text:
Talk:Springfield, Massachusetts

Really not incorporated until 1852?
The length of time between settlement and incorporation is highly unusual. Was the date actually 1652? 2602:304:CDA6:51B0:A0EA:9FB5:D8B5:C42D (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

 * Obviously late to the party, but "incorporation" in New England almost invariably means when a town legally becomes a city. Towns are "founded."  Cities are "incorporated."   Ravenswing   14:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Well there's a difference between town and city. Springfield was a town before then, just a big town. B-Movie Fan (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Bradley International Airport
I changed the wording to remove any illusion that Springfield has any relationship with the airport other than residents use it. Markvs88 (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Update: I've had several queries as to what my reason(s) were as to why "Connecticut's Bradley International Airport, is 12 miles (19 km) south of Metro Center Springfield." is correct wording and "is known as the Hartford-Springfield airport" is not accurate.

1) Interestingly, all I did was word the entry about the airport in the lede to match what's under Transportation | Air later in the article(!) Which makes me ask... why is it in the lede at all, and why is it okay further down in the article?

2) Bradley International Airport is wholly owned and operated by the Connecticut Airport Authority. Springfield and Massachusetts contribute zero dollars to the airport on a yearly basis. I am not opposed to wording that states the airport serves the city/region, but anything beyond that alludes to some sort of ownership.

3) All three of the three citations are from airlines, not the airport itself nor any official agency. While some of the airlines (AA, Delta, Jetblue) call the airport Hartford-Springfield... that's only for their ROUTE DESTINATIONS, and not the airport itself. Other airlines (Southwest, Spirit, United) call their airport routes Hartford, Bradley (or some variant lacking Springfield).

3b) SFY is the the International Air Transport Association (IATA) code for Springfield, which is used for flights into both Bradley International Airport (IATA: BDL) and Westover Metropolitan Airport (IATA: CEF) as a convenience.

3c) However, I cannot find *any* flights that originate FROM SFY -- it is impossible to fly out of Springfield (from either airport). That includes those airlines that list "Hartford-Springfield" as a destination and various aggregators (Kayak, Orbitz, Expedia, Cheapoair...).

4) Finally and most importantly, Bradley International Airport is not listed as "Hartford-Springfield" by the FAA, but exclusively as Bradley International Airport.

TL:DR version: Bradley International Airport is not known as "Hartford-Springfield" except by some airlines for incoming flights only. The airport is owned by Connecticut and has no tie to Springfield other than its residents prefer to drive to it instead of going to Boston.

Best, Markvs88 (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Marksvs88, the article is not yours alone to arbitrarily make a decision. It sounds like several people are questioning YOUR decision to summarily change wording on what Bradley Airport is known as.  A couple of points:

 * 1. As far as I am aware, no one is arguing over who funds or operate the airport.  This is solely about what the airport is alternatively known as.  Stop bringing up those points as they have ZERO impact on what the airport is alternatively known as.

 * 2. As you yourself point point out, there are several entities that operate out of Bradley International Airport that acknowledge and use the term "Hartford/Springfield" when referring to the airport.  One would think that they know better what the airport is alternatively known as.

 * 3. The state DOT has referred to that name.

 * 4. Other aviation centered groups beyond airlines themselves use that term.

 * 5. Other government agencies such as the National Weather Service issues forecasts for BDL and refer to it as "Hartford/Springfield"

 * 6. Windsor Locks, CT is part of the Springfield Metropolitan Area so technically, even though Connecticut pays and operates the airport, it's the residents of the Hartford Metropolitan area that use the airport and not vice versa.

 * Setting aside the funding/operating arguments, which only you keep bringing up, you have been given no less than 9 references showing that Bradley International Airport is alternatively known as the Hartford/Springfield airport. I think the should suffice.  Unless you say otherwise to prevent an edit war, I will make that change.  Best, Dbroer (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Hello Dbrooer,
 * Actually, the article is mine to edit the same as it is yours, and I started this talk section to prevent edit warring. I have spelled out my reasoning, both here and on my talk page with you.

 * It also would have been nice of you to wait for my actual reply, or to have answered any of the questions I posted, which I relist here. As you have taken the time to discuss, I will not revert this while we discuss.

 * 1. Again: if this was about what the airport is alternatively known as, why is it in the LEDE? The LEDE is supposed to be about what the city has/is. Further, why not answer why the wording is just fine in the transportation section but not in the lede?

 * 2. So three airlines say it and it must be gospel, never mind that three others do not *and* that you cannot fly OUT of Springfield... from *either* airport using SFY? Oh, and that the 'FAA does not use the term, nor does the airport itself?

 * 3. The CT DOT reference is wholly spurious. In the 20 mentions of "Springfield" in the article, none of the are about the airport except (perhaps) #8, which is a copied in e-mail from a non-state source!

 * 4. Well... not so fast there. The NYCAvaiation link is about POSTS that include the term, so that's out. Facebook is de-facto not a reliable source, so that's out too. I'll look at Airliners.Net when I have more time tomorrow.

 * 5. You only provided NOAA, but I will look at that tomorrow too.

 * 6. Windsor Locks, Connecticut is in Connecticut. The Springfield Metropolitan Area is nothing more than a governmental statistical entity.

 * Three of the six above aren't viable. The other three (airliner) ones are not valid for the reasons I listed above, or are at best secondary to the FAA. I'll get back to you on the other two when I have more time tomorrow. Thanks, Markvs88 (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Hello Marksv88...thanks for allowing some discussion. My thoughts to your points:

 * 1. I have no opinion if mention of the airport should be in the LEDE outside of the fact that it appears to be in a paragraph regarding the Hartford-Springfield area and that the two cities share use of the airport.

 * 2. It's OK that not everyone or every airline calls Bradley "Hartford-Springfield" but the fact that some do supports the fact that the name is used.  I've never heard of "SFY" so I'm not surprised that you can't book a flight using that code.  Other places have three-letter identifiers like NYC.  It doesn't mean that I can book a flight to NYC but I can book a flight to LGA or JFK.

 * 3. Understood, however, the document clearly shows how important the Hartford/Springfield area is to the airport.

 * 4. I wasn't trying to provide encyclopedic references but rather show you that independent groups in and out of aviation use the term "Hartford/Springfield" when referring to Bradley.

 * 5. The NWS link shows a page showing weather at cities across the country.  The weather and forecast is for the main airport for the city.  It lists "Hartford Spgfld" for Bradley.

 * 6. I brought up the metro area because you were alluding to the fact that it was "Hartford's" airport and that Springfield residents just happen to prefer it over driving 90 miles to Boston.  I do think it's worthy to note.

 * For good or bad the two cities are tied together and share the use of resources. Bradley is just one of those key resources. The fact is that it has been demonstrated that the airport as a destination is known as the Hartford/Springfield.  The airport's Website itself does not exclude Springfield and specifically mentions the Hartford/Springfield area.  It should go without saying that if the airport itself refers to the destination as "Hartford/Springfield" that the airport is the "Hartford/Springfield" airport.  I really don't know how it can be seen otherwise, save for the fact that a couple of carriers just refer to it as "Hartford".  Dbroer (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Hello Dbrooer, I'm happy to talk but after this I don't see how there can be much to discuss. I apologize for the long-windiness of this reply but I wanted to be thorough.

 * 1. I don't know of any other city that has a reference to an airport that is not its own in the lede. Likewise, you've still not explained why the text I wrote in the lede isn't fine... while what's essentially the same text that was *not* written by me in the Transportation section is. Also... if you don't have an opinion, let's delete the second half of your sentence and have done with it ?

 * 1b. The City of Springfield does NOT share use of the airport. Sharing implies some sort of ownership.The residents of Springfield can use the airport, the same way that some residents near Willimantic, Connecticut can fly out of Boston.
 * Does Springfield consult with the Connecticut Airport Authority on how the airport is run? Host any of the facilities? Contribute funds? (I know you're tired of that, but it IS germane here). No. By the "Hartford-Springfield" logic you are proposing, we would need to rename the MassMutual Center to the "MassConnMutual Center", since CT residents also use it. Hey, let's rename the company too -- after all, the guy who founded it was an ex-Connecticut Life employee.

 * 1c. Even in the Bradley International Airport article it isn't called "Hartford-Springfield". I've even gone so far as to look back through to 2008 and I can't find any entry of it, though I admit I was just clicking 500 and searching for "Spring" on every 50th page or so.

 * 2. I agree, it's okay that not everyone calls Bradley "Hartford-Springfield". Because that's not it's name. What's important is that a) the airport, b) the CAA, c) the FAA and d) the TSA call it Bradley.

 * 2b. That you've never heard of it is a problem... without it, there is no Springfield airline destination. I do not understand your point about NYC. As I stated, SFY *is* the airline destination for the intangible Springfield airport (since it's used for flights into both Bradley and Westover). NYC is short for the city, and is not an airport IATA code.
 * I think that maybe part of the problem is that the abbreviation is SFY vs. NYC for New York City but not one of the airports. However, NYC is the exception. Miami uses MIA for both. Seattle uses SEA for both... and Boston uses BOS for both.

 * 3. Come on now... that's a far cry from "The CT DOT calls it...". Surely you're not going to continue to contest this point?! Again, I'm not saying that there is no such a things as Hartford Springfield region, etc. However, it is clearly not the name of the airport. To say so is wp:or.

 * 4. If the references aren't encyclopedic they cannot be used here. I'm not here to debate something over beers, I'm working on an encyclopedia entry. BTW, your google search displays no results with "Hartford-Springfield is another name for Bradley International Airport" or some variation.

 * 5. I just took a look at the NOAA link. This is a "Selected Cities Summary". Nowhere does it state that it is a list of airports. Further, if we go to page 3, there is no JFK or Laguardia, just New York City.

 * 6. Again: I have never called it Hartford's airport. I call it Connecticut's airport, because that's what it is.

 * No, the two cities are just that -- two cities. They compete against one another for somethings, they work together on others. Sharing, again, implies ownership. If we share a flat, we both live there. Springfield does not live in Windsor Locks.

 * At this point: the destination is called "Hartford-Springfield" by three airlines for their own use. Three others do not. Again, the airport does not refer to itself as "Hartford-Springfield", and you have provided no links to prove to the contrary. The only cited points you have for this are the said three airlines... vs the airport, the CAA, the FAA and the TSA.

 * I'm sorry, but without better references I don't see how the article can state "is part of the Springfield Metropolitan Area and is alternatively known as the Hartford-Springfield airport". Particularly because Windsor Locks is NOT in Springfield's Metro Area. It's in it's NECTA. That is not the same thing. But either way -- it's still nothing more than a federal statistical entity.

Thanks for reading, I again apologize for the length of this reply! Markvs88 (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

 * My responses:

 * 1. If no other city lists the airport in the LEDE, let's delete all mention of it then to be consistent.  No need then to be concerned about labels.

 * 1b. Merriam-Webster defines sharing as "to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others or to have in common".  Nowhere does it state that to share something means to have ownership.  Residents of the region share use of the airport.  It does not mean that any of them have to have ownership to share use of the airport.  That's a silly notion and I don't know why you keep circling back to it.

 * 1c. Are we trying to use a Wikipedia article as a reference?  That article is about the airport itself, not the region that uses it.

 * 2. We're not talking about the airport's name.

 * 2b. Actually, NYC IS an IATA code for New York City.  The point is that it's a code for a city but no one books under that code.  They aren't flying into NYC they are flying into LGA or JFK.  The fact that you don't understand the relevance to SFY is probably part of the problem.  No one is booking flights to SFY when they want to come to Springfield.  They are booking to BDL as per airlines and even the airport itself.

 * 3. Again, we're not talking about the airport's name just the fact that it is used in the Hartford/Springfield region.

 * 4. I agree that non-encyclopedic references should be used in the article but there's no reason that they can't be used to demonstrate in a discussion that when people outside of our circle refer to an airport in the Hartford/Springfield are that they typically refer to Bradley.

 * 5. If you look at the NWS's Selected Cities tables, there are three columns.  The first one contains the previous days high & low and measured precip.  The second and third are forecasts for the current day and next day.  It's easy to match up the high, low and precip up with what was measured at the airport and know where the data is for.  The entry for "Hartford Spgfld" is for BDL as BDL is official measurement site for the area.  The fact that they refer to it as Hartford/Springfield is a clear indicator that an independent government agency refers to it as Hartford/Springfield's airport.

 * 6. I think you're being too literal when it comes to ownership.  True, it is "Connecticut's" airport in the fact that it pays for and operates the airport but it's also true that people within the greater Hartford/Springfield area use the airport and so it would be correct to call it the Hartford/Springfield area's airport.  Both metro areas make use of the airport.

 * 7. MSA's and NECTA's are the same thing and Windsor Locks IS part of the Springfield Metro area according to the federal government - even if they call it an NECTA.  Even the article you link to says they are the same thing.  So that statement is supported.  So, we can support the part of the sentence that states "is part of the Springfield Metropolitan Area".  Stating that Windsor Locks is not the NECTA (aka MSA) would not be factual.

 * 8.  Bradley clearly sits in the middle of the Hartford/Springfield region.  Its distance between the two cities is stated on numerous resources, including the airports reports as well as on the Hartford/Springfield Economic Partnership Website (aka the Knowledge Corridor) .  Even the airlines that you tout as not calling the destination "Hartford/Springfield" link the two.  For example, if I go to Southwest Airlines and state that I want to fly to Springfield it will give me the option of Bradley. Therefore I see no reason why this portion of the sentence is not supported: "and is alternatively known as the Hartford-Springfield airport".

 * At this point, if we can't come to a consensus due to differences over the definition of what sharing means or agree that the airport is part of the Hartford/Springfield region I say delete the mention from the LEDE. However, I feel that I've demonstrated that multiple government agencies, including the airport itself refer to the Hartford/Springfield area and the fact that Bradley is the regional passenger airport.  The airport touts it, the Knowledge Corridor touts it, the National Weather Service uses it and even the airlines that serve the airport use it.  In fact, I have not seen a single point that states that Bradley is NOT the Hartford/Springfield area's airport.  So if we can't agree, delete it from the LEDE and be done with it. Dbroer (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dbroer,

1. Then we have an accord! Excellent.

1b. Um... "Definition of shared - 1 : used, done, belonging to, or experienced by two or more individuals". *That* is why I keep coming back to it.

1c. Actually, that's the whole point, isn't it? This article is about the City of Springfield, it is not the Hartford–Springfield article. So as I keep saying... this airport has nothing to do with the City of Springfield, and it should definitely not be in the lede.

2. Um... that's what I've been talking about the whole time. The sentence I made I am fine with. It was your addition of "is part of the Springfield Metropolitan Area and is alternatively known as the Hartford-Springfield airport". Both of which are not accurate statements.

2b. Yes, as a destination, not as an airport. Like I've been saying, the airport is BDL - aka Bradley. The destination route that those three airlines use is SFY. Which is why "is alternatively known as the Hartford-Springfield airport" is not correct. It is mixing destinations (cities) with the airport name.

3. Again, we're talking about "is alternatively known as the Hartford-Springfield airport". Which it clearly is not.

4. There are lots of people that call a certain football team "The Cheatriots". It doesn't mean that's an acceptable alternative name for them, does it?

5. Again, we are talking about "is alternatively known as the Hartford-Springfield airport". This citation is not about airports.

6. Yes, both metro areas use the airport. One state owns it, and that state is not MA.

7. Again, no. The MSA is specifically 3 MA counties. NECTA is an alternative method to look at data. As stated, Windsor Locks is *not* in Springfield's MSA. And again, this article is about the City of Springfield, not the MSA.

8. Yeah, what a revelation: I ask to fly to a city with no airport of its own, and they find the closest one. Truly, that's amazing. Did you know that if you just walked up and asked to fly to "Springfield" the airport you are sent to is this one? Springfield–Branson National Airport

The NOAA link is just a list of cities and nothing more. That said, I agree to delete in the lede, I do not think you've proven anything regarding the name of the Airport as you have shown zero government sources using it. I am glad our discussion remained cordial, and I wish you well. See you around! Markvs88 (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

 * "I do not think you've proven anything regarding the name of the Airport as you have shown zero government sources using it." Likewise, you haven't proven anything either.  You've falsely claimed that I haven't shown any government links showing that Bradley is the Hartford/Springfield airport along with some other false claims as well as thrown in some other comments but there's no need to go back and forth since we've come to an agreement that we can take any mention of the airport out of the LEDE.  I wish our conversation was more cordial but if you feel it was, I wish you well.  Peace. Dbroer (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Reversion of the removal of country and state flags from the infobox
Many years ago I was informed, by editors and administrators alike, that the consensus on the use on flags in infoboxes was that "settlements" are not an exception, and, after a random glance at towns of all sizes across the world, it appears most editors are compliant. However, their removal to this article has been reverted by with the following edit summary: "(reversed change; MOS:INFOBOXFLAG does allow use of flags in cities and other populated places; do agree however showing flags of previous countries does detract from subject)", and although MOS:INFOBOXFLAG does say, there appears to have been no debate on this or consensus reached. My Favourite Account ' 😊 16:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , Respectfully I think you are misinterpreting that clause. It doesn't apply here as it calls for Where one article covers both human and physical geographic subjects or where the status of the territory is subject to a political dispute; in this case that might apply if the Connecticut River Valley were in dispute but Springfield is not Manhattan, it has no corresponding geographic unit which is coterminous with its boundaries. Nor does it have any ongoing political dispute related to its city status. Would you be able to point to an intersection between Springfield the human geographic subject and a related physical geographic boundary?--Simtropolitan (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You have me, "I am unable to point to an intersection between Springfield the human geographic subject and a related physical geographic boundary", and despite their use is limited to a very select number of articles, you are right, my mistake., I apologise and humbly submit we change all the others.

My Favourite Account ' 😊 17:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's quite alright, thank you very much for at least trying to create consistency. I wouldn't be opposed to having a discussion about whether or not this should be the case in the MOS talk page, as I do find it spammish when things like the "New England flag" appear in geo infoboxes (though cultural, it has never held an official place in any gov or organization). Regards --Simtropolitan (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Are you aware of how few articles have the flags in the Country, State and County fields of their infoboxes? Might I suggest you do a random selection of town and cities throughout the world to find out.

My Favourite Account ' 😊 17:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Unwarranted removal of a CN tag
Today the city is the largest in western New England, and the urban, economic, and cultural capital of Massachusetts' section of the Connecticut River Valley,[citation needed] colloquially known as the Pioneer Valley. I have invited the other user in the summaries to cite this claim, he is saying it is common knowledge. That's simply not the case. Springfield is the largest city in western NE, sure, but saying it is the cultural capital of anywhere is subjective and needs a source. And that's all I'm asking for. Markvs88 (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note this exact same thing has been discussed before, but with Boston instead of Springfield, and came to a reliable outcome. Please see Talk:New_England/Archive_5. Markvs88 (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC);
 * Again copied here. That is not the statement claimed for reversion, so please do not misrepresent what it is I am advocating for. "...the urban, economic, and media capital of Massachusetts' section of the Connecticut River Valley" repeated as on your talk page- "the term 'cultural capital' is loaded, but to say a citation must demonstrate an economic, media, or administrative role, by any name, is disingenuous when the region's MSA, CSA, and DMA, use Springfield as a handle. It's unneccessary when you could put this a hundred different ways-- the US District Court maintains its sole MA courthouse outside the Boston CSA there, as does the IRS's offices, the largest of private revenue is there, as well as more agencies regional, state and Federal than any city in the Pioneer Valley or Berkshires. Making a case for another "cultural capital", should the term have merit, has other contenders. You don't need a lede source to say Albany is the center of the Capital Region, or Portland is southern Maine's economic center, asking for proof that Springfield the city is the "core" or "capital" of the Springfield Metropolitan Area, as well as your repeated tangential opinions to justify edits, again leads me to believe they are not  made in good faith."--Simtropolitan (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to talk about things "not made in good faith".... Changing the word "culture" to "media" after a revision and not making it plain in the edit summary is one example. Not going to talk until after being called out for putting a spurious edit warring message on a my talk page is another example.
 * That said, I can support "the city is the largest in western New England, and the urban, economic, and cultural media capital of Massachusetts' section of the Connecticut River Valley..." without a CN tag. Here, the word "section" is IMO imperative, as the Connecticut River Valley goes through four states and there's no way for the prior wording to stand without a source. But saying Springfield is the center for MA's section? Sure, that's reasonable. If you are in agreement please feel free to remove the CN tag. Best wishes, Markvs88 (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * >Edit summary, "Wikipedia:Facts precede opinions, reworded for NPOV as again, media market is Springfield-Holyoke market, not Amherst, Amherst is within market)".
 * Take the time to read the edit, before you go reverting it the third and fourth time. Personally I don't think "cultural capital" is a term that ought to belong in an encyclopedia except the circumstance that it is the largest city or a subdivision capital nominally, as it the center from which media is marketed [isn't necessarily a "cultural capital" in broad terms], but if that's what it was and you're for it, we [could] use it, as the region is defined as integrated to this core-based statistical area (CBSA), the social and economic "capital", in the literary sense. Adding "section" is ample.--Simtropolitan (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Just to throw my two cents' in, I wager that with multiple theaters, multiple concert venues, multiple museums and a lively arts scene, Northampton would dispute the "cultural capital" bit.   Ravenswing   02:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, I'm not a fan of that specific language myself as it's rife for edit warring and infighting. Would say Springfield is the administrative, economic, and media capital, but I would agree, that it's not the likeliest contender for that title.--Simtropolitan (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2021 and 16 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Doucereuse.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Notable people
The Notable people list is very long. Does anyone have any thoughts on if the list was made into a separate page? Kaltenmeyer (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Makes perfect sense; go for it.   Ravenswing     13:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Springfield, Massachusetts


text: File:Fugazi - Red Medicine cover.jpg

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

title: File:Fugazi - Red Medicine cover.jpg


text:
Talk:String (music)

No mention of tapewounds
Could someone add this to the article. They're mainly for bass guitar but La Bella offers two types for "jazz guitar". And maybe someone should add "half-rounds" to the halfwound description. I've seen a lot of people refer to them as such & that is what D'Addario calls their line of halves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:300:4300:D540:2C27:C4B3:9D90:9DD (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:String (music)


text: User talk:205.206.75.13

title: User talk:205.206.75.13


text:
Kings of Metal

Kings of Metal is the sixth album by the American heavy metal band Manowar, released on November 18, 1988 by Atlantic Records. The album was the last to feature guitarist and founding member Ross "The Boss" Friedman, who later went on to rejoin punk band The Dictators. Drummer Scott Columbus left the band after this album as well, but rejoined for 1996's Louder Than Hell and remained with the band until 2008.

In 2017, Loudwire ranked it as the 13th-best power metal album of all time.

Track listing
All songs written by Joey DeMaio except where noted.

Personnel

 * Manowar
 * Eric Adams − vocals
 * Ross the Boss − guitars
 * Joey DeMaio − bass
 * Scott Columbus − drums

 * Additional musicians
 * Canoldir Male Choir directed by Clive Griffiths
 * Arthur Whilshire – voices on track 9
 * Grant Williams – voices on track 9

 * Production
 * Richard Breen – engineer, mixing, Synclavier programming
 * Elvis T. Gruber – assistant engineer
 * Vince Gutman – digital programming, recording and mixing supervision
 * Howie Weinberg – mastering at Masterdisk, New York
 * Jason Flom – executive producer

title: Kings of Metal


text:
Talk:Vedic mythology

My views

 * I feel the French text in the body of the article should be removed. If it is agreed, or if no comments come forward, I shall do that, and integrate its English version with other contents, and give proper context to that. Ok. The French content may also continue, after suitable formatting, but I am unable to that as I donot know French.--Bhadani 14:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I wrote a translation underneath that says what the French says. It's crap.  Delete it.  Note on VfD that the content has completely changed.  --Diderot 15:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * For the time being, I am removing these contents. But, they have a meaning - in the Vedic period, Shiva was considered as a benevolent god, whereas, over a period of time, Shiva became synonymous with anger and destruction. --Bhadani 16:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

VFD debate link
This article has been kept following this VFD debate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:19, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

MERGE with Hindu mythology
Hello,

I think that this article should be merged with Hindu mythology. Vedic religion/mythology is all early Hinduism to begin with, and in case of mythology, I don't think we should cut off the roots from the rest of the tree.

I think it will be a good idea to debate this till, say November 28, 2005. We should carry out the merger or deny it according to the opinions expressed. - Thank you, User:Rama's Arrow
 * Is the merger actually required? I think there are several dimensions of Hindu mythology, and they require to be dealt with separately. Just to illustrate my point: would anyone say that Shiva be merged with Shaivism? --Bhadani 11:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

 * You are wrong: Shaivism is the worship of Shiva and his inspiration; Hindu mythology is the big cake from which the vedic part is sliced.

Vedic mytho is too closely linked in my opinion: (1) all the stuff about Indra, Vritra etc. too closely influences Ramayana and Mahabharata, which are considered Hindu mytho. To explain each properly, we need the reader to be aquainted with both.

IN ADDITION: W/o Vedic mytho, all Hindu mytho will primarily be is Ramayana and Mahabharata. We have two big articles on those two in the first place, so what does one put in Hindu mytho that makes it special.

Plus, most people consider Hindu and Vedic to be inseparable and pretty much same: so why confuse them by separate articles, when the point can be made by a big section inside one article?

If you are worried about the length, then don't: Hindu mytho needs expansion anyway. There is a threat of repeat material if one does not merge.

I don't know if you wanna vote yes or no after this, but I'll tally the votes on Nov. 28. - Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow. (UTC) Vedic lore contains numerous elements which are common to Indo-European mythological traditions.DOES NOT PARSIAN MYTHOLOGI IS NOT RELATED WITH VEDIK RELIGION AND SO TO SO CALLED EUROPEAN MYTHOLOGI.In paesian mythologis artical there is no manses of it but in vedic it is mansem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.19.35.226 (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

My response to above
I would like to state that the article had earlier survived a vote for deletion, as indicated hereinabove – and as such redirection to Hindu mythology does not appear appropriate. For discerning readers and researchers, there shall be no confusion. --Bhadani 14:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to Bhadani
Dear Sir - there are two big POVs here - your judgment of appropriate and in appropriate and the idea that all Wikiusers will be discerning researchers.

I'm NOT threatening to delete! Why is this raised at all?

You have not considered even one of the facts/points that I presented. Please do not make this a question of ego or attitude. - Rama's Arrow.
 * My dear I would suggest that issues to be discussed here (instead of on talk pages of the users) to maintain continuity. And, dear Mr. Rama’s Arrow, please do not impute motives like ‘ego’ or ‘attitude’ to my words (as you have indicated on my talk page) as I am talking based on the reality of the situation, which had found expression by the will of the community of wikipedians, as expressed in the vote of deletion. Please reconsider your stand. Everyone, including me should  remember the proverb: “empty vessels sound much.” And, it has nothing to do with POVs, but the factual accuracy.--Bhadani 14:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Stalemate
If User:Bhadani retains his vote of "no", and nobody else votes on this question, then the outcome will be a 1:1 tie.

In this case, I will not merge the article but find a way to closely link Hindu and Vedic mythology to avoid the pitfalls I've foreseen. - Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow.
 * It is a good idea to sign. Is not it? --Bhadani 14:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

 * noooooooooo.......Jai Sri Rama!

Another Response to Bhadani
Your plea is ridiculous sir

(1) Do not make my sign an issue here and convolute the debate.

(2) The debate has been entirely posted here.

(3) You have offered no consideration to my points. What conclusion am I supposed to make about your opinion on this matter?

(4) NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT DELETING - ITS MERGING WE'RE DEBATING. If merged, Vedic mythology's contents will NOT BE ERASED, BUT ADDED to Hindu mythology.

(5) It is you sir, who are not conducting this debate properly. Why you talk about deleting in the first place, I don't know. Second, this community of Wikipedians hasn't showered any vote or opinion upon this matter yet.

Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow

 * Kindly read the link given in an earlier section for vote for deletion. I was not aware that you had not read earlier contents of this talk page, and therefore you may have missed certain issues. In case a user desires to "copy" and "paste" (with modifications, etc.) contents from here to Hindu mythology, he/ she is free - why anyone should object to him/ her doing this. My point was different: I was just telling that merging the contents of this page or making this page a redirection link to Hindu mythology is perhaps not a good idea. In case, you are confident about the point under debate, you are most welcome to edit this page in the way you feel proper, including making a redirection link/ merging, etc. Ultimately, some other editors may step into, and if required may reverse any action. One should also sign his comments, as it gives a time-stamp, and has several other benefits. "Signing" is just a suggestion in conformity with the practice which all the registered users generally do unless one desires to camoufalge his/her activities and edits, for some known or unknown reasons, like by changing his/her user-names repeatedly/ editing the same page with different IDs including editing annonymously to give a look to an article that it has been edited by a number of users etc. I am not implying that you or any one else may have done this with this purpose - sometimes, people may forget the password, and are forced to take up other IDs. Now, in case you feel that by merging this article with Hindu mythology would serve any useful purpose, you may initiate the move, some other editor my un-do this. Please also remember,  Vedic Mythology and Hindu mythology are two different topics, though inter-related. In case, you think otherwise, how can I prevent you from editing in the way you desire to edit? --Bhadani 15:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Another (3) Reply to Bhadani
It is very enjoyable for me to read that you have virtually no respect for my points...I KNOW how bloody easy it will be for me to do whatever I please, but I respect democracy, whether you understand it or not. Your assumption that I will by-pass your vote is insulting.

(1) The previous debate about DELETING this article has no relevance here. When you talk delete, you talk of wiping out info all together. I appreciate this article, but just feel the need for a re-org.

(2) Vedic and Hindu mythologies ARE NOT different topics in my belief...it is your POV to assume so, and it is exactly what is being debated here. What is needed are factual arguments. I've supplied some: you - zero.

(3) I understand as administrator you are concerned about people not using signs, but it is not good to attempt to interject such concerns in a debate about absolutely something else. If you had something to say about it, you should have posted a message on my personal page, which you have already visited before. That would have been appropriate.

(4) A debate is the healthiest when you go point-to-point in exchange of views. I would understand and respect your viewpoint better had you bothered to tell me what you thought about the points I had raised. If you don't supply reason for your arguments, it is obviously a pre-set notion in play.

I am bound by democracy, so what can I do? Your vote is a vote, no matter how you got to it.

The count is 1:1. If "no" votes are added, or if this remains unchanged, the merger will not go thru. If "yes" votes are added, it will.

Jai Sri Rama! Rama's Arrow
 * Kindly remember that wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, we are here to write an encyclopedia, and not to count votes - all editors, you as well as me, are here to ensure that wikipedia must reflect the truth. I am aware that you you are a nice person and know that it is better to keep one's temper down, and avoid using the words like "bloody" as you have done - it is neither good for the health nor look beautiful in the context of issues pertaining to Vedic mythology and Hindu mythology. --Bhadani 17:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Removing my signed comments
Mr Rama’s Arrow, please do not disturb and delete the continuity of the discussion as you have done by your following edit:

Although, I assume good faith, perhaps you had done something, which you were not expected to do. You also removed my comments duly signed by you me. Please do not do like this – this is really not expected from mature users like you. --Bhadani 17:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to Above Allegations by User:Bhadani
I wish you had noticed that I only printed an updated version of my comments on your talkpage. If I had not, then you would not have put up my true comments.

The so-called Experiment in Democracy my dear fellow, is respecting other people's viewpoints. This can't be a FREE ENCYLOPEDIA if you don't offer due respect to a person's statements.

I (1) offered a pro-merge argument. You (1) expressed an opposing point of view. I respect that my view is not above yours. Why are you complaining about this?

And I wish you wouldn't squirm about a use of a word like bloody. It is absolutely harmless, not even directed at you.

All I was doing is respecting your POV. It seems ridiculous that you want to challenge that very honorable practice. - User:Rama's Arrow.

Truth and Democracy: Situation As of Now
All this is deviating from the purpose of discussing the merger....which nobody else is interested in....

I understand User:Bhadani's point about the truth and democracy in Wikipedia, but I don't want to make a major change unless I have the support of other Wikipedians.

I have nothing more to say or add. I do not want to keep rebutting User:Bhadani, and vice-versa.

I will check back on Monday, November 28. If the vote tally, which is 1:1, has changed (or not), I will act accordingly, respecting the democratic verdict.

Jai Sri Rama! User:Rama's Arrow

Please also see
Kindly also refer to comments by elvenscout742 on the talk page of Hindu mythology. Thanks. --Bhadani 14:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 20:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Vedas Mythology
I've just added a tag to the section "Vedic lore contains numerous elements which are common to Indo-European mythological traditions, like the mythologies of Persia, Greece, and Rome, and that of the Celtic, Germanic and Slavic peoples. The Vedic god Indra in part corresponds to Dyaus Pitar, the Sky Father, Zeus and Jupiter. The deity Yama, the lord of the dead, is Yima of Persian mythology and the (later) Buddhist Yanluo or Emma in the traditions of China and Japan. Vedic hymns refer to these and other deities, often 33, consisting of eight Vasus, eleven Rudras, twelve Adityas, and the late Rigvedic Prajapati. These deities belong to the three dimensions of the universe/heavens, the earth, and the intermediate space. Some major deities of the Vedic tradition include Indra, Surya, Agni, Vayu, Varuna, Mitra Aditi, Yama, Soma, Ushas, Sarasvati and Rudra.", please provide the scientific research work done by the researchers which proves these false.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 02:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The author in his introductory para is calling Religions texts myth. He has not provided any reference on how he has concluded the same. This approach is extremely unscientific and dubious. It looks like he thinks it is that way. Nor he has done any kind of experiments to back his thoughts, nor he has been guided by someone.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

BR please go away, get a dictionary, and try to find out the topic without telling all the world about it. --dab (𒁳) 10:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dab, this is public domain, does not belong to anyone. BalanceΩrestored Talk 10:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * what is public domain? Are you literally incapable of grasping any concept, even that of "public domain"?
 * Well dab, it will be great if you provide references pertaining to Vedas being false. Something that clearly is based on research findings. It will be very helpful for the readers to arrive at conclusions more rationally. BalanceΩrestored Talk 19:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * if anyone has no point here, it is you. Nobody claimed the Vedas were "false". The Vedas are "true" Iron Age liturgy, no more, no less. Before you ask for sources try and review the sources already listed at the Veda article, and then bring up a point informed by that literature, not some random confused nonsense you pulled out of your nose. --dab (𒁳) 20:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Part of series on Hinduism, not Vaishnavism
This is incorrectly listed as part of series on Vaishnavism. Vedic mythology, as a whole, cannot be associated with any one branch of Hinduism. This should be corrected to reflect that this is part of series on Hinduism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apalaria (talk • contribs) 13:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Hindu mythology
It should be, just like many others suggested before. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Historical Vedic religion is at times considered distinct from Hinduism. Also Vedic and Hindu (read epic and Puranic) differ in many aspects. For example, Indra, one of the highest gods of the Vedas is reduced to a greedy, insecure god in the later texts, while Rudra and Vishnu minor gods of the Vedas play an important role in later times.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It was different tradition, but it wasn't extreme, today it's part of Hinduism. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Vedic mythology


text:
Württemberg-Baden

Württemberg-Baden was a state of the Federal Republic of Germany. It was created in 1945 by the United States occupation forces, after the previous states of Baden and Württemberg had been split up between the US and French occupation zones. Its capital was Stuttgart. In 1952, Württemberg-Baden merged with Württemberg-Hohenzollern and Baden into the present state of Baden-Württemberg.

History
Württemberg-Baden consisted of the northern halves of the former states of Württemberg and Baden. The southern border of this part of the US-administered zone was set so that the autobahn connecting Karlsruhe and Munich (today the A8) was completely contained within the American zone. The three major subdivisions of the American zone (Greater Hesse, Bavaria and Württemberg-Baden) were declared on 19 September 1945.

On 24 November 1946, a new constitution was enacted and Württemberg-Baden's first parliament was elected. On 23 May 1949, the state became a founding member of the Federal Republic of Germany.

A straw poll was held on 24 September 1950 in Württemberg-Baden, Württemberg-Hohenzollern and Baden regarding a merger of the three states, followed by a public referendum on 16 December 1951. On both occasions, voters in Württemberg-Baden returned a clear majority in favour of a merger. All three states were merged and the modern German state of Baden-Württemberg was founded on 25 April 1952.

Politics
The only minister-president of Württemberg-Baden was Reinhold Maier (DVP, then FDP; 1946–1952). Maier went on to become the first minister-president of Baden-Württemberg upon its formation in 1952.

Württemberg-Baden was subdivided into two administrative districts, known as Landesbezirke. The boundaries for these two districts were taken from two former state sections that comprised Württemberg-Baden. These two districts remain largely unchanged today as the Regierungsbezirke of Stuttgart (Württemberg) and Karlsruhe (Baden) within Baden-Württemberg.

Flag and coat of arms
The flag of Württemberg-Baden, adopted in 1947, was the black-red-gold tricolour flag of Germany which was later also adopted again by the new German states founded in 1949, the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic.

The coat of arms merges elements from the two predecessor states: the red stripe on a golden field of the coat of arms of Baden and the three deer antlers of the coat of arms of Württemberg.

title: Württemberg-Baden


text: User talk:131.111.202.178

title: User talk:131.111.202.178


text: User talk:71.11.128.42

title: User talk:71.11.128.42


text:
Heizō Takenaka

Heizō Takenaka (竹中 平蔵) is a Japanese economist, retired politician, and political activist last serving as Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications and Minister of State for Privatization of the Postal Services in the cabinet of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. As of July 2007, he is a professor at Keio University and an advisor for other academic institutions and companies. Takenaka serves on the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum.

Academic life
Takenaka was the second son of a shoe seller in Wakayama City. He attended Hitotsubashi University to study under Ichiro Nakayama and graduated with a BA in Economics in 1973. While at Hitotsubashi, he played the mandolin, and met his wife (a student at Tsuda College) through his mandolin club.

In 1973, Takenaka entered the Development Bank of Japan. He was transferred into its Institute for Capital Investment Studies in 1977.

In 1981, he left the DBJ to study for a year at Harvard University and the University of Pennsylvania, where he researched capital investment in the United States. The product of his research, the 1984 book Development Studies and Capital Expenditure Economics, won the Suntory Liberal Arts Prize.

Takenaka then worked in the Ministry of Finance as a money supply researcher. He initially planned to stay for two years, but ended up working there for five years, from 1982 to 1987.

He later completed his Ph.D. at Osaka University. He taught as an associate professor at Osaka (1987–89) and Harvard (1989–90), and received tenure in the Faculty of Policy Management of Keio University SFC (Shonan Fujisawa Campus).

Political life
Takenaka was picked by Koizumi to become the Minister of State for Economic and Fiscal Policy in 2001. In this capacity, Takenaka has become one of the most prominent voices in the ongoing debate over the privatization and breakup of Japan Post.

In 2002 he became Minister of State for Financial Services as well. In this capacity he was the author of the Takenaka Plan, which successfully tackled Japan's banking crisis. One of his biggest accomplishments was to change attitudes within the financial industry, including auditors who had previously rubber-stamped bank earnings reports that understated the size of bad loans. A turning point came in May 2003, when auditors refused to approve the earnings statement of Resona Bank (see Resona Holdings), forcing the bank to seek a $17 billion bailout from the Japanese government.

Takenaka won his first election in 2004 and held a proportional representation seat in the House of Councillors.

After Koizumi's Liberal Democratic Party crushing victory in the 2005 General Election, Takenaka assumed his last position as Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications, in charge of Japan Post privatization.

He further attempted to privatize the national public broadcaster NHK but Koizumi did not agree and the attempt was stalled. On 15 September 2005, he announced his retirement from politics. On 28 September his resignation from the House of Councillors was permitted. On 29 September, he submitted a resignation letter to the Liberal Democratic Party, which was agreed on 11 November. On the same day his return to Keio University was disclosed. Now, he is the Chairman of Pasona facing multiple unethical business conducts over the Tokyo Olympics games.

title: Heizō Takenaka


text:
William Lucko

William Lucko (January 11, 1911 – October 5, 1998) was a politician in Manitoba, Canada. He served in the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as a Liberal-Progressive from 1949 to 1959.

Born in Hazelridge, Manitoba to Nick Lucko and Pearl Mozel, Ukrainian-Canadian parents, Lucko worked as a general merchant in Hazelglen. He served as the community's school secretary and postmaster. In 1938, he married Anne Nimchuk.

He was first elected to the Manitoba legislature in the provincial election of 1949, winning an easy victory in the constituency of Springfield. He was re-elected in the 1953 election, and served as a backbench supporter of Douglas Campbell's government.

The Liberal-Progressives lost power in the 1958 provincial election, although Lucko was re-elected by 82 votes over his Progressive Conservative opponent, Oscar Russell. In the 1959 election, he lost his seat to Progressive Conservative Fred Klym by 371 votes.

Lucko attempted to return to the legislature in the provincial elections of 1962 and 1966, but lost to Fred Klym on both occasions. In 1966, he fell to a third-place finish.

He died in Winnipeg at the age of 87.

title: William Lucko