text:
Least mean squares filter

Least mean squares (LMS) algorithms are a class of adaptive filter used to mimic a desired filter by finding the filter coefficients that relate to producing the least mean square of the error signal (difference between the desired and the actual signal). It is a stochastic gradient descent method in that the filter is only adapted based on the error at the current time. It was invented in 1960 by Stanford University professor Bernard Widrow and his first Ph.D. student, Ted Hoff, based on their research in single-layer neural networks (ADALINE). Specifically, they used gradient descent to train ADALINE to recognize patterns, and called the algorithm "delta rule". They then applied the rule to filters, resulting in the LMS algorithm.

Problem formulation
The picture shows the various parts of the filter. $$x$$ is the input signal, which is then transformed by an unknown filter $$h$$ that we wish to match using $$\hat h$$. The output from the unknown filter is $$y$$, which is then interfered with a noise signal $$\nu$$, producing $$d = y + \nu$$. Then the error signal $$e = d - \hat y = y + \nu - \hat y$$ is computed, and it is fed back to the adaptive filter, to adjust its parameters in order to minimize the mean square of the error signal $$e$$.

Relationship to the Wiener filter
The realization of the causal Wiener filter looks a lot like the solution to the least squares estimate, except in the signal processing domain. The least squares solution for input matrix $$ \mathbf{X}$$ and output vector $$\boldsymbol y $$ is

\boldsymbol{\hat\beta} = (\mathbf{X} ^\mathbf{T}\mathbf{X})^{-1}\mathbf{X}^{\mathbf{T}}\boldsymbol y. $$

The FIR least mean squares filter is related to the Wiener filter, but minimizing the error criterion of the former does not rely on cross-correlations or auto-correlations. Its solution converges to the Wiener filter solution. Most linear adaptive filtering problems can be formulated using the block diagram above. That is, an unknown system $$\mathbf{h}(n)$$ is to be identified and the adaptive filter attempts to adapt the filter $$\hat{\mathbf{h}}(n)$$ to make it as close as possible to $$\mathbf{h}(n)$$, while using only observable signals $$x(n)$$, $$d(n)$$ and $$e(n)$$; but $$y(n)$$, $$v(n)$$ and $$h(n)$$ are not directly observable. Its solution is closely related to the Wiener filter.

Definition of symbols

 * $$n$$ is the number of the current input sample
 * $$p$$ is the number of filter taps
 * $$ \{\cdot\}^H $$ (Hermitian transpose or conjugate transpose)

\mathbf{x}(n) = \left[x(n), x(n-1), \dots, x(n-p+1)\right]^T $$

\mathbf{h}(n) = \left[h_0(n), h_1(n), \dots, h_{p-1}(n)\right]^T,\quad \mathbf{h}(n) \in \mathbb{C}^p $$

y(n) = \mathbf{h}^H(n) \cdot \mathbf{x}(n) $$

d(n) = y(n) + \nu(n) $$
 * $$\hat{\mathbf{h}}(n)$$ estimated filter; interpret as the estimation of the filter coefficients after $n$ samples

e(n) = d(n) - \hat{y}(n) = d(n) - \hat{\mathbf{h}}^H(n) \cdot \mathbf{x}(n) $$

Idea
The basic idea behind LMS filter is to approach the optimum filter weights $$(R^{-1}P)$$, by updating the filter weights in a manner to converge to the optimum filter weight. This is based on the gradient descent algorithm. The algorithm starts by assuming small weights (zero in most cases) and, at each step, by finding the gradient of the mean square error, the weights are updated. That is, if the MSE-gradient is positive, it implies the error would keep increasing positively if the same weight is used for further iterations, which means we need to reduce the weights. In the same way, if the gradient is negative, we need to increase the weights. The weight update equation is

 * $$ W_{n+1} = W_n - \mu\nabla \varepsilon [n], $$

where $$ \varepsilon $$ represents the mean-square error and $$ \mu $$ is a convergence coefficient.

The negative sign shows that we go down the slope of the error, $$ \varepsilon $$ to find the filter weights, $$ W_i $$, which minimize the error.

The mean-square error as a function of filter weights is a quadratic function which means it has only one extremum, that minimizes the mean-square error, which is the optimal weight. The LMS thus, approaches towards this optimal weights by ascending/descending down the mean-square-error vs filter weight curve.

Derivation
The idea behind LMS filters is to use steepest descent to find filter weights $$ \hat{\mathbf{h}}(n)$$ which minimize a cost function. We start by defining the cost function as
 * $$ C(n) = E\left\{|e(n)|^{2}\right\}$$

where $$e(n)$$ is the error at the current sample n and $$E\{\cdot\}$$ denotes the expected value.

This cost function ($$C(n)$$) is the mean square error, and it is minimized by the LMS. This is where the LMS gets its name. Applying steepest descent means to take the partial derivatives with respect to the individual entries of the filter coefficient (weight) vector

\nabla_{\hat{\mathbf{h}}^H} C(n) = \nabla_{\hat{\mathbf{h}}^H} E\left\{e(n) \, e^{*}(n)\right\}=2E\left\{\nabla_{\hat{\mathbf{h}}^H} ( e(n)) \, e^{*}(n) \right\} $$ where $$\nabla$$ is the gradient operator

\nabla_{\hat{\mathbf{h}}^H} (e(n))= \nabla_{\hat{\mathbf{h}}^H} \left(d(n) - \hat{\mathbf{h}}^H \cdot \mathbf{x}(n)\right)=-\mathbf{x}(n) $$

\nabla C(n) = -2E\left\{\mathbf{x}(n) \, e^{*}(n)\right\} $$ Now, $$\nabla C(n)$$ is a vector which points towards the steepest ascent of the cost function. To find the minimum of the cost function we need to take a step in the opposite direction of $$\nabla C(n)$$. To express that in mathematical terms
 * $$\hat{\mathbf{h}}(n+1)=\hat{\mathbf{h}}(n)-\frac{\mu}{2} \nabla C(n)=\hat{\mathbf{h}}(n)+\mu \, E\left\{\mathbf{x}(n) \, e^{*}(n)\right\}$$

where $$\frac{\mu}{2}$$ is the step size (adaptation constant). That means we have found a sequential update algorithm which minimizes the cost function. Unfortunately, this algorithm is not realizable until we know $$E\left\{\mathbf{x}(n) \, e^{*}(n)\right\} $$.

Generally, the expectation above is not computed. Instead, to run the LMS in an online (updating after each new sample is received) environment, we use an instantaneous estimate of that expectation. See below.

Simplifications
For most systems the expectation function $${E}\left\{\mathbf{x}(n) \, e^{*}(n)\right\} $$ must be approximated. This can be done with the following unbiased estimator

\hat{E}\left\{\mathbf{x}(n) \, e^{*}(n)\right\}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=0}^{N-1}\mathbf{x}(n-i) \, e^{*}(n-i) $$ where $$N$$ indicates the number of samples we use for that estimate. The simplest case is $$N=1$$

\hat{E}\left\{\mathbf{x}(n) \, e^{*}(n)\right\}=\mathbf{x}(n) \, e^{*}(n) $$ For that simple case the update algorithm follows as
 * $$\hat{\mathbf{h}}(n+1)=\hat{\mathbf{h}}(n)+\mu \mathbf{x}(n) \, e^{*}(n)$$

Indeed, this constitutes the update algorithm for the LMS filter.

LMS algorithm summary
The LMS algorithm for a $$p$$th order filter can be summarized as

Convergence and stability in the mean
As the LMS algorithm does not use the exact values of the expectations, the weights would never reach the optimal weights in the absolute sense, but a convergence is possible in mean. That is, even though the weights may change by small amounts, it changes about the optimal weights. However, if the variance with which the weights change, is large, convergence in mean would be misleading. This problem may occur, if the value of step-size $$ \mu $$ is not chosen properly.

If $$ \mu $$ is chosen to be large, the amount with which the weights change depends heavily on the gradient estimate, and so the weights may change by a large value so that gradient which was negative at the first instant may now become positive. And at the second instant, the weight may change in the opposite direction by a large amount because of the negative gradient and would thus keep oscillating with a large variance about the optimal weights. On the other hand, if $$ \mu $$ is chosen to be too small, time to converge to the optimal weights will be too large.

Thus, an upper bound on $$ \mu $$ is needed which is given as $$ 0<\mu<\frac{2}{\lambda_{\mathrm{max}}} $$,

where $$\lambda_{\max}$$ is the greatest eigenvalue of the autocorrelation matrix $$ {\mathbf{R}} = E\{{\mathbf{x}}(n){\mathbf{x}^H}(n)\}$$. If this condition is not fulfilled, the algorithm becomes unstable and $$\hat{h}(n)$$ diverges.

Maximum convergence speed is achieved when

\mu=\frac{2}{\lambda_{\mathrm{max}}+\lambda_{\mathrm{min}}}, $$ where $$\lambda_{\min}$$ is the smallest eigenvalue of $${\mathbf{R}}$$. Given that $$\mu$$ is less than or equal to this optimum, the convergence speed is determined by $$\lambda_{\min}$$, with a larger value yielding faster convergence. This means that faster convergence can be achieved when $$\lambda_{\max}$$ is close to $$\lambda_{\min}$$, that is, the maximum achievable convergence speed depends on the eigenvalue spread of $${\mathbf{R}}$$.

A white noise signal has autocorrelation matrix $${\mathbf{R}}=\sigma^2 {\mathbf{I}}$$ where $$\sigma^2$$ is the variance of the signal. In this case all eigenvalues are equal, and the eigenvalue spread is the minimum over all possible matrices. The common interpretation of this result is therefore that the LMS converges quickly for white input signals, and slowly for colored input signals, such as processes with low-pass or high-pass characteristics.

It is important to note that the above upperbound on $$\mu$$ only enforces stability in the mean, but the coefficients of $$\hat{h}(n)$$ can still grow infinitely large, i.e. divergence of the coefficients is still possible. A more practical bound is

0<\mu<\frac{2}{\mathrm{tr}\left[{\mathbf{R}}\right]}, $$ where $$\mathrm{tr}[{\mathbf{R}}]$$ denotes the trace of $${\mathbf{R}}$$. This bound guarantees that the coefficients of $$\hat{h}(n)$$ do not diverge (in practice, the value of $$\mu$$ should not be chosen close to this upper bound, since it is somewhat optimistic due to approximations and assumptions made in the derivation of the bound).

Normalized least mean squares filter (NLMS)
The main drawback of the "pure" LMS algorithm is that it is sensitive to the scaling of its input $$x(n)$$. This makes it very hard (if not impossible) to choose a learning rate $$\mu$$ that guarantees stability of the algorithm (Haykin 2002). The Normalised least mean squares filter (NLMS) is a variant of the LMS algorithm that solves this problem by normalising with the power of the input. The NLMS algorithm can be summarised as:

Optimal learning rate
It can be shown that if there is no interference ($$v(n)=0$$), then the optimal learning rate for the NLMS algorithm is
 * $$\mu_{opt}=1$$

and is independent of the input $$x(n)$$ and the real (unknown) impulse response $$\mathbf{h}(n)$$. In the general case with interference ($$v(n) \ne 0$$), the optimal learning rate is

\mu_{opt}=\frac{E\left[\left|y(n)-\hat{y}(n)\right|^2\right]}{E\left[|e(n)|^2\right]} $$

The results above assume that the signals $$v(n)$$ and $$x(n)$$ are uncorrelated to each other, which is generally the case in practice.

Proof
Let the filter misalignment be defined as $$\Lambda(n) = \left| \mathbf{h}(n) - \hat{\mathbf{h}}(n) \right|^2$$, we can derive the expected misalignment for the next sample as:
 * $$ E\left[ \Lambda(n+1) \right] = E\left[ \left| \hat{\mathbf{h}}(n) + \frac{\mu\,e^{*}(n)\mathbf{x}(n)}{\mathbf{x}^H(n)\mathbf{x}(n)} - \mathbf{h}(n) \right|^2 \right]$$
 * $$ E\left[ \Lambda(n+1) \right] = E\left[ \left| \hat{\mathbf{h}}(n) + \frac{\mu\, \left( v^*(n)+y^*(n)-\hat{y}^*(n)  \right) \mathbf{x}(n)}{\mathbf{x}^H(n)\mathbf{x}(n)} - \mathbf{h}(n) \right|^2 \right]$$

Let $$\mathbf{\delta}=\hat{\mathbf{h}}(n)-\mathbf{h}(n)$$ and $$r(n) = \hat{y}(n)-y(n)$$

 * $$ E\left[ \Lambda(n+1) \right] = E\left[ \left| \mathbf{\delta}(n) - \frac{\mu\, \left( v(n)+r(n) \right) \mathbf{x}(n)}{\mathbf{x}^H(n)\mathbf{x}(n)} \right|^2 \right]$$
 * $$ E\left[ \Lambda(n+1) \right] = E\left[ \left( \mathbf{\delta}(n) - \frac{\mu\, \left( v(n)+r(n) \right) \mathbf{x}(n)}{\mathbf{x}^H(n)\mathbf{x}(n)} \right)^H \left( \mathbf{\delta}(n) - \frac{\mu\, \left(  v(n)+r(n) \right) \mathbf{x}(n)}{\mathbf{x}^H(n)\mathbf{x}(n)} \right)  \right]$$

Assuming independence, we have:
 * $$ E\left[ \Lambda(n+1) \right] = \Lambda(n) + E\left[ \left( \frac{\mu\, \left( v(n)+r(n) \right) \mathbf{x}(n)}{\mathbf{x}^H(n)\mathbf{x}(n)} \right)^H \left( \frac{\mu\, \left(  v(n)+r(n) \right) \mathbf{x}(n)}{\mathbf{x}^H(n)\mathbf{x}(n)} \right)  \right] - 2 E\left[\frac{\mu|r(n)|^2}{\mathbf{x}^H(n)\mathbf{x}(n)}\right]$$
 * $$ E\left[ \Lambda(n+1) \right] = \Lambda(n) + \frac{\mu^2 E\left[|e(n)|^2\right]}{\mathbf{x}^H(n)\mathbf{x}(n)} - \frac{2 \mu E\left[|r(n)|^2\right]}{\mathbf{x}^H(n)\mathbf{x}(n)}$$

The optimal learning rate is found at $$\frac{dE\left[ \Lambda(n+1) \right]}{d\mu} = 0 $$, which leads to:
 * $$2 \mu E\left[|e(n)|^2\right] - 2 E\left[|r(n)|^2\right] = 0$$
 * $$\mu = \frac{E\left[|r(n)|^2\right]}{E\left[|e(n)|^2\right]}$$

title: Least mean squares filter


text:
Nancy Allen (actress)

Nancy Allen (born June 24, 1950) is an American actress. She came to prominence for her performances in several films directed by Brian De Palma in the 1970s and early 1980s. Her accolades include a Golden Globe Award nomination and three Saturn Award nominations.

Her first major role was as Chris Hargensen in Brian De Palma's film Carrie (1976). Allen was subsequently cast as the lead in the Robert Zemeckis-directed comedy I Wanna Hold Your Hand (1978), followed by a supporting part in Steven Spielberg's 1941 (1979). Allen married De Palma in 1979, and her subsequent portrayal of a prostitute who witnesses a murder in his feature Dressed to Kill (1980) earned her a Golden Globe nomination for New Star of the Year. She then appeared in De Palma's neo-noir film Blow Out (1981), playing a woman implicated in an assassination. Allen and De Palma divorced in 1984.

She appeared in the science fiction films Strange Invaders (1983) and The Philadelphia Experiment (1984), and Abel Ferrara's television film The Gladiator (1986). Allen garnered mainstream fame playing Anne Lewis in Paul Verhoeven's RoboCop (1987), a role she reprised for the two sequels. Other credits include Poltergeist III (1988), Limit Up (1990), Les patriotes (1994), and Steven Soderbergh’s Out of Sight (1998).

Allen stepped back from acting in 2008, and became involved in cancer support; in 2010, she was named executive director of the weSPARK Cancer Support Center in Los Angeles.

1950–1972: Early life
Allen was born on June 24, 1950 in the Bronx borough of New York City, the youngest of three children of Eugene and Florence Allen. Her father was a police lieutenant. Allen was raised on 196th Street in the Pelham Bay section of the Bronx.

Allen was a very shy child, so her mother enrolled her in dance classes when she was four. She attended the Academy of Mount St. Ursula in the Bronx, before the family relocated to Yonkers. Interested in modern dance, she attended the High School of Performing Arts for one year, where she trained for a dancing career. She stated that her experience studying dance "ruined it" for her as it "became all about grades... I discovered that, while I loved to dance, it wasn't my life." She subsequently enrolled at Jose Quintano's School for Young Professionals.

1973–1986: Career beginnings
Allen's first major film role was as Nancy, Jack Nicholson's nervous date, in The Last Detail (1973), directed by Hal Ashby. This inspired her to move to Los Angeles to continue her acting career. Initially, Allen struggled to find acting jobs and was told by an agent that, being 25 years old, it "was over for her." However, in November 1975, she auditioned for the role of the spoiled and popular mean girl Christine Hargensen in director Brian De Palma's horror film Carrie (1976), as the title character's chief nemesis. After a protracted casting process (in which Allen was nearly re-cast at the instruction of the producers), she was officially given the role.

Allen next appeared in the role of Pam Mitchell in Steven Spielberg's production of I Wanna Hold Your Hand (1978), which was director Robert Zemeckis's first feature film. She then played Donna Stratton in the Spielberg-directed comedy 1941 (1979).

She married "Carrie" director Brian De Palma on January 12, 1979, and over the next several years appeared in three more of his films: She starred as Kristina in Home Movies (1980) with Kirk Douglas, followed by her portrayal of prostitute Liz Blake in the thriller Dressed to Kill (1980). For her performance, she was nominated for a Golden Globe for New Star of the Year. She next starred in her last collaboration with De Palma, the neo-noir Blow Out (1981), playing a woman involved in an assassination that is audibly captured by a sound engineer. In filming Blow Out, she had to overcome a lifelong fear of being trapped in a submerged car filling with water.

In 1983, Allen starred as supermarket tabloid reporter Betty Walker in Strange Invaders, written by Bill Condon and co-starring Paul LeMat, Michael Lerner and Oscar winner Louise Fletcher.

She and De Palma divorced in 1984. That same year, two of Allen's films were released, The Buddy System opposite Richard Dreyfuss and Susan Sarandon and The Philadelphia Experiment opposite Michael Paré. For her role in the latter, Allen was nominated for a Saturn Award for Best Actress. Allen began dating Paré after the production. She also hosted the documentary Terror in the Aisles (1984), which presents clips from various horror features, including Dressed to Kill and Carrie. Paul Bartel's Not for Publication and Sweet Revenge, an action caper about white slavery with Gina Gershon and Martin Landau, followed thereafter.

1987–1993: RoboCop and other projects
Allen played police officer Anne Lewis in the science fiction/action classic RoboCop (1987). The film, which was the Hollywood debut of Dutch director Paul Verhoeven, did extremely well at the box office. Allen was nominated for another Saturn Award for Best Actress.

After the success of RoboCop, Allen starred in Abel Ferrara's The Gladiator (1987) and as Patricia Wilson-Gardner in Poltergeist III (1988). Allen reprised her role as Officer Lewis in RoboCop 2 (1990). To make her character tougher and more involved in the physical action, she studied martial arts and participated in police training. She recalled the filming of RoboCop 2 as unpleasant, however, and later referred to director Irvin Kershner as a "miserable human being". That same year, Allen top-lined Richard Martini's Limit Up. As commodities trader Casey Falls, Allen showcased her comedic abilities. The lighthearted romp also featured Danitra Vance and blues icon Ray Charles. In 1990, Allen also had the distinction of starring in the first-ever original film made for the Lifetime television network, the highly-rated Memories of Murder.

She married comedian Craig Shoemaker on September 6, 1992. Allen played Officer Lewis a third time in RoboCop 3 (1993) and was nominated for a Saturn Award for Best Supporting Actress. For her third performance as the feisty cop, she worked to soften the usually tough-as-nails demeanor of the character: "You do your job and you become more confident with yourself. Therefore, you don't have to prove yourself to anyone and basically deny your womanhood. (It's) not a dirty word. It's actually an asset. And that's what I wanted to show – to loosen her up in that way." The same year, Allen also appeared with Linda Fiorentino in Acting on Impulse. She and Shoemaker divorced in 1994.

1994–present: Later career; activism
Allen has appeared in a number of documentaries about her most famous films, including Dressed to Kill, Carrie, Blow Out, the RoboCop trilogy, and Poltergeist III.

In 1994, she re-teamed with Strange Invaders writer Bill Condon to star as psychic Jessie Gallardo opposite Roger Moore in the movie of the week The Man Who Wouldn't Die. She also had a supporting part in the French drama film Les patriotes (1994). In 1995, she starred in a Broadway production of the play Dial M For Murder by Frederick Knott, which had been the basis for Alfred Hitchcock's film of the same name. It starred John James as Tony Wendice, Nancy Allen as Margot and Roddy McDowall as Inspector Hubbard. It ran from September 26, 1995, to March 10, 1996, and was directed by Edward Hastings. She starred as Linda Savage in Quality Time in 1997, but the film was not released until 2008 due, in part, to post-production and renamed My Apocalypse. She married builder/contractor Randy Bailey in June 1998.

Allen had a small but notable role as Midge in the crime thriller Out of Sight (1998) starring George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez, which was directed by Steven Soderbergh. She also played Rachel Colby in the horror film Children of the Corn 666: Isaac's Return and Madge in the comedy-thriller Kiss Toledo Goodbye with Christopher Walken (both released in 1999). Secret of the Andes, an adventure film starring David Keith and Jerry Stiller, was released in 2000.

Her television guest appearances include roles on Touched by an Angel, The Outer Limits, The Commish, and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit.

Allen and Bailey separated in 2005 and divorced in 2007. In 2008, she decided to shift her focus to cancer support for cancer patients and their families. She was inspired to focus her time on the subject after her friend and former co-star Wendie Jo Sperber died of breast cancer in 2005. In December 2010, Allen was named executive director of the weSPARK Cancer Support Center, which was founded by Sperber. Of her work at weSpark, Allen said: "That is what I do. That is what my life is dedicated to. I'm there, I run it. I've created the whole program format and I fundraise. It is my life's work."

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

title: Nancy Allen (actress)


text:
Distinguished Young Women

Distinguished Young Women, formerly known as America's Junior Miss, is a national non-profit organization that provides scholarship opportunities to high school senior girls. Depending on the schedule of the various state and local programs, young women are eligible during the summer preceding their senior year in high school. This program is designed to provide young women with the opportunity and support needed to succeed before, during, and after attending college. In addition, through the Distinguished Young Women Life Skills program, which includes workshops and online resources, participants can learn skills like interviewing, public speaking, self-confidence building and much more. Since its creation in 1958, over 700,000 young ladies have participated in competitions spanning the United States. Participants compete in the categories of Interview (25%), Scholastics (25%), Talent (20%), Fitness (15%), and Self-Expression (15%). Each state hosts a state program in which the chosen representative advances to the national program, held in the program's birthplace of Mobile, Alabama. Each year the Distinguished Young Women program gives out over $1 billion in scholarships. The Distinguished Young Women program is free to enter.

Early years
In the late 1920s, Mobile's Junior Chamber of Commerce, known today as the Jaycees, began the earliest form of the Junior Miss program as an annual floral pageant in the spring to encourage participation from residents in local beautification projects, including azalea flowers. The winner of the pageant would eventually choose her successor to carry on the role of representing the annual program: an act similar to what every America's Junior Miss has done a year after winning the title, but it's the judges who decide first.

Shortly after the Second World War, the Junior Chamber changed the program especially for young high school juniors to participate. Prizes included the honor of being queen of the Azalea Trail Maids, Mobile's official hostesses at special events. Before 1957, the Junior Chamber realized that not only were Mobilians participating in their program, so were Mississippi and Florida residents. It was decided that year to make the program national, allowing high school seniors from every state to participate in the renamed America's Junior Miss. Unlike the Miss America pageant which started as a beauty pageant, but now includes judging on Evening Gown, Private 12 Minute Interview, On Stage Q & A, and Swimsuit, America's Junior Miss has always been a scholarship program. America's Junior Miss participants were required to be seniors in high school and were judged on scholastic achievement, creative and performing arts, physical fitness, poise and appearance, and a judges' interview. Bathing suits were never a part of the America's Junior Miss.

The first national finals were held in March 1958 at the Saenger Theater in downtown Mobile, with 18 states represented. Phyllis Whitenack of West Virginia won $5000 in scholarship money, along with the title of America's Junior Miss.

1960s
In 1963, all 50 states had their own Junior Miss in the national finals. The 1960s was a decade of excellence for the America's Junior Miss program, with new sponsors such as Kodak and Chevrolet, the program was able to continue increasing scholarship beyond $24,000 and bring Mobile's annual event before the eyes of network television viewers regularly for 20 years starting in 1965. From 1965-1972, the pageant was telecast on NBC. Among the entertainers invited to perform at the finals early in the Sixties was Eddie Fisher. In this decade, two holders of the Junior Miss title would soon lead successful careers while supporting the organization that helped them along the way. Missouri Junior Miss and America's Junior Miss 1961 Mary Frann would one day appear on TV programs such as "Newhart" and numerous variety shows in her acting career. Frann helped found the alumnae organization America's Junior Miss Council in 1995. Kentucky Junior Miss and America's Junior Miss 1963 Diane Sawyer continued to support the program as her career in journalism continued, which led to a position at the ABC Television Network program "Good Morning America" and most recently to be the second woman to individually hold the anchor chair nationally for a nightly news program World News on ABC television (Barbara Walters, Elizabeth Vargas and Connie Chung co-anchored with male counterparts).

1970s
The New Seekers appeared at the May 1973 finals, hosted by Ed McMahon. Beginning in 1973, the telecast aired annually on CBS, where it would stay through 1985. Actor Michael Landon would host the national finals for the first time in 1974, his first out of seven appearances. Also in 1974, Donna Alexander of New Jersey, became the first black female to reach this point of the competition. Alumni from this decade include America's Junior Miss 1973 Linda Rutledge Delbridge of Kansas, who would one day become a computer scientist and executive for IBM. Georgia Junior Miss 1976 Deborah Norville followed a journalism career path that would earn her the job of hosting the syndicated news program "Inside Edition". Maryland Junior Miss 1971 was Kathie Lee Gifford, who would one day host a syndicated talk show with TV personality Regis Philbin. In spite of never advancing to the 1971 finals, Georgia contender Kim Basinger would later have an acting career that would lead her to an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her role in the movie L.A. Confidential. Before becoming a Tony Award-winning producer, Bonnie Comley, won the talent competition in the Junior Miss Massachusetts program in 1977.

1980s
Andy Gibb performed for the audience and the Junior Misses participating at the 1980 national finals. One year later, the format known as "theater in the round" was introduced for the finals and its television broadcasts. Mary Frann returned for the finals in 1985 to co-host with Bruce Jenner (now known as Caitlyn Jenner), the last telecast in an annual run on CBS that began in 1973. The outreach program "Be Your Best Self" became the official platform of the America's Junior Miss program in 1987, when Wisconsin's Junior Miss Chuti Tiu became the first non-Caucasian national winner. America's Junior Miss 1980 Julie Bryan Moran hosted the finals in 1988. The national finals were moved from the Mobile Civic Center arena to the theater section in 1989. Among the Junior Miss participants in this decade who would become well known were Georgia's Julie Moran, who would anchor the syndicated TV program "Entertainment Tonight" and 1986 Rhode Island Junior Miss Debra Messing, whose acting career led to earning one of the leading roles in the sitcom "Will & Grace". At the end of the Eighties, the name of the program was changed to "America's Young Woman of the Year" to renew interest, but it was later realized that this new identity was unlike the long established brand of America's Junior Miss that interested many participants. The name "America's Junior Miss" would be restored in 1993.

1990s
In 1994, the America's Junior Miss finals once again became a national event on television. One of the guests this time was actor Brian Austin Green of the TV series "Beverly Hills, 90210". One year later, the NBC Television Network stopped televising the finals. The judging criteria for the local and national levels of the program would be revamped in 1995. With help from David G. Bronner of the Retirement Systems of Alabama and Raycom Media, viewers got to see Alabama's Junior Miss Tyrenda Williams become the first black America's Junior Miss in 1997 and earn $30,000 in scholarship out of a total of $97,500 for the winners. The number of stations airing the national finals would increase from 50 to 177 in 1998. The 1999 finals, hosted by 1976 Georgia Junior Miss Deborah Norville aired tape-delayed on The Nashville Network, which would air the event live in 2000 and 2001.

2000s
In 2000, for the first time ever, a scholarship of $50,000 was the top prize and Utah Junior Miss Jesika Henderson earned it along with the title of America's Junior Miss that year. Both Deborah Norville and Karen Morris Gowdy took part in the 2001 finals, with Norville hosting the finals and Gowdy handling the preliminary round. Singer Toby Keith provided entertainment for the finals. Dan Marino joined Norville for the finals in 2002, which aired nationally on the PAX TV network. Billy Gilman and 3rd Faze were also part of the 2002 finals. The 2004 finals were a little different from previous years, as the 50 Junior Misses were taped for documentary segments spanning their two weeks of preparation.

In 2005, the AJM Board of Directors' executive committee was unsuccessful at retaining sponsors and a major television network willing enough to broadcast the national finals. The Board of Directors had no choice but to make the 2005 national finals on June 25 possibly the very last for America's Junior Miss. After Mississippi's Junior Miss Kelli Lynn Schutz was chosen and given a $50,000 scholarship, she was not originally scheduled for any of the traditional AJM appearances. The 2005 finals, hosted by 2000 America's Junior Miss Jesika Henderson and actor Nicky Brown, airing live on the Mobile CBS affiliate WKRG-TV and pre-recorded for PAX TV on June 27 was a celebration of all 48 years of accomplishing a feat that no other organization similar to AJM would attempt: prepare and encourage the lives of young women beginning to enter a new world of possibility.

The organization had originally set a date of September 30, 2005 to end operations. A group of concerned Junior Miss supporters, under the band of Friends of AJM and with the website saveajm.org, fought for the continuation of the program. On August 9 the board of directors decided that the national finals should continue to be held in Mobile, only without any national television coverage as part of the new budget.

Through the efforts of Junior Miss supporters across the country, America's Junior Miss continued operations from the national headquarters in Mobile. The board of directors hired Becky Jo Peterson, formerly chair of the California Junior Miss program, as the new executive director. In June 2006, 50 state Junior Misses spent two weeks in Mobile, Alabama, for the 49th annual national finals where Kentucky's Junior Miss Taylor Phillips was chosen as the new America's Junior Miss. More than $100,000 in scholarships were awarded at the national finals to the class of 2006.

2007 marked the 50th anniversary of America's Junior Miss. The national finals were held June 28–30 at the Mobile Civic Center Theater in Mobile, where more than $150,000 in scholarships were awarded.

2010s
It was announced on June 26, 2010 that America's Junior Miss would now be renamed Distinguished Young Women. This change was intended in part to help differentiate the program from pageants. Idaho's Madison Denise Leonard was named America's first Distinguished Young Woman. Tennessee's Katye Brock was Named America's 2011 Distinguished Young Woman. Christina Maxwell of Asheville, North Carolina was named Distinguished Young Woman of America for 2012. Nicole Renard of Washington State was named Distinguished Young Woman of America for 2013. Brooke Rucker of Georgia was the Distinguished Young Woman of America for 2014. On June 27, 2015, Alaska's Máire Nakada was named the Distinguished Young Woman of America for 2015. In 2016, Tara Moore of South Carolina was named Distinguished Young Woman of America. The next year saw Skye Bork of DC named Distinguished Young Woman of 2017. On June 30, 2018, Aaryan Morrison from Kokomo, Indiana was named Distinguished Young Woman of 2018.

2020s
2020 saw the competition held for the first time virtually resulting from COVID-19 pandemic.

States without winners
There have been no winners from the following states:

 * Colorado
 * Delaware
 * Florida
 * Hawaii
 * Iowa
 * Louisiana
 * Maine
 * Maryland
 * Massachusetts
 * Montana
 * Nebraska
 * Nevada
 * New Hampshire
 * New Mexico
 * New York
 * North Dakota
 * Ohio
 * South Dakota
 * Vermont

title: Distinguished Young Women


text:
Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt/Archive 1

Old text
This page desparately needs info on his role as a world war 2 allied leader.

user:J.J.

- Why the hell is his portrait and the first few paragraphs shown twice? I take this is a mistake.

Holden 27

in the book 'franklin delano roosevelt' by clark, the author states that roosevelt was systematically manipulating japan into attacking the US, so that he could have the moral support of the american people.

author also notes that in the late 30s there was a strong "isolationist" movement, especially in the republican party (FDR was a democrat) , and FDR had a hard time getting them to go to war with germany.

so this author would probabyl say that even though FDR 'didnt know abotu pearl', he knew that something would come some time, and he was actively hoping for it, and doing everything he coudl to bring it about. ie he wouldnt talk to them in diplomatic terms. he was stiff on his embargos and had his mind set ahead of time that a war was 'inevitable'.

if japan had attacked a british or french colony, then he couldnt have gotten the congress support nor american people's morale to go to war with japan.

pearl harbor clearly was a morale inflamer for the american people, even 50 years later. the theory is that roosevelt knew something like that would be necessary to get the people fired up enough to go through with the war.

(course, why were we on hawaii in the first place? i dunno)

I can't see why the Presidents table I added should be deleted. It's very helpful. --65.73.0.137

I deleted the puzzling reference to Winston Churchill as a "fellow freemason," since its inclusion gives the strong impression that the historic Casablanca conference was merely some kind of masonic conspiracy. While it is true that both FDR and WSC were freemasons, it is irrelevant to this article. Yet another indication of how the whole WWII section needs to be overhauled and expanded. Jumbo

On Monday, May 18, 1942, Roosevelt wrote a private letter to William Lyon Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, in which he discusses that the USA and Canada agree on an unwritten plan aiming to disperse French-Canadians in order to assimilate them more quickly.

Could someone provide a source for this? And also some more information, for example, how and where were they to be "dispersed"? Would they be forcably trucked off to the four corners of North America?

If it were not for Wikipedia, I would never have known that FDR ate babies. Thank you Wikipedia!

Needs two items
The FDR should include two extra details:

1. FDR added a 12th grade to public school to keep those people out of the work-force during the depression.

2. FDR was an avid stamp collector and greatly promoted the hobby, including to some extent, getting special favors from the bureau of engraving and printing. See the APS page here http://www.stamps.org/almanac/alm_halloffame_1942-45.htm#Roosevelt

profession
The box shows his profession as attorney. I believe politician would be more appropriate. He was involved in politics and public service almost continually for 30 years. If he had a significant legal career I have not seen it mentioned... if someone has knowledge of it, it would be worth a brief mention.

profession
The box shows his profession as attorney. I believe politician would be more appropriate. He was involved in politics and public service almost continually for 30 years. His legal employment seems to be "working for a Wall Street firm" from 1908 to 1913. I was a paper boy longer than that but don't think I should be biographed as a "news distributor".

Comments?Pmeisel 01:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MAjor revisions to the page
I just made some extremely significant revisions to the page - though I changed little data, I did flesh out the critical perspective of whether Roosevelt may have had knowledge of Pearl Harbor ahead of time.

I rephrased many, many lines, and trimmed the part about the four freedoms speech in 1941 from the World war two section.

I added information on a critical perspective of the court packing action and the internment, and removed subjective language in several places.

While most of the information presented already existed in the page in a different format, I am very knowledgable about the events of world war two, and much of the modification was from memory. I believe that it is critically important to find references for the factual information that's presented in the article Especially:

 * Records of what might / might not have been known during world war two
 * Support and/or critique of the internment order (btw: I removed "concentration camp" because it's a slightly perjoritive term when compared to the Nazi version, but "camp" isn't strong enough -- maybe someone has an idea of what to do about that....)

I also feel that the article generally needs more of the following:
 * More records of critical opinions of Roosevelt in the media of the day, as well as modern criticisms . In particular, more discussion of the stark contrast of opinions in the country when he became the first three termer.
 * More detailed information on how Roosevelt's policies were innovative -- they were! He is portrayed here as a strong, dedicated, effective leader, but his cleverness is underrepresented
 * More background information (through either text or links) so that readers have the context to understand how Roosevelt strenghtened the Federal Government further and weakened states, strengthened the executive bransh and weakened Judicial, but also congress ( the latter isn't addressed as much)

I believe strongly that my changes should be peer reviewed to maintain the neutral point of view principle, and to assist with doing that well, I will disclose my biases (though I've tried to compensate for them in my edits as best I can):

I believe that Roosevelt was a strong, capable leader, a maverick, and a competant military strategist. At the same time, I believe he was an authoritarian who re-interpeted laws illegally to suit his purposes and was quite adept at deceiving the public.

I tried to present critical views that maintained neutrality - allowing readers to loathe, admire, or have mixed feelings about the man -- but to faithfully tell the whole story. That's a lofty goal, and I'm sure I've fallen short (I'm not done yet) -- So please help!

Thanks! EggplantWizard 02:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In terms of the Pearl Harbor stuff, I do feel like the article as it stands now gives too much credence to the rumors. Beyond the question of whether the evidence showed that Roosevelt "knew", the strongest evidence is the fact that the "Roosevelt knew" story makes no logical sense. Roosevelt wanted to bring the country into a war against Germany. The attack on Pearl Harbor, as it occurred, could very easily have derailed that had not the Germans obliged Roosevelt by declaring war. So the surprise attack did not particularly serve Roosevelt's goal of getting the US involved in war against Germany, and might very well have distracted it from that goal. Furthermore, and more basically - if the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor and the Navy had been ready for it, it's hard to imagine that the Navy being in a greater state of readiness would have somehow prevented the war. The whole argument is simply unconvincing, because it doesn't make sense on its face. john k 03:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I dont' fundamentally disagree with your primary point that the way the information is currently phrased might be lending it too much credibility, but while it is unlikely, there is some evidence to support such allegations, and as such, they deserve some mention in the article. As I suggested, we really need more factual referencesand footnoting so that people can more easily draw their own conclusions. I'll note that I personally don't believe that Roosevelt knew the specifics of the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, but the theory is mainstream enough (and not quite as implausible as you suggest), that it shouldn't be entirely dismissed from the article. If you can compress the text as it stands and present more facts that contradict it, that would be great. I might do it myself when I find a big block of free time. Thanks for the feedback. EggplantWizard 20:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I recommend a one paragraph explanation of the existence of the various Pearl Harbor theories, with a reference to one explanatory article. A full explanation of all the various evidence and theories surely justifies an article of its own. --Pmeisel 13:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the article should be at Franklin D. Roosevelt, presently a redirect, because I think he is more commonly known by the initial "D." than "Delano". This is standard practice, including on other presidential articles like James K. Polk and John F. Kennedy. Has this already been dealt with, and was it decided to have it here, or is it just here because nobody ever contested it before? Everyking 08:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

'''I think Franklin D Roosevelt was a good president in many ways. One of the many was he got America out of the great depression.''' --67.129.78.33 17:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While he may have done his best, there is evidence that shows that some of his policies contributed to the lengthening of the depression. Additionally, the "second depression" lasted until 1938, oddly only a year before WW2. It's clear the the US benefited largely from the war and boosted the nation out of economic stagnation, at the expense of other nations, of course. The argument before this one is a bit simplistic.

Title of article
Why is this article called Franklin Delano Roosevelt? It is not Wikipedia policy to title biographical articles with the person's full name. His name was Franklin Roosevelt and that is what the article should be called. Also his role in Freemasons hardly belongs in the opening section. Adam 12:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Garbage
I have now actually read the article, the first time I have done so. It is very poorly written, and full of silly conspiracy theories and irrelevant nonsense of various kinds (what on earth has all that garbage about Stalin got to do with Roosevelt's biography?). Are there really no serious American historians at Wikipedia? This article is a disgrace to any pretensions Wikipedia has to call itself a serious encyclopedia. I will make it my project tomorrow to write a new article. Roosevelt deserves better and so does Wikipedia. Adam 12:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, but I thoroughly disagree. Your opinion is highly typical of those who've been brainwashed in US history classes. Please educate yourself. Your ignorance is showing. Stalin has much to do with FDR's decisions during WW2 concerning the European theater. This should be clear to any "serious" historian.

User:Vegalabs

revisionism, conspiracy, Polish nationalism
Any attempt to reinstall revisionist nonsense, conspiracy theories or Polish nationalist rants into this article will be vigorously resisted. Adam 14:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Health
Briefly: mid-1940s medicine was not advanced enough to recognize how bad FDR's condition was, nor the risks that he was taking (and subjecting the nation to) by running for a fourth term.

For example, we now know that

1) Paraplegics are particularly prone to hypertension (high blood pressure)

2) This is particularly true of older paraplegics, over age 60 or so

3) Hypertension is very closely correlated with a whole bunch of other problems, including heart disease and strokes

4) A diet rich in saturated fats and heavy starches correlates with heart disease and strokes, and is particularly bad for paraplegics; and

5) Smoking is also correlated with heart disease and strokes.

None of these things were known in 1944-5. FDR in 1944 was a 62 year old paraplegic who chain smoked, ate bad food, was in a high-stress job, and had sky-high blood pressure... and _nobody realized this was dangerous_. The correlation between hypertension and strokes, for example, wasn't even suggested until 1948. FDR's blood pressure was checked every month and recorded, but nobody thought that it was dangerously high; contemporary medicine thought that rapid _changes_ in blood pressure were dangerous, not hypertension per se.

There was a vague realisation that fatty food made you fat, and being fat was bad for your heart. But the etiology was a complete mystery. And in any event, FDR wasn't fat - he ate dreadful food, but he kept quite trim by swimming laps (which will burn calories fast when you can't use your legs; try it sometime). He looked slim, tan, and healthy right up to the autumn of 1944. Contemporary medicine had no way of even imagining that his arteries were shutting down from cholesterol, nor that smoking and 16-hour days were putting his whole system far into the red-line zone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Benjamin Austin (talk • contribs) 15:20, 24 April 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for those observations. I am not aware that FDR ate badly - as you say he certainly wasn't fat - so I don't think this was a factor in his early death. I think prolonged stress and chain-smoking were enough to explain it - this was also what killed Curtin. Adam 15:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will write some more about FDR's health soon. I also want to add a section about FDR's attitudes to race, the Japanese-American issue, the Jewish refugee issue and the civil rights issue. Stay tuned. Adam 23:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New version lost too much
This new version, besides being at a name almost never used (Franklin D. Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt are both much more commonly used), has lost much info and links compared to the old version. Examples I've found so far are: And I don't know how many more. I'm going to revert. Niteowlneils 00:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) {moved from FDR Talk}
 * Date of 'fear itself' quote
 * Any mention of dime
 * Hugo Black
 * Wagner Act
 * F.D. Roosevelt State Park
 * Glass-Steagall Act
 * Wiley Blount Rutledge
 * I firmly believe major overhauls of articles, especially ones this size, should be done in-place, a) to help avoid unintentional content deletion, b) so Diff shows what's changed, c) so the History stays together. Also, I think re-naming this article is a bad idea, as [] rules out "Franklin Roosevelt", and "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" and "Franklin D. Roosevelt" seem about equally common, so there's nothing gained by changing to the inital version. Niteowlneils 00:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with statement by User:Niteowlneils above about reasons to edit the article in place. If someone (Adam Carr) wants to point out specific things which are not accurate in the article, this page would be a good place to discuss. Morris 02:32, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) {End move}
 * This is a much cleaner article. Please can we all work on this article from here and not revert to the previous one. If someone has a problem with the name of the article, cut and paste this one into Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but do not revert to the previous article at that place. Thank you. 02:43, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * How can a significantly truncated article be "better"? Anyway, all editing should be done in one place (to the original article); any renaming should be done separately, using the "Move" tab. Niteowlneils 03:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any cutting and pasting would make the problem that much worse--articles should be moved to keep the content, history, and Talk pages together. See How to rename (move) a page, How to fix cut and paste moves. Niteowlneils 03:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is not "truncated" - it is nearly twice as long as the previous one, and will be longer once I add the matters mentioned above. It is also (if I say so myself) much better written and more coherent and covers much more content. The old article would be even shorter once the irrelevant rant about Stalin and other silliness was removed. On the specific points:
 * The "fear itself" speech is located at the First Inaugural. I don't see what the actual date adds.
 * The "Wagner Act" is refered to, by its correct name.
 * Black and Rutledge are fairly minor figures but could be added to the mention of Supreme Court appointments.
 * The Glass-Stegall act is not mentioned by name, but the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Administration is mentioned.
 * There is indeed no mention of dimes or state parks. I dislike trivia of this kind. Adam 03:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the name of the article, Google gives:
 * Franklin D. Roosevelt: 1,010,000
 * Franklin Roosevelt: 640,000
 * Franklin Delano Roosevelt: 470,000

I still think that "Franklin Roosevelt" should be seen as the standard version of his name, but I would not oppose a move to Franklin D. Roosevelt. I would object to a reversion to "Franklin Delano Roosevelt." Adam 03:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) The "Franklin Roosevelt" hits are misleading--if you actually look at the results, you will see most actually use either the middle name or middle initial, and are just being displayed by the search engine because it 'knows' that's who you are looking for.
 * 2) My only objection to "Franklin D. Roosevelt" is that, since it has more than 500 in-coming links, it is impossible to know if all broken redirects are fixed.
 * 3) I note that you didn't bother to fix all the broken double-redirs your change created.
 * 4) Renaming and rewriting should be done separately to avoid complications like this.
 * 5) The edits should have been done to the original article, not the redirect, to keep the content, history, and Talk page together (and having this discussion on this page is only further compounding the problem), so Diff works, etc. as I stated above.
 * 6) Editing on the original article would also have made it more apparent what had been simpled renamed vs. what was removed. Niteowlneils 03:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I take your points on the renaming of the article. It seemed like a good idea at the time, which was 3am after I had spent 12 hours writing the article. I usually remember to fix redirects when I rename articles. I now think it should be moved to Franklin D. Roosevelt and the double redirects fixed.
 * That said, I don't think the previous edit history and talk matter much since I have written a completely new article. If anyone really wants to see them they are not hard to find.
 * These are minor matters compared to the rewrite of the article itself. It should not have been necessary for me, an Australian, to write a competent article for a US-based encyclopaedia on the longest-serving US President. I was shocked to see what a disgraceful mess the old article was - a semi-literate hodgepodge of trivia, conspiracy theories, irrelevant ramblings, and absolutely no historical context or even coherent narrative. Rather than snipe at me for not naming all the judges FDR appointed to the Supreme Court, why not ask the American history writers at Wikipedia (which I gather includes yourself) why they tolerated such a feeble excuse for a major article for so long? Adam 04:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Renaming the article
There was a question of renaming the article, I don't mean to break the flow with a new section, but, just from the outside, when I the think of him, the most natural names, in keeping with naming convention are, in order: 1st, Franklin D. Roosevelt; 2nd. Franklin Delano Roosevelt; 3rd, Franklin Roosevelt. If I went looking, that's how I'd search. I might not remember, or know, Deleno, but I do remember that "D." Shorter names are more natural and "Franklin D." is just how he's spoken of commonly. (There are things about working "redirects" I don't understand.) Calicocat 05:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. It should be "Franklin D." or "Franklin Delano"..   —User:Mulad (talk) 23:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. When his first name is given, his middle initial or name almost always is as well. I think the article should be at Franklin Delano Roosevelt (or Frankln D., though I would prefer Franklin Delano). It should definitely not be at Franklin Roosevelt. —Lowellian (talk) 01:37, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well we seem to be agreed that the article should be moved, and the majority opinion seems to be Franklin D. Roosevelt. I will move it and start on the redirects, and I hope others will do some redirecting as well. Adam 01:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Later: It appears that only an Administrator can do that move. Adam 03:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cabinet members
I'm Sorry If I missed this but there is no listing of Cabinet Members as with previous presidents; was this moved to another section? Thanks in Advance! - DonkeyBeliever(sorry I fogot to logon)
 * Now added. 10:12, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * A pity it's so outstandingly ugly. Adam 10:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't shoot the messenger. Anyway, I think it looks OK. Just too big. 10:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Eleanor and the children
The Eleanor Roosevelt is not too bad but could use some editing. The articles for the five surviving Roosevelt children are very sketchy and need a lot of work, if someone feels inclined. Adam 06:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks PMA
Good to see that we now have a qualilty article on FDR at an agreeable location on Wikipedia. Let's look now to perfect this piece as much as possible and not grumble about the naming of the article anymore. 08:10, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have done about 80 redirects. Someone else can do some if they like :) Adam 11:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Help me assess Roosevelt's conduct of American Foreign Policy after 1935.
When and why did he move from isolationism to intervention in the European war? Do you think he purposely led the United States into war? Why or Why not?

(I am writing a research paper based on these questions, and need some help)

FDR was always a Wilsonian internationalist and was never an isolationist, so he personally didn't move - he worked to shift US public opinion from isolationism to interventionism. As the article says, he believed it was in the interests of the US, as well as the right thing in general, to defeat Hitler and to help Britain and France. During 1939-41 he did everything he could to prepare US opinion to enter the war in Europe. Had Pearl Harbor not happened he would probably have done what Wilson did in 1917 - used a naval incident as a pretext for declaring war on Germany. I don't believe he wanted a war in the Pacific. Adam 01:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Presidents table
Could whoever is in charge of this:

Uspresidents

Please fix it so that it directs to Franklin D. Roosevelt and not Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as the article has now been moved? Adam 03:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Admin help needed
I just happened by, and I'm not taking sides in any of the issues discussed above -- but there's evidently been some inept moving that stranded the history. If you can't use "Move this page" to move an article, put it on WP:RM, don't cut and paste it! The history of this article now tells readers that there were no edits from 25 Feb 2002 until April 2005. When those of you editing this article think you have some stability, please make sure that the stranded history at Franklin Delano Roosevelt is integrated here, along with any other stray bits of history or talk. JamesMLane 18:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute -- Japanese-American issues
While I mostly agree with its implied point of view, the neutrality of this section is compromised because of the manner in which it written and the facts that are presented.

For example, it is perfectly fair and neutral to point out, "No evidence was ever produced to support fears of Japanese-American espionage." However, the section then states, "A comment by De Witt shows the irrationality of the anti-Japanese agitation at this time..." The rationality and irrationality of anything is subjective, a violation of NPOV.

Later, it is stated, "It was striking that no similar steps were taken, or even suggested, against German-Americans and Italian-Americans. It is also striking that Japanese-Americans continued to serve in the U.S. armed forces throughout the war, although they were not employed in the Pacific theater." Again, this is the author's subjective analysis of the situation, which, while useful, does not conform to NPOV. This needs to be reworded.

The next paragraph states, "Conditions in the camps...were tolerable..." Again, this is subjective. What I consider tolerable may not be the same as what someone else considers tolerable. This section needs to be reworded. One way this can be done is to include primary sources that describe the conditions in the internment camps.

The next paragraph states that Roosevelt did not sign the order ending the internment "until after the November elections." It goes on to say, "This shows that his motivation was in part simply political expediency." Again, this is the author's analysis of the situation. It is opinion, not necessarily fact. The tone of the next sentence ("He was not prepared to defend Japanese-American civil rights if it meant a fight with influential Democrats, or the Army, or the Hearst press, nor if it meant he might lose California to the Republicans in 1944") implies some degree of contempt for Roosevelt or for his policy on internment on the part of the author. This needs to be revised to conform to NPOV.

Finally, the section ends with the statement, "It cannot be denied, however, that Roosevelt's action were at least in part motivated by racism." Technically, this can be denied, even though the author presents a quotation to support this statement. In order to tell the whole story, I feel that that quotation should be kept there. However, it must be analyzed much more objectively.

Japanese internment was a dark hour in U.S. civil rights history, but its presentation on Wikipedia should be neutral. The reader needs to make up his/her own mind about it. It is quite obvious that the author of this section has already made up his/her own mind and is presenting it as a subjective analysis of history, not an objective reporting of it. --Hnsampat 17:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not only a POV issue, it is also factually incorrect. Germans and italians were held in camps during the war. In fact Germans were held all the way up to 1946, after the Japanese had been released. I had noted that in the acticle, but some one changed it. --Morrison1917

That would have been news to General Dwight D. Eisenhauer, former President Herbert Hüber, Admiral Chester Nimitz, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau and millions of other German-Americans. I don't recall Fiorello LaGuardia being locked up either. In fact only individuals actually suspected of Nazi or Fascist sympathies were interned (and not even all of them). In contrast the Japanese-Americans were interned en masse. So far as I know there was no mass internment of any ethnic community other than the Japanese, and I will revert these edits until I am persuaded, by evidence, that there was.

On the wider point, no doubt some of these sentences could be reworded. But it is part of the job of an encyclopaedia to explain historical events rather than just set out a series of facts and leave the reader guessing. Contrary to one of Wikipedants' fondest beliefs, readers don't mind articles with a POV, provided it is a reasonable one and supported by evidence. Roosevelt's actions against the Japanese-Americans, since they had no basis in military necessity and were unsupported by evidence of espionage, need to be explained. One explanation is political expediency, another is widespread anti-Asian racism, including Roosevelt's. Furthermore, to say that De Witt's statement is irrational is entirely NPOV - it is irrational (contrary to reason), since the absence of something is presented as evidence of its existence. Adam 23:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, My main concern is that the info in the acticle is incorrect. The internment of German and Italian Americans is VERY well documented if you bother to look it up, I recently watched a documentary about it on the History Channel. But noneless, I will provide you with links so you can get the info for yourself and maybe you'll stop reverting my edits. It believe something like 11,000 German-Americans were held. While that is many many times less than the Number of Japanese held, it is still quite a few people, and while race certainly played a part in it, it is also important to note that we were not worried about an immenet German invasion, which would help explain the lower level of german internment. Also, many Germans were held well after the war, even longer than the Japanese. 11,000 is a considerable number and I believe qualifies as "mass internment." As the documentary on the History Channel mentions almost all of the Germans and Italians held WERE NOT, in any way, facsist. I would also like to say that I live in California, many of my friends Grandparents were interned and I've heard their stories, what they went through was a terrible chapter in American history. However, we cannot ignore the fact that other groups of American were treated unfairly during this period of time. I understand that you have spent quite a bit of time on this article but i simply wish to correct a factual error.

First off, look up internment on Wikipedia, it mentions the german and italian internment. (and no, i didn't not write any part of that article)

This site gives info on the internment of Germans, including personal accounts - http://www.foitimes.com/internment/

Heres a bill that Senator Feingold put infront of the senate about studying the internment of German and other Europeans - http://members.cox.net/adjacobs/S1356.htm

If you want to watch a video about it, heres a link to the History Channel Store. The video is called, "Italian-American Internment: A Secret War" - http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=42768

Authors as diverse as Howard Zinn and Michelle Milkin have written about it. If this info is not enough for you, I urge you to learn about it on your own, because IT DID HAPPEN and its a shame that this atricle has such a clear factual error. Morrison1917

I am quite happy to accept that 11,000 German-Americans were interred during the war. In a population of about 100 million at the time, and in a country where the Germans were the largest European ethnic minority apart from the Irish, it is a very small number. Clearly Germans (and the other European groups you refer to), were interned selectively, on the basis of some suspicion (whether justified or not), that they were or might be German or other enemy spies or agents. This is qualitatively, as well as quantitatively, quite different from what was done to the California Japanese, who were intered en masse solely because they were of Japanese orgin. This clearly was not done with the Germans, who numbered in the millions. Adam 03:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, clearly it was not done in the huge numbers like the Japanese internment, the fact remains, European Americans WERE interned. They were taken out of their homes, put into camps and held as prisoners without due process, if thats not internment, then i don't know what it. This does include children of German immigrants who, by law, were American citizens. Many were held up to FIVE YEARS AFTER THE WAR,(which was not done to the Japanese) and many, including citizens of the United States were deported. Heres a few quotes from Republican Senator Feingold's Senate Bill - "During World War II, the United States Government branded as `enemy aliens' more than 600,000 Italian-born and 300,000 German-born United States resident aliens and their families and required them to carry Certificates of Identification, limited their travel, and seized their personal property. At that time, these groups were the two largest foreign-born groups in the United States." "During World War II, the United States Government arrested, interned or otherwise detained thousands of European Americans, some remaining in custody for years after cessation of World War II hostilities, and repatriated, exchanged, or deported European Americans, including American-born children, to hostile, war-torn European Axis nations, many to be exchanged for Americans held in those nations." While this may not seem like as big of a deal to you as the Japanese internment, IT DID HAPPEN, and it deserves mention. At the very least it invalidates the statment - "It was striking that no similar steps were taken, or even suggested, against German-Americans and Italian-Americans." While not the same it is similar and deserves to be mentioned in the article. That statment in the article would make the reader assume that NOTHING happened to German and Italian Americans, which is completely incorrect. Morrison1917

I'm sorry you are getting so worked up about this, but my statement in the article is correct and nothing you have said proves it to be incorrect. There were millions of Americans of German descent, and by your own account only 11,000 of them were interned. That is not mass internment such as was done with all Californians of Japanese descent. It was not the same, it was not similar. It can be mentioned in the article, but the qualitative and quantitative difference in treatment of European and Japanese will also need to be mentioned. Adam 06:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not getting terribly worked up about it, I'm simply rather shocked at how much i had to write to just get the mention of the internment in the article. This article is neither yours nor mine and I would really love to hear the opinions of some other people on this matter. You said "In fact only individuals actually suspected of Nazi or Fascist sympathies were interned." that is clearly incorrect. It seems like you think that since the German and other european internment wasn't as large as the Japanese was that it doesn't count as an internment. But an internment is an internment, simple as that. As far as the "qualitative" difference, I don't see how you could tell a german-american citizen who was held as a prisoner in a internment camp until 1950 then deported to a war torn and destroyed land that their suffering was any less than anyone else held in an american camp during World War 2. The fact is thousands of European-Americans were held in camps for as long as the government wanted without any consideration for the prisoners basic civil liberties and without any reasonable suspicion. Thats an internment no matter how you look at it. While the story of Japanese Internment is much more far reaching and extensive I don't think that bringing up the reality of European internment takes away from the Japanese internment in any way. While I thank you for adding a little info on the subject i would love to see a more well rounded explaination. Morrison1917

You can go on repeating yourself all night, but you still haven't produced any evidence that there was mass internment of German-Americans, proportionate to that inflicted on Japanese-Americans. I repeat that there were millions of Americans of German descent, and if as you say 11,000 of them were interned, that is a tiny proportion. I presume this was done because the FBI or someone else decided these people were security risks. Maybe they were right, maybe they weren't. But even if all these internments were thoroughly unjustified, that is still not the same thing as the mass internment of all Japanese-Americans in California.

You write: ''You said "In fact only individuals actually suspected of Nazi or Fascist sympathies were interned." that is clearly incorrect'' - How do you know it is incorrect? Have you read all their FBI files? Adam 07:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Have a read all their FBI files ? haha, no, of course not. Theres no need to get sassy. Several bills are pending before congress that exonerates the German and Italian Americans held in the camps and offers them an offical apology. Also, this issue has been studied and studied and it has been made clear in every single investigation that very very very few of the people held had any sympathy for the Nazi cause. The fact remians that these Americans were held in camps and that is extremely relavant to the article, regardless of your POV. I do plan to mention this in the article very soon and I hope that my edits will meet with your approval, becuase its clear that your opinion is the only one that matters. Morrison1917

If you edit the article in a way which implies that internment of German-Americans or Italian-Americans was equivalent to the mass internment of Japanese-Americans, I will revert that edit, because that is a historical falsehood. Adam 09:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I made my edit. I kept that line about there being no "mass" internment and everything i stated is fact and quite relevant. I think that it deserves at least the couple of sentences i gave it. Morrison1917

Your edit does not make it clear whether these 900,000 people were (a) resident aliens, ie German or Italian nationals living in the US, (b) naturalised US citizens of German or Italian birth, or (c) native-born US citizens of German or Italian descent. If they were (a), then the restrictions you describe were perfectly reasonable and were standard procedure in all beligerent countries (indeed in most countries resident enemy aliens were interned as a matter of course). If they were (b) then these restrictions may or may not have been justified, depending on the assessment made by the FBI of the danger they posed (don't forget there was a large pro-Nazi German organization called the German-American Bund active before the war). If they were (c) then the restrictions were unjustified unless there was evidence that a specific individual was an enemy sympathiser. This is not really a relevant discussion for this article, but I think you need to clarify this. (Incidentally, you really can't use these Congressional resolutions as evidence of anything except political pandering to the ethnic vote.) Adam 10:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC) Ok, my edits are still there for a moment, maybe we're getting somewhere.

 * I don't delete edits for no reason, I delete them if I think they are innaccurate and/or irrelevant. That's why I deleted your earlier edits. As a result, we now have better edits. The more we argue, the better edits we get. Adam 12:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

First off, I don't think Ted Kennedy is "pandering" to anyone, Boston isn't exactly a hot bed of German nationalism and he certainly doesn't need the votes. The 900,000 included all three groups, resident aliens, natualized citizens, and US born citizens. Many of the US born citizens affected were children of German or Italian immigrants, though some had been here for generations. It is true that American and International law (at least at the time) allows for the detainment of citizens of nations the country is at war with, the constitutionality of those laws can be debated, but they were on the books at the time. So, legally, America could detain immigrants from Germany or Japan or Italy etc. The problem is that many of these people were citizens of the United States, not resident aliens, hence the civil rights violation. As far as the German American Bund goes, they were never a "large organization." The Wiki article on them says at their peak they had at most 25,000 members and I've heard numbers lower than that. What influence they had they lost by the time the war started and were really at their peak in the mid 30's. Compare that to the number of German-Americans in the Communist Party or other leftist organizations and you will see how small the German American Bund was. Even amoung "radical" groups it had little influence over the German-American community. So that couldn't explain the dentention and the civil rights violations of hundreds of thousands. Very few of those detained had any contact with anything close to the Bund. I urge you to study the info for yourself, you'll see that almost all Europeans affected were completely innocent, just like the Japanese. (Don't get in a huff, I'm not comparing their situations, just saying that BOTH groups of people were unjustly detained.) I wonder why you are so hostile to mentioning this in the article ? It's 3 sentences while the Japanese internment has 3 paragraphs. It certainly is relavent to the article. FDR's horrible civil rights record is probibly his worse failure and this is another example of that. If you feel the need to re-write it some, go right ahead, but I do think (and I think most people would agree) that it is quite relavant. Morrison1917

The section under "Posterity" that claims that Reagan disassembled FDR's coalition is historically incorrect. The coalition fell apart much earlier, when LBJ antagonized white voters, primarily in the South but also elsewhere, through his Civil Rights programs. I suggest that we remove Reagan from this section and substitute something like this: "a coalition of voters supporting the Democratic Party which would survive intact until the 1960s and in part until the 1970s, when it was finally shattered by Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy, which was a successful nationwide attempt to recruit into the Republican Party suburban whites, many of whom were frightened by the civil rights policies of Lyndon Johnson."

--Stanley W.

I have no problems with that, although it could be noted that the Democrats retained control of the Congress though the Nixon and Reagan eras, losing only in 1994. The Roosevelt coalition rotted from the top down - first the White House, then the Senate, then the House, now the state legislatures. Also I'm not sure the word "suburban" is either strictly accurate or relevant. It was white rural southerners who defected first. Adam 11:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The sentence that states that isolationism disappeared completely after Pearl Harbor is also historically incorrect. I would like permission to add brief information (with wiki links) to the pro-German activities of right-wing Republicans such as Cissy Patterson and Colonel Robert R. McCormick throughout World War II

--Stanley W.

As a broad generalisation I think I am correct - these are very minor figures and minor exceptions to the general statement. I don't think in a biopgraphical article about FDR the exceptions are important enough to note. Perhaps you could insert the word "almost". Adam 11:14, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Not just California
The current article emphasizes Japanese internment from California, but it really happened all over the west coast, including Canada. Of course, that's probably the sort of "trivia" you won't allow me to add (in blatant disregard for the text at the bottom of all edit windows "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it."). Niteowlneils 15:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

What happened in Canada is not the concern of this article. The west coast of the US consists of California, Oregon and Washington. If there were many Japanese in Oregon and Washington in 1941 I'd be surprised. Spare me your silly sarcasm - if you want to edit the article you are free to do so. Adam 09:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

"spinning out"
"...while spinning out the negotiations..." that's certainly not US English--what does it mean in {whatever} English? Niteowlneils 15:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Communist Party
The Communist lead CIO unions had tremendous growth during FDR's time in office. The Communist Pary's influence wained later on because of post war anti-communism and internal party fighting. Morrison1917

NPOV
As written this article is riddled with dubious statements, anti-Roosevelt slant, and libertarian POV. Examples:

The first two paragraphs in the "Private crises" section: most of this rates a "so what?", looks to have been inserted into the article to make FDR look bad, and should probably be pared down to just a few sentences.

Numerous instances of dubious libertarian POV in the "First term: the New Deal" section:

"...the Democrats (which, unlike today, had traditionally been a party of small government and laissez faire economics)..."

"...and to a leader who had grown up to privilege and had no coherent plan for solving America's problems other than a genial optimism."

"Roosevelt indeed had no systematic economic beliefs at all."

"Contrary to popular belief, however, the Depression was not cured by Roosevelt's programs, collectively known as the New Deal. The economic theories of John Maynard Keynes were not widely known in the United States, and it is doubtful that Roosevelt ever knew of them. Even the large appropriations that Roosevelt extracted from Congress and spent on relief and assistance to industry were not enough to provide a sufficient fiscal stimulus to revive so large an economy as that of the United States."

"This was mainly because the high tariff barriers erected in response to the Depression were not removed, and without a revival of international trade there could be no full recovery."

"It took the massive growth in government spending during World War II to restore industrial production to its 1929 level and eliminate unemployment."

More dubious and probably unsubstantiated POV in the "Civil rights and refugees" section:

"Roosevelt's anti-Semitism became an important factor in deciding government policy on the Jewish refugee issue before and during World War II."

"Roosevelt's attitudes to both African-Americans and Jews remain a striking contrast with his social liberalism and generosity of spirit on most other issues."

Kaibabsquirrel 22:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The first two statements have been inserted into the text I wrote, and I have now deleted them. All the other statements you quote are firmly grounded in the sources and have nothing to do with "libertarian bias" (I am a social democrat, not a libtertarian). Adam 00:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay...but, for example, this statement: "Contrary to popular belief, however, the Depression was not cured by Roosevelt's programs" is a POV. It *is* widely believed that his programs cured the Depression.  It would be better to say that "The popular belief is that Roosevelt's programs cured the Great Depression.  Historians and economists debate over the extent to which this is true."  The statement that international trade was necessary for a full recovery and tariffs harmed the recovery is free-trade POV.  How about starting that sentence with "Some argue that this was mainly because..."  "Roosevelt's anti-Semitism"?  How about "Roosevelt's alleged anti-Semitism"? Kaibabsquirrel 00:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't object to the first two changes. Roosevelt's anti-Semitism is a documented fact, not an allegation. Adam 01:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks Adam, I'll go ahead and make those two changes and remove the NPOV tag for now. As for the anti-Semitism charge I'm going to have to do some research pro and con to see what specific sources say.  Kaibabsquirrel 05:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The article is careful to explain what is meant by the term "anti-Semitism" in relation to people of FDR's class and generation. It does not mean that they hated Jews or wished to carry out anti-Semitic acts. It means they held certain stereotyped views about Jews (among them the belief that they complained all the time about anti-Semitism), which influenced certain of his decisions, notably on the refugee issue. Adam 05:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Meade Instruments

Yoohoo
Alternate info for dead Yahoo news link #17:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/10/idUS252360+10-Jan-2008+PNW20080110

http://www.star-instruments.com/lawsuit.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.138.98 (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Meade Instruments. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080309072502/http://biz.yahoo.com:80/pz/080110/134161.html to http://biz.yahoo.com/pz/080110/134161.html

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 23:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Meade Instruments. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101103051059/http://tomsastroblog.com:80/?p=924 to http://tomsastroblog.com/?p=924
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080511103509/http://biz.yahoo.com:80/e/080114/mead8-k.html to http://biz.yahoo.com/e/080114/mead8-k.html

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 17:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Meade Instruments. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20121009144312/http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-183680601.html to http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-183680601.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110522062848/http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080611/20080611006265.html?.v=1 to http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080611/20080611006265.html?.v=1
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110522060542/http://biz.yahoo.com/e/080422/mead8-k.html to http://biz.yahoo.com/e/080422/mead8-k.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101026081442/http://biz.yahoo.com:80/e/080408/mead8-k.html to http://biz.yahoo.com/e/080408/mead8-k.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110522062837/http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080613/meade_instruments_sale.html?.v=1 to http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080613/meade_instruments_sale.html?.v=1

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 19:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Meade Instruments. 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 tag to http://biz.yahoo.com/pz/090129/158467.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071206102744/http://www.meadescopes.net:80/ to http://www.meadescopes.net/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429061422/http://www.durangoskies.com:80/lx400acf-wuhtc-mount-wtripod-p-2084.html to http://www.durangoskies.com/lx400acf-wuhtc-mount-wtripod-p-2084.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710170802/https://www.sqlkomutlari.com/ to https://www.sqlkomutlari.com/
 * Added tag to https://www.sqlkomutlari.com/
 * Added tag to http://biz.yahoo.com/pz/090205/159126.html
 * Added tag to http://biz.yahoo.com/e/090305/mead8-k.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071206135403/http://www.meadescopes.info:80/index.html to http://www.meadescopes.info/index.html
 * Added tag to http://www.meade.com/lx200-acf/coma.html,

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Meade Instruments. 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/20111205185044/http://www.meade.com/factorytour/index.html to http://www.meade.com/factorytour/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111012173948/http://www.meade.com/product_pages/lx90_series/lx90.php to http://www.meade.com/product_pages/lx90_series/lx90.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111012180014/http://www.meade.com/product_pages/lx200_series/lx200.php to http://www.meade.com/product_pages/lx200_series/lx200.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723080442/http://www.darkskycast.net/davidlunt.html to http://www.darkskycast.net/davidlunt.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080703052258/http://www.primenewswire.com/ca/news.html?d=144671 to http://www.primenewswire.com/ca/news.html?d=144671
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://msnmoney.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1%3FID=6095989&SessionID=0mJtWZMr9vva8L9
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.meadescopes.info/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meade Instruments. 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://archive.is/20120906101252/http://www.meade.com/lx800/ to http://www.meade.com/lx800/

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) 08:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Name
Whence the company name "Meade"? Thanks, Maikel (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Changes
Hello. My name is Frank Johnson. I am the Director of eMarketing at Orion Telescopes & Binoculars, new owners of Meade Instruments. I would like to suggest some factual changes to the Meade Instruments page in light of the June 1 acquisition, but I obviously have a conflict of interest.

Here are our proposed changes:

1. In the summary box (with the Meade logo), please consider making the following changes:

a. Change Headquarters to "Watsonville, California, United States" b. Change Key people to "Peter Moreo, President" (both Victor Aniceto and John Elwood) are no longer with the company c. Change Owner to "Optronic Holding Corp"

2. Change "Meade Instruments Corporation" and "Meade Instruments Corp." to simply "Meade Instruments" wherever it makes sense in light of the acquisition. For example, we think the first paragraph should now reference "Meade Instruments" (the existing company - Meade Instruments Corporation no longer exists), but in the last paragraph under Origins And History, it makes sense to leave "Meade Instruments Corp." because that's the company that filed bankruptcy.

3. Change references to Irvine, California to Watsonville, California (in the first paragraph for example).

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, and thanks for your consideration. Also let me know if I can provide anything that would help you to consider this request.

FrankNJohnson (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Meade Instruments


text: User talk:69.231.241.188

title: User talk:69.231.241.188


text:
Urtzi

Urtzi (also ortzi) is an ancient Basque language term which is believed to either represent an old common noun for the sky, or to have been a name for a pre-Christian sky deity.

Controversy
The existence of a Basque mythological figure, Urtzi, has been questioned in numerous discussions. The argument for Urtzi having been a "Basque sky god" is based on two main arguments:

The first argument is that Basque has numerous calendric and meteorological terms which contain forms of the root ortzi (with the variants urtz, ortz, orz and ost), for example:
 * ortzadar 'rainbow' (ortzi + adar 'horn')
 * ortzi 'sky, thunder'
 * orzgorri (> oskorri) 'red sky' (ortzi + gorri 'red')
 * ostargi 'daylight' (ortzi + argi 'light')
 * ostegun 'Thursday' (ortzi + egun 'day')
 * oskarbi 'clear sky' (ortzi + garbi 'clean')

This has led to a popular modern interpretation of Urtzi as a sky god. The modern Basque word for sky, zeru, is a cognate of (probably a loanword from) the Latin 'caelum. The word urtzi or ortzi is not productive in the modern Basque language.

The second argument is based on the 12th-century account, the Codex Calixtinus, of Aymeric Picaud, a French pilgrim, who recorded a number of Basque words and expressions. He wrote about Urtzi: et Deus uocant Urcia ("and they name God as Urcia".) Since the remaining material Picaud recorded appears to be very accurate, this bears some weight.

However, there are no legends at all related to such a god and Picaud remains the only explicit reference to date. This had led to the alternative theory that this may have been a generic term for 'sky' and that Picaud may have simply "pointed at the sky" looking for the word for God and been supplied the word for 'sky.' This explanation is to some degree supported by the unexpected absolutive case ending -a in Urcia, which neither in Proto-Basque or modern Basque appears on proper nouns. To date neither theory has been able to convince fully.

As a personal name
With the modern resurgent interest in Basque names, Urtzi has been used as a male given name:
 * Urtzi Urrutikoetxea, Basque writer
 * Urtzi Iriondo, footballer

title: Urtzi


text: User talk:130.182.25.136

title: User talk:130.182.25.136


text:
User talk:TasteofmyScythe

Don't spam Wikipedia with advertisements for fan websites. Thanks. Postdlf 23:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia (i.e., "A guy named Chris whom lives in Indiana"). It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Postdlf 23:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: "Purity knight" (entire content: "A fictional murder victim") Please stop. If you continue to post such insubstantial nonsense, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Postdlf 00:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:TasteofmyScythe