text:
User:Eelvex

Personal Site

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

title: User:Eelvex


text:
Talk:Floater (disambiguation)

Ah, it says turd on an encyclopedia. How delightfully absurd.--71.112.4.235 03:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Floater in pumps and such
Isn't there a floater like in fuel tanks and pumps? (it regulates a lever of a fluid) ? 159.134.94.21 09:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Those are more commonly called "Floats". eg: The float in a carburettor ensures a constant supply of fuel, or The level of fluid is sensed by a series of floats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.248.238 (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Floater (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Constitution of the United States/Bill of Rights Joke?

Bill of Rights Joke?
Someone placed this in the section about the bill of rights. I italicized the text in question. I won't delete it, though. Someone should notice this. If not, then it proves that theory about the quantity over quality arguement against Wikipedia. I hope someone removes it.

Originally, the Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the states; for instance, some states in the early years of the nation officially established a religion. This interpretation of these Amendments remained until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, which stated, in part, that:

I'm so caught up got me feelin it caught i dont know what it is, but this girl she got me twisted im so caught up got me feelin it caught up im losin control this girls got a hold on me

EDIT: This must have been a problem with my browser. Why did I see this. Then, after viewing the page again, it was replaced with:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 * What happened was that somebody vandalized the page, and by the time you refreshed, someone else had caught it and gone back to the correct version. This is one of the beauties of a wiki--although content can be vandalized, it can also be fixed quickly and easily. Meelar (talk) 02:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * What the heck... I'm scared now... watch out, ladies! --Luigifan 20:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this has been noticed. --Luigifan 20:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Constitution of the United States/Failed amendments

Section on impeachment
I edited the section on impeachment and added a comment to it a disputed section. A senator may have been expelled but not impeached. That raises a question as to the accuracy of the claim that there were 16 impeachments (now 15). Guanaco

Re: RickK According to Article 1, Section 5, it requires a two-thirds vote to "expel" a member of either house of Congress. That vote is taken within that house. Since expulsion and impeachment are two different things, I removed the reference to the impeachment of a senator. See. The number of impeached officials as shown in the edited paragraph is what is disputed. Since part of it has already been proven to be incorrect, it is risky to assume that the rest will be. Guanaco 05:11, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Since you have no specific objection to any specific section of that section, I am removing the header. RickK | Talk 05:30, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Senator William Blount was impeached in 1798. The Senate did not convict him because they had already expelled him, but he was impeached by the House.  See also .--Jwolfe 11:53, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Zato-1

This was made specifically so that we wouldn't have a Catch-22 linkage between Eddie (Guilty Gear) and Zato-1. I felt vaguely stupid when I saw that, to be honest. Yar Kramer 03:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have a picture of Eddie/Zato-1 from GGXX, but I don't have one handy, so I'm using a GGX picture for now. (To be honest, it looks better than his GGXX profile picture.) RTL 28 June 2005 04:47 (UTC)
 * Okay, I found a picture of Eddie and Zato-1 from XX. Is there a preference here for having the XX picture over the X picture? If there is, I'll put it up, but if not, I'll leave it as is. RTL 1 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)
 * No pref here. --Yar Kramer 1 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)

Gameplay
I think the Gameplay section needs revision. First, it contains some fighting game jargon that a non-fighting-game-player wouldn't understand; and second, it's a bit too detailed, and seems closer to being an FAQ for players of the game than an encyclopedia for literally everyone. --Yar Kramer 17:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Music references
Uh, at one point it's claimed he's named after Iron Maiden's mascot, at another that he was named after Eddie Van Halen...

 * It's probably meant to imply multiple possibilities, but yeah, it's probably a good idea to be clearer on that ... --Yar Kramer 23:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Anime Mecha Reference
Eddie has a move called Drill Special, in it he says "Maha Dorii [Mach Drill], this is a nod to an old mecha series in Japan by the name of Kotetsu [Iron] Jeeg, where the main protagonist uses a pair of Drills and flies into the opponent saying "Mach Drill". Mimeblade 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Zato-1


text:
Talk:Constitution of the United States/Original texts on Wikipedia

Original texts on Wikipedia
I note that Constitution of Canada has gone on the chopping block due to it being just a source text ported over to Wikipedia. I agree with this verdict, I've campaigned vociferously against source texts myself in other places. However, as a good red-blooded Canadian, I feel it is my duty to put United States Constitution up for the same treatment. Fair's fair, after all. :) Since this page gets linked to more frequently, though, I don't want to just go in and clear out great swaths without warning or consultation. Anyone have any comments or suggestions before I convert the US constitution to external links? Bryan Derksen, Friday, June 14, 2002
 * Go for it. Vicki Rosenzweig, Saturday, June 22, 2002

 * I strongly disagree. If it's put into the Wiki in such a way that context can be added, then it's a good thing to have the source text as well (note, for example, the Twelfth Amendment article).  I also think the Canadian Constitution should be in Wikipedia as well.  Any decent encyclopedia includes the full text of at least the U.S Constitution.  RobLa, Saturday, June 22, 2002
 * The problem--other than the imbalance of chopping the Canadian constitution but keeping the US--is that *everything* here can be edited. That makes the Wikipedia a poor location for any source text--someone looking up the text of the US constitution needs to know that they're going to see the precise document, not something someone fiddled with because the commas in the Second Amendment don't work by 21st century standards, or something with a line missing because someone got careless. Or, worse, someone decided they disagreed with the people who wrote the thing, and took it on themselves to leave here what they think our constitution should be. Vicki Rosenzweig, Saturday, June 22, 2002
 * I also concur -- source texts like these are useless unless the reader can be reasonably sure that what is on the screen is actually what the original authors wrote. Small selections that are commented on are fine entire documents are most certainly not appropriate -- this is especially important with legal documents. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that tollerates some almanac-type list information, it is not a library. Rob, please see What Wikipedia is not number 12 and also some comments at talk:Macbeth. --maveric149

Cunctator has developed some ideas on separate project to handle the wikification of source texts, and I added a few thoughts. If anyone's interested, check out Project Sourceberg (his name, not mine ;-) over at the meta. --Stephen Gilbert
 * No need for to go through the trouble of having a separate project. What is needed is separate namespace that has special default properties -- such as only being able to be edited by "trusted hand" or greater users and be able to be called upon by other articles with the following or similar syntax: source:Origin of Species/Chapter 1{1-15}] (where "1-15" are line numbers) and also serve as stand-alone wikified texts. Of course, there would have to be strongly enforced policies to only correct OCR errors and to wikify the text. See my idea at [[wikipedia:feature requests. --maveric149

Personaly, I (and others, based on comments on the Sourceberg page) don't think that primary sources are well suited for permanent wiki life. Once they are corrected and linked to articles, there's not need to keep them in an editable state. Also, I think it's important to for the Wikipedia project to remain focused on producing encyclopedia articles. Inputing, correcting, and linking source texts, while very interesting and useful, doesn't fall under that mandate. I think, if enough people are interested, that the wikification of sources is best left to a closely related but separate sister project. --Stephen Gilbert

I've redirected all the original-text pages here, except for United States Constitution/Article One, which is protected. Can any sysop help me with redirect that to this page? jheijmans, Friday, July 19, 2002

Cunctator, please look at What Wikipedia is not # 12:
 * "Mere collections of public domain or other source material; such as entire books, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations (...)"

Please restore the previous status. Jeronimo 11:19 Aug 10, 2002 (PDT)

 * jheijmans, the amendments are of enough historical signicance to have their own pages. Whether or not the source text is quoted on them is less of a concern (they are short enough that it doesn't do harm), but they all have histories associated with them.  As you can see from this long talk thread, I was pretty upset to see the amendments get redirected, and was quite relieved to see Cunctator's action. -- RobLa

 * Maybe the US constitution is interesting enough for an encyclopedia article, but who guarantees the page is not edited here at Wikipedia? Just because the constitution is not copyrighted, there's no need to paste it in. Instead, it would be far more interesting to read about the meaning of the constitution to the country, the people, the world; its history and evolution.

I will restore the redirect version when I have the time for it. Jeronimo 11:19 Aug 10, 2002 (PDT)

 * You aren't getting it, are you? There is no justification for having an article about the 12th amendment redirect back to a general page about the constitution.  None.  This isn't about having source text or not, it's about whether or not the amendments deserve separate articles. -- RobLa

 * How about if I remove the text from each amendment page, leaving a link to http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/constitution/constitution_transcription.html and a stub describing the basic gist of the amendment's content? I don't know a lot about the history of the various amendments, and their detailed implementation throughout history, so that would be left to future editors to flesh out. Bryan Derksen 16:36 Aug 10, 2002 (PDT)

 * That sounds good to me Bryan. The amendments shouldn't be in an editable state and we accomplish nothing by being yet another mirror for them. We are making an encyclopedia here. --mav

 * That's better. As I said before, my biggest beef was with nuking the separate articles.  That said, I think it's humorous that people think hyperlinks to external sites are more reliable than source text.  Other websites change their URL structure all of the time.  Heck, the recent change from nara.gov to archives.gov broke all of the constitution links. I think it's blind orthodoxy to have a black and white policy prohibiting source text.  -- RobLa

 * Hey, I want the text there. It's not like it's a burden, and it's very useful. And I dare you to find a paper encyclopedia that doesn't include any excerpts from major documents. --The Cunctator

Excerpts are fine. At issue here is if the entire text should be in here --- which is a public editable website. The text is worthless without some reasonable assurance that it is exactly the same as the original. Therefore the stubs and external links. --mav

 * This sort of thing has been discussed lots of times in the past, see WikiBiblion and associated talk for example. Obviously, I agree with Maveric here. Bryan Derksen
 * Obviously I agree with RobLa here. There's plenty of a reasonable assurance that the text is exactly the same as the original. Find the differences. It's not like someone can sneak in changes. --The Cunctator
 * Looks like the Cunctator is willing to fight this edit war longer than I intend to stay up tonight. But unless someone comes up with some good reason for this particular source text to be left in Wikipedia while all the others are being removed, I'll resume work on it again later. Bryan Derksen
 * Same here. Let him have it for another day. Perhaps the extra time will give him some time to cool off. I have more interesting things to do right now than fight an edit war. --mav
 * So do I.==The Cunctator

I dont know why you just don't leave it the way it is. its fine why change soemthing that is fine. its a waste of time. just leave it the way it is. In my persanol opinion wikipedia should be more tnhan an encyclpedia it should contain more facts and bits and bobs than any other encyclopedia, factfinder ever contained. I also thing there should be a dictionary section. Maybe links like this for defenitions: WikiDictionary\abnormal.

But no one ever likes my opinons or idea so its prob a wate of my time wrting this. - fonzy. --

Cunctator and RobLa: an encyclopedia is to look up information ABOUT various subjects. If I look up the Bible, I don't expect to find a verbatim copy of the text there. I want to know what signficance the book has, who wrote it, why it is so important. Such a discussion may use some quotes from the book itself, though they would need to be explained. If I would simply get the full text instead, I'd probably go away to some other encyclopedia instead. The same for the (US) constitution. If I wanted to read the full text, I'd probably search for it specifically and not bother to look it up in an encyclopedia anyway. In stead, I expect to find something about the history, the significance etc. of the US constitution. And yes, even the individual articles or amendments may be of interest (f.e. the gun-bearing amendment). And in some cases, if the text is short, that could even include a full copy of the text while remaining interesting, such as the Article 9 of the Constitution of Japan article. So, if you have something to write about the constitution, please do, but do a little more than just the plain text. Jeronimo 12:29 Aug 11, 2002 (PDT)


text:
Talk:Constitution of the United States/Problem with editing 12th Amend. §

Problem with editing 12th Amend. §
In the process of making this (IMHO, ill-advised) change, some original explanatory text from the 12th amendement article was removed. Additionally, links are being redirected to this general, and less useful page. For example, if someone is specifically interested in the 12th amendment, they are now redirected to the U.S. Constitution page, whereas before, they actually got the 12th amendment and historical context. sigh.

Here's the text, in hopes that someone figures out how to integrate it.

 * This amendment was motivated by the Presidential election of 1800. Prior to ratification of the Twelfth Amendment, votes for President and Vice President were not listed on separate ballots.  Thomas Jefferson and his running mate Aaron Burr tied in the number of electoral votes received, neither receiving a majority of votes.  The House of Representatives voted over thirty times to a tie vote before a deal was struck and Jefferson was elected.

 * The amendment itself was a subject of a constitutional dilemma. On June 15, 1804, the amendment received the constitutionally-required ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures when New Hampshire ratified the amendment.  However, on June 20, the Governor of the state vetoed the amendment.  Since the Constitution doesn't mention anything about governors, it's questionable whether their veto matters.  The issues was resolved when Tennessee ratified the amendment on July 27, 1804.

-- RobLa July 20, 2002


text:
Talk:Constitution of the United States/Articles on individual amendments

Naming
Some of the current amendment articles are now actually quite good, such asUnited States Constitution/Amendment Twelve. However, I think we should get rid of the subpages. However, there are some options for the new name, and I don't know which one is the best:
 * 1) Amendment Twelve of the United States Constitution
 * 2) Amendment 12 of the United States Constitution
 * 3) Twelfth Amendment of the United States Constitution
 * 4) 12th Amendment of the United States Constitution

Any suggestions? Jeronimo
 * The more famous ammendments should simply be at First Amendment, Twelfth Amendment and the like, unless there is any need to disambiguate, in which case I'd go with the third format above: Twelfth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (I came here just to say that the subpages should be renamed, so I'm glad someone's already raised it :) -- Sam
 * Of doesn't sound right to me. I vote for Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Tokerboy

IMO option 3 is best for all. "First Amendment" and other famous ones, could redirect to the longer titles. But each one should be named using the same convention in order to reduce confusion lest somebody erroneously links to a not-so-famous Amendment via the shortened syntax. --mav

 * I agree "to" is even better. --mav


text:
Pauoa

Pauoa may refer to:
 * Pauoa, Hawaii
 * Ctenitis squamigera, fern commonly known as Pauoa

title: Pauoa


text:
Talk:Constitution of the United States/Miscellaneous

Move historical info?
Should much of this historical information be moved to Constitutional Convention (United States)? -- Zoe

Constitution under copyright?
An odd question... is the text of the U.S. Constitution copyrighted? --Dante Alighieri 01:09 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * No. The original text is out of copyright and any modifications since have been work by the US federal goverment and thus are in the public domain. --mav

Splitting article
Now that Wikipedia supports tables of contents for the headers within articles, I'm somewhat dubious about the merits of splitting the article arbitrarily in two like this. Is there any reason why stuff is over in United States Constitution:Part 2 aside from simply making the individual pages shorter? If not, I'm going to splice them back together. If this page is to be broken up it should be broken up in a more meaningful manner. Bryan 05:57, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * I completely agree. Making "part x" daughter articles is a brain dead way of making things appear to be a manageable size (sic like an encyclopedia article should be). It is much better to have a really big page and to work on creating real sub-topic articles by spinning off content, in stead of that. --mav 07:02, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Amendment articles?
It almost seems reasonable to made all of the Article X of the U.S. Constitution articles redirects to U.S. Constitution. The amendments are significant enough to be directly linkable, but I would say that it's pointless to discuss them outside the context of the document as a whole. -Smack 18:24, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Move?
Move to Constitution of the United States like all the other List of national constitutions? The article title already has it in this format. --Jiang 12:37, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd vote for Constitution of the United States of America, which happens to be the common name of the document. --Blair P. Houghton 00:19, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree with either, as well as the contention that "Constitution of the United States of America" is a common name. US/United States Constitution gets over 4,000,000 hits, while "Constitution of the United States" gets under 700,000 hits and "Constitution of the United States of America" gets 124,000. Naming conventions (common names) clearly states that the most common name should be used. Niteowlneils 23:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * that's sleight of hand there. the real comparison is between "Constitution of the United States" and "United States Constitution" (the current title), not a mythical google search of US/United States Constitution and its "over 4,000,000 hits" (two separate searches, with the results added together). today the score is 765,000 hits to 959,000, respectively — a winner for the current title, but not the blowout painted above. "Constitution of the United States" does have hidden potential for future gains in that it hits on "Constitution of the United States of America". SaltyPig 00:34, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

"since 1791"
If the statement were "since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791," then the number would be 17. Since the statement is "since 1791", it's 18. The meme being expressed is how many times the Constitution was amended, and when emendation began. So, in lieu of recasting the meme, the number is 18.
 * Blair P. Houghton 17:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten that badly written paragraph. Mateo SA | talk 17:50, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not bad, but I'll have my go at tightening it up...
 * There. How's that? I took out some redundancies, smoothed the flow, and left the 1791 meme (Mateo SA had taken it out, rightly) until the discussion in the section below.  Maybe I even NPOV'ed it better. Blair P. Houghton 19:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Blair P. Houghton 03:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * by the states is explained elsewhere and just fluffs the sentence here.
 * relatively small is no different from small except in that it brings up the question "relative to what?" Just saying small is more concise and implies a relativity anyway.
 * why take out the alternative theory for the small number of amendments?


text:
Simbhoonath Capildeo

Simbhoonath Capildeo (1914-1990) was a prominent lawyer and politician in Trinidad and Tobago. He was the elder brother of Rudranath Capildeo and uncle of Nobel laureate Sir Vidia "V. S." Naipaul and Shiva Naipaul. He was father to two sons, Surendranath and Devendranath Capildeo and a daughter, Sita Capildeo. Capildeo was one of the founding members of the Democratic Labour Party and a member of parliament from 1956 to 1966, becoming known as "the Lion of the Legislative Council". He served as the acting Leader of the Opposition for Bhadase Sagan Maraj and Rudranath Capildeo. Capildeo was also an important leader of the Hindu community in Trinidad and played in role in the foundation of the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha. In 1989 he was awarded the Chaconia Gold Medal by the Trinidad and Tobago government, honoring his service to the country.

His father, Pundit Capildeo Dubey, an immigrant from the village of Mahadeva Dubey, Somra, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, India, built Anand Bhavan (the "Lion House") on the Main Road in Chaguanas. The Lion House is arguably the most famous architectural icon representing the Indian heritage of Trinidad and Tobago. Pundit died on a trip to India in 1926, leaving Simbhoonath in the role of family patriarch at the age of 12. His mother, Soogee Capildeo, guided him, but Simbhoonath was an autodidact. His nephew, V.S. Naipaul, wrote about Simbhoonath's love for books in The Mystic Masseur. In his 9-line biographical sketch in the Indian Centenary Review (1845–1945) his hobby is listed as "Reading".

Capildeo studied Hindustani and Sanskrit and became a local expert on Hinduism, and he also explored the philosophers of Western Civilization. He rapidly assumed intellectual leadership of the local Hindu society and in 1928 began creating the modern formal structure of Hindu society in Trinidad and Tobago. He was also the Secretary General of the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha, preceding Satnarayan Maharaj.

Simbhoonath was married to Indradai Capildeo (née Ramoutar) and was the father of one daughter, Sita, born in 1936, and two sons: Devendranath, born in 1938, and Surendranath, born in 1940. Surendranath, also a lawyer, was the only child who followed his father into local politics: he served as a senator of the United National Congress (UNC) party in the early 1990s.

title: Simbhoonath Capildeo


text:
Talk:Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan

Names
Err...uh...shouldn't we indicate which of these are within Nagorno-Karabakh? john k 04:03, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I thought about that, but I didn't want to clutter up the map with extra borders for it. I may in the next version. As for listing them, at the time it seemed like an imprecise science. I assure you, it wasn't a POV deal, I have no dog in that fight. =p Really, if I add borders into the map, then it should be somewhat easy to figure out - but I'll want another source just in case my lines are a little wrong... Do you know of one? --Golbez 04:28, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps, unlike Golbez, I may have "a dog in that fight" (not least because I have suffered a lot at hands of vandal Rovoam, but nevertheless, I think, this question brought by John needs a bit elaboration, since it may lead to false and misleading conclusions.
 * First, you should bear in mind that Nagorno-Karabakh was a separate administrative unit - an autonomous region - in Azerbaijan untill 1991. In 1991 after unilateral self-proclamation of independence by the Karabakh Armenians, the Azerbaijan government formally rescinded the autonomous status of the region and changed the administrative division of the region. Therefore, legally speaking, there is no separate administrative unit named Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan any more.
 * Second, I want to commend Golbez for this this map. It correctly reflects the official administrative division of Azerbaijan. I do not think any changes should be made to this particular map, namely because it is a map of *administrative division* per ce and not of occupied territories in which we would show Nagorno-Karabakh and the current frontline between Armenian and Azeri armed forces. Anyone interested in these conflictual issues could visit Nagorno-Karabakh and get information from there, as well as can see the map of Armenian occupied areas of Azerbaijan.
 * Third, if John would still insist to show the borders of former Nagorno-Karabakh (Autonomous Region), I believe, we can ask Golbez to somehow change slightly the colors of those administrative divisions which are currently under occupation OR change the colors of the area which was formerly known as Nagorno-Karabakh (Autonomous Region).
 * As a side remark, I am still struggling against this vandal Rovoam, who turned out to be the most obsessive and persistent vandal that has appeared in Wikipedia so far (w/o exagerration). So, unfortunately, I cannot contribute to Wikipedia as much as I would like to, but I will gladly get back to you if you have further comments and questions.--Tabib 06:13, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'm using this map for the official Romanizations. Almost all agree with the actual Azerbaijani romanization that I cooked up on my own. --Golbez 06:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Isn't the standard on Wikipedia to use the official spellings for a country's subdivisions rather than a romanization? (e.g. Lithuania, Poland, and Turkey) —Typhlosion 01:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Since there's an official romanization (though 'transliteration' is probably better, since Azeri is a Latin-based script), I figured it's better to go with that, for easy typing. --Golbez 23:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

 * There is not any official transliteration and/or romanization of the Azerbaijani city and district names. azembassy.com does not work anymore, and I personally doubt on this page's status of being official. Furthermore, I see some inconsistency in the transliterations, as some are in original Azerbaijani spelling, whereas some are transliterated. Just want to revive the old debate on the spelling of the names. I think, it is more appropriate to name them as they are officially spelled in the native language. Since Azerbaijani is written in roman scripts, I see no point in doing otherwise. It is also possible to include pronunciation into the article, so that everyone can pronounce it correctly. If you do not mind, I am ready to take this responsibility to revert all city and district pages. What do you think? KHE'O (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Go for it, though I might ask for guidance from the Azeri wikiproject. Either way, standards have probably changed in a decade. Either way, I wouldn't touch the cities (especially Baku), since there's established transliteration for those that's in use in other articles, and having a district use the local name is different from having a city do so. --Golbez (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree with you in the naming of Baku particularly, since it is an internationally well-known city. I would like to make a change for the rest of the cities though. The base for my view is the approach applied in Istanbul vs İzmir, Eskişehir, Diyarbakır etc. I glanced at the city names in different European countries and the outcome is identical. KHE'O (talk) 07:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My concern was: Ok, we could move Mingachevir to Mingəçevir. Do we also move Mingachevir Polytechnic Institute? Mingachevir reservoir? Mingachevir dam? Mingachevir Hydro Power Plant? Mingachevir Medical School? But now that I write it out ... that argument could be made for anything and it wouldn't really work, because things like that can be translated/transliterated differently, etc. So yeah. Go for it, unless it's an internationally relevant city (in other words, I wouldn't touch Shusha because it's a can of worms, and Nakhchivan has related naming as being the capital of a major region). --Golbez (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you point, to be honest, I didn't think about it. But now i think, there is no need to change everything which has city's name in it. In terms of naming with high political sensitivity, you're right, I will be mindful.KHE'O (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If anybody wants to move anything, especially big cities, please open a move request for each of them at a corresponding talk page separately.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

X District
since WP uses english and the official translation is district, and since furthermore a lot of the articles have stuff named the same, I propose to move all rayon articles to the format "X District". Too much will need dab soon anyway. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely oppose. Disambiguation can wait until it's necessary. I'd want import from some of our Azeri contributors first, certainly. --Golbez 22:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please wait on these moves until someone other than you discusses it, please. Also, please don't disambig solely for external links, either make a redlink or don't disambig. But please, wait. --Golbez 22:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"can wait until it's necessary." what's that? It's necessary now. You are free to create internal links. My point is to add content, everybody can improve. You are free to call me to stop to contribute and to add new data. But I oppose your stop-calling. For the moves, ok, I will wait. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with having, say, "Barda" point to the city or the district, and then having a dab page as well? You seem to concentrate only on having a dab page on the main name, which can be annoying. I note you didn't change any of the link-breaking that moving Barda caused - now there are a lot of links that point to Barda instead of properly pointing to Barda (rayon). Were you planning on fixing that? --Golbez 00:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, by the wiki principle, everybody can edit the outdated links. Even you may do so. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. It's considered good form if you clean up your own mess. --Golbez 01:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this is personal attack? Relax. It's not my WP, it's not my mess. You may hate me. But so is life. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ... OK, I think that's the final straw. --Golbez 04:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand 'straw', but I understand 'final'. Are you finally leaving Wikipedia and play the commander somewhere else? Why did you delete the dab pages I made? Is there any policy covering this use of admin rights to push your very personal view? Or did you abuse your rights again? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

district vs rayon
In the page titles district should be used instead of rayon. This is common practice for articles in Category:Subdivisions by country. District is used by the governement. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

full qualifying title
IMO all rayon articles should be moved to a full qualifying title, reasoning see  Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hewsen": From Nakhchivan:  From Caucasian Albania: Robert H. Hewsen. "Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians," in: Samuelian, Thomas J. (Hg.), ''Classical Armenian Culture. Influences and Creativity'', Chicago: 1982, 27-40.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan. 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/20120107000309/http://www.azstat.org/statinfo/demoqraphic/en/AP_/AP_1.shtml to http://www.azstat.org/statinfo/demoqraphic/en/AP_/AP_1.shtml

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) 10:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Change concerning Shusha
Was there a change concerning Shusha? In earlier versions (also in maps, thus the 55 is not used now) the city of Shusha was a rayon on its own. Was there a change in the administrive divisions and when did it happen? --Don-kun (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

 * I'm confused. What makes you think a change happened? — CuriousGolden (T·C)  22:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We had a discussion [Portal_Diskussion:Aserbaidschan#Şuşa_ist_keine_republikunmittelbare_Stadt_mehr here]. Several older articles or older versions of articles show Shusha as a different antity than the rayon of Shusha (p. 13,, ). In more recent texts and sources (like in this article), the city is depicted as an integral part of the rayon of the same name. --Don-kun (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Not Enough Cities
at the Very 1st sentence, It says that It has 11 cities in the Contiguous Azerbaijan, but Turns out, theres 10 Cities instead of 11! where did it Go and Why is it Missing? Thewikianguy (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Voiced velar fricative

In Spanish?
I have two books phonetics that say that the sound occurs as an allophone of /g/ in Spanish. Svenskans fonologi by Claes Garlén (pg. 87, 210) and Fonetikens grunder by Olle Engstrand (pg. 148).

Peter Isotalo 04:03, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Would you specify the dialect? This isn't the case for Mexican Spanish, nor for any other variety of Spanish I've heard (not that I've heard that many), nor for the standard dialects used by the Spanish-language phonologies I've read, nor for the sources used by the Spanish phonology article in Wikipedia, nor it is mentioned as a variant in the Spanish dialects and varieties article, etc.

 * However, it is extremely common for basic phonetics textbooks to get this wrong, just as Hebrew and Arabic are commonly but erroneously claimed to have voiced pharyngeal fricatives, perhaps because for a long time the velar fricative symbol pulled double duty for the approximant, as the pharyngeal symbol still does, and when people see the gamma, they just assume it means "fricative". (An example is Daniels & Bright, The World's Writing Systems, which shows a [ɣ]. However, their phonetics generally isn't very accurate.) Or else a book will simply use a gamma, without bothering to say that they're using it to represent an approximant. Anyway, the blanket statement that "In Spanish, [ɣ] occurs as an intervocalic allophone of /g/" is wrong. kwami 07:25, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

 * There's a sound sample of the allophone in Fonetikens grunder (written in 2004, btw) on the publishers webpage. It's a European Spanish rendition of el carro de Rodriguez, which is transcribed as : wav-file. It is used to illustrate the differences in /r/-realizations foremost, but also to show how the voiced plosives /b, d, g/ are realized as fricatives that are leaning towards approximants. The exact same feature is present in Portuguese and Catalan, which are both included in the IPA handbook and are described as fricatives. Galician shows similar allophones except that they seem to be decidedly approximantic. This is also described in the handbook. Whatever the situation of the whole fricative/approximant situation is, it is either not accepted by all phoneticians or you might be extrapolating the theories too far.
 * Since you're questioning the use confirmed by some really heavy duty sources here, could you please tell me what your competence for these kinds of assertions are? Are you a trained phonetician? Have you studied phonetics on an academic level? I know I haven't, and that's why I'm do not try to assert my own analyses over that of serious phonetic literature and the authority of the IPA.
 * Peter Isotalo 20:00, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * And about the Arabic and Hebrew, are you aware that both languages have phonologies in the IPA handbook and both are assigned pharyngeal fricatives? There is indeed a tendency for voiced fricatives (and plosives) to be realized as approximants in colloquial speech, but the way you describe it makes it sound as if the approximants are simply the "true sounds" with the rest being some kind of historically backward compromises in dire need of being cleansed. Again, I think you're exceeding your competence in these matters.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:19, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * No, in the Handbook, neither Arabic nor Hebrew is described as having a voiced pharyngeal fricative. Take a look at the charts: each language has only a single (voiceless) phoneme in that cell. The Arabic ayn is described as being a pharyngealized glottal stop,, whereas the Hebrew ayn is described as being a pharyngeal approximant, and is placed in the approximant row of the chart. This is despite the fact that both Arabic and Hebrew are transcribed using the symbol . That is, in the IPA's own handbook, the symbol  is not reliably a fricative!

 * True, European Portuguese is described as having a voiced velar fricative allophone for /g/. However, in Galician, which is basically a northern Portuguese dialect that's been influenced by Spanish, it says that "they have approximant variants ". Also, in Catalan, although the fricative symbol is used, it's then specified as being an approximant, not a fricative! The exact words are, "The three voiced plosives have approximant variants  in onset positions ..." That is, it seems that Catalan is just like Galician. Actually, thanks for pointing that out: it shows that none of the voiced fricative symbols can be relied upon to be fricatives, even in official IPA usage.

 * I've checked out your sample, but the segment is so short it's hard to tell what it is. It's not obviously a fricative (though not obviously an approximant either). I've looked at it in Praat, and there is no trace of frication in the spectrogram up to 7700 Hz, after which the signal has been filtered out. The waveform is just slightly irregular, but not what I'd expect from a fricative. What it looks like to me is a voiced plosive with very little occlusion -- which isn't a bad definition for an approximant. However, there's enough background noise that I wouldn't want to swear just from this soundfile that it's not a fricative.

 * I have studied phonetics at a graduate level, though I'm certainly not a phonetician. However, I've seen enough inaccuracies and inconsistancies in reputable sources that I'm leery of claims that aren't corroborated by laboratory measurements. Good linguists miss the lateral flap all the time, for instance, simply because they aren't trained to hear it. (That's the r sound in Japanese and the l in much of West Africa.) Also, when giving a phonemic breakdown of a language, it's very common to take a "good enough" attitude. Often a linguist's aim will be to show the phonemic contrasts, and isn't particularly concerned about the exact phonetic realizations of those phonemes. There's even a common attitude in Chomskyan circles that language description isn't a worthwhile endeavor, that it's the theory that matters. As for there being historical residues "in dire need of being cleansed", I do believe that. French /t/ is almost always described as being dental, for example, even though it's alveolar, because that's the convention. (It's just laminal, unlike English, where /t/ is apical.)

 * I must say that, at least in Mexican and Central American Spanish, I've never noticed a velar fricative. When I pronounce the sound as an approximant, people compliment my pronunciation. This is in marked contrast to Cairene Arabic or Dutch, where the frication is unmistakable. That's why I think Arabic is a good example of a velar fricative, but Spanish is not. (There's a question as to whether the Arabic sound is velar or uvular, but I believe that's a dialectical issue.) Perhaps Castillian Spanish does have a fricative - that I wouldn't know. Or it may be accurate to say that there is slight frication in all Spanish dialects. But at least in Mexico, it's nowhere near a prototypical fricative as it is in some Dutch and Arabic dialects.

 * Would that be a fair compromise? That the Spanish allophone is often described as a fricative, but it's closer to being an approximant, although perhaps with some frication? kwami 07:00, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

 * I will second the observation that it tends to be phonetically naïve linguistics texts that describe Spanish intervocalic voiced stops as fricatives. They are in fact approximants, which may under certain conditions (like any approximant) be lightly fricated. Using the unmodified symbols for fricatives β and ð may make one come to the erroneous conclusion that there are a set of fricatives in spanish [β], [v], [ð], [z], [ɣ] whose production is contrasted only by place of articulation. In fact [β], [ð], [ɣ] are produced as approximants that are lightly fricated (if at all), but [z] as in de[z]de is a full fricative (I can't think of any examples with /f/ followed by a voiced consonant (there may not in fact be one, but if there were it would be pronounced as a fully fricated [v]).

 * Most details descriptions of Spanish phonetics I have seen include the "lowered" diacritic underneath β and ð (β̞ and ð̞). For the velar, some use ɣ̞ and others use ɰ (the velar approximant). The difficulty is that the IPA gives no symbols for bilabial and dental approximants, but it does have a symbol for a velar approximant. Some writers have taken this gap in the IPA to be significant: that the phonetic realizations of intervocalic [b, d, g] should be transcribed using an analogous set of symbols; and since there are no symbols for the bilabial and dental approximants, then one should use the symbols for the fricatives with the "lowered" diacritic, signifying less (or no) frication. Others simply view the gap as merely an oversight and use the symbol for the velar approximant that is available (ɰ) and "make do" with the symbols for fricatives with a diacritic for the other two.

 * Ideally, there would be IPA symbols for the bilabial approximant and the dental approximant, or at the very least there would be a diacritic that explicitly means "no turbulent airflow (frication)". That would make for an easy solution for an orthogonal set of symbols to transcribe these allophones. The sections of the chart where such symbols would go are white (not shaded) indicating that the IPA considers them to be possible articulations, just not ones which have been assigned symbols. The topic I gather is something of a sore spot in Spanish phonetics and there has probably been some pressure on the IPA to assign symbols to these sounds. However, there are certain elements of the IPA that labor under the conceit that the alphabet is actually a kind of universal phonemic alphabet, and if no language distinguishes bilabial fricatives and approximants or dental fricatives and approximants, then diacritics will suffice for transcribing these sounds.

 * Given that, there is another general principle for the use of the IPA that diacritics can be excluded if the level of phonetic detail doesn't necessitate them. Thus ɣ is a perfectly valid transcription for intervocalic /g/ in Spanish because one can work under the assumption that the essential difference between g and ɣ is that ɣ is a continuant and g is not. It may not be the case that use of a fricative symbol necessarily implies turbulent airflow. But then again it might—it's all very vaguely defined.

 * In sum, both ɣ̞ and ɰ are used to transcribe intervocalic /g/ in Spanish. There are benefits and drawbacks to both methods, as the IPA doesn't provide a "best" solution. The sound is not fricated like /s/ and /f/ (or [z] and [v] for that matter), but is very lightly fricated if at all.

 * As for whether this page should include Spanish among the examples, I am ambivalent. At the very least, we could mention that some phonetic descriptions of Spanish give the symbol for the "voiced velar fricative" for the sound /g/ in the environment where it is weakened, but there is little or no turbulent airflow and most detailed descriptions of Spanish phonetics use instead the symbol for the velar approximant. Nohat 08:50, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * P.S. I know the environment is not strictly intervocalic, but that's not important for this discussion.

 * From Nohat's post There are benefits and drawbacks to both methods, as the IPA doesn't provide a "best" solution.
 * This is exactly what I was trying to say. IPA, though pretty detailed all things considered, is a compromise. It's more precise than your standard language orthography, but can never be precise enough to cover every imaginable deviation or minor detail. This is the essence of this discussion and I think kwami is being very unreasonable about a lot his edits.
 * kwami, you're making a lot of edits that seem to be based on the perception that there is One True Version, which needless to say, is quite obviously not NPOV. Please don't be so eager to completely assert your views on the articles you edit. You're attempting to oversimplify very complicated issues and you're doing it in a very aggressive manner to boot. Please try to be a bit more open to criticism.
 * Peter Isotalo 13:01, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * I thought the idea was to describe the International Phonetic Alphabet? I hardly see a problem with trying to be accurate. Spanish does not have a velar fricative. It has a velar approximant. Taking an attitude of "fricative, approximant, what's the difference?" is doing a disservice to those of our readers who are trying to figure out what the difference is. If you wish to use gamma when describing Spanish, because you're only trying to capture the phonemic essentials and don't care about the phonetic details, fine. But Spanish as an example of a velar fricative is wrong. The same for, which is commonly used to represent an affricate in Indic languages. Using Hindi as an example of [c] would also be wrong, though a note that this is common usage would be appropriate. As Nohat said, approximants are often slightly (and sometimes not so slightly) fricated, e.g. in emphatic usage. Should I give English as an example of a language with a voiced palatal fricative, just because when I say "Yes, indeed!" with the right emphasis, the 'y' is slightly fricated? That's a comment for the approximant article. I was hoping that you would correct the comment on Spanish yourself, but since you won't, I will. kwami 18:14, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

I'm a Spanish phonetician, and I completely agree that the Spanish intervocalic 'g' (as well as in the combinations vowel+gr or gl+vowel and some others) is pronounced in all dialects (European and American) as an aproximant, not as a fricative. I've heard our 'soft g' in Danish and Icelandic. This being said, the same happens with northern Portuguese dialects, Galician and, most importantly (since it's normative) Catalan. So I'm afraid these should be removed from the list, if the article wants to be about the velar fricative strictu sensu. Vicente Sans, México

I'm sorry if I came across as being overly critical, but your somewhat high handed attitude is quite taxing on one's patience considering that you're making a lot of edits that are downright reckless and to some extent even erroneous. I appreciate your input, but please try to tone down your own POV and try to balance your views with established use. Most importantly, though, show some proper respect when discussing. Right now you're resorting to quite petty and low-level rhetorical feints and quite obvious incivility. This degrades you as much as it does me, so please try to stick to factual discussion.

Peter Isotalo 20:43, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry for being rude, Peter. I would have worded things differently if I'd waited a day. I think this has taxed both of our patience. kwami 21:36, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

I've always thought that in Spanish, there's the following phonological rules: All of the voiced stops, in other words, become voiced fricatives intervocalically and in other voiced environments. Examples are 'cada' ['kaða], 'cabeza' [ka'βesa] or [ka'βeθa], 'ave' ['aβe], 'ciego' ['sjeɣo] or ['θjeɣo], sigue ['siɣe]. True (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * /b/ 'b/v' -> [β] / [+sonorant] _ [+sonorant]
 * /d/ 'd' -> [ð] / [+son] _ [+son]
 * and /g/ 'g/gu' -> [ɣ] / [+son] _ [+son]

 * I think something like this is more accurate.
 * /b/ 'b/v' -> [β] / [-nasal] _
 * /d/ 'd' -> [ð] / [-nasal | -lateral] _
 * and /g/ 'g/gu' -> [ɣ] / [+son] _ Anom998 (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Is f in Spanish afgano pronounced as [v]? Can't think of any other example where f precedes a voiced consonant that contrasts with an unvoiced version (I suspect that the fact that /f/ remains voiceless before /l/ and /ɾ/ is connected with the fact that these have no unvoiced counterparts). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I don't know. I suspect it's [avɣano], but here it's [afgano].  Don't know if that's just an effect of clear enunciation for the recording.  — kwami (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't sound right
The sound sample doesn't sound right. My name is pronounced like this, and according to Dutch_language, it is the Voiced velar fricative. However, this sound sample sounds clearly softer than the way we pronounce it in Dutch. Where does this sound sample come from? Gerrit CUTEDH 20:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. Please note that I'm not a linguist, so I can't really follow the discussion above. I don't know the technical words, I don't know what a voiced velar fricative is, I just know that the sound I hear is not like my name, but it still is linked in the Dutch language article as if it is! Gerrit CUTEDH 21:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Footnote #3 on the Dutch consonant chart might explain the discrepancy: for most Dutch speakers, 'g' is pronounced [x], not [ɣ], at least when it's the first sound in a word. (For some speakers it's only [ɣ] between vowels.) Why don't you listen to the sound at Voiceless velar fricative and tell us if that sounds better? Also, before the vowel [e], the sound might be closer to a Voiceless palatal fricative; the velar might only occur near "back" vowels like [a, o, u]. If these sounds are still off, then we might have some work to do. kwami 22:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * This doesn't seem to be the right sound clip at all. In fact it's not velar or a fricative. It seems to be the voiced alveolar sibilant (aka z). The people above seem to at least have heard something similar (x or ɦ or?). I haven't edited any articles using sound files, so I don't know if this could be a technical difficulty or if it's just a plain misplaced file. Mathlaura (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

 * This one? It's both velar and a fricative. Peter238 (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Greek letter gamma?
Current version says the IPA symbol "ɣ" is the "Greek letter gamma". In contrast, the Unicode code charts have this character as U+0263 LATIN SMALL LETTER GAMMA, distinguished from "γ" U+03B3 GREEK SMALL LETTER GAMMA. Would it be more correct to say the IPA symbol is a variant of the Greek gamma? Stebulus 04:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No responses, I guess. I say it's a variant. Updating page accordingly. Stebulus 00:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah, that's what I would call it. Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 02:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Not in Czech
[ɣ] does not occur in Czech at all AFAIK. When /x/ is surrounded by a voiced consonant, as in abych byl, it is pronounced [ɦ], not [ɣ]. I have just removed it from the table. --Imploder 19:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * it probably depends on dialect. I definitely pronounce [ɣ] in it, not [ɦ].

icelandic
Please add Icelandic... although it's almost an approximant in icelandic.--Sonjaaa 04:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Velar or uvular?
I removed the Burushaski and Lakhota examples because these languages have the voiced uvular fricative and lack the velar one. I bet there are lots more such examples still in the list; I especially suspect the Iranian and Turkic ones. David Marjanović 21:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Better yet: in front of /i/, the Lakhota becomes .  and  are not easy to confuse. David Marjanović 21:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In Danish?
I've heard the [ɣ] sound used after [l], [ʁ] and vowels in Danish--mostly from older speakers, or in very careful formal style. (For instance, my literature professor in college--a man in his 50s--said when he called on me; my younger Danish friends would simply drop the last sound.)  Most of the textbooks I learned from (printed as late as the 1970s) also list [ɣ] as a sound of the language, even though it seems to be dying out nowadays. With the recent developments in mind, would adding Danish examples to the list still be justified? -- Ingeborg S. Nordén 03:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Yeah, maybe put a note that it occurs mostly with older speakers. Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Done. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 19:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

In Spanish, Catalan, Galician and Northern Portuguese
I'm a Spanish phonetician, and I completely agree that the Spanish intervocalic 'g' (as well as in the combinations vowel+gr or gl+vowel and some others) is pronounced in all dialects (European and American) as an aproximant, not as a fricative. I've heard our 'soft g' in Danish and Icelandic. This being said, the same happens with northern Portuguese dialects, Galician and, most importantly (since it's normative) Catalan. So I'm afraid these should be removed from the list, if the article wants to be about the velar fricative strictu sensu. Vicente Sans, México

In Moldavian accent of Romanian
In at least the southern part of Moldavia, this sound replace 'v' of the literary language, in certains cases. (example: "vin" (wine), read literary is "vin", but in Moldavia is read "ɣin". In other areas of Moldavia (particulary Bessarabia) the transformation goes beyond, and "v" is read "ʒ". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unuon (talk • contribs) 23:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Manx?
Shouldn't the Manx language be added to the table in the "Occurrence" section? Christomir (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 20:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic

 * It is also a prominent feature of Scottish Gaelic. Indeed, the sound sample given sounds exactly like 'a dha', the Gaelic for 'two'. Ceartas (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

German
The most common VVF in German is the realization of the grapheme 'r' (in many but not all dialects). I have never heard '[Ich] hege' (an uncommon verb, by the way) pronounced in this way, except perhaps by Swiss speakers, and even then it would probably not be voiced but unvoiced (Pamour (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)).
 * 'I have never heard...' is not good enough. The Austrian German example is sourced; if you disagree with it, find a source which states that there's no lenition in Austrian German. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 14:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, damalige sounds like an odd example to use, not very salient or frequent. In Northern/Central Germany, sagen or Vogel may be pronounced with a fricative. This is a Central and Low German feature, though rather stigmatised in Standard German. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Krech et al (2009) use that word as an example. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 23:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * /r/ can be [ʁ] in much of Germany, but not [ɣ].
 * I'm Austrian. We frankly don't do voiced fricatives; I was quite shocked to learn that [ɣ] exists when I found it described in a dictionary of Greek. I would bet that "the Austrian German example" suffers from two misunderstandings: first, the common Viennese belief that Vienna is all there is to Austria; second, the transcription of a voiceless lenis as voiced. A short voiceless [x] (remember that consonant length remains phonemic in most Upper German dialects) does indeed occur specifically in Vienna in -ig(-) because that area was settled by Franks, not just Bavarians, in the 10th century or something. 180 km to the west (where I'm from), this phenomenon is wholly unknown, and -ig(-) has a voiceless plosive [g̊] without exception. Does anybody have access to the source? David Marjanović (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

African American Vernacular English
Is it farfetched to say that occurs in AAVN as an allophone of  in unstressed syllables? Example word: "bigger" →. Squirrelous (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The recording isn't accurate
The pronunciation in the recording isn't accurate, it is more /z/ than voiced velar fricative. Here is an example of the consonant, in Arabic:

https://translate.google.com/?hl=iw&tab=wT#ar/en/%D8%BA%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A8 Exx8 (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure what you're hearing in the recording in this article; it doesn't sound like to me. And the ghayn in غريب as pronounced by Google Translate is just a little more back than the one in the article: in-between velar  and uvular . If the recording in the article is of the velar, the sound in Google Translate can be transcribed as velar with minus sign below, the tongue retraction diacritic, $⟨⟩$ or uvular with a plus sign below, the tongue advancement diacritic, $⟨⟩$. However, since it's really still velar, not quite uvular, it would usually be transcribed with the letter for the velar. — Eru·tuon 00:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Permission to change the voice sample?
Multiple entries on this talk page have expressed their discontent for the current voice sample of /ɣ/ on this Wikipedia page, which they say sounds closer to a /z/.

I'm also quite discontent with the voice sample, because it actually affected me negatively.

As an amateur, I enjoy learning how to pronounce the different sounds of a language, and pages like these are how I do — I rely on them, they're my go-to source for learning the IPA. I was confused when I first listened to the sample on this page, which sounds closer to a /z/. Because /ɣ/ is transliterated in many Latin-script-based languages as "gh" showing a relation with "g", why would it sound like a /z/? So for the next few months that followed, I was trying to figure out a sound that sounded like a /g/ but also like a /z/. My lack of success led me to believe that /ɣ/ was a difficult sound to pronounce, and that influenced me to try avoiding pronouncing any languages that featured /ɣ/. But one day, which happened recently, I realized it was just a voiced version of /x/, which I could easily pronounce. I was pretty thrilled that I figured it out.

In short, this voice sample was more of a hinderance than a help. It should be changed.

I have a microphone I consider adequate, and I would like to contribute an improved voice sample of /ɣ/. Do I have permission to?

Thanks.

Wiki nol ege █ [:] ==== ▶ • 00:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, . I agree with you entirely. The sample is on the right track, but reminds me of dictation when I was a child, with the teacher exaggerating/overemphasising sounds they knew to already be familiar to the students in order that they equate it with the correct symbol (in whichever alphabet and language they were being taught in). I'm not sure that I'd agree with its being a voiced version of /x/, but you're welcome to upload your own .ogg rendition to Wiki Commons and bring it to this talk page for discussion in order that other editors can form a consensus as to which version should be used. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I'd agree with its being a voiced version of /x/ Then what is it? You should take a look at the IPA chart. The letter $\langlex\rangle$ in the IPA denotes a voiceless velar fricative, and $\langleɣ\rangle$ a voiced one. Given the use of slashes, you may be thinking of a phoneme /x/ in some language that may not always be realized as [x], but bear in mind, slashes specifically denotes that the sound enclosed is a phoneme, i.e. a distinctive unit of sounds in the phonology of a given language, not a single—phonetic—sound. The representation of a phoneme doesn't always correspond to the realization of that phoneme in all environments: for example, the English word bed, phonemically /bɛd/, when said in isolation, is, in one type of phonetic—as opposed to phonemic—transcription, [pɛt]. The sound this article is talking about, on the other hand, is a single phonetic sound, namely the voiced velar fricative. Nardog (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Hello! Here is a link to my .ogg sample on Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Voicedvelarfricative-ogg.ogg Let's hope we can improve the current sample in due time!
 * Wiki nol ege █ [:] ==== ▶ • 06:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but that doesn't sound like a velar fricative at all; it sounds very much like a uvular trill, or, if you produced it at the velum, you had too much saliva in your mouth that it became a trill. A fricative, by definition, is a sound made by turbulent air, which results in a random noise, not a periodic one, so there shouldn't be a cyclical sound except for that of voicing.
 * The current file totally sounds like [ɣ] to me, and not like [z] at all. Compare it to the sounds on . Which sounds more like [ɣ] heard on these sites, yours or the current one? Nardog (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Example of the sound
Hopefully this is useful for correcting the current wrong audio file: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz9Q38rmXi0 Chris Martin (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Rhotique topique
How much possibility, that voiced velar fricative “[ɣ]” is semi-rhotique? Juidzi (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not means full rhotique. Juidzi (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Rhoticity is fully dependent on language. No sound can be said to be rhotic or non-rhotic without saying in what language. Nardog (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * appears as one variety of in Brazilian Portuguese (where it contrasts with the alveolar tap  in some environments, much like the alveolar trill of Spanish and Catalan) and German (in front vowel environments). The difference between velar and uvular consonants is more of a continuum than a diachotomy, especially when it comes to the voiceless fricatives which can be fricated at the velum and trilled at the uvula, resulting in a simultaneous voiceless velar fricative and a voiceless uvular trill. I don't know what you mean by "semi-rhotic", though. It's not a term that appears in the literature, as far as I know. Sol505000 (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Sol505000 Thanks for the information. Juidzi (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So that's means “[ɣ]” sound can present by "r" letter? Juidzi (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's not that common in world's languages. A prototypical (e.g. Proto-Indo-European) is an alveolar trill, according to some theories. A failure to articulate that results either in a uvular trill (where the uvula trills against the tongue, instead of the tip of the tongue trilling against the alveolar ridge, so trilling itself is achieved, though the place of articulation changes drastically from one "side" of the mouth to the other) or a voiced alveolar non-sibilant fricative (where the air escapes through a narrow passage between the tip of the tongue and the alveolar ridge and the teeth are not clenched - here, the alveolar place of articulation is preserved). If you can do an alveolar trill, you can test this out yourself. I myself can't trill my 's for too long (I mean far more long than the typical 3-5 cycles of Spanish, which I can do without any problems) as they tend to become an alveolar non-sibilant fricative. The uvular trill itself can be undershoot as a fricative or an approximant (or indeed, a semi-vowel in the range, perhaps also  at times), whereas the alveolar non-sibilant fricative can also be produced without frication, i.e. as an approximant (not the  of English, which is too retracted and inappropriately labialized. I mean the prototypical , which is properly alveolar and not labialized, so that it sounds more like the lateral  (even though it is not a lateral consonant). You can hear it in Swedish). The outcome varies from language to language, or even from dialect to dialect.
 * These processes don't have to occur in any given language, at least not in the standard form (idiolectally - of course they do. That's what rhotacism is). The guttural can be the result of language contact with a language (or a language variety) where it's already been established as the prestigious norm.
 * I'd bet a lot of money on velar that does not vary between velar and uvular (without conflicting reports from different sources, as it is the case with German), velar and pharyngeal etc. being very uncommon among world's languages due to human anatomy and also because  ranges from a plosive to an approximant (including a weak fricative) in some languages, e.g. Spanish, Catalan, German, Swedish and also in colloquial English. One reason for that is (apart from what I've already said) that this  by definition couldn't be trilled as velar trills are impossible (palatal trills are also extremely uncommon, the only common dorsal trill is the uvular trill), and it's quite common for the guttural  to have trilled allophones. Velar and uvular fricatives need a lot of further research to determine their exact place of articulation (including whether or not they are trilled), their allophonic ranges and any dialectal differences involving either of those. In my experience this applies more to the voiceless fricatives than the voiced ones, which on the whole seem to be described more accurately (or maybe they're not, I'm not sure). Sol505000 (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Romani
I can't find the word γoines on Wörterbuch Romani-Deutsch-Englisch für den südosteuropäischen Raum by Boretzky and Igla, ROMLEX, or Morri angluni rromane ćhibǎqi evroputni lavustik by Marcel Courthiade. Should I delete this? --YukaSylvie (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

correct or incorrect
Is the based voice of the consonant (ɣ) correct? 93.114.24.153 (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Voiced velar fricative


text:
Tin Machine (album)

Tin Machine is the debut studio album by the Anglo-American hard rock band Tin Machine, released on 22May 1989 through EMI America Records. The band consisted of the English singer-songwriter David Bowie, the American guitarist Reeves Gabrels and brothers Tony Fox and Hunt Sales on bass and drums, respectively, while Englishman Kevin Armstrong acted as an additional guitarist. The project was spearheaded by Bowie, who felt disconnected in his career by 1987 and looked to reinvent himself. After meeting Gabrels through his Glass Spider Tour, the two agreed to work together and would collaborate frequently for the next decade. Bowie hired the Sales brothers, neither of whom he had worked with since the 1970s, after a meeting in Los Angeles, while English producer Tim Palmer was hired to co-produce.

The album was recorded in August 1988 at Mountain Studios in Montreux, Switzerland, and later at Compass Point Studios in Nassau, Bahamas in the spring of 1989. The sessions were productive despite personality clashes among the members. The tracks were mostly recorded live in few takes, with Bowie improvising lyrics while standing at the microphone, resulting in a predominantly hard rock sound and lyrics discussing world issues and love. Tin Machine named themselves and the album after one of the tracks. Unlike Bowie's previous backing bands, Tin Machine acted as a democratic unit, which was reflected in promotional interviews.

Upon release, the album peaked at number three on the UK Albums Chart, although sales declined quickly. It was accompanied by three singles and a 13-minute long music video containing performances of the tracks. Like its supporting concert tour, Tin Machine received mixed reviews and continues to receive similar assessments from Bowie's biographers, who mainly criticise the lyrics and lack of melodies. Nevertheless, some reviewers noted that the band were exploring grunge and alternative rock styles before those styles became popular. Tin Machine began recording a follow-up album in late 1989 before Bowie embarked on the solo Sound+Vision Tour. Bowie later rerecorded "I Can't Read" during the sessions for his 1997 album Earthling.

Background
By the end of 1987, David Bowie was at an artistic low point. Although he had garnered massive commercial success throughout the 1980s starting with Let's Dance (1983), he later said that the success of the album caused him to hit a creative low point in his career which lasted the next few years. After his follow-up albums Tonight (1984) and Never Let Me Down (1987) were critically dismissed, Bowie began to re-evaluate where he was at in his career; he would later dismiss this period as his "Phil Collins years". The Glass Spider Tour had begun to tear away at him, as he found it hard to maintain the stadium rockstar lifestyle. While he considered retiring from music, Bowie decided the best course of action, as he had done a decade earlier, was to completely rejuvenate himself.

One of the first things he did was part ways with his longtime collaborator Carlos Alomar, who had acted as Bowie's bandleader. Biographer David Buckley calls his departure the end of Bowie's tenure as a "pop star". Towards the end of 1987, Bowie conducted some sessions in Los Angeles, California with members of Bryan Adams' backing band and producer Bruce Fairbairn. The only tracks that came out of the sessions were a demo of "Pretty Pink Rose", an early version of "Lucy Can't Dance" and a cover of Bob Dylan's 1965 hit "Like a Rolling Stone", the last of which was given to Bowie's former Spiders from Mars guitarist Mick Ronson, whose version appeared on his posthumous album Heaven and Hull (1994). According to biographer Nicholas Pegg, Bowie's style during the sessions was close to what he would explore for his next big project.

Development
Towards the end of the Glass Spider Tour in November 1987, the tour's American press officer Sarah Gabrels gave Bowie a demo tape containing recordings of her husband Reeves, whom Bowie had unknowingly met and befriended backstage during the American leg; he believed Gabrels was a painter. The demos showcased Gabrels' unique guitar sound, described by biographer Marc Spitz as "improvisational and multi-note but simultaneously hard and bluesy". He recalled, "It happened really fast. David called me, I went over to Switzerland, and we had this music to do—in a weekend." The beginning of Bowie and Gabrels' collaboration sparked a new journey in Bowie's career. Although there would still be tours and media interviews, he aimed to scale down the expectations of the listening public in terms of his music. Gabrels stated, "He was at a crossroads. Either he became Rod Stewart and played Las Vegas, or he followed his heart." He told Bowie, "The only barrier between you doing what you want and you doing what you think you should do, is you."

One of the first projects Bowie and Gabrels collaborated on was a new version of Bowie's 1979 Lodger track "Look Back in Anger", which was created for a London theatre performance in July 1988. Afterwards, the two returned to Switzerland, where Bowie presented Gabrels with music that he was listening to at the time. These included hard rock acts such as Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix and Buddy Guy, avant-garde acts such as Sonic Youth, and one of Bowie's new favourites, the Pixies. From there, Bowie and Gabrels composed demos for a new project, which included "Bus Stop", "Baby Universal", "Pretty Pink Rose" and an early version of "Under the God".

During a launch party for a Glass Spider Tour video in Los Angeles, Bowie ran into bassist Tony Fox Sales, whom he hadn't worked with since the recording of Iggy Pop's Lust for Life in 1977. The two reconnected, leading Tony to invite his brother, drummer Hunt Sales, to a jam session with himself and Bowie. According to Gabrels, the Sales brothers were chosen as the rhythm section so they didn't have "checkbook musicians", specifically wanting former members of a band. Bowie insisted the four form a band, with each member providing equal input. Meanwhile, the positive reaction of the "Look Back in Anger" remix led Bowie to hire producer Tim Palmer—at the recommendation of the Cult's Billy Duffy—for his next project. Palmer recalled that he was a big fan of Bowie, particularly "the classic albums, but not so much of the later material". He also enjoyed Bowie's working methods, including the encouragement of ideas from all parties involved. Nevertheless, Palmer told Buckley that when he signed on for the project, he assumed it would be "a David Bowie record, not a Tin Machine record". Spitz similarly states that Gabrels and the Sales brothers assumed they would be assisting Bowie in creating a follow-up for Never Let Me Down rather than forming a band.

Recording and production
Recording for the new project began at Mountain Studios in Montreux, Switzerland in August 1988. Bowie and Gabrels spent a week there, writing songs such as "Baby Can Dance", "Pretty Thing" and "Shopping for Girls", before the Sales brothers arrived. Palmer recalled that once they arrived, "all hell broke loose". The brothers had abrasive personalities and, according to biographer Chris O'Leary, "made it clear they wouldn't be sidemen". Gabrels recalled that the first week of their arrival was the equivalent of "freshman hazing": "all they wanted to do was push me because David was placing a certain amount of trust in me, and I had never done a record that had been released internationally. [Their] attitude was like, 'Well, we all know who we are. Who's this guy?'" Gabrels and Palmer expressed doubts about the project initially. Palmer at first intended to make "the greatest-sounding Bowie album ever" and was disappointed at the different direction taken. Meanwhile, Gabrels despised being in a band, calling them "nightmares", further believing bands didn't work as democratic units. Gabrels got fed up with the Sales' attitudes after the first week, choosing to do things his way without their input. Bowie similarly recalled a "strange period of feeling each other out" during the first week.

An addition in the sessions was guitarist Kevin Armstrong, who had played with Bowie at Live Aid in 1985. In the studio, Hunt Sales arranged his drum set on a riser, which overpowered the room, leaving the guitarists unable to hear themselves play. Armstrong recalled, "He is the loudest drummer I have ever worked with ... I almost went deaf within the first couple of days." Meanwhile, Palmer set up various microphones around the studio in order to capture a live sound. The tracks on the album were recorded raw and live with few overdubs to capture the energy of the band. The other Tin Machine members urged Bowie to avoid re-writing his lyrics: "They were there all the time saying, 'Don't wimp out,' sing like you wrote it ... I have done and frequently do censor myself in terms of lyrics. I say one thing and then I think, 'Ah maybe I'll just take the edge off that a bit." He elaborated, "We wanted to come out of the box with energy, the energy we felt when we were writing and playing. There's very, very little over-dubbing on [the album]. For us [it] is our live sound." Bowie was also keen on improvising lyrics while standing at the microphone, which he previously did recording "Heroes" (1977). He primarily sang about the first topics that came to him. Gabrels told Buckley that Tin Machine was recorded digitally, which most people at the time figured could not have been done for the sound they were playing.

The first song Tin Machine recorded was "Heaven's in Here", which they wrote from scratch and recorded in their first 30 hours together. This was followed by a cover of Roxy Music's 1972 song "If There Is Something". Bowie stated: "We were so exhausted that we didn't have it in us to write another song, so we used an old song to show how we as a band would approach someone else's material;" the song would be left off the album and placed on the band's follow-up. Recording progressed quickly, with Tin Machine sometimes recording one song a day. Gabrels elaborated, "We recorded the songs, overdubbed, and sometimes even mixed them in the same day." After a break in recording, the sessions moved in the spring of 1989 to Compass Point Studios in Nassau, Bahamas, which Palmer recalled as being a completely different environment than Switzerland. There, Bowie resided at Robert Palmer's house on the beach. John Lennon's son Sean visited the band during this time; this encounter inspired them to cover his father's 1970 song "Working Class Hero". Also present in the Bahamas was Bowie's new girlfriend Melissa Hurley, who was one of his backup dancers during the Glass Spider Tour. The band were shocked at the pervasive drug use throughout Nassau, which partly inspired "Crack City". Bowie also claimed his own cocaine-addled past in the mid-1970s served as an inspiration for the track. Tin Machine recorded the track and "I Can't Read" on the same night.

In total, the band recorded 35 songs in just six weeks and all songs were a group effort. In 2017, Gabrels said that the album "could have been a double album" given the amount of material recorded yet not released by them during this period. Armstrong told biographer Paul Trynka, "I thought some of the best work didn't make it to the first record. I think David was deliberately trying to go for a fucked-up sound: if it was too safe or polite, he'd dump it." According to Gabrels, there were a few options for potential band names. The band ultimately set on Tin Machine for both the album and band name, after one of the tracks. Bowie recollected a feeling of indifference: "We really weren't interested in what kind of band name we had, so it was almost arbitrary – ah, let's just pick a song title." The Sales brothers liked Tin Machine as they felt it was reminiscent of the Monkees, "having your own theme song!" Gabrels's suggestion for the title was The Emperor's New Clothes, although he later admitted that "it was a little too much like setting yourself up; giving your critics ammunition".

Bowie enjoyed making Tin Machine, saying "I'm so up on this I want to go and start recording the next album tomorrow." As the band finished the album, Bowie was sure they would continue. He said, "There'll be another two albums at least. Oh, yes, this will go for a while. While we're all enjoying playing with each other so much, why not?"

Music and lyrics
Reviewers have categorised Tin Machine as rock, hard rock, art rock and noise rock. Biographers have also identified elements of blues rock on "Heaven's in Here", post-punk and new wave on "Bus Stop" and alternative rock on "Run"; Bowie himself described "Heaven's in Here" as "deconstructionist R&B". Stylistically, Bowie felt that Tin Machine was a continuation of Scary Monsters (1980): "It's almost dismissive of the last three albums I've done. Getting back on course, you could say." AllMusic's Mark Allender described the music as "hard-edged guitar rock" that contains "intelligence" which other albums in the genre lacked at the time. Ted Asregadoo of Ultimate Classic Rock similarly considered it "grittier" than other rock bands of the time. Author James Perone calls the music "loud guitar rock, with a sonic edge" that contains malacious lyrics. Tony Fox Sales described the band's approach to the music they created by saying: "We were so sick of turning on the radio and hearing disco and dance music and drum machines; all that stuff, which I think in the business they call "crap." We were just thinking about doing a project that would put an end to rock 'n' roll."

Jon Pareles of The New York Times stated that lyrically, Tin Machine "juxtaposes love songs with rants about current crises". He noted that, with the exceptions of "Pretty Thing" and "Sacrifice Yourself", the majority of the love songs "approach romantic cliches". Furthermore, Perone states that the "apocalyptic imagery" of the title track sets up the overarching theme of "the end of the world" that "pervades" the album. Pegg finds that the band's refusal to allow Bowie to rewrite lyrics results in words that are mostly "half-baked". Some songs cover sensitive subjects including neo-Nazism and drugs on "Under the God" and "Crack City", respectively. Others, including "I Can't Read" and "Video Crime", discuss the effects of television on literacy and tabloids, respectively. Meanwhile, O'Leary notes that Bowie recalls his unreleased track "Shadow Man" on "Baby Can Dance". Gabrels would later describe the songs as Tin Machine "screaming at the world".

Release and promotion
The cover artwork for Tin Machine depicts the four band members in dark suits, which Spitz describes as giving them a look of "a gang of clean-cut bankers". Bowie grew a goatee during this time—a first in his career—which Spitz states polarised audiences. When promoting the album, Bowie made it clear to interviewers that the band were a democratic unit, with Pegg calling it the mindset of "anyone wanting to interview David would get the rest of the band as well". This move would be written off by critics as a publicity stunt by an artist who is unsure of what he wanted to do next. Bowie commented in 1999: "I think the context annoyed and angered, and really gave the critics the excuse they needed to humiliate somebody, which is what they really look for more than anything else."

Upon hearing of Tin Machine and the album, Bowie's label EMI America Records were perplexed. Tim Palmer told Buckley that the label were eager for another Let's Dance best-seller and confused regarding Bowie's new direction. The label were unsure of how to market the album, so they attached stickers to the cover informing potential buyers that it was Bowie's new project. Nevertheless, EMI America released Tin Machine on 22May 1989, issuing different LP and CD formats, with the catalogue numbers MTLS 1044 and CDP 7919902, respectively. At the time of release, the album sold well initially, peaking at number three on the UK Albums Chart, three places higher than Never Let Me Down, and number 28 on the US Billboard Top Pop Albums chart. It also reached the top-ten in Norway and Sweden, although sales decreased quickly. According to Dave Thompson, it spent a total of nine weeks on the UK chart. Short-term sales of Tin Machine were estimated to have been between 200,000 and 1,000,000 copies within a few years.

Tin Machine was accompanied by the release of three singles. The first, "Under the God" backed by "Sacrifice Yourself", was released in June 1989 and peaked at number 51 in the UK. It also enjoyed heavy airplay on MTV and American radio stations. The second, the title track backed by a live cover of Dylan's "Maggie's Farm" by Dylan, was released in September 1989 and peaked at number 48 in the UK. The third and final single, an edit of "Prisoner of Love" backed by a live version of "Baby Can Dance", was released the following month and failed to chart.

Music video
Tin Machine accompanied the album's release with a 13-minute long music video comprising performance-style clips of songs, with each one segueing into the next, starting with "Pretty Thing" and ending with "Under the God". The video was filmed at The Ritz in New York City and directed by Julien Temple, who had previously worked with Bowie on videos and releases such as Jazzin' for Blue Jean (1984), "Absolute Beginners" (1986) and "Day-In Day-Out" (1987). The film was rarely screened on television at the time, although according to Pegg it was distributed as a supporting feature in some UK cinemas. In 1999, Bowie named the video his all-time favourite of all his music videos. EMI planned an official commercial release for the video in 2007, although this was scrapped due to iTunes' policy of limiting videos to 10 minutes in length. The label instead released partial clips of the title track and "Under the God" and the full-length clips of "Heaven's in Here" and "Prisoner of Love". The full 13-minute video was later released in 2019 to celebrate its 30th anniversary.

Live performances
The band played an unannounced live show in Nassau while recording Tin Machine, before making a live appearance at the International Rock Awards Show on 31May 1989. Two weeks later, they embarked on their 12-show Tin Machine Tour, wrapping up in early July. The set-list consisted only of songs from Tin Machine, new tracks and 1960s covers. The shows were received with mixed reviews; critic Alastair McKay wrote in the Herald Scotland: "For all their experience, the band are poor timekeepers, and Bowie's voice is at sea with the very notion of high-volume aggression. ... [T]he grinning Bowie promised his group would return to repeat the experience in the new year. This raised just one question: Why?" Gabrels later insisted that because of the Sales brothers, the band improvised "one third of every show". A performance on 25June in Paris was released for digital download and streaming in August 2019, to coincide with the 30th anniversary of Tin Machine. The release, called Live at La Cigale, Paris, 25th June, 1989, was mastered by Palmer. At the conclusion of the tour, Tin Machine took a break before reconvening in Australia during late 1989 to begin recording their next album. While there, they performed a one-off gig in Sydney on 4 November. The sessions for Tin Machine II (1991) continued until January 1990 before suspending, as Bowie announced his new solo tour the Sound+Vision Tour.

Reception
Tin Machine was met with generally mixed reviews from music critics on release. Trynka states that while many welcomed it as Bowie's most challenging record since Station to Station (1976) and Low (1977), the album would quickly be criticised as "pompous, dogmatic and dull". Some noted it as Bowie's most aggressive work since 1980's Scary Monsters, with a reviewer for Q magazine calling it "the loudest, hardest, heaviest effort of his entire career" and "an experience that's not unlike allowing your head to be used as a punchbag". Rolling Stone's David Fricke praised the album's "cynical, indignant and acidic" approach to music as an "all-too-welcome feast of aggro-guitar flamboyance and bass-drum body checking", noting that at times it sounds like Sonic Youth meets Station to Station. A review by the McClatchy Company called Tin Machine "a lean, mean rock 'n' roll machine", that showed how "Bowie's back". Don Waller of the Los Angeles Times gave the album a positive review, calling all 12 tracks on the LP edition "solid" and welcoming "a couple" as "classic additions" to Bowie's catalogue. On the other hand, Pareles felt that most of the songs "seem unlikely to stand up over time" against Bowie's best work.

Joe Levy of Spin magazine called the album "noise rock without the noise. Aggressive, direct, brutal and stylishly plain, it combines the energy of the rock avant-garde with traditional R&B rhythmic punch", summarising the album by calling it "incendiary fun" and noting that "the buoyant Sales brothers and Gabrels certainly equal and frequently surpass Bowie". Music critic Jon Savage didn't understand what the band were going for, describing the music as having "an ugly macho side to it". In Record Mirror, Steve Masters said the music "trudges along mechanically in a kind of soft metal mould" and the album itself ends up "a dusty trip down self-indulgence street". When asked in an interview what the main criticism of Tin Machine would be, Bowie conceded that the album might be "not accessible" to fans: "I guess it's not as obviously melodic as one would think it would probably be [for a Bowie album]." Spitz states that Bowie believed his audience would be ill-prepared for the sound he wanted to go towards if he had released it under his own name. Tin Machine appeared on Q magazine's 1989 end of the year list; the same magazine would place the album on a list of "Fifty Albums That Should Have Never Been Made" only seven years later. Meanwhile, in a 1998 poll conducted by Melody Maker compiling the 20 worst albums of all time, as chosen by numerous DJs and journalists, Tin Machine was voted number 17.

Legacy
Some reviewers noted that the band explored elements of grunge and alternative rock before those styles became popular; Palmer and Asregadoo considered the record's sound "proto-grunge". Allender and Asregadoo argued that the album was ahead of its time and had the release been five to six years later, it would have garnered more appreciation.

Bowie's biographers have given the album mixed assessments overall. Although Perone feels it was a good debut album that found "some of the 1970s edge returning to Bowie's music and lyrics", he criticises the lyrics throughout and believes the special charm of Bowie's earlier solo efforts was lost. Pegg states: "As an album in its own right, Tin Machine [remains] one of the least satisfactory listening experiences in Bowie's recorded legacy," a sentiment echoed by Trynka, who calls it an album that is "hard to love", which he notes may have been Bowie's initial intention. Buckley primarily criticises the lack of melodies or catchy choruses, a sentiment echoed by Bowie's previous collaborator Adrian Belew. Nevertheless, some reviewers have praised certain tracks, including "I Can't Read", which Bowie himself considered the best song on the record. Bowie rerecorded the song during the sessions for his 1997 album Earthling, which appeared in the 1998 film The Ice Storm and later on the 2020 EP Is It Any Wonder?.

Track listing
The CD and cassette releases of the album contain the tracks "Run" and "Sacrifice Yourself", which were excluded from the LP release. All releases since follow the former sequencing.

Personnel
According to the liner notes and biographer Nicholas Pegg.

Musicians
 * David Bowie – lead vocals, rhythm guitar
 * Reeves Gabrels – lead guitar
 * Tony Fox Sales – bass guitar, backing vocals
 * Hunt Sales – drums, backing vocals
 * Kevin Armstrong – rhythm guitar, Hammond organ (B-3) ("Pretty Thing")

Production
 * Tin Machine – producer
 * Tim Palmer – producer, mixing
 * Justin Shirley-Smith – engineer
 * David Richards – additional engineering
 * Roger Gorman (Reiner Design) – art direction & design
 * Masayoshi Sukita – photography

title: Tin Machine (album)


text:
Talk:Tegaserod

Was once approved for men (but has since been taken off market)
Just caught the end of the new Zelnorm ad. It looks like it's approved for men now. Can anyone confirm that? --Spikey 04:05, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I guess so, since I got perscribted it today, and I'm a man. Maximumlobster 23:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)m
 * I added the header here to preserve the format of the page. New comments go at the bottom and you create a header byputting your topic between two equal signs.  Thanks!LiPollis (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Molecule
The molecule in this Wikipedia article does not appear to be the same as the molecule in the PI (Zelnorm PI).

Actually, unless I'm missing something big here, most of the chemical information appears to be wrong. Also from the PI: "Zelnorm® (tegaserod maleate) tablets contain tegaserod as the hydrogen maleate salt. As the maleate salt, tegaserod is chemically designated as 3-(5-methoxy-1H-indol-3-ylmethylene)-N- pentylcarbazimidamide hydrogen maleate. Its empirical formula is C16H23N5O•C4H4O4. The molecular weight is 417.47..." --216.139.146.106 20:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I modeled the molecule using the SMILES provided on the tegaserod PubChem entry. As for the rest of the information provided in the infobox, such as empirical formula and molecular weight, it refers to the active moiety only ("tegaserod" itself), not to the salt (maleate) form of tegaserod, as is standard on most drug pages. I do not feel it is necessary, but I will be happy to add information for both if you feel it is relevant (you could also do it yourself, of course). Fvasconcellos 21:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes March 30, 2007
I made two small changes that I felt I should doc on the tp. First, I changed The FDA discovered... to The FDA alleges... because apparently there is some discord between the FDA and Novartis on these symptoms. Secondly, I changed the reference for Novartis' assertion to a PDF press release because chances are that homepage will change and no longer be a press release on the front page. That's all // 3R1C 23:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I thought of using the press release directly, and chose not to... bad choice apparently :) Fvasconcellos 00:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Use was the only drug approved ...
Are not peppermint oil, and Mebeverine approved for IBS in the US? Midgley (talk) 17:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

POV?
the repeated use of words like 'supposedly' and 'allegedly' in their various forms seems to me to put a fairly negative spin on this article. don't get me wrong, i am personally of the impression that this is a bad drug. i suffer from ibs myself, and would rather continue to do so than risk the cv complications that use of tegaserod seems to entail. but those words have connotations and the flavour of this article seems to me to be somewhat in violation of npov.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tegaserod


text:
Dum-Dum (album)

Dum-Dum is the first full-length album by the alternative rock band The Vaselines, released in 1989. It was recorded at Chamber Studios, Edinburgh, between December 1988 and January 1989. The album was produced by the band and Jamie Watson, and was included in its entirety for their career retrospective The Way of the Vaselines: A Complete History.

The musicians contributing the synthesized strings to "Slushy" and the Indian raga sounds to "Lovecraft" have not been publicly identified. Other songs recorded during the Dum-Dum sessions include "Bitch", "Dying For It (The Blues)" and "Let's Get Ugly". "Teenage Superstars" had already been featured on their 1988 EP Dying for It. The album was re-issued on clear vinyl for Record Store Day in 2018.

Track listing
All tracks written by Kelly and McKee.

Side one

 * 1) "Sex Sux (Amen)"
 * 2) "Slushy"
 * 3) "Monsterpussy"
 * 4) "Teenage Superstars"
 * 5) "No Hope"

Side two

 * 1) "Oliver Twisted"
 * 2) "The Day I Was A Horse "
 * 3) "Dum-Dum"
 * 4) "Hairy"
 * 5) "Lovecraft"

The Vaselines

 * Eugene Kelly – vocals, guitars
 * Frances McKee – vocals, guitars
 * James Seenan – bass
 * Charlie Kelly – drums

Additional personnel

 * Jamie Watson – engineer; slide guitar on "The Day I Was A Horse"
 * Sophie Pragnell – viola on "Oliver Twisted"

title: Dum-Dum (album)