text:
Talk:Indian numbering system

untitled
General usage of higher denominations today are recursive e.g. 2 lakh crores (2 followed by 12 zeros).

Would 1014 be refered to as "1 crore crores"?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik42 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Basically

It should be Taken in account, how the numbering system was built and can used effectively.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.134.248.184 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Merge (2006) Lakh and crore articles

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I converted lakh and crore to redirect here, but this was reverted. The redirect still makes more sense to me to avoid duplication, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to do it again. However, the text I moved in here from the other articles was left in place. Someone might like to remove it, to avoid further duplication. Or restore the redirects. 207.176.159.90 23:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Challenging?
I don't see any need to describe the numbering system as challenging. What makes it so? The only thing that has confused me is why the first grouping is 1000, then each term is 100 of the last. If anybody knows why that is (my family doesn't) that would make a good addition. Rahulchandra 15:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Higher numbers
Anybody has an explanation on what follows?

''The 28th Canto of ‘Yudha Kanda’ of the Valmiki Ramayana has one of Ravana’s spies — Suka — describing to him the size of Rama’s army. Before he tells the size of Rama’s army, the spy goes on to illustrate the nomenclature of the number system. Note that decimal numeracy is taken for granted. Here is what the spy says:

* 100,00,000 is one crore (10**7) * 100,000 crore is one shankh (10**12) * 100,000 shankh is one mahashankh (10**17) * 100,000 mahashankh is one vrinda (10**22) * 100,000 vrinda is one mahavrinda (10**27) * 100,000 mahavrinda is one padma (10**32) * 100,000 padma is one mahapadma (10**37) * 100,000 mahapadma is one kharb (10**42) * 100,000 kharb is one mahakharb (10**47) * 100,000 mahakharb is one samudra (10**52) * 100,000 samudra is one ogh (10**57) * 100,000 ogh is one mahaough (10**62)''

Higher numbers idea is interesting, and especially new figures (vrinda, samudra, ogh) but "reuse" of kharb, padma,... is puzzling. Disdero 09:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

“A hundred thousand Shankus are said to be one Maha Shanku. A hundred thousand Maha Shankus are called one Vrindam here. A hundred thousand Vrindas are said to be one Maha vrindam. A hundred thousand Mahavrindas are called one Padmam here. A hundred thousand padmas are said to be one Mahapadmam. A hundred thousand Mahapadmas are called one Kharvam here. A hundred thousand kharvas are said to be one Mahakharvam. A hundred thousand Mahakharvas are called one Samundram. A hundred thousand Samudras are said to be one ogha here. A hundred thousand oghas are acclaimed a one Mahaugha.”

The source text can be found here http://www.valmikiramayan.net/yuddha/sarga28/yuddhaitrans28.htm Disdero 09:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have created a table based on the above, and have used exact sanskrit transliteration -Azykwv (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't this limited to hindi numbering? Personally I haven't any number higher than Arhab being used. (Cloud02 20:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

 * The above link is no longer valid. See new section on Vedic Numbering system on this talk page. - Polytope 4D (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

article is self contradictory
It says they are grouped in two's, but the examples are grouped in three's first, the subsequently n two's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.180.217.90 (talk) 19:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody any idea why that is, even after so many years? Apparently this also confuses native people (see above, addition from 2006) --Ph0nq (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Indian counting system (as it is followed today) uses a simple 3,2,2 based comma separation system with same pattern repeating. So One Lakh Crore should be written as 1,00,000,00,00,000. The idea is that just by looking at the number representation you should be able to read it. This used to be defined correctly in the IN locale settings in Linux in the past, but some one along the line started propagating this 3,2,2,2,... format. I think this happened because not many numbers get written in digits above 100 crores, so the problem was not realized for long. That doesn't mean Wikipedia should propagate this falsehood further. I am going to take up a full rewrite of the article to reflect this. --User:Sivaraj (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The vedic numbering obviously uses a 3,2,2,5,5,5,... format. So will be revamping this as well. Note that this is not currently being used, and is only for historic purposes. Sivaraj 07:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The article was incorrect in stating that the grouping is repeating groups of 3,2,2. The first three digits from the right (ones, tens, and hundreds) are grouped together, and the rest are grouped in groups of two. A useful reference is the Unicode CLDR data, which is contributed to by professionals from across the world. It's built into all the computer systems, so you can check it yourself. Open your browser console (Ctrl+Shift+I) and type this: (new Intl.NumberFormat('hi')).format(10e16) --harsh_manutd (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Repeating group of 3,2,2 is the right way of representing Indian numbers. The reason for number grouping is to easily understand what is written, and able to read it without counting the digits. Since Indian numbers are counted in crores this is the right way of representing them. Unicode doesn't accommodate repeating groups. It only supports single digit repetition or left most group different. This is a technical limitation in Unicode which should be addressed. That doesn't warrant changing the way people use numbers. --User:Sivaraj 10:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * @Sivaraj - can you share some sources where this is written. From what I could find, and from what school systems in North India are teaching, it's always been groupings of 2 except for the right-most 3 digits. Also, can you tell me your native state - as the 3,2,2 repeating pattern might be a local variation. See these sources: http://www.hindi.co/ginatee/numbers_saNkhyaaENn.html, and http://veda.wikidot.com/sanskrit-numbers. Note that Koti (crore) is 10^7 and Ayuta is 10^9 and Niyutam is 10^11 so why would the comma separators follow different pattern? It doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harsh manutd (talk • contribs) 14:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Padma vs Padm
I was showing this page to several India colleagues and all agreed that the Hindi word listed for "Padma" says "Padm" in Hindi, so is perhaps the English or the Hindi incorrect? I do not know enough obviously to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneliketadow (talk • contribs) 18:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

 * The correct spelling is padma (exact devanagari translation), but the pronunciation is "padm". But I have changed the spelling to exact Hindi. Hope this satisfies you. However, I have hidden the numbers after padm, as they get into the way -59.95.35.182 (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

 * I found this page an Indian government website which spells it "padam": http://consumeraffairs.nic.in/forms/contentpage.aspx?lid=697. Maybe that's a typo though? Markshep (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

even powers
It would be helpful for those of us not accustomed to this system to explain what happens to even powered numbers. E.g., 104 and so forth. Tloc (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple, 10^3 is one thousand; 10^4 is 10 * 10^3 ie ten thousand. 10^8 is ten karod (crore), 10^10 is ten arab, etc. -Azykwv (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect representation of adant singhar?
Adant singhar is shown as "100,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,000" (note the initial "100" without a comma). However, I believe the correct representation is "1,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,000". Can someone more knowledgeable than I confirm? Afalls (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right. I have corrected it. But the power notation is better to understand (Don't count the zeros!) -Azykwv (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The languages needed
The list of languages needed to view this article is not complete. As far as I can tell there is at least Burmese (which I don't have on my computer, because it's weird arabic and a few more (see the Usage in different languages section)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.48.57.36 (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Urdu has no mention in this article?!
 * — iFaqeer (talk to or email me) 01:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please smile (see the last section) -Polytope4d (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

100 crore
The introductory text of the article says "1 billion (100 crore) is written as 1,00,00,00,000" but the large numbers table show it as 100,00,00,000. These can't both be right. I think the table is correct, but not sure enough to want to edit the page. Michealt (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be 100,00,00,000 (as we call it "one hundred crore"). But it depends on what you want to depict and may be written as 1,00,00,00,000. One lakh crore is written as 1,00,000,00,00,000 (notice the three-zero group appearing in the middle: actually a crore is written first and a lakh is simply attached to its left). This may get confusing at times but is not. Hence we've decided to create a separate table after "padm" and keep it hidden. You can always unhide it. -59.95.35.182 (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article was incorrect in stating that the grouping is repeating groups of 3,2,2. The first three digits from the right (ones, tens, and hundreds) are grouped together, and the rest are grouped in groups of two. --harsh_manutd (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

 * I agree it's confusing, because, if I understand correctly, the same number can be written in 2 forms : either with only 0 grouped by 2, sometimes grouped by 3.

This is from the tables in English, Italian and Spanish wiki articles, and from the comment of -59.95.35.182 (talk) 12:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC) This is what I understand :

"one hundred crore" =   1 arab =   100,00,00,000 =  1,00,00,00,000

"one thousand crore" = ten arab = 1,000,00,00,000 = 10,00,00,00,000

Please confirm to me, and if it is true, then it would make sense to have 2 columns for the Indian system As of today, articles from English wiki, Italian, Spanish and others are conflicting --Emmanuel JARRI (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As a native Hindi speaker, I can confirm that both ways are correct, and can be used interchangeably:
 * 1,00,00,00,000 = 1 arab | (Hindi pronounciation: ek arab)
 * 100,00,00,000 = 100 crore | (Hindi pronounciation: sau crore)

However, the first one is the traditional academic/formal usage as well as the part of the system being described. The second one is a unsystematic, but accepted common verbiage. - Mukt (talk) 23:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Title of this article ("Indian Numbering System" vs "South Asian numbering system")
The title of this article should be "Indian Numbering System" or "Indian Sub Continent numbering system". Reason: At present Wikipedia is redirecting "Indian numbering system" to "South Asian numbering system". In this context "Indian" refers to the Indian Subcontinent. Using the term South Asia by various definition includes more countries/territories than the defined Indian Subcontinent. As such not all South Asian countries follow this numbering system. The numbering system and its details provided in the article itself points to this fact. As such, this type of numbering system cannot be generalized for South Asia. It is very specific to the Indian (or Indian Sub Continent) numbering system. As a reference to why using the term South Asia in this context is disputed, please refer the article mentioned in the sources. Source: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_numerals; [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinent; [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Asia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logbookmark (talk • contribs) 18:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, I agree with talk. India is a much older identity than South Asia and refers to the whole modern-day Indian Subcontinent. The Muslim world coined the word Hind for the Indian Subcontinent and Europe termed in as the Indies before the British finally named it as India, all much before the term South Asia was coined. Obviously India is different from modern-day Republic of India. People relating the two would also confuse the continents of America with the United States of America and therefore demand change in titles of any America-related articles!
 * We already have so many different terms based on India, such as Indian Subcontinent, Indian Ocean, Indian Civilization, Indian numerals, etc. Why not then rename them all to South Asian? Of course not! Because they are taught the world over as 'Indian' and not 'South Asian'. The same goes with Indian Number System. It was Indian before it became South Asian.
 * I know Pakistani users will oppose this change of topic. I've seen them hotly debate any India-generalized topic covering all of Subcontinent, without understanding the essence of this word 'India' and the difference between India- the Subcontinent and India- the country, which the rest of the world understands much better than them! Their paranoia can be attributed, in part, to their Indophobic school curricula. I'm yet open to receiving their opinion over this matter.
 * It is, however, essential that this debate be reignited and the mods be back to discussing this issue. The person who had changed the title from 'Indian' to 'South Asian' had promised a talk over this but has since perhaps become dormant. Rest of the mods are urged to join in. --therash09 (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

 * This isn't really about Indian - or South Asia - numbering systems. The numbering system is the same as anywhere else. The only difference is the use of lakh and crore for larger numbers.119.224.91.84 (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

WARNING (2013): I believe this Article may be infected by a virus on the Wikipedia server.

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

While I was able to access this Article (and hence this Talk Page) in Safari, Firefox crashes every time I click on this Article. Furthermore, this is the only Article that makes Firefox crash. All other Articles are just fine in Firefox. This leads me to believe there is a virus on this page to which Safari 5 is immune while Firefox 16 is not. I have restarted my computer several times, and there is still the same problem with only this particular Wikipedia Article.

Therefore, my suggestion to improve the Article is: A skilled Admin should clear the server file behind this Article of any and all viruses, bugs, or errors it may presently contain.

Signed,

The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As soon as I upgraded to Firefox 26, I was able to access this Article smoothly. No more beach-balling, no more Force Quit, just an Article rendered like any other on Wikipedia. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

 * This was almost certainly a local glitch; there is no malware in this article and I'm pretty sure it's not possible to introduce any just by editing the wikitext. -- Beland (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.22.203 (talk)

 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merge proposal (2014) with Indian numerals

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose that this article to be merge into the Indian numerals article. This article is basically about the treatment of large numbers in the Indian system, and the current article name, "Indian Numbering System", has the same meaning as "Indian numerals". For example, the Chinese numerals article has a section for large numbers as used in the Chinese system.-- Joshua Say "hi" to me!What I've done? 11:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think this would be a good idea. These are two distinct topics: the names of large numbers vs the characters used to represent numbers.  Both articles are large enough to stand on their own; combining them could detract from clarity.  What might fit for Chinese might not fit here; note that the large number names in Chinese have their own characters so it's not as untangleable. Jimp 08:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jimp. Not a good idea to merge the two. -Polytope4d (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Against. Do not merge 101.163.17.98 (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree these are different things; one is about how Arabic numerals are written in India, the other is about how Indian numerals are written in India. I'll put a hatnote to differentiate. -- Beland (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Why?
Basic aspect of a encyc article seems missing?  Tu rk ey ph an t 13:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Modern use
As lakh and crore were used in the traditional Indian numerical system, why are they also still used in Indian English?Royalcourtier (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no were. These are traditional as well as current number system in all Indian languages. Indian English is no exception. - Mukt (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

What is the history of the Indian numbering system?
Fascinating! What linguistic or cultural traditions led to the use of commas separating the last three digits, but then every two digits above them? Contrast with the history of the metric system etc. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Fractions
The article would benefit from a section or example of how grouping works with fractions. Is it "0.123456789", "0.123,45,67,89", "0.12,34,56,78,9" or something else? jodastephen (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Additionally, it should be included in the text of the article if, whether, and how the words are carried through into terminology for fractional numbers. Like 1/1,000,000 = a millionth? or a tenth of 1/lakh, or?    How would it be expressed? Martino3 (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

 * There is no grouping for fractional part of a number. Fractions are written continuously as in other numbering number systems. Sivaraj 11:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivaraj (talk • contribs)

Abbreviations / Suffixes
I think it would be useful for this article to cover abbreviations used for crore, lahk, arab etc.

The articles on Crore and Lahk mention that these are abbreviated to L and cr respectively, but I've been able to find no information on what arab, lahk crore, crore crore, padm etc are abbreviated to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimTim (talk • contribs) 08:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

mahaugha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.114.197.127 (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment
I was told Indian numbers to be as follows when I was child

Elam is one Daham is ten or 10 Shatam is hundred or 100 Sahastra is thousand or 1,000 Dashsahastra is ten thousand or 10,000 Laksh is one hundred thousand or 100,000 Dashlaksh is ten Laksh or 10,00,000 Koti or Crore is ten Dashlaksh Dashkoti is ten Koti Abja is ten Dashkoti Kharv is ten Abja Nikharv is ten Kharv Mahapadm is ten Nikharv Shankhu is ten Mahapadm Jaladhi is ten Shankhu Antya is ten Jaladhi Madhya is ten Antya And ten Madhya is Parardh

Does anyone know these numbers? Thus one parardh would mean ten rest to 17 or 100,000,000,000,000,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalakarpendse (talk • contribs) 12:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A template on Wikipedia to convert between the two systems?
On several pages related to India (or the subcontinent) it is found that the western numbering system is used, especially with currency. Being an Indian, I find it difficult to identify with the magnitude of a value such as ₹150 million. Yes, I can convert it in my mind but that isn't the point. A template that does the conversion of say ₹150 million to ₹15 cr. would, in my opinion, increase the readability of an article. Abhijeetviswa (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

 * This cuts both ways! The relevant Wikipedia Manual of Style section talks of "opportunities for commonality", suggesting that the forms familiar in the West be used (million, billion, etc.) rather than those familiar in the Indian subcontinent (lakh, crore, etc.).  This would be more convenient for westerners than easterners; yet both need to have the material presented comprehensibly.  A typical English-speaking American or Australian has never even heard of a lakh or a crore, so using these terms fails to communicate with such readers; and the converse may also be true.  The smart solution would be to use hints, so that when a reader hovers their pointing device (mouse, pen or finger) over a hinted term, a concise explanation will appear above and beside it.  Now, where did I see how to do this?  yoyo (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the latter comment. Surely the Indian system, as old and established etc. as it may be, is the exception to the international standard, and not the other way around. While I would have no issue with the Indian system being used on Indian / South Asian wikis, here on English wiki it is IMO bound to cause confusion (case in point: this article's infobox says the film had a budget of 85 lakhs and box office takings of 1.90 crore — so did it make a profit or loss, then?). If this issue could be handled easily (ideally with a convert tag, although hints could also work as suggested), then by all means let's show both, but if the choice must be made then I would default to the int'l standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi per your suggestion to use hints, I've done (something like) that in the infobox of the article referenced in my previous comment. Could you take a quick look to see a) if that's at all what you had in mind, and b) if you think it generally works (and doesn't clash with any policies etc.)? Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, (a) Yes, and (b) Yes (and (c) I don't know of any policy problems, but am not an expert on those.)  Thanks for your efforts!  Do you think a 'convert' solution would be better than this?  yoyo (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally FWIW, I do think a convert template would work better, because a) it would display both values, b) it wouldn't require the reader to do the arithmetics (in my example above, the hint only tells you what crore is; it doesn't give you the other value automatically, although that could of course be written into the hint), and c) I'm guessing it would also be easier to use and more familiar to most editors. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you produce an example showing what that would look like? That probably means actually creating the template - you could do that in a sandbox, I guess?  yoyo (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

10,000,00,00,000 or 1,00,00,00,000?
The article suggests that digits are grouped in groups of 2 except for the last 3, but these two anonymous edits claim that after the second group of 2 there's another group of 3. This is not supported by the reference cited near the edit either; it seems that it was made up by that user. It must be deleted or properly cited and the rest of the text changed accordingly. —Cousteau (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please fix it (revert the IP). See the answer I was given at bnwiki. That says (in Q3) that the Bengali Wikipedia groups like 12,34,56,789.12345 where the first group before "." (789) has three digits, with the others are two digits. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Lakh
I recently PRODded Lakh; does not seem to agree with that, but he does agree that the article is not very good. More to the point: the topic of Lakh is really the Indian numbering system, which basically amounts to the use of two different multipliers, Lakh and Crore. So I think anything useful on those pages should be merged into this article, and both lakh and crore should redirect to that. Any opinions? ωικιωαrrιor ᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 * As this is one piece of a larger puzzle conceptually, this does make sense. However I find that the utility of the the frequency of lookup, such as someone not familiar with the concept of Lakh and needing to google it for a definition, finding the Google Featured Snippets page or otherwise finding the reference to Lakh as immediate and condensed increases the ability to rely on Wikipedia as a quick reference for a definition. For example, if a person based in the US was corresponding with someone in India regarding a number, and the response included "5.5 Lakh", the US person may need to quickly look up this definition. The second link (assuming the merge happens) would be the definition of Lakh by Merriam-Webster, where the dictionary responds with a single page. My vote is no, do not merge - however the sentiment for something less frequently subjected to search and quick answer may be more desirable. I personally came to the page today only because I was double checking before I provided an answer to a colleague who hadn't encountered it before (and I'm not the type of person to say "google it yourself"). Dolphx (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not "Google answers". It is here to provide articles, not instant access to factoids. AAMOF, the redirect could (and should) go to the section specific to Lakh or Crore. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah, I doubt that'll work, because redirects are no-indexed. Maybe a soft redirect to the Wiktionary definitions or something? That might put the Wiktionary pages higher up on Google search results.
 * Sorry, what "won't work"? (Remind me what "redirects are no-indexed" means.) WP is not here to win google points either. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that; tell it to, not me. ωικιωαrrιor ᑫᑫ1ᑫ 13:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Lakh and crore are important names of large numbers, just as million and thousand are. Their articles contain important information about how they are used and what they are called in other languages, information that does not belong in Indian numbering system.  The articles are short but could be greatly expanded, and that would be the best thing to do:  expand the articles, not eliminate them.  Merging them is not appropriate.  HiMyNameIsFrancesca (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what information about lakh or crore is not related to the "Indian numbering system"? Imaginatorium (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I completely support merging this (and even crore) into Indian numbering system. The arguments about how users might see the information from Google and such are not considerations, and never were. This is an encyclopaedia and, thus, it has its own format. The second sentence of the Indian numbering system article arms anyone unfamiliar with the system with basically 99% (since the use of terms other than lakh and crore are so rare that even most native users of the system are unaware of their existence) of the knowledge necessary to navigate the system should they encounter it anywhere. There's already a usage section on the page as well, which essentially makes the usage sections in Lakh and Crore redundant. And the page also has an enumeration of the local names of the different counting words in the most-spoken Indic languages as well, which combined with the fact about the usage information overlap, makes the individual lakh and crore articles entirely redundant. Getsnoopy (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I'm somewhat thick and wish to ask Alexa "What is a crore" and what is a "lakh". I want a simples easy answer not the whole numbering system.  And this article has got template tags already and a merge of something that important into a tagged article is not a great idea.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're going to convince many people with an argument about how a structural change to WP's articles is going to disturb your personal Amazon Echo workflow. Regarding template tags, that's all the more reason to improve the article such that those tags can be removed. Getsnoopy (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm firmly in the oppose to this regardless. We've not really got a lot of participation here.  Thats one argument of many and I've badgered for the last week and IO'm pretty grumpy and you've just rubbed me up the wrong way further by you've put that.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This discussion is already pretty messy with 2 alternate merges albeit compatible discussions in place with very little clarity ... with does not really auger well for any merge as it shows muddled thinking and a muddled merge is likely to result. Thats an additional reason.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * AFAICS, the discussions being had for the "mergers" of the Lakh and Crore articles are more concerning those articles being merged into this one, not the other way around. As for muddled merging of content, that seems like a tactical issue which can be resolved through consensus once it's been decided that the merges should happen in the first place. Furthermore, from a quick glance, it doesn't seem like those individual articles offer anything this article offers. Getsnoopy (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Thank you for having kept the article. I am reading a news article from India that uses the term. At first I assumed that the term was an abbreviation for an Indian health agency, but then the sentence didn't makes sense! It was so easy for me to google the term, thanks to the wikipedia article. Efficient access to crowd-sourced, vetted information is why wikipedia exists. Those opposed are telling you that we use the current structure. Why not check the logs for the queries that bring folks here, or is the methodology not based on having an information retrieval paradigm? Herewith. "New Delhi: With more than 4.2 lakh confirmed coronavirus cases and 19,100 deaths across the world, the coronavirus pandemic continues to wreak havoc in several countries and scientists are in a race to find a treatment for the deadly virus." from https://theprint.in/science/remdesivir-trials-in-israel-and-italys-drop-in-cases-5-global-developments-on-covid-19/387944/ Failing to use query-based data for the information-retrieval paradigm is a big fail for Wikipedia. Please weigh this carefully to prevent Wikipedia from being obsolete when a platform emerges that does look at query-based retrieval histories. MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to reiterate, WP doesn't exist to serve an efficient "Google"/search engine workflow. The question is about why the article titled "Lakh" deserves to exist on its own when there's already an article about the Indian numbering system that is a superset of that and the article titled Crore. If your worry is that removing an explicit article titled "Lakh" would remove WP's ability to cater to people seeking knowledge about that topic, that's a tactical issue that can (and will) easily be solved by an article redirect, which Google can handle. In fact, this already happens: if you search for "lakh" on Google, it will list the "Indian numbering system" article as well as a dictionary entry about what the specific word means. The matter at hand is about why it makes sense strategically to have a separate "Lakh" article. And so far, there doesn't seem to be one. Getsnoopy (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Efficient access to crowd-sourced, vetted information is why wikipedia exists" is what I wrote. This deserves confirmation or refutation. I did not indicate what Getsnoopy attributes to me, then refutes with: "WP doesn't exist to serve an efficient "Google"/search engine workflow."MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your anecdotes about having directly landed on the relevant WP articles by way of Google or other sources were the examples you were giving of "efficient access to information". The "crowd-sourced, vetted information" part, I agree with, but not necessarily "efficient", at least in the way you seem to have used it. Unless you want to clarify whether you meant the word "efficient" in a different way, your comment seems to suggest considering how traffic from other sources ends up on WP, and optimizing for that. And that's precisely what I'm saying is not one of WP's goals, at least not a direct one. Getsnoopy (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Oppose I fail to see why a separate article isn't appropriate. Just because it is a subtopic of this article doesn't mean it can't have an article. Just like we have separate articles on the Carbon-14 and Carbon, even though one is a subtopic of the other. If the only reason is because it is a subtopic, that isn't a very good proposal. We have separate articles on each Arabic digit and each Latin letter, but they are also subtopics of their writing systems. We have articles on SI prefixes, like kilo- or mega- which are clearly subtopics of the SI metric system. And they are most clearly just orders of magnitudes differences. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support There's not enough on the subtopic to warrant a separate article. Classic case where a merge-and-redirect would be appropriate. And with only two articles to merge in, there's no risk of the kind of overload that would happen if we tried to smush everything from yotta- to yocto- into metric prefix. XOR'easter (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article on lakh is to analogous to Million and must exist for at least the same reasons. - Mukt (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Lakh is a succinct and easily read article for anyone who wants a quick answer to what a lakh is when reading an article on, say Insider trading, or Identity theft, or any of the more than 1000 incoming links, without having to scour a 38 Kb article to find out. Also, as a number in the Indian numeral system it bears comparison with articles on million, billion, trillion, etc. (likewise for Crore) Moonraker12 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Crore
I recently PRODded Lakh; does not seem to agree with that, but he does agree that the article is not very good. More to the point: the topic of Lakh is really the Indian numbering system, which basically amounts to the use of two different multipliers, Lakh and Crore. So I think anything useful on those pages should be merged into this article, and both lakh and crore should redirect to that. Any opinions? ωικιωαrrιor ᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm somewhat thick and wish to ask Alexa "What is a crore" and what is a "lakh". I want a simples easy answer not the whole numbering system.  And this article has got template tags already and a merge of something that important into a tagged article is not a great idea.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've said in the Lakh section above, WP's purpose is not to optimize people's Google/Alexa/Bing/etc. search experiences. What the merits of those articles as they stand given WP policy? Also, I don't know what you mean by a merge of something that important into a tagged article is not a great idea. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @: This merge proposal has been open for over 6 months and the proposer has not brought it to Proposed article mergers for closure. And its a car crash of a proposal anyway and poorly set up.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Indian English has as many speakers as the other forms of English, and this accounting is the norm in that system. If we have million as a stand alone article then we should have lakh and crore. Alternatively we could merge million, lakh, and crore into some common article, like "commonplace big numbers".  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  19:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I completely support the merge (see my reasoning above in the discussion regarding the same for "Lakh"). I also suggest we merge this discussion into the previous one, since the overarching concept being discussed is the same and so that we don't have diverging discussions about essentially the same topic. Getsnoopy (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I fail to see why a separate article isn't appropriate. Just because it is a subtopic of this article doesn't mean it can't have an article. Just like we have separate articles on the President of the United States and the United States of America, even though one is a subtopic of the other. If the only reason is because it is a subtopic, that isn't a very good proposal. We have separate articles on each Arabic digit and each Latin letter, but they are also subtopics of their writing systems. We have articles on SI prefixes, like kilo- or mega- which are clearly subtopics of the SI metric system. And they are most clearly just orders of magnitudes differences. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason for merging the articles is not because it is merely a subtopic, but that the subtopic articles (even the Lakh one) are stubs, with content that essentially doesn't add any more information than this article. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Per WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the Lakh and Crore articles don't have enough content to justify separate existence.  Everything beyond the bare definitions is duplicated material which makes sense to merge.    All that's needed for people seeking the definitions is a straightforward rewording of the lead. 196.247.24.20 (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support actual use, I just had to open two articles instead of one to interpret an Indian news artcle. prat (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If someone is just trying to figure out what "lakh" and "crore" is they can find what they are without having to look at a different title. 103.132.150.30 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Oppose . Thought I'd opposed this but only did the lakh.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You've already voted; yours is the first comment in this thread. I suggest you remove this duplicate vote. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for pointing that out; a dup !vote was never my intention. Switching to comment. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. india is not the only one that uses the crore system, therefore it will be unfair to add this to the Indian numbering system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.198.150 (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll say that Arabia is not the only user of Arabic numerals; virtually the entire world is. The system is named after its origin, not its current users. That argument essentially holds no water. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As said before, India is not the only country that uses crores and lakhs. In my opinion, it should not merged with Indian numbering system.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.204.254.104 (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a meaningless argument. See my comment above. Getsnoopy (talk) 07:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I came to "Crores" to find out what it was, and then had to come here to the Indian Numbering System to figure out why the odd comma placement! Thank you! मील्स फ्लुक्तुस (talk) 12:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it was there in the second sentence, but (for your benefit) it is clearer now. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Support per my comment in the section above. XOR'easter (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article on crore is analogous to Million or Billion and must be retained for the same reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukt (talk • contribs) 00:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Crore, (and Lakh) are succinct and easily read articles for anyone who wants a quick answer to what a crore is when reading an article on, say INS Vikrant (R11), or Pamela Anderson, or any of the more than 1500 incoming links, without having to scour a 38 Kb article to find out. Also, as a number in the Indian numeral system it bears comparison (and shares notability) with articles on million, billion, trillion, etc. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Digit grouping inconsistencies
For all the written information about the grouping, it states "which group the digits into powers of one hundred in the Indian system (except for the first thousand)". This is reflected in the first table under Use of separators with the third number being "17,00,00,00,000" (?-2-2-2-3). But the fourth number is formatted as "67,89,000,00,00,000" (?-2-3-2-2-3). But in the table under Names of numbers, it's consistently expanding into the format of "10,000,00,00,000,00,00,000" (?-3-2-2-3-2-2-3).

The pattern seems to be a repeating of ",00,00,000" (-2-2-3), and it's not just the first thousand being in a group.

Looking further into the table, it seems to be determined by how you would say the number.

Differences in the first grouping is that it counts up to a crore, then it repeats. It's an indefinite method which I can see being preferred for that reason. The second grouping requires a new term for every 100 multiple. – Where the table ends, the following numbers of the first group are: "one lakh crore crore", "ten lakh crore crore", "one crore crore crore", "ten crore crore crore", ... and for the second group it's indeterminate, as the names aren't given.

In the table under Names of numbers, there's also the mention of "hundred arab", "thousand arab", "ten thousand arab", before ending. By the looks of it, it looks to behave like the 2-2-3 repeating / crore crore system, but instead being 2-2-2-3 repeating / arab arab system. One crore crore crore "1,00,00,000,00,00,000,00,00,000" would therefore be thousand arab arab "1,000,00,00,00,000,00,00,00,000".

So this might be something that should be researched and included in the article.

Liggliluff (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes, this has been pointed out before in and  and  Shockingly, after more than 10 years, the article is still contradictory. I guess no editor has come along who either knows the answer for sure or knows how to find the answer. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Criticisms section
After reverting I've had a quick glance to confirm the content is generally supported by the sources and broadly speaking it is (I open to comments there may have been a slight extrapolation of the sources). There was a failure to bring from the article that the system would be more tenable and suitable if the proper names for the lesser used units were used rather than a form of slang hybrid. If would be good to see additional sources here, and possibly a re-write of re-phrase might be helpful. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Its also based on one source and I think WP:UNDUE. I'd trim it.VR talk 15:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not adverse to it being trimmed. I'm on the road at the minute.  If I think of some prose that might work I hope to give it a shot and try to soften it a little.  I might have a shot in the next 6 hours or so, if not I've likely distracted myself elsewhere. thanks for feedback.  Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

 * The single source is not scholarly one but a digital news outlet of undecided reputation, which usually serves political news and opinions. This source also seems to be the source of much of inconsistencies and confusions of this article. I don't think it belongs here. - Mukt (talk) 00:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is an opinion piece of an individual author; and as such has less scrutiny and can't really be used to support facts, and in arbitration consensus may need to be removed completely. The piece is generally well written.  But to be used would need to be assigned to the individual author writing in ThePrint.  I'd note author seems to have got his piece published more widely than just the print:, and I've seen a different viewpoint here (though again an opinion piece): .  Perhaps this viral social media event is noteworthy, perhaps not, perhaps it is exaggerated? .  I will have a further break then dig and intend to revert (reply) later.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've had a good faith attempt at a re-write. I've not checked it as much as I like, some or all sources may be unsuitable and not used to best effect.  I have real life (RL) commitments and deadlines over parts of the next 30 hours at least and I can't really devote and more significant time to this.  On that basis if there's consensus (probably doesnt need a consensus merely 25-33% of people) think this or a variation of it can't be developed to the required the section needs to be removed until it can be replaced by a more suitable content.  I'm sort of recuse'ing from the discussion but its possible I may pop back in.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been RL busy and have lost track of this. The change I've made to the Criticisms section has essentially remained in place to I intend to remove the under construction in a day or so.  The statement "The usage of this system is limited to the nations of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Sri Lanka" doesn't sit well in the system and is a slight variation on locations mentioned elsewhere and might have to go. I have an aversion to losing sources, and the source, namely (Krulwich & Block, 2010) can also be used to cite "Slumdog Crorepati." could be placed into an Examples section.  (Which brought to my attention the prose is all in the lede(lead) rather than a lead summarising the body, so I'm going to do a refactor of that which may help going forward).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 21:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what exactly is being discussed here: a way to properly represent the criticism against the system, or to remove the "Criticism" section entirely? Getsnoopy (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * From memory there was some valid criticisms of the criticisms section as it previously existed. It is probably appropriate to have some discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the system so the existance of a criticisms section is valid, though another title may be more appropriate.  I reworked the section late August and probably succeeded in getting some way towards a more balanced section; the result probably isn't perfect but no feedback at the time possibly indicates it was roughly ok.  To understand the discussion it is necessary to examine the revision state of the article at the time each discussion update has been added.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I see; that's reasonable. From the discussion above, it seemed like people don't think sources like ThePrint are reliable sources, which is definitely not true. I think rewording it is fine as long as criticisms of the system are presented, which definitely exist. Getsnoopy (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Vedic numbering system table
Some editors are inserting unreferenced units like "neha", "vikrant" etc. in the tables. They might have been used somewhere, but cannot be mixed with another system. Even ayuta and niyuta have confusing meanings. So, Iremoved them. Let us stick to just one system for reference. There is no need to be over-specific, as these sysytems are not used today. I have updated links to the most recent Valmiki Ramayan website (one of the authorised sites approved by renowned scholars), and the table is linked to these six verses only (translation):

http://valmikiramayan.pcriot.com/utf8/yuddha/sarga28/yuddha_28_frame.htm

"Wise men call a hundred lakhs as a crore. A hundred thousand crores is reckoned as a Shanku." (Verse 33)

"A hundred thousand Shankus are said to be one Maha Shanku. A hundred thousand Maha Shankus are called one Vrindam here. A hundred thousand Vrindas are said to be one Maha vrindam. A hundred thousand Mahavrindas are called one Padmam here. A hundred thousand padmas are said to be one Mahapadmam. A hundred thousand Mahapadmas are called one Kharvam here. A hundred thousand kharvas are said to be one Mahakharvam. A hundred thousand Mahakharvas are called one Samu(n)dram. A hundred thousand Samudras are said to be one ogha here. A hundred thousand oghas are acclaimed a one Mahaugha." (Verses 34 - 38).

- Polytope 4D (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Errors in formatting?
The section titled "The Indian System" seems to have multiple formatting errors. The first paragraph ends with a comma and an extra blank line; not sure what's intended. In the third paragraph, the word "arab" does not appear where it should; in place of "arab" enclosed in double apostrophes, the source contains three apostrophes. This triple apostrophe messes up apostrophe pairing in the following text, so that all subsequent parenthetical material is in italics (not sure if this is intended) including also the digit "1" just before the next term (definitely wrong). Finally, the last piece ends with "1 repeats for larger numbers...", again with "1" italicized, rather than explaining exactly what it is that repeats.

Not correcting these myself since I don't know the intent and would probably mess it up further!

Larrydberg (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Billiard balls
Do we really need to reference milliards and billiards in the table? While I appreciate this nomenclature is likely to be useful to visitors from the 19th century, the bulk of our readership exists in the 21st century and have never once seen these terms used in the wild. I suspect this is due to considerate Americans editing under the impression that these terms are still occasionally used in the UK, which I've seen written elsewhere. If so, please accept my assurance they definitely aren't! The last thing a page designed to clarify and illuminate an unfamiliar numbering system is to confuse people further with an entirely different unfamiliar numbering system - particularly one that nobody has used in at least half a century. Dybeck (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hazar?
The pronunciation section mentions the word “hazar” but it isn’t explained in the article. What does it mean? I assume “thousands” but of course I might be wrong. 95.114.106.50 (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, thousands. Double sharp (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Indian (title) vs. Indic (first sentence)
The article is titled “Indian numbering system” but the first sentence starts, “The Indic numbering system”. This is the only occurrence of the word “Indic” in the whole text. Should this be changed to “Indian”? SeL (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Indian numbering system


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs/Templates/France

This page lists templates used for of the WikiProject on Football manual of style for clubs from France.

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


text:
Silver John

Silver John is a fictional character from a series of fantasy stories (1963–84) by American author Manly Wade Wellman (1903–1986). Though fans refer to him as Silver John or as John the Balladeer, the stories simply call him John. He is an example of the loner hero. The stories are set in the Appalachian mountains of North Carolina. The historical period is never explicitly indicated, but appears to be mid 20th century.

John
John, whose last name is never revealed, is a wandering singer who carries a guitar strung with strings of pure silver. He is a veteran of the Korean War and served in the U.S. Army as a sharpshooter (in the novel After Dark, he mentions that his highest rank was PFC). In his travels, he frequently encounters creatures and superstitions from the folk tales and superstitions of the mountain people. Though John has no formal education, he is self-taught, highly intelligent and widely read; it is implied that his knowledge of occult and folk legendarium is of PhD level (in the novel The Hanging Stones, he receives word that Flornoy College is awarding him an honorary doctorate for contributions to folklore and folk music). This knowledge has granted him competent use of white magic, which he has used on occasion to overcome enemies or obstacles, but it is primarily his courage, wit and essential goodness that always enables him to triumph over supernatural evils (although the silver strings of his guitar and his possession of a copy of The Long Lost Friend are also powerful tools in fighting evil magic), while basic Army training allows him to physically deal with human foes. He has an implied mystic link of some sort to John the Baptist, and much of his personal philosophy can be traced to a "primitive" Gospel-based Christianity. On one occasion, he is "employed" by the State Department to investigate on their behalf a possible instance of Satanism (see the novel The Lost and Lurking for full details).

In the short story "Nine Yards of Other Cloth", John rescues a girl named Evadare from the unwanted attentions of the evil Shull Cobart: "Small-made, yet you saw she was grown and you saw she was proud ... Her bright sun-colored hair was tied behind her neck with a blue ribbon ... I saw by the glow how pinky-soft her skin was, how young and pretty, and bigger, bluer eyes than Evadare's you couldn't call for."

After Shull Cobart is destroyed, Evadare asks to join John on his travels, but he refuses to make her a wanderer like himself; when he can't dissuade her, he flees from her but she follows him. When after following without complaint she reaches the end of her strength and endurance, he realizes that he loves her. In the following story "Trill Coster's Burden", after Evadare shows her faith and courage by taking a dead wicked woman's sins upon herself according to mountain custom (called "sin-eating": "Somebody dies after a bad life, and a friend or paid person agrees the sins will be his, not the dead one's") and watching out the night, she and John are married by Preacher Frank Ricks. Evadare is mentioned in the subsequent "Silver John" novels, but only actually appears in the novel The Hanging Stones.

The stories are rich in the customs and lore of the region and many of the folk songs John sings are authentic as well. Wellman did introduce some original songs and legends but his creations blend seamlessly with the traditional material. Whereas Tolkien integrated Northern mythology into his mythos, and C.S. Lewis the European Fairy Tales of yore, Wellman's stories are drenched in the folktales and songs of old Americana; the haunting stories of the slaves and the tall tales of the Revolution, strange beasts, witch-women, and dark apparitions. Wellman's friend, the author Karl Edward Wagner, wrote: "These stories are chilling and enchanting, magical and down-to-earth, full of wonder and humanity. They are fun. They are like nothing else you’ve read before."

The short stories of John have been collected four times, as Who Fears the Devil? (1963), John the Balladeer (1988), Owls Hoot in Daytime and Other Omens (2003), and Who Fears the Devil? (2010). In addition, there are five novels about John. Wellman was planning an additional novel, to be titled The Valley So Low, but died before writing it. The title would be used for a collection of his stories, instead.

The Silver John stories

 * "O Ugly Bird"
 * "The Desrick on Yandro"
 * "Vandy, Vandy"
 * "One Other"
 * "Call Me From the Valley"
 * "The Little Black Train"
 * "Shiver in the Pines"
 * "Walk Like A Mountain"
 * "On the Hills and Everywhere"
 * "Old Devlins Was A-Waitin'"
 * "Nine Yards of Other Cloth"
 * "Trill Coster's Burden"
 * "The Spring"
 * "Owls Hoot in the Daytime"
 * "Can These Bones Live?"
 * "Nobody Ever Goes There"
 * "Where Did She Wander?"

There is also a group of mini-stories or vignettes, consisting of about half a page, that were originally used as transitions from one major story to another in the collection Who Fears the Devil. These were later collected and made into two chapters in the later collections: "Wonder As I Wander" and "Further Down the Trail":
 * "John's My Name"
 * "Why They're Named That"
 * "None Wiser For The Trip"
 * "Nary Spell"
 * "Then I Wasn't Alone"
 * "You Know The Tale of Hoph"
 * "Blue Monkey"
 * "The Stars Down There"
 * "Find The Place Yourself"
 * "I Can't Claim That"
 * "Who Else Could I Count On?"

The Silver John stories and vignettes are available in audio-book format through Audible in the collection Owls Hoot in the Daytime and Other Omens read by Brian Troxell.

The Silver John novels

 * The Old Gods Waken (1979)
 * After Dark (1980)
 * The Lost and Lurking (1981)
 * The Hanging Stones (1982)
 * Voice of the Mountain (1984)

The novel The Old Gods Waken is available in audio-book format from Blackstone Audio read by Stefan Rudnicki on CD and via download through Audible.

In popular culture

 * The Legend of Hillbilly John, a low-budget movie about John, was released in 1974, with Hedge Capers (of the singing group Hedge and Donna) as John, Denver Pyle, Severn Darden, Val Avery and Susan Strasberg. The film's plot incorporates two of the John stories: "The Desrick on Yandro" and "O Ugly Bird".
 * The novel Old Nathan by David Drake, a friend of Wellman's, was inspired by the "Silver John" stories.
 * Hellboy creator Mike Mignola makes a deliberate homage to John in his story The Crooked Man.
 * Author Brian Keene includes an explicit description of John and his adventures in his horror novel Dark Hollow.
 * Ex-Amish occult detective Levi Stolzfus (also from Brian Keene's writings), is closely tied to John's character, including use of much of the same magic used by John in the Silver John novels.
 * British psych-folk band This Is the Kit released a song in 2015 entitled Silver John, which references "the apocalypse" in its lyrics.
 * The New Age group Out of Orion (also called "Ox3" or "O times 3") released four CDs of music based on the John stories, including Just Call Me John (2012), and the compilation The Tales of John the Balladeer (2013).

title: Silver John


text:
Talk:Lev Vinocour

Untitled
Hmm...I think there is a problem with this article. When I saw this one I thought about Lev Leshenko&Vladimir Vinokur - Лев Лещенко & Владимир Винокур - famous Russian singers, this name can not be a coincidence.

I also renamed it based on transliteration of "Лев Винокур", but google much more Lev Vinokour - apperently that must be the best known name.Gnomz007(?) 20:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I moved it back to Lev Vinocour, since it appears to be the most common transliteration used. - Bobet 16:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lev Vinocour. 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/20091026164052/http://www.bachauer.com/laureates.html to http://www.bachauer.com/laureates.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lev Vinocour


text:
Yankee Boy Basin

Yankee Boy Basin is an alpine basin in Ouray County, southwestern Colorado. It is in the San Juan Mountains, protected within Uncompahgre National Forest.

The basin−valley is well renowned for its display of wildflowers during the spring bloom period, and for Twin Falls on Sneffels Creek.

Visiting
Access is provided by a dirt four wheel drive road which branches off the Ouray County road that runs from Ouray to Camp Bird Mine. The road starts a quarter mile south of Ouray, passes a DOT site, and winds its way up the canyon.

Along the way are several primitive campgrounds that tend to be rarely visited. These encourage collecting dead-and-down firewood, though, which occasionally brings locals and people visiting other campgrounds. In general, though, the area is fairly private.

Yankee Boy Basin is a good place to see native wildlife, including: deer, black bear, birds of prey, and other fauna of the southwestern Rocky Mountains region.

title: Yankee Boy Basin


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs/Templates/Germany

This page lists templates used for of the WikiProject on Football manual of style for clubs from Germany.


text:
Van Hammer

Mark Ty Hildreth (born November 11, 1959) is an American retired professional wrestler, best known for his tenures in World Championship Wrestling under the ring names Van Hammer and Hammer.

Early life
Before becoming a wrestler, Hildreth joined the United States Navy after graduating from high school and traveled around the world while on tour.

Early career (1991)
After being trained by Boris Malenko and Dan Spivey, Hildreth made his debut on July 19, 1991, as "The Hammer", teaming with "Iceman" King Parsons to defeat Billy Travis and Khris Germany in a tag team match for the North Georgia Wrestling Alliance. The referee for this match was Hildreth's brother, Dwayne Hildreth. Hildreth had expected to wrestle on the independent circuit for at least a few years. The promotion was booked by Dusty Rhodes, who also served as the booker for World Championship Wrestling. Despite having wrestled just one match, Hildreth was invited to be the opponent for fellow Malenko trainee Marc Mero for the latter's tryout match for WCW.

World Championship Wrestling (1991–1995)
Marc Mero was brought in to WCW for a tryout match in 1991, and Hildreth was his opponent. Then booker Dusty Rhodes liked both and signed each of them to contracts, with Hammer signed to a $156,000 deal. In September 1991, Hildreth joined World Championship Wrestling as "Heavy Metal" Van Hammer, a rock star gimmick. He made his debut for the promotion at Clash of the Champions XVI, where he squashed Terrance Taylor in 39 seconds. He immediately was thrust unto the house show circuit, defeating Taylor in multiple rematches as well as defeating Oz and Cactus Jack. He made his WCW television debut on the October 15 episode of Saturday Night, defeating Paul Lee. Twelve days later, he made his pay-per-view debut at Halloween Havoc, defeating Doug Somers. On November 3, he gained a non-title victory over WCW TV Champion Steve Austin at a house show in Charleston, West Virginia. Hammer would go on to amass a 42–0 record competing on both house shows and television before finally having his streak ended when he lost a match to Cactus Jack at Clash of the Champions XVII. At Starrcade, Hammer teamed with Big Josh in a losing effort to Steve Austin and Rick Rude.

After briefly continuing his tag team with Big Josh, Hammer returned to singles competition and faced Steve Austin for the WCW World Television Championship on the January 12 episode of Main Event, but was unable to win the title. After the loss, Hammer competed sporadically throughout the rest of the spring (including a brief feud with J. T. Southern) before returning full-time in August 1992. Hammer would fall to Greg Valentine and Nikita Koloff before his push began to accelerate. In September he went on a ten match winning streak, defeating Dallas Page, Vinnie Vegas (Kevin Nash), and Super Invader (Hercules Hernandez). He received a US title shot against Rick Rude on the September 12 episode of WCW Worldwide, where he sustained a knee injury. Upon his return he teamed with Erik Watts at Halloween Havoc and was victorious against The Vegas Connection. For the remainder of October and November he was strongly pushed, going 19–2 in a streak that included victories over Tony Atlas, The Barbarian, and Mustafa Saed. He would also team with Brad Armstrong in a brief feud with Page and Vegas.

On the November 21 episode of WCW Worldwide, Hammer was entered into the Jesse "The Body" Ventura Strongest Arm Tournament and defeated Vinnie Vegas. On the December 12 episode, Hammer upset Big Van Vader to advance to the finals against WCW World Heavyweight Champion Ron Simmons. The following week Hammer defeated Simmons to win the arm wrestling challenge.

Hammer teamed with Sting and was victorious in a tag-team match on the November 21 episode of WCW Saturday Night, defeating Rick Rude & Cactus Jack via disqualification. On a November 26 house show at the Omni in Atlanta, Georgia, Hammer was given a broken nose by Rick Rude during an eight-man tag-team main event match held in a thunderdome cage match. Rather than take time off he instead took a Sharpie, inserted it into his nose, and straightened it out. Despite the injury he missed no dates and continued to be victorious on the house show circuit. Hammer made his second Starrcade appearance, where he and his trainer Dan Spivey defeated Cactus Jack and Johnny B. Badd to qualify for the Battlebowl. In the main event, The Great Muta defeated both Hammer, Spivey and five other wrestlers to win the Battlebowl.

On January 2, 1993, Van Hammer lost to Tony Atlas in the quarterfinals of a tournament for the vacant WCW United States Heavyweight Championship on Saturday Night. A day later he lost to World Heavyweight Champion Big Van Vader on a house show in Bristol, TN, after which he took time off to have surgery to repair the broken nose that he had been wrestling with, causing him to miss the Thunderdome match at the Clash of the Champions XXII on January 13. He would be out for a month before returning on the February 9 taping of WCW Power Hour. Hammer continued to be a mainstay on Saturday Night, winning the majority of his matches. At the first-ever Slamboree pay-per-view, Van Hammer lost his match with Sid Vicious in only 35 seconds.

Despite the quick loss Hammer continued to be pushed, defeating Vinnie Vegas on a house show in Louisville, Kentucky, on June 3. He was victorious as well against Tommy Angel and Vladimir Koloff as well that month, although he sustained a defeat to Rick Rude. On July 3, Hammer defeated Lord Steven Regal at a house show in Spartanburg, South Carolina. His final WCW match came on July 11 in Tower City, Pennsylvania, when he pinned Wrecking Crew Fury. Due to WCW's lengthy tapings that began that month, he continued to appear much later in the year. On the September 11 episode of WCW Worldwide (taped July 7 in Orlando, Florida) he teamed with 2 Cold Scorpio and Marcus Alexander Bagwell in a losing effort against Sid Vicious & Harlem Heat. His final television appearance came on the November 6 episode of WCW Worldwide (taped July 10 in Orlando, Florida), Hammer attempted to defend his Jesse Ventura's Strongest Arm championship but was defeated by The Equalizer in the first round.

In addition to making a television appearance in November 1993 (due to the pre-taping in July) in the Jesse Ventura arm-wrestling challenge, Hammer's name was also mentioned on the January 4 episode of WCW Main Event in a segment with Diamond Dallas Page. The heel randomly drew names out a fishbowl, and Hammer's name was one of the selections. He returned November 29, 1994, and was defeated by Dick Slater at a television taping.

On the January 21, 1995, episode of WCW Pro (taped on December 4, 1994, in Dalton, Georgia) another challenge was made by Diamond Dallas Page, this time a call to defend his arm wrestling title. Van Hammer made a surprise appearance to accept the challenge and Page faked an arm injury and called it off. One month later, on the February 25 episode of WCW Pro, Page defeated Hammer in an arm wrestling match after Max Muscle interfered.

World Wrestling Federation (1993)
On July 26, 1993, Hildreth received a tryout match at a WWF Superstars taping in Utica, New York. Wrestling as Van Hammer, he worked as a heel, but was defeated by Virgil. The following day working as a babyface at a Wrestling Challenge taping in Plattsburgh, New York he was defeated by Damien Demento in another dark match.

The Flock (1997–1998)
Hildreth returned to WCW in November 1997 under the shortened ring name "Hammer", where he was placed in Raven's stable The Flock. Despite being an undercarder, much like the rest of The Flock's members, he was granted a title match against the United States Heavyweight Champion Diamond Dallas Page on the February 23, 1998, episode of Monday Nitro, but was unsuccessful in winning the title. On the March 2, 1998, episode of Nitro, Hammer lost to Page via disqualification in a title rematch.

Singles competition (1998–1999)
Hammer began jobbing to several top stars before winning a Loser Leaves The Flock match against fellow Flock member Perry Saturn on a special Friday episode of Nitro on May 4. Despite the win, The Flock attacked Hammer after the match and he was thrown out of the group. In his first match following his expulsion from The Flock, Hammer faced the new United States Heavyweight Champion Goldberg for the title the following night on Saturday Night, but lost. He then abandoned the grunge-related attire he had while with The Flock and became a face by adopting a hippie gimmick. After spending the rest of 1998 and January 1999 jobbing, he became a heel again and changed his gimmick to that an anti-pacifist and returned to using his full Van Hammer name. Following this, he began a short winning streak over the next few weeks before losing to Bam Bam Bigelow on the February 22, 1999, episode of Nitro. Van Hammer quickly rebounded and began another winning streak over the following weeks on Nitro, Thunder, Saturday Night and even on pay-per-view at The Great American Bash on June 13 by defeating Mikey Whipwreck. Hammer's winning streak was ended a few weeks later as he lost to Rick Steiner in a title match for Steiner's World Television Championship on July 11 at Bash at the Beach. On the October 11 episode of Nitro, Hammer lost to Sid Vicious in a match for the United States Heavyweight Championship.

Misfits In Action (2000)
On the May 2, 2000, episode of Thunder, Hammer participated in a 41-man battle royal to determine the number one contender for the World Heavyweight Championship, which was ultimately won by Ric Flair. Soon afterward, Hammer joined the Misfits In Action and was renamed Major Stash so as to fit in with the stable's military gimmick. He was originally to be named Private Stash, as an inside joke to marijuana, but balked at being given the lowest rank in the stable, leading him to being "promoted" to "Major". Stash's tenure with the Misfits was short-lived, as he wrestled what turned out to be his final match in WCW, a loss to The Demon on the July 12, 2000, episode of Thunder, as he was released from his contract shortly after.

Late career (2001–2003, 2009)
After leaving WCW, Hildreth took a brief hiatus from wrestling. On March 16, 2001, under his Van Hammer ring name and rock star gimmick, he lost to Thrasher in a match for Maryland Championship Wrestling. He returned to MCW on June 9, and defeated Dino Devine. On December 16, he teamed with Cowboy to defeat Devine and Chad Bowman. In October 2001, Hammer went to Japan to wrestle a tour for Big Japan Pro Wrestling. On February 16, 2002, Hammer teamed with Cowboy in a rematch against Devine and Bowman, which he and Cowboy lost. After a year long hiatus, Van Hammer returned to MCW on July 16, 2003, at MCW's annual Shane Shamrock Memorial Cup, where he won an eight-man tag team match alongside Gillberg, Thrasher and Kelly Bell against Brock Singleton, Genesis and The Holy Rollers (Earl the Pearl and Rich Meyes).

In 2009, Hildreth attended an MCW show where wrestler Champ Pain performed a promo calling Hildreth "washed up" and comparing him to Randy "The Ram" Robinson, the character played by Mickey Rourke in the film The Wrestler. In response, Hildreth entered the ring, but Champ Pain fled before a fight could break out. On April 11, 2009, at MCW's event Xtreme Measures, Hildreth - wrestling as "Van Hammer" - came out of retirement for one night to defeat Champ Pain.

Legal issues
On January 26, 2020, Hildreth was arrested in Palm Beach County, Florida, and charged with DUI and first degree felony hit and run. Hildreth was reported to be driving at 58 mph in a 35 mph zone when he hit a 5-year-old child who was riding a bicycle. The child reportedly flew on to the hood of Hildreth's car and suffered internal injuries, but ultimately survived. In May 2020, Hildreth pleaded guilty to both charges, and as a result was sentenced to one year of probation, one year of driver's license revocation, and he is now required to have an interlock device placed in his vehicle at all times.

Championships and accomplishments

 * Pro Wrestling Illustrated
 * PWI ranked him #112 of the 500 best singles wrestlers of the PWI 500 in 1993
 * PWI ranked him #402 of the top 500 singles wrestlers of the PWI Years in 2003
 * World Championship Wrestling
 * Jesse Ventura Strongest Arms Arm Wrestling Tournament (1992)
 * Wrestling Observer Newsletter
 * Most Embarrassing Wrestler (1991)

title: Van Hammer


text:
Stay Hungry (album)

Stay Hungry is the third studio album by American heavy metal band Twisted Sister, released on May 10, 1984, by Atlantic Records. The album contains the band's two signature songs: "We're Not Gonna Take It" and "I Wanna Rock", both of which remain a staple of '80s glam metal and rock. According to RIAA certification, Stay Hungry is the band's most successful release by far and their only platinum album. Eventually, the album achieved multi-platinum status in U.S. with sales of more than 3,000,000 certified copies by 1995.

During recording, producer Tom Werman brought some songs by English heavy metal band Saxon for the band to listen to, this led to a conflict with Dee Snider who understood it as Werman wanting the band to replace some of his songs with Saxon covers. Guitarist Jay Jay French also claims the band lost two songs that they wanted on the album due to Werman's influence

Twisted Sister performed the song "Burn in Hell" during a cameo appearance in the 1985 film Pee-wee's Big Adventure. The song "Burn in Hell" was covered by black metal band Dimmu Borgir on Puritanical Euphoric Misanthropia. "We're Not Gonna Take It" was also covered by Bif Naked on the Ready to Rumble soundtrack. The two songs that comprise the Horror-Teria segment became the basis of Twisted Sister lead singer Dee Snider's 1998 film Strangeland, in which Captain Howdy was played by Snider himself. The "Captain Howdy" segment of the "Horror-Teria" suite would later be covered by the death metal group Broken Hope on their album Repulsive Conception and in 1999 by the Swedish heavy metal band Morgana Lefay on their Symphony of the Damned, Re-symphonised album.

In 2004, the band re-recorded all nine songs from this album and re-released them under the title Still Hungry.

In 2009, the band played Stay Hungry in its entirety for the first time including songs never played live before, such as "Don't Let Me Down" and "Horror-Teria: Street Justice".

Reception
Metal Rules ranked the album #5 on their list of the Top 50 Glam Metal Albums.

In 2016, Loudwire ranked the album at number 6 on their list of the Top 30 Hair Metal Albums.

In 2017, Rolling Stone listed the album at No. 76 on its list of the 100 Greatest Metal Albums of All Time.

Track listing
All songs are written by Dee Snider.

Deluxe edition
A 25th Anniversary Edition was released on June 30, 2009 by Rhino Records. The first disc contains remastered versions of the nine tracks from the May 1984 original. The bonus disc uncovers 15 unreleased outtakes and early demos from the original sessions, recorded in December 1983 at Nino's Studios, Baldwin, New York, as well as the new track "30" recorded especially for this collection by the 1984 lineup at Audio Magic, West Babylon, New York.

Additionally, any music fan who bought the CD or vinyl of Stay Hungry 25th Anniversary Edition in any participating independent record store received a free gift from the band: a DVD of the Twisted Sister 1984 Uncut Live at San Bernardino concert. Originally broadcast on MTV as Stay Hungry Live, the concert had been commercially unavailable for years and previously unavailable as DVD. June 30, 2009 was the only day the DVD was available and only through participating, independent record stores with a limited stock.

Commented guitarist Jay Jay French, "While other bands have made exclusive deals with big box chains and discounters, Twisted Sister remembers all the independent record shops who have supported us through the years."

Bonus disc

 * 1) "Death from Above" – 2:42
 * 2) "Prime Motivator" – 2:25
 * 3) "We’re Not Gonna Take It" – 2:47 (early demo)
 * 4) "Death Run" – 1:45
 * 5) "This One’s for You" – 2:00
 * 6) "S.M.F." – 2:14 (early demo)
 * 7) "We’re Coming On" – 1:42
 * 8) "Call My Name" – 2:10
 * 9) "Burn in Hell" – 5:08 (early demo)
 * 10) "Pay the Price" – 1:42
 * 11) "What’s Love Without You" – 1:44
 * 12) "Our Voice Will Be Heard" – 1:29
 * 13) "You Got to Fight" – 1:39
 * 14) "The Price" – 2:36 (early demo)
 * 15) "Stay Hungry" – 1:58 (early demo)
 * 16) "KMET Radio Spot" – 0:24
 * 17) "30" – 4:23 (new track)
 * 18) "Lollipop Guild" – 0:30 (hidden track)

Twisted Sister

 * Dee Snider – lead vocals
 * Eddie "Fingers" Ojeda – lead guitar, backing vocals
 * Jay Jay French – rhythm guitar, lead guitar on "Stay Hungry", "S.M.F." co lead guitar on "Burn In Hell", "Don't Let Me Down", backing vocals
 * Mark "The Animal" Mendoza – bass, backing vocals
 * A. J. Pero – drums, percussion

Additional musicians

 * Dean Werman, Gabby McGachan, Neidermeyer – sound effects, handclapping

Production

 * Tom Werman – producer, arrangements with Twisted Sister
 * Geoff Workman – engineer, mixing
 * Gary McGachan – additional engineer at Cherokee Studios
 * John "Red" Agnello – additional engineer at Record Plant
 * Greg Laney – additional engineer at Westlake Studio
 * George Marino – mastering at Sterling Sound, New York
 * Bob Defrin – art direction

title: Stay Hungry (album)


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs/Templates/Italy

This page lists templates used for of the WikiProject on Football manual of style for clubs from Italy.


text:
Seymour Martin Lipset

Seymour Martin Lipset (March 18, 1922 – December 31, 2006) was an American sociologist and political scientist. His major work was in the fields of political sociology, trade union organization, social stratification, public opinion, and the sociology of intellectual life. He also wrote extensively about the conditions for democracy in comparative perspective. He was president of both the American Political Science Association (1979–1980) and the American Sociological Association (1992–1993). A socialist in his early life, Lipset later moved to the right, and was considered to be one of the first neoconservatives.

At his death in 2006, The Guardian called him "the leading theorist of democracy and American exceptionalism"; The New York Times said he was "a pre-eminent sociologist, political scientist and incisive theorist of American uniqueness"; and The Washington Post said he was "one of the most influential social scientists of the past half century."

Early life and education
Lipset was born in Harlem, New York City, the son of Russian Jewish immigrants. He grew up in the Bronx among Irish, Italian and Jewish youth. "I was in that atmosphere where there was a lot of political talk," Lipset recalled, "but you never heard of Democrats or Republicans; the question was communists, socialists, Trotskyists, or anarchists. It was all sorts of different left wing groups." From an early age, Seymour was active in the Young People's Socialist League, "an organization of young Trotskyists that he would later head." He graduated from City College of New York, where he was an anti-Stalinist leftist. He received a PhD in sociology from Columbia University in 1949. Before that he taught at the University of Toronto.

Academic career
Lipset was the Caroline S.G. Munro Professor of Political Science and Sociology at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and then became the George D. Markham Professor of Government and Sociology at Harvard University. He also taught at Columbia University, the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Toronto, and George Mason University where he was the Hazel Professor of Public Policy.

Lipset was a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the United States National Academy of Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society. He was the only person to have been President of both the American Political Science Association (1979–1980) and the American Sociological Association (1992–1993). He also served as the President of the International Society of Political Psychology, the Sociological Research Association, the World Association for Public Opinion Research, the Society for Comparative Research, and the Paul F. Lazarsfeld Society in Vienna.

Lipset received the MacIver Prize for Political Man (1960) and, in 1970, the Gunnar Myrdal Prize for The Politics of Unreason.

In 2001, Lipset was named among the top 100 American intellectuals, as measured by academic citations, in Richard Posner's book, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline.

"Some Social Requisites of Democracy"
One of Lipset's most cited works is "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy" (1959), a key work on modernization theory, on democratization, and an article that includes the Lipset hypothesis that economic development leads to democracy.

Lipset was one of the first proponents of the "theory of modernization", which states that democracy is the direct result of economic growth, and that "[t]he more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy." Lipset's modernization theory has continued to be a significant factor in academic discussions and research relating to democratic transitions. It has been referred to as the "Lipset hypothesis" and the "Lipset thesis".

The Lipset hypothesis has been challenged by Guillermo O'Donnell, Adam Przeworski and Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson.

One of the debates as to how exactly democracy emerges, is between endogenous or exogenous democratization. Endogenous democratization holds the argument that democratization happens as a result of the country's previous history leading up to that point. So here economic development and expansion of the middle class play a crucial role. Proponents of this viewpoint are Charles Boix and Susan C. Stokes. Exogenous democratization, on the other hand, argues that democratization happens as a result of external factors, such as the zeitgeist of pro-democracy political movements seen across the world from the third wave of democratization up until the 1990s. According to Adam Przeworski and Fernando Limongi, the reason for the correlation between economic wealth and democracy is for the simple reason that once a country has transitioned to a democratic rule, it has a much better chance of staying democratic if it is wealthy, where as poor countries most often fall back into autocratic rule.

Political Man
Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics (1960) is an influential analysis of the bases of democracy, fascism, communism ("working class authoritarianism"), and other political organizations, across the world, in the interwar period and after World War II. One of the important sections is Chapter 2: "Economic Development and Democracy." Larry Diamond and Gary Marks argue that "Lipset's assertion of a direct relationship between economic development and democracy has been subjected to extensive empirical examination, both quantitative and qualitative, in the past 30 years. And the evidence shows, with striking clarity and consistency, a strong causal relationship between economic development and democracy." In Chapter V, Lipset analyzed "Fascism"—Left, Right, and Center, and explained that the study of the social bases of different modern mass movements suggests that each major social stratum has both democratic and extremist political expressions. He explained the mistakes of identifying extremism as a right-wing phenomenon, and Communism with the left-wing phenomenon. He underlined that extremist ideologies and groups can be classified and analyzed in the same terms as democratic groups, i.e., right, left, and center.

Political Man was published and republished in several editions, sold more than 400,000 copies and was translated into 20 languages, including: Vietnamese, Bengali, and Serbo-Croatian.

"Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments"
In this 1967 co-authored work with Stein Rokkan, Lipset introduced critical juncture theory and made a substantial contributions to cleavage theory.

The Democratic Century
In The Democratic Century (2004), Lipset sought to explain why North America developed stable democracies and Latin America did not. He argued that the reason for this divergence is that the initial patterns of colonization, the subsequent process of economic incorporation of the new colonies, and the wars of independence varied. The divergent histories of Britain and Iberia are seen as creating different cultural legacies that affected the prospects of democracy.

Public affairs
Lipset left the Socialist Party in 1960 and later described himself as a centrist, deeply influenced by Alexis de Tocqueville, George Washington, Aristotle, and Max Weber. He became active within the Democratic Party's conservative wing, and associated with neoconservatives, without calling himself one.

Lipset was vice-chair of the board of directors of the United States Institute of Peace, a board member of the Albert Shanker Institute, a member of the US Board of Foreign Scholarships, co-chair of the Committee for Labor Law Reform, co-chair of the Committee for an Effective UNESCO, and consultant to the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Humanities Institute, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the American Jewish Committee.

Lipset was a strong supporter of the state of Israel, and was President of the American Professors for Peace in the Middle East, chair of the National B'nai B'rith Hillel Commission and the Faculty Advisory Cabinet of the United Jewish Appeal, and co-chair of the Executive Committee of the International Center for Peace in the Middle East. He worked for years on seeking solution for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict as part of his larger project of research on the factors that allow societies to sustain stable and peaceful democracies. His work focused on the way in which high levels of socioeconomic development created the preconditions for democracy (see also Amartya Sen's work), and the consequences of democracy for peace.

Awards
Lipset's book The First New Nation was a finalist for the National Book Award. He was also awarded the Townsend Harris and Margaret Byrd Dawson Medals for significant achievement, the Northern Telecom-International Council for Canadian Studies Gold Medal, and the Leon Epstein Prize in Comparative Politics by the American Political Science Association. He received the Marshall Sklare Award for distinction in Jewish studies and, in 1997, he was awarded the Helen Dinnerman Prize by the World Association for Public Opinion Research.

Personal life
Lipset's first wife, Elsie, died in 1987. She was the mother of his three children, David, Daniel, and Carola ("Cici"). David Lipset is a Professor of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota. He had six grandchildren. Lipset was survived by his second wife, Sydnee Guyer (a director of the JCRC), whom he married in 1990.

At age 84, Lipset died as a result of complications following a stroke.

Selected works

 * "The Rural Community and Political Leadership in Saskatchewan." Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 13.3 (1947): 410–428.
 * Agrarian Socialism: The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Saskatchewan, a Study in Political Sociology (1950), ISBN 978-0-520-02056-6 (1972 printing)

 * We'll Go Down to Washington (1951)
 * "Democracy in Private Government: a case study of the International Typographical Union." British Journal of Sociology (1952) 3:47–58 in JSTOR
 * Union Democracy: The Internal Politics of the International Typographical Union (1956) with Martin Trow and James S. Coleman
 * "The Biography of a Research Project: Union Democracy." in Sociologists at Work: the craft of social research edited by Phillip E. Hammond. (1964)
 * Social Mobility in Industrial Society with Reinhard Bendix (1959), ISBN 978-0-88738-760-9
 * Social Structure and Mobility in Economic Development with Neil J. Smelser (1966), ISBN 978-0-8290-0910-1

 * "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy." The American Political Science Review Volume 53, Issue 1 (1959): 69-105.
 * "Social Stratification and right-wing extremism," British Journal of Sociology (1959) 10:346–382.
 * Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics (1960), ISBN 978-0-385-06650-1 online
 * The First New Nation (1963), ISBN 978-0-393-00911-8 online
 * The Berkeley Student Revolt: Facts and Interpretations, edited with Sheldon S. Wolin (1965)
 * Party Systems and Voter Alignments, co-edited with Stein Rokkan (Free Press, 1967)
 * Student Politics (1967), ISBN 978-0-465-08248-3
 * Revolution and Counterrevolution: Change and Persistence in Social Structures, (1968) ISBN 978-0-88738-694-7 (1988 printing)
 * editor, Politics and the social sciences (1969)
 * Prejudice and Society with Earl Raab
 * The Politics of Unreason: Right Wing Extremism in America, 1790–1970 with Earl Raab (1970), ISBN 978-0-226-48457-0 online
 * Rebellion in the University (1971)
 * Education and politics at Harvard: Two essays prepared for the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1975) with David Riesman
 * The Divided Academy: Professors and Politics with Everett Carll Ladd, Jr. (1975), ISBN 978-0-07-010112-8

 * editor, The Third century : America as a post-industrial society (1979) online
 * The Confidence Gap: Business, Labor, and Government in the Public Mind (1983) online
 * Consensus and Conflict: Essays in Political Sociology (1985) online
 * Unions in transition: entering the second century (1986)
 * editor, Revolution and Counterrevolution: Change and Persistence in Social Structures (1988)
 * Continental Divide: The Values and Institutions of the United States and Canada (1989)
 * "Liberalism, Conservatism, and Americanism", Ethics & International Affairs vol 3 (1989). online
 * "The Social Requisites of Democracy Revisited." American Sociological Review Vol. 59, No. 1: 1-22. (1994) online
 * Jews and the New American Scene with Earl Raab (1995)
 * "Steady Work: An Academic Memoir", in Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 22, 1996

 * American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword (1996) online

 * It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States with Gary Marks (2000), ISBN 978-0-393-32254-5 online
 * The Paradox of American Unionism: Why Americans Like Unions More Than Canadians Do, but Join Much Less with Noah Meltz, Rafael Gomez, and Ivan Katchanovski (2004), ISBN 978-0-8014-4200-1
 * The Democratic Century with Jason M. Lakin (2004), ISBN 978-0-8061-3618-9 online

Resources on Lipset and his research

 * Archer, Robin, "Seymour Martin Lipset and political sociology." The British Journal of Sociology Volume 61, Issues 1 (2010)
 * Philipp Korom, "The political sociologist Seymour M. Lipset: Remembered in political science, neglected in sociology." European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology 6:4 (2019), 448-473, DOI: 10.1080/23254823.2019.1570859 The political sociologist Seymour M. Lipset: Remembered in political science, neglected in sociology - PMC

title: Seymour Martin Lipset