text:
Fermented bean curd

Fermented tofu (also called fermented bean curd, white bean-curd cheese, tofu cheese, soy cheese, preserved tofu or sufu) is a Chinese condiment consisting of a form of processed, preserved  tofu used in East Asian cuisine. The ingredients typically are soybeans, salt, rice wine and sesame oil or vinegar. In mainland China the product is often freshly distributed. In overseas Chinese communities living in Southeast Asia, commercially packaged versions are often sold in jars containing blocks 2- to 4-cm square by 1 to 2 cm thick soaked in brine with select flavorings.

History
According to the 1596 Compendium of Materia Medica written by the Chinese polymath Li Shizhen during the Ming dynasty, the creation of tofu is attributed to the Han dynasty Prince Liu An (179 – 122 BC), prince of Huainan. Manufacturing began during the Han dynasty in China after it was created. It is disputed whether Li Shizhen mentioned fermentation of tofu, however. A clear reference to fermented tofu appeared in the 1610 Penglong Yehua (蓬櫳夜話), under the name haifu (醢腐).

In 1818, Englishman Basil Hall wrote about a red, cheese-like substance served in Ryukyu; he might be referring to fermented tofu. In 1855, Frenchman Baron de Montgaudry described the making of tofu and fermented tofu in writing.

Names
In Mandarin, the product is generally known as dòufǔrǔ (豆腐乳), "dòurǔ" (豆乳) or fǔrǔ (腐乳) — though in southwest China it is often known as lǔfǔ (卤腐). In English it is sometimes referred to as "soy cheese".

Nutritional value
Fermented bean curd contains organic acids, alcohol, esters and other flavor primitives. It contains a large amount of hydrolyzed protein, free amino acids, fat, carbohydrates, thiamine, riboflavin, oxalic acid, calcium, phosphorus and other nutritional ingredients. It contains no cholesterol. The amount of protein in fermented tofu is about 12–22%.

Ho et al. (1989) compared the volatile flavor compounds of red fermented bean curd and white fermented bean curd. Red fermented bean curd contains much larger amounts of alcohols, esters, and acids than the white variety. This may be due to the fermentation of red rice by Monascus spp. The differences in nutritional properties and fermentation between the two varieties are accompanied by differences in flavor and colour.

Health care function
The Food Encyclopedia, written by Wang Su-Hsiung (1861) of the Qing dynasty, made reference to preserved bean curd as superior to difficult-to-digest, hardened tofu especially for the elderly, children, and ill persons. Fermented bean curd is reportedly easier to digest than unfermented bean curd, because it is made through the fermentation process of mold, making the protein more digestible, absorbable, and richer in vitamins. And the microorganisms decompose the phytic acid in the beans, making minerals such as iron and zinc, which are initially poorly absorbed in soybeans, more easily absorbed by the body. So it may be easier for patients, elderly, or children to eat and absorb the nutrients.

It has been suggested that fermented bean curd may have certain health benefits, although there is insufficient data to confirm these claims. One report claims that the fermentation process generates isoflavones, and that fermented bean curd could reduce the risk of coronary heart disease, lower blood pressure, and prevent osteoporosis.

Characteristics
Fermented bean curd has a special mouthfeel similar to certain dairy products due to the breakdown of its proteins which takes place during the air drying and fermentation. Lacking strong flavor prior to fermentation, fermented bean curd takes on the aroma and flavor of its marinade. The flavor is salty with mild sweetness. The texture and taste of fermented bean curd resembles a firm, smooth paste not unlike creamy blue cheese. (Indeed, this kind of tofu is sometimes called "Chinese cheese" in English.) Refrigerated, it can be kept for several years, during which time its flavor is believed to improve.

Culinary use
Fermented tofu is commonly used as a condiment, combined into sauces to accompany hot pot, or consumed at breakfast to flavor rice, porridge, gruel, congee, or erkuai. Usually either several bricks are placed in a small bowl covered in the flavored brine or one to one half bricks are placed into a bowl. Then, chunks are broken off the brick and consumed with a mouthful of porridge or gruel. The brine may also be used for flavoring. Fermented bean curd can also be added in small amounts, together with its brine, to flavor stir-fried or braised vegetable dishes (particularly leafy green vegetables such as water spinach). In the Chaoshan region of China, fermented tofu is the main ingredient used to make a stuffed biscuit known as furu bing.

Comparison with cheese
Both tofu and cheese are made from curds obtained from the coagulation of soy milk and dairy milk respectively. However, soybean curds are formed from the chemical destabilization of the micelles (using calcium sulfate, magnesium sulfate, etc.) allowing protein bonding while cheese curds are created from the enzymatic (rennet) hydrolysis of casein into para-casein. The bean curds are then simply pressed to produce tofu and are thus bland and highly perishable, like unaged cheese, while fermented bean curd, like aged cheese, is ripened with microorganisms and thus flavorful and long-lasting.

Varieties

White preserved bean curd is the most common type and can be described without the white adjective. The flavor, color and aroma can be altered using various combinations of spices and seasoning in the brine with alterations in the commonly used combination of 10% rice wine and 12% salt. Those with no alcohol produces "small cheese cubes" (hih-fang) while those with double the alcohol content produces "drunken cheese" (tsui-fang). This variety is also available with chili and/or sesame oil. Seasonings can include anise, cinnamon, lemon juice, lemon zest, dried shrimp, and ham. In addition, one can also obtain the curd dried, and without brine, which are then sold in paper cartons.

Red fermented bean curd (, or ) incorporates red yeast rice (cultivated with Monascus purpureus) with the brining liquor for a deep-red color and distinctively thickened flavor and aroma. This variety may also contain chili. A popular derivative of this variety has an appearance of ketchup and is seasoned with rose wine, caramel and natural sugar.

Stinky fermented bean curd is fermented for over six months and is also popular due to its strong creamy flavor. However, due to its strong acrid smell, this variety is an acquired taste. Note that stinky sufu differs from stinky tofu in appearance, consistency and salt content. Stinky sufu are made in the same cube-like shapes and has a similar smooth soft creamy texture as regular white sufu. In Taiwan, a green version is popular and made with sake lees, crushed leaves and a green mucor mold. It is then fermented for 12 hours and sold on the streets.

Chiang fermented bean curd (Chiang-doufu) is made with cubes of tofu soaked in either Chinese-style miso (Chiang) or soy sauce for several days. Usually reddish-brown in color and salty, it may be dried and fermented further and may also be mixed with sake lees. In Japan, miso is used.

Production
In order to produce fermented bean curd, cubes of dried tofu are allowed to fully air-dry under hay and slowly ferment from aerial bacteria and fungal spores. Commercially available fermented bean curd is made by using dry firm tofu that has been inoculated with the fungal spores of Actinomucor elegans, Mucor sufu, Mucor rouxanus, Mucor wutuongkiao, Mucor racemosus, or Rhizopus spp.. This freshly fermented tofu is known as 'mold tofu' (霉豆腐).

The dry fermented tofu is then soaked in brine, typically enhanced with Chinese rice wine, vinegar, chili peppers or sesame oil, or a paste made of rice and soybeans. In the case of red fermented bean curd, red yeast rice (cultivated with Monascus purpureus) is added for color. Fermented bean curd is generally sold in small glass jars.

title: Fermented bean curd


text:
Osceola and Renegade

Osceola and Renegade are the official symbols of the Florida State University Seminoles. Osceola, representing the historical Seminole leader Osceola, and his Appaloosa horse Renegade introduce home football games by riding to midfield with a burning spear and planting it in the turf.

Osceola and Renegade debuted in 1978, and are the most recent of several mascots used by the school. FSU has tried to ensure a dignified depiction of Osceola. The portrayal is supported by leaders of the Seminole Tribe of Florida.

Depiction
Florida State's Osceola tradition is overseen by Allen Durham, whose father, Bill Durham, introduced it in 1978.

Osceola wears Native American-themed regalia that is designed and approved by the Seminole Tribe of Florida, consisting of leather clothing, moccasins, face paint, and a garnet bandana. He carries a feathered spear and is accompanied by Renegade, an appaloosa horse whom he rides bareback. Osceola performs at all home football games at Doak Campbell Stadium and related events like homecoming. He initiates each game by charging Renegade to midfield while the Marching Chiefs perform the War Chant. Right after the team enters and before the first play of the game occurs, he hurls a flaming spear into the ground at the center of the field.

The Durham family personally selects and trains both the rider and horse, and it coordinates the tradition with oversight by the university. Students portraying Osceola must undertake a two-year apprenticeship, demonstrate necessary riding skill for the role as well as moral character and maintain a grade-point average of 3.0. Students receive a scholarship for portraying Osceola and are required to remain in character and abide by a set of protocols throughout all performances. There is only one Osceola impersonator at a time; as of 2018 seventeen students have played the role, with the seventeenth rider currently serving.

Previous mascots
Florida State University adopted the Seminoles nickname in 1947, just after its reorganization from a women's college to a coed institution. The moniker was selected through a fan competition; reportedly the newly established football team liked it so much that they stuffed the ballot box to ensure its selection. Prior to the introduction of Osceola and Renegade, the Florida State Seminoles used several different Native American-themed mascots. The first was Sammy Seminole, introduced at the FSU Pow Wow in 1958 for football games. This mascot was portrayed by a white male member of the gymnastics or circus programs, who performed wild stunts in garish faux-Native American garb. The gymnastics program's sponsorship of Sammy Seminole ended in 1968, but the character was quickly reintroduced.

In the late 1960s, Chief Fullabull emerged as a mascot during basketball games. Like Sammy Seminole, he donned cartoonish Native American-themed outfits, and performed clownish stunts. Under protest from Native American groups, the character's name was altered to Chief Wampumstompum, though this did nothing to assuage the concerns of protesters. The character was replaced with a more traditionally dressed figure named Yahola, also known as the "spirit chief". All of these mascots were eventually retired, and officials decided to find a more respectful representative for the school's teams.

Osceola
In 1962, the Osceola and Renegade symbols were conceived by Bill Durham, a Tallahassee businessman and Florida State alumnus. He came up with the concept of a horseback-riding Seminole mascot when he was voted into the school's homecoming court. He returned to the idea in 1977, and won the support of Ann Bowden, wife of head football coach Bobby Bowden, who helped make the idea a reality. Durham contacted the Seminole Tribe of Florida about the project, and chairman Howard Tommie had tribe members make the first costume for Osceola. Durham provided the horse, while Bowden helped acquire the various permits necessary to allow a horse onto the field.

Osceola and Renegade debuted at a September 16, 1978 game against the Oklahoma State Cowboys. They proved quite popular, and subsequently other faux-Indian traditions arose, including the "War Chant" in 1984 and the "Tomahawk Chop" shortly after. Durham oversaw the Osceola tradition for 25 years, and over time aspects of the performance have become more refined and regulated. In 2002, Durham retired and passed his role on to his son Allen Durham, a former Osceola portrayer.

In the 1980s and 1990s, when mascots based on Native Americans became more controversial and many Native Americans and supporters protested their use, Florida State consulted with the Seminole Tribe of Florida, emphasizing that Osceola was never intended to be demeaning. Several representatives of the Seminole Tribe, including Chairman James E. Billie and Council Member Max Osceola, have given FSU their blessing to use Osceola and Seminole imagery. However, the matter remains controversial for other Florida Seminoles, as well as members of the Seminole Tribe of Oklahoma. Critics have noted a political undercurrent in the support from Florida Seminole leaders, who are heavily involved in business ventures such as Indian casinos in the state. In 2005, the NCAA added FSU to a list of schools facing potential sanctions for using "hostile and abusive" Indian mascots and names; after much deliberation, the NCAA gave FSU an exemption, citing the university's relationship with the Seminole Tribe of Florida as a major factor.

In keeping with his stoic portrayal, FSU refers to Osceola and Renegade as "symbols" rather than mascots, and does not use them for more traditional mascot activities like cheerleading and promotions. In 2012, the university developed another related mascot, an anthropomorphic horse named "Cimarron", to fill this role.

In April 2016, the FSU Student Government Association voted to discourage the wearing of Native American headdresses from sporting events as being contrary to the goal of maintaining its relationship with the Seminole Tribe, because the headdresses worn by fans are closer to those worn by Plains Indians. Although referred to as a ban, the vote did not change official university policy regarding student conduct, and imposes no penalty.

The first student to portray Osceola was Jim Kidder in 1978. Since then, six different Renegades and 18 different riders have portrayed the role.

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

title: Osceola and Renegade


text:
Enn Tarto

Enn Tarto (25 September 1938 – 18 July 2021) was an Estonian politician who was a leading dissident during the Soviet occupation of Estonia. He was imprisoned from 1956 to 1960, 1962 to 1967, and again from 1983 to 1988 for anti-Soviet activity.

An anti-Soviet dissident
Tarto was born in Tartu. He was involved in nationalist activities since his youth. On 4 November 1956, Tarto and other members of the Estonian Youth Brigade (Eesti Noorte Malev) distributed leaflets in support of Hungarian Revolution, 1956. The message reached the West and via Western broadcasts, the students of Moscow State University. Some of these students plus lecturers were expelled for approving the Hungarians. Later, Tarto met some of these in a prison in Mordovia. For his action, Enn Tarto has been awarded the Officer Cross of the Merit Order of the Hungarian Republic. After being imprisoned twice, Enn Tarto studied from 1969 to 1971 in Tartu University Estonian philology. As Tarto was accepted by the university, a KGB man dealing with Tarto told him: 'We've already used stick, let's try now carrot as well'. Tarto was exmatriculated in 1971 in connection with his patriotic thinking and actions.

During the late 1970s, when Yuriy Andropov's anti-dissident campaign was at its peak, the dissidents of the three occupied Baltic republics decided to send a joint memorandum to the UN and the major powers. The petition, known as the Baltic Appeal, was directed to the governments of the two German states, the USSR, signatories of the Atlantic Charter and the Secretary General of the UN (Kurt Waldheim). The petition called for the elimination of the consequences of the pact and for self-determination and independence for the Baltic nations. The petition was signed by 37 Lithuanians, four Estonians and four Latvians. It was handed over to Western representatives in Moscow, August 1979. On 23 August 1979, Baltic Appeal was approved by well-known Moscow dissidents, academic Andrei Sakharov, Viktor Nekipelov, Tatyana Velikanova, Malva Landa and Arina Ginzburg. Provided with these names, the document reached West, thus signed by fifty people. A reaction by the international community was the Resolution of the European Parliament, 13 January 1983.

Enn Tarto was also one of these who publicly demanded the USSR move its troops away from Afghanistan. Enn Tarto was also active in teaching other dissidents on surviving in the conditions of a totalitarian regime. In the course of anti-dissident slander in 1980s, the authorities called Enn Tarto a teacher and leader of the "Anti-Soviet elements". In 1984, the Supreme Court of the Estonian SSR sentenced Tarto to ten years plus five years deprivation of civic rights, stating that he was an especially dangerous "anti-social recidivist". Enn Tarto was finally released on 17 October 1988, after public protests in Estonia and a demand by 45 US congressmen. (4 October 1988).

After release
Having been released from captivity, he took actively part in Estonia’s process of regaining independence. He participated in the radical pro-independence movement (while not being a member of ERSP) and was elected deputy of Congress of Estonia (Eesti Kongress). Tarto was one of the organisers of the protest march around the Soviet military base near Tartu on 8 March 1989. Tartu had co-ordinated it with Dzhokhar Dudayev, who was serving there as the chief of garrison.

Enn Tarto together with Linnart Mäll took part in founding the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation, was chairman of the Estonian Society of Pan-Europe, and chairman of council of the Estonian Human Rights Institute from 1992 to 1995. He participated in the re-founded Estonian Defence League activities and in organisations promoting the commemoration of the victims of totalitarian regimes.

Tarto was elected three times to Riigikogu (1992, 1995, 1999), from town of Tartu or Tartu and Jõgeva region. Tarto was a member of the Riigikogu from 1992 to 1995 (Fatherland Union), from 1995 to 1999 (Right-wingers) and 1999 to 2003 (People's Party Moderates).

In 2005, Enn Tarto decided to leave SDE, which had chosen the line of collaborating with the People's Union (a joint list for Tallinn city council election), which mostly unites former communist party officials.

He was a candidate for Tartu town council in Fatherland Union list (2005 election).

Tarto was elected three times to Tartu town council (1999, 2002, 2005).

Enn Tarto also publicly condemned the top collaborators with the Communist regime and the executors of the Communist repressions in Estonia.

Enn Tarto was awarded numerous medals by the institutions of the Republic of Estonia, including Order of the National Coat of Arms (2nd class) and the highest award by the Estonian Defence League (Eesti Kaitseliit), White Cross medal (1st rate). Valdas Adamkus awarded him the Officer Cross of the Vytis Cross Order.

Tarto died on 18 July 2021 at the age of 82.

Documentary

 * Andres Sööt, Alone and Together (Üksinda ja koos), 2002

title: Enn Tarto


text: Category:Luton Town F.C. managers

title: Category:Luton Town F.C. managers


text:
Talk:Cayden Boyd

Untitled
In the circumstances I'm convinced that the result would have been keep, so I am not going to relist, but if someone else disagrees then please do relist it yourself, citing this inconclusive discussion. --Tony Sidaway Talk 17:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cayden Boyd


text:
Yellow rain

Yellow rain was a 1981 political incident in which the United States Secretary of State Alexander Haig accused the Soviet Union of supplying T-2 mycotoxin to the communist states in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia for use in counterinsurgency warfare. Refugees described many different forms of "attacks", including a sticky yellow liquid falling from planes or helicopters, which was dubbed "yellow rain". The U.S. government alleged that over ten thousand people had been killed in attacks using these supposed chemical weapons. The Soviets denied these claims and an initial United Nations investigation was inconclusive.

Samples of the supposed chemical agent that were supplied to a group of independent scientists turned out to be honeybee feces, suggesting that the "yellow rain" was due to mass defecation of digested pollen grains from large swarms of bees. Although the scientific evidence conclusively showed that yellow rain was not a Soviet chemical or biological weapon, the U.S. government has not retracted its allegations, arguing that the issue has not been fully resolved. Many of the U.S. documents relating to this incident remain classified.

Allegations
The charges stemmed from events in Laos and North Vietnam beginning in 1975, when the two governments, which were allied with and supported by the Soviet Union, fought against Hmong tribes, peoples who had sided with the United States and South Vietnam during the Vietnam War. Refugees described events that they believed to be chemical warfare attacks by low-flying aircraft or helicopters; several of the reports were of a yellow, oily liquid that was dubbed "yellow rain". Those exposed claimed neurological and physical symptoms including seizures, blindness, and bleeding. Similar reports came from the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in 1978.

A 1997 textbook produced by the U.S. Army Medical Department asserted that over ten thousand people were killed in attacks using chemical weapons in Laos, Cambodia and Afghanistan. The descriptions of the attacks were diverse and included air-dropped canisters and sprays, booby traps, artillery shells, rockets and grenades that produced droplets of liquid, dust, powders, smoke or "insect-like" materials of a yellow, red, green, white or brown color.

Secretary of State Alexander Haig announced in September 1981 that:
 * For some time now, the international community has been alarmed by continuing reports that the Soviet Union and its allies have been using lethal chemical weapons in Laos, Kampuchea, and Afghanistan. ... We have now found physical evidence from Southeast Asia which has been analyzed and found to contain abnormally high levels of three potent mycotoxins—poisonous substances not indigenous to the region and which are highly toxic to man and animals.

The Soviet Union described these accusations as a "big lie" and in turn correctly stated that the US government used chemical weapons during the Vietnam War. The American accusations prompted a United Nations investigation in Pakistan and Thailand. This involved five doctors and scientists who interviewed alleged witnesses and collected samples that were purported to come from Afghanistan and Cambodia. However, the interviews produced conflicting testimony and the analyses of the samples were inconclusive. The UN experts also examined two refugees who claimed to be suffering from the after-effects of a chemical attack, but the refugees were instead diagnosed as having fungal skin infections. The team reported that they were unable to verify that chemical weapons had been used but noted that circumstantial evidence "suggestive of the possible use of some sort of toxic chemical substance in some instances."

The US mycotoxin analyses were reported in the scientific literature in 1983 and 1984 and reported small amounts of mycotoxins called trichothecenes, ranging from the parts per million to traces in the parts per billion range. The lowest possible limit of detection in these mycotoxin analyses is in the parts per billion range. However, several inconsistencies in these reports caused a "prolonged, and at times acrimonious, debate on the validity of the analyses". A 2003 medical review notes that this debate may have been exacerbated since "Although analytical methods were in their infancy during the controversy, they were still sensitive enough to pick up low levels of environmental trichothecene contamination."

Initial investigation
C. J. Mirocha at the University of Minnesota conducted a biochemical investigation, looking for the presence of trichothecene mycotoxins, including T-2 toxin, diacetoxyscirpenol (DAS), and deoxynivalenol (DON). This included chemical analyses of blood, urine, and tissue of alleged victims of chemical attacks in February 1982 in Laos and Kampuchea. "The finding of T-2, HT-2, and DAS toxins in blood, urine, and body tissues of alleged victims of chemical warfare in Southeast Asia provides compelling proof of the use of trichothecenes as nonconventional warfare agents. ... Additional significant findings lie in the trichothecenes found in the leaf samples (T-2, DON, nivalenol) and yellow powder (T-2, DAS). ... The most compelling evidence is the presence of T-2 and DAS in the yellow powder. Both toxins are infrequently found in nature and rarely occur together. In our experience, copious producers of T-2 toxin (F. tricinctum) do not produce DAS, and conversely, good producers of DAS (F. roseum 'Gibbosum') do not produce T-2."

Honeybee hypothesis

In 1983, these charges were disputed by Harvard biologist and biological weapons opponent Matthew Meselson and his team, who traveled to Laos and conducted a separate investigation. Meselson's team noted that trichothecene mycotoxins occur naturally in the region and questioned the witness testimony. He suggested an alternate hypothesis that the yellow rain was the harmless fecal matter of honeybees. The Meselson team offered the following as evidence: separate "yellow rain drops" which occurred on the same leaf, and which were "accepted as authentic", consisted largely of pollen; each drop contained a different mix of pollen grains, as one would expect if they came from different bees, and the grains showed properties characteristic of pollen digested by bees (the protein inside the pollen grain was gone, while the outer indigestible shell remained). Further, the pollen mix came from plant species typical of the area where a drop was collected.

The US government responded to these findings by arguing that the pollen was added deliberately, in order to make a substance that could be easily inhaled and "ensure the retention of toxins in the human body". Meselson responded to this idea by stating that it was rather far-fetched to imagine that somebody would produce a chemical weapon by "gathering pollen predigested by honeybees." The fact that the pollen originated in Southeast Asia meant that the Soviet Union could not have manufactured the substance domestically, and would have had to import tons of pollen from Vietnam. Meselson's work was described in an independent medical review as providing "compelling evidence that yellow rain might have a benign natural explanation".

After the honeybee hypothesis was made public, a literature search turned up an earlier Chinese paper on the phenomenon of yellow droppings in Jiangsu Province in September 1976. Strikingly, the Chinese villagers had also used the term "yellow rain" to describe this phenomenon. Many villagers believed that the yellow droppings were portents of imminent earthquake activity. Others believed that the droppings were chemical weapons sprayed by the Soviet Union or Taiwan. However, the Chinese scientists also concluded that the droppings came from bees.

Mycotoxins
Analyses of putative "yellow rain" samples by the British, French and Swedish governments confirmed the presence of pollen and failed to find any trace of mycotoxins. Toxicology studies questioned the reliability of reports stating that mycotoxins had been detected in alleged victims up to two months after exposure, since these compounds are unstable in the body and are cleared from the blood in just a few hours. An autopsy on a Khmer Rouge fighter named Chan Mann, a victim of a putative yellow rain attack in 1982, turned up traces of mycotoxins, but also aflatoxin, Blackwater fever, and malaria.

Surveys also showed that both mycotoxin-producing fungi and mycotoxin contamination were common in Southeast Asia, casting doubt on the assertion that detecting these compounds was an unusual occurrence. For example, a Canadian military laboratory found mycotoxins in the blood of five people from the area who had never been exposed to yellow rain, out of 270 tested, but none in the blood of ten alleged victims, and a 1988 paper reported that illnesses from mycotoxin exposure may pose a serious threat to public health in Malaysia. It is now recognized that mycotoxin contamination of foods such as wheat and maize is a common problem, particularly in temperate regions of the world. As noted in a 2003 medical review, "The government research highlighted, if nothing else, that natural mycotoxicoses were an important health hazard in Southeast Asia."

Reliability of eyewitness accounts
In 1987, the New York Times reported that Freedom of Information requests showed that field investigations in 1983–85 by US government teams had produced no evidence to substantiate the initial allegations and instead cast doubt on the reliability of the initial reports, but these critical reports were not released to the public. A 1989 analysis of the initial reports gathered from Hmong refugees that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association noted "marked inconsistencies that greatly compromised the validity of the testimony" and criticized the methods used in interviews by the US Army medical team that gathered this information. These issues included the US Army team only interviewing those people who claimed to have knowledge of attacks with chemical weapons and the investigators asking leading questions during interviews. The authors noted that individuals' stories changed over time, were inconsistent with other accounts, and that the people who claimed to have been eyewitnesses when first interviewed later stated that they had been relaying the accounts of others.

In 1982, Meselson had visited a Hmong refugee camp with samples of bee droppings that he had collected in Thailand. Most of the Hmong he interviewed claimed that these were samples of the chemical weapons that they had been attacked with. One man accurately identified them as insect droppings, but switched to the chemical weapons story after discussion with fellow Hmong.

Australian military scientist Rod Barton visited Thailand in 1984, and discovered that Thai villagers were blaming yellow rain for a variety of ailments, including scabies. An American doctor in Bangkok explained that the United States had been taking a special interest in yellow rain, and was providing medical care to alleged victims.

Possible U.S. origin
A CIA report from the 1960s reported allegations by the Cambodian government that their forces had been attacked with chemical weapons, leaving behind a yellow powder. The Cambodians blamed the United States for these alleged chemical attacks. Some of the samples of "yellow rain" collected from Cambodia in 1983 tested positive for CS, which the United States had used during the Vietnam War. CS is a form of tear gas and is not acutely toxic, but may account for some of the milder symptoms reported by the Hmong villagers.

Scientific conclusions and US claims
The scientific community sees these allegations as supported by insufficient evidence, or as having been completely refuted. For instance, a 1992 review published in Politics and the Life Sciences described the idea of yellow rain as a biological agent as conclusively disproved and called for an assessment by the US government of the mistakes made in this episode, stating that "the present approach of sweeping the matter under the rug and hoping people will forget about it could be counterproductive." Similarly, a 1997 review of the history of biological warfare published in the Journal of the American Medical Association stated that the yellow rain allegations are "widely regarded as erroneous", a 2001 review in the Annual Reviews in Microbiology described them as "unsubstantiated for many reasons", and a 2003 article in Annual Review of Phytopathology described them as "largely discredited". A 2003 review of the history of biological warfare described these allegations as one of many cases where states have produced propaganda containing false or unsubstantiated accusations of the use of biological weapons by their enemies.

In contrast, as of 1997 the U.S. Army maintains that some experts believe that "trichothecenes were used as biological weapons in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan" although they write that "it has not been possible for the United States to prove unequivocally that trichothecene mycotoxins were used as biological weapons." They argued that presence of pollen in yellow rain samples is best explained by the idea that "during biological warfare attacks, dispersed trichothecenes landed in pollen-containing areas." (Essentially the same position is taken in a subsequent volume in the same series of U.S. Army textbooks published in 2007. ) Similarly, the US Defense Threat Reduction Agency argues that the controversy has not been resolved and states that a CIA report indicated the Soviet Union did possess weapons based on T-2 mycotoxin, although the agency states that "no trace of a trichothecene-containing weapon was ever found in the areas affected by yellow rain" and concludes that the use of such weapons "may never be unequivocally proved." A 2007 review published in Politics and the Life Sciences concluded that the balance of evidence strongly supported the hypothesis that some type of chemical or biological weapon was used in Southeast Asia in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but noted that they found no definitive proof of this hypothesis and that the evidence could not "identify the specific agents used, the intent, or the root source or sources of the attacks." The Vietnamese and the Soviets have also reportedly used other chemical weapons in conflict, in Cambodia and Afghanistan, respectively.

India
An episode of mass pollen release from bees in 2002 in Sangrampur, India, prompted unfounded fears of a chemical weapons attack, although this was in fact due to a mass migration of giant Asian honeybees. This event revived memories of what New Scientist described as "cold war paranoia", and the article noted that the Wall Street Journal had covered these 1980s yellow rain allegations in particular detail. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal continues to assert that the Soviet Union used yellow rain as a chemical weapon in the 1980s and in 2003 accused Matthew Meselson of "excusing away evidence of Soviet violations."

Iraq
In the build-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq the Wall Street Journal alleged that Saddam Hussein possessed a chemical weapon called "yellow rain". The Iraqis appear to have investigated trichothecene mycotoxins in 1990, but only purified a total of 20 ml of the agent from fungal cultures and did not manage to scale up the purification or produce any weapons containing these compounds. Although these toxins are not generally regarded as practical tactical weapons, the T-2 toxin might be a usable weapon since it can be absorbed through the skin, although it would be very difficult to manufacture it in any reasonable quantity.

Henry Wilde, a retired US Foreign Service Officer, has drawn parallels between the use of yellow rain allegations by the US government against the Soviet Union and the later exaggerated allegations on the topic of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Wilde considers it likely that states may again "use rumors and false or planted intelligence of such weapons use for propaganda purposes." and calls for the establishment of a more rigorous inspection process to deal with such claims. Similar concerns were expressed in a 2006 review published by the World Organisation for Animal Health, which compared the American yellow rain accusations to other Cold War-era accusations from the Soviet Union and Cuba, as well as to more recent mistaken intelligence on Iraqi weapons capabilities, concluding that such unjustified accusations have encouraged the development of biological weapons and increased the risk that they might be used, as they have discredited arms-control efforts.

Radiolab interview
In 2012 the science-themed show Radiolab aired an interview with Hmong refugee Eng Yang and his niece, author Kao Kalia Yang, to discuss Eng Yang's experience with yellow rain. The hosts took the position that yellow rain was unlikely to have been a chemical agent. The episode prompted a backlash among some listeners, who criticized Robert Krulwich for insensitivity, racism, and their disregard for Yang's personal and professional experience with the region in question. The negative response prompted host Krulwich to issue an apology for his handling of the interview.

Bulgaria
On 23 May 2015, just before the national holiday of 24 May (the day of Bulgarian writing and culture), yellow rain fell in Sofia, Bulgaria. Suspicions were raised because the Bulgarian government was criticizing Russian actions in Ukraine at the time. The Bulgarian national academy BAN explained the event as flower pollen.

Mai Der Vang's Yellow Rain
American Hmong poet Mai Der Vang published Yellow Rain (Graywolf Press, 2021) to critical acclaim and was a 2022 Finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in Poetry. The book explores yellow rain in Southeast Asia through the use of documentary poetics.

title: Yellow rain


text:
User talk:JHCC/Wikipedia talk pages discussing the categorization of religious beliefs as mythology (disambiguation)

The following talk pages all contain discussion of this dispute:

 * Category talk:Abrahamic mythology
 * Category talk:Christian mythology
 * Category talk:Christian mythology/Proposed compromises
 * Category talk:Jewish mythology
 * Category talk:Mythology
 * Talk:Abrahamic mythology
 * Talk:Christian mythology
 * Talk:Christian Mythology (not the same page as previous)
 * Talk:Mythology


text: User talk:84.48.93.127

title: User talk:84.48.93.127


text:
Talk:Eggcorn

Debate / defend / reject / submit examples here

 * ''For the previous, now archived, list of suggested examples, see Talk:Eggcorn/Archive 6

Note: Suggestions here that don't quote a reliable source can't be considered for inclusion on this page

 * Take for granite (take for granted) https://grammarist.com/eggcorns/take-for-granted-or-take-for-granite/ or https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/pardon-the-expression/take-for-granted-vs-take-for-granite/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.213.32.199 (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

 * Roller Board for Roll Aboard suitcase — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.14.55 (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 * How about:

 * "step foot in", for "set foot in"
 * "under weigh" for "under way" or "underway" Kanjuzi (talk) 08:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "bonified" instead of "bona fide"; I've been editing this page for a few years, and had never heard this one before. I think it's great, and that we should include it in the examples. Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

 * What about "stump of approval" instead of "stamp of approval"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:72:0:6480:0:0:0:DC (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the above can be considered unless discussed in a reliable source. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, I repeatedly encountered the phrase "an indefinitely blocked user avoiding their block", although what was meant was "evading" their block. The word "avoiding" in this phrase is also an example of an eggcorn, as it is plausible when used in the same context. 2A02:AB04:2AB:700:5C75:13F8:2995:36 (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure it is an eggcorn, as in that context 'avoid' and 'evade' mean very much the same thing. Anyway, though, user discussion on Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for citation purposes. @ MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This dispute comes up often in Eve Online where star systems all have a "security rating" and police ("Concord") only patrol systems with 0.5 and higher security. You can avoid Concord entirely by spending your time in "low-sec" systems and that's a perfectly legitimate way to play. However, if you commit crime in "high-sec" and immediately dock with a station (or use other means) to evade Concord, your account gets suspended or banned. Avoidance is all about starting distant and staying distant from something with no specific intent. Evasion is all about starting close and intentionally becoming distant from something which has the specific intent to restrain you. Avoiding Concord is encouraged; evading Concord breaches the game rules. It's a very clear distinction but new players who don't understand the words can come to the wrong conclusion. In the Wikipedia ban context, avoiding the ban means spending their online time on other websites (or passively reading WP) whereas evading the ban means taking steps to circumvent the measures in place and persisting in actively editing WP. 49.181.176.222 (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's also a bigger real-world issue with tax avoidance (legal) and tax evasion (illegal). Confusing two similar technical words doesn't really seem like an eggcorn, though. Belbury (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

 * The Killers sing the phrase "every once and a little while" in their song When You Were Young. This isn't a mondegreen since those are the actual lyrics. Nor is it a standard idiom (that's "every once in a little while"). It's something peculiar The Killers invented and a Google search for that phrase only turns up references to their lyrics. While this shows that the lyricist wasn't copying any established cohort of people who say "and a little while", it also means there aren't reliable sources for classifying this as an eggcorn. 49.181.176.222 (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was coming to this page because after learning about eggcorns I started examining phrases I use, I thought about it and I used to confuse "once in a while" with "once and a while". I looked it up on google and there was a suggestion of "once and a while vs once in a while" the phrase might contain another eggcorn as well. I also found in one article mentioning "once in awhile" being mentioned, so it might also be a common might be a misinterpretation.
 * https://kris-spisak.com/writing-tip-every-once-and-a-while-vs-every-once-in-a-while/#:~:text=Reminder%3A%20%E2%80%9CEvery%20once%20in%20a,red%20pen%20at%20the%20offenders.
 * https://brians.wsu.edu/2016/05/19/once-and-a-while/
 * as an aside "damp squid" doesn't make sense, it seems more like a malapropism, squids like being damp and it wouldn't make sense in the context "the party went off like a damp squib" and "the party went off like a damp squid". The same goes for common examples "toe the line" for "tow the line", "death nail" for "death knell", "for all intensive purposes" for "for all intents and purposes" though I'm less strongly convinced about the first two. If I'm mistaken please lets discus, my understanding is the definition usually includes
 * "An eggcorn is the alteration of a phrase through the mishearing or reinterpretation of one or more of its elements, creating a new phrase having a different meaning from the original but which still makes sense and is plausible when used in the same context."
 * the still makes sense in context is what I think these examples don't follow, they also don't follow logic as in "damp squid" which I see logic and creativity also listed as requirements.
 * "card shark" for "card sharp" is an example as it's creative, follows logic, and fits in context. like sharks are apex predators while someone who is excelling at slight of hand would also be at the apex of skill or sharp. I think at this point it might be a folk etymology. 24.185.252.30 (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * As to "every once and a little while", this is more of a mumpsimus than an eggcorn. To qualify as an eggcorn, a phrase should be meaningful, maybe even adding a richness to the original; e.g. "old-timer's disease" for "Alzheimer's disease".
 * Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * would "ripe with" and "rife with"/ "damp squid" and "damp squib" count as adding to the so called richness 24.185.252.30 (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Rife with" sounds possible if you can cite a reliable source MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Noting "bone apple tea" here as a phrase that doesn't appear to fit the definition, but which has appeared in the article in the past and used to redirect here. (Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_11 made it a wiktionary redirect last year.) I don't think it's an eggcorn, as it isn't "plausible when used in the same context" in the way that the other phrases are. Perhaps there's an argument that in a conversation between two English speakers who don't speak any French, both the correct and misheard versions might seem equally plausible to them? But I feel like eggcorns have to have the angle where if the speaker stops to think superficially about what they've just said, the phrase makes logical sense to them ("it's a disease that old-timers get") and they conclude that they're right to keep using it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right - I hadn't read the definition of eggcorn closely enough when I thought of that example. The property of "making sense in its own right" is what makes a standard malapropism an eggcorn.
 * Until someone makes a drink named "bone apple tea" that, when drunk, aides in increasing one's appetite or otherwise enjoyment of food, I don't think it counts as an eggcorn. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 * "Marshall law" for "martial law"
 * Added by User:Bremps 15 December 2022. Cnilep (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's fairly reasonable. Marshall could mean "arrange or assemble (a group of people, especially soldiers) in order.", which would have plenty to do the suspension of ordinary civilian law. Can also refer to the head of the police department. It would be kind of plausible if it was actually spelt "marshall law".  Bremps  06:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to sleep soon, so I may respond in the morning.  Bremps  06:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

 * "Tow the line" for "toe the line" is a common example that I was surprised to see excluded from the list.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvonwerder1 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you quote a reliable source? See note at top. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

 * "lack toast and tolerant" for "lactose intolerant"

Edit to lede
Hello, I was editing the lede to replace one of the given examples with the eponymous one, so that it would be explained in a preview (without needing to read the whole article). I accidentally submitted the change before putting an edit summary. Please consider unreverting the change. Cerulean Depths (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Does "pencil-crayon" count?
It's a thing Canadians call colored pencils (example: "She memorized every pencil-crayon color in the box" from "Life, in a Nutshell" by Barenaked Ladies) because their boxes of Crayola colored pencils say "PENCIL/CRAYON" ("crayon" being French for "pencil") on them. Not quite a malapropism like the other eggcorns on the page, but a similar phenomenon in that it's an apropos term borne out of a misunderstanding. Octan (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

 * No, an eggcorn depends on mishearing or reinterpreting pronunciation. For example, the word eggcorn presumably results from the similar sound of /ɛɡ+kɔɹn/ (egg corn) and /eɪ.kɚn/ (acorn). If pencil-crayon results from reinterpreting the bilingual written form "PENCIL/CRAYON" as a single English word, then that is a different type of reinterpretation. In both cases there is a meaning component (acorns are shaped a bit like eggs; colored pencils are used similarly to wax crayons), but the misunderstanding comes from a different domain. Cnilep (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Memmott 2015 user-generated content?
Several items in the article currently are cited to a 2015 NPR "Two-Way" post by Mark Memmott. According to the piece, "On Saturday, we asked folks to send us examples of the "eggcorns" they love or hate. [...] we've put together a list of the 100 that were either mentioned often or just made us smile."

This strikes me as something close to the user-generated content that is usually unacceptable. Unlike, say, Reddit or (the site previously known as) Twitter, Memmott and whoever else "we" refers to probably exercised some editorial judgement over the list. But they claim no expertise on the subject, and included examples that made them smile. It seems to me that eighteen examples is more than enough to illustrate the point, so that removing those five more won't negatively effect the article. Cnilep (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Yes, agreed. Eighteen examples is indeed plenty. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They also include examples which don't seem to be eggcorns at all, like (from just the first page) agreeance and callapitter. The source seems to fail WP:RSEDITORIAL for linguistics. Belbury (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed them. Cnilep (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eggcorn


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JIP 2

JIP
[ Vote here] (29/0/0) ending 17:13 September 9 2005 (UTC) - I nominate myself for adminship. I have previously done so on April 1, but that was a frivolous nomination because it was April Fool's day. This time I'm nominating myself for real.

I feel I have been on Wikipedia long enough to learn the general rules and customs, and contributed quite a lot of useful information. I have even been mistaken for an admin once, by User:Kourosh ziabari. — J I P | Talk 17:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
 * As this is a self nomination, I accept by default. — J I P | Talk 17:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Strong support, very prolific editor on Finland-related articles (and others as well). Over 6,500 edits, of which more than 2,000 to the Wikipedia namespace. I've dealt with this user quite a lot, but I was still sure that he already was an admin... oh well. :) - ulayiti  (talk)   (my RfA)  17:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)#
 * 2) [[Image:Smily.jpg]] Fire Fox T  C 20:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Extreme Cabalistic Support; possibly one of the first votes where I can honestly say, "I thought you were one".  Ral  315  21:06, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Anybody who was a schoolmate of Janne Wirman receives inconditional support from me. He also seems to be a fair editor, though. --Sn0wflake 01:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) --Jusjih 03:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) BRIAN 0918  • 2005-09-3 04:07
 * 7) Thought you were one. --Merovingian (t) (c) 09:38, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. A good editor whom I see all over Wikipedia. --Canderson7 21:32, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Great editor; meets my guidelines. android  79  21:35, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support YEP Ryan Norton T 02:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support The JPS 12:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong support as the first person I've mistaken for an admin. N (t/c) 16:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) BRIAN 0918  • 2005-09-4 17:37
 * 14)   Journalist C./ Holla @ me!
 * 15) Support. I've disagreed with JIP before. However it would make me a useless POV cluttered editor if I voted him down for that. As long as he didn't lose his cool, he's good for the wikipedia. Its about the pedia, not about me raising an army of admins who think the same way I do ;) R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Andre ( talk ) 21:32, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) "Support" Good contributor... enough to make up for those silly edits on Battle of Alesia (see below). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. A really good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Proto t c 11:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Support cannot resist V. Molotov [[Image:Flag of California.svg|25px]] 15:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Derktar 23:58, September 6, 2005 (UTC).
 * 22) Support I've been impressed those actions of his that I've seen around the site. KeithD (talk) 12:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Support --Alan Au 19:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. – Bratsche talk 21:00, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. - Mailer Diablo 21:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Support! I'd have gotten here earlier if I know such a fine crop would spring up today! -- BD2412 talk 01:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. utcursch | talk 12:12, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Support What, you're not? Quick, pass the m&b. Alf melmac 22:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. JIP must promise that the answers to the question below about uncertainty over deletion guidelines will be replaced by "I'll read the relevant documents before I dive in, and will watch some experienced admins do it too". -Splash 15:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes I promise. In fact I've already looked at the deletion guidelines. — J I P | Talk 16:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral Comments Questions for the candidate
 * May I ask that you put an edit summary when you nominate yourself. It is not as if you have nothing to say. :) Oleg Alexandrov 18:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You come close to losing your temper when you make frivolous edits and people don't get the joke? --Michael Snow 20:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * My first edit to the Battle of Alesia was frivolous and I didn't expect it to be kept. I later changed it to a more serious edit, but it was still rejected. What made me close to losing my temper was a comment saying "Attempt to use Asterix books as an authoritative source. Surely that's a joke." when I never claimed Asterix books were an authoritative source. — J I P | Talk 20:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, instead of reading the comment so literally, did you consider that once you started editing frivolously, you lost a great deal of credibility and weren't in a position to expect other editors to take you seriously? --Michael Snow 21:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * About the candidate questions, I'm curious why you're unsure about judging deletion processes and handling arbitrations in question 1. Also, could you clarify what you mean in question 3 about expecting "other conflicts to proceed in the same way"?  --Alan Au 07:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about the guidelines for administrators for judging deletion processes and handling arbitrations, how they should behave to determine the consensus. Still, if I am accepted as an administrator, I may try to judge deletion processes anyway, to see how it's done. About the conflict question, I cannot foresee any further conflicts in the future (although there still could be some), so I don't think future conflicts will cause much harm. The conflict between me and User:Muriel Gottrop has been settled and we don't hold any grudges against each other. I don't expect any grudges from future conflicts either. — J I P | Talk 10:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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 would be speedy deleting obvious patent nonsense or personal attack pages, and blocking vandals who, for example, post spam links over and over again. I am not sure I am up to the task of judging deletion processes or handling arbitrations.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. At least Frontier (computer game) (originally started when I was still anonymous) and Helsinki slang. I have also written numerous articles about Star Trek and Transformers characters.
 * 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. The only time I remember having really been in conflict was when User:Muriel Gottrop (or however it is spelled) disagreed with my additions to Battle of Alesia. I came close to losing my temper, but the matter was later arbitrated, and my addition about the Battle of Alesia in the Asterix books was kept. I hold no grudges about the matter. In the future I expect possible other conflicts to proceed the same way.

title: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JIP 2


text:
United States Lighthouse Board

The United States Lighthouse Board was the second agency of the U.S. federal government, under the Department of Treasury, responsible for the construction and maintenance of all lighthouses and navigation aids in the United States, between 1852 and 1910. The new agency was created following complaints of the shipping industry of the previous administration of lighthouses under the Treasury's Lighthouse Establishment, which had had jurisdiction since 1791, and since 1820, been under the control of Stephen Pleasonton.

The quasi-military board first met on April 28, 1851, and with its establishment, the administration of lighthouses and other aids to navigation would take their largest leap toward modernization since the inception of federal government control. In 1910, the Lighthouse Board was disestablished in favor of a more civilian Lighthouse Service, under the Department of Commerce and Labor; later the Lighthouse Service was merged into the United States Coast Guard in 1939.

Founding
By 1847, the United States Congress became serious about reforming the Lighthouse Establishment which had been in existence since 1791 and in response to a number of complaints, the U.S. Congress removed the responsibility for the construction of six new light stations from the U.S. Treasury Department's Fifth Auditor (Stephen Pleasonton), and transferred it to the supervision of the United States Army's, long-time construction agency, the Corps of Engineers. When it became clear that this would not alleviate the underlying problems in the Lighthouse Establishment, Congress then felt compelled to deal the final blow to Pleasonton's administration. The ensuing congressional investigation took more than four years to effect a change in the administration of navigation aids along the American coasts. During that time, congressional appointee, Lt. Jenkins of the United States Coast Survey conducted interviews with pilots and mariners, engaged in domestic and foreign research, and was involved in a number of hearings into existing navigational aids administration.

On March 3, 1851, the United States Congress passed "An Act Making Appropriations for Light House, Light Boats, Buoys, &c." Section 8 of the act stated:

The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and required to cause a board to be convened at as early a day as may be practical after the passage of that act to be comprisedof [sic] two officers of the Navy of high rank, two officers of Engineers of the Army, and such civil officers of scientific attainments as may be under the orders or at the disposition of the Treasury Department, and a junior officer of the Navy to act as Secretary to said board, whose duty it shall be under instructions from the Treasury Department to inquire into the condition of the Lighthouse Establishment of the United States, and make a general detailed report and programme to guide legislation in extending and improving our present system of construction, illumination, inspection, and superintendence.

The Lighthouse Board resulted from this mandate, and its original members consisted of William B. Shubrick, and Samuel F. Du Pont, U.S. Navy; James Kearney, U.S. Topographical Engineers; civilian academics Alexander Dallas Bache, Superintendent of the U.S. Coast Survey, and Joseph Henry, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution; and Lt. Thornton Jenkins, U.S. Navy, who acted as secretary.

Later developments
These men attracted others of similar quality to lighthouse duty, both on the board and in district offices. The country was organized into 12 lighthouse districts, each having an inspector (a naval officer) who was charged with building the lighthouses and seeing that they remained in good condition and that the lens was in operation. After a few years the inspectors became overloaded with work and an engineer (an army officer) was appointed to each district to tend to the construction and maintenance of lighthouses.

The Lighthouse Board moved quickly in applying new technology, particularly in purchasing and installing new Fresnel lenses and constructing screw-pile lighthouses. The Board also oversaw the construction of the first lighthouses on the west coast. By the time of the Civil War, all lighthouses had Fresnel lenses.

Previously, under the Establishment, the local collectors of customs were in charge of the lighthouses and other aids to navigation. In time, all duties regarding aids to navigation were taken from them. The Board demanded that only those who could read were to be appointed as keepers in order that they be able to read their written instructions. These instructions were detailed and covered everything possible about the operation of lighthouses, leaving little discretion to the keeper. The Board struggled to eliminate politics from its activities, and slowly the organization became a professional career agency, helped greatly by the Civil Service Reform Acts of 1871 and 1883. Keepers became civil service employees in 1896. Most important, the Board was constantly mindful of advancing technology and took advantage of new types of lighthouses, buoys, or fog signals, as well as improvement in lighthouse optics. Over the next five decades several advances in lighthouse construction technology took place including the development of the exposed screwpile lighthouses, exoskeleton lighthouses, waveswept interlocking stone lighthouses, iron caisson lighthouses, and breakwater lighthouses.

In the 1850s the Board prescribed color schemes for the buoys, as well as range lights and day markers; and the buoy system was standardized. Classification systems were also developed to mark the nation's waterways. Iron buoys were introduced to replace the more expensive copper-clad wooden buoys. The Lighthouse Board also began printing changes made in aids to navigation as a Notice to Mariners.

Several advances in the technology of fog signals were made during the 1850s. In 1851, an experimental air fog whistle and reed horn was installed at Beavertail Lighthouse at the entrance to Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. At first this sound signal was powered by a horse-operated treadmill and later by an internal combustion steam engine. Around 1851, mechanically rung fog bells were introduced. The striking mechanism was governed by a weight attached to a flywheel, and later internally run by clockworks. The strokes of the fog signals were timed deliberately to afford each signal a unique sound characteristic. The bell signal was gradually replaced by three variations of that instrument. The first was an ordinary locomotive whistle, enlarged and modified and blown by steam from a high-pressure tubular boiler. The second was a reed-trumpet, and in 1866 the third variation, a siren-trumpet. Although the fog bell signal was still used for warning vessels over short distances, other fog signals started to supersede the smaller bell signal. Bells were also used on buoys; later whistling buoys were invented by J. M. Courtenay and were first in use in 1876. The first gas-lighted buoy was installed in 1882. The gong buoy was invented in 1923.

In 1886, a new technology was tested in the illumination of the Statue of Liberty—electricity. The electrical lighting of the statue, under the Lighthouse Board's care from 1886 to 1902, marks the beginning of the "modern age" in lighthouse illumination. In 1900, the Lighthouse Board began converting lighthouses to electric service; however, because of the lack of direct access to power lines, the conversion came about slowly.

title: United States Lighthouse Board


text:
Lighthouse Board

Lighthouse Board may refer to:

 * Northern Lighthouse Board, UK, formed in 1786
 * United States Lighthouse Board, formed in 1851
 * , formed in 1904
 * , formed in 1811

title: Lighthouse Board


text:
Sayyida Shirin

Sayyida Shirin (died 1028), also simply known as Sayyida (سیدا), was a Bavandid princess, who was the wife of the Buyid amir (ruler) Fakhr al-Dawla ((r. 976 – 980)).

She was the regent of most of Jibal during the minority of her son, Majd al-Dawla ((r. 997 – 1029)), and served as de facto ruler also after her formal regency had ended during the reign of her son. She is notable for securing the governorship of Isfahan to her first cousin Ala al-Dawla Muhammad, thus marking the start of the Kakuyid dynasty.

Background
Sayyida Shirin was the daughter of Rustam II ((r. 964 – 979)), the ispahbadh (ruler) of the Bavand dynasty in Tabaristan, a region in northern Iran. The Bavandid family traced its descent back to Bav, who was alleged to be a grandson of the Sasanian prince Kawus, son of the King of Kings (shahanshah) Kavad I ((r. 488 – 496)). Sayyida Shirin was married to the Buyid amir (ruler) Fakhr al-Dawla ((r. 976 – 980)), who ruled Jibal, Tabaristan and Gurgan. Together they had two sons, Majd al-Dawla and Shams al-Dawla.

Regency
Following Fakhr al-Dawla's death by stomach illness in 997, his realm in Jibal was divided between Majd al-Dawla, who received the capital of Ray and its surroundings, and the younger son Shams al-Dawla, who received the cities of Hamadan and Qirmisin as far as the borders of Mesopotamia. They were both installed as co-rulers by Sayyida Shirin, who became the regent of the realm due to their young age. Regardless, Shams al-Dawla was Majd al-Dawla's subordinate. During this period, the Ziyarid ruler Qabus ((r. 977 – 981)) conquered Tabaristan and Gurgan, which he had previously ruled before being defeated by the Buyids. Following Majd al-Dawla's failure to repel Qabus, the latter ruled Tabaristan and Gurgan with little disturbance. Majd al-Dawla also lost several western towns (including Zanjan) to the Sallarids of Azerbaijan. The Hasanwayhid chieftain Badr ibn Hasanwayh ((r. 979 – 1013)), who ruled around Qirmisin as a Buyid vassal, went to Ray to help Majd al-Dawla administer the local affairs, but his help was rebuffed. As a result, Badr kept gradually dissociating himself from the affairs at Ray. By at least as early as 1003, Sayyida Shirin had secured the governorship of Isfahan to her first cousin Ala al-Dawla Muhammad, thus marking the start of the Kakuyid dynasty. In 1008, with the assistance of his vizier Abu 'Ali ibn 'Ali, Majd al-Dawla attempted to throw off the regency of his mother. Sayyida Shirin, however, escaped to the Badr ibn Hasanwayh, and together with Shams al-Dawla they put Ray under siege. After several battles, the city was taken and Majd al-Dawla was captured. He was imprisoned by his mother in the fort of Tabarak, while Shams al-Dawla took to power in Ray. A year later (in 1009), Sayyida Shirin fell out with Shams al-Dawla, and thus freed and reinstated Majd al-Dawla in Ray, while Shams al-Dawla returned to Hamadan. Power continued to be held by Sayyida Shirin.

In 1014, Majd al-Dawla and Sayyida Shirin were forced to flee to Damavand following an attack on Ray by Shams al-Dawla. However, a mutiny amongst the troops of Shams al-Dawla forced the latter to return to Hamadan, while Majd al-Dawla and Sayyida Shirin returned to Ray. In the same year, the distinguished Persian polymath Avicenna (died 1037) went to Ray, where he entered into the service of Majd al-Dawla and Sayyida Shirin. There he served as the physician at the court, treating Majd al-Dawla, who was suffering from melancholia. Avicenna reportedly later served as the "business manager" of Sayyida Shirin in Qazvin and Hamadan, though details regarding this tenure are unclear. Avicenna later joined Shams al-Dawla, possibly due to his opponent Abu'l-Qasim al-Kirmani also working under Sayyida Shirin.

In 1016, Majd al-Dawla and Sayyida Shirin declined the demand of the Daylamite military officer Ibn Fuladh to become the governor of Qazvin. As a result, Ibn Fuladh started attacking the outskirts of Ray. With the help of the Bavandid prince Abu Ja'far Muhammad (died 1028), Majd al-Dawla repelled Ibn Fuladh from Ray, who fled to the Ziyarid ruler Manuchihr ((r. 1012 – 1031)). There Ibn Fuladh secured Manuchihr's assistance in exchange for his fealty. Reinforced by 2,000 troops by Manuchihr, Ibn Fuladh laid siege to Ray, thus forcing Majd al-Dawla to appoint him as the governor of Isfahan. Following this event, records of Ibn Fuladh disappear, which suggests he was unable to dislodge the then incumbent governor of Isfahan, Ala al-Dawla Muhammad.

When Sayyida Shirin died in 1028, the consequences of the political seclusion of Majd al-Dawla became apparent. He was soon faced with a revolt by his Daylamite soldiers, and requested the assistance of the Ghaznavid ruler Mahmud ((r. 998 – 1030)) in dealing with them. According to the historian Clifford Edmund Bosworth, this was a foolish decision: Mahmud had been keen to expand his power to the west, but had refrained from attacking Ray due to the resolute presence of Sayyida Shirin. Using the Buyids' Shi'a beliefs as a pretext, Mahmud came to Ray in 1029, deposed Majd al-Dawla as ruler, and sacked the city, bringing an end to Buyid rule there.

title: Sayyida Shirin


text:
Twin unit

A twin unit, twinset, or double unit is a set of two railroad cars or locomotives which are permanently coupled and treated as if they were a single unit. A twinset of cars or coaches can also be called a twin car. In US passenger railroad parlance, twin units are also known as married pairs.

On passenger railroads, light rail, and monorail services, married pairs may have machinery necessary for full operation of the cars split between them. Items that are typically shared include transformers, motor controllers, dynamic braking grids, cabs, current collectors, batteries, and air compressors. This provides significant savings in both cost of equipment and weight, which increases performance and decreases energy consumption. The cost of operating such a pair may be slightly higher when the extra car in such a pair is not needed to meet level-of-service demands at a particular time.

title: Twin unit