text:
Splinter of the Mind's Eye

Splinter of the Mind's Eye is a 1978 science fiction novel by American writer Alan Dean Foster, a sequel to the film Star Wars (1977). Originally published in 1978 by Del Rey, a division of Ballantine Books, the book was written with the intention of being adapted as a low-budget sequel to Star Wars in case the original film was not successful enough to finance a high-budget sequel.

Splinter of the Mind's Eye was the first Star Wars novel with an original storyline published after the release of the original film, and is thus considered, alongside the Star Wars newspaper comic strip and Marvel's 1977 comic series, to mark the beginning of the Star Wars Expanded Universe.

The story focuses on Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia, who are marooned together on the world of Mimban, where they encounter the locals and struggle against the forces of the evil Galactic Empire, including Darth Vader.

Background and publication
In 1976, Alan Dean Foster was contracted to ghostwrite a novelization of Star Wars. Foster was given some drafts of the script, rough footage, and production paintings for use as source material in fleshing out the novel. His contract also required a second novel, to be used as a basis for a low-budget sequel to Star Wars in case the film was not successful. Though Foster was granted a great deal of leeway in developing the story, a key requirement was that many of the props from the previous production could be reused when shooting the new film. Foster's decision to place his story on a misty jungle planet was also intended to reduce set and background costs for a film adaptation. Han Solo and Chewbacca were left out, as Harrison Ford had not signed a contract to film any of the sequels at the time of the novel contract. Lucas's only request upon reviewing the manuscript was the removal of a space dogfight Luke and Leia undertake before crash-landing on the planet, which would have been effects heavy and expensive to film.

An additional sequel novel was planned, but by the time Splinter of the Mind's Eye was published, Star Wars had broken box office records. The film adaptation of Splinter of the Mind's Eye was abandoned in favor of Lucas's vision of a big-budget sequel (The Empire Strikes Back). Nevertheless, riding on the success of the film in its first year of release, the book became a bestseller. It was reprinted in 1994 as Classic Star Wars: Splinter of the Mind's Eye, and retroactively placed two years after the original film, or one year before The Empire Strikes Back.

Plot
Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia are traveling with R2-D2 and C-3PO to the planet Circarpous IV to persuade its inhabitants to join the Rebel Alliance. A strange energy storm forces them to crash land on the swampy Circarpous V, known to the locals as Mimban. They begin looking for a space port to get off the planet but instead find a town, near which agents of the Empire have an energy mine—the cause of the crash. Forced to keep their identities secret, Luke and Leia take refuge in a nearby bar. An old woman named Halla approaches them, identifies Luke as strong with the Force, and shows him a splinter of what she claims to be the Kaiburr crystal, which focuses the Force. Halla strikes a deal with Luke and Leia to help her find the whole crystal, in return for which she will help them get off the planet. A squabble between Luke and Leia attracts the attention of miners emerging from the pub, who claim that fighting in public is against Imperial law; they all get into a brawl. Imperial stormtroopers intervene and incarcerate Luke and Leia. They are questioned by Imperial Captain-Supervisor Grammel, who confiscates the crystal shard and Luke's weapons. Luke and Leia are placed in a maximum-security cell with two drunk but friendly Yuzzem, hairy creatures called Hin and Kee. Grammel reports the incident and gives the crystal shard to the Imperial governor of the star system. Halla uses the Force to help Luke, Leia, and the two Yuzzem. The Yuzzem rampage through the jail while Luke and Leia escape.

The four meet Halla and the droids to find the Temple of Pomojema, which Halla believes is the location of the Kaiburr crystal. They travel through the swampy wilds of Mimban and encounter a wandrella, a huge wormlike creature, which pursues them and separates Luke and Leia from the others. Luke and Leia hide in a well, down which the wandrella falls, leaving the two trapped. From the lip of the well, Halla suggests that there must be an escape route underground, at the end of which Halla and the others will rejoin them. Luke and Leia journey underground, floating across a lake on lily pads, and fend off sea creatures. On the other side of the lake, they encounter the secretive residents of the caves, the Coway, who have captured Halla, the droids and the Yuzzem. To save his friends, Luke defeats the Coway's champion fighter, impressing the tribe. At a tribal banquet, Luke senses Darth Vader, confirmed by Coway patrols: Imperials, led by Vader and Grammel, are approaching.

When the Imperials arrive, they are surprised by the Coway tribe's resistance in battle. Vader and Grammel retreat with the handful of surviving stormtroopers, though Vader loses patience with Grammel for the defeat and kills him. Luke and company steal a recently abandoned Imperial transport and travel to the temple, where they find the Kaiburr crystal. They encounter a monster and unsuccessfully try to fight it off with blasters. Luke cuts down one of the pillars holding up the temple, crushing the monster, but his leg is pinned under a boulder. Vader then enters the temple, announcing that he killed Hin and Kee. Leia takes up Luke's lightsaber and begins fighting Vader, who gives her multiple superficial burns with his own saber. Hin, mortally wounded, appears and lifts the rock off of Luke before perishing. Luke then duels Vader, deflecting some Force-based attacks and eventually slicing off Vader's arm. Despite this, Vader seems about to win, but then falls into a pit. Luke senses that this is not the end of Vader. He and Leia, healed by the crystal, drive off with Halla into the mists of Mimban.

Comic book adaptation
The book was adapted as a graphic novel by Terry Austin and Chris Sprouse and published by Dark Horse Comics in 1996; It incorporated characters from The Empire Strikes Back who did not appear in the original novel.

Legacy
Splinter of the Mind's Eye was the first full-length Star Wars novel with an original storyline published after the release of the original film, and is thus considered, alongside the Star Wars newspaper comic strip and Marvel's 1977 comic series, to mark the beginning of the Star Wars Expanded Universe.

In 2008, the Los Angeles Times listed the novel as one of the most essential works of the Expanded Universe. Elements from the book, such as the planet Mimban, have appeared in various other Expanded Universe works. With The Walt Disney Company's 2012 acquisition of Lucasfilm, most of the licensed Star Wars novels and comics produced since the originating 1977 film were rebranded as Legends and declared non canon in April 2014.

Concept art for Rogue One (2016) used Mimban as a name for the city that eventually developed into Jedha (another source of kyber), and a planet called Mimban featured in 2018's Solo: A Star Wars Story. Additionally, Marvel Comics' The Rise of Kylo Ren features Ben Solo traveling to Mimban, where he learns of the Mindsplinter—possibly the Kaiburr crystal by another name.

title: Splinter of the Mind's Eye


text:
Talk:Leon Fleischer

This article was proposed for deletion Feb. 2005. Votes for deletion/Leon Fleischer Joyous 02:48, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Leon Fleischer


text:
Talk:Dixiecrat

Wording in article
The original wording in the article used and  as a de facto whitewash/euphemism for white supremacist policy and the ability of states to legally institute segregation. Most Southern Democrats at the time couldn't be classified into either modern liberalism or conservatism. Many — including their ideological forebearers who predated them, such as Woodrow Wilson and Benjamin Tillman — supported white supremacy (supporting racial hierarchy; e.g. "right-wing") and economic redistribution (supporting economic equality; e.g. "left-wing") at the same time. (Of course, this didn't apply to all — Strom Thurmond was indisputably on the right in both aspects.) A multitude of historians, political scientists, and journalists in recent years have written about this, saying that summarizing their political thought as "left-wing" or "right-wing" is at best an inaccurate oversimplication and at worst actively misleading. I think it's improper for the article to portray it as "conservative" or "liberal" - and it will likely just confuse people. A lot of Dixiecrats were among the strongest supporters of the New Deal and hated big business... yet supported racial segregation and white supremacy.

Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

 * For sources on Dixiecrats being hard to ideologically classify on the political spectrum in the modern sense: see here, here and here. Per FT, It's hard to characterize many pre-1990s American political parties in the political spectrum. Since many took positions characteristic of "both sides", including the Dixiecrats, Federalists, and Democratic-Republicans, et al. KlayCax (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be called right-wing populism. Andre🚐 20:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * A lot of right-wing populists have made economically progressive-sounding rhetoric. I don't think that almost ever translates into actual distinct policy.
 * What economically progressive policies have figures such as Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, or Heinz-Christian Strache instituted? Most right-wing populist grievance surrounds cultural, social, and religious concerns, rather than those in relation to economics. (Outside of possibly free trade. Depending on how you classify it.) You could arguably cite Marine Le Pen or Viktor Orban. But the sincereness of their position to "redistribute wealth" is in my opinion questionable at best and/or limited to campaign speeches. In contrast, Dixiecrats often supported actual left-wing economic policy. As The Nation describes it:
 * Additionally, modern conservatism in the United States is generally agreed to have begun as a backlash to Roosevelt's New Deal. The majority of Dixiecrats, including Thurmond's 1948 VP pick Fielding L. Wright, supported the economic aspects of the New Deal, while narrowing its extent to who they considered the Volk. That's why introducing the Dixiecrats as vague "conservatives" is misleading for the average viewer or outright euphemistic. (As the talk page abundantly shows.) Almost none opposed Truman because of his economic policies. A large portion (majority) of Dixiecrats supported stances that could be characterized as left-wing. (At least for whites.) It was Truman's racial policies were the centerfold of their rejection.
 * This isn't to say that the "Democrats are the real racists".
 * However, Dixiecrats don't fit into the modern day ideas of "left-wing" or "right-wing" easily; keeping it in the article will confuse readers more than help. KlayCax (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You make a reasonable argument, but I will say that the area where right-wing populists have actually gone with what is traditionally considered progressive policy is protectionist tariffs. Andre🚐 23:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * . Whether free trade is "left-wing"/progressive or "right-wing"/conservative has varied significantly throughout history.
 * The Federalists, Whigs, 1860s-1930s Republicans all generally favored protectionist policy during their histories. (Including Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover!)
 * In some aspects it's just a reversion to form. KlayCax (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really, because those parties were all the more progressive party of their time. The policy isn't what varies, but the party's platform. Maybe they wouldn't use the word progressive (but if sources do we should follow what they say, and not use our own editorializing and knowledge) but as you know, the Republicans were the party of abolitionism in the Civil War era. The Republicans were the party of Lincoln and Radical Republicans were pro-civil rights and and pro-voting rights until 1977. Jacksonian Democrats, although they wanted to expand suffrage, as you know, were trying to dismantle the federal bank, and the Whigs opposed imperialism, and advocated modernization and the rule of law. The Democrats and the Republicans, as you know, switched places during the 1960s: which is what this article is about. So I don't think a reversion to form is accurate at all. The Republicans of the pre-modern era were not the Republicans of today, and the Democrats were not the Democrats of today. But the policy itself can have a position if it is described as such. Andre🚐 19:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I, mean. I think all of this shows how problematic the "left" and "right" spectrum really is. At least in terms of pre-New Deal politics. (Along with applying modern labels to pre-New Deal political movements.) The Federalists, Whigs, and 1880s Republicans all had policies that we would consider both nowadays, although at the time they were considered to be of the "right" of the Democratic-Republicans, Jacksonians, and Democrats. ("Right" and "left" issues often occurred outside of "government interventionism")
 * The Federalists opposed the French Revolution, advocated for centralization, tended to support more restrictions on the franchise, and emphasized with order and stability. (At the time, being on the "right") The Democratic-Republicans generally supported the French Revolution, opposed centralization, wanted expansions on the franchise, and populism. (At the time, being on the "left") Yet none of these positions can be condensed easy into the modern political spectrum.
 * Similarly, while it is true that Whigs supported economic intervention, opposed imperialism, and expanionism, ("left positions") they tended to support temperance laws, opposed immigration and a strong executive, and drew much of their support from conservative evangelical Christians. ("right positions") (The Federalists opposed and the Democratic-Republicans mostly supported the French Revolution — which was the original dividing line between "left" and "right" — by those metrics: the Federalists were on the "right" and Democratic-Republicans were on the "left".) In terms of gaining the support of Southern white voters through the Southern Strategy, yes. I think that's quite indisputable. (See Mississippi and the rest of the Southern U.S. in the 1964 election.) But Democrats were to the economic left of Republicans since at least the 1896 United States presidential election. In terms of racial issues, both parties are far to the "left" of their predecessors. A 1870s Republicans would have almost certainly opposed interracial marriage, for instance. The overton window has simply shifted radically. KlayCax (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's relative, and it changes over time. But all we need to do is find reliable sources that describe it in a certain way. I agree it can't all be boiled down to left or right, but that doesn't mean we should remove all political spectrum descriptors. I agree that it's a bit reductionist and simplistic to say the Dixiecrats are right-wing if they had some left-leaning economic views. However all that really matters for article purposes is how sources describe it. If the sources describe it in a nuanced or conflicting way, we should portray that as well. I'm concerned that we're applying too much analysis when Wikipedia really just regurgitates analysis from experts. Andre🚐 18:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't be too broadly dismissive of the term "racial conservativism" as it has currency in academic works (e.g., , or perhaps more revelant to our discussion here, this ), though naturally we can call something white supremacist if sources do call it that. With regards to the overall ideology discussion, as a former student of Southern politics I tend to agree that dropping a very broad modern political label into the infobox is probably not the best way of addressing this party's ideology. The Dixiecrats (and the Democratic Party as a whole) had plenty of ideological diversity well into the 1990s. This historical paper on Dixiecrat VP candidate Fielding L. Wright captures the dichotomy of the "left" economic vs "right" racial lean well. The Dixiecrats also included plenty of economic conservatives as well, but I don't think we can really argue one way or another what the economic ideology of this group was, considering the diversity of those opinions in the party at the time and the fact that it was predicated on racial issues, not economic ones. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that is reasonable - racial conservatism. Andre🚐 20:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As stated: anachronistically applying labels like this is just going to be misleading and I don't believe there's a point in doing so.
 * As for "racial conservatism", there's nothing obligating us to use the term, and there's many reasons not to. Using the word "conservatism" — particularly in that era — carries foreamentioned connotative baggage. Many politicians and activists of the time don't fit neatly within the modern-day "left-right" spectrum and/or "liberalism"/"conservatism". That's just how history is.
 * We should avoid anachronisms if possible. KlayCax (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

 * To be fair, "racial conservative/racial conservatism" is a term used by some experts to describe the ideology of the Dixecrat group e.g. and one will often find it applied by political scientists/historians when talking about the South generally in the 20th century. "Racial conservatism" is a much more specific term than just "conservatism"; I was arguing that the latter would be inappropriate to use in the infobox, not the former. I do not know whether or not "racial conservatism" is a good label to use - I'd like to see more than one scholar explicitly apply it to the Dixiecrats before we adopt it as shorthand for the party's ideology. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

 * I think there's definitely far better ways to describe their ideology. The term "racial conservatism" is in my mind far too euphemistic, isn't universally accepted in the academic literature, will just confuse readers, and is unnecessary. (e.g. Note that the way "racial conservatism" is usually measured is a rejection of this statement: ) Describing their policies accomplishes the same thing; it's more clear, to. KlayCax (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We should describe it how ever the RS describe it, and indeed in this "white supremacist" and "racial segregationist" seem perfectly applicable. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I do agree we should stick to RS, so we should discuss how many use the term racial conservatism, and how much weight the sources that use this term have. The interpretation is always up to the reader, and we should avoid trying to interpret it for them. Hence, sticking to what RS say. We can certainly add more recent interpretations by scholars and journalists along with attributions etc...DN (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Is this not an anachronistic framing of 1940s-1950s politics?
This statement has multiple problems — for the reasons stated above — and in the contexts of the times a Dixiecrat could support both the New Deal and white supremacy: A majority of historians — including Michael Kazin in What It Took to Win: A History of the Democratic Party — have stated that Dixiecrats couldn't easily be put in terms of modern day "liberalism" or "conservatism". Kazin, for instance, writes that the Dixiecrats predominately combined left-wing stances on economics with support of white supremacy.

Usage of "liberal" or "conservative" here is clearly anachronistic. "Conservative" in the 1940s means "opposition to the New Deal" — and per talk a lot of readers have already interpreted the quote this way. The Neiwert quote is predominately talking about the racial attitudes of Dixiecrats and it seems to be more of an opinion piece.

Sadly, at the time, progressives as much as conservatives combined white supremacy and left-wing economic positions together. (Until the 1960s)

As The Nation notes:

"The main way the Democrats accomplished this for a very long time—from the 1830s until the 1960s—was by being both the economically liberal [In terms of economic redistribution; this is different from the European usage of 'economic liberalism'] party and the white racist party; indeed, many pieces of historic progressive legislation bear the names of Southern segregationists. Even if the party can no longer live with that central contradiction, there will inevitably be many others."

We wouldn't say that Woodrow Wilson (who passed a ton of progressive policy but also combined that with utterly horrific attitudes towards race) was a "conservative" thinker. Would we? How would we classify someone such as William Jennings Bryan in 1896? Was he conservative (religion/evolution) or liberal? (on government intervention)

Attaching anachronistic labels to things is just misleading. KlayCax (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

 * I'm not clear what your basis for exclusion is, other than it being anachronistic. Frankly it feels a bit off topic, no offense. If you mean to say we should change it to "racially conservative", that may be more plausible but requires sources and consensus. Are you unfamiliar with the SPLC? The context you are referring to in this article is clearly attributed, on topic and reliably sourced to that organization. That said, opinions from authorities on article subject matters are not usually meant to be disallowed from articles, unless they are FRINGE, off topic or there is no consensus for inclusion etc...
 * As far as I know you are the first editor I've seen with this objection, not to dismiss, just worth noting. If it is a WP:MOS issue that might make sense, but I think removing reliably sourced content will require more than your personal distaste for seemingly anachronistic context. Removing it assumes the reader is incapable of making that distinction themselves, and IMO is not strong enough to use as a sole reason for exclusion. We are not supposed to omit RS just because it may be considered by some to be confusing. There may be a way to fix this other than simply throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but again, it requires sources and consensus. Cheers. DN (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

 * I think we should use terms like white/ethnonationalism, white supremacy, and segregation, since this is what we're really saying in that context, rather than a term that's almost certainly going to lead more confusion than clarity.
 * There was an extensive discussion about this in mid-2022 on this talk page, with a general agreement that using terms such as "far-right", "conservative", "racial conservative", and the SPLC article, were either anachronistic or misleading in the context of 1940s American politics.
 * Without getting into the weeds here, it's important to note that many figures traditionally categorized as being on the "left" in American history at the time of their political careers, including Andrew Jackson, Benjamin Tillman, and Woodrow Wilson often supported white supremacist ideals. As a social democrat, it's sad, but just a fact.
 * expressed the concern that: Similarly,  stated:
 * On the matter of the SPLC article - there was similar widespread disagreement (and general opposition) to inclusion.
 * stated:
 * also opposed inclusion:
 * Social Democratic historian Michael Kazin states that the Dixiecrats can neither be considered comfortably conservative or liberal, for instance. Many other historians take similar stances.
 * The SPLC article only makes passing mention to the Dixiecrats and there's substantial issues that come along with including it. KlayCax (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you really so desperate as to use archived discussions to try and start an edit war, and avoid having to build consensus? Wow...I'm interested in what the other editors here think of this. Let's wait and see...DN (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * While I was trying to AGF, I'm also now concerned this could be seen as an attempt at WP:CANVAS...I'll step away for a while and let others decide. DN (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Lastly, and just to clarify, that archived discussion you linked to was about whether or not to label Dixiecrats as Far Right, not about inclusion of the reliably sourced context that you keep removing. DN (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to start any form of edit war. That's why I responded and tagged you (and previous people involved in the discussion) on the talk page.
 * I referenced the previous discussion in response to: I linked it to show that other editors, including the aforementioned, generally opposed the SPLC reference within the article. (It was later added back in by another user without consensus.) The archived discussion was linked to showcase that other users expressed significant concern about the source in question and that I was not the only one to express this.
 * Toa Nidhiki05 in particular (along with several others) repeatedly stated that the SPLC article shouldn't be included.
 * As for WP:CANVAS: it's expected that editors who are involved or cited are tagged. It would be bad etiquette of me not to. Rhododendrites, Cullen328, and EvergreenFir in specific (given their previous discussions on this talk page) disagree with me greatly on how the article should look - radically from my own perspective. (Whether it would be improper "racial conservatism" should be mentioned for instance.) Tagging the specific individuals involved in the previous discussion is normative and expected and was an attempt to build consensus.
 * And I don't want you to step aside in this discussion: I want to establish a consensus here that everyone can agree on. KlayCax (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "I'm not trying to start any form of edit war" Is that why you keep reverting without building consensus on the talk page first? Ignoring not just my arguments but the other editor's arguments as well. I noticed you didn't ping them too, by the way...  "I linked it to show that other editors, including the aforementioned, generally opposed the SPLC reference within the article." - Your original complaint was in regard to it being "anachronistic", which was never brought up in archived discussion. They did not approve of the SPLC citation because it didn't explicitly support Dixiecrats as Far Right, which you would know since you read it and felt like sharing that discussion would help your case, especially after pinging the ones that disagreed with me there. It looks more like you are using a strawman argument as an excuse to ping other editors to come take your side. See WP:INAPPNOTE and WP:VOTESTACK. I'm unclear as to how I am expected to WP:AGF at this point, so by your own doing, we are done here for the time being. DN (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

KlayCax appears to have misrepresented me above. I never said I was opposed to including the SPLC. Nearly the opposite. What I said was that we need good sourcing that used the term "far-right". That, and not the use of SPLC in the article in general, is the extent of it. I've reverted their removal of SPLC under those pretenses, as it was a line that did not include "far-right" and thus not that thread wasn't sufficiently relevant. — Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The Klan Is Right Wing?
Robert Byrd Democrat Senator and Klan Organizer/Leader

Bill Clinton said in his eulogy, "There are a lot of people who wrote these eulogies for Senator Byrd in the newspapers -- and I read a bunch of them -- and they mentioned that he once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan. And what does that mean? I'll tell what you it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollers of West Virginia. He was trying to get elected."(as a democrat) "The family feeling, The clan loyalty, the fanatic independence,. the desire for a hand up, not a hand out, the willingness to fight when put into a corner -- that has often got the people from whom Senator Byrd and I sprang in trouble, because we didn't keep learning and growing and understanding that all the African-Americans who have been left out and left down and lived for going to church and lived to see their kids get a better deal, and have their children sign up for the military when they're needed -- they're just like we are"

According to wiki, Byrd's political career spanned more than sixty years. He first entered the political arena by organizing and leading a local chapter of the [Ku Klux Klan] in the 1940s

He then served in the West Virginia House of Delegates from 1947 to 1950, and the West Virginia State Senate from 1950 to 1952. Initially elected to the [United States House of Representatives] in 1952, Byrd served there for six years before being elected to the Senate in [1958 United States Senate election in West Virginia|1958]. He rose to become one of the Senate's most powerful members, serving as secretary of the [Senate Democratic Caucus] from 1967 to 1971 and—after defeating his longtime colleague [Ted Kennedy] for the job—as [Senate Majority Whip] from 1971 to 1977. Over the next 12 years, Byrd led the Democratic caucus as [Senate Majority Leader] and [Senate Minority Leader].

https://www.historynet.com/robert-byrd-consorts-kkk-grand-dragon/?f https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/wjclintonrobertbyrdeulogy.htm 184.170.78.152 (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To answer your initial question: yes. Who have they politically endorsed the past few decades? Also check out Southern strategy.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Leading wording
Is there any idea what the mealy-peely wording in the lead is supposed to mean?

"After the 1948 election, its leaders generally returned to the Democratic Party, at least for a time,[6] prior to the realignment of party ideologies that occurred over the next several decades."

Shouldn't we just say something like: 1.) "The GOP attracted the support of white supremacists/segregationists" 2.) While pointing out that many held "left-wing economic views" (at least for whites.)

I feel like we should just say that. KlayCax (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2024
change "faction" to "fraction" 151.251.246.140 (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Faction is the correct word  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dixiecrat


text:
Status bar

A status bar is a graphical control element which poses an information area typically found at the window's bottom. It can be divided into sections to group information. Its job is primarily to display information about the current state of its window, although some status bars have extra functionality. For example, many web browsers have clickable sections that pop up a display of security or privacy information.

A status bar can also be text-based, primarily in console-based applications, in which case it is usually the last row in an 80x25 text mode configuration, leaving the top 24 rows for application data. Usually the status bar (called a status line in this context) displays the current state of the application, as well as helpful keyboard shortcuts. One example is the 'vi' text editor of UNIX (from the 1970s) or newer Linux systems.

Status lines have been used for more than 30 years to display advisory messages in a predefined area, rather than as pop-up messages in center screen which can block the view of related information.

Sometimes, a video game places the player's vital information or Heads-up display (such as hit points, lives, and score) on a similar strip across the top or bottom of the screen; this is also referred to as a status bar.

Usage
Status bars, and status lines before them, have been used for years to display advisory messages in a predefined area, predating dialog boxes which can block the view of related information behind the pop-up messages. The use of status bars (or status lines) involves both advantages and disadvantages:

Advantages of status bars:
 * They allow viewing messages while also viewing the entire screen (although they take space away from the screen for their own display)
 * They allow typing information while viewing status data
 * They allow other menu options while viewing status data
 * They continually show status during operation

Disadvantages of status bars:
 * Status bars might restrict information to a one-line display (although a variable multi-line status bar/region could be used);
 * Status bars typically cannot pop to the surface for critical messages when its parent window is layered below others (but are always visible in the parent window, which can be raised).
 * Their location at the edge of the display may make them less noticeable than a dialog box

Examples

 * The status bar of a file manager often shows the count of items in the current directory, their total size, or the size of the currently selected item.

 * The status bar of a web browser will be invisible or blank when the user is viewing a page, then display loading information when the user clicks a hyperlink.
 * The status bar of a graphics editor will show information about the current image, such as its dimensions, color space, or resolution.
 * In a word processor, the status bar often shows cursor position, the number of pages in the document, and the state of the caps lock, num lock, and scroll lock keys. Additionally, many word processors assign the insert key a behavior similar to that of these three, to allow toggling the insertion mode – the state of that is also displayed in the status bar.
 * Text adventures often have a status line that displayed information such as the players location, game time, and score. Infocom's customer newsletter was named The Status Line after it was named The New Zork Times
 * In a spreadsheet, the status bar shows similar information to word processors, but includes the ability to highlight cells and show the average, sum, maximum value, and so forth.

title: Status bar


text:
Etiopía / Plaza de la Transparencia metro station

Etiopía / Plaza de la Transparencia (formerly Etiopía) is a metro station on the Mexico City Metro. It is located in the Benito Juárez borough of Mexico City.

General information
The station logo depicts the head of a lion, a symbol of Ethiopia. Its name comes from the Plaza Etiopía, a traffic circle at the same location before the construction of the subway station. The traffic circle was named to show Mexico's support for an independent Ethiopia after the Italian invasion of Ethiopia. There is a corresponding Mexico Square in the Ethiopian capital city of Addis Ababa. Mexico Square is also a station on the Addis Ababa Light Rail.

Metro Etiopía / Plaza de la Transparencia is underneath the intersection of Avenida Xola, Avenida Cuauhtemoc, Cumbres de Maltrata street and Diagonal de San Antonio. It serves Narvarte neighbourhood.

On March 27, 2009, the station name was changed to Etiopía / Plaza de la Transparencia (Ethiopia / Transparency Square), as the Instituto Federal de Acceso a la Información Publica (Federal Institute of Public Information Access) is near the station, and so it would fit the name of the closest Metrobús station.

Exits

 * Northwest: Eje 4 Sur Xola, Colonia Narvarte
 * Southwest: Anaxágoras, Colonia Narvarte
 * Southeast: Cumbres de Maltrata, Colonia Narvarte
 * Northeast: Eje 4 Sur Xola, Colonia Narvarte


text:
Strategic partnership

A strategic partnership (also see strategic alliance) is a relationship between two commercial enterprises, usually formalized by one or more business contracts. A strategic partnership will usually fall short of a legal partnership entity, agency, or corporate affiliate relationship. Strategic partnerships can take on various forms from shake hand agreements, contractual cooperation's all the way to equity alliances, either the formation of a joint venture or cross-holdings in each other.

Overview
Typically, two companies form a strategic partnership when each possesses one or more business assets or have expertise that will help the other by enhancing their businesses. This can also mean, that one firm is helping the other firm to expand their market to other marketplaces, by helping with some expertise. According to Cohen and Levinthal a considerable in-house expertise which complements the technology activities of its partner is a necessary condition for a successful exploitation of knowledge and technological capabilities outside their boundaries. Strategic partnerships can develop in outsourcing relationships where the parties desire to achieve long-term “win-win” benefits and innovation based on mutually desired outcomes.

No matter if a business contract was signed, between the two parties, or not, a trust-based relationship between the partners is indispensable.

Product development
One common strategic partnership involves one company providing engineering, manufacturing or product development services, partnering with a smaller, entrepreneurial firm or inventor to create a specialized new product. Typically, the larger firm supplies capital, and the necessary product development, marketing, manufacturing, and distribution capabilities, while the smaller firm supplies specialized technical or creative expertise.

Suppliers and distributors
Another common strategic partnership involves a manufacturer/supplier partnering with a distributor or wholesale consumer. Rather than approach the transactions between the companies as a simple link in the product or service supply chain, the two companies form a closer relationship where they mutually participate in advertising, marketing, branding, product development, and other business functions. As examples, an automotive manufacturer may form strategic partnerships with its parts suppliers, or a music distributor with record labels.

The activities of a strategic partnership can also include a shared research & development department between the partners. This requires a higher level of knowledge sharing as well as a higher level of sharing the technological capabilities. But by doing so, the costs and risks of innovation can be spread between the partners.

Business outsourcing
Strategic partnerships also have emerged to solve many company business problems. The book Vested: How P&G, McDonald’s and Microsoft are Redefining Winning in Business Relationships profiles strategic partnerships in large scale business process outsourcing relationships, public-private infrastructure projects, facilities management and supply chain relationships. Contemporary strategic sourcing and procurement processes enable organizations to use performance-based or vested sourcing business models for establishing strategic supplier relationships.

Advantages and disadvantages
There can be many advantages to creating strategic partnerships. As Robert M. Grant states in his book Contemporary Strategy Analysis, "For complete strategies, as opposed to individual projects, creating option value means positioning the firm such that a wide array of opportunities become available". Firms taking advantage of strategic partnerships can utilize other company's strengths to make both firms stronger in the long run.

Strategic partnerships raise questions concerning co-inventorship and other intellectual property ownership, technology transfer, exclusivity, competition, hiring away of employees, rights to business opportunities created in the course of the partnership, splitting of profits and expenses, duration and termination of the relationship, and many other business issues. Another risk of strategic partnerships, especially between manufacturer and key supplier, is the potential forward integration by the key supplier. Also different developments or development plans can lead to a broken strategic partnership. The relationships are often complex as a result, and can be subject to extensive negotiation. Strategic partnerships are also prone to conflict. The University of Tennessee has done significant research into strategic partnerships, especially in the area of strategic outsourcing relationships.

title: Strategic partnership


text: Template:Pennywise

title: Template:Pennywise


text:
XDarwin

XDarwin is an obsolete X Window System (X11) display server for the Darwin operating system and early versions of Mac OS X. XDarwin allows one to use programs written for X11 on those operating systems.

XDarwin was ported by the XonX project, an offshoot project created by XFree86 developers. It is integrated in the upstream source code of the XFree86 and Xorg servers, where it is maintained.

Originally, XDarwin required an X window manager to run. For this task, a window manager called OroborOSX was created; this was based on Oroborus, another X window manager, but modified to look like the native Mac OS window manager. More recent versions of XDarwin can also run in rootless mode, which is to say that it integrates with the native window manager instead of requiring such a program specifically for X.

Before the introduction of Apple's X11.app, XDarwin was the only X11 server available for OS X. According to the XonX project, X11.app itself contains code from XDarwin. Programs such as OpenOffice.org use XDarwin to run in the X11 windowing environment, either in a rootless or full-screen mode. A version of the program was created for Mac OS X Panther or higher that runs in the native Aqua interface.

title: XDarwin