text:
Embodyment

Embodyment was a Christian rock band from Arlington, Texas. The group formed in 1992 and were first known by the name Supplication where they originally played death metal, later turning to deathcore with the release of their debut album Embrace the Eternal, which in turn is credited as one of the earliest deathcore releases of all time. Following their debut full-length the band would completely abandon all their extreme metal elements thereafter, pursuing instead an alternative rock/nu metal style with their album The Narrow Scope of Things and subsequently became lighter with each proceeding album.

The band frequently performed shows with touring acts such as Living Sacrifice, Zao, Training for Utopia, P.O.D. and No Innocent Victim.

History
Embodyment started out as a death metal band known as Supplication, with the lineup of Andrew Godwin on lead guitars, Jason Lindquist on vocals, Kevin Donnini on bass, and Jason Donnini on drums. However, quickly thereafter, Jason Domini quit the band and ran away from home. Lindquist knew Mark Garza from school and asked him to play drums. Garza joined the band with the stipulation that his friend Taylor Smith joined the band on rhythm guitars and vocals. After recording their debut demo, Persistent Sin, the band changed their name to Embodyment. Smith would leave the band with Kris McCaddon joining on as vocalist.

The band had the opportunity to play with bands such as Living Sacrifice, P.O.D., No Innocent Victim, Zao, and Focal Point by this time. The band had recorded and released their second demo known as Corrosion of the Flesh. A self-titled demo would be released soon thereafter. Jason Stinson of Overcome showed Brandon Ebel of Tooth & Nail Records the band's demo, which led to their signing.

They signed to Solid State Records in 1997 for their debut album, Embrace the Eternal, where they switched to a deathcore style. The album contains mostly new material but also new versions of a couple of the old demos. Solid State later distributed a collection of the early Embodyment death metal demos titled [1993-1996] in addition to releasing a previously unreleased track by the band called “Halo of Winter” on the label's compilation album, “This Is Solid State Vol. I”.

After kicking vocalist Kris McCaddon out, Sean Corbray joined the band and introduced a markedly different vocal style to the band, evidenced on the followup to Embrace the Eternal, titled The Narrow Scope of Things. This album was the band's first step away from any of the heavier metal subgenres. Instead, their sound on the album was adjusted to alternative metal with hard rock influences and featured actual singing and some screamed vocal parts rather than any form of death metal vocals.

Embodyment's third and final album for Solid State, Hold Your Breath, continued in the direction seen on The Narrow Scope of Things toward more alternative and hard rock stylings. Hold Your Breath was Embodyment's first album that featured no screamed vocals, only singing vocals. Embodyment's last album, Songs for the Living, was much the same, showing even less of the dwindling metal influence heard on Hold Your Breath.

Embodyment had shopped the Songs for the Living material around as an Industry Demo, looking for a new label, but after finding being given the idea that there was more interest than there was, they released it as an album on XS Records. The label was being operated by former Puller vocalist Mike Lewis and Living Sacrifice guitarist and vocalist Bruce Fitzhugh, who the band had much involvement with in their earlier years. Around this time, Garza departed from the band, as he needed to stay home rather than continue to go out on tour. Embodyment disbanded in early 2004 after having partially written a follow-up record. According to Godwin, the band was becoming burnt out on the constant touring and even the musical style at the time.

Andrew Godwin, Mark Garza, and Kris McCaddon, most of the lineup of the original Embodyment, have since formed The Famine, a band that returns to the members' metal roots. Godwin would also go on to perform in Pyrithion and his own solo project Hope Deferred. Garza would go on to work in Constant Seas, Lhoist, and recently joining Living Sacrifice as a live member for their 30th anniversary.

In February 2011, the band released a five-song EP, Forgotten, consisting of un-released songs from the Songs for the Living era.

Members
Final lineup
 * Sean Corbray – vocals (1999–2004)
 * Derrick Wadsworth – bass (2000) rhythm guitar (2000–2002), drums (2003–2004)
 * Jason Lindquist – vocals (1992–1994), rhythm guitar (1994–1997, 1999–2000), bass (2000–2004) (Hope Deferred )
 * Andrew Godwin – lead guitar (1992–2004) (ex-The Famine, Pyrithion, Hope Deferred )

Previous members
 * Kris McCaddon – vocals (1994–1999) (ex-The Famine, ex-Demon Hunter, ex-Society's Finest)
 * Taylor Smith – rhythm guitar, vocals (1992–1994)
 * James Lanigan – rhythm guitar (1997–1999)
 * Kevin Donnini – bass, backing vocals (1992–1998)
 * Mark Garza – drums (1992–2003) (ex-The Famine, Lhoist, Constant Seas)

 * Timeline

Discography
Studio albums
 * Embrace the Eternal (1998, Solid State, Reviews:HM Magazine, The Phantom Tollbooth)
 * [1993-1996] (1999, Independent)
 * The Narrow Scope of Things (2000, Solid State, Reviews: The Phantom Tollbooth)
 * Hold Your Breath (2001, Solid State, Reviews: Jesus Freak Hideout)
 * Songs for the Living (2002, XS Records, Reviews: Jesus Freak Hideout)
 * Forgotten EP (2011, Reviews: Jesus Freak Hideout)

Demos
 * Persistent Sin (tape under the band name "SUPPLICATION") - 1993
 * Corrosion Of The Flesh - 1994
 * Embodyment (3-song demo) - 1996
 * Industry Demo (an early version of Songs for the Living) - 2002

Non-album tracks

 * "Halo of Winter" from This is Solid State Vol. 1 (1998)
 * "Breaking News", "And Then Some", "Spilling Over", "The Answer", and "Hindsight", all released online in 2003 and 2004 as parts of what would have been Embodyment's fifth full-length record.
 * As of 2011, these five never-before-released songs have been officially released on Apple iTunes and Amazon.com, under the album title "Forgotten".

title: Embodyment


text:
Talk:Let It Be (The Replacements album)

<^>v!!This album is connected!!v<^>

 * All song titles serve as redirects to this album, have their own pages, or have been placed at the appropriate disambiguation pages.--Hraefen Talk 17:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:The ReplacementsUnsatisfied.ogg
The image Image:The ReplacementsUnsatisfied.ogg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --08:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Let It Be (The Replacements album)


text:
Talk:Computer-aided audit tools

Have a look a this contribution
This section of this article seems not to have its place here: CAATTs and Other BEASTs for Auditors by David Coderre Please have a look at it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.156.47.202 (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Where are the citations?
This article nees to be cited much more completely than it is. There is either a lot of OR in here or who ever has added all this contect forgot to cite most of it. There are some specific claims that should be removed until they are properly cited. Macutty (talk) 17:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Bold textWhat is the "IS auditor"? Please explain. -- BD2412 talk 01:01, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

I belive that this article is far to specific, covering apparently only business applications (and this in a fairly abstract manner). Data analysis is much broader. Wouldn't it be better to write something like "data analysis is the act of transforming data with the aim of extracting useful information and facilitating conclusions"? The present article would then be an example for that. Data analysis in natural or social sciences usually does not use much of the terminology used in the present version of this wikipedia article, but it is nevertheless data analysis. --Dontaskme 21:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I moved the article to Data analysis (information technology) and started writing a more general article on data analysis. Dontaskme 00:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

As a CAATS Specialist, I do not like this article at all. I think it is very inappropriately titled. A much better title would be CAATS or CAATTS. I am going to write a new article then nominate this one for deletion. As for what an IS Auditor is, that is Information Security Auditor. But not all CAATS specialist are IS Auditors and data analysis is a very poor title for this article. Balloonman 07:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I have gone ahead and rewritten this page significantly and saved it as Computer Aided Audit Tools. I think that page still needs some work, but it is almost 2:30am my time.  This page is very poorly written and does not discuss what the title says it does.  Computer Aided Audit Tools is a much better title and I hope that I've captured the real intent of this page there.  People who are looking for CAATS/CAATTS will only find this page by acceident. Balloonman 08:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep: There has obviously been a lot of work put into this article and it looks a good start. The request for delete doesn't explain why this article isn't needed and so in the absence of reason to delete I vote to keep! --Mike 22:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

 * There is no harm in keeping an article, so I have no problem keeping it. But the reason why I'd get rid of it is because the article really isn't about data analytics; it is about CAATS.  My question becomes, "Why keep it?"  The title doesn't describe what the subject is.  It is poorly written and needs a lot of help.  I'd get rid of it and redirect it to CAATS.  The article itself needs a lot of work to clean up to make it readable/usuable---and in order to clean it up you will end up with either CAATS or Data analysis.  I'd rather see effort made to enhance the latter.  If it makes you feel better, consider it a "Merge" request?

I'd like to see Continuous Monitoring defined in more detail as it relates to CAATS and auditing. It could even warrant it's own page as it is probably a concept used in other professions besides auditing. Also, I do not think that the phrase "Continuous Monitoring" should be directly linked to an external website (the IIA's ITAudit). Shouldn't links within the definition only link to other Wikipedia pages? External links should be clearly segregated at the bottom of the page. Michaelmegley 19:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry. I just noticed the little arrow indicating an external link.  However, I still think that the link to the IIA is not updated or appropriate; it did not link me to a 'definition' of CM. Was it intended to link to the GTAG for Continous Auditing?  Either way, I think the link should be removed if it does not point to a legitimate explanation of what CM is. I'd do the re-write myself, but I came here trying to understand just what CM is. Thus far, I have not been able to find an unambigious explanation that elaborates beyond what the two words already imply... monitoring that is continous in nature.

 * One problem I'm having is with the word monitoring. Most auditors think of auditing as part of the COSO cube. Thus continous monitoring and continous auditing could be synonymous.

 * However, the COSO model does not address the varying types of monitoring that occur. In some cases a control activity is also a monitoring activity.  Some people call these monitoring controls when they are performed by management to monitor the effectiveness of controls performed by their staff.  This would indicate a difference between continous monitoring and continuous auditing.

 * In fact, many of the activities proposed as part of continous monitoring are often just automated controls or improved reporting capabilities used in a control activity. This would also indicate that continous monitoring is a management function that is very different from the concept of continous auditing.

 * I think this terminology issue is the very reason we see differing opinions expressed in the audit profession on who should be accountable for continous monitoring. If the term can not be truly defined, then I propose it be deleted from the content. Michaelmegley 20:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

New user here. Wanted to know why ActiveData was pulled as having not established a foothold when you talked about the rumored release of TopCAATS. ActiveData has over 10,000 active users and that number has been increasing by 500 plus users a month. It's also now a CCH product (pfx ActiveData). If that's not a foothold then nothing is. This page is obviously biased towards IDEA (which was originally designed and written by me BTW) and I noticed that you quickly and conveniently pulled the rumored release of TopCAATS from the text. BTW... TopCAATS promises to be an exciting product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ou81aswell (talk • contribs) 01:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Table of Specialized Tools
I've created the table of specialized tools for several purpose, which I hope will help readers:

 * Increase the overview of which tools are available.
 * Provide a platform for more columns of information that helps readers to understand the features/capabilities/differences of the tools.
 * Provide link to wikipedia articles about the tools (if any) or alternatively (as now) as external links.

Other comments:

 * If the table become large it should probably go into separate article.
 * The table if probably not exhausting so please help updating it.
 * Try to avoid double entries. Specifically the ActiveData for Excel may be a double entry (but I'm not sure about this).
 * The references to the companies should probably be moved to the External Links section.
 * The company column should may be splitted into Developed By (Company) and Publisher (Company).

Possible new columns:

The following is a list of possible columns (of information) which could be added to the table.

 * Column detailing which operating system(s) that the tools runs on, e.g. Microsoft Windows or Unix/Linux.
 * Column detailing whether the tool requires additional software, e.g. running on top Microsoft Excel.
 * Column detailing the latest version of the product.
 * Column detailing which data file formats that the tool natively supports import from.
 * Column detailing number of maximum rows (of data/transactions) that the tool can handle.
 * Column detailing whether the tool deals with strictly analysis of the data or is more focused in establishing the data, i.e. import, converting, data mining.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.221.232.92 (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Computer-aided audit tools. 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/20150205182521/http://www.iacae.org/English/Training/CAATs_Courses.php to http://www.iacae.org/English/Training/CAATs_Courses.php
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20150227044811/http://www.iacae.org/English/Certification/Certification.php to http://www.iacae.org/English/Certification/Certification.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150226182631/http://www.jacksoft.com.tw/English/product/training.php to http://www.jacksoft.com.tw/English/product/training.php

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) 20:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Computer-aided audit tools


text:
Talk:Ferranti Pegasus

I don't believe the Pegasus is the oldest running digital computer. At the University of Stuttgart there is still a running Royal/McBee LGP-30 from 1958. 173.140.90.72 (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The reference I used (Early Brittish Computers) doesn't say what the differences are between the PEGASUS 1 and PEGASUS 2. --Bubba73 01:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) The main difference is the Pegasus 2 had a larger drum. G4ugm (talk)

I've just moved this article from "PEGASUS (computer)" to "Pegasus (computer)" and decapitalised the name within the article. The reason for this is, consulting a Ferranti Ltd. sales catalogue from 1959, the name is not capitalised; probably because it is not an acronym and is merely a descriptive trade name. References to this machine might need correcting elsewhere. --NicholasTurnbull 21:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just added two photos of the Pegasus, as it is in the Science Museum in London, UK... I have many others, also a lot of the original design schematics, etc... My grandfather was part of the team that built it.... Would anything else be of interest to this article..? --LeoNerd 21:10, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

A pegasus computer was in use for many years at C.A.Parsons, Turbine Manufacturers in Newacastle-upon-Tyne. Several hundred programs were written in machine code, autocode and in a high level matrix interpretive language. Towards the end of its life a simulation program was developed so that all Pegasus programs could run unaltered on IBM 360 Series hardware and so Pegasus programs lived on long after the pegasus disappeared. I seem to remember that the most diffuclt part of the simulation were the 39 bit divide instructions on the 32 bit IBM machine code set. Tony Momtague, 6th April 2006

Added info that there are least two surviving machines in London and Manchester (see Photo Discussion page), anybody know of more? --Adrian Mars (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC) The Manchester Machine has now been moved to the Science Museum Store at Wroughton G4ugm (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

 * The Pegasus at the Science Museum is run for a day each fortnight. I spoke to an ex-Ferranti employee who was one of the operators and he only knows of two machines - with the one in Manchester never being run. --Extols (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The Manchester Pegasus machine was formerly installed at Brooklands Technical College, Weybridge, Surrey. In my final year of school in Egham - 1970-71, by which time it was obsolete technology - we had an optional course in which we wrote and ran simple programs on it, in assembler language. Input and output was via 5-hole punched tape. Running a program to sort ten numbers took about 30 seconds. We thought it was wonderful. 82.138.196.7 (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

SR53
The Saunders-Roe SR.53 is NOT a vertical takeoff aircraft. Either the text in this article means to say "first rocket-propelled British aircraft", or it is trying to refer to some other aircraft entirely. In either case, it's wrong and should be fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ferranti Pegasus. 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/20141002230332/http://www.mosi.org.uk/media/34586063/ferranti%20computers%201953-64.pdf to http://www.mosi.org.uk/media/34586063/ferranti%20computers%201953-64.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) 03:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ferranti Pegasus


text:
Staple (band)

Staple is a Christian hard rock/post-hardcore group from Mechanicsburg, Ohio. Staple was founded in 2000 when the members met at Rosedale Bible College in Ohio.

The first era (2000-2006)
Staple released a full-length album and EP independently before signing to Flicker Records in 2004. They released their debut album, Staple, in 2004, followed by a second, Of Truth and Reconciliation, in 2005.

They toured with Disciple, the Showdown, Kids in the Way, Demon Hunter, Last Tuesday, Dizmas, Stalemate, the 7 Method and Spoken. Their 2005 album, Of Truth and Reconciliation, peaked at No. 49 on the Billboard Top Christian Albums chart.

On May 17, 2006, Staple announced that they would be breaking up at the end of the summer. In May 2006, Staple held a contest for fans to create a last tour T-shirt. The shirt was judged by Staple. Winners received two free admissions to one of the dates on the "Last Crusade" tour, a free copy of the printed shirt that they designed and a copy of Staple's CDs

The second era (2009-2014)
In February 2009, Darin Keim announced that Staple was reuniting with new members. In May, he announced that a new song called "Eager Hearts" would be put online, with two other songs to be uploaded in successive weeks. A blog was published stating that the two other songs were called "Perfect Dark" and "The Giant Sleeps No More", and that together with "Eager Hearts" these songs would make up The Gatekeeper EP.

The band appears to have broken up.

Members

 * Darin Keim - vocals (2000–2006, 2009–present)
 * Bob Miller - bass guitar (2009–present)
 * J.M. Haddix- drums (2009–present) (Sides of the North)
 * Ryan Pattengale - guitar (2009–present) (Red Morning Voyage)
 * John Carnahan - guitar (2009–present) (The Machine)

Former members

 * Grant Beachy - drums (2000–2005)
 * Brian Miller - guitar (2000–2006)
 * Paul DeLozier - guitar (2005)
 * Josh McNeal - drums (2006)
 * Israel Beachy - bass guitar (2000–2006)
 * Brando Hall - guitar (2009-2009)

Influences

 * Living Sacrifice
 * Project 86
 * Stavesacre
 * Stalemate

title: Staple (band)


text:
Talk:The Patty Duke Syndrome.

Is the period a part of the band's name? Sango 123  01:03, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Patty Duke Syndrome.


text:
El Paso Patriots

El Paso Patriots was an American soccer team based in El Paso, Texas, United States. Founded in 1989, the team played in the Premier Development League (PDL), the fourth tier of the American Soccer Pyramid, in the Mid South Division of the Southern Conference.

The team played its home games at the soccer-specific Patriot Stadium, where they played since 2005 until 2012, when they played their last season (2013) home schedule at the SAC. The team's colors were red, navy blue and white.

Prior to their stadium being completed in 2005, the Patriots played at the Sun Bowl Stadium on the campus of the University of Texas at El Paso, and at Dudley Field, the former home of the El Paso Diablos baseball team. They were one of the more long-serving franchises in American soccer, having previously played in the first division A-League until 2003.

History
Founded in 1989 as the El Paso Sixshooters and owned and coached by Dan Guard, the team competed in the Southwest Indoor Soccer League. The season was a disaster from the start, as they allowed 179 goals in 12 games (including a 27-3 blowout against the Austin Sockadillos) while scoring only 44. (Fittingly, the infamous footballer/con artist Carlos Kaiser was listed on the El Paso roster, but never got in a game.) In January 1990, the 0-12 Sixshooters (who drew about 300 fans total to two home contests at the El Paso County Coliseum) ceased operations and forfeited their remaining games, finishing with an official record of 0-24.

The team resumed operations in the fall of 1990 as the El Paso Spurs. Before the 1991 season, the Spurs were sold to a group which included primary investor Enrique Cervantes as well as Jaime Monardes. The new ownership group renamed the team the Patriots to capitalize on the Patriot missile's recent success in the Gulf War and hired Brazilian Marinho Chagas as head coach. In 2003, the team played in the Sun Bowl.

Prior to the 2010 PDL season the Patriots signed a formal agreement with Mexican Premier Division team Guadalajara, and were officially rebranded as the Chivas El Paso Patriots. In addition to cross-promotion, sponsorship and player development, the agreement will also see the U-20, Division 1A and Division II Chivas teams playing regular games in El Paso. In 2012, the club rebranded to their original name El Paso Patriots.

Notable former players
This list of notable former players comprises players who went on to play professional soccer after playing for the team in the Premier Development League, or those who previously played professionally before joining the team.

 * 🇧🇷 Carlos Kaiser (footballer)
 * 🏴 Ben Everson
 * Carlos Farias
 * 🇲🇽 Julio Daniel Frías
 * 🇺🇸 Freddy Juarez
 * Cesar Sosa
 * 🇲🇽 Salvador Mercado
 * 🇧🇬 Dimitar Popov
 * 🇺🇸 Steve Sengelmann
 * 🇧🇬 Dimitar Vasev

Honors

 * USL PDL Southern Conference Champions 2005
 * USL PDL Mid South Division Champions 2005
 * USL PDL Mid South Division Champions 2004
 * USISL Pro League South Central Division Champions 1995
 * US Open Cup Runners-Up 1995
 * USISL Southwest Division Champions 1992

Head coaches

 * 🇺🇸 Dan Guard (1989–1990)
 * 🇧🇷 Marinho Chagas (1991–1992)
 * Oscar Lira (1993–1994-1995)
 * 🇲🇽 Francisco Paco Chavez (1996–1999)
 * 🇺🇸 Greg Petersen (2000)
 * Alfredo Solares (2001 – interim)
 * 🇲🇽 Carlos Bracamontes (beginning July 2, 2001)
 * 🇧🇷 Tita (2002)
 * 🇲🇽 Miguel Murillo (2002, 2008)
 * 🇲🇽 Fernando Gutierrez (2003)
 * 🇺🇸 Jesus Enriquez (2002–2003-2004–2005–2006)
 * 🇲🇽 Salvador Mercado (2007)
 * 🇲🇽 Javier McDonald (2008 interim)

Stadium

 * Sun Bowl Stadium; El Paso, Texas (2003)
 * Dudley Field; El Paso, Texas (2004)
 * Gary Del Palacios Field (Patriot Stadium); El Paso, Texas (2005–2012)
 * SISD Student Activities Complex; El Paso, Texas (2013)

Average attendance
Attendance stats are calculated by averaging each team's self-reported home attendances from the historical match archive at https://web.archive.org/web/20100105175057/http://www.uslsoccer.com/history/index_E.html.

 * 2005: 1,546 (2nd in PDL)
 * 2006: 867 (7th in PDL)
 * 2007: 789 (8th in PDL)
 * 2008: 1,269
 * 2009: 607
 * 2010: 1,069 (8th in PDL)

title: El Paso Patriots


text:
Musashino Joshi Gakuin

Musashino Joshi Gakuin (武蔵野女子学院) is a middle school and high school in Tokyo, Japan. It is located in Nishitōkyō, Tokyo, near Kichijōji Station.

Background
Musashino Joshi Gakuin is a Buddhist school. It is part of the Musashino University system, and it is located on the main university campus.

title: Musashino Joshi Gakuin


text:
Talk:Epiclesis

Old talk
Technically, the Orthodox generally say they do not know when the consecration occurs. Thus it is not correct to say that no consecration occurs without an epiclesis. Many Orthodox believe that the Words of Institution used in the Roman liturgy imply an unstated epiclesis.

--Sophroniscus 01:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nicholas C
After a couple reverts between myself and there seems to be some disagreement on a portion of the "Implicit" section. Citing a blog post from a member of True Orthodox Church movement, Zusty001 asserts that the quoted Eastern Orthodox saint was opposing Latin consecration and rejecting an implicit Epiclesis. While the quotations within the blog post itself seem to contradict Zusty001's point, I would like them to express their views outside of the limitations of an edit summary—that's not what they're for. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

 * The relevant portion is the direct text from Nicolas Cabasilas regarding the Latin service which the deleted text refers to and makes false claims about, although it does not refer to it by name or reference. Although the parts of the article regarding Cabasilas's impugning of the Latin service are well-written and, in their exposition of Cabasilas, support what I have already written about the text itself.

 * The full work by Cabasilas is his "Commentary on the Divine Liturgy". If any correct reference to Nicolas Cabasilas's words should added in in place of what will be deleted, this should be cited.

 * I will put what has been written in the edit summary here:

 * "Removed for falsely describing the opinion of Nicolas Cabasilas. Cabasilas was writing not in defense of the Latin Liturgy as it then existed, but rather as an explicit condemnation of the defense of the so-called "words of institution" as being acceptable, as offered by certain Latin authors (This being the universal position among Latins at this time). The words in question were described by him as a remnant of Orthodoxy in a heretical service; He did not pretend to offer some defense of the Latin service as it existed in his time. For the exact words of Nicolas in question, see the end of this article:
 * →"https://nftu.net/pre-schism-west-against-the-scholastic-view-of-eucharistic-consecration/"

 * I will wait for some sort of response, and then I will remove the paragraph once again. It does not belong anywhere - it is entirely false. Zusty001 (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Zusty001 (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FRINGE and WP:NOBLOGS, the NFTU link you cite is not applicable in this discussion (or to justify the deletion of a reliable source). However, we could have a discussion on the contents of the actual quoted text in the article. As for that: Cabasilas, in the exact words that are cited in this Wikipedia article and the NFTU source, suggests that the Roman Canon is indeed capable of consecrating because of an implied Epiclesis. There is no indication anywhere in your statements Cabasilas opposed the notion of an implied Epiclesis. Please directly quote Cabasilas or a reliable source in your response. Thank you! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

 * No exact quotes from Nicolas Cabasilas are given in the deleted paragraph.
 * Cabasilas explicitly condemns the Latin service for retaining such a remnant of Orthodoxy while (In his writing, heretically) putting the so-called "Words of Institution" in their place, and of (Again, in his writing, heretically) ascribing the consecration of the Gifts to these latter "Words" in their teaching; This being the universal position of Latins and their scholarly apologists in his own time.  You may read the text yourself.
 * As for the impugning of the article on your behalf, the reason behind its sourcing has already been explained sufficiently; Although I will also note that I know of no other freely available online source where Cabasilas's "Commentary" is quoted at length.
 * As for 'blog posts', the site takes itself firstly to be a general publication, of news and otherwise; As for the other rule you cite, I suppose you will apply it however you will.
 * As for 'blog posts', the site takes itself firstly to be a general publication, of news and otherwise; As for the other rule you cite, I suppose you will apply it however you will.

 * I will wait for a second reply before deleting the paragraph. If this does reach the point of calls for legislation, I will simply give up hope for the integrity of this particular article, especially since something so plain should not need it. Zusty001 (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Per the source cited in the article—accessible partially via Google Books here—it's fairly evident that Cabasilas believes the epiclesis is the consecratory portion of the Roman Canon and that it is said in a manner identifiable from Eastern Christian perspective but not in the same distinguished way it is said in the Divine Liturgies of the Byzantine Rite. Page 79 is especially key to establishing this point and the citation has been updated to reflect this.

 * Additionally, with regards to the True Orthodox blog you linked previously, websites that are self-published without editorial boards are typically understood as blogs for the purposes of policy. Additionally, while I am actually personally acquainted with a few True Orthodox adherents in my offline private life, I am also aware that their interpretations and publications are typically dismissed by academic and theological consensus. While this is unfortunate for believers in True Orthodoxy, this is how Wikipedia operates. Individual exceptions notwithstanding, I have a hard time imagining articles from NFTU being acceptable for anything but raw quotes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The online source available on "Google Books" itself lacks page 78, which in turn is quoted mostly in full on the relevant page which I have linked. As for Cabasilas's words, it is abundantly clear that, when he describes the Latins as 'admitting' to the invocation of the Holy Spirit being consecratory, and not the so-called "Words of Institution", he is speaking towards what can be called the consequences of a doctrine or practice. St. John Damascene described the Muslims as admitting in their doctrines to mutilating God, by way of calling Christ the Word of God while denying His Divinity (As such depriving God of His Word); But you would not find any Muslim who would admit to this in such words. The parallel is suggested here because the doctrine of the "Words of Institution" was, as regards pronounces doctrines, universal among the Latins in the time of Cabasilas. Until the Second Vatican Council and its new service, the Epiclesis was by teaching denigrated entirely; Although this council only further confused the meaning of the Epiclesis, since, by doctrine, the "Words of Institution" are still taught as consecratory. If the "few innovators" Cabasilas speaks of are meant to be any who hold to the Latin doctrines regarding the "Words", then it would have to be thought that Cabasilas was almost wholly ignorant of Latin teaching. But as such, since this is not the case, it can clearly be said that those which he refers to are the scholarly Latin polemicists with whom he was well familiar; And that when he speaks of "consecration" among them, this, like his speaking of their "admitting" to the invocation of the Holy Spirit, does not concern any description of actual consecration, but of what is professed by the remnant of Orthodoxy he describes in the Latin service - and is, in truth, a condemnation of that service and its new doctrines. -- The site that I have linked is not run by only man, as far as I know. I do not know what you would call an 'editorial board' for your purposes. I am not from any of the bodies which the site belongs to, by any means. But I have to write and admit openly that I have absolutely no regard for the "academic and theological consensus" you speak of, whatever you mean by this scheming term. There are, after all, more Latins than any other singular body who claim the name 'Christian' on this Earth today, yourself included - I suppose that this gives your kind the right of consensus under your definitions. And there are countless academic 'consensuses' regarding the doctrine God, many of which are contrary also to the teachings of your own religion; Countless insane positions are popular in the academic sphere, or rather, the many separate academic spheres that exist. Neither of these classes you mention, slippery as their definitions are, do I respect by any means, although this is not acceptable to say on Wikipedia. -- I will be deleting the paragraph again, as I said I would. I am moved by the obligation of conscience and truth to do so. It is plainly false. Zusty001 (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 * You clearly do not understand our policies regarding discussion, reliable sources, blogs, and fringe sources. Unfortunately, this is not the only time you have blatantly misread sources material, remembering our discussion on the A-10 talk page. Please understand nothing you said in your paragraphs actually pertains to the fact that the sourced material you are intent on removing actually says something wildly different than you claim it does. If you are unable to come to an understanding of this, please raise the issue elsewhere. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 * I do understand well enough the rules that have been put in place, and I do know that you are capable of using them as you will. I hope that you do not continue to employ them here as you already have.
 * That what I have written is plainly against the content of the paragraph that does not belong is simply as such. The paragraph ascribes to Cabasilas a defense of the Latin service in his writing on the Epiclesis when such a defense not only does not exist, but rather the inverse exists;  A condemnation.  This is the basic content of the paragraph, and it is why it cannot be given excuse, nor be defended on the grounds of truth.
 * You now openly accuse me of "blatantly" misreading Cabasilas. I can only say that this accusation shows either yourself to have done so, or that you have instead preferred not the reading of it at all.

--
 * I had not recalled writing to you before. But returning to that page, I see that I had made the error of wrongly attributing an excerpt, and not in a revision but in a comment;  But moreover that I freely confessed to doing so after my earnest questions about objections were answered and after I reviewed the document in question once more.  As for anything else I had written in those, I only recall it as being fairly reasonable, I having maintained my words otherwise.
 * An error with regards to what I am now writing about would be, I have to say, far graver. I only maintain what I have made no such error, that what I have defended is the truth, and that I can only repeat what I have already written about your own accusations.  There is nothing for me to submit to.  Zusty001 (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Firstly, please review edit warring policy guidelines for a review of why your reversions mid-discussion are discouraged. Additionally, a complete online version of the Cabasilas passage cited in this article is accessible here in what appears to be a transcription of the translation included in the deleted citation. Below I will compare the Cabasilas source with what was in the article:
 * The deleted passage in this article states that Cabasilas believed the consecration in the Roman Canon is performed through an Epiclesis after the Words of Institution. Cabasilas infers this based on the fact a priest praying the Roman Canon "does not cease to pray for the offerings after the words of consecration have been pronounced." He continues, saying that the implied Epiclesis does not identically match the words of the Byzantine Rite but rather "use[s] other terms, which, however, have exactly the same meaning."
 * That this is Cabasilas's view is maintained in other reliable sourcing: The New Catholic Encyclopedia, which is understood as an independent and reliable source on theological and historical matters, states that Cabasilas rejected the Words of Institution as the consecratory portion of the prayer and served only as narrative prelude. The identification of the Supplices te rogamus as the Epiclesis in the view of Cabasilas and his contemporaries is further elaborated by this same source.
 * Your NFTU source, while not really usable as a citation, concurs with this summary of Cabasilas's position and even expresses more firmly, saying his commentary "affirms the view that the 'Supplices Te', is, in fact, the original place where the Consecration in the Roman Canon of the Mass took place."
 * Addressing Cabasilas's more prosaic reflection on the consecratory portion of the Roman Canon, the deleted passage cites Cabasilas as stating Christ is described as "both victim and priest" and "is also the altar" in what Cabasilas identifies as the Roman Canon's Epiclesis. This citation is drawn from Cabasilas saying that a priests praying the Roman Canon are "regarding Christ as the victim," and "pray that the offerings may be placed in Him". "Since Christ is at one and the same time priest, altar, victim", Cabasilas says, the Roman Canon is identifying Him as all three things.
 * You seem to imply a "scheming" Latin conspiracy to misconstrue Cabasilas's words, but the translation of his works was performed in and published by an OCA seminary, accepted as accurate by a bishop in the True Orthodox tradition, and republished by an Eastern Orthodox blog using it to evangelize. Reflecting next on your rationale for deleting this passage, I struggle to identify any instance in which the deleted passage runs contrary to the truth. I think, like previously, your comprehension of what the passage in the article said was impaired. At no time do you directly identify an instance in which the deleted passage from the article is contrary to Cabasilas's own words. Instead, you argue that Cabasilas identified the Roman Canon as incapable of consecration. This is a misreading of Cabasilas, one that runs contrary to the very NFTU blog post you originally cited.
 * Bearing all this in mind, I would encourage you to reflect on the "obligation of conscience and truth" you have previously asserted, recognize you have again made a simple error, and revert yourself. Thank you, and have a good Sunday! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 * That Christ "...must be priest, victim, and altar" (Pg. 78, previously mentioned edition) is not something which Cabasilas assigned exclusively to the Latin service, since this would suppose a total confusion about Christ, but rather tells this to be the doctrine of God.
 * I suggest no extreme error in the content of the present translation. I only impugn your interpretation of it as false.
 * As has already been written, that Cabasilas is describing a 'remnant', so to speak, of Orthodoxy in what he would describe as a service of heretics shows nothing about consecration. As has already been explained, that Cabasilas writes that "...the Latins know perfectly well that the bread and the wine are not yet consecrated" (Pg. 77, of the same), one would have to consider him almost wholly ignorant of Latin teaching to understand this in such a naive way, since the denial of the Epiclesis as consecratory was the universal position of the Latins by his time.
 * It is unimaginable to attempt to ascribe to Cabasilas the belief that the denial of the Epiclesis among the Latins was acceptable, since such a denial was the fact of his time.
 * Rather, what his description of this can be easily be found even in explicit words in this excerpt, it being the conclusion of his consideration of the Latin's denial of the efficacy of such a prayer (That is, the Epiclesis): "To follow the innovations of these men would indeed inevitably mean the total destruction of all Christianity." (Pg. 75, of the same)
 * The suggestion of the deleted paragraph is that Cabasilas had mounted a defense of the Latin service and its denial, and I can only repeat that this is amazingly distant from the truth.
 * And although this has already been explained, I will write again that the reproduction of Cabasilas's writing (Or, if you prefer, this translation of it) within sources by no means suggests a defense of the suggestions of yourself or of the removed paragraph; And as for your comments about myself and the English translation given, this perhaps having some relation, this has already been addressed earlier.
 * And that the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" can be called a source of doctrine is a suggestion I reject also: But you will not find a defense the suggestion of yourself or the removed paragraph in that particular article therein, as far as I can tell at this moment.
 * The second link you gives the reproduction of Cabasilas's text from the 1913 "Catholic Encyclopedia" (Actually published over several years), which is now the most full online reproduction of the relevant writing of Cabasilas that I know of.
 * I cannot accept any thanks in advance for a seeminlgy hoped for denial of the truth. If, on the contrary, thanks for the truth itself is instead eventually desired to be given, then, by God, I am not the one to thank.  Zusty001 (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Brevity is the soul of wit; long textblocks are unwieldy. Also, try to format your responses correctly—you have to put two returns in to separate paragraphs, that's a basic step you should know by now.

In any case, your response is inaccurate and incomprehensible. First off, the New Catholic Encyclopedia source I cite is a separate project from the 1913 CE; the particular passage I was citing was published 70+ years later with more Eastern Orthodox input and clearly states Cabasilas believed the Roman Canon consecrates. So does the NFTU blog. Your track record of refusing to accept academic consensus and reliable sourcing over your own interpretation means this is your last chance before I request admin intervention. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Additional reliable sources that confirm Cabasilas indeed viewed the Roman Canon as consecratory: Page 230, Page 125, and Page 491. This last one is especially useful because it directly refutes your claim that, because Latins disagreed about the point of consecration, that Cabasilas believed the Roman Canon didn't consecrate. Indeed, it says the opposite. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

 * It is the other source you have referred to which gives the text from the 1913 "Catholic Encyclopedia"; And not from the "New Catholic Encyclopedia".

 * That the sources which have up to now been mentioned do not make the same suggestions of yourself nor of the deleted paragraph remains the same (As for the "New Catholic Encyclopedia", my specific words about this being as such "as far as I can tell at this moment" remain the same also). If I were to write at length on this again, it would be much the same as what has already been written.  Those words still stand, and you false interpretation here shares some similarity, perhaps, of your false interpretation of the excerpts from Cabasilas.

 * Not even any of the new sources you cite, within those portions mentioned, attempt to assign the defense of the actuality of consecration in the Latin service to Cabasilas, as the removed paragraph and yourself now insist upon; Even the portion from Christiaan Kappes (Whom I am familiar with for other controversies) does not do so, disregarding his suggestions of Cabasilas drawing from certain Latin works, and references to a certain 'Pseudo-Augustine' with relation to Paschasius Radbertus.  Although as for Kaapes, he may well do so elsewhere - I could not say.

 * If in Kappes' work you refer to the words "total consecration", these are very specifically about Cabasilas's references to the Latin doctrine which holds the "Words of Consecration" to be as such: And about how the remnant of the Orthodox Epiclesis which Cabasilas describes shows, in his writing, the falsehood of this position.

 * I have already written on what conclusions may come about if you summon legislative powers. I hope that you do not persist to this end, but if you do, your hand will, excluding any amazing happenings, be what is almost certainly respected, and any help for this article which I might struggle for will be snuffed out.  Zusty001 (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

 * (Note for those it may concern: I had not formatted indentation for separate paragraphs in the above message, and in a few others, which is why the introduction appears properly formatted but not the rest.  This will be amended in future messages.) Zusty001 (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Below are the two main claims you have made and quotes from reliable sources proving them wrong.
 * All Latin believed the Words of Institution were the consecratory element: "It is worth noting that historically the Supplices has often been interpreted as functioning as a consecratory epiclesis, by Latins as well as by Byzantines"
 * Cabasilas is only commenting on a latent Epiclesis in an ineffectual consecratory prayer: "Cabasilas’ thinking contains the possibility of taking a more irenic stand in solving the question. He maintains that in the Latin Mass there is a prayer of consecration in addition to the words of institution."
 * This will be my last communication before dispute resolution. Please consider self-reversion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

 * As for the first document you mention, none of the 'Latins' mentioned therein are from Cabasilas's own day (Those whom I have made clear are being referred to with regards to the position on the "Words" universal among them), but are rather all Western authors from times which Cabasilas would have described as being when the West was still, at least in good part, Orthodox.  It has nothing to do with the basically universal position of the Latins in Cabasilas's own time regarding the so-called "Words of Institution", and in truth, I must say, serves only to support Cabasilas's description of the prayer which he mentions as being a remnant of the Orthodox Epiclesis.

 * The suggestion being made by yourself which you attempt to support with the second document, already referenced to the same ends previously, is one that I have already written on at length, especially since it relates so exactly to the suggestions of yourself and the deleted paragraph regarding Cabasilas's own writing in a more direct way. I will only repeat that none of the documents that you have as of now produced attempt to make the suggestions of you or the deleted paragraph; Of a supposed defense from Cabasilas, in the relevant writing, of an actuality of consecration in the Latin service, a service which he would describe as heretical (Although a document which makes such a suggestion about this writing of Cabasilas, again, may well exist somewhere - in that regard, I could not say with certainty).  And moreover, I can only repeat that no such defense can really be found in the writing, either, but rather, once more, a condemnation of the service - a condemnation which, as even the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" suggests, Mark of Ephesus would later draw from (Although how much Cabasilas in particular really aided Mark needs more study).

 * I am compelled to write, then, that neither of the attempted reputations offered of each of the principles given in my own writings, unworthy though I may be to set them forth, have any actual substance or reality. I will not withdraw my deletion, since this would be, again, to violate both my conscience and the truth of the matter.  Zusty001 (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

You assert–with no source–the claim that Latins in Cabasilas's day were all in agreement on the Words of Institution matter; Cabasilas himself even says "It is evident therefore that is not the whole Latin Church which condemns the prayer for the offerings after the words of consecration, but only a few innovators who are causing her harm in other ways". You claim Cabasilas would deem the Roman Canon "heretical"–despite the fact there is no instance in which he describes it as "heretical" and any criticisms he makes are directed at "certain Latins". In the New Catholic Encyclopedia, we have notice that Cabasilas "accepted the Latin position that the Sacrament was realized by the Lord's words alone." Give a response with a source supporting your claims, provide quotes, give page numbers, anything. Please. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Cabasilas's words on the "...few innovators" have already been regarded and sufficiently explained within this page.

 * The document you cite in attempting to refute that the universal position of the Latins of Cabasilas's time was the belief in the "Words" as consecratory has already been shown to give no substance to your efforts.

 * It is plainly clear and known that from the era of Cabasilas up through the Twentieth Century, the position of the Latins, considered heretical by Cabasilas and the Orthodox East, was that of the "Words" as being consecratory - the universality of this opinion among them being only interrupted in some sense by the confused 'compromises' of the Union of Florence in the Fifteenth Century, and the echo of this in the Second Vatican Council's new service in the Twentieth. Everywhere else (With the acception a few among the Latins in the years leading to the Second Vatican Council), from the time of Cabasilas onwards one will find denigration of the Epiclesis among them;  Despite the words of the early Western authors referenced in the document now previously mentioned.

 * On the second matter, the baldness with which you now falsely cite the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" is astonishing. The full sentence, which regards the Latin Union of Florence, is as such:

 * "...the Greeks [held] that the prayer of epiclesis after the words of institution was necessary for consecration. The Latins maintained that the words of institution sufficed. In the reunion council at Florence (1438), John Torquemada (d. 1468), Bessarion (d. 1472), and Isidore (d. 1463), metropolitan of Kiev, tried to reconcile the two opinions. All but Marcus of Ephesus accepted the Latin position that the Sacrament was realized by the Lord's words alone." (source)

 * It is this same Mark of Ephesus whom, as previously mentioned, the "Catholic Encyclopedia" described as having been emboldened in his staunch rejection of the Latin "Words" by Cabasilas's writings themselves.

 * How you could not only falsely suppose these words of the "Encyclopedia" to be referring to Cabasilas, but even mutilate them in order to suggest a meaning exactly opposite to their meaning in truth, is astonishing.

 * So what I have written, unworthy though I am to give it, remains the same, including on Cabasilas's own writings; And I continue to only hope that your own persistence towards a false end might itself be ended.  Zusty001 (talk) 10:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your reading of the NCE source; that said, I would concur that it is unique in its assertions that Marcus of Ephesus was taking Cabasilas's logic further than Cabasilas himself. I intended to note this discrepancy in my last; apologies and you're right to acknowledge its isolation. Because you seem unwilling to articulate disagreement with the original passage with sources, perhaps you are willing to engage with a new passage:
 * "Nicholas Cabasilas, a 14th-century Eastern Orthodox writer, held that the Roman Canon did not solely consecrate via the Words of Institution–which was typically identified as the consecratory element by contemporaneous Latin theologians–but instead retained an implicit epiclesis in the Supplices te rogamus that was the consecratory element. Responding to Latin criticisms of Greek emphasis on the epiclesis, Cabasilas asserted the epiclesis as a necessary component of Eucharistic consecration. However, Cabasilas clarified that the epiclesis and Words of Institution are interdependent in order to create an effectual anaphora. Ultimately, Cabasilas assessed that while some Latin liturgical practices appeared errant, the Latin doctrine of the Eucharist was identical to that Eastern Orthodox and that there was a mostly shared ritual practice. At the Council of Florence, Cabasilas's necessity of the epiclesis was sharply challenged and ultimately rejected by Latin theologians; modern Catholic teaching is more approving of his view. As a result, Cabasilas's work remains a frequent point of discussion in ecumenical dialogues." (pages 5-6, 115, 120; page 230, pages 275-277)
 * Note the previously undiscussed sources; there may be material within them you might want to add/amplify. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the quick THIRD! That was super fast. Since you're concerned about not being able to access the whole chapter of Cabasilas's writings on this without a library, I point you to the source Zusty misidentified as from the 1913 CE: this link is the translated chapter relevant to discussion perhaps illegally copied onto a blog (I checked it against a copy available to me). As for the point you raised about Cabasilas explicitly identifying the Supplices te as an Epiclesis, this paper cites and partially translates a Finnish paper that explicitly states Cabasilas described it as an Epiclesis (footnote on pages 134-135; the Finnish author tempers this by saying Cabasilas had little foundation for his claim). ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

 * I have not falsely identified anything here.

 * This source derives its lengthy quotation of the relevant writing Cabasilas from the 1913 "Catholic Encyclopedia", and not the "New Catholic Encyclopedia", as it notes at its end, and as has already been mentioned. The link you give here in this new message also does not give the correct page.

 * The meaning of your previous reply to myself is largely unclear. I do not know what you 'disagree' with myself about regarding the article from the "New Catholic Encyclopedia".  As regards your quotation, that you falsely described it as being about a person which it is not, and that you had mutilated the quotation within your context to suggest an exactly opposite meaning, is simply the truth.

 * And nowhere in the relevant article does the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" suggest that what Mark of Ephesus maintained was different than that of Cabasilas; And, really, it seems to explicitly contradict this in the sentences found in the more lengthy quotation of my last message.  Rather, the 'extremity' which the article suggests of Mark seems to be an extremity of staunchness, more than anything (Being the only one present from the East refusing to accept the Union).

 * As for the new passage you cite, I have no idea where it is from, as I cannot find it in any of the new works you mention as of now. But, wherever it is from, it is the first you have given which seems to more explicitly suggest that Cabasilas did not consider the Latin service heretical, and even that his words from the passage in his "Commentary" were a defense of it;  These being the suggestions of the deleted paragraph, and of yourself.  I reject both all the same, and I go so far as to say that even the Latin "New Catholic Encyclopedia", insofar as the relevant article is concerned, admits in some part what I have written about Cabasilas's relevant writing, in its own  words.

 * To  It is because of the two false principles mentioned here (The false principle that Cabasilas did not hold the Latin service to be unacceptable, and as such must have held either its "Words" or its remnant of an Epiclesis to be consecratory;

And the false principle that the relevant writing of his in the "Commentary" as such must have been a defense of the Latin service) that I principally insist upon the continued expunging of the deleted paragraph, since, especially as can be seen in its original form, it suggests both of them in its very substance. Zusty001 (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

 * (This portion did not properly indent, but it is a continuation of the paragraph beginning with "To @Thparkth".) Zusty001 (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Zusty001. Would it be fair to re-state your concern as follows?
 * 1. Cabasilas held the Latin service to be unacceptable, and we should not suggest that he endorsed it when in fact he was criticising it.
 * and
 * 2. Cabasilas did not consider the Latin service to contain an effective consecration.
 * If so, I can certainly agree with #1. It seems that a simple re-wording would deal with the issue.
 * With regard to #2, it seems to me that Cabasilas did consider the Latin Supplices te to be effective as consecration, saying of it:
 * "This prayer can have only one significance - it transforms the offerings into the Body and Blood of the Lord."
 * For this reason I think it would be appropriate to have (some version of) the disputed paragraph in the article.
 * Thparkth (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, please read the sources. There are multiple sections to that page you have repeatedly misread. Above the italicized, asterisked portion of that blog post is a lengthy quotation of Cabasilas's Commentary that I took much time out of my weekend to ensure was matching to the copy I have so that you could enjoy the same privileged access to the source that I do. Below it, separated by a bolded heading, is a quotation of the "Epiklesis" article from the 1913 CE. I directed you towards the quoted portion from Cabasilas but you seem incapable or openly unwilling to process this or any of the many sources I have offered. Additionally, you impugn certain academic sources as "scheming" and "Latin" (which, in of itself, actually can warrant a short block; I opted for a light warning on your talk page). You have previously been warned about an inability to comprehend and identify reliable sources at least three times; you have wasted too much time.
 * Again, please read the sources. There are multiple sections to that page you have repeatedly misread. Above the italicized, asterisked portion of that blog post is a lengthy quotation of Cabasilas's Commentary that I took much time out of my weekend to ensure was matching to the copy I have so that you could enjoy the same privileged access to the source that I do. Below it, separated by a bolded heading, is a quotation of the "Epiklesis" article from the 1913 CE. I directed you towards the quoted portion from Cabasilas but you seem incapable or openly unwilling to process this or any of the many sources I have offered. Additionally, you impugn certain academic sources as "scheming" and "Latin" (which, in of itself, actually can warrant a short block; I opted for a light warning on your talk page). You have previously been warned about an inability to comprehend and identify reliable sources at least three times; you have wasted too much time.

 * I can't stay in this conversation or I'll get too heated. I endorse your preferred action, whatever it is, on the grounds that you are a volunteering good-faith third party. You may reach me on my talk page. I apologize for my inability to remain here in any civil way and recognize how unfair that is. I am sorry. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

 * The relevant page, linked again in my previous message, cites its source for its quotation of Cabasilas as such: "From the Catholic Encyclopedia – Epiklesis".  The article linked here is from the online reproduction of the 1913 "Catholic Encyclopedia", as anyone may find for themselves on that site.

 * So I repeat that I have not falsely identified anything - this being the one source which I have noted as deriving its quotation from the 1913 "Catholic Encyclopedia". As for the rest of what you write on this in particular, I cannot see its meaning.

 * You may look through the entirety of the present page, and you will find that all I have referred to as scheming (And at that only once) are certain phrases employed by yourself in attempt to censure what has been written by myself, and to censure the removal of the relevant relevant paragraph from the article on the present site. I do not retract this.

 * As for the "New Catholic Encyclopedia", or the 1913 "Catholic Encyclopedia", or other documents, it would be rather ridiculous to deny that they are Latin sources. But I have not attempted to censor anything of note and value that may have been derived from them (After all, the most lengthy reproduction of the relevant writing of Cabasilas that I know of online is, again, sourced from the older "Encyclopedia");  And I maintain what I have written as regards the contents of these otherwise, especially the "New Catholic Encyclopedia", despite your accusations of false readings.  The same is true for any other documents of note mentioned here and addressed by myself here.

 * I can only hope, again, that you do not continue to persist in the manner that you have up to now, this persistence only growing all the more bewildering and vitriolic. As I've written from the very beginning, respect for conscience and the truth must outweigh any respect for false accusations or anger.  Zusty001 (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

 * You give a basically correct account of these two main principles. Moreover, I would say that the main principle necessitating the removal of the paragraph is the first of these two, as you have listed them.

 * However, I must maintain the second with all the same emphasis. With regards to the portion you cite, and to all other places within the relevant writing of Cabasilas where he may refer to a 'consecration' of the Latin service (These being in similar terms and of same context as the portion you cite), I maintain that he refers to the meaning of the Epiclesis in the Orthodox Liturgy, and means to advocate the position that this certain prayer in the Latin service, beginning "Supplices te...", was a remnant of the Epiclesis.

 * Cabasilas's writing is of note enough to be relevant in the article, and in the same place as the expunged paragraph once was. As such, I can begin writing this new paragraph soon enough. Zusty001 (talk) 06:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Epiclesis


text:
Talk:Kadoorie Agricultural High School

Untitled
The sum total of all English-language information on this school I could find on Google:
 * It opened
 * On June 20, 1934: http://www.jafi.org.il/education/jafi75/timeline2e.html
 * On June 20, 1930: http://www.jafi.org.il/education/jafi75/timeline2.html
 * Sometime in 1933 (I think): http://www.kadoorie.galil.k12.il/
 * Its name is
 * Sir Ellis Kadoori Agricultural School: http://www.jafi.org.il/education/jafi75/timeline2e.html
 * Kadoori Agricultural High School: http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/History/FormerPrimeMinister/YitzhaRabin.htm
 * Kadoori Agricultural School: http://www.partner.org.il/kinneret/links.html
 * Agriculture High School "Kadoori": http://europeandcis.undp.org/?menu=p_search/p_result/p_persons&PersonID=224
 * Its website appears to be http://www.kadoorie.galil.k12.il/, but I can't be sure, since I don't read Hebrew.
 * Yitzhak Rabin went there. http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/History/FormerPrimeMinister/YitzhaRabin.htm

--Carnildo 01:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can scan my school yearbook (The main source of the original article) if you really requested it, but the book is in Hebrew. Most of the information is from the Hebrew version of Wikipedia, and you can be sure that if I wrote mistakes, there were fixed a long time ago. 89.0.113.68 20:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no info on the school but I am an English teacher and will make spelling and grammar edits. Leila A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.58.22 (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kadoorie Agricultural High School. 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/20041222102245/http://www.jafi.org.il/education/jafi75/timeline2e.html to http://www.jafi.org.il/education/jafi75/timeline2e.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kadoorie Agricultural High School


text:
Pattern coin

A pattern coin is a coin which has not been approved for release, but produced to evaluate a proposed coin design. They are often off-metal strike (using metals of lower value to test out the dies), to proof standard or piedforts. Many coin collectors collect and study pattern coins because of their historical importance. Many of the world's most valuable coins are pattern coins; nearly 25 of the pieces listed in 100 Greatest US Coins are pattern coins.

English patterns
The first English coin that can be identified with certainty is a groat, originally worth fourpence. This piece, an example of which was illustrated and sold in the Dodsley Cuff sale of the mid-19th century, had crowns in place of the usual three pellets in each quarter of the reverse.

Patterns are particularly identifiable and exist in larger numbers from the reign of Elizabeth I onwards. The experimental base metal issues of all coinage prior to the mid-18th century have been well preserved.

Boulton's mint in Soho produced large quantities of patterns, which were supplemented by Taylor some fifty or so years later from the same dies.

Early United States patterns
After the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, discussion arose over what sort of currency should be adopted in the United States. At the time, people in North America relied upon a mixture of foreign coins, none of which were struck to a consistent standard, making day-to-day financial transactions difficult. In 1783, Congress resolved to create a mint, tasking Superintendent of Finance Robert Morris with developing a plan for a system of coinage. The first coins struck by the United States – the Nova Constellatio patterns – were made to illustrate this plan.

In 1792 the United States Mint opened in Philadelphia. In that year several more patterns were created, including the half dime, then known as a "half disme". It is believed that c. 1,500 pieces were struck as patterns, and that these patterns themselves entered circulation during the next decade.

Over the next 40 years, more patterns were created but there is little information currently known about these pieces. Technically, these coins were not patterns but rather off-metal strikes, with the coins struck in a different metal than those destined for general use in circulation. An example is an 1807 Half Eagle, or five dollar gold piece struck in copper.

Mid-19th century United States patterns
Starting in 1836, more patterns were created by the United States Mint in Philadelphia. These consisted of several types of patterns:
 * Real pattern coins for proposed coinage
 * Off-metal strikes
 * Transitional pieces
 * Fantasy pieces

One example of a pattern coin for proposed coinage is the half-union, a gold pattern coin with a face value of 50 U.S. dollars that was minted in 1877 and weighed 2.5 oz. The U.S. Mint deemed the idea of a 2.5-ounce gold coin infeasible, and only two were ever minted.

Transitional pieces are patterns dated before coins with the new design officially went into circulation. These were often produced during the final stage of the pattern process, used to present the newly adopted design to the public. One famous example is the 1856 Flying Eagle cent, although that coin has been commonly and incorrectly believed to be regular issue due to its high mintage for collectors.

Fantasy pieces include many struck in the 1860s and 1870s as patterns and sold to numismatists for the sole purpose of raising cash for the mint. This practice ended in the 1880s, when the U.S. Mint enforced regulations to prevent the sale of pattern coins.

Modern United States patterns
The U.S. Mint experiments with new coinage occasionally, such as when silver was removed from coin designs. The Mint began using dies with Martha Washington for trial strikings, since they would not be confused with real circulating money since they do not resemble money. Thus, no restrictions exist on the sale of Martha Washington pieces. Mint-produced modern patterns are very rare, with only a few pieces existing in private collections. The United States mint has placed restrictions on the sale of modern patterns that do resemble coins, such as the 1974 aluminum cent. One of the most expansive collections of American pattern coins is the Harry W. Bass, Jr. collection housed at the American Numismatic Association Money Museum in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Other countries
Pattern coins of France and of French-speaking countries such as Monaco are described by the French term essai. The essai coins of New Hebrides are of interest to collectors of British Commonwealth coinage, as New Hebrides gained independence in 1980 as the Republic of Vanuatu.

The word essai is found inscribed on the pattern coins of Namibia along with the German word Probe.

title: Pattern coin


text: Template:Anarchism-stub

title: Template:Anarchism-stub


text:
Talk:School's Out (album)

Punk rock? Proto-punk?
School's Out by Alice Cooper band was very influential to punk bands of the mid to late 70s. This should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.83.205 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * got a Reliable Source that supports that claim? 68.19.4.78 (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Dick Wagner's lead guitar?
There is a claim in the Personnel list that Wagner plays lead on 'My Stars' - but it is unsourced. Sure sounds like Glenn to me. There is nothing on the album sleeve that makes this claim (which isn't that surprising.) Michael Bruce doesn't mention it in his book. While Dick Wagner appears on many Bob Ezrin-produced sessions, it was on 'Billion Dollar Babies' that he and Hunter were brought in AFAIK. Need a Source, date, page number. 68.19.4.78 (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Sax on Blue Turk?
Who plays the sax solo on Blue Turk?——-Design (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:School's Out (album)


text:
Talk:Bald eagle

Need Updated Range Map
The map (from Sibley, 2000) is badly out of date. Substantial numbers of bald eagles are now nesting, for example, along the Delaware River https://www.state.nj.us/drbc/edweb/bald-eagle.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.255.91.2 (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Absolutely. I live 3 miles from the river on the NY side at Barryville. We see eagles all year long here. I go to Lackawaxen Pa quite often to go for a stroll and take in the scenery, and see eagles almost every time I am there, regardless of season. 2603:7000:D400:665D:754D:2D00:F202:AA46 (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah in Wisconsin, it's rarer to see them in the southern half, though they are still found there year round. EAGLITIZED (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Citation Needed?
This sentence in the Behavior section has no citation and seems suspect: "Bounty hunters shooting from helicopters opined that they were far more difficult to hunt while flying than golden eagles as they would turn, double back or dive as soon as approached." Pretty sure that would be a poacher, not a bounty hunter! 2600:1700:E920:B3E0:5591:1841:A52B:2F0 (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Population decline…
There is a sentence that says “ In 1930 a New York City ornithologist wrote that in the state of Alaska in the previous 12 years approximately 70,000 bald eagles had been shot.”

Since Alaska did not become a state until 1959, you might consider rephrasing to something like “………  ornithologist wrote that in the territory of Alaska in the previous …………” 172.58.43.126 (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

 * ✅ I checked the reference, and it makes no mention of state vice territory, so I changes the article as you suggested. (Note that if the reference had specifically said state, I would have left it and made a different comment here.) - UtherSRG (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

cite templates
Whew! I was WP:BOLD and just did a massive overhauling of the references to ensure they are all in cite templates. I made some decisions along the way, such as using for PhD dissertations and thesis. Someone should double check what I did. Cheers! UtherSRG (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Federal Protections
I see talk of listing and delisting from Endangered species list, but shouldn’t there be a section that at least briefly discusses the eagle specific federal protections and penalties against harm etc. 2601:14F:4501:3320:0:0:0:86F4 (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

 * Do you mean like this section? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Bald Eagle Portrait.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2023
Weight is not 1 metric tin. 90.243.174.187 (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. UtherSRG (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition, it looks like the 1 ton value is in reference to the weight of the largest nest. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Find new map
I live in connecticut and we have multiple pairs of breeding eagles around me alone, yet this map says that we only get winter visitors. Additionally, at our other house in Michigan, there are always eagles around, year round. As such, this map is either outdated or simply wrong, and a better one should be found. 73.238.227.37 (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

 * This is a fairly common issue with range and habitat maps. In this case, it is probably a positive sign in that bald eagles seem to be on the rebound and are being seen in places where they haven't been in decades. Of course what we need to update it is both new sources that contradict the current map and someone willing and able to make those changes. Once we have the sources, we should take them over to Graphics Lab/Map workshop and ask for a new map. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, some maps show that bald eagles are found throughout the United States year-round, except for some small areas of the southwest that they can be found in during winter. Some maps show that some are found throughout the southern half during winter. My hunch tells me that bald eagles from up north winter with the ones in the southern half. PS, I hope I used the word "hunch" correctly, and that my "hunch" was correct. 2600:6C44:627F:5865:D028:C3FF:FE4B:8D02 (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Bald eagles: black or brown?
The photo of the bald eagle on the left side nearest to the top looks black instead of dark brown. It's not even a juvenile. I thought bald eagles are dark brown. PS, if you don't know which one I'm taking about, look for the one with the text under it that says "head details". 2600:6C44:627F:5865:D028:C3FF:FE4B:8D02 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bald eagle


text:
Rob Nijjar

Rob Nijjar (born 1967) is a Canadian Liberal politician. He has lived all his life on Vancouver's East side. He attended school in southeast Vancouver and Langara College before attending Simon Fraser University, where he earned a Bachelor's degree in General Studies in 1992. After graduation and before becoming active in politics, Nijjar worked as a business manager for several firms including Jenny Craig, some family-run restaurants, and other service industry businesses. Nijjar worked at various levels of government, including municipal, provincial, and federal politics.

Nijjar was first elected to the BC Legislature in the 2001 provincial election as a Liberal. Nijjar was the chair of the Government Caucus Committee on the Economy. At one time he was also sat on the Legislative Standing Committee for Education and chaired the Sub-Committee on Youth Employment.

Nijjar was defeated in the provincial election of 2005 by Adrian Dix.

title: Rob Nijjar


text: Category:Anarchism stubs

title: Category:Anarchism stubs


text: Category:Operas by Samuel Barber

title: Category:Operas by Samuel Barber


text:
Umeshu

Umeshu (梅酒) is a Japanese liqueur made by steeping ume plums (while still unripe and green) in liquor (焼酎) and sugar. It has a sweet, sour taste, and an alcohol content of 10–15%. Famous brands of umeshu include Choya, Takara Shuzo and Matsuyuki. Varieties are available with whole ume fruits contained in the bottle, and some people make their own umeshu at home.

Japanese restaurants serve many different varieties of umeshu and also make cocktails. Umeshu on the Rocks (pronounced umeshu rokku), Umeshu Sour (pronounced umeshu sawa), Umeshu Tonic (with tonic water), and Umeshu Soda (with carbonated water) are popular. It is sometimes mixed with green tea (o-cha-wari) or warm water (o-yu-wari). Umeshu can be served at different temperatures; chilled or with ice, room temperature, or even hot in the winter.

Umeshu can be made either from real plum fruit, or using additive flavours and perfumes to emulate the taste of plums. Umeshu which is made from exclusively plum fruit (without additives) will be labelled as Honkaku Umeshu and will typically be made only from ume fruit, sugar, and alcohol.

Homemade umeshu
Umeshu should be allowed to mature for at least nine months.
 * Main ingredients include:
 * Ume fruits
 * Sugar (rock)
 * Shōchū
 * Traditional recipe:
 * Ume fruit 1 kg
 * Sugar 500g–1 kg (rock/cubes)
 * Shōchū 1.8l
 * After three months in a cold and dark place, it is ready to be consumed (although it is better to wait at least six months)

title: Umeshu


text:
Brandenburger

The Brandenburger is a German breed of warmblood sport horse from the state of Brandenburg in north-eastern Germany. From the 1960s – when Brandenburg was in East Germany – it was included in the stud-book of the Edles Warmblut or 'light warmblood'. Following the re-unification of Germany it again had its own stud-book. In 2003 it was included in the stud-book of the Deutsches Reitpferd, which also included the Sachsen-Anhaltiner Warmblut, the Sächsisches Warmblut and the Thüringer Warmblut; the Bavarian Warmblood, the Württemberger and the Zweibrücker were added to it in 2014.

Like other German warmblood breeds, it is bred to compete in dressage, in show-jumping and in the three-day event. The successful dressage mare Poetin was a Brandenburger.

History
The Brandenburger originates in the Margraviate of Brandenburg, where horse-breeding is documented from the fifteenth century. It is closely associated with the Hauptgestüt Neustadt, established in 1788 by the Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm II in Neustadt, in the landkreis of Ostprignitz-Ruppin in north-western Brandenburg. It was bred principally as a military mount.

A breed association, the Verband Brandenburger Warmblutzüchter, was established in 1922, and a stud-book was started; the association was dissolved in 1949, after the end of the Second World War. From the 1960s, when Germany was divided and Brandenburg was in East Germany, the Brandenburger and the Mecklenburger were merged in the stud-book of the Edles Warmblut or 'light warmblood'; there was some cross-breeding with Hanoverian, Thoroughbred and Trakehner stock.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the re-unification of Germany, a new association – the Pferdezuchtverband Berlin-Brandenburg e.V. – was formed; in 2007 this merged with the Pferdezuchtverband Sachsen-Anhalt e.V. to form the Pferdezuchtverband Brandenburg-Anhalt e.V. From 2003 the Brandenburger was included in the stud-book of the Deutsches Reitpferd, which also included the Sachsen-Anhaltiner Warmblut, the Sächsisches Warmblut and the Thüringer Warmblut; to these the Bavarian Warmblood, the Württemberger and the Zweibrücker were added in 2014.

In the early twenty-first century there were approximately 70 stallions and $1,600$ mares registered.

Characteristics
As with other European warmblood sport horses, the Brandenburger is bred for performance and not for specific physical characteristics. The horses usually stand between $162 cm$ at the withers and are solid-coloured apart from the usual white markings.

Uses
Like other German warmblood breeds, the Brandenburger is bred to compete in dressage, in show-jumping and in the three-day event. The successful dressage mare Poetin was of this breed.

title: Brandenburger


text:
WCW Hardcore Championship

The World Championship Wrestling (WCW) Hardcore Championship was a title in World Championship Wrestling (WCW). The title was defended in Hardcore matches, in which there were few rules and restrictions and weapons were allowed. Eventually, the rules were changed so that matches began in the backstage area but would only end by pinfall in the ring, but later were changed back to 'Falls Count Anywhere' rules. The belt was created in response to the growing popularity of hardcore wrestling in North America.

History
The title lasted from 1999 to 2001. During Bash at the Beach (1999), Fit Finlay won a "junkyard invitational" to be crowned "WCW Hardcore Champion". However, this would end up being a trophy and thus unrecognized in the lineage of the championship. The first recognized WCW Hardcore champion was Norman Smiley, who defeated Brian Knobs in Toronto, Ontario, at the WCW pay-per-view Mayhem on November 21, 1999. Other notable champions are: 3 Count, who won and defended the belt as a trio; Brian Knobbs, who held the belt a record three times and was the one to defeat 3 Count at Uncensored 2000; and Terry Funk, a three-time champion who also held the title for a period of almost two months, from April to June 2000, when he was defeated by Eric Bischoff at a WCW Monday Nitro in Atlanta, Georgia. Bischoff later awarded the title to Big Vito as a reward for helping him take it from Funk. In 2000, as part of a storyline where he renamed singles titles that he had won, Lance Storm won the Hardcore Championship and, as he had done with the Cruiserweight and U.S. titles (renaming them the 100 Kilos and Under and Canadian championships), changed the name of the title to the Saskatchewan Hardcore International Title (or S.H.I.T for short).

The final hardcore champion in WCW was Meng, who defeated Crowbar and reigning champ Terry Funk at WCW Sin on January 14, 2001. It was largely abandoned after Meng left the company to return to the WWF. Meng presented the championship to Barbarian as a gift at an independent wrestling event on January 21, 2001. The belt was not defended again nor was it featured on the final episode of Nitro which was also known as "Night of Champions". The title belt was handed over formally to the WWF upon the purchase of WCW. The title is now displayed in WWE headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut.

The WCW Hardcore Title was a continuation from the WCW Hardcore Trophy that Fit Finlay won in the Junkyard Battle Royal that took place at the 1999 Bash at the Beach pay-per-view. Shortly after the PPV, the trophy was seized by Eric Bischoff and removed from television. Afterwards Norman Smiley was crowned first official WCW hardcore champion.

Norman Smiley held the record for the longest official reign at 51 days. The shortest reign was that of Carl Ouellet, who was awarded the title after Lance Storm gave it up but lost it 38 minutes later to Norman Smiley. Brian Knobbs and Funk hold the record for most reigns with three each and Smiley holds the record for most cumulative days as champion.

title: WCW Hardcore Championship