text:
Talk:Choke (sports)

Recidivism - Michael Ballack?
I think German footballer Michael Ballack deserves a mention. By my count, he has lost two UEFA Champions League finals, one World Cup final (and finished third in 2006), one European Championship final (in 2008), not to mention his 2001-2002 season when he missed out on three trophies with Bayer Leverkusen

86.138.171.236 (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

US centrism
Needs thorough cleansing of US centrism. Some of it is just plain wrong from a non US-centric point of view.Wincoote 03:38, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, to much American sports. Maybe a list of examples could go down well?Hamedog 01:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

a list would require a large amount of agreement over and development towards what is generally considered a choke - it's defined as losing a game after establishing a large lead, but i think there are different kinds of chokes. the Red Sox/Yankees ALCS is a good example of the former, but the Colts in the AFC Divisional is an example of a choke of a different nature - performing drastically under expectations. i think a choke list could lead to a choke artist list(possibly article), as well. sorry to use american sports examples. -Nosirrah Yendor 20:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

2004 ALCS: Did the Red Sox win it or the Yankees blow it?
I am sure that such a debate on this topic would stir a lot of rage, but one person's choke is another person's comeback.

Bottom of the eighth in game 4, Yankees' closer Mariano Rivera comes out on what seems like an automatic two inning save. In the bottom of the ninth, Kevin Millar of the Red Sox walks to start the inning, and Dave Roberts takes his place to pinch run. After several pickoff attempts, Rivera finally pitches to Bill Mueller, at which Roberts steals second base. Mueller singles to allow Roberts to score and tie.

Did Mariano Rivera blow the save by paying too much attention to Roberts and not enough attention to Mueller, or did Terry Francona, the Red Sox manager, develop a crafty play?

DaDoc540 14:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

how the hell do you consider the chargers to be chokers. schottenheimer = choker...philip rivers = clutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.214.169 (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Recidivism - Raymond Poulidor
Reading the Recidivism section made me think of the cyclist Raymond Poulidor, who "was known as the eternal second, because he finished the Tour de France in second place three times, and in third place five times (including his final Tour at the age of 40). Despite his consistency, he never wore the Yellow Jersey in 14 Tours, of which he completed 12.". Peoplesunionpro (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

2007 Patriots
[sigh] Some goof is removing references to Super Bowl XLII. This is a significant milestone in sports chokes. We need to acknowledge such, and lock to prevent this user from removing the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.155.55 (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is being removed since the loss was not a choke, a choke is a loss when something is guranteed to be a win. The 2006 loss by the Pats to the colts was a choke job when they gave up a huge lead in the 4th to lose, their loss in Super Bowl XLII was not a choke, it was only an upset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.112.34 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, it was a choke because they were anointed by the media and the players themselves as the undisputed champions weeks before the games were played. They choked away the championship they had already 'won'. But you're right on one count, the choke from the 06 AFC Title game should be listed as well. I'll fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.155.55 (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Only shows you have no real understanding of what a choke is. The game is played on the field, and week 17 proves that it wasn't a choke, since these 2 teams had already played and it was only a 3 point game in week 17, so it could have gone either way with 1 score at any point in both games. now if the pats had blown out the giants in week 17 by 20 points or something like that then yeah, we could probably call this game a choke, but they didn't, therefore not a choke. If you want to make this "complete" they take away your Patriot hate blinders, and throw in the 2001 RAMs as chokers, the 2007 Colts as chokers, the 2001 Steelers as chokers, the 2005 Colts as chokers, and I am sure there are 50 other instances we could put in there, face it, the only reason you are making this a big deal is your jealousy and you want to feel superior in the heat of the moment. It was a well fought battle between 2 very equal teams, "choke" is not part of equation with this Super Bowl, plain and simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.112.34 (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with making this a complete listing of chokes. The bottom line, however, is that the MAGNITUDE of the Patriot choke (undefeated season on the line, highest scoring team ever, much lower seeded opponent) makes this a historically significant choke, where I do not think you can argue the same for the 01 Steelers, etc. This isn't a Pats bashing session. You have to accomlish a lot to make the kind of historic impact they've made this year... but that also includes the final result, no matter how much of a homer one is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.155.55 (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You made it bashing session by calling it the biggest choke ever, and by making up a section just for the pats. add it to the list in there, but as long as you keep calling it the biggest choke or making up it's ow section just for the pats, I will be removing it. You are showing an bias by the language you are using and it removes any integrity that the article has because you are removing impartiality from it and going based on your own opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.112.34 (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh - you're such a homer its silly trying to have a discussion with you. These are not my opinions, they are historical facts. This was in fact the biggest choke ever. Name another? Jets over Colts? Hardly. no other football example comes close. Basketball and baseball have series format, so you can hardly compare those to one game championships. This is in fact the biggest choke in the history of sports, and I will continue to add this historical context to the page.

Admin - please lock 66.153.112.34 from vandalizing further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.155.55 (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin's - please stop everyone from vandalizing this page. I think there should be no adding of anything specific to the patriots from this super bowl until a full consensus of the situation can obtained. The above person claiming that this being the bigest choke in sports history is stating an opinion, not a fact. There are plenty of bigger chokes out there. The fact that these teams played 2 games this season, and both of them ended with only a 3 point difference in the final score, with each team winning 1 game invalidates the Super Bowl as a choke, but even if you want to call it a choke, it certainly cannot be considered "the biggest choke" in any sense of the word.

This entire site is about integrity of fact, an opinion is not fact. And for the record, I am a Steelers Fan, not a Pats fan, just look where my IP is located. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.112.34 (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Strike my last note about my IP, just realied it shows up at my companies HQ in Jersey, not my actual location in the Pittsburgh burbs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.112.34 (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Clinton
I am deleting a reference to Hillary Clinton. While it may be true her campaign choked, this is an article about the term's reference to SPORTS. Any politcal discussion does not belong in this article.

Removals
I've removed the uncited examples (which was almost all of them). This is partially because the article was becoming an example-farm (whereby everyone coming by the page would add their own example) and partially because there was negative information about living people without proper citation. Please only add in an example if a reliable source has written about it using the specific word "choke". Stifle (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, this has become a problem (also in the clutch article). There's so many things that can be classed as choking so we get all these unsourced edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Depor23 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree and so will remove all uncited examples. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Bleacher Report
Bleacher Report is not a credible source as anyone can make their own article. Which leads to obvious biasism
 * Depends on the author, obviously some of them are going to be more reliable than others.--'Prisencolinensinainciusol 05:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"Lead" vs. "Led"
Can we all agree that "lead" is present-tense, and "led" is past-tense? I'm correcting the second section to make the meaning clearer. It's a mess. Compdude512 (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Phillip Rivers lead Chargers
Come on-how could we miss the obvious. This era should be added right next to the "Dan Fouts led Chargers" example. Or better yet, just include the San Diego Chargers period!98.176.118.95 (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

team vs. individual choke
This article is framed in terms of a team choking. However, I think that the terms can and is applied to an individual as well. If a kicker in American football misses an important field goal or extra point attempt which determines the outcome of the game, he might well be said to have choked. This could occur even in a context where the team as a whole might not be said to have choked, for example, if an underdog battles a superior team down the the final moments of a game and has a chance to win, but the kicker misses. The team as whole, having achieved a result that meets or even exceeds expectations, would not have choked.Wschart (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The term is used for individuals in this article, the basketball section describes Lebron James choking in the playoffs, both during his time on the Cavaliers and now on the Heat  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.129.220 (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hockey examples overly narrow
"In the NHL, choking is a common term during the playoffs, but is usually used to name 2 teams: the Vancouver Canucks and the San Jose Sharks." This is rather POV and not particularly true -- because fans poorly understand the concept, virtually every loss by a higher seed in the playoffs tends to get labelled as a "choke" by many, and these two teams are by no means singled out apart from the fact that the writer of this section clearly focused only on the most recent playoffs. Losing a series when up 3-2 is hardly unusual or monumental in hockey, either. 192.197.178.2 (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Examples
I'm sure it was better at some point, but right now this article is a pretty big steaming pile, what with everybody adding his or her favorite unsourced "choke" to the list. I've removed a few of the worst offenders, but plenty more should be removed unless they can be properly sourced. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have reinstated some of the examples that were both notable and referenced, and added references to notable examples that were previously unreferenced. Can editors please show some care not to simply remove examples they don't like, and try to find a reference on Google before deleting kilobytes worth of well-written entries. Some immense vandalism, under the guise of 'removing unsourced examples' has taken place over the years on this page from wikipedians who should know better, and I shall be watching it in future to ensure this does not recur. AbrahamCat (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Further to this I have widened the variety of the examples, so it's less America-centric, and also added citations where they were lacking. I'm not an expert on American Football, but the New York Giants' and Green Bay Packers' chokes don't look all that remarkable. I intend to add a small section on Rugby Union in the upcoming days, noting ASM Clermont Auvergne's 10 French Championship finals before their first win. Resources on the most notable chokes from around the world are incredibly biased and nation-centric, so examples from outside the Anglosphere will be welcomed very much. AbrahamCat (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

LeBron as a choker?
I don't think one bad playoff series qualifies LeBron as a choker. The article is poorly written.

And I highly doubt that the latter part of "Lebron's scoring average of 26 ppg fell to a low of 17 ppg, most dropoff in ppg in NBA history." is factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mat Cee (talk • contribs) 05:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Examples...again
The "examples" section is now more than three times as long as the article content otherwise. The section has become a dumping ground for any time someone perceived there to be a choke effect happening on a team/person. It's great that references to these examples have been added. But now the references to those examples outnumber the references to the rest of the article. This is beyond absurd, and needs to end.

The point of examples is to show real life situations where such effects discussed in the article have happened. It is not to be a list of every time a journalist has concluded a team has choked. If you want that, then start List of sports teams that choked. This examples section needs to be dramatically trimmed to maybe five examples at most. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I have removed every example that did not have a citation. This is the first pass. I've not reviewed the citations on the remaining examples. Our opinion of what a "choke" is should have no bearing on the content of the article. If the remaining examples lack citations that support the events being "chokes", I will remove them as well.

Anyone wishing to add new examples should provide citations from reliable, secondary sources that indicate the event was a "choke". --Hammersoft (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I've now removed every example that lacked a citation indicating it was a "choke". We're now down to 30% of the article being examples. As I mentioned, we don't need a list of every time a team/person with a lead lost the lead, much less every time the press decided to call it a "choke". --Hammersoft (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I've reinstated the examples, most of which had ample citations. Please do not remove examples on the basis that they do not contain the term 'choke', which is a term used in American slang only, and has numerous other terms meaning the same thing. Again, I will state that I consider this action to be vandallism. If you wish to delete more entries, please note me with a good reason why, or establish a list. Thanks. AbrahamCat (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless you can provide evidence that there are other terms which are equated with "choke" and are used in the citations to support the inclusion, they should be removed. It is not our place to determine what event in sports is a "choke". That is original research. Please read No original research. Simply because a team comes from behind, even a great distance behind, does not quantify it as a "choke". To give a specific example in the case of this article, you've added in information about Jimmy White, yet no citation has been provided to support that this was a "choke". You may think this is a choke. But, without reliable sources attesting to it being a choke, it isn't. All it is, with respect, is your opinion. That's not enough. WP:V; "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." Obviously since I've removed the material previously, it's been challenged. Until you can find citations that actually support what is being said, the material must be removed. I'm not going to edit war with you over this. Please take some time to find the citations that actually assert these various events are "chokes". Eventually, I will remove the material again, per WP:V. There is also the matter that this article should not be a dumping ground of every time even a reliable source claimed a particular event was a choke. This article is about choking. It is not a list of all chokes that ever happened. Examples are appropriate. Right now, with your re-additions, we have about 3 dozen examples. This is hardly appropriate. If you want to start an article titled List of chokes in sports, be my guest. Here, it isn't appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Thank you for not again removing these examples. I have added further references, where other sports writers (or the sportspeople themselves) have observed the instances as a 'choke', but it should not be for the writers to cite references every time they say the sky is blue.

As for whether the term choke should be necessary, it should be noted that it is an informal term to describe losing due to nervousness: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/choke, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/choke

By allowing for other terms (i.e. 'bottle' 'panic', we reduce the chance for nationcentricism, and can include a wider array of examples. I do not believe the article requires an independent list, although I am open to persuasion on that, given there is such a wealth of journalism devoted to the subject. Please don't do another massacre though before such a list has been established and accepted.

Please rest assured - as long as I am around there will be no chance of the article becoming a dumping ground as it had done before. Likewise though I am also guarding it against arbitrary 'cleanups'. AbrahamCat (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear here; we work in a collaborative environment. Describing my edits as "immense vandalism" and "massacre" (above) is hardly appropriate. Please stop using such terminology. Thank you.
 * Second, whether you are around or not is immaterial. Since we are a collaborative editing environment, nobody becomes an assigned steward for an article.
 * Third, I'm perfectly fine with acknowledging there are other terms that are equivalent to "choke" if such can be sustained with sources.
 * Fourth, I'm not suggesting that secondary source writers need to have citations themselves. Rather, we have to use citations to support that someone said it was a choke.
 * Fifth, the article clearly is a dumping ground NOW. There are ~3 DOZEN examples. This article is not a list of choking events. We don't need to represent every sport on every continent in order to provide an example basis under which a person can reasonably understand what "choke" means. The examples section outweighs the rest of the prose of the article 2:1. This is an extreme...and I do mean extreme...overload of examples. It must be trimmed.
 * Sixth, there are still a number of examples that do not have any citations to support them.
 * Seventh, you are still using citations that support original research, rather than using citations that support an event being a choke. Let me give you an example. In your baseball section, you cite that Mississippi choked because they "had gone 0–6 in NCAA Super Regional games, at home, after winning the first game in their three most-recent best-of-three series" and use this as a citation to support that statement. Yes, the statement itself is supported. But, its presence here in the Choke article is asserting it as an example of choking. The citation does not support. You are concluding that it is a choke, not the cite. You can't do that. That's WP:OR. The policy says "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Your citation does not support the conclusion that this is a choke. You then go on later to use this as a reference to support "rival fanbases coined OMAHA". First, this violates WP:UGC as a reference. Internet forums are not reliable sources. Second, it is _one_ person, not 'rival fanbases'.
 * The entire rest of the paragraph there about Mississippi is all unsupported by any citations as being a choke, and the last citation to support the last sentence is a dead link. This is all original research. NONE of it is a choke as supported by reliable, secondary sources. This is just one example. There are others throughout your prose. We may disagree on this. But understand that policy is not on your side on this. WP:UNSOURCED is very clear about this; the burden is on you to show reliable sourcing to support statements. Even if you can find reliable sources to support these dozens of examples, you're going to need to get consensus to include so many examples, per WP:ONUS. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

AbrahamCat (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi again.
 * Firstly, I retain the right to describe your edits as I see fit.
 * Secondly, if I am not around I trust you or others, as responsible wikipedians, will not arbitarily remove content without either moving the content first to an appropriate place, or making a sincere attempt at finding an appropriate reference yourself, if you deem the links you check to be unsatisfactory. That is how we should all 'steward' articles in a respectful and decent manner.
 * Thirdly seems to have been reluctantly acknowledged. Were it not, it would be as if only American sportspeople were prone to this trait. If a tree falls in the forest and it's not American, does it really fall? Believe it or not, it does.
 * Fourthly, I have added many further citations, and this is an ongoing project.
 * Fifthly, there's no 'must be trimmed' about it. Plenty of articles have long lists of examples, and it stands as a useful resource for journalists and those interested in the subject. By all means move it to a list if you must, but please do not remove content you know to be factually correct and citable without making any effort in tracing a link.
 * Sixthly, see fourthly.
 * Seventhly, the example stated is not my work. See sixthly and fourthly.
 * Eightly, while your reliance on references is admirable, all articles begin somewhere, and to remove notable, factually correct instances without attempting to find a reference first is in my view 'immense vandalism'. My plea 'Can editors please show some care not to simply remove examples they don't like, and try to find a reference on Google before deleting kilobytes worth of well-written entries,' was simply ignored. Given more people have added examples than removed them before you arrived, the consensus is very much with me already.
 * I think you should carefully read and understand WP:5P4. This is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Continuing to describe my good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia as "vandalism" and "massacre" is hardly in keeping with that fundamental principle. I can't tell you what to do. I can't threaten you. All I can tell you is that there are consequences on this project for people who refuse to abide by that principle.
 * I've never arbitrarily removed anything from the project. I never will. I have and will remove content as necessary to improve the project under our policies and guidelines, as I've tried patiently to describe to you.
 * There's nothing "reluctantly acknowledged". This was an issue you raised that I never disagreed with. All I have asked is for you to find references that support your conclusion of other words having the same meaning as "choke".
 * I agree all articles start somewhere. However, retaining content that is in dispute is against our policies, which I have laid out for you. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Knowingly adding material that is lacking in references, most especially when there are plenty of other examples WITH references, is not helpful. The onus here is not on me, but on you. You've demonstrated a high level of intelligence. I'm confident you can understand the problems the project would engender if we allowed any material anyone would like to add without asking them to provide references. Nevertheless, perhaps I am wrong and the project would benefit from such a change. If you disagree with this policy, I heartily encourage you to seek consensus at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability.
 * There appears to be no common ground on which we can agree. You believe having 3+ dozen examples with prose outweighing topical content 2:1 is somehow appropriate. I don't. You believe adding unreferenced material, given the presence of such an enormous quantity of other examples (some of which do have appropriate references) is appropriate. I don't. You believe conducting original research to draw conclusions about events is appropriate. I don't. If there's some common ground anywhere between our positions that I am missing, please let me know. I'm not seeing it.
 * With that in mind, I will wait a couple of weeks for you to find references to support each and every example in the article, and also to find references that support a particular example being a choke, rather than original research. I know you believe your references are sufficient, but quite a number are not. I've highlighted an example, and encourage you to correct them. if you need further clarification on what is an insufficient reference or would like to ask if one is sufficient, certainly let me know. Once those two weeks are over, I will remove the unreferenced and inappropriately referenced examples. I know, I know, you disagree with this, and I'm sorry that you do. However, it is inline with policy. So, we will move forward inline with policy. We can then revisit this discussion about how many examples are left and whether that is an appropriate amount of examples. Hopefully this is a middle ground we can agree on. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I waited more than two months without response. I've removed the most egregious cases again. The article is still overwhelmed with examples, as the examples constitute 64% of the prose of the article now, but that's at least better than the 73% that it was. The earlier 30% figure I noted was the entirety of everything on the article, which was misleading (in favor of examples, not my position) on my part. I'll restate here again, this is not a list of every choke that ever happened in sport. The subject here is choking, and a few examples to highlight cases where it has happened is appropriate. If you want to have every choke that ever happened, then start a list article. It's not appropriate here. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

And five years later, you're still at it. Nowhere in the cite provided does it say anything about a choke. Please do not add any more examples unless you have a reliable, secondary source that specifically describes a particular game situation as a choke. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

So rather than re-engage in discussion here after I pinged you here, you feel the best plan of action is just to revert war to your preferred version and refuse to engage in discussion? Seriously? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Yes, seriously. Your attitude on this stinks. The fact that the term 'choke' is an American slang with many synonyms in other nations has been well established, and your removal of all examples where the linked articles do not have that exact term is lazy and Americacentric. The term and its synonyms were agreed upon back in 2018, and there is no further discussion to be had. If you had been editing in good faith you would have spent the five minutes I had done to find one of multiple examples where the article does have the word 'choke', and added that, (even though this is completely unnecessary). Instead you spent maybe half an hour ranting on here and in the administrators' noticeboard trying to get other good faith editors into trouble. Shame on you. AbrahamCat (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You said "The term and its synonyms were agreed upon back in 2018". Can you provide a link to the discussion where this agreement was reached?  City o f  Silver  20:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that lazy journalists are too ready to dub any collapse a choke. Also there are a number of synonyms. In particular the term bottling it is used in the UK more often than choke. (And it doesn't need a cite - just read a decent dictionary of English.) However there are far too many examples. We don't need an example from every sport. Examples should illuminate the article. They should help a reader understand what the article is about. They are not there to say, "Look! This team choked." Maybe an example that shows a team to be a serial choker - such as Collingwood getting the Collywobbles is useful - but all the rest are just a useless list. Maybe we should delete the lot and start again with constructive examples. OrewaTel (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it does need a citation. I'm not finding any synonym list for the word "choke" as to refer to sports that includes "bottling it". When I try to find references to "bottling it" on .uk sites, I get reference to "chicken out" rather than "choke". As to the number of examples; I agree. We're currently at what, 23 examples? Back in 2018, we had ~45 examples. I don't think it's necessary to have 23 examples for a reader to understand what a "choke" is in sport. A handful of noted, well cited examples yes. 23? Nobody needs that many. But, we're at least trimmed down to 23 that have citations noting them as chokes, not many dozens of "examples" of teams performing badly. I'd rather see a stand alone list if people want to list every choke that ever happened, rather than let this article be the residing place for so many. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Collapses
I definitely should have inquired about this sooner, but I'm still curious I would like to know something. Earlier this month, I added a section about chokes in baseball consisting of two paragraphs; the second paragraph mentioned how chokes in baseball are more commonly called collapses, and listed 13 examples of late season collapses along with three sources. Then removed this paragraph, saying that collapses would be better off having their own article and not in the Choke article.

I'm genuinely confused by this; chokes and collapses mean the exact same thing in sports, so to give MLB collapses their own article, in my view, would be redundant. What exactly was being suggested? Songwaters (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * citation needed, to address the first problem. There have been claims before that various terms mean the same thing as choke, but to date no one has provided any citations to support them. We also have the issue that this article has been absolutely overwhelmed with examples, and is still overburdened with them now. Fully one third of the article is still devoted to a listing of examples. I've said before that it might be appropriate to have a separate article that lists well cited examples of chokes (as in, the secondary sources are asserting they are chokes, not editors opinions). We don't need more and more and more and more examples to bring home to the reader of this article just what, exactly, is a choke. We already have one example of a choke in baseball. We don't need more. Consider starting an article List of chokes in sports. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Whilst I am sympathetic to the idea that 'collapses' may be chokes, there is a question that must be asked. "In what way does a list of collapses or even a list of chokes enhance this article." If an example doesn't enhance readers' understanding of what constitutes a 'choke' then it may have a hundred citations but it doesn't belong here. The converse is true. An example of a collapse that is not a 'choke' would be useful to clarify the definition. But good luck finding a cited example. OrewaTel (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Fall 2023
— Assignment last updated by Simreestolk0 (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Choke (sports)


text:
Bee Hives

Bee Hives is a 2004 album by Canadian indie rock group Broken Social Scene. It is a collection of B-sides from their second full-length, You Forgot It in People.

The working title for the album was Death Is a B-Side. Cover art for this title can be found in the book This Book Is Broken.

Track listing

 * 1) "(untitled - intro)"  – 0:37
 * 2) "Market Fresh"  – 3:57
 * 3) "Weddings"  – 7:02
 * 4) "hHallmark"1  – 3:53
 * 5) "Backyards"  – 8:14
 * 6) "Da Da Da Da"  – 7:09
 * 7) "Ambulance for the Ambience"  – 5:18
 * 8) "Time = Cause"  – 5:07
 * 9) "Lover's Spit"2  – 7:34

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

title: Bee Hives


text:
Caribbean Star Airlines

Caribbean Star Airlines was an airline based in Antigua and Barbuda. It operated scheduled passenger services in conjunction with Leeward Islands Air Transport (LIAT) to destinations in the eastern Caribbean. Its main base was VC Bird International Airport, St John's. The company slogan was A Whole New Altitude.

History
The airline was incorporated in Antigua in January 2000 and started operations with the Dash 8 regional turboprop in June 2000. It was owned by Texan businessman Allen Stanford, through his company Stanford Financial Group. Its sister airline, Caribbean Sun Airlines Inc., launched its maiden flight three years later. The two were affiliated but separate companies.

In January 2007, the airline announced an intended merger with LIAT, and they entered into a commercial alliance, flying a combined schedule. All flights were marketed under LIAT's airline code, although the airlines continued to operate separately using their own air operator certificates until the merger was completed. The merger was finalized on June 15, 2007, with LIAT becoming the surviving carrier.

Destinations
Caribbean Star Airlines operated the following international scheduled services, as of November 2006, until its merger with LIAT:

North America

 * Caribbean
 * Antigua
 * (V.C. Bird International Airport) hub
 * Barbados
 * (Grantley Adams International Airport)
 * British Virgin Islands
 * Tortola – (Terrance B. Lettsome International Airport)
 * Dominica –
 * (Melville Hall Airport)
 * Guyana
 * Georgetown – (Cheddi Jagan International Airport)
 * Grenada
 * (Maurice Bishop International Airport)
 * Netherlands Antilles
 * Curaçao – (Hato International Airport)
 * Sint Maarten – (Princess Juliana International Airport)
 * Trinidad & Tobago
 * Tobago – (Crown Point International Airport)
 * Port of Spain – (Piarco International Airport)
 * Saint Kitts & Nevis
 * St. Kitts – (Robert L. Bradshaw International Airport)
 * Saint Lucia
 * Saint Lucia – (George F. L. Charles Airport)
 * Saint Vincent & the Grenadines
 * St.Vincent – (E.T. Joshua Airport)

Fleet
The Caribbean Star Airlines fleet consisted of the following aircraft as of March 2007:

 * 11 Bombardier Dash 8 Q300 (Five aircraft transferred to LIAT)

Previously owned aircraft consists of:
 * 3 Bombardier Dash 8 Q100

title: Caribbean Star Airlines


text:
Talk:Rib eye steak

This article is a stub. It is one paragraph, and as such, should be merged into Steak (which is currently also a stub). --SecretAgent 03:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

reword?
I think this should be reworded since it seems to be false.

", the rib eye is one of the most popular, juiciest, and expensive steaks on the market."

Ribeyes are somewhat expensive, i'm a meat clerk for Kroger. We sell Angus Ribeyes for $11.99 / lb, Nolan Ryan Ribeyes for $10.99 / lb, USDA select ribeyes for $10.99 / lb, and Laura's lean ribeye for $12.99 / lb. The most expensive portion of the cow is the tenderloin. If you get select its $14.99 / lb, Nolan Ryan is $14.99 / lb, and the angus is $16.99 /lb as well, so its not the most expensive.

 * It says one of the most expensive, not the most expensive. It is still correct. Xander T. 04:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not "one of the most expensive cuts" It is in the mid to high end range as the meat clerk from Kroger indicated. Badger42

Picture
That picture looks like a NY strip...This is what I've seen ribeyes look like http://spinacare.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/bigstockphoto_ribeye_steak_1241204.jpg

Does it just look different because it's trimmed? 192.17.197.23 (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No Rib Eyes are round as the previous user stated. The picture in the article does indeed look like NY Strip. The correct picture should be used. Badger42

I have a picture of some ribeye steaks that i just sliced from the roast yesterday. How can I add them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.230.208 (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Be assured - the photograph is of a ribeye steak. A ribeye steak may be somewhat round (cut from the large end) or it may be somewhat elongated (cut from the smaller end of the rib roast). But the sure-fire way to tell it's a ribeye is to look for the Spinalis muscle (aka ribeye cap) which runs along and around the outer edge of the steak. It's distinctive and separated by a fairly thick layer of fat. In fact, this muscle is frequently regarded as the most important part of the steak - a ribeye would not be a ribeye without it. Strips steaks do not have anything like this. Mark The Droner (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

= better definition needed = The one given here also applies to short ribs, prime ribs, standing rib roast, and anything else near the unfortunate cow's ribs. Also, give a picture and please define "eye". Techno Faye Kane 07:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The page lists three muscles which are distinctive of a ribeye steak. Short ribs don't have these three muscles. Prime rib, or standing rib do, because they're the same thing. The difference is they're roasts, not steaks.

Nonetheless, I agree a better description is needed for ribeye. The Spinalis muscle needs to be emphasized in my opinion, because it is the distinctive quality of a ribeye steak, and is also easily recognizable. If one is not sure if a given steak is a ribeye, all one has to do is look for this muscle which runs along the outer edge of the steak. RE the eye, I believe the eye refers to the largest part of the ribeye, the round muscle which makes up the majority of the steak. But this may seem counter-intuitive, because if one trims off the other parts of the steak leaving only the eye, it's no longer a ribeye, because a ribeye steak must include the Spinalis muscle.

The page seems to describe the ribeye steak and rib steak by simply referencing the bone. This is completely inadequate. Removing the bone from a rib steak does not make it a ribeye. Leaving the bone in on a ribeye steak and then calling it a rib steak is also misleading. Mark The Droner (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

= Tomahawk Chop = Need to add a section to talk about the bone-in ribeye steak, which is referred to as a Tomahawk Chop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetpen (talk • contribs) 04:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

External link wrong
The external link to the USDA PDF file is wrong, but I have neither the knowledge nor motivation to actually find the correct link. So, you know, heads up. 98.223.57.113 (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Term used in the U.S.
I think that in the U.S. the term «Bone-In Ribeye» is used for the ribeye steak with it's bone attached. At least at the local Steakhouse I was dining yesterday. --Jackobli (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

= Claimed Origin in the U.S. =

In the 1970s, the proprietor of Robert's Steakhouse in Clarksville, Virginia published on the restaurant menu his claim that he had originated the term rib-eye to describe this cut of beef. The restaurant has since closed, although The Lamplighter is operating on the same site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.168.132.16 (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rib eye steak


text: User talk:200.110.2.213

title: User talk:200.110.2.213


text:
User:A Train

About me
I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2005 and was granted admin privileges later that same year. I try to respond to messages left on my talk page within a couple of days. I'm a he for pronoun purposes.

Some of the articles I have created

 * Yael Dayan, an Israeli politician
 * Dennis Muren, an American film special effects artist
 * Helen Merrill, an American jazz singer
 * CD Rev, a Chinese propaganda gangsta rap group
 * Teté Puebla, a Cuban guerrilla fighter and parliamentarian, and the first female general in Cuban history
 * Kahlil Joseph (filmmaker), an American filmmaker and video artist
 * Aftershock Comics, an American comic book publisher

Some of the articles I have substantially expanded

 * PBY Catalina, a WWII flying boat that was the most widely-produced aircraft of its type in history
 * KRS-One, an American hip hop artist
 * Afghan Wireless, the first wireless communications company in Afghanistan
 * Adam Yahiye Gadahn, an American Al-Qaeda collaborator
 * Betty Crocker Cookbook, a historically significant cookbook for beginners

Admin transparency
I do my level best to be responsible with the admin tools, but I make mistakes like everyone else. Please leave me a message on my talk page regarding any actions I have taken that you feel are out of process and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Use the links below to check up on what I've been up to.

title: User:A Train


text:
Implicit surface

In mathematics, an implicit surface is a surface in Euclidean space defined by an equation
 * $$F(x,y,z)=0.$$

An implicit surface is the set of zeros of a function of three variables. Implicit means that the equation is not solved for $x$ or $y$ or $z$.

The graph of a function is usually described by an equation $$z=f(x,y)$$ and is called an explicit representation. The third essential description of a surface is the parametric one: $$(x(s,t),y(s,t), z(s,t))$$, where the $x$-, $y$- and $z$-coordinates of surface points are represented by three functions $$x(s,t)\,, y(s,t)\, , z(s,t)$$ depending on common parameters $$s,t$$. Generally the change of representations is simple only when the explicit representation $$z=f(x,y)$$ is given: $$z-f(x,y)=0$$ (implicit), $$ (s,t,f(s,t)) $$ (parametric).

Examples: For a plane, a sphere, and a torus there exist simple parametric representations. This is not true for the fourth example.
 * 1) The plane $$ x+2y-3z+1=0.$$
 * 2) The sphere $$ x^2+y^2+z^2-4=0.$$
 * 3) The torus $$(x^2+y^2+z^2+R^2-a^2)^2-4R^2(x^2+y^2)=0. $$
 * 4) A surface of genus 2: $$2y(y^2-3x^2)(1-z^2)+(x^2+y^2)^2-(9z^2-1)(1-z^2)=0$$ (see diagram).
 * 5) The surface of revolution $$ x^2+y^2-(\ln(z+3.2))^2-0.02=0$$ (see diagram wineglass).

The implicit function theorem describes conditions under which an equation $$F(x,y,z)=0$$ can be solved (at least implicitly) for $x$, $y$ or $z$. But in general the solution may not be made explicit. This theorem is the key to the computation of essential geometric features of a surface: tangent planes, surface normals, curvatures (see below). But they have an essential drawback: their visualization is difficult.

If $$F(x,y,z)$$ is polynomial in $x$, $y$ and $z$, the surface is called algebraic. Example 5 is non-algebraic.

Despite difficulty of visualization, implicit surfaces provide relatively simple techniques to generate theoretically (e.g. Steiner surface) and practically (see below) interesting surfaces.

Formulas
Throughout the following considerations the implicit surface is represented by an equation $$F(x,y,z)=0$$ where function $$F$$ meets the necessary conditions of differentiability. The partial derivatives of $$F$$ are $$F_x,F_y,F_z,F_{xx},\ldots$$.

Tangent plane and normal vector
A surface point $$(x_0, y_0,z_0)$$ is called regular if and only if the gradient of $$F$$ at $$(x_0, y_0,z_0)$$ is not the zero vector $$(0, 0, 0)$$, meaning
 * $$ (F_x(x_0,y_0,z_0),F_y(x_0,y_0,z_0),F_z(x_0,y_0,z_0))\ne (0,0,0)$$.

If the surface point $$(x_0, y_0,z_0)$$ is not regular, it is called singular.

The equation of the tangent plane at a regular point $$(x_0,y_0,z_0)$$ is
 * $$F_x(x_0,y_0,z_0)(x-x_0)+F_y(x_0,y_0,z_0)(y-y_0)+F_z(x_0,y_0,z_0)(z-z_0)=0,$$

and a normal vector is
 * $$ \mathbf n(x_0,y_0,z_0)=(F_x(x_0,y_0,z_0),F_y(x_0,y_0,z_0),F_z(x_0,y_0,z_0))^T.$$

Normal curvature
In order to keep the formula simple the arguments $$(x_0,y_0,z_0)$$ are omitted:

 * $$\kappa_n = \frac{\mathbf v^\top H_F\mathbf v}{\|\operatorname{grad} F\|}$$

is the normal curvature of the surface at a regular point for the unit tangent direction $$ \mathbf v$$. $$H_F$$ is the Hessian matrix of $$F$$ (matrix of the second derivatives).

The proof of this formula relies (as in the case of an implicit curve) on the implicit function theorem and the formula for the normal curvature of a parametric surface.

Applications of implicit surfaces
As in the case of implicit curves it is an easy task to generate implicit surfaces with desired shapes by applying algebraic operations (addition, multiplication) on simple primitives.

Equipotential surface of point charges
The electrical potential of a point charge $$q_i$$ at point $$\mathbf p_i=(x_i,y_i,z_i)$$ generates at point $$ \mathbf p=(x,y,z)$$ the potential (omitting physical constants)
 * $$F_i(x,y,z)=\frac{q_i}{\|\mathbf p -\mathbf p_i\|}.$$

The equipotential surface for the potential value $$c$$ is the implicit surface $$ F_i(x,y,z)-c=0 $$ which is a sphere with center at point $$\mathbf p_i$$.

The potential of $$4$$ point charges is represented by
 * $$F(x,y,z)=\frac{q_1}{\|\mathbf p -\mathbf p_1\|}+ \frac{q_2}{\|\mathbf p -\mathbf p_2\|}+ \frac{q_3}{\|\mathbf p -\mathbf p_3\|}+\frac{q_4}{\|\mathbf p -\mathbf p_4\|}.$$

For the picture the four charges equal 1 and are located at the points $$(\pm 1,\pm 1,0)$$. The displayed surface is the equipotential surface (implicit surface) $$F(x,y,z)-2.8=0$$.

Constant distance product surface
A Cassini oval can be defined as the point set for which the product of the distances to two given points is constant (in contrast, for an ellipse the sum is constant). In a similar way implicit surfaces can be defined by a constant distance product to several fixed points.

In the diagram metamorphoses the upper left surface is generated by this rule: With

\begin{align} F(x,y,z) = {} & \Big( \sqrt{(x-1)^2+y^2+z^2}\cdot \sqrt{(x+1)^2+y^2+z^2} \\ & \qquad \cdot \sqrt{x^2+(y-1)^2+z^2}\cdot\sqrt{x^2+(y+1)^2+z^2} \Big) \end{align} $$

the constant distance product surface $$F(x,y,z)-1.1=0$$ is displayed.

Metamorphoses of implicit surfaces
A further simple method to generate new implicit surfaces is called metamorphosis of implicit surfaces:

For two implicit surfaces $$F_1(x,y,z)=0, F_2(x,y,z)=0$$ (in the diagram: a constant distance product surface and a torus) one defines new surfaces using the design parameter $$ \mu \in [0,1]$$:
 * $$F(x,y,z)=\mu F_1(x,y,z)+(1-\mu)F_2(x,y,z)=0$$

In the diagram the design parameter is successively $$\mu=0, \, 0.33, \, 0.66, \, 1$$.

Smooth approximations of several implicit surfaces
$$\Pi$$-surfaces can be used to approximate any given smooth and bounded object in $$R^3$$ whose surface is defined by a single polynomial as a product of subsidiary polynomials. In other words, we can design any smooth object with a single algebraic surface. Let us denote the defining polynomials as $$f_i\in\mathbb{R}[x_1,\ldots,x_n](i=1,\ldots,k)$$. Then, the approximating object is defined by the polynomial
 * $$F(x,y,z) = \prod_i f_i(x,y,z) - r$$

where $$r\in\mathbb{R}$$ stands for the blending parameter that controls the approximating error.

Analogously to the smooth approximation with implicit curves, the equation
 * $$F(x,y,z)=F_1(x,y,z)\cdot F_2(x,y,z)\cdot F_3(x,y,z) -r= 0$$

represents for suitable parameters $$c$$ smooth approximations of three intersecting tori with equations

\begin{align} F_1=(x^2+y^2+z^2+R^2-a^2)^2-4R^2(x^2+y^2)=0, \\[3pt] F_2=(x^2+y^2+z^2+R^2-a^2)^2-4R^2(x^2+z^2)=0, \\[3pt] F_3=(x^2+y^2+z^2+R^2-a^2)^2-4R^2(y^2+z^2)=0. \end{align} $$

(In the diagram the parameters are $$ R=1, \, a=0.2, \, r=0.01.$$)

Visualization of implicit surfaces
There are various algorithms for rendering implicit surfaces, including the marching cubes algorithm. Essentially there are two ideas for visualizing an implicit surface: One generates a net of polygons which is visualized (see surface triangulation) and the second relies on ray tracing which determines intersection points of rays with the surface. The intersection points can be approximated by sphere tracing, using a signed distance function to find the distance to the surface.

title: Implicit surface


text:
Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union

The Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union (RAOU), now part of BirdLife Australia, was Australia's largest non-government, non-profit, bird conservation organisation. It was founded in 1901 to promote the study and conservation of the native bird species of Australia and adjacent regions, making it Australia's oldest national birding association. In 1996, the organisation adopted the trading name of Birds Australia for most public purposes, while retaining its original name for legal purposes and as the publisher of its journal, the Emu. In 2012, the RAOU merged with Bird Observation & Conservation Australia to form BirdLife Australia.

The RAOU was the instigator of the Atlas of Australian Birds project. It also published (in association with Oxford University Press) the encyclopaedic Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Its quarterly colour membership magazine was Wingspan. The RAOU is the Australian Partner of BirdLife International, and had the motto "Conservation through Knowledge".

Establishment
The RAOU was formally constituted (as the Australasian Ornithologist's Union ) on 1 July 1901 in Melbourne, Victoria, following a series of informal meetings held by a small group of amateur ornithologists from 1896. The driving force behind the formation of the union was Archibald J. Campbell. Its founding membership was 137, including six women and 10 overseas members.

The first general meeting of members was held in Adelaide on 1 November 1901, where office-bearers were elected. The first president was Colonel William Vincent Legge of Tasmania, the secretary was Dudley Le Souef, the treasurer Robert Hall, and the editors Archibald J. Campbell and Henry Kendall. Such general meetings, soon termed "congresses" were held annually thereafter and were normally accompanied by the annual "campouts" of several days' duration, which gave members the opportunity to meet and to collect specimens and eggs.

Early years
Many RAOU members in the early 20th century called themselves "oologists", though the distinction between the notionally scientific discipline of oology and simple egg-collecting was blurred. Identification of any but the most common and distinctive species usually entailed the collection of specimens to be made into study skins. Modern field guides did not exist and few people could afford the massive multi-volume, lavishly illustrated handbooks of John Gould and Gregory Mathews. However, both Archibald J. Campbell and Alfred North had produced comprehensive guides to what was known about the nests and eggs of Australian birds, with illustrations of the eggs rather than the birds themselves, reflecting the dominance of egg and skin collecting in ornithology of the time.

On 12 April 1905, some Melbourne members formed the Bird Observers Club to facilitate more frequent and less formal meetings and field-trips. At this time, membership of the union was a prerequisite for membership of the club. In 1916, when the union acquired its own room for meetings and storage of donated specimens, it became impossible for the club to share the use of the room. This led to the club becoming inactive for the next few years, though it was successfully revived as an independent entity in 1927.

In 1907, the issue of bird conservation was raised prominently with the publication, in the Emu, of articles and photographs by Arthur Mattingley depicting starving egret nestlings in a breeding colony where the parent birds had been shot for the international trade in plumes for millinery. The photographs were widely reprinted internationally as part of a campaign to halt the trade. As a result, the fashion for wearing plumes in hats and head-dresses changed and the market collapsed.

In 1909, the union was one of the first major sponsors of the Gould League of Bird Lovers, which was founded by Jessie McMichael and supported by John Albert Leach, the Director of Nature Study in the Victorian Education Department. In 1910, the union was given permission by King George V, newly ascended to the throne, to use the prefix "Royal" on what had hitherto been simply the "Australasian Ornithologists Union".

Early in 1913, the first Official Checklist of the Birds of Australia was published as a supplement to the Emu. For many years, the compilation of checklists and the production of regular supplements to them was a constant activity, and the position of Chairman of the Checklist Committee was an important one. Almost immediately after the first Checklist was published, it was apparent that work needed to be continued towards a second edition, eventually published in 1926.

Changing attitudes
1911 was marked by the publication of An Australian Bird Book, by John Albert Leach. The popularity of the first edition ensured that a series of further editions and reprints continued into the 1960s. This was followed in 1931 with the first publication of Neville Cayley's What Bird is That?, further editions of which continued to be published into the 1980s. These books were focussed on bird identification rather than collecting and were affordable to the general public. They reflected the shifting mood in amateur ornithology, through the first half of the 20th century, from collecting to observation.

The annual campouts were increasingly being seen as opportunities for bird-watching, photography and non-destructive studies. During the 1933 campout near Moree, New South Wales, extensive egg-collecting by the oologists present aroused much criticism from other members; the egg-collectors were later formally censured. This growing split between members' attitudes to bird-study came to a head at the 1935 campout at Marlo, eastern Victoria, when a museum ornithologist, George Mack, provocatively shot a scarlet robin at its nest, which had been under observation by the party. This caused outrage among many members and was followed by a decision of the RAOU Council to appoint a committee to reconsider the question of collecting. The result was a policy that collecting of specimens, except under government permit, was not acceptable, and that no collecting should take place at campouts anyway.

Decline and division
Membership of the RAOU, after reaching a peak in the 1920s, went into a decline during the Great Depression and the Second World War, and there were difficulties meeting the costs of printing the Emu. After the War, membership numbers began to rise again. However, during the 1950s and 1960s, there was further division between the members. There were those who enjoyed the clubby atmosphere of the campouts and the comfortable, sometimes chatty, style of the Emu. Others, including those professionally involved in ornithology, as well as the more scientifically rigorous amateurs, wanted the RAOU to be scientifically credible and to publish an ornithological journal that merited international recognition.

The sudden death of Charles Bryant in 1960, while editor of the Emu, was another blow. He had edited and managed the publication of the journal for over 30 years, but had not prepared for his successor. Those who did succeed him during the 1960s struggled to maintain, let alone develop, the journal in a way that the membership and the changing times demanded, and its issue, due to problems with the printers, was becoming erratic. Moreover, the accounts were falling into disarray and the administrative backlog was becoming worse each year. There was increasing criticism from members, especially from the ACT branch, which contained a high proportion of professional scientists as members.

In a letter sent to the RAOU Council meeting in July 1966, the ACT branch strongly criticised the standard of the Emu, the administrative disorder, and the passivity regarding conservation and field studies. It finished by proposing two formal motions to (i) adopt active policies for organising research, publicity and education, and to (ii) set up a committee to implement the former. Subsequently, in September 1966, such a reform committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Keith Hindwood. However, the lack of agreement between committee members led to its disbandment in August 1967, less than a year later. The RAOU was in crisis.

Reform and revival
Up to this point, the Emu had been the only serial publication produced by the RAOU for all members, and was by far the biggest financial cost to the organisation. For a majority of members the receipt of the journal was the only direct contact they had with the RAOU. Yet the content of Emu was being assailed from both the 'scientists' who wanted more rigour and less in-house material, and from the 'amateurs' who disliked the scientific language of many papers. The long-term solution would be to cater separately for both groups. The start of this process came with the decision by the RAOU Council in 1968 to allow for a type of membership without a subscription to Emu. The next step was when Jack Hyett resigned as editor of Emu in 1968, the ACT Branch nominated Stephen Marchant for the editorship, and he was elected unopposed. Marchant was editor for the next twelve years and he transformed Emu into the lean and rigorous journal the 'scientists' wanted.

With regard to other necessary reforms, the new president, Allan McEvey, set up a new review committee of two, Dom Serventy and himself. Serventy, a scientist with the CSIRO, was the principal writer of the review report and he addressed both the need for a sense of what the RAOU should be doing, and the structure that would allow it to do so. Although there was considerable vocal opposition to the reform proposals (including cutting the number of people on Council from an unwieldy forty to just nine) the report was ratified by Council in April 1969 and adopted at an Extraordinary General Meeting in June 1969, with the vote being over 80% in favour. Later that year came the first issue of the RAOU Newsletter, a publication that would evolve to become the magazine Wingspan.

A perhaps unavoidable consequence of the reforms was the alienation of some of the members and Council officers. The drastic reduction in the number of Councillors meant that many regional positions in particular no longer existed. Some members left the organisation and many transferred their active loyalty to the Bird Observers Club. Independent regional groups were established to cater for those who felt disenfranchised by the new order, replacing previous RAOU branches. A comparison of the names of Council officers between 1968 and 1972 shows almost complete replacement, with most change occurring between 1969 and 1970. The process of renewal was painful and the sense of alienation, for some, was permanent.

One test of the reformed RAOU was to be the extent of its involvement with the International Ornithological Congress (IOC), held in Canberra in 1974 with about 800 delegates attending. The secretary-general of the congress (i.e. the principal organiser) was Dr Harold Frith who was not only one of the hardliners of the 'scientists' faction of the pre-reform RAOU, but had also threatened to start a competing group with its own journal if the reforms had not proceeded. Ultimately the RAOU contributed to the success of the IOC through provision of funding (along with the Australian Academy of Science (AAC) and the administrative assistance of the CSIRO), and with the organisation of excursions for delegates. The appointment in 1974 of Tommy Garnett as RAOU secretary was also a move that assisted in bringing order to the growing administrative demands of the evolving organisation.

Projects, personnel and property
An essential part of the revolution within the RAOU in the late 1960s, and its evolution during the 1970s was a strong push to carry out scientific field studies with the involvement of volunteers. The first of the major projects undertaken was the Atlas of Australian Birds. Fieldwork for this project took place over five calendar years 1977-1981 and transformed the organisation. Pauline Reilly was RAOU president and an enthusiastic proponent of the Atlas in the years leading up to the fieldwork phase of the project and she was subsequently Chair of the Atlas Committee which oversaw the project. The first paid staff members of the RAOU were appointed in connection with the project, and the first property, a small house in Dryburgh Street, North Melbourne, acquired as premises for it in 1976. It soon became obvious that the house was too small and an upgrade was necessary; it was replaced in 1979 by a house in Gladstone Street, Moonee Ponds. The logistics of managing a national bird atlassing project, with 3000 volunteer atlassers mapping the avifauna of a continent, stretched the resources of the organisation beyond reasonable limits, but the RAOU was forced to grow in the process.

The period of the first Atlas also coincided with a move to establish bird observatories as field research centres. These were Eyre in 1976, Rotamah Island in 1979, Barren Grounds in 1982, and Broome in 1988. Later the emphasis shifted from the establishment of field centres to the purchase of large properties as habitat conservation, with the acquisition of Gluepot Reserve in 1997 and Newhaven Reserve in 2000.

Reconciling with the "amateurs"...
Between the beginning and the end of the first Atlas project RAOU membership grew from fewer than a thousand to over two thousand. Not all Atlassers became members, but many did, and most of them were not interested in subscribing to the Emu but were happy to receive the RAOU Newsletter that contained all the informal in-house news that the pre-reform Emu had carried. In 1991, the newsletter was renamed Wingspan, a glossy colour magazine received by all members. By 2004, fewer than 20% of RAOU members subscribed to the Emu.

In 1996, the RAOU formally adopted the name Birds Australia for most public purposes, and updated its logo from a lone emu to an emu with a family of chicks, reflecting new growth in the size and number of its regional groups.

...while keeping the "scientists" happy
1996 also saw the first Southern Hemisphere Ornithological Conference (SHOC), held in Albany, Western Australia. This was an initiative of Professor Brian Collins, RAOU president at the time. Another SHOC was held at Griffith University, Brisbane, in 2000 before the RAOU refined its conference concept and initiated the first Australasian Ornithological Conference (AOC), hosted with Charles Sturt University at Bathurst, New South Wales in December 2001. Also from 2001, the direct management and publication of the Emu was outsourced to CSIRO Publishing, which already handled a large stable of international and Australian scientific journals.

HANZAB
Other projects, such as the Australian Bird Count (1989–1995), followed the first Atlas. However, the project that would dominate the period from the early 1980s until 2006 was the Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds (HANZAB). Financially it was the biggest project of all, and one that strained RAOU resources more than any other. The need to provide adequate working conditions for HANZAB staff was one factor that forced another move of its head office to larger premises in Riversdale Road, Hawthorn in 1994.

State of Australia's Birds
Since 2003 Birds Australia has produced an annual State of Australia's Birds (SOAB) report. The reports collate and disseminate information on trends in bird populations to inform Australians of the status of their birds. The 2003 and 2008 editions of SOAB are five-yearly overviews, while the other editions are themed on various aspects of Australian avifauna (e.g. SOAB 2010 was themed on Birds and Islands). Some of the material presented in SOAB is extracted from Birds Australia projects, notably the Atlas of Australian Birds project.

The future
The final volume of HANZAB was published in 2006, and an era in the history of the RAOU came to an end. In March 2007, the RAOU moved its National Office to new, smaller premises in the Green Building at 60 Leicester Street, Carlton, Melbourne.

On 21 May 2011, members of both Birds Australia and Bird Observation & Conservation Australia (BOCA) voted by an overwhelming majority at their respective annual general meetings to merge the two organisations into one entity, to be named BirdLife Australia.

Regional Groups
The RAOU / Birds Australia has several Regional Groups that cater for members based in particular geographic regions of Australia, as well as looking at the bird conservation challenges of those regions. These are:

 * Birds Australia Capricornia (BAC) is a regional group of Birds Australia based in the Rockhampton and Yeppoon region of Central Queensland and covering the geographical area from Bundaberg to Birdsville in the south and Gumlu to Boulia in the North. Birds Australia Capricornia was formed in 2002. Members of Birds Australia resident in the area of coverage are automatically members of the group. A quarterly newsletter is sent to members. Activities provided for members include meetings, a variety of field trips, bird surveys and conservation projects.
 * Birds Australia North Queensland (BANQ)
 * Birds Australia Northern NSW (BANN) is a regional group of Birds Australia based in northern New South Wales. BANN was formed in 1987 following a campout by RAOU members at Dorrigo the previous year. Members of Birds Australia resident in the area of coverage are automatically members of the group. A quarterly newsletter is sent to members. Activities provided for members include meetings, a variety of field trips, bird surveys and conservation projects.
 * Birds Australia Southern NSW & ACT (BASNA)
 * Birds Australia Southern Queensland (BASQ)
 * Birds Australia Victoria (BA-VIC) is the Victorian regional group of Birds Australia. BA-VIC was formed in 1982. Members of Birds Australia resident in Victoria are automatically members of BA-VIC. The quarterly newsletter is Vic Babbler. Activities provided for members include monthly meetings, a variety of excursions and campouts, bird surveys and conservation projects. Past presidents include prominent ornithologists Margaret Cameron and Tim Dolby. BA-VIC also organizes the Victorian Twitchathon and Birdline Victoria. In 2009, in association with Allen & Unwin, BA-VIC published a new bird book, Where to See Birds in Victoria, edited by Tim Dolby, featuring the best places in Victoria for seeing birds.
 * Birds Australia Western Australia (BAWA) is the Western Australian regional group of Birds Australia. BAWA was formed in 1943 and incorporated in 2001. Members of Birds Australia resident in Western Australia are automatically members of BAWA. BAWA maintains an office, Peregrine House, at Floreat, Perth. It also publishes a quarterly newsletter, WA Bird Notes. Activities provided for members include monthly meetings, a variety of excursions ranging from half-day outings to extensive campouts, bird surveys and conservation projects.
 * Birds Tasmania (BA-TAS)

Special Interest Groups
The RAOU / Birds Australia has Special Interest Groups that focus attention on particular groups of birds that have special study and conservation needs. These are:
 * Australasian Raptor Association (ARA) - birds of prey, including eagles, falcons, hawks and owls
 * Australasian Seabird Group (ASG) - seabirds, including albatrosses, petrels, penguins, gulls and terns
 * Australasian Wader Studies Group (AWSG) - waders or shorebirds
 * Birds Australia Parrot Association (BAPA) - parrots, including cockatoos, lories and lorikeets. It publishes the newsletter Eclectus. It was formed in 1996 with the objectives:
 * To develop plans for parrot research and management in Australasia in conjunction with other interested bodies;
 * To coordinate and encourage scientific projects using amateur and professional skills;
 * To encourage and assist with the publication of results;
 * To maintain effective communication on parrot matters within Australasia, and with similar groups elsewhere; and
 * To formulate and promote policies for the conservation and management of parrots and their habitat.
 * In 2007 a new Birds Australia Ethnoornithology Special Interest Group was established.

Bird observatories
Four bird observatories were established by the RAOU in order to provide accommodation and act as bases for research, education and recreation, in areas of particular interest and bird richness. Two of these, Barren Grounds Bird Observatory in NSW, and Rotamah Island Bird Observatory in Victoria, have since been closed for economic reasons. The two remaining observatories, both in Western Australia, are:
 * Broome Bird Observatory (BBO)
 * Eyre Bird Observatory (EBO)

Reserves
The RAOU has established two reserves, through the purchase of large pastoral leases, in order to protect extensive areas of important bird habitat. They are: Newhaven Reserve was sold to the Australian Wildlife Conservancy in 2007. The RAOU retains access rights for its members and a say in monitoring and research on the reserve through the Newhaven Management Committee.
 * Gluepot Reserve
 * Newhaven Reserve

Honours and awards
The RAOU has always recognised service to the organisation and to ornithology through the granting of the title of Fellow of the Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union (FRAOU) to a small and limited number of individuals. It also recognises excellence in contributions to ornithological knowledge through annual awards: the D.L. Serventy Medal for outstanding published work on birds in the Australasian region, and the John Hobbs Medal for major contributions to amateur ornithology.

Notable members

 * Gordon Binns
 * Frank Littler (F. M. Littler)
 * Henry Luke White (H. L. White)
 * Harry Wolstenholme

Regional groups

 * Birds Australia homepage (archived 2 June 2009)
 * Birds Australia Capricornia (archived 8 May 2009)
 * Birds Australia Northern NSW (archived 20 July 2008)
 * Birds Australia Tasmania (archived 20 June 2010)
 * Birds Australia Victoria (archived 20 July 2008)

title: Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union


text:
Wecota, South Dakota

Wecota is an unincorporated community in Faulk County, South Dakota, United States.

Wecota was founded in 1907 as a station stop on a branch line of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway built that year between Conde and LeBeau, South Dakota. Railway service to Wecota ended in 1940.

Geography
Wecota is located at Latitude: 45.1725 and Longitude: -99.11722. Elevation: 1558 ft.

Wecota has been assigned the ZIP code 57438 and the FIPS place code 46–69900. The local area code is 605.

The town has two streets, Main Street and Third Avenue. The town was platted with five streets and five avenues, but only Main Street and Third Avenue developed.

The post office opened April 10, 1907. Wecota is nine miles north of Faulkton, the county seat.

The name is thought to come from the Sioux language and mean friend.

title: Wecota, South Dakota


text: Category:Communication theory

title: Category:Communication theory


text:
Talk:List of ants of Great Britain

Silvestral?
What does silvestral mean? Google and dictionary.com didn't turn up anything useful. Lupin 03:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * means that they live in trees, presumably. What else could it mean?! ;) --81.134.132.242 3 July 2005 19:51 (UTC)

rename?
per Naming Conventions, shouldn't this be Ants in the United Kingdom or something like that? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 07:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Wynler 19:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * i agree too but only because the word british makes me cringe. Marge4 19:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If a name change is necessary, I think "Ants of the British isles" would be more suitable. "United Kingdom" only refers to part of the British Isles; ant colonies obviously don't know or care where the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic is. --Krsont 11:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay renamed to Ants of Great Britain. Jack (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Renamed again to List of ants of Great Britain. Jack (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge from List of non-endemic ant species introduced to Great Britain
List of non-endemic ant species introduced to Great Britain only has a small amount of information which would be better presented here. Jack (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since no objection has been made, I have implemented the merge. Unreferenced material has been removed, you can check the page history if you can find citations for any other discoveries. Jack (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

What?!

 * Strongylognathus testaceus – obligate dulote found only with Tetramorium, from the list, fifth from the bottom. What is an obligate dulote? Is this subtle vandalism or a typo or incomprehensible academic language? Even Google is stumped. I think a replacement or a link would be helpful. Richard Avery (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of ants of Great Britain


text:
Talk:Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union

Merge proposal
This article is probably less important than Birds Australia, since that is the RAOU's new name. --VivaEmilyDavies 03:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * That depends - if someone is prepared to write up the importance of 'The Emu' and the earlier stages of the RAOU within the Australian Scientific establishments and society, then it is worth a stand alon status. If no one comes up with the goods, it is an obvious candidate for a merge, and again the lack of historical understanding in wiki strikes again!!SatuSuro 02:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made a couple of minor edits to the article so far. I agree that it needs much more material on the history. I feel that because the RAOU remains the legal name of what may now be more commonly called Birds Australia, that this should remain the main article and that 'Birds Australia' be merged into it, with a redirect added. Maias 05:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Broome and Eyre Observatories details and History need to be in or the West Aust branch detail at some stage SatuSuro 12:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

 * True. I am adding stuff bit by bit and will get round to it eventually. But quite possibly you know more about RAOU in WA than I do. Maias 13:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I intend to go ahead with this merge proposal in the near future on the grounds that RAOU is the legal and fundamental title of the organisation. If there is further argument please comment. Maias 13:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE DO! They need to join SatuSuro 13:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Note the changed merge tags suggest the debate is here, not at Talk:Birds Australia where it was. Please keep further debate there, but I fully support the merge as now proposed. --Bduke 00:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 * A possible good comparison for the 20's and 30's was the Noisy Scrub Bird and Duke of Edinburgh issue in the 1960s (?)- I dont know if that was RAOU or one of the other groups herer in Perth at the time SatuSuro 05:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The rediscovery of the Noisy Scrub-bird was in December 1961. However, the gazetting of the reserve did not take place until 1967.  Libby Robin, in The Flight of the Emu, mentions that this took place following pressure from 'local, national and international conservationists, including the Duke of Edinburgh'.  Since the Duke was then (and still is) the Patron of the RAOU, it would seem quite possible that his intervention was due to a direct request to him from the RAOU.  However, I do not have any documentary evidence of this - though I have not yet gone through the Emus of the time.  It is an interesting point. Maias 00:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The State Ref Library online cat has 9 entries about noisy scrub bird - no notes though. I think from memory (!) he [DoE] was here for the Commonwelth Games here in Perth - and someone took him down to have a look. His comments were carried in the local press, either west australian or sunday times. Will try to work out his times in Perth/WA later, will take time :) SatuSuro 01:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There has been no objection to merging Birds Australia into Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, so I have gone ahead with the merge. Maias 03:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA
I failed this for one big reason: no inline references. Before this article can be considered again (and I think it could use more and better pictures), that has to be taken care of. Daniel Case 13:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge from AWSG proposal
Oppose. Although the AWSG is a special interest group of the RAOU, it is largely independently run, publishes its own journal, has a very separate identity and is notable in its own right. Moreover, RAOU is already quite a lengthy article and, although AWSG is currently tagged as a stub, there is plenty more that could be said about it. For example, the series of NW Australia wader expeditions, that has been carried out under AWSG authority approximately annually for around 25 years, could well deserve a lengthy article on its own. RAOU is not only a notable organisation but a complex and diverse one; trying to lump all its related activities into one article would make it cumbersome and inevitably, down the road, lead to proposals for splitting. The same argument applies to to merge proposals from other special interest groups.Maias 07:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No consensus - tag removed.Maias 07:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge from BAPA proposal
Oppose. See comment in previous section. Maias 05:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Merges
Both these merges are rather unclear. Both had mergto tags on their pages. The second still has, but no mergefrom tags were placed, as far as I can see, on this article. Also the initials are unclear. BAPA goes to something else but does link to the intended destination at Birds Australia Parrot Association. AWSG is a redirect to Australasian Wader Studies Group. Could everyone please not assume everybody knows what all these initials are. I agree with Maias about "Birds Australia Parrot Association". Can we now remove the mergeto tag or should we add the mergefrom tag to this article to get more debate. I also agree with Maias about "Australasian Wader Studies Group", but there are now no merge tags on either article, so this is how it stays unless someone adds the merge tags again. --Bduke 09:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I note the proposals to merge the various regional group articles into the main RAOU one. I oppose this on much the same grounds as in my comment above on the merge from AWSG proposal. The regional groups essentially run themselves and have their own histories, projects, publications and activities. They are certainly affiliated with the RAOU but have little in the way of day-to-day contact with it. Although their articles may currently be stubs, they are all capable of being considerably expanded. I see absolutely no point in making RAOU a hideously long and lumpy article when it is probably already long enough. Maias 07:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since there is clearly no support for these merges after nearly 2 months, I am going to remove the merge tags, thus closing the debate. --Bduke 03:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union. 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://archive.is/20120721063751/http://www.birdsaustralia.com.au/homepage-news/dial-m-for-merger.html to http://www.birdsaustralia.com.au/homepage-news/dial-m-for-merger.html
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20090602124404/http%3A//www.birdsaustralia.com.au/ to http://www.birdsaustralia.com.au/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090508083505/http://www.irock.com.au/~birdscapricornia/ to http://www.irock.com.au/~birdscapricornia/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620141051/http://www.birdsaustralia.com.au/the-organisation/tasmania.html to http://www.birdsaustralia.com.au/the-organisation/tasmania.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20080720064308/http://www.birdsaustralia.com.au/the-organisation/victoria.html to http://www.birdsaustralia.com.au/the-organisation/victoria.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


text:
Playmakers

Playmakers is an American drama television series created by John Eisendrath that aired on ESPN from August 26 to November 11, 2003. It depicts the lives of the Cougars, a fictional professional football team playing in an unidentified city. The show stars Omar Gooding, Marcello Thedford, Christopher Wiehl, Jason Matthew Smith, Russell Hornsby, and Tony Denison. The show, which ran eleven episodes, was the first original drama series created by ESPN. Although the ratings were very high for ESPN—Playmakers was the highest-rated show on the network other than its Sunday night NFL and Saturday college football games—ESPN eventually canceled the series under pressure from the National Football League, who disliked the portrayal of the negative aspects of its players' lives off the field.

Style
The show follows the lives of various members of an ensemble cast who portray the players and personnel on a fictional American football team, the Cougars, in a fictional league (referred to in the series as "The League" ) during the regular season.

Many of these segments are prefaced by an internal monologue in the format of a character narrating in his head.

Main

 * Omar Gooding as Demetrius Harris, #39 - A rookie running back from Colorado.
 * Marcello Thedford as Kelvin "The Buffalo" James, #60 - A fourth year offensive tackle from Oklahoma State.
 * Christopher Wiehl as Derek McConnell, #11 - A fourth year quarterback from Louisville.
 * Jason Matthew Smith as Eric Olczyk, #54 - A fifth year middle linebacker from Penn State.
 * Russell Hornsby as Leon Taylor, #33 - A ninth year running back from USC.
 * Anthony John Denison as Coach Mike George - The head coach in his ninth season with the team.

Recurring

 * Stephen Bogaert - Phil Chambers, Team Equipment Manager
 * Bruce Gray - Gene Wilbanks, the team's owner
 * Phillip Jarrett - Coach Rudman, Defensive Coordinator and close friend of Coach George
 * Karen LeBlanc - Robin Taylor, Leon's wife
 * Thea Andrews - Samantha Lovett, reporter who presumably shows a love interest for Leon Taylor.
 * Dan Petronijevic - Thad Guerwicz, a wide receiver who is a closeted gay man
 * Kevin Jubinville - Dr. Gatewood, The team Physician
 * Sasha Roiz - Stephen Lyles, Assistant Head Coach and Offensive Coordinator
 * Gabriel Hogan - Guard Dog Fredericks
 * Tacquira LaTouche - Herself
 * Frank Chiesurin - David, Guerwictz's boyfriend
 * Laura Jordan - August, Guerwictz's girlfriend and later fiancé to publicly cover up his homosexuality
 * K. C. Collins - Ron Martin, a rookie Wide Receiver for the Cougars.

DVD
The only season of Playmakers was released on DVD by ESPN Home Video in 2004.

Awards

 * Won AFI TV Award, Top TV Series (2003)
 * Won GLAAD Media Award, Outstanding Drama Series (2004)
 * Nominated CSC Award, Best Cinematography in TV Series (2004)
 * Nominated DGC Craft Award, Outstanding Achievement in Sound Editing - Television Series (2004)

title: Playmakers


text:
Northwestern Oklahoma State University

Northwestern Oklahoma State University (NWOSU) is a public university in Alva, Oklahoma, with satellite campuses in Enid and Woodward. It offers both bachelor's and master's degrees.

History
In 1897, a normal school, or school for teachers, was established in Alva by an act of the Oklahoma Territorial Legislature. It was the second normal school in Oklahoma, charged with preparing teachers to serve the many one-room schoolhouses that covered the prairie. It was called the Northwestern Territorial Normal School. The new school's faculty consisted of the school's first president, James E. Ament, and two teachers. Classes were held in the Congregational Church until construction of the first building, the "Castle on the Hill", was complete on September 20, 1897.

In 1902 biology department head, Professor G.W. Stevens, established The Museum of Natural History at the school. The museum contains a large collection of biological specimens native to Oklahoma, as well as hundreds of Alaskan mammal and bird specimens collected by Stevens during a seven-month trip in 1908. The museum was closed from January 1975 to September 3, 1997, opening after extensive restoration efforts were performed. The museum is located on the second floor of the Jesse Dunn Building, and is the second oldest museum in Oklahoma.

The school became a four-year teachers college in 1919 and changed its name to Northwestern Oklahoma Teachers College. The school expanded in 1939 to include degrees in liberal arts as well as education, and its name changed again, to Northwestern State College. The final name change occurred in 1974 when the school was given its present name.

Northwestern's greatest tragedy happened on March 1, 1935, when the Castle on the Hill was destroyed by fire. In 1948, a contest was organized to adopt a new school fight song and a new alma mater. The winning submissions were announced in March 1949. Both were made by Floyd McClain, a 1940 graduate of Northwestern who was then attending the Boston Conservatory of Music. The new fight song was entitled "Ride, Rangers, Ride", and the new alma mater was entitled "Oh Northwestern". They are still the official fight song and alma mater, although band directors have altered the arrangements over the years. In 1957, a contest was launched to select a motto for the university. The motto chosen was "Learn Today, Lead Tomorrow", submitted by Kay Hutcheson, a junior student at Northwestern.

In 1951, the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education authorized Northwestern to offer courses, transferable to the University of Oklahoma or Oklahoma State University, applying toward a master's degree in education. In 1954, the board approved a program leading to a master of education degree at Northwestern.

In the fall of 1978 Northwestern implemented a program leading to a master of behavioral science degree. A nursing degree program was established in the fall of 1981 to respond to the nursing shortage in northwest Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Legislature passed legislation that created two new branch campuses at Enid and Woodward. Northwestern became one of the first institutions to establish a bachelor of e-commerce degree in the fall of 2000.

More than 100 years have passed since Northwestern Oklahoma State University opened its doors. Since then, it has progressed from a normal school offering only teaching certificates to an institution offering degrees at the bachelor's and master's levels. The 1897 campus of 40 acre without buildings in one town has now become more than 400 acre and 36 buildings located in three communities. The three faculty members and 68 students have increased to more than 220 faculty and staff members and more than 2,300 students.

Academics
Northwestern offers Bachelor of Arts degrees and Bachelor of Science degrees in more than 40 areas of study. The university's academic programs are set up in two schools—the School of Arts and Sciences and the School of Professional Studies.

Athletics
The Northwestern Oklahoma State (NWOSU) athletic teams are called the Rangers. The university is a member of the Division II level of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), primarily competing in the Great American Conference (GAC) since the 2012–13 academic year. The Rangers previously competed in the Sooner Athletic Conference of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) from 2001–02 to 2011–12; in the Red River Athletic Conference (RRAC) from 1998–99 to 2000–01; as an NAIA Independent during the 1997–98 school year; in the Oklahoma Intercollegiate Conference (OIC) from 1974–75 to 1996–97.

NWOSU competes in 16 intercollegiate varsity sports: Men's sports include baseball, basketball, cheerleading, cross country, football, golf and rodeo; while women's sports include basketball, cheerleading, cross country, golf, rodeo, soccer, softball and volleyball.

Move to NCAA Division II

On May 11, 2011, Northwestern Oklahoma State announced that they had accepted an invitation to the Great American Conference for all sports in the 2012–13 academic year and would begin their transition from the NAIA to NCAA Division II. On July 12, 2011, Northwestern Oklahoma State University was denied admittance into the NCAA Division II Membership Process for the 2011–12 cycle; the school was accepted one year later.

Schools must complete a membership process, spanning 3 years, before gaining active status and becoming eligible for championship competition. On July 17, 2015, the NCAA announced that effective September 1, 2015, the school had become active Division II members.

Notable alumni

 * Mike Adenuga, billionaire entrepreneur (founder of Nigeria's Globacom) and philanthropist
 * Odie Armstrong, professional football player
 * Vaughn Ary, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the United States Marine Corps
 * Patrick Crayton, professional football player
 * Mike Hargrove, professional baseball player and manager
 * Joe L. Heaton, Chief United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
 * Harold Keith, author of Rifles for Watie
 * Ron Moore, professional football player
 * Chip Myers, professional football player
 * Gaylon Nickerson, professional basketball player
 * Harvey Harlow Nininger, meteoriticist
 * Lynn Scott, professional football player
 * Brian Sochia, professional football player
 * Stockton Graves, Professional Rodeo Cowboy Association steer wrestler and Head Rodeo Coach at NWOSU
 * Tim Albin, Head Football Coach at the University of Ohio
 * Greg Johnson (American football coach), former head football coach at Prairie View A&M University, and Langston University
 * Ronnie Jones (American football), current head coach of the Northwestern Oklahoma State Rangers Football team and longtime NFL coach
 * John B. Doolin, justice on the Oklahoma Supreme Court
 * Bill Overstreet, mayor of Juneau, Alaska
 * Mark Steffen, member of the Kansas State Senate
 * Mike Silva, head baseball coach at Nichols State University
 * Samuel W. Hayes, Chief Justice of the Oklahoma Supreme Court
 * A. DeWade Langley, Director of the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation
 * Odie Armstrong, professional football player
 * Louis Wilke, head football coach at Phillips University

title: Northwestern Oklahoma State University