text:
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-C

For reference, from WP:MUSIC:

 * A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, dj etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
 * Has had a Top 100 hit on any national music chart, in a large or medium-sized country(s)*
 * Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in a large or medium-sized country(s)*
 * Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)
 * Has been prominently featured in any major music media
 * Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such
 * Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.
 * Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award

I believe that CSD should be narrowly phrased (to make passage easier), simple, and cover most of the obvious cases. Here's some food for thought:

 * Limit the criteria to musicians or ensembles whose members are currently living. That keeps us out of trouble with musicians like John Dowland or John Bull, who arguably don't meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria but is in fact notable as a musician.  Cases of deceased musicians creating vanity pages are rare.
 * Limit the criteria to popular music, both because there are some folk and art music styles that are notable historically but have so few performers today that nearly all are notable, and because the problem articles are nearly all about popular music acts
 * Simplify and rephrase the WP:MUSIC criteria: and where the article makes no claim of performances, airplay, awards, media attention, or sale of recordings on a nationwide or worldwide scale for the ensemble or any of its members.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

All right, after some thought I think "popular music" is too vague and likely to create more problems than it solves.

So, how about this: An article about a present-day musician or musical ensemble that makes no claim of performances, airplay, awards, media attention, or sale of recordings on a nationwide or worldwide scale for the ensemble or any of its members.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a good start but it may be a bit too wordy... "nationwide or worldwide" could be "at least nationwide". "Airplay" seems to me to imply media attention, so it could be dropped. Radiant_ >|< 08:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good way to go, though - required referral to an external page (WP:MUSIC) is poor form for a CSD. Copy/pasting all elements of WP:MUSIC into CSD makes it too verbose. So a general case like this should be set up, so that it's impossible to meet WP:MUSIC without meeting this. Radiant_ >|< 08:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to trimming out words. We could remove airplay if there are no objections. We could also remove "awards" because all the awards cited in WP:MUSIC are given only to artists who have sold recordings on a nationwide basis. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, how about An article about a present-day musician or musical ensemble that makes no claim of performances, media attention, or sale of recordings on a nationwide scale for the ensemble or any of its members.

I don't think it's possible to meet the WP:MUSIC criteria without also meeting that. The only troubling areas are the matter of those few local acts that meet #6 and also the related matter of small groups working in unusual historical genres, like Morris dance tunes or rennaisance forms. I think there are few enough of these and they are obvious enough that they should pose no trouble. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I support the idea of trying this road. However, I'm afraid a "claim of performances" might be a little to easy to meet, even for a garage-band vanity article. With this wording, "They have just played their first gig" or even "Their singer used to be a busker" will save a band from speedy deletion. This might be what we want, but I wonder if substituting "touring" might not work better.
 * On the other hand, I think that it might be asking too much to require claims of sales of recordings. My guess is that a lot of band-stubs about notable acts doesn't meet that, and I think it could easily sink the proposal in a vote. So, how about simply demanding a "recording contract" instead? Since it is impossible to set a sales threshold anyway, and it could be argued that any released recording is probably sold in some (albeit minimal) quantity, it makes admin judgement easier. And it will still kill almost all of the garage-band vanity articles. My suggestion would thus be something along the lines of: An article about a present-day musician or musical ensemble that makes no claim of a recording contract, touring or media attention for the ensemble or any of its members. / Alarm 14:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The point is supposed to be that they have to have done at least one of these things on a nationwide basis. Performed on a national tour, got media attention from a publication (or tv/radio show) with nationwide distriubution, sold recordings on a nationwide basis.  Now, these criteria are easy enough to game for anyone whose willing to go to the trouble -- you can get amazon.com to carry any CD as long as you can ship it, and then get your cousin and Texas to buy one and you're selling CDs nationwide.  But that isn't the point -- the point is that the vast majority of junk articles on garage bands aren't a serious attempt to get an article, they're a form of quick entertainment for the writer.  Most such articles claim local gigs and go on in generalities about the creativity of the band and its sure-to-come importance to whatever style of music before degenerating into what kind of beer the performers drink.  That's the stuff we want to get with this.

 * The articles where someone is really making a serious attempt to get an article on a non-notable band belong on VfD anyway because they're deserving of that degree of community attention before being deleted. Then the WP:MUSIC criteria would apply (or not, depending on who's voting), and there is less need for objective criteria.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The current wording is not entirely unambigous. I actually took it to mean
 * (performances) OR (media attention) OR (sale of recordings on a nationwide scale)
 * rather than
 * (performances OR media attention OR sale of recordings) on a nationwide scale.
 * In any case, this ought to be clarified. But seeing how hard it has been to get people to vote for any proposal to expand CSD, I think the only way to get a "band clause" passed is to put the threshold on a rather low level. While I share your analysis on why these articles are written, I fail to see how it supports including a "nationwide" criterion, since, just as you point out, practically all criteria can be gamed. It is my belief that "recording contract" and "tour" will be enough for most articles, and the rest can go to VfD. Specifically asking for nationwide media attention and/or sales is going to make it hard to get a rephrased proposal passed, as people will probably argue that statewide notability in the U.S. might be good enough. Not to mention the fact that the term "nationwide" is very vague (and will mean quite different things in the U.S. compared to e.g. Luxemburg...). Judging from the comments from people voting on the different proposals, criteria percieved as objective actually seem to be a deciding factor for many. It might at least be that for me. / Alarm 17:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

How about this revision: '''An article about a present-day musician or musical ensemble that makes no claim of national or regional performance tours, public performance to an audience of over 1,000 a sustantial audience, national, regional, or repeated regular local media attention, a commercial recording contract, or sale of recordings on a nationwide or regional scale for the ensemble or any of its members. By "regional" is meant an area larger than a single metropolitian area.''' This is intended to exclude garage bands and bar bands, but include performers with a verifiable reputation extending at least to multiple cities, or an area comperable to a US state. It isn't perfect, but is it a step? DES 18:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It's certainly a step. However, your second-to-last sentence says things in a much simpler way: "performers with a verifiable reputation extending at least to multiple cities". I'd drop the last bit, because there are some American states that are larger than the UK! I've made a couple of tweaks, via strikes, hope you don't mind. Generally, precise numbers in CSDs seem to be unpopular, so I've removed that, in particular, and "repeated" just means more than once when regularity would be a better indicator. -Splash 19:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Good thoughts. A further revision: An article about a present-day musician or musical ensemble that makes no claim of national or regional performance tours; public performance to a sustantial audience; national, regional, or regular local media attention; a commercial recording contract; or sale of recordings on a nationwide or regional scale for the ensemble or any of its members. Performers who are claimed to have a verifiable reputation extending at least to multiple cities shall not be deleted under this criterion. DES 19:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Question, should "present-day" be clarifed, say "formed withing the last 10 years" or is it better to leave it as just "present day"? DES 19:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Fewer words would be better. CSDs should be short. The ability to game the criteria does not pose a problem because most of these writers don't come back. Based on feedback, I suggest this shorter criterion:

 * An article about a present-day musician or musical ensemble without a claim of the group or one of its members having made at least one of these achievements:
 * Making a nationwide performance tour
 * Getting media coverage in any major music media
 * Selling recordings on a commercial scale
 * Local performances of an unusually notable nature

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The phrase "commercial scale" is clearly intended to have some implicit meaning, but as all "selling" is inherently "commercial" it can potentially be claimed that "I sold one copy to my buddy Joe" meets the requirement. I apologize for the excessively literal reading, but when these issues get disputed people tend to resort to such arguments. Making meaningful criteria without rejecting potentially valuable content is a difficult balancing act. --Michael Snow 21:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * How about "retail sale"? That specifically means sale through a store.   — Gwalla | Talk 21:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I fear this is setting the bar too high, and will be hard to get consensus for. How about:

An article about a present-day musician or musical ensemble without a claim of the group or one of its members having made at least one of these achievements:
 * 1) Making a nationwide or multi-city performance tour;
 * 2) Getting coverage in any major music media;
 * 3) Getting regular local media coverage;
 * 4) Selling recordings via a retail shop;
 * 5) Selling recordings on a regional or wider scale; or
 * 6) Local performances of an unusually notable nature.

Does that cover the bases without being too wordy? DES 21:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I can live with that but would like to point out that WP:MUSIC sets the bar much higher than this; articles are getting deleted through VfD routinely based on the WP:MUSIC criteria. Many non-notable bands sell recordings through retail shops where they have ties, though admittedly it is rare for problem articles to actually assert this. The proposal before would have passed were it not for the concerns about incorporating WP:MUSIC by reference, and I don't think we need to set the bar substantially lower than WP:MUSIC to achieve passage. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Would a reference to a distribution chain help? This would help indicate that the recording is being sold by people other than just the band and their buddies. --Michael Snow 22:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It is true that WP:MUSIC has a much higher bar but we are after all trying to come up with a criterion that can be applied "on sight", or "on sight and google". I'd be a little bit concerned at having a 6-fold check to carry out in this sense and wonder if we will wind up re-inventing WP:MUSIC. I do wonder why that has not made it to official-policy status given its de facto-policy status as it is. I suspect it is because it is perceived as setting the bar too high for a speedy, but not too high for a VfD.

One of the objections raised to nearly all the proposals was "newbies don't know they are supposed to do X", and a list of 4-6 things will face similar insruction-creep claims. However, it will be important to point out that we are not trying work out what newbies should do in an article, rather we are trying to work out what a vain-newbie would almost certainly not be able to do. And, if they can't manage any of a fairly low-bar, longish list, then they can be speedied with reasonable confidence. With a view to reducing the number of 'instructions' that might face creep claims, how about a minor compression which also raises the bar a little:

(preamable):
 * 1) Making a tour at least national in scope in any country;
 * 2) Receiving media coverage in any major music media or regular coverage in local media;
 * 3) Selling recordings via a distribution chain on at least a regional scale;
 * 4) Giving local performances of an unusually notable nature.

I suspect some redundancy in 4, since that will usually achieve 2. -Splash 23:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think the bar should be raised too high. While the 3-C proposal got considerable support, I would very much like to be on the sure side this time, because if this gets shot down it will be extremely hard to get a new band-vanity proposal considered for quite some time. (On a side note, the WP:MUSIC criteria isn't all that high. Bear in mind that in a smaller country the WP:MUSIC chart position requirements are fairly easy to achieve for any pop artist releasing a single on a commercial record company.) CSD is not VfD - the point here is, IMO, to get rid of blatant and obvious vanity from the garage bands, not necessarily to catch everything that would get a delete consensus on VfD. I also think the criteria should be as objective as possible, not forcing the admin to judge what is "unusually notable" or somesuch.
 * I think there are a few very obvious things that separates the clearly non-notable bands from the more or less notable. Most importantly, a commercial recording contract and/or commercial distribution (possibly with the clarification that internet downloading only should not be enough). Regarding media attention, I think any claim of media attention might be enough to take it to VfD instead. (If we're sticking to a higher bar, I'd prefer using "media coverage on a national level" as it makes "major music media" redundant and covers national TV, radio and newspapers as well.) As for touring, I think "performing outside their local area" might be enough to catch the vanity. I also want to rephrase the preamble, in order to make it obvious that the specific words of the criteria need not be used. So, my proposal would be:

 * '''An article about a present-day musician or musical ensemble, if it cannot be inferred from the article that the group or one of its members meet at least one of the following criteria:
 * Having, or having had, a commercial recording contract
 * Having, or having had, commercial distribution of (pressed? physical?) recordings
 * Having had any (professional? mainstream? non-fanzine/college radio?) media coverage
 * Having performed outside their local area

 * However, while writing this, it just dawned on me that we're more or less rephrasing Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/3-B, which tried to simplify WP:MUSIC and turn it into policy. This proposal received only around 50% support in spite of setting a rather low bar. What went wrong there, and how do we make a stronger case for any new proposal with the same general structure?/ Alarm 13:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem with 3B was that there was conjecture that certain bands that met WP:MUSIC would still fall within the criterion, as proposed. Then 3C failed because it incorporated WP:MUSIC by reference. Therefore, our goal should be to come up with the simplest, shortest possible criteria that (a) most of the junk articles we actually get will meet and (b) won't catch anything that meets WP:MUSIC. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Fine tuning
Here is an attempt to synthesize the various elements discussed so far.

 * An article about a present-day musician or musical ensemble, if the article does not indicate at least one of the following about the group or one of its members:

 * A commercial recording contract, or
 * Sales of physical recordings via a commercial distribution chain, or
 * Performances outside the local area, or
 * Coverage in major music media or mainstream general media

Some examples of how these might be satisfied:

 * 1) "Band A was signed by Label B." (where Label B is not the personal invention of Band A)
 * 2) "Band A sold 10,000 units of Album C." (as the number gets lower, we would want to see more specific indication that commercial distribution was involved)
 * 3) "Band A went on tour in 2005 and played at Venues X, Y, and Z in Birmingham, Manchester, and Glasgow."
 * 4) Coverage in Down Beat and The Miami Herald are equally acceptable.

I think the examples of how to avoid the criteria would be useful in allaying people's concerns, although they aren't part of the proposal itself. Comments or suggestions? --Michael Snow 16:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I could support the above. The versions previously sugested that would have required a national tour or commercial sales would have excluded several folk singer/song-writers and groups who are well established and notable in their fields, but tour only regionally and self-publish CDs which they sell directly at concerts. I agree that several useful examples should be included with the proposal, buit not as part of the proposed policy wording. DES 20:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I think this is quite a good way to go. However, I'm not clear on DES's comment. Would this proposal not present the same barrier to folk singers as you describe? Or perhaps I misunderstand. -Splash 14:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Almost all such performers that i know of regualrly tour on a regional (multi-state) basis, which would fit point 3 above, while previous versions that accepted a claim of touring only on a "national" basis would not have been satisfied. DES 15:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

For me, this works fine. However, I've tried to work out a few counter-arguments others might come up with: What would you say to these claims? / Alarm 11:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * A session musician can be notable for having played with some of the most famous musicians in the world, despite not having a record contract of his own and not playing live.
 * WP:MUSIC says "prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city". This isn't fully covered. While a Sheffield indie band will probably get some local media attention, an electronica musician might be well-known in his genre while (possibly due to ideology) only releasing his music for free on the Internet.
 * Internet phenomena such as Anton Maiden and MC Hawking can be argued to be musicians and thus eligible for speedying, despite having a very high likelihood of surviving VfD. (Note that while the two examples I've found from a quick look both actually seem to have released records, there probably are a number of Internet "one-hit wonders" with a similar story.)

 * I don't think session musicians are a serious problem under any criteria we might establish. These items are separate options, not requirements; if a studio drummer appears on the albums of other artists, he or she would meet #2 above, in spite of not having their own recording contract. And given the credits typically provided on CD liner notes these days, verifiability isn't a big issue for this either. --Michael Snow 17:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * If we can agree that #2 covers them, I'm perfectly OK with that. It might however be wise to clarify through examples that there is no requirement to be an official member of the act releasing the the recording - that it's enough to appear on it. / Alarm 18:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe that these are reasons for using "sold recordings on a commercial scale" without the "physical" element; I dislike the "recording contract" item because it is unrelated to WP:MUSIC, is rarely claimed, and is sufficiently covered by "sold recordings on a commercial scale." The "local scene" part of WP:MUSIC is problematic in a number of ways, and I would suggest that WP:MUSIC be amended for clarity in this area. I had proposed "local performances of an unusually notable nature" which I believe captured it as it is, however. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't mind dropping the "physical" if that's problematic, but as I mentioned earlier the particular phrase "commercial scale" strikes me as being difficult to keep meaningful, which is why I prefer to mention a distribution chain. I'm not attached to whether recording contracts are mentioned, it's simply another option. If it's rarely mentioned, fine, I just would have thought it would be easier in some cases for an article's author to say who the band signed with than how much they sold, assuming they didn't make it onto any charts. I'm not sure how best to capture the idea of a group that is purely part of a local scene. --Michael Snow 16:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it might be to ask too much of the speedying admin to expect her/him to judge whether the local performances have been "unusually notable" or not. Could we possibly achieve this this by testing for something less subjective? I'll try to think about something.
 * I can understand the rationale for dropping the "physical" element, but I agree with Michael Snow about the need to mention a commercial distribution chain. Otherwise, it could be argued that a sentence like "You can by their promo CD from their home page" should save an article from speedy deletion.
 * I still support the "recording contract" item, since it is A) not fully covered by "sold recordings" as no recordings might yet have been released, and B) as Michael points out, it's a bit of a safety measure to avoid the deletion of some valid articles where the author hasn't given enough information for the other criteria to be met.
 * I would very much like to hear your opinions on "download stars" without a recording contract. What might worry some people is the possibility that we kick out a reasonably "prominent representative of a notable style" (a narrow and truly underground one - think Vedic metal or Neofolk) that might get a "keep" at VfD due to, for instance, a large number of webzine articles and a huge internet following.
 * As for using other criteria than WP:MUSIC, I don't see any problem with that, as long as we keep it simple and put the bar at a lower level than those rules do. As Sjakkalle pointed out when voting on 3-C, "WP:MUSIC implies sufficient and not neccesary criteria for inclusion". When the proposal is presented, it should be clearly stated that it does not mainly intend to rephrase WP:MUSIC, but rather to set a lower bar suitable for speedy deletion decisions, targeting only the blatant vanity articles. / Alarm 17:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I am of the sincere hope that, in a few short years, there will be many notable musical acts that lack a traditional record contract and distribute a considerable volume of recordings for free. Physical media is likely to become less important in the coming years and may well disappear altogether at some point.
 * As for recording contracts, I note that many bands that sign recording contracts never produce records, and of those that do, many are not notable, producing an album or two before lapsing into obscurity. Signing a recording contract may not be notable in and of itself.
 * Though I can understand the concern about an admin judging whether a local performance has been "unusually notable," the fact is that these criteria are so conservative that it hardly matters. I will again bring up the matter of Juli Wood, who easily meets these criteria, but is not IMO encyclopedic.  Right?  She's a fixture of the local music scene in Madison.  She tours in Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin, has had articles in mainstream media (such as the Minneapolis newspaper), articles in the music press (Jazz Times), two CDs out (CDBaby.com).  But guess what?  She's not encyclopedic.  IMO of course, and because she has not made history.  No hits.  Not a thought leader for music.  Not pushing the edge of the musical style.  Not prominent enough to enable us to research her contributions in the usual sorts of library references one might use for that sort of thing.  Not well-known enough for the wiki process to work effectively, bottom line.  But we have an article anyway, and it meets WP:MUSIC and the speedy criteria.
 * Remember what we're trying to do, which is to delete the look-alike articles that are clearly useless, in the form of "Points North is a really cool band from Gainsville, Pete K. plays guitar, Louis F. plays drums, and sometimes Kate R. sings with them but she isn't really a member. They took 2nd place in the battle of the bands last winter and have some cool trax to download from their website at www.fortunecity.com/~123456/trax.html."  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Exactly. The bar may be well below WP:MUSIC; the point is to get rid of the most obvious vanity cruft (up to five such articles per day on VFD) without hassle. I've even seen some die-hard inclusionists support 3-B simply because band vanity happens too often. Radiant_ >|< 20:45, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Going forward
Once all those currently discussing on this page think we have a satisfactory proposal (and I think we are close if not there), i suggest that we advertise the proposal as widely as possible and invite further discussion for some time before we try to initate a vote. This may avoid the problem that happened last time when proposals were altered and revised versions introduced after voting had started. DES 15:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)  . It's been a while now. Do people think we can finish this off and try sounding out the community on it? Seeing the latest entry on temp undelete on VfU made me realize how much we need this. -Splash 21:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. There are a number of other proposals making the rounds (such as on the CSD talk page). It's perfectly reasonable to discuss more potential amendments or additions to CSD, but we really shouldn't put it up to a vote too soon. I'd say wait for at least a month, possibly more depending on how the discussion goes. Radiant_ >|< 17:17, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 *
 * Sorry for not responding sooner. We're close, I would say, and I hope we can get this off the ground soon. Trying to incorporate some of the concerns with the latest version posted, I would suggest a few slight modifications before "going live":

 * An article about a present-day musician or musical ensemble, if the article does not assert at least one of the following about the group or one of its members:

 * A commercial recording contract, or
 * Appearance on recordings sold via a commercial distribution chain, or
 * Performances outside the local area, or
 * Coverage in major music media or mainstream general media, or
 * Verifiable claims of being a major Internet phenomenon

 * I've changed indicate to assert in the opening sentence, for consistency with the wording of CSD A7.
 * I've changed Sales of recordings to Appearance on recordings sold to explicitly accomodate for session musicians. (Admittedly, this is a very low bar for session musicians, but such articles don't appear often and can be handled through AfD. However, this wording will cover possible concerns that someone who has appeared on a number of Beatles and Rolling Stones albums could be deleted.)
 * I've also tried to create an "Internet phenomenon" condition. Obviously, a major music-related Internet phenomenon will be notable as such. This is intended as a safeguard to avoid anyone using this CSD clause to justify speedying them by judging them simply as musical acts.

 * All this might seem like setting the bar very low, but as has been said before, speedying blatant band vanity is not a replacement for AfD, but a tool to keep the most obvious cases away from the process. Just as for the A7 criteria for individuals, meeting any of these criteria does NOT automatically make an article a "keep" - it just means that it should go to AfD instead. The whole strategy here is to have a bar that (almost) everyone can accept, one lower than for WP:MUSIC.

 * I haven't been following debates elsewhere very carefully, but if there is any other proposal in the works, it would be a good idea to go forward in a coordinated effort. Or should we bring this forward on its own? / Alarm 16:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Ilona Feher Foundation

The Ilona Feher Foundation was established in 2003 as a nonprofit organization committed to nurturing the artistic development of exceptional young Israeli violinists. The foundation honors the late violin pedagogue Ilona Feher (1901–1988) whose guidance helped shape some of Israel's greatest violinists, notable Pinchas Zukerman, Shlomo Mintz, Shmuel Ashkenasi, Hagai Shaham and Ittai Shapira.

The foundation is set up to award promising young violinists grants which may be applied towards various performing opportunities, recordings, or instrument loans.

In addition, the foundation also provides opportunities for private lessons, master classes, and other intensive courses in Israel and abroad.

The foundation was founded by Hagai Shaham and Ittai Shapira.

Board Members:
 * Nechemia Dagan, Glen Roven, Hagai Shaham, Ittai Shapira, Mark Steinberg.

Advisory Committee:
 * Shmuel Ashkenasi, Christopher T. Dunworth, Pamela Frank, Miriam Fried, Dick Hyman, Jamie Laredo, Yoel Levi, Cho-Liang Lin, Shlomo Mintz, János Starker, Arnold Steinhardt, Shulamit Ran, Amnon Weinstein, Eric Wen.

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

title: Ilona Feher Foundation


text:
Talk:The Anthology... So Far

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

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 03:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Anthology... So Far


text:
List of newspapers of Dallas

The following newspapers are published in Dallas, Texas, United States):

White Rock Lake Weekly
 * Auto Revista
 * Daily Commercial Record
 * Dallas Business Journal
 * The Dallas Morning News
 * Al Día - produced by The Dallas Morning News
 * Quick - produced by The Dallas Morning News
 * Dallas Examiner
 * Dallas Observer
 * Dallas Voice
 * El Extra
 * Reform Dallas
 * Slavic Voice of America
 * Star Local News - distributes free and subscription newspapers in Dallas suburbs, including:
 * Allen American
 * Carrollton Leader
 * Celina Record
 * The Colony Courier Leader
 * Coppell Gazette
 * Frisco Enterprise
 * The Leader - in the cities of Flower Mound, Lewisville and Highland Village
 * Little Elm Journal
 * McKinney Courier-Gazette
 * Mesquite News
 * Plano Star Courier
 * The Rowlette Lakeshore Times
 * Southlake Times
 * Texas Catholic
 * Texas Jewish Post
 * The Dallas Examiner
 * Tre Weekly News Magazine - headquartered in Garland, serving the Vietnamese immigrants in DFW metroplex
 * White Rock Lake Weekly - serving all of East Dallas, distributed for free
 * World Journal - published in Richardson, serving Dallas

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram is based in Fort Worth, and The Park Cities News, Preston Hollow People, and Park Cities People are based in other Dallas suburbs.

title: List of newspapers of Dallas


text:
José Guadalupe Esparza

José Guadalupe Esparza (born 12 October 1954) is a Mexican singer-songwriter and the frontman of the grupero band Bronco. He was born in Durango, but grew up in the city of Apodaca, Nuevo León, where he attended elementary and high school.

From an early age, he wanted to become a singer. In 1974, along with a few of his friends, José Guadalupe Esparza formed a musical group, Bronco. As the lead singer, el Negro (The dark one), as his friends called him, not only was an instant success because of his distinctive voice, but also became very admired as a talented composer. It is because of his peculiar style as a composer, that artists of the stature of Antonio Aguilar, Dulce, Lucero, Lupita Piñeda, Alejandro Fernández, Los Humildes, Mandingo, Banda Machos, Liberación, Guardianes del Amor, Los Rieleros del Norte, Pesado, among others, have made a point to reinterpret, and release their own versions of his songs.

José Guadalupe Esparza has recorded 18 albums with Bronco, and 10 albums solo. The success of these albums are evident in Mexico, the United States, Central and South America and Spain, where album sales are successful.

title: José Guadalupe Esparza


text:
User talk:Ckost

Welcome
Hi and welcome to wikipedia. I hope you like it and decide to stay. Here are some handy links for newcomers. Also you can sign your name on talk pages and vote pages with three tildes like this ~~~, and your name with a time stamp with four like this ~~~~. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. Howabout1 Talk to me! 20:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Help pages
 * Village pump
 * Help desk
 * Wiquette
 * Merge

title: User talk:Ckost


text:
Swaraj

Swarāj (Svarāja) sva "self", raj "rule") can mean generally self-governance or "self-rule". It was first used by Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj to attain self rule from the Mughal Empire and the Adilshahi Sultanate. Later, the term was used synonymously with "home-rule" by Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati and later on by Mahatma Gandhi, but the word usually refers to Gandhi's concept of Indian independence from foreign domination. Swaraj lays stress on governance, not by a hierarchical government, but by self-governance through individuals and community building. The focus is on political decentralisation. Since this is against the political and social systems followed by Britain, Gandhi's concept of Swaraj advocated India's discarding British political, economic, bureaucratic, legal, military, and educational institutions. S. Satyamurti, Chittaranjan Das and Motilal Nehru were among a contrasting group of Swarajists who laid the foundation for parliamentary democracy in India. Although Gandhi's aim of totally implementing the concepts of Swaraj in India was not achieved, the voluntary work organisations which he founded for this purpose did serve as precursors and role models for people's movements, voluntary organisations, and some of the non-governmental organisations that were subsequently launched in various parts of India. The student movement against oppressive local and central governments, led by Jayaprakash Narayan, Udit Swaraj and the Bhoodan movement, which presaged demands for land reform legislation throughout India, and which ultimately led to India's discarding of the Zamindari system of land tenure and social organisation, were also inspired by the ideas of Swaraj.

Key concepts
Swami Dayanand Saraswati, also known as Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati founder of the Arya Samaj and a Hindu reformer, defined Swaraj as the "administration of self" or "democracy." Swami Dayanand Saraswati, beginning with the premise that God had created people free to perform any work they were inclined to choose, questioned the legitimacy of the British colonial rule in India. In the Swami's view, Swaraj was the basis for the Indian independence movement. Dadabhai Navroji claimed that he had learnt the word swaraj from the Satyarth Prakash of Saraswati.

Swaraj aims towards a stateless society. According to Mahatma Gandhi, the overall impact of the state on the people is harmful. He called the state a "soulless machine" which, ultimately, does the greatest harm to mankind. The purpose of the state is that it is an instrument for the service of the people. However, Gandhi feared that a state moulded with such an aim would ultimately revoke the rights of the citizens and seize the role of grand protector, and would demand total compliance from them. This would create a paradoxical situation where the citizens would be alienated from the state and at the same time enslaved to it, which, according to Gandhi, was demoralising and dangerous. If Gandhi's close acquaintance with the working of the state apparatus in South Africa and in India strengthened his suspicion of a centralised, monolithic state, his intimate association with the Congress and its leaders confirmed his fears about the corrupting influence of political power and his scepticism about the efficacy of the party systems of power politics (due to which he resigned from the Congress on more than one occasion only to be persuaded back each time) and his study of the British parliamentary systems convinced him that representative democracy was incapable of meting out justice to people.

Gandhi thought it necessary to evolve a mechanism to achieve the twin objectives of empowering the people and 'empowering' the state. It was for this that he developed the two pronged strategy of resistance (to the state) and reconstruction (through voluntary and participatory social action).

Although the word Swaraj means "self-rule", Gandhi gave it the content of an integral revolution that encompasses all spheres of life: "At the individual level Swaraj is vitally connected with the capacity for dispassionate self-assessment, ceaseless self-purification and growing self-reliance." Politically, Swaraj is self-government and not good government (for Gandhi, good government is no substitute for self-government) and it means a continuous effort to be independent of government control, whether it is foreign government or whether it is national. In other words, it is sovereignty of the people based on pure moral authority. Economically, Swaraj means full economic freedom for the toiling millions. And in its fullest sense, Swaraj is much more than freedom from all restraints, it is self-rule, and could be equated with moksha or salvation.

Adopting Swaraj means implementing a system whereby the state machinery is virtually nil, and the real power directly resides in the hands of people. Gandhi said: "Power resides in the people, they can use it at any time." This philosophy rests inside an individual who has to learn to be master of his own self and spreads upwards to the level of his community which must be dependent only on itself. Gandhi said: "In such a state (where Swaraj is achieved) everyone is his own ruler. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbour." He summarised the core principle like this: "It is Swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves."

Gandhi explained his vision in 1946: "Independence begins at the bottom... A society must be built in which every village has to be self-sustained and capable of managing its own affairs... It will be trained and prepared to perish in the attempt to defend itself against any onslaught from without... This does not exclude dependence on and willing help from neighbours or from the world. It will be a free and voluntary play of mutual forces... In this structure composed of innumerable villages, there will be ever-widening, never-ascending circles. Growth will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose center will be the individual. Therefore, the outermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle but will give strength to all within and derive its own strength from it."

Gandhi was undaunted by the task of implementing such a utopian vision in India. He believed that by transforming enough individuals and communities, society at large would change. He said: "It may be taunted with the retort that this is all Utopian and, therefore not worth a single thought... Let India live for the true picture, though never realised in its completeness. We must have a proper picture of what we want before we can have something approaching it."

After Gandhi
After Gandhi's assassination Vinoba Bhave formed the Sarva Seva Sangh at the national level and Sarvodya Mandals at the regional level to the carry on integrated village service—with the end purpose of achieving the goal of Swaraj. Two major nonviolent movements for socio-economic and political revolution in India: the Bhoodan movement led by Vinoba Bhave and the Total Revolution Movement led by Jayaprakash Narayan were actually formed under the aegis of the ideas of Swaraj.

Gandhi's model of Swaraj was almost entirely discarded by the Indian government. He had wanted a system of a classless, stateless direct democracy. Yet during the Second Five-Year Plan, the Indian government initiated a hierarchy of local village leaders, called the Panchayati Raj, modified in 1992 with the intent to devolve decision-making to the villages.

Under Nehru India turned to a socialist model of industrial development, became a leader of non-aligned countries (those refusing to side in the Cold War), and formed an alliance with the Soviet Union (although domestically firmly rejecting Marxism–Leninism). For many decades following independence English was spoken by about 2–3% of the population, however, its use began to increase, dramatically in the 1980s. India does continue with appropriated elements of the British common law, and its rail system was built out from that left by Britain. India is a member of the British-organized Commonwealth of Nations. India successfully practices a democracy with regular elections inspired by western countries. Following Gandhi independent India worked to increase the status of women, who became citizens with the franchise and the right to divorce.

Present day
The Aam Aadmi Party was founded in late 2012, by Arvind Kejriwal and some erstwhile activists of India Against Corruption movement, with the aim of empowering people by applying the concept of Swaraj enunciated by Gandhi, in the present day context by changing the system of governance.

title: Swaraj


text:
User talk:Deverrrx

Welcome!
Hello Deverrrx, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * Read the tutorial and learn how to edit a page.
 * Experiment in the sandbox.
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset.
 * Try to edit from a neutral point of view.
 * Use talk pages to communicate with other editors.
 * Be bold in updating pages.
 * Eventually, read the Manual of Style and learn about the Five Pillars of Wikipedia.
 * And most importantly, have fun!

If you need any help, see the help pages and glossary, add a question to the help desk, or ask me on my talk page.

I hope you will enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Good luck! — Bcat

Image copyright problem with Image:Scrolling2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Scrolling2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 15:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Deverrrx


text:
Talk:Daytona 500

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daytona 500. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525061914/http://www.nascar.com/2003/kyn/history/daytona/01/23/daytona_1979/ to http://www.nascar.com/2003/kyn/history/daytona/01/23/daytona_1979/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daytona 500. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151125091337/http://www.nascar.com/en_us/news-media/articles/nascar-illustrated/2015/2/nascar-illustrated-the-magic-hour-daytona-500.html to http://www.nascar.com/en_us/news-media/articles/nascar-illustrated/2015/2/nascar-illustrated-the-magic-hour-daytona-500.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817224950/http://www.nascar.com/2002/kyn/history/races/02/02/90daytona500/ to http://www.nascar.com/2002/kyn/history/races/02/02/90daytona500/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * DAYTONA 500 Logo 2020.png

title: Talk:Daytona 500


text:
Carter Dome

Carter Dome, or simply The Dome, is a mountain located in Coos County, New Hampshire. The mountain is part of the Carter-Moriah Range of the White Mountains, which runs along the northern east side of Pinkham Notch. Carter Dome is flanked to the northeast by Mount Hight and to the southwest by Wildcat Mountain (across Carter Notch).

The origins of Carter Dome's name is unknown. Local folklore suggests that it was named after a hunter named Carter, while a neighboring peak is named after his hunting partner, Hight.

The mountain is ascended from the west by the Carter Dome Trail and Nineteen Mile Brook Trail, and from the east by the Black Angel Trail.

Climate
Carter Dome has a humid continental climate (Köppen Dfb), closely bordering on a subarctic climate (Köppen Dfc), with September only just averaging over 10 °C, making there four months with an average temperature of 10 °C or more. For a climate to be classified as subarctic, it must have an average temperature of at least 10 °C for one month but no more than three months, whereas humid continental climates have four or more months.

title: Carter Dome


text:
Centretown West

Centretown West is a neighbourhood in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. It lies to the west of Bronson Avenue, east of the O-Train Trillium Line, north of Carling Avenue, and south of Nanny Goat Hill, which is an escarpment to the north of Somerset Street West. To the east lies Centretown, to the north lies Lebreton Flats, to the west lies Hintonburg, and to the south lies Dow's Lake. Much of the neighbourhood makes up what is also called Dalhousie.

Centretown West is composed largely of low-density residential commercial properties, and some light industrial uses. Somerset Street West is dominated by Chinese and Vietnamese businesses, and it is considered to be Ottawa's Chinatown. It also retains a large Italian-Canadian population in Little Italy centred on Preston Street, which is also called "Corso Italia". A portion of Gladstone Avenue is also called "Via Marconi", after the Italian inventor who completed some of his work in Canada.

Its population in 2021 was 10,074.

History
The area was annexed by the city of Ottawa in 1888. Prior to that it was part of Nepean Township, and the community was known as Rochesterville.

title: Centretown West


text:
Talk:Pala Casino 400

Copy
Dumping 2006 race info here; generally this information shouldn't be posted on these pages anyway. It is already shown on the 2006 in NASCAR page, etc. Doctorindy 18:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

2006 Top 5 Qualifying

 * 1. Kurt Busch Time: 38.485 *Qualifies for 2007 Budweiser Shootout
 * 2. Greg Biffle Time:38.671 Behind Leader:-0.186
 * 3. Jimmie Johnson Time: 38.765 Behind Leader:-0.280
 * 4. J. J. Yeley Time: 38.881 Behind Leader:-0.396
 * 5. Denny Hamlin Time:38.936 Behind Leader:-0.451

2006 Top 10 Results

 * 1) Matt Kenseth
 * 2) Jimmie Johnson
 * 3) Carl Edwards
 * 4) Kasey Kahne
 * 5) Jeff Burton
 * 6) Jamie McMurray
 * 7) Casey Mears
 * 8) J. J. Yeley
 * 9) Mark Martin
 * 10) Kyle Busch

Fair use rationale for Image:CalifAutoClub500.jpg
Image:CalifAutoClub500.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot 03:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 22 ACS PALA-Casino-400 4C-180x180.webp

title: Talk:Pala Casino 400


text:
Talk:Ludwig Beck

Problems
"In 1935, he had a series of meetings with Prince Bernard von Bülow, the State Secretary of the German Foreign Office and the Chief of the Hungarian General Staff to discuss plans "for the division of Czechoslovakia".

Prince Bernard von Bülow died in 1929.

I confirm that newspapers reported he died October 28, 1929, but found no cause of death in the Rio de Janeiro Correio da Manhã for October 29, p1c9. I ended up here searching for that causa mortis. translator (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

 * You are correct, Interpreter, but the Prince von Bülow the article is talking about is not the former Chancellor who died in 1929, but rather his nephew also named Bernard von Bülow who served as the State Secretary at the German Foreign Office between 1930 and his death in 1936. So there is no problem with this article.--A.S. Brown (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.182.254.91 (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The main problem of this article is that it reads like it was written by Borat.

---

At the start of the article Beck's death is recorded as being on July 20th, 1944, the day of the plot to assassinate Hitler. However, at the end of the article, it claims that he commit suicide during the morning of the 21st. The 21st appears to be accurate, so I've changed the date of death at the top. --Solinox 20:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

--- Who says that the Wehrmacht was not strong enough to win a war against Britain? I'm fairly certain that's debatable.

 * It would have been a war against Britain, France and any other Allies they might be able to drum up. Don't forget France and Britain were global superpowers at the time, their empires were far larger than Germany's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.146.46.247 (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

 * In 1938, Germany would have been rapidly defeated if only for economic reasons. Before World War Two, 80% of the oil used in Germany was imported from Mexico, the United States and Venezuela, which called the relative strenghts of the Royal Navy and the Kriegsmarine in 1938 would meant that the British would imposed a blockade that would severed the Germans from their oil supplies in the New World (just like what happened in 1939). But unlike in 1939, since Germany and the Soviet Union did not share a common frontier, the Soviets would have not have able to supply the massive qualities of oil that they provided to the Germans in 1939-41 (a sign no doubt of the deep anti-fascist repulsion that some have claimed to have guided Joseph Stalin's foreign policy). The other major sources of oil the Germans had during World War Two would not have been operative in 1938. Romania was a ally of Czechoslovakia through the Little Entente and ally of France through the Franco-Romanian alliance of 1927, so German aggression against Czechoslovakia would brought Romania into the war that would have triggered in 1938. The other major of oil the Germans used during the war, namely artificial oil produced by coal carbonation was simply not ready for mass production in 1938 as General Beck was fond of reminding Hitler in his memos. If for other reason then the oil issue, a war in 1938 would resulted in a swift German defeat, so is why General Beck was so determined that Germany must avoid a war in 1938 no matter what. Even Hitler was finally forced to understand that, for contrary to public opinion, it was Hitler who backed down at the summit that produced the Munich Agreement. The inital summary of the 1938 crisis that was presented here was quite wrong. Hitler did NOT want the Sudetenland, and in private, Hitler could have cared less about the Sudetenlanders. What Hitler wanted above all in 1938 was a war of aggression to destroy Czechoslovakia. The Sudeten issue was a pretext for aggression, and in fact, Hitler regarded the Munich Agreement as a major diplomatic defeat that had "cheated" him of the war he was desperate to start in 1938. Again, contrary to the information first provided here, what happened at Munich was that the British did declare that they would go to war if Germany attacked Czechoslovakia while at the same time making clear that they were very open to settling Hitler's public demands, which were of course for the Sudetenland. But Hitler did not want his public demands to be satisfied because they would deprive him of his excuse for aggression. In fact, during his three meeetigs with Chamberlain in September 1938, Hitler was constantly being frustrated with Chamberlain's willingness to oblige Hitler's public demands, which is why Hitler kept upping the ante during his three summits out of the hope that his public demands might finally be refused, and he could have the war he wanted to launch in 1938. Confronted with firm British warnings in September 1938 about what were the likely results of attacking the Czechoslovaks (namely a war with Prague, Paris and London) and the mobilization of the Royal Navy, Hitler backed down and agreed to receive the Sudeteland peacefully, thereby giving him what he had demanded in public, but which was the last thing in the world that he wanted in private. To be fair, the Munich Agreement was very harsh to Czechoslovakia, and resulted in the dismemberment of that state, but that does not change the fact that the Munich Agreement was not what Hitler wanted. What Hitler wanted in 1938 was a limited war in Central Europe between Germany and Czechoslovakia, and which as Beck was fond of stating to Hitler, that was not possible. At least in this respect, Beck was right that Hitler's conduct in 1938 was the height of folly that was going to take Germany down quite rapidly, which is why Beck was finally driven to the desperate expedient of considering a putsch to stop the war that Hitler wanted to start--A.S. Brown (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Beck's Date of Death
I, too, noticed the discrepancies in the Date of Death for Beck. I searched through every source Google could throw at me, and the only one showing the July 21st date was Wikipedia. All others state it as July 20. I did find one that stated he was arrested very close to midnight on the 20th. I believe we would need to look at the time sequence involved: the time of day the assassination attempt on Hitler occurred; having to identify Beck as one of the perpetrators; find and arrest him, etc. Perhaps it was late in the day by the time all of this was accomplished. Perhaps, after his own unsuccesful attempts, he was actually shot by the guard after midnight. Enough speculation. I would like to know the source of the present Wikipedia article. I believe that's where the answer lies. What are your thoughts? Michael David 22:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I've been in the Bendler Block in Berlin this week end I saw a sign stating that Beck commited suicide at the LATE EVENING HOURS of July 20th at this point. I think the guys at the Bendler Block should know exactly when he killed himself.... So in my opinion the date of death should be changed to 20th of July

Regards

Jörg

I second this. Every other source I could find including online material and offline state Beck's death as the July 20th. --VeritasSannhet (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture
The picture is of really bad quality and should be replaced. Search 10 secs at google and you´ll find a better one. This one remembers me to Don Corleone but not a general. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrzej anonimus (talk • contribs) 17:45, 23 January 2007 I think I found a better picture. Captainvp 03:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Biased
This whole article needs a rewrite. It's more of a eulogy than an article. Making assumptions about him being a hero or about the survivors of the holy grail honoring is not appropriate when writing a factual artice. Seektrue 11:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Well. I have to take back my last remarks, formally it seems, you have a point. However, if you lived in the times and did have some personal experience, you would understand, all this is only a plain, matter of the fact truth. Astonishing, how quick vanishes the memory, the next generations are unable to realize, what really happened. Andrzej anonimus 13:17, 31 December 2006 (GMT+1)

 * Agreed. The article is terrible and very un-encyclopedic. I started deleting the obvious POV stuff and cute asides and personal opinions but only a few paragraphs in it just becomes overwhelming. A thorough rewrite on the whole article is needed. Anyone interested in collaborating? Inoculatedcities 01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This whole article needs a rewrite. It's more of a eulogy than an article. Making assumptions about him being a hero or about the survivors of the holy grail honoring is not appropriate when writing a factual artice. Seektrue 11:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The article is terrible and very un-encyclopedic. I started deleting the obvious POV stuff and cute asides and personal opinions but only a few paragraphs in it just becomes overwhelming. A thorough rewrite on the whole article is needed. Anyone interested in collaborating? Inoculatedcities 01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

==The Wehrmacht wasn't strong enough to win a war against Britain, but it was useful for propoganda reasons for Britain to portay tself as Little England standing alone against great odds, and there was certainly a propoganda advantage to the Nazis portraying Britain this way (in motivating Axis soldiers and citizenry).

This article seems also to have been written by someone with an inexpert grasp of English and needs to be re-written simply to be readable.

-

I agree with all of the above. This is terribly bad. Will somebody please do a complete rewrite? Preferably someone who is wholly proficient in the English language. SK 19.21, January 20, 2007 (CET)

Drek factor
There is a LOT of analysis in this article. It does not even mention Beck's death anymore. It seems that User:Andrzej anonimus increased the drek factor by a large amount. -- 199.33.32.40 23:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It looks like much of his material has been removed, thankfully, and the article is being improved. I took the liberty of rewording some awkward phrasing, fixing some tenses and grammar, and removing some impertinent material. The article still needs a lot more work and proper organizational headings to make it a more proper biography. Inoculatedcities 19:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Clean-Up
Much of the information contained in this page is very wrong. To start with, if Beck's statements at the Ulm trial in 1930 are anything to go by, when he all but endorsed the Nazi Party, he was a highly enthusiastic supporter of the Nazis in the early 1930s. Two, Beck was not opposed to "wars of conquest". Beck totally shared the Nazi idea of self-determination, namely it was unacceptable for Germans to ruled over by Czechs or Poles, but it was also unacceptable for Czechs or Poles to be ruled over Czechs or Poles. For Beck, like Hitler, Germans were the Herrnvolk (Master Race) destined to the masters of Eastern Europe, and it was natural and right for Germans to rule over Czechs and Poles. See Beck's memo arguing against attacking Czechoslovakia, when he calls the latter state's existence "intolerable" to Germany (Müller, Klaus-Jürgen “The German Military Opposition before the Second World War” from The Fascist Challenge and the Policy of Appeasement edited by Wolfgang Mommsen and Lothar Kettenacker page 65). Beck felt that in 1938, Germany was not ready for war with Britain and France, and believed that a German attack on Czechoslovakia would trigger a war with the former two states. In other words, Beck was arguing with Hitler over the timing of a attack on Czechoslovakia, not against the idea of aggression on Czechoslovakia. Beck felt that Germany need some time to rearm before committing aggression against her neighbors. Third, the claim that the British regarded Nazi Germany as a "useful bulwark" against the Soviet Union, and so would not back Beck's proposed putsch is really very wrong. To start with, there was no common German-Soviet frontier in 1938, so how could Germany be a "bulwark" against a state in which she had no common border with? If building a "bulwark against Bolshevism" in Central Europe was really the prime motivating force in British policy in the 1930s, then the logical country for that role would have been Poland, not Germany, but Anglo-Polish relations were very cool at best for almost all of the interwar period, which would suggest that fear of the Soviet Union was not a very important factor in British policy; presumably if it was, the British would have been desperate to build Poland up instead of largely shunning Warsaw until 1939. Which brings me to my another point, namely the British policy was not dominated by a fear of the Soviet Union as this article asserts. British policy-makers had extremely low opinion of Soviet military capacity. If one wants some proof of that, read the article by James Herndon “British Perceptions of Soviet Military Capability, 1935-39” pages 297-319 from The Fascist Challenge and the Policy of Appeasement. How was it possible for London to simultaneously hold the Red Army in near total contempt as an fighting force and be totally terrified of the Red Army overrunning Central Europe? Moreover, the real reasons why Britain wished to avoid a war had nothing to do with fear of the Soviet Union. To cite just one, the capacity of German bombers to destroy London was much exaggerated in 1938. Typical of these fears was the diary entry of Edmund Ironside from September 1938 that "We have not the means of defending ourselves and he [Chamberlain] knows it...We cannot expose ourselves to a German attack. We simply commit suicide if we do" (Dutton, David Neville Chamberlain pages 173-174). In September 1938, Chamberlain was advised by the Chiefs of Staff that within three weeks of war being declared, it could reasonably expected that German bombers would kill at least half-million people (in fact, the 150, 000 were close to the entire British dead from bombing during the entire war), but however, people acted on the information they have at the time. None of this has anything to do with keeping Germany as "bulwark" against the Soviet Union. Anyhow, given that Beck & company were all of the extreme right of the German political spectrum, just why would fear of the Soviet Union prevented London from backing his proposed putsch is not clearly explained here; a regime head by Beck would have been just as anti-communist as the Nazi regime. Anyhow, Beck did not really want to stage a putsch against Hitler; he only resorted to the idea out of desperation when it appeared to the only way of stopping a German attack on Czechoslovakia. Which brings up the basic paradox of Beck's dealings with the British. What he really wanted the British to do was issue a very firm warnings meant to dissuade Hitler from foreign adventures. As the German historian Klaus-Jürgen Müller points out quite correctly, to have meaningful impact on politics, Beck needed the threat of war to stage a putsch, while at the same time, the Beck was working to try to prevent the war that represented his only realistic chance of coming to power (Müller, Klaus-Jürgen “The German Military Opposition before the Second World War” from The Fascist Challenge and the Policy of Appeasement page 72). Beck's actions in 1938 should be understood as anti-war, not anti-Nazi. Indeed, in working to try to save Hitler from a war that Beck believed he could not win, his action should be understood as part of a "loyal opposition" that basically shared Hitler's views and beliefs, and only wished to save the Fuhrer from his own folly. Given that Beck believed that Germany would lose a war with Britain and France in 1938, if he was really anti-Nazi, he should have welcomed such a war. By seeking to avoid a war in 1938 that he believed Germany could not win, he was seeking of course to preserve the regime he allegedly hated. Fourth, one of the major reasons why the British had no interest in supporting Beck's proposed putsch was that the German conspirators were not very well organized. For example, the three three visits to London in the summer of 1938 by three different envoys from the German opposition, each bearing the same message that if only a firm British stand was made in favor of Czechoslovakia, then a putsch would remove the Nazi regime, and each ignorant of the other envoys presented an picture to the British of a group of people not well organized, which understandably created a great deal of doubt in London about the capacity of Beck and his group to overthrow Hitler. Is it really very realistic and fair to expect that the British should have in 1938 based their entire German policy on the words of a few individuals, who did not appear to be very well organized, and who may or may have spoken for broader currents within Germany? Anyhow, the basic British policy in 1938 was to avoid a war with Germany, not overthrow Hitler, and had a putsch been attempted in 1938, it would probably have failed, and if British complicity in the putsch was discovered, the result would have been a Anglo-German war. Given that in 1938, the Labour Party, strange as it may seem to modern ears were very strongly criticizing Chamberlain for "war-mongering" and not giving peace a chance, had a Anglo-German war resulted from a failed putsch, the result have been a war in which the Nazis could have claimed the moral high ground, and much of the British Left would have formed a powerful anti-war movement that would have been in accord with those claims. There would have been massive pacifistic demonstrations all over Britain, in which Chamberlain would have been denounced for his folly in interfering in Germany’s internal affairs by backing the failed putsch of General Beck, and provoking the war. Given the putsch attempt of 1944 was just as poorly organized as the proposed putsch of 1938, had a putsch been attempted in 1938, it would almost certainly failed, so all this talk about how Neville Chamberlain supposedly missed a “golden opportunity" to overthrow Hitler is really just nonsense. All this talk of a missed “golden opportunity" in 1938 is really just a an really digusting apologia for Germans, in which the German unwillingness and/or inability to overthrow their dictatorship is somehow really all the fault of the British. Beck was a half-hearted conspirator against Hitler because in his heart of hearts, Beck largely shared the same values as Hitler. General Beck spent 5 years of his life (1933-1938), first as chief of the Truppenamt (Troop Office), and then as Chief of the General Staff working very hard to build Hitler’s military machine, which is a very strange form of activity for a man who allegedly hated Hitler and everything he stood for. --A.S. Brown (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What did he doing the war?
The article kind of skips from the late 30's to 1943/44, straight to his resistance activities. What was he doing in the meantime? Historian932 (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing the Article/Beck
This is a well constructed, seriously researched and referenced article on a historical figure who occupied a senior position in the German Armed Forces during the National Socialist Administration. It would be preferable if those readers who would edit the page had, themselves, a background in the military history of the period and/or professional experience in editorial work and/or relevant work, related to the subject, in a university faculty.

The original writer is clearly well versed in the history of the period and has extensive knowledge of the person in question. It is also clear however, that he is not a native english speaker although his knowledge of the language is of a very high order. I suspect that he is a native german speaker and this would explain the difficulties in presenting such an essay. No native german speaker can avoid 'germanisms' leaking though into an english text. These consist, mainly, of long 'run-on' sentences which also contain extensive 'asides' and discussions related to the original topic; the use of 'passive voice' and other aspects (such as repetitiveness), all of which are part of a normal, highly sophisticated, german dialogue but which simply do not work in english. I am well aware of the difficulties involved. I am co-author/editor of Ludwig Beck's Field Manual 'Truppenfuhrung' which was published in 2001 (Boulder Co.) (Q.V.)

I suggest that contact be made with the original writer, who is clearly very capable, to seek his agreement and co-operation in re-editing the article to a colloquial form of english with the Chicago Style Book forming the baseline reference. If the original writer and other readers have comments and suggestions, please let me know. Thanks.Miletus (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The 'New' picture
The generally accepted/used picture of Ludwig Beck is the photograph of him at his desk in the Truppenamt. He is wearing his white tunic jacket and his decoration ribbons. Although the 'new' picture is different, it is not really something exceptional. Was the change the result of a personal preference by a passing editor? Are personal preferences relevant here? Will the final edited verson of this section accept such a picture. Also, what is the relevance to 'Borat' (whoever that is)? Are we expected to use the antics of a low comedian as some kind of academic reference?Miletus (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ludwig Beck


text:
List of storms named Lillian

The name Lillian has been used for two tropical cyclones in the Eastern Pacific Ocean.

 * Tropical Storm Lillian (1963) – made landfall on Western Mexico.
 * Hurricane Lillian (1973) – remained over the open ocean.

title: List of storms named Lillian


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tourism in Caribbean

 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 07:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Tourism in Caribbean
I think this page should be deleted because it has, nor will ever have any prominent use. It's simply a page linking to sites where you can find out more and shop for ways to tour the Caribbean. Enclyopedias are not vacation planners nor advertising sites (for the sites that are being linked to. I see no way this could be expaned either, not to mention that the title is grammatically incorrect. alfrin 20:38, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, I'd say it's equivalent to spam. --Several Times 20:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy, although it has multiple external links, this amounts to just a single external link and is a CSD. -Splash 22:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete advertising. JamesBurns 08:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete but not for the reasons listed. An article on the tourism business and why certain sites are popular with visitors can certainly be encyclopedic. See Tourism in France, Tourism in Mexico, and Tourism in England, for example. But this page is currently devoid of value. — RJH 15:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
List of storms named Lily

The name Lily or Lilly has been used for six tropical cyclones worldwide.

In the Eastern Pacific Ocean:
 * Hurricane Lily (1967)
 * Hurricane Lily (1971)
 * Hurricane Lily (1975)

In the Western Pacific Ocean:
 * Typhoon Lilly (1946)

In the Australian region:
 * Cyclone Lily (1977)

In the South-West Indian Ocean:
 * Tropical Depression Lily (1966)

title: List of storms named Lily


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmartCOP

 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 -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

SmartCOP
Delete: based on No original research. --Durin 20:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Do NOT Delete: This is an article about wikis and their enterance into the defense community. I believe it gives more power to wikipedia since it shows the power of wikis and the new levels they are reaching.  --Mike 19:46 July 25, 2005 (UTC) user's only logged in contribution was to Talk:SmartCOP; this edit actually done by  and
 * Please sign your edits. --Durin 02:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete per Durin. Ken 20:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I work for the Navy and use wikipedia for research. The military now sees the use of wikis as a valuable asset for future command and control systems. SmartCOP will be an important element of future systems and recommend you keep this section. User:Monroe, SPAWAR Systems 10:01, 25 July 2005 no such user "Monroe"; effectively an unsigned edit by
 * Delete looks liek spam, not particularly encyclopaedic anyway james gibbon  20:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, plus it's larger than any one page has a right to be. --Several Times 20:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: It isn't spam. It's a direct cut/paste from that cleared copyvio status (see Talk:SmartCOP). --Durin 21:01, 20 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.