text:
The Lives of John Lennon

The Lives of John Lennon is a 1988 biography of musician John Lennon by American author Albert Goldman. The book is a product of several years of research and hundreds of interviews with Lennon's friends, acquaintances, servants and musicians. It is best known for its criticism and generally negative representation of the personal lives of Lennon and his wife, Yoko Ono.

Lennon in the work
When first published in 1988, The Lives of John Lennon was controversial because of its portrayal of Lennon in a highly critical light. Lennon was presented in the book as a talented but deeply flawed man who manipulated people and relationships throughout his life, flinging them aside when they were no longer useful to him. Goldman also suggested that Lennon was an anti-Semite and a heavy drug-user and that he was dyslexic and schizophrenic.

Sexuality
The book goes into detail about the long-rumored homosexual affair between Lennon and The Beatles' manager Brian Epstein (previously discussed in both Pete Shotton’s Lennon in My Life and Peter Brown's The Love You Make), as well as alleging a number of liaisons by Lennon with other men, including a claim that he solicited underage male prostitutes in Thailand. This latter assertion greatly angered Yoko Ono and Paul McCartney. The book was criticized by Lennon fans for allegedly containing much unsubstantiated conjecture, and tending to present worst-case scenarios when doing so.

Concerning Lennon's supposed bisexuality, Ono said in a 1981 interview that she told Lennon—although it's unclear whether or not she was just teasing him—that he was a "closet fag" because he used to tell Yoko he liked her because she looked "like a bloke in drag". Of the affair Goldman alleges between Lennon and Epstein, Lennon said in his 1980 Playboy interview that their relationship "was almost a love affair, but not quite. It was never consummated."

Violence
According to accounts in Goldman's book, Lennon felt guilty over having attacked a sailor he met during the Beatles' time in Hamburg, and also over the sudden death of bandmate Stuart Sutcliffe, whose sister, Pauline, later falsely accused Lennon of murdering him. Goldman also presents a story from an Ono assistant that Ono's 1968 miscarriage was triggered by a beating from Lennon. Other primary sources also support Goldman's claims about Lennon's tendency toward violence, a tendency Lennon himself owned up to in a Playboy interview.

Drug use
Lennon was a heavy drug user, as has been acknowledged by most people who knew him well, including Ono and Lennon's first wife, Cynthia Lennon. Goldman also claims that when Lennon started making music again in 1980 following a long seclusion, he was not oblivious to Manhattan's cocaine-fueled disco scene. According to Goldman, on the day Lennon was murdered he was scheduled to undergo plastic surgery several days later to repair his nasal septum due to snorting cocaine, which he supposedly did at the Hit Factory recording studio where he and Ono recorded their album Double Fantasy. Goldman does not cite anyone who might have witnessed this at the studio.

Goldman alleges further that on December 8, 1980 (the day of Lennon's murder) not only did the singer's cocaine snorting warrant plastic surgery, but he was in such bad physical condition from drug abuse and lack of exercise that during his autopsy the medical examiner recorded observations to that effect, overlooking the five bullet wounds momentarily.

Goldman further asserts that this drug-addled, dangerously unhealthy isolation was a result of Lennon's natural laziness and dependence on strong women throughout his life. Goldman also claims that Lennon’s isolation and physical decline were instigated by Yoko Ono, who Goldman claims was jealous of Lennon and saw his fame as competition for her own musical ambitions.

Musical achievement and public image
Goldman does show genuine respect for Lennon's musical achievements with the Beatles and his solo work (although he dismisses the widely acclaimed "Imagine"). Lennon's copyright infringement lawsuit for "Come Together" is also explored in the text.

The overarching theme of the book is to debunk the notion that Lennon retired from the music business for five years, from 1975 until the rehearsals for his 1980 comeback album, Double Fantasy, to live as a "househusband," as Rolling Stone magazine and Playboy described him, and to raise the couple's son, Sean. Goldman asserts that in reality a drug-addicted Lennon retreated into a secluded, darkened room in Manhattan's Dakota building watching television all day, every day, leaving domestic servants to tend to his son, while Ono was feeding a chronic heroin habit and managing his share of profits from the Beatles’ music. This portrayal is supported by Robert Rosen's book Nowhere Man: The Final Days of John Lennon, a controversial book which is supposedly based on the author's "memories of reading Lennon's diaries" from the months and weeks leading up to his murder. These diaries have never been made public.

Goldman quotes Harold Seider, Lennon's lawyer for the last few years of his life, as saying that much of Lennon's public image was largely fabricated: "The real Lennon was not the public statements that he made. They were made because they were public statements, and he was looking to make a point. He couldn't give a shit (about lying) because to a certain extent he had contempt for the media because they bought all the crap. He was there to manipulate the media. He enjoyed doing that. He understood how to use the media. You got to give him credit for that, and you got to give her credit... They would use the media, but it was not that they believed it, but that was the image they wanted to present."

Others in the work
Cynthia Lennon claims that the material for Goldman's depiction of her and Lennon's marriage was taken from her book A Twist of Lennon and given a negative spin. Writing in the Los Angeles Times, reviewer Jon Wiener points out that Goldman recounts many incidents already available to fans in May Pang's book Loving John and John Green's Dakota Days, and from John himself in interviews and autobiographical song lyrics. Wiener also reveals that Goldman worked closely with the Lennons' former assistant Fred Seaman, who had served five years' probation for grand larceny after pleading guilty to looting John's personal belongings and diaries after his death. Seaman had prepared his own biography of John, only to have Simon & Schuster refuse to publish it; he then began collaborating with Goldman.

Goldman depicts Paul McCartney in an extremely positive light, as being the only true talent among the Beatles, and the man who made the band able to function. On January 16, 1980, customs officials in Japan found 7.7 ounces (218.3 g) of cannabis in McCartney's luggage as he and the other musicians in Wings tried to enter the country for a concert tour. Goldman asserts that this incident was orchestrated by Yoko Ono. She supposedly had advance notice that her husband's friend would be smuggling drugs into her homeland. She allegedly made overseas telephone calls to government officials she knew with the hope that he would be arrested, thereby giving her a good excuse to forbid her husband from communicating with his friend. More controversially, Goldman depicts manager Allen Klein as someone who had the Beatles' best interests in mind, and who was railroaded by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission when he was tried, convicted, and served prison time for insider trading and securities fraud.

Goldman implies that Mark David Chapman's murder of John Lennon may have been part of a conspiracy by fundamentalist Christians. Chapman was a fundamentalist who viewed Lennon as a corrupter of youth. Goldman does not offer any conclusions, but mentions that the NYPD files on Lennon's murder are sealed and any conclusive answer would have to wait until the files are released to the public.

Yoko Ono
Lennon comes across much better than Yoko Ono, for whom Goldman shows unbridled contempt. Goldman insults Ono's appearance, describing her as "simian-looking". Goldman alleges that Ono had been a prostitute while attending Sarah Lawrence College, and depicts her as a willing participant in various alleged crimes of her previous husband, Tony Cox. Goldman also goes into great detail about Ono's treatment of Lennon's first wife Cynthia, and Ono's unconventional behavior and personality. Goldman also depicts Ono as pressuring Lennon into heroin use, as greedy and stingy, and indulging in infidelity with gigolos.

Goldman contends Ono encouraged Lennon's heroin addiction as a way of controlling him and his vast fortune, to her own ends. She also supposedly used tarot-reading charlatans to feed Lennon readings that would urge him to take various courses of action Ono supported. These readings would determine seemingly trivial choices of Lennon's life, such as which route their limousine would take to transport them home from the studio or which day was most propitious on which to record music, but were, in fact, according to Goldman, often part of Ono's constant machinations. Ono's concern for routes and directions reflects a belief in Japanese traditional katatagae, but this is overlooked by Goldman, who has been accused of racism.

Goldman also alleges Lennon's musical comeback in 1980 was only allowed, and then orchestrated, by Ono after she realized her own ambitions for performing music on the A list without Lennon were futile.

Goldman also enumerates what he describes as Ono's lavish spending habits, wasting of Lennon's resources, abuse of domestic servants and personal assistants, even to the point of setting up May Pang as Lennon's girlfriend during his Lost Weekend when he was separated from Ono from mid-1973 to February 1975. These claims by Goldman were largely based on allegations made by Pang herself in her own book, Loving John.

By those who knew Lennon
Yoko Ono threatened to sue for libel, claiming the book made her briefly consider suicide, but never pursued any legal action, later stating that she wanted to maintain a positive attitude and that her lawyers had advised her a civil action would only draw more attention to the book.

Cynthia Lennon denounced the book, stating that "Every single person was annihilated. My mother was called a bulldog and a domineering woman, which was nothing—nothing—like my mother. And he called me a spaniel. I thought, I'd rather be a spaniel than a Rottweiler, which is what he was."

Other celebrities who had known Lennon personally, including Geraldo Rivera and Tom Snyder, also largely dismissed the book. An uncredited review on UPI dated September 12, 1988, observes that Goldman expresses "deep contempt" for Lennon, his family, the other Beatles and rock music in general; that he resorted to the "sleaziest methods" to dig up dirt on Lennon; and that he engages in "schoolyard name-calling" and seems obsessed with Lennon's sex life. Artist and friend of Lennon David Vaughan derided the book in an interview with Goldman, calling it "846 pages of pure venom".

Despite Goldman's praise of him in the book, Paul McCartney did not return the favor and condemned Goldman's account of his old bandmate, telling fans and the press "Look, don't buy it." He also called it "a piece of trash" and claimed Goldman made up "any old bunch of lies he sees fit". George Harrison, Lennon's former bandmate, criticized the book and Goldman, stating that Goldman was "slagging off someone who's dead". Singer-songwriter Harry Nilsson, whose friendship with Lennon peaked during his 1974 separation from Ono, told Rolling Stone that Goldman "got me drunk" while interviewing him, probing Nilsson for "dirt" about Lennon, and Nilsson would not cooperate. (Nilsson gets a chapter in the book, "Harry the Hustler", which credits him with having better confidence-man skills than singing talent.) John Lennon's close friend Cilla Black said she was never interviewed by Goldman or his assistants, questioning the accuracy of the book and Goldman's claim to have interviewed over a thousand people who knew Lennon well. Sean Lennon called the book "trash" by an author who "is a twat who just made things up to be controversial".

By other biographers of Lennon
In Ray Coleman's Lennon: The Definitive Biography, there appears the following quote from The Beatles' record producer George Martin: "I think it is iniquitous that people can libel the dead. If John was alive, that book would not have come out. It is largely untrue, but, sadly, if mud is thrown it tends to stick." Martin also labeled the book as "codswallop".

Author Phillip Norman, whose own biography of Lennon (John Lennon: The Life) was published 20 years after The Lives of John Lennon, described Goldman's book as "malevolent" and "risibly ignorant".

Rolling Stone
The October 20, 1988, issue of Rolling Stone lambasted the book in a lengthy and extensively researched article by David Fricke and Jeffrey Ressner, "Imaginary Lennon". The reviewers described the book as "riddled with factual inaccuracies, embroidered accounts of true events that border on fiction and suspect information provided by tainted sources". Further, Fricke and Ressner stated that "Rolling Stone spoke to sources interviewed by Goldman who said that they were misquoted or that the information they provided him was used out of context. Other figures close to Lennon who refused to speak to Goldman or were not contacted by him claim that incidents in the book in which they appear either never happened or did not occur in the way Goldman recounts them." Among the factual errors listed by Rolling Stone:
 * Guitarist Danny Kortchmar denies Lennon ever bit him on the nose (to be fair to Goldman, he doesn't make that claim himself, he is merely quoting Mac Rebennack, aka Dr John, who makes the allegation of nose-biting.)
 * Goldman source Tony Monero denies Lennon ever told him to "Suck my cock!"
 * Apple executive Tony King denies Lennon snorted cocaine before his 1974 concert appearance with Elton John
 * Goldman incorrectly describes the Lennons' kitchen stove as match-lit when recounting an anecdote of Lennon trying to set Ono's hair on fire
 * Goldman incorrectly describes the "Love Me Do" single as a 78 instead of a 45.

Sourcing
Louis Menand in The New Republic described the sourcing of Goldman's book as "vague and unreliable". Menand wrote of Goldman's book that "The little things don't matter, of course, if the big things can be trusted. But the big things can't." Luc Sante, in The New York Review of Books, said about the account of Lennon's consumption of LSD in the book: "Goldman's background research was either slovenly or nonexistent," and that the only establishing quote for the LSD story was "from a novel called Groupie (author unidentified)".

Defence
Goldman denounced the Rolling Stone article as "a farrago of groundless or insignificant charges designed to discredit my biography of John Lennon". He also mocked what he called "the stupidity of the [Newsweek] magazine employees who were assigned the task of smearing me and my book", and concluded by saying that Sante was "a young man of no reputation in the field of popular culture". Sante replied that Goldman's tirade proved that the book was a gigantic, humorous "put-on".

David Gates responded in Newsweek by reminding readers that a romantic vision of Lennon is just as much of a myth as Goldman's portrayal. Editor Jann Wenner is quoted as saying that the book "offended him at every level", suggesting that he as a personal friend of the Lennons had good reason to want to preserve an idealistic version of Lennon's life. However, by stating a number of easily researched facts, the article also exposes a number of Goldman's inaccuracies and concludes with a reminder that the best way to know Lennon is through his recordings. Gates noted in the article that Goldman presents no evidence for his claim that Lennon patronized male prostitutes in Thailand or that Lennon killed a sailor in Hamburg, and only secondhand hearsay for the tale of Lennon blaming himself for Stuart Sutcliffe's death.

Peter Doggett writes in You Never Give Me Your Money: The Battle for the Soul of the Beatles that Goldman's book possessed many faults, but still managed to capture significant elements of Lennon's life:

"The Lives of John Lennon was lousy with errors of fact and interpretation, speculative in the extreme, ill-willed and awash with snobbery. Yet Goldman pinpointed Lennon's almost clinical need for domination by a strong woman; the dark ambiguity of a man of peace being governed by violence, either vented or repressed; the unmistakable decline in his work after he left England in 1971; and the instinctive need to believe in a force greater than himself, which led him from guru to guru, each obsession spilling into disillusionment and creative despair."Historians Michael Brocken and Melissa Davis took a more nuanced perspective on Goldman's book than most critics, writing in The Beatles Bibliography that "...the primary research concerning Lennon's early years was of the very highest quality; it was simply not well served by its author."

References to the book in other media
On their 1988 album Rattle and Hum, U2 attacked Goldman's allegations about Lennon in the song "God Part II", a "sequel" of sorts to Lennon's song "God", with the lyrics "Don't believe in Goldman/his type is like a curse/Instant karma's gonna get him if I don't get him first."

An October 1988 episode of Saturday Night Live featured a sketch revolving around why Goldman wrote the book, claiming it was in retaliation for the Beatles kicking him out of the band in 1962. Phil Hartman played Goldman (on trombone), Dana Carvey played Paul McCartney, Dennis Miller (in a rare non-"Weekend Update" role) played George Harrison, Jon Lovitz played Ringo Starr, and guest host Matthew Broderick played John Lennon. In the sketch, another subject of Goldman's, Elvis Presley (played by Kevin Nealon), is the one who urges Lennon to fire Goldman.

title: The Lives of John Lennon


text:
Ugayafukiaezu

Ugayafukiaezu no Mikoto (鵜葺草葺不合命) is a Shinto kami, and is in Japanese mythology, the father of Japan's first Emperor, Emperor Jimmu.

Nomenclature and story
In the Kojiki, his name appears as Amatsuhiko Hiko Nagisatake Ugayafukiaezu no Mikoto (天津日高日子波限建鵜葺草葺不合命), and in the Nihon Shoki as Hiko Nagisatake Ugayafukiaezu no Mikoto (彦波瀲武鸕鶿草葺不合尊). Basil Hall Chamberlain glossed the Kojiki name as "His Augustness Heaven's-Sun-Height-Prince-Wave-limit-Brave-Cormorant-Thatch-Meeting-Incompletely". 'no Mikoto' here is an honorific, denoting divinity or royalty.

Ugayafukiaezu was a child of Hoori, the son of Ninigi-no-Mikoto, who was sent down by Amaterasu to govern the earth (Ashihara no Nakatsukuni) (believed to be equivalent to Japan), and of Toyotama-hime, a daughter of Ryūjin, the dragon kami of the sea.

Although Toyotama-hime became pregnant at the undersea palace of Ryūgū-jō, she opted not to bear the child in the ocean and decided to head to shore.

On the shore, her parents attempted to build a house in which she could give birth, and attempted to construct the roof with feathers of the cormorant instead of saw grass. However, while they were finishing the roof, she went into labor.

"And so just as she was about to give birth, she spoke to her husband, saying: 'When their time draws near, people of other lands all give birth in the form of their homeland. So I will now give birth in my original form. Please, I beg you, do not look at me!' Now, thinking these words strange, he sneaked up and peered in at her just as she was about to give birth. She had become an enormous sea beast many arm spans in length that was twisting and slithering around on its stomach. In shock and fright at the sight of her, he immediately fled far away."

In shame, Toyotama-hime fled, leaving behind her newborn, whom she called Ugayafukiaezu. The roof of the birthing hut had not been completely thatched (fukiaezu) with cormorant feathers (ugaya) when his mother gave birth to him, which explains his name.

Later, when Ugayafukiaezu reached adulthood, he married his aunt, Tamayori-hime, and they had four children: Hikoitsuse, Inai, Mikeirinu, and Hikohohodemi (later Emperor Jimmu).

Mikeirinu traveled to Tokoyo no kuni, the "Everworld", and Inai went into the ocean to be with his mother. The eldest and youngest set forth to rule the land and while they did so together for a time, after Hikoitsuse died, their youngest became the first ruler.

Genealogy
Ugayafukiaezu is in the Three generations of Hyuga, a time period between Tenson kōrin and Jimmu's Eastern Expedition.

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

title: Ugayafukiaezu


text:
Bishopric of Augsburg

Bishopric of Augsburg may refer to:

 * Roman Catholic Diocese of Augsburg, spiritual jurisdiction of the bishop of Augsburg
 * Prince-Bishopric of Augsburg, secular jurisdiction of the bishop as a prince of the Holy Roman Empire between about 888 and 1803

title: Bishopric of Augsburg


text:
USS Vandalia (1876)

The second USS Vandalia was a screw sloop-of-war in the United States Navy. She was laid down at the Massachusetts Boston Navy Yard in 1872 and was commissioned there on 10 January 1876.

European Squadron, 1876–1878
Vandalia was soon deployed with the European Squadron and spent most of the next three years cruising in the Mediterranean along the coasts of Africa, the Middle East, and Turkey. Its captain was Henry B. Robeson (graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1860). She was run into by the Norwegian barque Atlantic, which stove the barque's bows in. Vandalia towed Atlantic in to Lisbon, Portugal, arriving on 1 November 1876. The ship put into Villefranche, France, in October 1877, and left on 13 December with the former President, General Ulysses S. Grant, and his party as passengers. During the next three months, the screw sloop of war touched at ports in Italy, Egypt, Turkey, and Greece before Grant and his party disembarked at Naples on 18 March 1878. After making several more Mediterranean cruises, Vandalia received orders to return to the United States later that year. She put into Boston on 13 January 1879 and departed on 7 April, bound for Norfolk, Virginia, and duty with the North Atlantic Squadron.

North Atlantic Squadron, 1879–1884
Vandalia remained with the North Atlantic Squadron for five years. During this time, she performed patrol, reconnaissance, and convoy escort duty off the eastern seaboard of the United States. The vessel was also active off the Grand Banks, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean. Vandalia was detached from the squadron in 1884 and put out of commission at the Portsmouth Navy Yard on 14 October for a thorough overhaul.

Pacific Squadron, 1886–1889
Repairs continued for over a year before Vandalia was ready for recommissioning on 15 February 1886. The sloop left New York on 14 August, heading westward for duty with the Pacific Squadron as the flagship of Rear Admiral Lewis Kimberly. Vandalia remained with the squadron into 1889, seeing duty in the Hawaiian Islands and Samoa, as well as along the Pacific coasts of North, Central, and South America. The sloop put into the Mare Island Navy Yard, San Francisco, for repairs on 11 October 1888.

Wrecked in a cyclone, 16 March 1889
While Vandalia lay at Mare Island, relations between American and German officials at Apia, Samoa, became increasingly strained. Late in the winter of 1889, at the behest of the American consul in Samoa, Vandalia, USS Trenton (1876), and USS Nipsic (1863) sailed for Samoa and reached Apia Harbor early in March to balance the presence of the German vessels SMS Adler, SMS Olga, and SMS Eber. The British were ably represented by HMS Calliope (1884). On 15 and 16 March 1889, each of these vessels suddenly became trapped in the harbor when violent, hurricane-force winds roared out of the northeast, driving mountainous waves before them in the 1889 Apia cyclone. Adler, Olga, and Eber were all either sunk or hopelessly grounded and torn apart on the sharp reef, and together lost a total of 150 officers and crew killed. The powerful engines of Calliope barely enabled the vessel to get to sea in a dramatic performance that drew cheers from the crews of the American vessels. However, despite heroic efforts by the officers and crews of Vandalia and Trenton, the two vessels tore their bottoms out upon the reef on 16 March. Vandalia struck at about noon and sank until her decks were completely awash, forcing her crew to scramble into the rigging. Trenton grounded alongside Vandalia at 2200 that evening, but enough of her main deck remained above water to allow Vandalia's crew to climb on board. After the hurricane began, Nipsic was driven ashore on a sandy beach and was later salvaged.

American casualties totalled 52 killed, 43 from Vandalia alone. The survivors from Vandalia, Trenton, and Nipsic soon sailed for Mare Island on board a chartered steamer, but Vandalia and Trenton themselves were so battered that they were soon dismantled and their scrap donated to the Samoans. One of Vandalia's survivors was Naval Cadet John A. Lejeune, a future major general, the 13th Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps and namesake of Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, N.C.

title: USS Vandalia (1876)


text:
Prince-Bishopric of Speyer

The Prince-Bishopric of Speyer, formerly known as Spires in English, (German: Hochstift Speyer, Fürstbistum Speyer, Bistum Speyer) was an ecclesiastical principality in what are today the German states of Rhineland-Palatinate and Baden-Württemberg. It was secularized in 1803. The prince-bishop resided in Speyer, a Free Imperial City, until the 14th century, when he moved his residence to Uddenheim (Philippsburg), then in 1723 to Bruchsal. There was a tense relationship between successive prince-bishops, who were Roman Catholic, and the civic authorities of the Free City, officially Protestant since the Reformation. The prince-provostry of Wissemburg in Alsace was ruled by the prince-bishop of Speyer in a personal union.

Geography
The Prince-Bishopric of Speyer belonged to the Upper Rhenish Circle of the Holy Roman Empire. One of the smallest principalities of the Holy Roman Empire, it consisted of more than half a dozen separate enclaves totalling about 28 German square miles (about 1540 km2) on both sides of the Rhine. It included the towns of Bruchsal (on the right bank) as well as Deidesheim, Herxheim bei Landau, and Lauterburg (on the left bank). Around 1800 the bishopric included about 55,000 people.

History
A diocese of Speyer has possibly existed since the 3rd or 4th century. It was first mentioned in historical documents in 614. Up to 748 it was a suffragant bishopric of the archdiocese of Trier, and from then until the secularisation of the prince-bishopric in 1803, of the archdiocese of Mainz.

The history of the Bishopric of Speyer began at the latest in the late 7th century when the bishop of Speyer received royal domains in the neighboring Speyergau. In the 10th and 11th centuries, the diocese received additional lands, including gifts by emperor Otto I. In 1030 the building of the cathedral was begun. In 1061 the cathedral was consecrated. In 1086 emperor Henry IV granted the bishopric the remaining parts of the county of Speyergau.

From 1111 the citizens of the city of Speyer began to increasingly loosen their bonds to the rulership of the bishop. In 1230 a Bürgermeister was mentioned for the first time. In 1294 Speyer became a Free Imperial City. The bishop moved his palace in 1371 to Udenheim. At the beginning of the 17th century bishop Philipp Christoph von Sötern expanded the fortress of Philippsburg. The prince-bishops reigned from there from 1371 to 1723. Afterwards the prince-bishop moved his seat to Bruchsal.

French troops captured Philippsburg in 1644 during the later stages of the Thirty Year's War. France gained the fortress in the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. During the Franco-Dutch War, Imperial troops recaptured it in 1676. In the Treaty of Nijmegen 1679, the fortress was officially returned to the Bishop and the Empire. However, France annexed parts of the bishopric's left-bank territories in 1681 as Reunion and seized Philippsburg again in 1688 at the beginning of the Nine Years' War. The occupied territory was not returned until 1697 in the Peace of Rijswijk.

In 1801/1802, the remaining left-bank territories of Speyer were conquered by French troops in the course of the French Revolution. The right-bank territories went to margraves of Baden.

This ended the secular responsibilities of the bishop of Speyer. The secularized bishopric continued ecclesiastically as the Diocese of Speyer. Finally, the French part of the former prince-bishopric was divided between Bavaria and Hesse Darmstadt in 1815.

title: Prince-Bishopric of Speyer


text:
User talk:Rambot/Progress

Ram-Man, this page is getting large (it's currently 75 KB). What do you think about dividing it into sub-subpages by license type and then transcluding them into this page? — Bcat (talk | email) 02:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC).

 * Or just use more sections. This should at least make editing this page easier. — Bcat (talk | email) 21:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I dual license with CC-by, and created a template for that purpose. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rambot/Progress


text:
Denon

Denon (株式会社デノン) is a Japanese electronics company dealing with audio equipment. The Denon brand came from a merger of Denki Onkyo (not to be confused with the other Onkyo) and others in 1939, but it originally started as Nippon Chikuonki Shoukai in 1910 by Frederick Whitney Horn, an American entrepreneur.

Denon produced the first cylinder audio media in Japan and players to play them. Decades later, Denon was involved in the early stages of development of digital audio technology, while specializing in the manufacture of high-fidelity professional and consumer audio equipment. Denon made Japan's first professional disc recorder and used it to record the Hirohito surrender broadcast. For many decades, Denon was a brand name of Nippon-Columbia, including the Nippon Columbia record label. In 2001, Denon was spun off as a separate company with 98% held by Ripplewood Holdings and 2% by Hitachi. In 2002, Denon merged with Marantz to form D&M Holdings. On March 1, 2017, Sound United LLC completed the acquisition of D+M Holdings.

History
The company was initially named Nippon Denki Onkyō Kabushikigaisha (日本電氣音響株式會社), which was shortened to Denon. The company is actively involved with sound systems and electric appliance production. Later the company merged with other related companies and as a result of this the company name became Denon.

There followed a number of mergers and tie-ins over the next few decades as firstly the company merged with Japan-US Recorders Manufacturing in 1912, and then in 1928 the brand "Columbia" was introduced when the company became Japan Columbia Recorders. A further change of name occurred in 1946 when the company renamed itself Nippon Columbia.

The Denon brand was first established in 1947 when Nippon Columbia merged with Japan Denki Onkyo. D&M Holdings Inc. was created in May 2002 when Denon Ltd and Marantz Japan Inc. merged. On March 1, 2017, Sound United LLC completed the acquisition of D+M Holdings.

Today, the company specializes in professional and consumer home cinema and audio equipment including A/V receivers, Blu-ray players, tuners, headphones, and wireless music systems. Denon is also known for high-end AV receivers and moving coil phonograph cartridges. Two M-series models, the Denon M31 and M30, were the most successful radio hi-fi's in the mid-2000s. Since being released to the micro hi-fi DAB market, they have received several awards in Europe.

Product timeline

 * 1910 Manufacturer of single-sided disc records and gramophones.
 * 1939 Launched first professional-use disc recorder for broadcast industry and disk cutting lathe.
 * 1951 Commenced sales of Japan's 1st LP records.
 * 1953 Launched professional-use tape recorder for broadcast industry.
 * 1958 Introduced sales of stereo records.
 * 1959 Commenced production of open-reel audio tapes.
 * 1962 Introduced Elepian series of electronic pianos.
 * 1963 Developed the DL-103 phono cartridge.
 * 1964 Started sales of audio cassette tapes.
 * 1971 Started producing hi-fi audio components, including turntables, amplifiers, tuners and speakers.
 * 1972 Introduced the world's first viable 8 channel digital recorder.
 * 1977 Awarded US Billboard magazine's "Trend-Setter Award for outstanding contribution to the industry".
 * 1980 Awarded the 13th Montreux International Diplome d’honneur technique award.
 * 1981 Developed a professional-use CD player.
 * 1984 Unveiled the CD-ROM format.
 * 1988 Introduced range of AV amplifiers to product range.
 * 1990 Awarded three component awards at Paris hi-fi show. Introduced lineup of Headphones.
 * 1993 Developed the twin deck DJ CD player DN-2000F. Other early models are the DN1000F, DN2000F and the DN2500F. Denon also made the world's only twin MiniDisc player designed for DJ use.
 * 1994 Awarded European Audio Innovation of the Year.
 * 1999 World's first THX-EX home theater system (THX Extended to provide fuller surround sound).
 * 2001 Produced first Mini system with 5.1 surround sound.
 * 2002 Denon link technology developed for improved digital connectivity.
 * 2004 Launch of world's first consumer product featuring HQV (Hollywood Quality Video).
 * 2006 Denon introduces the 1.5m long AK-DL1 CAT5 Ethernet cable. It was not until mid-2008 that it caused controversy because of its high price ($499) and the company's claims that the cable is "designed for the audio enthusiast," and would "bring out all the nuances" in digital audio signals transmitted over it, despite the fact that even the most poorly made Ethernet cable would deliver identical quality for digital audio over a similar length.
 * 2007 Denon releases the AVP-A1HDCI Pre-Amplifier and matching POA-A1HDCI Power Amplifier set which marks the company's first additions to a new line of high-performance custom-focused components.
 * 2008 Denon announces the world's first Universal Blu-ray player capable of DVD-Audio and SA-CD playback.
 * 2012 Denon introduces new headphone line with iOS lifestyle apps. Headphones are separated into different lifestyle groups as follows: Exercise Freak headphones (for sports/fitness use), Globe Cruiser headphones (for travel), Music Maniac Headphones (featuring a Flat EQ) and Urban Raver Headphones (providing enhanced bass performance).
 * 2014 Denon has ventured into wireless multi-room sound systems. Recently it has launched its new set of wireless speakers named as HEOS by Denon. These have been launched as HEOS 3, HEOS 5, and HEOS 7 speakers.
 * 2015 HEOS by Denon added on to their wireless multi-room sound system by launching the HEOS 1 and HEOS Go Pack, along with the HEOS HomeCinema
 * 2016 Denon Introduced HEOS into the Higher X-Series Models. For HEOS by Denon series 2 for all the speakers have launched now they feature Bluetooth and High Resolution Audio.
 * 2017 Denon Introduced HEOS into the S-Series (AVR-S730H/AVR-S930H) and all the X-Series Models now have HEOS. HEOS by Denon launched the HEOS Soundbar, HEOS Subwoofer and the HEOS AVR.
 * 2018 Denon introduced the world's first 13.2 channel audio/video receiver with the introduction of the AVR-X8500H / AVC-X8500H at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, Nevada.
 * 2020 Denon introduced the first 8K HDMI 2.1 compliant channel audio/video receivers with their AVR-X line starting from AVR-x2700h, AVR-x3700h, AVR-x4700h, and AVR-x6700h. Denon has also announced that they will allow hardware upgrades for AVR-x8500h for 8K features.
 * 2023 Denon acquires Nura.

title: Denon


text:
Gebrauchsmusik

Gebrauchsmusik is a German term, meaning "utility music", for music that exists not only for its own sake, but which was composed for some specific, identifiable purpose. This purpose can be a particular historical event, like a political rally or a military ceremony, or it can be more general, as with music written to accompany dance, or music written for amateurs or students to perform.

While composer Paul Hindemith is probably the figure most identified with this expression, it seems to have been coined within the realm of musicology rather than composition. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the modern academic discipline of musicology was formulated by a mainly German group of scholars who were interested not only in formal development and biographical data, but also to an extent in the sociopolitical position of music throughout history, and the relationship of music and musicians to society at large.

Paul Nettl's view of dance music
Perhaps the first such musicologist to use the word Gebrauchsmusik was Paul Nettl, who employed it in reference to half of his perceived binarism between that 17th-century dance music which was in fact danced to, and that which was written in dance forms but was actually abstract music intended only for listening (by extension, this duality applied to the dichotomy between any music for a specific purpose, Gebrauchsmusik, and that for none but the pleasure or edification of listening, Vortragsmusik).

Nettl arrived at this dual-development view of dance music through his observation that such pieces began, as the century progressed, to use stylistic and formal devices that were farther from the province of simple utility and more aligned with some anticipation of a listening audience paying full attention. The period's emerging binary dance form featured such characteristics as an increasing tonicization of foreign keys, an increasingly explicit and emphasized dominant-tonic tonal axis, and a refined delicacy of ornamentation, all of which would seem superfluous in application to a music intended only as the rhythmic accompaniment to physical activity. In addition to these developments in the individual movements, they were organized into ever more extended and stylized suites, which greatly resembled other instrumental forms of the day. Indeed, the mature sonata da camera is virtually indistinguishable from the dance suite of the time.

Nettl saw in this situation a clear distinction between music that was intended mainly to be in the service of dancers, and that which was mainly intended to service the ideals of art. In articulating this distinction, however, Nettl did not imply that utility music was unimportant artistically. Instead, he pointed out the importance of social need or desire as a catalyst for artistic development.

Heinrich Besseler's thesis
Two years later, also discussing the 17th-century suite (in Beiträge zur Stilgeschichte der deutschen Suite im 17. Jahrhundert) Heinrich Besseler went a step further, to imply that such utility music was socially superior, if not artistically so. For Besseler, "aesthetic access" (Zugangsweise) to the dance music was gained through participation, be it playing, dancing, or even singing along, rather than mere listening. He further expounded this thesis in a 1925 article on motets of the Medieval period, in which he proposed that such works had not been designed for the enjoyment of listeners, but with only their devotional purpose in mind; this purpose would only be fulfilled through participation, whether performance or prayer. In making this point, Besseler sought to divide all music into two distinct categories, continuing to use the word Gebrauchsmusik for one, and likening this to vernacular language, while replacing Nettl's word for the other with eigenständige Musik—alone-standing, or autonomous music. Besseler had studied philosophy with Martin Heidegger, and thought that this musical duality reflected Heidegger's between "thing" and "equipment", for the autonomous and the specific-purposed, respectively.

Politicization and decline
It was Besseler's notion of this concept which took hold in German musical culture of the 1920s and 1930s, becoming something of a controversy within that sphere, and even spilling into political ideology. Such a distinction had always existed in music, and that some works had always been composed for specific occasions and others not (at least since the Renaissance, in all probability), is attested to by the work of Besseler and Nettl, who based their concepts on studies of the historical situation. Even so, the musicologically conceived term Gebrauchsmusik somehow came to be construed as a concept of modern political administration. Some composers and government officials identified a need for community music, to be played by amateurs and young people at large festivals; the long German tradition of community singing benefited greatly from this impulse. Hindemith, Kurt Weill, and many others contributed works with such intentions in mind as the fledgling Weimar Republic tried to stave off collapse. The cultural, rather than solely political, nature of this movement will be seen, however, from the observation that Hindemith was for the most part a political agnostic, while Weill was an avowed leftist. Composers, regardless of their political views, were largely in favor of the Gebrauchsmusik concept at its outset because a recognized need and desire for occasion-tailored works would lead to a constant call for them. All combatants in the political arena saw in community music-making a potential glue with which to unite the German people behind their respective agendas; rather than expend the often wasted effort of regaling them with rhetoric, left and right alike could simply awe the public with spectacle and envelop them in the ecstasy of art. The right wing took Gebrauchsmusik as a tool when the former began its ascendancy, which is probably the main reason for the latter's increased discredit and abandonment as the decade progressed, and the most important German artists and thinkers departed for more hospitable locales.

A second reason, though, for this discredit was the occurrence to certain composers and their followers that composing music for large-scale public use would lead to a need for them to pander as well to large-scale public taste. Such a concept was anathematic to the art-for-art's-sake ideal which followed alongside that of community music in Germany since the days of Beethoven, who had ushered in the era of the well-regarded and financially successful free-lance composer. Schoenberg wrote to the effect that Gebrauchsmusik would hardly outlive its present-day application, while that composed for art and no other purpose would have the only chance at immortality. Schoenberg also noted that there had been less and less call for such utility music since the end of the Republic anyway, and certainly since the conclusion of the war. As a result of this, Gebrauchsmusik's most ardent promoters had again become "ideal artists". Earlier, the critic Theodor W. Adorno had called the work of Hindemith and other Gebrauchsmusiker symptomatic of "false [social] consciousness", and condemned it as being not truly useful at all, due to what he considered its lack of emotional content. By the late 1950s, Gebrauchsmusik had become almost universally a term of insult, especially among composers. Hindemith himself attempted, somewhat, to back away from it, when in a lecture at Harvard in 1950, he said that "quite obviously music for which no use can be found, that is to say, useless music, is not entitled to public consideration anyway and consequently the Gebrauch is taken for granted", and also that "to this day it has been impossible to kill the silly term and the unscrupulous classification that goes with it".

title: Gebrauchsmusik


text:
Talk:William McCoy (rum runner)

Boardwalk Empire
May the article should mention that there's a character based on him in Boardwalk Empire, English is my second language so I wouldn't be comfortable doing it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.226.26.114 (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Name of article
If his name was William Frederick McCoy, where does William S. McCoy come from? --Big_iron (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * New to the page, good point. I'll look it up.--Kenneth M Burke (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"gangster" category
He was a smuggler, but was not connected with organized crime, and pretty much only used guns to fire warning shots to keep from being captured, so some might dispute the "gangster" category... AnonMoos (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:William McCoy (rum runner)


text:
Talk:William S. McCoy/to do

Expand with information from Halifax Historical Museum

title: Talk:William S. McCoy/to do


text:
Talk:Strapping Young Lad (album)

Album Title
I've looked at several music websites (allmusic.com, mtv.com, vh1.com, mp3.com, etc.) - they all refer to the title of this album as 'SYL'. I checked other bands with more than one word in their title, like System of a Down, and their self-titled album isn't referred to as 'SoaD'. Nufy8 02:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You're completely correct. The album is usually referred to as 'SYL' (simply because it's a common abbreviation for the band). Even within the circle of fans of the band, it's referred to as SYL. However, in actuality it is a self titled (or eponymous) album and in the context of Wikipedia, needs to be known as Strapping Young Lad (album), the same as System of a Down (album). MrHate 05:49, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Relentless (song)
Okay, so, the article "Relentess (song)" basically has the same information (or, at least information that could be placed under the song title on this page) and isn't all that necessary. So deletion, I think, would be necessary here unless anyone had any objections. The Snake 06:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Strappingyoungladsyl.jpg
Image:Strappingyoungladsyl.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Strapping Young Lad (album). 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/20141225140037/http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/interviews/interviews/devin_townsend_i_wanna_be_part_of_something_i_dont_wanna_be_the_thing.html to http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/interviews/interviews/devin_townsend_i_wanna_be_part_of_something_i_dont_wanna_be_the_thing.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160817104457/http://www.hevydevy.com/discography.html to http://www.hevydevy.com/discography.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160817104457/http://www.hevydevy.com/discography.html to http://www.hevydevy.com/discography.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Strapping Young Lad (album)


text:
William McCoy

William McCoy or MacCoy may refer to:

 * W. F. McCoy (1886–1976), Speaker of the Northern Ireland House of Commons
 * William McCoy (bootlegger) (1877–1948), American rum-runner during Prohibition
 * William McCoy (congressman) (died 1864), American politician and member of Congress
 * William McCoy (mutineer) (c. 1763–1798), Scottish mutineer on HMS Bounty
 * William McCoy (Oregon politician) (1921–1996), American politician and member of the Oregon Legislative Assembly
 * William D. McCoy (1853–1893), American diplomat
 * William F. MacCoy (1840–1914), lawyer and politician in Nova Scotia, Canada
 * William J. McCoy (composer) (1848–1926), American composer
 * William J. McCoy (Mississippi politician) (1942–2019), American politician and Speaker of the Mississippi House of Representatives
 * William John McCoy (1834–1897), American politician and member of the Wisconsin State Assembly

 * Willie McCoy (rapper) (died 2019), rapper
 * Bill McCoy (cricketer) (1906-1980), New Zealand cricketer

title: William McCoy


text:
And Maggie Makes Three

"And Maggie Makes Three" is the thirteenth episode of the sixth season of the American animated television series The Simpsons. It originally aired on Fox in the United States on January 22, 1995. In the episode, Homer recounts the story of Maggie's birth when Bart and Lisa ask why there are no photos of her in the family album.

The episode was written by Jennifer Crittenden and directed by Swinton O. Scott III. This was both Crittenden and Scott's first episode on The Simpsons. It features cultural references to television series such as The Mary Tyler Moore Show and Knight Rider. Since airing, the episode has received universal acclaim from fans and television critics. It acquired a Nielsen rating of 10.3, and was the fourth highest rated show on the Fox network the week it aired.

Plot
While browsing through the family photo album, Lisa notices it contains no baby pictures of Maggie. Homer explains why by recounting the story of Maggie's birth. In 1993, Homer hated his job at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant and dreamed of working at a bowling alley. After receiving a paycheck clearing him of all his debts, he quit his job at the power plant, humiliating Mr. Burns and literally burning a bridge during his departure. Homer subsequently obtained a job at a bowling alley owned by Barney's uncle, Al.

After Homer and Marge had sexual intercourse to celebrate his new job, she became pregnant. Marge made Patty and Selma promise not to tell Homer, but they told two people known for gossiping. By the next day, every citizen of Springfield knew Marge was pregnant. Despite this, Homer remained oblivious to the news, even when Moe directly congratulated him for getting Marge pregnant. Homer returned home, where Marge's friends had thrown her a baby shower, but he was still unaware of Marge's pregnancy. When Maude casually congratulated Homer on his new job, Homer suddenly realized Marge was pregnant. The news upset him because he was happier working at the bowling alley than any other job, and his salary at the bowling alley would not be enough to raise more than two children.

Marge urged Homer to ask Al for a raise. Al explained the alley's profits prevented him from offering one unless Homer could find a way to increase business threefold. Homer tried to attract more customers by firing a shotgun outside the bowling alley, which only caused a massive panic and large police response - a series of events so absurd, Bart and Lisa do not even believe it until Marge, ashamed, confirms that they happened. Unable to drum up business, Homer quit his dream job and returned to the power plant. Mr. Burns forced Homer beg for his job back and placed a large plaque near his desk which read: "Don't forget: you're here forever". Homer was miserable at work again, but Maggie's birth gave him a positive outlook on life and motivated him to always be there for her.

Back in the present, Bart and Lisa still do not understand what this story has to do with Maggie's missing baby pictures. Homer says the photos are where he needs them most: all over the walls of his work area at the power plant. He has taped some of them to the plaque, covering portions so that the plaque now reads "Do it for her."

Production
The episode was written by Jennifer Crittenden, and directed by Swinton O. Scott III. This was the first episode Scott directed for the show. Crittenden also made her debut as a writer for The Simpsons in this episode. Crittenden was taking a beginners' writing program at 20th Century Fox when former The Simpsons showrunner David Mirkin hired her on the show. Crittenden's only writing experience before that had been as an intern on the Late Show with David Letterman. 20th Century Fox introduced Crittenden to Mirkin, and Mirkin read a script of hers that he liked. When Mirkin first talked to Crittenden, he thought she was a really nice woman who was very mature. Crittenden was only 23 years old at the time, but Mirkin liked her, and he hired her.

After Homer quits his job at the power plant, he violently tosses his old boss Mr. Burns out of the cart he is driving. Homer then drives across a wooden bridge and tosses a match onto it; the whole bridge is instantly engulfed in flames. Mirkin came up with the joke, and said that "the thing with animation is that you can stage almost anything and time it perfectly, something you would not be able to do in live action". As a live-action director, Mirkin said he enjoys the amount of control they have in animation.

In the episode, Mr. Burns places a "de-motivational plaque" in Homer's station that reads "Don't forget: you're here forever". Homer then places photos of Maggie around the plaque to alter it into saying "Do it for her". The Simpsons writer George Meyer, who enjoys writing jokes that involve anagrams or any other forms of word play, came up with the idea for this particular joke. The joke is also an homage to Al Jaffee's Fold-in features in the Mad magazine.

On September 4, 2018, 23 years after the episode's original broadcast, Simpsons producer Matt Selman posted a tweet saying that he had noticed a continuity error in the episode: when Marge announces to Homer that she is pregnant with Maggie, a photo of the baby can be seen in the background.

Cultural references
The couch gag is a reference to the James Bond gun barrel sequence. Dr. Hibbert's flashback hairstyle is modeled after Arsenio Hall's. The family watches Knight Boat, a parody of Knight Rider. Homer spinning around with a bowling ball in his hand before throwing it into the air and exclaiming "I'm gonna make it after all" is reminiscent of the opening of The Mary Tyler Moore Show where Mary throws her hat into the air.

Reception
In its original broadcast, "And Maggie Makes Three" finished 47th in the ratings for the week of January 16 to January 22, 1995, with a Nielsen rating of 10.3. The episode was the fourth-highest rated show on the Fox network that week, beaten only by Melrose Place, Beverly Hills, 90210, and the Rock 'n' Roll Skating Championship.

Since airing, the episode has received universal acclaim from fans and television critics. One-time The Simpsons writer and comedian Ricky Gervais named it his second favorite episode, and said: "Mr. Burns gives [Homer] this terrible plaque above his desk that says, 'Don't forget: You're here forever.' It's about how sometimes things don't go the way you planned, which is pretty amazing in a cartoon. Homer then puts up all the pictures of Maggie he's ever taken to strategically cover this horrible thing so it now reads, 'Do it for her.' It gives me a lump in the throat thinking about it." Warren Martyn and Adrian Wood, the authors of the book I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide, said: "A surprisingly traditional episode. The flashback to 1993 seems a bit odd, but this is a good example of a story that doesn't overly rely on set pieces and confounded expectations for its success." In a review of the sixth season, Joshua Klein of the Chicago Tribune cited "And Maggie Makes Three", "Treehouse of Horror V", "Homer Badman", and "Lisa's Rival" among his favorite episodes of the season.

TV Squad's Adam Finley said the episode "manages to be both incredibly funny and incredibly touching, both signs of a great Simpsons episode". He added that "the episode has some great gags in it, but the emotion is very real, too. Homer is not thrilled with the idea of having a baby, and the episode does a wonderful job of showing the dark side of having another mouth to feed." Colin Jacobson at DVD Movie Guide said in a review of the sixth season DVD: "Flashback episodes of The Simpsons usually work well, and [this episode] is no exception to that rule. Actually, at this point it’s one of my favorites, but that’s partially because of overexposure to some of the other episodes. In any case, this one has many hilarious moments – such as the scene that explains Homer's hair loss." Kevin Wong at PopMatters said the episode is "a touching look at fatherhood".

title: And Maggie Makes Three


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul William Hunter

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 06:47, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Paul William Hunter
O, how I wish we could speedy patent vanity like this. --Xcali 02:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Me too. Please delete. -- Hadal 02:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)\
 * Me three. The VfD load will soon be far too high. Delete. -- Barfooz  (talk)  02:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I see no harm, keep it on. -- Posted by, while simultaneously removing all other votes
 * I see no benefit. Delete. Geogre 03:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Personal ego stroking. Delete. Vonspringer 03:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not assert notability.  resume, vanity. Wikibofh 04:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:28, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry if I've caused any trouble, I'm new to Wikipedia and I was testing out the area. I am interested though in  updating the UTSC page, I'm an alumnus with many years experience in UTSC history, culture, and achievements.  I do sincerely apologize for any commotion I may have caused. -- Posted by
 * Delete. WP:BIO. Double Blue  (Talk) 15:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity. You 19:24, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
User:Hendrixski

about me
I'm a director of Engineering in NYC, before that in Silicon Valley. I'm a father, a camper, a hiker, a biker, a runner, a world traveler, and an avid reader.

pl: Wikipedysta:Hendrixski fr: Utilisateur:Hendrixski

title: User:Hendrixski


text:
User:Astrogoth

Wikipedia is addicting.

title: User:Astrogoth


text:
Johnny Smith (wrestler)

John Robert Hindley (born 7 August 1965) is an English retired professional wrestler, better known by the ring name Johnny Smith. He is best known for his appearances with All Japan Pro Wrestling.

Joint Promotions (1982–1986)
Hindley was trained by his uncle Ted Betley, initially in Winwick, Warrington, and then Port Erin, Isle of Man. He made his debut in January 1982 at the age of 16 at Gloucester Leisure Centre, under the name Junior Royal. A year later, he changed his ring name to John Savage, while wrestling in Germany. In July 1985, he would wrestle under the name The Manxman. His last match for Joint Promotions was held on 31 March 1986, losing to veteran Barry Douglas. Soon after, he moved across the Atlantic to Canada with his wife Jane.

Stampede Wrestling (1986–1990)
Joining Stampede Wrestling in June 1986, Hindley was billed as Davey Boy Smith's brother, Johnny Smith. Two months later, he defeated Gama Singh to win his first championship, the Stampede British Commonwealth Mid-Heavyweight Championship. He would hold onto the title for over a month, before losing the title to Les Thornton.

In 1987, he went on his first Japanese tour in New Japan Pro-Wrestling (NJPW).

Initially a babyface, he turned heel in March 1988 as he joined forces with Gama Singh's Karachi Vice stable and began disrespecting the Hart family, going so far as to berating Davey Boy's wife Diana and feuding with Owen Hart.

In the spring of 1988, he began a feud with Chris Benoit over the British Commonwealth Mid-Heavyweight title. In June 1988, he defeated Benoit to win his second British Commonwealth Mid-Heavyweight title, but lost it back to Benoit a week later. However, Smith rebounded another week later and defeated Benoit for his third British Commonwealth Mid-Heavyweight title. In July 1988, he began feuding with Biff Wellington, which also included a hair vs. hair match in September, which Smith lost, but attacked Wellington after the match and cut his hair instead. In January 1989, Smith's third reign as British Commonwealth Mid-Heavyweight champion came to an end as he lost the title to Chris Benoit in a death match.

In February 1989, he began feuding with Dynamite Kid after interfering during a British Bulldogs-Karachi Vice rematch, attacking him from behind and cutting his hair. The feud also included a series of chain matches, dubbed the Battle of Britain. In May, Dynamite had turned on Davey Boy Smith and Johnny began teaming with Dynamite as The British Bruisers, feuding with Davey Boy and Chris Benoit. In July 1989, he defeated Benoit to win his fourth and final British Commonwealth Mid-Heavyweight championship, but lost it back to Benoit a day later.

All Japan Pro Wrestling (1989–2003)
In February 1989, he followed The Dynamite Kid to wrestle for All Japan Pro Wrestling (AJPW) and replaced Davey Boy Smith as Dynamite Kid's tag team partner in September 1990, reforming the tag team: The British Bruisers.

In between tours in All Japan, Hindley would wrestle the independent circuit in the United States and Canada, as well as brief stints in Extreme Championship Wrestling. He would also wrestle in Europe for Catch Wrestling Association under the name Dynamite Smith.

On 10 April 2003, Hindley collapsed prior to his match at an All Japan Pro Wrestling show. Paramedics were called to the Hiroshima Arena and Hindley was rushed to a local hospital, having lost feeling in some parts of his body, but was in stable condition at a local Japanese hospital. Some believe this incident to be connected to a previous injury. Sometime after the incident, Hindley retired. He was planning to make a comeback in March 2004 for IWA Japan, but chose to remain retired for health reasons.

Personal life
Hindley is married to a woman named Jane.

Hindley became a police officer for the city of Calgary.

According to Dynamite Kid's autobiography, Pure Dynamite, Hindley had a modest personality, as he was one of the few foreign wrestlers that did not negotiate anything at all, letting Giant Baba pay him what he thought was fair. Hindley was also known to be very kind to his fans. One night, a Japanese fan had made a ring jacket for him and was so nice and generous that Johnny didn't have the heart to point out the mistake on it (the misspelling of his first name, which ended up being "Jhonny") to him and wore the jacket throughout his career.

Championships and accomplishments

 * All Japan Pro Wrestling
 * All Asia Tag Team Championship (2 times) – with Dynamite Kid (1 time) and Wolf Hawkfield (1 time)
 * World Tag Team Championship (1 time) – with Taiyō Kea
 * World's Strongest Tag Determination League Fair Play Award (1990, 1991) – with Dynamite Kid
 * Canadian Rocky Mountain Wrestling
 * CRMW Heavyweight Championship (2 times)
 * Canadian Wrestling Hall of Fame
 * Class of 2016
 * Pro Wrestling Illustrated
 * PWI ranked him 116 of the 500 best singles wrestlers in the PWI 500 in 1997
 * Stampede Wrestling
 * Stampede British Commonwealth Mid-Heavyweight Championship (4 times)

title: Johnny Smith (wrestler)


text:
Choose Love (album)

Choose Love is the fourteenth studio album by Ringo Starr, released in 2005.

Background and recording
Recorded throughout 2004 into 2005, using the same team that created Vertical Man (1998) and Ringo Rama (2003), Starr produced the set with longtime musical partner Mark Hudson and performed it with their studio team. The title track has a Beatles-like "Day Tripper" guitar riff with a coda similar to "The Word" and mentions the Beatles songs "The Long and Winding Road", "Tomorrow Never Knows" and "What Goes On". As ever, a Starr album would be lacking if it did not include some celebrity guests and Choose Love does not deviate from the formula; it features Billy Preston and Chrissie Hynde as its most notable guests.

Release
Choose Love was released on 7 June 2005 in the US, and on 25 July in the UK. There was an edition of the album that was a dual disc (CD on side, DVD on the other), with the DVD component featuring bonus features on the making of the album.

Reception
Choose Love failed to chart in both the UK and US, where both Vertical Man and Ringo Rama had seen commercial success. The album received strong reviews upon its release and preceded another promotional tour with Starr and his studio band, called "The Roundheads".

Personnel
Personnel per booklet.

 * Musicians
 * Ringo Starr – drums, percussion, vocals, intro/outro demo tape on "Oh My Lord", organ, loop on "Free Drinks"
 * Mark Hudson – bass, acoustic guitar, electric guitar, backing vocals, keyboards, sax arrangement, harmonica
 * Gary Burr – acoustic guitar, electric guitar, backing vocals, bass, slide guitar
 * Mark Mirando – electric guitar, backing vocals
 * Dan Higgins – horns, saxes, woodwinds
 * Gary Grant – horns
 * Jim Cox – horn arrangement, piano, sax arrangement, woodwind arrangement
 * Robert Randolph – lead guitar
 * Steve Dudas – electric guitar, acoustic guitar
 * Billy Preston – piano, B3 organ, backing vocals on "Hard to Be True"
 * The Rose Stone Choir – backing vocals on "Oh My Lord"
 * Rose Stone – choir arrangement on "Oh My Lord"
 * Ringo Starr, Mark Hudson, Gary Burr – uboo drum band on "Hard to Be True"
 * John Amato – saxes
 * Chrissie Hynde – lead vocals on "Don't Hang Up"
 * Barbara Bach – devil voice on "The Turnaround"
 * Dean Grakal – background vocals on "The Turnaround"

 * Production
 * Ringo Starr, Mark Hudson – producers
 * Bruce Sugar – recording
 * Kevin Churko, Gary Burr, Steve Dudas – additional recording
 * Dave Way – mixing
 * Lior Goldenberg, Ghian Wright, Andy Brohard – assistant engineers
 * George Marino – mastering
 * Tyrone Drake – art direction, design
 * Barbara Starkey – cover photo
 * Ringo Starr, Barbara Starkey, Mark Hudson, Gary Burr, Edward AJAJ, Teness Herman – additional photos

title: Choose Love (album)


text:
Talk:Choose Love (album)

Fair use rationale for Image:RingoStarrChooseLoveCDCover.jpg
Image:RingoStarrChooseLoveCDCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 28 October 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Also a consensus for there being no primary topic, so the disambiguation page will be moved to the basename. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 17:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Choose Love → Choose Love (album) – A comparison of the pageviews of Choose Love, Choose Love (organisation), and Choose Love (film) reveals that neither of the former two is the primary topic. In fact, the album—despite being the most easily encountered when using Wikipedia's search function—gets the least pageviews. The first page of a Google search for "choose love" is dominated by the film, with some mention of the organisation, and no mention of the album. The film's article seems to have stabilised at 250–500 pageviews per day, which may lead one to suggest that it is the primary topic, but considering that it is relatively new, I think that it will reach the other two articles' levels of pageviews over enough time. I have created this discussion to gain consensus that the album is not the primary topic, and to generate discussion about what the primary topic. Right now, I'm leaning towards no primary topic, and renaming the disambiguation page to Choose Love. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 15:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nom. It seems pretty clear that the film has become the primary topic over the past few months. It will likely remain so, but a dab page is fine for now. We can always move the film later. Station1 (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and move DAB to base name.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Choose Love (album)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lendyl Croydon D’Souza

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Lendyl Croydon D%92Souza
Another patent vanity. --Xcali 02:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, pretty please. -- Hadal 02:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity, resume, does not assert notability. Vandalized vote.Wikibofh 04:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:BIO. Double Blue  (Talk) 15:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Vanity. You 19:25, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. JamesBurns 05:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
Talk:Texas v. White

Added reference to supreme law of the land

 * Would you mind revising this addition or explaining its placement? The 14th amendment was not added until 1868, however the case applied to events that happened in 1861.

VERY well put. My sincere apologies. --Cuimalo 04:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How was this decision made?
What were/are the relevant texts that this decision was based on? There's nothing obvious in the Constitution that implies that the union between the States is perpetual. I would think the founding fathers would have thought otherwise. Also, the union cannot be dissolved "except through revolution"--I take it they mean sucessful revolution? What was the Civil War but a failed revolution? (Disclaimer: I am neither a secessionist nor a southern sympathizer. Thank God for the Union victory and the end of slavery.)  --Locarno 14:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just as a personal opinion, what are the texts that the court base a lot of their decisions on? I don't know.  A perpetuity clause was present in the Articles of Confederation, so the idea of such a clause was there among the founders, so it's obvious, at least to me, that the right to secede is (or was) available (especially since many saw the Constitution as an experiment that would only last a few decades), and that's only strengthened, in my opinion, by the 10th Amendment.  Not to mention that, when Massachusetts was threatening to secede, president Thomas Jefferson said, "then let them depart".  To summarize, I don't know.  They were Lincoln appointees and they apparently did his bidding, that's about all the explanation I can give. --Age234 22:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, the War Between the States was deemed then and later to be just a failed rebellion/revolution. There are provisions added to the Constitution in the 14th Amendment that specifically mention the case of states in rebellion. Read up on it.

Any successful rebellion from the United States would obviously be a de facto event.

DAW68.159.134.65 21:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Eight-man decision
Who was the ninth Justice? How did he vote? Did he recuse himself? --BDD 00:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

 * There wsa no ninth Justice. The size of the court has changed over time. Lincoln got to appoint a 10th Justice, but Johnson was denied the opportunity to appoint any, so the court shrunk through attrition in the late 1860s. From the SCOTUS page here on en.wp:
 * "In 1866, however, Congress wished to deny President Andrew Johnson any Supreme Court appointments, and therefore passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which provided that the next three Justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court would eventually reach seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. By the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, the number of Justices was again set at nine."
 * The list of Justices on the Salmon P. Chase page confirms that the court had 8 members at the time. --Isra1337 09:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Majority decision
I wrote a bit about the majority decision, and I was hoping someone could review wether my interpretation of it is correct, and this isn't my area of expertise (Ironically, I wrote a paper on this decision, but I was looking at more abstract values). CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 16:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Texas state constitution
Rumor has it the Texas state constitution allows secession through votes from the state government. When the Republic of Texas was admitted to the union in 1845, the U.S. declared Texas was a voluntary member and has the right to be self-autonomous in the decision of remaining a state of the union. The 1869 Texas v. White case should reversed this part of the state constitution and declare the secession clause void by federal law. In the 1990's a number of Texas separatist militias appeared in the news media and spoke of the Texas state constitution is the only one to allow secession. Who's right on this?--207.200.116.11 01:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 * From what I can tell, the militias are wrong. There is no secession clause in the Txas state constitution. As for when Texas was admitted to the union, I don't know if the federal government gave the option of Texas being autonomous or not. Anything to that effect would be in the resolution or law that admitted Texas in the first place, so you would want to check there. As well, even if Texas did have a secession clause that was overruled by the Supreme Court, it could technically still be in there. Just because the Supreme Court declares a law or clause unconstitutional doesn't remove it from law. The state would need to amend their constitution to remove it. If it is there and the Supreme Court eventually overturned Texas v. White it would again be valid. -- Johnny06man 12:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a perpetual myth that is pretty common in Texas, to the point of being taught in some hisorty classes, according to some of my Texas colleagues. No such clause or exclusion exists. from my readings of all related documents, my assumption is that the misunderstanding derives from what is essentially "flavor" text in the start of the Texas Constitution that speaks vaguely about the subject. However, that flavor text does not reserve any right or qualify itself, but instead is directly superceded by specific statements in the Texas Constitution affirming it to be secondary to the US Constitution. However, this is a moot point as, by virtue of being a state, Texas' constitution is secondary via supremacy to the US Constitution. This is turn is moot as Texas V. White is the ultimate last word on the subject, being laid forth by the highest adjudicating body of the highest governmental authority. The mysterious exclusionary clause is the subject of much folklore, but is simply not true. There are websites that make spruious claims to the contramry, but rely on selective quotation and non-legal arguments. The final legal say on the matter is solid. Texas, and the rest of the states, cannot secede except as provided under the US Constitution and TExas v. White. Unfortunately, our wonderful governor likes to trot out the old folklore now and again.Jbower47 (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I've been taught, Texas can secede from the Union becasue they joined as a independent nation, not a territory. If I'm correct, this bit should be in the Constitution. this also applies to flag rights, etc etc. There are also bits in the constitution that allows Texas to divide into 5 states if majority approves.208.80.74.49 (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Texan
 * Who on earth taught you? Looks like they need to go back to school.Ben (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The 5 states bit is from the annexation treaty and is true. The rest, such as the purported flag rights, is the equivalent of an urban legend that crept its way in to elementary school history lessons. 64.134.101.48 (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Joining as an independent nation would have nothing to do with it. When you join, you are bound by the rules, whatever they are, however you came. The 5-states rule makes me wonder, however. Can any state can do that? Or, if Texas can, why can not others? Can a state negotiate separate rights for itself when joining? If so, could it negotiate a seccession option? Expansion in these points, with legal references, would improve the article.

Certain religious rights were granted by treaty in the acquisition of both California and Alaska. Anything here that might lead to special status for a state? It might be of course, that the former owners were simplify being given formal assurances that these were guaranteed by the Constitution, but again, I wonder. A state used to be able to set up a state church, as the first amendment was held to only apply to the Federal govt., until the Supreme Court promulgated the Incorporation Doctrine. So, could a state be bound by such a treaty when it is admitted? The answer could be relevant to the previous questions. This article needs a good going over by a constitutional lawyer.

One other thing; this decision was handed down in 1869. I can not possibly be the first person to think that it would have been nice if they had said something earlier :) . 70.214.3.138 (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Confused A Bit
This is a nice article but it puzzles me a bit. First, while I acknowledge the main impact of TEXAS VS. WHITE was to judge against secession, it doesn't really give a very clear explanation of what the technical issue was: "OK, so ... what's this business about the bonds and the state of Texas?" It's just not clear what the problem was and exactly what it had to do with the legitimacy or lack thereof of secession.

And in the end, I don't see how the technical issue was resolved: "So, uh ... what happened about the bonds?"

All this might be familiar and perfectly implicit to someone who is versed in the case, but speaking for those who are not, it's not obvious. The article might be clarified on this topic.

MrG -- 12 Nov 06

 * Someone else might know more about the details of what happened to those U.S. bonds. However, the Supreme Court ruling did say that ALL acts of the legislatures of the various Conferate states were NULL. (In other words, null & void.) Thus, the sale of those U.S. bonds, owned by the state of Texas, which was done by the Texas Confederate legislature was a null act. All of those U.S. bonds that has been the property of Texas, thus, had legally continued to be the property of Texas until they were legally cashed in or sold, later. Mr. White, et al., lost their case. It was as if they had never "bought" them, and whatever money they paid for them was just money down the drain for them.

DAW 68.159.134.65 21:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Last Sentence Needs Revision
The last sentence reads: "Chief Justice Chase (1864), Justice Swayne (1861), Justice Miller (1862), Justice Davis (1862), Justice Field, (1863) were all President Lincoln appointees who essentially validated Lincoln's decision to go to war with the Confederate States of America after the war's cessation in 1865 which also makes this decision controversial."

The last part about "Lincoln's decision to war with the Confederate States of America after the war's cessation in 1865" is not correct and makes no sense. Lincoln was assassinated three weeks after "the war's cessation." Perhaps the author is referring to the radical Republican plan for Reconstruction that imposed military districts occupied by Union army troops on the defeated Confederate States?Johnmshaw 16:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I have corrected the sentence by adding the correct punctuation and emphasis. The original sentence actually made sense if one read it correctly in its context, but it was actually unclear w/o the proper punctuation. This is a sign of the problems that can be caused by people who are too lazy to punctuate correctly. Here's the revised version:

 * "...who essentially validated Mr. Lincoln's 1861 decision to go to war with the Confederate States of America - after the War's cessation in 1865, which also makes this decision controversial."

 * I added '1861' to emphasize when the decision was made, and added a hyphen and an obviously missing comma to clarify it. What they were trying to say was that Lincoln & Congress made the decision to go to war in 1861, WITHOUT any decision by the Supreme Court to validate that act. In effect, the 1867 Supreme Court decision was an ex post facto one that referred to events that had already occurred in 1861-65. This is what makes the decision conroversial - particularly to people who argue that the Supreme Court should have been asked to act in 1861 on the issue of whether any secession by the States was valid or not.

 * Nobody knows what they might have ruled then, and that is a totally unanswerable question.

DAW 68.159.134.65 21:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

West Virginia?
Did the case deal at all with the obvious fact that West Virginia had been allowed to secede from Virginia and continued to be following the war? Seems as though someone would have pointed out that this completely destroys the majority ruling. Just curious.--King ravana (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * West Virginia seceded from Virginia. Texas (et. al) seceded from the US, and that's what this ruling refers to, secession from the United States to form your own country (which is what Texas and the rest of the Confederacy did.  There is provision for states to be made from other states, like West Virginia did (and there is a tie-in to this ruling involved - despite the fact that Virginia already seceded, it would seem based on this ruling that West Virginia was created from the state of Virginia).  All that is needed to create a new state from another (or others) is permission from the state(s) involved to do so.  (Maine was also created from Massachusetts too, remember.)  --Canuckguy (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. I understand there is a difference to some degree. However, you mention there is a provision exists whereby a new state may be formed from an existing one (or more) with the caveat that they gain permission from said states to do so. That does not answer, however, the question of West Virginia, as Virginia certainly did NOT give permission for said secession at the time it occurred. So, if we accept the Union perspective that the Confederate states were never a separate country, how then can we resolve the West Virginia scenario with the existing legal corpus? It doesn't fit. --King ravana (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A loyal Virginia state government was created after Virginia declared its secession. The loyal Virginia government was recognized by the USA just as rump secessionist governments in Kentucky and Missouri were recognized by the CSA.  It was the Union state government that approved the creation of West Virginia. While what happened sure looked like secession, no ordinance of secession was ever issued.  See Border states (American Civil War) for the details. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! That makes it all much clearer. More extra-Constitutional acts on the part of Lincoln & Co. Makes perfect sense now. --King ravana (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

All quite constitutional. Of course an illegal government, like the secessionists in Richmond, would object to such acts. But that is the crux of the argument, I guess.

Jefferson Davis has some interesting arguments in his "Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government" and other writings involving West Virginia, including the idea that the Confederate States had formed a nation, and people could not go around seceding from it. He gets rather indignant at the idea. This is kind of funny, but is relevant here because of the unconscious preshadowing of Chase's arguments in White. It could be an interesting addition, if someone likes to do the research. 70.214.3.138 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
This portion of a sentence in the 8th paragraph (which follows the second quote) of the Majority Opinion section is a bit confusing.

"...and reestablish the proper relationship between Texas and the federal government the Rebellion..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.166.107 (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I've corrected the sentence. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits
The edits removed material that is not attributed to any source, or misrepresents the source. It is not acceptable to write an entire paragraph and then cite to a source at the end of the paragraph. This is deceptive editing, particularly when the editor injects his voice into the material under the guise of verifiable authority, or purports to interpret case law. Each statement should be cited accurately. If a source says something, provide a full direct quote without cherry-picking to create a false impression about the material. Then your edits will be beyond reproach.74.192.33.39 (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Wrong on pretty much all counts.

 * 1. You deleted material from the article lead, claiming it was unsourced. In fact, the material is fully sourced in the body of the article.  You need to read WP:LEADCITE which clearly states:

 * Material that requires an inline citation does not necessarily require an inline citation at the first or every mention of the material. Since most, if not all, of the lead's material is repeated in the body, citations at these later points may be sufficient. Editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.

 * 2. The other material you deleted for lack of documentation was properly document in footnotes place at the end of the paragraph.  You claim, "It is not acceptable to write an entire paragraph and then cite to a source at the end of the paragraph." In fact, WP:INCITE clearly states:

 * If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text.

 * 3. You claim, "If a source says something, provide a full direct quote without cherry-picking to create a false impression about the material." In the first place, since you have not read the actual sources, your claim that I am "cherry-picking" is nothing but personal invective.  On the use of quotes versus paraphrase, you need to read WP:QUOTEFARM:

 * "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both.

 * This inappropriate editing by you is simply an expansion of your contentious editing of the article Secession in the United States. On that article you edits have been made using at least three different IP addresses. I will properly restore the information and add a couple of additional footnotes to the lead, even though they are not required. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

--- Tom: I only deleted statements that were suspect and not verifiable. I have witnessed how you cite, selectively quote, or insert your own words inside quotations. I would be embarrassed to take such liberty with the sources. It is dishonest and destructive to the purpose of Wikipedia. Words like "radical" "doughboy" and "neoconfederate" are not typically part of an academic's professional vocabulary. Even if you found a source using those precise words, I doubt it, you might ask yourself--does the statement represent a NPOV, or an agenda? Speaking of agendas, isn't the Southern Poverty Law Center, cited on your Neo-Confederate page, a primary source, or is it some other type of unreliable source?74.192.7.135 (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

 * More personal invective. All the statements are verifiable -- of course you'd have to actual get the book and read the appropriate pages to judge that one way or the other. You haven't done that, have you?

 * Contrary to your claim, the terms "doughface" (not "doughboy") and radical, when referring to the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction, are commonly used by historians of the era. In the sections you deleted there was a total of one use of each term and in both cases the terms were used in the referenced works. Nowhere in this article is the term "neoconfederate" used. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath
I added this page to Category:Aftermath of the American Civil War, but someone reverted said edit, claiming said category apparently did not exist. Well, it exists. I just created it. Therefore adding this page to said category is appropriate. Okay?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

When was the case decided?
On our article one reads "Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869". Same in the infobox: "Argued February 5, 1869 Decided April 12, 1869". However, on FindLaw here it says that the case was decided on the 1st December 1868. Cornell Law School here also reports "December Term, 1868". Idem OpenJuris here. The original Reporters by Wallace here have "Dec 1868". But here it gets even trickier: one reads "Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)" but also "Decided: April 12, 1869" - just like our article. A couple of scholarly articles entirely dedicated to Texas v White report "Wall. 700 (1868)" (this one) and "74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869)" (this one). However, in the first article one reads that the case was decided "On April 15, 1869". Same here: "15 April 1869". So, when was the case decided? In 1868 or 1869? on April, 15, or on April, 12? I am at a loss. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Confusing quotation
The quotation in the last paragraph of Texas_v._White is confused: "There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States' was not surprising." is grammatically unsound. I could not find a correct quotation. Zaslav (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Texas v. White


text:
User talk:Eche

Your images on Burj al-Arab
I appreciate the color that the photos have added to the page, but it seems likely that we do not have permission to use them on Wikipedia. You noted that one came from here, which says nothing to indicate that we can use them, and the others  don't have any attribution at all. I was able to find one here but couldn't find a source for the other. In the absence of evidence of permission to use them, I'm going to mark them as either unverified or as possible copyright violations. Hopefully we can get some higher-quality, more usable photos! HorsePunchKid → 龜 02:41, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

title: User talk:Eche


text:
User:Cookie4869~enwiki

 * Japanese Student
 * edit mainly Category:Optics (+ja:)

title: User:Cookie4869~enwiki


text:
Talk:Henry Iba

Medals
Coaches don't get Olympic medals. I'm removing the medal template because it is misleading.

You dont just remove stuff like this. You need to have a consensus to get it removed. Everyone knows coaches dont get medels it just shows what the team he coached got and it does say he coached the team not played on it. Theworm777 (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
I would like to note that the Maryville College that Henry Iba coached at was located in Missouri, not in Tennessee as the link on this page indicates. On the website for the basketball hall of fame, they list the school as Maryville (MO) College. (http://www.hoophall.com/halloffamers/Iba.htm)   Today the school is known as Northwest Missouri State University.

I won't make any changes to the page, but I question the listing of John Wooden and Adolf Rupp as part of Henry Iba's coaching tree. Wooden had no particular association with Iba and Rupp played college basketball at the University of Kansas under Phog Allen -- one of Iba's main rivals. The list is impressive enough as it is. There is no need to inaccurately inflate it.

We need to change the Rupp association. Mr. Rupp went from Kansas under Allen (and Naismith was still involved on those 22-23 teams) to Kentucky and never served under Iba or at A&M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbed153 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry Iba. 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/20140222153017/http://www.cubuffs.com/fls/600/mbb/2011-12_Info_Guide/124-185_season_by_season_results.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=600 to http://www.cubuffs.com/fls/600/mbb/2011-12_Info_Guide/124-185_season_by_season_results.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=600

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henry Iba. 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/20071002015849/http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=261449 to http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=261449
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304120059/http://www.nwmissouri.edu/sports/mensbball/2012/Game%20Notes/Northwest_Recordbook_11-12.pdf to http://www.nwmissouri.edu/sports/mensbball/2012/Game%20Notes/Northwest_Recordbook_11-12.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Henry Iba