text:
|Publication number
|Publication type
|Application number
|Publication date
|21 Oct 2008
|Filing date
|30 Dec 2004
|Priority date
|30 Dec 2004
|Fee status
|Publication number
|Alan G. Huntington, Peter T. Jensen, Kenneth R. Smith, Buddy R. Starnes, David C. Stock, Robert J. Harter
|Original Assignee
|Washworld, Inc.
|Export Citation
|BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
|Patent Citations (24), Referenced by (28), Classifications (5), Legal Events (4)
|External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet
1. Field of the Invention
The subject invention generally pertains to a carwash and more specifically to a system for controlling the path of a spray arch.
2. Description of Related Art
To wash a vehicle in what is known as a touchless automatic carwash, the vehicle is usually parked at a desired location within a wash bay. Once a tire-engaging treadle switch or some other sensor system determines that the vehicle is properly parked, a controller commands an overhead supporting structure to move one or more spray arches (or some other type of pipe with a series of spray nozzles) around the vehicle to sequentially spray various mixtures of water, soap, and other chemicals at a temperature and pressure sufficient to flush dirt and grime off the vehicle.
To maintain a desired spraying distance between the spray arch and the vehicle, the controller typically guides the movement of the arch in response to multiple additional sensors that determine the positions of the vehicle's exterior surfaces, such as the vehicle's front, back, right side, and/or left side. Examples of carwash systems that employ multiple sensors are disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,425,407; 6,769,440 and 6,551,415
The various sensors of a carwash can be problematic due to the harsh environment in which they operate. Fog, water spray, dirt, strong chemicals, and ice are just a few of the common elements that can disrupt the operation of sensors. Many sensors may provide false signals due to vehicles of widely varying design where the exterior surface of the vehicle may vary by color, shape, material (e.g., plastic, metal, glass), reflectivity, height, angle, etc.
Consequently, there is a need for a system that can reliably control the path of a spray arch with a minimal number of sensors.
An object of some embodiments is to provide a spray arch and control system that uses a minimal number of sensors.
Another object of some embodiments is to use a single thru-beam sensor for determining the position of multiple surfaces of a vehicle.
Another object of some embodiments is to alternately rotate a spray arch clockwise and counterclockwise to limit its cumulative rotation, wherein the arch can be rotated in one direction more than 180-degrees, or more than 270-degrees, or perhaps even 360-degrees, without over twisting an electrical cable that may lead to an electrical component mounted to the spray arch and without having to rely on rotating electrical contacts.
Another object of some embodiments is to aim an inclined beam at a sensor that is mechanically coupled to a spray arch, wherein the vehicle can obstruct the beam before the sensor or the spray arch gets too close to the vehicle.
Another object of some embodiments is to have the beam projected at an angle of at least 20 to avoid shooting the beam through an open-sight opening in the vehicle and no more than 80 degrees so that the sensor and spray arch can stay a safe distance away from the vehicle.
Another object of some embodiments is to mount both a sensor and an emitter to a spray arch to maintain a fixed relationship between the two.
Another object of some embodiments is to mount just the sensor to the spray arch and an emitter at a stationary location, thereby reducing the number of electrical cables on the spray arch.
Another object of some embodiments is to use a single optical sensor (opposed mode or retroreflective mode) for detecting the location of both a right side and a left side of a vehicle.
Another object of some embodiments is direct the path of a spray arch such that the vehicle obstructs a beam for substantially the entire distance that the arch travels along the length of the vehicle, whereby a momentary failure in the sensor or emitter would not be a problem.
Another object of some embodiments is direct the path of a spray arch such that the vehicle obstructs a beam for substantially the entire distance that the arch travels along the width of the vehicle, whereby a momentary failure in the sensor or emitter would not be a problem.
Another object of some embodiments is to have a single sensor detect beams from different emitters.
Another object of some embodiments is to have a single sensor detect pulsating beams from different emitters, wherein the beams pulsate out of phase with each other such that a controller associated with the sensor can determine whether the sensor is responding to one, both, or neither of the two beams.
Another object of some embodiments is to have two pulsating beams converge to a single sensor so that the triangular space between the two beams can be used for defining two spatial limits.
One or more of these and/or other objects are provided by a carwash system according to the claimed subject invention.
Three aspects of a conventional carwash include a spray arch, a parking display system, and a tire-engaging treadle switch. The parking display system typically provides visual signals that assist drivers in guiding their vehicle to a desired position within the wash bay. Parking display systems, for instance, may tell the driver when to drive forward, when to stop, and when to back up if necessary. The treadle switch, or an appropriate substitute thereof, initiates the wash cycle upon sensing that the vehicle is properly parked within the wash bay. The spray arch, which is a conduit with a series of nozzles, moves around the vehicle to spray wash the vehicle's exterior. An embodiment of the present invention will first be described with reference to its spray arch.
Spray Arch
Carwash 10 includes a series of nozzles 18 on a spray arch 20, which in this particular example happens to be L-shaped for spraying vehicle 12 from both the side and overhead. Spray arch 20 receives pressurized washing fluid 22 (water, soap, chemicals, and various mixtures thereof) from a conventional washing unit 24 (
To enable spray arch 20 to move at least partially around vehicle 12 within wash bay 14, carwash 10 includes an overhead supporting structure 34, which in this example comprises a track 36 and a carriage 38. The term, "overhead" refers to structure wherein at least part of the structure is at an elevation that is at least five feet high or sufficiently high to pass over the top of a vehicle. Examples of an overhead supporting structure include, but are not limited to, the carriage and track of
In the particular example of
Referring again to
By way of at least one command signal 66 to drive units 58, 60 and 62, controller 64 controls the translation and rotation of spray arch 20 in response to a position feedback signal 68 from a single sensor 70 that helps determine the location of the vehicle's four main surfaces, a right side 72, a left side 74, a front end 76 and a back end 78. In some embodiments, sensor 70 is a photoelectric eye attached to a lower end of spray arch 20. Sensor 70 may be set up to operate in an opposed mode (also known as thru beam), whereby sensor 70 can detect the presence of a beam 80 (infrared, laser, etc.) that is projected by one or more emitters, such as an emitter 82 that an extension piece 84 connects to spray arch 20. Obstructing beam 80 causes sensor 70 to switch from a state of continuity to a state of discontinuity, wherein feedback signal 68 indicates in which state sensor 70 is operating.
Although sensor 70 preferably operates in an opposed mode due to that mode being the most reliable in the normally harsh environment of a carwash, other modes of operation, other types of sensors, and numerous other mounting configurations are conceivable. Sensor 70 and emitter 82, for example, could perhaps be installed side-by-side at the lower end of arch 20 and a reflector could be installed where emitter 82 is shown, whereby sensor 70 would operate in a retroreflective mode. Sensor 70 could possibly be replaced by a photoelectric sensor operating in a diffuse mode where the reflector is omitted, and the sensor responds to reflections directly off the surface of vehicle 12. Also, the locations of sensor 70 and emitter 82 could be interchanged, and in some embodiments relocated entirely.
It should be noted that although beam 80 is shown as a fine line for a more clear understanding of the invention, the actual beam could be more diffuse or spread-out. For a diffuse beam, its centerline of projection will be referred to as its line of sight. Also, in many of the drawing figures, controller 64; drive units 58, 60 and 62; electrical cables; hoses; and other components may be omitted for clarity.
To wash vehicle 12, a wash cycle may follow the sequence illustrated in
At this point in the operation, shown in
Referring to
Next, in
Referring to
Referring to
It should be noted that with the help of just a single sensor (sensor 70), controller 64 determined the location of the vehicle's left side 74, back end 78, right side 72, and front end 76. The determined locations do not necessarily define the vehicle's contour, they may, however, define an envelope or perimeter about which spray arch 20 can safely travel in a generally rectangular path to spray substantially all around vehicle 12 while maintaining an appropriate spraying distance between nozzles 18 and vehicle 12.
Although spray arch 20 has just been described sequentially spray-washing front end 76, left side 74, back end 78, and right side 72, arch 20 does not necessary have to spray those four surfaces in that particular order. Arch 20 can spray the surfaces in any order, it can spray the surfaces individually, or it can spray one or more surfaces simultaneously. Although just a single generally CCW pass around vehicle 12 has just been described, additional passes can be made in a similar manner to perform various desired wash cycles including, but not limited to a presoak, soap application, high pressure wash, soft water rinse, wax, etc.
To prevent such multiple passes from over twisting an electrical cable 96 leading to sensor 70 and/or emitter 82 (
If the total wash cycle involves an odd number of passes, spray arch 20 can unwind itself after the last pass by making one last revolution after the first vehicle departs and before the next vehicle enters. Alternatively, if the first of an odd number of passes for washing a first vehicle starts in a CCW direction, the first pass of the next vehicle to be washed can start in a CW direction, whereby the cable that was left twisted after washing the first vehicle can be untwisted during the process of washing the next vehicle.
After the first pass around the vehicle, the intermediate steps of determining the locations of the vehicle's sides and ends may be skipped, or subsequent location-determining steps can be used to verify that the vehicle has not moved from its original location.
Although sensor 70 has been shown and described receiving beam 80 from an emitter 82 that is in a fixed relationship with sensor 70 (i.e., sensor 70 and emitter 82 move in unison), in other embodiments of the invention, sensor 70 responds to beams from multiple emitters installed at various locations. In
In this case, first emitter 100 is attached to an arm 106 extending down from carriage 38. As carriage 38 moves first emitter 100 and sensor 70 from their position of
To determine the location of right side 72 and left side 74, emitters 102 and 104 are installed near the back end of the wash bay along either side of vehicle entrance 44, and their beams point in a generally forward direction. Since the beams of emitters 102 and 104 can spread like the beam of a flashlight, vehicle 12 effectively casts a shadow in front of itself. By rotating arch 20 CW from its position of
Once sensor 70 determines the location of right side 72, left side 74, front end 76 and back end 78, controller 64 can establish a generally rectangular path that spray arch 20 can follow to wash vehicle 12.
Carwash 10 can also be modified slightly to help spray arch 20 avoid striking unexpected prominent protrusions extending from a vehicle, such as an overextended rearview mirror, trailer hitch, or extra wide fenders.
To detect protrusions, controller 64 commands all three beams to pulsate on and off with the more upright beams 114 and 116 pulsating 180-degrees out of phase with central beam 112. Beam 112 pulsates continuously as spray arch 20 moves around vehicle 12. For beams 114 and 116, controller 64 only operates one of them at a time while the other remains off. The arch's direction of travel determines which of beams 114 or 116 operates at any given time. Controller 64 operates the beam leading the arch's direction of travel, such that beams 112 and 114 operate when arch 20 moves CCW around vehicle 12, and beams 112 and 116 operate when moving CW.
The ability a single sensor 70 being able to detect a protrusion 12′ of vehicle 12 as well as being able to detect the vehicle's front end 76, left side 74, back end 78 and right side 72 can be better understood with reference to
Column 122 shows sensor 70 detecting both unobstructed beams 112 and 114 whose out of phase pulses complement each other to place sensor 70 in a generally continuous state of continuity. This situation could occur if arch 20 was well in front of or in back of vehicle 12.
Column 124 could represent
Column 126 could represent
Column 128 is the same as column 124 and could represent beam 114 remaking after arch 20 travels past protrusion 12′.
Column 130 represents sensor 70 detecting both unobstructed beams 112 and 114, which would be expected when arch 20 travels past the vehicle's back end 78. Controller 64 could define the location of back end 78 as being the point when sensor 70 changes from pulsating between continuity and discontinuity in column 128 to a state of continuous continuity in column 130.
Column 132, 134, 136, 138 and 140 are similar to columns 122, 124, 126, 128 and 130 respectively but with arch 20 moving CW instead of CCW. In the CW direction, the beam of sensor 116 is activated in a pulsating manner, while beam 114 remains off.
Although the spray arch system just described could be used alone or in conjunction with various parking display systems, a preferred embodiment of a parking display system is as follows:
Parking Display System
A parking display system 142, shown in
Although individual messages may be referred to as a "drive-forward signal," a "stop signal," or a "back-up signal," those messages are labeled as such only to convey their general meaning. The "drive-forward signal," for instance, really represents anything that would indicate that the driver should move the vehicle forward. Examples of a drive-forward signal include, but are not limited to, a text message saying "drive forward," "come forward," "enter," "proceed," "go," etc.; a green light; an arrow; etc.
Display system 142 is schematically illustrated to represent any device that can selectively display a plurality of display signals or messages that assist the driver in guiding vehicle 12. The messages can be selectively displayed at a single location, such as on a display monitor (e.g., matrix of LEDs), or the messages can be individual signs that are selectively illuminated. Either way, at least one electrical cable 144 may need to run from a stationary power supply and or from controller 64 to power and control display 142, which is attached to the moving spray arch 20. Since cable 144 may limit the cumulative rotation of arch 20, display system 142 may benefit from the idea of alternating the rotation of arch 20 between CW and CCW rotation as described earlier.
Controller 64 controls display 142 in response to a parking position signal, such as, for example, signal 68 from sensor 70. In perhaps its simplest application, controller 64 commands display 142 to provide a stop signal in response to vehicle 12 obstructing beam 80. The system, however, can be set up to do a lot more than that.
In some application, controller 64 positions arch 20 at its preparatory position of
If, however, vehicle 12 continues to drive forward past the target position and obstructs beam 80 at its new position depicted by phantom line 80″, then controller 64 directs display 142 to provide a back-up signal and commands arch 20 to get out of the way to avoid being struck by vehicle 12. Eventually, controller 64 may command arch 20 to cautiously move back towards its original preparatory position to "feel around" or detect whether vehicle 12 is properly parked.
This same general principle mode of operation could conceivably be achieved by replacing sensor 70 with a sensor 148 operating in a diffuse mode, as shown in
In another embodiment of a parking display system, the preparatory position of spray arch 20 is as shown in
With the embodiment of
If, however, vehicle 12 continues to drive forward past the target position and obstructs beam 80 at its new position depicted by phantom line 81, then controller 64 directs display 142 to provide a back-up signal. Eventually, controller 64 may command arch 20 to move back towards its original preparatory position to determine whether vehicle 12 is properly parked.
In yet another embodiment, shown in
In the preparatory position shown in
In still yet another embodiment, shown in
Once vehicle 12 is parked at the target position, controller 64 can initiate a wash cycle; however, controller 64 may continue monitoring sensors 160 and 162 to ensure that vehicle 12 remains at the target position. Should vehicle 12 unexpectedly move from the target position during the wash cycle, controller 64 can temporarily interrupt the wash cycle or abort it entirely. Being able to continue monitoring sensors 160 and 162 for the purpose of determining whether vehicle 12 moves significantly during the wash cycle means that controller 64 may need to be set up to periodically disregard sensor 160 and/or 162 when arch 20 crosses one or both of the beams aimed at sensors 160 and 162. Two positions of arch 20 represented by solid lines and phantom lines suggest that arch 20 can actually pass across the two beams aimed at sensors 160 and 162. Informing controller 64 of when arch 20 passes in front of one or both of the beams can be readily accomplished by providing controller 64 with a position feedback signal that indicates the position of arch 20, or controller 64 may already know the position of arch 20 because it is controller 64 itself that directs the movements of arch 20.
Although some methods of vehicle sensing have been mentioned during the descriptions of the spray arch and the parking display system, the following section will describe multiple embodiments of a treadle alternative for detecting when a vehicle is properly parked at a predetermined target position within a wash bay.
Treadle Alternative
In some embodiments of the treadle alternative, two emitters 166 and 168 each project a beam 170 and 172 across a span that extends for most of the bay width of the wash bay, wherein both beams are aimed generally at sensor 164. The bay width is generally defined as the distance between two side walls or two lateral limits of the wash bay. In some embodiments, sensor 164 and emitters 166 and 168 are substantially stationary, wherein emitter 168 is closer to exit 46 than is emitter 166. Referring to
To determine whether front end 76 of vehicle 12 is between beams 170 and 172, controller 64 commands emitters 166 and 168 to pulsate on and off, 180-degrees out of phase to each other, in a manner similar to that of emitters 82 and 108 of
Column 180 shows sensor 164 detecting both unobstructed beams 170 and 172 whose out of phase pulses complement each other to place sensor 164 in a continuous state of continuity. This situation would be expected to exist when vehicle 12 first enters the wash bay and before vehicle 12 reaches the target parking position, as shown in FIG. 29. Thus, controller 64 might direct a parking display system 142 to provide a drive-forward signal.
Column 182 indicates that vehicle 12 is only obstructing beam 170, so sensor 164 pulsates between its states of continuity and discontinuity in response to the sensor's exposure to pulsating beam 172 from emitter 168. Sensor 164 pulsating indicates that vehicle 12 is at its proper target position, as shown in
If vehicle 12 does not stop within the target position of
If the driver responds appropriately by moving vehicle 12 back from the position of
Once vehicle 12 is at the target position for a predetermined period, such as five seconds or so, controller 64 provides a command signal 186 that commands a washing mechanism (e.g. arch 20) to begin washing vehicle 12.
To continue monitoring sensor 164 for the purpose of determining whether vehicle 12 moves from the target parking position during the wash cycle, controller 64 may need to periodically disregard sensor 164 when arch 20 or some other washing mechanism crosses one or both of the beams aimed at sensors 164. Controller 64, for example, could be programmed to disregard signal 178 from sensor 164 whenever spray arch 20 is within a predetermined zone 188 near beams 170 and 172. Informing controller 12 of when arch 20 is within zone 188 can be readily accomplished by providing controller 64 with a position feedback signal that indicates the position of arch 20, or controller 64 may already know the position of arch 20 because it is controller 64 itself that directs the movements of arch 20.
In another embodiment, shown in
In operation, parking display system 142 provides a drive-forward signal when neither pressure-actuated switch is actuated by vehicle 12. Display system 142 provides a stop signal when just first switch 190 is actuated. And display system 142 provides a back-up signal when only second switch 192 is actuated.
Once vehicle 12 seems to have stopped on first switch 190, controller 64 commands spray arch to begin washing vehicle 12. Sensor 70 is coupled to arch 20 in a manner similar to that described with reference to
Although the invention is described with reference to a preferred embodiment, it should be appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art that various modifications are well within the scope of the invention. Various embodiments of the spray arch system, for instance, can be used with various parking display systems including, but not limited to, those just described. Various embodiments of the spray arch system can be used with various treadles (virtual or otherwise) including, but not limited to, those just described. Likewise, various embodiments of the parking display system can be used with various spray arch, systems and other wash mechanisms including, but not limited to those just described. Various embodiments of the parking display system can be used with various treadles (virtual or otherwise) including, but not limited to those just described. Various embodiments of the treadle alternative can be used with various spray arch systems and other wash mechanisms including, but not limited to those just described. Various embodiments of the treadle alternative can be used with various parking display systems including, but not limited to those just described. Therefore, the scope of the invention is to be determined by reference to the following claims.
|Cited Patent
|Filing date
|Publication date
|6 Apr 1959
|12 Jun 1962
|Brechtel Robert E
|Automatic car wash
|24 Apr 1959
|3 Jul 1962
|Gen Railway Signal Co
|Object or vehicle detection system
|4 Feb 1969
|27 Jul 1971
|Migneault Maurice
|Signalling apparatus and method for car washes and the like
|10 Jun 1985
|12 May 1987
|3900 Corp.
|Motor vehicle garaging safety methods, and apparatus and systems
|21 May 1985
|19 Jan 1988
|Pdq Manufacturing Inc.
|Automatic vehicle washing system
|28 Jul 1987
|18 Oct 1988
|Seamster Jr Silas
|Vehicle washing machine
|15 Nov 1990
|10 Nov 1992
|D & S Manufacturing Co.
|Brushless vehicle washing apparatus
|10 Feb 1992
|23 Feb 1993
|P.D.Q. Manufacturing Inc.
|Fluid applicating and vehicle washing apparatus
|14 Feb 1991
|4 May 1993
|Nathan J. Friberg
|Ultrasonic vehicle positioning apparatus and method
|17 Mar 1992
|19 Jul 1994
|Lane Moncourtois
|Home wash system with radio-controlled infrared motion sensor activator
|30 May 1997
|29 Dec 1998
|Heembrock; Tony
|High pressure washing device
|2 Feb 1998
|23 Mar 1999
|Proto-Vest, Inc.
|Automated vehicle wash system with vehicle type recognition
|15 Nov 1999
|14 Nov 2000
|Wesumat Fahrzeugwaschanlagen Gmbh
|Device for positioning motor vehicles in front of a car wash
|30 Nov 1999
|17 Apr 2001
|Dale E Fiene
|Parking guide for automatic garage door openers
|1 Oct 1999
|16 Apr 2002
|Michael J. Belanger
|Rollover pressure car wash apparatus and methods of operating same
|4 May 2001
|30 Jul 2002
|Delaware Capital Formation, Inc.
|Touch-free loading system for an in-bay, automatic vehicle wash system
|15 May 2001
|21 Jan 2003
|Amt Inc.
|Multi-beam apparatus for measuring surface quality
|4 May 2001
|15 Apr 2003
|Delaware Capital Formation
|Gantry mounted soap heating system
|13 Sep 2002
|22 Apr 2003
|Delaware Capital Formation
|Touch-free loading system for an in-bay, automatic vehicle wash system
|4 May 2001
|3 Jun 2003
|Delaware Capital Formation, Inc.
|Vehicle wash system including a variable speed single pumping unit
|4 May 2001
|3 Jun 2003
|Delaware Capital Formation, Inc.
|Dual material chemical injector for vehicle wash system
|4 May 2001
|22 Jul 2003
|Delaware Capital Formation, Inc.
|Automatic spray arch impact reset mechanism
|25 Feb 2003
|3 Aug 2004
|Delaware Capital Formation, Inc.
|Touch-free loading system for an in-bay, automatic vehicle wash system
|2 Apr 1992
|7 Oct 1992
|NOWAC INDUSTRIER a.s.
|Method for automatic washing of motor vehicles, and automatic device for the execution thereof
|Citing Patent
|Filing date
|Publication date
|21 May 2010
|6 Sep 2011
|Cargill, Incorporated
|Animal cleaning system
|9 Apr 2013
|Suncor Energy Inc.
|Heating system for outdoor conveyors in a carwash
|21 May 2013
|Belanger, Inc.
|Touchless car wash system
|11 Feb 2011
|28 May 2013
|Belanger, Inc.
|Spray-type car wash system with breakaway spray arms
|4 Jun 2013
|Belanger, Inc.
|Method and apparatus for assisting the driver of a vehicle to center the vehicle in a wash bay
|11 Feb 2011
|24 Sep 2013
|Belanger, Inc.
|Car wash system with lighted spray arms and method of making same
|19 Apr 2013
|8 Oct 2013
|Belanger, Inc.
|Touchless car wash system
|21 Sep 2009
|12 Nov 2013
|International Electronic Machines Corp.
|Robotic vehicle for performing rail-related actions
|18 Feb 2010
|10 Dec 2013
|Belanger, Inc.
|Vehicle spray washer with lighted spray arm
|27 Aug 2012
|4 Feb 2014
|Belanger, Inc.
|Vehicle spray washer with lighted spray arm
|6 Mar 2008
|18 Feb 2014
|International Electronic Machines Corp.
|Rail vehicle identification and processing
|30 Mar 2009
|26 Aug 2014
|Petit Auto Wash, Inc.
|Vehicle wash systems and methods
|8 Nov 2013
|5 Jul 2016
|International Electronic Machines Corp.
|Railway maintenance device
|11 Jun 2007
|29 May 2008
|Heating system for outdoor conveyors in a carwash
|6 Mar 2008
|26 Feb 2009
|Mian Zahid F
|Rail vehicle identification and processing
|30 Mar 2009
|5 Nov 2009
|Petit Thomas J
|Vehicle wash systems and methods
|21 Sep 2009
|25 Mar 2010
|Mian Zahid F
|Robotic vehicle for performing rail-related actions
|21 May 2010
|25 Nov 2010
|Cargill, Incorporated
|Animal cleaning system
|18 Aug 2011
|Belanger, Inc.
|Vehicle spray washer with lighting for position assistance
|18 Aug 2011
|Belanger, Inc.
|Touchless car wash system
|18 Aug 2011
|Belanger, Inc.
|Method and apparatus for assisting the driver of a vehicle to center the vehicle in a wash bay
|17 Nov 2011
|Belanger, Inc.
|Car wash system with lighted spray arms and method of making same
|17 Nov 2011
|Belanger, Inc.
|Spray-type car wash system with breakaway spray arms
|31 May 2012
|Bo-Yang Lin
|Vehicle Guidance System
|20 Dec 2012
|Belanger, Inc.
|Vehicle spray washer with lighted spray arm
|17 Apr 2013
|18 Sep 2014
|Michael J. Belanger
|Vehicle wash component for emitting bubbles
|13 Sep 2012
|16 Jan 2013
|Full-automatic computer-controlled automobile washer
|13 Sep 2012
|30 Sep 2015
|U.S. Classification
|International Classification
|Cooperative Classification
|European Classification
|21 Mar 2005
Owner name: WASHWORLD, INC., WISCONSIN
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:HUNTINGTON, ALAN G.;JENSEN, PETER T.;SMITH, KENNETH R.;AND OTHERS;REEL/FRAME:016378/0818;SIGNING DATES FROM 20050203 TO 20050207
|4 Jun 2012
|Maintenance fee reminder mailed
|21 Oct 2012
|Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees
|11 Dec 2012
|Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee
Effective date: 20121021


text:
Shopping, seeing a movie or visiting a doctor requires a drive if you live in northeast Amarillo, but residents there also lack transportation.
If you go
The sessions are scheduled in different parts of the city for convenience, but residents can attend any meeting - or all of them.
6:30 p.m. Wednesday, San Jacinto Elementary School, 3400 S.W. Fourth Ave.
6:30 p.m. Sept. 8, Lawndale Elementary School, 2215 S. Bivins St.
6:30 p.m., Sept. 9, Puckett Elementary School, 6700 Oakhurst Drive
Concerns about transportation and amenities became common themes Monday night as almost 35 Amarillo residents - most of whom live in northeast neighborhoods - talked about goals to be incorporated in a comprehensive plan that will guide city development for the next 20 years.
More than a dozen members of the city's Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee, plus city staff and members of the Amarillo Planning and Zoning Commission attended the meeting at Forest Hill Elementary School to listen to residents' ideas, issues and desires.
The plan will take more than a year to complete and will cover all the "building blocks" of a city, from zoning to parks and police and fire services to water supply needs.
Employees of Kendig Keast Collaborative, the consulting firm that will draft the plan, led small discussion groups.
Steering committee member Betty Trotter zeroed in on comments about a need for a community center and for places where children and teens can go for activities.
"There's nothing for kids in the neighborhood, really there isn't," she said. "Really and truly, this part of town is disenfranchised. Now, how to fix it is another matter."
Much of the discussion centered on a lack of shopping and entertainment venues close to home, but residents had varied ideas about why new retailers aren't drawn to the area.
"The city doesn't tell a developer where to go do their housing or building their shopping center. So we have to think about what we can attract that will attract (retailers)," James Allen said, referring to bringing large business or industry to the area. "A developer's going to see a factory that has 2,000 employees and think some people are going to want to live close to where they work."
Other residents said retailers could be turned off by dilapidated buildings and unkempt properties that harm the area's image.
"The image is very important," one woman said. "Look both ways, and all you see is junk."
Conversations ranged from the need to better traffic management at railroad crossings to the need for a location where people can get centralized services, such as Social Security help and housing assistance, in each quadrant of the city.
A smattering of other comments follows:
** "What concerns me about north Amarillo is it's been neglected - neglected politically. We need (single-member district) representation, and we really need a facelift over here."
** "We need something in the code that people can't park cars in yards unless they have a driveway or something there to support them - as far as image (improvement) goes."
** "We need to push infill (development) downtown. We have vacant land, vacant buildings. We should be infilling, rather than spreading out."
© 2016. All Rights Reserved. | Contact Us

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Top Definition
In the Philippines, "to salvage" someone means "to kill" that person, which is the exact opposite of the usual meaning of "salvage", which is "to save".
He's a hopeless thief! Better to salvage him than send him to jail.
Noldy Taroogs가 작성 2005년 07월 21일 (목)
Trending Now
Can you define these popular missing words?
Tonight's lay, piece of ass, sex, to have sex
I'm going to get myself some salvage.
Huskerdude가 작성 2010년 01월 13일 (수)
a term used to decribe a male who is hated by the majority of females at his school
person 1: damn all thots were roasting rico last night
person 2: what a savage
person 1: nah he a SALVAGE
person 2: what a savage
person 1: nah he a SALVAGE
entire dhs가 작성 2016년 07월 24일 (일)
term used to describe when one transsexual attacks another transsexual.
"Brenda SALVAGELY attacked Mimi in the car after a fight at a tranny nightclub."
xfiver가 작성 2008년 02월 01일 (금)
A mixture between being salty and being a savage, so basically a complete douche all the time.
"Why are you such a salvage"
wierd stuff가 작성 2016년 08월 17일 (수)


text:
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
http://adventuretravel.about.com/b/a/123700.htm A story about whether or not climbing ShipRock is legal
Recent revert[edit]
The additions recently made were all POV versions of statements that already appeared in the article. The deletions were totally unjustifiable since they are uncontroversial factual material. If someone wants to expand on and clarify the particular religious significance (in a non-POV fashion) and/or the legal status of climbing on Shiprock, that would be appropriate, although discussing it on this talk page would be good beforehand. -- Spireguy 22:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Apolgoies for not following wikiprotocol in my previous edits. It is correct that the numerous references to climbing should not simply be cut. The statements do not appears in the existing text with the same significance and this should be changed. The current text portrayal of Shiprock is heavily biased from a climbers perspective. This is problematic because it is in total disregard to the Religious beliefs associated with Shiprock and should be noted as one of those controversial points. Shiprock is much more important as a sacred place than as a climbers dream.
While the easiest route and first ascent might be well sourced, these are quite minor details compared to the religious and cultural importance of Shiprock for natives throughout the southwest. In any case, First ascent should be noted as First recorded ascent by a white man.
All statements which are not well sourced or fact will be edited, and I am waiting for a proper expert on Shiprock to provide more details on what should be included here.
Diastar 02:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I edited the page again, quite a bit, to carefully note and source the climbing story and to try to put in a little of the religious part (for which I do not have good references, unfortunately). I can expand a bit on the climbing stuff (we can put this stuff in the article if necessary, but it's quite long and probably overly detailed):
Expanded quotations[edit]
However, questions of legality, ownership, safety, and religious significance have made the issue of access to Shiprock a complicated story. Some sources report that climbing the peak was declared illegal in 1970. However Cameron Burns reported in 1995 that:
Nathaniel Boyd, a right-of-way agent with the Navajo Tribal Parks and Recreation Department, told me that while climbing is prohibited in certain places, such as Canyon de Chelly and Monument Valley, it is not prohibited elsewhere.... A permittee (local permit holder) has domain over the permittee's land and is the person to ask for permission when seeking a climbing objective.
...Bob Rosebrough, a lawyer, dug into Navajo annals to find that the basis for a "ban" on climbing on the reservation was a letter written by Charles Damon, director of Navajo Parks and Recreation in the early 1970s. Damon suggested a ban after the death of two climbers on Shiprock in 1970.... Rosebrough conducted several interviews with lawyers in the Navajo Department of Justice only to learn that the letter was never backed up with legislation and that no ban exists, or ever has existed.
Indeed, in an interview with Damon himself...Damon suggested to Rosebrough that if we wanted to pursue climbing on the reservation, he seek permission at a local level, rather than the central tribal government.[1]
A report in 2000, from a person denied a climbing permit, noted that "A climbing accident on Shiprock...four years ago resulted in a big rescue. The grazing permit administrator informed me that Shiprock Chapter House had passed a resolution as a result of the accident encouraging the Window Rock Chapter House not to give out permits."[2]
The above quotations are hardly serious legal evidence - the articles by Burns reflect his utter ignorance of the laws or how to conduct careful research. He makes no distinction between climbing on Navajo land in general or approaching sacred places and seems unaware that Shiprock might have have a different status from the other climbs he was permitted. For further POV reading, http://gorp.away.com/gorp/books/excerpts/ship.htm gives a very nice subjective account of a tourist. That it was published hardly makes this verifiable. -- diastar
- The link you mention is in fact the full text of the American Alpine Journal 1995 article that I quote from above. I would agree that the Burns article is not legal proof of anything, and the possible distinction between Shiprock and other climbs is quite possibly more important than he realizes. But I'm not sure why you say that it reflects his "utter ignorance of the laws." He and others clearly made a good effort to try to understand the legal situation. If there is a clear law forbidding climbing on Shiprock, then it would be great to have a reference to it. I would not be surprised to see such a law. But so far all I have seen are unsupported claims that there is such a law, on one side; and a documented, if not airtight, claim that there is no such law. In the previous version of the article I was trying to make that clear, while not coming down definitively on one side or the other, and while citing sources.
- To the point: I feel that your deletion of the AAJ sources, if justifiable at all, needs much more justification than simply a negative personal opinion of the author(s). How much more verifiable do you need to be than to be published in a carefully edited, world-famous journal? I'm not saying that every claim that Burns makes is true; that is not how Wikipedia works. What I'm saying is that the claims are significant evidence, and should be included.
- So please explain your rationale more carefully in terms of the Wikipedia guidelines. In the meantime I'm going to put the material back in. -- Spireguy 03:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- After reading through the wikipedia guidelines, it is clear that Cameron Burns does not constitute a notable source. Burns writes "We were certain that Shiprock couldn't be part of any Navajo's grazing permit as there are no houses for miles around it, and the Parks and Recreation Department's Boyd had never said anything about Shiprock. It was my blunder not to press him—or someone else—further." That the publication is respectable does not make the author of the article better informed.
- I maintain that the Burns reference is a verifiable and reliable source. (Your use of the word "notable" here may indicate a confusion between two different criteria; I'm not sure.) First, the source is certainly verifiable (in the narrowest sense), simply because it is a printed source (and is also available on the web). I think the disagreement here is whether the source is reliable, or perhaps a better word is credible; but in that regard I still affirm the source. If one reads the whole article, it shows that, while Burns begins by not knowing much about the situation (as indicated by the quotation above), he does make a serious investigation, and combines his findings with those of another investigation. While these investigations did not reach the level one would want for legal proof or a careful land survey, they did reach the level a professional journalist investigating the matter would have reached. Wikipedia cites such journalists without further comment, and cites many less credible sources, so this cite should stand on those grounds. Remember, the question is not whether the source is correct, it is whether it is verifiable and credible. Disregarding such a source is contrary to the neutral point of view.
- Since I have no desire to engage in endless back and forth, I'll try calling in a third opinion to see if that helps.
Responses to concerns[edit]
The issue of perceived bias toward a climbers perspective is straightforward to address, namely by including more (verifiable) material on the religious and cultural side. I have tried in a very small way to do that, but my (easily available) sources are not good in that area. I may have time to get better ones.
In general, in an article that is already long and in some ways complete, a preponderance of material on one facet of the subject can conceivably constitute lack of neutrality. However in a short article such as this, it is inappropriate to delete notable, verifiable, factual material simply because material relevant to other facets is not yet present.
It would be great to have an article that addressed Shiprock's importance as a sacred place. The right way to do that is to add material, not delete it.
The first ascent, difficulty etc. are not "quite minor", certainly not minor enough to delete them. Regardless of one's opinion of the ethical status of climbing the peak (and I for one would not encourage it), the peak is notable partly for those reasons.
I changed it back to "first ascent", unmodified, since the peak is not climbable by non-technical means, so there is no real possibility of an unrecorded ascent.
Comments welcome -- Spireguy 04:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I have made a couple of revisions. Referring to printed climbing material does not make the source good. Technical means? There are hand holds carved into Shiprock. Not the white man's technology, but is actually use of technical means. In terms of being notable for its climbing, it is to climbers. That Shiprock is iconic of the southwest would be obvious if photographers or painters (or non-climbing tourists) were being quoted. The difference is that photographing and painting images of Shiprock do not violate tribal custom. POV seems like a flexible concept.
-- diastar
- I addressed the vague "does not make the source good" issue above: be specific about why the material is not appropriate.
- About the first ascent: Are you claiming that there was a native first ascent? Because of the extreme difficulty of climbing Shiprock, that's an extraordinary claim and it would require extraordinary evidence. Shiprock is not like many other peaks which probably did have unrecorded first ascents. It is simply way too hard to climb without modern equipment. It's not an issue of whose technology it is; the means to climb Shiprock didn't exist in any technology before the 20th century.
- So I'm afraid I'm going to basically revert that one as well, since it's just misleading as written. Giving hypothetical credit to people based on physical impossibilities isn't cultural respect, it's just shoody treatment of facts.
- I agree with your last point about the notability of Shiprock as a subject for photographers and painters (in fact all artists). If I find good sources mentioning this aspect of Shiprock, I will include more material. I would like to see this article become longer and more balanced; there certainly need not be an emphasis on the climbing aspects, as I have said before. But the material about climbing should be as accurate and verifiable as possible. -- Spireguy 03:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's not our business to assess the likelihood of a native first ascent - how does anyone know whether there was or wasn't a Navajo Lynn Hill centuries ago? The correct phrasing is "first documented ascent" or "first recorded ascent", which is verifiable and refrains from speculation. Stan 19:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- There is precedent in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains: if a peak is a simple walk-up, and is in land that is inhabited by first nations, then we refrain from attributing a first ascent. But, to my knowledge, I've never seen a technical first ascent disputed: it's always assumed that modern technology and techniques are required for such ascents. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains/General#First ascent. Thanks! hike395 06:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think the point Stan raises should solve the problem: Here we deal not only with the issue of something not being recorded, but an oral tradition that is about NOT being recorded. I guess the assumption about modern technology and techniques are too culturally loaded to be of any help here. BTW: I think it points to the cultural specificity of something like wikipedia - dead grandparents that were surveyors for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and actually knew something about the beliefs and respected the oral tradition do not count!
- It's not our business to assess the likelihood of a native first ascent - how does anyone know whether there was or wasn't a Navajo Lynn Hill centuries ago? The correct phrasing is "first documented ascent" or "first recorded ascent", which is verifiable and refrains from speculation. Stan 19:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree strongly with Stan, and agree with Hike395. By Stan's logic, we would have to label every first ascent as a "first recorded ascent." (E.g. what about "a Sherpa Messner"?) I would not say that the (very mild) assumption about modern technology is culturally loaded in this case. -- Spireguy 20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Third opinion[edit]
On some of the various issues expressed here:
- The idea that the Navajo may be culturally offended by climbing of the mountain requires a reliable source. The passage had been fact-tagged since January, and I can't find a thing indicating it, so I've removed it.
- This article in general focuses too much on mountain climbing and too little on the geology of the mountain and other such issues. If some information could be found regarding cultural significance, that would be excellent as well.
- Unless there is reliably-sourced evidence that the mountain had been climbed before the first recorded success, the first recorded success is, for our purposes, the first success. There is no need for a qualifier unless it reliably is in doubt whether that was genuinely the first.
Hope that's helpful! Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the third opinion.
- The fact tag was my fault; I left it in when I should have referenced the new source (Linford) which I had used for the cultural section. It clearly states that many Navajo are offended by the idea of climbing the peak, and the cultural section includes one reason why. Hopefully that addresses your concern about that section. I did tighten up that part (eliminating a redundant use of the "legal and appropriate" line).
- I changed to "first ascent", unmodified, as suggested.
- It would be nice to have more info on culture and geology, although I'm puzzled by the claim that it focuses too much on mountain climbing (in its current form, now that I added a lot on the culture). It currently has 3 times as much on culture/geology than on climbing. Just wondering, not complaining.
- Do you have an opinion on the use of the Cameron Burns source? I still think that needs to be in the climbing section. As it stands, the section gives the impression that climbing has not occured since 1970, which is false. -- Spireguy 16:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is a clearly reliable source that rock climbing is not allowed on Navajo Nations lands - there are no permits available and no climbing is allowed. This is clearly indicated on the website of the administrative body that governs the land.
- I removed the climbing references to Shiprock from the table. This is clearly not of the same hierarchy of information as general geological information.
- In keeping with the wikipedia policy on First Nations lands, I also changed the first climb back to first recorded climb.
- References to any controversy about the legality have also been removed as those seem to be cleared up.
- It would possibly be appropriate to delete the references to the report in 2000 as it seems irrelevant now.
diastar —Preceding comment was added at 02:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
After a bit of further research into the Navajo Position on rock climbing - there are mentions that rock climbing is not allowed in Monument Valley or any part of the Nation on numerous official websites. It seems that the Nation is actively working to promote this. So I removed the anecdote from Beyer - it seems a moot point now. Hopefully, this does not ruffle any feathers. I did leave in the bit about climbers seeing Shiprock as an interesting place to climb, the first recorded ascent, and the further seven routes, but I think this should also be changed. But shouldn't all of this be referenced?
Diastar (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)diastar
First, thanks to Diastar for finding an unequivocal source about the legality. That's very helpful, and it does make a little bit of what was in the article before unnecessary.
However, I disagree with the removal of a lot of the other climbing information, and I have reinstated it, in a modified form, to clearly take into account the unambiguous legal status. The information about the first ascent and the climbing difficulty are clearly relevant (and are referenced), and are completely standard facts for the infobox. (That's why there are fields for them there.)
As to the issue, previously discussed, of "first ascent" versus "first recorded ascent", I did not see a consensus on this page to use "first recorded ascent." Diastar, you mention "Wikipedia policy on First Nations lands"---please provide a link to the relevant policy or guideline page. I would be surprised to see a guideline that asserts that the phrase "first recorded ascent" must be used in all cases on any First Nations lands. Most technical peaks in the world were first climbed by non-local climbers, so I don't see how it's crucial to this issue that Shiprock is in the Navajo Nation. However, I would like to see the guideline to which you refer. For another discussion, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains/General#First_ascent. -- Spireguy (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
hi spireguy. I think the climbing references should be removed from the info box - they are not core to the entry and not as specific as height, location etc. It contributes to the notion that Shiprock should be climbed when there is an apparent information campaign by the Navajo Nation to discourage climbing (I found a red outlined mention on numerous Navajo websites that Climbing is not allowed). I think the discussion on First ascent is mainly about the infobox? And, this historical climbing information is included in the article.
For the first ascent vs first recorded ascent in the actual article, I think Stan's suggestion to use first recorded is supported by the guideline that Hike mentioned in the mountain category for First Nations land (mabe the same discussion?). I am disputing the suggestion that modern technical means are the only ones with which it is possible to scale Shiprock. My point here, is that oral tradition allows for ceremonies taking place on top of Shiprock - there are not sources suitable for wikipedia, but certainly point to the peak having been climbed before the Sierra Club trip. I guess my Grandpa is correct that there are handholds going up the cliffs. Sites like Acoma Pueblo and Chaco Canyon are evidence that the technology existed and was used to scale cliff faces several 1000 years ago. In this case, I think Stan's point about not speculating is the best way forward. It seems like a productive compromise. Diastar (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)diastar
- I disagree. As I said before, the climbing information is correct, sourced, specific, and interesting. It does not "contribute to the notion that Shiprock should be climbed"---it relates the fact that Shiprock has been climbed, which is quite significant. So it should stay in the infobox, where it goes for every other mountain article.
- As to the FA vs. FRA, I still want to see the guideline you mentioned earlier about First Nations lands. If there is no such guideline, please indicate that as well. Just above, you refer to "Hike"---do you mean "hike395", in the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains/General#First_ascent? The point there was that "FRA" applies to nontechnical peaks. And I stick by the claim that Shiprock is a technical peak par excellence. (Acoma and Chaco are really not comparable; the word "cliff" can span a huge range of climbing difficulty.) As you say, the oral tradition you refer to (and your Grandpa) are not reliable sources. If Wikipedia allowed claims based on oral tradition to be recorded as fact, all religious claims would immediately get that status, for example. The sources I have seen clearly regard the Sierra Club trip as the first ascent, and I agree. Hence, I still strongly feel that using FRA here would be misleading. I'll ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains for more input. -- Spireguy (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- OK, looking back, I think you are referring to hike395's earlier comment on this talk page: "if a peak is a simple walk-up, and is in land that is inhabited by first nations, then we refrain from attributing a first ascent. But, to my knowledge, I've never seen a technical first ascent disputed: it's always assumed that modern technology and techniques are required for such ascents." I already agreed with this, as it supports my position, since verifiable, reliable sources regard Shiprock as (highly) technical. -- Spireguy (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was referring to the input from Stan and Hike395. I had a brief look at the mountain discussion, but it looks like this topic was raised, but I did not see a clear consensus or that the issue had been gone into. Maybe Shiprock provides an interesting case because it combines quite a few points all in one. Ok, I am taking issue with the information presented in the infobox. As far as I can tell, that is not totally standardized for all Mountains. Generally, I do not understand why the ascent would be more important that, say, the mineral composition. It is also unclear to me why the ascent information is presented in the same category as the altitude or geographic location (another point). So, it does not make sense to me that those bits of information are presented as the same class of data. Of course, I understand that it is interesting for climbers, but not for a more general public. For the first documented/recorded ascent vs first ascent, I am disputing the assumption that the technology did not exist prior to 1939 as the well documented climbing technologies of the Anasazi are evidence that the technology existed for substantial climbing. This should be grounds enough to contest the that technologically aided climbing existed in the area and that it is likely Shiprock was climbed prior to 1939. Noting the first recorded ascent is the ideal compromise and is technically correct. I do not see a problem with this change because it does not change the stated fact and allows for earlier activities to have taken place. Diastar (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)diastar
Hi. With regards to the infobox, the references to climbing should be removed. It is clearly illegal to climb Shiprock and these references should not be included in such a breakdown. Wikipedia should also be a bit responsible and not spread mis-information. The following is in a 2006 press release issued by the Navajo Parks and Recreation Department in reference to Monument Valley.
This recent geologic event emphasizes the fragility of the Monuments and even more emphasizes the need for conservation and ecologically-minded tourism. Reports of the Navajo Parks and Recreation Department allowing rock climbing are false. Yet several websites have postings on how to evade Navajo Nation regulations and proceed with dangerous and illegal rock climbs in the park. Even more serious than the possible physical harm illegal climbs could pose is the religious damage done to the Navajo people by these non-Navajo visitors. The Monuments are sacred to the Navajo people and any human interaction (by Navajo or non-Navajo) is strictly off limits. Please abide by the humble religious requests of the Navajo people and do not climb the Monuments. "Navajo law will be strictly enforced on this issue," Parks Department Manager Ray Russell also added.
For the article, I would suggest adding the expanded information on the Sierra Club party and removing
A modification of the original route is still regarded as the easiest, and it is rated as Grade IV, YDS 5.9, A1.[1]
This information is now moot, given the legal status of climbing.
For the ascent, I would suggest simply changing first ascent to first recorded ascent. That point seems to hinge on a question of technology and I am referring to the achievements of the Anasazi as well documented sources that highly developed technologies for climbing, building etc in use in the area long before 1939. The should be adequate to allow that Shiprock was possibly ascented but not recorded. Ugh, therefore, first recorded ascent is correct and appropriate.
Ugh. Apologies if this is too wordy - too much coffee! Diastar (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)diastar
- I don't know if it's worth putting the article, but what technical aids were needed to climb the rock? Pitons and rope? Something more? Did Brower et al. ever mention signs of earlier climbers?
- —WWoods (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if the assumption lies in the technology, maybe that is of general interest? Actually, I have not looked into the Mountain project articles, but how significant is the FA or climbing in relation to the actual text? How much detail is the norm?
- Diastar (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)diastar
In general, I edited the section, leaving in the disputed points and adding the perspective of the Navajo Parks and Recreation. On the advice of another wiki editor, it could be that even more information on this might be of interest? The Burns article could be referred to and partly explain why the rock climbing community spread incorrect information the status. Up until a few days ago, wikipedia was one source of misinformation. Comments or suggestions?
For the infobox, it still seems to me that no harm would be done by expanding the related info in the article and removing it from the infobox. Checking a few mountain articles, there does not seem to be a uniform approach to the infobox. It also appears that FA are not always mentioned in the body of the article, or that the infobox contains information not covered in the article. In any case,the Mountains project guidelines clearly state that the "These are only suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you shouldn't feel obligated in the least to follow them." It does not seem appropriate to include the easiest routes/first ascent in the infobox when it is clear that climbing is illegal and an offense. That gives the impression that this is core information.
The FA vs RFA discussion seems really difficult. Maybe it would be good to get input from anthropologists/archeologist with knowledge of the region? If I understand it, we are disputing the technology needed for such a difficult climb? And according to experts on rock climbing, Shiprock was impossible to scale without modern means? So we need an expert on ancient technologies. Or?
For now, I will put a bit of energy into cleaning up the article in other areas. Beautiful Mountain will need a disam.
Diastar (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)diastar
- Responding to Wwoods:
- The climb was technical, so yes, rope was certainly necessary. Given the current grade of YDS 5.9 A1, copious pitons would certainly have been used in 1939. Remember, this was the pre-eminent unclimbed mountaineering challenge in the late 1930's. It was not just "substantial climbing", as Diastar puts it. However, see my response to Diastar on the FA/FRA issue below.
- Responding to Diastar:
- First, let me respond about FA versus FRA. I think that the issue is more properly with how mountain articles should, in general, deal with the issue. If there were a clear guideline, we could apply it. As you say, no really clear guideline seems to have come out of the discussion on the Mountain WikiProject. I've stated my position, which aligns with the practice of many mountaineering authors: for technical peaks, I think the burden of proof lies with the person claiming the possibility of an unrecorded ascent. This position has support on Wikipedia, as the Mountain discussion shows, but in the absence of a strong consensus either there or on this talk page, I'm OK if you change it to "FRA" here. I'll just say again for the record that my preference would be "FA".
- About the infobox and the climbing information, my position is unchanged. First, I think you misunderstand what you are seeing in other mountain infoboxes. Those that are lacking the FA and route info simply haven't been researched enough---it's not the result of a decision that such information wasn't important. Theoretically, the infobox should be completely filled out for every peak.
- Second, simply because climbing is illegal does not mean that the information about how hard it was to climb the mountain is incorrect or uninteresting (as Wwoods's question above confirms) or "moot". Putting in accurate information does not encourage the illegal activity, especially when we indicate unambiguously that it is in fact illegal. See for example Cannabis smoking, among many other articles, to indicate Wikipedia's standards on this issue. So I do not see including that information as "spreading misinformation".
- As to including Burns' research, clearly qualified by the unambiguous statement from the Parks Department, I think that's great. It would show a significant fact, namely, that the status was unclear to the climbing community for a long time.
- One question: I'm wondering why the quotation from the Parks Department included above is not what is referenced in the article itself. It should be, since it is necessary to verify the claims about websites still promoting climbing on the Navajo Nation. I couldn't find a link to the quotation you cite above; could you provide that, or if it is not online, reference it specifically in the article? -- Spireguy (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, for the infobox - my point is that wikiguidelines are guidelines, suggestions for organizing information. These are not rules, so in general, the infobox can differ. And it does differ on mountain articles with various infoboxes and sets of information currently in use on wikipedia. I am suggesting that these details are not core to the article (even if they are to every other mountain article on the planet!) and it is inappropriate to list them in the infobox in the specific case of Shiprock.
"This project is WikiProject:Mountains, not WikiProject:Hiking or WikiProject:Mountaineering." from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Mountains%2FArchive_7&diff=228057116&oldid=228038048
For the article, in the proper context, that information does not seem so inappropriate. For the FA vs FRA, I would seek an opinion outside of the mountaineering community as we need an expert position on ancient tech included for consideration. For this, it seems reasonable to hold off until there is a reliable source and no ruffled feathers.
With regards to the quotation above: I have cited it as a source for the information, but not a longer quote. It is what you get following more info: http://www.navajonationparks.org/images/Monument%20Valley%20PR.pdf Do you advise linking this press release? Or adding the entire quotation? I am fine with both.
Otherwise, I will add the disam for beautiful mountain and hope you take care of the Mountain details!
Diastar (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)diastar
- I'm happy with "first ascent", and I see that since this edit almost two years ago we have defined 'first ascent' as the first modern recorded climb.
- Its past climbing history is part of the character of the mountain, and in my view to suppress it would be to take political correctness to an extreme. I can't see any harm in including technical information in the article on the routes to the summit as well, even if the mountain's owners forbid climbing. No doubt they would make exceptions to such a policy in certain circumstances, and for all we know the policy may prove to be less enduring than the mountain itself. Xn4 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- I see your point about the FA vs FRA. For me, this definition was the point for changing the text in the article. It clearly states what is meant in a wikiworld without needing a link. I agree that the wiki article should not suppress the climbing history - especially the Sierra club. But I also think this needs details in order to communicate why this is important to a non-climbing public. My beef with infobox is temporarily solved, though I may follow up on that as a general problem later (ie. first ascent and easiest route are clearly not often understood as a climbing reference). The Fajada_Butte article looks like the way forward. For the text of the article, the details of easiest route are meaningless to a non-climber. I strongly suggest expanding on that if it should remain in the article. As for policies, I guess the mountains will endure more than policy or wikipedia! Personally, if I were a young Navajo bureaucrat with a bit of internet know-how and a touch of respect for my elders, I'd slap fines and tire locks on anybody who looked twice at Shiprock with an eye to climb after googling Shiprock + climbing. .
Diastar (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)diastar
section break[edit]
- We clearly disagree strongly on the issue of the infobox. I don't think it's productive to discuss it further without more input, which I hope will be provided.
- Thanks for indicating the source for the quotation. Note that it is specifically talking about Monument Valley, so I think it's important to note that in the article. I'll edit accordingly, you can see what you think. -- Spireguy (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I made a couple of minor changes to the climbing section, hopefully nothing controversial. After reading different discussions about the FRA vs FA that have come up across wikipedia, I opted for the bold change to FRA. It looks like FRA is in common use for mountaineering as well, so should not confuse anybody. I did not alter the infobox (and fully agree with the anti-cluttter position).
- I accept your point that discussing the infobox further will not be productive without more input. I would add that more information would also be helpful. It is not clear to me what informed the current set of parameters and what they should convey (to which public). The location, coordinates, prominence bits make sense to me (and are more or less standard map details). The topo map says Ship Rock Quadrangle while peakbagger has 36108-F7 1:24,000. This is confusing. Maybe these are points that would be of general interest in the mountain projects discussions. It would be helpful to have an explanation of the logic for this particular set of data.
Diastar (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)diastar
- "Ship Rock" is the name of the quadrangle topo map, but having the word "Quadrangle" in the infobox is quite unusual; 36108-F7 is some USGS code; and 1:24,000 of course is the scale. See [1].
- Obviously the rock-climbing stuff shouldn't be overweighted, but was it illegal to make the climb back in the '30s? If not, when was it made so and by whom? Possibly that's a consequence of the Navahos gaining more control of their land generally; if so, and it's known, it might be worth adding to the history of the area.
- "... and John Dyer[1]. ..." I'd guess that that's supposed to be another ref to the Selkeld book, which got lost in some editing.
- —WWoods (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
A note asking for additional input has been posted on the WikiProject Mountains page, and I'm here because of that. Having read the whole of this talk page, it seems that there are several issues at dispute here. First, should the article record any climbing information about Shiprock, specifically the details of the 1939 ascent and the grade of the easiest route up. I don't have a copy of World Mountaineering to check the reference, but I haven't seen any suggestion that this is not a reliable source or that these facts are not verifiable. The argument against is climbing is illegal and that it offends the Navajo's religious sensibilities, both of which points now seem to be undisputed and are properly referenced. There are plenty of precedents for Wikipedia including details of illegal and/or offensive activities; it wouldn't be much of an encyclopaedia if it didn't. It seems pretty clear to me that the correct neutral point of view is to include these climbing details and also to state that climbing on the rock is currently illegal and describe why.
Should the climbing details go in the infobox? One purpose of the infobox is to make certain notable facts about the rock readily visible. If we look at other technically-difficult mountains, first ascents and other such details are often included in the infobox. I don't see that the fact that climbing Shiprock is illegal or culturally insensitive is relevant to whether this is included in the infobox. (For one thing, I've not seen a source saying it was illegal in 1939, but even if it was illegal at the time, the fact that it was climbed is still notable.) I would however suggest that, in addition to stating the grade, we append "(illegal)" or some other one or two word note. I don't feel that the current footnote gives the fact sufficient prominence: it would be easy to assume the footnote is simply a reference, and not bother reading it.
Last, there's the question of whether the ascent should be marked "first ascent" or "first recorded ascent" in the infobox. First, there's the technical point that the mountain infobox only supports the former. But that isn't good grounds for making a decision. So far as I'm aware, no-one has offered a reliable source that even suggests that there may have an earlier ascent, either an earlier 20th century one, or one by the Navajo. Diastar says that his grandfather said there were "handholds going up the cliffs"; with respect to him, this isn't a verifiable source, unless he published something saying this. I always dislike having to say this, but the fundamental tenant of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It may be true, but if it isn't verifiable, we shouldn't say it. (And by verifiable, we mean something that can be verified by scholarly research, not be scaling the rock in search of handholds.)
I am frequently surprised by some examples of things that have been climbed by native peoples without modern aids, and I think I'm happier to entertain the possibility of a native Navajo ascent than User:Spireguy seems to be. (Though this may well be because he has better sources than me and/or more accurate picture of what is involved in this climb: I've never even visited New Mexico.) Shiprock is a 5.9 (or HVS for those on this side of the pond). I would be interested in comparing this with some things were native ascents are incontrovertibly known to have happened, such as, for example, Stac Lee. But that aside, there is no verifiable evidence to suggest an ascent did happen, or even that it might have done. And in such a situation, I feel we should simply describe it as the "first ascent", not the "first recorded ascent". A useful analogy is Mount Everest. Whilst I can't imagine anyone suggesting a native Sherpa ascent, it is certainly conceivable that Mallory and Irvine reached the summit in 1924. The general consensus is that they probably didn't, nevertheless it is certainly a possibility. But Hillary's and Tenzing's 1953 ascent is still listed simply as the "first ascent".
— ras52 (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input! Luckily, there is not a dispute about the sierra club historic ascent information being included in the article. The easiest route information might not be clear to a reader unfamiliar with climbing terminology (similar to the myths and geology). It might make sense to expand on that to improve the article.
- In general, the mountain project infobox parameters are not clear to me. It would be helpful to understand what the logic was in deciding on this particular set of information. The physical attributes are a different category of information from first ascent/easiest route. At least, I would say that does raise the question of POV. There are plenty of notable characteristics about the peak. The question is which ones are of general interest to a broad public. If making this information relevant and understandable to a broad public means adding further information and clutter, is it more suitable for the body of the article - where it can be expanded?
- Similarly, the coordinates and topo map could be merged into one section. As it is now, the topo map only defines topographic maps and the USGS. Is this relevant information to include in the infobox?
- For example, coordinates results in http://stable.toolserver.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Shiprock¶ms=36_41_16_N_108_50_12_W_type:mountain_region:US Even if the topo section linked to http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:14947273587273494876::NO::P3_FID:915902 Wouldn't that be redundant as this could be included in the geohack information? It has a topo map. Wrong one?
- My point about the FA is that it is covered in some detail in the body of the article and that for the easiest route to be understandable for a broader public, that would need more information.
- FA vs FRA does not seem so controversial. "In climbing, a first ascent (FA) is the first modern recorded climb to reach the top of a mountain, or the first to follow a particular climbing route. " In this case, adding the word recorded only supports the definition of a first ascent and clarifies that for the non-climbing public.
- Again, it seems like this discussion and article would benefit from more input and specific knowledge of Native culture. For now, this one word allows that Navajo, Hopi, Zuni or some earlier advanced cliff dwelling society that commonly built staircases in stone might have had the idea to climb up Shiprock and would have had the technological knowhow to do it.
- And, of course, I am not suggesting that my Grandfather is a verifiable source: it just takes time to organize a seance, get the proper sources and edit the article :) He was right about climbing Shiprock - legally, culturally and religiously, so let's give him the benefit of the doubt and see what other reliable, verifiable sources can be located. I'll try to be a bit quicker this time.
- Diastar (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)diastar
- I have been asked to contribute to this discussion. I have not the inclination to read through the argument from the start, but I cannot see any reason for not including the first ascent and easiest route infobox fields. That ascent is not currently lawful is footnoted. On the matter of first ascent, it seems to be established practice not to include or footnote unrecorded ascents; but my personal opinion is that if there is significant doubt that the first recorded ascent is the actual first, this should be footnoted or "first ascent" be amended to "first recorded ascent" - and that includes Everest. Viewfinder (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that the consensus on the infobox is to keep the climbing info. I think ras52's suggestion of putting "illegal" right in the infobox is fine. I'm going to do some edits on that basis. I note that Diastar has already made more severe edits to the infobox, which I don't think were justified by this discussion. -- Spireguy (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
In film?[edit]
Shiprock is easily noticed in the film Transformers (film) and I believe it should be added under the 'In Fiction' section of the article. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the recently added mention of Transformers (film), since I think that it was trivia, which is not encouraged in Wikipedia. If we added every incidental appearance of every landmark/building/etc. in every film, Wikipedia would be inundated with facts that have no real bearing on the articles in question. -- Spireguy (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a compromise is needed? A more general mention that Shiprock appears in numerous films with a mention of some titles? Or change the section to Popular culture and add the books and film and open a space for references to photography and painting? Diastar (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)diastar
I still think that the recently re-added Transformers (film) mention is unnecessary trivia. Comments from others? -- Spireguy (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
American Popular Culture[edit]
I would like to introduce a new subject heading called american pop culture that can list references to Shiprock appearing in film, fiction and the like. Actually, I would also suggest a more general entry for film as rock with wings might be more approriate to the town of shiprock entry anyway. Diastar (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)diastar
As this seems fairly innocuous, I went ahead and merged the two sections into In The Media. I will add a few items later. It would be great to have a source for the Helgrind mention. Additions?
Diastar (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)diastar
Hello Everyone, I am going to delete the Tony Hillerman link from the 'See Also' list. There is no mention of Hillerman in the article; and no mention of Shiprock in the page on Hillerman. I don't think the reference link belongs here. Cheers. SaturnCat (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Shiprock, climbing Shiprock, and varying opinions on the subject of climbing it, feature prominently in the Tony Hillerman novel Fallen Man. It seems that it should at least be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 11 January 2016
- Why? Do you have a WP:reliable source providing evidence of the significance of that novel to the landmark? Vsmith (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
General Suggestions[edit]
Article clean up.... Beautiful Mountain links to a redirect to Beinn Bhreagh, Nova Scotia. I guess Beautiful mountain should be corrected with a disam to the second one. working on that
Okie, the photo is sorted. Can we clean up the article? The actual name is not consistent. I think Ship Rock is a mis-spelling that appeared on maps, so we should note that and use Shiprock.
Some of the terminology is not clear and the mythology is quite vague. For a first time reader, maybe these things should be cleared up.
Diastar (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)diastar
In keeping with the above suggestions, I have gone ahead and made several changes to the article. Ideally, the introduction is more of an introduction to the article and mentions the key topics covered. Pre-puebloan elements should be expanded. The name related items were shifted to the name section. I think it would make sense to kill Ship Rock - or mention that this is a common mis-spelling? The infamous infobox changes were per the above suggestions: reduction of first ascent to reduce clutter and clarification on easiest routes based on Fajada Butte article. No public access would imply that people cannot go there, also not true, so this is a compromise. Suggestions are welcome.
The geology and legends still need work. That is next. There are a few more books and film references - maybe more? Details? Finally, I added an external link list. Comments and suggestions for future changes?
Diastar (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)diastar Diastar (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)diastar
Unclear distance (to the layman at least)[edit]
What does this even mean?
"It lies about 12 by 20 miles (19 by 32 km) southwest of the town of Shiprock"
Never heard the phrase x by y miles, and I feel like I'm not alone. Should probably be clarified.
Amyrlin (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Don't rightly know what that was supposed to mean. Replaced with direct distance from Farmington 30x60 USGS topo. Vsmith (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- B-Class Mountain articles
- Mid-importance Mountain articles
- B-Class WikiProject Volcanoes articles
- Mid-importance WikiProject Volcanoes articles
- B-Class United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class New Mexico articles
- Unknown-importance New Mexico articles
- WikiProject New Mexico articles
- WikiProject United States articles


text:
Top Definition
When a person is attractive enough for another person to be able to masturbate to them.
"That girl/guy is maturbatable because they are so attractive."
by onethinwallaway September 25, 2004
Trending Now
Can you define these popular missing words?
Worth considering while masturbating.
Street: Man who sit on toilet, high on pot.
Wil: Thats masturbatable.
Wil: Thats masturbatable.
by kgnrp February 25, 2011
When it is debatable whether or not you could masturbate over the subject or not.
Dame Edna in a swimsuit: masturbatable.
Dame Edna in a swimsuit: masturbatable.
dude 1: damn that chicks hot!
dude 2: thats my mum
dude 1: thats masturbatable
dude 2: thats my mum
dude 1: thats masturbatable
by Sam Etabrut November 20, 2012
Any item(s) utilized in a person's masturbation repertoire. Items could include but are not limited to; pornographic materials, lubricants, dildos, phalluses, inflatable partners, pocket pussies, and lingerie catalogs.
I'm heading to the porn shop to pick up some masturbatables.
Hey mister what kind of masturbatables you got? It's been a while since I rubbed one out.
Hey mister what kind of masturbatables you got? It's been a while since I rubbed one out.
by Uncle Dewy G January 22, 2011
Look at that girl over there, ya she is masturbatable
by Heteroflexible009 January 22, 2012


text:
- News
- Business
- Opinion
- Features
- Interview
- Travel
- Lifestyle
- Culture
- Sports
- Multimedia
- Magazine
- Jobs
- More
Burma's authorities should ensure full and unfettered humanitarian access to displaced people, and conduct an independent and impartial investigation into recent communal violence, Amnesty International said in a statement on Tuesday.
The London-based rights group's statement echoes remarks made by the UN Secretary-General's Special Adviser for Burma Vijay Nambiar who visited Arakan State last week. While Nambiar noted the Burmese government's "sensitive" response to the recent deadly clashes between Arakanese Buddhists and Rohingya Muslims in Arakan State, he called for "a full, impartial and credible investigation" of the disturbances to be conducted urgently, as well as to ensure that the rule of law is enforced in a transparent manner.
"The basic humanitarian needs of these people must be met immediately, as many still lack adequate food, water, shelter, and medical attention," the Amnesty statement said. "The Myanmar authorities should allow local and international aid agencies full and unhindered access to all displaced persons—including an estimated 1,500 persons illegally denied refuge across the border last week by Bangladesh."
The UN's refugee agency, UNHCR, has also expressed its deep concern over the welfare of people fleeing violence in Arakan State. It said that it recognizes that for years, Bangladesh has been bearing the brunt of the forced displacement caused by earlier crises in Burma.
Amnesty International accused Burmese security forces of participating in the violence in Arakan State, saying that, in addition to sectarian gangs, state security forces had also committed human rights abuses, citing incidents in Maungdaw and Buthidaung.
Amnesty also called for "decades of systemic discrimination against ethnic minority Rohingyas" to be addressed.
"Myanmar authorities must grant Rohingyas the citizenship to which they have right and rescind all discriminatory policies and practices against them," the statement said.
Amnesty International emphasized that "restoring the pre-violence status quo is not sufficient … as systemic discrimination against the Rohingya characterizes decades of state policy in Myanmar. Tens of thousands of Rohingyas were forcibly displaced by security forces in 1991-1992. Despite being a state party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Myanmar continues to deny Rohingya children the right to a nationality. Refused citizenship under the 1982 Citizenship Act, the ethnic and religious minority is restricted to various degrees in their rights to study, work, travel, marry, practice their religion, and receive health services."
The rights group also appeared to take a swing at Ko Ko Gyi of the 88 Generation Students group, saying that "recent statements by former political prisoners in Myanmar … further contributes to prejudice against the Rohingya."
Last week, Ko Ko Gyi said that the Rohingya could not be considered an ethnic group of Burma, an opinion voiced by a great number of the majority Burmans in the country.
Even Aung San Suu Kyi has not been able to sidestep the issue. While in Norway to belatedly accept her Nobel Peace Prize on Monday she responded to a reporter's question on the issue of whether ethnic Rohingya should be regarded as Burmese by saying, "I do not know."
She added that some people claim that many who call themselves Rohingyas are actually more recent immigrants from Bangladesh. The trouble, she said, is that there are no clear-cut rules regarding who qualifies as a citizen.
Why these international agencies are crying for Rohingyas? Are they fools? UN asked for impartial inquiry, so do Amnesty International. Are they bribed?. They look human being as human. It seems there were some cruel injustice had been done.
Please look at the G map of the very porour border along the nuf river. Small boats carrying people who may later called themselve as Rohinger could easily cross a few hundred feets of water and enter creeks and mersh land. It may be true that Bengladash government may not allow refuges to comeback to their land, but they are willfully alow oneway trafic. Burma government in noway is capable of securing this border area.
About the UN convension of Children, why nobody is voicing about the right of children born in Thailand and Malaysia by Burmese immigrants?
There it is, it is a new world order. It is so powerful and it can't be refused. We are afraid of tyranny within our country and we miss other tyrant outside of the country. Ammenesty International want to claim that Burma does not have any conscience regarding to humanity and only Amminesty International does. Why don't Amminesty International going after the Western Governments who descriminate muslim? Is it because Western Government are too powerful? Burmese people are much more civilized than you guys giving credit for.
Why should we grant Myanmar citizenship to illegal immigrants from Bangladesh! If this is the case, Australia should release all the illegal boat people and grant them citizenship.
It appear that all international organisations are only concern about Rohinyas and therefore, please take them to your countries (wherever it is and we do not want them) and grant them your citizenship. I am sure majority of Myanmar citizens agree with me saying that.
There are only legal citizens, questionable "citizens", and illegal immigrants. The recent conflict was hijacked by the rohingyas and the latter 2 groups, to get legitimate recognition.
How easily and how readily you specify a group of your own peoples as "Illegal Immigrants from Bangladesh". Can you please care to explain how these peoples are immigrants from Bangladesh? Bangladesh came into existence in December 1971, Modern day Burma came into existence in 1948, all these rohingya have been living in arakan for centuries still they are illegal immigrants from Bangladesh? why this enmity and hatred toward Bangladesh while people of Bangladesh is and was a great friend and well wisher of burma? you do not feel the same and do not display same attitude towards your other neighbors such as China and India because they are much bigger and much more powerful than you. it means your collective mentality is capable of listening to the power and force. An undignified but perfect mentality to be the subject of brutal military dictatorship for the eternity. One Suu kyi is not enough to rescue Burma if there are millions of ko ko gyi.
Citizen Act of 1982 was a product of brutal and oppressive junta and burmese peoples have been struggling hard for a very long time to get out of the junta's clutch and have been longing for freedom, equal rights, human rights. are these basic human rights only entitled for bamars as if they are the only superior race? Junta introduced many bad things and piled up social and political rubbish that bad smell reaching up to the furthest corner of the earth now and citizen act of 1982 is undoubtedly one of them. Burmese people should decide wisely whether they are ready to clean up the mess to join the humanity or they would remain in that to be left over of humanity.
it is very sad to see that even The Greatest lady of the time Ms. suu kyi is also afraid of taking any firm stance. When a great leader like her who risked her life against junta without a second thought but being wary of her own peoples,then it speaks volumes about the mentality of the majority populace she is dealing with. Dear Burmese please look at Yugoslavia, learn from the history, blind hatred, ultra nationalism and egoistic superiority complex will led you to self destruction only. It may reduce you to be satisfied at the end with a "bamaria" state in near future instead of the great union of Myanmar/Burma just as serbs reduced Yugoslavia into serbia. i hate to say but i see that potential in you.
Rohingyas are the VPGs (Victims of Population Growth) of Bangladesh. They find anywhere else better to live than to stay on in their own country. Myanmar is a heaven for them and they are asking for their right and freedom to live in Myanmar. We should envisage that they will continue asking for autonomy, their own state and administration; and finally secession from the Union.
What is Tatmadaw doing? They reiterate every day that they will never let to lose any inch of the motherland. But in order to stay above the people of Myanmar Tatmadaw is constantly plotting internal conflicts among its own people. It will highlight that "Myanmar people always need Tatmadaw's protection from the problems created by Tatmadaw".
They should be transparent to tell us why they continue fighting with our own ethnic Kachins. Leave there and move to Rakhine state. Solve the problem with Rohingyas as it is a trouble helped grown or failed to be resolved by your generals. Take the responsibilities for the sake of the country of you own. Then we will really appreciate that we need you and your care to protect us.
What is AI doing? They should analyze the problem for its root causes rather than highlighting the bubbling points to inflame the people. AI should be able to define what the origin of these Bengalis is and where they belong, and help formulate how to emigrate them from the land they do not belong.
"Myanmar is a heaven for them"
Yes, Indeed, Burma and North Korea are the heavens in earth. Everyone should give his/her best efforts to get into that "heaven" at any cost, or, life will be completely, totally meaningless!!
I am sorry, but unless I was a Burman nationalist, I would find it very hard that anyone would want to leave a democratic country like Bangladesh and migrate illegally to live in a military dictatorship.
Why would a Bangladeshi who can get married legally in their homeland (where their army does not make them do forced labour) want to sneak across the border to a country where it is illegal for Muslims to mrry, and do forced labour for the Burmese Army?
The problem is Burman nationalists who believe that Burmese = Burman Buddhist. Rohingyas are not Burman and are not Buddhist so they cannot be Burmese.
Martin is right who would change a live in Chittagong against Maungdaw or the Camps there and try to get citizenship in Myanmar,- only an idiot would do that.- In an other issue so it is clear that Myanmar within ASEAN has the same job as Poland has in the EU.– close the border and protect them as much as possible against Economical Imigrants which again for sure not think one minute to live in Myanmar but in rich Thailand, better Muslim Malaysia and Indonesia.
Sure around 800 AD the first Muslim – Arab traders landed in Ramree – Rakhine,- the than King ordered to kill,- beheaded most of them ( story and legend ),- since this time Muslim are believed to live in rakhine,- but sure no one named Rohingya and this more Bengali – Pakistan tribe came much later,- Rohingya is known only since 1950.
Go back to the British UK which are not in charge for all today calles Rohingyas but for the most, as British colonial men brought these labours into the Myanmar Rakhine part.
In 1891 there were 58.000 of these people,- in 1911 England counted already 178.000, at that time not jet called Rohingyas 300 % in 20 years only. The British left,- the than called Bengalis left behind and got raped & torchered one after the other by the Japanese Soldier ( could it be that 100.000 today Rohingyas are actually half blood Japanese now and could be brought to Japan for a better live there ??? ). How much reparation fees Japan Governemt paid already for the Bengalis that time all raped. It would be a beginning and UK England could share with all Commenwealth countryes the rest for a better live. Aung san Sue Kyi failed in Europe to talk about this fact that the British might not be the only devil here but the major creator of this problem.
Good that there is a second chance when President Thein Sein visits Downing Street 10 he should find out of " How much UK really want to help Myanmar — or just them self and boost their economy through Myanmar resources..???? "
UN , WFP or other INGO s can not just go in there as amnesty stupily asking for, as Rakhine hate them and it is not without danger,- duew to the fact that the Rakhine believe that UN, WFP and INGOs only created and boosted the Rohingya. The Myanmar Government is manly acting here for the security of these INGO s staff and these INGO s know it even better than the Government. Amnesty always in a Dream World
I am sorry,but Burmese state and nationalists are the major problem of this issue.Cause they behavior racist.Their army also racist ,don't allow to international press and UN .They don't protect these poor minority,so there is a humanity crime in Burma/Myanmar.The whole world knows and watches.They should help amnesty.
@ Martin West, Even they can get married legally in their homeland, do you have any idea how small Bangladesh is as compared to Myanmar Country? And, our country do have Islamic Citizens.


text:
CHICAGO - Carlos Ruiz logged nine plate appearances in the last two games and reached base six times, a number that will stick in the back of Ryne Sandberg's mind. Ruiz's two-game stay as the Phillies' No. 2 hitter will end Saturday when Jimmy Rollins returns. But the catcher made an impression at the top of the lineup.
"Whatever spot he's in, I think he takes on that role," Sandberg said. "Maybe the fact he's batting second, it is a job to get on base and set the table for the other guys. He seems to have that knack. You bat him third, fourth or fifth and he has a different approach up there, driving the ball. He's very versatile."


text:
Pay Your Loan Online
Running late on your loan payment? Now it's easier than ever to pay.
TruStage Insurance
Wondering how much insurance you need? What's the cost? On average, consumers over-estimate the cost of life insurance by 2.5x's.
Join Our DAS Advisory Board
We're looking for DAS employees to join us for lunch once a month to talk about NorthPark: what we're working on, how we're doing with products and services, suggestions on new and improved products, and ways to get the word out about NorthPark at DAS. Spaces are limited, apply now.
Re-Grand Opening
We've made a lot of changes over the last year! We've added the 30-day loan, Second Chance Lending, Full-service mortgages, new Easy Checking (2nd chance), year-round Skip-a-Pays, improved Personal Loan decisioning, improved communication and marketing, as well as our new COMING SOON Premier Checking, International Mortgages and 24/7 loan decisioning by phone.
We want to celebrate! August 11 and 12 we'll be holding a Re-Grand Opening at all locations. More details to come!
Some Big Announcements this Quarter
We don't want to give away the surprise so just click to learn more.
24/7 Loan Decisioning by Phone
Starting the 2nd week of July we will be offering 24/7 loan apps by phone. Our members can call anytime and give their info and we'll make a loan decision on the spot!


text:
Police search for suspects in Harborcreek robbery
Cash was stolen in the armed robbery of a truck wash at a Harborcreek Township truck stop Wednesday morning, state police said.
Police said the robbery happened at the Blue Beacon Truck Wash at the Travel Centers of America, at Depot Road and Interstate 90, at about 4:15 a.m. Wednesday, when a man with a gun confronted an employee and forced the employee into the office. The robber ordered the employee to open the cash drawer and took an undetermined amount of cash, police said.
A second suspect walked into the break room and threatened another employee with a gun while demanding the location of more money, according to investigators.
Both suspects fled on foot. Anyone with information is asked to call state police at 898-1641.