text:
Velma Springstead Trophy

The Velma Springstead Trophy is an award presented annually to Canada's outstanding female athlete. It is named in honour of track athlete Velma Springstead whose career ended prematurely when she died from pneumonia in 1927 when only 20 years old. The Women's Amateur Athletic Federation (WAAF) of Canada founded this award in 1934. The trophy, also known as the "Rose Bowl," was donated by Alexandrine Gibb, sportswriter with the Toronto Star. The trophy was to be awarded on the basis of "performance, sportsmanship and behaviour." The award is now managed by the True Sport Foundation.

Past recipients

 * 2012 - Rosie MacLennan, trampoline
 * 2011 – Christine Nesbitt, speed skating
 * 2010 – Christine Nesbitt, speed skating
 * 2009 – Christine Nesbitt, speed skating
 * 2008 – Chantal Petitclerc, Athletics
 * 2007 – Kalyna Roberge, speed skating
 * 2006 – Cindy Klassen, speed skating
 * 2005 – Cindy Klassen, speed skating
 * 2004 – Chantal Petitclerc, wheelchair athletics
 * 2003 – Perdita Felicien, track and field
 * 2002 – Catriona Le May Doan, speed skating
 * 2001 – Catriona Le May Doan, speed skating
 * 2000 – Caroline Brunet, canoeing
 * 1999 – Caroline Brunet, canoeing
 * 1998 – Catriona Le May Doan, speed skating
 * 1997 – Caroline Brunet, canoeing
 * 1996 – Alison Sydor, cycling
 * 1995 – Alison Sydor, cycling
 * 1994 – Myriam Bédard, biathlon
 * 1993 – Kate Pace, alpine skiing
 * 1992 – Kerrin Lee-Gartner, alpine skiing
 * 1991 – Silken Laumann, rowing
 * 1990 – Sylvie Daigle, speed skating
 * 1989 – Heather Houston, curling
 * 1988 – Carolyn Waldo, synchronized swimming
 * 1987 – Carolyn Waldo, synchronized swimming
 * 1986 – Carolyn Waldo, synchronized swimming
 * 1985 – Carolyn Waldo, synchronized swimming
 * 1984 – Linda Thom, shooting
 * 1983 – Lynn Chronobrywy, modern pentathlon
 * 1982 – Angella Taylor-Issajenko, track and field
 * 1981 – Susan Nattrass, shooting
 * 1980 – Angella Taylor-Issajenko, track and field
 * 1979 – Helen Vanderberg, synchronized swimming
 * 1978 – Diane Jones-Konihowski, track and field & Cathy Sherk, golfer
 * 1977 – Sylvia Burka, cycling & Susan Nattrass, shooting
 * 1976 – Cheryl Gibson, swimming
 * 1975 – Nancy Garapick, swimming & Diane Jones, track and field
 * 1974 – Wendy Cook, swimming
 * 1973 – Karen Magnussen, figure skating
 * 1972 – Karen Magnussen, figure skating
 * 1971 – Karen Magnussen, figure skating
 * 1970 –
 * 1969 – Linda Crutchfield-Bocock, luge
 * 1968 –
 * 1967 –
 * 1966 – Elaine Tanner, swimming
 * 1965 – Petra Burka, figure skating
 * 1964 – Gail Daley, artistic gymnastics
 * 1963 – Nancy McCredie, track and field
 * 1962 – Mary Stewart, swimming
 * 1961 – Mary Stewart, swimming
 * 1960 – Anne Heggtveit, skiing
 * 1959 – Anne Heggtveit, skiing
 * 1958 – Lucille Wheeler, skiing
 * 1957 – Marlene Streit, golfer
 * 1956 – Marlene Streit, golfer
 * 1955 –
 * 1954 – Ernestine Russell - gymnastics
 * 1953 – Marlene Streit, golfer
 * 1952 – Marlene Streit, golfer
 * 1951 –
 * 1950 – Rosella Thorne, track and field (sprinter)
 * 1949 – Eleanor McKenzie, track and field (sprinter)
 * 1948 – Viola Myers, track and field
 * 1947 – Barbara Ann Scott, figure skater
 * 1946 – Irene Strong, swimmer
 * 1945 – Barbara Ann Scott, figure skater
 * 1944 – Rhona Wurtele and Rhoda Wurtele, skiing
 * 1943 – Joan Langdon, swimming
 * 1942 – Joan Langdon, swimming
 * 1941 – Mary Rose Thacker, figure skating
 * 1940 – Dorothy Walton, badminton
 * 1939 – Jeanette Dolson, track and field
 * 1938 – Noel MacDonald, basketball
 * 1937 – Robina Higgins, track and field
 * 1936 – Betty Taylor, track and field
 * 1935 – Aileen Meagher, track and field
 * 1934 – Phyllis Dewar, swimming

title: Velma Springstead Trophy


text:
Racino

A racino is a combined horse racing track, or other live parimutuel betting facility, and casino. In some cases, the permitted form of casino gambling is limited to slot machines or video lottery terminals, but many locations also offer table games such as blackjack, poker, and roulette. As of the end of 2023, there were approximately 50 racinos operating in the United States. Racinos operate in other countries around the world, as well, including Canada and France.

History in the United States
Beginning in the late 1970’s, the popularity of horse racing began to decline in the United States, as evidenced by the inflation-adjusted decline in wagering by 52 percent from a peak in 1977 through 2006. This decline in wagering occurred despite efforts to increase parimutuel wagering through initiatives such as off-track betting and advance-deposit wagering. The decline is generally attributed to the introduction and growth of casino gambling and lottery gaming.

In 1990, West Virginia authorized the installation of several hundred video lottery terminals at Mountaineer Park as part of a pilot program that eventually became law in 1994.

In 1992, in response to the opening of the Foxwoods Native American casino nearby in Connecticut, the Rhode Island legislature passed a bill permitting electronic gaming devices at the state’s two parimutuel wagering venues, Lincoln Greyhound Park and Newport Jai Alai.

An early success story was the mid-1990s turnaround of the Prairie Meadows racetrack, in Polk County, Iowa. Prairie Meadows, which opened in 1989 but went bankrupt by 1991, was bought by the county government in 1993. As reported in a January 2003 study for the Massachusetts State Lottery Commission: "In 1994, Iowa voters authorized slot machines at Iowa racetracks (including Greyhound tracks). Polk County spent an additional $26 million to convert the Prairie Meadows clubhouse into a casino and install 1,100 slot machines. On April 1, 1995 the slot casino (or 'racino') opened for business. In the 12 months ended March 31, 1996 machine revenues totaled $119.3 million, enabling Polk County to pay off the $27 million bond issue that paid for the clubhouse casino conversion within that initial year and retire the track's initial $38.8 million bond issue 17 years early."

Other states followed suit. Delaware authorized racinos in 1994, and Louisiana and New Mexico in 1997. A number of larger states also enacted enabling legislation, including New York in 2001, Florida and Pennsylvania in 2004, and Ohio in 2011. Most recently, Illinois and Nebraska authorized race tracks to seek casino licenses, in 2019 and 2021 respectively. Some states, notably Massachusetts and Maryland, have declined to specifically designate race tracks as casino locations, but nonetheless have awarded casino licenses to race tracks through open competitive bidding processes. Some other states have declined to authorize casino gambling within their states, but have authorized race tracks to offer historical horse racing machines, which are similar in appearance to slot machines but which award prizes based on the results of old horse races. This style of gambling was first introduced at Oaklawn Park in Arkansas in 2000. Arkansas race tracks were subsequently authorized to offer casino gambling, however, several state, including Kentucky and Virginia, still offer this style of gambling at race tracks.

In some states, certain racinos have been permitted to discontinue live racing and still been permitted to continue their casino operations. Many of these are former greyhound tracks that have closed as result of public sentiment turning against the sport on animal welfare grounds. Only two greyhound tracks continue to operate in the United States, both of which are racinos in West Virginia.

Today there are approximately 50 total racinos operating in 17 U.S. states, not including any tracks offering historical horse racing machines. In 2023, the number one commercial casino in the United State outside of Nevada was a racino, Resorts World New York City located at Aqueduct Racetrack, with approximately $950 million in casino gaming revenue. Four other racinos were also in the top 20, as were two former greyhound racing facilities.

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

title: Racino


text:
Cristuru Secuiesc

Cristuru Secuiesc (Székelykeresztúr, ) is a town in Harghita County, Romania. It lies in the Székely Land, an ethno-cultural region in eastern Transylvania. The town administers two villages: Betești (Betfalva), part of Mugeni until 2004, and Filiaș (Fiatfalva).

Location
Cristuru Secuiesc lies on the Transylvanian Plateau, in the area where the river Goagiu flows into the Târnava Mare. It is located in the southwestern part of the county, on the border with Mureș County. The town is crossed by national road DN13C; Odorheiu Secuiesc is 26 km to the east, while the county seat, Miercurea Ciuc, is 78 km in that direction.

History
The town was part of the Székely Land area of the historical Transylvania province. It belonged to Udvarhelyszék until the administrative reform of Transylvania in 1876, when it fell within the Udvarhely County of the Kingdom of Hungary. In the aftermath of World War I and the Hungarian–Romanian War of 1918–1919, it passed under Romanian administration; after the Treaty of Trianon of 1920, like the rest of Transylvania, it became part of the Kingdom of Romania. During the interwar period, the town fell within Odorhei County. From 1933 to 1940, the town was renamed after I. G. Duca, the Prime Minister of Romania who was assassinated in December 1933 for his efforts to suppress the fascist Iron Guard movement.

In 1940, the Second Vienna Award granted Northern Transylvania to Hungary and the town was held by Hungary until 1944. After Soviet occupation, the Romanian administration returned and the town became officially part of Romania in March 1945. Between 1952 and 1960, Cristuru Secuiesc fell within the Magyar Autonomous Region, between 1960 and 1968 the Mureș-Magyar Autonomous Region. In 1968, the region was abolished, and since then, the town has been part of Harghita County.

Demographics
As of the Romanian census of 2002, the town had a population of 9,672, of whom 9,201 (95.13%) were ethnic Hungarians, 2.47 ethnic Roma, 2.27% ethnic Romanians, and 0.12% others. At the 2011 census, there were 9,491 inhabitants. At the 2021 census, Cristuru Secuiesc had a population of 8,797.

Demographic movements according to census data:

In terms of religion, 46.02% of its inhabitants are Reformed, 35.99% are Unitarian, 14.27% are Roman Catholic, 2.33% are Romanian Orthodox.

Natives

 * Ajtony Árpád (1944 – 2013), writer
 * Alexandru Gergely (1951 – 2018), footballer and manager

Sights
The Unitarian Gimnazium (secondary school) was established in the 18th century. The Catholic church has medieval murals.

Twin towns – Sister cities
Cristuru Secuiesc is twinned with:
 * 🇭🇺 Ajka, Hungary (1992)
 * 🇭🇺 Csurgó, Hungary
 * 🇭🇺 Derecske, Hungary
 * 🇭🇺 Dévaványa, Hungary (1994)
 * 🇭🇺 Dunakeszi, Hungary
 * 🇭🇺 Kalocsa, Hungary
 * 🇭🇺 Karcag, Hungary (1990)
 * 🇭🇺 Kúnszentmiklós, Hungary
 * 🇭🇺 Lánycsók, Hungary
 * 🇸🇰 Moldava nad Bodvou, Slovakia
 * 🇭🇺 Pesterzsébet – 20th district of Budapest, Hungary
 * 🇷🇸 Senta, Serbia

title: Cristuru Secuiesc


text: User talk:Koolniczka

title: User talk:Koolniczka


text:
User talk:Manacoplux

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright tags
Thanks for uploading Image:Benny Binion by Jim Gatewood.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag.

Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you.

Thanks so much, Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ugh, please stop
You're wrecking the Benny Binion article with all kinds of weird syntax, images, etc. Also, don't insert links to buy books. You can use the ISBN template as necessary. CryptoDerk 00:04, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Manacoplux


text:
Federal Assembly (Switzerland)

The Federal Assembly is the federal bicameral parliament  of Switzerland. It comprises the 200-seat National Council and the 46-seat Council of States. It meets in Bern in the Federal Palace.

The houses have identical powers. Members of both houses represent the cantons, but, whereas seats in the National Council are distributed in proportion to population, each canton has two seats in the Council of States, except the six 'half-cantons', which have one seat each. Both are elected in full once every four years, with the last election being held in 2023.

The Federal Assembly possesses the federal government's legislative power, along with the separate constitutional right of citizen's initiative. For a law to pass, it must be passed by both houses. The two houses may come together as a United Federal Assembly in certain circumstances, such as to elect the Federal Council (the head of government and state), the Federal Chancellor, the federal judges or (only in times of great national danger) a general.

History
Prior to the establishment of the federal state in 1848, the only central organ of Switzerland was the Federal Diet (Tagsatzung). Following the Sonderbund War in 1847, the Tagsatzung became responsible for drawing up the Swiss Federal Constitution.

The process of formulating legislative power resulted in clashing opinions, in particular in relation to the representation of the various cantons: the radicals, in the majority in the largest cantons, pushed for a system where representation was purely proportional to the population of each township; the small cantons, for their part, feared being marginalized. After long debates, a compromise was found by adopting the American model of bicameralism; the parliament will be composed of two chambers with equal power, and the agreement of both will be required to take a decision. The National Council, which represents the people, will comprise representatives from each canton with their distribution being proportional to the population of the cantons, while the Council of States, which represents the cantons, will be composed of the same number of representatives from each canton. According to the Constitution of 1848, the Federal Assembly is "the supreme authority of the Confederation".

The Tagsatzung accepted the draft constitution in June 1848. On September 12, following the vote of the various cantons, it noted that the Constitution had been approved and dissolved itself on September 22, as required by the transitional provisions of the approved text. During the month of October 1848, elections were organized in the cantons in order to elect the deputies. After a few skirmishes, particularly in the canton of Fribourg, the results were announced which confirmed the victory of the radicals, who won more than three-quarters of the seats in the National Council and 30 of the 44 seats in the Council of States. On, November 16 1848, Parliament elected the first Federal Council. In 1874, following the revision of the Constitution and the introduction of extended popular rights, the Federal Assembly became "the supreme authority of the Confederation subject to the rights of the people and the cantons".

The organization of the two councils has changed little over time. When the National Council was created, the total number of seats was 111. This number was not fixed and evolved in proportion to the growth of the Swiss population until 1962 when the definitive number of seats was established at 200; the term of office, meanwhile, was increased from the original three years to four years in 1931. The mode of election, originally according to the majority system, transitioned to proportional representation in 1918. The Council of States, meanwhile, was not modified until 1979, by adding two new seats for the Canton of Jura which had just been created.

Composition
The Federal Assembly is made up of two chambers:
 * the National Council, with 200 seats; and
 * the Council of States, with 46 councillors.

Seats in the National Council are allocated to the cantons proportionally, based on population. In the Council of States, every canton has two seats (except for the former "half-cantons", which have one seat each).

United Federal Assembly
On occasions the two houses sit jointly as the "United Federal Assembly" (Vereinigte Bundesversammlung, Assemblée fédérale, Chambres réunies, Assemblea federale plenaria, Assamblea federala plenara). This is done to:
 * elect members of the Federal Council, the Federal Chancellor, the federal judges or (only in times of great national danger) a general
 * arbitrate in the event of conflicts between federal authorities;
 * issue pardons; or
 * listen to special announcements

The United Federal Assembly is presided by the National Council's presidency.

The Federal Assembly also confirms the appointment of the Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (appointed by the Federal Council).

Groups
Parties can cooperate in parliamentary groups, also called political groups, allowing smaller parties access to rights as part of a caucus. At least five members from the same Council are needed to form a group. Only informal groups exist in the Council of States. Members of the National Council are required to be in a formal group in order to be able to sit on a committee.

Since March 2009, there have been six groups in the Federal Assembly. The latest group to form was the Conservative Democratic Party which split off the Swiss People's Party in 2008. The Christian Democrats/EPP/glp Group (CEg) was formed after the 2007 elections, out of the former Christian Democratic (C) and EPP (E) groups. The current FTP/Liberal group (RL) was formed in 2003 out of the former FDP (R) and Liberal (L) groups; since the 2009 fusion of the Free Democratic and Liberal Parties, RL is once again a single-party group. In 2011, the CEg was disbanded, the Green Liberals formed their own parliamentary group (GL) and the three Christian parties formed the Christian-Evangelical Group (CE).

51st legislature (2019–2023)
Currently (for the legislative period of 2019–2023), the six parliamentary groups are composed as follows:

50th legislature (2015–2019)
After the 2015 federal election, the Federal Assembly was composed of 7 groups:

title: Federal Assembly (Switzerland)


text: User talk:203.217.8.44

title: User talk:203.217.8.44


text:
User talk:Oooericaaooo

The Holocaust resulted from a series of actions going back to Hitler's assumption of power. The Nazis generally regarded the Holocaust as the systematic slaughter of European civilians, and especially Jews, during World War II. In my conviction I feel as if the Holocaust was one of the most horrific, inhuman events in the world.

Vandalism
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will be reverted quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 23:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --JYolkowski // talk 00:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Oooericaaooo


text: User talk:71.111.67.140

title: User talk:71.111.67.140


text: User talk:69.193.161.126

title: User talk:69.193.161.126


text:
Talk:Second Bill of Rights

Comments
One of the difficult decisions relating to this entry is what to call it.

Cass Sunstein's 2004 book on these rights has as title The Second Bill of Rights.

Sunstein's subtitle is FDR's Unfinished Revolution, and, Why we Need It More Than Ever.

Commonly, the rights are called plain Economic Rights.

Commonly they are also thought to be our missing Civil Rights or unrealized Human Rights.

Also, these rights are presented as the foundation for an Economic Democracy or Welfare State.

The rights are relevant to political economy -- but not to conventional economics apart from politics.

Roosevelt's main concern was winning a war and preventing the next war. He saw these rights as strategic.

Few poeple today see them that way. Yet they may be strategic -- and concern for strategic rights today, in the middle of a war to democratize as much of the world as possible (to avoid nculear war), is a vital concern of all readers and writers of wikipedia.

If President Roosevelt was right, and only by establishing his economic rights in fact (as well as law) can wikipedia's people hope to survive, then it would be sad to complete a great encyclopedia with pages missing that might have saved their lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johngelles (talk • contribs) 23:52, 25 April 2005 (UTC)
 * That is one view, however, not necessarily the best solution for a problem, because the rest of the world, while still suffering from the "depression" that was world wide, it lasted longer here in America than the rest of the world (earning the name the Great Depression), in part due to the policies and actions of FDR's administration. The problem is you almost never hear about this because it goes against the liberal's agenda, and instead of the "mainstream" media doing their job and being a watchdog over the actions of the governments, they are complicit in pushing the agenda more often than not.  Since the progressive left is playing the long game, it is unlikely we will see the truth of what damage the current administration's activities are actually causing to the country for many years.  32.212.104.223 (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Or you can call it what it is: socialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.238.191.22 (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's more complicated than that. It's positive rights -- what the government must do for you and give you -- rather than the negative rights that the Constitution lays out -- things that God gave you and the government isn't allowed to take away. It's also something of a violation of the separation of church and state: charity ought to be taken care of by local churches, who know what's going on and how best to fix it, not by a bloated, inefficient, corrupt, and uncheckable federal government. However, since the church over the last hundred years or so has increasingly been content to just sit in its corner and preach to itself, pushing all their social responsibility onto the government, it's hardly surprising. But anyway, talk pages aren't a forum, so we shouldn't be discussing this here. 72.92.174.241 (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Socialism is public ownership of the means of production so, no, we can't call it that. -- 98.108.211.71 (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Socialism is not public ownership of the means of production - that would be communism. Socialism is merely the path to the absurd idea that all will live equally when the state controls all and lords over the distribution in order to ensure that the masses have an equal share.  This leads to epic failure, in that (to borrow a quote from Karl Marx) "Mankind's own worst enemy is greed".  Governments cannot "do for you" and "give you", nor should they be expected to.  Wealth is created by individuals by virtue of designing, marketing and selling ideas, products or services.  Thus far, all that "governments" have succeeded in designing, marketing and distributing are programs which divest hard working people of their dollars to fund projects which are, at best, woefully behind schedule and over budget - and at worst, criminal.  Why not take this insanity a step further and allow the government to "give to you" a mate, children and all other aspects of life?  Thank God FDR failed to implement this - otherwise, we would be "enjoying" the same "success" as the Sov... uh, FORMER Soviet Union. 199.64.0.252 (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Re: 98.108.211.71's claim about socialism. Then why is it that Obama tried using the same bullshit reasoning "what the government MUST do for you and give you" (my emphasis) and it still doesn't apply here.  All the American government MUST do is stay out of the way as much as possible and stop trying to control, coerce, or in some cases totally take over, and what it must give us is the ability to honor the oath that every single elected federal government official took, "to protect, defend, and preserve the Constitution of the United States, from all enemies, foreign and domestic", not try to do everything they can to bypass it, ignore it, do end runs around it, however you want to phrase it, and BECOME an enemy of it. 32.212.104.223 (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Edit/addition to my post above: And actually, you (98...71)are somewhat mistaken, the Constitution was specifically built that way to be a LIMIT to the government, so in that respect, it isn't "negative" at all, although, since Obama tried arguing the same point as you "doesn't say what it must do for you" etc, it seems you are on the liberal left side of this particular thought process.  Which I find kind of ironic in some cases.  The liberal left leadership is trying to take over more and more control over what the citizens do, etc, despite being granted the freedom to think that way by the very same mindset they are apparently fighting against. 32.212.104.223 (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Socialism is ownership of the state - alone. The Second Bill of Rights asked to created a strong Social Contract (see Thomas Hobbes - The Social Contract Theory 1654). In 150 years of muddling and misrepresenting this word "Socialism", authors have spurned Socratic Method's best-practice of separating terminology. Socialism has been diluted to imply i) ownership, ii) ethics, iii) fiscal and economic responsibility, and iv) social programs - often to fulfill agendasc. See disambiguation of terms for the Monetary System at [spam link redacted]. Strong Social Contract nations have strong economies at all times in a monetary system cycle - and often rely on an 80%/20% mix of capitalism/socialism ownership to build it [spam link redacted] Edtilley4 (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

from vfd
deletion debate: Votes for deletion/Franklin Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights 12:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Article photo
The current photo at the head of the article was taken in 1933 during his first fireside chat. Maybe we should find a more contemporaneous image for this article?THD3 (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Needs Additional Citations
This article contains very few citations, and of the three currently listed in the page's footnotes (there are few in-line citations): one is barely relevant to this article on a 20th-century speech (a citation stating that an unspecified "last phrase" was used in a 1762 law case), one citation link is non-functional (the State of the Union Address link in the footnotes), and the third citation is to Michael Moore's controversial documentary film (rather than to, perhaps, the sources his film cites for the origin of the documents).

In short, this article needs more citations, better citations, and more in-line citations.

I have added in a couple in-line "needs citation" tags to these purposes.

This article is of some importance, and should be properly cited to reflect this.

Works of Sweat (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

french page, links
I'm working on the french page witch I'm begining to translate. I just found some links that might intrest you

some more about the condition of the speech at the fdr presidential library and museum, plus original pictures of the text

history of presidents speeches with some estimation for roosevelt listener (60M 1933 ; 100M 1947) at the white house historical association

also this one about michael moore's "dig up"

I also put updated links for the original and complete speech in the french page.

Schmuumf (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Second Bill of Rights


text:
Talk:Marriage à la mode (play)

Citation question
Can anyone figure out which "Sutherland" is quoted here and wikify him? LizardWizard 23:47, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

From an Amazon search, James Sutherland appears to be the most obvious candidate, but not clear from which of his publications this might come, and he doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article. DionysosProteus 13:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Indeed, 'tis he. I've added a proper reference, --Antiquary (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Spelling
Someone recently changed the spelling of the article title to "Marriage à la mode" from the original "Marriage A-la-Mode." However, the hyphenated and capitalized title seems to be standard in most editions. The contributor claims Dryden spelled it à la mode but provides no reference -- I suggest it should be changed back.--174.56.0.212 (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Between the title and two textual occurrences, I see three different "spellings" (well, punctuations, really) of the title. While it is likely that it was inconsistently presented in its day, surely one can be used throughout in this article?  Which one, I'm not sure, though.  I prefer Marriage à la Mode, but that is not based on any scholarship or references. Huw Powell (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Modern-day productions
Is it ever performed in the modern-day? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Marriage à la mode (play)


text:
Illinois–Purdue football rivalry

The Illinois–Purdue football rivalry is an American college football rivalry between the Illinois Fighting Illini football team of the University of Illinois and Purdue Boilermakers football team of Purdue University. The Purdue Cannon is presented to the winner of the game. Purdue leads the series 48–45–6.

History
It all started in 1905 when a group of Purdue students took the Cannon to Champaign in anticipation of firing it to celebrate a Boilermaker victory. Although Purdue won 29–0, Illinois supporters, including Quincy A. Hall, discovered it in a culvert by the field and took it before the Purdue students could start their "booming" celebration.

Hall later moved it to his farmhouse near Milford, Illinois, where it survived a fire and gathered dust until he suggested it be used as a trophy in the football series between the two schools when the rivalry resumed in 1943 after an 11-year lapse. It was presented at halftime to the schools' athletic directors, Doug Mills and Guy Mackey. Before the Cannon became an annual tradition, Illinois led the series 15–8–2.

The cannon is now maintained by the Tomahawk Service and Leadership Honorary at Purdue and Illini Pride.

title: Illinois–Purdue football rivalry


text:
User talk:Broken

Feel free to insert a comment!

Non-roman scripts
Non-roman scripts can be entered either by directly insering the Unicode characters, or by using numeric character entities in the wiki markup.

Example:

 * Unicode: 犬夜叉

 * Numeric character entity: 犬夜叉 (entered in wiki markup as &#29356;&#22812;&#21449;)

Using the template markup like  can help display on some browsers.

Example: 犬夜叉

Whether these will display properly for you depends on your browser; see SpecialChars.

On your other note, Tabor has no relation to my real name. -Tabor 19:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Wrestling
Please post any and all comments relating to wrestling here

Amateur Wrestling for Women
Here's a good link, maybe not exactly relevant for you, but. http://www.themat.com/articles/showfaq.asp?fldAuto=18

Enjoy. KingMob 19:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

At the University of Pittsburgh Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Club, there are lots of women who participate. Most of them (and actually most people in the club except for me) came from the Judo Club. Judo can help alot with Jiu-Jitsu and wrestling, and it is a good skill to learn too. Jimmy C. 00:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Your user page
Per Fair use criteria, fair use images are not allowed on user pages. I have accordingly removed them from your user page. Regards,  howch e  ng   {chat} 18:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Stub sorting participants
I noticed you had yourself listed in Category:WikiProject Stub sorting (which is a list of pages for stub sorters) instead of Category:WikiProject Stub sorting participants (which is a list of stub sorters themselves). I went ahead and corrected that for you, no charge. :D

Have a great day! ~Kylu ( u | t )  23:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Poetry sandbox
Hey, whatever happened to the poetry sandbox!? I wrote a poem today intending to post it there. I'm bummed out now. NIRVANA2764 21:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

File:Broken sunset.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Broken sunset.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Broken


text: User:David Newton/New Format Ship Tables/Vanguard class submarine


text:
Vlăhița

Vlăhița (Szentegyháza,, until 1899 Szentegyházas-Oláhfalu) is a town in Harghita County, Romania. It lies in the Székely Land, an ethno-cultural region in eastern Transylvania.

The town administers two villages: Băile Homorod (Homoródfürdő) and Minele Lueta (Szentkeresztbánya). Its Romanian name is of Slavic origin, meaning "little Vlach", while its Hungarian name means "Church of the Saint".

History
In Roman times a Roman fort was functioning in nearby Băile Homorod. Vlăhița (Oláhfalu). The town was part of the Székely Land area of the historical Transylvania province. It belonged to Udvarhelyszék until the administrative reform of Transylvania in 1876, when it fell within the Udvarhely County of Austria-Hungary. After the Hungarian–Romanian War of 1919 and the Treaty of Trianon of 1920, it became part of Romania and fell within Odorhei County during the interwar period. In 1940, the Second Vienna Award granted Northern Transylvania to Hungary and the town was held by Hungary until the fall of 1944, when Romanian and Soviet troops regained control during World War II. After a brief Soviet occupation, the Romanian administration returned in March 1945. Between 1952 and 1960, the town fell within the Magyar Autonomous Region, between 1960 and 1968 the Mureș-Magyar Autonomous Region. In 1968, the region was abolished, and since then, the town has been part of Harghita County.

Demographics
At the 2011 census, the town had a total population of 6,820 of which 6,749 (98.96%) were Székely Hungarians, making it the town with the highest proportion of Hungarians in Romania. At the 2021 census, Vlăhița had a population of 6,468.

Location
The town is situated between Odorheiu Secuiesc and Miercurea-Ciuc. Its 860 m altitude makes it the highest town in Harghita County.

Culture
The town is famous for its Children's Orchestra (Filarmonica de copii/Gyermekfilharmónia), in which more than 140 youngsters sing and play instruments.

Twin town

 * 🇭🇺 Szarvas, Hungary (1994)

title: Vlăhița


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit Mandalia

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCD 20:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Amit Mandalia
Delete as vandalism KFP 23:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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


text: User:David Newton/New Format Ship Tables/Trafalgar class submarine


text:
Talk:Kermadec Islands

deleted passage
my comment: 10 km is not equal to a full degree, this is much more. at least 55 km up to 111 at the equator. --BLueFiSH 23:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) comment is correct, position was wrong - Macdonald Rock put back with corrected position --User:Ratzer 19:48, 08 May 2005
 * Macdonald Rock, about 10 km NNE of Macauley Island at 30°09' S, 177°22' W (submerged)

 * The coordinates of Macdonald Rock currently shown in our article are 30°09′S 178°22′W. According to Chart NZ 2225, its position is roughly 30°11.3′S 178°25.5′W, and it lies about 4 km directly north of Macauley Island. I'll update the article accordingly. -- Avenue 13:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This "rock" is clearly visible on Google Earth but looks rather like a submerged atoll or bank. I have discovered an other bank at -30 34 43.21 -178 32 04.49 near Curtis ! Is this place already named ? Otherwise I claim the right to name it ! stephane.jourdan gmail

No map?
No map? --Copey 2 02:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Micronation Claims
Does this link have information valid enough to include in this article? 76.4.17.140 (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No. We generally don't include outrageous claims made by internationally-unrecognized fantasy nations. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kermadec Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012150311/http://www.hydro.linz.govt.nz/charts/catalogue/catalogue.asp?chart=2225&page=index.asp to http://www.hydro.linz.govt.nz/charts/catalogue/catalogue.asp?chart=2225&page=index.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160311071336/http://www.svfalcongt.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/The-Kermadec-Whale-Project1.pdf to http://www.svfalcongt.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/The-Kermadec-Whale-Project1.pdf

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) 03:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Bell family
"Bell family, lived on the islands from the early nineteenth century, growing food for the whalers, and remained until 1937"

There is no source for this and this link contradicts it https://www.raoulandcampbell.org/books/34-crusoes-of-sunday-island

First edition of this book published in 1957 by G Bell & Sons Ltd. Tells the story of the Bell family who settled on Raoul Island, in the Kermadec Islands. The story was told to the author by one of Tom Bell's daughters, Bessie, who was nine years old when the family landed on the island in 1878. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMcD (talk • contribs) 17:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

https://teara.govt.nz/en/kermadec-islands/print?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=8f2a02f14c75f5dd40e9a75827793653351b9ca2-1599413369-0-AZ_0itLYgaGlmGScMk3owZxQVvkpgafJxkvSKHEIt8Pxav-RFSy6mkPdMmx3-ViO17_8667XgKB55xbG8cbuayTcvA4W3gkl0BEex_m6KpAxQtbn8HyHZTtMonVcvq1P0X0pTyU-OoSaPLCLqmBXdtUVHui3bh_7-zEJMO2N9eh34vNfg4b7R0lksB3SzMd4Y5RqlSBl7Q9NC74VMfPRiuL06l_5hze59ciMQbitPTTIj8IOw57Y6gKSqmNWu23g_-6lHBjdafvvRBiYoW4FKUjL2x60RrIXYI8LMOLDAIQtjq29Ma_EY7_Y8Z4Sl13LHQ

Here is more evidence that it is wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMcD (talk • contribs) 17:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you missed some context. The sentence is "European settlers, initially the Bell family, lived on the islands from the early nineteenth century, growing food for the whalers, and remained until 1937." This doesn't say the Bell family was there over that period. The Te Ara link you gave does say "all left after the 1870 eruption", so there may have been a period of 1870-1878 when Raoul Island was unoccupied, but it's also possible that some returned later in 1870. Te Ara says "Raoul is the only island in the Kermadec group large enough to support settlement" but that doesn't establish that there were no unsuccessful attempts to settle other islands. Te Ara says the islands were deserted in 1917, apart from one escaped prisoner of war who was at least briefly on Curtis Island, so it is clear that there wasn't continuous settlement up to 1937. I'll tag the sentence as needing a reference.- gadfium 23:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kermadec Islands


text:
Talk:Human/Archive 11

Intro
As you'll see in the archives, it's been observed that not one credible or neutral encyclopedia defines human in spiritual terms or makes the claim that humans define themselves in spiritual terms in its intro. Nor is this a major theme in scholarly primary writings in anthropology as I've shown in the archives. But it is in theology and spiritual writings. Not being a major scholarly POV it does not belong in the intro. I, and I believe SV and likely Mel Etitis as well still object to that distinction being made. I'm rewriting that sentence. Again. FeloniousMonk 09:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Is this an encyclopaedia of anthropology then? Is this article only about the anthropology of humans? Should we perhaps change the title? Some people do indeed hold the view that humans can and should be defined in "spiritual" terms. Very much so. No scientist will say, for instance, that God made man in His own image, but many, many millions, billions of people will say that that is a fact. Man alive! Most people will eat cows, pigs and sheep because they feel they lack something "spiritual". They distinguish man from beast in precisely those terms. I don't share their view. I don't say they're right. But I think it is entirely wrong to exclude it from an NPOV encyclopaedia, which, it has to be noted, is what this is and the "credible and 'neutral'" encyclopaedias you refer to are generally not. It is besides the point how the latter define humans by the way. Wikipedia is not merely a rewrite of Britannica but, I hope, something much more glorious, an inclusive summation of human views and human knowledge.Grace Note 09:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Well said Grace Note. Why can't the summary simply state that some humans believe in a devine origin or higher power without naming any religions? And why should Wikipedia be the same as "everyone" else. I think it can be better. Again, you know where I stand personnally on religion. I don't particularly believe in it. But many of our readers do. Wjbean 12:50, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
 * I think what we have here is a question of aesthetics, rather than npov policy. i think that the intro would abide by npov with or without the sentence in question, for the good reasons stated by both sides.  on the side of SV, FM, and ME, encyclopedias do in fact generally take their approach.  on the side of Grace Note and WJBean et. al., we're not most encyclopedias, and the sentence is true, accurate, and relevent.  Since (i believe) this is more a question of aesthetics then policy, perhaps we should simply take a vote and let the majority rule?  Ungtss 13:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * "Is this an encyclopaedia of anthropology then?' Knowing that anthrolopolgy is the study of humanity - The scientific and humanistic study of man's present and past biological, linguistic, social, and cultural variations. - I'd have to say that is exactly what we are writing at this article. What is it you'd have us write about instead?
 * To that end, that many people do indeed believe that humans possess a soul is insufficient justification for alleging that humans are defined in spiritual terms is so central to understanding the topic of 'human' that it absolutely must be part of the article's opening sentence. An equally significant number of people also believe that humans possess chi, which they belief is a form of energy necessary for life. Should these beliefs be considered central to understanding what it is to be 'human' as well? If not, why not these but spirituality?
 * The fact remains that no other encyclopedia or primary anthropological text defines human thusly in its primary definition on the topic 'human.' I spent a number of evenings at the libraries of UC Berkeley verifying this fact. My research included, but was not limited to, the following significant and largely objective publications: the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, the Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology, World Book Encyclopedia, Nelson's Encyclopaedia, and lastly, Encyclopaedia Britannica. Considering this, and that no one has yet provided a compelling justification for why wikipedia should should be the only putatively neutral and objective encyclopedia that makes defining human in spiritual terms central to its article, it is my position that despite there being large number of people who hold spiritual views, defining 'human' in spiritual terms is not a common academic or scholarly distinction and hence does not warrant mention in the first sentence of the intro, but is more appropriate to the Culture subsection of the article. I'm willing to reconsider my position if someone can provide even one neutral and significant encyclopedia that makes the position that 'humans are defined in spiritual terms' part of its article's intro and central to its primary definition. FeloniousMonk 04:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I tentatively suggest, again, that this issue is not one of may or may not, but of should or should not. you're absolutely right, FM.  not even the catholic encyclopedia defines humans as spiritual in the intro -- it defines us as "rational animals."  At the same time, there is no requirement that wikipedia limit itself to the practices of other encyclopedias.  in fact, i can identify no wikipedia policy that would preclude the intro in question.  it is attributed, it is accurate, and it is relevent.  it is therefore not against the rules, although it may be qualitatively inferior to a version you might suggest.  perhaps, then, to advance your case for an intro that does not refer to spirituality, you'd clarify why you think such an intro is inferior on the merits?  Ungtss 04:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * What is it you'd have us write about instead? I'm working on the "sum of all human knowledge". That includes views from outside science so far as I'm concerned. As for scholarliness, Pope John Paul II was something of a scholar and it was his belief that we were human on account of possessing souls. Of course, he didn't work for Britannica, so we probably should disregard his views.

 * To that end, that many people do indeed believe that humans possess a soul is insufficient justification for alleging that humans are defined in spiritual terms is so central to understanding the topic of 'human' that it absolutely must be part of the article's opening sentence. No. People do not just believe humans possess a soul. They believe that humans are not animals as such, because they possess a soul. They define them precisely in spiritual terms.

 * Your argument has boiled down to "other encyclopaedias don't do it". The stuff about other encyclopaedias leaves me entirely cold for the reasons I gave, which you have not addressed because you simply repeated your views again. I understand that you hold strong views and don't want to change them. That's not a problem. But you won't listen to others' views or seek compromise and that really is. Grace Note 05:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * They believe that humans are not animals as such, because they possess a soul. They define them precisely in spiritual terms. The wp style guide states that the intro should a concise paragraph defining the topic. Defining the topic is not the same as a list of how disparate POVs define the topic. Hence what my argument actually boils down to is the only necessary and meaningful standard of evaluation for identifying the particular aspects of human for the purpose of defining the topic in the opening sentences is a strict correspondence to reality, not the number of people who adhere to a particular POV. That "other encyclopaedias don't do it" only reinforces my point. Claiming that that was my point was a red herring. Also, precisely how is talking past my point instead of addressing it not doing exactly what you accuse me of: "you won't listen to others' views or seek compromise"? Mine is a valid point that does not lose its gravitas just because you do not find it compelling. So it's not so much that I have strong views that I'm inflexible on as much as it is that you're ignoring a valid point. As for whether or not I'm actually not willing listen to other's views or seek compromise, as I said before, I'm willing to reconsider my position if someone can provide even one reference source that states what we are here in the intro, and I've not been editing the article against consensus, so your criticism is misplaced. FeloniousMonk 06:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I vote no for a vote! I believe we should try to work out a consensus and not try to silence one another with votes. Both sides have given ground and worked for a compromise. Let's try to encompass objections. If it comes to "No, I will not give in. It's no sentence for me, period", that is the point where we have to consider our options. Don't tell me we're at that point because I don't believe that the editors you named are the sort who won't consider compromise (in fact, my apologies to the other two if I didn't see their doing the same, I saw SV say she didn't like the sentence but would not oppose its inclusion).Grace Note 03:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * i share your sentiments. it appeared to me at the time i wrote the above that we'd reached the "point of no resolution" you were describing, and indeed, the battle over that sentence has been raging for weeks.  ideally, of course, we'd all work together to find solutions that are agreeable all around.  this course of action would require us all to take a deep breath, suck up our own pov, keep the rules in mind, and think creatively.  Ungtss 03:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Creations
I added a little bit extra to the beliefs about creation bit. There are many beliefs about creation and I think we can readily be a bit more inclusive by saying that people believe in creation by God and other superhuman beings. The Murri people here in Brisbane, for instance, believe that their ancestors dreamt the world. They might well turn out to be right, so why exclude them? Grace Note 06:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * He he, right-o ~!

 * Sam Spade 06:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't this sentence about the Murri people also be included in the section about religion? --Eleassar777 07:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You can include anything you like but I'm not sure that including a great deal about creation myths is a good idea. Murri beliefs are more or less covered by animism, I think.Grace Note 07:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms. I personally like this first sentence. It mentions the spiritual aspect at the very beginning without expounding upon that aspect. It does not add a great deal to the summary, but is inclusive. Also, humans are the ones defining themselves, which seems a bit conceited :o) but is also quite factual. Wjbean 13:06, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

heights of human activity
i'd like to propose that the intro would benefit from a brief sentence linking some of the heights of human activity. i think this because there are (at least) three aspects to humanity -- what we're made of (biology), what we think of ourselves (self-reflection), and what we do. and maybe it's my humanism leaking through, but i think humans are capable of doing some cool things that we'd do well to note in the intro. my draft sentence is this:
 * As a result of the capacities for language, abstract reasoning, and self-reflection, humans have the ability to engage in a number of activities, including science, philosophy, religion, art, medicine, and law.

by no means do i intend this as a final edit. I just thought it was a start. any thoughts? Ungtss 15:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Language and introspection
"Humans are distinguished from the other primates by ... a highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for abstract reasoning, speech, language, and introspection." - 1) didn't a gorilla learn sign language? 2) Is speech, 3)language, 4)introspection, 5)abstract reasoning caused by a highly developed brain? Dwarf Kirlston 22:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Personally, I don't like the "language" bit because it is not closely defined here and it's easy for a reader to a/ do what you did and be led to think "hang on, haven't chimps learned sign language" and b/ think "hang on, don't bees and dolphins have 'languages'". With the sign language thing, it can be argued that chimps can't manipulate signs to create new meaning, which is distinctive of "language" as a human activity, but can only use them concretely. We can't ask a chimp how it interprets "want banana" and it can't easily explain with its very limited vocabulary what it is trying to express. Whether other animals have "languages" is purely a question of how you define "language". Some communicate but it would be more accurate to say they have "codes". Their codes are not generative, tend to express concrete meanings (bees, which have a complicated code, are only giving messages about food in simple terms; they don't, so far as we know, discuss philosophy).

 * So the answer is that "language" in this sense means the code humans use to communicate. It's incredibly difficult to define in terms that are neutral for all codes. Linguists argue over the definition day and night.

 * As for the second half, those things are taken to be results of our developed brain. Animals with less developed brains can be and have been shown not to employ abstract reasoning. Whether they are introspective is another matter, because, of course, they don't have the means we do to express it. Grace Note 23:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I saw a documentary once where a chimpanzee invented the word "firebottle" for a cigarette lighter. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:49, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * ITYMTS, "was report to have invented". It didn't invent it in front of your eyes. I'm very sceptical of that sort of claim. However, if you can source it, we can certainly take out the bit about abstract reasoning and language if you like ;-)Grace Note 01:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * No, s/he invented in on-camera. She was shown a cigarette lighter, asked what it was, didn't know, looked at it, saw what it did, and after lots of head scratching, pointed to the sign for fire and then to the sign for bottle. And later on kept asking for the firebottle. It was a very moving thing to watch. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:44, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * I can't find a reference for firebottle, but here's one (pdf) where there are other examples, including one from 1981 of a chimp who called a cigarette lighter either a match bottle or bottle match. Also, I know that chimps have taught human sign language to their children and some creativity has been noted there too. SlimVirgin (talk)  01:50, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm very sceptical. One doesn't know whether the chimp was primed. I'm not saying it's not possible. I don't know. I know that cuing is controversial though and isn't a question that can be settled by one paper (especially since your guy generally dismisses Terrace without evidence). I'd be perfectly happy to see the part about our being distinguished from the other primates on account of our capacity for language etc taken out though. I don't think it's very accurate. We certainly use a richer language than other animals, including primates, but whether that is purely a result of the difference in our brain would have to be questionable. The bit about introspection is, as I noted, a bit dodgy because apes' not having written theses on philosophy might be a result of their lack of language rather than any lack of introspection. Who knows what apes think about themselves?Grace Note 02:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree about apes and introspection. "Humans are distinguished from the other primates by an erect body carriage that frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects, and by a highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for abstract reasoning, speech, language, and introspection." Because of "distinguished from," we imply that apes aren't introspective. So how about:

"Humans are bipedal primates with an erect body carriage that frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects, a highly developed brain, and a resultant capacity for abstract reasoning, speech, language, and introspection. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:17, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)"

Yes, and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions about any distinction from other animals. Like it. You need an "and" before "a highly developed" though. Grace Note 02:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * We have bipedal primate in the previous sentence, which I hadn't noticed, so the tweaked sentence is now: "Humans have an erect body carriage that frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain and consequent capacity for abstract reasoning, speech, language, and introspection." SlimVirgin (talk) 03:52, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

taxonomy external link removed
I'm removing this link from the intro paragraph. The taxonomy it links to is significantly outdated. Folks can follow primate or any of the other wikilinks that preceeded the external link for more up-to-date classification information. - UtherSRG 21:25, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * Is it really out of date? The reason I included the link is so that people could see which system I was referring to, because a difficulty I had when trying to write that sentence was in finding the most up-to-date classification (or most widely accepted). I thought that one would be okay because it's from a university. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:29, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Tree shrews haven't been considered primates for several years now. Also, although tarsiersare prosimians, they are haplorrines and so more related to monkeys than they are to lemurs. Go to primate for the tree here on Wikipedia. - UtherSRG 21:38, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * I had a look at Primate and Hominid and see you wrote quite a bit of the latter (I didn't look to see who wrote the first). They're both very good so I'm happy that you should edit those bits as you see fit. Thanks for improving it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:44, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! :) - UtherSRG 22:47, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

multiple supreme beings
I reverted GraceNote's edit. There are some religions that believe in multiple dieties - aka supreme beings. - UtherSRG 22:47, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * Name one. You are confusing "deity" with "supreme being". Take Greek mythology as your example. Hermes is a deity. Aphrodite is a deity. Zeus is the supreme being. Please leave my edit alone unless you can come up with a convincing rationale for changing it.Grace Note 23:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Hinduism. --Goethean 23:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Hinduism has deities and a supreme being. The deities are a reflection of the supreme being.Grace Note 23:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * * Drops it* --Goethean 00:10, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GraceNote, UtherG - Please do not enter into an edit war on this... Please note that this is only an intro, and as such brevity is of the essence. Let's keep it sweet and simple and let the other subsections develop and present all these issues. --Zappaz 23:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Accuracy trumps brevity. And I don't see the anti-religion folks bending over backwards to limit their verbiage. On the contrary. --Goethean 23:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think "let's keep it short and sweet" is a poor reason to exclude beliefs that you don't share. I added four words. I'm not going to edit-war over it. That's the last thing I want. I'm going to walk away. I gave good reason for my edit and explained it. I'll leave it to the other editors on this page to weigh our positions and decide. Grace Note 23:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Ironic, that's exactly what I've just said about my point. FeloniousMonk 07:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note has both ancient Greek religion and Hinduism wrong, I'm afraid. In Greek religion, Zeus was certainly not a supreme being; there's a confusion here between being a leader of (or the most powerful of) the gods and being supreme in a wider sense (and Zeus wasn't even the first of the gods, much less a creator). Hinduism is far too complex to be described simply — indeed, it is often pointed out that it's a mistake to call Hinduism a religion, as it's actually a collection of related religions. Some Hindu schools refer to something that lies beyond or above the gods, suually referred to as Brahman, but this isn't a supreme being in the sense used above; it's neither personal nr even clearly an individual. Attempts by Christians, Muslims, and others trying to create or impose a syncretic religion, have tried to push Hinduism into a sort of disguised monotheism (and that has had an effect on some Hindu schools of thought), but those are external influences.

Besides, what about the Manichaeans (the religion, not the Christian 'heresy'), or Shinto? What about henotheistic or kathenotheistic religions?

On the other hand, if what is meant by 'supreme being' is something like Aquinas' or Descartes' maximally great or maximally perfect being, then there can only be one of those (as many writers, most notable Spinoza) have pointed out. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is you who have what I suggested wrong and you have done so by persuasive definition. I did not suggest that either of Zeus or Brahman could be equated with the Christian god. I said they were "supreme beings". They illustrate, in fact, two different concepts of "supreme being" from the Christian one, which is, of course, why I chose them. I do not for one instant describe Zeus as a supreme being in the same sense that Allah is. He is though supreme among the Greek gods -- their leader. Brahman is a supreme being in a very real sense. He is the paramount being. He is often translated as "God" into English, by Hindus as well as non-Hindus. Yes, he cannot be conceived as a personal god in the way that Allah is. Far from it. What about Manichaeans? If you're actually trying to add something by namedropping them, maybe you'd enlighten us by telling us what you mean by it and how you feel it should be reflected in the text. The Manichees did not have a supreme being, so far as I know, but rather two competing forces, neither of which could establish supremacy. My understanding of henotheism is that it describes the Greek system but is sometimes applied to those forms of Christianity and Islam etc in which saints are worshipped and demons feared. I don't know what kathenotheistic religions are and I'm afraid my Greek fails me in that regard so I can't guess.

What about Shinto? Sorry, I just don't get your point. It certainly does not have a collection of supreme beings if that's what you're suggesting.Grace Note 00:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * First, I wasn't getting involved in the question of what should go into the article; I don't think that gods, etc., should be in there at all — we have a multitude of articles on religions of all sorts. the attempt to shoehorn them in here is the (perplexing) result of the besieging of this article by a number of PoV-pushing editors.  As has been pointed out many times, other reputable reference works don't load their articles on "Human" with all that sort of thing, and for good reason.

 * With regard to Zeus, you shouldn't say "supreme being" if what you mean is "supreme member of a certain group (such as Greek gods)". That would allow me to say that I'm a supreme being if I'm the President of my local stamp-collecting club.  Moreover, I'm unaware of Zeus ever being called the (or a) supreme being by the Greeks, nor Brahman by Hindus (except, perhaps, when trying to explain the concept to non-Hindus).

 * The accusation of name-dropping is rather bad-tempered and unfair. And, on your approach to Zeus, each Manichaean being can be called supreme (because it's the supreme good or the supreme bad being).

 * Henotheism is the belief in a multiplicity of gods, but the worship of only one (the Greeks weren't, but in fact the Manichaeans were henotheists (the limiting case), with a multiplicity of two). The one worshipped god might be picked out because it is seen as being especially powerful or important, and this is sometimes labelled monolatry; some Christian sects take this view of the Trinity, holding that only God the Father should be worshipped, Jesus and the Holy Spirit being distinct and lesser gods.  On the other hand, different cultures might be seen as having each its own god, so that though other gods exist, they are worshipped each by members of their own peoples (as appears to have been the case at one stage of early Judaism).  The distinction between the two versions of henotheism isn’t very clear-cut, as most people consider their own culture superior to others, and in the same way are very likely to hold that their culture’s god is more powerful or important than other gods.  Kathenotheism is a similar sort of belief, but rather than worshipping one god throughout their lives, believers worship different gods at different times or in different places.  Thus kathenotheism is a sort of serial henotheism.

 * On a number of dictioary definitions at which I've loked (to find common usage, rather than philosophical or theological usage), 'supreme being' is definied as something like 'most exalted being', which would mean that in both henotheism and kathenotheism there would be multiple supremem beings, either in parallel or serially — either most exalted by different groups, or by the same group at different times.

 * The reference to Shinto was that it's another case where there's no single supreme being, but a set of different gods and goddesses. Using the loose notion of 'supreme being' (as with your application of it to Zeus, or the even looser application to any deity), Shinto has a set of supreme beings.

 * But I did finish by making what I take was your point: that 'supreme being' in its normal (Abrahamic) religious acceptation can only apply to one being, as a simple matter of logic. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I've just looked at the Wikipedia article on henotheism. It makes a number of mistakes, I'm afraid (and note that its claim that the ancient Greeks saw Zeus as the supreme being is based on a second-century C.E. Roman writer...).  Its reference to Plato and Plotinus is also misleading. The article could do with a general overhaul. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Genetic similarity numbers
Not sure why my change from 98.5 to 95% genetic similarity to chimpanzees was reverted without even a counter-cite, but here is a more specific one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12368483 I'm open to counter-evidence, but as far as I can tell, the number to now use should be 95, not 98.5. Turnstep 13:17, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Turnstep, I did link to a source for the 98.5 per cent in the article . Another reference here (see below for extract); and here  (pdf) is a paper about the chimp genome project that says we differ by 1.2 per cent.

"The 98.5 percent difference between humans and nonhuman primates is based on differences between the two genomes' sequences of the letters A, T, C and G, which stand for the nucleotides adenine, cytosine, thymine and guanine. When researchers sequence the DNA of a genome, they use a machine like Applied Biosystems' ABI Prism 3700 to determine the order of the nucleotides. The letters form base pairs (A always binds to T and C always binds to G) that link together to form the rungs on the ladder of the DNA double helix."

 * I've seen the following paper cited often but don't have a link to it: Fujiyama, A. et al. (2002) "Construction and analysis of a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map. Science 295, 131-134.

 * Here's a general paper on comparative genome research . I'm going to e-mail the National Human Genome Research Institute to ask about the percentage. It may take a few days to get an answer though. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:39, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I work at the NHGRI :) (but not on the chimp sequencing project). Although the chimp sequencing is done, the final comparison is not, but I think it will come out in the next few months, which should give us a better similarity number (depending on how one defined similar, of course). However, the most *recent* results still seem to indicate 95%, not 98.5%. If you look solely at proteins, the percentage is lower still. (As an aside, I am not attributing any importance to these percentages, I just want them to be as accurate as possible)

Feel free to email, though, they may already have a non-released number. If you don't hear back, let me know, I can do some investigating from this end. Turnstep 20:16, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Interesting that you work there, Turnstep. In providing these links, I've been selling snow to the Innuit to some extent. :-) On one of the NHGRI articles I found discussing the chimp sequencing project, there was a name given in case anyone wanted more information, so I'm going to e-mail him and ask what the latest view is, and whether he can supply a reference. I gained the impression that, as you indicate, no importance should be attached to the percentage as such, but you're right that it should be accurate and well-sourced. If I don't hear back within a few days, I'll let you know. I find that organizations tend to be very responsive to Wikipedia requests, however. People like to help us. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk)  20:30, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * I also meant to add: Turnstep, if you have expertise in this area, feel free to change it back to 95 per cent. I didn't realize that when I reverted you. If the NHGRI says anything else, we can always update it again. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:34, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Whoa! We don't normally say to editors: "The evidence that we have says this, but if you have expertiese, feel free to change it". Isn't that what No original research is saying: "'No original research' does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia welcomes experts and academics. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia. They should refer to themselves and their publications in the third person and write from a neutral point of view (NPOV). They must also cite publications, and may not use their unpublished knowledge as a source of information (which would be impossible to verify)." I don't want to get too heavy on this, especially as this is a minor point, and I'm sure that Turnstep is what he says he is — but it would set a dangerous precedent (for the sort of thing I'm thinking of, see the first part of Talk:Atheism/dashes). Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * What can I say, indeed we don't take experts on their word. But in this case, the information is verifiable, or will be, in very short order. Worst case we could like even ask for lab notes ;-) . Ignore all rules (but use common sense) seems to apply here, since it's common sense if someone has empirically checked this, that that will be the correct number then.
 * On a separate note, it'd be wierd but cool if labs were to start regularly using wikipedia to establish priority. Though some discussion as to what goes and doesn't go might be in order there. :-) Kim Bruning 14:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No worries, I'd like to see the number changed based on the link I submitted, not on who I claim to be or where I claim to work. :) Also, although I have experience with a few genomes, the chimpanzee is not one of them. I only mentioned my working for the NHGRI in the first place because I found it amusing that SlimVirgin was going to email them. In short, I'd like to see it changed to 95% if there are no current objections, but we can certainly wait a few days for a more official response. Turnstep 14:50, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Mel, I agree about expertise and original research, but Turnstep supplied a reference, and his expertise lay in being able to judge that it was a source worth citing, whereas I, with no expertise, was finding it hard to judge the quality of the sources I looked at. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:59, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Fair enough; I was replying to another point further up the page, glanced through this discussion, and tripped over your comment at the end. I should have checked what was going on more carefully, rather than rattling off my response.  (The link that I supplied will give you an idea of the sort of experience I've had that makes me a touch sensitive on this isse.) Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 15:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * No problem, Mel. You mean your link about dashes? I've always managed to steer clear of the m dash/n dash controversy, but perhaps it's time to wade in. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 15:53, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Human/Archive 11


text:
Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Family therapy

Family therapy
Needs lots of style help. Should be put in sections, wikified. Cleaned up language (that's on-point and hopefully more concise). Could use some references. --Dmcdevit 23:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Added to User:Knowledge Seeker/Desk (it's medicine-ish) --Dmcdevit 23:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm a little out of my element here. I'll definitely work on wikifying/sections and such, but I'll also add it to User:Junkyardprince/Desk to see if he can help on any of the psychology-related aspects. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, the whole paragraph about Nathan Ackerman was duplicated, for what that's worth. I'm at a loss, though.  Does every theorist mentioned here deserve a separate article, or should we just break this one up into sections (and if so, what do we do with the Ackerman article?)  This is too big of a decision for me (and yes, that was a cop-out).  Also, since all the information on the theorists was added in large, unwikified chunks, should we suspect copyvio? JP | Tark 02:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Yikes! It certainly looks that way (copyvio-like). My cursory Google search only turned up WP mirrors, though—it's been in the article for a long time. I'll try some more detailed searches tomorrow. I think we should continue this discussion on the talk page. JP, if you don't mind, I'm copying your comment there, OK? — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I really don't know what to do with this one; it's out of my expertise. I'm taking it off my desk, but I'm adding it to User:Woohookitty/desk. Could you try checking for copyvios as mentioned above? I tried looking but all I got were WP mirrors. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I am going to email the person who originally submitted this article and see if they can give some citations. Otherwise, I think I am going to wipe out everything but the first paragraph. I have no clue what is ripped off and what isn't. Someone got this stuff from somewhere. --Woohookitty 22:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually the person who submitted most of the detail was an IP user and he hasn't submitted anything since March 20. So I think I will just revert back to the version before he submitted what HAD to be copyvio stuff and then cleanup from there and move it to the closed list. --Woohookitty 22:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Article rescue contest

 The contest has now closed. The judges are currently evaluating the entries. Results will be published here and in the Wikipedia Signpost as soon as they're known. Welcome to the "put your money where your mouth is" contest. There are plenty of people who vote keep on Articles for deletion with the reasoning that there is the potential for an article to be encyclopedic—even Featured—even though the article that currently exists there is in serious need of cleanup, and frankly, is usually downright awful. Then the AfD is closed, the article is kept, and nobody touches it ever again.

This contest is to encourage people to actually put their money where their mouths are and do something when they say an article topic has potential: prove it!

Yes, the general idea (and the format of this page! ha!) is blatantly modelled after Danny's contest. Something about the sincerest form of flattery, and all that.

Rules
These are the proposed rules. Be bold in editing them!

 * 1) The article must have had a valid nomination on AfD or VfD - nominating something to be able to enter it is disallowed.
 * 2) Kept or deleted: recreation of a deleted article under the same title is OK, if they are not substantially the same as a previously deleted entry.
 * 3) We'll also accept articles that have been saved from speedy deletions, but subsequently left unattended.
 * 4) Rewrites of copyright violations are also accepted.
 * 5) The article must be found to have been in need of a rewrite to be encyclopedic *or* deleted outright. The point isn't just to rescue articles that have been listed for deletion (although that's a fine thing to do), but to rescue those where people doubt that a good, encyclopedic article can even be written.
 * 6) At least five articles must be entered for the contest to take place. Tell your friends.
 * 7) Ideally, pick an article which is of general interest so as to attract as many Wikipedians to help out.
 * Or, something you improved which was coordinated through the Cleanup Taskforce

All entries subject to judges' discretion and the merciless editing of your peers

Best practices
If you begin to improve your chosen article while it is still actively listed in AfD, you almost certainly will find your work mindlessly mercilessly deleted before you can complete it — articles that have grown by a factor of eight have been obliterated without a second glance. You should keep an off-line backup, to be restored once you are ready to submit it to the judge. Alternately, you can request an administrator to undelete the article; the Epopt will do so for legitimate participants in this contest.

Date
All entries must be submitted by 23:59 UTC on October 22, 2005.

Prizes

 * 1st place : The esteem of your peers and the satisfaction of a job well done! Isn't that enough? No? How about a shiny new coffee mug?
 * 2nd place : A nice virtual fruit basket
 * 3rd place : A list of words and phrases based on all the letters in your user name will be created for you :-)

Judges

 * Mindspillage
 * Mgm|(talk)
 * HappyCamper
 * gkhan
 * Rob Church Talk

Sample submissions
Here is an example of a submission by a hypothetical Wikipedian:

 * Article: Jello Belt
 * AfD discussion: Articles for deletion/Jello Belt
 * [link to diff between before and after....] - Example User 15:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's an example of an article rescued from speedy deletion:
 * Article: B0
 * [link to diff between before and after....] - Example User 15:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's an example of an article rewritten by an anonymous user after copyvio concerns were communicated:
 * Gobind Sadan Institute

Real submissions for the contest

 * Who's next? Add your submission here!!

Dpbsmith's submissions
OK, here goes. There's no requirement for modesty, is there? (These are all mine). Dpbsmith (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC) The diffs are between the article when nominated and when the AfD/VfD was closed. In some cases the article has developed noticeably since then.

Current rescues

 * Bummel currently in AfD. Removed early from AfD, see . diff. The original here was factually inaccurate, as it implied that bummel was an English word made famous by Jerome K. Jerome.

Previous rescues

 * Pecan pie diff, kept 17 March 2005
 * Jessamyn West. Version nominated for deletion April 2nd, 2005. Note that this actually became two articles: Jessamyn Charity West for the self-described "anti-capitalist" librarian, who writes the librarian.net blog, who was the subject of the original substub, and Jessamyn West, Indiana author of The Friendly Persuasion, who had no article at the time. Both articles kept, 22 March 2005.
 * Pea soup. diff, 3 December 2004. I'm particularly pleased by how collaborative this one was and how much it's been added to since.
 * Sunny Jim. diff, kept 13 November, 2005.

Unfocused's submission
Since we weren't specific, I'm assuming that the contest is geared toward getting people to edit current AfD candidates. However, I'll submit one of my previous rescues, just because it's fun. Un focused  03:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * We used to have a rule about how long an article needed to be on AFD to be included, but we eventually decided against it, because it doesn't serve the contest's goals. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Previous rescues

 * Zetor. diff, kept 12:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC).  All three edits during the VfD period were mine, and the second two were a comma correction, and adding a category.
 * Nice! Dpbsmith (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Current rescues

 * The Epopt tried to rescue companion, but the deletionists insisted on their pound of flesh regardless of the improvement, so he's working on it off-line.

Previous rescues

 * 1530s in architecture diff I just couldn't believe that only two things of note occurred during that time period.  All the edits saving this article are mine.
 * Diane Pozefsky diff showing my edits All I really did here was provide more information this lady's publications, showing she is notable. Someone else took it further, so I only deserve partial credit for this one.
 * Numbers in Egyptian Mythology diff This isn't an area that I know much about. I actually went out and purchased a reference book so that I could add some good references to the article.  Some of the less reliable references were added by someone else, but then I spent a lot of time fixing the "note" tags.
 * I've moved this one to Numbers in Egyptian mythology per wikipedia naming conventions on capitalization. - Mgm|(talk) 20:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Mehmet Mustafaoğlu diff showing my changes Added a lot of information about this guy establishing notability. I like to believe that it encouraged the creator of the page to get busy and add even more.

Current rescue

 * List of U.S. state snack foods no diff, history of US state foods. People were saying that it should be merged to List of U.S. state foods but that article had already been deleted.  I went ahead and boldly made a new article on the state foods page that included references for most of the material.  Don't know if this counts as a rescue for purposes of the contest, but here it is anyway.
 * Tracer gun diff. It irked me that this article was nominated for deletion about an hour after it was created by an anonymous user (probably a high school student), and it is about a toy that I have played with.  So I almost completely rewrote the article.  Hope it makes it . ..

Current rescue

 * DJ Quietstorm diff. Spotted this on AfD. Googling turned up a few links, notably which proved he has a record deal and more importantly a Pink Floyd top, and was therefore worthy of rescue :-) Was pretty challenging because it was the first time I'd ever tried to rescue an article like this, and most of the info I could find was in Japanese o_O the wub   "?!"  19:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Previous rescues

 * Asrat Woldeyes Saw this on AfD, at first glance the article was fit for deletion, but a bit of Googling showed that the subject was very notable: he was an important Ethiopian doctor, professor and politician. Rewrote, & added a lot of badly-needed information on a man I found incredibly fascinating. -- llywrch 22:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Majts's submission

 * Devolution (fallacy) : Article originally called Devolution (biology), survived a VfD on 14 August 2005. diff
 * The critics say .... (from User_talk:Majts)
 * ''Hello, I was the original person that added Devolution to Vfd (at the time) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devolution (biology) Thinking it was a complete hopeless mess :) I am very impressed with what it has become Devolution (fallacy) which I consider factually accurate, and useful! I just wanted to say thanks for turning that sinking ship around! hehe - user:cohesion
 * Majts 17:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Article rescue contest


text:
Hudson Dusters

The Hudson Dusters was a New York City street gang during the early twentieth century.

Formation
Formed in the late 1890s by "Circular Jack", "Kid Yorke", and "Goo Goo Knox", the gang began operating from an apartment house on Hudson Street. Knox, a former member of the Gopher Gang, had fled after a failed attempt to gain leadership of the gang from then-leader Marty Brennan. However, the two gangs later became allies during the gang wars against Gay Nineties gangs, the Potashes and Boodle Gangs, soon controlling most of Manhattan's West Side as far as 13th Street and eastern Broadway, bordering Paul Kelly's Five Points Gang to the north. While the gang dominated the West Side, it constantly battled smaller rival gangs including the Fashion Plates, the Pearl Buttons, and the Marginals for control of the Hudson River docks throughout the 1900s. Eventually, it drove the rival gangs out through sheer force of numbers, with over 200 members, not including the Gophers, who numbered several hundred more, controlling the waterfront by 1910.

The gang, now a dominant force in New York, included the likes of Charles "Red" Farrell, Mike Costello, "Rubber" Shaw, Rickey Harrison, and "Honey" Stewart. The gang became involved in election fraud as they were hired out by Tammany Hall politicians in exchange for political protection. A colorful member by the name of Ding Dong organized a push cart theft ring whereby he had a group of apprentice gang members toss packages to him from a passing wagon, distracting the police. Soon the gang began to be noticed by the press as reporters met members in Greenwich Village tavern hangouts, becoming glamorized by the city. They came to represent the bohemian spirit of the area. According to author Lucy Sante, activist Dorothy Day, by her own admission, spent much of her youth partying with the Dusters in Greenwich Village. Many of the gang's members, including most of its leaders, had become drug addicts and were known for their wild "cocaine parties" in which the gang wandered the city afterwards in a drugged state committing violent acts. One victim of these attacks was Gopher member Owney Madden, who was shot six times outside the Arbor Dance Hall on November 6, 1914, resulting in the deaths of three of the gang members less than a week later. With the gang's political connections to Tammany Hall, the police remained inactive. However, the gang frequently moved its headquarters to avoid police raids by "strong arm squads".

The gang, which regularly demanded goods from local merchants, soon attracted the unwanted attention of the police after an incident in which the gang destroyed a saloon after its owner refused to deliver six barrels of beer to a gang party. The saloon keeper reported this to his friend Dennis Sullivan, a patrolman from the Charles Street station, who arrested Farrell and ten other members at a local pool hall for vagrancy. The gang retaliated, luring Sullivan into the neighborhood onto the premises of a local merchant, who had been forced to make a complaint against a member of the gang. When Sullivan arrived he was attacked by approximately twenty members and severely beaten, eventually losing consciousness. He was stripped of his uniform and his badge was thrown into a sewer drain. As the gang fled, five members remained behind to jump on Sullivan's back and to kick him in the face repeatedly before a police "flying squad" arrived. Hospitalized for over a month the incident was immortalized in a poem by Gopher leader "One Lung" Curran:

The gang liked the poem so much they had it printed on thousands of sheets and distributed throughout the neighborhood as well as the Charles Street Station and the hospital where Sullivan was recovering. The song grew to be so popular that many juvenile gangs would often sing the tune on the street.

By 1914 however, with most of its leaders in jail or dead from drug overdoses, the remainder of the gang were driven from their territory by the Marginals under Tanner Smith, who after defeating the Pearl Buttons would assume control for the next decade. The last members of the gang were eventually arrested by police during their clearing of gangs from Manhattan in 1916.

Members

 * Circular Jack
 * Kid Yorke
 * Frank "Goo Goo" Knox (died August 26, 1921)
 * A West Side gunman, Knox had a lengthy criminal career, spending time in the House of Refuge for disorderly conduct in 1912, the New York State Reformatory for felonious assault in 1914, and Elmira Reformatory for grand larceny in 1916. In 1918, he was taken into custody at Jersey City and charged with draft dodging but was released on probation. He was killed by John Hudson in what police suspected was a dispute over bootlegging. He was believed by authorities to have ceased criminal activities for two years before his body was found on the sidewalk of 52nd Street. Hudson later died of a morphine overdose at Bellevue Hospital under mysterious circumstances.

 * Charles "Red" Farrell (born 1851)
 * A longtime burglar and pickpocket, Farrell would be in and out of prison from 1883 onwards. By the time of his ninth and final arrest in August 1922, the 71-year-old thief was one of the oldest pickpockets operating in the city and was sentenced to six months imprisonment for "jostling".

 * Mike Costello
 * Robert "Rubber" Shaw (died July 31, 1919)
 * One of the later gang leaders, Shaw was gunned down in a drive-by shooting while standing on a street corner with George Lewis in Hoboken on July 31, 1919. His death is thought to have been in revenge for the murder of rival gang leader Thomas "Tanner" Smith of the Marginals only five days before.

 * Richard "Rickey" Harrison (c. 1893 – May 13, 1920)
 * A prominent member during the early 1900s, Harrison survived an attempt on his life while imprisoned in The Tombs when he was stabbed in November 1914, and refused to identify his attacker while recovering in Bellevue Hospital. Later arrested for the robbery of the Knickerbocker Waiters Club on September 7, 1918 (during which a visiting Canadian soldier, George Griffelns, was killed), he escaped from The Tombs on October 4. However, he was recaptured by detectives in Newark on October 16. Eventually extradited to New York, despite appeals to the US Supreme Court, he was convicted of murder and armed robbery for which he was executed by the electric chair in Sing Sing Prison on May 13, 1920.

 * "Honey" Stewart
 * William "Brother Mac" McNamara
 * While still a teenager, McNamara took part in a murder-for-hire plot in January 1916, in which he and another man, known only as "Dutch," attacked and fatally injured a gardener named Gregorio George in Dobbs Ferry, NY, on behalf of George's wife, who was in love with another man. That June, McNamara was tried in White Plains for the murder, convicted, and sentenced to death. The following year, in June 1917, his death sentence was commuted by Governor Whitman to life in prison.

In popular culture

 * Several members of the Hudson Dusters are portrayed in the historical novels The Angel of Darkness, by Caleb Carr (1997), and Free Love (2001) and Murder Me Now by Annette Meyers.
 * A 2020 TV series, The Alienist, based on the novel by Caleb Carr also features Hudson Dusters members.
 * Dave Van Ronk, the noted Greenwich Village guitarist/singer, formed a band called The Hudson Dusters, and released an LP album (1968?) under that name (Verve/Forecast LZR 70413).
 * The Hudson Dusters are hired by Henry Clay to ambush and beat Joseph Vandorn in the Clive Cussler novel The Striker, one of the Isaac Bell series.
 * Damon Runyon references the gang in his Broadway story "Blood Pressure". Walking into a Manhattan speakeasy in the mid-1920s: "Rusty Charley and Knife O'Halloran are having a drink together out of a bottle which Knife carries in his pocket, so as not to get it mixed up with the liquor he sells his customers, and are cutting up old touches of the time when they run with the Hudson Dusters together, when all of a sudden in comes four coppers in plain clothes."

General references

 * "Arrested In Court In Bootleg Killing; Suspect Said to Be One of Band Which Killed Comrade on Sunday Night. Recently Left Sing Sing Body Found in Fifty-second Street Is Linked With Two Other Men Now Wanted." The New York Times, August 30, 1921.
 * "Gets 6 Months in Pen to Complete 25 Years, 'Red' Farrell, Arrested Nine Times, Listed by Police as One of Oldest Pickpockets", September 13, 1922.
 * "Drugged in Tombs, Autopsy Reveals; Morphine Blamed for Sudden Collapse in Cell of Gunman's Alleged Slayer". The New York Times, March 18, 1922.
 * "Gunmen Busy In New York Again, Swift Vengeance for Death of Gang Leader". Boston Daily Globe, August 2, 1919.
 * "Rickey Harrison Captured". The New York Times, October 17, 1918.
 * "Harrison Executed As Convicts "Jazz", Sing Sing Prisoners Staging Vaudeville Show When Bandit-Slayer Goes to Chair". The New York Times, May 13, 1918.
 * "Prisoners Stabbed In Tombs; May Die, "Hudson Duster" Gangster Wounded Dangerously Under the Eyes of Keepers". The New York Times, November 14, 1914.
 * "Say Gangster Admits He Was Hired to Kill," The Evening World, January 27, 1916.

title: Hudson Dusters