text:
Talk:International Race of Champions

International?
Would this be a similar concept to that of 'world' in 'World Series'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.8.118 (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's more international than that world series... but yes. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

2007 Season?
If you go to the IROC website, you are greeted by a series of pages thanking everyone that has been involved with the sport over the years. In January, they announced that they had to postpone the opening race of the season due to a lack of a title sponsor. There is nothing on the site that says anything directly, but it almost sounds as if they have given up and are closing their doors. Can anyone either affirm this or find out otherwise? Macraw83 13:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Restrictor plates
Do they use restrictor plates on the IROC cars at Daytona and Talladega?
 * What kind of cars have they used after 2004? Rmhermen 20:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about restrictor plates on IROC cars.

They still use the Trans-Am body. A 2005 photo can be found here.

--Jon Revelle 22:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm quite sure they do not use restrictor plates. The engines are simply tuned to run at an acceptable speed, and considerable bodywork helps slow them down. 64.32.241.35 14:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No restrictor plates but a lower-aerodynamic body is correct. IROC has historically used are retired drivers to test the cars and to ensure the cars are all close to the same speed. The cars are set slightly too tight (or push) so that the drivers with limited stockcar experience don't spin out as easy. There have been numerous body styles and manufacturers used over the years. --Royalbroil 02:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Greatest Moment
I dont know where you could fit it, but i feel like the battle between Dale Earnhardt Sr and Jr at Michigan in 1999 should fit the article. I dont think any racing fan can ever forget father and son, side by side, for the win. --RICKY 22:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Unfortunantly, that would not be considered a neutral statement. It could be in a trivia section, but those are generally discouraged. What you could do is research for a history section or for that year's page IROC_XXIII. If all else fails, be bold and have fun! (just don't overdo it!) Flyingcandyman (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:International Race of Champions


text:
Evangeline Walton

Evangeline Walton (24 November 1907 – 11 March 1996) was the pen name of Evangeline Wilna Ensley, an American writer of fantasy fiction. She remains popular in North America and Europe because of her “ability to humanize historical and mythological subjects with eloquence, humor and compassion”.

Life
Born in Indianapolis, Indiana to Marion Edmund Ensley and Wilna Eunice Ensley née Coyner, Walton came from a lively, educated, Quaker family. Walton suffered chronic respiratory illnesses as a child, and was privately or self-taught at home. Her parents separated and divorced in 1924. Growing up and living with her mother and her grandmother and witnessing her parents’ marital difficulties roused a natural feminism in Walton which appears throughout her writings. As a child, Walton enjoyed the works of L. Frank Baum, James Stephens, Lord Dunsany and Algernon Blackwood, which she would later cite as influences on her fiction. Walton and her mother traveled often to New York City, Chicago and San Francisco for opera, especially for Richard Wagner’s Der Ring des Nibelungen; opera was a passion her entire life. In 1946 after the death of her grandmother, Walton and her mother moved to Tucson, Arizona. Wilna Ensley died in 1971 but not before she saw the dawn of public recognition for Walton and her works.

Most of Walton’s published and unpublished works were originally written in the 1920s through the early 1950s. She worked on her best known work, the Mabinogion tetralogy, during the late 1930s and early 1940s, and her Theseus trilogy during the late 1940s. Once success found her after 1970, she reworked many of her manuscripts for publication over the next twenty years. Walton said of her knack for writing fantasy: “My own method has always been to try to put flesh and blood on the bones of the original myth; I almost never contradict sources, I only add and interpret.” In 1991, she underwent surgery for a brain tumor that proved benign. However, her health continued to decline.

Treated as a child with silver nitrate tincture for frequent bronchitis and severe sinus infections, Walton, who had extremely fair skin, absorbed the pigment of the tincture, causing her skin to turn blue-gray and darken as she aged.

Walton corresponded with the British novelist, essayist and poet John Cowper Powys for many years. Some of Walton's papers from 1936-1984—including biographic material, manuscripts and the correspondence with Powys—are archived in Special Collections at the Library, University of Arizona in Tucson. She was first cousin to Clifford C. Furnas (1900–1969), author of The Next Hundred Years, Assistant Secretary of War in the Eisenhower administration, co-founder of NASA and chancellor of SUNY Buffalo; and to Clifton J. Furness (1898–1946), professor of music and author of The Genteel Female: An Anthology (1931). Furness edited and introduced a facsimile edition of Leaves of Grass (1939) and Walt Whitman's Workshop: A Collection of Unpublished Manuscripts (1928). A writer himself, Furness encouraged, inspired and mentored his young cousin Evangeline.

Walton herself wrote about her chosen pen name, "I use the name Walton professionally, partly because I originally hoped to build up different lines of work under different names, partly because Walton is an old family name and appears on the Declaration of Independence. Not that I can trace any blood connection between my Quaker Waltons and the Declaration signer. They came from Virginia, and were supposed to have had a [Native American] man somewhere up the family tree. He may be the reason why both records and tradition trail off into vagueness. But when I was a child, old folk remembered the Waltons as very tall, very dark people, too full of restless energy to fit quietly into their peaceful little Quaker community: a vivid, turbulent note in it."

Writings
Walton is best known for her four novels retelling the Welsh Mabinogi. She published her first volume in 1936 under the publisher's title of The Virgin and the Swine. Although receiving warm praise from John Cowper Powys, the book sold poorly and none of the other novels in the series reached print at the time. Rediscovered by Ballantine's Adult Fantasy series in 1970, it was reissued as The Island of the Mighty.

Editors at Ballantine were unaware that she was still alive, till she got in touch and sent them a second novel that had been left unfinished when the first failed to sell. This appeared as The Children of Llyr in 1971. It was followed by The Song of Rhiannon in 1972 and Prince of Annwn in 1974. All four novels were published in a single volume as The Mabinogion Tetralogy in 2002 by Overlook Press. The four novels are translated and available in several European languages. The rights to Walton’s Mabinogi work were purchased by Stevie Nicks in the hopes of bringing the epic to the big screen.

Walton's Witch House was written in the mid- to late-1930s and published in 1945 as the first volume in “The Library of Arkham House Novels of Fantasy and Terror”. It is an occult horror story set in New England. In 1956, she published The Cross and the Sword, a historical novel set during the Danish conquest of England and the destruction of its Celtic culture.

In 1983, Walton published The Sword Is Forged, the first of a planned Theseus trilogy. Walton had completed the trilogy in the late 1940s but the publication by Mary Renault of her Theseus novels in 1958 and 1962 kept Walton from publishing her own. The remaining two novels in the trilogy remain unpublished.

Walton published several short stories. The best-known of these are “Above Ker-Is” (1980), “The Judgement of St. Yves” (1981) and “The Mistress of Kaer-Mor” (1980). She also wrote seven unpublished novels, several volumes of unpublished short stories, poems and a verse play. Some of these works have been published posthumously - see bibliography below.

Currently Douglas A. Anderson is the agent for Walton's literary works.

Awards

 * Mythopoeic Fantasy Award for Adult Literature, Best Novel nominee, 1972: The Children of Llyr.
 * Mythopoeic Fantasy Award for Adult Literature, Best Novel winner, 1973: The Song of Rhiannon.
 * Mythopoeic Fantasy Award for Adult Literature, Best Novel nominee, 1975: Prince of Annwn.
 * Locus Award, 1975: Prince of Annwn, 20th place.
 * Fritz Leiber Fantasy Award, "Gray Mouser Award", Science Fiction/Fantasy's Fantasy Faire, 1979.
 * World Fantasy Convention, Convention Award, 1985.
 * Locus Award, 1984: The Sword Is Forged, 26th place.
 * World Fantasy Convention, World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement, 1989.

Mabinogion tetralogy

 * 1) The Virgin and the Swine. November 1936. Republished as The Island of the Mighty. July 1970.
 * 2) The Children of Llyr. August 1971.
 * 3) The Song of Rhiannon. August 1972.
 * 4) Prince of Annwn. November 1974.

Other novels

 * Witch House. September 1945.
 * The Cross and the Sword. October 1956.
 * The Sword Is Forged. July 1983.
 * She Walks in Darkness. Tachyon Publications, September 2013.

Collections

 * Above Ker-Is and Other Stories. March 2012.

Short stories

 * "At the End of the Corridor." 1950.
 * "Above Ker-Is." 1978.
 * "The Mistress of Kaer-Mor." 1980.
 * "The Chinese Woman." 1981.
 * "The Judgement of St. Yves." 1981.
 * "The Ship from Away." 1982.
 * "The Forest That Would Not Be Cut Down." 1985.
 * "Cannibal Sorcerer" (with Bruce D. Arthurs). 1993.
 * "They That Have Wings." Fantasy & Science Fiction, Nov/Dec 2011.
 * "Lus-Mor." 2012.
 * "The Other One." 2012.
 * "The Tree of Perkunas." 2012.
 * "Werewolf." 2012.

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

title: Evangeline Walton


text:
List of probability distributions

Many probability distributions that are important in theory or applications have been given specific names.

With finite support

 * The Bernoulli distribution, which takes value 1 with probability p and value 0 with probability q = 1 − p.
 * The Rademacher distribution, which takes value 1 with probability 1/2 and value −1 with probability 1/2.
 * The binomial distribution, which describes the number of successes in a series of independent Yes/No experiments all with the same probability of success.
 * The beta-binomial distribution, which describes the number of successes in a series of independent Yes/No experiments with heterogeneity in the success probability.
 * The degenerate distribution at x0, where X is certain to take the value x0. This does not look random, but it satisfies the definition of random variable. This is useful because it puts deterministic variables and random variables in the same formalism.
 * The discrete uniform distribution, where all elements of a finite set are equally likely. This is the theoretical distribution model for a balanced coin, an unbiased die, a casino roulette, or the first card of a well-shuffled deck.
 * The hypergeometric distribution, which describes the number of successes in the first m of a series of n consecutive Yes/No experiments, if the total number of successes is known. This distribution arises when there is no replacement.
 * The negative hypergeometric distribution, a distribution which describes the number of attempts needed to get the nth success in a series of Yes/No experiments without replacement.
 * The Poisson binomial distribution, which describes the number of successes in a series of independent Yes/No experiments with different success probabilities.
 * Fisher's noncentral hypergeometric distribution
 * Wallenius' noncentral hypergeometric distribution
 * Benford's law, which describes the frequency of the first digit of many naturally occurring data.
 * The ideal and robust soliton distributions.
 * Zipf's law or the Zipf distribution. A discrete power-law distribution, the most famous example of which is the description of the frequency of words in the English language.
 * The Zipf–Mandelbrot law is a discrete power law distribution which is a generalization of the Zipf distribution.

With infinite support

 * The beta negative binomial distribution
 * The Boltzmann distribution, a discrete distribution important in statistical physics which describes the probabilities of the various discrete energy levels of a system in thermal equilibrium. It has a continuous analogue. Special cases include:
 * The Gibbs distribution
 * The Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution
 * The Borel distribution
 * The discrete phase-type distribution, a generalization of the geometric distribution which describes the first hit time of the absorbing state of a finite terminating Markov chain.
 * The extended negative binomial distribution
 * The generalized log-series distribution
 * The Gauss–Kuzmin distribution
 * The geometric distribution, a discrete distribution which describes the number of attempts needed to get the first success in a series of independent Bernoulli trials, or alternatively only the number of losses before the first success (i.e. one less).
 * The Hermite distribution
 * The logarithmic (series) distribution
 * The mixed Poisson distribution
 * The negative binomial distribution or Pascal distribution, a generalization of the geometric distribution to the nth success.
 * The discrete compound Poisson distribution
 * The parabolic fractal distribution
 * The Poisson distribution, which describes a very large number of individually unlikely events that happen in a certain time interval. Related to this distribution are a number of other distributions: the displaced Poisson, the hyper-Poisson, the general Poisson binomial and the Poisson type distributions.
 * The Conway–Maxwell–Poisson distribution, a two-parameter extension of the Poisson distribution with an adjustable rate of decay.
 * The zero-truncated Poisson distribution, for processes in which zero counts are not observed
 * The Polya–Eggenberger distribution
 * The Skellam distribution, the distribution of the difference between two independent Poisson-distributed random variables.
 * The skew elliptical distribution
 * The Yule–Simon distribution
 * The zeta distribution has uses in applied statistics and statistical mechanics, and perhaps may be of interest to number theorists. It is the Zipf distribution for an infinite number of elements.
 * The Hardy distribution, which describes the probabilities of the hole scores for a given golf player.

Supported on a bounded interval

 * The Beta distribution on [0,1], a family of two-parameter distributions with one mode, of which the uniform distribution is a special case, and which is useful in estimating success probabilities.
 * The four-parameter Beta distribution, a straight-forward generalization of the Beta distribution to arbitrary bounded intervals $$[a, b]$$.
 * The arcsine distribution on [a,b], which is a special case of the Beta distribution if α = β = 1/2, a = 0, and b = 1.
 * The PERT distribution is a special case of the four-parameter beta distribution.
 * The uniform distribution or rectangular distribution on [a,b], where all points in a finite interval are equally likely, is a special case of the four-parameter Beta distribution.
 * The Irwin–Hall distribution is the distribution of the sum of n independent random variables, each of which having the uniform distribution on [0,1].
 * The Bates distribution is the distribution of the mean of n independent random variables, each of which having the uniform distribution on [0,1].
 * The logit-normal distribution on (0,1).
 * The Dirac delta function, although not strictly a probability distribution, is a limiting form of many continuous probability functions. It represents a discrete probability distribution concentrated at 0 — a degenerate distribution — it is a Distribution (mathematics) in the generalized function sense; but the notation treats it as if it were a continuous distribution.
 * The Kent distribution on the two-dimensional sphere.
 * The Kumaraswamy distribution is as versatile as the Beta distribution but has simple closed forms for both the cdf and the pdf.
 * The logit metalog distribution, which is highly shape-flexible, has simple closed forms, and can be parameterized with data using linear least squares.
 * The Marchenko–Pastur distribution is important in the theory of random matrices.
 * The bounded quantile-parameterized distributions, which are highly shape-flexible and can be parameterized with data using linear least squares (see Quantile-parameterized distribution)
 * The raised cosine distribution on [$$\mu-s,\mu+s$$]
 * The reciprocal distribution
 * The triangular distribution on [a, b], a special case of which is the distribution of the sum of two independent uniformly distributed random variables (the convolution of two uniform distributions).
 * The trapezoidal distribution
 * The truncated normal distribution on [a, b].
 * The U-quadratic distribution on [a, b].
 * The von Mises–Fisher distribution on the N-dimensional sphere has the von Mises distribution as a special case.
 * The Bingham distribution on the N-dimensional sphere.
 * The Wigner semicircle distribution is important in the theory of random matrices.
 * The continuous Bernoulli distribution is a one-parameter exponential family that provides a probabilistic counterpart to the binary cross-entropy loss.

Supported on intervals of length 2$\pi$ – directional distributions

 * The Henyey–Greenstein phase function
 * The Mie phase function
 * The von Mises distribution
 * The wrapped normal distribution
 * The wrapped exponential distribution
 * The wrapped Lévy distribution
 * The wrapped Cauchy distribution
 * The wrapped Laplace distribution
 * The wrapped asymmetric Laplace distribution
 * The Dirac comb of period 2π, although not strictly a function, is a limiting form of many directional distributions. It is essentially a wrapped Dirac delta function. It represents a discrete probability distribution concentrated at 2πn — a degenerate distribution — but the notation treats it as if it were a continuous distribution.

Supported on semi-infinite intervals, usually [0,∞)

 * The Beta prime distribution
 * The Birnbaum–Saunders distribution, also known as the fatigue life distribution, is a probability distribution used extensively in reliability applications to model failure times.
 * The chi distribution
 * The noncentral chi distribution
 * The chi-squared distribution, which is the sum of the squares of n independent Gaussian random variables. It is a special case of the Gamma distribution, and it is used in goodness-of-fit tests in statistics.
 * The inverse-chi-squared distribution
 * The noncentral chi-squared distribution
 * The scaled inverse chi-squared distribution
 * The Dagum distribution
 * The exponential distribution, which describes the time between consecutive rare random events in a process with no memory.
 * The exponential-logarithmic distribution
 * The F-distribution, which is the distribution of the ratio of two (normalized) chi-squared-distributed random variables, used in the analysis of variance. It is referred to as the beta prime distribution when it is the ratio of two chi-squared variates which are not normalized by dividing them by their numbers of degrees of freedom.
 * The noncentral F-distribution
 * The folded normal distribution
 * The Fréchet distribution
 * The Gamma distribution, which describes the time until n consecutive rare random events occur in a process with no memory.
 * The Erlang distribution, which is a special case of the gamma distribution with integral shape parameter, developed to predict waiting times in queuing systems
 * The inverse-gamma distribution
 * The generalized gamma distribution
 * The generalized Pareto distribution
 * The Gamma/Gompertz distribution
 * The Gompertz distribution
 * The half-normal distribution
 * Hotelling's T-squared distribution
 * The inverse Gaussian distribution, also known as the Wald distribution
 * The Lévy distribution
 * The log-Cauchy distribution
 * The log-Laplace distribution
 * The log-logistic distribution
 * The log-metalog distribution, which is highly shape-flexile, has simple closed forms, can be parameterized with data using linear least squares, and subsumes the log-logistic distribution as a special case.
 * The log-normal distribution, describing variables which can be modelled as the product of many small independent positive variables.
 * The Lomax distribution
 * The Mittag-Leffler distribution
 * The Nakagami distribution
 * The Pareto distribution, or "power law" distribution, used in the analysis of financial data and critical behavior.
 * The Pearson Type III distribution
 * The phase-type distribution, used in queueing theory
 * The phased bi-exponential distribution is commonly used in pharmacokinetics
 * The phased bi-Weibull distribution
 * The semi-bounded quantile-parameterized distributions, which are highly shape-flexible and can be parameterized with data using linear least squares (see
 * The Rayleigh distribution
 * The Rayleigh mixture distribution
 * The Rice distribution
 * The shifted Gompertz distribution
 * The type-2 Gumbel distribution
 * The Weibull distribution or Rosin Rammler distribution, of which the exponential distribution is a special case, is used to model the lifetime of technical devices and is used to describe the particle size distribution of particles generated by grinding, milling and crushing operations.
 * The modified half-normal distribution.
 * The Polya-Gamma distribution
 * The modified Polya-gamma distribution.

Supported on the whole real line

 * The Behrens–Fisher distribution, which arises in the Behrens–Fisher problem.
 * The Cauchy distribution, an example of a distribution which does not have an expected value or a variance. In physics it is usually called a Lorentzian profile, and is associated with many processes, including resonance energy distribution, impact and natural spectral line broadening and quadratic stark line broadening.
 * The centralized inverse-Fano distribution, which is the distribution representing the ratio of independent normal and gamma-difference random variables.
 * Chernoff's distribution
 * The exponentially modified Gaussian distribution, a convolution of a normal distribution with an exponential distribution, and the Gaussian minus exponential distribution, a convolution of a normal distribution with the negative of an exponential distribution.
 * The expectile distribution, which nests the Gaussian distribution in the symmetric case.
 * The Fisher–Tippett, extreme value, or log-Weibull distribution
 * Fisher's z-distribution
 * The skewed generalized t distribution
 * The gamma-difference distribution, which is the distribution of the difference of independent gamma random variables.
 * The generalized logistic distribution
 * The generalized normal distribution
 * The geometric stable distribution
 * The Gumbel distribution
 * The Holtsmark distribution, an example of a distribution that has a finite expected value but infinite variance.
 * The hyperbolic distribution
 * The hyperbolic secant distribution
 * The Johnson SU distribution
 * The Landau distribution
 * The Laplace distribution
 * The Lévy skew alpha-stable distribution or stable distribution is a family of distributions often used to characterize financial data and critical behavior; the Cauchy distribution, Holtsmark distribution, Landau distribution, Lévy distribution and normal distribution are special cases.
 * The Linnik distribution
 * The logistic distribution
 * The map-Airy distribution
 * The metalog distribution, which is highly shape-flexible, has simple closed forms, and can be parameterized with data using linear least squares.
 * The normal distribution, also called the Gaussian or the bell curve. It is ubiquitous in nature and statistics due to the central limit theorem: every variable that can be modelled as a sum of many small independent, identically distributed variables with finite mean and variance is approximately normal.
 * The normal-exponential-gamma distribution
 * The normal-inverse Gaussian distribution
 * The Pearson Type IV distribution (see Pearson distributions)
 * The Quantile-parameterized distributions, which are highly shape-flexible and can be parameterized with data using linear least squares.
 * The skew normal distribution
 * Student's t-distribution, useful for estimating unknown means of Gaussian populations.
 * The noncentral t-distribution
 * The skew t distribution
 * The Champernowne distribution
 * The type-1 Gumbel distribution
 * The Tracy–Widom distribution
 * The Voigt distribution, or Voigt profile, is the convolution of a normal distribution and a Cauchy distribution. It is found in spectroscopy when spectral line profiles are broadened by a mixture of Lorentzian and Doppler broadening mechanisms.
 * The Chen distribution.

With variable support

 * The generalized extreme value distribution has a finite upper bound or a finite lower bound depending on what range the value of one of the parameters of the distribution is in (or is supported on the whole real line for one special value of the parameter
 * The generalized Pareto distribution has a support which is either bounded below only, or bounded both above and below
 * The metalog distribution, which provides flexibility for unbounded, bounded, and semi-bounded support, is highly shape-flexible, has simple closed forms, and can be fit to data using linear least squares.
 * The Tukey lambda distribution is either supported on the whole real line, or on a bounded interval, depending on what range the value of one of the parameters of the distribution is in.
 * The Wakeby distribution

Mixed discrete/continuous distributions

 * The rectified Gaussian distribution replaces negative values from a normal distribution with a discrete component at zero.
 * The compound poisson-gamma or Tweedie distribution is continuous over the strictly positive real numbers, with a mass at zero.

Joint distributions
For any set of independent random variables the probability density function of their joint distribution is the product of their individual density functions.

Two or more random variables on the same sample space

 * The Dirichlet distribution, a generalization of the beta distribution.
 * The Ewens's sampling formula is a probability distribution on the set of all partitions of an integer n, arising in population genetics.
 * The Balding–Nichols model
 * The multinomial distribution, a generalization of the binomial distribution.
 * The multivariate normal distribution, a generalization of the normal distribution.
 * The multivariate t-distribution, a generalization of the Student's t-distribution.
 * The negative multinomial distribution, a generalization of the negative binomial distribution.
 * The Dirichlet negative multinomial distribution, a generalization of the beta negative binomial distribution.
 * The generalized multivariate log-gamma distribution
 * The Marshall–Olkin exponential distribution
 * The continuous-categorical distribution, an exponential family supported on the simplex that generalizes the continuous Bernoulli distribution.

Distributions of matrix-valued random variables

 * The Wishart distribution
 * The inverse-Wishart distribution
 * The Lewandowski-Kurowicka-Joe distribution
 * The matrix normal distribution
 * The matrix t-distribution
 * The Matrix Langevin distribution
 * The matrix variate beta distribution

Non-numeric distributions

 * The categorical distribution

Miscellaneous distributions

 * The Cantor distribution
 * The generalized logistic distribution family
 * The metalog distribution family
 * The Pearson distribution family
 * The phase-type distribution

title: List of probability distributions


text: User talk:71.10.50.178

title: User talk:71.10.50.178


text:
Talk:Winchester, Kentucky

Untitled
Gamaliel, don't delete the information on the high school again. I live in Winchester, and one of the more common local topics, especially recently, is the high school. The information listed is true, and kept as NPOV as possible while discussing criticisms. I wanted to add some information to the article to keep my city from being another bland, by-the-templates city article on Wikipedia. I live in the actual city, you live in Florida. I have much more experince with the topic than you.

It was also really rude of you to mark the deletion of an entire paragraph of information as a "minor" change. User:Not_a_slave, October 10, 2005, 8:55 PM EST

Dale Station should not be listed under historic sites, as it is not in Winchester Kentucky.

The comments on the high school are very good. You left out many of the band's accomplishments from 1969--1973 (when I was there) and the band really started to excell under the leadership of Chuck Campbell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DallasKat (talk • contribs) 00:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Winchester, Kentucky


text: File:Wild ARMs 2 Cover Art.jpg

title: File:Wild ARMs 2 Cover Art.jpg


text:
Píšť (Opava District)

Píšť (Pyschcz) is a municipality and village in Opava District in the Moravian-Silesian Region of the Czech Republic. It has about 2,100 inhabitants. It is part of the historic Hlučín Region.

Geography
Píšť is located about 20 km east of Opava and 17 km north of Ostrava, on the border with Poland. It lies in the Opava Hilly Land. The highest point is at 279 m above sea level. The stream Píšťský potok flows through the municipality.

History
The first written mention of Píšť is from 1228, when King Ottokar I donated the village to the monastery in Velehrad. The monastery owned Píšť until 1439. From 1518 to 1625, the village belonged to the Hlučín estate. In 1625, it was sold to the Lichnowsky family.

Transport
There are no railways or major roads passing through the municipality.

Sights
The main landmark of Píšť is the Church of Saint Lawrence. It was built in 1743 and extended in 1903.

title: Píšť (Opava District)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul vigoda

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent 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 --Cel e stianpower hablamé 15:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Paul vigoda
Almost speedied this, but claims to be a published author. Still, even published authors are held to some standards. This guy has one children's book that isn't at amazon. Fven he puts his achievment as an author behind his statys as a teacher. R. fiend 00:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable person. If the consensus is keep, move to Paul Vigoda.  - x42bn6   Talk  01:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Self-promotion. Author blanked the entry after discovering this AfD. jni 06:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as vanity and nn. Jesse 14:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. CLW 15:08, 11 October 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:
User talk:Elementary

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Friday (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Elementary


text:
Talk:Liberalism in the United States/Archive 2

Clintons
Anyone want to comment on the Clintons? I still think they should be listed. I've outlined why Bill Clinton is a liberal above. Revolucion pointed out that Bill hasn't supported gay rights as much as some other liberals. I'd respond by saying that gay rights activism is a tiny part of liberalism when compared to "big" topics like social welfare, environmentalism, foreign policy, and education. Rhobite 23:46, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, the Clintons are liberal, and should be included on this list. For their party, they may be moderate, but overall they lean liberal. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 00:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * If the list were ten names to be emblematic of liberalism, then they would not belong on it, but on a long list like this, I think it is reasonable to include them. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:33, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * That's a good way to put it, I agree. Rhobite 06:36, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * The Clintons are so obviously not liberal. Am I the only one here who remembers NAFTA and "the end of welfare as we know it"? If the Clintons are considered liberal, the word has no meaning.

 * Well, the NAFTA thing has been discussed, but one issue does not exclude someone from being a liberal or conservative. Since George W. Bush doesn't want to close the borders should we say that he's not conservative? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It's not just the NAFTA thing. There's also the welfare thing, the founding member of the Democratic Leadership Council thing, the "era of big government is over" thing, the trashing of all liberals on a regular basis thing, the support for the Iraq war thing, and a whole bunch of other things in a similar vein.

 * Okay, I'm off to add the Clintons to the List of American Conservatives. No, what you are saying is not enough. Look at many, many other issues to see their liberal leanings. And what is so bad about being called a "liberal"? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Speaking as a liberal, I can confidently say: Nothing is wrong with it. But that is not the point. The point is that the Clintons are neither liberals nor conservatives. They are centrists. And I'd like you to show me some of these issues on which they are allegedly liberal, because I can't think of any.

Moved over here for easier discussion. How about taxes, abortion (specifically partial-birth abortion), universal health care, education, gun control. I don't think I need to go on. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Clintons support the ban on partial-birth abortion, support tax cuts, oppose universal health care that's actually universal, and refused to take a stand on the school voucher issue.
 * So that's why he "adjusted" taxes higher, vetoed a partial-birth abortion ban, and proposed his health plan, which is basically universal... see Clinton health care plan. (I suppose it is not truly universal since it does not cover Martians. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be why he signed tax cuts for everybody except the top 10%, vetoed a partial-birth abortion plan with a ton of other, nonrelated amendments on it, and proposed a health care plan that wasn't universal because it didn't cover everybody in America or even cover all of their medical expenses.
 * Have you even studied Clinton at all? We are proud to call Clinton a liberal. Perhaps you should start by reading this article. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Who's "we," kemosabe? You are the first and only Democrat I know to claim Clinton as a liberal. All of the other Democrats I know (and they number in the hundreds, if not thousands) either hated his nonliberalism or praise it, but they all acknowledge it as a fact. The only people who think Clinton was liberal are conservatives, compared to whom George Wallace was pretty damn liberal.
 * No, Democrats you know are probably just ashamed to call a spade a spade. People now claim being a liberal is a bad thing. People want to change the language of politics. "Extreme Liberal" becomes "Progressive" and "Liberal" becomes "centrist" or "third way". Not calling Clinton a liberal would be like not calling Bush a conservative. I'll give you the fact that he is not the most liberal person on the list, but he's a liberal nonetheless. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Clinton is guilty of those crimes. If he knew you were calling him "liberal," he would vehemently deny it and explain, in detail, why it's inaccurate. Bill Clinton hates liberals and that's why he used the term as an insult against Tom Harkin and Jerry Brown, both of whom are on the list, when the three of them ran for president.
 * Yeah, and I'm sure Ann Coulter wouldn't refer to herself as a crazy right-wing whacko, but just because someone doesn't want a label, does not mean they do not deserve it. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between the two phrases you compared. Many liberals indeed call themselves "liberals". And no doubt Ann Coulter would call herself a conservative (even though she is indeed more than just a conservative, she's a crazy right-wing wacko). --Revolución (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's compare the records of Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon: Bottom line: If Clinton gets to be a liberal, so does Nixon.
 * Clinton: "The era of big government is over." Nixon: "We are all Keynesians now."
 * Clinton: NAFTA and welfare reform. Nixon: EPA and OSHA.
 * Clinton: Bottom income tax bracket of ten percent. Top income tax bracket of 37%. Nixon: Negative income tax for the poor. Top income tax bracket of 70%.
 * Clinton's failed health care plan: Hillarycare. Nixon's failed health care plan: Canadian-style single-payer.
 * Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Nixon: "I am not a crook."
 * The article has an entire section discussing the question of whether Nixon should be counted as a liberal. A similar section on Clinton might well be in order. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

 * Hell no. The facts are neither Clinton nor Nixon (why would anybody even suggest that?) are liberals. Nixon was a conservative. Clinton was a centrist (who has been looked upon as "liberal" by extreme conservatives). --Revolución (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * When I suggested it, I was sarcastically making the point that Nixon was to the left of Clinton a number of issues and if Bill Clinton, Mr. Conservative Democrat himself, got to be on the list, so should Nixon.

 * Nixon may have been less conservative and a bit more secular than the current extremist conservatives, but he was in no way a liberal or even a moderate, he was a conservative. Remember, he had an "enemies list" which includes many liberals, including the wonderful John Conyers. --Revolución (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

The concensus is that Clinton is a liberal.
 * Looking from the left, I'd say that Clinton and Nixon have about equally good claims on being liberals (which is to say, not much in either case, but about equal). Nixon was president during the era of the liberal consensus, and governed from the right edge of that consensus, but mostly from within it. Clinton was president during what was basically an era of conservative consensus (certainly the liberal consensus had been broken), and governed more or less from the left edge of that consensus but, again, within it. The results were not radically different. I seriously do think we could use a medium-sized, well-cited section discussing Clinton, much as we have one on Nixon. It would be much more useful than adding him to a list. It would be particularly useful to cite both authorities who say he was a liberal as president and authorities who say he was not. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:27, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * The hell it is. I see two guys arguing that Clinton is liberal. Three have just advanced arguments to the contrary. No consensus has been reached and a majority say that Clinton isn't liberal.
 * As someone who's studied liberalism for much of my life, I'm assured by all reputable sources that Clinton is liberal. He consistently and genuinely supports human rights over property rights, whenever there's a conflict between the two, which has come to be a litmus test for differentiating liberals and conservatives. Furthermore, he carries on the liberal tradition of strengthening international law and global governance, a position abhorred by conservatives. There's a reason that conservatives hated Clinton more than they have hated any president since Roosevelt. luketh 01:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Liberal Republican
With reference as to why I restored "liberal wing" rather than "moderate wing" of the Republican Party in the section about Nixon: in 1968, the Republican Party still had a liberal wing, based largely in New York and New England. For example, when Vermont was solidly Republican, it was not notably more conservative than today. Republicans were strongly identified with liberal, anti-machine reformism in New York City (reform mayors Fiorello LaGuardia in the 1930s and John V. Lindsay in the 1960s, for example), and I believe the same could be said of many New England (and probably even New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Ohio) cities, but as a New Yorker I don't know the names offhand.

Remember that, only a few years before, the "solid South" was solidly in the Democratic Party. This was the last era in which the Republican Party still had clear descent from its abolitionist past, by way of the Teddy Roosevelt Progressives. One of the key ways in which Nixon was not a liberal was his role in the realignment of American politics through his so-called Southern Strategy, playing up to Southern white prejudices.

Just to rattle off a few other names, though, of liberal Republican leaders from the 1960s: Nixon's running mate in 1960), Henry Cabot Lodge; New York senator Jacob Javits; New York governor Nelson Rockefeller (though many consider him to have totally sold out liberalism and made a play for a role in the new, more conservative Republican Party in his handling of the Attica rebellion); Pennsylvania governor William Scranton; and, arguably, Michigan governor George Romney, a strong opponent of the Vietnam War. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:12, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

 * LaGuardia, Lindsay, Roosevelt, and Javits are already on the list. None of those other guys should go on, in my opinion. I put them in the same boat as the Clintons: not conservative, but not liberal, either. Republicans (and former Republicans) who made it onto the list include:
 * John B. Anderson
 * William Borah
 * Bronson M. Cutting
 * Ignatius Donnelly
 * Lynn Frazier
 * Charles Evans Hughes
 * Jacob K. Javits
 * Hiram Johnson
 * Frank B. Kellogg
 * Robert M. La Follette, Jr.
 * Robert M. La Follette, Sr.
 * Fiorello LaGuardia
 * Alf Landon
 * William Lemke
 * John Lindsay
 * Vito Marcantonio
 * Charles L. McNary
 * Wayne Morse
 * George Norris
 * Gerald Nye
 * Theodore Roosevelt
 * Harold Stassen
 * Henry A. Wallace
 * Earl Warren
 * James Weaver
 * Lowell P. Weicker, Jr.
 * Wendell Willkie
 * Some of these people ended up joining the Democrats or a third party, but most were lifelong Republicans.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.217.121.245 (talk • contribs) 28 Aug 2005.

The Anonymous Poster's List
An anonymous poster who keeps placing the very unliberal Bill Clinton on the list of liberal leaders has accused me of having too narrow a definition of "liberal." As evidence, he cited several other people on the list as people I should remove if I left Clinton off. Unfortunately for him/her, he/she forgot that I was the one who put them all on the list in the first place. I shall now explain their placement.
 * First of all, I agree that all these people except Huey Long (Huey Long!) should be on the list. You misunderstand me. My argument is that if these people are on the list, Clinton should be on it too, because, like Clinton, these people all have some conservative traits.
 * These people, unlike Clinton, had almost completely liberal traits. You need a flashlight and a tweezer to find Clinton's liberalism.

 * Pat Brown: Supported Upton Sinclair's EPIC plan. Worked to increase social spending, building free hospitals and increasing workers' compensation programs and unemployment insurance. Rebuilt, updated, and expanded California's infrastructure with new taxes on banks, businesses, and insurance companies. Backed and signed laws ending racial segregation and forbidding discriminatory workplace policies.
 * A personal favorite of mine. But Brown most definitely lowered corporate taxes in California in 1962 and 1963. Some would consider that “corporate welfare.” Does supporting corporate welfare make Brown a “centrist”?
 * He definitely raised corporate taxes, which is how he paid for California's freeway system.

 * William Jennings Bryan: Ran for president three times on a platform of supporting women's suffrage, banning child labor, calling for the popular election of U.S. senators, instituting a progressive income tax, legalizing labor unions, providing federal subsidies for agriculture, and opposing interventionist foreign policy.
 * Bryan helped prosecute John Scopes for teaching evolution. He would be a big advocate of intelligent design if he were alive today -- he’d be an ally of Bush and Pat Robertson. The old Baptist blowhard would be on Pat Robertson’s TV show expounding on the evils of teaching evolution to our children. Does that make him a conservative? A “centrist”?
 * He didn't believe in evolution. Whoopedy-doo. Name five people from the 19th century Midwest who did. Harold Hughes was a born again Christian who opposed abortion, but he gets to be on the list for being to the left of George McGovern on every other issue. You've never heard of the Christian Left or the Consistent Life Ethic?

 * John Edwards: See this article from The Nation, the most liberal magazine out there.
 * Edwards, like Clinton, supports the death penalty. Does that make him a "centrist"?
 * One issue does not make someone a centrist. Centrism requires you to be illiberal on a wide range of issues.

 * Hubert H. Humphrey: Single-handedly got a pro-civil rights plank written into his party's platform in 1948. Co-founded Americans for Democratic Action. Thought up the Peace Corps, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and Food for Peace. Got the food stamp program approved and funded. As Senate Majority Whip, it was his job to personally make sure that Johnson had the votes to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Quote: "It was once said that the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."
 * My personal favorite – I love this man (remember the Humphrey-Hawkins bill?), and I cast my first vote for him in a Democratic primary in 1972. However, if you ask any American male of draft age in 1968 what he thinks of Humphrey, he’ll go berserk on you. In 1968, the far left considered Humphrey a warmongering vulture for his support of the Vietnam War, and (shades of Ralph Nader) they refused to vote for him, thereby helping Nixon get elected. No question about it, Humphrey was a hawk when it came to Vietnam, the Iraqi war of the 1960s. Does that make him a “centrist”?
 * One wrong step does not erase Humphrey's lifetime of liberalism. If Clinton had been in his shoes, he would have been trying to cut food stamp funding because "the era of big government is over." And how does anyone know where Humphrey stood on the war? He never voiced opposition to it, but he never said he supported it, either.

 * Bob Kerrey: A tireless environmentalist and supporter of campaign finance reform, gun control, and universal health care. In 1996, he voted against both the welfare repeal bill and the wrongly-named Defense of Marriage Act, which killed his chances at re-election in 2000.
 * Notice: I didn’t put Kerry on my list; you put him here. And I’m surprised you did, because Kerry’s politics are nearly the same as Clinton’s. He voted to support the war in Iraq in October 2002. He voted for the Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction act and the Patriot Act. You’re wrong about welfare reform. Kerry voted for the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. He voted for NAFTA. (See http://www.covertactionquarterly.org/KerryTragic.html). Although you're right and he is most certainly a liberal like Clinton, by your definition Kerry is most definitely a “centrist.”
 * I was talking about Bob Kerrey, not John Kerry. And John Kerry still gets to be on the list. Why? Because he has a liftime average of 92 from Americans for Democratic Action. That's the same as Tom Harkin. That's also higher than Birch Bayh, Bill Bradley, Frank Church, J. William Fulbright, Fred Harris, Gary Hart, Harold Hughes, Hubert Humphrey, Jacob Javits, Bob Kerrey (who also received high marks), Mike Mansfield, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Pat Moynihan, Ed Muskie, Gaylord Nelson, William Proxmire, Abe Ribicoff, Terry Sanford, Paul Simon, and Lowell Weicker. It's even higher than Ted Kennedy. To get a 92 from ADA, you have to be doing something right.

 * Huey Long: So liberal that he was to the left of FDR. As governor, he made sure that schools gave free textbooks and free night courses for adult learning. He increased funding for public education and expanded the university. He rebuilt (and in some cases simply built) the state's public works, including over 12,000 miles of road, over 100 bridges were built, a new airport in New Orleans, and a medical school at Louisiana State University. He paid for it all by increasing taxes on the rich and by instituting a gas tax. As a senator, his Share Our Wealth program called for a guaranteed minimum income and a maximum wage, as well as a government pension for the elderly.
 * You're lack of understanding of American history is really showing here. I'm very surprised this racist is on the list. If Huey Long is a liberal, so is Moussolini, who also built roads and bridges. Long was the worst race baiter in American politics. That immediately disqualifies him as a liberal. You can make him one of your “centrists” if you want, but before you do that, please, please, please read up on his history. He was a little Bayou fascist, not a liberal or a "centrist."
 * I just got finished reading T. Harry Williams' nine-hundred-page-long, Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Long. He didn't do anything for blacks (that would have been political suicide) but he didn't do anything against them. Certainly, he did not engage in "race-baiting." His specialty was class warfare, which a fascist like Mussolini would definitely have frowned upon. By the way, J. William Fulbright voted against every piece of civil rights legislation he came upon. Shall we take one of the four most famous Vietnam opponents off the list, too?
 * You have got to be kidding me. Did you know that Upton Sinclair, who you mentioned above, modeled the main character of his "It Couldn't Happen Here" on Huey Long? I haven't read the book you mentioned, but it couldn't have been very good if it didn't go into Long's race baiting. I beg you to please consider removing this guy from your list. On Long's death, the NY Times wrote about him: "What he did and what he promised to do are full of political instruction and also of warning. In his own State of Louisiana he showed how it is possible to destroy self-government while maintaining its ostensible and legal form. He made himself an unquestioned dictator…. In reality, Senator Long set up a Fascist government in Louisiana. It was disguised, but only thinly. There was no outward appearance of a revolution, no march of Black Shirts upon Baton Rouge, but the effectual result was to lodge all the power of the State in the hands of one man. If Fascism ever comes in the United States it will come in something like that way."
 * You cannot comment on Huey Long if you haven't read T. Harry Williams' book. It won the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography and the National Book Award. It's over 880 pages long and it has over fifty pages worth of notes. And that's the paperback. It is widely recognized as THE book on Huey Long. As to his alleged Fascist tendencies, the same could be said about every Democratic Party in the South. Or didn't you wonder about how Ralph Yarborough got elected to statewide office in Texas? And you still haven't answered my question: If we remove Huey Long for his alleged racism, what possible excuse could you come up with for keeping J. William Fulbright?
 * Upton Sinclair's book is called It Can't Happen Here.
 * Long was certainly on the left, but I would not call him a liberal. And the issue isn't racism, it's that he had no respect for constitutionalism.
 * Could people please sign their comments? It's almost impossible to sort out who is saying what. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:56, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to sign my comments, but as I never received that tutorial, I don't. As for Long, I still say that the description fits most every Southern Democratic politician going back from the mid-1960s to the dawn of time. Lyndon Johnson, for instance, got himself elected to the Senate by paying illegal immigrants $10 a pop to vote for him and by making a few inconvenient ballot boxes disappear. Of course, his opponent in the primary pulled the same tricks, so Johnson won by only 87 votes out of a million cast. Hence his nickname: "Landslide Lyndon."

 * Claude Pepper: When Henry A. Wallace ran for president on the Progressive Party ticket, Pepper was his first choice for a running-mate. He lost his job in the Senate because of his strenuous support for civil rights, universal health care, and a arms control. After his election to the House of Representatives, he wrote the House versions of Medicare and Medicaid. Republicans often joked that he and Tip O'Neill were the only Democrats who really drove Ronald Reagan crazy.
 * My apologies to you and to Claude. He belong on this list.

 * Theodore Roosevelt: His Square Deal enacted strenuous antitrust laws for the first time ever and strengthened the Interstate Commerce Commission. He set aside more land for national parks and nature preserves than all of his predecessors combined. He established the United States Forest Service and signed the Antiquities Act. As governor, he ended racial segregation in New York's schools and attempted to do so again as president. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906. Unlike with Henry Kissinger, he won it for creating peace, not war. Ran for president in 1912 on a third party ticket, endorsing many ideas later implemented by Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
 * TR practically invented American imperialism. This is man who described his foreign policy this way: "Walk softly and carry a big stick." He sent the Great White Fleet, a menacing armada of American gunships, on a tour of the world in 1902 to serve notice that America was a world power. Congress initially refused to fund this little imperial show of strength, so TR sent the Fleet halfway around the world. Congress had to fund its return. (The antiquities act... ). This Yankee adventurer created some national parks, but c'mon, he doesn't belong on the list. He is a "centrist" at best.
 * With the exception of his views on foreign policy, Roosevelt was just about as liberal as they come. I also forgot to mention his support for just about everything I put down for Bryan.

Umm, TR was a Conservative!!! "The only true conservative is the one who looks to the future." TR Sorry!
 * Harry S. Truman: Supported every piece of New Deal legislation. Spearheaded the formation of the United Nations. Called for a Fair Deal that would have included legislation guaranteeing civil rights, providing universal health care, public housing, and free education, subsidizing agriculture, and repealing the Taft-Hartley Act.
 * Another one of my personal favorites. You forgot to mention his greatest achievement – forcing open shops to union membership. However, he ordered the dropping of the atomic bomb. If Michael Moore were alive in 1944, he would brand Truman a mass-murderer. Truman’s “containment doctrine” unleashed the CIA and its operatives against thousands, maybe millions, of innocent socialist and communist sympathizers in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Greece (during that country’s civil war). How many innocent people died as a result of Truman’s dirty war will never be known. Does dropping the bomb and killing hundreds of thousands of leftist sympathizers qualify Truman as a “centrist”?
 * If Michael Moore were alive in the 1860s, he'd be going after Abe Lincoln for suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Truman's containment doctrine was supported by half the people on the list born between 1920 and 1950. Should they be struck for buying into McCarthyite bullshit?

 * Earl Warren: As governor of California, he created one of the best public education systems in the world and was nominated for re-election by the Republican, Democratic, and Progressive Parties. As Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he voted with the majority on Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, Roe v. Wade, and many other cases protecting individual, civil, and human rights and increasing government authority over big business.
 * Typically, you tag Warren as a liberal because all you know is his history on the Supreme Court. Ask a Japanese-American about Warren. As California Attorney General in 1942, he race-baited Japanese, calling them a threat to American security. He did it to advance his political career and pave the way for a run at Governor of California. Japanese-Americans remember him with scorn for casting them in the Willie Horton role. More than anyone, he was responsible for their internment (I believe remorse over this episode is the reason for his courageous support for civil rights on the Supreme Court). A race-baiter, someone willing to scapegoat a minority group to advance his political career – that makes him a scoundrel, and maybe a “centrist” too.
 * Earl Warren's contrition (and twenty years as the second-most liberal man on the bench) goes a long way toward absolving him in my eyes. If he had bragged about it, though, I'd say toss 'im.

 * Woodrow Wilson: Created the Federal Reserve and the Federal Trade Commission. Instituted the progressive income tax and estate tax on a national level. Supported women's suffrage. Banned child labor. Created a system of federal workmen's compensation and signed the Federal Farm Loan Act. Suffered a debilitating stroke while campaigning for the League of Nations, a precursor to the United Nations that he hoped would ensure world peace.
 * For the treaty of Versailles alone, this guy should be skewered by history. That faulty treaty laid the foundation of WWII. Did you know that "Birth of a Nation" premiered in the White House, and that Wilson thought it such an excellent movie, he recommended that all Christian White Americans view it. A "centrist" at best.
 * Please see my comment about J. William Fulbright.

Conversely, Bill Clinton opposed campaign finance reform, implemented the North American Free Trade Agreement, expanded the use of the death penalty, declared "the era of big government is over," and signed a welfare reform bill that basically wiped out the welfare system. He never once, in his entire administration, attempted to do anything really liberal.
 * You say he attempted “nothing liberal.” You forget his first act in office – permitting gays to be in the military. His noble but doomed attempt to give us national health care in 1994 was admirable. And don’t forget that he passed the assault weapons ban in 1994 even though he sacrificed the Democratic Party’s majority in the House to do it. Clinton's "era of big gov't is over" was merely a statement of fact, as Americans have abandoned the idea of big gov't projects. Clinton did not oppose campaign finance reform (the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 was signed into law by G.W. Bush; Clinton did not oppose it). Clinton did “end welfare as we know it,” but what he ended was cash payments to poor people. He greatly enlarged the number of social programs in the United States, and this in spite of having to work with a Republican-controlled House and Senate from 1995 to 2001. You may remember that Clinton’s State of the Union addresses were laundry lists of social programs he wanted passed – programs that helped many millions of people. I’m especially fond of Americorps. On balance, I’m convinced that Clinton was a liberal, not one of your “centrists.”
 * His noble-but-doomed attempt at creating national health care might still have worked, had liberals not opposed it for being neither universal nor even guaranteed. And the assault weapons bill is easily balanced-out by his ultraconservative crime bills, which contributed to the fact that we currently jail more of our citizens than Stalin did. He strenuously opposed campaign finance reform, both by word (voicing the fact that he wouldn't sign McCain-Feingold) and by deed (shoveling millions of dollars into illegal and shady donations into his campaign kitty). Name three social programs (other than Americorps) that Clinton created. Then explain how they made up for for the loss of cash payments.
 * Clinton was a pragramtist. You can't have Canadian or English-style health care in the U.S. He tried his best to make it work in the USA. I see we're just going to keep disagreeing. I don't care to debate with you anymore, as I believe you're too stubborn and unwilling to hear differnent opinions. And your completely erroneous judgement of Huey Long leads me to question your reasoning ability. So long, Greenie-weeny!
 * You actually can have a Canadian-style system here in the United States, since upwards of 80% of the American peaople support it. The reason that Clinton couldn't do it was the millions of dollars in soft-money contributions he took from insurance companies that would be hurt financially if the government started to compete with them. His "valiant attempt" at creating a national health care system was, in reality, a system for fattening the pockets of HMOs while insuring less than one-fifth of the people in this country who are uninsured. And you know something else? It is actually possible that some people in this country could still be liberal without being green. Do you think you could possibly wrap your condescending little mind around that?

 * The tally: If Clinton isn’t on this list, we should also remove, at least, Kerry and Wilson. Huey Long is off the list, no questions asked. The others are open to debate, but again I remind you, I would put all these people on the list except Huey Long. And I would definitely include Clinton.
 * I question taking Long and Wilson off the list. I also say that Kerrey was far more liberal than Clinton, especially in the areas of environmentalism, health care, gay rights, and welfare.

I think Wilson should not be on the list. Alot of that stuff was probably done due to public pressure. Wilson was very harsh on dissent, and he jailed many left-wing critics. --Revolución (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Wilson did those things because he really believed in them. The bosses who sponsored him to be Governor of New Jersey expected him to be just another stooge for them and their big business buddies. Boy, did they get the shock of their lives when, upon taking office, he sponsored the people's preferred candidate for the U.S. senate over the bosses' candidate, then proceeded to institute a statewide minimum wage, strong antitrust laws, and a system of unemployment insurance, all of which formed the basis of his platform at the Democratic National Convention and gained him Bryan's support. Say what you will about his racial views and treatment of wartime dissenters (and I have said a lot, sometimes very loudly), he was a liberal who advanced the cause of economic justice farther than any of his predecessors.
 * Advanced the cause of economic justice? Then why did he arrest Socialist Party candidate Eugene V. Debs, who was a man who really wanted economic justice? --Revolución (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a non sequiter. The fact is that he did all of the things I named above to advance the cause of economic justice AND he jailed Debs. Just because he did one does not mean that he was incapable of doing the other. And you know, I think if we did a head-to-head comparison of what each man actually accomplished in that arena, Wilson would come out ahead.

Huey Long a Liberal?

 * Huey Long: So liberal that he was to the left of FDR. As governor, he made sure that schools gave free textbooks and free night courses for adult learning. He increased funding for public education and expanded the university. He rebuilt (and in some cases simply built) the state's public works, including over 12,000 miles of road, over 100 bridges were built, a new airport in New Orleans, and a medical school at Louisiana State University. He paid for it all by increasing taxes on the rich and by instituting a gas tax. As a senator, his Share Our Wealth program called for a guaranteed minimum income and a maximum wage, as well as a government pension for the elderly.
 * You're lack of understanding of American history is really showing here. I'm very surprised this racist is on the list. If Huey Long is a liberal, so is Moussolini, who also built roads and bridges. Long was the worst race baiter in American politics. That immediately disqualifies him as a liberal. You can make him one of your “centrists” if you want, but before you do that, please, please, please read up on his history. He was a little Bayou fascist, not a liberal or a "centrist."
 * I just got finished reading T. Harry Williams' nine-hundred-page-long, Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of Long. He didn't do anything for blacks (that would have been political suicide) but he didn't do anything against them. Certainly, he did not engage in "race-baiting." His specialty was class warfare, which a fascist like Mussolini would definitely have frowned upon. By the way, J. William Fulbright voted against every piece of civil rights legislation he came upon. Shall we take one of the four most famous Vietnam opponents off the list, too?
 * You have got to be kidding me. Did you know that Upton Sinclair, who you mentioned above, modeled the main character of his "It Couldn't Happen Here" on Huey Long? I haven't read the book you mentioned, but it couldn't have been very good if it didn't go into Long's race baiting. I beg you to please consider removing this guy from your list. On Long's death, the NY Times wrote about him: "What he did and what he promised to do are full of political instruction and also of warning. In his own State of Louisiana he showed how it is possible to destroy self-government while maintaining its ostensible and legal form. He made himself an unquestioned dictator…. In reality, Senator Long set up a Fascist government in Louisiana. It was disguised, but only thinly. There was no outward appearance of a revolution, no march of Black Shirts upon Baton Rouge, but the effectual result was to lodge all the power of the State in the hands of one man. If Fascism ever comes in the United States it will come in something like that way."
 * You cannot comment on Huey Long if you haven't read T. Harry Williams' book. It won the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography and the National Book Award. It's over 880 pages long and it has over fifty pages worth of notes. And that's the paperback. It is widely recognized as THE book on Huey Long. As to his alleged Fascist tendencies, the same could be said about every Democratic Party in the South. Or didn't you wonder about how Ralph Yarborough got elected to statewide office in Texas? And you still haven't answered my question: If we remove Huey Long for his alleged racism, what possible excuse could you come up with for keeping J. William Fulbright?
 * Upton Sinclair's book is called It Can't Happen Here.
 * Long was certainly on the left, but I would not call him a liberal. And the issue isn't racism, it's that he had no respect for constitutionalism.
 * Could people please sign their comments? It's almost impossible to sort out who is saying what. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:56, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to sign my comments, but as I never received that tutorial, I don't. As for Long, I still say that the description fits most every Southern Democratic politician going back from the mid-1960s to the dawn of time. Lyndon Johnson, for instance, got himself elected to the Senate by paying illegal immigrants $10 a pop to vote for him and by making a few inconvenient ballot boxes disappear. Of course, his opponent in the primary pulled the same tricks, so Johnson won by only 87 votes out of a million cast. Hence his nickname: "Landslide Lyndon."

I have serious reservations about putting Huey Long on a list of liberals. I think the concensus is he doesn't belong here. He can be considered a populist, but a liberal, never.
 * I think we might want to wait more than a day before saying there's consensus about anything. And if the things he did and proposed weren't liberal, what were they?

List vs. prose
All of the foregoing argues that lists are not as useful as prose. I would suggest that we really need a lot more about the history and evolution of American liberalism, and about how various people mentioned are to varying degrees in the mainstream of American liberalism vs. hanging on to the edges. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:37, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. I think these lists are kind of useless, sort of like arguing about baseball players. And unless some kind of criteria is established for who goes on and off the lists, petty bickering results. With Jmabel, I suggest removing the lists and focusing on the history and evolution of liberalism in the USA. --Griot
 * Naturally, I disagree with just removing the list that I spent three solid hours making. Fill in more details in the section above it if you like, but the list stays.
 * There are now 125 names on this list! How about an introductory sentence to the list, something beyond "Notable proponents of American Liberalism." I'd like to know what all these people have in common and what qualified them for the list. You have turned this section of wikipedia into your own "Greatest Hits of Liberalism." What concerns me is that some of these people -- Huffington (!), Kucunich -- have had very little impact on liberal thought. They've just been in the media these past years. They're just political celebrities. And there are no academic thinkers on the list except for Galbraith. Harriet Martineau, James Wechsler, Arthur Schlesinger -- shouldn't they be here? (BTW, see "Long New List" above. Some of the discussion there is germane down here as well.) -- Griot
 * A fair enough point. I just added a more lengthy introductory sentence. What do you think? 12.217.121.245 03:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I had at one point added a note that several of these people were associated with "progressivism" or "populism" before what is now known as American Liberalism fully emerged; it was promptly removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:00, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * The more this goes on, the less I find this long, uncommented list likely to be useful to anyone. What use is it to say, without qualification, that Henry Jackson and Allard K. Lowenstein were both liberals, other than to indicate that at that time a very broad swath of American politics was, in some sense, liberal? How is it informative to mention, without comment, people who were liberal during some phase of their career, but not in others? What is the purpose of this list supposed to be, and can we characterize it in a way that indicates why anyone should care about it? How is it verifiable? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:03, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the idea of Jackson being a liberal. He was a McCarthyite all the way down the line and his record on economic issues wasn't too hot, either. His Americans for Democratic Action score was 62, which would make him the second-lowest-rated senator on the list. The only guy with a lower score was Fulbright, who manages to slide in by the skin of his teeth on the strength of his opposition to HUAC and the Vietnam War, and his support of the New Deal, which would have been before ADA was founded.12.217.121.245 01:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Not to mention Fulbright scholarships, a liberal program if ever there was one. But he was plain lousy on race. As for Jackson: I sure don't consider him particularly a liberal (though it depends on compared to what, I guess). I live in Washington State, and certainly Warren G. Magnuson (same era, same state, served longer) was far more of a liberal. In the 1960s, when the state Democratic party split into two factions, the more conservative one was tied to Jackson; Magnuson straddled the divide. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:23, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Unsigned personal attacks
Unsigned personal attacks ("So long, Greenie-weeny!", "Do you think you could possibly wrap your condescending little mind around that?") seem to have become par for the course on this talk page. It certainly doesn't impress me with why I should listen to you. Also, while unsigned comments are merely a lack of courtesy, personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy and can ultimately lead to bans. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:09, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln
Do you think he was a liberal for his time? --Revolución (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln, the corporate railroad lawyer who was the first Republican president, a liberal? Maybe in the classical sense, but certainly not in the modern sense of the word. Come on guys. -- Roy Brumback
 * See below. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Well we tried before...
Now hear me out before you anonymous editors scream and yell... ready? Okay, this list is just getting retarded (pardon my un-P.C.ness). Lincoln's now a liberal, but Clinton isn't? Lincoln doesn't even fit in the definition as defined in the intro of the article. Why half these people are on this list doesn't make any sense. What if we were to actually make this a list of notable liberal leaders, and not just a list of every liberal. I'd say shoot for around 12-14 names of people who define American Liberalism. We can propose and work on the list here before we actually move it to the article. The anon that wants Bill Clinton out of the article might be able to come up with a good list of 10 or so representatives of American Liberalism; they seem to be fairly well informed. What do you think? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: Currently there are 150 names on that list!!! Faaaaaaar too many. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark)  21:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The Anon is most adament about NOT putting Bill Clinton on the list. I tried to persuade, but he wouldn't budge. See debate above. If someone were to whiddle this list to 10 names, he or she would have to come up with criteria for putting names on the list. That is also discussed above. I agree about Lincoln. If you went back and explained modern American liberalism to him, he would pee his pants.-- Griot
 * It may not even be possible to get it down as low as 15. However, I will say that most of the people who have gone up in the last 24 hours should probably be removed, with the exception of Thomas Paine. It might be helpful to break the list down into eras and then see if we can weed each individual era down to the top people. 12.217.121.245 22:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be impossible. I'll start. The list would definitely have FDR on it. There's one. Now we just put 10 other people and we're good. Please, let's whittle this list down. Okay, below will be the working list. I am going to assume FDR will be on it, so I put him on there. The numbers don't mean anything. There's room for 15 people. Add until it's filled, then we can start to change the list. Hopefully this works. And no, Bill Clinton does not have a spot. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 13:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * FDR is already on the "American Liberal thinkers" list. Can he be on both lists? I think before you start whiddling the list down to 10 or 15, you have to come up with a criteria; otherwise you just bandy names around. How about this for an initial criterion: To be on the list, you must have had a wide influence on liberalism, and your influence must have lasted at least 15 years. This criterion will remove fly by nights and one hit wonders from the list. Under this criterion, FDR is definitely on the list, as his influence is felt to this day. -- Griot
 * That sounds good. I don't have problem with FDR being on both lists... perhaps we combine the two lists into people who a great impact on American liberalism and its philosophy. Dunno. By the way, you can sign your name by typing 4 tildes ~ . Or sign your name "Griot" and type 5 tildes for just the date. Helps to keep order. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark)  20:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I really don't think this is doable. There is really no way that you can take a 150-name list and cut it down to ten and still keep everyone happy. Not mention the fact that if we just have a ten-name list, some future person with a spare hour or two to kill is going to come by, deem the list inadequate, and add a few dozen more names. That's why I think what we have to do, in the interests of a thorough (yet shorter than 150 names) cataloguing of American liberal leaders, is break the list into sections, weed the people into each section down to the essentials, and then explain what they have to do with liberalism. --12.217.121.245 21:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

What about Laurence Tribe? He's been hugely influential. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, come on! Anybody who gets a blow job in the Oval Office has to be some kind of liberal! ;) Rick Norwood 23:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Working List
(Do not discuss in this section, use above)

 * 1) Franklin Delano Roosevelt
 * 2) Robert M. La Follette, Sr.

Era #1: Revolutionary War-Civil War

 * William Lloyd Garrison
 * Horace Greeley
 * Abraham Lincoln
 * Gouverneur Morris
 * Thomas Paine
 * Elizabeth Peabody
 * Elizabeth Cady Stanton
 * Thaddeus Stevens
 * Charles Sumner

This section of the list should be prefaced by an explanation that, at the time, liberalism was catagorized generally as radicalism and that most abolitionists were also involved in a variety of other "radical" causes. So, who should stay and who should go. --12.217.121.245 21:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well do any of these people really fall into the category of "American liberalism" as defined by the article? These people weren't even around when "American liberalism" came into being. They may be part of the Contributions to liberal theory, but maybe not "American liberalism". Thoughts? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 22:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I do know that Paine's tracts contained proposals for a guaranteed minimum income, a progressive income tax, social security, and universal public education, so I think he definitely meets the standards set by the article. Horace Greeley, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Thaddeus Stevens all seem to have been involved in projects that, while fairly commonplace in our day and age, were considered radically liberal back in theirs. I don't remember who said it, but it was some liberal who once remarked that conservative heroes are all dead radicals. --12.217.121.245 22:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... well, I don't know then. I know what these people did, but the article starts by saying that American liberalism generally started in the early 20th century. And I'm fully aware that "conservative heroes are all dead radicals", because at one point, everything was radical. Do you think that the working list above should include a Kennedy? If so, which one? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 13:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * All three of them. And if the article says that, then the article is wrong. Thomas Paine lived and died in the 18th century and he wrote at length about the necessity of things that liberals still fight for today. --12.217.121.245 22:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * YOu guys will go back and forth on these questions forever unless you establish criteria for deciding who goes on the list. Before suggesting names, how about deciding on criteria. Above, I suggested to be on the list, you must have had a wide influence on liberalism, and your influence must have lasted at least 15 years. Any other ideas for criteria? Griot
 * The problem with that is threefold. Firstly, you have no way of quantifying how much of an impact one individual person had on a centuries-long movement, particularly since politics is mostly for show and actual governing takes place mostly behind closed door. Secondly, even if someone could quantify it, the definition would vary from person to person. And thirdly, your terms would pretty much exclude anyone who has become famous or influential or was elected since 1990, including Paul Wellstone, Russ Feingold, Jim Hightower, and Howard Dean. Are you really prepared to argue that none of them qualify as the liberal leaders of our time? --12.217.121.245 02:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I could argue against some of those guys. Hightower, for example, has never held an important office in gov't, and his influence has been small. But getting back to my point: What are the criteria? Obviously, you and everyone else who puts names on the list has a set of criteria. All I'm saying is -- put it in the open so everyone has some basis for judging. Otherwise, it's just back and forth, tit for tat. I think Voldemort has a good point when he says that the definition of liberal should square with the definition in the wikipedia article. You could start from there. Griot
 * I find it ironic that the guy who added William Lloyd Garrison, Horace Greeley, Gouverneur Morris, Thomas Paine, Elizabeth Peabody, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Thaddeus Stevens, and Charles Sumner to the article is now lecturing me about not putting up anybody from before the 20th century. And I said it before and I will say it again: If the article says that liberalism is a modern phenomenon, then the article is wrong. Thomas Paine, Horace Greeley, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton clearly fit the definition of liberal as presented in the list of liberal positions. (And by the way, Hightower doesn't have to have served in high office to have influence. Jesse Jackson has never been elected dog-catcher, and I would describe him as influential. I am willing to gamble that Hightower has more influence now than most Democratic congressmen.) --12.217.121.245 07:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hold your horses. I'm not lecturing you about anything. I'm trying to establish criteria, and your last post shows very plainly why this is necessary. Suppose we were to make "influence" a criterion, as I have suggested. Then, to put Hightower on the list, you would have to demonstrate how precisely Hightower has been influential, rather than making a blanket statement of some kind ("..has more influence than most Democratic Congressmen"). I propose two criteria to start: The person must have been influential, and the liberalism he espoused must jibe with the Wikipedia article definition of liberalism. How about it? (If you object to the Wikipedia definition, then see about changing it, although I must warn you, the definition in this article is the standard defintion). Griot

Shouldn't this then deserve a section in the main article as well, under "Pre-20th century liberalism"? --Revolución (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

 * 12-217, if I may call you that for short, you are not going to convince anyone by shouting.

 * Clinton tried to restrict handgun sales, strengthen environmental regulations, protect the jobs of workers during pregnancy or medical emergency, and pass a national health care bill. That makes him a liberal by modern standards, though a moderate liberal, certainly not a classical liberal.  I would describe him as a pragmatist, willing to listen to ideas from both sides.  But your determination to keep him off the list of liberals goes far beyond the moderate stance wiki expects and requires. Rick Norwood 13:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * To return to the subject at hand, American Revolution to Civil War, certainly Benjamin Franklin belongs on the list. His fights against the Penn family, who refused to pay taxes, and on behalf of the Indians, when the governer of Pennsylvania put a bounty on their scalps, plus his religious tolerance and stand in favor of freedom of the press all make him a major liberal influence.

 * Also, Thomas Jefferson obviously belongs on the list. Rick Norwood 13:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Can you give more details? --Revolución (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * On Tom Jefferson? Well, he wrote in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, amoung these the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness."  Almost a direct quote of Locke, except substituting "persuit of happiness" for "property".  He said something to the effect that we were better off with a free press and no government than with a government and no free press.  He wrote on religious liberty, and freedom of concience.  He tried to establish peaceful and friendly relations with the American Indian, and brought many Native American leaders to Washington.  I could go on, but I'll stop there, since I'm not sure that the question I'm answering is the one you are asking. Rick Norwood 20:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The Solution: Just Drop The List.
You want the best solution to the who's-a-liberal-and-who's-not list? Just don't include one. A lot of other articles on political ideologies -- Conservatism, for instance -- get along fine without one. This doesn't mean there shouldn't be any names named in the article; someone reading through the whole thing will still learn that Franklin Roosevelt instituted the New Deal, that Lyndon Johnson started the Great Society programs, and so on, because these are concrete and factual historical accomplishments associated with liberalism. But a section called "Notable American Liberals" well get bloated and be subject to endless dispute, as we're seeing here.

So, I say get rid of the list altogether, like Conservatism does. Anyone with me? Andrew Levine 02:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This list is meaningless unless you want to define exactly what a liberal is, and no one has the energy to do that. You will have trouble deleting the list, however, because it is sacred territory to some of the people who contributed. --Griot

 * Well there are obviously three solutions to this then:
 * 1) we keep the list
 * 2) we create a separate page called List of notable American liberals
 * 3) we remove it

--Revolución (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to go along with the majority vote. It's a tempest in a teacup. Rick Norwood 21:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I vote for List of notable American liberals. It's a nice list, but it's too long for this article. --Gherald 16:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with Gherald, that we should implement Revolución's second suggestion. That would allow us to drop the ugly neutrality template from the top of the page (since, as far as I can tell, the list is the only point of contention here). If it's needed on the list page, I'd be more comfortable with it there than on the main article. Andrew Levine 22:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I have created the separate page. Now we can try to work on the actual article instead of arguing about who meets the criteria for the list. --Revolución (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Bravo! The list is pointless. Now it will stand alone and be pointless in a far corner of the wikipedia where no one has to look at it.


text:
Payara

The payara, Hydrolycus scomberoides, is a species of dogtooth tetra. This predatory fish is found in the Amazon Basin in tropical South America. It was the first of four species to be described in the genus Hydrolycus.

Description
The most noticeable feature of H. scomberoides is the two long fangs protruding from its lower jaw. These are used to impale their prey, mostly smaller fish. It typically reaches a standard length of about 30 cm, but can reach up to 51 cm. There are reports of far larger individuals, up to 117 cm in total length and 17.8 kg in weight, based on records by IGFA, but this likely involves confusion with the related H. armatus.

H. scomberoides is overall silvery with a dark spot behind the opercle and another at the lower base of the pectoral fin. In adults the tail is dusky on the basal half, turning paler (more transparent) towards the tip.

In the aquarium
The payara, which is also sold as the saber tooth barracuda, vampire fish, vampire tetra, or saber tusk barracuda, is a popular species for large, aggressive aquariums. It requires a large aquarium and can only be mixed with relatively large species, as smaller will be seen as potential prey.

title: Payara


text:
Legislative Research Commission

The Legislative Research Commission (LRC) is an agency of Kentucky state government that supports the state legislature, the Kentucky General Assembly.

The LRC was originally created in 1948 with the Lieutenant Governor of Kentucky as its head.

The LRC is composed of 16 legislators, drawn from the leadership of the Kentucky House of Representatives and the Kentucky Senate. The President of the Kentucky Senate and the Speaker of the Kentucky House of Representatives serve as co-chairs.

The Kentucky General Assembly may only meet for 60 days in even numbered years and for 30 days in odd numbered years, so in between those sessions interim committees meet under the auspices of the LRC. The LRC also provides the General Assembly with staff and research support including committee staffing, bill drafting, oversight of the state budget and educational reform, production of educational materials, maintenance of a reference library and Internet site, and the preparation and printing of research reports, informational bulletins and a legislative newspaper. The agency is run on a day-to-day basis by a Director.

title: Legislative Research Commission


text:
Talk:Shaiva Siddhanta

I've organized the ideas into sections, to see if that helps. Somebody please add a table of contents. If the edit does not make sense, try to reorganize until it does.

Request for help in identifying forking
I have been looking at the complex of articles Shiva, Rudra, Shaivism, History of Shaivism, Six Schools of Shaivism, Shaiva Siddhanta, Kaśmir Śaivism etc., and see quite a bit of forking and overlap. It would be great if as many editors as possible could watchlist all of these articles and help out with an effort to figure out what should go where. Sharing effort across multiple articles may help with sourcing for all of them. Buddhipriya 22:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Bias
"Most vigorously practiced Shaivite Hindu group?" How can that ever be measured or known?--ॐJesucristo301 16:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"However the Muslim subjugation of North India restricted Shaiva Siddhanta to the south" - given that Hindu traditions (both Shaivaite and Vaishnavaite) flourished right through the period of Islamic rule, this seems a biased view. North Indian Hindus became largely Vaishnavaite, not Islamic, though many areas continued with Shaivaite and Tantric traditions - such as Bengal or Kashmir (both large centres of Islamic rule) Shanky (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is biased in that it is slanted towards the view of a small minority of shaivas. The Shaiva Siddhanta tradition in India is known for and overwhelmingly dualistic (mono-theistic), as opposed to Kashmir Shaisvism which is nondualistic (monist). Yet by reading this article a person would come away believing that "real" Shaiva Siddhanta is monist like the Kashmiri school. I assume this is due to the followers of the Saiva Siddhanta Church, who are a small sect of Shaivas who like to teach that their type of Shaiva Siddhanta (the monist variety) represents Shaivism within the Hindu world (see this article in their newspaper "Hinduism Today" https://www.hinduismtoday.com/magazine/october-november-december-2003/2003-10-hinduism-2/  Go down to the section titled 'On the Soul and God'  where you will see this

"Saivism: God Siva is one with the soul. The soul must realize this advaitic (monistic) Truth by God Siva's grace.

Shaktism: The Divine Mother, Shakti, is mediatrix, bestowing advaitic moksha on those who worship Her.

Vaishnavism: God and soul are eternally distinct. Through Lord Vishnu's grace, the soul's destiny is to worship and enjoy God.

Smartism: Ishvara and man are in reality Absolute Brahman. Within maya, the soul and Ishvara appear as two. Jnana (wisdom) dispels the illusion."

Not only is the description of Saivism giving the minority view (since most Shaivas belong to the non-monist traditions), also the description of the Smarta tradition is biased (While most smartas believe in monist philosophy it is not what makes a smarta a smarta, many are not monists, a smarta can have any vedic philosophical belief and still be a smarta)

One example of the general bias of this article is this section:

"A dualistic development

In the thirteenth century, another important development occurred in Shaiva Siddhanta when Meykandar wrote the twelve-verse Sivajñanabodham. This and subsequent works by other writers laid the foundation of the Meykandar Sampradaya, which propounds a pluralistic realism wherein God, souls and world are coexistent and without beginning. Siva is efficient but not material cause. They view the soul’s merging in Siva as salt in water, an eternal oneness that is also twoness. This school’s literature has so dominated scholarship that Shaiva Siddhanta is often erroneously identified as exclusively pluralistic. In truth, there are two interpretations, one monistic and another dualistic, of which the former is the original philosophical premise found in pre-Meykandar scriptures, including the Upanishads."

The entire article is twisted to promote the views of a minority as being the real true form of the religion while relegating the larger tradition as some new form which is not in line with the Upanishads! Essentially that paragraph is saying the main tradition is bogus, since the Upanishads are revealed scripture in Hinduism, and that the minority monist sect is the true religion!

Here is how Shaiva Siddhanta philosophy is usually described

http://www.saivism.net/sects/siddha/siddhasaivism.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Shaivism

Shiva das 20:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

 * This is not a page on shaivism but about the this particular school of shaivism.so obviously it is not intended to represent the "majority view" as u put it.In the very beginning of the article it is expictly stated that it is one form of shaivite hinudism although the oldest and extensively warrants ciations -which are not provided-it is obvious it is not the only school of thought.It would most kind of you if you can add content to the page . Manquer (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following until checked; Redheylin (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The first known guru of the “pure” (Suddha) Shaiva Siddhanta tradition is Maharishi Nandinatha of Kashmir, recorded in Panini’s book of grammar as the teacher of Patanjali, Vyaghrapada and Vasishtha, whose only surviving work is the twenty-six Sanskrit verses called the Nandikesvara Kasika.

Tirumular, a Siddha in the line of Nandinatha from Kongu Nadu, (Mulanur), South India, propounded the teachings of the Shaiva Ågamas in the Tamil language for the first time in his work Sacred Incantation (Tirumantiram), which unfolds the way of Siddhanta as through the grace of the living satguru—which leads to the state of jñana and liberation. After liberation, the soul body continues to evolve until it fully merges with God—jîva becomes Shiva.

Tirumular and Nandinatha propounded a monistic theism in which Shiva is both material and efficient cause, immanent and transcendent. Shiva creates souls and world through emanation from Himself, ultimately reabsorbing them in His oceanic Being, as water flows into water, fire into fire, ether into ether. Tirumular’s Suddha Shaiva Siddhanta shares common roots with Gorakshanatha’s Siddha Siddhanta in that both are Natha teaching lineages. Tirumular’s lineage is known as the Nandinatha Sampradaya, while Gorakshanatha’s is called the Ådinatha Sampradaya.

Need to fix
'' "Some[who?] hold that it originated as a monistic doctrine, espoused by Kashmiri northern shaivites (date unknown)." ''

Shaiva Siddhanta originated from Mantramarga and not from Kashmir Shaivism or Trika:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Development_of_Shaivism.svg/440px-Development_of_Shaivism.svg.png

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1e085c5e9d197e65c2c4597a2082bc44-lq 2A00:1FA0:8429:6A31:40B3:2B8B:549B:7238 (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shaiva Siddhanta


text:
Tau Arietis

The Bayer designation Tau Arietis (τ Ari, τ Arietis) is shared by two star systems, in the constellation Aries: They are separated by 0.54°.
 * τ1 Arietis
 * τ2 Arietis

title: Tau Arietis