struggle between the fighters on the ropes developed into hostilities between Sullivan and Morrissey's seconds and a "general riot" when elements of the crowd broke into the ring. The referee gave the decision to Morrissey, although it was not clear at the time why he made his verdict. One report said that it was because Sullivan had struck Morrissey with a "foul blow", another stated it was because of a "foul blow" and "not coming to time", whilst another stated that it was because Sullivan had stepped out of the ring before the referee had given his decision. The fight had lasted 55 minutes.

Morrissey did not escape legal retribution for the fight, however, as the Grand Jury of Berkshire County prepared a bill against him. When he surrendered to the court, he was fined $1,200.

Murder of Bill Poole
Morrissey became involved in Democratic politics in New York City and developed a rivalry with William Poole, also known as "Bill the Butcher". Poole was leader of the rival Bowery Boys, who were enforcers for the Know-Nothing Party, and a boxer. On August 8, 1854, a fight was arranged between Poole and Morrissey at the corner of "West and Amos-street". According to a newspaper report, after some sparring, Poole threw Morrissey to the ground and was on top of him in an instant "pounding, gouging, bucking and biting", forcing Morrissey to concede the fight to Poole. In February 1855, two of Morrissey's friends, Lew Baker and Jim Turner, shot and fatally wounded Bill the Butcher at Stanwix Hall, a saloon on Broadway. Morrissey and Baker were indicted for the murder, but the charges were dropped after three trials resulting in hung juries.

Final prizefight
Morrissey had apparently retired from prizefighting and had returned to Troy, New York. However, the appearance of fellow Troy, New York, native John C. Heenan in New York in the fall of 1857 brought about his return to the ring. Heenan, who had been in California, had earned the reputation of being a formidable fighting man among the followers of boxing. In December 1857, Heenan appeared before a New York audience as part of a sparring exhibition. In July 1858, a prizefight was arranged between Morrissey and Heenan, set for October 20, 1858, with the venue of the fight being specified as in Canada. The fight took place on the island of Long Point, Ontario. In the days before the fight, Heenan had been troubled with a sore in his leg which interrupted his training. According to one ringside observer, Heenan had the better of the first three rounds but then started to tire. By the 11th and final round, Heenan was unable to defend himself and Morrissey struck a knockout blow, thereby retaining his title. Heenan claimed the title on Morrissey's retirement from boxing in 1859. Although this was Morrissey's last fight, he did not lose interest in prizefighting, and in the spring of 1860, he crossed the Atlantic to witness the fight between Heenan and English champion Tom Sayers. Arriving in England on March 26, 1860, Morrissey visited the offices of the sporting newspaper, Bell's Life in London and Sporting Chronicle. He not only placed a £600 wager on Sayers to win the fight, he also visited Sayers at his training quarters where he was said to have given the Englishman "valuable advice". On his return to the United States towards the end of April 1860, Morrissey was able to spend a few hours at Queenstown, County Cork, waiting to go aboard the steamship. Here he attracted a "large circle of admirers" and was presented with a "handsome blackthorne stick, grown on the soil of Tipperary".

Involvement in gambling and the Saratoga Race Course
After his retirement from boxing, Morrissey focused his attention on gambling establishments, allegedly owning stakes in 16 casinos at one point. In August 1860, it was estimated that he was worth $200,000, (~$ in ) "all of which he had gained at hazard". In 1862, a police raid on one of his gambling establishments in New York revealed that the house had made over $2000 in December 1861. After establishing a successful gaming house in Saratoga Springs, New York, Morrissey created the Saratoga Race Course with the help of William R. Travers, John R. Hunter, and Leonard Jerome. The first races were held in August 1863. He also established "The Club House", a casino in Saratoga that attracted such notable guests as Chester A. Arthur, Rutherford B. Hayes, Ulysses S. Grant, Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, and Mark Twain.

Politics
In 1866, Morrissey ran for Congress with the backing of Tammany Hall. Despite his political rivals pointing out his numerous indictments and some convictions for various crimes, he became a Congressman and served two terms (1867–1871) in the House, in the 40th and 41st United States Congress. As a Congressman, he always looked out for the interests of the Irish, and was known to use strong-arm tactics to accomplish his legislative goals, at one point allegedly declaring he could "lick any man in the House".

He eventually grew tired of the rampant corruption in Tammany Hall and left the House after his second term. Morrissey eventually testified against William Tweed, which helped put the latter in prison. He was elected as an Anti-Tammany "Reform Democrat" to the New York State Senate in 1875 and was re-elected in 1877, sitting in the 99th, 100th and 101st New York State Legislatures.

Morrissey contracted pneumonia and died on May 1, 1878, at the age of 47. The state closed all offices and flags were flown at half-staff. The entire State Senate attended his funeral in Troy, held on May 4, 1878, and 20,000 mourners lined the streets to pay their last respects. He was buried in St. Peter's Cemetery, just outside Troy.

Boxing career record

 * align="center" colspan=8|3 Wins, No Losses, No Draws
 * align="center" style="border-style: none none solid solid; background: #e3e3e3"|Result
 * align="center" style="border-style: none none solid solid; background: #e3e3e3"|Opponent
 * align="center" style="border-style: none none solid solid; background: #e3e3e3"|Date
 * align="center" style="border-style: none none solid solid; background: #e3e3e3"|Location
 * align="center" style="border-style: none none solid solid; background: #e3e3e3"|Duration
 * Win
 * George Thompson
 * 1852-08-31
 * Mare Island, California
 * 11 rounds
 * Win
 * Yankee Sullivan
 * 1853-10-12
 * Boston Corners, Massachusetts
 * 37 rounds
 * Win
 * John C. Heenan
 * 1858-10-20
 * Long Point Island, Canada
 * 11 rounds
 * Win
 * John C. Heenan
 * 1858-10-20
 * Long Point Island, Canada
 * 11 rounds

Legacy
In 1996 he was elected to the International Boxing Hall of Fame in the "Pioneer" category Morrissey was featured on a portion of the History Channel documentary, Paddy Whacked, The History of the Irish Mob, based on T.J. English's narrative, as the first Irish mob boss in American history. His feud with Bill Poole was featured in an episode of Blood Feuds.

Prizefighter "Johnny Morrissey" is the hero in a popular Irish ballad called "Morrissey and the Russian Sailor". Although the ballad has several variations, most versions include some phrases that connect the song's hero with the historical Morrissey: his Irish birthplace in Templemore, County Tipperary; his status as a champion fighter, signified by a prize belt; his defeat of Thompson/Thomson and of 'the Yankee', among others. The main story in the ballad, however — a prizefight against a Russian sailor in Tierra del Fuego, however, does not seem to be historically documented. One version of the song was printed as a broadsheet by E.C. Yeats's Cuala Press in 1911; a digitized image of it has been posted by the Villanova University Library.

Joseph D. Morrissey, a Virginia politician, has claimed to be a descendant of John Morrissey, but cannot be a linear descendant as John Morrissey apparently had only one child, a son, who did not marry and died young.

title: John Morrissey


text:
Talk:Spasmodic poets

I don't understand "The epithet itself is attributed to Carlyle to Lord Byron" (Carlyle called Byron spasmodic?) or "to dignify it" (to dignify their work by calling it verse?). Maybe someone who does could clarify them. —JerryFriedman 21:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Spasmodic poets


text:
Pierre-Marie-Jérôme Trésaguet

Pierre-Marie-Jérôme Trésaguet (15 January 1716 – 1796) was a French engineer. He is widely credited with establishing the first scientific approach to road building about the year 1764. Among his innovations was the use of a base layer of large stone covered with a thin layer of smaller stone. The advantage of this two-layer configuration was that when rammed or rolled by traffic the stones jammed into one another forming a strong wear resistant surface which offered less obstruction to traffic.

Trésaguet was born in Nevers, the youngest son from a family of engineers. He began his career as a sub inspector in the Corps des Ponts et Chaussées (Bridges and Highways Corps), in Paris. He later moved to Limoges, Haute-Vienne as chief engineer in 1764. In 1775 he was appointed inspector general of roads and bridges for all of France. He published a paper describing his road building methods.

Method of road building
First of all, an earth foundation was excavated parallel with but about ten inches below the finished surface of the new road. This was convex in cross section to encourage water to drain off the finished surface.

Next, large stones were laid on edge and any protruding pieces on their upper edges broken off to leave an even surface. This stone foundation was covered with a second course of smaller rounded stones.

Finally, a third layer of hard broken stone, (about the size of walnuts) was spread by a shovel to produce the surface layer.

This system was used continuously in France from 1775 until 1820 when the country changed to the cheaper Macadam method.

title: Pierre-Marie-Jérôme Trésaguet


text:
Radhe (2017 film)

Radhe is a 2017 Nepalese romantic action social thriller film, written and directed by Jagadishwor Thapa, and produced by Sushil Pokhrel. The film stars Nikhil Upreti, Priyanka Karki, Ashishma Nakarmi and Salon Basnet in the title roles, along with Pramod Agrahari and Shishir Bhandari. The film is about a man named Radhe who loves Priya but one day he leaves the village without anyone's notice then he joins the Nepalese army to fight for his country. The film was one of the successful film that was released that year and was successful at the box office, it was estimated the film earned 3 cores in two days.

Plot
Radhe who lives with mother and has love for a girl named Priya but Priya's father doesn't allow him to marry her because of their financial statues than one day Radhe leaves the village without anyone's notice, after leaving the village he meets a man in the journey than lives with him than after while Radhe joins the army.

Cast

 * Nikhil Upreti as Radhe
 * Priyanka Karki as Priya
 * Salon Basnet as Radhe's Friend
 * Ashishma Nakarmi
 * Pramod Agrahari
 * Shishir Bhandari

Controversy

 * While filming, the main actress Priyanka Karki fainted and she was unconscious for about 10 minutes.

title: Radhe (2017 film)


text: User talk:80.146.19.109

title: User talk:80.146.19.109


text:
User:DJ Zoot

User:DJ_Zoot aka Robert Cresswell

homepage at: http://www.malachiarts.org/~zoot/

zoot is the most influential dj of his whole bedroom.

title: User:DJ Zoot


text:
1929 Atlantic hurricane season

The 1929 Atlantic hurricane season was among the least active Atlantic hurricane seasons on record, with only five tropical cyclones forming. Three of them intensified into a hurricane, with one strengthening further into a major hurricane (Category 3 or higher on the Saffir–Simpson scale). The first tropical cyclone of the season developed in the Gulf of Mexico on June 27. Becoming a hurricane on June 28, the storm struck Texas, bringing strong winds to a large area. Three fatalities were reported, while damage was conservatively estimated at $675,000 (1929 USD).

The second storm, nicknamed the Bahamas hurricane, developed north of the Lesser Antilles. It was the most intense tropical cyclone of the season, peaking as a Category 4 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson scale with maximum sustained winds of 155 mph (250 km/h) and a minimum barometric pressure of 924 mbar. The storm moved through the Bahamas at this intensity and later struck Florida while slightly weaker. Overall, this hurricane resulted in 59 deaths and at least $9.31 million in damage. The next three tropical cyclones did not impact land, with the last transitioning into an extratropical cyclone on October 22. Until the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis project researched the season in 2010, the final two systems were considered the same tropical cyclone.

The season's activity was reflected with an accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) rating of 48, below the 1921–1930 average of 76.6. ACE is a metric used to express the energy used by a tropical cyclone during its lifetime. Therefore, a storm with a longer duration will have high values of ACE. It is only calculated at six-hour increments in which specific tropical and subtropical systems are either at or above sustained wind speeds of 39 mph (63 km/h), which is the threshold for tropical storm intensity. Thus, tropical depressions are not included here.

Hurricane One
After barometric pressures in the western Gulf of Mexico had been low for several days, the steamship Chester O. Swain encountered a disturbance of "probably moderate intensity" offshore Texas on June 28. A tropical storm developed in the southwestern Gulf of Mexico on the previous day. The storm was abnormally small, having a diameter of only about 20 mi. It moderately intensified and by early on June 28, the storm became a hurricane. While offshore Texas, the hurricane peaked with winds of 90 mph (150 km/h). Shortly after making landfall near Matagorda Bay, a minimum barometric pressure of 982 mbar was reported. The storm then accelerated westward across the Southwestern United States and weakened to a tropical storm early on June 29. However, it was still of "considerable intensity" while passing near El Paso about 24 hours later. Thus, the system was thought to have remained a tropical storm until early on June 30. Several hours later, the storm dissipated over Arizona.

The storm brought hurricane-force winds to portions of Texas, including as far inland as Yorktown in DeWitt County. Additionally, a 60 to 80 mi (95 to 130 km) path observed gale force winds as far from the coast as Bexar, Kendall, Kerr, and Medina counties. Wind impacts were significant, with a "conservative" estimate of $310,000 in damage inflicted on crops, while buildings, windmills, power, telephone, and telegraph lines suffered about $365,000 in damage. There were three deaths in Wharton County, as well as several injuries. Outside of the area of wind damage, rainfall was considered "highly beneficial" to crops and range.

Hurricane Two
The Great Bahamas Hurricane of 1929

The second storm of the season originated from a tropical wave that developed in the vicinity of Cape Verde on September 11. The wave became a tropical depression at 00:00 UTC on September 19, while located about 300 mi north-northeast of Anegada in the British Virgin Islands. The depression drifted just north of due west while strengthening slowly, becoming a tropical storm early on September 22. Later that day, the storm curved northwestward. Around midday on September 23, it intensified into a hurricane. While turning southwestward on the following day, the hurricane began to undergo rapid deepening. Late on September 25, the system peaked with maximum sustained winds of 155 mph (250 km/h), an estimate based on pressure-wind relationship, with a minimum barometric pressure of 924 mbar.

While crossing through the Bahamas, the storm struck Eleuthera and Andros, on September 25 and September 26, respectively. Late on September 27, the system weakened to a Category 3 hurricane and re-curved northwestward. At 13:00 UTC the next day, the hurricane made landfall near Tavernier, Florida. The storm then entered the Gulf of Mexico and continued weakening, falling to Category 2 intensity late on September 28. While approaching the Gulf Coast of the United States, the hurricane weakened to a Category 1 hurricane. Early on October 1, it made landfall near Panama City Beach, Florida. A few hours later, the hurricane weakened to a tropical storm and then became extratropical over southwestern Georgia shortly thereafter. The remnants continued northeastward up the East Coast of the United States, until entering Canada and dissipating over Quebec early on October 5.

In the Bahamas, the hurricane brought strong winds and large waves to the archipelago. At Nassau, a weather station observed a wind gust of 164 mph (264 km/h). Within the city alone, 456 houses were destroyed, while an additional 640 houses suffered damage. On Abaco Islands, 19 homes were demolished. The hurricane damaged or destroyed 63 homes and buildings on Andros. Telegraph service was disrupted. There were 48 deaths in the Bahamas. Throughout the Bahamas and the Florida Keys, numerous boats and vessels were ruined or damaged. At the latter, strong winds were observed, with a gust up to 150 mph (240 km/h) in Key Largo. However, damage there was limited to swamped fishing boats and temporary loss of electricity and communications. Farther north, heavy rains flooded low-lying areas of Miami. A devastating tornado in Fort Lauderdale damaged a four story hotel, a railway office building, and several cottages. In the Florida Panhandle, storm surge destroyed several wharves and damaged most of the oyster and fishing warehouses and canning plants. Overall, there was approximately $2.36 million in damage and three deaths in Florida; eight others drowned offshore.

Tropical Storm Three
Historical weather maps indicate that a low pressure area was embedded within a west to east oriented stationary front over the northwestern Atlantic Ocean on September 24. The low quickly detached from the stationary front and acquired a closed circulation while tracking across sea surface temperatures of 80 F. Early on September 25, a tropical depression formed just west of Bermuda and strengthened into a tropical storm later that day. Around 02:00 UTC on September 26, a ship observed a barometric pressure of 1002 mbar – the lowest while the storm was tropical. Four hours later, sustained winds peaked at 60 mph (95 km/h). The storm eventually curved northward, before becoming extratropical at 06:00 UTC on September 27, while located about 240 mi south-southeast of Nantucket, Massachusetts. The extratropical remnants accelerated northeastward and then east-northeastward, before dissipating east-southeast of Newfoundland on September 29.

Tropical Storm Four
Early on October 15, a low pressure area developed into a tropical storm, while located about 625 mi (1,005 km) southwest of Flores Island in the Azores. The storm moved west-southwestward and slowly strengthened. At 12:00 UTC on October 17, the system peaked with maximum sustained winds of 70 mph (110 km/h) and a minimum barometric pressure of 999 mbar; the latter was observed by a few ships. Early on October 18, it curved northwestward and began to accelerate. Late the next day, the storm became extratropical, while located about 535 mi (860 km) south-southeast of Cape Race, Newfoundland. The extratropical remnants of the storm continued northeastward, until dissipating well southeast of Newfoundland on October 20.

Hurricane Five
A trough extending southward from the previous system developed into a tropical depression at 12:00 UTC on October 19, while located about 890 mi east-southeast of Bermuda. Moving eastward, the depression intensified into a tropical storm early the next day. Later on October 20, it curved northeastward and accelerated. The storm intensified into a hurricane at 12:00 UTC on October 21. Strengthening further, the hurricane peaked with maximum sustained winds of 80 mph (130 km/h) and a minimum barometric pressure of 997 mbar. At 06:00 UTC on October 22, the hurricane became extratropical, while situated about 665 mi south-southeast of Cape Race, Newfoundland. The remnants moved north-northwestward and dissipated early on October 23.

title: 1929 Atlantic hurricane season


text:
Talk:Cryptosporidiosis

Requests
Can someone in the know here add a little bit about how the body does clear the infection? The article explains it lasts for up to two weeks or so, but doesn't explain how the body gets rid of it. Not too much is needed I guess, but a little would help. Also, where is the information from? Proper citation of sources is very important for Wikipedia long term, otherwise critics can point out the info could have been made up out of thin air and thus is unreliable. Thanks - Taxman 22:02, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Cryptosporidium and Cryptosporidiosis
There was much duplication between these two articles. I have tried to separate these out and post the appropriate information into each. Please feel free to do further tidying but I don't think it appropriate to maintain duplicate information, not least because they said slightly different things. Velela 10:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A source and a question about specificity
I found a possible source for the up to 5 weeks bit with the citation needed beside it; however, the source states "Shedding begins when the symptoms begin and can last for weeks after the symptoms (e.g., diarrhea) stop" (CDC @ http://www.cdc.gov/crypto/epi.html). Should it be modified to the more ambiguous CDC fact or should it be left with the more exact description with continued search for a source? WillWritesWiki (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-human Examples
The article mentions lizards as prone to the disease. I've heard that it also affects birds, particularly small ones - my mother's vet told her that her parakeets require bottled rather than New York City tap water for that reason. Probably this should be mentioned, as people might consult such an article vis-a-vis their own pet birds.

Also, as an aside, the Hasidic community in New York had some debate fairly recently over whether the water was Kosher if it had these organisms in it.70.18.4.114 (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Review
Lancet Infect Dis 10.1016/S1473-3099(14)70772-8 JFW | T@lk  12:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Cryptosporidiosis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110301033629/http://www.cbc.ca:80/news/background/health/cryptosporidium.html to http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/health/cryptosporidium.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cryptosporidiosis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010320224750/http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00436/bibs/9085011/90850899.htm to http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00436/bibs/9085011/90850899.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928042810/http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/ieswtrwhatdoesitmeantoyou.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/ieswtrwhatdoesitmeantoyou.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090124050926/http://www.waterresearchfoundation.org/research/TopicsAndProjects/topicSnapshot.aspx?topic=uv to http://www.waterresearchfoundation.org/research/TopicsAndProjects/topicSnapshot.aspx?topic=uv

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Clarification request regarding use of peroxide for decontamination
I see no value in this request for clarification because the sentence as written adequately reflects the reliable source cited. The neutral point of view would be to reflect reliable sourcing. Cryptosporidium is hard to kill - hence its role in the worst outbreak of waterbourn gastrointestinal illness in USA history. — soupvector (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

cryptosporidiosis
Read with interest the details on this topic; noted that the outbreak in Torbay, Devon in 1995. I happened to be living there, in the village of Kingskerswell, at that time, having moved down from Bristol during December 1994. The problem in the local tapwater supply, soon became apparent. Requests to South West Water to test the supply were not acted upon. Campers at the Barton Hall Pontins holiday camp were being treated at Torbay Hospital, Torquay but were considered to be taking the problem into the hospital with them. My son-in-law in London was able to find a research source on the topic mainly in Kansas State University. I gave a copy to Phil Cook who lived in Torquay Road at the time. It was passed over to the medical staff at the hospital, and Dr Sarah Harrison, took the matter up. What transpired was the fact that at the treatment works at Littlehempston on the River Dart, the filters were ineffective, and the cysts were passing through. The treated water was then being pumped up to an open storage reservoir (Venford?) up on Dartmoor. The water was then pumped back down to a covered storage reservoir near Gallows Gate alongside the road to Paignton (A380) and from there, distributed to localities in the area. Newton Abbot was served from a different reservoir near Moretonhampstead, which was not connected to the River Dart. The most efficient filter described by the Kansas SU researcher was kieselguhr, but any supplies of that were being used by the military for cleansing bacteriological and radiological contamination due to the war in Iraq which was current at the same time. Eventually, SWW were forced to install micro-filters at the treatment plant. HMBrock (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cryptosporidiosis


text:
Talk:President of the Confederate States of America

Davis election
Was Jefferson Davis elected in the manner described? Also, has any anyone else, perhaps a leader of some fringe group, ever declared themselves "President of the Confederate States"?--Pharos 22:03, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

State of Confederacy
I took this line out:

 * Instead of a "State of the Union" speech the President of the Confederacy was to give a "State of the Confederacy" speech to a joint session of Congress once a year.

First of all, I don't think the fact that it has a slightly different name makes it a "key" difference. Also, it's not true that it has to be a speech; until Woodrow Wilson, the State of the Union was a written address delivered to Congress by courier. I assume it worked the same way in the Confederacy. --Chowbok 18:34, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Not a difference
Removed:
 * The Confederacy did not indicate who succeeds to the office of President following the removal or death of both the President and Vice President. The constitution states that Congress will appoint an officer to act as President in such cases. In the United States, the Presidency is passed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives then a long list of other offices.

This is the same as the US. That "long list of other offices" is provided by a law passed by Congress according to the provisions of the US Constitution

CS Constitution
 * In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President; and the Congress may, by law, provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President; and such officer shall act accordingly until the disability be removed or a President shall be elected.

US Constitution
 * In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Only minor, unimportant, differences in wording, capitalization, and punctuation. -- Nik42 07:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Term limit
After the war, this innovation gained considerable popularity in the re-constituted Union, most notably being endorsed by Rutherford B. Hayes in his inaugural address.

Did this really gain greter popularity after the war than it had before? The writers of the CS Constitution didn't come up with this from scratch, after all. The idea had existed long before the Civil War, and had even been one proposal during the initial Constitutional Convention (along with such peculiar notions as a three-man presidency) -- Nik42 07:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Jefferson Davis the ONLY president?
According to their respective pages, Robert Woodward Barnwell and Howell Cobb were both "Heads of the Confederacy" at one point, and their pages point to Davis as their sucsessor. What exactly dose "Head of the Confederacy" mean in comparason to presidency? I think this article should reference them as leaders before the office of the president of the Confederate States was established. It should be noted that Barnwell's article states
 * "At the congress' first meeting on February 4, 1861, William P. Chilton moved that Barnwell be appointed to preside temporarily over the Congress until its permanent organization. The Congress approved that proposal, but later that day, Barnwell handed the presidency over to Howell Cobb, who was elected president. In that Congress, he cast the vote (February 9, 1861) that ensured the election of Jefferson Davis as the Confederate President,"

Wouldn't this technicaly make Davis the third president of the CSA?--ThrashedParanoid★ 03:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They are not included as presidents for the same reason men like Peyton Randolph and John Hancock are not included in the list of US presidents: They were only presiding officers of Congress, like the Speaker of the House, with little to no executive poweres. They were not heads of government or formed an executive branch of government, not until the Constitutional Office of the President had been created and adopted, leaving Jefferson Davis as the sole President of the Confederacy.--Supersexyspacemonkey 17:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

 * User:Vital Component keeps adding this to the article, and I keep removing it. Howell Cobb was never the Confederate President. --JW1805 (Talk) 18:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Provisional President
Davis was Provisional President from February 18, 1861 to February 22, 1862. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Agree this should be noted in the article, because the powers of the president spelled out in the constitution would only apply from feb 22 1862 onward. Skippypeanuts (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Question
I have a question. Since the Confederacy was never officially recognized by the Union as an official form of government, would that make it a non-legitimate body? Or would it still be legitiamte whether or not the Union accpeted it? For example, if Great Britain had never accepted America as being a legitimate government body of its own accord, would that non-recognition in itself have made the American Colonies non-legitimate?

Also, is the Confederacy now recognized by the U.S.A. as an official legitimate former (historical) government body?Wolfpeaceful (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found it confusing. The USA viewed secession as illegal, yet they had reconstruction to 're-admit' the former Confederate states. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

 * If Great Britain had never accepted the U.S. as independent, but everyone else in the world did, and the "colonies" were in fact conducting themselves as an independent state or states without the British being able to do anything to stop them, then at some point the British would just look sort of stupid. (Bearing in mind that at the time Britain was the leading world power, so their P.O.V. did count for more than that of Portugal or the Two Sicilies.) There are regions of the Earth right now that for all practical purposes conduct themselves as states, but are not officially recognized as such by anyone else, or in some cases are recognized by some countries and not recognized by others. (See Abkhazia or Transnistria for example.)

 * In the end, no one recognized the Confederacy as a sovereign state--not the U.S., not Britain, nor any other power--and furthermore the U.S. government was able to successfully end the Confederacy as a de facto government by military force.

 * The U.S. has never recognized the government of the Confederate States as an "official legitimate former (historical) government body"; some individual Americans romanticize or revere or honor the Confederacy to varying degrees; the U.S. government has on occasion named things after Confederate leaders.

 * Strictly speaking, the U.S. did not "re-admit" any states to the Union, since after all it was the position of the U.S. government that they had never left. Rather, states were re-admitted to representation in Congress, mostly (except for Tennessee) after a period of direct Federal military rule. -- 139.76.224.67 (talk) 03:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Didn't Britain give assistance of some military kind to the Confederacy during the war? Seems to me that would count as British "recognition" of the Confederacy.  However, admittedly, this seems hypocritical, since the British had abolished slavery decades before and would have been supporting a slavery nation.  The only justification I can think of for British backing of the Confederacy was that they had some kind of dispute with the USA and "the enemy of my 'enemy' (dispute opponent) is my friend". GBC (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sidestepping that (i.e. my question above): What would the answer be from a modern non-biased historian scholar's point of veiw? I have read both "Union" and "Confederate" history books, and it does seem that there is much bias and contradiction between the two. To put it candidly and in layman's terms: The Union says "I'm right, the South was never independent from the Union" ; but the Confederacy says "We were independent according to the clause 'it is the right of the people... for a redress of grievances' and we were fighting for just that!" Wolfpeaceful I'm Bisexually biased... get over it! 14:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation precisely to head-off the British from recognising the Confederacy (they could not be seen to fight for the defence of slavery). British support for the South then had to take an indirect form, supplying blockade-runners to third-party neutrals. Valetude (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Request Move

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

President of the Confederate States of America → President of the Confederate States – as we've got President of the United States & not President of the United States of America. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose (though this should have been a multi-move; consider this !vote to apply to the VP article as well); "the United States" is a common term for the nation, but I don't think "the Confederate States" was ever in wide use as a proper noun without "America" on the end. Powers T 20:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LtPowers above and my comments at the first one. Dicklyon (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for substantially the same reasons as LtPowers and Dicklyon. "Confederate States" is not in general use to describe the CSA.  When you do see it, it's in a discussion where the full "Confederate States of America" name has been used, and even then, it's often in lower case, as a generic term referring to the group of states rather than the name of the would-be political unit.  In contrast "United States" is a well-known term.  Had the confederacy prevailed in the war and gone on to being a recognized nation, perhaps today "Confederate States" would be in common use, but that's speculation and contrary to actual fact.

 * I'm not persuaded that a mere consistency with "United States" is a valid reason to rename. The circumstances of the CSA and USA are not consistent, and it would be error to impose a consistency based on the mere superficial similarity.  Besides,  "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." TJRC (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Davis a Democrat?
This article has Davis listed as a member of the Democratic Party during his presidency, but the "1861 Confederate States of America Presidential Election" page has him listed as a non-partisan. Shouldn't these be coordinated to read the same for consistency's sake? As far as I know, the lack of opposition to the 'Democrats' made that label somewhat obsolete: Confederate Congressmen are generally classified based on their support of secession in relation to Lincoln's call for troops (before/after), so it seems logical that the Democratic party did not exist in the Confederacy, or at least was moot due to its near universiality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.63.239 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I have eliminated the references to the CSA having a party system -- there was no CSA Democratic Party. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

oath
was the oath of office he took in 1861 as provisional president the same as he took under the constitution in 1862? Skippypeanuts (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Democratic Party in the CSA
If your logic about non-existence of the Democratic Party in the CSA is true, we have a real problem of consistency at our hands. What is your explanation for clear party labeling which can be seen at other lists of Confederate officeholders? Please see Vice President of the Confederate States of America and Cabinet of the Confederate States, among many others... Its a well known fact that the Democratic Party was dominant in the South both before and after the Civil War (all the way until 1960s-1970s), and according to all logic it was certainly dominant during the existence of the CSA. You need to tell the name of the source which emphasize the lack of political parties in the CSA, and to remodel all the other lists of Confederate officeholders according to it (if that source is right, which I truly doubt). Removal of the Democratic Party can't be limited to just one article, President of the Confederate States of America, while leaving all the others with party label. By the way, while removing party label at the President of the CSA, you also removed some other data (election year, for instance) which I intend to put back. --Sundostund (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

 * I moved your comment from my talk page to herer. It's not a matter of "logic" -- it's a matter of facts. In any event, George Rable's "The Confederate Republic" is probably the most comprehensive study. Mark Neely Jr. in "The Union Divided" is another example --he addresses the controversy over whether the lack of a party system in the CSA was an asset or a liability. Neely mentions historians Michael Holt and Richard Bensel as persons who had different opinions on the advantages/disadvantages of the CSA political system.

 * Have you read anything on the subject that claims otherwise? I eliminated the reference to the Democratic Party in the other two articles you mentioned -- you should also note a previous discussion on this issue on this page. See also Confederate States presidential election, 1861 and Confederate States of America which explains:

 * Despite political differences within the Confederacy, no national political parties were formed because they were seen as illegitimate. "Anti-partyism became an article of political faith."[199] Without a two-party system building alternative sets of national leaders, electoral protests tended to be narrowly state-based, "negative, carping and petty". The 1863 mid-term elections became mere expressions of futile and frustrated dissatisfaction. According to historian David M. Potter, this lack of a functioning two-party system caused "real and direct damage" to the Confederate war effort since it prevented the formulation of any effective alternatives to the conduct of the war by the Davis administration.[200]Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

 * All right, you stated your sources - Rable, Nelly, etc. The names of your sources are here, everyone can see them so its open to dispute if someone have source which claim otherwise. I don't have such sources, maybe some other users have them... Until then, we'll work with what we have. You eliminated only the link to the Democratic Party at the Vice President of the Confederate States of America, but left party colors (I'll fix it, as I did in this article). As for the Cabinet of the Confederate States, again - there are still party colors, without the link to the Democratic Party. Also, please look every article about secretaries in the Confederate Cabinet (from the Secretary of State to the Attorney General, all of them contain the reference to the Democratic Party). --Sundostund (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

 * I fixed Vice President of the Confederate States of America and Cabinet of the Confederate States, but someone should fix secretaries in the Confederate Cabinet (from the Secretary of State to the Attorney General). --Sundostund (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

List of presidents
Is a list with one single entry really useful? You would expect a list to be a collection of items (i.e. >1) 16:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wo st 01 (talk • contribs)

Confederate States presidential inauguration

 * In 1861, Davis was inaugurated the Provisional President of the CSA. He wasn't inaugurated as President of the CSA, until 1862. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Fictional presidents of the CSA
I have moved the "Fictional Presidents of the Confederate States of America" section from Lists of fictional presidents of the United States to this article (and left behind a "see also" link to the information). I did this because the information—fictional CSA presidents—falls outside the parameters for inclusion established by the article's title. Drdpw (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

 * I guess this article would be a better fit for the section. Too bad we don't have enough information to put it on its own article. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Or maybe we do. I think a separate article for the fiction Confederate Presidents would make sense. I should probably ask to create an article instead or just making an article out-of-the-blue like I usually do, just to be on the safe side, of coarse. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Well, now I have created an article for those fictional presidents named the Fictional presidents of the Confederate States of America. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Article issues

 * This B-class article is about an historical event but takes a twist into the fantasy world (fiction) with the "Fictional presidents of the Confederate States of America" and the See also of American Civil War alternate histories. I am not sure how this was deemed an important addition to the article but I do not see the relevance, importance, or need.
 * A serious issue, other than actual relevance to the article, would be the lack of references throughout the entire section.
 * If there is sufficient sourcing this content should likely be in a stand alone article. Lacking reliable sources and inline citations the content should be removed. If not then a reassessment per the B-Class criteria #1 could result. Otr500 (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 * Note: I see above where this information was added but would have contested such a move as also being "outside the parameters for inclusion" here. Otr500 (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

 * You know, I could probably add a source or two for the information regarding the film CSA: The Confederate States of America. However, IMHO, I think that the List of Fictional Confederate Presidents should be split off and formed into its own article. That way, it wouldn't look so weird to see that list right below the real life information. What do you think of that? --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the ping. Per above, if there are enough sources to support a stand alone article. That may be an issue (I haven't looked) but other than that I do not see a problem. Where it is located now is certainly out of place. Otr500 (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the reply Otr500. Well, I've got a few sources lined up so I can at least get an article off the ground with. However, it's probably gonna be a while before it looks perfect. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Okay, now I have created an article for the fictional Confederate States Presidents named Fictional presidents of the Confederate States of America. It may need some work, though. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , per comments above, my concerns were related to wording like "sufficient sourcing", "reliable sources", and "enough sources to support a stand alone article", especially after your comments "I could probably add a source or two...", - and now there is a new article.
 * The first source is absolutely not generally considered a reliable source by WP:USERG and External links/Perennial websites, as exampled by Wikipedia's requirements, and is about "The Family Guy" more than the subject. Recent AFD's have not been friendly to articles sourced by IMDb as an "External link" either so hopefully finding/adding additional sources is a high priority. Otr500 (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 * More sources will be added in my upcoming edits. Just you wait and see. As I said above, it's probably gonna be a while before the article is perfect. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Alright, I have added a few more sources to the article. More will be added when and if I can find them. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Term of Office
Right now the article lists the date of Davis's arrest as the end of his term. However, de jure (under the Confederate Constitution) Davis's term would hvmave lasted until February 22, 1868. Shouldn't that be noted? Emperor001 (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really, because the Confederate presidency was abolished & with it, the rest of the six-year term. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Balagan

Hi! To answer the question in your edit summary of Sadhu, if you use material from other websites with permission, it's good practice to note it in your edit summary, and then leave a note with the specifics (conditions, who you contacted, dates etc) on the talk page.

Getting permission can actually be a bit tricky, so be careful. Wikipedia copyright policy requires text to either be in the public domain, or released under a license compatible with the GFDL... permission to use it on the Wikipedia itself isn't enough, because one of the founding goals of the Wikipedia is to allow the content to be freely distributed.

So why don't you leave a message with the details on Talk:Sadhu, and add the source as a reference at the bottom of the page (see Cite sources)? :) 68.81.231.127 22:04, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! JoaoRicardo 20:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Balagan


text:
Talk:Konjac

Maybe change name to Amorphophallus konjac to make consistant?
Maybe change name to Amorphophallus konjac to make consistant? plant articles always are by scientific name on wikipedia JonTheSucculentDude (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Konjac


text:
Talk:Parzival

Untitled
There is a loth of symbolism in the tale, it schould be added but I'm not the right person to do it. Mindconqueror 19:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Where did the "further adventures" come from? I'm thrilled someone is filling this out! -Ben 22:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Consider adding a "plot spoiler" warning before discussing the content of the poem War-hammer 04:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"...written by..." or "...by..."?
I propose to change "...is a medieval German romance written by the poet Wolfram von Eschenbach..." back to "...is a medieval German romance by the poet Wolfram von Eschenbach...". Wolfram remarks, in Parzival, "ine kan decheinen buochstap" (I don't know a single letter, I cannot read or write), which may or may not be a joke. "Written by" precludes the possibility that it is not; "by" admits either possibility. --Frans Fowler (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are, of course, long epic works composed orally, but Parzival is not one of them. There is simply no need for this change, and in any case it is perfectly normal practice to talk of Pz being written. In fact it's even perfectly normal to talk of known oral compositions - the Iliad, for example - as being "written" by their supposed authors. --Pfold (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

“Knight-poet”
In the lead sentence, Wolfram von Eschenbach is described as a “knight-poet”. Was this actually a thing, or would it be more realistic to say that he was “a knight and a poet”? — HTGS (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 * I fixed it.— Ermenrich (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Expand by translating from German Wikipedia?
I propose that the Expand from the German banner be removed. It has been there since 2011. Much of the German article is unreferenced, as indeed is much of this English one. (German Wikipedia generally relies less on verifiability and enforces verifiability less strictly, which seems to be reflected in many English Wikipedia articles on Germany-related subjects.) I should think the better way to improve and expand the English article would be first to find more references for the material already in it (but that itself would be hard enough) and then expand the article with new, properly referenced, contributions. Just incorporating more translation from the German article might well add to the verifiability problems already present in the English article and so, I suggest, ought not be encouraged. Frans Fowler (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The German article is only longer because its very indulgent plot synopsis.--Pfold (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed and done. — HTGS (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Parzival


text: User talk:69.39.160.60

title: User talk:69.39.160.60