text:
Talk:United States/Archive 8

National Traumas
The history summary in the main article contains the following sentence:

Three major traumatic experiences for the nation were the Civil War (1861-1865), the Great Depression (1929-1939), and September 11, 2001.

While the statement is factually true, it seems to reflect a strikingly distorted point of view. The terrorist attack of 9/11 is historically significant, but doesn't approach the magnitude of the Civil War or the Great Depression. Other wars (Vietnam, Korea, WW2, WW1, the Revolutionary War) must all certainly outrank 9/11 as national traumas.

I think that, under the heading of History, the article should take a longer perspective than that of contemporary U.S. politics. Even at the present moment the U.S. faces a number of challenges, from flu to drunk driving, that are far greater objective threats to its citizens than terrorism.

 * I tend to disagree that Sept 11 ranks below other national tragedies. While the number of lives and value destroyed in other events was far greater there are a number of aspects that make it unique.
 * 1 - a significant number of people across the world saw the event first hand real time. We had no government censors making sure we saw the beaches Normandy in our hometown papers without dead people on them.
 * 2 - it represents a new paradigm for terrorism in the world. Example more British citizens died in that event than in any other terrorist attack in their history.  This is after all the years of putting up with the IRA.
 * 3 - it was a watershed moment in our current history that is coloring our present lives. The true impart of the event is still unfolding.

I don't think it's problematic including Sep 11 in 'National Traumas' - however to exclude the Vietnam War strikes me as odd. It was an event that deeply affected a huge number of Americans and moulded the political and cultural development of the country to a significant degree in the final few decades of the 20th century. The jury has to be out as to whether Sep 11 will have the same long-term impact on the US. Nick Fraser 20:08, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * It's possibly worth noting the Spanish entry doesn't seem to have any mention of the Madrid train bombings, nor does the UK entry mention any significant IRA attacks (or the IRA campaign/s) - such as the direct attacks on the UK Government in Brighton. Having this sort of specific mention of a single event seems incongruous in comparison to these articles in particular.

National Debt
The economy part of the page doesn't say anything about the huge public debt of the USA. I don't know the correct numbers, but I think it's about $25,000 per capita, which makes it a major economic problem.

An interesting subject to cover but surely 'Economy_of_the_United_States' page is the better place for this rather than the main page, there's nothing meaty about the subject on that page as far as I can see so if anybody would like to write something - suggested subsection title 'Structural Problems within the US Economy' - you could talk about the deficit, pensions/ageing population, and any other long-term potential problems etc. If others agree can this section 'National Debt' be closed as an outstanding issue to address for this specific page? Nick Fraser 20:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ethnicity and Race
When talking about European descendents you should keep in mind the numbers given on a brass plaque on Ellise Island. You will find that most immigrants between 1850 and 1930 were actually from Russia, followed by people from the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, Italy ... This is not really reflected in your demographic survey.

Map
Is this map free/PD? link; It's a great map and I'd like to have it in the demographics subarticle. ✏ Sverdrup 17:18, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * [[Image:USA 2000 population density.jpg|thumb|2000 [[population density]]]]
 * Several months late in this reply, but whether or not the map is free/PD can be irrelevant. You can make a very similar map at nationalatlas.gov (zoom to lower 48, remove lat/long lines, add counties, add population density 2000).  I went ahead and did this and created an image and uploaded it.  The colors are different, but big deal (an easy color change could be made).

Economic summary
The economic summary is ridiculous. From reading it, one would think the only involvement the government has with the economy is doling out welfare and interfering with industry. You'd never know that the US government financed the development of the Internet for decades, gives massive corporate welfare to agribusiness and other business and so forth.

Then there's this beauty - "The U.S. economy is marked by steady growth, low unemployment, low inflation, a large trade deficit and rapid and rapid advances in technology." Steady growth? Like the unemployment after the recessions in the early 2000s, early 1990s, early 1980s, early 1970s and so forth? Even if we went on a multi-year timeline, growth from say 1974-2004 is not at the steady pace that 1944-1974 growth was. Low unemployment? U-6 unemployment hovers around 10%. Which shoots up when the US is not in an economic recovery? Low compared to what, the USSR's 0% unemployment? The US only has several months of unemployment benefits, unlike Europe, this only serves to mask unemployment. I wouldn't term the advances in technology in the United States rapid either - how have people's lives changed much since the 1950s? 1904-1954 was a rapid technological advance, 1954-2004 I would not characterize as rapid. Ruy Lopez 20:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * The unemployment rate has absolutely nothing to do with unemployment benefits, whoever was deleting your text was doing so because you were plain wrong. - me

 * This discussion was posted ten days ago. We are still waiting for the people who keep deleting the material on the US economy to justify their position. They have not said one word. Under the circumstances, I shall keep reinserting Ruy Lopez's text until they do come to the talk page to discuss their dispute. Shorne 16:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * The reality of the $7,449,000,000,000+ national debt issue also kind of needs to be mentioned. By the sound of this article, you'd think the US was booming, rather than coming up to a financial collapse like the 1980's era USSR was, which is the actual fact of the matter. --Ce garcon 19:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * To be entirely objective, then, the article should also mention that in percentage terms, this national debt level is not significantly greater than that of most other industrialized OECD nations.

yo fool, economics is an art not a science. and the USSR didn't collapse because of economic reasons, though that is generally believed, it collapsed because of an internal revolt of top governmental officials specifically in the military and KGB, as well as disruptive reform policies of Gorbachev and Yeltsin. THe ussr didnt have a healthy economy, but that was not the reason for its demise. similarly the US economy could be more stable, however the US position as superpower is not in any serious jeopardy.

 * Actually, I'm right. The USSR collapsed because the Soviet public no longer had any trust in it. The USSR National Debt was through the roof, all lines of credit had run out, and the Soviet public was not prepared to hold tight through Gorbachev's painful economic reform, and the USSR collapsed. Also, the USSR didn't have the option of forcing foreign lenders to prop up its' public debt as the US does. btw, personal insults are out of place on Wikipedia. --Ce garcon 11:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez, you seem to only equate techonological advancement with a higher standard of living and/or quality of life. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but this is just plain wrong. We have made leaps and bounds in the past 50 years in such fields as space travel, aviation, telecommunications, etc. and although these were rapid and useful changes, they did not change the overall quality of life of the average citizen(although someone could argue this point for telecommunications).

Also, I read a report that stated the average European didn't live as well as the average Roman(circa height of Roman Empire) unitl the mid 18th century. I believe no one here would argue that we made scientific progress of no consequence from the 2nd to 18th centuries.

Interslice

I would like to object to the Southeast being the center for medical research. This is so completely far from true. Raleigh-Durham does have a large amount of medical research, but this is MUCH smaller than that of California, Boston, Washington DC mmetro, and Texas. I would like to see that changed to something like the southeast economy is more heavily dependent on medical research. The way it is stated now, it sounds like all the medical research in the United States goes on in place like Atlanta, Birmingham, and Research Triangle, which is far from the truth.

Protection
I unprotected the page only for it to explode into an even larger edit war. Do I need to protect it again, or can you guys discuss it? Andre ( talk )A| 18:03, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * Please protect it again. It's obvious to all that VeryVerily has no intention of discussing anything or even obeying the three-revert rule. Shorne 18:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Don't protect. It makes no sense.  anthony 警告 15:47, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Protection in my eyes, are, in a sense, only another way and excuse of/for censorship. BOYCOT THE RESTRAINMENTS!--OleMurder 10:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Popular Vote"?
This line "he President is elected to a four-year term by the Electoral College carried out through the process of a nation-wide popular vote." makes it sound like the popular vote is nationwide not statewide. I suggest something like "The president is elected to a four-year term by the Electoral College based on popular votes at the State level" or something to that effect, and giving a note that a more detailed explanation can be given by reading the artilce on the US Electoral College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College"). How does that ound? I just read it and thought that that sentance was just plain misleading!

FSM is NOT an insular area
OK, folks.

The Federated States of Micronesia is NOT an insular area. It is an Independent nation in free association with the USA via the Compact of Free Association that was signed in 1986. Title 1, Article 1, Sec. 111 of the COFA clearly says:

The peoples of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia, acting through the Governments established under their respective Constitutions, are self-governing.

- Hoshie 09:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Class
I have added an extra paragraph under the sub-heading 'Class'. This shows the income inequality within the USA, which was missing in the original.

 * The article already refers to social stratification and income inequality (the Gini coefficient), and I don't think one study by one economist should be in this article. There is a subarticle Social structure of the United States for more detailed analysis. Very Verily  19:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see that link. I agree with the delete.

The graph that was with that material is remarkably hard to interpret. However, a short summary of the distribution of wealth is appropriate despite existance of a more detailed article. Fred Bauder 23:11, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Edits to this article
This article has about 2000 edits that in order to study its history easily we almost definitely need a "1000" added to the options on "which number do you want the edits to be studied one at a time". I did it with 500 and I got 4 pages. Any comments?? 66.245.31.111 01:55, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Grammar and technical issues
"The United States of America consists of fifty states with limited autonomy in which federal law takes precedence over state law. In general, matters that lie entirely within state borders are the exclusive concern of state governments."

Not to nit-pick, but "United States" is plural, not singular. Further, "state" is a synonym for "country" or "nation".

Shouldn't this read more like, "The United States of America currently number fifty, each with limited autonomy. All states [aka nations] lie within America [aka the Americas] and are united (hence, 'United States of America') into a federation in which federal law takes precedence over state law.  In general, matters that lie entirely within state borders are the exclusive concern of state governments and not the federal republic."

A bit more cumbersome, but more technically accurate.

It would also be interesting to know why the United States of America all have names, but the federal republic itself does not. Why in 200+ years has no one bothered to think of a name for the empire? This might be an important issue from an historical perspective. Perhaps this is what led to "United States of America" being used in the singular, rather than the more correct plural. Still, you'd think somewhere along the line, someone would have thought of giving one name to the collective whole of the United States of America, rather than just falling back on the description all the time. --Corvun 19:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually in the sense in which it is taken as the subject of the above-mentioned sentence it is singular. If you're not sure consider which of the following sounds right to you:

 * The United States of America is a sovereign state
 * The United States of America are a sovereign state

 * Essentially, when we think of the "United States of America" as a country, it is singular. When we think of it as a grouping of 50 states, it is plural. And almost always we use "Untied States of America" to mean the country. Also, it is just incorrect to say that each state is a separate nation. jguk 20:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree. I mean, "United States of America", how can that be a name of a single country? Let's take the example of the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United Mexican States, and give it a real name. ;) Anyway, historically, "The United States of America" is singular, and in the past, mostly before Lincoln's little tantrum, it tended to be referred to as "these United States" but that was mostly informal. I guess the best answer is: What does the Constitution say? --Golbez 21:57, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * Ummmm. The best answer is what do people normally say. I honestly don't know what the constitution says, but demotic usage in 2004 is more important now than usage in a formal document drawn up in the 1780s. jguk 22:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suppose y'all are right, in that language is defined by usage. If people speak of the "United States" as a singular entity, then the grammar should reflect that. Same with the states themselves being called "states" even though they aren't actually nations or countries in and of themselves. It just all seems like one huge linguist's nightmare to me. Perhaps I'm being too analytical, and perhaps I shouldn't be expecting politically-defined uses of terms to make grammatical or etymological sense. --Corvun 22:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, an etymological examination might be helpful here. Instead of focusing on the plural "States" in the term, let's look at "United". It derives from the latin unum meaning one. Thus "united" is to be made one. Thus, the plural states have been made into one, singular, entity. Aside   from the informal "these United States" the term "United States" has not usually been used to describe the states as a group. The Constitution iteslf is not totally clear about this, but the Articles of Confederation state that "United States of America" is the style of the "confederacy", that is the national government itself. It is interesting also to note that the Constitution while not specifically assigning the style of the national government, uses "the several States" when referring to them as a group, rather than "the United States".

 * Six of one half dozen of the other. I vote status quo. btw, whoever wrote the above and didn't sign his name is a big fat blowhard. MPS 18:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the current terminology should stay and I reject Corvun's proposed change. Yes, it is a giant linguist's nightmare, but it arises from the complex legal history of the United States.

The problem is that the states always saw themselves as separate sovereigns from the very beginning (because the Crown constituted each of them separately), and modern American constitutional law continues to reflect that. Today, the weird legal fiction we operate under is dual sovereignty.

Each American is a citizen of both their state of residence and of the federal sovereign. Each state is a separate sovereign which just happens (by virtue of ratifying the Constitution) to have consented to giving up bits and pieces of its sovereignty to the federal government. But as far as external nations are concerned, they see the federal government because one of the powers granted to the federal government is power over external affairs.

As for the nation issue, even though the states continue to exist as separate legal entities, their conception of themselves as separate nations has long since withered away, and most Americans would agree that the United States effectively is a single nation. The major disagreement would be from Native Americans, who view each of their tribes as continuing to exist as autonomous nation-states, under the direct control of the larger federal sovereign.

Also, if you look at the U.S. Constitution, both the Preamble and Article II repeatedly and consistently refer to "the United States of America." From the surrounding wording, it is clear that the Founders were referring to a single legal entity and believed they were constituting such an entity. So "the United States of America" is the legal name of the federal government. There are also many sections in the United States Code which refer to "the United States of America."

--Coolcaesar 20:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * They are referred to in both the Constitution and other documents as "the United States" because before 1787, they were semi-independent. This is where the Americans clouded the definitions of state and nation that the rest of the world successfully differentiates.  The Constitution was the coming together of states that minted their own currency, engaged in trade wars with each other, refused to extradite criminals just because they happened to cross a state line, etc. into a "Union" hence how they became the "United."  Up until the Civil War (especially in the South) is was thought that a state could easily withdraw if they didn't agree with the direction the Constitution was being torn into.  South Carolina attempted to get out in the 1830s, etc.  The Constitution of the United States of America is named as such simply because at first 13 states came together to agree to it.   This was at time when New England was thinking about leaving the Articles of Confederation and creating an entity from New York to Maine.  When sections of the American contintent west of the Appalachians were planning or trying to start their own little Republics (and some Kingdoms).  If the states hadn't come together and decided to lay down a new document for their confederation, and instead persisted after Annapolis to exist under the "Articles of Confederation" from 1775, most likely the union would have fallen shortly after 1800 (if not sooner) and today we would see maps with other more localized confederations of the 50 states (which who knows if there would even be 50).  Your conceptualization of inter-state relations leading up to the 1787 constitution is limited.  A few delegates getting miffed would have changed the last three centuries of world history in ways we can hardly imagine. —ExplorerCDT 21:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I hold a bachelor's degree in history from the most prestigious public university in the United States. I am well-aware of all of the facts you just mentioned, especially the delicate fragility of the Union throughout its first century. I am also familiar with all the diverse what-if scenarios.

I do not have all day to write on talk pages. I did not think it was necessary to rehash the convoluted details of two centuries of American history just to explain how we got to our present pigpen of legal fictions and political realities. But thanks for doing that for me.

When I said "wording" above, I was referring to the consistent use of the definite article, "the," rather than the plural demonstrative adjective, "these," in the Constitution. But you did clarify something I neglected, the task of explaining why the Constitution has to refer to states which are united, as opposed to, say, "the United State."

--Coolcaesar 08:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Previous archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 7

Next archive page is Talk:United States/Archive 9

title: Talk:United States/Archive 8


text:
User:Schhettr

Come, My Friends,

'T is not too late to seek a newer world. Push off, and sitting well in order smite The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths Of all the western stars, until I die. It may be that the gulfs will wash us down: It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles, And see the great Achilles, whom we knew. Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho' We are not now that strength which in old days Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Alfred Lord Tennyson, "Ulysses" from Poems, In Two Volumes (London: Moxon, 1842).

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

title: User:Schhettr


text:
File:Mr mom poster.jpg

Summary
Description: Movie poster for Mr. Mom. Source: © 1983 20th Century Fox Film Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Fair use rationale for Mr. Mom

 * 1) For an article about a film, the original poster is arguably one of the most important images that could be included.
 * 2) No free or public domain images have been located for this film.
 * 3) The image is of lower resolution than the original poster (copies made from it will be of inferior quality).
 * 4) The poster is intended to provide an illustration for a well-known and significant film, and the purpose of the poster is to suggest something of the film's style.
 * 5) The poster is being used for informational purposes only, and its use is not believed to detract from the original film in any way.
 * 6) The poster is used on various websites, and its use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible than it already is.
 * 7) The poster's use on Wikipedia is entirely encyclopedic in nature.

title: File:Mr mom poster.jpg


text:
Let's Go Crazy

"Let's Go Crazy" is a 1984 song by Prince and The Revolution, from the album Purple Rain. It is the opening track on both the album and the film Purple Rain. "Let's Go Crazy" was one of Prince's most popular songs, and was a staple for concert performances, often segueing into other hits. When released as a single, the song became Prince's second number-one hit on the Billboard Hot 100, and also topped the two component charts, the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs and Hot Dance Club Play charts, as well as becoming a UK Top 10 hit. The B-side was the lyrically controversial "Erotic City". In the UK, the song was released as a double A-side with "Take Me with U".

Common to much of Prince's writing, the song is thought to be exhortation to follow Christian ethics, with the "De-elevator" of the lyrics being a metaphor for the Devil. The extended "Special Dance Mix" of the song was performed in a slightly edited version in the film Purple Rain. It contains a longer instrumental section in the middle that includes a chugging guitar riff, an atonal piano solo and some muddled samples of the spoken word intro. This version was originally going to be used on the album but when "Take Me With U" was added to the track list, it was edited down to its current length.

Cash Box called the song "one of the finest fusions of jump rock and synth pump."

Following Prince's death, the song re-charted on the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart at number 39 and rose to number 25 by the week of May 14, 2016. As of April 30, 2016, it has sold 964,403 digital copies in the United States.

In 2013, British rock band The Darkness performed the song at the 44th Annual Rock Music Awards.

Musical style
The song was also notable for opening with a funeral-like organ solo with Prince giving the "eulogy" for "this thing called life." The introduction's words are overlapped with each other on the single version. The song climaxes with a distinctive drum machine pattern and then features a heavy guitar outro leads, electronic drums, bass and whirring synthesizers and a climatic drum outro. The song's percussion was programmed with a Linn LM-1 drum machine, an instrument frequently used in many of Prince's songs. The song is also known for its two guitar solos both performed by Prince.

Track listing
7" Warner Bros. / 7-29216 (US)
 * 1) "Let's Go Crazy" (edit) – 3:46
 * 2) "Erotic City" (edit) – 3:53

7" Warner Bros. / W2000 (UK)
 * 1) "Let's Go Crazy" (edit) – 3:46
 * 2) "Take Me with U" – 3:51

12" Warner Bros. / 0-20246 (US)
 * 1) "Let's Go Crazy" (Special Dance Mix) – 7:35
 * 2) "Erotic City ("make love not war Erotic City come alive")" – 7:24

12" Warner Bros. / W2000T (UK)
 * 1) "Let's Go Crazy" (Special Dance Mix) – 7:35
 * 2) "Take Me with U" – 3:51
 * 3) "Erotic City ("make love not war Erotic City come alive")" – 7:24

Personnel
Credits are sourced from Duane Tudahl, Benoît Clerc, Guitarcloud and Mix.
 * Prince – lead and backing vocals, electric lead guitar, Linn LM-1
 * Wendy Melvoin – electric rhythm guitar, backing vocals
 * Lisa Coleman – Oberheim OB-SX, backing vocals
 * Matt Fink – Oberheim OB-Xa, backing vocals
 * Brown Mark – bass guitar, backing vocals
 * Bobby Z. – Linn LM-1, Simmons SDS-V, Pearl SY-1 Syncussion, cymbals

Lenz v. Universal
In 2007, Stephanie Lenz, a writer and editor from Gallitzin, Pennsylvania made a home video of her 13-month-old son dancing to "Let's Go Crazy" and posted a 29-second video on the video-sharing site YouTube. Four months after the video was originally uploaded, Universal Music Group, which owned the copyrights to the song, ordered YouTube to remove the video enforcing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Lenz notified YouTube immediately that her video was within the scope of fair use, and demanded that it be restored. YouTube complied after six weeks—not two weeks, as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act—to see whether Universal planned to sue Lenz for infringement. Lenz then sued Universal Music in California for her legal costs, claiming the music company had acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that represented fair use of the song.

Later in August 2008, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel, of San Jose, California, ruled that copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected "fair use" of the copyrighted material. In 2015 the court affirmed the holding that Universal was required to consider fair use before sending its initial takedown request.

title: Let's Go Crazy


text:
Smile (Laura Nyro album)

Smile is the sixth album by New York singer, songwriter and pianist Laura Nyro. It was released in early 1976, following a four-year hiatus from the music industry during which time she both married and divorced, and lived away from the spotlight. She dedicated the album to her mother.

The music of Smile is smooth jazz-pop, and Nyro was reunited with producer and arranger Charlie Calello, who had worked with Nyro on her 1968 opus Eli and the Thirteenth Confession.

Musically, Smile finds Nyro exploring Chinese culture with traditional Asian instrumentation and lyric allusions, particularly on the mildly controversial "Children of the Junks". Elsewhere, she rails against the music industry ("Money") and sings of her new laidback lifestyle away from the glare of the media.

Despite her long absence, Columbia Records had re-signed Nyro and the album became a small chart success during 1976, peaking at #60 on the Billboard 200, then known as the Pop Albums chart. It produced her first full-band tour in 1976, which was documented the following year on the live album Season of Lights.

Overview
After Nyro's huge burst of creativity between 1966 and 1971, when she recorded five well-received albums and well over 40 original songs, she retreated from the limelight, partly stung by her lack of major commercial success in her own right but also because of the lure of love.

Nyro married Vietnam War veteran David Bianchini in 1972 after a whirlwind romance and spent the next three years living with him in a small town in Massachusetts. The marriage ended after three years, during which time she grew accustomed to the country life as opposed to the city life where she had recorded her first five records.

In 1975, Nyro split from Bianchini and also suffered the trauma of the death of her mother Gilda to ovarian cancer at the age of 49; Laura herself died from the same disease at the same age two decades later. She consoled herself largely by recording a new album, enlisting Charlie Calello, with whom she had collaborated on Eli and the Thirteenth Confession.

Musically, Smile begins the "mellow period" that Nyro stayed with on her studio albums for the rest of her career, although it continues her fascination with mysticism with various exotic instruments and arrangements. The title track, particularly, explores a deep flirtation with Japanese music. Several of the tracks, including "Children of the Junks" and "I Am The Blues" had been written and sung by Nyro in concert as early as 1971 and 1972 (as evidenced by bootleg recordings) and were later recorded for this album.

Track listing
All tracks composed by Laura Nyro, except where indicated.

 * 1) "Sexy Mama" (Al Goodman, Sylvia Robinson, Harry Ray) – 2:41
 * 2) "Children of the Junks" – 2:49
 * 3) "Money" – 4:59
 * 4) "I Am the Blues" – 5:44
 * 5) "Stormy Love" – 4:29
 * 6) "The Cat Song" – 2:34
 * 7) "Midnite Blue" – 3:05
 * 8) "Smile" – 5:36

Japanese remastered version with bonus tracks

 * 1) "Sexy Mama"
 * 2) "Children of the Junks"
 * 3) "Money"
 * 4) "I Am the Blues"
 * 5) "Stormy Love"
 * 6) "Cat Song"
 * 7) "Midnite Blue"
 * 8) "Smile"
 * 9) "Someone Loves You" (Demo) (Bonus track)
 * 10) "Get Me My Cap" (Demo) (Bonus track)
 * 11) "Coffee Morning" (Demo) (Bonus track)

Personnel

 * Laura Nyro – vocals, piano, guitar, wood block
 * John Tropea, Hugh McCracken, Joe Beck, Jeff Mironov, Jerry Friedman, Greg Bennett – guitar
 * Will Lee, Richard Davis, Bob Babbitt – bass
 * Chris Parker, Allan Schwartzberg, Rick Marotta – drums
 * Jimmy Maelen – tambourine, wood block
 * Nydia Mata, Carter C.C. Collins – congas
 * Rubens Bassini – shaker
 * David Friedman – vibraphone
 * Joe Farrell, Michael Brecker, George Young – saxophone
 * Randy Brecker – trumpet
 * Paul Messing – triangle
 * Nisako Yoshida, Reiko Kamota – koto

Technical
 * Don Puluse, Tim Geelan – engineer
 * Jay Messina, Lou Waxman, Stan Tonkel – assistant engineer
 * Ed Lee – artwork
 * Patty Newport – photography

title: Smile (Laura Nyro album)


text:
Dewon Brazelton

Dewon Cortez Brazelton (born June 16, 1980) is an American former professional baseball pitcher in Major League Baseball. He played professionally for the Tampa Bay Rays and the San Diego Padres. He last pitched in the major leagues in 2006.

Early life
Brazelton was born in Tullahoma, Tennessee and graduated from Tullahoma High School in Tullahoma. While pitching in high school, Brazelton had knee surgery in 1995, then Tommy John surgery in 1996. He played college baseball at Middle Tennessee State University. In 1999, he played collegiate summer baseball with the Harwich Mariners of the Cape Cod Baseball League.

Professional career
The Tampa Bay Devil Rays selected him with the third overall draft pick in the first round of the 2001 MLB amateur draft, and Brazelton made his MLB debut September 13, 2002. In 2004, Brazelton, after being called the second coming of Roger Clemens by Peter Gammons, received the Tony Conigliaro Award.

After Stuart Sternberg took over as principal owner of the Devil Rays, Brazelton was traded during the 2005 annual baseball winter meetings to the Padres for third baseman Sean Burroughs.

In spring training of 2006, Brazelton appeared impressive, going 1–0 with a 1.77 ERA in 5 starts and earned the position of fourth starter in the Padres's four-man rotation, behind Jake Peavy, Chris Young, and Shawn Estes. However, Brazelton's first two starts were disastrous, taking the loss for both while pitching a combined 6$1⁄3$ innings and giving up 17 hits and 17 earned runs. Brazelton was then moved to the bullpen and used as a spot reliever where between March 8 and April 19, he pitched 11.1 innings with a 2.31 ERA. However, on May 11 against the Milwaukee Brewers, Brazelton came in relief of Jake Peavy in the 8th inning with an 8–0 lead and gave up 4 runs on 3 hits and a walk without recording an out. Brazelton was promptly demoted to the Padres' AAA affiliate the following day and has not pitched in the major leagues since.

On December 4, 2006, the Kansas City Royals signed Brazelton to a minor league contract, only to be released from their Triple-A Omaha affiliate on April 27, 2007. On June 2, 2007, the Pittsburgh Pirates signed Brazelton to a minor league contract and assigned him to their Double-A affiliate, the Altoona Curve. After becoming a free agent, following the conclusion of the 2007 season, the St. Louis Cardinals signed Brazelton to a minor league contract, but he was released during spring training.

Brazelton signed with the Camden Riversharks on April 4, 2009.

On April 13, the Kansas City T-Bones of the Northern League signed Brazelton to a contract for the 2010 season. He pitched in just two games for them before being granted free agency.

title: Dewon Brazelton


text:
User:Solipsist/MainPageTemp-24Jul

Wikipedia in other languages You may read and edit articles in many different languages:

Wikipedia's sister projects

All New articles: 5 10 15 20 25 30 Orphans: 5 Categories: 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

title: User:Solipsist/MainPageTemp-24Jul


text:
Walter Gibbons

Walter Gibbons (April 2, 1954 – September 23, 1994) was an American record producer, early disco DJ, and remixer. He helped pioneer the remix and 12" single in America, and was among the most influential New York DJs of the 1970s.

Career
Gibbons began DJing in New York in the early 1970s, and was among the first Americans to incorporate techniques from dub reggae production into dance music. In 1975 he began DJing at the Manhattan club Galaxy 21; he would become a regular there. He left Galaxy 21 in late 1976 after he discovered his sets were being secretly recorded and sold on the black market. Unable to find a new regular club that would accept his sound, he briefly moved to Seattle before returning to New York and DJing haphazardly. He also enjoyed a long association with Salsoul Records at the end of the 1970s. His DJ skills, punctuality and seriousness convinced Salsoul to assign him the remix of "Ten Percent", by Double Exposure, even though he had never produced. It became the first commercially available 12-inch single in the world, and his best-known remix. His remix of "Hit and Run" by Loleatta Holloway was a surprise hit. He released Salsoul mixes such as Disco Boogie: Super Hits for Non-Stop Dancing (1976) and Disco Madness (1979), the latter being the first full-length release by a solo remixer. He also worked on labels such as West End and Gold Mind.

Gibbons was largely inactive in the early 1980s, but returned in 1984 with his biggest hit, a mix of Strafe's "Set It Off", which became an anthem of the early New York garage scene. In 1986 he released a remix of Arthur Russell's "Schoolbell/Tree House" for Sleeping Bag Records. Gibbons became a reborn Christian in the 1980s, but still managed to turn out cutting edge mixes during this period (he simply focused on songs and lyrics that did not offend his beliefs). Despite becoming isolated from the New York dance scene and some of his friends, he was warmly received after he embarked on a small tour of Japan in 1993.

He spent his final weeks living alone in a YMCA, and died of AIDS-related symptoms in 1994.

Legacy
His remixes were posthumously compiled on the triple-CD compilation Mixed with Love (2004) and the 2-CD Jungle Music (2010). The first feature Gibbons' Salsoul mixes of tracks by the likes of Loleatta Holloway, The Salsoul Orchestra, Double Exposure, First Choice, Love Committee and Anthony White among others. Jungle Music compiles a wider scope of his work.

Style and influence
Gibbons, along with hip hop pioneer Kool DJ Herc, was among the first American musicians to apply elements of Jamaican dub production to disco and dance music. Like Arthur Russell, who recorded with him, Gibbons "used dub as a dislocating device, preventing disco's simple groove from developing under the dancers' feet." His mixes focused more on percussion than melody, and "stretched out the grooves so much that they teetered on the edge of motionlessness." He was also among the first to beat-juggle between two copies of the same record. According to AllMusic, "utterly transformed with the addition of echo/reverb effects borrowed from dub and drum breaks, [his] singles influenced dozens of producers (and DJs)." Gibbons was known as "the DJ's DJ" because his peers would go out of their way to hear him play.

Gibbons was an important part of the early 1970s New York City disco underground scene, influencing garage and house music DJs like Frankie Knuckles and Larry Levan. He also laid the foundations for early 1980s experimental Chicago house music. One of the early pioneers of beat-mixing, and known for considerably more skillful mixing than many better-known DJs at the time, he is cited by many early pioneers of the house-music scene as an influence. His "Disco Blend" remix of Double Exposure's "Ten Percent" was once described by UK DJ Ashley Beedle as providing a "blueprint for house music".

The 1996 album Walter's Room was Black Science Orchestra's homage to Gibbons, released in London on Junior Boy's Own Records.

Compilations

 * Mixed with Love: The Walter Gibbons Salsoul Anthology (Salsoul, 2004)
 * Jungle Music - Mixed With Love: Essential & Unreleased Remixes 1976-1986 (Strut, 2010)

title: Walter Gibbons


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sameer Kelkar

 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 ALREADY SPEEDIED, but not by me. -Splash 02:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Sameer Kelkar
Not notable 66.216.68.28 20:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Speedy Delete according to criterion Article 6: Attack Pages. I've added the speedy tag to it.  The Literate Engineer 21:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Commenting The page has been edited Half of it's still attack, but the opening sentence, "Sameer Kelkar," has been replaced with dumb vanity.  News flash: passing a test with a 73% pass rate does not make you notable.  Anyway, it may no longer be a clear-cut speedy candidate, but it's definitely still requiring of deletion.  Especially before an edit war happens between attack and vanity!  The Literate Engineer 21:29, 21 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:Solipsist/MainPageTemp-25Jul

Wikipedia in other languages You may read and edit articles in many different languages:

Wikipedia's sister projects

All New articles: 5 10 15 20 25 30 Orphans: 5 Categories: 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

title: User:Solipsist/MainPageTemp-25Jul


text:
Eddie Thompson (businessman)

Edward Henry Thompson OBE (16 July 1940 – 15 October 2008) was a Scottish businessman. A well-known figure in the Scottish retail industry, he founded the convenience store chain Morning, Noon and Night in 1991, which he later sold for £30 million in 2004. He was awarded the OBE for services to the Scottish grocery industry in 2005.

A long-time supporter of Dundee United F.C., Thompson bought the club in 2002 and remained chairman until his death in 2008.

Business career
Born in Glasgow, where he attended Hyndland Secondary School, Thompson qualified as an accountant prior to working in managerial positions for Dundee-based Watson & Philip, owners of the VG chain of convenience stores. In 1991, he left them to become founder and chief executive of a similar chain called Morning, Noon & Night. He continued to run the company until selling it to Scotmid in 2004 for £30m.

He was awarded the OBE in June 2005, in recognition of his services to the Scottish grocery industry and his work as chairman of the Scottish Retail Consortium. As well as the SRC, he has also served on the board of the CBI Council for Scotland, the British Retail Consortium and the Scottish Grocers' Federation. He has also been a recipient of the Scottish Grocery Lifetime Achievement Award.

In football
Thompson was initially a Motherwell fan, but changed his allegiances and became a supporter of Dundee United when he moved to the Dundee area. He had a lengthy association with the club, and instigated their first ever shirt sponsorship deal, with VG, in the 1980s. He was appointed the club's honorary business consultant but subsequently became estranged from the club's management after falling out with manager and chairman Jim McLean. Thompson spent many years trying to invest in the club, being constantly rebuffed until finally assuming control of Dundee United in September 2002 when he bought McLean's shareholding.

After gaining control he invested large sums of money in the team, but initially with limited success. Thompson gained a reputation as a ruthless chairman, sacking five managers in little more than his first four years in charge. He continued to take charge of club affairs personally, despite having been diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2003. Thompson also served as a member of the Scottish Premier League management board.

The club's fortunes began to improve following the appointment of Craig Levein, who would become a personal friend of Thompson, as manager in October 2006. During the 2007–08 season, Dundee United reached the Scottish League Cup Final, by which time it had become public knowledge that the chairman was terminally ill. Many supporters wore T-shirts bearing a "One Eddie Thompson" slogan during the final against Rangers to pay tribute to his efforts on behalf of the club. Also during March 2008, it was announced that the East Stand at United's Tannadice Park stadium was to be renamed after Thompson, following suggestions by supporters.

During this period, Thompson reorganised the club to ensure continuity following his death. His son Stephen, already a director, was appointed as chief executive, taking over many of his father's duties. Craig Levein was also appointed to the board as director of football, in addition to his managerial role.

Thompson died of prostate cancer on 15 October 2008. His death was announced by Dundee United in a statement: "It is with great sadness that Dundee United announce the death of chairman Eddie Thompson, who died today after a long illness borne with great fortitude, much bravery and a dogged determination to carry out his responsibilities at Tannadice for as long as possible."

Family
He is survived by his widow, daughter, son, and four grandchildren. His son-in-law was killed in a road accident on 12 October 2008. His role as Chairman of Dundee United Football Club was taken over by his son Stephen.

title: Eddie Thompson (businessman)