text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sasquatch

Sasquatch
[ Vote here] (26/2/7) ending 03:04 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a great guy to me. He participates in vfd alot, reverts vandalism, and does not have editcountitis. He has been using edit summaries almost since the beginning of his Wikipedia career, which started on 00:39, 19 November 2004. Tool shows he has 1128 edits, as of about 10 minutes ago. I definitely feel he will wield the sacred mop wisely, and I hope no editors will be harmed in this RFA. --Phroziac (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I gladly and honorably accept this nomination. Just as a note: before you vote, please read all I have to say to the questions below rather than judge based on edit counts (after all, editcountitis can be fatal ;-)). Thanks! Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) For the reasons above --Phroziac (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) support because he helped me on IRC far more than he needed to. njaard 04:58, 2005 July 21 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - he edits a wide variety of articles, and he's a great help on VfD as well. --Idont Havaname 05:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support seems like a fine user.  Grue  08:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support friendly editor with a penchant for housekeeping. :-p  Tomer TALK  17:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support a man that knows what he's doing.--Moosh88 19:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. I'm impressed by the answers to the standard 3 questions, and to the pretty off-the-wall additional ones. Lack of edits might be a concern (but I'll take quality over quantity) and his answer to the first neutral vote is tellingly true (as long you as you promise the double-negative was one of the typos!). Does VfD/RC/copyvio and other editing too so has looked around some. -Splash 00:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright, I fixed that typo... Boy I feel kinda dumb after checking that answer over. =S Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:47, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Unconditional support. Denelson83 01:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. This user has shown good evidence of commitment to Wikipedia and has made significant contributions throughout the wiki. A pleasant and helpful individual through my experiences on IRC, and through evidence on talk pages. The answers given to the adminship questions below are honest and provide good evidence of this user's intentions to use administrative privileges well. Sasquatch will make an excellent asset to Wikipedia as an admin, I am sure. I wholeheartedly support this user's nomination for adminship. --NicholasTurnbull 02:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Great user, I've never seen him around actually but looking at his contribs hes good. Plus Brandonfarb below needs to be caged. As long as its not a straw man sock you got my vote ; - ) Redwolf24 05:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. As a matter of curiosity, where do you think the sockpuppets in the Oppose column come from? Have you upset someone on the wiki lately or have they just picked someone at random? — David Remahl 08:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're socks. Boothy443 opposes almost every RfA and has been around for ages. Brandonfarb has turned up recently, made an extremely unlikely nomination and cast a distinctly off-colour vote (with a total of some 10 edits). The Bureaucrats will know what to do, I'm sure. -Splash 14:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikifever isn't a reason to deny adminship to you, sir. Andre ( talk ) 09:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. JuntungWu 06:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Nothing wrong with replying to comments. --User:Merovingian (t) (c) 12:41, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Support The trolls and sockpuppets really seem to hate you... which suggests that you're certainly doing something right. Great work on VfD, strong vandal-fighter, helpful edit summaries.  Damn fine admin material. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  14:05, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Involved and brings a lot of enthusiasm to our community.Pamstar 15:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC) Please note that this is the users (Pamstar) FIRST edit
 * First, I would like to say I am hesitant to cross any votes out on this page as it would constitute a conflict of intrest, however after seeing . It has become increasingly clear that Pamstar is as Rainbowwarrior used to wrong account to sign in that time. That being said, I am personally discounting this as a sock puppet vote and hope other admins pay attention. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 22:30, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * It has been brought to my attention below that this user shares a computer with Rainbowwarrior1977. However, I still believe this vote should not count as it was the user's first edit which suggests something is amiss. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 04:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Sasquatch seems like a sensible good contributor, and I find the arguments of the opposition patently unconvincing. Radiant_ >|< 19:09, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. I don't recall much interation with Sasquatch, which would normally mean my not participating in the vote, but I knew I'd seen the name somewhere recently. I was the admin responsible for the protection and unprotection in the Star Wars credits dispute. I was most impressed by the way Sasquatch managed to get the parties talking and come up with a solution that meant the articles were only protected for a couple of days rather than the month that seems to be the average. Combined with superb answers to the questions below and responses to the oppose/neutral votes I am more than happy to vote in support. Thryduulf 19:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Seems to do quite a bit of good work.  I also like that there is someone else working on Alberta mayors.  -- JamesTeterenko 19:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) --Kbdank71 18:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Good VfD contributor. android  79  01:48, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - the sockpuppets swung it for me. the wub  "?/!"  08:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support I have met Sasquatch a number of times, notably in VfD and I think he would make a very good addition to the Admin team.-Poli (talk • contribs) 14:11, 2005 July 26 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. I've seen Sasquatch around Vfd, and am happy to place my vote here.--Scimitar parley 15:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Sasquatch's work on VfD and vandalism shows he knows his way around the 'pedia and has the admin spirit. - Thatdog 05:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Very fine user. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Boothy443 opposes all adminship requests. --brian0918
 * Looking at his voting history, I'm going to assume this is a "Wolf vote". Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:15, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well i guess you just made and ASS out of both you and me then, but being that your seeking adminship i should have just assumed that shouldnt i, but that just seems to be the type of admins that wikipedia is looking for. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input? Jeez... don't really know how to respond to that... guess you must be one of the nice people =) Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 07:13, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * well then here is an idea, withdraw your nomination. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Why exactly? You do realize the reason I labelled it a that in the first place is because I found it amusing that your User page redirects to that. Offence was never intended. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 07:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- BMIComp (talk, criticize) 08:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * After some completation, I decided to change my vote to neutral: I don't oppose your adminship, I'd just like to see more from you before I can support it. I also agree with Kelly said, about warning users.  -- BMIComp  (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 00:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I know you're not required to but could I have a reason if possible? Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 17:12, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Not nearly enough edits and most of them are very recent ones, as if the nominee were "ramping up" for his run for admininstratorship.  His comments on this page border on obnoxious.  And why does he have to respond to each and every comment on his nomination?  Seems a bit creepy to me.  Definately NOT the kind of person we need running this system.  Ick!Rainbowwarrior1977 03:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * First I'd like to point out the irony of me responding to a comment about me responding to too many comments =S Second: How can I be ramping up for a nomination someonse else made? The main reason my edits have been so clumped is because a) summer means I have more free time and b) i caught a sever case of Wikifever. Third: I respond to comments because I more or less view this as a kind of RfCriticism so I can know what I can improve, it is my RfA afterall. And last: I think you have a misconception of what admins do. They do not "run the system" but rather get 2 main conviniences for janatorial purposes: 1) having ther "revert" or "rollback" button and 2) the ability to delete pages that either fall under WP:CSD or get a consensus for deletion at WP:VFD. In addition, they can also block/unblock users (but I don't plan on focusing on that unless I see something really attrocious, IMO blocks are the last resort as the wiki should be for anyone). Also, I think I should respond to any concerns on my RfA page as simple acknoledgement that I agree with them, see WP:CON. Afterall, WP is about consensus building, and how can you do that without discussion? Otherwise, thanks for you input! Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * On second thought, was IS going on here? Whats with all the hassle, strike outs, swearing, etc?  Did I miss something?Rainbowwarrior1977 19:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * A bunch of sock puppet trolls are spamming oppose votes. The swearing is being done by the trolls, and I crossed several of their votes out (but have now moved them to the "Discarded votes" section). Please note that his responding to comments on this page is not a valid reason for opposing nomination, especially when he is responding to troll votes. The fact that he is receiving so much opposition from trolls seems like a sign that he is doing a good job in the anti-vandalism dept. For example, it's common knowledge that users who are active in janitorial and anti-vandalism work get their user pages vandalized regularly, and many have taken this as a compliment. -- BRIAN 0918  20:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Would support after seeing more article edits. Seems like a fairly good editor on what's there so far so I wouldn't oppose him. Grace Note 06:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, thought this would come up. In response, I don't think my editting habits are going to change no matter how many I make and I think its more important how well I know WP policy and what not After all, WP can always use some more good admins =). Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Review of his edits and talk page shows nothing remiss. However, only 60 edits in user talk space suggests that this editor doesn't communicate enough with other editors, and especially shows that this editor is likely not warning the vandals s/he reverts.  I'm therefore not comfortable supporting at this time.  (And I want the option to "show contributions" that lets you pick a particular namespace back!) Kelly Martin 12:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Will definetly work on that =). Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 17:19, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Perhaps I would support after seeing more edits, over a period of next few months. I wish him all the best.--Bhadani 17:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) For reasons stated above. -- BMIComp  (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 00:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Looks very promising, but still a bit short on user interaction. Keep up the solid work, and I'll support the next RFA for sure. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * support. JuntungWu 04:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC) Neutral. I want to hear more about the allegations above. JuntungWu 05:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Allegations? Please clarify, I certainly hope you are not refering the comments from "Troll Hitler" which in itself seems like a sock. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 05:58, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Moving back to support after looking at the user history, talk pages, etc.. --JuntungWu 06:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. Good contributor but I would prefer more contributions in the talk, user talk, and Wikipedia talk namespaces. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) moved to neutral. I meet Sasquatch quite often last days and don't want to discourage him. I would still prefere RFA say month from now. Oppose : the edits I checked are OK but vast majority of them were done during last 6 weeks. This makes me bit uneasy to make a judgement (hence oppose). Thanks for helping with dealing with vandals. Pavel Vozenilek 18:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem =) I will help to deal with vandals whether this goes through or not. Thanks for the comments! Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 02:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Number of sockpuppets on this voting suggests you are doing good work. Pavel Vozenilek 20:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yea... though they are mildy annoying... Sasquatch′↔T↔C 05:29, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * This editor, who, by all appearances is a well-balanced even-keeled human being, has very few edits, and so registering a vote about hir is either a matter of POV or an expression of abject faith in the stability of the unknown. That said, I'm not trying to undermine this RfA.  I have, however, in hopes of clarifying a couple of potential issues, asked two (what are, IMHO, important) questions below, in addition to the general questions asked of every editor who comes up for RfA.  Please note, the timestamp of my asking, and any subsequent responses, when considering this user for adminship.   Tomer TALK  07:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * You have good points, but, technically, any rfa vote is pov, isn't it? --Phroziac (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course. From my POV, he's a sound candidate for adminship. :-)  Tomer TALK  17:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Regarding Seems like a great guy to me. He participates in vfd alot, reverts vandalism, and does not have editcountitis.: Is editcountitis a word that is widely understood? The only real results of a google search other than some CGI script and this article itself that I could find is a CVS log calling it a typo where the word editcounts was supposedly meant..   Are we talking about some disease where a Wikipedian just makes a bunch of useless edits for the sake of making them, or what? --Mysidia 13:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * lol. Editcountitis is when a person votes on RFA and completely or mostly bases there votes on edit count. I didn't know it was that uncommon, but it is mentioned on kates tool, which I assume to be the CGI script you referred to. --Phroziac (talk)
 * Yea, editcountitis is when people base their decision solely on edit counts rather than the quality of edits/user interaction etc. see WP:KATE or the kate's tool link above =) Sasquatch′↔T↔C 19:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I see, thank you for clarifying what is meant by the word. --Mysidia 02:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment What the hell is going on here? What's with all the strike outs?  Dont you think its unethical to strike out stuff on your own nomination?  In addition, who gave this other fellow the power to arbitrarily void the comments of others in an open vote?  And what is this obsession with edit counts?  Are new user's opinions to be discounted?  I didn't read that anywhere on Wikipedia policy.  And Pam is my WIFE, guy, so please back off!Rainbowwarrior1977
 * Umm...... first, I have moved this to the "comments" section as it is a comment. Second, I did not strike out any of the oppose votes... If you look through the edit history, you will surely notice that other users did most of it. The only vote I struck out is the support vote, and as I said, I did it with "hesitancy". I did not void any comments and have continued to respond to them. However, since you have unstruck the votes, I will leave it that way until we can get this matter sorted out. And the whole point of "editcoutitis" is telling people NOT to be obsessed with edit counts... so I really don't know what you're trying to get at here... As for "Pam is my WIFE, guy, so please back off" I am sorry if I got it wrong, you have to admit that she made the exact same comments that you did right after which is suspicious to say the least... and according to your user page, as of July 22, 2005, you "have fifteen years of age". I was not aware you could get married at that age. Again, I apoligize if I crossed that off wrong but until you can provide evidence to the contrary, I shall leave it crossed as it is highly suspicious. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 04:00, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, its ok, I guess I should complain to that other guy that crossed off all the negative votes; it wasn't you. Anyway, why did he do that?  Who gave him the power to unilaterally strike comments like that?  And the edit count fixation to which I was referring involves those users who post "he has only 5 edits" after people's votes, as if new users dont get a say...  Yes, Pam is my wife; we only have one computer here at our home in Orlando. All the best, although I still have to oppose, for now.Rainbowwarrior1977 04:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry about any misunderstandings, the reason they were crossed off is that they are most likely "sock puppets". If you have no objections, I am going to cross off "Troll Hitler"'s comments and nomination as it is obviously bad faith. The others ones I will leave up to the beaurucrat's judgement. Again, I apoligize for any misunderstandings about your wife, however, (if it is alright with you) I wish to leave her vote crossed out as it was her first edit (most first edits should not be to votes as it implies that something brought her here other than than the norm). By the way, your opposition is perfectly fine =) Thanks! Sasquatch′↔T↔C 04:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * Well, I would really look forward to help close up the VFDs, CFDs, TFDs etc. along with my standard RC patrol (I would make good use of the revert button) as well as the standard speedy deletes (I already tag alotta pages for speedy deletion which which probably would add another 200+ edits to my edit count). I also would help out in mediating whatever arguements I notice like I already do.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * Most recently, I pretty much rewrote and started the Yogi Rock article which got onto DYK. Overall, I don't think I have made any super controvercial edits and only revert edits due to vanalism. I have never started an edit war (or ever will) as I always defer to talk pages (see Japanese war crimes and the talk page for evidence). I also help wikify new pages and general formatting (which by itself is not that important but when you keep it up, I think it deserves some recognition).
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * I don't think anyone has ever caused me stress, but I have helped mediate some conflicts. The most recent one I can think of is over the credits in Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. I have always kept a level head when editting and I think thats most important for an admin over anyhing. O, and of course I'm civil, good mannered and what not ;-).
 * 4. When you say you'd make "good use of the revert button", I assume you're talking about the "rollback" tab not currently available to you. When you say this, what do you mean by "good use"?  Tomer TALK  07:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Only on RC patrol to rollback vandalism (as with using the delete process to speedy delete things that fall under CSD while patrolling Special:Newpages. Again, I have never started an edit war and never will. I think I've made it clear that if any of my edits do come into conflict I will automatically defer to talk pages rather than mindlessly rollback over and over again (which so often is the case these days =S ).
 * 5. I presume you don't realize that you've made either typographical or grammatical errors (which, as a nitpicker, I've noticed) in each of your responses to questions 1-3 above. How do nitpicking editors "correcting" your edits affect your performance?  Given adminship, how honestly, do you think that you would address any editor, even an anon, following your edits and correcting your spelling, grammar and syntax?  Tomer TALK  07:49, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that's the purpose of a Wiki. If any one member makes a mistake, it is the job of other users to correct it/improve it. I would be more than honored to have my own personal copy editor =). In fact, if you notice any blatant grammatical errors in any of my edits (including my own user page), I urge you to correct them for the benefit of other users so they can understand what I'm saying. Afterall, nobody's perfect nor do I expect anybody to be and we always have something to learn.

Discarded votes
 * 1) oppose. Seems, to me anyway, to take too much of a 'hands on' and personal approach to problems better solved with deliberation and reflection.Brandonfarb 05:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * User has ten edits. Radiant_ >|< 07:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm? I'm not sure I completely understand that, could you clarify a bit so I can address the issue in my future edits? Again, in my answers to the standard question below, I provided evidence that I always deliberate and attempt to reach a consensus if any of my edits come under question rather than start a revert war. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:10, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * On another note, why did you alter the page header here?. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fuck off, cocksucker! I'm not answering any questions from the likes of you.Brandonfarb 03:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that last comment. That just slipped out!Brandonfarb 04:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * More nice people... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 04:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: This lengthy rebuttal on the merits to an obvious sock puppet and known troll is evidence of either 1) Sasquatch's own collusion with the various sockpuppets on this voting, or 2) a certain foolish naivety that is undesirable in one with administrative powers.Bournesupremacyisreal 18:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Not nearly enough of a verfiable edit history.  Most edits are minor and of little consequence.  Besides, this user seems to bring out a tremendous amount of ill-will towards him (see above comments).  For these reasons I must oppose.MikeLowryBadBoys 16:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 *  The above user (MikeLowryBadBoys) has a total of 6 edits.
 * 1) Oppose. I suspect Sasquatch himself is the one behind the "sockpuppets" opposing him, in order to create controversy and inflate his repuation as one who is disliked by sockpuppets (and therefore must be "doing something right.")  Sadly, this underhanded tactic seems to be working . . . (see above).Bournesupremacyisreal 18:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * User's 4th edit. 3 were to this RfA. --Idont Havaname 18:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Just as a response to that statement, the "doing something right" can clearly be seen in my edits and reverting vandalism... I need not create sock puppets to make it look like I'm doing a good job as anyone can look through my edit history. (again, I may be beating a dead horse here but sometimes its better to respond to your critics as opposed to simply ignoring them). Sasquatch′↔T↔C 22:24, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose.  Seems like he has a hidden agenda of some kind, ya know?Troll Hitler 04:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: Above user has 3 edits (2 to this RFA, 1 other which was reverted) and a very poor choice of username if they want their vote to be taken seriously. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 14:00, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have blocked this user for having an inappropriate username indefinitely. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Huchtenburg

Untitled
The article clearly needs more work, but I'm not qualified in art history, and cannot go much further than I have already. The article should probably be divided into two articles, one on Jan and the other on Jacob, with this page left as a disambig.--FourthAve 03:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Huchtenburg


text:
User:Archer2000~enwiki

 de | en | wikibook | commons '''

Hello, my name is Dennis Boldt. You can find my website (here) I'm from germany and I've done the Abitur in June 2005. From October 2005, I will study computer science at the University of Lübeck.

Currently I am creating many websites, which you can find on my website. Besides, I write some articles in the german Wikipedia and the german wikibook.

Best regards!

title: User:Archer2000~enwiki


text:
Elmore D

Elmore D (born Daniel Droixhe, 1946, near Liège, Belgium) is a Belgian blues musician. His is a professor at the University of Liège, where he lectures on the history and culture of Wallonia.

The name Elmore is a reference to Elmore James, whose slide guitar sound he used to imitate at the beginning of his career. In 1988, he was nominated for the Paris-Bagneux Blues Contest and played in "avant-première" of the Chicago Blues Festival. In 1997, he created the Elmore D Band with two ex-members of the Electric Kings, Big Dave (harp) and Willie Maze (drums), and the "sterguitarist" Lazy Horse (also with Flip Kawlier's band). They performed at various festivals: Elmore D re-interprets pre-World War II blues music, in particular slide guitar players such as Casey Bill Weldon, Kokomo Arnold and Blind Willie McTell. He was influenced by jug and washboard musicians including the Memphis Jug Band, the Cannon Jug Stompers, Washboard Sam, Memphis Minnie, Big Bill Broonzy and Lead Belly. Other influences by more contemporary artists include the Electric Rag Band, the Country Blues Project (Germany), Preacher Boy, Gordon Smith, Paul Geremiah, Paul Rishell and Annie Raines.
 * 12e Spring Blues Festival (Écaussinnes, 1999)
 * 4th Blues in Bloom Festival (Houthalen, 2000)
 * Belgium Rhythm and Blues Festival (Peer, Belgium, 2000)
 * Nuit du Blues (Marcq-en-Barœul, 2001)
 * Skoebustel Blues (Izegem, 2001)
 * Drijf-In Blues Festival (Giethoorn, 2001)
 * Sang a Klang (Luxembourg, 2002)
 * Bluesfestivalen Mönsterås (Sweden, 2002)

He received the "Blues Trophée – Best European Artist 2001". Between 2005 and 2010, he wrote several blues songs in the Walloon language.

title: Elmore D


text:
Bruno Junqueira

Bruno Junqueira (born November 4, 1976) is a Brazilian race car driver who most recently competed in the IRL IndyCar Series. He is a former Formula 3000 champion and three-time runner-up in the Champ Car World Series.

Early career
Junqueira started racing karts in Brazil and dominated Formula Three Sudamericana before moving to Formula 3000. He tested for the Williams Formula One team for many years, and came close to landing a race drive in 2000, losing out to Jenson Button. He rebounded from this setback, winning that year's International Formula 3000 Championship.

Champ Car
In 2001 Junqueira joined the CART Championship Car series driving for Chip Ganassi Racing where he had immediate success, capturing a win in his 14th race and finished second in points with two wins the following year. In 2003 Ganassi left to the rival Indy Racing League and Junqueira joined Newman/Haas Racing, the top team remaining in what was now the Champ Car World Series. He captured series runner up honors in both 2003 and 2004, capturing two wins in each of those seasons. He also drove in the Indianapolis 500 four times for both Ganassi and Newman/Haas in one-off appearances. In 2002, he qualified for the pole position, and he twice finished 5th in the race.

In the 2005 Indianapolis 500 Junqueira crashed head-on into the turn two wall after he passed backmarker A. J. Foyt IV but Foyt inattentively did not see Junqueira's car under him and struck his right-rear corner. He suffered a concussion and a fractured vertebrae and missed the remainder of the 2005 Champ Car season. Junqueira was the Champ Car points leader at the time, having won the second race of the year in Monterrey, Mexico. Veteran Oriol Servia took his place and finished runner-up in the standings.

In 2006 he returned to the cockpit at Newman/Haas but for the first time in his career he did not win a race and only finished fifth in the championship while his teammate Sébastien Bourdais won his third straight title. He was replaced in the second Newman/Haas car in 2007 by rookie Graham Rahal and Junqueira signed to drive for Dale Coyne Racing as teammate to the inexperienced Katherine Legge. Junquiera finished seventh in the championship including three consecutive podium finishes late in the season.

IndyCar Series
Prior to the 2008 Indycar Series Season, Champ Car unified with the rival Indy Racing League. Junqueira drove the #18 car for the Coyne team's first season in the new series, alongside Brazilian rookie countryman Mario Moraes. His Indianapolis 500 was ruined by a mirror falling off, causing him to lose three laps during repairs. His season was not a great success, as he finished 20th overall with only two top ten finishes, both on road courses.

He was out of a drive for 2009. He made a deal with Conquest Racing for the Indianapolis 500 and qualified the car on Bump Day, but was asked to withdraw for the team's regular driver Alex Tagliani, who had failed to qualify his car due to a technical failure.

In 2011, driving for A. J. Foyt, he qualified his car for the 500 in nineteenth position, only to once again have to give up his chance to drive in the actual race. Foyt sold the unsponsored car's entry to Andretti Autosport, whose driver Ryan Hunter-Reay had been the final car bumped from the field. In 2012, he entered in for an injured Josef Newgarden at the first Grand Prix of Baltimore.

Career summary
* Includes points scored by other Team Brazil drivers.

Complete International Formula 3000 results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position; races in italics indicate fastest lap.)

American open–wheel racing results
(key)

CART/Champ Car Series

 * ^ New points system implemented in 2004.

IndyCar Series

 * 1 Races run on same day.
 * 2 Non-points-paying, exhibition race.

Complete A1 Grand Prix results
(key) (Races in bold indicate pole position) (Races in italics indicate fastest lap)

Complete Stock Car Brasil results
† Ineligible for championship points.

Complete WeatherTech SportsCar Championship results
† Did not complete sufficient laps in order to score points.

title: Bruno Junqueira


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious persecution by Christians

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  10:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Religious persecution by Christians
Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Created to parallel Religious persecution by Jews and Religious persecution by Muslims, which are both currently on VfD. See those discussions for additional debate.
 * Delete. Handle persecution according to the religion of the victims, because it's more salient than the religion of the perpetrating regime. Grouping by persecutors is problematic because their motivations are not necessarily religious (the regime may not have an organized religion) and those responsible may actually be a more diverse body of powerful individuals, both in terms of religious and other interests. --Michael Snow 03:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. These are valid themes, and the Religious persecution by Muslims article may survive VfD. Note that incidents by a group may permit events against minor groups to be listed that otherwise would not be covered.  OTOH, this is just a stub, and the whole series needs a lot of work.  Also, Religious persecution by Jews is not viable at this time since there is not a community of people willing and able to have it be anything other than an anti-semitic rant.  Even so, I would keep this one unless all of its "sister" pages are removed. --EMS | Talk 03:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment The persecution of any identifiable group by any other group is valid historical reportage. This article needs Help and a solid effort to edit and expand it. In fact, I may take a crack at this personally, and invite any suggestions and help that you as wikipedians can offer. Certainly attrocities have been commited by almost any identifiable religious group, excused by their own belief in a superior ethic or mandate from a preternatural force. In fact, the lack of this kind of behaviour is so exceptional in human society and civilization, it warrants  nay it BEGS a separate article " Major Religious Groups Who Never Persecuted Other People". That would be a tough one to research. Good luck! Hamster Sandwich 03:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Wikipedia does not need to succumb to religious whitewashing. Persecutions by religious organizations are very real events in history. --Tokek
 * Strong Keep persecution by Christians is a known fact of history. I was surprised this article is so short, as Christians since Constantine I's reign to the present day have persecuted non-Christians in many different forms. Christians have persecuted Pagans, Jews, Muslims, other denominations of Christianity, atheists, and others throughout their almost 2000 year history. Revolución 04:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I was reading about Christian warmongering in Lithuania just yesterday. Keep, in the hope that somebody with knowledge and effort will do a much-needed revision. -- Hoary 08:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Vote Pending VFD on Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Jews - This was not created as some sort of Point, and it did should not be seen as such. It was created to be part of a series, and not to disrupt.  I was relying on others to chip in, but barely anyone helped. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Historically relevant. --malathion talk 11:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for all the whinging Christians do about being poor and oppressed they are surprisingly good at oppressing those who aren't infected with their virus. Dunc|☺ 13:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's just going to need some incredible effort to keep it neutral.  --Several Times 14:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete incorrect usage of religious persecution, content is more properly dealt with by other articles. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as very important, though difficult, historical topic, already touched upon by article Coercion. --Mario 16:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is perhaps a noble idea, but these articles are  already POV OR disasters.  WP editors have enough problems dealing with prickly subjects as it is, without making up new ones.  Any religious persecution by or of religious groups should be discussed in the articles that concern each religious group.  Making up this series does not serve any purpose I can see, except to stir up animosities.  If this series is kept, I foresee recriminations and accusations and the like leading to a dozen RfArs within a month.  Tomer TALK  16:50, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename. This has potential, I think... Thorns Among Our Leaves 16:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it will take vigilance to keep NPOV, but a worthy subject. Themindset 17:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 'keep this please it is relevent Yuckfoo 17:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep- not only is it a well-recognised historical subject, it is extensive, and therefore merits documentation. Must be kept non-POV, however. Jdhowens90 18:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep although comments about the vigilance needed to maintain NPOV are quite true. ~ WCFrancis 18:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, just like its two partners. If you have a problem with its current state, fix it. Shem(talk) 18:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, along with the other "Religious persecution by x" articles, all of which appear to be anti-religious editorial rants rather than being encyclopedic. -- M P er el ( talk 00:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge all three (Religious persecution by Christians, Religious persecution by Muslims, Religious persecution by Jews) into a single article titled Faith-based persecution. -- BD2412 talk 01:02, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree Strongly with BD2412 on this issue. I will make no further contributions to these related article until such time as they are merged. I suggest only editors that can retain a non-perjoritive stance be allowed to work on this material. Hamster Sandwich 02:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Like I said on the other votes, if we keep one and delete another it would ruin the whole point of the series and make Wikipedia look extremely biased.Heraclius 02:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, same reason I gave for deleting Religious persecution by Jews and Religious persecution by Muslims: Allowing separate articles singling out persecutions by different groups is POV. Kaibabsquirrel 02:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Encyclopedic, not disruptive (we have similar articles for other religions), ergo no real reason to delete.  Almafeta 02:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep all three. ElBenevolente 02:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as with "Persecution by Muslims" and "Persecution by Jews." I make this vote a strong one because I have been persecuted by Christians, and understand the need for dispassionate discussion of this topic. Xoloz 04:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete all three, the template, and everything else related to this project. It's just a bad idea, destined to piss off everyone at the same time.  In wiki articles describing specific, documented historical events, I would support having a "religion X persecuted group Y" kind of analysis.  But trying to create a general "people persecuted by religion X" topic is the wrong way of doing it, and extending it to all religions and atheism, while it may seem neutral in theory, will only serve to attract the ire of everyone at once.  This topic will turn into an endless edit-war and flame-war, with each side claiming to be absolutely right and the only one backed by historical evidence; a little like what happened with the Armenian Genocide page.  Furthermore, like Michael Snow pointed out, making a "persecution by religion X" topic implies that religion X is a harmonious monolithic group with a single clear agenda; there is no religion on Earth for which that is true.  Trying to group all actions of all sects and sub-groups of religion X over millenia under a single "things done by religion X" topic is a gross oversimplification of a very complex situation. Ritchy 22 July 2005
 * Strong keep -- despite what other pro-delete people have said about POV and edit-wars, if W~paedia is seen as biased, especially towards a "Christians can do no wrong" line, then there will be edit-wars on every page, by those who know Christian sinners. Keep and then audit it weekly to remove the cruft, spam, and hate-mail.  Sooner or later things will settle down and it will give somewhere for the nuts (and the people who create series of articles about hoax NFL teams) to hand out--SockpuppetSamuelson 07:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete (forgot to sign) crazyeddie 17:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Incognito 17:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Religious persecution by Christians is a legitimate subject. Besides, as a proponent of Christian beliefs I believe this article will prove that the scriptural evidence in favour of persecuting non-Christians is slim and contradictory to main Christian tenets.--Germen 11:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. - Dv 15:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * # REDIRECT all these Persecution by . . . articles to homo homini lupus est or delete them all. Persecution is by necessity an action by the powerful against the powerless, and while religion may sometimes provide a reason, it just as often provides an excuse, and equally often has nothing to do with anything. Delete them all. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete together with Religious persecution by Muslims and Religious persecution by Jews, as unsalvageable POV magnet. These topics could in principle be valid, if not entirely encyclopedic, subjects for articles, but realistically we all know they'll become a permanent hotbed of POV feuds and requests for comment.  But they should really get voted on as a group rather than individually; having some "persecution by" articles survive but not others would be scandalous. - Mustafaa 23:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless substantially revised with historiographical citations. El_C 07:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. These "religious persecution by" articles are only going to turn into POV fests.LokiCT 02:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. As noted, it's clearer when handled under the oppressed party, and is highly prone to POV insertion. Also, it's a bit ad hominem. While a whole group may be persecuted, it is hardly ever the case that a whole group is persecuting. Same for all "persecution by" articles. --DNicholls 02:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Though controversial, it's a necessary article, and could be quite informative if expanded, and watched closely for POV. Volatile 02:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete : As I voted delete for the article about jews. This kind of article will add nothing to wikipedia but POV debates and trolling.--Revas 02:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and delete the others in the series. These will be magnets for POV (as Mustafaa said), but that is not the only reason to delete.  The real issue here is the precision of the term - "Religious persecution by ____" does that mean persecution by members of that religion against anyone? By the religion itself (and under what interpretations)? By any member of the religion against another religion as a whole?  Is all of history covered?  Is nationalistic persecution the same thing? Would the Jedwabne massacre be religious persecution by Christians against Jews, or a case of anti-semitism? Would Baruch Goldstein's murderous rampage be religious persecution by Jews against Muslims?  Are the July 23, 2005, Sharm el-Sheikh attacks persecution by radical Islamists against non-Muslims? The articles do not have a clear definition, and are likely to be POV disasters that are not informative.  --Goodoldpolonius2 02:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete POV and vandal magnet. JamesBurns 02:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, for precisely same reasons I've supported keeping the other articles in this series. Babajobu 10:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep all articles on persecution by and of particular groups as long as they are factually accurate and verified. The desire not to offend any groups shouldn't stop us from deleting these.  The fact that we can have articles on "taboo" and otherwise censored topics is one of the things that makes Wikipedia great.  Note: This exact same vote has been made at all similar deletion pages.  AndyCapp 17:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, controversial, but important historical topic Salsb 00:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -asx- 05:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. No idea why this and the other articles were listed for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - this should be dealt with by Religious persecution by Roman Catholics, or by Quakers or whatever group... as SlimVirgin said on the Muslim one up for deletion it's a POV magnet. I would have no problem if this was a disambig page called Religious persecution by Christian groups that linked to persecution by sects, that seems reasonable. gren 16:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV magnet. --Vsion 04:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text: User talk:162.83.187.142

title: User talk:162.83.187.142


text:
Talk:Nadir of American race relations

Untitled
I should probably have used endnotes, but I don't really know how they work in Wikipedia. If anyone wants to fix my current parenthetical references, that'd be dandy....NoahB 03:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

nadir worse than slavery?
I restored the section that stated that the nadir is used to suggest that the period from the 1890s to the 1920s was the worst moment for racism in American history -- with the implication that it was even worse than slavery. It's arguable, obviously, but some historians do in fact claim make the claim that racism was worse during the nadir. Rayford Logan, who coined the term called it the nadir, and didn't qualify it by arguing that slavery was worse, as far as I could tell in my reading of him. James Loewen's recent book "Sundown Towns" makes a pretty convincing case that racism -- in many parts of the north, especially -- was significantly worse during the nadir than during slavery. Note that the article doesn't say it *was* worse, merely that some historians have used the term to suggest that it was. I believe it should stay as it is. NoahB 00:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC) I(James W. Loewen) do not claim it was worse to be black in, say, 1915. I claim white ideology was more racist in 1915 than, say, 1815 or 1859. Jloewen (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)James W. LoewenJloewen (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

correlation between lynchings and cotton prices
If someone has access to a database with the text "Lynchings and the Economy: A Time Series. Reanalysis of Hovland and Sears (1940)." from Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 55:239-247, maybe it could be mentioned in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thelamest (talk • contribs) 18 June 2006.

 * There has also been work done on the Mississippi frontier, showing the correlation between lynchings and the time of settlement of sharecropper claims. There was also evidence that more transient laborers were lynched than permanent residents, and, at a period when there were numerous Irish migrant workers who labored on the levees, more whites were lynched than blacks, as they were transient. That's beside part of the point, except to show the relation of lynchings to economic factors - and social factors, with the outsider transient being most at risk.--Parkwells (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Apologetic Bias
The object of an encyclopedia is not to propagandize and nervously and defensively defend one side against the other. This article stinks due to its 1) one-sided, partial sourcing; 2) nervous liberal propaganda and self-justification. This absurd bias should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.161.115.166 (talk • contribs) August 29, 2006.

You have made several accusations, including "one-sided partial sourcing." However, you have given no sources yourself, and have failed to point to a single specific problem in the article. Until you do so, I fear I have trouble taking your charges seriously. Just because you don't like what the article says, or dislike liberals, does not make the article incorrect, nor does it make it biased. I will leave the neutrality tag up for a day or so, but if you (or someone else) doesn't manage to come up with better, specific arguments and actual sources, I will take it off. NoahB 00:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

All right, in the absence of specific accusations and/or sources (and given a quick check of the user's editing history, which indicates that no sources are likely to be forthcoming) I've decided to remove the "disputed" tag. 69.209.215.84 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Argh. The above comment is by me. Forgot to sign in. NoahB 20:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Essay, not encyclopedia entry
The subject line constitutes a conclusion, and thus the article inherently violates the NPOV policy. It's an essay, not an encyclopedia entry; you don't look up "nadir of American race relations" when you're looking for research material on race relations at the beginning of the 20th century (at least not unless you've already made up your mind and are looking for confirmation). It has some good material, but it would be better incorporated into other articles. This article looks like a candidate for deletion to me. GMcGath 11:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The subject line does not constitute a conclusion; it is a description of a particular time period. Periodization is inherently based on interpretation; thus the subject line is also a description of a particular historical interpretation. You might look up information about the nadir for any number of reasons -- because you've seen it mentioned in passing in another venues, for example, and want to find out what it means, or, indeed, because you're researching race relations at the beginning of the century and want to find out how historians have interpreted those events. It has been up for quite some time, which suggests that other folks have found it useful. You are, of course, welcome to put it up for deletion and see what happens. NoahB 00:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The subject line is a name commonly used by historians for the period in question. Quite a few titles of Wikipedia articles are commonly used phrases without nearly that claim to legitimacy. Three that leap to mind, in increasing order of distance from consensus academic opinion, are New anti-Semitism or Republican In Name Only or (to take an extreme example) Zionist Occupation Government. There is an article called A language is a dialect with an army and navy: a famous quotation, but by no means a universally held opinion. Those are all off the top of my head; I'm sure that given time I could think of a dozen more.

It is not Wikipedia's goal to pursue blandness at all costs. - Jmabel | Talk 00:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

GMcGath; I read your objection again. If I understand correctly, your argument is that the name of the period itself (the nadir) is an interpretation (it claims that this was the worst period of racism in US history), and that it is therefore POV. I can understand the concern, but I think it's misguided. First of all, the name isn't Wikipedia's; it's the actual term that historians use to describe this phenomena. Second, I think if you look closely, *most* names of historical periods or events are in fact interpretations. For example, the Civil War in the United States. The title of the war presumes that it was fought inside one country; that was (and to some extent remains) a politically contentious position (the south preferred the term War Between the States.) Even World War II has interpretive baggage; did the war really encompass the entire world (not all countries participated, after all.)  Is it really only the *second* world war? What about the Napoleanic Wars? Alexander's wars of conquest? etc.

Wikipedia is supposed to be from a *neutral* point of view, not from no point of view. It is neutral to describe a historical period in the language that historians have traditionally used to designate that period. It is not up to Wikipedia to pretend that points of view do not exist. NoahB 20:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A number of people, probably including some with more depth of knowledge of that historical period than I, have argued that the term is a standard one. If so, I withdraw my objection, but offer the suggestion that citations showing the use of the term by more than one historian would deflect any criticisms such as mine. Something of the form "In addition to Logan, historians X, Y and Z have used the term." GMcGath 17:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure what would constitute particularly useful citations of this, but just from a quick Google search:

 * Michael B. Katz and Mark J. Stern, in the Prologue to One Nation Divisible take the term so for granted as not even to bother attributing it.
 * The footnotes for Melissa Harris Lacewell, ''Seeking a Prophet: How Religion Mediates the Relationship between Black America and the U.S. Presidents (University of Chicago Press) include a footnote that simply says "Historians classify the post-Reconstruction era, especially following Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the nadir of American race relations."
 * The Sociology of Selected Monuments in Washington, DC, or Stories Behind the Stones on the site of the American Sociological Association also more or less takes the term for granted: "The Lincoln Memorial was built between 1914 and 1922, in the midst of what has been called the 'nadir of American race relations,' an unlikely time to remember the Great Emancipator." It also goes on to say "So segregated had the United States become that at its dedication, African Americans were restricted to a section across the road from the white audience", a fact that might well belong in this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The first two cites are useful; the last one is actually another essay written by Loewen. Rayford Logan, who coined the term, and Eric Foner, who's book is the standard account of Reconstruction, both use the term as well. Here's another glancing reference 19:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the cites Jmabel found to the article; it seems worth doing in case other folks have the same objection GMcGath does. Is that what you were thinking we should do, GMcGath, or do you have another suggestion? (Thanks for your help by the way; new perspectives are always helpful on an article.) NoahB 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

 * The article goes all over, defining the period as up to 1900, then to 1940, then up to WWI. 1940 is too late. All of this material is covered in other articles, even the idea of the late 19th-early 20th c. "nadir of race relations", so I'm not sure it needs a separate article, especially as it's too unfocused, taking in the rise of the 2nd KKK, which didn't reach its peak until the mid-1920s. The article had nothing about what else was going on in the US during those years.  Racism didn't exist separately from economic and social trials. I've made numerous additions and deletions.--Parkwells (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Afrocentrism
Uh huh....'nuff said, 'bout this article. Éponyme 11:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Um...I fear I don't understand you. Are you dismissing this article (nadir of American race relations)?  Are you supporting it?  Are you saying it is equivalent to the Afrocentrism article?  That last claim seems exceedingly dubious to me, by the by, but if you want to make the case for including such a link, and have sources, we could certainly talk about it....  If you had some other point which you feels need to be made, please clarify.  NoahB 14:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Reason for revert
The IP address seemed to be trying to suggest that reputable historians continue to argue that Reconstruction was a failure because blacks were not ready for freedom, following the interpretation common in the 1920s. All the sources I have seen (including those I cite) insist that this version of events is discredited. The IP provided no sources and no summary, even though he (or she) removed large blocks of text. I have therefore reverted to the earlier version. NoahB 17:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

unbalanced
This article is way too argumentative to exist as it currently does. View the following excerpt:

"Furthermore, the governments had solid accomplishments, especially in the improvement of education for both blacks and whites. Nor are the charges of rule by incompetent blacks justified. In the first place, no Reconstruction government was dominated by black people; in fact, blacks never attained a level of representation equal to their prominence in the population. (Current, pp. 446-449) Secondly, when blacks did serve in public office, they often did so with distinction. In fact, the entrance of blacks into political life was, Eric Foner argued, the most exciting and positive aspect of the Reconstruction period, constituting "a massive experiment in interracial democracy without precedent in the history of this or any other country that abolished slavery in the 19th century." (p. xxv)"

this is more indiciative of a idea-driven term paper than a description of events in a historical context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.210.152 (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me how one would go about discussing a controversial historical thesis without using ideas or arguments. NPOV doesn't mean non-argumentative, nor does it mean that we need to strive for some sort of platonic objective "description of events." It does mean we must provide sources and detail the arguments in a balanced way. And again, "balanced" doesn't mean pretending that all claims are equal, but rather giving the best consensus opinion available and detailing objections to it as best as possible, using sources to back up each point. In that vein, if you have objections to particular points made, please explain what they are -- ideally providing sources -- and we can discuss them. NoahB 21:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this sufficiently fact-based and impartial to qualify as encyclopaedic?
I have some problems with the section "Reconstruction as a time of hope". Whether or not you agree with the idea that blacks are inferior, I think it has to be said that this section, in particular the last paragraph, does not belong in an encyclopaedia. The suggestion that all the black politicians serving in this time and place did so with distinction is entirely a matter of opinion. Most opinions on the subject of the nadir era would horrify people today, but it is not the place of an encyclopaedia to express opinions or tell people how to think, regardless of how politically incorrect the opposing opinion is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.132.251 (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

 * The last paragraph has two citations, including one from Eric Foner, who is generally considered the leading expert on this subject. That Reconstruction ended because of racism is currently the consensus opinion among historians.  Leaving out that fact would be misleading.  The opposing opinion is not merely politically incorrect, but overwhelmingly historically invalidated.  NoahB (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

 * The article relies too much on heated quotes from Lowen; there are other reliable historians who have covered the same material. There are too many first person quotes - Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable third-party sources. There were more issues than simply racism affecting the reception of blacks in the North in the Great Migration - for instance, the even greater number of immigrants from Europe.  It is naive to think all those people could have been absorbed without tensions in new communities where they competed for housing and jobs, especially in a climate of economic problems, where most people felt government had a limited role.--Parkwells (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Assasinations?
"On a national level, many of the nation's most famous political assassinations—Robert Kennedy's, Martin Luther King Jr.'s, Malcolm X's—were linked to racial divisions which the nadir accentuated."

What? RFK was assasinated by an Arab immigrant, Malcom X by another African-American. I don't see how any of this relates to the black/white relations during the nadir era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly right about Kennedy; I'll remove him. I think Malcolm X is arguably still a good example, but if other's think he should be cut we can certainly take him out. NoahB (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dumb Declaration, Dumb Article
Just because some yahoo historian declared that this period was the so-called 'nadir' of American race relations and a few others may agree does not make it so. It was a horrible time for black Americans, no doubt about that, but to say that it was worse than the hundreds of years of slavery that proceeded the Civil War is ludicrous. At most this article should be a few lines long, mostly describing the historian who coined the phrase a hyperbolic fool.--Fizbin (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I think the above is a misinterpretation of the phrase "nadir of American race relations." "Race relations" is not the same as "racism," and certainly not the same as "oppression of African Americans."  Withut a doubt, oppression of African Americans was worse during the slavery period, and very arguably white racism was worse at that time too.  "Race relations," however, means exactly that: the feelings and relationships that existed between one race and another.  Slave revolts were very few in the USA, and most of the time slave masters liked to excuse their actions as beneficial for the black race, saying that enslavement "Christianized" and "uplifted" the supposedly debased Africans.  After liberation, a very different attitude appears; the free blacks were regarded all the time, not just during isolated incidents, as a threat to be driven out.  Black attitudes, in turn, were considerably less submissive than during the slavery period.  So calling this era the "nadir of race relations" is simply saying that this was the time when the races viewed each other with the most hostility and suspicion, not that it was the time that black people were treated the worst, and certainly not the time that they hit bottom legally or economically.  Pirate Dan (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Retarded"?
The picture in the South section of the article that depicts the lynching/burning of Jesse Washington describes him as "retarded". I don't know if this is vandalism or the person who wrote this was trying to say that Washington suffered from mental retardation. If it's the latter, that should be made more clear so readers don't think this is nothing more than a cheap insult sneaked into the article. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Most sources do say that Jesse Washington was mentally retarded. Do you think that adding "mentally" before "retarded" would clarify the matter?

 * Of course, we could just take out the reference to his retardation; I don't know any evidence that Washington's retardation had anything to do with his being murdered. Pirate Dan (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, adding "mentally" would help to clarify it, considering that "retarded" is all too often used as an everyday insult. The mention of it is somewhat important, considering his mental limitations were just some of reasons why he was unable to defend himself when he was accused of raping and murdering a woman. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Dunning misquoted
That supposed quote from Dunning is actually from John William Burgess, from his 1902 book Reconstruction and the Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.51.204 (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Have corrected the error and added some language which introduces Dunning and the Dunning School. How does this revision sit with you? Can you suggest some more specific language to describe the two historians, and their place in this whole narrative? Admittedly this article is difficult to word in an encyclopedic way, as it deals more with the inherently nebulous historiography of reconstruction than with 'the facts themselves'. Side note: my goodness, the article Historiography of the United States could use some work. aloha, groupuscule (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Historiography is much easier to write than history & much less "nebulous". That is because most all the evidence is available in easily found sources, such as books and articles by historians. Rjensen (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you do have a point there, Rjensen. I guess the difficulty this groupuscule perceives in historiography—writing about the writing of history—is that one has to classify ideas, which might be a more subjective process than classifying, say, acres of land. One can always rely on tertiary sources, for such classifications as "The Dunning School". But other tertiary sources might analyze the intellectual history differently and in other cases no source may be available. Ironically, therefore, a Wikipedia article discussing only the work of historians—such as Historiography of the United States as well as Nadir of American race relations—can read a lot like a synthesis. Just because the task is difficult, of course, doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt it. groupuscule (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In writing historiography, no synthesis is needed: the historians you look at provide the structure and you tell the audience how the historians used that intellectual structure and the data to come to their conclusions. In writing history, you'll have to choose between multiple intellectual frameworks. If you follow the Marxists, for example, you'll spend a lot of time on economic matters such as land ownership & acreage. If you follow the cultural historians to be looking at issues such as ethnicity & race. The social historians will be talking about families and kinship relationships. Political historians focus on the voters and politicians. In other words, the multiple choices are quite complicated, which is why history departments teach a lot of historiography, and the profession sponsors many journals with extensive book review sections. Rjensen (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Mild NPOV edit to opening sentence "warned" and removed as vandalism with no explanation.
check edit history to see. i am new to wikipedia editing, but i believe my edit does not at all qualify under the category of vandalism, and that was certainly not my intention. it is somewhat vindicating to see this talk page full of similar issues, and makes me wonder further why my edits were immediately disciplined and threatened with an IP block when this is clearly a well established point of contention. here is my reply to the user "One Of Many" who threatened me with the block:

"no vandalism was intended, i made what i considered to be a minor change in grammar in order to strip some of the authoritative tone of the opening sentence. vandalism as described in your policy is anything which would obstruct the construction of a free encyclopedia. in my opinion, this clearly did not obstruct anything and merely changed the language to sound a bit more neutral, in the interest of simply conveying information, rather than espousing or cultivating a certain viewpoint towards what is a controversial period in American history. would you care to talk about this and perhaps elaborate? i'm not familiar with the technicalities of wikipedia."

anyone else care to chime in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.39.151 (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Lacking historiography
For what is essentially a historiographical concept, historiography is notable for its absence - there is no discussion of the origins of the concept or of debates over it. Eldomtom2 (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Nadir of American race relations


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quarternary (album)

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 23:28, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Quarternary (album)
This article was created by the same anonymous editor that created the fictional NFL teams and stadiums. It reads like another hoax. Delete, speedily if possible. --EMS | Talk 03:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I dug some dirt on this when I looked into all the contributions by the creator. There was some sort of special EP released as a mail-order off the 1994 Mötley Crüe album.  It was called Quaternary (slight misspelling).  I imagine most of the test is incorrect because I found conflicting info.  I left a note on the Mötley Crüe talk page asking someone to look into.  Hopefully this article will get straightened out--BirgitteSB 03:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete hoax. JamesBurns 09:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Research and if it's not a hoax, clean-up. Otherwise, delete. Thorns Among Our Leaves 16:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete hoax; allmusic.com has never heard of it and it surely would have done if it existed. -Splash 18:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wolf Creek Dam

The Wolf Creek Dam is a multi-purpose dam on the Cumberland River in the western part of Russell County, Kentucky, United States. The dam serves at once four distinct purposes: it generates hydroelectricity; it regulates and limits flooding; it releases stored water to permit year-round navigation on the lower Cumberland River; and it creates Lake Cumberland for recreation, the largest man made lake by volume East of the Mississippi river. The Lake has become a popular tourist attraction.U.S. Route 127 is built on top of the dam.

Electricity from the dam is marketed by the Southeastern Power Administration.

Construction
Construction of the Wolf Creek Dam was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1938 and the River Harbor Act of 1946 as part of a comprehensive plan to develop the Cumberland River Basin. Construction began in 1941 but because of World War II and other factors, construction was not completed until 1951. Lake Cumberland is one of four major flood control reservoirs for the Cumberland; the others being J. Percy Priest Dam, Dale Hollow Dam, and Center Hill Dam. The last of the power generators was installed in 1952.

While several small towns were adversely affected by the construction of the dam, such as nearby Creelsboro (downstream) and Burnside (upstream), the dam is credited with preventing several hundred million dollars in flood damage.

Characteristics
The Wolf Creek Dam is a 5736 ft long and 258 ft high dam with a combined earthen and concrete structure. The concrete section of the Wolf Creek Dam consists of 37 gravity monoliths that comprise 1794.62 ft of the dam's length, across the old river channel. The spillway section contains ten 49.2126x36.0892 ft tainter gates and six 3.937x5.9055 ft low level sluice gates. The power intake section contains the penstocks that feed the six 45 MW turbines. The embankment section extends from the end of the concrete gravity portion 3937.008 ft across the valley to the right abutment. It has a maximum height of 213.2546 ft above the top of rock. The non-zoned embankment is composed of well-compacted, low plasticity clays, from the valley alluvium.

Seepage
In 1968, signs of seepage problems within Wolf Creek Dam's earthen embankments and foundation were discovered. Sinkholes appeared at the downstream toe of the dam, and muddy water was observed in the dam's outflow channel. The seepage problems were traced to the karst geology of the region which allows for the dissolution of limestone in the dam's foundation. Solution channels caused by this process allow piping to occur, which adds to the rate of erosion in the foundation.

The dam and its adjacent reservoir reside upon a heavy Karst bedrock foundation. Karst formations are large void spaces lying beneath seemingly solid species of limestone bedrock. Karst formations are created when limestone bedrocks are, over time, attacked by water through natural precipitation seepage. The rain or snowmelt water contains dissolved carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which, in solution, forms a weak carbonic acid. That acid attacks the limestone rock dissolving it and thereby leading to the voids within the rock formation. When a reservoir of 100+ feet in elevation is raised above this style of foundation, the hydraulic pressure of the water easily dislodges the cementing clays that are in the cracks and void spaces of the underlying Karst foundation.

Keying a concrete dam's footing form into such a foundation; along with injecting waterproof grout into the void spaces between the dam's concrete base and the rock foundation (so as to fill the foundation's voids) will usually create a watertight seal above, at, and below the foundation of a concrete dam, in a Karst locale.

However Wolf Creek is primarily an earth fill embankment dam. In this form of construction the majority of the dam's structure (measured by length across the streambed) is a nominally waterproof earth fill embankment body, with only the powerhouse and (if so equipped) the controlled overflow spillway section located within a concrete monolith. In the particular case of Wolf Creek dam, the earth embankment section is placed directly upon the formerly existing streambed; with only the surface soils and clays removed. While the upstream interface between the embankment section's foot and the old streambed is nominally waterproof, the Karst solution channels far under the mass of the earth embankment section proper, can directly attack the porous and not waterproofed foundation of the earth embankment section of the dam. It is this phenomenon that has occurred and led directly to the seepage problem.

A short-term solution of grouting the existing seepage channels was employed immediately; grouting in the dam foundation ran from 1968 to 1970 and is credited with saving the dam. Construction of a long-term solution began in 1975 in the form of a seepage cut-off wall. A concrete diaphragm wall was chosen as the appropriate cut-off solution and extended through the earth embankment into the rock foundation. The cut-off wall was completed in 1979.

Recent events
Despite efforts to stem the seepage, continuous monitoring of the dam shows that seepage problems have not been completely alleviated and are increasing. Reports of seepage has caused public worry and if Wolf Creek Dam fails, the USACE estimates US$3 billion in property damage. Seepage has likely found new paths around, and possibly through, the cut-off wall previously placed. Since March 2005, around the time when increased seepage rates were discovered, Lake Cumberland has been held at nearly constant water levels to reduce the stresses placed on the structure and its foundation.

In late January 2007, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers placed the dam under a 'high risk' for failure designation, along with Center Hill Dam in Tennessee, both of which are two major dams upstream from Nashville, Tennessee. A new long-term solution was proposed to solve, or control, the current seepage problem. A grout curtain and a new concrete diaphragm wall of greater dimensions will be constructed with newer technologies. To reduce the stresses on Wolf Creek Dam, and thus the risk, the Corps planned to lower Lake Cumberland to 640 ft, 83 ft lower than normal summer levels. However, this will affect up to 200,000 area citizens' water supply and has also met resistance from marina owners, so the water level has remained at 40 ft below normal. This 40 ft. lowered lake level is to be held for an indefinite amount of time and will be subject to frequent review. In October 2007, warning sirens were installed in counties downstream from the dam. Phase one remedial work began in March 2006. Phase two, which includes grouting the dam's foundation, began in January 2007.

In April 2009, construction began on a new concrete barrier wall within the embankment of the Wolf Creek Dam. The concrete wall was planned for completion in 2012 at a cost of US$584 million. A risk-benefit analysis suggests a 7:1 benefit. In 2010, the Commonwealth of Kentucky proposed a new route for US 127 that would cross the Cumberland River in the first bend downstream, potentially removing traffic from atop the dam. Timing of the project is uncertain. The barrier wall begun in 2009 was completed in 2013 and lake levels returned to normal in 2014.

title: Wolf Creek Dam


text:
Alajos Károlyi

Count Alajos Károlyi de Nagykároly (8 August 1825 – 2 December 1889) was an Austro-Hungarian diplomat.

Biography
He was born in Vienna, into the Hungarian noble family of Károlyi, whose fame dates from the time of Sándor Károlyi (1668–1743), one of the generals of Francis II Rákóczi, who in 1711 negotiated the peace of Szatmár between the insurgent Hungarians and the new king, the emperor Charles VI, was made a count of the Empire in 1712, and subsequently became a field marshal in the imperial army.

Alajos Károlyi entered the Austrian diplomatic service at the age of 19, and in 1845 became an attaché to the Berlin embassy. He was assigned successively to Austrian embassies at various European capitals; from 1853 at the diplomatic mission in London. In 1858 he was sent to Saint Petersburg on a special mission to seek the support of Russia in the threatening Franco-Austrian War against Napoleon III.

Károlyi was appointed ambassador at Berlin in 1866 at the time of the rupture between Prussia and Austria, and after the Seven Weeks War was responsible for the negotiation of the preliminaries of peace at Nikolsburg. He was again sent to Berlin in 1871, acted as second plenipotentiary at the Berlin congress of 1878, and was sent in the same year to London, where he represented Austria for ten years. He died in Tótmegyer, which is now in Slovakia.

title: Alajos Károlyi


text: User talk:70.51.134.125

title: User talk:70.51.134.125


text:
Talk:Frat pack

The discussions once posted here have been moved to Talk:Frat_Pack.

title: Talk:Frat pack


text: Talk:Tennessee Tech

title: Talk:Tennessee Tech


text: Category:Borates

title: Category:Borates


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A HISTORY OF THE AFRICAN-OLMECS: BLACK CIVILIZATIONS OF AMERICA FROM PREHISTORIC TIMES TO THE PRESENT ERA

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sasquatch ↔讲↔看 05:34, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

A HISTORY OF THE AFRICAN-OLMECS: BLACK CIVILIZATIONS OF AMERICA FROM PREHISTORIC TIMES TO THE PRESENT ERA
if an article is to be written on this topic, it has to conform to other Wikipedia articles. Phoenix2 03:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete this article seems a possible copyvio t me, but I couldn't find the source, it's extremely pov, and I think it's a joke. I'm mexican and never heard of "african-olmecs". drini ☎ 04:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * besides, all the refernces to "Barton" are just to a group of webpages created by a single person, probably the creator of this entry. no real references given. drini ☎ 04:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment I have heard that Olmecs were Africans. I am convinced there was some African presence in the Americas before Columbus. Perhaps it is notable enough to have an article? Of course this may need a serious rewrite and cleanup. here is a site I found that offers an interesting view: http://members.aol.com/carltred/AfricanPresence.htm Revolución 05:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, cleanup, rewrite, rename, and expand Redirect to Pre-Columbian African presence in the Americas. Revolución 05:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the title of a book by Paul Alfred Barton, thus the references to Barton. If the title were lower-cased and the article made to be a discussion of the Barton book, then I vote keep.  The idea of African-Olmecs is not a new idea, the stone heads of the ancient Olmecs have been described by many as appearing (at least to them) as having African features, and a Google search for "african olmecs" returns 218 unique hits.  John Barleycorn 05:20, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this article has a potential to become an excellent article about the African presence in the Americas. I don't think it should only be about this book. Revolución 05:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a title like African presence in the Americas, African presence in the Americas before Columbus, Pre-Columbian African presence in the Americas, History of Africans in the Americas, African exploration of the Americas. Tell me which title sounds best. Revolución 05:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced, unreferenced, possible copyvio. JamesBurns 09:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete' this, but the hypothesis is notable as pseudo-history supported by a lot of wishful thinking, and I may reconsider the vote if the article is completely rewritten to reflect this and moved to a different title. Uppland 12:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced, completely from an Afrocentrism POV, looks like a copyvio of a book review, from a source favorable to the author. DES 17:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsourced, but seems not to be a copyvio... Also, POV and all things said above. --Neigel von Teighen 17:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks dodgy, as above. William M. Connolley 22:58:57, 2005-07-21 (UTC).
 * Whilst I am logged-in, has anyone considered asking the author what hisr sources are, before condemning himr ?--SockpuppetSamuelson 07:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is, I presume, a copyvio from this book. Not having it available, I can't be sure however. -Splash 18:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete not against having articles on controversial books, but this is hopelessly POV. One point sticks out, what do they mean by "Afroid"?  Ultimately we are all Afroids.  PatGallacher 00:00, 2005 July 24 (UTC)
 * Delete, on the above grounds. IINAG 19:56, July 25, 2005 (GMT)
 * Delete baseless --218.41.113.27 13:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, total POVism
 * Quick Delete - for reasons stated above -- The Time Killer
 * Delete, advertisement. This article promotes this website which promotes this book written by the owner of that website, which repeats the Montalvano myth of "Calafia, Black Queen of the Baja" as true despite that it's known to be 15th century fantasy literature.  Cite: [], amoung several thousand others - Mantalvano's works were 15th century Spanish fantasy literature, on a par with Orlando Furioso which came out around that same time.  Delete, it is advertisement, original research, and pseudohistory.  If it must be saved, the author should re-post it to wikiinfo.

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text: Category:Nitrites

title: Category:Nitrites


text:
Apfelwein

Apfelwein (lit. 'apple wine'), or Viez (, Moselfranken, Saarland, Trier; lit. 'vice') or Most (, Austria, Switzerland, South Germany; lit. 'must') are German words for cider. It is made from various kinds of sour tasting apples (such as "Bohnapfel"). It has an alcohol content of 4.8–7.0% and a tart, sour taste.

Apfelwein is also regionally known as Ebbelwoi, Stöffsche, Apfelmost (apple must), Viez (from Latin vice, the second or substitute wine), and saurer Most (sour must, Süßmost or sweet must is essentially apple juice). Instead of the name Apfelwein, restaurants and smaller manufacturers may instead call the beverage Schoppen or Schoppe, which actually refers to the measure of the glass.

In the Frankfurt area, berries from the service tree (Sorbus domestica) may be added in small quantities to increase astringency, in which case the specific type of Apfelwein is called Speierling. In modern times, the term Speierling is often also used to refer to any more sour variety of Apfelwein, even if it lacks any juice of the service tree.

Production
Apfelwein is made from pressed apples. The juice or must is fermented with yeast to produce an alcoholic beverage usually around 6% ABV. It can be made with the addition of the unprocessed juice from the fruit of a small, indigenous tree known as Speierling (Sorbus domestica) or Speyerling, an endangered species that is easily confused with the wild apple.

Apfelwein is mainly produced and consumed in Hesse (where it is the state beverage), particularly in the Frankfurt, Wetterau, and Odenwald areas. It is also found in Moselfranken, Merzig (Saarland), and the Trier area, as well as the lower Saar area and the region bordering on Luxembourg. Several large producers are located in these regions, as well as numerous small, private producers which use traditional recipes. Some of the most famous restaurants where Apfelwein is served are in Sachsenhausen (Frankfurt am Main). Some of these regions have regular cider competitions and fairs, in which the small, private producers participate. Cider songs are composed and sung at these events. The Merzig region crowns a "Viez Queen", and the lower Saar area a "Viez King".

Culture
Apfelwein is served in a Geripptes, a glass with a lozenge cut that refracts light and improves grip—a holdover from the past, when some meals were traditionally eaten without cutlery. Traditional Apfelwein restaurants serve a "proper" 0.30-litre (10-oz) serving, although some establishments may also have a 0.25-l or 0.50-l version of the glass. A Geripptes filled with Apfelwein is also called a Schoppen (mainly in Frankfurt and the surrounding areas)

Most establishments also serve Apfelwein by the Bembel (a specific Apfelwein jug), much like how beer can be purchased by the pitcher in many countries. The paunchy Bembel (made from salt-glazed stoneware) usually has a basic grey colour with blue-painted detailing. In the Eifel region, near Hunsrück, around Moseltal, along the lower Saar and in Trier, the drinking container is called Viezporz and consists of white porcelain or stoneware.

Hot Apfelwein is commonly taken as an old household remedy against colds, or as a warming beverage in the cold season. The Apfelwein is heated and served with a cinnamon stick, possibly with cloves and a slice of orange, much like mulled wine.

An official Viez route, (Route du Cidre) connects Saarburg with the border to Luxembourg. An annual Viez Fest is celebrated in Merzig. The date is usually the second Saturday in October.

title: Apfelwein


text:
Talk:Piper PA-38 Tomahawk

NASA vs. NACA
I've just reverted for the second time the implied claim that the NACA—dissolved in 1958—was conducting airfoil research in the early 1970s. I've also added a reference—to a NASA source on the matter—and so I hope this will end the NACA business. But, just for later reference, in case this comes back again, two other sources: http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1977/PV1977_312.pdf http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1976/PV1976_217.pdf SkipperPilot 15:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I frequently see these newer airfoils referred to by a NACA number. I think the confusion comes from the fact that NACA originated the numbering system for many airfoils. However, I agree that the Tomahawk airfoil does not fit in with the older NACA numbering system and is also a NASA developed airfoil.

Traumahawk
I have heard this epithet applied to the PA-38 by three different owners as well as a number of former PA-38 renter pilots. It seems to be a point of pride. Ahunt 18:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 * "Terrorhawk" is also not uncommon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.45.246 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

 * At one time we had a whole list of these names in the article, but the rest were removed as unsourced. If you can provide a reliable reference we can include this. - Ahunt (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Spins
Regarding, you were absolutely right, I assumed some 2nd hand info I had gotten was right and didn't check source. It IS rated for spins, I'll be darned. - Chairboy 03:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It has been a while since I set foot in a Tomahawk, but if memory serves, they were placarded "Intentional spins prohibited". I recall reading somewhere a few years ago that the production model PA-38 was modified from the original design, removing one or two ribs from each wing. Aside from reduced construction cost, the result was a more flexible wing that had a tendency to twist, making spin recovery difficult, or in some situations even impossible. I got my primary training in the Tomahawk, and the the instructor either didn't know about it, or chose not to tell me. When I took my check ride, the examiner was terrified of performing full stalls, and deemed it sufficient that I could recognize and recover from an imminent stall. I presume this was because he knew a botched stall recovery can easily lead to a spin. Anyone out there know more about the Tomahawk's design history? --QuicksilverT @ 01:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The FAA never revoked the PA-38's approval for intentional spins. However the aircraft modifications really did happen. Dstroma (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I trained on an early Tomahawk (one of the first in Australia) and not only full stalls, but spin recovery was practised. Compared to the Cessna 152 I started on, it stalled quite abruptly and could easily be made to enter a full spin. Manual recovery was rapid though, at least on the model I was flying. I only read about student/instructor unrecoverable spin fatalities years later, so not sure if the early examples had the modified, lighter wing. Sid the Obscure (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Tomahawk spins
Tomahawks are approved for intentional spins, this certification has never been removed.

Piper did NOT remove ribs to cut costs.

and if you cant recover from a tomahawk spin.. odds are you cant recover from a spin in any aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.232.48 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 8 May 2006

 * The previous anonymous comment is completely wrong. Piper did remove wing ribs and made other substantial modifications to the PA-38 after FAA certification. It is well documented, such as in this NTSB report. I have just added the info to the article. Dstroma (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Good going - the info and associated refs look good! The Type certificate says:

 * "FLAPS UP SPINS ARE APPROVED FOR UTILITY CATEGORY OPERATION. FOR SPIN RECOVERY, USE FULL RUDDER AGAINST THE SPIN FOLLOWED IMMEDIATELY BY FORWARD WHEEL."

 * and

 * "FLAPS EXTENDED SPINS PROHIBITED"

 * - Ahunt (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I recall there was a also placard in the cockpit somewhere about this, but my memory is over 30 years old now. I recall I spun a Tomahawk only on one flight, with my instructor. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Piper PA-38 Tomahawk