text:
Talk:Shirley Chisholm

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2020 and 3 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KaiAbiola. Peer reviewers: Samantha Gould.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JazminBrown247.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Citation
Why is this page protected? Here's a link for the External Links. It's for a PBS/P.O.V documentary on Shirley Chisholm's 1972 run for president. http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2005/chisholm/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.78.52 (talk • contribs) 07:11, March 8, 2007 (UTC)

Presidential bid
Why isn't there anything about her presidential bid? I don't know very much about her, and came to this page to find out more. I expected to see something about that. - Coralys 04:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Delegate Votes
Anyone know if she received 152 or 162 delegate votes? The article says both. (Also, does anyone know how many delegate votes are possible? It might be nice to be able to say "152 (or 162) out of _____ available delegate votes."--TheOtherBob 21:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I'd like to second this. As a non-American, 162 delegate votes doesn't mean much to me.  Of course, I could go and look up other articles to find out, but I think it would improve the article if it explained whether this was a near miss, or if she was a long way behind.  TheAstonishingBadger (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like she won 28 delegates during the primary process, then Hubert Humphrey released his black delegates to her at the 1972 convention (he had 93 black delegates and 97 black alternates) as some kind of anti-McGovern maneuver and as a gesture towards black leaders. She ended up with 152 delegates. I haven't found how that added up and don't feel likely to spend more time chasing it down, but it would be good if someone interested could research this more carefully. The article previously repeated the version given in various later popular press pieces that seem to have gotten the story oversimplified or wrong. 75.62.6.99 (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that in the 2008 election, 2000 or so delegates were up for grabs. 68.43.91.73 (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As daughter of a Caribbean immigrant
Was she the first Congress-person to be elected that was also the child of a Caribbean immigrant --or that was the child of an Anglophone Caribbean immigrant (as opposed to a Spanish-Caribbean immigrant)?Dogru144 01:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This article refers to Chisholm as an African American. Her parents were West Indian immigrants. Not all American blacks are of African origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zilpha99 (talk • contribs) 00:20, July 12, 2007 (UTC)
 * Guess where black "West Indians" came from ? :) - Darwinek 09:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

more pictures
hi my name is [elided] and me personaly i think there should be tons of pictures [of the subject] on this page − —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.73.49.240 (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Earlier candidates
I think this page might need to be corrected. Wikipedia states that there were several earlier female Democrat candidates for presidential nomination (starting in 1920 with Laura Clay and Cora Wilson Stewart, and in 1964 Fay T. Carpenter Swain): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presidential_candidates Zonkerette (talk) 11:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Alleged "emasculating matriarch" headlines
The 1972 presidential campaign section includes this:

 * Many headlines constructed Chisholm as an emasculating matriarch with headlines such as the Boston Globe’s “Rep. Shirley Chisholm outflanks her black political brothers”.

I think this should be removed. Nothing is cited to support the characterization that this headline portrays her as an "emasculating matriarch". The source just shows that the headline existed

Does anyone disagree? -- Pemilligan (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Done. -- Pemilligan (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks. That was added by a one-and-done editor a couple of years ago and the particular conclusion behind it is not supported by the Barbara Winslow biography or other accounts I've seen.  Wasted Time R (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Shirley Chisholm. 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/20141111182057/http://www.uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/jofreeman/polhistory/chisholm.htm to http://www.uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/jofreeman/polhistory/chisholm.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071115003506/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03%2F04%2F07%2F024249 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03%2F04%2F07%2F024249
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140328211818/http://www.aquinas.edu/commencement/past_speakers.html to http://www.aquinas.edu/commencement/past_speakers.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140327230802/http://www.smith.edu/about_honorary.php to http://www.smith.edu/about_honorary.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080330234114/http://www.imow.org/wpp/stories/viewStory?storyId=111 to http://www.imow.org/wpp/stories/viewStory?storyId=111

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) 13:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Image from this article to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Shirley Chisholm.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on 2018-11-30. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-11-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Shirley Chisholm portrait.jpg

PLATFORM:
Why is literally nothing on this page about the material policies she supported in any of her campaigns? Like what did she proscribe for health care, foreign policy, economic regulation etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.5.121.79 (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have sources that cover those topics, please add them to the article to improve it. Thanks! JesseRafe (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

First black candidate?
I think there needs to be additional language to distinguish her from Frederick Douglass's candidacy at the 1888 Republican National Convention. Goustien (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Evaluation and Possible Additions
The article's content is relevant to the topic, but I would like to take a deeper dive into some specific aspects of Shirley Chisholm's life and make sure that the underdeveloped sections become more developed. I would also like to investigate her role in the fight for the vote for women and potentially add it to this page. Additionally, I would like to take a look and see if each claim is reliably backed up by a source and cited properly. KaiAbiola (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shirley Chisholm


text: File:RoustaboutElvis.jpg

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

title: File:RoustaboutElvis.jpg


text: Category:162 BC deaths

title: Category:162 BC deaths


text:
User:Drewcollins

The Rev. Charles A. Collins, Jr., Rector, St. Andrew's Anglican Church, Savannah, Georgia.

A.S., Georgia Military College; B.A., Coastal Carolina University; M.Div., Erskine Theological Seminary; additional graduate work, Cummins Theological Seminary

title: User:Drewcollins


text:
Sherlock: The Riddle of the Crown Jewels

Sherlock: The Riddle of the Crown Jewels is an interactive fiction computer game designed by Bob Bates and published by Infocom in 1987. Like most titles Infocom produced, the use of ZIL made it possible to release the game simultaneously for many popular computer platforms, including the Apple II, DOS and Commodore 64. Sherlock is based on the legendary fictional detective Sherlock Holmes, created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. It is Infocom's thirty-first game and is the first of two Infocom games developed by Challenge, Inc. using Infocom's development tools.

Plot
The year is 1887, and all of England is gearing up for the celebration of Queen Victoria's golden jubilee, marking her 50th year as monarch. London, naturally, is especially frenzied. Reading the paper one morning, Sherlock Holmes seizes upon one seemingly unimportant notice: The Tower of London has been closed for "reasons of security". The great detective is unsurprised when, moments later, he is asked to investigate the theft of the Crown Jewels. The clues left behind, however, positively reek of a carefully laid trap; Sherlock decides that he must step aside and allow Dr. Watson to pursue the thief instead. If the jewels are not replaced within 48 hours, the British government will be forced to admit that their most prized possessions were stolen and suffer worldwide humiliation.

The player fills the role of Watson, travelling around London in Hansom cabs while attempting to recover the Crown Jewels while encountering many characters from Doyle's stories such as Mrs. Hudson, Mycroft Holmes, and Wiggins of the Baker Street Irregulars. A series of riddles and clues lead Watson on a hunt for inscribed jewels hidden at several famous sites across the city, including Westminster Abbey, Madame Tussauds Wax Museum, London Bridge, and Big Ben. Eventually, the villain is revealed as Professor Moriarty, who captures both Watson and Holmes. With quick thinking and the help of some humble medical supplies, however, Watson manages to subdue Moriarty and return the Jewels to the Tower in time.

Production
Sherlock: The Riddle of the Crown Jewels was the first Infocom game to be developed by another company, Challenge Inc, published by Infocom in their "Immortal Legends" genre. The only other game published in this line was Arthur: The Quest for Excalibur, also written by Bates.


text: Talk:Columbus State University

title: Talk:Columbus State University


text:
Talk:Central European Time

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment
Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.

—Yamara ✉  18:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Time Difference between IST and CET — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.56.242.194 (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Span of UTC+1
A close look at the time zone map shows that geographically UTC+1 end at the western boarderline of Germany and Switzerland. The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France and Spain - all currently using UTC+1, should be in time zone UTC+0 together with the UK. On the other hand, Republic of Irelnd, Iceland, Portugal and a number of Arican states (currently all in UTC+0 together with the UK) should be in time zone UTC-1. Why is this so? --Gazibara 23:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

MET
The abbreviation "MET" is believed by the maintainers of the public-domain timezone database to have arisen from an earlier error in that database. "MET" is a corruption of the German "MEZ" (Mitteleuropäische Zeit). 121a0012 19:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

 * This information would be quite interesting to verify and add to the article! Do you have any reference? --Ptandler (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Summer time
I live in Belgium, and I was wondering if we can still use the term CET during the summer, to indicate our local time? I think the second statement is not correct. Belgium is also using CET the whole year. But in the summer, this CET is UTC+2, and in the winter this CET is UTC+1. CET is per definition the time in Centrale Europe (summer or winter). So I assume this list (of countries that do or do not change the time) would be better in an article about daylight savings time?
 * According to the explanation at the beginning on this webpage ("(CET:) Its time offset is UTC+1 during standard time and UTC+2 during daylight saving time"), we can.
 * According to the sentence later on ("The following countries and territories use Central European Time during the winter only: Belgium"), we can not.

- Edward Velo 10:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

 * There is no standard for time zone abbreviations, unless your national government has enacted one. You can call it whatever you want (presumably using a French or Flemish name as appropriate).  If you want to be understood, call it "UTC+0100" or "UTC+0200" as appropriate for the time of year.  For what it's worth, the public-domain timezone database, which is as close to a standard as anything, uses the abbreviations "CET" and "CEST", except between 1892 and 1914 and between 1918 and 1940, when "WET" and "WEST" are used instead.  (Belgium adopted standard time, as Brussels Mean Time, in 1880.  In 1892, the country switched to GMT ("WET"), on which it remained until the Germans invaded.  Summer Time was first introduced by the German occupation in 1918, and continued until the end of the Second World War.  It was not reinstituted until 1977 when the first Summer Time Directive came into force.)  121a0012 01:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

 * My interpretation is that CET is the local time (UTC+0100). But in Europe we use legal time which is either local time or local time+0100 in summer. - Alexandre 24 July 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex dacosta~enwiki (talk • contribs) 09:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the formal or technical details, I think it should be worth noting that CET is routinely used to refer to Central European Summer Time in informal contexts and occasionally in media (e.g. http://metronews.ca/news/world/1412811/eurotunnel-service-resumes-after-french-ferry-workers-block/). 81.148.186.105 (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The Spanish case
I live in Spain and the school starts at 09:00 or 08:30. The 09:30 is used sometimes for kids in age below 5.

80.33.107.34 07:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

 * This part seems rather unencyclopedic and anecdotal, I vote that we reword it as a cultural note or remove it. trisweb (Talk) 19:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I ask for rewriting or deletion of this part. Maybe all other people are wrong. Obviously, I'm Spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.161.73.234 (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Meridians on map?
Could someone add them, please, to illustrate the W/E 7°30' and E 22°30' cases which are discussed? Thanks in advance. -- Matthead DisOuß   16:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Major metropolitan areas
I do not see the relevance of this toppic to the article. My sugestion is to delete it from the article. by 212.18.162.33 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.18.162.33 (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 * agree, TimeCodex (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The reason of the "Major metropolitan areas" section is that Americans are used to having lists of cities instead of lists of countries when talking about time zones. Esmito (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is not a site for USAmericans. There is no reason to cater to one nation, unless, of course, that nation 'owns' Wikipedia. But that is against the ethos of the web site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.87.2 (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Which war?
The usage section introduces itself with the following:

 * The German Empire unified its time zones in 1893, to use CET (MEZ). During the war, this time was implemented in all occupied territories.
 * Before World War II, Lithuania used CET (MET) in the years 1920–40. In France, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg CET was kept. After the war Monaco, Spain, Andorra and Gibraltar implemented CET.

In the first paragraph, a war is mentioned, but it is not mentioned which war. Is the first world war? Or is the second? Less ambiguity, thank you! --Svippong 18:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Germany did not occupy France in World War I. Therefore, I'm assuming that whoever wrote this sentence meant World War II. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Except it says The German Empire, where the phrase 'the war' would usually mean the First World War. It is either ambiguous or incorrect. --Svippong 22:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed adoption in the United Kingdom
Yank, here, so mayhaps the rather extensive discussion of year-round British Standard Time (equivalent to CET) doesn't mean as much to me here as it might were I over there. Still, it seems to this editor, that the discussion isn't warranted in this article and should be moved - perhaps to British Summer Time or even to it's own article. --Trappist the monk (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Romance Standard Time
This page redirects from Romance Standard Time and yet doesnt mention it at all in the article. So visitors like me looking for info on RST come away with no idea what it is despite being redirected here.. Clever... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.213.140.86 (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Second this, came for the same (finding the identifier in an Exchange .ics file) and found nothing but the implicit association given by the redirect. Digging a bit, I found some old discussion about the redirect and some evidence from Microsoft that this time zone identifier is their invention, probably together with a bunch of others in those lists. Question is what the authoritative naming of time zones are and whether the Microsoft identifiers are prominent enough to be mentioned along those. This stack overflow question and reference to a SO wiki page has some insights, and refer to the tz database by IANA, the POSIX standard and Microsoft's identifier list as the major established/de-facto ways to refer to time zones. None of those, however, seems to be used in current articles such as this and fx. UTC+01:00. When people are looking for these identifiers, maybe they should be listed?
 * Kirkgaard (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Definition somewhat ambiguous wrt summer time
[This is sort of a restatement of the discussion about above.]

Our article defines CET as being UTC+1, but is it worth some more discussion of the ambiguity that can result if people colloquially use it to mean "the time kept by most nations in Central Europe"?

The article says that (a) it is UTC+1, (b) it used in most parts of the European Union, and (c) "all member states of the European Union observe summer time". But, depending on how you look at it, those three facts can not all hold true. In particular, for about half the year, all of those member states of the European Union are not using UTC+1.

This difficulty could be resolved if only there were a commonly-accepted term for "Central European Time" which encompassed the summer time shift, that is, if there were a term that meant "UTC+1 or UTC+2, as appropriate for the time of year." But since there is no such term, people often use "CET" instead. In practice, then, the term "CET" is ambiguous.

So I guess what I'm wondering is whether it's worth adding something along the lines of "Colloquially, the term "CET" is often used to refer to the time kept by a county in this time zone, including its summer time adjustment". Under that interpretation, 'CET' means 'UTC+01:00 or UTC+02:00, depending on the time of year.'"

See also this thread at the Reference Desk. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

 * The article contradicts itself. In the introduction it says CET is UTC+01:00. But the paragraph on the United Kingdom says Central European Time is always one hour ahead of British time. So this means that in summer CET is UTC+02:00. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpt0 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleting nonsensical statement
" 1884 ** The areas of current Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia start using CET. "

This statement does not make sense. Those territories were part of several different countries -- Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina (protectorate) were parts of of Austria-Hungary, the territory of what is now FYROM does not correspond to any particular political subunit or grouping of subunits of the Ottoman Empire, and the other two were independent countries. I'm deleting that line rather than putting a citation needed, because I highly doubt one can be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.52.96 (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

92.34.200.187
At first you started removing 1,400 bytes, and now you are removing over 2,600 by giving weak reasons. Can you discuss first per WP:BRD? Capitals00 (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Need for more authoritative sources
This article relies heavily on the private website www.timeanddate.com, which in turn does not cite any sources as far as I can see. And I don't see any references in the article to more authoritative sources like international bureaus, governments, or universities. I'm trying to find the actual treaties that must lie below all the information, but I'm failing to find them—even on Google. Shouldn't we try to find some more authoritative sources and cite them? Does anyone have any suggestions to such authoritative sources? --Jhertel (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Seconded. In particular, it's not clear that the reference to African countries is appropriate. My understanding is that CET is legislated, probably somewhere in the European Union, and that even countries like Switzerland go along with it without being part of it.  It would be nice to find out who determines things like DST. Groogle (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

 * No, CET is not legislated by the EU, it has no jurisdiction. Members of the EU are actively considering an agreement to abolish DST (or, to be more precise, abolishing the time change as some countries will adopt permanent summer time and others permanent winter time) but that is incidental. There are EUComm policy documents that use the terms EET, CET and WET, but that is just an example of adoption by usage rather than by law. See  And  (with acknowledgement to the work of Thjarkur, who found these).
 * Civil times are usually legislated nationally, a long time ago: AFIK all such legislation precedes the establishment of UTC as the primary definition.
 * I have seen African time zones: East African Time (UTC-03:00), Central African Time (UTC-02:00) and and West African Time (UTC-01:00) but not a Far West African Time (UTC+00:00). Again, these are just examples of adopted usage rather than any legislation.
 * Wikipedia follows rather than leads, but if we can observe real-world adoption of the terms (for example, by the EU - but also by "specialist" sites like timeanddate.com and timeserver.com ) then we certainly can and indeed should document it. Doing so doesn't mean we have to update every page on the site to use it. --Red King (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Nominal rather than physical
I started to change the word 'physical' to 'nominal', but decided that I had best stop to verify consensus. I suspect whoever wrote 'physical' in scare quotes felt at some level it isn't the right term but it was the best they could come up with. In other contexts, the word 'nominal' is used to mean that the figure is indicative and gets used in specific cases (especially when the word 'nominal' is being used to weasel word short measure!) to indicate a reference measure rather than a correct-to-the-micron measure.

Does anyone want to argue for retention of 'physical'? --Red King (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Biggest city Berlin
I don't see the relevance for that information nor a clear justification for its truth. If Berlin is bigger than say Paris certainly depends on which criteria are used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.217.4.27 (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Central European Time


text:
User talk:Drewcollins

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 17:46, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: St. Andrew's Anglican Church, Savannah, Georgia (August 11)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:St. Andrew's Anglican Church, Savannah, Georgia and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:St._Andrew%27s_Anglican_Church,_Savannah,_Georgia Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dan_arndt&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:St._Andrew%27s_Anglican_Church,_Savannah,_Georgia reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 05:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: St. Andrew's Anglican Church, Savannah, Georgia (September 8)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:St. Andrew's Anglican Church, Savannah, Georgia and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:St._Andrew%27s_Anglican_Church,_Savannah,_Georgia Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dan_arndt&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:St._Andrew%27s_Anglican_Church,_Savannah,_Georgia reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:St. Andrew's Anglican Church, Savannah, Georgia

Hello, Drewcollins. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "St. Andrew's Anglican Church".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:St. Andrew's Anglican Church, Savannah, Georgia

Hello, Drewcollins. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "St. Andrew's Anglican Church".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 08:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Drewcollins


text:
Levels of Processing model

The Levels of Processing model, created by Fergus I. M. Craik and Robert S. Lockhart in 1972, describes memory recall of stimuli as a function of the depth of mental processing. More analysis produce more elaborate and stronger memory than lower levels of processing. Depth of processing falls on a shallow to deep continuum. Shallow processing (e.g., processing based on phonemic and orthographic components) leads to a fragile memory trace that is susceptible to rapid decay. Conversely, deep processing (e.g., semantic processing) results in a more durable memory trace. There are three levels of processing in this model. Structural processing, or visual, is when we remember only the physical quality of the word (e.g. how the word is spelled and how letters look). Phonemic processing includes remembering the word by the way it sounds (e.g. the word tall rhymes with fall). Lastly, we have semantic processing in which we encode the meaning of the word with another word that is similar or has similar meaning. Once the word is perceived, the brain allows for a deeper processing.

This theory contradicts the multi-store Atkinson-Shiffrin memory model which represents memory strength as being continuously variable, the assumption being that rehearsal always improves long-term memory. They argued that rehearsal that consists simply of repeating previous analyses (maintenance rehearsal) doesn't enhance long-term memory.

In a study from 1975 (Craik and Tulving) participants were given a list of 60 words. Each word was presented along with three questions. The participant had to answer one of them. Those three questions were in one of three categories. One category of questions was about how the word was presented visually ("Is the word shown in italics?"). The second category of questions was about the phonemic qualities of the word ("Does the word begin with the sound 'bee'?"). The third category of questions was presented so that the reader was forced to think about the word within a certain context. ("Can you meet one in the street [a friend]"?) The result of this study showed that the words which contained deep processing (the latter) were remembered better.

Modifiers
Familiarity, transfer-appropriate processing, the self-reference effect, and the explicit nature of a stimulus modify the levels-of-processing effect by manipulating mental processing depth factors.

Familiarity
A stimulus will have a higher recall value if it is highly compatible with preexisting semantic structures (Craik, 1972). According to semantic network theories, this is because such a stimulus will have many connections to other encoded memories, which are activated based on closeness in semantic network structure. This activation increases cognitive analysis, increasing the strength of the memory representation. The familiarity modifier has been tested in implicit memory experiments, where subjects report false memories when presented with related stimuli.

Specificity of processing
Specificity of processing describes the increased recall value of a stimulus when presented in the method with which it was inputted. For example, auditory stimuli (spoken words and sounds) have the highest recall value when spoken, and visual stimuli have the highest recall value when a subject is presented with images. In writing tasks, words are recalled most effectively with semantic cues (asking for words with a particular meaning) if they are encoded semantically (self-generated by the subject as being related to a particular meaning). Words are recalled most effectively with data-driven cues (word completion) if they are read, rather than generated by a subject.

Self-reference effect
Levels of processing have been an integral part of learning about memory. The self-reference effect describes the greater recall capacity for a particular stimulus if it is related semantically to the subject. This can be thought of as a corollary of the familiarity modifier, because stimuli specifically related to an event in a person's life will have widespread activation in that person's semantic network. For example, the recall value of a personality trait adjective is higher when subjects are asked whether the trait adjective applies to them than when asked whether trait adjective has a meaning similar to another trait.

Implicit memory and levels-of-processing
Implicit memory tests, in contrast with explicit memory tests, measure the recall value of a particular stimulus based on later performance on stimulus-related tasks. During these tasks, the subject does not explicitly recall the stimulus, but the previous stimulus still affects performance. For example, in a word-completion implicit memory task, if a subject reads a list containing the word "dog", the subject provides this word more readily when asked for three-letter words beginning in "d". The levels-of-processing effect is only found for explicit memory tests. One study found that word completion tasks were unaffected by levels of semantic encodings achieved using three words with various levels of meaning in common. Another found that typical level-of-processing effects are reversed in word completion tasks; subjects recalled pictures pairs more completely if they were shown a word representing a picture rather than asked to rate a picture for pleasantness (semantic encoding). Typical level-of-processing theory would predict that picture encodings would create deeper processing than lexical encoding.

"Memory over the short term and the long term has been thought to differ in many ways in terms of capacity, the underlying neural substrates, and the types of processes that support performance."

Long-term memory
We especially remember information if we relate it to ourselves. Damage to the hippocampus produces an inability to form or retrieve new long-term memories, but the ability to maintain and reproduce a small subset of information over the short term is typically preserved.

Sensory modes
Different sensory modes, by their nature, involve different depths of processing, generally producing higher recall value in certain senses than others. However, there is significant room for the modifiers mentioned earlier to affect levels-of-processing to be activated within each sensory mode.

Vision
Visual input creates the strongest recall value of all senses, and also allows the widest spectrum of levels-of-processing modifiers. It is also one of the most widely studied. Within visual studies, pictures have been shown to have a greater recall value than words – the picture superiority effect. However, semantic associations have the reverse effect in picture memories appear to be reversed to those in other memories. When logical details are stressed, rather than physical details, an image's recall value becomes lower. When comparing orthographic (capitalization, letter and word shape), phonological (word sound) and semantic (word meaning) encoding cues, the highest levels of recall were found with the meanings of the words, followed by their sounds and finally the written and shape-based cues were found to generate the least ability to stimulate recall.

Hearing
Auditory stimuli follow conventional levels-of-processing rules, although are somewhat weaker in general recall value when compared with vision. Some studies suggest that auditory weakness is only present for explicit memory (direct recall), rather than implicit memory. When test subjects are presented with auditory versus visual word cues, they only perform worse on directed recall of a spoken word versus a seen word, and perform about equally on implicit free-association tests. Within auditory stimuli, semantic analysis produces the highest levels of recall ability for stimuli. Experiments suggest that levels-of-processing on the auditory level is directly correlated with neural activation.

Touch
Tactile memory representations are similar in nature to visual representations, although there is not enough data to reliably compare the strength of the two kinds of stimuli. One study suggests that there is a difference in mental processing level due to innate differences between visual and tactile stimuli representations. In this study, subjects were presented with an object in both visual and tactile form (a subject is shown a sphere but cannot touch it, and later is given a similar sphere to only hold and not view). Subjects had more trouble identifying size difference in visual fields than using tactile feedback. A suggestion for the lower level of size processing in visual fields is that it results from the high variance in viewed object size due to perspective and distance.

Smell
Odor memory is weaker than visual memory, achieving a successful identification rate of only 70-80% of visual memory. Levels-of-processing effects have been found within odor memory if subjects are asked to "visualize" smells and associate them with a particular picture. Subjects who perform this task have a different recall value on explicit memory tests than subjects who memorize smells using self-chosen methods. The difference in recall value, however, depends on the subject, and the subject's ability to form images from odors. Attributing verbal attributes to odors has similar effects. Semantic processing of odors (e.g. attributing the "mud" odor to "smell like a puddle") has found to have the most positive effects on recall.

Neural evidence
Several brain imaging studies using positron emission tomography and functional magnetic resonance imaging techniques have shown that higher levels of processing correlate with more brain activity and activity in different parts of the brain than lower levels. For example, in a lexical analysis task, subjects showed activity in the left inferior prefrontal cortex only when identifying whether the word represented a living or nonliving object, and not when identifying whether or not the word contained an "a". Similarly, an auditory analysis task showed increased activation in the left inferior prefrontal cortex when subjects performed increasingly semantic word manipulations. Synaptic aspects of word recognition have been correlated with the left frontal operculum and the cortex lining the junction of the inferior frontal and inferior precentral sulcus. The self-reference effect also has neural correlates with a region of the medial prefrontal cortex, which was activated in an experiment where subjects analyzed the relevance of data to themselves. Specificity of processing is explained on a neurological basis by studies that show brain activity in the same location when a visual memory is encoded and retrieved, and lexical memory in a different location. Visual memory areas were mostly located within the bilateral extrastriate visual cortex.

Mental disorders
Levels-of-processing effects interact in various ways with mental disorders. In particular, levels-of-processing effects appear to be strengthened in patients with age-related memory degradation, selectively strengthened in panic disorder patients, unaffected in Alzheimer's disease patients, and reversed in autistic patients.

Age-related memory degradation
Memory encoding strength derived from higher levels-of-processing appears to be conserved despite other losses in memory function with age. Several studies show that, in older individuals, the ability to process semantically in contrast with non-semantically is improved by this disparity. Neural imaging studies show decreased left-prefrontal cortex activity when words and images are presented to older subjects than with younger subjects, but roughly equal activity when assessing semantic connections.

Panic disorders
Panic disorders appear to modify levels-of-processing by increasing ability to recall words with threatening meanings over positive and neutral words. In one study, both implicit (free recall) and explicit (memory of emotional aspects) memorization of word lists were enhanced by threatening meanings in such patients.

Alzheimer's disease
Modern studies show an increased effect of levels-of-processing in Alzheimer patients. Specifically, there is a significantly higher recall value for semantically encoded stimuli over physically encoded stimuli. In one such experiment, subjects maintained a higher recall value in words chosen by meaning over words selected by numerical order.

Autism
In autistic patients, levels-of-processing effects are reversed in that semantically presented stimuli have a lower recall value than physically presented stimuli. In one study, phonological and orthographic processing created higher recall value in word list-recall tests. Other studies have explicitly found non-semantically processed stimuli to be more accurately processed by autistic patients than in non-autistic patients. No clear conclusions have been drawn as to the cause of this oddity.

title: Levels of Processing model


text: Category:150 BC deaths

title: Category:150 BC deaths


text:
Template talk:Mainarticle

There already is Template:Main, which is more widely used. Fredrik | talk 17:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Mainarticle


text: Category:125 BC deaths

title: Category:125 BC deaths


text:
Talk:Voiceless uvular fricative

Someone seems to have confused this sound with voiceless velar fricative as the German "ach"-sound. I removed the text since it is already mentioned in that article. Peter Isotalo 17:50, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

German example
It was brought to my attention by a user on the German Wikipedia that voiceless velar fricative is not the standard pronunciation of Ach-Laut. She gave me this reference:. It's not a reference on German phonology per se, rather an explanation of IPA symbols in German using mostly German examples, but it is complete enough to make mention of which German dialects pronounce Ach-Laut as velar and which as uvular (and standard German is used as the example for the voiceless uvular fricative). I know that in most articles on the English Wikipedia, this sound is identified as the velar fricative, but I don't think this is correct (both from the reference above and hearing Germans speak). I would like to change the German example back to what I originally added, but I am sure someone will change it back unless a consensus is reached here. Therefore, if you have a good reference from outside of Wikipedia that Ach-Laut really is pronounced as a voiceless velar fricative in standard German, please add it here.

What may be the case (and I don't know this for sure) is that [x] has come to be the standard broad transcription of Ach-Laut not because it the more common pronunciation, but because of convention (as far as I can tell, [x] is for some reason more commonly used than [χ] in broad transcriptions of any language, unless there is a phonemic distinction between the sounds in the language). I am aware that UPSID lists German as having voiceless velar fricative rather than voiceless uvular fricative, but I'm not sure what to make of this as I don't believe this database lists allophones, and in any case if my guess about broad transcriptions is correct, then I would be skeptical about this anyway unless there were a better explanation. Unfortunately, everything I have been able to find about UPSID is second-hand, and I don't know how exactly the data should be interpreted. Perhaps we would be so lucky as to have a UCLA linguistics professor as a fellow Wikipedian? CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 00:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

 * No I just confused the velar and uvular sounds and hence the mistaken edit. Sorry about that...

 * There's a quite extensive text on the use of this sound in German by now. I think, though, that this article is intended to be mainly focused on the phonetic aspects of the sound rather than phonemic discussions. I suggest moving the text on German to German pronunciation and perhaps moving that article to German phonology to adhere to standard of the Phonetics Project. Peter Isotalo 17:21, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * The text from the German example may become a good basis for the not yet existing article on the ach-Laut.
 * Though maybe it would be advantageous to have better examples there before we start to remove any of them. And notices are not bad per se, that tells in which (better known) languages the sound occurs.
 * --Ruhrjung 01:06, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Hrrm. I wouldn't really consider an article like ach-Laut encyclopedic. At least not in English Wikipedia. It's basically just a layman's term for two of the realizations of the phoneme /x/ in German. As it seems somewhat superfluous to have seperate articles for non-specific sounds in seperate languages, it's best to mention it in German phonology instead. I've brought this up in ich-Laut as well.
 * As for the examples, it's bound to get messy sooner or later. If we were to mention every language in which this sound occured with phonemic info, the article would get very redundant and too big very quickly. I would much rather prefer that only a few examples of languages (with links to phonology sections or seperate phonology articles) and in how many of the UPSID languages the sound actually occurs. Refering to "better known" languages is also not a good idea if you want to avoid systematic bias. Linguistically, the prestige of a certain language is of no interest; all languages deserve to be treated equally.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:48, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * I would recommend against listing how many of the UPSID languages a sound occurs in. There is the comment I made above about UPSID not listing allophones, and more importantly, that UPSID is missing many of the most commonly spoken languages.  So listing how many UPSID languages a sound occurs in is less info about the sound than it is info about UPSID.  As far as the "better known" languages, for sounds that do occur in well-known languages (or more precisely in languages that have a large number of speakers), these languages do provide a good reference for illustrative purposes because they increase the chance that a visitor to the English Wikipedia will have some idea what is being mentioned.  I envision someone reading the example and saying "Oh, so that's what that sound is called" or "that's how that sound is classified".  That's why when I started putting up examples, I gave English a priveledged place on the list.  That said, I agree that having a few examples from a wide variety of languages is better than having many examples from only the well-known languages, which will unfortunately fall into only a handful of language families.  However, having a large number of examples and a wide variety of languages is not necessarily a bad thing.  It probably means we should rethink the organization though.  Just having an unorganized list of languages could get messy.  I just don't think it needs to be worried about until we actually do have that many examples. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 04:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Hm, didn't think of the problem with only allophones listed for the UPSID-languages. I'll step back on that idea, then. But it would be good if we really tried to avoid just listing the most spoken or most prestigous languages, and tried to rather pick one or two examples from different langauge families, no matter the amount of speakers.
 * I am, however, not at all keen into making this a general repository for phonemic comments. To mention that "This sound is an allophone of phoneme /X/ in language Y" is certainly ok, but going on by listing the other allophones of phoneme /X/, that might have nothing at all to do with the sound that the article is about, is merely confusing. This article is as I can see it purely phonetic, and mixing in phonemic analysis will just blur the distinction. And if there's a bunch of phonetically irrelevant allophones listed for one language, then others will do it sooner or later and we'll get messy articles.
 * Maybe we should bring this up in WikiProject Phonetics to get some kind of consensus policy going. Any thoughts on that?
 * Peter Isotalo 06:55, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * When there are other and better examples from wellknown languages, then it may be time to get rid of this example. Since we are not writing an online encyclopedia for linguists it may have some importance whether the readers have heard, or maybe even been taught, one of the languages we exemplify with.

 * And who says we have to mention every language with phonemic info?

 * Given the obvious complications connected with the definition of phonology and its standing vis-a-vis phonetics, I would also tend to advice against article titles of the formula "X language phonology", pronunciation is certainly a better known and understood term.
 * --Ruhrjung 13:00, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

My edit
I can't believe Arabic and Hebrew weren't mentioned! I added them.

[χ] is quite rare in German. It is the (only!) realization of /x/ in the Alemannic and Tyrolean dialects; but outside these I (native speaker from Austria) have never heard it, except perhaps somewhere on German TV. The reference says it is used (implied: somewhere in Germany) as a third allophone of /x/: [ç] ("ich-Laut") behind close front vowels, [x] ("ach-Laut") behind most others, [χ] behind (giving doch  as an example). This third allophone does not exist elsewhere. I get "postvelar" at best (my "uch-Laut" sounds Russian). Before I read this I wouldn't have dreamt of considering [χ] Standard German at all!!!

(In general the reference is rather Germany-centric. For example, in Austria even radio & TV newsreaders wouldn't dream of aspirating any consonant, and they only started saying [z] a few years ago, forgetting it most of the time, forgetting to voice it most of the rest of the time, adding a vowel in front of it most of the rest of that time, and putting it where it doesn't belong, mispronounced or not, much of the remaining time. Standard German is a pluricentric language.)

I also added the spelling for German and Spanish so that laypeople find out what we're talking about.

Should I add "some dialects of Dutch"? It's not standard (see Dutch language), but I've heard Belgians use it for (at least word-initial) g.

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 23:15 CEST | 2006/4/4

 * Sorry: not all dialects of Arabic seem to have [χ].

 * David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 22:52 CEST | 2006/4/8

Contradiction
It says here that Hebrew uses a voiceless uvular fricative, but in Hebrew language it says that it uses a velar fricative. This is a contradiction.--Mo-Al 00:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Not necessarily. It's quite likely that it uses both. --Ptcamn 00:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * In no varieties of modern Hebrew are both phonemic. --Mo-Al 02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * They don't have to be phonemic. It's possible that the sound may be phonetically realised as either velar or uvular depending upon context; I'm no Hebrew expert, but perhaps the two allophones are in such equal distribution that it would oversimplify the phonetic reality to pick one over the other. See Georgian language for another example of this confusion; even now, Georgian linguists are not in agreement as to whether the back fricatives of Georgian are fundamentally velar or uvular. Thefamouseccles 00:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, I have never heard [x] used; besides, there is no mention of it in the section on Hebrew in the IPA manual. I think the problem is that people are confusing traditional and modern Hebrew pronounciation.--Mo-Al 08:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. In Hebrew there are two separate letters, "chaf" and "hhet". "Chaf" is a uvular fricative in all pronunciations. "Hhet" is a velar fricative in Mizrahi pronunciation (which is probably the most historically correct), and a uvular fricative in all other pronunciations, both Sephardi and Ashkenazi. Arabic too has both sounds. It is therefore fine to cite Hebrew as an example of a language with a uvular fricative, whether or not you believe that there is a velar fricative as well. So please remove the contradiction mark. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 12:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Khaf has two allophones in complementing distribution: [k] and [x] ("kh", see Dagesh). Het generally should sound like [ħ] (and so do the Mizrahi Jews, and Arabs pronounce it), while Ashkenazi Jews, and "Jew Israeli Jews" pronounce it [x]. Nothing uvular, and you've got everything upside down.
 * The comparison to Arabic is done a lot during research, but it should be done properly. Arabic ذ and ز both became Zayin, in Hebrew (Biblical), but noone would say that hebrew has [ð]. Why? Because the letter merged, and both are Hebrew Zain, pronouncd [z]. Same goes to Arabic ح and خ that are pronounced [ħ] and [x] in Arabic, respectively, but merged in Hebrew (BIBLICAL!) to Het, which is pronounced [ħ].
 * Arabic ث became Shin in Hebrew. So what? No [θ] in Hebrew. ظ , ص and ض all became Tsade in Hebrew. SO WHAT? HEBREW DOESN'T HAVE [zˁ], [sˁ] or [dˁ] (or [z'], [s'], and [d'])
 * And again: Nothing uvular. conio.h • talk 09:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Every speaker of Modern Israeli Hebrew I've ever heard has had a uvular fricative, not a velar one, and the Hebrew phonology article is also in agreement about this. The Speech Accent Archive also has the uvular fricative (along with pharyngeals); my guess would be their chart is from the IPA's 1999 Handbook . If there's any contradiction at all, I'd say it's in the Hebrew language article, rather than this one. --Red Newt 04:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I have changed the Hebrew language article - it is obviousely a misconception (and it states in the IPA handbook that Hebrew uses an uvular fricative). Mo-Al 17:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

 * OK. Why, then, are there no Hebrew examples in the article now? Hebrew has more speakers than most of the listed languages together; we should not sweep it under the carpet. David Marjanović 22:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ordering by number of fricatives
I liked the addition by the IP editor from the University of Queensland and regret that it has been reverted. I brought the matter up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Phonetics. — Sebastian 21:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Varieties of [χ]
This table in the article seems to be using the table for voiceless velar fricatives, instead of the uvular one that the article talks about. Is there an equivalent uvular table, or should the section simply be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.168.114 (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Kh (IPA)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kh (IPA). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

sounds like a trill
this doesn't sound like a fricative Dankpods (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Voiceless uvular fricative


text:
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ring tailed lemur

Ring tailed lemur
Photo taken by sannse, featured in Ring-tailed Lemur. Currently an as well. - brian0918  ™  17:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) +12 / -5 -- Solipsist 13:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Nominate and support. - brian0918  ™  17:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sure nice but only just another animal photo. Or are the twin babies something special? If so it would be a reason for me to support it --Bricktop 23:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Tend to agree with "just another animal photo". Jonas Olson 14:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Pretty nice shot of an important animal to us primates. Denni ☯ 02:11, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
 * Support great shot. Nice colors, cute baby lemur. :) Mgm|(talk) 08:43, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice. --Bernard Helmstetter 13:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not all that special. Enochlau 09:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - great pic, love it! - Adrian Pingstone 15:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Circeus 16:43, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Just another animal photo. - Pioneer-12 18:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * And you supported "Working dog". Hmmm... Denni ☯ 22:17, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
 * That photo had artistic merit. At least, some quality in that photo struck me as interesting. This just feels bland. - Pioneer-12 23:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice, crisp image. Satisfying depiction of photograph's subject. Sango  123  16:07, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Makes my cute-o-meter spin. —Korath (Talk) 20:08, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, very cute, nicely illustrates the "behaviour and reproduction" section - they have litters of one or two. --Andrew 10:40, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - I wasn't going to support my own image (seems a bit vain ;) but why not - this is one I was pleased with. Thanks for the nomination Brian -- sannse (talk) 19:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - Nice shot and unusual picture JoJan 18:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Support -- Longhair | Talk 03:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose They're funny looking creatures, all right, but the photo seems nothing spectacular. Just a straight on shot of the lemur.  No particular emotion, flair, creative framing, etc.  Cute, but not spectacular. --jacobolus (t)


text: Category:English palaeontologists

title: Category:English palaeontologists


text: User talk:69.129.13.204

title: User talk:69.129.13.204


text:
Talk:Barrel racing

barrels
How far apart should the barrels be spaced?

The barrel distances for a standard size arena (90 ft. wide by 150 ft. long) are as follows: from the score line (starting line) to the 1st and 2nd barrels is 90 feet. The distance between the first and second barrels is 90 feet, and the distance from the 1st and 2nd barrels to the 3rd barrel is 150 feet.<33 audrey

There's a nice diagram on Barrel racing

this article sucks, someone should fix it up. i would but im lazy

---

Ehhh.. Clover Leaf isnt the only type of barrel racing.

Edit
The entire first paragraph needs to be rewritten. It doesn't make any sense. __________________________

Yes, I went to this page to find out about barrel racing, and wound up laughing sadly at the grammar and structure. I added a cleanup tag so that someone who (I hope) knows both barrel racing and English can rewrite this article. StavinChain 14:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have redone the Barrel Racing article! Hope it helps. --TTURodeoBaby 03:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph reads like a breathless endorsement of the sport

In response: It is it what it is, its not an endorsment its the sport in itself. If you were a barrel racer I am sure you would understand, but I take it you are not due to your lack of understanding and perspicacity. --TTURodeoBaby 04:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TTURodeoBaby (talk • contribs).

Training
Though there are many ways to train horses to barrel race, the most common is through repetition. The first thing to do is to start training the pattern. Begin by walking to the first barrel. About ten feet away from the barrel, stop and back up a couple steps. You must turn wide around the barrel so that when you are ready to run the pattern, your horse has enough room to turn the barrel without knocking it over. Repeat this for every barrel. When your horse starts to do it on his own, trot the pattern, walking around the barrels. Slowly increase speed to a lope, and trot around the barrels. Once your horse has learned the pattern, you can run the pattern at your own pace. Remember not to rush your horse into learning how to race. Do other things like trail rides so that your horse does not get bored or frustrated with training. Barrel racing is a dangerous sport, so make sure that you have the right equipment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowgurlll (talk • contribs) 03:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

new person: julia wrote this↓

hey thank you so much to everyone who edited it really helped me for a report — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.197.77 (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The Beginnings
The article reads that the sport was introduced because it gave women a sport in the Rodeo. But I was hoping to see a little more explained in the article. Does anyone know more? I mean, who came up with this idea in the first place? Racing was a result of shining, and one can see the obvious link between the two. However, what could have sparked running around three barrels? I suppose cow herding could possibly play into it, but I can't imagine a wrangler having to do such an odd pattern to herd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandere0 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

 * It would be interesting for someone to do more research, perhaps you can find some additional background and a source to add as a footnote.  Montanabw (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion
I've suggested merging Camas Prairie Stump Race into this article. It is a tiny stub, and has been tagged as unreferenced for over three years. Any objections? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm of mixed feelings. On one hand, the general principle:  if we trash every article on WP with an "unreferenced" tag, we will wipe out half the encyclopedia.  See WP:DEMOLISH.  On the other hand, in THIS case (and Nez Perce Stake Race/Pole Bending) you are correct that this event is an offshoot of barrel racing (and I doubt the ApHC can actually track it to a specific Nez Perce tradition, but maybe they could...), but on the other hand, it IS a slightly different pattern with slightly different rules.  As the barrels and poles articles aren't all that well-sourced at this point, I see little problem creating a new section in each article for these ApHC events.  If that's what you were thinking of doing, and keep the basic info, I guess you can go for it, but DO keep the pattern image...  Montanabw (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Modern Event (edit)
I made an edit to the barrel racing article. I edited the "Modern Event" section. I am a barrel racer and found that some of the information in that section is inaccurate. Later I came back and found that my edits had been erased. I was just wondering why someone would want to make this article inaccurate. I was also wondering why a whole section of the Barrel Racing article was copied and pasted from another website? So could those two questions get answered. Why the information was changed? and Why is some of the article copied and pasted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianeknutzen (talk • contribs) 17:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

 * The actual inaccuracies, if they are truly inaccurate, could easily be discussed here to see where improvements could be made. Someone needs to do a thorough revision of the article and use proper footnotes and citations.  Most edits to this article get reverted because they are poorly written, misspelled, provide yet more unsourced material, and often contain names of specific people who won last week's jackpot at Ploughkeepsie, contain advertising or self-promotion, or just have material of only local/regional interest.   Montanabw (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought the Modern Event section had some inaccuracies. For example, You do not always run through the gate because not only is that dangerous but if you are barrel racing at a gaming show that is completely illegal. I was going to put in there that if you are at a 4-H event you have to enter the arena no faster than at a trot. Then you have to stand in your box and wait for the judges flag to go up. once their flag is up you wave at them (and they should put the flag down) and you can take off. Although before you can start all the gates must be closed or you will be disqualified. Once you are done and stopped in your box you have to wave at the judge again. Also I was going to add that your time also depends on if you had a clean run. For example every barrel you knock down you get plus 5 added to your time. Also if you go out of the lines you are DQ. I know all this because I have done barrel racing for 2 years. Dianeknutzen (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If there are no objections I will change it back. If you object please post here. Dianeknutzen (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

 * You apparently have never seen the national finals rodeo. Rules for the local O-Mok-See or 4-H club are different from the big time, and often so different that they might as well be different sports.  The bit on the 5 second penalty is already in the article.  Your edits are for little local events, not the major ones.    Montanabw (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Barrel racing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add

after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080704123636/http://barrelracingclinic.com/BarrelPattern.htm to http://www.barrelracingclinic.com/BarrelPattern.htm

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Barrel racing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110818012236/http://horse911.com/kb/?View=entry&EntryID=8 to http://horse911.com/kb/?View=entry&EntryID=8

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Barrel racing. 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/20091216074140/http://www.wpra.com:80/history.asp to http://www.wpra.com/history.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.stock-horse-show-source.com/horse-games.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Time to modify prices of horses?
I think prices have gone up considerably by 2022. Cwilsyn (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Barrel racing


text: User talk:70.244.50.22

title: User talk:70.244.50.22


text:
Rebecca Wells

Rebecca Wells (born February 3, 1953) is an American author, actor, and playwright known for the Ya-Ya Sisterhood series, which includes the books Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood, Little Altars Everywhere, Ya-Yas in Bloom, and The Crowning Glory of Calla Lily Ponder.

Background
Wells was born and raised in Alexandria, Louisiana, where her family owned and ran a cotton farm. She attended Louisiana State University and, after graduating, the Naropa Institute in Boulder, Colorado, where she studied language and consciousness with Allen Ginsberg and Choyyam Trungapa Rinpoche, as well as acting, movement, and voice with members of The Living Theatre. She then went to New York City, where she studied the Stanislavski Method of acting.

In 1982 she moved to Seattle, Washington, making her home on Bainbridge Island. She currently lives in Nashville, Tennessee.

Writing career
Wells' first book, Little Altars Everywhere, (1992) recounts the multi-layered saga of the turbulent Walker family in Thornton, Louisiana, from the 1960s to the present and introduces the characters Siddalee Walker, her mother Viviane, and her mother's best friends, the Ya-Yas, whose stories continue in Wells' other books. It won the Western States Book Award and became a New York Times bestseller.

Her second novel, Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood (1996) explores Siddalee's troubled relationship with her mother, and the deeper understanding she gains when her mother sends her the "Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood," a scrapbook chronicling the girlhood adventures of Vivi and her three best friends. A number one New York Times bestseller, it won the American Booksellers Award, and was short-listed for the Orange Prize for Fiction (now known as the Baileys Women's Prize for Fiction). It was adapted for the 2002 film Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood starring Sandra Bullock as Siddalee Walker and Ellen Burstyn as her mother Vivi.

Wells' third novel, Ya-Yas in Bloom, (2005) reveals the roots of the friendship of the Ya-Ya sisterhood in the 1930s. Ya-Yas in Bloom reached the #3 spot on both the New York Times and Publishers Weekly bestseller lists

Her fourth novel, The Crowning Glory of Calla Lily Ponder, (2009) set in 1960s Louisiana, departs from the characters in Wells' other books, an introduces a new character, Calla Lily Ponder, and her friends.

Theater work
A playwright and actor before she began writing fiction, Wells is known for her one-woman show, Splittin' Hairs, and her play, Gloria Duplex, about a French Quarter erotic dancer who sees the face of God in a disco ball, which was called "one of the glories of the decade" by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Novels

 * Little Altars Everywhere (1992)
 * Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood (1996)
 * Ya-Yas in Bloom (2005)
 * The Crowning Glory of Calla Lily Ponder (2009)

Short stories

 * Little Altars Everywhere (1992)

title: Rebecca Wells


text: Category:138 BC deaths

title: Category:138 BC deaths


text:
Talk:Opinion piece

Vbbn

US-centric
The world is a big place, the USA is one country, and only the third largest by population at that. Much of the content, almost all, of this article should be moved to the article on the American press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.153.172 (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

wikitorial?
I heard bill gates is the richest man that such an effort might be better suited for wikipedia. Of course, the problem is that it violates nearly every wikipedia policy I can think of. NPOV, which is supposed to be a "non-negotiable" policy, for example. Of the 4 key policies listed on the policies and guidelines page, it would violate 2 and would doubtless lead to the violation of a 3rd (respect other authors), and goes on to violate, by my count, 3 more policies and guidelines. Perhaps it would be better outside of wikipedia and in a sister project, like wikibooks or wiktionary. But I have no idea how to propose something like this, so I thought I'd just drop the idea. Done. --2tothe4 19:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I actually think that's a fascinating idea! 128.12.20.195 21:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is somethign I came across while reading an ancient tamil book( Scriptures). It says editorial -- surprisingly as "edu" "ittor "iyal" where "edu" mean book or magazine, "ittor" means publisher or writer and "iyal" means field, so I was able to conclude that editorial was nothing but the comments of the publisher/writer about the book. Can anyone trace the history of the word, I am thinking that this should have been formed ( or came into existance) when british ruled india. Any Comments/suggestions, welcome..

Editorial vs. Op-Ed?
My understanding was that an "editorial" is a non-bylined piece that represents the culmulative, official position of the entire editorial staff. But an "op-ed" piece is by-lined (i.e., credited to a specific author) and represents his opinion and his alone. Traditionally, editorials are on the left-side pages of a newspaper and op-eds are on a right-side page -- although that isn't universally true. Is this really the case? Should such a distinction be in this article? Joe 16:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

 * It's the first thing that came to my mind after reading current article where editorial and op-ed are made the same. I thought that editorial and op-ed are different and opposing each other in some way. Compare definitions with Google Google define:op-ed. It looks like a Op-ed should go into separate article --iLAVA 15:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I think this can easily be resolved by providing a fuller explanation of each. For now, I propose splitting the content of the page into sections.  The term op-ed can also apply to a guest opinion column placed in, or solicited an opinion page editor. Jkaplan 06:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I attempted a rewrite of the opening paragraph to reflect the distinction. The terms are used confusingly throughout the article--e.g., a line about "the editorial page" of the New York Times actually lists its op-ed columnists.  Also the term "opinion page" is used frequently, but not defined; it's equivalent to "op-ed page," although, as we know, the "op" isn't short for "opinion". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.226.240.147 (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

 * I support the idea of giving the 'op-ed' its own page; they're two different animals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.42.213.167 (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Op-Ed stands for...
In the first paragraph of this article, it appears to me as though op-ed is defined as standing for "opinion editorial" AND as "a combination of the words "opposite" and "editorial."" So, which is it? Opposite or opinion? Once we figure that out, perhaps we can also figure out if the above "Editorial vs. Op-Ed" section will split this article into two articles. I'll look around to see if I can find anything official to cite on these issues. --Rcronk 18:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Merrium-Webster Online says that an editorial is:

 * a newspaper or magazine article that gives the opinions of the editors or publishers; also : an expression of opinion that resembles such an article

and an op-ed (Etymology: short for opposite editorial) is:

 * a page of special features usually opposite the editorial page of a newspaper; also : a feature on such a page

Answers.com American Word Origins explains it well also. I'll tweak the first paragraph op-ed definition conflict if someone else wants to handle the editorial vs. op-ed issue. --Rcronk 19:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Rcronk, see my note above. I've attempted a serious re-write of the article, and broken it down into sections, hoping to clear up the differences between and op-ed and an editorial.  Does anyone think we should split this entry into two pages--one for "op-ed" and one for "editorial"? Jkaplan 06:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The idea of "op/ed" standing for "opposite editorials" still needs better verification than the above. Right now it still sounds fishy, like the old falsehood that "posh" meaning "fancy" stands for "port out, starboard home". If this assertion is to be kept in the article, it needs to be verified in a reliable source and cited properly. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Indeed it does stand for "opposite (the) editorials", in reference to their physical position, not their ideological one. It's an explanation I've seen in the New York Times (who coined the term) on a few occasions. After a little digging, I found this William Safire column from 2005 that cites it oknazevad (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

ASME guidelines
I checked the reference and the "editorial content" they are referring to is in distinction to advertising content. They are not using the term "editorial" to mean opinion pieces but rather non-advertising material. Unless someone object I'm going to remove the sentence. -Will Beback · † · 06:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The American Society of Magazine Editors has developed a list of editorial guidelines, to which a majority of magazine editors commonly adhere.

Paradox?
Right now, the first paragraph says that an editorial is a piece of writing that is usually placed on the opposite page of the editorial, which sounds strange to my ears. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.70.178.47 (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Editorial boards
"The editorial board is a group of vaginas,..." - ahem, do u think that this is true? --Tmilovan 14:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Editorial
'''Why do we have an editorial page? Is it sop editors can give their opinion and we can see then agree and disagree about what they are saying?''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.50.159 (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an Important Page
As a journalist and a member of an organization who's sole purpose is to separate news from editorializing I find that this page has vital information on this subject. Myraedison 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

 * It would also seem that it is prone to vandalism.

 * Actually, Myraedison reminds me of an important point. The rigid separation (at least in theory) between news and editorialising in the US press is not replicated here in the UK. It's taken as read that the tabloid press, in particular but not exclusively, will slant its news coverage according to the views of its editor/proprietor. This has always been the case, and most people don't consider it a bad thing in and of itself - they only dislike it when the views don't correspond to their own! 86.143.48.55 (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference
Ref 1 no longer exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.134.52 (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

reference number 2 gives 404 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasaalan (talk • contribs) 15:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Editorial Page and Cleanup
I noticed that it's suggested that this be merged with the Editorial Page article. I think that's a good idea but I would recommend striking out the comment about the most common location for editorials, since I don't actually know of a paper in my area where that's true (I live in Chicago, checked the Trib and the Sun Times and the Red Eye as well as my own school newspaper, for which I am the Editorials section editor).

Further, this article is in serious need of cleanup. Editorials are different from Opinion pieces, this article reads like they are the same (an editorial has way more limitations, and it needs to be more then just an opinion, it needs to be an interpretation of this opinion relevant to current news, and of course, it can't be extremely biased or otherwise libelous). It's poorly structured and the like, with minimal sources for facts. Dylan (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved to new title
I've moved the original Editorial article to Opinion piece and created a new article Editorial from some pieces of the old one. --Lambiam 12:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Artículo de opinión
F 201.162.243.12 (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Opinion piece


text: User talk:81.154.176.92

title: User talk:81.154.176.92