text:
Talk:French language

Infobox map
We have no criterion for what counts as a local minority, and coloring a whole state fluorescent green because there are expats in one city is misleading (plus why shouldn't, say, Mexico count?), so I removed the green. Vietnam isn't even 1% francophone. I'm happy to put it back if we can come to an agreement as to what should count as green. However, I did change Romania to light blue, as it's part of the francophonie, and added Andorra. (Though removed Syria.) And added the Channel Isles as official. From this map I rediscovered that French is an official language of Puducherry, so I added that to the infobox of this article.

Anyway, if there are other changes that need to be made to the map, could people list them here? Is the green worth restoring? Maybe as small squares the way it's done on e.g. the map for Italian? — kwami (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Surely being part of the Francophonie (Romania) is not enough on its own, since you excluded Vietnam (which is also a member)? Double sharp (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll remove Romania.
 * Romania's made a big deal about French, Vietnam not so much, and there are many more French speakers in Romania, percentage-wise, though all the talk might be part of separating itself from the Eastern Block and re-orientating to the West. By raw numbers, there aren't as many Francophones in Romania as in several other European countries which are left grey (Netherlands, Italy, Portugal). — kwami (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks!
 * When I read such language maps, honestly the questions I'm most interested in are: if I go there, (1) will the signs be in language X? (2) will a significant number of people generally understand me if I speak to them in language X? (3) do people naturally speak language X to each other, or do they just learn it for school and chatting up foreigners? (4) even if (1) and (3) aren't true in most regions, might they be true for a region where a linguistic minority is concentrated? I guess Romania might fit (2) but not (1), (3), and (4), based on the high percentage of French speakers. But I think (2) is a separate thing not on the map (it's more like the map under English language), though I'd be curious about it for de Swaan's 13 supercentral languages. (And for (2) as phrased, I guess it would become tricky for cases of mutual intelligibility, like going to Azerbaijan and speaking to the locals in Turkish.) Double sharp (talk) 08:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree Romania (and Syria) should be removed. French Polynesia and New Caledonia should be dark blue as French is the largest language spoken at home in those terrirories. It would be cool if there was some way to show the significant populations of native French speakers in Libreville, Yaoundé, and Abidjan even if the countries as a whole are not native francophone. Joiedevivre123321 (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * all but the last had already been done, but someone replaced the corrected map with an old one. I restored it -- is that better?
 * We could certainly add francophone communities in cities. The question for me would be consistency -- do we have a RS for which cities to include? E.g. London was once counted as one of them. — kwami (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! This map is much better. I feel like the overseas territories should all be dark blue though. Reunion, Guinee Française, Guadeloupe, and Martinique are all majority native Francophone. Mayotte is mostly French as a second language so I think the lighter color is appropriate for that one. That's just me being nitpicky though the map looks great! Joiedevivre123321 (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * According to Ethnologue, Reunion is 20% natively French-speaking, French Guiana 8%, Martinique 4% and Guadeloupe 2%. — kwami (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I guess the creoles are often not fully intelligible with French from the Hexagon and are their own thing. Merci pour la carte! :) Joiedevivre123321 (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Kwamikagami,
 * If there is a way we could show native proficiency of French in Gabon.
 * Based on this research, it is apparent French is natively spoken at an ever increasing rate across the entire country.
 * Paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267327159_From_foreign_to_national_a_review_of_the_status_of_French_in_Gabon
 * Key facts:
 * "It has been noted that French is increasingly be-coming the mother tongue and the initial language of the younger generations in urban Gabon (Pambou, 1998:147; Ndinga-Koumba-Binza, 2005a:72 & 2005b:141; Idiata, 2008:85; cf. Blanchon, 1994). In fact, studies by Ntong Amvame (1984), Bouché (1998), Mbondzi (1998), Ompoussa (1998), Itembo (1999) and Mouloungui Nguimbyt (2002) have shown that pupils of various ages and grades at schools learn French more efficiently than any other Gabonese language. Idiata (2008:200 & 2009:126) has also noted that some pupils do not speak any of the Gabonese native languages at all.
 * One of the reasons for this phenomenon (i.e. French being the mother tongue of younger generations) is cross-ethnic marriages.
 * In fact, many couples of mixed ethnicity prefer French rather than Gabonese native languages as the code for better communication within the family. Children from a family of this kind have no choice but to acquire French as their first language. The children learn the language at home from the parents before they even get to school, therefore lessening the chances of learning any of the Gabonese native languages.
 * This urbanisation is also to be considered as a cause for French being the initial language of Gabonese younger generations. In fact, “in certain urban contexts there is a large degree of learning by contact at an early age” (Lafage, 1993:216)."
 * 80% of the country speaks French. ( La Francophonie dans le monde 2006-2007 published by the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. Nathan, Paris, 2007)
 * French is spoken natively in the urban areas. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267327159_From_foreign_to_national_a_review_of_the_status_of_French_in_Gabon)
 * Urbanization rate of Gabon is at 90.42% in 2021. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/526989/urbanization-in-gabon/)
 * Almost every adult in Gabon can speak French. (https://www.britannica.com/place/Gabon/Economy)
 * It is clear this is more than just an official language.
 * It is similar to the Portuguese language in Angola, and the status should be reflected as such.
 * Thanks! IntelloFR (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (sorry the link for point 4 should be this: https://www.britannica.com/place/Gabon ) IntelloFR (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I had no idea Gabon was so urban! Our map at 'urbanization' shows it as perhaps the highest in Africa.
 * I agree, if Gabon fits the criteria, it should be colored appropriately. Do you know of any actual figures? Because what you have basically just says "a lot", which while interesting isn't helpful. — kwami (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ethnologue has the following:
 * 1,515,000 [French-speakers] in Gabon, all users. L1 users: 265,000 in Gabon (2021). L2 users: 1,250,000 (Marcoux et al 2022).
 * That's for a population of 2,233,000 [no date].
 * From that, it would seem that Gabon is 2∕3 French-speaking, but only 12% natively French-speaking. That's still a high number, and promises to only increase, but it's not high enough to warrant coloring Gabon as an L1 rather than L2 French-speaking country. — kwami (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is fair! Thanks for checking - I agree, it will only increase in the coming years IntelloFR (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the 2nd part of this discussion has been moved to Commons, should note here that we decided to add a dot for Libreville, Gabon. — kwami (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * How did Ethnologue come up with those numbers? Most of the people in the DOM (Mayotte excepted) speak both French and their local creole. 2600:1702:6D0:5160:4CB6:57CF:7727:27B1 (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion picked up again, but per request and consent I moved it to Commons:File_talk:Map-Francophone_World.svg. Zorion provided a ref for Canada there. — kwami (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 * @Double sharp@Joiedevivre123321@Moalli@Kwamikagami
 * Hi all, Mali is now a different color entirely on the map, this should probably be updated. IntelloFR (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2024
In the "Numerals" section under "Vocabulary", this part should be replaced : In the case of currencies, the currency markers are substituted for decimal point, i.e. "5$7" for "5 dollars and 7 cents". By : In the case of currencies, practices differ depending on the currency. For euro, the currency marker can be subsistuted for decimal point, i.e. "5€07" for "5 euros and 7 cents", or be simply placed after the decimal number, i.e. "5,07€". When using other currencies, the latter option is preferred, for example "5,07$". Snekye (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: So... what changes do you exactly request? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 12:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2024
change "Quebec Board of the French Language" to "Quebec Office of the French Language", "office" is in its french name as well 108.255.197.210 (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Pronouncation
I am not sure if this is a good source, but I speak some French, I have listened to French speakers, and I tend to hear the pronunciation of the language being [lɑ̃ŋ fʁɑ̃sɛ] more times than not, I didn’t remove the other one, but I added this to show to readers pronouncatiion can vary ChauConlangs (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Math
I’m going back in a little while and I’ll let her out 2001:1A40:16F4:BF00:1D87:ECBA:3F91:ADA5 (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2024
Under Grammar > Nouns > link to the grammatical genders article.

'For nouns regarding the living, their "grammatical genders" often correspond to that which they refer to.' Rumboehe (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 03:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Where's french in France? Possible imperialist biased view in the article
In the section "Geographic distribution" I see no map or text about the geographic distribution of this language in France.

I think this is not appropriate, not only because the lack of important information such as dialects and geographical variations, but also because it's giving indirectly the idea that France is linguistically homogeneous. That's false, and most of its other languages are in vulnerable or endangered status, such as the occitan dialects or Franco-provençal, so this monolingual vision of france can be dangerous for the respect and the health of these other languages.

The article does only show national borders in the maps and focus on them in the text, and that could be appropriate if we were talking about french language diaspora or french language in the world, but this doesn't make sense, because french usage can (and it actually does) vary by region, independently of national borders. It also talks about the prestige of the language in many fields, and its supposed historical influence.

This makes me wonder the possibility that this was written with some imperialist view or bias that seems to prioritize geopolitical and global influence over geographical realism; some kind of an imperialist view. Please, take my observation into account, I could be misunderstanding.Politonno (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 * "Supposed" historical influence? French has had a huge historical influence, globally second only to English, and not so long ago more influential than English.
 * Agreed that the distribution in France should be shown. That's an egregious oversight. But it's going to have to be by percentages, as I doubt there are many areas in France where the majority isn't Francophone. Even Basque is only spoken by 10% of ethnic Basques.
 * And yes, this is a result of imperialism. But that doesn't mean it isn't real. — kwami (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, french language has had an impact in the world, mostly thanks to imperialism and political influence, but I think this article centers too much attention in the "prestige" and not the "global presence", because this article is not about history of the french language nor the french diaspora.
 * The fact that peripheric french languages are most of them minorities (not all of them, breton language is more spoken in its own territory than french), it doesn't mean that french has local varieties. French dialects are centerd in northern France, which is the native region of the language. Most francophone population in the rest of the country comes from families from the north that migtated away between the 18th and 20th centuries. This migrations were heterogeneous, so there's no regional dialects native from those regions.
 * I don't know if I'm expressing myself correctly. Demographically, there's francophone population in all France, but this information is not descriptive of the language's dialectal diversity and does not give linguistical information; only political and demographical. Culturally, french is not native away from northern france, and that's not shown in this article. That's why I think it could be biased. Politonno (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's now native in southern France due to language shift, not immigration. Occitan and especially Arpitan are moribund, spoken by probably less than 1% of the population. Is there any language transmission at all any longer? AFAICT, even elderly speakers are natively bilingual in french. — kwami (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Native language in southern France includes Occitan, not exclusively French. The fact that some local languages (not all, breton is not endangered everywhere and has a lot of presence in western Brittany) suffer endangered or vulnerable status doesn't mean that the region is exclusively French.

It's been after several processes of language assimilation and substitution that the majority speaks French, but there's no local French dialectal characteristics yet, because the process included relatively recent migration of northern families to the south heterogeneously. I haven't checked local demographics of peripherical languages, but it's still important to point out that those regions are not exclusively francophone, and there's is a possible negative impact in the health of those minority languages in not doing it so.Politonno (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Agreed. — kwami (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't are up
Don't are up 41.138.89.234 (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:French language


text:
Talk:Limit (mathematics)

Questionable example
The article states that f(x) = x²-1/x-1 is undefined at x=0. I would disagree, since it can easily be simplified to f(x) = x+1. It seems the same as arguing that x²/x would be undefined at 0 (or actually any g(x)*x/x). I can see how the example is convenient in other ways, because the formula is simple, but I would propose to either replace it by sin(x)/x, or at least note that the statement "f(x) is not defined for x=0" is debatable and that the example was chosen for its simplicity. - Jay 84.171.79.63 (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see your point. The function is not defined at x=0.  and sin(x)/x = sinc(x), which usually has sinc(0)=1.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify... the function in the article is f(x) = (x²-1)/(x-1) (rather than f(x) = x²-1/x-1 ) and the article states that it is not defined at x=1 (rather than at x=0). Meters (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I still don't see the IP's point. Just because $$\frac {x^2-1} {x-1}$$ can be simplified to x+1, doesn't mean that it is simplified.  And our article "sinc" does specify that sinc(x) = sin(x)/x when x ≠ 0.  One could make a better case that $$e^{x^{-2}}$$ isn't defined at x = 0, but that isn't quite correct either, when we work on the extended real line.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the IP's point might be that in practice, other than to come up (in a textbook section about limits) with a function with a specific value excluded, no-one would ever define a function like $$\frac {x^2-1} {x-1}$$. A less trivial and perhaps somehow "better" example would be, for instance, $$f(x) = \frac {\ln{x}} {x-1}$$ with a hole at x=1, because it cannot be trivially simplified. - DVdm (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the function in the example is bad. The function simply doesn't have a pole at x=1. It is perfectly well defined in the vicinity of x=1. 95.192.5.53 (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Limit of a sequence
I think this sentence is not correct "On the other hand, a limit $L$ of a function $f(x)$ as $x$ goes to infinity, if it exists, is the same as the limit of any arbitrary sequence $a_{n}$ that approaches $L$, and where $a_{n}$ is never equal to $L$." I mean, it is technically correct, but this is an unneeded tautology. Of course the limit L of a function f(x) is the same as the limit of any $$a_n$$ that approaches L, by definition :D. --ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

 * Most of the elements of a true statement were in that claim, but as written, it was not entirely correct, and what was correct was opaque. I have reworded the paragraph and cited a reliable source.  Hopefully this is easier to understand now.—Anita5192 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Anita5192 ^_^ --ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

"Convergence and fixed point"
This section is quite messy. Obviously copy-pasta extracted from reference "[8]", but with insufficient understanding. and so on. Such copy-pasta by totally clueless people should better be avoided. Also, this rather belongs to a more specialized article, like: rate of convergence (maybe best match? move there and replace with a link to there?), or: recurrent sequences, dynamical systems, iterative methods, or ... — MFH:Talk 00:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph claims to "formally define convergence", but uses the word "convergence" in the definition, which is actually that of [a special case of] "convergence of order α", not general convergence -- and convergence of order α does not necessarily imply the existence of that limit, but rather of such a lim sup.).
 * Then it introduces a function f, but one has to guess that now the author considers the sequence p(n+1) = f(p(n)), which is written nowhere.
 * Then (s)he speaks of "linear convergence" without ever having defined this (actually, α = 1).
 * Then it says "the series converges", but meaning the sequence and not a [series_(mathematics)|].
 * then, "if it is found that there is something better than linear..." (meaning convergence of order > 1), but it is totally obscure how one may find whether there is something better.
 * Then it speaks of quadratic convergence without ever defining this (actually, α = 2).
 * Also, it forgets that sequences may have convergence of order in between 1 and 2, the most frequent example being that of the secant method or regula falsi, which has convergence of order α = (sqrt(5)+1)/2 ≈ 1.6

Essential? not.
Limit is *not* essential for differential or integral calculus! I don't know if anyone isn't taught (in their calculus education) that "taking a limit" is one of two ways to approach the subject, with the other being infinitesimals. The lead is wrong. I also note that while the article claims the importance of Limit in calculus, it proceeds to ignore those applications. Why? Needs to be fixed.174.131.48.89 (talk) 04:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Infinitesimals fall under nonstandard analysis and therefore are not mainstream. Also, there is no infinitesimal counterpart to the limit of a sequence.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Limit (mathematics)


text:
George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence

George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence (21 October 1449 – 18 February 1478), was the sixth child and third surviving son of Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York, and Cecily Neville, and the brother of English kings Edward IV and Richard III. He played an important role in the dynastic struggle between rival factions of the Plantagenets now known as the Wars of the Roses.

Though a member of the House of York, he switched sides to support the House of Lancaster, before reverting back to the Yorkists. He was later convicted of treason against his elder brother, Edward IV, and executed, allegedly by drowning in malmsey wine. He appears as a character in William Shakespeare's plays Henry VI, Part 3 and Richard III, in which his death is attributed to the machinations of Richard.

Life
George was born on 21 October 1449 in Dublin at a time when his father, the Duke of York, had begun to challenge Henry VI for the crown. His godfather was James FitzGerald, 6th Earl of Desmond. He was the second of the three sons of Richard and Cecily who survived their father and became a potential claimant for the crown. His father died in 1460. In 1461 his elder brother, Edward, became King of England as Edward IV and George was made Duke of Clarence. Despite his youth, he was appointed as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in the same year.

Having been mentioned as a possible husband for Mary, daughter of Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, Clarence came under the influence of his first cousin Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, and in July 1469 was married in Église Notre-Dame de Calais to the earl's elder daughter Isabel Neville.

Clarence had actively supported his elder brother's claim to the throne, but when his father-in-law (known as "the Kingmaker") deserted Edward IV to ally with Margaret of Anjou, consort of the deposed King Henry, Clarence supported him and was deprived of his office as Lord Lieutenant. Clarence joined Warwick in France, taking his pregnant wife. She gave birth to their first child, a girl, on 16 April 1470, in a ship off Calais. The child died shortly afterwards. Henry VI rewarded Clarence by making him next in line to the throne after his own son, justifying the exclusion of Edward IV both by attainder for his treason against the House of Lancaster as well as his alleged illegitimacy. After a short time, Clarence realized that his loyalty to his father-in-law was misplaced: Warwick had his younger daughter, Anne Neville, Clarence's sister-in-law, marry Henry VI's son in December 1470. This demonstrated that his father-in-law was less interested in making him king than in serving his own interests and, since it now seemed unlikely that Warwick would replace Edward IV with Clarence, Clarence was secretly reconciled with Edward.

Warwick's efforts to keep Henry VI on the throne ultimately failed and Warwick was killed at the battle of Barnet in April 1471. The re-instated King Edward IV restored his brother Clarence to royal favour by making him Great Chamberlain of England. As his father-in-law had died, Clarence became jure uxoris Earl of Warwick, but did not inherit the entire Warwick estate as his younger brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, had married (c. 1472) Anne Neville, who had been widowed in 1471. Edward intervened and eventually divided the estates between his brothers. Clarence was created, by right of his wife, first Earl of Warwick on 25 March 1472, and first Earl of Salisbury in a new creation.

In 1475 Clarence's wife Isabel gave birth to a son, Edward, later Earl of Warwick. Isabel died on 22 December 1476, two months after giving birth to a short-lived son named Richard (5 October 1476 – 1 January 1477). George and Isabel are buried together at Tewkesbury Abbey in Gloucestershire. Their surviving children, Margaret and Edward, were cared for by their aunt, Anne Neville, until she died in 1485 when Edward was 10 years old.

Death
Though most historians now believe Isabel's death was a result of either consumption or childbed fever, Clarence was convinced she had been poisoned by one of her ladies-in-waiting, Ankarette Twynyho, whom, as a consequence, he had judicially murdered in April 1477, by summarily arresting her and bullying a jury at Warwick into convicting her of murder by poisoning. She was hanged immediately after trial with John Thursby, a fellow defendant. She was posthumously pardoned in 1478 by King Edward. Clarence's mental state, never stable, deteriorated from that point and led to his involvement in yet another rebellion against his brother Edward.

According to the bill of attainder passed against him, Clarence made a number of his servants swear personal loyalty to him and sent them into various parts of the kingdom to stir up rebellion against Edward, claiming that Edward intended to disinherit him and that he had used witchcraft to poison his subjects. It was also alleged that he had plotted to have a "strange child" pose as his son, while he intended to send his son into Ireland or Flanders to get assistance against Edward, but this plan was not successful. Clarence was also said to have secretly kept a document signed by Henry VI, specifying that Clarence was to become king in the event of his death.

In 1477 Clarence was again a suitor for the hand of Mary, who had just become duchess of Burgundy. Edward objected to the match, and Clarence left the court.

The arrest and committal to the Tower of London of one of Clarence's retainers, an Oxford astronomer named John Stacey, led to his confession under torture that he had "imagined and compassed" the death of the king, and used the black arts to accomplish this. He implicated one Thomas Burdett, and one Thomas Blake, a chaplain at Stacey's college (Merton College, Oxford). All three were tried for treason, convicted, and condemned to be drawn to Tyburn and hanged. Blake was saved at the eleventh hour by a plea for his life from James Goldwell, Bishop of Norwich, but the other two were put to death as ordered.

This was a clear warning to Clarence, which he chose to ignore. He appointed John Goddard to burst into Parliament and regale the House with Burdett and Stacey's declarations of innocence that they had made before their deaths. Goddard was a very unwise choice, as he was an ex-Lancastrian who had expounded Henry VI's claim to the throne. Edward summoned Clarence to Windsor, severely upbraided him, accused him of treason, and ordered his immediate arrest and confinement.

Clarence was imprisoned in the Tower of London and put on trial for treason against his brother Edward IV. Clarence was not present – Edward himself prosecuted his brother, and demanded that Parliament pass a bill of attainder against his brother, declaring that he was guilty of "unnatural, loathly treasons" which were aggravated by the fact that Clarence was his brother, who, if anyone did, owed him loyalty and love. Following his conviction and attainder, he was "privately executed" at the Tower on 18 February 1478, by tradition in the Bowyer Tower, and soon after the event, a rumour spread that he had been drowned in a butt of Malmsey wine.

A reason for Edward to have his brother executed may have been that George had "threatened to question the legality of the royal marriage" and he may have discovered from Bishop Robert Stillington of Bath and Wells that George "had probably let slip the secret of the precontract" for Edward's marriage with Lady Eleanor Talbot, although others dispute this.

In Shakespeare
Clarence is a principal character in two of William Shakespeare's history plays: Henry VI, Part 3 and Richard III. Shakespeare portrays Clarence as weak-willed and changeable. His initial defection from Edward IV to Warwick is prompted by resentment at the favors bestowed by Edward to the family of his queen Elizabeth Woodville. Despite several speeches proclaiming loyalty to Warwick, and to Henry VI, Clarence defects back to Edward's side when he sees his brothers again; it takes only a few lines for his brothers to shame him into rejoining the Yorkist party. Several lines reference his penchant for wine.

Richard III opens with Gloucester having framed Clarence for treason, using a soothsayer to sow doubt in the King's mind about his brother, and in the first scene Clarence is arrested and taken to the Tower. Gloucester nimbly stage-manages Clarence's death, fast-tracking the order of execution and intercepting the King's pardon when Edward changes his mind. In Act One Scene Four, Clarence recounts a terrifying nightmare in which he has been pushed (accidentally) into the ocean by Gloucester and drowns, then finds himself in hell, accused of perjury by the ghosts of Warwick and Prince Edward. When he is attacked by assassins sent by Gloucester, he pleads eloquently and nobly but is stabbed and drowned in a butt of Malmsey wine. It is Clarence's death that sends Edward into a fatal attack of remorse. Clarence is the first character to die in the play; his ghost later appears to Gloucester, then already Richard III, and Henry Tudor, the future Henry VII of England, before the Battle of Bosworth Field, cursing his brother and encouraging Henry.

Children

Clarence married Isabel Neville in Calais, at that time controlled by England, on 11 July 1469. Together they had four children:
 * Anne of Clarence (16 April 1470 – c. 17 April 1470), who was born and died in a ship off Calais. Identified by some sources as a girl but by others as an unnamed boy.
 * Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury (14 August 1473 – 28 May 1541); married Sir Richard Pole; executed by Henry VIII.
 * Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick (25 February 1475 – 28 November 1499); executed by Henry VII on grounds of attempting to escape from the Tower of London.
 * Richard of Clarence (5 October 1476 – 1 January 1477); born at Tewkesbury Abbey, Gloucestershire; died at Warwick Castle and buried in Warwick.

title: George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence


text:
Talk:Racism/Archive 1

Archive 1 | Archive →

Racism really sucks

Are we talking about solely in the United States here??? I think not. In countries such as Australia, there are very different forms of racism, and often it does not include African-Americans. In fact, there are not many African Americans in Australia. So think in terms of the world. An encyclopedia is for knowledge of the entire world, not just the U.S.

I find the implied suggestion that anti-semitism is the most significant form of racism quite insulting. The US anti-African or dark skinned racism is much more significant, not only being the source of its early southern wealth, but its current policies which sees 30% of the Afro-American population subjected to its criminal system and countries like West Papua under long term invasion and torture because the US considers those people expendiable for its access to their minerals and oil. I'm sure there will be plenty for a Talk page here :) I for one don't like at all the first sentence, which implies that merely finding the races to be different is in some way racism. Poppycock; finding one race inherently superior to another may be racism, as would supporting differential treatment under law, but finding them merely different is simple observation. --LDC I see what you mean. I would argue that racism isn't just about finding one's own race superior or inferior, it is also about exaggerating the differences and the importance placed on the differences while ignoring the similarities. People of different ethnicities have many more things in common than things that set them apart. Not noticing that is the basis for racism. Maybe we really need two definitions, one broad and one narrow, just like on gay there's one inclusive and one exclusive. For now I've changed inherently to essentially because it better reflects what I was trying to say. --Mjausson

Finding one race superior to the other is racism. The problem with the word 'different' is that it is sometimes used by people who are reluctant to state their opinion on something. BTW: I am not an expert on this but supposedly the genetic differences between people are so minute that they can't even be described as races. WojPob

Well they can, and are, but not scientifically: I, as a french-choctaw-cherokee-dutch-irish-englishman, am considered "white," though I'm much darker than most asians, who are asian by virtue of where they live, and Tiger Woods is considered "black" by virtue of his African ancestors, rather than "white" by virtue of the European ones, or "Asian" by virtue of those. Meanwhile some natives of Latin-American countries consider themselves "Latin" but are told upon arriving in the United States that they are "black." And if you sail along the coast of Africa noting the people, there will come a time when you could not tell if a person were "black" or not. The notion of race is clearly a mess. If you wanted to be scientific about it, you might classify race by the presence or lack of epicanthic folds, or by blood type, or eyecolor, etc. --KQ

The following would not pass muster according to neutral point of view:

 * While there are differences between populations of different ethnicity that cannot adequately be explained by socio-economic factors (e.g. varying propensity for diseases such as diabetes, alcoholism and sickle-cell anemia), there is no scientific evidence that supports letting the minute genetic differences between people of various races affect public policy or the way individuals lead their lives.

 * Racist beliefs can be and in varying portions are held by all people of all ethnic groups, throughout the world, but their impact is naturally stronger in people who belong to over-privileged ethnic groups as they are likely to wield more power over others.

I think these claims need to be explained much more carefully and at greater length. --LMS

The second sentence of the first paragraph says: "Sometimes the notion of racism is treated as implying that individuals and society should enforce those differences." I have no idea what that means. --KQ

You know, KQ, I don't quite either... --LMS

I altered this a bit. Emended comments were not necessarily wrong, but they were a little confusing the way they were worded. -TS

"...and that racial differences result in an inherent superiority of people of a particular race. This belief is generally not supported by scientific research." I don't know if we want to go there, as to the latter comment. What does it mean to say that this belief is not supported by scientific research? What does scientific research have to do with anything, here? That might be clear to you, but it's not clear to me. To say that scientific research might or might not support racism is to suppose that racism is a falsifiable view in the first place. Racism is often regarded as simply an attitude, and attitudes are not the sorts of things that can be supported or disproved by scientific research. When The Bell Curve treated claims that are thought by some to embody racist beliefs, it raised an uproar, and some believe that the book's methodology was flawed, while others believe the points raised in the book could not get a fair hearing on account of the extreme anti-racist sentiment (not that that's a bad thing, of course!) in the United States. Saying simply that the belief is "generally not supported by scientific research" woefully underrepresents the situation and is just not clear. I think this sophomoric remark should either be expanded, with accurate reportage on the competing views about The Bell Curve and other aspects of the situation, or else simply removed. So I'm going to remove it until it is expanded. I'm not the one to expand it, though. --LMS

Deleted:
 * The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination defines (article 1) racism as:
 * the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin

This might be useful information in an article about racism or about racial discrimination, in a section about international responses; but as a definition of racial discrimination, it's not very good. It's way too broad as a definition, which means that all kinds of things are said to count as racial discrimination, according to this definition, when no reasonable person would say that they are racial discrimination. Please see fallacies of definition.

Also, please don't confuse racism with racial discrimination. They go hand-in-hand, but they aren't the same. I can be a racist without discriminating, and I can discriminate without being a racist. --LMS --- I disagree... racism can be on grounds other than purely race... take anti-Semitism for instance... it is questionable for instance whether Jews constitute a separate race -- I certaintly wouldn't count them as one... and yet anti-Semitism is a form of racism irregardless? Why? Because they are an ethnic group, and racism is hatred of an ethnic group, not just a group defined on grounds of race or colour.

And furthermore, if hatred of an ethnic group isn't racism, what then is hatred of an ethnic group? Ethnicism? -- Simon J Kissane

Much of section headed "Research on Intelligence and Race" might profit from being moved to The Bell Curve, eh? Ed Poor - This
 * Racism is the political or ideological application of the concept of race, especially in terms of racial superiority.

was a very poor definition of racism. There are many racists out there who are racist out of pure blind hate that, as far as they're concerned anyway, has absolutely nothing to do with politics per se or ideology per se, and everything to do with xenophobia and plain old stupidity. Moreover, as a definition, it would include stuff that isn't racism: suppose I were to write an article and say, "White people, as a voting block, have a superior amount of political power in most English-speaking countries." This would be the political application of the concept of race in terms of "racial superiority," I suppose; but the remark wouldn't make me a racist. The old definition was better. --LMS

 * I would read your hypothetical article quote to say that a particular race is "politically" superior, rather than racially superior. Far from being a racist comment, this sentence could be taken by some as evidence of racism.  I understand your point about the earlier definition.  My point is that a good definition will comprise two things: a personal opinion that one race is better than another, and a social arrangement where one race is better off than, or has power over, another.  I tried to communicate this in a recent revision but perhaps someone else can do a better job than I. -- SR

I don't understand how you can be racist out of hate--you can hate someone out of racism, but hate doesn't make you racist.

Looking for the core concept of racism:
 * If you notice that someone looks different than you, is that racism?
 * If you fear/hate someone because that person looks different than you, is that racism?
 * If you classify humanity into classes based on culture and skin color, is that racism?
 * If you develop social policies based on your classifications, is that racism?

I guess a better definition might be simply

 * Racism is the application of the concept of race, especially in terms of racial superiority.

but I feel that gives short shrift to the "ism". My understanding is that "-ism" refers specifically to ideologies.

Ideologies subconsciously applied are still ideologies, I believe. --TheCunctator

 * do you not find the distinction between structural racism and personal racism useful concerning your point? Perhaps you would want to distinguish between "racism" (an ideology that may correspond to insitutionalized social practices i.e. structure) and a "racist" who may advocate racism or who may simply hate people of another race?

 * In general, I too understand "isms" to refer to ideologies. But as a rule I try to figure out what words mean by looking at how people use them.  People use the word "racist" and "racism" in many ways (some of which are homologous to other "isms" in that they are ideological, but other uses which are ideosyncratic -- but I want to understand those uses of the word, and not reject them because they are ideosyncratic with the other ways people use "isms") -- SR

Hmm. I guess my thinking is motivated by the conceptualization that there is a central meaning for a given term, though everyone may not use the term as such or entirely agree with/understand the central meaning. An example would be quantum leap. I would expect Wikipedia (or any reasonable reference) to say that a "quantum leap" is a particular thing, regarding electrons in atomic shells. Later in the entry it would mention that the term is used popularly to refer to a disruptive and perhaps large change, even though quantum leaps are very small; the popular use is to a large degree a misinterpretation of the concept, which isn't surprising, because quantum physics is weird and incomprehensible.

By analogy, I would expect Wikipedia to say that "racism" is "the political or ideological application of the concept of race, especially in terms of racial superiority" or something very similar, and then later go into how the term is used, and how the term "racist" is used; i.e. be as specific and restrictive as possible in the starting definition.

I guess my point is that I took try to understand what words mean by looking at how people use them, but it's also important to take into consideration which people are using it, and the historical usage of the term. The race entry seems to do a reasonable job of that, though there's plenty more needed.

I think you and I are basically on the same page here; my concern is more with writing "This term is controversial" or "People disagree on the exact use of this word" or "In a general sense, the term means this", etc., since that information is not specific to the term and belongs in a general discussion of semantics, society, and language.

It seems to make more sense to assert clear definitions for terms, then elucidate the context, than to be wishy-washy. If you're concise and specific, even if you're wrong, it's easier for people to understand, and thus edit, what you wrote.

--TheCunctator

 * I agree with you compleely when you write,
 * my point is that I took try to understand what words mean by looking at how people use them, but it's also important to take into consideration which people are using it, and the historical usage of the term. The race entry seems to do a reasonable job of that, though there's plenty more needed.
 * A good article will specify different definitions and elaborate on the differences between people who use them/contexts in which they are used. We may disagree over how best to introduce an article.  Given the point of yours I quoted and agree with, I am simply opposed to starting with one specific definition as if this were what the word "really" means.  I see two alternatives.  One is taken by most dictionaries, viz. ranking the definitions in order of popularity.  I have no way of knowing how to rank different definitions of race; I suppose we could pick one dictionary and trust it.  But I prefer a second alternative, to try to characterize a more abstract point that most (if not all) the different definitions have in common -- thus, "in general..."  Well, this is my reasoning for my own preference, anyway, SR

I basically agree, except that I think "in general" is unnecessary. I too try to synthesize a common definition from various sources, including dictionaries, and from the futher text in the article. --TheCunctator

TheCunctator, I am not trying to vandalize your work, I am trying to figure out a better opening. Just in case, here is what you just put:
 * Racism is the application of the concept of race, usually as prejudice or discrimination based on beliefs of racial superiority.

 * The word racism is used to identify and explain violence or inequalities between different individuals or groups already identified as belonging to different races.

I have to say, your replacement, which isn't a definition but a usage note, is not very good. A big problem is the passive voice. I think I get what you're trying to talk about: what contexts "racism" arises. And there's "racial violence" and "racial inequalities". But e.g., "racial profiling" is neither violence nor inequality.

Let's go to the dictionaries (tiny bit of paraphrasing to make Wikipedific):

Racism is the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races, or discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race.

Racism is the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others, or discrimination or prejudice based on race.

As you can see, my definition is a pretty effective paraphrase of the second definition, which I believe is a) more general and b) more accurate, because the root of racism is not prejudice, but the belief in racial differences, which usually leads to prejudice. E.g. racism includes lynching, Jim Crow laws, and the 19th-century scientific theories of race which studied skulls and the such. --TheCunctator

This seems mildly ludicrous:
 * Racism is a term used in many different ways, and its meaning is not generally agreed-upon.

Putting aside its awkward construction, the sentence seems out of place in an encyclopedia. Should we begin any article about a contentious subject with that sentence?

 * Abortion is a term used in many different ways, and its meaning is not generally agreed-upon.

 * War is a term used in many different ways, and its meaning is not generally agreed-upon.

 * Love is a term used in many different ways, and its meaning is not generally agreed-upon.

 * Truth is a term used in many different ways, and its meaning is not generally agreed-upon.

I don't think so. --TheCunctator

I do think so. Not necessarily that sentence, but one that explicitly acknowledge the extremely important semantic fact that these important words have multiple meanings. That is particularly important in a resource that is supposed to be neutral. --LMS

The sentence itself isn't very helpful. Most, if not all, important terms have multiple meanings. In my opinion, that particular sentence is on par with "Racism is a word in the English language".--Stephen Gilbert

I maintain that it is very helpful. Look, sometimes it's really important to point out that a word has multiple meanings. Sure, most English words are highly ambiguous. That's obvious to anyone who has studied much philosophy. The ambiguity of this particular word, "racism," is very important to note explicitly precisely because so much controversy over race and racism turns on the multiple meanings given to it. Moreover, it is a good idea to begin an article about racism with this disclaimer precisely in order to tip the reader off that we do not pretend to have the definition of "racism" here. Just launching into it without any such disclaimer is actually misleading: it makes it sound as if we had no clue about the fact that the notion of racism is subject to much heated debate. --LMS

Or, "Racism is an abstract concept," which seems to be what LMS is getting at.

It's important to discuss that fact in entries on semantics, but it shouldn't intrude into other entries. It's particularly important in a resource that is supposed to be neutral to acknowledge that people are mortal and fallible, that knowledge and perception is imperfect, that the quantum physics places limits on our ability to be perfectly precise, that culture affects language, that people are selfish, that "correct" spelling is largely historical accident, etc. etc. But it's inappropriate and silly to do so all over the place, and before you even define what you're talking about.

The central nature of the concept, term, and word "racism" is not that it's used in different ways. The central nature of "racism" is that is the application of the concept of "race". From that follows logically its contentiousness; the converse is not true.

To reiterate:
 * Racism is the application of the concept of race. Therefore, people use the term in many different ways.

is a reasonable statement. However,
 * People use the term "racism" in many different ways. Therefore, it is the application of the concept of race.

is not.

That said, I won't put aside any more the awkwardness of the sentence. The first part
 * X is a term used in many different ways

is synonymous with the second part
 * the meaning of X is not generally agreed-upon.

The second part is also poorly worded; the contruction "agreed-upon" will not be found with the dash, and one would hope never without a following "by". In short, the sentence's intent would be preserved faithfully by the following sentence:
 * Racism is a term used in many different ways.

No, I do try to say what I mean. That's not really what I meant at all.

Only entries on semantics should mention the fact that a word is ambiguous? Why would you think that? What about when we're talking about a word the ambiguity of which is socially important, as in this case, we should mention that in our definition of the word.

Well, you seem to be missing the point--it seems to me that you simply didn't understand the reason I made the change!

I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about "the central nature" of any word. You seem to have a complex theory of meaning or definition at work here. Anyway, racism has something to do with race, and it's an epithet; that's about as much as people seem to be able to agree upon.

Racism (the thing itself) isn't the application of the concept of race at all. Racism is an attitude, or a set of behaviors. You might want to say that definitions of "racism" apply the concept of race in various ways. That would be accurate, but it would also be obvious from the basic things we can say about racism up front.

But they aren't synonymous: a word can have several generally-agreed upon senses.

This assumes the two parts of the sentence are synonymous, which they aren't. Some people would deny that some of the ways the term is used are legitimate uses of the term. --LMS

"Racism is the application of the concept of race" is a more rigorous way of stating "Racism has something to do with race". That application may come in the form of an ideology, a belief, or even unconscious attitudes, or the behaviors which result from such ideologies, beliefs, or attitudes.

I agree that the statement "Racism has something to do with race" is a silly statement. But personally, I think "Racism is the application of the concept of race" is no more useful or meaningful. I do not think it is more "rigorous," just more wordy/jargony.

Although I do agree that the statement "Racism has many meanings' (or "is a word used in different ways") in and by itself is not very useful, I do think it communicates one very important idea essential to any good article on the topic: that the topic is controversial and moreover it is controversial because it is inherently political (as opposed to perhaps theories of cosmogeny, which may be controversial because of conflicting or inadequate evidence). The point is NOT that the word refers to an abstraction, but to a political and politicized issue.  That said, I don't think the sentence should be judged "in and by itself," it would only be useful as the lead in to a paragraph which itself introduces an article; the sentence should be evaluated in context.

I do not like the current opening paragraph. I still think my proposed opening,
 * The word racism is used to identify and explain violence or inequalities between different individuals or groups already identified as belonging to different races.

is better, but I am not going to go back and forth. Let me just respond to one of TheCunctator's critical commetns, that this definition does not apply to racial profiling. I believe it does, I believe victims of profiling believe themselves to be victims of violence.

In any event, I am not saying my proposed definition is the best or the only one, I admit it can be improved upon. Or perhaps replaced by something even better. I just don't think the current introductiory paragraph is it (it is improved in contnt, but I find it wordy and awkward). SR

 * 1) I tried to compromise, using (in part) LMS's definition. I managed to cram the words prejudice, discrimination and superiority into one sentence -- but with a disclaimer.
 * 2) I still think the long race and intelligence section is out of place in the article. Let's make it an article of its own, or stick into The Bell Curve. Ed Poor

Just as the opening line of the feminism entry includes the word "women", the opening line of the racism entry needs to include the word "race".

One thing people should recognize is that there's both a vernacular and an academic usage of the term "racism". The vernacular usage, like most popular usage, emphasizes the effects, while the academic usage emphasizes the theoretical grounding.

 * I agree that the statement "Racism has something to do with race" is a silly statement. But personally, I think "Racism is the application of the concept of race" is no more useful or meaningful.  I do not think it is more "rigorous," just more wordy/jargony.

Jargony? "application" and "concept" are not jargony. It's vague, but considerably less so than "has something to do with". This is a classic lesson from those analogy questions on multiple-choice tests.

RACE:RACISM::NATION:NATIONALISM

is a good analogy, while

RACE:RACISM::FISH:FISHING

is bad, even though it's true that fishing has something to do with fish. But fishing is not the application of the concept of fish, while nationalism is the application of the concept of "nation", and racism is the application of the concept of "race".

I apologize if this is unclear; I'm just free-associating off the top of my head. --TheCunctator

A little attempt at a summary from someone new to this discussion -- "Racism" is just plain used to mean too many things. What one person means by the word "racism" can be completely different from what another person means by it. Unless people clarify which "racism" they are talking about, they are likely to talk past each other and get into very misleading discussions! Here are some of the things I hear people using the word "racism" to mean:

Racial prejudice -- or unjustified personal opinions about people on the basis of their race. (e.g. John thinks that Mary will have bad attribute X solely because Mary is a member of race Y)

Racial discrimination -- or unfair differences in treatment of people on the basis of their race. (e.g. John refuses to hire Mary because she is of race Y).

Institutional racial discrimination -- racial discrimination by governments, corporations, or other large organizations. (e.g. Mary cannot get a very good job, despite her qualifications, because she is of race Y.)

Cultural racial prejudices or discrimination -- when considered "normal" by a mainstream culture. (e.g. People expect Mary to work a poorly paying job because she is of race Y, or accept this state of affairs without objection.)

Historical economic disparity among races, presumed to be the result of previous or continuing discrimination. (e.g. Mary's personal background and opportunities are adversely affected by the mistreatment of her ancestors of race Y.)

Racialism -- or claims, generally regarded as spurious and pseudoscientific, about differences in ability among races. (e.g. Dr. Smith writes a book claiming that members of race Y are on average less intelligent than members of race Z.)

 * Indeed, the breakdown above might be a worthwhile inclusion into the article, though I suspect there will be point-by-point arguments over whether each constitutes racism per se. -- April

Modern racism
Alot of people say, slavery is the past. and truly it is the past! And now days, blacks are discrimanting more then whites, just because their parents thought them that "Whites" are your enemy. "Dont even trust a white man". And i think all blacks just make themeselves be racist against white people just because they think we dont like 'em. Truly, i have never had that racist feeling until i was discrimanted and jumped by black people, just because i was white and i was trying to step up for my own blood, brother. and now i am a really big racist, and there will always be Niggers (I'm one!) and black people, there will always be Crackers and white poeple. And there will always be race-hate no matter what color u are, Its U.S.

title: Talk:Racism/Archive 1


text:
Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick

Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, 6th Earl of Salisbury (22 November 1428 – 14 April 1471), known as Warwick the Kingmaker, was an English nobleman, administrator, landowner of the House of Neville fortune and military commander. The eldest son of Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury, he became Earl of Warwick through marriage, and was the wealthiest and most powerful English peer of his age, with political connections that went beyond the country's borders. One of the leaders in the Wars of the Roses, originally on the Yorkist side but later switching to the Lancastrian side, he was instrumental in the deposition of two kings, which led to his epithet of "Kingmaker".

Through fortunes of marriage and inheritance, Warwick emerged in the 1450s at the centre of English politics. Originally, he was a supporter of King Henry VI; however, a territorial dispute with Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, led him to collaborate with Richard, Duke of York, in opposing the king. From this conflict, he gained the strategically valuable post of Captain of Calais, a position that benefited him greatly in the years to come. The political conflict later turned into full-scale rebellion, where in battle York was slain, as was Warwick's father Salisbury. York's son, however, later triumphed with Warwick's assistance, and was crowned King Edward IV. Edward initially ruled with Warwick's support, but the two later fell out over foreign policy and the king's choice to marry Elizabeth Woodville. After a failed plot to crown Edward's brother, George, Duke of Clarence, Warwick instead restored Henry VI to the throne. The triumph was short-lived, however: on 14 April 1471, Warwick was defeated by Edward at the Battle of Barnet, and killed.

Warwick's historical legacy has been a matter of much dispute. Historical opinion has alternated between seeing him as self-centred and rash, and regarding him as a victim of the whims of an ungrateful king. It is generally agreed, however, that in his own time, he enjoyed great popularity in all layers of society, and that he was skilled at appealing to popular sentiments for political support.

Background
The Neville family, an ancient Durham family, came to prominence in England's fourteenth-century wars against the Scots. In 1397, King Richard II granted Ralph Neville the title of Earl of Westmorland. Ralph's son Richard, the later Earl of Warwick's father, was a younger son by a second marriage, and not heir to the earldom. He received a favourable settlement, however, and became jure uxoris ("by right of his wife") Earl of Salisbury through his marriage to Alice, daughter and heiress of Thomas Montagu, 4th Earl of Salisbury.

Salisbury's son Richard, the later Earl of Warwick, was born on 22 November 1428; little is known of his childhood. At the age of eight, in 1436, Richard was married to Lady Anne Beauchamp, daughter of Richard de Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick, and of his wife Isabel Despenser. This made him heir not only to the earldom of Salisbury, but also to a substantial part of the Montague, Beauchamp, and Despenser inheritance.

Circumstances would, however, increase his fortune even further. Beauchamp's son Henry, who had married the younger Richard's sister Cecily, died in 1446. When Henry's daughter Anne died in 1449, Richard also found himself jure uxoris Earl of Warwick. Richard's succession to the estates did not go undisputed, however. A protracted battle over parts of the inheritance ensued, particularly with Edmund Beaufort, 2nd Duke of Somerset, who had married a daughter from Richard Beauchamp's first marriage. The dispute centred on land, not on the Warwick title, as Henry's half-sisters were excluded from the succession.

By 1445 Richard had become a knight, probably at Margaret of Anjou's coronation on 30 May that year; also around this time, his illegitimate daughter, Margaret (who married Richard Huddleston on 12 June 1464) was born.

He is visible in the historical record of service of King Henry VI in 1449, which makes mention of his services in a grant. He performed military service in the north with his father, and might have taken part in the war against Scotland in 1448–1449. When Richard, Duke of York, unsuccessfully rose up against the king in 1452, both Warwick and his father rallied to the side of King Henry VI.

Discontent at court
In June 1453, Somerset was granted custody of the lordship of Glamorgan—part of the Despenser heritage held by Warwick until then—and open conflict broke out between the two men. Then, in the summer of that year, King Henry fell ill. Somerset was a favourite of the king and Queen Margaret, and with the king incapacitated he was virtually in complete control of the government. This put Warwick at a disadvantage in his dispute with Somerset, and drove him into collaboration with York. The political climate, influenced by the military defeat in France, then started turning against Somerset. On 27 March 1454, a group of royal councillors appointed the Duke of York protector of the realm. York could now count on the support not only of Warwick but also of Warwick's father Salisbury, who had become more deeply involved in disputes with the House of Percy in the north of England.

York's first protectorate did not last long. Early in 1455, the king rallied sufficiently to return to power, at least nominally, with Somerset again wielding real power. Warwick returned to his estates, as did York and Salisbury, and the three started raising troops. Marching towards London, they encountered the king at St Albans, where the two forces clashed. The battle was brief and not particularly bloody, but it was the first instance of armed hostilities between the forces of the Houses of York and Lancaster in the conflict known as the Wars of the Roses. It was also significant because it resulted in the capture of the king, and the death of Somerset.

Continuation of hostilities
York's second protectorate that followed was even shorter-lived than the first. At the parliament of February 1456 the king—now under the influence of Queen Margaret—resumed personal government of the realm. By this time Warwick had taken over Salisbury's role as York's main ally, even appearing at that same parliament to protect York from retributions. This conflict was also a pivotal period in Warwick's career, as it was resolved by his appointment as Constable of Calais. The post was to provide him with a vital power base in the following years of conflict. The continental town of Calais, conquered from France in 1347, was not only of vital strategic importance, it also held what was England's largest standing army. There were some initial disputes, with the garrison and with the royal wool monopoly known as the staple, over payments in arrears, but in July Warwick finally took up his post.

After the recent events, Queen Margaret still considered Warwick a threat to the throne, and cut off his supplies. In August 1457, however, a French attack on the English seaport of Sandwich set off fears of a full-scale French invasion. Warwick was again funded to protect the garrison and patrol the English coast. In disregard of royal authority, he then conducted highly successful acts of piracy, against the Castilian fleet in May 1458, and against the Hanseatic fleet a few weeks later. He also used his time on the Continent to establish relations with Charles VII of France and Philip the Good of Burgundy. Developing a solid military reputation and with good international connections, he then brought a part of his garrison to England, where he met up with his father and York in the autumn of 1459.

Yorkist Triumph

In September 1459 Warwick crossed over to England and made his way north to Ludlow to meet up with York and Salisbury, the latter fresh from his victory over Lancastrians at the Battle of Blore Heath. At nearby Ludford Bridge their forces were scattered by the king's army, partly because of the defection of Warwick's Calais contingent under the command of Andrew Trollope. As it turned out, the majority of the soldiers were still reluctant to raise arms against the king. Forced to flee the country, York left for Dublin, Ireland, with his second son Edmund, Earl of Rutland, while Warwick and Salisbury sailed to Calais, accompanied by the Duke's son, Edward, Earl of March (the future King Edward IV). Henry Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, was appointed to replace Warwick as Captain of Calais, but the Yorkists managed to hold on to the garrison.

In March 1460 Warwick visited York in Ireland to plan the way ahead, and returned to Calais. Then, on 26 June, he landed at Sandwich with Salisbury and March, and from here the three earls rode north to London. Salisbury was left to besiege the Tower of London, while Warwick took March with him in pursuit of the king. At Northampton, on 10 July, King Henry was taken captive, while Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham and others were killed in battle.

In September York arrived from Ireland, and at the parliament of October that year, the Duke walked up to the throne and put his hand on it. The act, signifying usurpation, left the assembly in shock. It is unclear whether Warwick had prior knowledge of York's plans, though it is assumed that this had been agreed upon between the two in Ireland the previous March. It soon became clear, however, that this regime change was unacceptable to the lords in parliament, and a compromise was agreed. The Act of Accord of 25 October 1460 stated that while Henry VI was allowed to stay on the throne for the remainder of his life, his son Edward, Prince of Wales, was to be disinherited. Instead, York would succeed the king, and act as protector.

This solution was not ideal to either party, and further conflict was inevitable. On 30 December, at the Battle of Wakefield, York was killed, as were York's second son Edmund, Earl of Rutland, and Warwick's younger brother Thomas. Salisbury was executed a day later. Warwick marched north to confront the enemy, but was defeated and forced to flee at the Second Battle of St Albans. He then joined forces with Prince Edward of York, the new Yorkist claimant to the crown, who had just won an important victory at the Battle of Mortimer's Cross.

While Queen Margaret was hesitating to make her next move, Warwick and Edward hastened to London. The citizens of the capital were scared by the brutal conduct of the Lancastrian forces, and were sympathetic to the House of York. On 4 March the prince was proclaimed King Edward IV by an assembly that gathered quickly. The new king now headed north to consolidate his title, and met with the Lancastrian forces at Towton in Yorkshire. Warwick had suffered an injury to the leg the day before, in the Battle of Ferrybridge, and may have played only a minor part in the battle that followed. The unusually bloody battle resulted in a complete victory for the Yorkist forces, and the death of many important men on the opposing side, such as Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, and Andrew Trollope. Queen Margaret managed to escape to Scotland, with Henry and Prince Edward. Edward IV returned to London for his coronation, while Warwick remained to pacify the north.

Warwick's apex

Warwick's position after the accession of Edward IV was stronger than ever. He had now succeeded to his father's possessions—including his vast network of retainers—and in 1462 he also inherited his mother's lands and the Salisbury title. Altogether he had an annual income from his lands of over £7,000 far more than any other man in the realm but the king. Edward confirmed Warwick's position as Captain of Calais, and made him High Admiral of England and Steward of the Duchy of Lancaster, along with several other offices. His brothers also benefited: John Neville, Lord Montagu, was made Warden of the East March in 1463, and the next year created Earl of Northumberland. George Neville, Bishop of Exeter, was confirmed in his post as chancellor by King Edward, and in 1465 promoted to the archbishopric of York.

By late 1461, risings in the north had been put down, and in the summer of 1462, Warwick negotiated a truce with Scotland. In October the same year, Margaret of Anjou invaded England with troops from France, and managed to take the castles of Alnwick and Bamburgh. Warwick had to organise the recapture of the castles, which was accomplished by January 1463. The leaders of the rebellion, including Ralph Percy, were pardoned and left in charge of the retaken castles. At this point, Warwick felt secure enough to travel south; in February he buried the remains of his father and brother at Bisham Priory, and in March he attended parliament at Westminster.

That same spring, however, the north rose up in rebellion once more, when Ralph Percy laid siege to Norham Castle. Warwick returned to the north and rescued Norham in July, but the Lancastrians were left in possession of Northumberland, and the government decided on a diplomatic approach instead. Separate truces were negotiated with Scotland and France by late 1463, which allowed Warwick to retake the Northumbrian castles held by the Lancastrian rebels in the spring of 1464. This time no clemency was given, and around thirty of the rebel leaders were executed.

Early tensions
At the negotiations with the French, Warwick had intimated that King Edward was interested in a marriage arrangement with the French crown, the intended bride being Louis XI's sister-in-law, Bona, daughter of Louis, Duke of Savoy. This marriage was not to be, however, because in September 1464, Edward revealed that he was already married, to Elizabeth Woodville. The marriage caused great offence to Warwick: not only due to the fact that his plans had been sabotaged, but also the secrecy with which the king had acted. The marriage—contracted on 1 May of the same year—was not made public before Warwick pressed Edward on the issue at a council meeting, and in the meanwhile, Warwick had been unknowingly deceiving the French into believing the king was serious about the marriage proposal. For Edward the marriage may very well have been a love match, but in the long run he sought to build the Woodville family into a powerhouse independent of Warwick's influence. The marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville caused Warwick to lose his power and influence. He accused Elizabeth, and her mother Jacquetta of Luxembourg, of witchcraft to try to restore the power that he had lost.

This was not enough to cause a complete fallout between the two men, though from this point on Warwick increasingly stayed away from court. The promotion of Warwick's brother George to Archbishop of York shows that the earl was still in favour with the king. In July 1465, when Henry VI was once more captured, it was Warwick who escorted the fallen king to his captivity in the Tower.

Then, in the spring of 1466, Warwick was sent to the continent to carry out negotiations with the French and Burgundians. The negotiations centred around a marriage proposal involving Edward's sister Margaret. Warwick increasingly came to favour French diplomatic connections. Meanwhile, Edward's father-in-law, Richard Woodville, Earl Rivers, who had been created treasurer, was in favour of a Burgundian alliance. This set up an internal conflict within the English court, which was not alleviated by the fact that Edward had signed a secret treaty in October with Burgundy, while Warwick was forced to carry on sham negotiations with the French. Later, George Neville was dismissed as chancellor, while Edward refused to contemplate a marriage between Warwick's oldest daughter Isabel, and Edward's brother George, Duke of Clarence. It became increasingly clear that Warwick's position of dominance at court had been taken over by Rivers.

In the autumn of 1467, there were rumours that Warwick was now sympathetic to the Lancastrian cause, but even though he refused to come to court to answer the charges, the king accepted his denial in writing. In July 1468, it was revealed that Warwick's deputy in Calais, John, Lord Wenlock, was involved in a Lancastrian conspiracy, and early in 1469 another Lancastrian plot was uncovered, involving John de Vere, Earl of Oxford. It was becoming clear that the discontent with Edward's reign was widespread, a fact that Warwick could exploit.

Rebellion
Warwick now orchestrated a rebellion in Yorkshire while he was away, led by a "Robin of Redesdale". Part of Warwick's plan was winning over King Edward's younger brother, George Plantagenet, possibly with the prospect of installing him on the throne. The nineteen-year-old George had shown himself to share many of the abilities of his older brother, but was also jealous and overambitious.

In July 1469, the two sailed over to Calais, where George was married to Warwick's daughter, Lady Isabel Neville. From there, they returned to England, where they gathered the men of Kent to join the rebellion in the north. Meanwhile, the king's forces were defeated at the Battle of Edgecote, where William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, was killed. The other commander, Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Devon, was caught in flight and lynched by a mob. Later, Earl Rivers and his son, John Woodville, were also apprehended and murdered. With his army now defeated, King Edward IV was taken under arrest by George Neville. Warwick then imprisoned the king in Warwick Castle, and in August, the king was taken north to Middleham Castle. In the long run, however, it proved impossible to rule without the king, and continuing disorder forced Warwick to release King Edward IV in September 1469.

A modus vivendi had been achieved between Warwick and the king for some months, but the restoration of Henry Percy to Montagu's earldom of Northumberland prevented any chance of full reconciliation. A trap was set for the king when disturbances in Lincolnshire led him north, where he could be confronted by Warwick's men. Edward, however, discovered the plot when Robert, Lord Welles, was routed at Losecote Field in Rutland in March 1470, and gave away the plan.

Warwick soon gave up, and once more fled the country with Clarence. Denied access to Calais, they sought refuge with King Louis XI of France. Louis arranged a reconciliation between Warwick and Margaret of Anjou, and as part of the agreement, Margaret and Henry's son, Edward, Prince of Wales, would marry Warwick's daughter Anne. The objective of the alliance was to restore Henry VI to the throne. Again, Warwick staged an uprising in the north, and with the king away, he and Clarence landed at Dartmouth and Plymouth on 13 September 1470.

Among the many who flocked to Warwick's side was his brother Montagu, who had not taken part in the last rebellion, but was disappointed when his loyalty to the king had not been rewarded with the restoration of his earldom. This time the trap set up for the king worked; as Edward hurried south, Montagu's forces approached from the north, and the king found himself surrounded. On 2 October he fled to Flanders, a part of the Duchy of Burgundy. King Henry was now restored, with Warwick acting as the true ruler in his capacity as lieutenant. At a parliament in November, Edward was attainted of his lands and titles, and Clarence was awarded the Duchy of York.

Death
At this point, international affairs intervened. Louis XI declared war on Burgundy, and Charles the Bold responded by granting an expeditionary force to Edward IV, in order to reclaim his throne. On 14 March 1471, Edward landed at Ravenspurn in Yorkshire, with the acquiescence of the Earl of Northumberland. Warwick was still waiting for Queen Margaret and her son Edward, who were supposed to bring reinforcements from France, but were kept on the continent by bad weather. At this point, Edward received the support of his brother Clarence, who realised that he had been disadvantaged by the new agreement with the Lancastrians. Clarence's defection weakened Warwick, who nevertheless went in pursuit of Edward. On 14 April 1471 the two armies met at Barnet. Fog and poor visibility on the field led to confusion, and the Lancastrian army ended up attacking its own men. In the face of defeat Warwick attempted to escape the field, but was struck off his horse and killed.

Aftermath
Warwick's body—along with that of his brother Montagu, who had also fallen at Barnet—was displayed in London's St Paul's Cathedral to quell any rumours of their survival. Then they were handed over to Archbishop Neville, to be buried in the family vault at Bisham Priory near the river Thames in Berkshire. No trace now remains of either the tomb or the church in which it was housed. On 4 May 1471, Edward IV defeated the remaining Lancastrian forces of Queen Margaret and Prince Edward at the Battle of Tewkesbury, where the prince was killed. Soon afterwards, it was reported that King Henry VI had also died in the Tower. With the direct Lancastrian line exterminated, Edward could reign safely until his death in 1483.

Warwick had no sons. His offices were divided between King Edward's brothers George, Duke of Clarence (who had married Warwick's daughter Isabel Neville), and Richard, Duke of Gloucester, the future Richard III (who would marry Warwick's daughter Anne Neville). Clarence received the chamberlainship of England and the lieutenancy of Ireland, while Gloucester was made Admiral of England and Warden of the West March. Clarence also received the earldoms of Warwick and Salisbury. The earl's land had been forfeited and taken into the king's custody. When Gloucester married Warwick's younger daughter Anne in 1472, who had been recently widowed by the death of Prince Edward, a dispute broke out between the two princes over the Beauchamp and Despenser inheritances. A compromise was eventually reached, whereby the land was divided, but Clarence was not pacified. In 1477 he once again plotted against his brother. This time the king could no longer act with lenience, and the next year the Duke of Clarence was executed.

Assessment
Early sources on Richard Neville fall into two categories. The first are the sympathetic chronicles of the early Yorkist years, or works based on these, such as the Mirror for Magistrates (1559). The other category originates with chronicles commissioned by Edward IV after Warwick's fall, such as the Historie of the arrivall of Edward IV, and take a more negative view of the earl. The Mirror portrayed Warwick as a great man: beloved by the people, and betrayed by the man he helped raise to the throne. The other perspective can be found in Shakespeare's Henry VI trilogy: a man driven by pride and egotism, who created and deposed kings at will.

In time, however, it is the latter view that dominated. The Enlightenment, or Whig historians of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, decried anyone who impeded the development towards a centralised, constitutional monarchy, the way Warwick did in his struggles with Edward. David Hume called Warwick "the greatest, as well as the last, of those mighty barons who formerly overawed the crown, and rendered the people incapable of any regular system of civil government." Later writers were split between admiration for some of Warwick's character traits, and condemnation of his political actions. The romantic novelist Lord Lytton picked up on Hume's theme in his The Last of the Barons. Though Lytton portrayed Warwick as a tragic hero who embodied the ideals of chivalry, he was nevertheless one whose time was past. The late-nineteenth-century military historian Charles Oman acknowledged the earl's ability to appeal to popular sentiments, yet pointed out his deficiencies as a military commander. Oman found Warwick a traditional strategist, "not attaining the heights of military genius displayed by his pupil Edward." Paul Murray Kendall's popular biography from 1957 took a sympathetic view of Warwick, but concluded that he had ultimately fallen victim to his own overreaching ambition.

More recent historians, such as Michael Hicks and A. J. Pollard, have tried to see Warwick in light of the standards of his own age, rather than holding him up to contemporary constitutional ideals. The insults Warwick suffered at the hands of King Edward—including Edward's secret marriage, and the refusal of the French diplomatic channel—were significant. His claim to prominence in national affairs was not a product of illusions of grandeur; it was confirmed by the high standing he enjoyed among the princes on the continent. Furthermore, Warwick's cause was not considered unjust by his contemporaries, which can be seen by the earl's popularity exceeding that of the king at the time of his first rebellion in 1469. On the other hand, while Warwick could not easily suffer his treatment by the king, it was equally impossible for Edward to accept the earl's presence on the political scene. As long as Warwick remained as powerful and influential as he was, Edward could not fully assert his royal authority, and eventual confrontation became inevitable.

However, the memories written in Burgundy had a negative view of him. For example, according to Philippe de Commynes and Olivier de la Marche, Georges Chastellain, who all mention Edward's popularity and character, Warwick was sage and cunning, and much richer than Edward, but he was very hated. In addition, unlike his brother John Nevill and Edward, he was not brave. A Burgundy historian Jean de Wavrin criticized him more bitterly than other Burgundians.

Performing arts
Henry VI, Part 2 and Henry VI, Part 3 by William Shakespeare

Prose fiction

 * Harry Turtledove, Opening Atlantis (2007)
 * Philippa Gregory:
 * The White Queen (2009), Book 1 in the Cousins' War series, about Elizabeth Woodville
 * The Kingmaker's Daughter (2012), Book 4 in the Cousins' War series, about Anne Neville
 * Sharon Kay Penman, The Sunne in Splendour (1982)

Television

 * The White Queen (2013): Warwick was portrayed by James Frain.
 * Britain's Bloody Crown (2015): Warwick was portrayed by James Oliver Wheatley
 * The Hollow Crown, Henry VI Part 1 and Henry VI Part 2 (2016): Warwick was played by Stanley Townsend.

Coat of arms
The Earl of Warwick's coat of arms was unusually complex for the period, with seven different quarterings in an unusual order. The first grand quarter consists of the arms of his father-in-law, Richard de Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick, who bore his arms quartering Despenser (the arms of his wife Isabel le Despenser) with an inescutcheon of De Clare, which Warwick showed in the fourth quarter. The second grand quarter showed the arms of Montagu (quartering Monthermer). The third grand quarter showed the arms of Neville differenced – rather honourably augmented – by a label compony argent and azure for Beaufort (House of Lancaster) to signify the royal descent from Warwick's father Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury, who was the eldest son and heir of Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland and his wife, Lady Joan Beaufort, daughter of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster, third son of King Edward III and great-grandfather of the last Lancastrian King Henry VI.

title: Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick


text:
Canadian raising

Canadian raising (also sometimes known as English diphthong raising ) is an allophonic rule of phonology in many varieties of North American English that changes the pronunciation of diphthongs with open-vowel starting points. Most commonly, the shift affects or, or both, when they are pronounced before voiceless consonants (therefore, in words like price and clout, respectively, but not in prize and cloud). In North American English, and  usually begin in an open vowel [~], but through raising they shift to,  or. Canadian English often has raising in words with both (height, life, psych, type, etc.) and  (clout, house, south, scout, etc.), while a number of American English varieties (such as Inland North, Western New England, and increasingly more General American accents) have this feature in  but not. It is thought to have originated in Canada in the late 19th century.

In the U.S., aboot, an exaggerated version of the raised pronunciation of about , is a stereotype of Canadian English.

Although the symbol $\langleʌ\rangle$ is defined as an open-mid back unrounded vowel in the International Phonetic Alphabet, $\langleʌɪ\rangle$ or $\langleʌʊ\rangle$ may signify any raised vowel that contrasts with unraised or, when the exact quality of the raised vowel is not important in the given context.

Phonetic environment
In general, Canadian raising affects vowels before voiceless consonants like, , , and. Vowels before voiced consonants like, , , and are usually not raised.

However, several studies indicate that this rule is not completely accurate, and have attempted to formulate different rules.

A study of three speakers in Meaford, Ontario, showed that pronunciation of the diphthong fell on a continuum between raised and unraised. Raising is influenced by voicing of the following consonant, but it may also be influenced by the sound before the diphthong. Frequently the diphthong was raised when preceded by a coronal: in gigantic, dinosaur, and Siberia.

Raising before, as in wire, iris, and fire, has been documented in some American accents.

Raising of before certain voiced consonants is most prominent in the Inland North, Western New England, and Philadelphia. It has been noted to occur before, and  especially. Hence, words like tiny, spider, cider, tiger, dinosaur, cyber-, beside, idle (but sometimes not idol), and fire may contain a raised nucleus. (Also note that in six of those nine words, is preceded by a coronal consonant; see above paragraph.  In five [or possibly six] of those nine words, the syllable after the syllable with  contains a liquid.) The use of  rather than  in such words is unpredictable from phonetic environment alone, though it may have to do with their acoustic similarity to other words that do contain  before a voiceless consonant, per the traditional Canadian-raising system. Hence, some researchers have argued that there has been a phonemic split in these dialects; the distribution of the two sounds is becoming more unpredictable among younger speakers.

Raising can apply to compound words. Hence, the first vowel in high school as a term meaning "a secondary school for students approximately 14–18 years old" may be raised, whereas high school  with the literal meaning of "a school that is high (e.g. in elevation)" is unaffected. (The two terms are also distinguished by the position of the stress accent, as shown.) The same is true of "high chair".

However, frequently it does not. One study of speakers in Rochester, New York and Minnesota found a very inconsistent pattern of raising before voiceless consonants in certain prefixes; for example, the numerical prefix bi- was raised in bicycle but not bisexual or bifocals. Likewise, the vowel was consistently kept low when used in a prefix in words like dichotomy and anti-Semitic. This pattern may have to do with stress or familiarity of the word to the speaker; however, these relations are still inconsistent.

In most dialects of North American English, intervocalic and  are pronounced as an alveolar flap  when the following vowel is unstressed or word-initial, a phenomenon known as flapping. In accents with both flapping and Canadian raising, or  before a flapped  may still be raised, even though the flap is a voiced consonant. Hence, while in accents without raising, writer and rider are pronounced differently as a result of a slight difference in vowel length due to pre-fortis clipping, in accents with raising, the words may be distinguished by their vowels: writer, rider.

Result
The raised variant of typically becomes. In most of Canada, the raised vowel is further front than, and in traditional New York City English, is backed towards  except before voiceless consonants, resulting in a distinction based more on frontness, but in Philadelphia it may be more back.

The raised variant of varies by dialect, with  more common in Western Canada and a fronted variant  commonly heard in Central Canada. In any case, the open vowel component of the diphthongs changes to a mid vowel (,, or ).

Inside Canada
As its name implies, Canadian raising is found throughout most of Canada, though the exact phonetic quality of Canadian raising may differ throughout the country. In raised, the first element tends to be farther back in Quebec and the Canadian Prairies and Maritimes (particularly in Alberta): thus,. The first element tends to be the farthest forward in eastern and southern Ontario: thus,. Newfoundland English is the Canadian dialect that participates least in any conditioned Canadian raising, while Vancouver English may lack the raising of in particular.

Outside Canada
Canadian raising is not restricted to Canada. Raising of both and  is common in eastern New England, for example in some Boston accents (the former more likely than the latter), as well as in the Upper Midwest. South Atlantic English, New Orleans English, and the accents of England's Fens feature it as well.

Raising of just is found in a much greater number of dialects in the United States; some researchers have begun to refer to raising of  without raising of  as American Raising. This phenomenon is most consistently found in the Inland North, the Upper Midwest, New England, New York City, and the mid-Atlantic areas of Pennsylvania (including Philadelphia), Maryland, and Delaware, as well as in Virginia. It is somewhat less common in the lower Midwest, the West, and the South. However, there is considerable variation in the raising of, and it can be found inconsistently throughout the United States.

The raising of is also present in Ulster English, spoken in the northern region of the island of Ireland, in which  is split between the sound  (before voiced consonants or in final position) and the sound  (before voiceless consonants but also sometimes in any position); phonologist Raymond Hickey has described this Ulster raising as "embryonically the situation" for Canadian raising.

title: Canadian raising