text:
Iddah

In Islam, ’iddah or iddat (العدة; "period of waiting") is the period a woman must observe after the death of her husband or after a divorce, during which she may not marry another man. One of its main purposes is to remove any doubt as to the paternity of a child born after the divorce or death of the prior husband.

The length of ‘iddah varies according to a number of circumstances. Generally, the ‘iddah of a divorced woman is three lunar months (i.e. about 89 days), but if the marriage was not consummated there is no ‘iddah. For a woman whose husband has died, the ‘iddah is four lunar months and ten days (i.e. about 128 days) after the death of her husband, whether or not the marriage was consummated. If a woman is pregnant when she is widowed or divorced, the ‘iddah lasts until she gives birth.

Islamic scholars consider this directive to be a balance between mourning of husband's death and protecting the widow from criticism that she might be subjected to from remarrying too quickly after her husband’s death. This is also to ascertain whether a woman is pregnant or not, since four and a half months is half the length of a normal pregnancy.

Scriptural basis
The directive within the Quran (Al-Baqarah 2:234-235), regarding the waiting period for a widow, is:

"If any of you die and leave wives behind, they shall wait concerning themselves four months and ten days: When they have fulfilled their term, there is no blame on you if they dispose of themselves in a just and reasonable manner. And God is well acquainted with what ye do. There is no blame on you if ye make an offer of betrothal or hold it in your hearts. God knows that ye cherish them in your hearts: But do not make a secret contract with them except in terms Honourable, nor resolve on the tie of marriage till the term prescribed is fulfilled. And know that God Knoweth what is in your hearts, and take heed of Him; and know that God is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing. Al-Baqarah 2:234-235 Translation Yusuf Ali (Orig. 1938)"

Main directives
The following is a summary of the main directives (for widows) contained in these verses:

These are the basic Sharia directives regarding the waiting period for a widow. It is also clear from another directive of the Quran that during this waiting period, the woman should not be turned out of her house.
 * 1) The waiting period (Iddah) of a widow is four months and ten days;
 * 2) During this period, the woman is not to marry another man;
 * 3) During this period, a person may declare his intentions of marrying the widow — in a socially acceptable manner — or he may keep such intentions to himself, yet he should not make a secret commitment of marriage with the widow; and
 * 4) The time and place of the marriage-contract should be finalized and committed to only after the period of four months and ten days has expired.

Scriptural basis
The directive within the Quran (Al-Baqarah 2:228), regarding the waiting period for a divorcee, is:

"Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what God Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in God and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And God is Exalted in Power, Wise. Al-Baqarah 2:228 Translation Yusuf Ali (Orig. 1938)"

In surah Al-Ahzab it is stated:

"O you who have believed, when you marry believing women and then divorce them before you have touched them [i.e., consummated the marriage], then there is not for you any waiting period to count concerning them. So provide for them and give them a gracious release. — (Al-Quran 33:49)"

In the Quran surah At-Talaq Verse 65:4, it is stated:

"Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the Iddah, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy. At-Talaq 65:4 Translation Yusuf Ali (Orig. 1938)"

The directive within the Quran Surat At-Talaq 65:4, regarding the waiting period for "those who have no courses" (i.e. they are still young), is:

"And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death." The Mohsin Khan translation also clarifies that this refers to those who have not yet menstruated, as they are "still immature".

Main directives
The following is a summary of the main directives (for divorces) contained in these verses:
 * 1) The waiting period for a menstruating woman is, three monthly periods
 * 2) The waiting period for a non-menstruating women is, three lunar months
 * 3) The waiting period of a woman who has no monthly courses (due to young age) is three months
 * 4) The husband is more entitled to take her back during this period provided that he wants reconciliation. However this is the case only in case of first or second divorce.
 * 5) If a Muslim man marries a Muslim woman then divorces her before touching her then there is no iddah.

Commentaries
Imam Suyuti's commentary, Tafsir al-Jalalayn: And as for those of your women who read allā’ī or allā’i in both instances no longer expect to menstruate if you have any doubts about their waiting period their prescribed waiting period shall be three months and also for those who have not yet menstruated because of their young age their period shall also be three months — both cases apply to other than those whose spouses have died; for these latter their period is prescribed in the verse they shall wait by themselves for four months and ten days.

Tafsir ibn Kathir, says of this verse, "Her Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. (see 2:228) The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause."The Tafsir al Jalalyn co-authored by the scholar Imam Suyuti says of this verse"And [as for] those of your women who (read allā’ī or allā’i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months"

Scriptural basis
"And those who carry (life within their wombs), their iddah is until they deliver their burdens (Al-Quran 65:4)"

Main directive
Divorced women and widows who are pregnant cannot remarry until delivery. Remarriage cannot take place until a period of waiting removes all doubt about any existing pregnancy.

title: Iddah


text:
Talk:Discord (disambiguation)

Defining a word
Man, defining a word is a hard thing when you are doing it without using the referrences that you use later on in the article. Truthfully, of course, I don't know whether the article should even start out with the definition of the word, considering that it is, after all, a encyclopedia entry. Were any of the articles that it refers to more substantial, it'd make sense for there to be a disambiguation, but for now I think that having the more common aspects of use in music and as the goddess in the main body of the article and the others in the "other uses" section makes the most sense.

I ended up removing most of the insubstantiated material in the band-related sections (about whom citations, referrences, and proof of their continued existence would be better served to be put in articles of their own if someone views that as necessary, instead of simply piggybacking this article) in favor of the more mainstream uses of the word, in mythology and music.

The fact that the "alternative and punk" band is actually spelled "Dischord" also seems to indicate to me that it doesn't belong in this article, but I suppose that that's no worse than the other band's presence, so I just made the section link to the "alternative and punk" band's actual article.

Tchalvak 05:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Discord, le VoIP app
https://discordapp.com Ditto/ (Talk) 22:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Discord
Is it OK for us to add here to direct editors and readers who are finding our unofficial Wikimedia Discord server (Discord) to this disamb page? Another disamb page IRC (disambiguation) currently has information to our IRC chat rooms (IRC). —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Discord (software) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Discord (software) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Discord (disambiguation)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jo Scheer

 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. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Jo Scheer
Apparently non-notable bamboo artist. Gazpacho 03:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep see edit. Hamster Sandwich 05:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep published author. Pburka 00:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete borderline notable at best. JamesBurns 07:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, publishing a book about how to make things from bamboo is not what I'd call notable. Radiant_ >|< 12:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Radiant! CDC   (talk)  21:28, 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:Supersaiyanplough/Snape

title: User:Supersaiyanplough/Snape


text:
Extraterrorestrial Alien Encounter

The Extraterrorestrial Alien Encounter (stylized as ExtraTERRORestrial Alien Encounter) was a "theater-in-the-round" attraction located in the Tomorrowland section of the Magic Kingdom theme park at Walt Disney World Resort. A co-production between Walt Disney Imagineering and Lucasfilm (then separate from The Walt Disney Company), the attraction was a darkly humorous science fiction experience that used binaural sound to achieve many of its effects.

After years of declining popularity and increasing complaints from park guests about its frightening nature, Disney announced on September 21, 2003 that an attraction themed to Disney's 2002 film Lilo & Stitch would be replacing it. On October 12, Extraterrorestrial Alien Encounter was closed to the public to start production on Stitch's Great Escape!.

Original concept
The genesis for Extraterrorestrial Alien Encounter was a proposed attraction inspired by the 1979 film, Alien. The original concept was named Nostromo, a reference to the spacecraft from the film, with the attraction's alien planned to be the titular Xenomorph creature, and X-S Tech was going to be the Weyland-Yutani Corporation. This idea was ultimately deemed inappropriate and thusly scrapped because the Alien series was rated R and this contradicted a general rule-of-thumb that Disney attractions were supposed to be based on either G or PG-rated properties; although, Disney has since developed attractions from franchises that host at least one PG-13 rated film, such as Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Marvel, and Avatar. As a result, the name Nostromo was taken out entirely and an original alien was created for the ride and the fictional company was changed to X-S Tech.

As an original story was developed, George Lucas was brought in to work on the project. This version's storyline had X-S Tech's open house being a front for exposing human guinea pigs to an alien monster they had captured. After the alien menaces the audience for a moment, it is revealed to be sentient and desires to escape its captors and free the guests as well. The X-S scientists respond by trying to destroy the test chamber and leave no evidence, but the alien holds off their weaponry, raises the restraints allowing the guests to escape. While leaving, the sounds of the alien rampaging through the pre-show facilities could be heard. The story's dark tone would lead to it being further re-worked.

Development
Extraterrorestrial Alien Encounter was proposed for Disneyland for the "Tomorrowland 2055" project as part of the "Disney Decade," started by then-Disney CEO Michael Eisner. It was to be installed in the space that housed the Mission to Mars attraction. Also proposed to join "Tomorrowland 2055" were The Timekeeper, which was to take over Circlevision 360, and also Plectu's Fantastic Intergalactic Revue, a musical revue which was to land where America Sings once was located. Due to financial issues after the opening of Disneyland Paris (then known as Euro Disney), "Tomorrowland 2055" was cancelled.

In late 1993, it was announced that Extraterrorestrial Alien Encounter would be coming to Magic Kingdom.

The attraction opened briefly for previews on December 16, 1994, on the site of the park's former Mission to Mars attraction. It was widely criticized by park guests for its violence, storyline and comedic tone of the pre-show in comparison to the darker tone of the actual attraction. On January 12, 1995, the attraction was closed for retooling by Eisner, who felt that it was not intense enough. Disney retooled the original version of the second pre-show and main show and spent an extra $10 million for improvements. The second pre-show was reworked to make it match the dark tone of the main show. Imagineers adjusted the show to make sure guests knew what going on, and reprogrammed every computer system with each show element. Extraterrorestrial Alien Encounter officially opened on June 20, 1995, as part of the Magic Kingdom's New Tomorrowland renovation.

Upon its opening, some Disney fans praised Extraterrorestrial Alien Encounter for its darker tone in contrast to other attractions at Magic Kingdom. However, the attraction was met with largely negative reception from guests, as it was considered too scary for younger kids, and the popularity of the attraction started to dwindle.

The attraction was planned to be added at Disneyland along with an opening at Tokyo Disneyland and Disneyland Paris over the next few years. These plans were cancelled due to the attraction's negative reviews coupled with budget cuts.

On September 21, 2003, Magic Kingdom announced that Extraterrorestrial Alien Encounter would be closing. It was set to be replaced by a new attraction based on Disney's 2002 film Lilo & Stitch. Extraterrorestrial Alien Encounter closed on October 12, 2003, and was replaced by Stitch's Great Escape!, which opened on November 16, 2004 and operated until January 6, 2018, using much of the same technology and set pieces from its predecessor.

First preshow area
Guests were ushered into the "Tomorrowland Interplanetary Convention Center" (mentioned as such in the Tomorrowland Transit Authority narration) for a demonstration of new technology from an alien corporation known as X-S Tech. The company's chairman, L.C. Clench (Jeffrey Jones), set the attraction's tone with a pre-show welcome that included his corporate philosophy, "If something can't be done with X-S then it shouldn't be done at all."

Before the start of the pre-show, the television monitors described other events taking place at the Tomorrowland Interplanetary Convention Center, including "The Tomorrowland Chamber of Commerce presents X-S Tech", "Mission to Mars: History or Hoax" (a tribute to the attraction that previously occupied the Alien Encounter building), "Championship Pet Show", and "The Walt Disney Company's Pan Galactic Stock Holders Meeting", featuring a holographic transmission from "Lunar Disneyland—The Happiest Place Off Earth".

Second pre-show area
Guests proceeded into a second area where they were introduced to an X-S robot known as Simulated Intelligence Robotics (SIR), voiced by Tim Curry. He proceeded to demonstrate the company's teleportation technology using a little alien named Skippy. The creature's charred and disoriented appearance after being teleported a short distance across the room suggested that the technology was flawed. While teleporting Skippy back across the room, SIR paused the process, demonstrating how the technology could be used to suspend subjects in teleportation indefinitely. Originally, the robot was named Technobotic Oratorical Mechanism Series 2000 (TOM 2000) and was voiced by Phil Hartman.

Main attraction
Finally, guests were seated in harnesses within a circular chamber surrounding an enormous plastic cylinder, the "teleportation tube." Clench and two X-S Tech employees, Spinlok (Kevin Pollak) and Dr. Femus (Kathy Najimy), communicated "live" from across the galaxy via video screens. Initially, a single guest was to be teleported out of the chamber for a meeting with Clench. Instead, Clench decided to have himself teleported into the chamber on Earth to meet the entire group.

Clench's impatience and the change of plans caused the teleportation signal to be diverted through an unknown planet. As a result, a towering, winged and carnivorous alien was beamed into the tube by mistake, as chaos ensued and the technicians panicked. The creature quickly escaped, as intermittent darkness and flashes of light revealed the shattered and empty teleportation tube. A power outage then plunged the chamber into total darkness as guests sat restrained in their seats. A maintenance worker attempted to restore the power, but was mauled as the alien's shrieks resounded throughout the room and a spray of fluid flew out into the audience hitting the guests' faces. After the spray of fluid, the guests felt their seats rumble and shake as the alien made its way swiftly through the crowd, during which time the guests also felt the "breath" of the alien on the back of their necks and drool dripping from its mouth.

The power came back, and with assistance from Spinlok and Dr. Femus, the alien was ultimately driven back into the broken teleportation device, but overpowering the tube caused the alien to explode right before the tube closed. Guests were then released from their seats while the two technicians bid them goodbye and resumed their search for the misplaced Clench. On the way out, guests exited into Merchant of Venus.

Special effects
Unlike its successor Stitch's Great Escape!, much of Alien Encounter took place in total darkness while the attraction engaged guests' nonvisual senses. Most of the effects came from individual units mounted on the shoulder restraints behind audience members' heads. The most common effects were binaural cues which came from the highly separated speakers arranged next to each ear. These speakers bolstered many of the other effects with foley, creating unique effects like positional audio from the monster, and created general atmospherics, including the murmuring and screams of other audience members, pink noise, and heartbeats.

Binaural sound effects and moving shoulder restraints suggest that the alien is moving through the chamber above the audience. When the alien was meant to be traveling on the far side of the room, "several banks of 1,800-watt-per-channel servo-driven subwoofers" repurposed from the previous attraction, Mission to Mars, and transducers mounted in the seats made pounding vibrations meant to simulate the footsteps of a powerful monster. Warm moistened air was used both gently, to simulate the alien breathing down the audience members' necks, and forcefully, to induce a more intense reaction from them. Water sprinklers and air blasters mounted in the row in front were used to simulate the dripping of either the creature's drool or blood from an attacked worker in the scaffolding above the theater (played by a cast member carrying a flashlight using prerecorded dialogue) and to simulate the explosion of the alien in the finale when the blast shield does not close in time. Air blown through soft textile tubes caused them to slap against the back of audience members' heads which, in conjunction with hot air blowers and olfactory emitters, created the most direct physical effect by suggesting the alien was licking audience members.

During lighted segments, the show used lasers, rear-projected screens repurposed from the previous attraction, Mission to Mars, and Audio-Animatronics for the alien, SIR, and Skippy (both normal and deformed).

title: Extraterrorestrial Alien Encounter


title: User:Supersaiyanplough/Snape2


text: User talk:84.12.61.228

title: User talk:84.12.61.228


text:
Cape Santiago (Taiwan)

Cape Santiago is a cape on the easternmost point of the island of Taiwan, located in the Gongliao District, New Taipei City.

History
On 5 May 1626, a Spanish fleet reached the northeast tip of Taiwan and named the native village of Caquiunauan (also Caguiuanuan; present-day Fulong Village) as Santiago. Later this name was extended to the nearby cape.

Tourist attractions
There is a lighthouse situated on Cape Santiago, called Cape Santiago Lighthouse. A nearby beach, Yenliao (鹽寮), was the site of the first landing for the Japanese invasion of Taiwan in 1895.

title: Cape Santiago (Taiwan)


text:
Hubertusburg

Hubertusburg is a Rococo palace in Saxony, Germany. It was built from 1721 onwards at the behest of Augustus the Strong, Elector of Saxony and King of Poland, and after his death served as a residence of his son Augustus III. The 'Saxon Versailles' is chiefly known for the signing of the 1763 Treaty of Hubertusburg that ended the Seven Years' War. The palace is located in the municipality of Wermsdorf near Oschatz.

History
The extended Wermsdorf Forest had already been a hunting ground for the Wettin elector Augustus in the 16th century. A first Renaissance hunting lodge (Jagdschloss) in Wermsdorf was erected in 1609–10. From 1699 Augustus the Strong and his governor Prince Anton Egon of Fürstenberg held festive parforce hunts here, while their large entourage and the royal guests had to be accommodated in the village and at nearby Mutzschen Castle.

During the feast of Saint Hubertus on 3 November 1721, Augustus the Strong commissioned a new palace that should serve as a hunting lodge but also reflect the royal claims of the Saxon elector, who since 1697 ruled as King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in personal union. The palace, then one of the largest Baroque castles in Europe, was erected according to plans drawn up by the court architect Johann Christoph von Naumann. It was completed after only three years of construction in 1724. Naumann had designed a plain triple-wing complex with a cour d'honneur centered around an avant-corps and crowned by a mansard roof. Integrated in the building was a castle chapel – as expression of Augustus' conversion to the Catholic faith, to be eligible for the Polish throne. New roads were laid out from the palace to Meissen and the Dresden residence, as well as to the city of Leipzig in the northwest. After the death of Augustus the Strong in 1733, his son and successor Augustus III had Hubertusburg rebuilt in a Rococo style and again greatly expanded until it got its present appearance in 1752. The three-story structure now formed a rectangle, with the main façade including an oval two-story avant-corps and bearing the coat of arms of Augustus III as imperial vicar. The roof received a distinct canopy crowned by an onion dome and a weather vane with a jumping stag. Attached to the main palace extended functional buildings and stables were erected, grouped around a vast courtyard. The Saxon prime minister Heinrich von Brühl had his own palais in the right wing, embodying his special position at the court. From 1755 Brühl, though no great huntsman, served as commander of the Hubertusburg court hunts having his own cuisine and employees at his disposal. Hubertusburg was often the scene of extravagant parties and festivities. The last Hubertus feast was celebrated in 1755, before the outbreak of the Seven Years' War.

With the advance of the Prussian Army in 1756, Augustus III and Brühl fled to Warsaw, leaving Queen consort Maria Josepha and her children behind. After his defeat at the 1760 Battle of Landeshut, the forces of King Frederick the Great devastated Dresden, while Berlin and nearby Charlottenburg Palace was occupied and plundered by united Austrian, and Russian and Saxon troops. Furious Frederick ordered the plundering of Hubertusburg in revenge, however, his general Johann Friedrich Adolf von der Marwitz (according to other sources Friedrich Christoph von Saldern) refused to act. He was consequently dismissed and replaced by Frederick's confidant Karl Gottlieb Guichard, who executed the command. The decorations and inventory – except for the court chapel – were exploited by the Berlin court Jews Veitel-Heine Ephraim and Daniel Itzig.

The palace is famous for the Peace Treaty of Hubertusburg signed here after lengthy negotiations in the next year, on 15 February 1763. After the plundering, furnishings had to be removed from several inns in the vicinity to accommodate the representatives of the belligerent powers. Ratified by Frederick the Great and Empress Maria Theresa, the Treaty of Hubertusburg, with the Treaty of Paris, ended both the Seven Years' War and the French and Indian War. Augustus III died shortly afterwards on October 5; his son and heir Frederick Christian only outlived him by a few weeks. When Elector Frederick Augustus III of Saxony ascended the throne, he had Hubertusburg Place secured and rebuilt in a simplified manner. Nevertheless, the days of Hubertusburg as the site of ecstatic court festivities were over. In 1770 Frederick Augustus III had a faience manufacture established in the premises, which obtained much attention at the Leipzig Trade Fair and later produced stoneware with considerable success. However, business went down during the Napoleonic Continental Blockade, while Hubertusburg served as a military hospital for the Saxon troopers of the Grande Armée, returning from the French invasion of Russia, and for the wounded of the Battle of Leipzig. From 1815 onwards, Frederick Augustus again held some royal hunts here.

In 1840, Hubertusburg was turned into a penitentiary for up to 170, mainly female, inmates. From 1872 to 1874, the Social Democratic leaders August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht were kept prisoner here, shortly before the institution was dissolved. Other parts of the palace complex served as a state hospital from 1838, from 1850 also as a lunatic asylum for women and children, a school for the blind, as well as a training school for nursing sisters. A hospital run by the Klinikum St. Georg, Leipzig still exists on the south side of the Hubertusburg grounds. During World War II, the Luftwaffe established a military academy here, which was occupied by advancing US Army forces on 25 April 1945. Handed over to the Soviet Red Army on 5 May, the premises were again plundered and several remaining hospital patients deported to NKVD Special Camp Mühlberg.

Since the German reunification, the premises have been gradually renovated by the Free State of Saxony. Parts are used by the workshops of the Saxon state archive, where salvaged records of the collapsed Cologne Historical Archive are repaired. The palace grounds are open to the public as a tourist destination; the interior can be visited by taking part in guided tours.

title: Hubertusburg


text:
Defense Language Proficiency Tests

The Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT) is a battery of foreign language tests produced by the Defense Language Institute and used by the United States Department of Defense (DoD). They are intended to assess the general language proficiency of native English speakers in a specific foreign language, in the skills of reading and listening. An Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) is sometimes administered to Defense Language Institute students to establish the graduate's proficiency in speaking following training there, but it is not part of the DLPT.

Description
The tests are meant to measure how well a person can function in real-life situations in a foreign language according to well-defined linguistic tasks and assessment criteria. Originally paper tests, they are increasingly delivered by computer.

The tests are used to assess the skill level of DoD linguists. Linguists are tested once a year in the skills of reading and listening. Test scores determine the amount of Foreign Language Proficiency Pay (FLPP) that a military linguist receives, and also whether they are qualified for certain positions that require language aptitude. DLPT scores may also figure into the readiness rating of a military linguist unit.

Scoring for the current (2007) series of tests, called DLPT5, is, like that for their predecessors, based on the guidelines of the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR), with the test results stated as levels 0+ through 3 or up to 4 for some languages.

Military language analysts are required to maintain a L2/R2 proficiency. Exams are administered annually, normally immediately after language upkeep classes, and can be taken as often as every 6 months without a language refresher course. In order to receive extra pay, they must exceed the minimum score for that language in one or more categories without falling below the minimum in either. For example:

Each service maintains independent FLPP rates, which vary based on the difficulty of the language, the number of speakers of that language in the service, and the needs of the service. FLPP is awarded in addition to base pay, other pay, and is subject to taxation, except within a war zone.

DLI students, regardless of their course grades, may not graduate without achieving an L2/R2 on the DLPT. They must also pass a series of tests called FLO (Final Learning Objective) Tests, as well as achieve a minimum of 1+ on the OPI. Although there is a minimum standard for DLI graduation, military language analysts are not required to maintain speaking proficiency unless required in the performance of duties.

Because of the subjective wording of the distractors (i.e., the "wrong" answers), the fact that many individuals take versions of the test numerous times and acquire a feel for its peculiarities while others lack that advantage, and the fact that it was not nearly challenging enough, the status of the DLPT IV as a proficiency test was controversial. These are among the reasons why the DLPT5 was instated, with an emphasis on incorporating "authentic materials". The intention of the DLPT5 was to provide a more accurate idea of how proficient the test taker was; whether it accurately assesses proficiency is as much (or even more so) a source of controversy as with the previous version. Because the net effect on military linguists was an average drop of about half a point of proficiency across all skills and all languages, many believe that the new version was intended to be a cost saving measure by reducing FLPP.

While the format of previous DLPTs was consistent across languages, there are two distinct formats of the DLPT5—multiple choice (in Russian, Chinese, MSA, and others) and constructed response (in some of the so-called "Less Commonly Taught Languages" like Hindi and Albanian).

DLPT5 was initially slated to be a computer-based test, but during that version's infancy, it was proctored much like the previous exams, using scantron sheets, taped media, and test booklets. DLPT5 was taken in conjunction with DLPT IV during the trial stage of that version, and has since usurped it as the standard test. Although some versions, such as those given to linguists in the field, abroad, or in other extraordinary situations, are still paper tests, the CONUS facilities which house linguists use the computer proctored exams.

DLPT is used to measure both government and military proficiency in the United States, whereas the ACTFL proficiency test is used in academic circles. Below is an equivalency chart:

title: Defense Language Proficiency Tests


text:
The Frying Game

"The Frying Game" is the twenty-first and penultimate episode of the thirteenth season of the American animated television series The Simpsons. It first aired on the Fox network in the United States on May 19, 2002. In the episode, after accidentally injuring an endangered caterpillar, Homer is sentenced to two weeks of community service. As part of his sentence, Homer delivers Meals on Wheels to an old woman called Mrs. Bellamy, who subtly guilt trips him, and later Marge, into becoming her personal servants. One day, the two find Mrs. Bellamy dead in her house, having been stabbed by a man with braces who quickly escapes the murder scene. Being the only ones present when the police arrive, Homer and Marge are soon suspected for the murder. The episode also features a "Snuh cascade", an homage to a group of Simpsons fans on Usenet.

"The Frying Game" was written by John Swartzwelder and directed by Mike Frank Polcino. The screamapillar was conceived by the episode's writer, who pitched it to the other staff writers. It has since been described as a satire on the Endangered Species Act, a United States environmental law passed during the 1970s. The idea that Homer's execution was in fact part of a reality game show was conceived by former staff writer George Meyer. The episode features Frances Sternhagen as Mrs. Bellamy and Carmen Electra as herself. In its original broadcast, the episode was seen by approximately 6.5 million viewers, finishing in 46th place in the ratings the week it aired.

Following its home video release, the episode received mixed reviews from critics.

Plot
Homer gives Marge a koi pond for their anniversary, but an endangered "Screamapillar" takes refuge in the pond. Bound by law to care for it, Homer accidentally injures the loud, annoying larva while reading a bedtime story. For trying to bury the larva to cover up the injury, Homer is sentenced to two weeks of community service for "attempted insecticide and aggravated buggery".

Homer begins delivering Meals on Wheels to an elderly woman, Mrs. Bellamy, who takes a liking to him. She subtly guilt trips Homer, and later Marge, into becoming her personal servants. When Bellamy turns up dead, having been stabbed with a pair of scissors, Homer and Marge are the prime suspects in the murder, even though they witnessed a man with braces leaving the murder scene with Bellamy's necklace. The people of Springfield are very suspicious of Homer and Marge, and Chief Wiggum does not believe their story. Finally, during an inspection of the house, Maggie is found with Bellamy's necklace, and Wiggum arrests Homer and Marge. Bart, Lisa and Maggie are adopted by Cletus Spuckler, who decides to change their names to "Dingus Squatford Jr." and "Pamela E. Lee".

Despite not undergoing lie detector or DNA tests, both are sentenced to death by electric chair. In a bid to spare Marge, Homer confesses to the warden that he acted alone, and Marge is released. As Homer is sitting in the electric chair, it is suddenly revealed that he is on a new Fox reality TV show, Frame Up. Bellamy's murder was merely part of an elaborate hidden camera scheme, the man with the braces is the show's host, and Bellamy is guest host Carmen Electra in disguise. Chief Wiggum is annoyed that the police department's time and taxpayers' money was wasted on what turned out to not even be a real case, but is excited to learn he will be in the show and has them give Lou and Eddie producer credits. Homer and Marge are reunited with the kids, but Homer is infuriated that he had to suffer just so the show could get higher ratings; as Electra tries to explain, he ends up staring at her breasts.

Production
"The Frying Game" was written by John Swartzwelder and directed by Mike Frank Polcino. It was first broadcast on the Fox network in the United States on May 19, 2002. The screamapillar, the larva that the Simpsons find in their garden, was, according to current showrunner Al Jean, Swartzwelder's "total conception." He pitched the idea to the Simpsons writing staff, and because they found it "hilarious," they decided to include it in the episode. Jean said that when people ask what sense of humor Swartzwelder has, the screamapillar is "one of the best examples." It was voiced by main cast member Dan Castellaneta, who portrays Homer among other characters in the series. Because the screamapillar only communicates by screaming, its lines were recorded last during recording sessions, as the screaming would "burn out" Castellaneta's voice.

In a scene in the episode, Homer is on death row and eats his last meal. The meal consists solely of junk food like hamburgers and fried chicken. The scene came from an article that the writers had read, in which it said that death sentenced prisoners often requested junk food as their last meal. On the way to the electric chair, Homer meets a man resembling Michael Clarke Duncan's character John Coffey in The Green Mile. While recording lines for the episode, the staff were told that Duncan was visiting the Fox studios. Having not recorded the lines for the character yet, the staff asked Duncan if he wanted to voice the character, but he declined. The music that plays during the scene is also from The Green Mile. The idea that Homer's execution was in fact a reality show on Fox was conceived by former staff writer George Meyer. According to fellow writer Matt Selman, the writing staff liked the idea since reality shows were "really big" at the time. The episode features American actress Frances Sternhagen as Mrs Bellamy, and glamour model Carmen Electra as herself. According to Jean, Electra's character is "one of the most voluptuous figures" they have ever had on The Simpsons.

Themes
In the DVD commentaries, creator Matt Groening and the majority of people who work on the show state several times that they are very liberal, but some, such as John Swartzwelder (the writer of this and many other The Simpsons episodes), are conservative. In his book The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You to Know About- Because They Helped Cause Them, Iain Murray described "The Frying Game" as "subversively conservative", and wrote that it shows "The best popular explanation of the liberal environmentalist model for endangered species." In the episode, Homer buys a koi pond for Marge, only to find a screamapillar has taken residence in their garden. When Homer tries to squash it, an EPA official tells him that allowing an endangered species to die is a federal offense, under the "Reversal of Freedoms Act of 1994." Homer is forced to coddle the screamapillar, and when he accidentally squashes it, Homer is found guilty of "attempted insecticide and aggravated buggery." The "Reversal of Freedoms Act" is a reference to the Endangered Species Act, an environmental law that Murray opined had "indeed become the Reversal of Freedoms Act." He continued, "Landowners who happened to have threatened or endangered species on their lands or who simply have habitat that might be used by endangered species are routinely prevented from using their lands or property. They are stopped from undertaking such activities as harvesting their trees, grazing their cattle, irrigating their fields, clearing brush along fence lines, disking firebreaks around their homes and barns, or building new homes.

Release
In its original American broadcast on May 19, 2002, "The Frying Game" received a 6.2 rating, according to Nielsen Media Research, translating to approximately 6.5 million viewers. The episode finished in 46th place in the ratings for the week of May 13–19, 2002. On August 24, 2010, "The Frying Game" was released as part of The Simpsons: The Complete Thirteenth Season DVD and Blu-ray set. Matt Groening, Al Jean, Matt Selman, John Frink, Don Payne, Tom Gammill, Max Pross, Mike Frank Polcino and Deb Lacusta participated in the audio commentary of the episode.

Following its home video release, "The Frying Game" received mixed reviews from critics.

Giving the episode a positive review, Colin Jacobson of DVD Movie Guide described the episode as "pretty good", writing "I like the obnoxious Screamapillar, and the way the Simpsons become seen as murderers also amuses. This allows S13 to move toward a satisfying conclusion."

Nate Boss of Project-Blu praised the episode's ending in particular, writing "the ending to this episode is fucking briliant [sic], as it is a wonderful statement about society today, that has almost become prophetic. Can't and won't spoil it, but damn, great idea! (Yes, since there have been about eight more seasons, it's obvious they don't die. That's hardly a spoiler!)"

DVD Verdict's Jennifer Malkowski gave the episode a B+, declaring the episode's "highlight" "one of the reasons the Screamapillar is endangered, that it's 'sexually attracted to fire.'"

On the other hand, giving the episode a negative review, Andre Dellamorte of Collider described it as "terrible."

DVD Talk's Ryan Keefer wrote a negative review as well, calling it "definitely forgettable" and criticizing it for "fall[ing] apart quickly." Ron Martin of 411Mania criticized the Screamapillar character, describing it as "just as annoying as Homer's constant screaming earlier in the season."

Cultural references
The episode title is a reference to the movie "The Crying Game".

The story itself was based on "The Green Mile", and features John Coffey, Mr. Jingles, and the saying "Dead man walking on a green mile".

title: The Frying Game


text:
The Alternate (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)

"The Alternate" is the 32nd episode of the American science fiction television series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. It is the 12th episode of the second season. It premiered on January 10, 1994.

Set in the 24th century, the series follows the adventures on Deep Space Nine, a space station located near a stable wormhole between the Alpha and Gamma quadrants of the Milky Way Galaxy, in orbit of the planet Bajor. In this episode, Odo's former teacher believes he has found a life form similar to Odo in the Gamma Quadrant. The episode introduces James Sloyan as Dr. Mora Pol, the Bajoran scientist who studied the Odo life-form after he was discovered.

Plot
Dr. Mora Pol, the Bajoran scientist who studied Odo when he was first discovered, arrives on Deep Space Nine and tells Odo that he has picked up DNA signatures similar to Odo's on a planet in the Gamma Quadrant. Mora, Odo, Dax, and Mora's assistant depart for the planet in a runabout to investigate, and while en route, Mora's fatherly attitude toward Odo, including embarrassing stories from their early time together, irritate him. Commander Sisko attempts to relate with and console Odo by telling him about a time he was helpless to aid his father in need.

Upon reaching the planet, the four of them beam to the surface, where they discover a tiny life form that may be a distant relative of Odo. Before they can return to the runabout, however, an earthquake releases volcanic gases into the air. The other three pass out, but Odo, unaffected because he does not have a respiratory system, beams them back to the runabout.

Back on the station, Dax and the others are brought to the infirmary to recover, while the life form is brought to the science lab, where O'Brien tries unsuccessfully to identify it. As it appears to be growing, he puts it into a containment field, but later that night, the crew finds the lab damaged, and the life form gone, apparently having escaped through an air duct. They note that the incident was accompanied by a power drain and a rise in temperature. O'Brien, attempting to track the creature down, hears a strange noise, and then finds a puddle of goo, which they assume is the life form's remains.

Bashir is studying the remains in the infirmary when he is attacked by a strange creature, which he fends off with a laser scalpel. Dax's analysis of a sample reveals the DNA of the life form and the creature are different, and she begins a computer search for a match with known life forms. Mora, meanwhile, recognizes the DNA pattern as Odo's and confronts him privately. He points out that the attacks occurred approximately sixteen hours apart, exactly the times when Odo reverts to his natural gelatinous state to regenerate. They surmise that the gas on the Gamma Quadrant planet might have affected Odo somehow. Panicking, Odo begins to head for the infirmary, but Mora claims Bashir will not understand and will treat Odo like a monster. He presses Odo to come back to Bajor with him, and, as he does so, the increasingly agitated Odo again transforms into the creature.

Security picks up a power drain in Odo's office, but, when they arrive to investigate, they find nothing amiss. Having seen Odo's violent reaction to him, Mora explains to Commander Sisko and Major Kira that he is the cause of Odo's metamorphosis. The first time, he explains, the creature was trying to rescue the organism Mora had contained in the science lab; the second time, it appeared in the infirmary, where Mora was a patient; and the third time, Odo and Mora were in the middle of a heated debate. He helps the crew lure Odo in his altered state to the Promenade, where he is contained in a force field and reverts to normal.

Later, the effects of the gas having been removed, Odo apologizes to Mora for attacking him. Mora apologizes to Odo for ignoring his feelings, which he finally realizes what he had done when Odo had felt like a prisoner in his laboratory. Mora says he would like to be a part, however small, of Odo's life, and the two begin to reconcile.

Reception
In IGN's review of season 2, they said this and "Shadowplay" were "good Odo episodes" in this season.

Releases
It was released on LaserDisc in Japan on June 6, 1997, as part of the half season collection 2nd Season Vol. 1, which had 7 doubled sided 12" discs. The discs had English and Japanese audio tracks.

On April 1, 2003, Season 2 of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was released on DVD video discs, with 26 episodes on seven discs.

This episode was released in 2017 on DVD with the complete series box set, which had 176 episodes on 48 discs.


text:
User:Somnambule

fr:Utilisateur:somnambule ja:利用者‐会話:somnambule Yo.

I'm french... and... so... that's all for today...

title: User:Somnambule


text:
Talk:Colorado Springs Sky Sox

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Colorado Springs Sky Sox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081023190924/http://www.gazette.com:80/sports/sky_42198___article.html/sox_simon.html to http://www.gazette.com/sports/sky_42198___article.html/sox_simon.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Colorado Springs Sky Sox


text:
Talk:The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

Vague
I think the following is overly vague:

Despite receiving popular acclaim over the years, academics in universities and colleges have often dismissed Shirer's book as a work of a journalist rather than by a true historian.

What are the specific criticisms "academics" "often" have with the book? How widespread are they? Even a couple of examples or a link would go a long way. --Misterwindupbird 04:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I can tell you that my college advisor, a respected academic historian, snorted at the mention of the book. Mackensen (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I wonder if we could consider it to be an early example of modern popularised history? Not academically rigorous, but instead deliberately targeted at the general public, and written in an appropriate style... Shimgray | talk | 21:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * That's... um... not exactly the kind of example I was hoping for, Mackensen. --Misterwindupbird 22:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Pigs snort. Academic historians rarelly aren't stupids and self-important.  So you see, David Irving, the greatest historian of the 20th century, in some quarters, doesn't have a degree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.177.136 (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

As an academic historian in training, I find Shirer both useful and problematic. He is useful insofar as his works are laregly derived from a first-hand experience lacking from many polished and truely academic histories. This offers an insight into the mentality and perspective from which one person viewed the Third Reich. Shirer is problematic, however, as throughout his writing he allows his personal convictions and prejudices to intrude upon supposed objectivity. For example, when discussing the Hossbach Memorandum, Shirer says "the die was cast" for war as it eventually occured. Academic historians, however, have come to view this important document as an indication that Hitler held violent, warlike aspirations, but no clear cut "plan" as to the exact nature it would come about. Also, in "Berlin Diary", Shirer makes numerous disparaging comments as to the cultural ability of the German people to think independently and behave in a civilized manner, which garners him little favor in academic circles. Thus, he is treated with caution. And as to David Irving, he himself is a quagmire. His early works and contributions to the field are useful, but once he embarked upon his Holocaust denial kick, that credibility was utterly ruined. He is utterly discredited in the academic world and treated accordingly. Also, I would argue with the claim that Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" was the first comprehensive history of Nazi Germany. Alan Bullock's "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny" predates Shirer by nine years and T. L. Jarman's "The Rise and Fall of Nazi Germany" by five. Bullock's work, although centered around Hitler's person, provides a more than adequate general history of the Third Reich in nearly as many pages and Jarman's history, although drastically shorter, is equally comprehensive. Specifically, Shirer is criticized in academic circles for providing inadequate citation as to his source material and failing to live up to academic standards. An early example of criticism of his work was authored by Klaus Epstein in "Shirer's History of Nazi Germany", found in JSTOR. The article clearly highlights common criticisms and critiques that are still prevelant today and reason why Shirer is treated as a journalist and not a proper historian of the era.

On journalists vs. academics
Misterwindupbird, I agree with you completely.

As to Mackensen's comment, I can assure everyone (if they even need such assurance) that academics (historians or otherwise) are often far from bias-free. There's often a touch of condescension among academics for the work of someone outside their clique or who — perish the thought — actually earned a living doing something other than pure "academic" research. Perhaps there's a touch of sour grapes mixed with the condescension.

Shimgray asks whether The Rise and Fall might be scorned by academics for not being "academically rigorous". Shirer's work (1143 pages in the 1981 paperback edition) contains nine pages of bibliography and nearly 32 pages of end notes (not to mention hundreds of footnotes intermingled with the text). If that's not academically rigorous, I don't know what is.

I wouldn't describe The Rise and Fall as "popularized history" — that term makes me think negatively of "documentaries" long on dramatization and short on attention to facts. However, I think it's fair to say that Shirer did write his work for the masses. The old cliché states that "journalism is the first draft of history" comes to mind here. Shirer spent eight years in Berlin explaining Nazi Germany to American newspaper and radio audiences. It therefore seems only natural that, when the Third Reich was over and after its archival material became available, for Shirer to be the one to put this history into its second draft for those who knew the Third Reich only through Shirer's dispatches and broadcasts, and to those of us who came afterwards. That The Rise and Fall may have been written for the literate public and not for a narrower academic audience is not, IMHO, a justifiable criticism provided the work is based on factual material with citations to prove it. Rise and Fall surely meets my primary tests of historical material: (1) factual, (2) educational, and (3) interesting.

Lastly, if the respected historians in academia or elsewhere have legitimate grievances with Shirer's work, it would be instructive for someone to sum them up (ideally with attribution) here. To date, there has been little documentation of these views which, I dare say, I find a bit academically short of the mark. It would also be interesting if someone cared to provide a list of the material we should be reading instead. -- JonRoma 03:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

+++ For considerations of the book+++ Most people of todays generations have no real concept of true evil. The book illuminates the evil regime with footnotes and observations. It is a must read in todays war happy environment. Neil

 * In response to the above, I should mention: MANY teachers of German History snort, not only because it is not academically rigorous, but also because it is so widely distributed that it is taken as being great simply by virtue of its circulation, which is irksome. I would not discount the idea that some historians are being cliquish; it is known to happen. Nor do I think that being a popular history is bad, even though the term has become perjorative. I further agree that a more clear and well-documented citation of the disdain be provided.

 * I must, however, challenge the criteria for academic rigor presented above, to quote "If that's not academically rigorous, I don't know what is.": 1143 pages, with 9 pages of Bibliography and 32 pages of end notes; this is not exactly rigorous, and not nearly as much as it sounds.

 * A few examples:

 * "Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels" which is well-regarded and written by an academic, but still is considered "popular", is 335 pages long. It has 22 pages of end notes. It has TEN pages of bibliography.

 * Now, "The Merovingian Kingdoms" by Ian Wood, a seminal work in the field of Late Antiquity/Early Middle Ages, is incredibly rigorous and respected. It is hardly popular, though. This work is 395 pages long. It has 16 pages of bibliography. And this is in a field that has FAR less primary material available.

 * What does this mean? Well is two titles under 400 pages could muster more bibliogaphy than a book nearly 3 times in length, what does that say for the "rigor" of the title? It only outpaces a book a third of its length in endnotes by ten pages. Not very much.

 * Do end notes mean that the work is neccessarily good? No. But it cannot be, in any way, used a a yardstick for how rigorous this book is.

 * In this very field, end notes are problematic. David Irving produced a number of works that were well-ctied; they were also falsehoods.

 * The point? The endnotes do not make this title more rigorous, or affect its academic standing in any way.

 * Does the book have value? I am sure it does. But I do not think it belongs in a discussion of any serious historical works on the period, aside from an acknowledgement of its popularity. The fact that it is interesting has nothing to do with its historical value. I would like to find something more specific to deal with this issue; If i can, I will write it into the article if it can be cited and explained.
 * --L.A.F. 02:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I found some reviews from scholarly journals. Accordingly, I shall add them with citation, to deal with this. --L.A.F. 02:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

One More Concern
I wonder if you might be able to shed some light on a specific concern about this book. I've heard several times that even the later editions include the now "discredited" theory of the Nazis themselves burning the Reichstag in 1933, and while this is somewhat addressed in the second last paragraph I feel it could be included (if true) as a supporting example. As far as the above sentiments relating to academic piety as the basis for most discrediting of this book, that's been my experience as well. - 21 October 2005 Reason.

 * Hello, Reason.

 * I don't think historians agree on the Reichstag fire, so I don't think one can truly say that the theory about Nazi involvement can be either proven or refuted. See the Reichstag fire page along with its rather lively talk page. It's generally agreed that van der Lubbe had a hand setting the fire, but it's less clear how much if any assistance he had, or whether his presence was pure coincidence that proved convenient to the Nazis. Either way, the Nazi propaganda machine was quick to exploit the fire to the party's benefit.

 * Shirer's statement that "the whole truth about the Reichstag fire will probably never be known" is, I think, as accurate in 2005 as it was the day The Rise and Fall was published in 1959. Shirer points out that most of the storm troopers who had first-hand knowledge of the events inside the Reichstag on the evening of the fire were subsequently murdered in the purge of the SA in the Night of the Long Knives the following year. As a result, not much in the way of direct evidence was available at the Nuremberg Trials.

 * Some 72 years after the fire, we may know a few more details, but the rest appears to be speculation. I don't know of any proven facts that makes any certainty out of the mysteries of the Reichstag fire.

 * In closing, I should note that later editions of Shirer's book were reprints rather than revisions, and hence the historical details therein were the facts known to the author in the years leading up to its 1959 publication. No doubt other historians have (and will continue to) assimilate the data, including Shirer's accounts, for their own interpretations of this pivotal event in the story of the Third Reich.

 * ''Note that in-depth discussion of the Reichstag fire itself is probably more appropriately made in that article's talk page than here.

 * -- JonRoma 05:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification, Jon. I was of the impression that there were revisions and not simply reprints, thanks for the correction. I have some reading to do. Perhaps I'll see you on the Reichstag talk page! ;-) Reason. 22 October 2005

 * I happen to be again trying to inform the WP editors at Ludwig Kaas by means of Shirer, and seeing these posts have to inform you that it was the Nuremberg Trials which stated their conclusion upon the Fire, that within in all reasonable doubt it was a Nazi gang who set the Fire. You could question the judgement of the Tribunal of course, or ignore it . There has to my knowledge been no new evidence or testimony. A quick google of Nuremberg /Reichstag /Fire will lead you to the findings.

 * This would relate to the very recent statement by Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, that Hitler came to power legally. Shirer does not report such  complacency from Nuremberg, which adjudges the entire a rolling Conspiracy or Common Purpose , to Institute Totalitarian Government in Germany. On page 249, Shirer  qualifies the entire historical crux of the empowerment in this light of the findings of the Nuremberg Trials: "except for the arrests of the Communists and some of the Social democratic deputies, it was all done quite legally, though accompanied by terror."  unsigned comment?

 * It may suit Mr Rumsfeld's current rhetoric, but is as wide of the mark as can be. It remains highly, extremely and excessively important that Hitler's rise be deemed as legitimate or Legal, as this justifies or excuses the involvement of the Catholic Church under Pope Pius XI with the illegal Hitler regime.EffK 21:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

External Link Incorrect
The page says that William Shirer "authorized" the scanning of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Amazon.com. Not so. First of all, Shirer died years before Amazon was established. Secondly, those scannings are controversial and are not specifically authorized by the writers. Frankly I think it should be removed in its entirety, out of respect for this great journalist and author. However, I will retain it for the time being while fixing. --Tomstoner 01:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Still Looking For Specific Criticisms
I'm in the midst of wading through Shirer's tome and jumped in here to get a feel for its reputation. I'm surprised at the dismissive tone of some of the "academics," but troubled that their criticisms remain vague and general with few specifics. Surely there criticisms don't simply stem from Shirer's homophobic language. I'd remind those criticis that Mr. Shirer was as much a product of his times as any of us, and that at the time, homosexuality was considered a perversion. And regardless how liberal or enlightened one's views of homosexual behavior, the closeted, creepy, macho, closeted variety that seems to have suited some of the brownshirts' tastes might not fit most descriptions of healthy sexuality. Again, a product of the times. But I still haven't seen a specific criticism of the book itself. What specifically don't the academics like and what works might some recommend over Shirer's book as a better introduction to the subject at hand? MisterFitz 17:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, here are a few things, drawn from some academic reviews as well as from my humble opinion:
 * The work is practically limited to the political, diplomatic and military history of the regime ; certainly it belongs to the core of the subject, but a work with a blackout on such things as culture, society and economics can hardly be considered as “definitive”. The few remarks on the economic mechanisms that are so important for the war are commonplace and naive (steel and coal supply is of vital importance: OK thanks for the information). He only devoted a few pages to the regime’s whole cultural, youth and media policy, and I think he evokes antisemitic legislation being passed only some years later.
 * Even with this limitation, it is somewhat Wilhelmstraße-centered, ‘history from above’. The only hints one gets about the life of the German people under nazi rule seem to be drawn from what he saw in the streets of Berlin while walking to work every morning. Elections, for example, are only dealt with as far as their political effects are concerned, the results come from God knows where and nothing serious is said about the millions of German voters and why they voted like this. Compare this with the dozens of pages devoted to every diplomatic crisis, the extensive account of negociations, and notes and memoranda and statements and all ! (So far for academic “elitism” toward this “popular” work, by the way…) This is how history was written in the nineteenth century, but this book was published is 1960.
 * Shirer has a serious anti-German bias; not just against the Nazis I mean, he considers Nazism as the product of the whole German history and collective personality and makes all sorts of comments on “Teutonic brutality” etc. He devotes some pages early in the book to the demonstration of his point and these pages are unfounded, exaggerating and filled with weak interpretations. This is of course one of the reasons his book was not really accepted in Germany.
 * I read some enormous mistakes on topics not directly related to Nazi Germany. For example, he writes that Stalin was a Russian (he was a Georgian and the Soviet Union was not Russia), and that the Holy Roman Empire was dissolved in 1648 (although the treaties of Westphalia were an important factor of the decline of the Old Reich, it existed until 1806).
 * Shirer is not an historian: he did not read history, he was not trained as an historian and does not follow the aims and methods of history. He uses archives and diaries to establish facts and report them, which is OK; but he does not reason or questions sufficiently, and his interpretations are commonplace and limited to the immediate, apparent, accidental causes of events. He barely tries to produce a general explanation or to discover the deep mechanisms that made things happen; and when he does, well it is excessively weak by academic standards. He does not comment on other historical works or question major historians’ thesis and visions. What justifies an article in Wikipedia is its huge success and reputation, not its contribution to knowledge.
 * I’d say that if you accept the limitation above mentioned, Shirer is good at telling the history of the Third Reich, but not at studying the history of the Third Reich. It is a remarkable journalist’s work, a clear and enjoyable report on diplomatic and military events of that period with insights on the nazi governement, and as such it can be a useful document and an advisable read even for history students. But it is extremely weak if you consider it as an history book; one learns less about Nazi Germany in these over 1,200 pages than in some serious 200-page academic essays or handbooks.
 * My two cents. Keriluamox 11:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Keriluamox raises some good points. Shirer was a newspaperman and wrote like one. I think he can be forgiven a certain lack of objectivity for having gone through the experience of watching an entire nation follow a single man into madness and a world into war. He was really angry over the experience and makes no effort to hide it. His tone and attitude echo many other survivors of the war, which may explain the book's long legs. MisterFitz (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You did not read the book, for if you did, you would have noticed a sympathetic view towards the Reich. Shirer, like most biography authors, is biased toward his subject, not against it. I do not recall mistreatment of homosexuals in the book (they were left untouched, except for a single rye remark). Unless he flies the rainbow flag for history's revisionists, he is in for a sound drumbeating. The nitpicking faults above read like they were found from hours of internet trolling, and not from one who sat down and read the book. Regardless of what you frauds say, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" remains the definitive work on The Third Reich in the United States. Authors do not like this subject, and only Shirer, as a reporter in Berlin in 1939 (reminds me of Raymond Burr as reporter Steve Martin in the opening minutes of the 1957 movie, "Godzilla"), could tell this truth. In the first hundred pages of this book, you will learn that:

1. Germany suffered two great depressions between the world wars, each of which wiped out all savings. Savings were wiped out due to the hyperinflation of 1921 to '23, and from the 1929 Great Depression.

2. It tried paying off World War I reparations by secretly printing money for the purpose. The government thought it could get away with this, as long as the money was circulated on the international market. Unfortunately, the law of supply and demand worked, and they got caught.

3. A separate, secret corporation was set up to hide all the Nazi loans borrowed from the private sector, used to finance its defense buildup. About half the government debt was legitimate, and half fraud (hidden).

4. The Nazi's wanted a slower, simpler society, unhindered by competition that naturally arose from capitalism, and their claims of jewish influence.

5. The regime set up dozens of clubs for its people (not unlike today's internet), that focused primarily on the trades and homemaking. The public was encouraged to subscribe to these organizations by mail, and in return they received a newsletter. The most successful of these clubs were the youth groups and the Hitler Youth, which prior to 1935 was similar to the Boy Scouts.

6. In 1945, the United States Army confiscated all of the government files from Berlin and the nazi regime, they were shipped to the United States, and they sat locked in a warehouse in Maryland for about six years. It was thought it would all be used against them at trial. However, the Nuremberg trials went on, oblivious to this, and all the paperwork was given back to Germany in 1951. 7. The trial of Marinus van der Lubbe, the Dutch communist who burnt down the Reichstag in 1933, was similar to that of the Lindbergh Kidnapping trial in the United States, in that it was a national event, most Germans had radio, and every household was tuned into the news every night to find out what was going on. The trial was extremely open and honest.

8. The Weimar Constitution, adopted by the Germans after World War I, was the best constitution Western minds could forge. It was considered even better than the United States Constitution, in that there were greater checks and balances in place to prevent abuse.

9. Shirer attempted to explain the German mind, by examining German history from about 1800 forward. This was a difficult task. He found that Germany were the first country in Europe to nationalize healthcare, and to improve upon the modern welfare state. He examined the First and Second Reich, Prussianism, Aryanism, what it meant to an Aryan.

10. He did not say so explicitly, however the reader comes away thinking the Second Word War was the result of punishing economic penalties from World War I, crushing economic turmoil, and the rise of a figure who gave nation hope. He does not blame the war on character, the German character, a character fault, an evil genome, or any other genetic fault found between the ears of these people. So much for lightweight liberal criticism that wants to condemn them all, lock the dungeon door, and throw away the key. Lord Milner (talk)

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced
I just stumbled upon this article and am frankly shocked by its tone, and by the excessive weight given to academic critics. I shall try to locate some counterbalancing material. Meanwhile, I am placing an NPOV tag on this article until these issues are resolved.--Silverscreen 22:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Well Shirer’s article credits him as an historian, so I don’t think the reviews of his history works by historians are given an excessive weight, they are just the kind of sources an encyclopedia might use to talk about the works of an historian. However, as I’ve explained above, I doubt that he should be called an “historian”: he was not trained as one, and he did not follow the aims and methods of history; publishing books about historical events doesn’t make one an historian. Perhaps it should be considered unsourced. I am translating the article about him for the French-language Wikipedia and I will probably write in the first sentence that he was an “American journalist and author of history books”, which is neutral and a good compromise.
 * As for the tone, I don’t think it is too biased either: if you read the first page of Shanahan’s review, you’ll see that his critic is actually more severe and dismissive that the quotation we took. Counterbalancing sources would be welcome, however. Keriluamox 11:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Back to the Content Issue
It has been repeated several times in this talk page that there are many better sources for this subject than Shirer, but thus far no such sources have been offered. I read Shirer as a youth and still find it a factual source of some value, though I am no professional historian. Further, it is dangerous ground to criticize a work by literally weighing the number of pages in source material; the issue is whether the facts are right and we can tell where he got them.

It has also been twice contended here that Shirer lacked an analysis or concept, or that his concpetualization was commonplace. That may or may not be a real criticism, whereas judegements of "correct" or "misinterpretatiohn" are more to the point. Shirer, it seemed to me, was making points about how the political system in Weimar devolved into a crushing defeat. It the inner dynamics he depicts are incorrect, he deserves to be criticized and belittled. But if he has fundamentally laid out the facts, in order, and connected them to the right dynamic processes, he deserves, in my way of seeing things, to be considered a historian and not merely a popularizer.

Finally, the article doesn't go very far into Shirer's biases or tendencies, and one can assume there were some. If there is an issue, and the Red Channels matter concerning Shirer suggests there was one, however misguided it may or may not have been, there may be some important source material relevant to interpreting the Rise and Fall. As the article stands now, almost nothing is said about the book's content, with the focus being what a big deal it was. comment added by Pcrosen (talk • contribs) 08:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag
I did a little research and added some content, both to put the criticism in context (achieving some balance) and to elaborate somewhat on what the book's limitations are supposed to be. More detail from the Epstein and Rosenfeld references would be useful, but I think we may be able to remove the NPOV tag at this point. Bertport (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

March 2010
A couple recent edits are repeatedly removing material including the following, with edit summaries citing "POV":

"the first and most successful, large scale history of Nazi Germany in English for a general audience "

"Rise and Fall was the first book to present a comprehensive synthesis of the Nazi era. "

"The book was widely hailed as a great work of history. "

As can be seen here, this material is cited by reliable sources. If these are going to be removed from the article, I'd like to see an explanation here. Bertport (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Academic critics split? Sonderweg common to scholarship?
How split were the scholars? (English-language or American scholars, i think) If the article is not a self contradiction it's close.

Sections "Success and acclaim" and "Criticism" imply to me that scholars were generally negative. A previous editor says "split", which I haven't changed, but it seems misleading, a generous summary.

Yet the section "Content and themes" says that the Sonderweg interpretation of German history (special path or unique course) --that much is my reword of previous copy; NOW QUOTE THE RECEIVED WORDING: "was then common to American scholarship; yet, despite extensive footnotes and references, some academic critics consider its interpretation of Nazism flawed.[8]" This implies to me that Sonderweg was the established position; it is supposed to be a bit surprising or incongruous that some critics (merely some) considered it flawed (merely flawed). --P64 (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

More trouble about what we mean
"that Hitler’s ascension to power was an expression of German national character, not of totalitarianism as an ideology that was internationally fashionable in the 1930s.[4][5][6]"
 * That is my rewording of clumsy prose, true to my reading of the previous version (not the sources). Someone who knows the sources should consider it.

"Author William L. Shirer summarised his perspective: ... "This reportorial perspective ...
 * Why do we call it a "perspective" and a specifically "reportial" one? What does that mean? (He summarized his thesis, i think.)

"In 1962, the Reader's Digest magazine serialization ...
 * The book is much too long for that. Did RD publish an abridged version of the whole? (we might call it a serial abridgement and should say how many instalments) Or selections that were not comprehensive? --P64 (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Re the latter, two references provided after that sentence: [ref]Cedar Rapids Gazette, 9 October 1960, p. 47.[/ref][ref]Rosenfeld 1994, pp. 100–01.[/ref]
 * If the former is a source on Reader's Digest edition, it suggests that that serial version preceded release of the book (which we call "published 17 October 1960"). --P64 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism
"Gavriel Rosenfeld asserted in 1994 that Rise and Fall had been unanimously condemned, and considered dangerous to relations between America and West Germany, as it might inflame anti-German sentiments in the United States.[18]"

Am I interpreting this wrong or is this an actual mistake? How could Rosenfelt have been concerned about relations with West Germany if it hadn't been a country for 4 years? Dutch32 (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

 * My reading of this is that Rosenfeld is making the assertion in 1994, but "had... been considered dangerous" indicates he's referring to concerns at the time of publication - 1960. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

What is meant by Wiskemann "useful"?

 * the book was "not sufficiently scholarly nor sufficiently well written to satisfy more academic demands... It is too long and cumbersome... Mr Shirer, has, however compiled a manual... which will certainly prove useful."[18]

Is this to say it proves useful to neo-Nazi's. What is the implied? Can anyone with access to Wiskemann provide more context? -Reagle (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The negative criticism all relates to the style of these four books (as they initially were written and printed). It isn't a popular work, like perhaps Alan Bullock's first work on Hitler - and neither it is a strict academical work, but sooner somewhere in between. Shirer uses his own experiences (living and working quite a few years in Hitler's Third Reich, including listening to several of Hitler's speeches "live") and mix it with imperative diaries, like Franz Halder's and Galeazzo Ciano's as well as thousands of other sources (presented in the work). Shirer also "jumps the subject" temporary, by using not so few interesting side stories (clearly marked by * signs, and put at the bottom of a page, well enough separated from the main text). Some university figures disapproved of this style. Perhaps as Shirer was not a university historian like them, but a journalist. But it's content and its degree of thoroughness in itself has rarely been the issue of any negative criticism. Boeing720 (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

So this book is garbage?
If I hadn't read the book, that's what I would conclude after reading this article. This article seems to cherry-pick and emphasize now trivial negativity while devaluing all the positive reviews and also implying those reviews and journalists are merely of the uneducated rabble.

For example, the article's criticism of Shirer's trivial Luther-to-Hitler theory occupies much space in the article, yet as a reader, I never even noticed it, and I drew unrelated opinions of the rise of Hitler, mostly regarding 20th century economic and political upheavals. IOW, the article is utterly unbalanced, that outdated, once-popular theory may pique some, yet to the average reader the whole issue is trivial or non-existent. (Only important or noticeable to a niche group.) It's like assuming the whole from a single (yet true) incident. IOW, a logical fallacy, an unintentional lie. (It's not the article's facts I question, it's how they affect the overall tone of the article, it's balance.)

In reading the book I never once once considered it to be a history text. Indeed why would anybody? —So why write; This book is not good enough to be considered a history book, —and create list of arcane flaws? It may be true, but I submit, that is largely Off Topic. While the book is required reading among historians of that era, naturally historians will flock here. Please don't mix the categories.

IOW, it is unfair and unprofessional to judge journalism in the History arena. (Should fantasy novels be accused of magical thinking?) Any criticism by historians should be done apologetically and meekly, explicitly noting that judgement as unfair or improper. A reminder, this article is NOT about the Third Reich! It is about a journalistic summery, largely gathered in real time by a foreign correspondent. That and that only is the proper arena.

Another arguably off-topic example, this one in the lede section: "The book was feted honored by journalists, as reflected by its receipt of the National Book Award for non-fiction,[2] but the reception from academic historians was mixed ." (My suggested possible correction.) The opinion of niche academic historians regarding trivia do not belong in the lede, (those only matter to historians).

My complaint seems to reflect the bulk of the comments above. Yet the problem remains after all these years. Why?

I see only two ways to balance the article to match the actual real-world critiques. 1) For every negative criticism, add 19 positive criticisms to match reality, or 2) Delete (or soften?) the off-topic criticisms. Wikipedia's target audience is the average Joe. To him the take-away is "this book is garbage (more fake news)." But to to me, Joe who's read the book, this article is a well-sourced, bullshit hatchet job. I know Wikipedia can do better.  --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:F8EE:3508:E2F1:A00F (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Just Saying.

Citations on criticism
I noticed a lot of CN notations in the reaction section. If anyone wants, I can add a good source for a lot of the things noted: Volume III of Shirer's memoirs (covering his life from 1945-1988). But if you feel it's too PRIMARY....let me know.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Naples, New York

Untitled
Hmmm, seems to me that we should make mention of the history (that I am hazy on the exact details of) of the location's native population (seneca, I believe) who were there prior. I'll have to do some research first, of course. Tchalvak

Leaf peeping
Perhaps it could be mentioned as well that many people in the region go to Naples (and its surrounding environs) in the fall for leaf peeping. It is significant, at least to Rochester area residents. 74.69.8.195 (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To include this, we will need reliable sources discussing it. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Naples, New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090929050011/http://www.mpnnow.com/entertainment/x1128381031/Read-all-about-pie-and-more to http://www.mpnnow.com/entertainment/x1128381031/Read-all-about-pie-and-more
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091227070312/http://www.mpnnow.com/opinions/x1699604011/In-Naples-the-grape-will-still-reign-supreme to http://www.mpnnow.com/opinions/x1699604011/In-Naples-the-grape-will-still-reign-supreme

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Naples, New York