text:
Talk:Magnification

comment moved from article
"magnification of light(i.e. sunlight)to produce energy.where does this fit?" - edit by 70.189.159.109 to the main article. I moved it here. SeventyThree(Talk) 16:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Well i think you can not magnify the sunlight whatever we are getting from the sun, but you can concentrate or condense at a point to produce higher temperature at a point. it is just making the image of the sun at a focal point.

Magnification and focal length
I want to ask in the equation M = f/f-d0 Where is the value of h0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.141.36.66 (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I've puzzled over the M = f/f-do formula a number of times, trying to grasp the relationship between empirical magnification and 'abstract' focal length. It seems like a remarkably tautological and inflexible formula. Unable to do differentiation, or find a proof that I could reverse engineer, the closest I've come up with is this :

 * Verifying the effective focal length (f) of a camera lens using similar triangles and three empirical measurements : the height of the object (ho), the height of the image of the object (hi) and the distance between the object and the image (df) (also known in photography as the "focus distance"?).

 * By definition, the focal length is the distance between the principle plane and the image plane when focused at infinity (≈ hyperfocal distance). In a camera lens system, each individual element has a principle plane, but when we describe the optical power of the whole system as a single effective focal length, there will be only one corresponding effective principle plane.

 * So we need to calculate where the 'effective principle plane' bisects df, which will give the value for di = EFL. From similar triangles, we know that
 * hi / ho = di / do,
 * and di + do = df.

 * From di + do = d, we can derive the relationship between di and d as di / (do + di), and its (measurable) conjugate: hi / (ho + hi)  [is this correct ?]

 * Therefore di / df = hi / (ho + hi) and so
 * f = df x hi / (ho + hi)

 * Eg. If image height = 24mm, object height = 1,800mm, and distance between image and object = 3,800mm. 3800x24/1824 = 50mm. It seems to work in practice (accurate measurements are fiddly but possible).

 * However, maths is not among my talents and I still can't figure out how this formula (if correct) relates to M = f/f-d0 or how f can be defined as a function of M and df ? I can see how you might say, when the object distance is several orders of magnitude larger than the focal length, M = -di / do ≈ -di / (di + do) which is like saying M ≈ -f / df ... ? --Redbobblehat (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I've checked it and I think it is correct, although the English was garbled (now corrected). Note that the convention used is that real, inverted images have negative magnifications (which is not intuitively easy).  Note also that if the distance to the object is relatively large (eg most photographs), the magnitude of the magnification (ie ignoring the minus sign) is nearer zero than one. Man with two legs (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks for checking the formula (for typos !), and the english does read much better now :). I think I found a couple of sources relevant to the M = f/f-do formula. Both versions derive from the Gaussian model, so the distance do is measured between the object and the front principal plane.

 * This source, apparently using the "cartesian" sign convention, (where s = do) gives

 * do = (f (1-M)) / M ... which rearranges to ... M = f / (do + f)

 * These sources, and  give essentially the same formula but seem to be using the "intuitive" sign convention, which I will denote as M' (where u = d'o):

 * d'o = f (1 + 1/M') ... which rearranges to ... M' = f / (d'o - f)

 * I still can't figure out where M = f/f-do comes from ? -Redbobblehat (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, the last two formulae differ only in that one is minus the other so they simply use different sign conventions (assuming we correct for the technical error of writing M = f/f-do which should have been M = f/(f-do), equivalent to the formula in the article. Taken literally, M = f/f-do implies M = 1-do which is obviously wrong).  When I derived it, I got M = f / (do - f) but I was not using the same sign convention as the article. Man with two legs (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Ah eureka! It wasn't the brackets thing - I just hadn't realised that (do - f) * -1 = (f - do) ... [weeps into beer] ... So does that mean M = f / (do + f) is wrong for either sign convention (see ) ? --Redbobblehat (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

reference diagram

I have cobbled together a diagram (from PAR's jpgs at real image and virtual image) showing the "dimensions" of a virtual and real image. This is a first draft, so I present it hear for comment before adding it to the article (if we agree it's useful). So comments welcome, but remember this took time and effort, so please be nice :-) ... and no, I don't know how to make SVGs --Redbobblehat (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Hi RBH, this looks like a great diagram. Sounds like you've already been nagged about SVGs, but really they are astonishingly more useful thanks to the ease of editing and resizing.  Have you tried Inkscape?  It's a highly intuitive and easy-to-use free SVG-editing program.  I've made tons of diagrams for WP with it.  There's some helpful information on using it with Wikipedia/Commons at Commons:Help:Inkscape. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 20:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

 * As there have been no objections in nearly 2 years, I've moved this diagram into the article. --Redbobblehat (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

sign convention
I have also tried to rewrite the "photography" paragraph to make it clearer. Not sure if I succeeded though; it's basically all about sign conventions ... perhaps a section entitled "sign conventions" would be better ?

 * Photography: The image recorded by a photographic film or image sensor is always a real image and is usually inverted. When we measure the height of an inverted image using the cartesian sign convention (where the x-axis is the optical axis) the value for hi will be negative, and as a result M will also be negative. However, the traditional sign convention used in photography is "real is positive, virtual is negative" . This means that in photography: Object height and distance are always real and positive. When the focal length is positive the image's height, distance and magnification are real and positive. Only if the focal length is negative, the image's height, distance and magnification are virtual and negative. Therefore the photographic magnification formulae are traditionally presented as:
 * $$M = {d_i \over d_o} = {h_i \over h_o} = {f \over d_o-f} = {d_i-f \over f}$$

--Redbobblehat (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 * After nearly 2 years without objections, I have moved this version into the article. --Redbobblehat (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure if the sentence "Only if the focal length is negative, the image's height, distance and magnification are virtual and negative." is helpful here. I think it helps to clarify the point about sign convention, but AFAIK a camera lens with negative focal length would not produce a usable image ... ie no photographic lens system would have a negative focal length! Comments welcome --Redbobblehat (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I also considered adding some guidelines for using the formulae in close focusing applications. Specifically : to measure d and d' from the front and rear nodal points of the lens - which are not easy to locate, and pointing out that when focused at infinity, (d'-f)/f = 1/f. I hesitate because I'm not sure that this article is the correct place to provide such detail. Comments welcome --Redbobblehat (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Telescope angular magnification
The article lists telescope angular magnification as f_e/f_o. But since f_o > f_e in telescopes, that results in a magnification of <1! That makes no sense to me. These facts about magnification need citations, anyway. PenguiN42 (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment transferred from the main article
This was moved here from the main article where it was posted by user:Robert M Dewey:

 * Consider who your readers are what what they may want to know. Some like me want to know the basic concepts not the mathematics. What are concave and convex lenses? Does one magnify and the other minify. Which lenses does one use to make a telescope -- concave or convex or one of each or what? can you do this by holding each lens with your fingers? These are not childish questions. They get at the underlying concepts of the physics of optics. The technical mathematics is good too. But don't forget that if you can't explain the basic facts underlying the mathmatics of optics simply, you probably only know the mathematics by rote. I came for a simple explanation of how magnification and minification works. I'd provide the information myself if I knew it. But that's what I came to your article to find out. It isn't there.

He's got a point. Man with two legs (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now added a section Examples of magnification. Man with two legs (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Curved mirror
There are no informations about the Magnification of Curved mirrors. Though, they sell with Labels from ~"2x" to "7x" in stores. Can anyone give information about how this is calculated? --Itu (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this article needs to have some discussion of curved mirrors. 75.37.70.77 (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Unit magnification
In optics, does "unit magnification" simply mean M=1, or is there more to it than that ? Redbobblehat (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

angular magnification
Currently the article states :
 * Angular magnification — For optical instruments with an eyepiece, the linear dimension of the image seen in the eyepiece (virtual image in infinite distance) cannot be given, thus size means the angle subtended by the object at the focal point (angular size). Strictly speaking, one should take the tangent of that angle (in practice, this makes a difference only if the angle is larger than a few degrees). Thus, angular magnification is given by:
 * MA = tanE' / tanE
 * where E is the angle subtended by the object at the front focal point of the objective and E' is the angle subtended by the image at the rear focal point of the eyepiece.

My first question is : why measure angular object size (E) about the front focal point and not the entrance pupil ?
 * My guess is : it's just plain wrong - the "view" of anything rarely has anything to do (directly) with the focal or cardinal points ... it should say "Where E is the angular size of the object (the angle subtended by the object at the centre of the entrance pupil) and E' is the angular size of the image (the angle subtended by the image at the centre of the exit pupil)". -- Redbobblehat (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

My second question is : given that M == tanE' / tanE == transverse magnification, why have a separate definition for angular magnification ?
 * My guess is that under paraxial approximation, E' / E is "close enough to" tanE' / tanE, so in first-order optics angular magnification is usually given as = E / E' (Hecht 2003 Optics p.210). If so, perhaps it should state that "Whilst transverse magnification, M = tanE' / tanE, for calculations using paraxial approximation (where neither E or E' are more than +/- 10° from the axis) we can get away with M = E' / E". --Redbobblehat (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Virtual-object magnification?
The article discusses linear magnification and angular magnification, but not the magnification of the virtual object that occurs when the virtual object isn't at infinity. In terms of being able to see detail with a magnifying glass, angular magnification is what matters since the angular resolution of your eye is limited. However, this doesn't answer the question "How much bigger does the thing behind the magnifying glass appear to be?" If you hold a magnifying glass one focal length from your subject and look through it, the object appears to be at infinity in terms of focus accomadation and stereo vision, so the virtual object size is infinite. If you hold that lens to your eyes, the angular magnification is unity, but the object still appears to be infinitely big even though the images on your retinas look the same -- its' just that your eyes are focused and converged to infinity so it looks infinitely far away. If the object is less than one focal length from the lens, then in terms of accomidation and vergence, the object appears to be closer than infinity, so the virtual object height is finite. In the limit that the lens is on the object, it has no effect. So: What's the formula for virtual-object magnification as a function of eye-lens distance, lens-object distance, and lens focal length? I don't see it here and there are no equations on virtual image. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Scale
It might be helpful for there to be included a reference chart of what you can see at what magnification. (that's why I came to the page) For example you could say at X magnification you could see cells and at Y magnification you can see molecules or individual strands of dna or some such. Drewder (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

magnification power
Magnification power measures how much larger an object appears after magnification. Those who typically speak about magnification are scientists and perhaps bird watchers or photographers. Instruments that have measurements of magnification include microscopes, telescopes, cameras and binoculars =what is the magnification of human eye=

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

title: Talk:Magnification


text:
Talk:Chicago race riot of 1919

more at Lynching in the United States
There's quite a bit more on this at Lynching in the United States, including a photo and more detailed discussion of certain aspects of the events.--Bcrowell 16:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * anyways!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.63.110.194 (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Need more context
What is needed is not more about the details of the events, but the context and background. Walter White's article is excellent for that in the sources.--Parkwells (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article review
I just finished reviewing the article. Here are my comments:

Everything else looks good. I'm going to ask for a second opinion as I'm rather new at good article reviewing. Right now I'm leaning toward failing the article but I'm sure the editors can address my comments ~ Eóin (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the lead needs the most work. Right now, roughly half of the article is devoted to the background of the riot but the lead doesn't mention any of it. Several facts are mentioned in the lead but nowhere else in the article.
 * I think I have addressed this basic concern now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is Chicago Race Riot of 1919 in bold on the second picture?
 * When you wikilink something on its own page it get bolded instead of creating a circular link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I notice Negroes, Blacks and African American being used in the article. Can just one term be used?
 * fixed (except for quotes)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are several one or two sentence paragraphs in the article. They need to be removed or merged together.
 * done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The references are mostly good. I've asked for several citations. Could the ninth reference be formatted?
 * citations added and reference reformated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed the Encyclopædia Britannica mentioned the aftereffects of the riot. Could a paragraph be written about the riots significance?
 * I added some information form EB.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * State’s Attorney Hoyne - Who is this?
 * He is a regular state's attorney employed by the office of the Illinois Attorney General. He is a non-notable person by 1919 standards although he might be the equivalent of Marcia Clark or Christopher Darden if they had WP back then.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mentioning Daley is very interesting but is the second mention of him needed? It doesn't seem important to understanding the riot.
 * I have incorporated the later mention with the ramifications.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't feel like there is a good timeline of the riot. The background, the cause, and the end result is there but there's nothing about how or why the riot ended in the article. Newspapers articles of the times might have some salvageable information regarding this. The New York Times has some coverage but I'm sure Chicago newspapers would be better.
 * I have got most of these articles incorporated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article feels like there could be more sections. Only divided into two sections of prose seems to few.
 * I have reorganized it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to have the article to be overwhelmed with pictures but I'm guessing there is an abundance of public domain pictures that could be added.
 * I haven't given the article a careful review, but I think that most of your comments were spot-on. Luckily, Tony is a very responsive editor who addresses issues raised in GA reviews, as we can see from the comments above.
 * There's still remaining issues to fix. The interchangable use of the terms Negroes, Blacks and African Americans is jarring - I suggest standardizing. The prose could use sharpening; for example, minimize use of the passive voice.
 * Eóin, you may find it useful to show that you've addressed each of the GA criteria. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be sure to use a checklist next time. I noticed several mentions of Black changed to African American so I changed the rest of them. I also combined two small paragraphs. With that, I believe the article can pass. Congratulations. ~ Eóin (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Comment: in the lead, there is a paragraph that starts with "United States President Woodrow Wilson and the United States Congress attempted to promote legislation and organizations to decrease racial discord in America" with a cite. Given Wilson's racism and the Congress of the time, I am skeptical they did any such thing.  And it just has an encyclopedia as reference which is not exactly an historical study.  Either the sentence should be removed or supported by additional more specific information as to what was actually done with citations.  More detail, but not enough, is found in the later 'Ramifications' section, but it has no citations at all. Hmains (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Is "militancy" the best word to describe African-American veterans' attitude and behavior? To me, "militancy" includes a connotation of incivility, aggression, or violence. If the veterans were advocating civil rights and equal treatment, is that "militancy?" On the other hand, if the veterans were agitating for violence then "militancy" would be the right word. Could the original author please clarify? Derrick Chapman 11:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derrickchapman (talk • contribs)

Photos
You found some powerful photos and made excellent additions to the article.--Parkwells (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Nomenclature
The terminology in this article is all over the place - "African American," "Irish," "black," "white," etc. A glaring example is the photo caption that begins "A white gang looking for African Americans..." This needs to be cleaned up and made consistent. If they are "whites," then they are looking for "blacks." If they are looking for "African Americans," then they are "European Americans" or "Irish Americans." 96.35.172.222 (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Committee
We should clarify if the committee proposed was actually formed and if so was it the Chicago Commission on Race Relations. Rich Farmbrough, 02:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC).

Specifics
After a careful screening of the article, I found a few specifics that were missing but easy to provide. I edited one, but maybe others will watch for the remainder? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exoskeleton2013 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong name change
The change of name of this article makes no English sense. It is correct English that a 'proper name' is capitalized and a 'proper name' is the name of a particular person, place of event. This article is about and thus the name is the name of a particular event. The name change needs to be reverted. Hmains (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Riot was lower-cased but Race was not? Something's not right. Hugh (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

See also recent moves by same editor: Springfield Race Riot of 1908 -> Springfield Race riot of 1908, Cicero Race Riot of 1951 -> Cicero Race riot of 1951, and Charleston Riot -> Charleston riot. Sigh. Hugh (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Oooops! Agree with Hugh, "race" should also be lower-cased then. My apologies. "Charleston riot" is instead correct: "Charleston" is a proper name, while "riot" is not. By the way "race riot" is also a common noun--Darius (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Since when in the English language are these changes correct. A 'proper name' is the name of a particular person. place. or event.  For proper names, correct English language capitalization is that each word in the proper name is capitalized except for little connection words like 'the', 'in', 'a' and so on.  I am still waiting for the justification for these changes from the Manual of Style so that I can check it out.  In the meantime, all these name changes are wrong and should not continue.  Hmains (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Further discussion of this and other related recent moves by the same editor at [User_talk:DagosNavy Name_changes_of_various_articles].

Further discussion of this and other related recent moves by the same editor at Requested_moves/Technical requests#Requests to restore capitalization which was removed before :: best discuss this lot here. Hugh (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Data
It does not seem to be the case that book editors and authors agree that this descriptive term is a proper name. See book n-grams. The idea that "correct English" is to capitalize proper names is true, but the determination of what's a proper name is not so simple. Dicklyon (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 23 October 2014

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

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Chicago Race Riot of 1919 → Chicago race riot of 1919 – Need a full discussion of the move to lower case originally made by User:DagosNavy but then reverted per User:Hmains' request at WP:RMTR as an undiscussed move. EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm opening this request to allow consensus to be formed on the capitalization of the title. No vote from me. The previous discussion of the issue is at
 * this RMTR discussion
 * DagosNavy's talk
 * Anthony Appleyard's talk.
 * User:DagosNavy's original move reason had been:
 * "Rm capital per MoS ".
 * The technical revert of DagosNavy's move was proposed by User:Hmains with this reason:
 * "un-discussed move made by editor who does not think a specific event should have a capitalized proper name unless he says so, based on criteria he himself created; in violation of MOS:NAMECAPS – Hmains (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)".
 * WP:NCCAPS states that *proper names* should be capitalized. The disagreement on this set of articles is about what words or short phrases ought to be considered to be proper names. For example, is 'Chicago Race Riot of 1919' a proper name. Depending on the outcome of this article's move, it might be appropriate to revisit other items in the list of reverted moves from the WP:RMTR discussion.
 * WP:NCCAPS states that *proper names* should be capitalized. The disagreement on this set of articles is about what words or short phrases ought to be considered to be proper names. For example, is 'Chicago Race Riot of 1919' a proper name. Depending on the outcome of this article's move, it might be appropriate to revisit other items in the list of reverted moves from the WP:RMTR discussion.

 * I'm leaving a ping for in case they want to continue the prior discussion. Any arguments you may have made at WP:RMTR are now lost in the ether but could be copied here if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Other sources treat these type of events in the same way and it seems to have had a level of seriousness to warrant the capitalisation. A trivial event such as "The 25 October 2014 Greg Kaye Shopping Outing" might not warrant capitalisation but I think this is a reasonable case.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  01:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Please help me understand this. "...level of seriousness..." May I ask, what is the basis for this criteria in policy or guideline? Thanks, Hugh (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Oppose – Reliable sources treat this as a proper noun, and, as such, we must use capitalisation. This is not a WP:NDESC title. Particularly notable, in this instance, is our fellow tertiary source, the Britannica, which uses the capitalisation. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree this title is non-judgemental. I agree some reliable sources treat this as a proper noun. Others don't. I too thought we were done with this issue when I saw what EB did, until I read WP:NCCAPS. The criteria for proper noun in WP:NCCAPS is very strong: "...a proper noun that would always occur capitalized." (emphasis added) This article relies heavily on contemporary news sources which you would not expect to recognize then-current events as a named event. Is "always" too strong? Am I reading the guideline right? Thanks. Hugh (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what WP:NDESC means. WP:NDESC refers to an invented non-judgemental descriptive title used for articles that otherwise have no common name, or no neutral common name. This name is not constructed at this article on Wikipedia for that purpose. It is the proper name used by reliable sources. As a name, it should always be capitalised. It is also true that in the early-mid 20th century, it was much common to give a "proper name" to events than it is now. This is largely a function of the fact that news at that time was constructed over a period of time. It wasn't constantly "breaking" and evolving on television, so it was possible to craft names &c. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience as I understand the criteria here, I mainly work in bio where title capitalization is relatively straightforward. I agree we are not inventing a proper name. "It is the proper name used by reliable sources." I checked most of the article's RS and found a mix. I agree reliable tertiary sources Encyclopedia Britannica and the Chicago History Museum website go proper, but most of the authors of the article's RS do not. I agree we should discount contemporary accounts in favor secondary and tertiary. Is the majority of RS or the majority vote determinative? Hugh (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

 * Oppose I think it is more correct for the article to have caps based on other articles and sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chicago Race Riot of 1919 content
This is a good informational article and how it portrays the racism in this country during that time from a historical standpoint. However the article it self is presented with anger and racism toward people that are not African American. Particularly people with light skin. As all the references to Caucasians people are derogatory under the picture captions. for example "White boys" or "whites" Where all the people with dark skin are referred to as African Americans which acknowledges there humanity, identity and an equal people of the human race as it should. However the Irish immigrants or Irish Americans are only referred to as Whites or white boys stripping them of there racial identity and just assigning a slang word to them no different then honky or cracker. If you want to group all the Irish, German French etc. in to one category to refer to them, Wouldn't it be more constructive to use a non racist term like Caucasian?

Rex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.222.94 (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Consensus favors the move, and the consensus argument legitimately notes that MOS:CAPS would have the common nouns in the title capitalized only if sources were consistent in their capitalization. bd2412 T 17:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Chicago Race Riot of 1919 → Chicago race riot of 1919 – Sorry, I was away when this came up before, and nobody thought to supply any data to refute the claims of those saying that it is usually treated as a proper name in sources; it's not. --Relisted. Dekimasu よ! 00:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "...nobody thought to supply any data to refute the claims of those saying that it is usually treated as a proper name in sources..." Above on 25 October 2014 I wrote "I checked most of the article's RS and found a mix." Hugh (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Support as nom, based on data showing that the name of this event is not usually treated by sources as a proper name:
 * Books n-grams:  overwhelmingly lower case even without filtering out titles and headings.
 * Book examples (look past the first pages, because Google prefers to show capitalized hits first): ; overwhelmingly lower case.
 * Scholarly papers: ; overwhelmingly lower case.
 * So this title does not come close to being treatable as a proper name per MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Support again as nom, since the proposal is consistent with recent multi-move discussions on this pattern and is unopposed after a week. Dicklyon (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's unopposed now, but it's only a month since several people did oppose this move. I have relisted because it's difficult to process this with no outside input given the previous, recent discussion. Shall we ping the previous participants to see if they are swayed by your evidence? Dekimasu よ! 05:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so. Since then the situation has been clarified and the arguments against shown to be irrelevant, so they are not likely to oppose again.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well then, Dekimasu よ! 05:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, Dekimasu よ! 05:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "I have relisted because it's difficult to process this with no outside input given the previous, recent discussion." I would like to better understand the rationale for re-listing so soon after the close of a previous discussion. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The recent close of the previous discussion was the reason for relisting this discussion when there wasn't sufficient input to process the request. I'm not quite sure what you're asking; I didn't propose the move right after the previous close, I only declined to process this one without explicit support. Would you have had me close the move as successful when it was unopposed? Dekimasu よ! 06:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I was surprised to see a second RM so soon after the close of the previous. I didn't know you could do that. I was not completely comfortable with the result of the previous. I thought the previous close was not in line with what I came to learn of MOSCAPS, but I thought what I was seeing was WP:IAR or WP:CON. I thought we were supposed to respect concensus even if we do not agree with it. I still do not understand when it is OK to re-open an issue after a close. Are you saying the previous close was too soon? Because at the time I was surprised at how quickly it closed. Hugh (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I explained in the rationale when I re-opened it that "nobody thought to supply any data to refute the claims of those saying that it is usually treated as a proper name in sources." This was a mistake worthy of being addressed sooner rather than later.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "...nobody thought to supply any data to refute the claims of those saying that it is usually treated as a proper name in sources..." Above in the previous RM on 25 October 2014 I wrote "I checked most of the article's RS and found a mix." Data was supplied. The treatment is not consistent. The resolution was capitalize anyway. Hugh (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Oppose – This move request really should not've been opened. Regardless, this is a proper noun, and that's that. Capitalisation is required. Note our fellow tertiary source, the Encylopaedia Britannica, which uses the capitalisation. One should also note that, per WP:TITLECHANGES, there is no reason to move this article, as the status quo has not changed. Honestly, I'm starting to think some Wikipedia editors have turned French in their desire to decapitalise words and phrases that have always been capitalised in English. We don't get to have our own personal grammar, here. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your linked "evidence" for this being a proper name is a Google Book Search first page of hits. Be aware the Google Books ranks capitalized hits higher, so the first page typically shows a preponderance of capitalized and title forms.  Go to the second or third page and you'll see a more typical set of hits in text, which in this case are seldom capitalized.  Dicklyon (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I looking at the 2nd sentence of MOS:CAPS where it says "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." I would think that means the 'reliable sources' that WP is supposed to be based on and which would be included in the article's references. The rationale above for lower casing this name is just a popularity contest (look here, look there, count the numbers you like), easily manipulated and abused in the retelling and not something that can be used by the other editors now or in the future to check for 'reliability--and certainly in no way based on article-text documented reliable sources. All of this is no better than the editor who recently lower cased hundreds of articles saying in definitely that 'the MOS required it' or whatever other excuse he got in his mind that day or an administrator saying 'he did not feel that the name was a proper name' as he lower cased dozens of articles. All these excuses and edits should have no place in WP. Hmains (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously we don't let sources vote on our style. But sources do often provide evidence of whether a term is treated as necessarily capitalized or not, and this one comes nowhere near any reasonable threshold.  There is no reason to treat it as a proper name, just as in the dozens of others that you argued and lost.   Dicklyon (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "...words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources..." (emphasis added) I read this to direct us to capitalize where sources consistently capitalize. Here sources are inconsistent. What is your understanding? Hugh (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The prima facie and intended interpretation is that when capitalization in sources is not consistent (to a threshold left undefined), then we interpret that as an indication that caps are not necessary, so we don't. The implication, I think, is that sources would need to show an overwhelming supermajority of capitalization for us to conclude from sources that capitalization is necessary.  In the present case, with only a small minority of sources using caps, it's not even a relevant issue here.  Some argue that we need a more principled way to define what to capitalize, and I don't oppose that; but for the claims to be in such opposition to what we find in sources in cases like this means that the proposed principles are not the right ones. Dicklyon (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmains, may i ask, what is your interpretation of "consistently" in MOS:CAPS?

 * Support, as consistently applied elsewhere on this project (except by Hmains). I think you're going to have to accept that if there's mixed usage out there, WP downcases by preference (see MOSCAPS opening). RGloucester, could you explain what criteria you're using for this category you call "proper noun"? Tony   (talk)  07:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I too would like to better understand the criteria we should use here. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Any name used to refer to a specific event, thing, person, place, &c. This is how English capitalisation has worked since the 19th century, and it is how it should continue to work. I will eliminate abomination lowercased titles, if I ever have the time. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Recent large multi-move discussions on various "riot" and "massacre" articles and such (Talk:Potato riots and Talk:Rock Springs massacre) affirmed that WP style is to use lower case, and showed plenty of evidence that your assertions of "how English capitalisation has worked since the 19th century" is incorrect. Most good sources do not capitalize descriptive names for specific events.  The idea that "any name used to refer to a specific event, thing, person, place, &c." is a proper name has no basis is sources.   Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care what Wikipedia style is. I care about what's right. It is right that proper names be capitalised, and this is a proper noun. That's that. Your tiny little consensus at those pages is hardly indicative of larger support. If I'd known of them, I'd have opposed with every fibre of my being. Good sources, such as the Britannica, capitalise this title. That's reason enough to maintain it. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * RGloucester, this is starting to be a rogue-editor rant. You appear to be nursing anger. Please stop and reconsider your threats at mass unilateral action against consensus. Tony   (talk)  04:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd be happy to bow down to your anti-English capitalisation soap. I speak French. I'm fine with French-style capitalisation, if I'm writing French. We're not writing French here. We're writing English. Let's use English capitalisation rules. Or perhaps we should return to the time when all nouns were capitalised, as in German? I'd not like that. You're lucky. You shan't get even me to propose that. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

 * This would not have started had not one editor been lower casing 3 or so articles every day week after week with the excuse I noted above of 'the MOS required it' or whatever other excuse he got in his mind that day or later an administrator saying 'he did not feel that the name was a proper name' in lower casing dozens of more articles. As long as such editing is tolerated/allowed/excused/encouraged, then we will have a mess and not an improved WP.  And WP does NOT 'downcase by preference' in MOS:CAPS opening; it seems to me to ask for reliable sources, but others here seem to like a popularity contest of counting any kind of content that might be around the Internet. Hmains (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "per MoS" means as suggested by the guidelines at WP:MOS, not that it's "required". Many editors do their best to bring diverse article styles into line with wikipedia style.  You're right that the question might not have come up if editors didn't work on such things; but they (we) do.  Such editing is widely approved of as a way to improve the Wikipedia.  Why do you oppose it?  How can the guideline at MOS:CAPS be interpreted to support capitalization of this term that most books do not?  Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree "a popularity contest of counting any kind of content that might be around the Internet" is not determinative. But how about the reliable sources of the article itself? May we focus our discussion there? Are the article's sources consistent in capitalization? Hugh (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of this article's sources do not use this exact title, capitalized or otherwise; the Britannica is the only one I found on looking through most of them (Did you find others that I missed?). The variety of references to the event are another indication that it doesn't have a "proper name".  The title is descriptive.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Did you find others that I missed?" The ref, currently the 2nd, is to the Online Encyclopedia of Chicago, a production of the Chicago Historical Society and the Newberry Library, a reliable source, and also includes a capitalized in-text reference to the subject of this article. Hugh (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "This would not have started had not one editor been lower casing 3 or so articles every day week after week" Yes, I remember that. I was really annoyed when he swept through articles in the Chicago project. Then I studied MOS:CAPS more carefully. Hugh (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmains, may I ask, scanning through this article's refs, how would you describe the capitalization of the subject of this article? thanks Hugh (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Support - the crazy capitalization theory that Hmains and RGloucester argue for has no basis in consensus guidelines, policies, or sources. This should be a routine action, given the clear evidence presented from books; just do it.  2620:0:1000:157D:6CBD:7325:B242:FBDE (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I endorse this post. Hmains' and RGloucester's "evidence" is deceptive, even if inadvertently so. Naturally the titles of most printed sources tend to be capped (which needs to be accounted for but is not by these two editors—why?). Usage of major sources strongly favours lower case, and Tuttle, a highly respected source on the topic, downcases in his main text. Now, those whose argument centres around "I don't care what Wikipedia style is": please note that there is a difference between proper noun and proper name—this is not a trivial distinction, and our article proper noun bears close reading. Ngrams (restricted to five words) yields ~10% of non-titular usage in upper case, using the search string ["the Chicago race riot of". "The" will exclude many titles that omit it, but some inevitably do use it; so that 10% is likely to be yet lower if it were possible to exclude that contaminating variable. If Hmains and RGloucester object to WP's house style announced at the opening of MOSCAPS, an RM is not the place to invent new guidelines—they should go to the talkpage at MOSCAPS. (Ngram result courtesy of [[User:Noetica]], whom I asked for advice.) Tony   (talk)  01:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't object to MOSCAPS, we object to your false interpretation of it. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discourse polite (your edit-summary branded my post as "nonsense"). Which part of "words and phrases that are consistently capitalized", and "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization" are we misinterpreting; this is a question alluded to by Hugh, above. I see no attempt to address the specific points raised, other than pleas that you simply don't like them. Tony   (talk)  02:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This capitalisation is "necessary" if one wants to write in English. Therefore, it must be written. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

 * You'll need to explain the basis of your necessity, not just state that it's necessary (particularly when other editors on this page clearly don't think it's necessary). You explanation will be greately assisted by anchorage in key parts of WP's article on proper nouns. Tony'   (talk)  02:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please, explain to me why the Britannica capitalises this item? RGloucester  — ☎ 02:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Capitalising is an option, but nothing like a necessity. If Britannica is in the estimated 10% that choose to cap, good luck to them. The eyes of far more professional editors—not to mention generalist writers—are on our consensual guidelines than Britannica could ever muster, with far more discussion, all in the open. Britannica is inconsistent, just as its content is demonstrably out of date and inaccurate compared with Wikipedia’s in many domains. If you believe we should be slaves to their stylistic whims, maybe we should close WP down as inferior. Tony   (talk)  12:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your arrogance is amazing. You will be the death of this encyclopaedia, and of English. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your user page tag says you are a member of the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Have you considered asking there to see if your ideas about English copy editing enjoy any support among others here who do that?  I suspect you'll find that the one who is out of step with English Wikipedia style, and English in general, is you.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't need to do any such thing. I know what's right, and I'll make sure to do what I need to do as such. If you'd like me to stop cleaning up articles, I'd be happy to do so. Far from Mr Tony's arrogant claims, most of Wikipedia is a mess of dismal and dingy prose or proseline that has no semblance of style. If he'd like to continue living in such a squalid mess, that's up to him. Me, on the other hand, I like to keep my house in order. RGloucester  — ☎ 18:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * RGloucester, please don't be rude to other editors (now, "arrogant"): it's not the way to win your arguments—and people aren't being rude to you. Now, you're going out on a limb, unilaterally declaring: "most of Wikipedia is a mess of dismal and dingy prose or proseline that has no semblance of style. ... a squalid mess". I'm sure we're feeling crestfallen at this description of our hard work over the years. You've been tending to make pronouncements rather than to engage in good-faith discourse about the specific matter at hand: "This capitalisation is "necessary" if one wants to write in English. Therefore, it must be written." And: "I know what's right, and I'll make sure to do what I need to do as such. ... I don't care what Wikipedia style is. I care about what's right. It is right that proper names be capitalised, and this is a proper noun. That's that." Well, we've all been put in our places, bent over and whacked with a cane rod, punishment administered where indicated. I'm sure people appreciate the strength of your passion for linguistic rectitude, but this alone is not a productive way to establish consensus on talkpages. Again, could you explain the distinction between proper noun and proper name? Tony   (talk)  13:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is clear to a primary schooler, tony, so I think it should be clear to You. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to move toward consensus with a fellow editor who claims he knows what's right and doesn’t care about WP style. Hugh (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Support Not consistently capitalized in RS. MOS:CAPS is clear. This is not hard. I'm comfortable talking, thinking, reading, and writing about things that don't have proper names. Capitalization is not necessary. In my thinking on this I initially was overly impressed by Britannica. I care what WP style is. Hugh (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Chicago race riot of 1919. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060615060650/http://www.chipublib.org:80/004chicago/disasters/riots_race.html to http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disasters/riots_race.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tulsa race riot which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Trying to Add Material About the Raft
I have tried to incorporate information that I believe is relevant and have had it removed with the last person removing it calling it a "creepy fixation". It is not MY creepy fixation but that of the white men of the time. Everyone talks about how the film Birth of a Nation (1915) has scenes depicting the fear of a black man showing sexual interest in a white woman. And many lynchings were over accused rapes of white women. So, including in the article that the young men in the raft were naked seems relevant to that issue that was so prominent at that time. Please advise without pejorative remarks? Pmdavis500 (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not shown that anyone at the time commented on it, nor have you provided any modern source or scholarship that has commented it. So, it does on the evidence presented so far appear to be solely your editing fixation. You rely solely on a single unconfirmed primary statement that is vague, at best, nor does stripping to your underwear or even naked to go swimming with other boys, and no women at all, let alone white women, suggest sex. And you provide no sources at all that make the interpretive or commentary claims you make about that statement. What makes you even think that stripping down to go swimming was unusual, there is no reason to think that was not ordinary. On this record, your addition violates multiple Wikipedia policies. Ping  who reverted these edits. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The modern source I was using is the same one used as a reference for other information for this wikipedia page, Chicago Magazine July 23, 2019, the article by Robert Loerzel "Blood in the Streets". I don't think it is about whether either of us think that being naked suggests sex to our minds. We are dealing with how people thought 100 years ago. It is about the minds of the people at the time. These are people who thought that the film "Birth of a Nation" was a great movie. Even if you ignore the plot, the acting is absurd. In our time, we are inundated by almost nude images and we prize very subtle acting. They wore bathing suits that look ridiculous to us and liked grotesquely over acted films. I think that there is no question that men alone liked to swim naked then and now. Lots of women do, too. It's normal. I am not saying that the young men on the raft were doing anything that young men wouldn't have been doing at the time if they thought no women were around. That's the point. It is not a criticism of them. The relevance is that the raft drifted over to an area where they were exposed. And in a racially segregated situation, the lack of clothing is an added issue that exactly fits in with the white male racial obsession with black men as a threat to white women of the time as depicted in the film "Birth of a Nation". That obsession is very well documented. Even in the 1950's the whole Emmett Till lynching issue was a Black man being seen as a sexual threat to a white woman. People dispute the details of what happened but I think everyone agrees that is the social terrain.Pmdavis500 (talk)
 * You still have not provided any modern source nor scholarship that has commented on it, nor have you provided any source at the time that cared about boys removing clothes to go swimming, at all. There is no reason why the people at the time must care about that, and no evidence that they did care about getting ready to go swimming.  You have provided nothing sourced to support your connection, you have turned a solitary vague primary statement about boys getting ready to go swimming, as people were known to do, and then leaped to sex.  Nowhere does the Chicago magazine article say anything about sex, nor does it even say naked, nor does it make the interpretive sex commentary you do (it is mostly a collection of primary statements). We can't take that vague primary statement and then make that leap to sex, not without reliable secondary sources that analyze that particular primary statement as exactly that. Despite what you may think you're doing, it's rather like you are inventing an excuse for the drowning, an excuse found in no sources. The sources don't even agree with you, they say it was breaching the beach segregation (and in that, it does not matter what one is wearing, at all, what matters is race, just race), not what the boys were wearing. (Besides, there is noting to suggest in the record or sources at all, that if these bathers had been girls breaching segregation, it would have been any different.) And that's just the raft, according to that witness it was not what happened on the raft itself that made it all blow-up, rather there would have been no days of interracial violence, if the black police officer had not been prevented by the white police officer from making the arrest. Your Emmet Till example goes entirely against you, for Till we have multiple secondary sources directly about sex and words of the murderers directly about sex -- we do not have that, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chicago race riot of 1919


text:
User:GeMLuRe

wikipedian handle of geMlUre adopted to deobfuscate handle geMlUre as an obfuscatiuon of gemlure.

title: User:GeMLuRe


text:
Talk:Mohammad Fazel Lankarani

{WikiProject Azerbaijan }}

Untitled
Proposing to move according to his own official website, a google search, and following the naming on Wikipedia for higher clergy such as cardinals and patriarchs, see also Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani for example. Gryffindor 02:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved. — Nightstallion (?) 08:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Typo? "Grand Ayatallah Fazel Lankarani " All other spellings are Ayatollah I'm going to change the spelling - please revert if I'm mistaken? J 02:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I think you're right to change as this is the most common spelling. My understanding is that it means Sign of God - "Ayat" = Sign "o" = of "Allah" = God; sometimes it can be transliterated in other ways hence Ayatallah but we should stick with the most common way AndrewRT(Talk) 18:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Grand Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani → Fazel Lankarani — as per WP:MOS about honorifics —Chris 17:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

 * Support Including titles in article names is an invitation to long names and quarrels about what titles the subject ought to have. We should do it only for disambiguation, and then with care. This doesn't need to be disambiguated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The BBC also uses Mohammed Fazel Lankarani. We probably should too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

I am removing his title from the article name and reverting to name only as per WP:MOS about honorifics-Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom doesn't have her queenly title, and Akihito isn't referred to imperially in his namespace. Chris 17:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Given Pmanderson's comment above, and Capitalistroadster's comment below, it seems that the name with "Mohammad" is preferred. This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 16:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Start classification
I have classified this article as a start. It needs to be chronologically rearranged so events are roughly listed in the order that they happened. At his death, the media was reporting that his name was Mohammad Fazel Lankarani so perhaps the article should be moved again. Capitalistroadster 18:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mohammad Fazel Lankarani. 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/20050320100908/http://www.lankarani.com/eng/bio/index.htm to http://lankarani.com/eng/bio/index.htm

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) 16:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mohammad Fazel Lankarani


text:
File:ViolentFemmesTheVeryBestOf.jpg

Fair use rationale for the article Permanent Record: The Very Best of Violent Femmes
I, Freekee, believe that the use of this non-free image in the article Permanent Record: The Very Best of Violent Femmes is fair because:
 * 1) No free or public domain images can be created for this record cover.
 * 2) The image does not limit the copyright owners' rights to distribute the record in any way.
 * 3) This image is widely distributed in other venues, so its use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible or visible than it already is.
 * 4) The cover art is being used for educational and informational purposes only, and its use is not believed to detract from the original album in any way, or deprive its copyright holders of any financial gain.
 * 5) The image is of lower resolution than the original cover. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, and could not be used as artwork on illegal CD copies of the album.
 * 6) It is used as the primary means of visual identification of the album.
 * 7) It is only a small portion of the commercial product.

''Note that this does not claim fair use in articles other than those listed above. If you wish to use this image in another article, please add a new fair use rationale below.''

title: File:ViolentFemmesTheVeryBestOf.jpg


text:
Talk:American nationalism

Comments
Saying that the US won the the war might give the wrong idea since Canada (and at the time britain) also claim to have won it. Add to that the fact that many historians claim that there were no winner on either side and it might be better to say that the unitedstaters *felt* that they had won the war of 1812.--Marc pasquin 16:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

POV
The very existence of this article is a problem, in my view. But if we're going to have this article, it needs to include a lengthy discussion of patriotism. (Indeed, the article on patriotism should be merged into this one, or vice versa.) I think the best solution, though, is to eliminate this article altogether. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-24 10:25 (UTC)
 * This, to me, is not an article about patriotism, but about American Nationalism. The 2 are not the same concept. Nationalism is often similar to patriotism but other countries have their own patriots and nationalists so to label an article "patriotism" and talk about the history of American Patriotism would not make sense.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Patriotism vs Nationalism
A well-researched well-written article on American Nationalism, in which the author argues that Nationalism and Patriotism are essentially the same thing, can be found in the Foreign Policy journal(register for free to view). The author goes on to outline what he considers to be the central tenets and paradoxes within nationalism in the United States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clare od (talk • contribs). Clare od 13:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Clare

 * A single article, no matter how "well researched" (that is subjective), is not sufficient to change the definitions of the words. A review of multiple definitions from multiple sources clearly indicates that nationalism and patriotism are not used as identical terms.  (Presumably, a "well researched" article would at least use a dictionary)

{http://www.Dictionary.com} gives 7 descriptions of nationalism:
 * 1. national spirit or aspirations.
 * 2. devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism.
 * 3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism.
 * 4. the desire for national advancement or independence.
 * 5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.
 * 6. an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation.
 * 7. a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation.

The same source, however, gives just one definition for patriotism:
 * devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty.

Although some of the definitions might allow for similar usage, clearly, nationalism also denotes more. Note the "excessive patriotism, chauvinism" definition or definition #5 which seems to indicate taking the interests of one's own nation above all others. To use an anology, the love of my children does not necessarilly imply distain for other children. It would seem necessary to have two different words for these positions.

Discussing nationalism in America is certainly a legitimate topic. But to redirect it from patriotism and claiming they are actually identical terms seems to deny the use of the terms in English. One can be patriotic without be nationalistic and, perhaps, even the other way around. These must be two different topics.74.93.87.210 14:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

"Nation-state" status
Sure, the US is universally considered a "nation-state" in the commonly-used sense of "modern highly-organized state in the international system", but it's very unusual to consider the country a nation-state in the classical European sense; i.e. a state strongly identified with a particular ethnic group.--Pharos 09:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * no, the USA is certainly not a nation-state; it is about as multi-ethnic and multi-cultural as they come. dab (𒁳) 11:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The "European sense" is not the only possible sense. The United States is a nation state according to the concept of civic nationalism. 192.104.127.38 (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources and POV
This article has an astounding lack of sources and references. It also has a POV problem and doesn't separate established fact from theory and opinion. It is just original research. "Words such as "freedom" and "homeland" became commonplace in everyday conversation", oh brother. Contralya (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. I think that if this article isn't drastically overhauled, it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.66.185 (talk) 07:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. Radical overhaul or delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.91.26.13 (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Keep it. Jonas Liljeström (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. Please give valid reasons for your thoughts when discussing.--Abusing (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's better...
The deletion discussion did not reach a consensus, so I removed all NPOV issues and many unverified claims. The article is significantly shorter, and still needs to be rewritten. I have removed the neutrality dispute template. If anyone feels there is still a problem, retag the artical and post your reasons here.--Abusing (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Off Its Mark?
Do I have the wrong definition of "americentrism" in my head, or is this article totally on the wrong track from the get-go? I will do some research before I say more.... and I could be wrong in my thinking already..... but I thought "americentrism" was a somewhat negative label, dealing with overzealous national ego, nearsighted world view....that sort of thing.

I'm a citizen of the US myself, so don't hit me if I sound rude! I AM going to research this subject before I say more..... itinerant_tuna (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I am understanding it better....

I clicked on a wiki-internal-link to read about 'americentrism' and I was REDIRECTED to 'Nationalism in the United States.' I didn't pay any attention whatsoever to the fact that I had been redirected.

BUT seriously - aren't they two TOTALLY different subjects - even OPPOSITES? Discuss?

itinerant_tuna (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I haven't heard the term Americentrism before, but perhaps an interesting aspect would be any maps which depict the American hemisphere in the center. This is something often done to make a map more familiar, and while its not that common as far as I know in the USA, it is perhaps a reason for a literal meaning of the word Americentrism.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Americophile redirect?
Why does that term redirect to an article primarily about how Americans view themselves? We certainly wouldn't redirect anglophile to English nationalism. --MichiganCharms (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The original article for Americophile was nothing but a definition, and was transwikied to the Wiktionary and redirected to United States. It was redirected here two years later (December 2009). I'm surprised the it hasn't been recreated as an independent article since it's initial redirection...uh, anyway, you're completely right and I'll have it redirect back to United States.   S warm  ( Talk ) 05:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I didn't fix it after I wrote that comment, but it is now ✅   S warm  ( Talk ) 04:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Section regarding views overseas
In an article that discusses the nationalist strain of American history and contemporary society, it seems a bit off-topic to have a section dedicated to favorable views of the United States within other countries.

My understanding is that in discussing any aspect of a nation-state, it is assumed that the "nation" component (from which "nationalism" gets its name) consists of the people and territory that form the social and physical/geographic basis of the country, and the "state" consists of the various governmental institutions that regulate and direct political and public life and conduct foreign relations. As a citizen of a country other than the United States is by definition not a member of the American national community, it would seem as though favorable views of the United States held by citizens of a foreign country would be more properly described as "Americophilia" or some equivalent term. If one is not a member of the nation that the specific form of nationalism being discussed refers to, then they cannot properly be described as a nationalist for the nation in question, and so the inclusion of views of the US from abroad in an article about American nationalism would improperly blur the lines between the mutually exclusive categories of in-group veneration of one's own group and out-group admiration of one aspect or another of a society of which one is not a part.

I would scrap this section entirely, but I won't if I'm of a minority viewpoint here. Feedback would be appreciated one way or the other, so that I can gauge others' interpretations before I do anything about it. --Apjohns54 (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Honestly I'm not sure what to do with these sections. They were never great to begin with, and the more I edit this article the more I end up having to throw away after realizing they're either plagiarism, self-published sources, or original research (e.g. using a photo as a reference, or some random guy's personal blog, or copy-pasting paragraphs from the Economist...).  That said, there does need to be an article about this somewhere.  It seems noteworthy, as especially in the past, there was a lot of pro-Americanism abroad (e.g. post WWII, post-revolution...) it IS notable.  However, although I think nationalism can be extended outside of a nation's borders, I agree it does seem kind of off-topic here; in no way would I consider a favorable impression of Americans to be anything approaching pro-American nationalism.  Any idea what article it should be merged into?  Perhaps into any relevant American-Countrystan diplomacy articles?
 * -- Joren (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that "pro-americanism" or "Americophile" (like Anglophile) should have it's own article, but the content in this is not worth preserving and/or merging. Gallup US Approval ratings are more helpful than that. I'd say just remove it.  Swarm   X 10:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on American nationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/harp/1122.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://thomasnastcartoons.com/selected-cartoons/uncle-sams-thanksgiving-dinner-two-coasts-two-perspectives/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

American National Proper Definition Source
See AnnaVonReitz.Com

She has clearly defined United States for America Nation, which I do not see in its proper entirety here.

All rights of non-prejudicial truth reserved,

Congregationalist Deacon John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3BF4:12A0:4C87:3CCD:FB90:BFF0 (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Political Commentators Under Trump Presidency Section
The following line is contained in the Trump Presidency section. ″

″During the Trump era, commonly identified American nationalist political commentators include Ann Coulter,[38] Alex Jones,[39] Laura Ingraham,[38] Michael Savage,[40] Tucker Carlson[41] and Mike Cernovich.[42]″

Is Alex Jones actually a political commentator? Surely, he is infamous, but does his name belong next to the others in the list? The cited article doesn't reffer to him as political commentator but a "far-right conspiracy theorist".

Does the list actually belong in the article at all ?

--2603:3024:1820:500:0:0:0:DFEF (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Berkeley Reader

Pro-American listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pro-American. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

In schooling.
Shouldn't there be a mention of the American teachers having students pledge their allegiance every school day? Wouldn't this sort of thing bring about the ideas of nationalism in youths? Tommy has a great username (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a discussion group. Material in our articles needs to be supported by citations from reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "It's recited in schools across the US every day by students standing stiffly with their hands over their hearts." Saying the Pledge of Allegiance every day would make any person think their country is better than others. That's Nationalism.
 * That's a citation in support of the fact that many students say the Pledge regularly, it's not support for your contention that doing so necessarily inculcates nationalism. Your conclusion is what needs to be cited. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

False equivalence?
The second paragraph of this article is pretty weird. Why is Hans Kohn given the same level of importance as George Washington and the United State Congress? He's just some historian, not the literal founder or main political organ of the nation. See WP:FRINGE.Smefs (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:American nationalism


text:
Permanent Record: The Very Best of Violent Femmes

Permanent Record: The Very Best Of is a greatest hits album by the band Violent Femmes. It was released on July 12, 2005.

Personnel

 * Gordon Gano – Lead vocals, guitar, violin (3, 4, 7, 13)
 * Brian Ritchie – Bass, vocals, xylophone (3, 4), jaw harp (6), guitar (8, 11), didgeridoo (11), reed organ (12), guitar solo (12, 14)
 * Victor DeLorenzo – Drums, vocals (tracks 1–11, 17)
 * Guy Hoffman – Drums, vocals (tracks 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)

Additional musicians
 * Michael Blair – Percussion (track 11, 13)
 * Steve Mackay – Saxophone (track 9)


text:
Talk:Pearly gates

My removal
I've removed the text about portals to other planets that was here. WP:NPOV requires that we cover significant points of view, and I don't think that was one. Meelar (talk) 16:59, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Image
It'd be nice to have an picture (or rather, an illustration) of how the gates are normally portrayed, if we can find one without copyright restrictions. 67.173.108.82 (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Book of Mormon quote
What exactly is the justification for the inclusion of the BOM quote in this article? It looks life a piece of crypto-proselytising to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horse-Coachee (talk • contribs) 00:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it Kristmace (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pearly gates


text:
Talk:Permanent Record: The Very Best of Violent Femmes

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 04:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


text:
User talk:GeMLuRe

Any discussion is appropriate here.--GeMLuRe 16:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Chaos Magic term first used?
I see you have mentioned thi sin the talk page of the Peter Carroll article but the whole talk page is a mess. Please see my question about this this Chaos Magic term and when it was first used here. I hope you will contribute. FK0071a 23:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:GeMLuRe


text:
William Bewick

William Bewick (1795–1866) was an English painter. Born in Darlington, County Durham, Bewick was the son of an upholsterer. He went to London to train under the painter Benjamin Haydon at the age of 20.

Bewick executed a large cartoon of some of the figures in the Elgin Marbles at the request of the German poet Goethe. He also worked as a copyist, so successfully that Sir Thomas Lawrence sent him to copy Michelangelo's frescoes of the Sistine Chapel in Rome in 1826. Upon his return three years later, he worked as a historical and portrait painter. Forced to retire by illness, Bewick spent his last 20 years in north-east England. Life and Letters of William Bewick were published by Thomas Landseer, the brother of the famous painter, in 1871. They form a source for Haydon's circle and include a character study of William Hazlitt, whom Bewick knew well. They include a description of the poet Foscolo reciting his poetry in the presence of Wordsworth.

title: William Bewick


text: File:BAR gamebox.PNG

title: File:BAR gamebox.PNG


text:
Talk:Hypothetical imperative

Comments
This article is off to a very good start. However, I would suggest that you make a section that include several examples of the hypothetical imperative. This would serve to give the reader a better idea of the term, beyond just what is explained in the overview. In addition, it seems as though you are not using the "Cite" button when writing, which would add a citation number directly behind whatever you are referencing. Because of this, it is unclear what exactly in your article you are referencing. In addition, I would add a little more background information about Kant, to give the readers insight into the credibility of this term and where it originates. Yannasummer (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 * This article was created in 2003. So hardly a new start article -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hypothetical imperative


text: Template:User tuba-3

title: Template:User tuba-3


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychord

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

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 06:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Psychord
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC test for notability. Admits that he hasn't had anything released, has no other claims. Icelight 17:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. …Markaci 2005-07-23 T 00:49:57 Z
 * Delete nn dj vanity. -- Etacar11   00:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn dj vanity. JamesBurns 04:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Sumo (disambiguation)

Sumo is a form of wrestling.

Sumo may also refer to:

People

 * Sumo (people), a people of Central America
 * Sumo language (disambiguation)

Science

 * Suggested Upper Merged Ontology, a foundation ontology for a variety of computer information processing systems
 * SUMO protein, small ubiquitin-like modifier

Arts and entertainment

 * Sumo, a character in Clarence (2014 TV series)
 * SuMo, abbreviation for the Pokémon Sun and Moon video games
 * Sumo (album), an album by The Superjesus
 * Sumo (band), an Argentine band
 * Sumo (book), a book by Helmut Newton
 * Sumo (comics), a Marvel Comics character
 * Sumo (Tamil film), an unreleased Indian Tamil-language film
 * Sumo Digital, a developer of video games
 * Sumo (video games), a genre of games based on the sport

Software

 * Simulation of Urban MObility (SUMO), an open-source traffic simulator
 * Sumo, a digital creative toolbox that includes Sumopaint 2.0, Sumotunes, Sumocode, Sumo3d, Sumovideo, and Sumophoto as of June 2020

Transportation

 * Supermoto, a style of motorcycle
 * Tata Sumo, a 4x4 sport-utility vehicle

Other uses

 * Sumo citrus, a marketing name for the Dekopon mandarin in the United States

title: Sumo (disambiguation)


text:
Ohio State Route 104

State Route 104 (SR 104) is a north–south highway in Southern Ohio. Its southern terminus is at U.S. Route 23 (US 23) in Portsmouth, Ohio and its northern terminus is at US 33 in Columbus. The route passes through or close to the towns of Portsmouth, Waverly, Chillicothe, Grove City, and Columbus. From Waverly to Chillicothe, it overlaps US 23.

Though officially a north-south highway for its entire length, SR 104 formerly was signed east-west through Columbus.

History
SR 104 is an original state highway with two parts: One from Portsmouth to Waverly, and one from Chillicothe to Columbus. The southern part of the route was decertified when U.S. Route 23 was certified in 1926. This southern route was replaced with the now defunct route number State Route 112. In 1951, the southern part of the route was recertified as State Route 104, connecting to the northern part of the route by overlapping U.S. Route 23. The route close to Portsmouth was concurrent with State Route 73.

In March 1951, the Ohio Department of Highways converted an 8+1/2 mi section of SR 104 south of Columbus into a test strip for traffic signs. It was the first in a series of experiments sponsored by the United Nations in four states and five other countries to compare the effectiveness of national traffic sign standards from around the world. A series of 24 signs from six countries were placed along the road along with distance gauges for 30 test subjects. The department abandoned the experiment four days after it started, after the signs attracted unexpected controversy and curious onlookers who posed a hazard. The experiments eventually led to the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals, which was adopted in many countries but not the United States.

Since 1968, SR 104's northern terminus has been extended twice – to U.S. Route 23 in 1968 and to U.S. Route 33 via freeway in 1989 – and its southern terminus has been extended twice into Portsmouth in 1972 and to U.S. Route 23 in 1974.

In 1998, a section of SR 104, concurrent with SR 73, in Scioto County had its grade raised out of the flood plain to prevent recurring flooding on the roadway in a $3.8 million project.

In 2010, a section of SR 104 north of Chillicothe to SR 207 in Ross County was widened into a four-lane highway. $6.5 million out of the $10.6 million cost to widen were from funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

title: Ohio State Route 104


text: Template:User bass-1

title: Template:User bass-1


text:
Saxonville, Massachusetts

Saxonville is a village located in northern Framingham, in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, United States. The village was originally settled by John Stone in 1647. Saxonville was named after the Saxon Factory Company.

Geography
Saxonville is located at 42.3203°N, 71.4404°W on the Sudbury River.

History
Native Americans lived and fished in the area of the Sudbury falls for centuries up through the 18th century.

The first industry in Framingham was a grist mill that John Stone erected at the falls on the river, granted by Act of the Great and General Court of Massachusetts. In May 1656, Edmund Rice and Peter Noyes surveyed 11 acre of land purchased by John Stone of Sudbury from the Indians that was supplemented by a grant of the General Court to Stone of an additional 50 acre at the Sudbury River falls. The mill rights were held by the Stone family for nearly two centuries when it became Saxonville Mills.

In 1865, a dam was constructed across the river, the remnants of the dam's control gates and gears can still be seen near the falls at Central Street, near the intersection of Central and Water Streets. An underground channel supplied water from above the falls to the manufacturing plant where it was used to drive water wheels or turbines to provide mechanical manufacturing power at the mill. The lower portion of the 1858 section of the mill where waste water exited the turbines and poured into the lower portion of the river is now behind flood control walls.

Through the 1960s, Saxonville still had its own operating dairy in a high, flat area on Danforth street about 3/4-mile east of the village center. The Twin Maple Farms dairy was located just east of Meadow Street, bounded by Danforth Street. The dairy maintained a small herd of dairy cows located in fields near Danforth Street. Until 1966, the dairy operated a fleet of delivery trucks that delivered fresh milk and dairy products to homes around area. Sometime around 1967 the dairy ceased operations. The dairy's milking machines and bottling facility were left idle and slowly deteriorated through in the early 1970s. The site is now occupied by residences.

The town operated the Saxonville Elementary School on the hilly portion of Elm Street, just above the village. Originally a wooden school house that held four large classrooms on two floors, it was replaced with a newer structure during the New Deal era Works Progress Administration. The original structure became known as the annex, and was still used into the 1960s. The building was razed in the 1970s when the town constructed a new gymnasium and cafeteria addition to the building. The school is now known as the Mary E. Stapleton school after a local school instructor and principal.

title: Saxonville, Massachusetts