text:
Harsens Island

Harsens Island is a wet marshy location at the mouth of the St. Clair River on Lake St. Clair, in the U.S. state of Michigan. Politically, the island is in Clay Township of St. Clair County.

History
The island was named for its first Euro-American settler, Jacob Harsen (sometimes referred to as "James") , who was a descendant of people from various ethnicities who populated New Amsterdam, including Dutch, Huguenot French, and Walloon on his father’s side ; his mother was Dutch. He was a direct descendant of David Pieterse Schuyler of the New York Schuyler family and Wolfert Gerritse van Couwenhoven. Harsen migrated from Albany, New York in about 1779, during the American Revolutionary War, with his daughter and son-in-law Isaac Gerrit Graveraet (or Graveret). Harsen bought the island from the local Native Americans in 1783. It was also known as "Jacob Island" (also James or Jacobus Island) as late as 1809. The name of the post office, Sans Souci, was changed to "Harsens Island" in 1960.

Great Britain and the United States disputed the island's jurisdiction for many years. The 1783 Treaty of Paris, which ended the American Revolutionary War, described the international boundary line with imprecise terms in several places, including the mouth of the St. Clair River. The area had not been surveyed at that time. In the most commonly known map of the area from that period, made by John Mitchell in 1755 and which was used in negotiating the treaty, the delta and all the islands at the mouth of the St. Clair River are absent.

According to the 1783 treaty, the boundary line was to run through the middle of Lake Erie until it arrives at the water communication between that lake and Lake Huron, "thence along the middle of said water communication into the Lake Huron". Due to this vagueness, all of the delta islands, including Harsens and Dickinson, were claimed by the British. Some persons located in the new United States who did not want to renounce their status as British subjects following the war moved to make their residences there. The area was administered by the Hesse District of Upper Canada, which also awarded land grants in the islands. In 1809, surveyors for the British government placed the boundary line in the north channel, which placed all of the delta and islands under British control.

But, the 1814 Treaty of Ghent, which ended the War of 1812, acknowledged the ambiguity of provisions in the 1783 treaty: "And, whereas, doubts have arisen, what was the middle of the said river, lakes, and water communication, and whether certain islands lying in the same were within the dominions of his Britannic majesty, or of the United States.' To decide these questions, two commissioners were to be appointed, one from each nation, to designate the international boundary. They executed their survey of the Detroit River, Lake St. Clair, and the St. Clair River in 1819 and 1820; and issued their final conclusions on June 18, 1822. Their decision regarding the St. Clair River delta was that the boundary should run north through Lake St. Clair, entering 'that mouth or channel of the River St. Clair which is usually denominated the Old Ship Channel; thence along the middle of said channel, between Squirrel Island on the southeast, and Herson's [sic] Island on the northwest, to the upper end of the last mentioned island, which is nearly opposite to Point aux Chenes, on the American shore; thence along the middle of the River St. Clair, keeping to the west of, and near, the islands called Belle Riviere Isle, and Isle aux Cerfs, to Lake Huron."

By this definition, both Harsens and Dickinson islands were placed on the U.S. side of the boundary.

In 1870 a case arose involving Hiram Little of Wallaceburg, Ontario, a captain who was given a contract to provide cord wood and supplies to a work crew. At the time, a ship canal was being dredged through the marshy areas near Lake St. Clair. By this time shipping was increasing and the need for a deep, free-flowing canal was required. During one trip to the work area, Capt. Little's ship was seized by U.S. officials who claimed he was operating illegally since he was in U.S. waters. Little protested, claiming he was in Canadian water, and challenged U.S. officials to prove their contention. After searching of documents, including contact with the Crown in England who supplied early charts of the area, Capt. Little was ultimately proven correct. To avoid further embarrassment, the U.S. officials moved the international boundary east, further infringing on Canadian (and First Nations) land.

The present St. Clair River, from Russell Island to Lake St. Clair, has been the international boundary line between Canada and the United States ever since. Some observers still disagree as to which nation should legally "own" Harsen's Island and the St. Clair delta area. The Walpole Island First Nation claims that Harsen's Island is unceded territory and properly belongs to them.

Harsens Island is the only U.S. island in the Flats that can be reached by automobile ferry, and is the only one with roads and an unincorporated community, Sans Souci. The island community had a public school, which has closed and been replaced by a restaurant. Other tourist attractions include shops, an art gallery, and a small airport. All the other U.S. islands—there are scores of them—are accessible only by boat.

Geography
The St. Clair River is an integral part of the Great Lakes, draining water from Lake Huron down into Lake St. Clair. Lake St. Clair then empties into the Detroit River, which flows into Lake Erie. The delta was formed about 6,000 years ago and long was a desired area of habitation by indigenous peoples.

The St. Clair River is the international boundary between the United States and Canada. The river carries more freighter traffic than the Suez and Panama Canals combined. Over 1 e9USgal of fresh water per day flow down the St. Clair River, and through its delta region, the St. Clair Flats.

Harsens Island is the major U.S. island in the Flats. The Canadian side of the Flats has the largest islands in the delta, including Walpole Island, which are among six islands controlled by the Walpole Island First Nation, made up of Ojibwa, Potawatomi, and Odawa peoples.

The St. Clair Flats supports a range of wildlife, such as the great blue heron, snapping turtles, watersnakes, muskrats, mink, whitetail deer, pintail, canvasback and mallard ducks, Canada geese and red-winged blackbirds. The area is a popular fishing spot, as yellow perch, large and small mouth bass, rock bass, carp, sunfish, pumpkinseed fish, bluegills, and silver bass are available. The State of Michigan owns about 75% of the area of Harsen's Island, and manages waterfowl and wildlife sanctuaries throughout.

title: Harsens Island


text:
Battle of Lacolle

Several battles have been fought at or near the town of Lacolle, Quebec, Canada:

 * Battle of Lacolle Mills (1812), British victory during the War of 1812
 * Battle of Lacolle Mills (1814), British victory during the War of 1812
 * Battle of Lacolle (1838), British authorities rout rebels during the Lower Canada Rebellion

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

title: Battle of Lacolle


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osuwari

 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. Woohookitty 17:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Osuwari
Anime fancruft. Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOT) —Tokek 22:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete — Japanese term meaning "sit". nn — RJH 16:38, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. – ishwar  (speak)  21:04, 2005 July 24 (UTC)
 * Delete nn foreign dicdef. JamesBurns 05:02, 26 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.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osuwari


text: User talk:69.193.229.231

title: User talk:69.193.229.231


text: User:Tardsmackdotcom

title: User:Tardsmackdotcom


text:
Drac's Night Out

Drac's Night Out is the title of an unreleased video game developed by Mark Lesser and Rex Bradford of Microsmiths that was produced for the Nintendo Entertainment System. The game featured the sponsorship of the Reebok Pump shoe.

Summary
In the game the player controls the infamous Count Dracula who, while wearing Reebok Pumps, has to first work his way down his castle while avoiding the hostile villagers. This could be accomplished by hypnotizing the villagers with his vampiric gaze, or by pulling a lever to spring one of many Rube Goldberg-esque hidden traps.

Once villagers are subdued, Dracula can then suck their blood and briefly turn into a bat to navigate through the tower. Scattered throughout these towers are also Reebok Pump power-ups. Once activated, Dracula is given a temporary speed-boost, as well as the ability to jump over villagers and holes.

When Dracula escapes the castle, he is given a large open town to explore and search for his bride, Mina. This will require hints such as finding maps and compasses from villagers. Patrolling the streets are hostile mobs and non-hostile villagers. After sucking enough blood, Dracula temporarily transforms into an invulnerable wolf to cover distance more quickly.

Dracula is also given the ability to suck the blood of sleeping villagers that will transform into Vampiresses and lead Dracula nearer to Mina's location.

Some villagers drop items like keys and flowers, used to open gates and homes. Dracula can also travel through secret underground shortcuts. Once the player discovers the building housing Mina, a congratulatory picture of the pair walking together appears and leads to the next 'round'.

Development
Although completed, the game was never officially released. However, a prototype has since been discovered and its ROM data released to the internet.

title: Drac's Night Out


text:
User:SM

Hi. I am a Wikipedia user from Finland. I mainly contribute to the Finnish language version of Wikipedia (fi:K%C3%A4ytt%C3%A4j%C3%A4:SM).

title: User:SM


text:
Wikipedia talk:Today's second feature

DYK / POTD layout
Originally on Talk:Main Page

So we have another couple of days to go before the next weekend of swapping DYK for POTD. I'm suggesting that we change the Main Page, so that the bottom right quarter is changed to be the 'Second Feature' which alternates between DYK - weekdays and POTD - weekends. To allow for planning, the link to the second feature is changed to

which transcludes daily subpages similar to "Today's featured article".

I've put a sample at User:Solipsist/MainPageTemp. And to show how the next few days might pan out;
 * Fri 22 July — MainPage 22 — Wikipedia:Today's second feature/July 22, 2005
 * Sat 23 July — MainPage 23 — Wikipedia:Today's second feature/July 23, 2005
 * Sun 24 July — MainPage 24 — Wikipedia:Today's second feature/July 24, 2005
 * Mon 25 July — MainPage 25 — Wikipedia:Today's second feature/July 25, 2005

As an extra challenge, the Featured Picture for the 23rd is due to be User:Geocachernemesis's rather nice panorama of Wellington, NZ. If the panorama proves too difficult to layout, we might be able to use a sample of the full panorama such as just the port.

Note that I've also placed the section title in the subpage so that it can also alternate, although at the moment there seems to be an extra blank line in the layout. -- Solipsist 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Please note that headers like within the template mess up section editing on pages this template is transcluded on (like userpages). Has there been a bug report for this? If there's no section edit link on the header, I don't want it to be seen as such. - Mgm|(talk) 21:37, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * If they can be included without that problem, I think it's worth trying. Though, I think it's a good idea to have a poll to get general concensus before fully implementing it. - Mgm|(talk) 21:40, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I can say with over a year's expereince writing up the FA that very wide pics are very bad for the main page. As such, I suggest solipsist use a different picture for Saturday. Sunday's Art Nouveau write up, on the other hand, looks spectacular. →Raul654 22:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that this setup assumes that there will be one DYK per day. This has been the case over the last few days while I've been following it, but I know in the past it's been updated several times per day and in fact the guidline is only to not update it any more frequently than once every 6 hours. MacGyverMagic, what do you think?--Pharos 00:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually that gives me an idea for an easier way. Double redirects don't work, but double transcludes do. So is there a problem with just putting Did you know on the weekday [Wikipedia:Today's second feature/xxx] pages?
 * Yep, that'll work. Once I or anyone else has more time, DYK could be updated more than once a day (4 times at most). - Mgm|(talk) 11:23, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've changed the example for the 25th above to show this. -- Solipsist 08:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There is the guideline Avoid using meta-templates, which emphasises that there can be performance problems with double transclusions. Clearly performance issues affecting the Main Page are going to be important to consider. My impression is that the performance hit comes from updating a template that cascades on to a large number of pages forcing them out of the caches. In this case, the double transclude should be fairly static and only used on a couple of pages, so is it likely to prevent the Main Page from being cache properly? -- Solipsist 06:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Following up on Raul654's comment on the problem with wide images: I guess the issue is with people who use narrow browser widths. What is the maximum image width that avoids too many problems?

I've changed Wikipedia:Today's second feature/July 23, 2005 to use a narrower detail from the full panorama. Not sure I'm totally happy with it though. -- Solipsist 22:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Wait... if today is the 22nd (or the 23rd, according to the user's time zone), why does the DyK for July 25 show up in the Main Page??? --Titoxd 02:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I put this in a related discussion above but I figure I should probably put it here too. I'm proposing, for several reasons including the change to featured pics on weekends, extending the DYK eligibility to 7 rather than 3 days. See the proposal and discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know.

I'd like to make a humble suggestion here -- why not have the featured pictures on weekdays, and did-you-know on weekends? That way, the articles that go on DYK can be polished up and expanded so as to be of high calibre. →Raul654 05:35, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the problem with that is we inherently want a lot of DYKs, because new quality articles is what Wikipedia is all about. But see the link to my alternative proposal above.--Pharos 05:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

A few changes I made
I've created TSFfooter to better reflect the layout of the other footers, such as TFAfooter. I also delinked the heading as that is better included in the footer. It has a more consistent look with the rest of the front page now. violet/riga (t) 22:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Protection / unprotection
Currently the Main Page uses

Under this scheme, every day one page has to be protected, and one unprotected. I intend to change this to

which links to Today's second feature/Monday. That way, there will only be 7 second feature subpages, which can be left protected indefinitely. If you want to archive the featured picture blurbs from weekends, it should be easy enough to move Today's second feature/Saturday to Today's second feature/August 6, 2005, for example. dbenbenn | talk 14:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I went ahead and implemented that change. dbenbenn | talk 14:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Heading
I dislike the inclusion of the header in this template. I think ideally second feature would transclude DYK and/or POTD as appropriate for that day and add the appropriate heading. If there are performance issues, then second feature should be eliminated and substituted directly on the main page. In either case the following code would work. Change the comment tag to swap.

Did you know...
Note that Today's featured picture/July 29, 2024 does not work yet.--MarSch 10:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Space on MainPage for TFPictures on weekends
Is it a good idea to encourage our TFArticle director, User:Raul654, to schedule longer TFArticles on weekends ? We can't predict nor control what will be on ITN. Having longer TFArticles means there is a better chance of having ample space for TFPictures, avoiding imbalances on MainPage. For instance, swapping Acetic acid and Black pepper on Today's featured article/December 2005 now is much easier than deciding, at 0:01 UTC on December 3, whether the bottommost blurb on ITN is old enough to get trimmed off. This is not sth we absolutely need to do, but I think will make life easier for those fellow admins who keep MainPage neat and tidy. IMO, MainPage looks very ugly when the right side is longer than the left. -- PFHLai 05:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Today's second feature


text:
User talk:FranceFan

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ,SqueakBox 22:36, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:FranceFan


text:
Esmé Stewart, 1st Duke of Lennox

Esmé Stewart, 1st Duke of Lennox, 1st Earl of Lennox, 6th Seigneur d'Aubigny (c. 1542 – 26 May 1583) of the Château d'Aubigny at Aubigny-sur-Nère in the ancient province of Berry, France, was a Catholic French nobleman of Scottish ancestry who on his move to Scotland at the age of 37 became a favourite of the 13-year-old King James VI of Scotland (and later I of England). Esmé Stewart was the first cousin of James' father, Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley (son and heir apparent of Matthew Stewart, 4th Earl of Lennox). Despite his conversion to Calvinism he was never trusted by the Scots and returned to France where he ended his days. Sir James Melville described him as "of nature upright, just and gentle". He was the first to popularise the firstname Esmé (spelt also Edme, etc.) in the British Isles.

Early life
He was the son and heir of John Stewart, 5th Seigneur d'Aubigny (d. 1567), by his wife Anne de la Queuille, a French noblewoman. His father was the third son of John Stewart, 3rd Earl of Lennox and his mother was the youngest daughter, and co-heiress, of François de la Queuille.

His father had inherited (through adoption from his great uncle Sir Robert Stewart, 4th Seigneur d'Aubigny (c. 1470–1544), the French Seigneurie (lordship of the manor) of Aubigny and its estates, including the Château d'Aubigny at Aubigny-sur-Nère in the ancient province of Berry, central France, built by him, also the nearby secondary seat of Château de la Verrerie.

Career
He spent much of his life in France, and succeeded his father as 6th Seigneur d'Aubigny on 31 May 1567. At the age of 37 he came to Scotland, where he was introduced to his first cousin once removed, the 13-year-old James VI of Scotland, when the latter made his formal entry into Edinburgh and began his personal rule. Esmé was an exotic visitor who fascinated the young James, who began to shower him with rewards and preferments. He was appointed to the Privy Council of Scotland, and on 5 March 1580, he was created Lord Darnley and Earl of Lennox (which title, having been inherited by King James from his paternal grandfather, had merged into the crown), with remainder to the heirs male of his body failing which to revert to the King. On 5 August 1581, he was created Lord Aubigny, Dalkeith, Torboltoun and Aberdour, Earl of Darnley and Duke of Lennox, with a similar remainder, as well as other favours.

Esmé Stewart's rise to power was resisted by the followers of the Earl of Morton, the former Regent of Scotland. An English diplomat, Nicolas Errington was at Stirling Castle in April 1580 when there were rumours of a palace coup. Errington reported that Esmé Stewart and his 24 armed followers barricaded themselves overnight in his rooms in the castle.

James VI gave Esmé Stewart jewels that remained from the collection of Mary, Queen of Scots, including in June 1581 a gold belt or chain of knots of pearls and diamonds, and in October 1581 a gold cross with diamonds and rubies, the "Great Harry" or "Great H of Scotland", a chain of rubies and diamonds, with a diamond "carcan" necklace with roses of gold and a pair of matching hair garnishings, another suite of carcan and back and fore hair garnishings, and other pieces. The gift was witnessed by Elizabeth Stewart, Countess of Arran, and officials of the wardrobe.

During his rise, he was careful to maintain his popularity with the Burgh administrators of Scotland's towns. For example, in July 1580 the English diplomat Robert Bowes reported that Lennox had obtained fishing rights in Aberdeen, which the deposed Regent Morton had given to his servant George Auchinleck of Balmanno, and had then arranged for the King to give this valuable source of income to the town.

In Presbyterian Scotland, the thought of a Catholic duke irked many, and Lennox had to make a choice between his Catholic faith and his loyalty to the king. Lennox chose the latter, who taught him the doctrines of Calvinism. Nevertheless, the Church of Scotland remained suspicious of Lennox after his public conversion and took alarm when he had the Earl of Morton tried and beheaded on charges of treason.

Ruthven Raid and exile
In response, the Scottish nobles plotted to oust Lennox. They did so by luring James to Ruthven Castle as a guest where they kept him as a prisoner for ten months. The Lord Enterprisers then forced James to banish Lennox. A lengthy denunciation of Lennox was issued from Stirling Castle on 17 September 1582, citing his religion, association with the murderers of Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley (King James's father) and Regent Moray and Regent Lennox and his control over the royal household and international intrigue. Lennox stayed for a while at Dumbarton Castle and at Rothesay Castle. In December whilst travelling south from Berwick on Tweed, by chance near Northallerton he encountered the French ambassador, M. de la Mothe Fénelon, who was travelling northward to treat with the Gowrie Regime. In London the Scottish poet William Fowler pumped Lennox for information which he sent to Francis Walsingham.

Return to France
Lennox returned to France where he started a secret correspondence with King James. He met a frosty reception in France as an apostate. Although the Scottish nobles believed that they would be proved right in their belief that Lennox's conversion was artificial following his return to France, he remained a Presbyterian.

His final letter to James Stewart, Lord Doune, requested him to take care of his son and to recover his former possessions in Scotland for his benefit. After Lennox's death William Schaw took his heart back to King James in Scotland, followed by his wife and eldest son Ludovic Stewart. King James had repeatedly vouched for Lennox's religious sincerity and memorialized him in a poem called "Ane Tragedie of the Phoenix", which compared him to an exotic bird of unique beauty killed by envy. King James I regarded all Lennox's family with great affection, and instructed his son King Charles I to do well by them. Charles faithfully fulfilled this obligation, and as a result, the Lennox family had considerable influence at the Scottish and English Courts over the next two generations.

Personal life
Around 1572, Lennox married his mother's fourth cousin, Catherine de Balsac (d. c. 1631), the ninth daughter of Guillaume de Balsac, Sieur d'Entragues, by his wife Louise d'Humières. By Catherine he had five children:

 * Lady Henrietta Stewart (1573–1642), who married George Gordon, 1st Marquess of Huntly and had issue.
 * Ludovic Stewart, 2nd Duke of Lennox (1574–1624), eldest son and heir who married three times.
 * Lady Marie Stewart (1576 –1644) (Countess of Mar), who married John Erskine, Earl of Mar (1558–1634) and had issue.
 * Esmé Stewart, 3rd Duke of Lennox (1579–1624), second son, heir to his elder brother.
 * Lady Gabrielle Stewart (born 1580), a nun in Glatigny, France.

Lennox died in Paris on 26 May 1583 and was succeeded by his eldest son, Ludovic (who married three times without legitimate issue). His widow outlived Lennox by many years and spent her later life at the family estate at Aubigny, where she was largely entrusted with the upbringing of their grandchildren, before she died sometime after 1630.

Titles

 * 31 May 1567: Seigneur d'Aubigny
 * 5 March 1579/80: Earl of Lennox, Lord Darnley and Dalkeith;
 * 5 August 1581: Duke of Lennox, Earl of Darnley, Lord Dalkeith, Torboltoun and Aberdour.

title: Esmé Stewart, 1st Duke of Lennox


text:
Rockin' the Joint

Rockin' the Joint is a live album by Aerosmith, which was released on October 25, 2005. It was recorded in January 2002 in The Joint at the Hard Rock Hotel in Las Vegas on their Just Push Play Tour, and consists of Aerosmith songs from throughout their career performed live.

This is the first Aerosmith album to be available in a DualDisc format, having one side of the disc being the CD side with the standard edition of the album, and a DVD side which featuring the album in enhanced stereo, behind the scenes footage, and 4 live tracks in video format. Multiple editions of this album contain bonus tracks, most notably the Japanese and Target Exclusive editions. Strangely, the bonus tracks are not included on the CD side of the Target dual disc release, only on the DVD side. While the non-DualDisc Target edition contains the bonus tracks in CD format.

The Japanese release was presented on two separate discs a CD and a DVD, as opposed to a DualDisc.

CD

 * "The Star Spangled Banner" appeared as a hidden track at the end of "Train Kept A Rollin'"

Personnel

 * Aerosmith
 * Steven Tyler – lead vocals, harmonica, mixing, producer
 * Joe Perry – guitar, backing vocals
 * Brad Whitford – guitar
 * Tom Hamilton – bass
 * Joey Kramer – drums, percussion
 * Additional musicians
 * Russ Irwin – keyboards, backing vocals
 * Production
 * Marti Frederiksen – producer, mixing
 * Guy Charbonneau – engineer
 * Sean Evans – art direction
 * Ian Gittler – photography

title: Rockin' the Joint


text:
Talk:Auschwitz trial

Difference: Execution site and date of Höß
The page on Rudolf Höß (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hoess) states that he was executed on April, 16, 1947 in front of one of the crematorium buildings at auschwitz, while this page states that all death senteces from this trial were executed on January 28, 1948 at Krakow. Could someone please verify this? tnx

2006-09-06 Also, how can it be that Rudoel Hoess was executed in April 1947 (as also stated in the article about Rudolf Hoess and on []) if the trial started in november 1947? Can someone make this clearer?

 * So far as i´ve seen on Law-Reports, there was a seperate trial on Rudolf Höß in Warsawa 11TH-29TH MARCH, 1947 - Source: Law-Reports of Trials of War Criminals, The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Volume VII, London, HMSO,1948 - http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/hoess2.htm. So his sentence felt in Warsawa. In Kraków there was a preliminary stage. I dont know the source.
 * --Asdfj 10:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hans Koch
Is the link in the text correct? It sounds like another person with the same name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.23.182 (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Due to the fact that the war criminal cited HERE was sentenced in 1947, and the Hans Koch on the other page was killed in 1945, I think it's clear that these are two different people with a fairly common-sounding name. I'm going to Be Bold and clear out that link. Empath (talk) 22:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this plethora of dead links to non-existent pages implores me to clean this up; I'll also check the people that do have pages to avoid another 'Hans Koch' issue. Empath (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move April 2014

 * 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. 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: Option 1 agreed, and so moved. Xoloz (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

 * OPTION 1
 * Auschwitz Trial → Auschwitz trial
 * Chełmno Trials → Chełmno trials
 * Doctors' Trial → Doctors' trial
 * Einsatzgruppen Trial → Einsatzgruppen trial
 * Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials → Frankfurt Auschwitz trials
 * Hamburg Ravensbrück Trials → Hamburg Ravensbrück trials
 * Majdanek Trials → Majdanek trials
 * Pohl Trial → Pohl trial
 * RuSHA Trial → RuSHA trial
 * next 3 added later by Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Stutthof Trial → Stutthof trial
 * Dachau Trials → Dachau trials
 * Belsen Trial → Belsen trial
 * Nuremberg Trials → Nuremberg trials
 * next 1 added later by Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Bełżec Trial → Bełżec trial
 * OPTION 2
 * Sobibór trial → Sobibór Trial
 * Treblinka trials → Treblinka Trials
 * next 1 added later by Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Mauthausen-Gusen camp trials → Mauthausen-Gusen camp Trials

– These are all trials related to Nazi Holocaust extermination and concentration camps, as listed in Category:Holocaust trials. They should be capitalised consistently. So far I am neutral, and have no preference between the 2 options; but the discussion may lead me to prefer one option, in which case I will make a !vote below. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * NOTE additions. I have just added to this nomination 4 pages which I had overlooked. Two editors have !voted so far ( and ); please would they be kind enough to indicate whether their !votes still stand after the addition of these 4 pages? Thanks! (and sorry for the inconvenience). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to contribute work to fixit any issues resulting from a move; just notify me. walk victor falk talk 21:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Support OPTION 1. Fixing it all would take a bit of time, but these were not the official designations (i.e. titles) of the trials as they took place, but only their descriptive names given later on by historians. To my understanding, capitalizing the word Trial implies the opposite. Poeticbent  talk  15:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Addendum: Please include in my !vote all of the above articles, but make sure that our subcategories in Category:Holocaust trials are fixed as well. It's a mess.  Poeticbent  talk  16:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever the outcome of this discussion, I will organise any necessary renaming of the categories. AFAICS, a speedy renaming per WP:C2D will be applicable. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support OPTION 1 per Poeticbent. walk victor falk talk 15:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support OPTION 1 and remove diacritics as most sources don't use them - it's a Wikipedia affectation. We need to add Bełżec Trial to the list for the same reason. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Bełżec Trial added in this edit. Please can the issue of diacritics be kept aside for a separate discussion, and applied consistently to all related articles? For example, Bełżec extermination camp and Bełżec Trial should be considered together, to ensure consistency. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support OPTION 1 as a descriptive not a designation. Agathoclea (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support OPTION 1; descriptions, not titles. I would rather leave them alone and have at least a few titled correctly, than go with OPTION 2, which seems clearly incorrect. TJRC (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support OPTION 1 (nominator finally climbing down off the fence) . I agree with TJRC and Agathoclea that these are descriptive titles (see WP:NDESC). As such they are not proper names, and should not be capitalised. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 11 April 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.

 * Note. Many of these articles have associated eponymous categories. I have just nominated them for speedy renaming to the lowercase format, at WP:CFD/S. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 3 November 2022

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was:. See below — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

– How should we capitalize Holocaust trial articles? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Auschwitz trial → ?
 * Belzec trial → ?
 * Belsen trial → ?
 * Sobibor trial → ?
 * Doctors' Trial → ?
 * Einsatzgruppen Trial → ?
 * Flick Trial → ?
 * High Command Trial → ?
 * Hostages Trial → ?
 * IG Farben Trial → ?
 * Judges' Trial → ?
 * Krupp Trial → ?
 * Milch Trial → ?
 * Ministries Trial → ?
 * Pohl Trial → ?
 * RuSHA Trial → ?
 * Chełmno trials → ?
 * Dachau trials → ?
 * Frankfurt Auschwitz trials → ?
 * Hamburg Ravensbrück trials → ?
 * Majdanek trials → ?
 * Mauthausen-Gusen camp trials → ?
 * Nuremberg trials → ?
 * Stutthof trials → ?
 * Treblinka trials → ?
 * Kharkov Trial → ?
 * Krasnodar Trial → ?
 * Ulm Einsatzkommando trial → ?
 * Eichmann trial → ?

 * Option 1 Singular trial names should be capitalized T (e.g. Auschwitz Trial) while plural group trial names should be lowercase t (e.g. Treblinka trials)

 * Option 2 Both singular and plural group trial names should be lowercase t (e.g. Auschwitz trial, Treblinka trials)

 * Option 3 Both singular and plural group trial names should be uppercase T (e.g. Auschwitz Trial, Treblinka Trials)

 * Option 4 All mixed (status quo, whatever the hell it is right now)

 * Option 5 Lowercase, unless a significant majority of sources have a consistently capitalized T AKA move requests should be individual based on the sources. (added 18:31, 3 November 2022 and further clarified 20:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC))

(I am primarily in favor of option 1, but also think option 5 would be fine.)

 * Auschwitz trial → Auschwitz Trial

 * Belzec trial → Belzec Trial

 * Belsen trial → Belsen Trial

 * Sobibor trial → Sobibor Trial

 * Ulm Einsatzkommando trial → Ulm Einsatzkommando Trial

 * Eichmann trial → Eichmann Trial

Keep current plural small t: Chełmno trials, Dachau trials, Frankfurt Auschwitz trials, Hamburg Ravensbrück trials, Majdanek trials, Mauthausen-Gusen camp trials, Nuremberg trials, Stutthof trials, Treblinka trials Keep current singular big T: Doctors' Trial, Einsatzgruppen Trial, Flick Trial, High Command Trial, Hostages Trial, IG Farben Trial, Judges' Trial, Krupp Trial, Milch Trial, Ministries Trial, Pohl Trial, RuSHA Trial, Kharkov Trial, Krasnodar Trial

It's been 8 years since the move discussion that took T>t for all the indicated articles (see above). I think we have a number of sources which treat some of these as a proper noun. What's clear to me from perusing the sources is that there are examples in the list which are proper nouns (the singular ones e.g. Auschwitz Trial, RuSHA Trial, Doctors' Trial, Bełżec Trial) and those which are not proper nouns (the plural ones e.g. Treblinka trials, Hamburg Ravensbrück trials).

I recently closed a move discussion (see here) which resulted in Doctors' trial > Doctors' Trial. I then WP:BOLDly moved the remaining 11 Nuremberg trial names to the capitalized T. But now I see there was a discussion in 2014 which went the opposite way. I am of the opinion that singular names should be capitalized (like other important events or places e.g. World War II or "The second World War", Wall Street Crash of 1929, Black Monday, White House, etc.) But specifically, as an illustrative example, here's all the data for the Auschwitz trial, Belzec trial, and the Doctors' Trial. See below for examples of sources which treat it as a proper noun and those that do not:

 * Proper noun (Auschwitz T rial): Wittman 2002, Kauders 2006, Pendas 2006, Swift 2006, Wolf 2006, Berghahn 2008, Wolf 2007, Bryant 2008, Wittman 2012, Pietrzykowski 2016, Davies 2022, Wittman 2022

 * Not proper noun (Auschwitz t rial): Pendas 2000, Guttenplan 2002, Allen 2007, Pelt 2002, Langer 2009, Wagner 2010

 * Mixed (both T and t ): Wittman 2003, Pendas 2013, Turner 2020
 * The ngrams are ambivalent.

 * Proper noun (Belzec T rial): Schreiber 2017, Fulbrook 2019, Kornbluth 2021, Wittman 2021

 * Not proper noun (Belzec t rial): O'Neill 1999, Browning 2007, Bryant 2011, Fulbrook 2017

 * Mixed (both T and t ): (none)

 * (ngrams not available).

 * Proper noun (Doctors' T rial): Caplan 1992, Lippman 1992, Grodin 1996, Moreno 1996, Wyszinski 1998, Marrus 1999, Schmidt 2004, Glaser 2008, Glaser 2009, Annas 2010, Frewer 2010, Taylor 2013, Aurey 2017, Grodin 2018, Shuster 2018, Wilensky 2018, Aurey 2020, the Harvard Law School Library Nuremberg Trials Project, the Florida Supreme Court, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, the State of Washington, Jewish Law.com, World War II Database, Jewish Virtual Library, the Museum of Jewish Heritage

 * Not proper noun (Doctors' t rial): Pross 1991, Shuster 2005, Lemaire 2006, Moll 2012

 * Mixed (both T and t ): (none)

 * ngrams clearly in favor of capital T Doctors' Trial.

 * The Chicago Manual of Style doesn't have an entry on trials, but it itself does not capitalize "Haymarket trial" whereas Encyclopedia.com actually does as does the Encyclopedia Britannica. The AP Style Guide has no entry on this.

 * As for policy and guidelines: MOS:CAPS would appear to support Option 1 or Option 3, as per: Spiritual or religious events are capitalized only when referring to proper names of specific incidents or periods (the Great Flood and the Exodus...).
 * MOS:AT and WP:PROPERNOUN specifically are ambivalent and defer to usage in prose in our sources as per above.
 * WP:CONSISTENCY would tell us to just make a decision on this and stick to it. It probably leans slightly in favor of Option 1 or Option 3, given that "Doctors Trial" is now a title determined by local consensus. But, of course, more global consensus trumps more local consensus.

My personal inclination is towards Option 1, as it is the best consensus via compromise of the sources, the policy, and status quo (and doesn't overrule the recent move discussion which would have precedent). Moreover, a good test to use where determining if something is a proper noun (especially an event) is to ask oneself: which ____ is it? Is this a special ___? or just any old ____ ? In this case, the "Auschwitz Trial" is a very specific trial/event, that is enshrined forever in history as a notable moment. A la the "Wall Street Crash of 1929". Whereas the "Treblinka trials" are a collection of events which each are not any more notable than the others. But, anyway, what does everyone else think?— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC) (edited for clarity and to adhere to RM rules 12:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC))
 * Note: fourth proposal has been slightly altered to remove the diacritic, because Sobibór trial redirects to Sobibor trial, and redirects are ineligible to be current titles in move requests.  P.I. Ellsworth  , ed.  put'r there 20:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Doctors' Trial → Doctors' trial
 * Milch Trial → Milch trial
 * Judges' Trial → Judges' trial
 * Pohl Trial → Pohl trial
 * Flick Trial → Flick trial
 * IG Farben Trial → IG Farben trial
 * Hostages Trial → Hostages trial
 * RuSHA Trial → RuSHA trial
 * Einsatzgruppen Trial → Einsatzgruppen trial
 * Krupp Trial → Krupp trial
 * Ministries Trial → Ministries trial
 * High Command Trial → High Command trial

 * Most of these have no consistent capitalization either way, and therefore should be lowercased in Wikipedia per our capitalization rules. For examples, see Ministries T/trial and Einsatzgruppen T/trial. Some such as IG Farben trial appear to be trending towards the capitalized version but others such as Flick trial and RuSHA trial show the opposite pattern (during a time period when the Wikipedia articles were capitalized). In case someone is concerned that the lowercase versions might refer to something else, the Google Scholar results are pretty clear and also show mixed capitalization. Also, the capitalization of these trials should match the parent article, subsequent Nuremberg trials. In other cases such as Auschwitz trial the community has opted to lowercase "trial" in article titles. (t · c)  buidhe  17:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC) (moved from Talk:Ensatzgruppen Trial 19:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC))
 * @Buidhe, here you say Most of these have no consistent capitalization either way, and therefore should be lowercased in Wikipedia per our capitalization rules which capitalization rules are you referring to? I see nowhere a policy which lists a consensus in favor of lowercase in ambiguous situations. I believe, in ambiguity, we default to the most recent discussion, or if it has been long enough, we hold a new discussion to see if consensus has changed. Nowhere is there a consensus which states that lowercase is the default in event/court case titles. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the relevant guideline, Naming conventions (capitalization), which notes that titles should only be capitalized if they would be in running text. Then check out the linked guideline Manual of Style/Capital letters, "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." (t · c)  buidhe  04:18, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the policies I mentioned above and below several times. They default to the sources, which are ambiguous in many of these particular trials. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 10:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then Wikipedia defaults to lowercase, as the guidelines state. (t · c)  buidhe  03:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Addenum: the official short names of these trials end in "case", so "Justice Case" etc. These were originally capitalized and are generally capitalized in RS but the unofficial names with "trial" are not consistently so. (t · c)  buidhe  17:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC) (moved from Talk:Ensatzgruppen Trial 19:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC))
 * Agree with buidhe, per their reasoning in addenum, above. Kierzek (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC) (moved from Talk:Ensatzgruppen Trial 19:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC))
 * Regarding Doctors' Trial in specific, a move request to the current title was closed at 12:46, 3 November 2022, literally 5 hours before this discussion was initiated. See Talk:Doctors' Trial. -Ljleppan (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC) (moved from Talk:Ensatzgruppen Trial 19:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC))
 * Note: above comments made prior to this notice were moved from Talk:Einsatzgruppen Trial, where a similar move discussion was also started today— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProjects Germany, Law, Jewish history, and Medicine have been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I am happy to add any and all relevant sources, policies, etc. to the above RM listing. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused about why buidhe's RM proposal to move some topics to lowercase titles was "procedurally closed" in favour of merging that discussion into a (slightly) later RM discussion to move some other topics to uppercase titles instead. Am I missing something? — BarrelProof (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's overall a mess, because I closed a move for "Doctors' Trial" earlier today, and then BOLDly moved the remaining 11 Nuremberg trial articles to the capital T for consistency. This triggered @Buidhe's move discussion, which ignored the preceding RM close which would have precedence over at least 1 of 12 titles and make their RM malformed. Meanwhile, I had been writing the above discussion since the moment i finished moving the 11 aforementioned. I think it's important we have it all in one place. The RM I was writing includes the articles they reference, but also more detail on the background, ngrams, and other title features. Their proposal is the essence of "option 2" in this RM. Their RM has no listed choice for any of the other options listed here, and ignores the existence of the other articles. So I merged the two RMs together so that we could have the discussion all in one place. If you have issue with that, we can revert to two move discussions, but I think that would be a really terrible idea, which would make achieving consensus much, much harder. I truly truly do not care which way this goes, but I want all the information in one place so everyone can make an informed decision. This is one of the best possible and most worthy reasons for editing other user's comments (see WP:MULTI)
 * I guess I'm not objecting to merging the discussions then. However, I note that some of the above comments copied from the other discussion may not apply to all of the topics in this expanded discussion. — BarrelProof (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, that's also why I did not attribute any !votes to any user, and clearly noted in the discussion which comments were copied. I'll even make it more explicit. But anyone can feel free to state their opinions on the overall RM regardless of what they said before, and every one of those users was pinged when I moved the discussion. It's definitely messy, but I think the overall result should be very workable and allow us to come to a consensus, which is the most important thing. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Lowercase unless clear evidence that common usage is fully capitalized (Option 4, I guess?): The relevant part of WP:MOS appears to be WP:LOWERCASE, which states The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized by default; otherwise, words are not capitalized unless they would be so in running text. This is matched by the guideline at WP:CAPITALIZATION, which says Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name. For Doctors' Trial in specific, I think the evidence presented at the recently closed move is sufficient to demonstrate that for it, the WP:COMMONNAME indeed is fully capitalized. No idea about the others. -Ljleppan (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So is your position that we should individually assess each title to see which have a fully capitalized COMMONNAME, and go with that? I've added this as "Option 5". The argument boils down to a disagreement between WP:LOWERCASE/WP:CAPITALIZATION, which defer to the sources, and WP:CONSISTENCY, which would have us figure out which is the predominant form and do that for all of them . (edited for clarity 12:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All of them should be lowercase unless there is a specific set of them or single trial that is consistently capitalized in reliable sources.
 * I also don't appreciate your shutting down my move request which was started earlier. There is no reason all Holocaust related trials must have the same capitalization, unless they are actually concretely related to each other, for example the subsequent Nuremberg trials. This discussion is honestly a trainwreck. (t · c)  buidhe  04:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you rather the two move requests happened independently? We have the 2014 move request, which was a consensus (albeit, an old one) which included all of these trials as a single category (holocaust trials). So it would be poor form (and subsequently confusing) to have local consensus discussions which supersede this more global 2014 consensus. We need to make sure whatever we decide, even if it’s to treat them differently, includes consideration of that more global discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 10:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess my input is that capitalization varies between the different trials. Doctors' Trial and Judges' Trial are both overwhelmingly capitalized in sources, while other examples are less clear or go in the opposite direction. I do notice some differentiation on the basis of whether the 'title' of the trial is a proper noun. I.e. it's perfectly natural to say "Nuremberg trial" but "Doctors' trial" would be internally inconsistent (neither is a proper noun but one is capitalized while the other is not). Same for the Judges' Trial, Hostages Trial, and High Command Trial. Which is ultimately why I nominated Doctors' Trial to be moved - seeing it written in all lowercase as "doctors' trial" in the article just seemed odd and apparently the scholarly sources agree. I have not gone through the Ngrams of them all but this is a basis for capitalization I have noticed. I think we should either a) leave all at status quo and nominated individually as needed; or b) make a broader finding based upon whether the first word is a proper noun or just a descriptor of the defendants. ‡ El cid, el campeador  talk  15:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a thoughtful response, just one point I want to clarify: where usage is less clear, i.e., close to 50/50, CAPS requires lowercasing. Also, re the proper noun point, perhaps that is the underlying reason why sources tend toward one form or the other, but Wikipedia usage should be governed by the sources' usage, not that underlying reason, per CAPS. Wallnot (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * re the proper noun point, perhaps that is the underlying reason why sources tend toward one form or the other, but Wikipedia usage should be governed by the sources' usage, not that underlying reason This would argue in favor of capitalizing T trial if the sources do. Is that what you intended? Because it is the opposite of what you put below. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what you mean? My point is that we shouldn't use the observation "sources tend to lowercase trial after a proper noun and capitalize it after a common noun" dictate usage on Wikipedia; usage should be controlled by whether a substantial majority of reliable sources consistently capitalize it. Wallnot (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I wanted you to clarify, thank you. It seems as though you are saying that, for each article, "if a substantial majority of reliable sources" "consistently capitalize", then we should as well. This is Option 5 in my description above. Let me know if that is indeed what you mean. There are a number of examples in which more than 2/3 of sources "consistently capitalize" so in such instances, I would think we should as well. There are also examples where that is absolutely not the case, and in such cases lowercase makes more sense. that much is uncontroversial. I suppose it depends on what "substantial majority" means. To me, it means more than 2/3. To SMcCandlish, it appears to mean 90+%. I don't believe there is consensus on that particular point, and I do not think we are going to (or should) figure that out here. We would have to go article-by-article and determine whether the sources are sufficient or not to capitalize. (and, I suspect, various editors would disagree on which sources should and should not count)Can you please clarify that in your reply below, where you say "all lowercase" which would be option 2 above, but here you clarify you actually mean option 5.... — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be case by case. You seem to think that would be cumbersome, but that is what the guideline requires, and as buidhe observes, this discussion has become a mess, and it does not seem to have been necessary to centralize the discussion for all the Nuremberg trial pages.
 * Something I want to clarify here, as it seems you are misunderstanding the intention behind CAPS: by design, there is a strong presumption against capitalization in the MOS. That is, the default is lowercase. We capitalize things only when the overwhelming majority of sources do so. People often quibble over what a proper noun is; CAPS avoids such debates by simplifying the argument and asking just "what do sources do?". Take, for example, something that is indisputably a proper noun: Germany/germany. Over 99.7% of usages are capitalized.
 * Two-thirds is not a substantial majority because the ngram tool captures headings, in which all words are headline-style capitalized even if not proper nouns. Consider as a counterexample something that is indisputably a common noun: the word beaver. In 1916, nearly 75% of sources capitalize beaver—should we believe that people in 1916 believed it was a proper noun? Cf. the word president, which is typically lowercase on Wikipedia.
 * Finally, I did not vote for option 5 because I do not mean option 5. I specifically referenced SMcCandlish's vote because he appropriately notes that the default is to lowercase everything unless the required showing is made for each article title. Cf. Buidhe's comment that All of them should be lowercase unless there is a specific set of them or single trial that is consistently capitalized in reliable sources. To the extent it is desirable to be WP:CONSISTENT, the default should be to lowercase all of them for the reasons I have given. Wallnot (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to think that would be cumbersome oh not at all! I am sorry if I gave that impression. I think it's perfectly fine. I originally was in favor of option 1, but okay with option 5. I want to be extremely clear here. I centralized discussion because we had a former move request on this exact page from 2014 which centralized this exact disagreement. We need to deal with that former consensus. And it appears we are doing that easily and without much disagreement. As they say, hindsight is 20/20, and this discussion could have gone another way. Per the consensus that is developing, Buidhe's RM would also have been inapt, as it attempted to 1) overrule a discussion 5 hours earlier (which should almost never be done) and 2) make all of them lowercase regardless of the sources (which it appears most people here also think is a bad idea).CAPS avoids such debates by simplifying the argument and asking just "what do sources do?". Perhaps the issue is that option 5 is not clear enough as worded. I interpret it to mean exactly what you say. With the clarification (see above) would you support option 5?as buidhe observes, this discussion has become a mess actually you should more accurately say "as both Shibbolethink and buidhe have observed". I also said this exact thing above. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All lower-case, unless and until in some specific instance an overwhelming majority of sources capitalize it. PS: Almost all of these things have other names that are their actual proper names: the case names. E.g. "Milch trial" is really The United States of America vs. Erhard Milch.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC); rev'd. 20:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @SMcCandlish@El cid This is the sort of ambiguity that is not very helpful in this situation... See Doctors' Trial above and Flick Trial below. Are these "overwhelming" enough? or not? A majority of scholarly sources capitalize in both cases. But what is an "overwhelming majority?" 75%? 90%? 99%? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I promise. But I want this to be as not-ambiguous as possible so the consensus ends up being useful, in case we have to go and do RMs for each and every trial which appears to have a lot of capital T usage. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:CAPS expects a substantial majority, and in practice that means 80+%, more or less. If we wanted to have a specific number we would have one by now.  We also have WP:CONSISTENT policy to contend with here, though.  To surmount that, I would expect to see 90+% for an exception to be made to lower-casing, which is the default rule.  We also have MOS:DOCTCAPS, which says not to capitalize things just because in-subject materials like to do so (see also WP:SSF for an essay about it).  I would almost bet money that the sources you want to rely on to capitalize are mostly in-subject materials, not sources independent of the subject.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In what way precisely would this count as a "doctrine" or "school of thought"? Are you referring to "law" or "history?" What would count as "in-subject" here? Being jewish? Being a historian? Being a lawyer? Essentially every single source I have linked (on all sides of the discrepancy) is one of the following, in order of prevalence: 1) legal journal articles, 2) history journal articles, 3) textbooks, 4) professional monographs, 5) Academic dissertations. I carefully removed any which were from historical revisionists or holocaust deniers, and if there are any left on any of these lists I would be happy to remove them still. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In-subject would be being a law-review article, law-degree dissertation, or the like. Lawyers writing for lawyers, versus, say, journalists or historians or other encyclopedists writing for the general public. This question and its rather obviousness is why I referred you to the essay, which covers this in more detail than is probably necessary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Does "legal history" count as "law" or "history"? I don't think you're right about sources on one side or the other falling on one side or the other and I would, humbly, ask you to back up that assertion. I also would dispute whether historians in these cases write for the public or for other historians, as in every scholarly journal. I included no popular press books, for the most part. I think the only popular press book I linked for Flick, for instance, capitalizes "Trial": Mallick 2018 (p. 178) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I decline to go 8 rounds with you in this trivial back-and-forth. If you don't understand how the entire paragraph of DOCTCAPS and the clear and obvious overall meaning behind it apply here, just because the literal string "legal case" isn't included in it, then I can't help you (especially given that the material already includes a legal example, "Draconian laws of athens", not "Laws"). Please extrapolate, like everyone else, from a clear principle to specific instances and don't wiki-lawyer over technicalities. You know as well as I do that it is not possible for any WP:POLICY document to presage every imaginable applicable scenario; our policies and guidelines would be 100× longer if they attempted to do this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No I completely agree with you that's an accurate interpretation of MOS:DOCTCAPS if the legal profession always capitalizes "Trial" in cases like this and very few other people do, but I'm not sure it applies as much as you are proposing it does to the sources I provided. Especially given that several "law review" articles also did not capitalize, and several historians did. If it were the case that this was an issue of legal writing convention, I wouldn't expect that to be the case. I'm not wikilawyering you, I'm just saying you're applying it without even checking to see that it's true here... — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All lower-case, unless it can be shown on a case by case basis that a substantial majority of sources consistently capitalize, per SMcCandlish. Wallnot (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Some additional source reviews

 * Proper noun (Flick T rial): Grace 2001, Herz-Gonz 2006, Van Schaack 2007, Catalayud 2008, Arai 2009, McGregor 2009, Wanless 2009, Kuner 2010, Karstedt 2015, Sfekas 2016, Sfekas 2017, Mallick 2018, Stahn 2018, Slye 2020

 * Not proper noun (Flick t rial): Stallbaumer 1995, Wiesen 1996, Donihi 2012, Priemel 2013, Ridley 2018, Shiba 2021

 * Mixed (both T and t ): Hallgarten 1952, Bosman 2008, Heller 2011, Perich 2011, Nathan 2016, Ridley 2019,Brudney 2020, Diaz 2021
 * The ngrams are ambiguous but maybe lean slightly towards capital T "Flick Trial".

(note, I had to remove a lot of false positives from "flick trial" and "flick trials" which were for scientific studies of tail flicks, or other "flicks" which were not related to the holocaust.)

 * Proper noun (IG Farben T rial): Frei 1945, Honig 1949, Wortley 1949, Knierim 1961, Muller-Schieke 2001, White 2001, Zuppi 2005, Wolf 2007, Lopez-Munoz 2008, Lopez-Munoz 2009, Alamo 2009, Wanless 2009, Schmaltz 2010, Danforth 2011, Morrissey 2011, Tsabora 2014, Donohue 2015, Kolieb 2015, Weindling 2015, Ambos 2016, Kaeb 2016, Beyes 2017, Roelcke 2017, Simunek 2017, Weindling 2017, Witt 2017, Searles 2019, Brudney 2020, Wallis 2020, Weindling 2020, Van Ho 2020

 * Not proper noun (IG Farben t rial): Juma 2006, Geneuss 2010, Jessberger 2010, Weigend 2012, Little 2013, Ryngaert 2014, Stahn 2018, Blewett 2019, Erlinger 2019, Lowrey 2020

 * Mixed (both T and t ): Deichmann 2002, Doerries 2003, Juma 2007, Kuner 2010, Kremnitzer 2010, Perich 2011, Lanoie 2012, Lentschener 2019, Heinrich 2021, Schappacher 2022
 * The ngrams lean pretty heavily towards capital T "IG Farben Trial".

— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: WP:SNOW Withdraw in favor of individual move requests (AKA there should be no over-arching rule here other than what MOS:CAPS says)
From the way this discussion has gone, it's clear that, contrary to 2014, the community is not interested in doing the exact same thing for each article in this group. AKA we think MOS:CAPS is more important than WP:CONSISTENCY for this group. Instead, it seems we would like to have the titles determined on an individual basis per MOS:CAPS, which says that we should do non-standard capitalization of the T in Trial only when a "substantial majority" of sources "consistently capitalize" the T in trial. I am perfectly happy to withdraw this RM in favor of move requests which are article-by-article and only for those which could reasonably be construed to have a "substantial majority." We can then disagree about what "substantial majority" and "consistent capitalization" actually mean for each article, based on the available sources.

I'll rv the t>T WP:BOLD moves on the subsequent Nuremberg trial articles I did on Nov 3 which were not already at capital T (a few were already at capital T). Anyone who would want to change those already at capital T should probably do an RM on them T>t, as they have been at capital T for 17+ years (e.g. Ministries Trial, Milch Trial, Judges' Trial, IG Farben Trial, Hostages Trial, High Command Trial, just my opinion and not part of this proposal).

Does anyone emphatically disagree with this? As proposer, I have no interest in standing in the way of that or delaying anything. If nobody here thinks this is procedurally out of order (I'm quite confident it is not) or a bad idea, I'll withdraw in a day or so. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest individual move requests; I said each move will have to be evaluated independently. There's no reason that can't happen on this page. My point about making a mess of it was that you've generated an enormous amount of text with relatively little input from anyone but yourself. Splitting the individual evaluations across multiple pages will make things impossibly complicated. The best approach would be to pull ngram data for each article title, post it here in a centralized, non-messy way, and make the call en masse. Wallnot (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not suggest individual move requests You did not, and you are not why that's the next step. Policy is. The more narrow the consensus, the easier to achieve, and the longer it is maintained.My point about making a mess of it was that you've generated an enormous amount of text with relatively little input from anyone but yourself; The best approach would be to pull ngram data for each article title, post it here in a centralized, non-messy way, and make the call en masse, Okay, feel free to do the rest yourself, if you believe you could do it in a more "non-messy way". No one is stopping you. I solicited input, I advertised at multiple venues, I concatenated comments and collapsed information that does not need to be perma-visible. As I said above, happy to take specific suggestions instead of broad denouncements. However, move review may have something to say if you decide this page, here, here on the Auschwitz trial talk page, is where we should individually decide for every other article what to do. Page titles should not be determined en masse unless it is a consensus decision applying to every page, or a change in convention. This would absolutely be an inappropriate venue for deciding the name of a different article on an individual basis for that article. This page has no overarching relationship to those other pages other than the prior RM. There are stakeholders on individual pages who may desire input, and would not be alerted if and when this discussion is closed as no consensus, option 5, etc. If we have no over-arching consensus, I will be withdrawing the RM tomorrow. You have described no policy or guideline which would make my withdrawal out of order. As you've said, I have spoken too much, so I will withdraw the RM, submit RMs at pages I believe there is consensus in the sources, and then let the RM process, as intended, take its course. You can then do whatever you want.My overall take is that you're being unnecessarily antagonistic in this discussion. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ...if it isn't appropriate to make a decision here about the titles of other pages, then why did you start the discussion about the titles of other pages here? Wallnot (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ..if it isn't appropriate to make a decision here about the titles of other pages - That isn't what I said. I said: if we are not determining an overarching WP:CONSISTENCY consensus for all of these pages, then this is not the right venue for determining their titles. If we aren't doing the same thing for all of them, or endorsing the prior RM, then we should determine the titles on the applicable talk pages, as would typically be customary. I could wait until this RM is closed as nocon, or option 4, or option 5, or whatever, but that seems a massive waste of time. Like this discussion. I'll stop replying now, thanks. Have a nice day. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Not sure why the attitude though. Also, can you self-revert your bold moves in light of WP:PCM and the above RM from 2014? Wallnot (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll rv the t>T WP:BOLD moves on the subsequent Nuremberg trial articles I did on Nov 3 which were not already at capital T (a few were already at capital T). —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And sorry if my tone came across as hostile. Like you, I am just trying to think about the most efficient way to do things. Apologies if I didn't communicate civilly in doing so. Wallnot (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's okay, really. I was a bit short too, probably due to stress outside-of-wiki (which is why I'm procrastinating by over-focusing on things like this RM). No harm no foul. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

title: Talk:Auschwitz trial


text:
Talk:Rockin' the Joint

Cover Art
Why the glorification of smoking on the cover? 20:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FiggazWithAttitude (talk • contribs)

title: Talk:Rockin' the Joint


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Madchester

Madchester
final (13/0/0) ending 22:35 30 July 2005 (UTC) Madchester has 3,100 edits and has been here since January. He reverts vandalism a lot. Near 650 edits in the user talk and talk namespaces. I feel he would benifit from admin powers.Howabout1 Talk to me! 22:37, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I cordially accept this nomination :-) --Madchester 03:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Support as nominator. Howabout1 Talk to me! 22:40, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Madchester has made many, many excellent edits to articles that I watch and he has always been civil in disputes. Acegikmo1 22:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Madchester has been at Wikipedia for a good length of time, has a good amount of edits, and his dedication to Live 8 and "Make Poverty History" shows he is a good person. Osu8907 06:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Looks like a good user to me. Deb 08:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Sango  123  22:28, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Disclaimer: We know each other in real life before we became Wikipedians. Neutral for now. Seems a good candidate. Guess we will talk about this in tonight's accounting class. I did not see you for tonight's accounting class. However, based on your activity, I moved to support. P.S. The prof gave us back the assignments for the whole term and I have yuor assignments here. Find a time to pick it upfrom me. SYSS Mouse 13:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. the wub  "?/!"  08:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) User:Merovingian (t) (c) 16:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Thunderbrand 19:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Neutral for now, as I would like to see this RfA unfold before I cast my vote, but the impression I get from the user is positive. As nothing came up, I hereby change my vote to Support. --Sn0wflake 15:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Had seen him around Wikipedia before, looks good. :) --Andylkl (talk) 13:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) BRIAN 0918   04:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) That's hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 02:07, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Comments
 * You should add edit summary to every edit you make. It saves time of people on RC check. Pavel Vozenilek 18:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I've been actively voting in the VFDs and reverting changes from vandalism for a while now, and I believe that an adminship would allow me to conduct these activities more efficently.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. Probably my work for Coldplay (bio, singles, albums, etc.) and The Amazing Race (season-by-season info, placements etc.) They're both topics that have interested me.  There's a wealth of information across the net, but its just painstaking to find pages that are comprehensive and regularly updated.  When I was looking up info on both those topics, I wasn't  impressed with any one source, since there were always gaps in information.  So I feel proud knowing that I contributed both those areas and seeing them become well-developed articles.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. Occasionally, like in the editing some of the projects aformentioned, but it's never been much of an issue for me. I communicate with the individual in question, state my concerns and let it develop from there.  My number 1 rule is not to enforce my beliefs/opinions upon others, and I feel that it's a trait that has earned this nomination.  This has allowed me to avoid any serious confrontations with any Wiki users.


text:
Rietveld refinement

Rietveld refinement is a technique described by Hugo Rietveld for use in the characterisation of crystalline materials. The neutron and X-ray diffraction of powder samples results in a pattern characterised by reflections (peaks in intensity) at certain positions. The height, width and position of these reflections can be used to determine many aspects of the material's structure.

The Rietveld method uses a least squares approach to refine a theoretical line profile until it matches the measured profile. The introduction of this technique was a significant step forward in the diffraction analysis of powder samples as, unlike other techniques at that time, it was able to deal reliably with strongly overlapping reflections.

The method was first implemented in 1967, and reported in 1969 for the diffraction of monochromatic neutrons where the reflection-position is reported in terms of the Bragg angle, 2θ. This terminology will be used here although the technique is equally applicable to alternative scales such as x-ray energy or neutron time-of-flight. The only wavelength and technique independent scale is in reciprocal space units or momentum transfer Q, which is historically rarely used in powder diffraction but very common in all other diffraction and optics techniques. The relation is

 * $$ Q = \frac {4 \pi \sin \left ( \theta \right )}{\lambda}.$$

Introduction
The most common powder X-ray diffraction (XRD) refinement technique used today is based on the method proposed in the 1960s by Hugo Rietveld. The Rietveld method fits a calculated profile (including all structural and instrumental parameters) to experimental data. It employs the non-linear least squares method, and requires the reasonable initial approximation of many free parameters, including peak shape, unit cell dimensions and coordinates of all atoms in the crystal structure. Other parameters can be guessed while still being reasonably refined. In this way one can refine the crystal structure of a powder material from PXRD data. The successful outcome of the refinement is directly related to the quality of the data, the quality of the model (including initial approximations), and the experience of the user.

The Rietveld method is an incredibly powerful technique which began a remarkable era for powder XRD and materials science in general. Powder XRD is at heart a very basic experimental technique with diverse applications and experimental options. Despite being slightly limited by the one-dimensionality of PXRD data and limited resolution, powder XRD's power is astonishing. It is possible to determine the accuracy of a crystal structure model by fitting a profile to a 1D plot of observed intensity vs angle. Rietveld refinement requires a crystal structure model, and offers no way to come up with such a model on its own. However, it can be used to find structural details missing from a partial or complete ab initio structure solution, such as unit cell dimensions, phase quantities, crystallite sizes/shapes, atomic coordinates/bond lengths, micro strain in crystal lattice, texture, and vacancies.

Powder diffraction profiles: peak positions and shapes
Before exploring Rietveld refinement, it is necessary to establish a greater understanding of powder diffraction data and what information is encoded therein in order to establish a notion of how to create a model of a diffraction pattern, which is of course necessary in Rietveld refinement. A typical diffraction pattern can be described by the positions, shapes, and intensities of multiple Bragg reflections. Each of the three mentioned properties encodes some information relating to the crystal structure, the properties of the sample, and the properties of the instrumentation. Some of these contributions are shown in Table 1, below.

The structure of a powder pattern is essentially defined by instrumental parameters and two crystallographic parameters: unit cell dimensions, and atomic content and coordination. So, a powder pattern model can be constructed as follows:

 * 1) Establish peak positions: Bragg peak positions are established from Bragg's law using the wavelength and d-spacing for a given unit cell.
 * 2) Determine peak intensity: Intensity depends on the structure factor, and can be calculated from the structural model for individual peaks. This requires knowledge of the specific atomic coordination in the unit cell and geometrical parameters.
 * 3) Peak shape for individual Bragg peaks: Represented by functions of the FWHM (which vary with Bragg angle) called the peak shape functions. Realistically ab initio modelling is difficult, and so empirically selected peak shape functions and parameters are used for modelling.
 * 4) Sum: The individual peak shape functions are summed and added to a background function, leaving behind the resultant powder pattern.

It is easy to model a powder pattern given the crystal structure of a material. The opposite, determining the crystal structure from a powder pattern, is much more complicated. A brief explanation of the process follows, though it is not the focus of this article.

To determine structure from a powder diffraction pattern the following steps should be taken. First, Bragg peak positions and intensities should be found by fitting to a peak shape function including background. Next, peak positions should be indexed and used to determine unit cell parameters, symmetry, and content. Third, peak intensities determine space group symmetry and atomic coordination. Finally, the model is used to refine all crystallographic and peak shape function parameters. To do this successfully, there is a requirement for excellent data which means good resolution, low background, and a large angular range.

Peak shape functions
For general application of the Rietveld method, irrespective of the software used, the observed Bragg peaks in a powder diffraction pattern are best described by the so-called peak shape function (PSF). The PSF is a convolution of three functions: the instrumental broadening $$\Omega(\theta)$$, wavelength dispersion $$\Lambda(\theta)$$, and the specimen function $$\Psi(\theta)$$, with the addition of a background function, $$b(\theta)$$. It is represented as follows:

 * $$PSF(\theta) = \Omega(\theta)\otimes\Lambda(\theta)\otimes\Psi(\theta) + b(\theta)$$,

where $$\otimes$$ denotes convolution, which is defined for two functions $$f$$ and $$g$$ as an integral:

 * $$f(t)\otimes g(t) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(\tau)g(t-\tau)d\tau = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} g(\tau)f(t-\tau)d\tau $$

The instrumental function depends on the location and geometry of the source, monochromator, and sample. Wavelength function accounts for the distribution of the wavelengths in the source, and varies with the nature of the source and monochromatizing technique. The specimen function depends on several things. First is dynamic scattering, and secondly the physical properties of the sample such as crystallite size, and microstrain.

A short aside: unlike the other contributions, those from the specimen function can be interesting in materials characterization. As such, average crystallite size, $$\tau$$, and microstrain, $$\varepsilon$$, effects on Bragg peak broadening, $$\beta$$ (in radians), can be described as follows, where $$k$$ is a constant:

 * $$\beta = \frac{\lambda}{\tau \cdot \cos\theta} $$ and $$ \beta = \kappa \cdot \varepsilon \cdot \tan\theta $$.

Returning to the peak shape function, the goal is to correctly model the Bragg peaks which exist in the observed powder diffraction data. In the most general form, the intensity, $$Y(i)$$, of the $$i^\text{th} $$ point ($$1\leq i \leq n$$, where $$n$$ is the number of measured points) is the sum of the contributions $$y_k$$ from the $$m$$ overlapped Bragg peaks ($$1 \leq k \leq m$$), and the background, $$b(i)$$, and can be described as follows:

 * $$Y(i) = b(i)+ \sum_{k=1}^{m}{I_k[y_k(x_k)]} $$

where $$ I_k $$ is the intensity of the $$ k^\text{th} $$ Bragg peak, and $$ x_i = 2\theta_i - 2\theta_k $$. Since $$ I_k $$ is a multiplier, it is possible to analyze the behaviour of different normalized peak functions $$ y(x) $$ independently of peak intensity, under the condition that the integral over infinity of the PSF is unity. There are various functions that can be chosen to do this with varying degrees of complexity. The most basic functions used in this way to represent Bragg reflections are the Gauss, and Lorentzian functions. Most commonly though, is the pseudo-Voigt function, a weighted sum of the former two (the full Voigt profile is a convolution of the two, but is computationally more demanding). The pseudo-Voigt profile is the most common and is the basis for most other PSF's. The pseudo-Voigt function can be represented as:

 * $$ y(x) = V_p(x) = n * G(x) + (1-n) * L(x) $$,

where

 * $$ G(x) = \frac{C_G^\frac{1}{2}}{\sqrt{\pi}H}e^{-C_Gx^2} $$

and

 * $$L(x) = \frac{C_L^\frac{1}{2}}{\sqrt{\pi}H'} \left(1 + C_L x^2\right)^{-1}$$

are the Gaussian and Lorentzian contributions, respectively.

Thus,

 * $$ V_p(x) = \eta \frac{C_G^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\sqrt{\pi}H}e^{-C_Gx^2} + (1-\eta) \frac{C_L^\frac{1}{2}}{\sqrt{\pi}H'}(1+C_Lx^2)^{-1}. $$

where:

 * $$H$$ and $$H'$$ are the full widths at half maximum (FWHM)
 * $$x = \frac{2\theta_i - 2\theta_k}{H_k}$$ is essentially the Bragg angle of the $$i^\text{th}$$point in the powder pattern with its origin in the position of the $$k^\text{th}$$peak divided by the peak's FWHM.
 * $$C_G = 4\ln2$$, $$ C_L = 4 $$ and $ \frac{C_G^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\sqrt{\pi}H} $ and $\frac{C_L^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\sqrt{\pi}H'} $  are normalization factors such that $ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}G(x)dx = 1 $  and $ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}L(x)dx = 1 $  respectively.
 * $$ H^2 = U\tan^2\theta + V\tan\theta + W $$, known as the Caglioti formula, is the FWHM as a function of $$ \theta $$ for Gauss, and pseudo-Voigt profiles. $$U$$, $$V$$, and $$W$$ are free parameters.
 * $ H' = \frac{X}{\cos\theta} + Y\tan\theta $ is the FWHM vs. $$ 2\theta $$ for the Lorentz function. $$X$$ and $$Y$$ are free variables
 * $$ \eta = \eta_0 + \eta_1 2\theta + \eta_2 \theta^2 $$, where $$ 0 \leq \eta \leq 1 $$ is the pseudo-Voigt mixing parameter, and $$ \eta_{0,1,2} $$ are free variables.

The pseudo-Voigt function, like the Gaussian and Lorentz functions, is a centrosymmetric function, and as such does not model asymmetry. This can be problematic for non-ideal powder XRD data, such as those collected at synchrotron radiation sources, which generally exhibit asymmetry due to the use of multiple focusing optics.

The Finger–Cox–Jephcoat function is similar to the pseudo-Voigt, but has better handling of asymmetry, which is treated in terms of axial divergence. The function is a convolution of pseudo-Voigt with the intersection of the diffraction cone and a finite receiving slit length using two geometrical parameters, $$S/L$$, and $$H/L$$, where $$S$$ and $$H$$ are the sample and the detector slit dimensions in the direction parallel to the goniometer axis, and $$L$$ is the goniometer radius.

Peak shape as described in Rietveld's paper
The shape of a powder diffraction reflection is influenced by the characteristics of the beam, the experimental arrangement, and the sample size and shape. In the case of monochromatic neutron sources the convolution of the various effects has been found to result in a reflex almost exactly Gaussian in shape. If this distribution is assumed then the contribution of a given reflection to the profile $$y_i$$ at position $$2 \theta_i$$ is:

y_i = I_k \exp \left [  \frac{-4 \ln \left (2 \right )}{H_k^2} \left (2\theta_i - 2\theta_k  \right )^2 \right ] $$

where $$H_k$$ is the full width at half peak height (full-width half-maximum), $$2\theta_k$$ is the center of the reflex, and $$I_k$$ is the calculated intensity of the reflex (determined from the structure factor, the Lorentz factor, and multiplicity of the reflection).

At very low diffraction angles the reflections may acquire an asymmetry due to the vertical divergence of the beam. Rietveld used a semi-empirical correction factor, $$A_s$$ to account for this asymmetry:

 * $$ A_s = 1 - \left [ \frac {P \left (2\theta_i - 2\theta_k \right )^2}{\tan \theta_k} \right ]  $$

where $$P$$ is the asymmetry factor and $$s$$ is $$+1$$, $$0$$, or $$-1$$ depending on the difference $$2\theta_i-2\theta_k$$ being positive, zero, or negative respectively.

At a given position more than one diffraction peak may contribute to the profile. The intensity is simply the sum of all reflections contributing at the point $$2\theta_i$$.

Integrated intensity
For a Bragg peak $$(hkl)$$, the observed integrated intensity, $$I_{hkl}$$, as determined from numerical integration is

 * $$I_{hkl} = \sum_{i=1}^j(Y_i^{obs}-b_i)$$,

where $$j$$ is the total number of data points in the range of the Bragg peak. The integrated intensity depends on multiple factors, and can be expressed as the following product:

 * $$I_{hkl} = K \times p_{hkl} \times L_\theta \times P_\theta \times A_\theta \times T_{hkl} \times E_{hkl} \times |F_{hkl}|^2$$

where:

 * $$K$$: scale factor
 * $$p_{hkl}$$: multiplicity factor, which accounts for symmetrically equivalent points in the reciprocal lattice
 * $$L_\theta$$: Lorentz multiplier, defined by diffraction geometry
 * $$P_\theta$$: polarization factor
 * $$A_\theta$$: absorption multiplier
 * $$T_{hkl}$$: preferred orientation factor
 * $$E_{hkl}$$: extinction factor (often neglected as it is usually insignificant in powders)
 * $$F_{hkl}$$: structure factor as determined by the crystal structure of the material

Peak width as described in Rietveld's paper
The width of the diffraction peaks are found to broaden at higher Bragg angles. This angular dependency was originally represented by

 * $$ H_k^2 = U \tan^2 \theta_k + V \tan \theta_k + W $$

where $$U$$, $$V$$, and $$W$$ are the half-width parameters and may be refined during the fit.

Preferred orientation
In powder samples there is a tendency for plate- or rod-like crystallites to align themselves along the axis of a cylindrical sample holder. In solid polycrystalline samples the production of the material may result in greater volume fraction of certain crystal orientations (commonly referred to as texture). In such cases the reflex intensities will vary from that predicted for a completely random distribution. Rietveld allowed for moderate cases of the former by introducing a correction factor:

 * $$ I_\text{corr} = I_\text{obs} \exp \left (-G\alpha^2 \right ) $$

where $$I_\text{obs}$$ is the intensity expected for a random sample, $$G$$ is the preferred orientation parameter and $$\alpha$$ is the acute angle between the scattering vector and the normal of the crystallites.

Refinement
The principle of the Rietveld method is to minimize a function $$M$$ which analyzes the difference between a calculated profile $$y^\text{calc}$$ and the observed data $$y^\text{obs}$$. Rietveld defined such an equation as:

 * $$ M = \sum_{i} W_i \left \{ y_i^\text{obs} - \frac{1}{c} y_i^\text{calc} \right \}^2  $$

where $$W_i$$ is the statistical weight and $$c$$ is an overall scale factor such that $$y^\text{calc} = c y^\text{obs}$$.

Least squares method
The fitting method used in Rietveld refinement is the non-linear least squares approach. A detailed derivation of non-linear least squares fitting will not be given here. Further detail can be found in Chapter 6 of Pecharsky and Zavalij's text 12. There are a few things to note however. First, non-linear least squares fitting has an iterative nature for which convergence may be difficult to achieve if the initial approximation is too far from correct, or when the minimized function is poorly defined. The latter occurs when correlated parameters are being refined at the same time, which may result in divergence and instability of the minimization. This iterative nature also means that convergence to a solution does not occur immediately for the method is not exact. Each iteration depends on the results of the last which dictate the new set of parameters used for refinement. Thus, multiple refinement iterations are required to eventually converge to a possible solution.

Rietveld method basics
Using non-linear least squares minimization, the following system is solved:

 * $$\begin{pmatrix} Y_i^\text{calc} = kY_i^\text{obs} \\\vdots\\ Y_n^\text{calc} = kY_n^\text{obs} \end{pmatrix}$$

where $$Y_i^\text{calc}$$is the calculated intensity and $$Y_i^\text{obs}$$is the observed intensity of a point $$i$$ in the powder pattern, $$k$$, is a scale factor, and $$n$$ is the number of measured data points. The minimized function is given by:

 * $$\Phi= \sum_{i=1}^nw_i(Y_i^\text{obs}-Y_i^\text{calc})^2$$

where $$w_i$$is the weight, and $$k$$from the previous equation is unity (since $$k$$ is usually absorbed in the phase scale factor). The summation extends to all $$n$$ data points. Considering the peak shape functions and accounting for the overlapping of Bragg peaks because of the one-dimensionality of XRD data, the expanded form of the above equation for the case of a single phase measured with a single wavelength becomes:

 * $$\Phi= \sum_{i=1}^nw_i\biggl( Y_i^\text{obs}-\Bigl(b_i+K\sum_{j=1}^mI_jy_j(x_j)\Bigr)\biggr)^2$$

where:

 * $$b_i$$ is the background at the $$i^\text{th}$$ data point.
 * $$K$$ is the phase scale factor.
 * $$m$$ is the number of Bragg reflections contributing to the intensity of the $$i^\text{th}$$ reflection.
 * $$I_j$$ is the integrated intensity of the $$j^\text{th}$$ Bragg peak.
 * $$y_i(x_i)$$ is the peak shape function.

For a material that contains several phases ($$p$$), the contribution from each is accounted for by modifying the above equation as follows:

 * $$\Phi= \sum_{i=1}^nw_i\biggl( Y_i^\text{obs}-\Bigl(b_i+ \sum_{l=1}^pK_l\sum_{j=1}^mI_{l,j}y_{l,j}(x_{l,j})\Bigr)\biggr)^2$$

It can easily be seen from the above equations that experimentally minimizing the background, which holds no useful structural information, is paramount for a successful profile fitting. For a low background, the functions are defined by contributions from the integrated intensities and peak shape parameters. But with a high background, the function being minimized depends on the adequacy of the background and not integrated intensities or peak shapes. Thus, a structure refinement cannot adequately yield structural information in the presence of a large background.

It is also worth noting the increased complexity brought forth by the presence of multiple phases. Each additional phase adds to the fitting, more Bragg peaks, and another scale factor tied to corresponding structural parameters, and peak shape. Mathematically they are easily accounted for, but practically, due to the finite accuracy and limited resolution of experimental data, each new phase can lower the quality and stability of the refinement. It is advantageous to use single phase materials when interested in finding precise structural parameters of a material. However, since the scale factors of each phase are determined independently, Rietveld refinement of multi phase materials can quantitatively examine the mixing ratio of each phase in the material.

Background
Generally, the background is calculated as a Chebyshev polynomial. In GSAS and GSAS-II they appear as follows. Again, background is treated as a Chebyshev polynomial of the first kind ("Handbook of Mathematical Functions", M. Abramowitz and IA. Stegun, Ch. 22), with intensity given by:

 * $$I_i = \sum_{j=1}^NP_jT'_{j-1}$$

where $$T'_{j-1}$$are the coefficients of the Chebyshev polynomial taken from Table 22.3, pg. 795 of the Handbook. The coefficients have the form:

 * $$T'_n = \sum_{m=0}^{i-1}C_mX^m$$

and the values for $$C_m$$are found in the Handbook. The angular range ($$2\theta$$) is converted to $$X$$ to make the Chebyshev polynomial orthogonal by

 * $$X = \frac{2}{\tau}-1$$

And, the orthogonal range for this function is –1 to +1.

Other parameters
Now, given the considerations of background, peak shape functions, integrated intensity, and non-linear least squares minimization, the parameters used in the Rietveld refinement which put these things together can be introduced. Below are the groups of independent least squares parameters generally refined in a Rietveld refinement.

 * Background parameters: usually 1 to 12 parameters.
 * Sample displacement: sample transparency, and zero shift corrections. (move peak position)
 * Multiple peak shape parameters.
 * FWHM parameters: i.e. Caglioti parameters (see section 3.1.2)
 * Asymmetry parameters (FCJ parameters)
 * Unit cell dimensions
 * one to six parameters (a, b, c, α, β, γ), depending on the crystal family/system, for each present phase.
 * Preferred orientation, and sometimes absorption, porosity, and extinction coefficients, which can be independent for each phase.
 * Scale factors (for each phase)
 * Positional parameters of all independent atoms in the crystal model (generally 0 to 3 per atom).
 * Population parameters
 * Occupation of site positions by atoms.
 * Atomic displacement parameters
 * Isotropic and anisotropic (temperature) parameters.

Each Rietveld refinement is unique and there is no prescribed sequence of parameters to include in a refinement. It is up to the user to determine and find the best sequence of parameters for refinement. It is worth noting that it is rarely possible to refine all relevant variables simultaneously from the beginning of a refinement, nor near the end since the least squares fitting will be destabilized or lead to a false minimum. It is important for the user to determine a stopping point for a given refinement. Given the complexity of Rietveld refinement it is important to have a clear grasp of the system being studied (sample, and instrumentation) to ensure that results are accurate, realistic, and meaningful. High data quality, a large enough $$ 2\theta $$ range, and a good model – to serve as the initial approximation in the least squares fitting – are necessary for a successful, reliable, and meaningful Rietveld refinement.

Figures of merit
Since refinement depends on finding the best fit between a calculated and experimental pattern, it is important to have a numerical figure of merit quantifying the quality of the fit. Below are the figures of merit generally used to characterize the quality of a refinement. They provide insight to how well the model fits the observed data.

Profile residual (reliability factor):

 * $$R_p = \sum_{i}^{n}\frac{|Y_i^\text{obs}-Y_i^\text{calc}|}{\sum_i^nY_i^\text{obs}}\times 100\%$$

Weighted profile residual:

 * $$R_{wp} = \left(\sum_{i}^{n}\frac{w_i(Y_i^\text{obs}-Y_i^\text{calc})^2}{\sum_i^n w_i(Y_i^\text{obs})^2}\right)^\frac{1}{2}\times 100\%$$

Bragg residual:

 * $$R_B = \sum_{j}^{m}\frac{|I_j^\text{obs}-I_j^\text{calc}|}{\sum_i^nI_j^\text{obs}}\times 100%$$

Expected profile residual:

 * $$R_\text{exp} = \left(\frac{n-p}{\sum_i^nw_i(Y_i^\text{obs})^2}\right)^\frac{1}{2}\times 100\%$$

Goodness of fit:

 * $$\Chi^2 = \sum_{i}^{n}\frac{(Y_i^\text{obs}-Y_i^\text{calc})^2}{n-p} = \left(\frac{R_{wp}}{R_\text{exp}}\right)$$

It is worth mentioning that all but one ($$R_B$$) figure of merit include a contribution from the background. There are some concerns about the reliability of these figures, as well there is no threshold or accepted value which dictates what represents a good fit. The most popular and conventional figure of merit used is the goodness of fit which should approach unity given a perfect fit, though this is rarely the case. In practice, the best way to assess quality is a visual analysis of the fit by plotting the difference between the observed and calculated data plotted on the same scale.

title: Rietveld refinement