text:
Talk:Army Combat Uniform

Discussion
"Uniforms purchased from commercial websites and surplus stores that sell to the general public do not include the IR squares, which are restricted to military personnel because of their sensitive nature."

BULLSHIT>  How many do you want? I can have you 20 uniforms with the allegedly "restricted, not available" IR squares within an hour. False reporting doesn't gain credibility fr WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.206.158 (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The web belt is black, however, which does not quite fit with the stated reasons for avoiding black.

I'm deleting this, because it's not important. The belt is not visible on a properly worn uniform. If one really wants to pick out all the black on the ACU, there's still the rank and name tapes to consider.

Besides, both tan and black belts are approved for use with ACUs, and the tan one is now issued with ACUs at Basic Training Greeky 08:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Was this developed with cooperation of the people behind Marpat or Cadpat, or was this independently made? Also, can we get a pic of it from the field? There must be units using it already. Identity0 10:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I am wondering if this statement from the article is true: "[there] is a spot on the uniform for the ribbon and skill decorations (for peacetime use, as they are eye-catching)" Is there really a spot for ribbons on the ACU!? I presume someone is confused. There is a spot for skill badges on the ACU, but I highly doubt there is a spot for ribbons or skill decorations (since skill decorations would include drivers badge and marksman badges). Secondly, I am sure many soldier wear their skill badges even in combat (they would be covered up by body armor anyway, as would rank and nametapes). Atfyfe 06:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The rank and nametape are transferred to the body armor. Skill badges are to be removed during wear of the IBA or during combat. Greeky 08:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

these uniforms are shoddly made the hook and loop tends to not work after a month of use there is no place for the skill badges on the unifom the crotch seam tends to rip causeing indecent exposer do th males not wearing under ware

Actually, these problems have mostly been fixed, specifically crotch and some of the velcro. As to skill badges, there is a place - above the US ARMY nametape. As to 'not wearing underwear' - why would you not wear underwear? Even if you prefer to go 'commando', underwear is a part of the uniform (and CAN be inspected) Greeky 08:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

underwear
Hey Greeky, I might be going off topic and on a POV rant, but I just checked AR 670-1 and it does not say that wearing of underwear is mandatory. I can see some anal retentive commander making it an SOP issue, but other than that, underwear is optional (for both males and females).

As to why somebody would not want to wear underwear? Just ask any operator or actual shooter and they'll let you know.

1) less things to carry and account for (weight vs. use). And I know some psychos who in the effort of cutting weight of their loads, would chop their toothbrushes in half. 2) less things to wash. I know that in today's military they have plenty of units that will wash your clothes for free (or civilian contractors), but when you rely on yourself, you hand was everything (just a thought). 3) Preventive Medicine. Besides shaving their pubic area, some operator also do not wear underwear to prevent chaffing in sandy and wet environments, preventing crotch rot, chaffing and the infections that come with it.

So there are reasons why people do not wear underwear. But I am a pogue, so I wear it. I would hate to get a no-go on my inspection lord forbid. LOL (^_^).

[user:jerry.mills]

 * Underwear can go a long way towards keeping the bugs out in a temperate area. Believe me, the nether regions are the last place you want a horde of ants.  Sandy environments are a hell upon themselves, and going sans underwear honestly isn't going to help quite as much as some may think.  And about the regulation omission, I'm fairly certain the reason AR 670-1 says nothing about underwear is precisely so that underwear CAN'T be inspected.  I can imagine all sorts of EO problems occuring if that happened.  teh TK 20:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Uniform Care? Really?
What the...? Since when is it in an encyclopedia's realm to describe how to maintain and care for the clothing being described? This is not an instruction manual, it is a resource for information about the uniform itself. Even portions of the section about how to wear the uniform properly is stretching it. I couldn't find one other instance of "Uniform Care" in any of the other military uniform articles, and there's a reason for that. If folks are having difficulty knowing how to launder their own uniforms, I suggest they ask the Army, not Wikipedia. I'm deleting that entire section for this reason. --ScreaminEagle 21:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it belongs
The special care of the uniform does belong, the detergent list does not need to be here but has been linked. 19 years Active Army --Ktinga

 * Your time in service has no bearing on your authority to determine the outcome of this discussion. What do instructions about laundering it on gentle cycle have to do with an encyclopedia? As I said, if you're having difficulty knowing how to properly care for your uniform, read the tag label/three-ring binder instruction manual that came with it.  How on earth does laundry care affect or interest the average reader?  Wikipedia is not just for the US Army, it's for everybody.

 * Stating that the fabric that the uniform is crafted from is unique from past fabrics and how it is different is great. Stating why a different fabric is now being used instead is fabulous. Maybe even stating that, "Because this new fabric is made from yada, yada, yada, personnel have been instructed to care for it differently than in the past, such as no starching under any circumstances as it will destroy the coloring of the camouflage design," or whatever the case may be. That is good to know. But spelling out the clothing tag information in the article is silly.  It never states why the reader should care that it has to be laundered on gentle cycle and dried on low, etc.  The shirt I'm wearing right now says the same darn thing.  Do I need to advertise to everyone how I'm supposed to care for my shirt?  No, because no one cares.  And that's my point.  The article is about a new uniform for the Army and why anyone should care.  Laundering instructions without a purpose are at best trivial and do not belong.--ScreaminEagle 16:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 * It's either scary or amusing to think about actual soldiers getting instructions from wikipedia. I wonder if they'd believe it if I wrote "Camel urine is an effective and approved detergent". Imagine some private explaining to his CO at inspection why he stinks of camel urine XD "Sir, I read on wikipedia that-"
 * That said, it might be worth mentioning if it's somehow different or novel from other camo or fatigues. But IIRC, all modern camoflauge has the caution against improper washing because of IR properties that might be affected. Identity0 23:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I would think that if this such a controversial point, someone would make a point of at least keeping current data on it posted. In 2009, the Army determined that optical brighteners were not in fact harmful to the IR defeat capabilities of the ACUs and cleared them for laundry use - in mild detergents, that is. See "PS, The Mreventive Maintence Monthly", 1 April 2009, "Optical brighteners get the green light" http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PCA/is_677/ai_n31584644/ 98.224.16.122 (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for elimination of black
The article referenced in this section discusses why black was removed and links to a more detailed analysis. Including an explanation of how it IS found in nature as perceived depth. The last paragraph is at odds with the information there and seems illogical - if woodland gets darker as it gets wetter then black would blend in better, no? I have removed it.

"Woodland gets darker" refers to a woodland-camouflage uniform becoming darker, not to the actual terrain becoming darker. So no, black would not blend in better, as it would not reflect the appearance of the terrain--in this instance, a wooded are after a rain. 128.123.86.88 22:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Officer rank insignia
I wonder if someone could give us insight on the colors of officer rank insignia. I encountered a gentleman in ACU in the airport the other day, wearing a sold black oak leaf. I didn't know whether to call him "major" or "colonel." This page, as well as the pages for US Army insignia, could stand to be updated to account for this. Any help?--163.252.124.64 17:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The color of subdued rank insignia haven't changed at all. Silver rank insignia are black when subdued, and gold rank insignia are brown. The officer you saw was a LTC. Nathanm mn 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What's the IR square?
I'm guessing that the IR square has some pattern (a US flag?) that is visible in the infrared spectrum (and is thus used to aid in identification at night). Can someone who knows follow the link (that I just added) and provide some detail (or a pic?). Thanks... Jhfrontz 13:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The IR square is an IFF aid used to identify soldiers, the tabs apper black but reflect IR and can be seen clearly using night vision. However, knockoff ACU's do not have the tabs (copyright and security), pictures may be hard to come by but I'll try to get some. Lyta79 07:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know why they'd be hard to come by, anyone can buy ACUs. Here's one of the IR squares, the pockets on both sleeves are identical:
 * [[Image:Acu ir closed.jpg|200px]][[Image:Acu ir open.jpg|200px]]
 * Nathanm mn 18:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

While "anyone" can buy "ACU"'s, real Army combat Uniforms come with the IR tab sew in with grey thread. Knock off's have to have the tabs added by the seller. Most pics did not show the tabs. Thank Nathanm. Can I put your pic in the article to show the IR tabs? Lyta79 05:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Sure, no problem. Nathanm mn 14:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The second picture is slightly incorrect. The flap that covers the IFF should fold onto the underside of the pocket flap and then secure to a small bit of velcro. 86.10.84.96 17:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

that's trivial, it's just to show what the IR tab is. Preeeemo (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So what is it then? Just a mirror or reflective tape that has a tint(similar to the stuff used in IR camera filters) over it? 71.173.20.219 (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Reversed Flag
Everytime I see the flag backwards on a solders shoulder it makes me cringe. Does anyone have a history on this? I would also like to know which President approved this. (Comment added by 72.228.90.129, 00:36, 6 February 2007)

 * I don't know if any president was even involved. The reason is that the union (the blue part) is always supposed to face the front. Since it's worn on the right sleeve, it appears backwards, but is actually facing the proper direction. Nathanm mn 01:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm in the army and the explanation I've always been given (granted I can't yet cite it as a fact) is that it gives the appearance of a physical flag being carried into battle as seen from the right side of the assault. To show it the normal way (star field on the left) on the right shoulder would give the appearance of the flag retreating.  And we just can't have that now can we. Ultratone85 11:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Some soldiers may offer that as an explanation, but it's just an urban myth. In reality, it's just the proper way to display the flag according to protocol. For more info, see section 28-19, para. c, sub-para. 2, in AR 670-1. (I'm also in the Army.) Nathanm mn 07:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes you can say that it's proper protocol, but that's only half of an answer. Yes it is in the regulations, but there is a reason that the leaders who wrote this regulation chose to make the flag reversed.  The official explanation being, "When worn in this manner, the flag is facing to the observer’s right, and gives the effect of the flag flying in the breeze as the wearer moves forward."   I've cited this source in the article.  Never settle for half of an answer, Wikipedia wouldn't be where it is today if it only gave out half answers.  Ultratone85 07:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

During WWII the Flag patch was worn on the right shoulder (by 82nd Airborne and Rangers) and the blue field is to the rear (like it was on a wall, take a look a John Wayn in The Longest Day). Gam3

^ The blue is in the back on a soldier in Band of Brothers, which IS historically accurate. The blue forward flag is a reletively new uniform feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.20.5 (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems that these reverse flag patches where in use in 1993. Going by the movie "Black Hawk Down" Gam3 (talk)

Per the US Flag Code, the Flag must be worn with the field forward. The Flag SHOULD but does not have to be the topmost insignia on the sleeve.Mzmadmike (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

 * The Flag "issue" is a direct result of previous uniform policies. Previous policy (back when BDUs were still around) stipulated that certain Soldiers were eligible to sow the US Flag underneath the FWS SSI (Combat Patch) to denote combat service; this policy was changed sometime in 2004/2005 to require all Soldiers to sow on the US flag in order to underscore that all of the Army was involved in fighting the Global War on Terrorism.

 * Since the Combat Patch is worn on the right sleeve, so is the flag. As someone mentioned above, the blue field is located in the upper right to give the appearance that the wearer is moving forward (i.e. running towards battle, not away from it). Of course, the Army could have saved itself all the headaches of the "backwards flag" issue if they just would have switched the sides that the SSI and Combat Patch go on. Damn "sewing machine politics"! -HalveBlue

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.230.35.95 (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Field Test Results removal
I've gone ahead and axed the Field Test Results section. You figure if the information was accurate there would be a source I could find with a little bit of Googlewhacking. None, zip, nada, just a lot of jawjacking from armchair warlords whose hardcore Airsoft-playing battle experience makes me take their word as gospel.

It seems like the only people who aren't complaining about the ACU are the soldiers who're actually wearing it into battle. That's the field test for you. I'll take one happy soldier over a million happy war-geeks any day. Kensai Max 01:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The criticism is basically valid, ACU camouflage doesn't work very well in a desert or woodland environment. But most operations today don't rely on camouflage, or they happen at night when the pattern doesn't matter. Nathanm mn 17:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

 * First of all I love the phrase "armchair warlords". I get so tired of being lectured on tactics and equipment by these airsoft nerds.  Secondly I have to say that I love this cammo.  It's finally a uniform that's practically designed for combat.  No more of the garrison pretty BDU uniform.  I think it does alright overall.  Works great for urban, ok for woodland, ok for snow.  But I hardly see how it works for desert at all.  But I don't really care because the fact is that where I'm at we don't go out into sector with ACU's on we wear tan "Nomex Flight Suits" instead because they offer flame resistance. Ultratone85 12:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious you're blind as a freakin' bat if you think UCP works well in the woodland areas. --206.57.22.197 (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it? Most of the people making that judgement seem to have made up their minds well before they ever laid eyes on it IRL that the pattern doesn't work and then slanted their subsequent experiences with it (if any) to "prove" that conclusion. Never mind that these are all Airsoft players and their idea of a test is to stand in a field or forest somewhere and see how well the pattern matches the background color, or people peddling other camo patterns who have a proprietary interest in the matter. It doesn't help that the propaganda photos the Army has put out on it are all pretty brightly lit, the bane of all camo. I have not seen -one single- rigorous test or analysis of the pattern.

Judging from what little personal experience I have, I'd say it works pretty well. You wouldn't want to be whacking through Vietnamese jungle in it (what the Woodland BDU pattern was really designed for), but I'd take ACUPAT any day if I wasn't expecting to fight in a dark forest or jungle. The pattern seems particularly suited to urban environments and doesn't blur out to a black smudge when a lot of other patterns do. Point being that if someone wants to claim that this or that camo pattern doesn't work they'd damn well better be able to reference an acceptable source. Kensai Max 23:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Can we add this source: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004issc/wednesday/dugas.ppt It's a test of prospective camo patterns from 2004. Notably, it does not have either AUC or any other digital pattern, and the overall winner was a "brush-pattern" in desert colors. The colors used also include black, which ACU does not have. The winners also tended to be more brown/green than the greyish urban paterns that were tested. Identity0 12:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Okay, here's something about the elimination of black, and from a pretty reliable source: http://www.hyperstealth.com/acupat/ . 83.4.216.240 09:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The people at Hyperstealth are hawking rival camo patterns. They stand to make money by stirring up negative impressions about ARPAT. Of course PCs suck if you ask someone at Apple, eh? This is what I meant earlier by "people selling other camo patterns". It's corporate propaganda. Kensai Max 18:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Maybe so, maybe not. The point is... Well the point is that they have a point there. You'll find the same opinion on kamouflage.net -> http://www.kamouflage.net/en_010402.php . Most sources agree that although black is rare in nature it is seen as depth by our brain. I'm not saying that the ARPAT isn't any good. I'm just stating that well used black makes the eye 'look through you', as it has the impression of a deep shade. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.4.221.150 (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Just wanted to add a blurb in here from www.military.com, discussion the good and bad points of the ACU. Apparently, it's shoddily constructed, and the pattern "stands out against anything except a concrete wall." http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,131103,00.html (Sekiryu 03:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC))

The military.com editorial is both factually wrong on durability issues at the least (those have been fixed) and some random guy's opinion like every single other ACU-bashing source I've ever seen. He does not even provide anecdotal evidence. The people at Hyperstealth do not have any kind of a point - you'd think if they could decisively prove their stuff is better they would have run a test that wasn't a crock, as five seconds of common sense usage show this one to be (think about the guy laying down in that nice sunny field like he would be if he was advancing across it IRL - what would stand out then?). Kamouflage.net again provides no objective analysis in what is an -opinion- piece.

People have jackass, stupid opinions. I have one, you have one. Soldiers especially always complain about new equipment. Then they get used to it and defend it to the bitter end when it gets replaced. The only problem with the ACU that I see is that a whole bunch of new features combined with some teething problems when it started getting circulated initially has led to more complaining than usual. Give it some time. Kensai Max 02:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Damn Straight! Ultratone85 11:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Design and Construction - (Does it belong?)
Everyone here seems pretty well-versed in care/use and 'operation' of the ACU. Does anyone have information relating to design, construction, testing, manufacture - companies, contracts, testing? If we're talking about uniform care, does its production need to be thought through also?

Danelle Jones 04:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Multicam
I put a fact tag on the multicam blurb someone added. Given the unlikelihood of Future Force Warrior becoming a military reality (Land Warrior's already gotten canned) and the fact that Multicam is generally associated with the FFW program, I find it unlikely that the Army is going to backtrack and adopt Multicam after passing it over for ARPAT once already. Is there a reliable government source for this, or is this just someone drooling over Multicam for no reason? Kensai Max 18:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

✅ I just removed that garbage statement that didn't have a source in the first place. Deon Steyn 12:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

 * You might want to put it back. SF and LRS units are wearing Multicam, so your "finding it unlikely" is not only original research, it's wrong.Mzmadmike (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

SF, PMT, and all those cats also wear civilian clothing, should we put that in too? I would know seeing as I'm living out on a FOB with them.. Preeeemo (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

How's this? http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/02/army_multicam_030110w/ 173.64.84.108 (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

yes it belongs
jeremy- I think the light and the dark green belong.

Rank
Can anyone explain to me why the ACU has the rank of the soldier placed mid-chest instead of on the shoulders or on the upper arms. Redsox00002 04:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

 * While I can't offer a by the book official explanation for this I think the decision came from couple of things. Firstly the US Army seems to have moved past wearing rank on the upper arms of combat uniforms (probably because it's not a good idea to advertise your rank to the enemy especially if there's a sniper threat).  In fact the only US military branch that still wear rank on the upper arms of their combat uniform is the Air Force.  Putting rank on the collar would've likely interfered with the design of the Mandarin collar.  As of recently only officers have been able to wear rank on the shoulders of a select few pieces of combat uniform articles (the only of which I can recall are the M-65 Field Jacket and the Nomex Flight Suit).  And I'm not sure that we've ever had enlisted rank on the shoulders of any US Army Combat uniform (and even in the case of the class-A uniform shirt it's only worn by Non-commisioned officers and not lower enlisted soldiers).  I think the placement of the rank on the ACUs was likely inspired by the similar placement of rank on the IBA Vest, Wet Weather Gear Top and Gortex Top.  Not to mention it goes along with the uniforms' overall simplicity trend.  Those are my thoughts so take it or leave it.  Ultratone85 09:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

 * center chest insignia is NATO standard. Eventually, everyone will be doing it, including USAF and USMC.Mzmadmike (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In my view, when it's in the centre, the sniper can see it much more easily.Cibwins2885 (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed some dubious statements
I've removed some criticism of the ACU that's crept into the "Notes" section, specifically the part about the lack of black in the camouflage pattern and the velcro noise issue. Hyperstealth.com is a commercial site and shouldn't be being used as a reference for the effiacy of camouflage patterns. I think the US Army has a little more credibility than they do. I suppose that in theory the noise made by opening velcro fasteners could give away your position, but if you're that close to the enemy I doubt you're going to be diving in your pockets in the first place. The entire "velcro is noisy" issue also overlooks the major advantage of velcro as opposed to buttons, that velcro is much faster than screwing around trying to button or unbutton something one-handed and thus lets you both have secure pockets and use them tactically.

I can provide a citation for the statement I've inserted if necessary. Kensai Max 00:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I can attest that new velco is very noisy...but you shouldn't be opening your pockets in the heat of combat or when sneaking up on an enemy position. :) the problem is that the stuff wears out and the army expects your the soldier to repair or replace it. Lyta79 04:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed the criticism of the flag facing
I'm not really sure where to start on this one, but let me just put it this way. The weekend patriots who make the kind of allegations that the flag orientation on American combat uniforms is somehow inappropriate are saying that the military of the United States of America does not know how to respect the American flag. If you think the military is disrespecting the stars and stripes, you are wrong and you are an idiot. I suppose I could be less blunt, but it's a completely baseless charge.

Can people stop inserting non-rigorous criticism of the ACU into this article? Thanks. 128.153.211.154 23:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC) (Kensai Max here again, not logged in)

AR 670-1 References
I believe that some references made to AR 670-1 need to be cleaned up. Specifically, the reference is made that AR 670-1 was amended by the ALARACT Message, but this is not the case. The message specifically says in it that upon publication of a new version of AR 670-1, the message expires.

Additionally, In addition, AR 670-1 does not allow soldiers to cover the exposed velcro on the shoulders, making the uniform look, "unimpressive." Is simply not located in the current version of AR 670-1, dated February 3, 2005, and I can find no policy memorandum asserting this uniform regulation. Without a source, I'm going to do a significant rewrite of this section to bring it in line with the available sources.Zharmad (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the controversy section. Again. The ACU has for some reason unknown to me sparked immense outrage in the mall ninja community which requires a pretty stern hand in the article.

I think the issue with camouflage velcro covers and so on really has more to do with the fact that -nobody makes them-. Even if they were available the logistics don't work when you think about skill tabs and differing-size unit patches and so on. In any event I'm totally unsurprised that it's not even mentioned in 670-1. Kensai Max (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I reinstated the controversy section. Because I'm clearly a mall ninja. And there are references. Tmaull (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed again. If you have a single reference that will pass muster, kindly insert it. Oh, wait, there aren't any. Blogs and factually wrong articles do not count. I refuse to allow this mall ninja crap into the article. Kensai Max (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I admit, they do not prove the camouflage is bad. In fact, I think its pretty good camouflage considering the current deployment. As a matter of fact, I wrote the article about it, Universal Camouflage Pattern. If selling it as "Universal" is what it takes to get the funding for it, then great, call it "Universal". But those references prove that there IS controversy. The fact that PEO Soldier wrote a response to them proves that there is controversy. I'm going to let some other people chime in here before I reinstate it again. Tmaull (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the "controversy" is that the vast majority of the people complaining about UCP are anonymous internet people, most of whom do not seem to have seen the pattern in the field or at least have substantial experience with it. Many of them seem to be market reps for Multicam. If we're basing this on internet opinions, here's mine - UCP works great in the forests of the northeastern United States, especially after the leaves come off the trees. It's a huge improvement over the previous Woodland pattern.

That PEO Soldier adressed the issue doesn't mean that it's a legitimate controversy - they have an excellent track record with fixing real problems reported by real soldiers very fast. PEO Soldier's recent press release was about as summary a slapdown as you can get. They effectively dismissed the issue. In short I don't believe an internet controversy fueled by people who aren't in the Army (and many of whom stand to gain commercially by slagging on the new Army uniform, such as Crye, Hyperstealth and all of these other people) should be legitimized further by inclusion into the article. Kensai Max (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

 * That editorial is by the guy who writes the Badgers Forward milblog, which is probably one of the more influential milblogs out there. He's a captain in the US Army, and he recently started his second consecutive tour over there. I think its his third tour, in total. Either way, I think its important enough to note. And he's definitely not a Crye rep. I'm convinced that there are numerous people in the Army who are not huge fans of the new pattern. Like I said earlier, I think its great, especially in Iraq and most of Afghanistan. Tmaull (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it's an editorial, written by one man and expressing his opinion, which may or may not be well-informed, biased, or based on a double standard. Opinions are non-citable. They're like assholes - everyone has one and they all stink. If we allowed random people's unsubstantiated opinions into military articles this place would be a mess in no time flat. Writing a notable milblog doesn't make you well-infomed.

If you can dig up a -substantive- source proving that UCP is less than effective (and that old camouflage testing presentation isn't going to fly, UCP has no resemblance to any of the patterns tested) and that this is disproportionate to its role as a -universal- camouflage I would be happy to allow it. The problem is that to my knowledge there aren't any, because I've looked! In real operations UCP generally looks great and in the few substantive tests I have seen it works very well.

As far as testing available on the internet goes, the tests available at http://www.dustysdepot.com/dustysdepot_003.htm are probably the best I've seen as far as methodology and lack of obvious pro or con bias goes. Notice that the ACUs work excellently.Kensai Max (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't call that scientific testing, but I'll admit it seemed like the best pattern there, especially with the leaves on the ground. But that's not really the point, and I'm NOT trying to prove that the pattern is ineffective. What I am trying to prove is that there is a significant number of US Army soldiers who think that the UCP pattern is not effective, especially as a "universal" pattern. As I've said earlier, my opinion is that it does a great job, and I respect your opinion that everyone should be really pumped up about it. What I don't understand is why its a problem, to state the opinions of others, especially when I've got sources to prove it. I think what I'm going to do is a request for comment thing, and hope other people can weigh in on this and we can get a consensus.Tmaull (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I never said the tests I referenced were scientific (in fact, -good- camouflage tests would be extremely difficult to show over the internet), merely better than most of the, "I'll hang some camo stuff in bright sunlight in front of a treeline" "tests" that you usually see thrown around online. Perhaps we should refer to other pages on equipment that gets trashed on unjustly a lot on the internet for precedent here. Referring to the article on the (in)famous M16 rifle, which had substantial and very well-documented reliability issues shortly after its adoption, I found...

"When the XM16E1 reached Vietnam with U.S. troops in 1966, reports of jamming and malfunctions in combat immediately began to surface. Although the M14 had a chrome-lined barrel and chamber to resist corrosion in combat conditions (a danger learned from WWII Pacific theatre combat experience), the M16/XM16E1 had no chrome-lined bore or chamber. Several documented accounts of troops killed by enemy fire with jammed rifles broken-down for cleaning eventually brought a Congressional investigation. Later investigations also cast doubt on the veracity of the original 1962 reports of the alleged stopping effectiveness of the 5.56 mm bullet, as well as criticism of inadequate penetration (in comparison to the Soviet 7.62x39mm round) when firing at enemy personnel through light cover."

The XM16E1 was soon modified to the M16A1 specification. The revised rifle was finally given a chrome-lined bore and chamber to eliminate corrosion and stuck cartridges, and the rifle's bore and recoil mechanism was re-designed to accommodate Army-issued 5.56 mm ammunition. Rifle cleaning tools and powder solvents/lubricants were issued. The Army ordered 840,000 of this version on 28 February 1967. Intensive training programs in weapons cleaning were instituted, and a comic book style manual was circulated among the troops to demonstrate proper maintenance.[3] The reliability problems of the M16 diminished quickly, although the rifle's reputation continued to suffer.[3] Moreover, complaints about the inadequate penetration and stopping power of the 5.56 mm cartridge persisted throughout the Vietnam conflict.

...as the main "criticism" section. It's highly factual and written based on the results of substantive investigations, not opinion columns, blogs or internet scuttlebutt. I have no problem whatsoever with including the results of serious investigations and official AARs in the article, and in fact if such things can be found I would welcome their addition. As I recall there have been a couple of substantial durability issues that the military has since implemented fixes for which I believe are noteworthy enough for the article.

A lot of people have complained about the ACU -online-, but this is just opinion and the worst kind of opinion at that - unsubstantiated internet talk. I don't believe there's a basis to include it in the article. However I do support your request for comment, because the above is in the end my interpretation of what's notable and what's not. Kensai Max (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

 * There in fact was a policy letter, AND a Soldier Magazine statement by the SMA that velcro covers in ACU were not authorized. Obviously I don't have that in front of me at this time.  However, that's why no one makes any--they're prohibited.  It was around 2004-2005.  Point 2:  Sure, we need citation of the criticism.  We also need citation of the fawning fanboism of what is (IMO) the most worthless crap camouflage in history.  If you really believe you can't see this stuff 50 feet away, you either need your eyes fixed, or anti-delusional meds.  Currently, this article reads like an ad.  And if you go on ANY forum with troops in it, pretty much everyone thinks ACU is garbage, and we're talking troops, not wannabes.  I've tagged for cites the grandiose claims of its effectiveness.  If they're true, that's fine--document them. (And since everyone else is slapping it up there: US Army 6 years, USAF 18 years, professional writer and consultant 5 years, and married to a serving soldier 5 years.  Go away now)Mzmadmike (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is Controversy section relevant
Is the the following statement relevant to the article and appropriately sourced?

Controversy
Critics in the army say the "universal" scheme concept is not practical, and that with more foliage green than any other color on the uniform; it fails to properly camouflage the user in either desert or woodland areas.

Comments
I see that this commentary has been removed, but I don't understand why. The Military.com article looks like a bona fide news (editorial) article to me. The defensetech.org posts, although they look more like blog posts, are somewhat expert in this area, and lend credibility to the critique. We've also used these posts all over the project. I think the critique is on-topic. I found it interesting. I think the section should be restored. Cool Hand Luke 07:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

 * It seems to me that these "Critics in the army" should be identified. Ben Standeven (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The references don't really support that short controversy section. However the 1st reference is a very good one, with it you could make a very good, much longer and detailed criticism section (and they're really should be one). Also please don't respond to this opinion, I make a point of not watching or checking back on RFC's in order to avoid wikistress. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to emphasize this, as the editor who has cleaned out several non-factual criticism sections on this article. The first source is an editorial by a milblogger in an online publication. Ergo, his opinion. According to my understanding of Wikipedia rules it is completely uncitable and should not be used as a source. The second and third sources are breezy blog postings. Same there. Given the lack of notability or reliability of "criticism" of the ACU I should not even have to drag up the Natick Soldier Center refutation of the claims, as no critical claim that I have seen passes the rules to be included in an encyclopedia. If people are using this stuff elsewhere, they shouldn't be. Kensai Max (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

 * It looks like an online newspaper, rather than a blog. I believe newspaper editorials are usually considered reliable sources, at least for subjective things such as criticism. But I could be wrong. Also I cannot of course speak to the reliability of that newssite. Ben Standeven (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

To avoid confusion with California based American Apparel Inc--the largest clothing manufacturer in the US with over 180 retail stores worldwide--with Alabama based American Apparel Inc,--the largest manufacturer of military uniforms in the US--I've removed the sentence "Manufacturers include American Apparel, Woolrich, Inc., Bethel Industries, and Propper International." which linked to the wiki for CA American Apparel Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.226.93 (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Got it. Unless the ARMY offers criticism, it's not valid.  We'll assume it's perfect, and anyone claiming otherwise is a "blogger" or a "competitor" or "one man with an opinion."  Tell me, who IS qualified to criticize it?  As I said: Fanboism.Mzmadmike (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Find a -substantive- critical source that is not a breezy blog posting, an uninformed opinion or a commercial source trying to push their inferior product *cough*Multicam*cough* off the shelves and I'd be happy to allow it in the article. In fact, Wikipedia rules would require it. The problem is that there are not any. I've looked. Hard. So quit bitching. 209.131.204.4 (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Merge with Army Combat Shirt
Someone has proposed a merge with the Army Combat Shirt. I disagree with this proposal, as I think it will make this article too confusing. - Tmaull (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I recommended the merge; the Army Combat Shirt is part of the uniform, not a seperate piece of clothing. Highly recommend they be merged. Any confusion can be dealt with by writing clear, accurate articles. MWShort (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm against the merger. The Army Combat Shirt is a supplementary item to the ACU. The ACUs can be worn without the Army Combat Shirt. And the Army Combat Shirt can be worn without the ACUs(they have their own flame retardant pants). This is no more part of the ACU uniform than the M-65 field jacket, IBA, or any other supplemental item. I'm all for mentioning them in the article but I don't feel a merger is the proper thing to do. Ultratone85 (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Hate to say we should wait, but until the new AR 670-1 comes out (expected in June), we should wait on including this as a part of the uniform. Zharmad (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Good Point! Ultratone85 (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the merge. While the ACS is not part of the ACU, it should be added for simplicity's sake. USS Noob Hunter (talk) 02:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: They are completely seperate uniform items. They were created seperately, issued seperately, and worn differently. Just because they looks similar does not mean they are the same.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   02:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Yep, it says it's a "stand-alone" article of the uniform. Apparently the article's long enough to be stand-alone as well (no pun intended). ♠ The Ace of Spades ♣ ♥ ♦   01:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, Stand alone part of uniform.username 1 (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed Image
I've removed this picture from the page because it is redundant. It offers nothing that the image above it doesn't, and it's caption is filled full of information that's irrelevent to the article. Ultratone85 (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Republic of Georgia
I've seen images that show the unform in use with the Republic of Georgia which uses mostly US Military clothes, so it's not too far fetched they could have it. In this vid, on officers. It thought it could be US observers, but they had on the Georgian Flag! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbx_ctBHoRU&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.1.230 (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Cleanup
I've cleaned up the criticism section. Due to prior editorial consensus I've kept the criticism of the camouflage pattern, which is patently ridiculous but notable enough for inclusion, but removed the non-notable section about some jungle uniform we used for a brief period in WWII (and which was apparently enough of a bad idea that we didn't bring back the idea in Vietnam, instead using uniforms similar to later BDUs and ACUs) and the uncited section about durability issues. 128.153.195.195 (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Initial fielding
In this section it simply states that "The use of multiple camouflage patterns within an organization is now seldom seen, as the ACU has been widely fielded" But I would like this to state something about when the transition between mutiple camo patterns and "now" took place. "Now" is not very precise. Now = April 2009? When was "now" written? Anyone have any info on when full ACU (including vests and packs, knee pads etc.) all was fielded wide spread? What's the latest one might have seen woodland, 3 tone desert or coyote tan vests/packs etc.? As this is an encyclopedia, the idea is that in x number of years, the information is the same, meaning even though it's still current, you wouldn't use words like "today" you'd give the actual date. That's my understanding anyway. Thanks! (137.45.185.105 (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

///@ User talk:137.45.185.105|talk \\\ §psst, that's the post just above this word (please fix my coding, it's late...Hrmph) ~

Correct, "Now" is not very precise. What I can tell you, that the first (conventional) unit to take the digital pattern ACU (the pajamas that FINALLY got replaced by the recent ACU called OCP (in the OEF theater) - or - commonly referred to as "multi-cam"), was the 48th (former Heavy BCT, now "Infantry" or "IBCT") BCT, a Georgia Army National Guard unit (that has done some serious $#!+ in both theaters, OIF and OEF) issued and fielded by US Army PEO Soldier. The 48th began the FIRST RFI of the pajamas DECEMBER 2004 (look it up) ... naa, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Combat_Uniform ~

Incidentally, the OCPs used in OEF prior to May 2014, was the original Scorpion pattern was developed at United States Army Soldier Systems Center by Crye Precision in 2002 for the Objective Force Warrior program. Crye later modified and trademarked their version of the pattern as MultiCam, which was selected for use by U.S. ARMY Soldiers (Warriors ... #SCREWISIS) in Afghanistan in 2010. After talks to officially adopt MultiCam broke down over costs in late 2013, the Army began experimenting with the original Scorpion pattern, noting that while a pattern can be copyrighted, a color palette cannot and that beyond 50 meters the actual pattern is "not that relevant." Scorpion W2 resembles MultiCam with muted greens, light beige, and dark brown colors, but uses fewer beige and brown patches and no vertical twig and branch elements. So, as of today (30JUL2015), what NEW Soldier will receive will be the "SCORPION W2" OCP, but ONLY IF THEY WERE ISSUED for actual OEF deployment operations (BOG in Afghanistan ... and others, sorry #KuwaitMcDonaldsEaters, you CANNOT wear the original SCORPION OCP, you have to buy and wear the SCORPION W2), can wear the original "SCORPION" they were issued in theater for ... umm ... whenever, I don't know -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorpion_W2 ~

QUESTIONS? Talk to your BDE CSM, if you dare ... or better ... if he is NOT competent ... which is currently the case with today's E9 SEAs. But, if your BDE CSM refers and does things as an SEL, then yes, ask him. The best way to find out though, is to to talk to a real (2001-2015) SELeader, your 1SG ~

///NEXT OLD COMMENT BELOW\\\ ~

At last! An explanation of why the U.S. army wears the flag 'backwards' on the shoulder of the combat uniform. Mind you, I don't know that I go along with the rationale. "to give the impression of the flag moving forward with the wearer". No, doesn't work for me. Every time I see it, it grates being the 'wrong' way round. Anyway, thanks for slaking my curiosity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter harlen (talk • contribs) 12:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Jump boots.
Are these authorized for paratroopers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.239.198 (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Needs updating with current developments
As of 14 June 2011, name and service tapes, and rank insignia, can now be sewn-on instead of attached using velcro. Skill and assignment (recruiter, etc) badges can also be sewn-on. Unit (SSI) badges, tabs and the US flag patch will still be attached by velcro.

The "Universal Camouflage Pattern" ACU has been replaced by the Crye Multicam ACU for service in Afghanistan. It is likely that the MC pattern will be adopted for Army-wide service as the "interim" pattern while new woodland and desert patterns are developed.

The details of the ACU have been modified, removing some of the velcro and replacing some velcro closures with buttons. The front zipper remains at present, but is under review.

The standard ACU, made of a nylon-cotton blend, is no longer approved for use in combat operations and has been replace by the "Fire Resistant ACU" (FRACU).

These changes have all been documented at www.army.mil so if someone wants to wrestle with the ACU fanboys again, have at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.182.39 (talk) 07:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This article does need a lot of fixing, especially in the OCP/Multicam section.Preeeemo (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Main Article Photo
I think the main photo for the article should be changed or removed. The photo is of 2 Soldiers, one in Garrison configuration and the other in the modified field configuration. The SFC on the left in Garrison configuration has several deficiencies with his uniform. First, his SSI (unit patch) is wrong. It should be centered between the bottom of the pocket and the bottom of the pocket flap. It is visibly too high. The 2nd (and bigger issue) his skill badges are 100% wrong. Per the initial ALARACT fOr the ACU dated 2004/2005, when 4 badges are worn, they will be in stacks of two, worn side by side, NOT two side by side, then one above and one more above (creating a third row), as how the SFC is wearing them. It is blatantly wrong and will give the wrong impression of how the skill badges should be worn. Current SSG, 11 years TIS. --Jeddie frost (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Why no mention that the "Army Combat Uniform" is not authorized for combat?
Army policy in both Iraq and Afghanistan has been to prohibit the wear of the ACU due to its fabrication from nylon-cotton blend material which is flammable and causes severe burn injuries in IED attacks. Soldiers are required to wear the Fire Resistant ACU (FRACU) or FR Combat Shirt when operating "outside the wire" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.195.84 (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Army Combat Uniform. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hqusareur.army.mil/htmlinks/Press_Releases/2004/June2004/15June2004-01.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Army Combat Uniform. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/Foliage%20Green%20t-shirt%20ALARACT%20message.doc

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

ACU = advanced combat uniform
It's my understanding that the "a" in "ACU" stands for "advanced." Not "Army." Wikipedia is the only source I've seen that suggests otherwise. Mikerrr (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Army Combat Uniform. 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/20110927111626/https://peosoldier.army.mil/FactSheets/PMSPIE/SPIE_SCIE_ACU.pdf to https://peosoldier.army.mil/FactSheets/PMSPIE/SPIE_SCIE_ACU.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227164508/https://peosoldier.army.mil/factsheets/SEQ_CIE_ACU.pdf to https://peosoldier.army.mil/factsheets/SEQ_CIE_ACU.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) 10:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Source for also calling it OCP uniform
how do you want to handle that the Air Force calls the uniform in its service the OCP uniform instead of the Army Combat Uniform. I realize the Army doesn’t call it this, but I can foresee terminology becoming a point of contention in the future. (https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1821282/air-force-senior-leaders-update-ocp-uniform-guidance/)Garuda28 (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Army Combat Uniform


text:
Laurentius Andreae

Laurentius Andreae (Swedish: Lars Andersson ) (c. 1470 – 14 April 1552) was a Swedish Lutheran clergyman and scholar who is acknowledged as one of his country's preeminent intellectual figures during the first half of the 16th century. In his time he was most renowned as one of the main proponents of the Swedish reformation of 1523-31.

Biography
Laurentius Andreae was born in the town of Strängnäs. As was the case with many 15th century personalities, the date of his birth remained unrecorded, although the year is generally assumed to have been in the early 1470s.

During his youth he was a priest, and had travelled to Rome as well as conducted studies abroad. In 1509, when he was in his mid- to late thirties, he received an appointment as deacon of his hometown of Strängnäs. In the intervening years he met Olaus Petri, converted to Lutheranism and by the 1520s was promoted to archdeacon of Uppsala.

Along with Olaus Petri and his brother Laurentius, Andreae completed the full translation of the Bible into Swedish, known as the "Gustav Vasa Bible" of 1541. He served as chancellor for King Gustav I Vasa and cherished by Laurentius Petri, the Archbishop, because they shared a strong Lutheran faith. In 1527, at the Diet of Västerås, he declared the King to be the head of the Church of Sweden.

In 1540, he and Olaus Petri were sentenced to death. Historians differ in regard to the nature of the alleged transgressions, and whether the sentences were justified. All agree, however, that the verdicts were highly influenced by the King's personal opinions and disagreement with the men. After much pleading, the sentences were reduced to severe fines and both men were released. Laurentius Andreae later died in Strängnäs at the approximate age of 80.

Other sources

 * Article Laurentius Andreae Nordisk familjebok, in Swedish

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

title: Laurentius Andreae


text:
User:JMBell/Lost Library/DiploGuild

The Diplomats' Guild is an informal Wikipedian mediation society whose members (or diplomats) are highly skilled in resolving disputes. The need for such a Guild arises from the observation that most users caught up in disputes think of the Arbitration committee, mediation, and requests for comments as the penultimate steps to and last resorts in resolving a dispute. This distrust in the said committees/options soon evolves into distrust and open hostility between the two arguing users, further damaging their relationship, and destroying the bonds of trust and friendship that are supposed to hold the Wikipedia society together.

Mission
The goal of the Diplomats' Guild is to step into heated arguments and resolve the dispute before the relationships of the involved users deteriorate. The unofficial nature of the Guild is meant to take away any bias or prejudice against the arbiter or the user who invoked the help of the arbiter by not being an "official" Wikipedian mediation committee. The diplomats can, of course, bring cases to the ArbCom, but this is only supposed to happen in extreme cases.

The Guild must be more effective than normal mediation if it is to survive.

The Diplomats' Guild does not mediate between users on the Guild's discussion page, instead, the diplomats are sent into the debate itself. This way, the debators do not have to come to the Guild to argue, save for requesting diplomatic mediation. The Guild does not belong to the proposed Mediation 2005 policy. It is an independent organization, and so is unaffected by any policies or accusations brought by Wikipedians against it. The Guild is governed internally by a Diplomatic Committee, re-elected every 3 months.

Requirements
To become a diplomat, a user must:

 * be good in resolving arguments,
 * be extremely or unnaturally patient,
 * be of the most neutral point of view,
 * have developed communication skills,
 * not waver in his/her decisions,
 * have an extremely strong character,
 * be able to withstand extreme pressure,
 * not have a flawed system or view of ethics.

Some things expected of would-be diplomats:
 * adequate knowledge of Wikipedia policy,
 * clean record (e.g. no record of vandalism, edit warring),
 * highly social character,
 * admired by many users,
 * humorous personality,
 * active participation in Wikipedia.

Voting and election
A diplomat must have interpersonal skills that are more developed than those of a normal arbiter. This is to prevent the development of hostility between the debators and the diplomat. The applicant must therefore show evidence of good relations with other users, good manners and humor, and the ability to resolve even the worst disputes under pressure. After some time, which will be used to examine the evidence and make opinions, a voting session will be held. A vote of 80% is required to pass this stage. The prospective diplomat will then be subject to some tests to certify if (s)he is of true diplomat material. These would include some questions on policy, questions on different situations (to better know the character of the applicant), a mock dispute, and a short probation period of 3 to 7 days.

After all these tests have been finished, a panel will decide whether or not the applicant can be accepted into the Guild. If the applicant passes, (s)he will immediately be a diplomat worthy of handling tough and demanding situations. If she/he does not pass, and if (s)he wishes to re-apply, (s)he will be given the panel's written observations and a list of things to improve. The failed applicant may also wish to undergo training.

Absolutely no politics are involved in this election process. To ensure that no bias will hinder or speed up an applicant's election, the panel should consist of users who have had little or no contact with the applicant prior to the examination. The proctor should also be of neutral but helpful nature.

 * Since there are no members yet, aside from the founder of the Guild and a few other users, the first election will be somewhat different than the standard process. An applicant will only need to pass:

 * a 90% vote,
 * the said tests,
 * probation period.

 * The first batch of diplomats will be hand-picked by the founding group, and then (hopefully), there will be enough experienced diplomats to hold a normal screening.

Why would I want to join?
The Guild seeks to provide assistance to certain disputes and, ultimately, to prevent a user from being sent to the ArbCom unnecessarily. Any user can naturally do this on his/her own without having to join the Diplomats' Guild. But any of the user's efforts that would usually be ignored outside of the Guild will be recognized by fellow diplomats. The Guild can also give a chance to hone one's diplomacy and communication skills by providing different opportunities for improvement. Participation could also boost one's reputation.

Members
The Diplomats' Guild has not yet been fully established, and as of now has no members. This number will surely increase once the Guild has been fully set up.

title: User:JMBell/Lost Library/DiploGuild


text:
List of liqueur brands

Liqueurs are alcoholic beverages that are bottled with added sugar and have added flavours that are usually derived from fruits, herbs, or nuts. Liqueurs are distinct from eaux-de-vie, fruit brandy, and flavored liquors, which contain no added sugar. Most liqueurs range between 15% and 55% alcohol by volume.

Berry liqueurs

 * 99 Berries
 * Chambord (raspberry)
 * Crème de cassis (blackcurrant)
 * Guavaberry
 * Hideous (raspberries, other berries and citrus fruits)
 * Lakka (cloudberry)
 * Lillehammer (lingonberry)
 * Mirto (Sardinian traditional bitterish liqueur made with myrtle, used as digestive drink at the end of meals)
 * Murtado (ugniberry)
 * XUXU (strawberry)
 * Og natura Stone Bramble Liqueur (stone bramble)

Coffee liqueurs
A coffee liqueur is a caffeinated alcoholic drink with a coffee flavour.

 * Allen's Coffee Brandy
 * Amaro 1716 Café du Soir
 * Black Canyon Distillery, Richardo's Decaf Coffee Liqueur
 * Café Rica – a Costa Rican coffee liqueur
 * Caffè Borghetti - an Italian coffee liqueur
 * Cazcabel - Mexican coffee liqueur
 * Kahlúa – a Mexican coffee liqueur
 * Kavalan Distillery Sweet coffee liqueur
 * Kamora
 * Kapali Coffee Liqueur
 * Liqueurious Coffea Coffee Liqueur
 * Liqueurious Coffea Decaf Coffee Liqueur
 * Licor de café - a Galician coffee liqueur
 * Midnight Espresso Regular Coffee Liqueur
 * Midnight Espresso Decaf Coffee Liqueur
 * Mr Black Cold Brew Coffee Liqueur
 * Mr Black Cold Brew Coffee Amaro
 * Patrón XO Cafe
 * Sheridan's – an Irish coffee liqueur
 * Sombai Anise & Coffee rice liqueur
 * Flor de Caña Spresso – a Nicaraguan coffee liqueur
 * San Andre (Goa)
 * St. George Spirits NOLA Coffee Liqueur
 * Tia Maria
 * Toussaint Coffee Liqueur – a Haitian coffee liqueur
 * B52 Coffee Liqueur

Cream liqueurs

 * Advocaat
 * Amarula (sugar, cream, and the fruit of the African marula tree Origin: South Africa)
 * Baileys Irish Cream
 * Coole Swan Irish Cream Liqueur
 * Carolans
 * Crema Fina
 * Cruzan Rum Cream
 * Dooley's
 * DV8 Gold
 * DV8 Pink Gin
 * Heather Cream (Scottish cream liqueur - discontinued)
 * Kerrygold Irish Cream Liqueur
 * Malibu (rum)
 * Ponche crema
 * Rompope
 * RumChata
 * Sangster's
 * Saint Brendan's Irish Cream Liqueur
 * Tequila Rose
 * Vana Tallinn Cream
 * Vermeer Dutch Chocolate Cream Liqueur
 * Voodoo Cream Liqueur

Crème liqueurs

 * Crème de banane – Banana
 * Crème de cacao – Cocoa or chocolate
 * Crème de cassis – Blackcurrant
 * Crème de Cerise – Sour cherry
 * Crème de menthe – Peppermint or Corsican mint
 * Crème de Noyaux – Almond, apricot kernel, or peach kernel
 * Creme de violette – Violet
 * Creme Yvette – Violet, fruit, and others
 * Parfait d'Amour – Varies by maker, typically flowers with citrus

Flower liqueurs

 * Crème de violette (violet)
 * Creme Yvette (violet, vanilla)
 * Rosolio (various)
 * Italicus
 * St-Germain (elderflower)

Fruit liqueurs

 * Note: Kirsch and Slivovitz are fruit brandies rather than liqueurs.

• 99 bananas (banana-flavored schnapps, 99-proof)

• Amarula (South African liqueur; marula fruit)

• Aurum (rum, tea, and tangerines)

• Bajtra (Maltese liqueur, prickly pear)

• Blackberry bang aka Obradovača

• Cherry Heering (cherry)

• Cointreau (orange)

• Curaçao (bitter orange)

• Cuarenta Y Tres/Licor 43 (citrus, vanilla)

• Damson gin (damson)

• Ginjinha (sour cherry)

• Grand Marnier (orange)

• GranGala (orange)

• Guignolet (wild cherry)

• Hesperidina (bitter orange with mint and other herbs)

• Hpnotiq (tropical fruit)

• Jabuticaba

• Kruškovac (pear)

• Kwai Feh (lychee)

• Lichido (vodka, cognac, lychee and guava essences, and white peach juice)

• Limoncello (lemon liqueur)

• Manzana verde (green apple)

• Maraschino (cherry)

• Medronho (strawberry tree/arbutus)

• Midori (melon)

• Noyau de Poissy (apricot)

• Pama (pomegranate)

• Passoã (passion fruit; also comes in mango, pineapple, and coconut flavors)

• Pisang Ambon (banana)

• Pucker (apple; also comes in watermelon, grape, and peach flavors)

• Rhythm

• Sloe gin (Sloes infused in gin)

• Soho (lychee)

• Sombai (banana, pineapple, orange, lemon, mango)

• Triple sec (orange)

• TY KU (yuzu, honeydew, mangosteen, ginseng, green tea, goji berry)

• Umeshu (ume plum)

• Van Der Hum (tangerine and from South Africa)

• Vișinată (sour cherry)

• X-Rated Fusion Liqueur (blood orange, mango and passion fruit)

• Yangmeijiu (yangmei)

Herbal liqueurs
Note: the exact recipes of many herbal liqueurs (which may contain 50 or more different herbs) are often closely guarded trade secrets. The primary herbal ingredients are listed where known.

Anise-flavored liqueurs

 * Note: Absinthe, Arak, Rakı, Ouzo and similar anise-flavored beverages contain no sugar and thus are flavored liquors rather than liqueurs.

See also Category:Anise liqueurs and spirits
 * Anís (Spain, Argentina, Perú)
 * Licor Aniz Escarchado, (Portugal)
 * Anisette (France)
 * Centerbe (Italy; infusion of 100 high mountain herbs)
 * Galliano (Italy)
 * Herbsaint (United States)
 * Passione Nera (Italy)
 * Pastis (France)
 * Patxaran (Spain)
 * Ricard (France)
 * Sambuca (Italy)
 * Sombai Anise & Coffee (Cambodia)
 * Vespetrò (Italy)
 * Xtabentún (Mexico)
 * Cucui (Aruba)

Other herbal liqueurs

• Allasch (caraway, flavoured with bitter almonds, angelica, orange)

• Agwa de Bolivia (37 herbs)

• Altvater

• Amaro

• Becherovka (anise seeds, cinnamon, and other herbs)

• Beirão (seeds and herbs from around the world)

• Barrow's Intense Ginger Liqueur(Handmade in Brooklyn, NY with Fresh Ginger)

• Bénédictine (27 herbs and spices)

• Boilo (a homemade Christmas liqueur from the Pennsylvania Coal Region)

• Calisaya (cinchona calisaya bark, Seville orange extract and other botanicals)

• Canton (spirits, brandy, six varieties of ginger, ginseng, and honey)

• Chartreuse (130 herbal extracts) Green and Yellow versions

• Cynar (artichoke)

• Danzig Goldwasser (gold leaf, roots, and herbs)

• Everglo (tequila, vodka, caffeine, and ginseng)

• Fernet (myrrh, rhubarb, chamomile, cardamom, aloe, and saffron)

• Galliano (30 herbs)

• Gammel Dansk Bitter Dram (a Danish digestif bitter with 29 herbs)

• Goldschläger (cinnamon, with gold leaf)

• Jaan Paan Liqueur (sweet paan flavored)

• Jägermeister (56 herbs)

• Jing Jiu (Chinese yam, xian mao, dong quai, desert-broomrape, goji, huang qi, barrenwort, cinnamon, cloves)

• Killepitsch (combination of 90 fruits, berries, herbs, and spices)

• the King's Ginger liqueur, a Berry Bros 1903 formulation to revivify Edward VII from cold car journeys

• Krupnik (honey and up to 50 different herbs)

• Kümmel (caraway seed, cumin, and fennel)

• Mamajuana (rum, tree barks, herbs, spices and honey)

• Mastica (mastic resin)

• Mastichato (Mastic resin)

• Menta (peppermint liqueur)

• Metaxa

• Minttu (peppermint liqueur)

• Riga Black Balsam (Rigas Melnais Balzams)

• Singeverga (herbs and spices) – Made by monks at the Singeverga Monastery in Porto, Portugal, it is a sweet-tasting liqueur

• Strega (70 herbs, including mint, fennel, and saffron)

• Tubi 60 (Lemon, citrus, tree barks, spices, herbs: ginger, mint, anise, saffron, turmeric, cumin and others)

• Underberg (a German digestif bitter)

• Unicum (more than 40 herbs)

• Yomeishu – first made by Sokan Shiozawa in 1602

Honey liqueurs

 * Rakomelo
 * Bärenjäger
 * Boilo
 * Krupnik
 * Xtabentún
 * Yukon Jack

Nut-flavored liqueurs

 * Amaretto (almonds, or the almond-like kernels from apricots, peaches, cherries, or similar stone fruits)
 * Disaronno (apricot kernel oil)
 * Frangelico (hazelnuts and herbs)
 * Kahana Royale - a macadamia nut liqueur produced in Hawaii
 * Nocello (walnut and hazelnut)
 * Nocino (unripe green walnuts)
 * Orahovac – a walnut liqueur prepared using unripe green walnuts
 * Peanut liqueur
 * Peanut Lolita (peanut)
 * Pochteca Almond Liqueur
 * Ratafia (brandy flavored with almonds, fruit, or fruit kernels; also a flavored biscuit)
 * Rivulet – a pecan liqueur produced in Kentucky, United States

Whisky liqueurs
• Atholl Brose (Scotch whisky, Benromach single malt spirit, honey, secret spice recipe, from Gordon & Macphail)

• Bruadar (Scotch whisky, honey, sloe)

• Cock o' the North (single malt, blueberry)

• Drambuie (Scotch, heather honey, herbs, and spices)

• Eblana (Irish whiskey, coffee, honey, almond, peanut)

• Famous Grouse liqueur (Scotch, bourbon, citrus, spices)

• Fireball Cinnamon Whisky (Canadian whisky, cinnamon, spices)

• Forty Creek Premium Cream Liqueur (Canadian whisky, vanilla, chocolate, caramel)

• Glayva (Scotch, Seville oranges, spices, herbs, and honey)

• Glenfiddich Malt liqueur (Scotch, citrus, pear, brown sugar)

• Glenturret Malt liqueur (Glenturret single malt, honey, spices)

• Heaven Hill (Evan Williams cherry, honey and apple orchard variations)

• Irish Mist (aged Irish whiskey, heather and clover honey, aromatic herbs, and other spirits)

• Jack Daniel's Tennessee Honey (Jack Daniel's whiskey, honey)

• Jeremiah Weed (Bourbon whiskey, orange, vanilla)

• Jim Beam Honey (Jim Beam bourbon, honey)

• Jim Beam Red Stag (Jim Beam bourbon with other flavorings – variations include black cherry, honey tea, and cinnamon spiced)

• Lochan Ora (Chivas, honey, herbs and spices)

• Murray Scottish Highland Liqueur (Scotch, honey, sloe)

• Mystic Bourbon Liqueur (Bourbon, honey, spices)

• Old Pulteney liqueur (Old Pulteney single malt, prune, spices)

• Orangerie (Scotch, oranges, spices)

• Rock and Rye (American rye whiskey, citrus, rock candy)

• Sortilège Maple Whiskey Liqueur (Canadian whisky, maple syrup)

• Stag's Breath (Speyside malts and fermented comb honey)

• Southern Comfort (neutral grain spirits with whiskey, peach, orange and spice flavorings)

• Sweet Revenge (liqueur) (Strawberry syrup, American whiskey)

• The Knot (Irish whiskey)

• Wallace Liqueur (Deanston single malt, Scottish berries, French herbs)

• Wild Turkey American Honey (Wild Turkey (bourbon), honey, spices)

• Yukon Jack (Canadian whisky, honey)

Other liqueurs
• Advocaat (egg yolks and vanilla)

• After Shock (several varieties, the most popular of which is cinnamon)

• Agnes (orange peels, apples, vanilla and caraway seeds)

• Ancho Reyes (poblano peppers)

• Armada (spices and fruit)

• Aurum (rum, tea, and tangerines)

• Baczewski

• Bärenfang (honey; one export version is named Bärenjäger)

• Beechleaf noyau (Beech leaves and gin)

• Bloody Oath (vodka, herbs and spices)

• Campari (bitter and aromatic herbs, plants, and fruit)

• Cohasset Punch (rum, wine, fruits)

• Cynar (artichoke and other herbs and plants)

• Damiana (herb of the same name)

• Gabriel (cinnamon, apple, black pepper and peppermint)

• Génépi (alpine flower of the same name)

• Izarra (numerous herbs and other flavorings)

• Jumbie (rum liqueur)

• Kajmir (vanilla, brandy, and vodka)(No longer offered by Constellation Brands)

• kareek rum

• Kännu Kukk

• Licor de oro (whey, saffron and lemon peel)

• Liqueurs de Sodabi - NeHo Likors (distilled, then flavoured, palm-wine; flavours include banana, cinnamon, pineapple, passion fruit; made by NeHo Likors in Togo)

• Malört (wormwood)

• Mesi (honey)

• Palm wine (coconut wine)

• Patxaran (Sloes, coffee beans, and vanilla pod)

• Pimento Dram (not the peppers stuffed into olives, but allspice; made in Jamaica by Wray and Nephews)

• Returner (Earl Grey tea)

• Qi (lapsang souchong tea, fruits, spices, and Chardonnay brandy)

• Qi White (orange, ginger, clove, other herbs and spices, and white tea)

• Rumpleminze (peppermint)

• Salmiakki Koskenkorva (salmiakkikossu, salmari, salmiakki; originally Turkish pepper salty licorice)

• Sève Fournier (Champagne cognac, cocoa sap, vanilla, iris, and plant extracts)

• Sorel or Sorrel (Jamaican white rum, pimento/allspice, clove, cassia, ginger, nutmeg, hibiscus)

• Swedish Punsch (arrack, rum, citrus, spices)

• Tuaca (brandy, vanilla, and citrus)

• TY KU (Asian spirit base (sake and soju), with yuzu, honeydew, mangosteen, green tea, wolfberry, and ginseng)

• Vana Tallinn (rum, citrus oil, vanilla, cinnamon, and other spices)

• Vov (liqueur) (egg yolk, sugar and marsala wine)

• Voyant Chai Cream (a chai-flavoured liqueur containing oak-aged rum, cream, black tea, vanilla, and spices)

• Y Chilli (cinnamon, chili peppers, and other ingredients)

title: List of liqueur brands


text:
User talk:Uuuuuggggghhhhh

Um...

George Washington Masonic National Memorial
Hi, it has already been done by Denni and I've just finished a redirect between the wrongly called article and the good one. Sorry for all the confusion. When I speedied it, it had so little text that it was difficult to see whether it was a valid contribution or just a user test :) To avoid this, I suggest adding the tag if you are working on an article. See ya! Sarg 06:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:MasonicTemple&Flag.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MasonicTemple&Flag.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. BRossow 01:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Uuuuuggggghhhhh


text: User talk:82.89.49.35

title: User talk:82.89.49.35


text:
William Robert Ware

William Robert Ware (May 27, 1832 – June 9, 1915), born in Cambridge, Massachusetts into a family of the Unitarian clergy, was an American architect, author, and founder of two important American architectural schools.

He received his own professional education at Milton Academy, Harvard College and Harvard's Lawrence Scientific School. In 1859, he began working for Richard Morris Hunt, the founder of the first American architectural school, the AIA, and the first American to graduate from the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. Soon afterward Ware formed a partnership with the civil engineer Edward S. Philbrick, Philbrick and Ware, and they designed the Swedenborgian High Street Church in Brookline, Massachusetts.

In 1864, Ware partnered with fellow Harvard graduate Henry Van Brunt to form Ware & Van Brunt. Their Boston-area designs include Harvard's Memorial and Weld Halls, the Episcopal Divinity School campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the fountain at the Providence Athenaeum in Providence, Rhode Island, the Walter Hunnewell house (1875) at the Hunnewell estate in Wellesley (then West Needham), and the Ether Monument at the Boston Public Garden. In 1865, Ware became the first professor of architecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Architect Joseph Lyman Silsbee apprenticed under Ware and Van Brunt after graduating MIT in 1869.

In 1881, Ware and Van Brunt amicably dissolved their partnership, and Ware moved to New York City to found the School of Architecture at Columbia University, which began as the Architecture Department in the Columbia School of Mines. He retired in 1903 in poor health.

Ware also dabbled briefly in voting systems and used the idea of the single transferable vote to devise what is now called, in the U.S., instant-runoff voting, around 1870, used in several English speaking countries.

Publications

 * The American Vignola (1904)
 * The Study of Architectural Drawing in the School of Architecture (1896)
 * Modern Perspective: A Treatise Upon the Principles and Practice of Plane and Cylindrical Perspective (1882)

title: William Robert Ware


text:
John Ridge

 John Ridge, born Skah-tle-loh-skee (ᏍᎦᏞᎶᏍᎩ, Yellow Bird) (c. 1802 – 22 June 1839), was from a prominent family of the Cherokee Nation, then located in present-day Georgia. He went to Cornwall, Connecticut, to study at the Foreign Mission School. He met Sarah Bird Northup, of a New England Yankee family, and they married in 1824. Soon after their return to New Echota in 1825, Ridge was chosen for the Cherokee National Council and became a leader in the tribe.

In the 1830s, Ridge was part of the Treaty Party with his father Major Ridge, and cousins Elias Boudinot and Stand Watie. Believing that Indian Removal was inevitable, they supported making a treaty with the United States government to protect Cherokee rights. The Ridges and Boudinot were signatories to the Treaty of New Echota of 1835, by which they ceded Cherokee lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for lands in Indian Territory. The land cession was opposed by the majority of the tribe and the Principal Chief John Ross, but the treaty was ratified by the US Senate.

In 1839, after removal to Indian Territory, opponents assassinated the Ridges, Boudinot, and other Treaty Party members for their roles in the land cession. This eliminated them as political rivals in the new territory. Stand Watie survived such an attack and later fought on the side of the Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War.

Early life
John Ridge was born to the Cherokee chief Major Ridge and his wife Sehoya around 1802 in their village of Oothacaloga, near present-day Calhoun, Georgia. The Cherokee were a matrilineal tribe, so he was considered to belong to the Wild Potato Clan through his mother, Sehoya (Susannah Catherine Wickett). Ridge was often sick as a child. He studied at the nearby mission school run by the Moravian Brethren at Spring Place, Cherokee Nation (now Georgia). It was founded on land given to them by his father's mentor and fellow former warrior, James Vann.

Ridge's father sent him to the Foreign Mission School in Cornwall, Connecticut, in 1819, where he learned reading and writing in English and other subjects typical of classical middle-class education at the time. The school was originally founded to educate students from non-Christian areas, such as India, Hawaii, and Southeast Asia, to prepare them to return to their peoples as missionaries. Many families in the town supported the school and were hospitable to its students. As the top-ranked student, Ridge was asked to write an essay for President James Monroe, to be presented by Jedidiah Morse. His cousin Elias Boudinot also studied at the school.

Marriage and family
While at school in Cornwall, Ridge fell in love with Sarah Bird Northrup, the daughter of the school's steward. After two years, he convinced her parents to allow them to marry, which they did in January 1824. The Cornwall community reacted angrily to the marriage of a Native American man and a white woman. Their hostility decreased Ridge's admiration for European Americans and altered his hopes for future relations between the Cherokee and whites.

Career
Ridge was among the first Cherokee men to marry a European-American woman. In the past, marriages between Europeans and Cherokee had most often been between European men, usually fur traders doing business in the territory, and high-status Cherokee women. Both peoples believed these strategic alliances benefited them, as it added to their influence. Generally, the man was living among the Cherokee. Also, in the Cherokee matrilineal kinship culture, the children were considered born to their mother's family and clan, and thus accepted into the Nation as fully Cherokee, with their mother's status. Because white women were outsiders, with no place in the tribe, their descendants would have no status and not be considered Cherokee.

After Ridge returned with Sarah to Georgia, in 1825, the National Council passed a law enabling children of such unions to have full Cherokee citizenship, as if they were of Cherokee descent on their mother's side. By this time, Ridge's cousin Elias Boudinot (the oldest son of David Watie) had announced his engagement, also to a European-American woman from Cornwall, Connecticut. Given the high status of these two young men, the Council's new ruling provided for their future families and protected their children within the Cherokee Nation.

Ridge began to participate in the political affairs of the Nation. He became a leading member of the National Council, along with his cousin Elias Boudinot and his father's protégé, John Ross. Ridge was highly respected by all the tribes across the Southern United States for his abilities and faithfulness to Indian welfare.

Creek land negotiations
In the 1820s the Creek confederacy was under increasing pressure in their territories in Georgia and Alabama. Leaders had signed an 1821 treaty that ceded land. The second Treaty of Indian Springs ceded most of their remaining land to the United States. Chief William McIntosh of the Lower Creek had led the signatories, but the Creek National Council had not agreed to this cession of communal lands. It passed a death sentence against McIntosh and other signatories, who were killed.

Not ready to give up, in 1825 the Upper Creeks planned to appeal to President John Quincy Adams because of what they considered the illegality of the treaty. Because Chief Opothleyahola, their Speaker, was not fluent in English, the Creek delegation retained two young Cherokee men, recommended by Major Ridge, to assist them in preparing his speech. The Creek knew that Senator Andrew Jackson (D-TN) thought highly of Major Ridge, who had served with him in the Battle of Horseshoe Bend during the Creek Wars. Major Ridge recommended his son John Ridge and David Vann.

Ridge and Vann worked on remarks to be presented by Chief Opothleyahola of the Upper Creeks, who opposed any further land cessions. He stressed that the National Council had not approved the 1825 treaty, making it illegal. He gave the speech to General Edmund P. Gaines, the commander of the U. S. Army in Georgia. That speech was successful in winning General Gaines's support for the Creek position. President Adams was also sympathetic, and this delegation negotiated the Treaty of Washington (1826), which had more favorable terms.

But Georgia continued to press for removal under the 1825 treaty, and the election of Andrew Jackson to the presidency enforced Indian removal. He signed congressional law in 1830. In 1836, most of the Creek left the Southeast for Indian Territory.

Political life
As clerk of the Cherokee National Council, Ridge participated in tribal delegations to Washington, DC to consult with United States officials. In 1831 they protested Georgia's illegal annexation of that part of the Nation which lay within its territory. (Congress had passed the Indian Removal Act in 1830, but Georgia did not wait.) In 1832, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Worcester v. Georgia, that Georgia's unilateral extension of its laws over Cherokee territory was illegal and unconstitutional. It ruled that the Cherokee Nation had sovereign status and appropriately would deal only with the US government. The delegation was dismayed to learn that President Andrew Jackson continued to support the removal of all the Southeast tribes to lands west of the Mississippi River. Ridge reluctantly began to think that removal, which he had previously opposed, was inevitable.

Ridge and Boudinot both became leaders of the "Treaty Party," a group that advocated negotiation of removal under a treaty to protect Cherokee rights. They had begun to believe it was the only way to preserve the Cherokee Nation, as European-American settlers continued to encroach on their lands, leading to armed conflicts. They believed they had to give up the Cherokee land illegally annexed by Georgia. The majority of the Cherokee, who did not support acculturation, sided with the Principal Chief John Ross in opposing removal. Ross hoped to make a settlement with the US allowing the Cherokee to stay in the east. Ridge hoped to persuade the Nation of what he saw as the only way out of its dilemma.

Together with his father and Boudinot, Ridge signed the Treaty of New Echota in 1835 after final negotiations with a delegation in Washington, D.C. They were part of the National Council's delegation, headed by Principal Chief John Ross, who still was trying to negotiate staying in the East. Since the treaty surrendered all Cherokee land east of the Mississippi River, the opposing Ross faction, known as the National Party, regarded the Treaty Party representatives as traitors. Despite the known divisions within the tribe and the lack of signature by Principal Chief Ross, the US Senate ratified the treaty. President Jackson used it to justify the forcible Cherokee removal in 1838, in what is now known as the Trail of Tears.

The treaty provided for Cherokee who wished to remain in the east to do so. They would have to give up their Cherokee tribal status and become citizens of the states where they resided (and the United States). This provision was widely ignored during removal. The US Army rounded up most Cherokee and their slaves from Georgia to take west. Among the Five Civilized Tribes, the Cherokee held the most enslaved African Americans. There were also some free people of color in the tribe, of mixed Cherokee/African-American descent. Prior to removal, Ridge owned twenty-one slaves and had developed a slave plantation at Running Waters, Georgia, near the Oostanaula River.

Relocation
After the treaty signing, Ridge moved with his family, his father and most of his siblings, his uncle (David Watie), and Watie cousins to what is now Indian Territory. This was three years before the forced removal in 1838 of most of the Cherokee. The Ridges and other families joined the "Old Settlers" of the Cherokee Nation West under Principal Chief John Jolly. Some of them had migrated west in the 1820s from North Carolina or Alabama.

On June 22, 1839, a group of 25 pro-Ross partisans of the "Late Comers" killed Ridge, his father, and Boudinot in revenge for having signed the treaty to cede Cherokee lands. They also attacked Stand Watie, but he survived. Later they killed other Treaty Party members.

title: John Ridge


text:
Tiddly Wink

Tiddly Wink may refer to:

 * Tiddlywinks, an indoor game
 * Tiddleywink, hamlet in Wiltshire, England
 * Tiddly Wink (pony), character in the My Little Pony franchise
 * Tiddly-Wink (domino game), domino game in which playing a double entitles a second play

title: Tiddly Wink


text: User talk:70.81.0.127

title: User talk:70.81.0.127