text:
Talk:Recreation

How Wikipedia works
I think this says a lot on how wikipedia answers ones questions.

I was bored the other day, and I wanted to have some fun, but I wasn't sure of what to do. So I searched wikipedia on the word "fun".

Then I got redirected to "recreation" which had much to do with sports and such. I read some of it, but then I clicked "See also: Nude recreation" which in small steps took me to this picture of naked yoga http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Naked_yoga.jpg

I'm trying that out right now, and "Fun" for me might just happen to be naked yoga.

It's in the word's etymology. What are we re-creating when we recreate?

-69.1.18.14 22:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * A good question, actually. From what I know, it's meant as 'renewal'. Wisco 20:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

AISOS (am I stupid or something)? I thought our Islamic friends had Friday as their holy day so including them in the list of people who keep a weekend sabbath seems odd (talk)--BozMo 22:20, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

 * In Muslim lands (except Turkey IIRC), Friday is the weekend. In Israel, the weekend is Friday (after noon) and Saturday. Basically, the concept weekend stems from the weekly rest and not the other way around... And calling it a Sabbath is biasing the coverage towards a specific tradition. elpincha 00:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Recreation I think stemmed from children playing or re-creating what adults did. Recreation can now also include sport activities but I think "leisure" has largely taken over that aspect. -- RND   talk  14:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Etymology from www.etymonline.com "[] 1390, 'refreshment or curing of a person, refreshment by eating,' from O.Fr. recreacion (13c.), from L. recreationem (nom. recreatio) 'recovery from illness,' from recreatus, pp. of recreare 'to refresh, restore,' from re- 'again' + creare (see create). Meaning 'refresh oneself by some amusement' is first recorded c.1400; abbreviated form rec is attested from 1929. Verb recreate 'to refresh by physical influence' is attested from c.1560, but not now used, probably from confusion with re-create (q.v.). Recreational is from 1656."

This site is now quoted by 124 Wikipedia articles and 32 Wiktionary articles and has a link on the etymology page. I think other usable sources exist, too. Erudecorp 05:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Leisure: Really an Umbrella Term
Recreation fits under the umbrella term of leisure. Those activities that are thought to be "active" ones and participatory are both leisuretime activities and recreational ones. Attending religious services is usually considered leisure but not recreation. However, participating in a volleyball game sponsored by a religious group is considered both leisure and recreation. Volunteerism is always considered leisure but, depending on the volunteerism done, it could recreational or non-recreational. (Examples: Group volunteer gardening around a synagogue or mosque? Recreation. Serving as a usher in a protestant or catholic church? Non-recreation but still leisure.)

Edit required?
This page is pretty rough as far a Wikipedia's standards go. I understand that it's an abstract topic, but it needs to be treated with a bit more finesse. The citation from TIME magazine about stress is a bit much (Since when does anyone listen to TIME magazine?) and also the list of sports that have become increasingly popular (BASE Jumping, Snowboarding, etc.). That is a very localized statement, and should it not be included in sport anyway?

=
=

Who says that recreation is non-profitable. To "be benefitial to" is another definition of profit and recreation is very benefitial to many aspects of our lives.

legal restrictions
The legal restrictions section seems to be stretching the limits of NPOV. The phrase "arbitrarily viewed as immoral" seems especially egregious.

"...nearly all drugs that have traditionally not been widely used in European culture have been deemed illegal in most of the world."- Can someone prove that Europe's non-acceptance of hard drugs leads to the rest of the world illegalizing them? That's what this sentence implies. If that's not the case, I fail to see why it's necessary to specially mention European culture.

Amazing
I think this page is great. It may be the best page on wikipedia. And I may sound sarcastic but I'm not, I am totally serious. --Kev

---er someone has vandalized it, how does one go about reporting abuse?

Fun
I'm co-opting the redirect "Fun", but I'm quite happy to have it moved to Fun (magazine) as long as a notice is added here =) Adam Cuerden talk 16:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

British vs. American Spelling
I noticed the caption for the girl on the tire swing spelled it "tyre" (I believe that is the British way). Is there a rule for Wikipedia English about British vs. American spellings? I'm not favoring one way or the other, I just wondered, since some people might be confused. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.41.28.140 (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

 * The rule is that if the article is about a UK topic, use UK spelling; if a U.S. topic, use U.S. spelling. If neither, whoever gets there first wins!  -- Ssilvers 05:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Check the etymology of the word and use the more historically sound spelling. That is the foundation for current international standard spellings, not popularity. Why was the u added to colour from the original Latin color? Probably to preserve the accent on the second syllable. But no one in the UK pronounces it that way. So, color. Heuristically, it's better to preserve spelling than pronunciation, because it more often preserves the meaning and history of the word, since pronunciation shifts (see vowel shift). In the same way, the original spelling was tyre, so use tyre, unless the article specifically depends on the US popularity of the spelling tire. UK spellings tend to preserve Germanic words. US spellings tend to preserve Latin words. [] Erudecorp 00:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Fun vs Recreation
Why does this article claim that fun is equeal to recreation by redirection of the word "fun" to this particular article? This is hopelessly narrowminded! Fun is so much else than that. Perhaps a seperate article for "fun" is needed. What we think is funny... humour and philosophy along with play and the thrust of human endeavor? Is fun the meaning of life? Ideas?

 * Yes, let's do it. The article now violates the laws of Wikipedia and humankind in general. To equate fun with recreation is (perhaps not subtly) ridiculous and silly. Erudecorp 08:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible (unchecked) sources:
 * [| www.funology.com] Ironically has nothing to do with fun. Should go on scary, pedophile and list of serial killers. Along with fun, shows how hard it is to find rigorous, relevant truth on the subject of fun.
 * [| Astro Fun - Ancient Art of Penis Reading] Don't call it irrelevant until you try it. Should go on penis.
 * [| Etymology of fun] "1685, v., 'to cheat, hoax,' probably a variant of M.E. fon 'befool' (c.1400), later 'trick, hoax, practical joke,' of uncertain origin. Stigmatized by Johnson as 'a low cant word.' Older sense is preserved in phrase to make fun of and funny money 'counterfeit bills' (1938, though this may be more for the sake of the rhyme); sense of 'amusement' is 1727. See also funny."
 * [| Halloween Costumes Are Fun For All Ages] Recent news article of something (probably erroneously) deemed fun.
 * [| Memo from the Making Work More Fun committee] News about fun, work and a committee.
 * [| Most Popular Work At Home Job Ideas] Popular (not rigorous) ideas of fun.
 * [| Fun Systematically] This one is for real. "This position paper looks at two examples where the study of fun is at very least systematic, and quite possibly scientific. In the first, Virtual Crackers, a systematic process of 'deconstructing experience' identifies the individual aspects of an experience (pulling crackers), which are then used to reconstruct a new experience in a new medium (the web). In the second, a generic question about the relationship of fun and engagement is studied through the mutation of examples, slowly changing particular abstract attributes. Neither process is perfectly automatic nor even reproducible, but both exhibit structured methodologies to find results. Scientific? You decide."
 * [| www.answers.com/topic/fun] Read this before making a new fun article. There may already be a Fun, but called something else, like joy, enjoyment, happiness, amusement, funny, awesome, thrill, peace, sport, yay, vagabond, irreverence, etc.
 * [| 34 Fun Quotes]
 * It's kind of fun to do the impossible.
 * ~ Walt Disney (1901 - 1966)

 * Most of the time I don't have much fun. The rest of the time I don't have any fun at all.
 * ~ Woody Allen (1935 - )

 * It is fun to be in the same decade with you.
 * ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945), in a letter to Winston Churchill

^Erudecorp 08:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I added something that might be deleted
"An example of fun could be the fact that most people viewing this article are having fun. Because it is amusing that this article even exists"

Someone might want to delete it. But honestly I think this is an ok thing to put in. So if it is deleted, I will just put it back and try to find the one who deleted it. Unless they have a good reason for it not to exist.

 * I deleted it. This is an article on recreation, not an article about the article on recreation. Casey Abell 19:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Then delete all the other examples. This isn't the article on dancing, eating and drinking, partying, hunting and fishing, hobbies or computer games. Either let the example stay, or delete those too. Using the article itself as an example is fun, making the example true twice over. Erudecorp 04:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Help:Reverting, WP:NPOVFAQ Casey Abell, stop deleting it. You're defenses continue to be irrelevant and wrong, so then you try another one. Stop. (In response to your latest: It is naturally a matter of opinion; that's what fun is. It is, however, neutral. The addition was not itself opinion, but about opinion. Your reverting defeats itself, because it could be called opinion, too.) Even if you have a personal issue against this, leave it alone. Deleting it is not funny. If you have a contrary statement to make for the sake of NPoV, then add it without deleting the other statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erudecorp (talk • contribs) 17:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Okay, I'll AGF. "Using the Internet" is already listed as a form of recreation. Which covers any enjoyment people might get from a "Recreation" article existing in Wikipedia. Look, I appreciate that you're trying to inject some humor into the article and the talk page. If you want to write a separate "Fun" article, it's fine with me. I would advise that you write in a reasonably serious way, though, because WP articles - and talk pages - are not supposed to be stand-up comedy routines. There are lots of other places on the Internet for comedy. Casey Abell 18:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh huh? Ok, just as I thought. Wikipiedia is one of the most technical places on the net, but I can't blame wiki for that, I'll just not choose to go here anymore!

Things Have Changed
I am happy to report that I can let my children on this website once again. when I noted vandalism before, I was telling the truth. But now, the vandalism is gone and my children have been able to come on this website once and for all.

Thank you SO much Wiki!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.255.5 (talk) 01:49, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Fun ≠ Recreation
Please forgive my niavete here but is Fun synonymous with Recreation? --Knowledge is NOT a dirty word 22:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Thou speakest the truth. Fun needs its own article and is distinct from recreation. It is still good to mention fun in the recreation article, but they shouldn't be the same. Erudecorp 23:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The fun article should itself be fun and not boring, just as all articles differ depending on their subject matter. The irony of a boring fun article is inappropriate. Erudecorp 23:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

 * So should the puke article make me puke? Should the sad article make me cry? Erudecorp 00:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Touché. Erudecorp 00:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 * You're both idiots! Of course the fun article should be fun, the vomit article should help you not vomit, and the sad article should help you not be sad. Wikipedia should not be unhelpful. The double-negative cancles out. So, Wikipedia should be helpful, and those looking for fun on Wikipedia should find it. What about those who call fun bad and confine their definition of fun to vain, idle and unproductive acts? Can't work or school be fun? Is only recreation fun? Is recreation ever not fun? Is unfun recreation still either? Erudecorp 04:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry...
...to spoil Erudecorp's fun (or recreation), but this edit summary won't tempt me into an edit war. But this article has already seen enough nonsense. Can we please stop adding more gibberish, both in the article and the talk page? Casey Abell 18:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah guys, this is wikipedia, not uncyclopedia 79.66.93.16 (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

More activity topics...
I think Dogging should probably be added to the list. It is arguably a hell of a lot more fun than cycling! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.153.2 (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional Website
You might want to include an external link to http://www.FindSportsNow.com. It's a "National Organization of Sports and Recreational Activities".
 * I'm going to decline this addition. The site no longer works anyway. Adam McCormick (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Fun is not synonymous with Recreation
Fun is not synonymous with Recreation, this can be clearly demonstrated as fact, by the existence of jobs that are fun and vacations that are not.

Sean is a game designer he has a job that is concerned with the creation of toys/games, fun in itself and not recreation.

Peter and Jane are given tickets to europe for 2 weeks on the condition that they guide their in-laws around as well.

Peter and Jane have a vacation that is recreation and not fun.

I propose that we make a new page for the definition of fun. Separate from recreation. Seanbutler (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fun not synonymous with Recreation as a very serious discussion, but is it fun?
Fun is not synonymous with Recreation when, and if, recreation is done to excercise the mind and or body as a serious pursuit. Then recreation becomes a chore, and a bore. People will recreate to avoid burn out, to debrief from a very intensive occurance for example, but a person recreating will not necessarily experience fun. They will "play" to prepare themselves for a state of fun, or they will "play" for fitness to perform a function. They will practice to gain mastery. Recreation, when routine, will lose its joyfulness and fun unless imbued with a sense of unexpected. Fun occurs with or without the pursuit of a goal. Recreation can be fun. Work can be fun. Some people possess the ability to make many moments in their lives fun in all sorts of contexts.

Fun can be described as state of arousal(pyschological term), awakeness, awareness that intensifies pleasant feelings during an occurance. Fun is an action that is easy, refreshing and pleasing all in one feeling. Fun creates sensations of thrill, laughter, spontaneous joy, spontaneous amusement. Fun can be had anywhere, any time, and it cannot be stopped by external forces. People say "you took the fun out of it", erroneously thinking someone has how power to change another's state of being. Only the person expeiencing fun can really change their state of having fun. That is a powerful secret, so don't tell everyone that. It might change the world.

Fun is really a state of mind. Like euphoria, intensive engagement, humans have a hard time sustaining these intense states for very long unless they develop the skill, and habit of playing for fun no matter where they are. People who do that just naturally are "fun to be with". One is having fun when a strong desire to repeat the same experience occurs to the person(s). This is best accomplished without the use of or influence from a psychoactive substance. People need both recreation and fun. People will go to great lenghths to create conditions to repeat the same experience they had while having fun, including using a psychoactive substance to return to that state of fun. But fun-ness is spontaneous, ironic, satirical, joking,and a release from the serious, mundane. It is a form of startle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.205.85 (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandilism
from under the first paragraph:

"fun to kids is just awesome. it is so cool like dr seuss man his books rock my socks."

looks like people are using this page for recreation. i'm sorry that i can't do this myself, but can someone take care of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.34.104 (talk) 03:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Split discussion
As many of the above comments indicate, fun is not the same as recreation. Add you vote to the discussion of a split.

 * split — I recommend a split of this article. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep merged - this article is terribly short already. Splitting with result in two very stubby articles.  Kayau  Voting  IS   evil 13:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, isn't this article kinda short already? What is there to split? You can rename to "Fun" if you want because I was redirected here searching for that. --WikiDonn (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Split Not all fun is recreation, not all recreation is fun. Sithman VIII !! 22:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Examples
In my opinion, the list of examples should only contain very general categories, as in my revision. Otherwise, the list will either become unmanageable, or it will mislead by omitting specific activities. Sithman VIII !! 22:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to change it back now. If you don't like it, please say so, right here. Sithman VIII !! 19:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

-

The list can contain anything to do with recreation in my eyes, this includes individual examples as edited.

Desolutional 16:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desolutional (talk • contribs)

I really think that any such list is necessarily POV, unless there are numerous citations for each individual item. I am removing it now, until someone can find reliable sources for some, which I highly doubt. Sithman VIII !! 23:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

-

Wiki-Links can be incorporated, I think that would provide the needed linkage.

Desolutional 12:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desolutional (talk • contribs)

Links would be great, but you're missing my main point. I think that the list, especially if unreferenced, is inherently POV. Sithman VIII !! 19:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This has to stop. Until you have the necessary refs, stop re-adding the list of examples. It is becoming harder and harder to assume good faith of you when you keep re-adding it and re-adding it, without finding a single ref or discussing on the talk page. Please stop. Sithman VIII !! 16:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a nice ref
Found in the Outdoor Recreation article.

http://www.qorf.org.au/_dbase_upl/OR%20definitions.pdf Sithman  VIII !! 03:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Expansion Oct 31, 2010
This often vandalized article had at one time been much, much larger, but by now it had been slashed down to just three sentences, not fitting even as an attempt to address the topic of "recreation" (and "fun" redirected to it). So I have tried to give it some new life, expanded it, and then saved from the old deleted copies the paragraph on "Recreation as a profession". I am sure there is more material in the older versions worth reviving. I fully agree with above comments that "Fun" deserves its own article and gave it a brief start.Ekem (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirect "Having fun" to the article "Fun"
I would do it myself, but I don't know how. Somebody please do it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImAlwaysHungry (talk • contribs) 18:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:R --Abel (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Double Standard
Recreation is poorly defined here. Recreation is more like an adjective and not a noun. Not really sure what is going on here...hope you are having fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.154.42 (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Recreation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130801080339/http://www.matholympiad.info/Documents/TeachingWithKenKen.pdf to http://www.matholympiad.info/Documents/TeachingWithKenKen.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sportrec.qld.gov.au/Industryinformation/Abouttheindustry/Whatisrecreation.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Clarify difference between recreation and entertainment?
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I recommend that this article clarify the difference between the two. From my experience, it seems that entertainment is a subset of recreation, can experts confirm /clarify? Vinay84 (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 * So if you lost in translation than check synonymes carefully.. 46.114.183.84 (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Recreation


text:
Assassins (musical)

Assassins is a musical with music and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim and a book by John Weidman, based on an original concept by Charles Gilbert Jr.

Using the framing device of an all-American, yet sinister, carnival game, the semi-revue portrays a group of historical figures who attempted (successfully or not) to assassinate Presidents of the United States, and explores what their presence in American history says about the ideals of their country. The score is written to reflect both popular music of the various depicted eras and a broader tradition of "patriotic" American music.

The musical opened Off-Broadway in 1990 to many mixed and negative reviews, and ran for 73 performances; in 2004, the show was produced on Broadway to highly favorable notices and won five Tony Awards, including Best Revival of a Musical.

Background
In 1979, as a panelist at producer Stuart Ostrow's Musical Theater Lab, Sondheim read a script by playwright Charles Gilbert Jr. entitled Assassins. Inspired by its title and use of quotations from various historical figures who had attempted to assassinate American Presidents, Sondheim asked Gilbert for permission to use his idea. Gilbert consented and offered to write the book, but Sondheim declined, having already had collaborator John Weidman in mind. Weidman had written the book for Pacific Overtures and would work with Sondheim again on Road Show.

Gilbert's original concept involved a fictional Vietnam War veteran who becomes an assassin and around this central narrative he had woven diary entries, poems, and newspaper reports of historical assassins. Sondheim and Weidman, having no interest in the fictional element, focused the musical solely on the historical figures. Five assassins appear in both versions: John Wilkes Booth, Charles J. Guiteau, Leon Czolgosz, Giuseppe Zangara, and Squeaky Fromme. The model for Gilbert's protagonist, Lee Harvey Oswald, also appears in the musical as himself. The musical omits three assassins included in Gilbert’s script—Arthur Bremer (cut in rehearsals), Sirhan Sirhan (mentioned by name only), and John Schrank—and instead features Samuel Byck, Sara Jane Moore, and John Hinckley Jr., the last of whom had not yet attempted an assassination when Gilbert's version was written.

Aside from the title, Sondheim and Weidman also retained Gilbert's distinctive conceptual metaphor of the shooting gallery, presided over by a character called Fat Man (somewhat analogous to Weidman’s Proprietor) who is encouraging would-be assassins to "shoot the Prez and win a prize."

The first staged reading of the musical, at Playwrights Horizons on December 18, 1989, was directed by Jerry Zaks and featured Anthony Heald (Czolgosz), Paul McCrane (Hinckley), Michael Jeter (Zangara), Jonathan Hadary (Guiteau), Swoosie Kurtz (Fromme), Christine Baranski (Moore), Victor Garber (Booth), Kevin Anderson (Balladeer/Oswald) and Nathan Lane (Byck).

Productions
Assassins opened Off-Broadway at Playwrights Horizons on December 18, 1990, and closed on February 16, 1991, after 73 performances. Directed by Jerry Zaks the cast included Victor Garber, Terrence Mann, Patrick Cassidy, Debra Monk, Greg Germann, and Annie Golden. According to the Los Angeles Times, "The show has been sold out since previews began, reflecting the strong appeal of Sondheim's work among the theater crowd." Frank Rich in his review for The New York Times wrote that "Assassins will have to fire with sharper aim and fewer blanks if it is to shoot to kill."

On October 29, 1992, Assassins opened in London at the Donmar Warehouse with direction by Sam Mendes and a cast that included Henry Goodman as Charles Guiteau and Louise Gold as Sara Jane Moore. The show ran for 76 performances, closing on January 9, 1993.

The first US regional production was mounted at Theatre Three in Dallas, July 15, 1992. The second was mounted by Signature Theatre in Arlington, Virginia in August 1992. The San Jose Civic Light Opera in San Jose, California, presented a production in 1993, which featured the world premiere of the 13-piece orchestration by Michael Starobin.

The first Australian production opened in February 1995, presented by the Melbourne Theatre Company at the Fairfax Studio. Directed by Roger Hodgman, the cast featured John O'May, John McTernan and Bruce Myles.

Roundabout Theatre Company's Broadway production was originally scheduled for 2001 but was postponed to April 22, 2004, because the content was sensitive in light of the events of the September 11 attacks. After 101 performances at Studio 54, Assassins closed on July 18, 2004. Directed by Joe Mantello, with musical staging by Jonathan Butterell, Neil Patrick Harris starred in the roles of The Balladeer and Lee Harvey Oswald, with Marc Kudisch in an extended role as The Proprietor. Michael Cerveris played John Wilkes Booth, for which he received a Tony Award. The 2004 production was noted for a coup de théâtre: the Zapruder film of the assassination of John F. Kennedy projected onto Lee Harvey Oswald's T-shirt by projection designer Elaine J. McCarthy. On December 3, 2012, the Broadway cast reunited for a special benefit. Annaleigh Ashford stood in for Mary Catherine Garrison.

Other professional productions have included a 2006 production at Crucible Theatre, Sheffield, a 2008 production which ran from January 23 to February 2, 2008, at the Landor Theatre, London,  The South African premiere opened in December 2008 as the inaugural production of the NewSpace Theatre in Cape Town. This production was directed by Fred Abrahamse with a South African cast including Marcel Meyer as John Wilkes Booth, Riaan Norval as Lee Harvey Oswald, David Dennis as Charles J. Guiteau and Anthea Thompson as Sara Jane Moore. The Los Angeles premiere opened in 1994 at the Los Angeles Theatre Center and included Patrick Cassidy (the original Balladeer) playing Booth, and Alan Safier as Guiteau. A 2010 production in Toronto by BirdLand Theatre and Talk is Free Theatre won the Dora Mavor Moore Award for Outstanding Production in the Musical Theatre Division.

The Union Theatre, London produced Assassins in July 2010, which went on the win Best (overall) Production at The Off West End Awards. It was staged and directed by Michael Strassen. It attained Show of the Week and Critics choice in Time Out.

A new production of Assassins starring Catherine Tate as Sarah Jane Moore, Aaron Tveit as John Wilkes Booth, Mike McShane as Samuel Byck, Andy Nyman as Charles Guiteau, and Jamie Parker as the Balladeer opened on November 21, 2014, at the Menier Chocolate Factory in London and ran until March 7, 2015.

Assassins was produced in the 2016-2017 season at Yale Repertory Theatre from March 17 to April 8, 2017. The Cast included Robert Lenzi as John Wilkes Booth, Stephen DeRosa as Charles Guiteau, and Julia Murney as Sara Jane Moore

Assassins was produced in the 2017 season of Encores! Off Center at the New York City Center from July 12–15 of that year, with a cast including Steven Pasquale as John Wilkes Booth, Victoria Clark as Sara Jane Moore, and Shuler Hensley as Leon Czolgosz.

In October/November 2019 The Watermill Theatre Newbury and Nottingham Playhouse co-produced a new version in the UK, using a full cast of actor/musicians for the first time. The role of the Balladeer was switched to a female part for this production. A poignant moment was added at the end of the final scene, where a young child walks onto the stage from the audience, retrieves a gun from the vending machine (from which the main characters received their weapons at the start of the show) and fires the final gunshot out into the crowd.

John Doyle was to direct an Off-Broadway production at Classic Stage Company scheduled for 2020. On September 24, 2019, it was announced that the cast would include Judy Kuhn as Sara Jane Moore, Will Swenson as Charles Guiteau, Brandon Uranowitz as Leon Czolgosz, Wesley Taylor as Giuseppe Zangara, and Pasquale reprising his role as John Wilkes Booth. Other additions to the cast include Ethan Slater as Lee Harvey Oswald/The Balladeer and Tavi Gevinson as Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme. The show was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On September 9, 2021 it was announced that the production would begin performances on November 2, 2021 - January 8, 2022 with an official opening on November 14, 2021. And on November 9, 2021, it was announced that the production would extend through to January 29, 2022. The production ended up officially closing January 24, 2022 due to positive COVID-19 cases in the company. On March 18, 2022, a cast recording album of this production received a wide digital release, which featured all songs as well as an abridged version of the climactic scene between Booth and Oswald.

In June 2023, a revival played at the Chichester Festival Theatre in London. The production starred Danny Mac as Booth, Luke Brady as Zangara, Peter Forbes as the Proprietor, Harry Hepple as Guiteau, Nick Holder as Byck, Charlotte Jaconelli as Goldman, and Jack Shalloo as Hinckley.

Notable replacements
Off-Broadway: (1990-91)
 * Charles Guiteau: Davis Gaines (u/s)
 * Sara Jane Moore: Joy Franz (u/s)
 * The Balladeer: Davis Gaines (u/s)

Off-West End: (2014–15)
 * John Wilkes Booth: Michael Xavier
 * Sara Jane Moore: Anna Francolini

Synopsis
This synopsis reflects the current licensed version of the show. The published script of the 1992 Off-Broadway production is slightly different.

The show opens in a fairground shooting gallery where, amid flashing lights, human figures trundle past on a conveyor belt. One by one, a collection of misfits enters the stage, where the Proprietor of the game entices them to play, promising that their problems will be solved by killing a President ("Everybody’s Got the Right"). Leon Czolgosz, John Hinckley, Charles Guiteau, Giuseppe Zangara, Samuel Byck, Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, and Sara Jane Moore are given their guns one by one. John Wilkes Booth enters last and the Proprietor introduces him to the others as their pioneer before he begins distributing ammunition. The assassins take aim as "Hail to the Chief" heralds Abraham Lincoln's offstage arrival. Booth excuses himself, a shot rings out and Booth shouts, "Sic semper tyrannis!"

The Balladeer, a personification of the American Dream, appears and begins to tell John Wilkes Booth's story ("The Ballad of Booth"). The scene changes to Richard H. Garrett's barn in 1865. Booth, mudstained and with a broken leg, is attempting to write his reasons for killing Lincoln in his diary but cannot hold the pen. He forces his associate David Herold to write for him at gunpoint. As Booth dictates, blaming Lincoln for the Civil War and for destroying the South, the Balladeer interjects that Booth's motives really had more to do with his personal problems. When a Union soldier calls for Booth's surrender, Herold abandons him and surrenders. In desperation, Booth throws the Balladeer his diary so that he can tell his story to the world. The Balladeer reads out Booth's justifications, and Booth laments that the act for which he has given up his life will not be enough to heal the country. As the Union soldiers set fire to the barn, Booth commits suicide, and the Balladeer concludes that Booth was a madman whose treacherous legacy only served as inspiration for other madmen like him to damage the country. The Balladeer rips Booth's rationale from his diary and burns the pages.

The Assassins gather in a bar. Guiteau toasts to the Presidency of the United States, speaking of his ambition to become Ambassador to France. Hinckley accidentally breaks a bottle, and Czolgosz flies into a rage, describing the horrors he sees in the bottle factory he works in and how many men die or are injured just to make a bottle like the one Hinckley has just broken. Guiteau jokingly tells Czolgosz to find another job, and the two begin to argue about the American Dream, with Guiteau defending America and Czolgosz dismissing the "land of opportunity" as a lie. Czolgosz becomes enraged and grabs a bottle, barely stopping himself from throwing it across the room. Booth urges Czolgosz to take control of his fate by breaking a bottle himself, but Czolgosz cannot. Zangara complains about his stomach pains, and Booth suggests fixing them by shooting Franklin D. Roosevelt.

A radio broadcast, narrated by the Proprietor, describes Zangara's failed attempt to assassinate Roosevelt. He misses Roosevelt and accidentally kills Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak instead. Five Bystanders are interviewed in turn, telling the audience their personal versions of the event; each is convinced that he or she personally saved the President ("How I Saved Roosevelt"). From an electric chair, Zangara sings his refusal to be afraid and that he hadn't cared whom he killed as long as it was one of the men who control the money. Peeved that as an "American Nothing" he has no photographers at his execution, Zangara is electrocuted as the Bystanders preen for the cameras.

American anarchist leader Emma Goldman gives a lecture from offstage as Leon Czolgosz listens, enraptured. He introduces himself to her and declares his love, but she tells him to redirect his passion to the fight for social justice. She gives him a leaflet that she tells him contains an idea that is "not mine alone, but mine". As she prepares to leave, Czolgosz offers to carry her bag, to which Goldman protests by saying, "They make us servants, Leon. We do not make servants of each other." Czolgosz, in his first display of assertiveness, still insists.

Fromme and Moore meet on a park bench and share a joint. Fromme speaks of the apocalyptic preachings of mass murderer Charles Manson, remembering how they met and declaring herself his lover and slave. Juggling her purse, a can of Tab and a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken, Moore claims she is an informant for the FBI (or used to be), has been a CPA and had five husbands and three children. They connect over their shared hatred of their fathers, and using Colonel Sanders as a graven image, they give the bucket of chicken the evil eye and then shoot it to pieces while laughing hysterically. Moore realizes that she had known Manson in high school, and the scene ends as the women scream in delight over their memories of the charismatic killer.

Czolgosz reflects on how many men die in the mines, the steel mills and the factories just to make a gun. Booth, Guiteau and Moore enter one by one and join him in a barbershop quartet in which they honor a single gun's power to change the world ("The Gun Song"). Czolgosz decides his gun will claim one more victim: the President.

Czolgosz arrives at the 1901 Pan-American Exposition and sees that William McKinley is shaking visitors' hands in the Temple of Music Pavilion. The Balladeer sings "The Ballad of Czolgosz" as Czolgosz joins the receiving line, and upon reaching McKinley, he shoots him.

Samuel Byck sits on a park bench in a dirty Santa suit with a picket sign and a shopping bag. He talks into a tape recorder, preparing a message to Leonard Bernstein telling Bernstein he can save the world by writing more love songs, and explaining that he is going to change things by crashing a 747 into the White House and killing Richard Nixon. Then he accuses Bernstein of ignoring him, just like the other celebrities he has recorded tapes for, such as Hank Aaron and Jonas Salk. After flying into an expletive-laden rage, Byck stands up on the bench and angrily sings the chorus to West Side Story's song "America" before storming offstage.

John Hinckley sits in his rumpus room, aimlessly playing a guitar. Lynette Fromme enters and tries to convince him to play her a song (asking for "Helter Skelter"), but he refuses. Fromme notices a picture of Jodie Foster, who Hinckley claims is his girlfriend. When Fromme realizes the picture is a publicity photo from a film, she pulls out a picture of Charles Manson and mocks Hinckley for being in love with a woman he's never met, which makes him throw her out in a fit of rage. Alone, he swears that he will win Foster's love "with one brave, historic act" and sings a love song to her while Fromme individually does the same to Manson ("Unworthy of Your Love"). An image of Ronald Reagan appears on a wall in the back of the stage, and an enraged Hinckley shoots it over and over again, but the picture keeps reappearing. The Proprietor mocks Hinckley by quoting Reagan's famous quips about the assassination as Hinckley fires and fires, missing each time.

Back at the Proprietor's shooting range, Charles Guiteau flirts with Sara Jane Moore while giving her marksmanship tips before trying to kiss her. When she rebuffs him, he becomes suddenly enraged and attempts to attack her. Her gun goes off in his ear, and he backs off, angrily proclaiming that he is extraordinary and will be the next Ambassador to France. The scene changes to a train station, where Guiteau goes to meet James A. Garfield. He asks to be made Ambassador to France, but Garfield mockingly refuses, prompting Guiteau to shoot him.

Guiteau is arrested and sent to the gallows, where he recites a poem he wrote that morning titled "I Am Going to the Lordy". When Guiteau finishes, the Balladeer enters and sings about Guiteau's trial and sentencing while Guiteau merrily cakewalks up to the noose, getting more and more desperately optimistic with each verse. Guiteau sings along with the Balladeer about Guiteau's optimism before he is finally hanged ("The Ballad of Guiteau").

Squeaky Fromme and Sara Jane Moore prepare to assassinate Gerald Ford. Moore has brought along her nine-year-old son and her dog (which she accidentally shoots), which causes an argument between the two women, who briefly turn on each other. Moore accidentally spills her gun's bullets just as President Ford enters the stage. Not recognizing him at first, the two women allow him to help them, but upon discovering who he is, Fromme tries to shoot him, but her gun jams. Having no other resource left, Moore tries to throw her bullets at Ford, shouting "bang" as she does so.

Samuel Byck is driving to the airport to hijack a plane, which he plans to crash into the White House. Growing completely unhinged, he records a message addressed to Richard Nixon, complaining about contemporary American life, how the American public is constantly lied to, and announces that killing him is the only solution.

The assassins congregate in the Proprietor's shooting range once again and enumerate their reasons for taking action. Led by Byck, they lament that they haven't gotten the rewards they were "promised". The Balladeer tells them that their actions didn't solve their problems or the country's and that if they want their prizes they must follow the American Dream. The assassins realize that they will never get their prizes, that no one will ever care if they live or die, and briefly sink into absolute desperation until Byck and the Proprietor lead them in "Another National Anthem," a song for all Americans dispossessed by the dream. The Balladeer attempts to convince them to be optimistic and seek other ways to be happy, but the Anthem grows louder and louder until the assassins force the Balladeer offstage (in the 2004 revival and many productions that followed, the Assassins all surround the Balladeer, transforming him into Lee Harvey Oswald).

The scene changes to the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. The ghosts of John Wilkes Booth, Leon Czolgosz, Charles Guiteau, and the other "would be" assassins including John Hinckley, Giuseppe Zangara, Samuel Byck, Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, and Sara Jane Moore, appear before a suicidally depressed Lee Harvey Oswald, and convince him that the only way for him to truly connect with his country is to share his pain and disillusionment with it. They slowly and carefully attempt to convince him not to become his own victim and to instead assassinate John F. Kennedy. Booth tells Oswald that by joining them he will finally make a difference, but Oswald refuses. Booth tells him that in the future, when Hinckley's room is searched, Oswald's biographies will be found. Booth tells Oswald that the key to the future is in his hands. Oswald tries to leave, but Zangara addresses him passionately in Italian, his words translated by the other assassins, imploring him to act so their own acts can come alive again. They tell him that he has the power to cause worldwide grief and inspire global passion about himself, a man the world has never cared or heard about. Calling themselves his family, the assassins sing, imploring Oswald to act. He crouches at the window and shoots ("November 22, 1963").

After the assassinations, a group of citizens from different time periods recount what they were doing when they heard that the President had been killed and lament that even though only a single man died, the nation has changed forever ("Something Just Broke").

The assassins regroup once more at the shooting range, now with Oswald among their ranks, and they proudly restate their motto, "Everybody's got the right to be happy," before loading their guns and opening fire on the audience ("Everybody's Got the Right (Reprise)").

Sacrificing for the greater good / fighting against political injustice
According to Valerie Lynn Schrader, out of the nine assassins in the musical, six of them (John Wilkes Booth, Giuseppe Zangara, Leon Czolgosz, Charles Guiteau, Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, and Samuel Byck) are motivated to assassinate their targets due to "political injustice and sacrifice for the greater good," and among the six assassins, Booth and Czolgosz have been portrayed to have such motives as their primary reason for their assassination.

In the musical, John Wilkes Booth believes that his assassination on President Abraham Lincoln is for the greater good (and is an act of patriotism), which is "supported historically: the Ford’s Theatre Museum notes that Booth was part of a conspiracy to assassinate President Lincoln, Vice President Andrew Johnson, and Secretary of State William H. Seward in order to put the Union in a state of disarray and anarchy." Raymond Knapp states that Booth's motivation is "conveyed musically, self-servingly by his own singing in a quasi-hymnic, sometimes inspirational style," based on the 1991 original Off-Broadway Version.

In the scene before "The Gun Song", the anarchist Emma Goldman inspires Leon Czolgosz to take action in light of his anarchist beliefs and the "societal injustice" that he has noticed. In "The Gun Song", Czolgosz has a "moody contemplation of how one gun connects backward to the many lifes it consumes in its manufacture," and later he claims that "[a] gun claims many men before it's done. Just one more," referring to his assassination target, President William McKinley. The political injustice in Czolgosz's timeline would be the "class inequalities in America."

Desiring attention
Many assassins in the musical have lines reflecting their need for attention, and according to Wang, "what unites each of the assassins is the desire for attention." In "How I Saved Roosevelt," Giuseppe Zangara is extremely angry about not having a photographer even at his execution: "and why there no photographers? For Zangara no photographers! Only capitalists get photographers!" Another assassin, Sara Jane Moore, "proclaims that one of her motives was 'so that her friends would know where [she] was coming from.'"

Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme and John Hinckley Jr. are described as a "loving couple" in the musical, but the love that they show is in order to try to draw attention from two different persons. Unlike some assassins such as Zangara whose goals might reflect many of the themes of the musical, these two assassins have only one motive - to get attention from the person they love (for Fromme, it is Charles Manson; for Hinckley, it is Jodie Foster). In the short monologue before the song "Unworthy of Your Love", Hinckley states that "[he] will win [Foster's] love, now and for all eternity."

Idealism and optimism
This theme is mainly represented by Charles Guiteau. His idealism and optimism might make audience members "feel more sympathy for Guiteau than for some of the other assassins." Throughout the musical, Guiteau has lines and lyrics which show his idealism and optimism towards his life and the world. The quartet "The Gun Song", which Guiteau participates in, and the song "The Ballad of Guiteau" both portray him as an optimist while others are depicted as dark and not so optimistic. For example, in "The Gun Song", Guiteau "waltzes in cheerfully, holding a gun up admiringly, and declares: 'What a wonder is a gun! What a versatile invention,'" while Czolgosz just states that "[he hates] this gun." Guiteau's idealism is demonstrated by his failed delusions: he always desires what he wants, and when he cannot get it, he gets angry. For example, he angrily shouts to Moore that "[he wants a kiss]" after Moore has already turned him down, and he assassinates President Garfield because he could not be the ambassador to France. His idealism and optimism are shown even in his execution scene (in "The Ballad of Guiteau"): he believes that "[he] shall be remembered" for assassinating President Garfield.

Pain, desperation, and disillusionment
Pain and desperation are central to Zangara's character: he is portrayed as a poor immigrant who suffers a very strong stomachache. In "How I Saved Roosevelt", Zangara's stomach pain and his desperation about not being able to cure his stomachache turn into his anger and hatred towards the upper class. According to Schrader, the real-life Moore attempted her assassination due to political reasons, yet in the musical, she does so due to an entirely different one: she is so frustrated and desperate about "how to understand and express herself" that she takes "drastic action." On the other hand, Byck's assassination attempt on President Richard Nixon is also to "satisfy his personal frustrations." His solo scene, titled "Have It Your Way" in the 2004 Broadway cast recording, presents his pain and disillusionment through his words and emotional expressions.

Unlike all the other assassins in the musical, "[ Lee Harvey Oswald] is portrayed as a desperate man attempting to commit suicide and as the only assassin who had no intention of killing a President." In the scene corresponding to this (the original 1991 Off-Broadway version is called "November 22, 1963"), Booth, as the leader of all assassins, tries to convince Oswald to assassinate President John F. Kennedy instead of committing suicide using countless tactics, yet he has to rely on other assassins to ultimately convince Oswald to do so. Schrader argues that "audience members who have encountered depression may find a level of consubstantiality with [him], at least until he is convinced to commit murder."

Community
As Schrader states, "Mark Fulk and Angela Howard suggest that 'family' is Assassins ' central metaphor, particularly noting that family is 'the central concept that binds the group of American assassins and would-be assassins.'"

In the scene "November 22, 1963", the assassins join together in order to persuade Oswald to assassinate President John F. Kennedy while assuring him that he can "connect" to the other assassins. In addition, the assassins interact with each other despite coming from different time periods, in the scene "Ladies and Gentlemen a Toast", the scene "I Am a Terrifying and Imposing Figure", and the songs "Everybody's Got the Right", "Another National Anthem", and "Everybody's Got the Right (Reprise)".

Comparing the 1991 original production with other later versions, there is one song later added the musical, "Something Just Broke". This song is an assassin-free one, where five bystanders mourn the assassinated Presidents. These bystanders have different occupations and are in different timelines, yet are brought together by the assassination tragedies, indicating a sense of community among them.

Versions
The three versions of Assassins (original, London, and Broadway) are not identical, as some roles were combined, and the song "Something Just Broke" was new to the London production. In 1991, Theatre Communications Group published the libretto, which did not feature "Something Just Broke".

The current licensed version of the musical reflects the 2004 Broadway revival. Although the script does not combine The Balladeer and Oswald into a single role, many productions have followed the revival in doing so.

Musical numbers

 * "Everybody's Got The Right" – Proprietor and Assassins (save Oswald)
 * "The Ballad of Booth" – Balladeer and Booth
 * "How I Saved Roosevelt" – Proprietor, Zangara and Ensemble
 * "The Gun Song" – Czolgosz, Booth, Guiteau and Moore
 * "The Ballad of Czolgosz" – Balladeer and Ensemble
 * "Unworthy of Your Love" – Hinckley and Fromme
 * "The Ballad of Guiteau" – Guiteau and Balladeer
 * "Another National Anthem" – Balladeer and Assassins (save for Oswald)+
 * "November 22, 1963" – Oswald and Assassins
 * "Something Just Broke" – Ensemble ++
 * "Everybody's Got The Right" (Reprise) – Assassins

Notes: + In the original production, the lead part among the Assassins for "Another National Anthem" is sung by Byck. However, in the revised 2004 score, the lead is sung by the Proprietor.

++Added for the 1992 London production

Cultural impact
Sondheim said that he expected backlash from the public due to the content. "There are always people who think that certain subjects are not right for musicals...[w]e're not going to apologize for dealing with such a volatile subject. Nowadays, virtually everything goes," he told The New York Times.

Historian, commentator, and actress Sarah Vowell introduced her 2005 analysis of the Lincoln, McKinley, and Garfield murders, Assassination Vacation, with a journey from New York City into New England to attend a performance of Assassins.

Assassins was featured in episode 6 of Netflix's The Politician. In the show, they are performing in a school production of the musical, which parallels events occurring in their own lives. The episode included a cover of "Unworthy of Your Love", sung by Ben Platt and Zoey Deutch.

Original Broadway production
Although Assassins had not run on Broadway prior to 2004, the 1992 London production and 1991 Off-Broadway production led to a ruling by the Tony Awards Administration Committee that the musical is a revival instead of an original musical.

Recordings
Recordings of both the Off-Broadway production and the 2004 revival were released. The original Off-Broadway version lacks the song "Something Just Broke", which was added to the show for the subsequent London production. The 1990 recording does however include the full 11-minute spoken-word climactic scene "November 22, 1963". The 2004 Broadway recording adds "Something Just Broke" and several dialogue sections but only includes the second half of the "November 1963" scene.

While the original Off-Broadway production used just three musicians, the 1990 cast album was fully orchestrated by Michael Starobin, with 33 musicians directed by Paul Gemignani.

The 2021 Off-Broadway revival received its own cast recording on March 18, 2022, making it the third English language recording of the show. It includes the full score, and features the actor-musician cast members playing their respective instruments.

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

title: Assassins (musical)


text:
Talk:Empirical validation

one of you Popper guys needs to take a look at this. If you're a particle physicist, so much the better... - This either isn't true or badly misleading

 * Two important precepts of empirical validations under the current particle physics foundation ontology and associated paradigm are that an experiment must produce the same results for three different sets of researchers with three different experimental apparatus, and that predictions asserted must pass the test of falsifiability, i.e. they are conceivably disprovable by some such reasonable method. A "fact", in science, must be so conceivably disprovable - facts are grounded in the scientific method and trust in the scientific process involving many scientists.  The definition of what constitute facts and method is a major study in philosophy of science.  Critics of particle physics research note that the limited number of apparatus, tight schedules, and moral hazards of the funding process, actually argue against the validity of some of the science.

1) This has nothing to do specifically with particle physics at all or with particle physics foundation ontology as I understand the term. 2) There isn't any fixed criteria for beliving a result. The more people get the same result, the more people tend to believe that no one made a mistake -

Cognitive science doesn't particular investigate these concerns. Also the philosophy of mathematics deals with wildly different issues than philosophy of science

 * These are concerns investigated in cognitive science in particular, and increasingly in philosophy of mathematics.

Number itself may require some empirical validation, as Eugene Wigner suggested in 1960, and as Erdös numbers seem to provide. -

This needs to be rewritten. An unattributed statement that something "may" happen in the future doesn't belong in wikipedia. Since it also *may not* happen. If someone believes that this is likely to happen then there should be a statement that says that "so and so believes that it is likely in the future that ..... "

 * The philosophy of science, philosophy of mathematics, and the current foundation ontology, i.e. the particle physics foundation ontology, may well collide in the near future and be forced to make assumptions indistinguishable from each other. Some, e.g. George Lakoff and Pope John Paul II, assert that they already have, and suggest respectively a cognitive science of mathematics and a new respect for faith in reason.

The "may" problem again. This sentence has no content. I can say just as easily the empirical validation may have no limits, and we humans may not need to live with that fact.

 * Empirical validation itself may have limits, and we humans as a species may simply have to live with that.

If someone out believes this then it needs to be attributed. - This is false

 * however, for certain infeasible or unethical or more secret experiments it may be curtailed in favor of some other reasonable method.

If an experiment can't be done, then it can't be done and you can't draw conclusions from a non-existent experiment.

-

This is also false. This isn't what Kuhn meant at all by a paradigm shift.

 * Different notions of empirical validation, in particular shifts in both the epistemology assumed in the scientific process and the foundation ontology against which empirical results are assessed for consistency, have often tended to force what Thomas Samuel Kuhn called "paradigm shifts".

-

Come to think of it. This is also false

title: Talk:Empirical validation


text:
Prime Directive

In the fictional universe of Star Trek, the Prime Directive (also known as "Starfleet General Order 1", and the "non-interference directive") is a guiding principle of Starfleet that prohibits its members from interfering with the natural development of alien civilizations. Its stated aim is to protect unprepared civilizations from the danger of starship crews introducing advanced technology, knowledge, and values before they are ready. Since its introduction in the first season of the original Star Trek series, the directive has featured in many Star Trek episodes as part of a moral question over how best to establish diplomatic relations with new alien worlds.

The Prime Directive
The Prime Directive is one of many guidelines for Starfleet's mandate to explore the galaxy and "seek out new life and new civilizations." Although the concept of the Prime Directive has been alluded to and paraphrased by many Star Trek characters during the television series and feature films, the text of the directive was only revealed to viewers in 2021 during the Star Trek: Prodigy episode "First Con-Tact" set in 2383. Two sections of the text were shown, and are as follows:

Section 1: Starfleet crew will obey the following with any civilization that has not achieved a commensurate level of technological and/or societal development as described in Appendix 1.

a) No identification of self or mission.

b) No interference with the social, cultural, or technological development of said planet.

c) No reference to space, other worlds, or advanced civilizations.

d) The exception to this is if said society has already been exposed to the concepts listed herein. However, in that instance, section 2 applies.

Section 2: If said species has achieved the commensurate level of technological and/or societal development as described in Appendix 1, or has been exposed to the concepts listed in section 1, no Starfleet crew person will engage with said society or species without first gathering extensive information on the specific traditions, laws, and culture of that species civilization. Then Starfleet crew will obey the following.

a) If engaged with diplomatic relations with said culture, will stay within the confines of said culture's restrictions.

b) No interference with the social development of said planet.

The Prime Directive was frequently applied to less developed planets which had not yet discovered warp travel or subspace communication technology. The Prime Directive was also sometimes applied to advanced civilizations that already knew of life on other worlds but were protected by empires outside the Federation's jurisdiction. First contact could be made by the Federation with alien worlds that had either discovered warp or were on the verge of it, or with highly advanced civilizations that simply hadn't ventured into space yet. In those cases, the Prime Directive was used as a general policy to not disrupt or interfere with their culture when establishing peaceful diplomatic relations.

Consequences for violating the Prime Directive could range from a stern reprimand to a demotion, depending on the severity of the infraction. However, enforcement of these rules -- and interpretations of the Prime Directive itself -- varied greatly and were at the discretion of the commanding officer. In many instances, prominent Starfleet personnel like captains James T. Kirk, Jean-Luc Picard, Kathryn Janeway and Benjamin Sisko willingly broke the Prime Directive but faced no real punishment or consequence for doing so.

However, the Prime Directive is not absolute. Starship captains have been known to violate it to protect their ships and crews, and certain Starfleet regulations such as The Omega Directive can even render it null and void in certain circumstances.

Creation and evolution
Creation of the Prime Directive is generally credited to Original Series producer Gene L. Coon. Later writers have suggested that the Prime Directive was influenced by the Vietnam War or designed to show a civilization that had evolved beyond colonialism. This would have been consistent with Coon and Roddenberry's political outlooks, but the notion of science fictional first contact and its possible harms already had a decades-long history by 1966.

The Original Series

 * The first filmed reference to the Prime Directive occurs in the first season TOS episode "The Return of the Archons" (1966), when Spock begins to caution Captain Kirk of the starship Enterprise when he proposes to destroy a computer controlling an entire civilization. Kirk interrupts him after Spock says, "Captain, our Prime Directive of non-interference" with, "That refers to a living, growing culture..." Later, Kirk argues the computer into self-destruction and leaves behind a team of sociologists to help restore the society to a "human" form.
 * In the second-season episode "The Apple", Spock says of Kirk's plan to destroy Vaal, "If we do what it seems we must, in my opinion, it will be in direct violation of the non-interference directive."
 * In the second-season episode "A Piece of the Action", Kirk, briefing Spock and McCoy before beaming down on possible interference 100 years earlier by the Federation ship, the Horizon, Kirk explicitly states, "the contact came before the non-interference directive".
 * In the second-season episode "A Private Little War", two different factions on a planet were at war with each other and it is discovered that the Klingons were furnishing one faction with advanced weapons. Kirk responded by arming the other faction with the same weapons. This resulted in an arms race on that world, as a fictionalized parallel to the then-current Cold War arms race, in which the United States often armed one side of a dispute and the Soviet Union armed the other.
 * In a similar storyline on TNG, "Too Short a Season", a Starfleet admiral admits he interpreted the Prime Directive to mean equally arming two different factions on a planet, intended to reach a stalemate, but which resulted in 40 years of war.
 * In the second-season episode "Patterns of Force," Federation cultural observer and historian John Gill created a regime based on Nazi Germany on a primitive planet in an effort to create a society which combined the high efficiency of a fascist dictatorship with a more benign philosophy. In doing so, he contaminated the normal and healthy development of the planet's culture, with disastrous effects; the regime adopts the same racial supremacist and genocidal ideologies of the original. Eventually, this leaves investigating Starfleet officers with no other option but to arrange the overthrow of the government in order to mitigate the harm of Gill's interference.
 * In the second-season episode "The Omega Glory", after finding out that Captain Tracy may have violated the Prime Directive, Captain Kirk states, "A starship captain's most solemn oath is that he will give his life, even his entire crew, rather than violate the Prime Directive."
 * In the second-season episode "Bread and Circuses", the crew discusses that the Prime Directive is in effect, saying, "No identification of self or mission. No interference with the social development of said planet. No references to space, or the fact that there are other worlds, or more advanced civilizations."

The Next Generation

 * In the Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG) first-season episode "Symbiosis", Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the starship Enterprise-D states that, "The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules; it is a philosophy... and a very correct one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well-intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous."
 * In the third season episode "Who Watches the Watchers", the crew of the Enterprise expose a pre-warp civilization on Mintaka III to Federation technology. Despite an attempted mind wipe, the Mintakans remember and now revere Picard as a god. Picard intentionally breaks the Prime Directive again by beaming one of the Mintakans aboard the Enterprise and explaining they are on a starship, and not gods, showing them their world from space and encouraging them to spread the truth to the others. Eventually, he allowed himself to be shot by an arrow to prove he was mortal.
 * In the fourth season episode "The Drumhead", the captain of the Enterprise is being interrogated by retired Admiral Norah Satie, who says the Prime Directive is "Starfleet General Order Number One". She claims that Picard had "violated the Prime Directive a total of nine times since you took command of the Enterprise". (To this he responds "My reports to Starfleet document the circumstances in each of those instances".)
 * In the fourth season episode "First Contact", Commander Riker goes undercover to scout a pre-warp civilization that is on the verge of discovering warp technology, preparing to establish diplomatic relations. When he is captured, Captain Picard and Deanna Troi make first contact early, but Picard refuses to share Federation technology with them due to the Prime Directive. After worries of social upheaval, the alien scientists developing warp travel believe their society isn't ready for knowledge of extraterrestrial life, and they ask the Enterprise to leave without announcing their presence to the public, agreeing to delay developing warp technology until their culture is ready.
 * In the seventh season episode "Homeward", it is said that Starfleet had allowed 60 races to die out rather than interfere with their fate. However, in the episodes "Homeward" and "Pen Pals", the crew debates the Prime Directive and the saving of civilizations.

Deep Space Nine

 * In the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (DS9) first season episode "Captive Pursuit", Commander Sisko references the Prime Directive as his reason for choosing not to interfere in a hunt of a member of sentient species from the Gamma Quadrant that is bred to be hunted. In the end, Sisko does allow Chief O'Brien to assist the hunted being to escape from his captors to continue the hunt.
 * In the episode "The Circle", the government of the planet Bajor experiences an internal, civil war-like conflict. Starfleet Commander Benjamin Sisko's superior orders him to evacuate all Starfleet personnel from the station, noting, "The Cardassians may involve themselves in other people's civil wars, but we don't."
 * In the episode "In the Pale Moonlight", Sisko and Garak plant evidence to force the Romulans to enter the Dominion War under false pretenses, with full knowledge and approval from Starfleet Command, despite this violating the Prime Directive's edict of not interfering with other cultures or civilizations. Participation in the war by the Romulans resulted in massive military and civilian casualties within Romulan society.

Voyager

 * In the Star Trek: Voyager episode "The Omega Directive," an exception to the Prime Directive was introduced. Starfleet's Omega Directive authorizes a captain to take any and all means necessary to destroy Omega particles including interference with any society that creates them.
 * In the episode "Infinite Regress", Naomi Wildman informs Seven of Nine that she was familiar with the Prime Directive including all 47 suborders.
 * In the episode "Natural Law," Chakotay and Seven of Nine encounter a primitive culture protected by an energy barrier that they crash a shuttle into which protects the culture from the rest of the planet's more advanced inhabitants. Although the two try to avoid contact, the natives encounter and help an injured Chakotay and start mimicking the pair and collecting shuttle debris as jewlery. After Seven manages to use the shuttle's deflector to lower the barrier, Voyager is able to beam out all of the loose technology and minimize the Prime Directive violation. However, this leads to another issue when the other culture on the planet -- who have achieved spaceflight and openly engaged in friendly relations with Voyager -- seek to use the downed barrier to explore the previously blocked portion of their planet and civilize the natives. While such an idea has its benefits and detractors, Janeway cites the Prime Directive as the reason for taking down the barrier. In response, the natives knock out Voyager's transporters and actively try to force the crew to leave the deflector behind, forcing Tom Paris to destroy it with the Delta Flyer instead. However, Seven worries that as her deflector modifications were already scanned, they may be replicated in time to take down the barrier again.
 * In the episode "Endgame" the Future Admiral Janeway warns the present Captain Janeway against holding on to the "Prime Directive" when the Future Janeway goes back in time to change history by having Voyager get back to Earth in only 7 years instead of 23 years.

Enterprise

 * Filmed between 2001 and 2005, Star Trek: Enterprise (ENT) is a prequel to Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS), set before the implementation of the Prime Directive. The first-season episode "Dear Doctor" sees the ship's doctor Phlox struggle with the ethics of providing a cure to a pre-warp species with a deadly disease. Captain Jonathan Archer notes that as humanity grapples with their newfound reach, they will have to develop "a doctrine, something that tells us what we can and can't do out here, should and shouldn't do."
 * Additionally, the ENT episodes "Fight or Flight" and "Civilization", make reference to a Vulcan policy of non-interference, a possible model for Starfleet's Prime Directive.

Discovery

 * In "New Eden", the second episode in season two of Star Trek: Discovery aired in 2019, the away party is selected and briefed to ensure that their interactions with humans from pre-warp capable Earth does not interfere with their development. The regulation is exclusively referred to as General Order 1. Captain Christopher Pike later breaks the Prime Directive to reveal the truth to one of the locals in exchange for a World War III era helmet camera, but the man promises to keep quiet about it to his people. Commander Michael Burnham argued to Pike that the helmet camera and the answers it might contain to solve the mystery, was more important than the Prime Directive, and that one would have to be sacrificed to uphold the other – and only the captain could make that choice.
 * In "Whistlespeak" of season five, the Discovery encounters the Halem'nites, a pre-warp, pre-industrial society that is protected by a Denobulan weather tower which shields the only habitable part of the planet against sandstorms and generates rain. The Denobulans had installed the weather tower and four others like it in secret and masked them as mountains in order to avoid breaking the Prime Directive. However, the other four failed and the last one is failing, leading the Halemn'ites to build a whole religion around them. While Captain Michael Burnham and Lieutenant Sylvia Tilly at first discreetly infiltrate the locals, allowing Burnham to repair the tower in secret, Tilly's life is put in danger when the Halem'nites prepare to sacrifice her as part of a ritual to bring rain. Burnham expressly chooses to violate the Prime Directive to save her friend, arguing that Tilly and a local named Ravah should not suffer a pointless death and, without learning how to properly maintain the tower themselves, the Halem'nites will eventually go extinct.

Prodigy

 * The villain of the first season, the Diviner, came from the future. In his original timeline the Vau N'Akat saw the arrival of a Federation ship to its planet. This divided their society between those who wanted to join the Federation and those who refused, and the ensuing civil war destroyed them. The Federation refused to take sides in the civil war. The Diviner considered it a subtle act of aggression and jumped to the past, the series' present, to destroy the Federation before it makes first contact with his people.
 * In "First Con-tact," a holographic version of Kathryn Janeway informs the young crew of the USS Protostar of the Prime Directive before they attempt a first contact mission. However, captain Dal R'El is tricked by his old Ferengi mentor DaiMon Nandi, resulting in a disastrous first contact. Although the crew returns what Nandi stole, Janeway furiously berates them as not only was the Prime Directive broken, but the way that things went down will have a negative impact on any possible relations that the race that they had met will have with outsiders going forwards.
 * In "All the World's a Stage," the crew of the Protostar meet a civilization, the Enderprizians, that experienced massive cultural contamination due to a visit by the USS Enterprise around a hundred years before. According to the locals' history, the Enterprise detected a danger to the Enderprizians that Ensign David Garrovick volunteered for a solo mission to address without breaking the Prime Directive. However, Garrovick crashed and was saved by the locals with his presence, technology and stories leading to them basing their whole culture around Starfleet and the Enterprise. One local, Doctor Boons (named after Leonard McCoy's nickname of Bones), reveals that Garrovick had told the people about the Prime Directive and that they weren't ready for the Federation or their technology, but the Enderprizians saw the Federation and its ideals as something to believe in. The Protostar's meeting with the Enderprizians is treated as second contact rather than a Prime Directive violation. In the season finale, an Enderprizian is seen in a Starfleet class, suggesting that they ended up making more official contact with Starfleet in the end.
 * In "Brink," The Doctor mentions that sending the Protostar crew to Solum wouldn't technically violate the Prime Directive or Voyager's direct orders as the crew are not Starfleet personnel. However, when Gwyn asks to rescue her father Ilthuran -- the present day version of the Diviner -- Commander Tysess worries that doing so would be taking sides in the brewing civil war which the Prime Directive prohibits. Janeway agrees to allow the rescue, pointing out that nothing prevents them from granting Ilthuran political asylum, particularly as he is the best hope for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. While Janeway states that Starfleet will disavow their actions if they're caught, she allows Voyager to supply the crew with various technologies for their mission.
 * In "Touch of Grey," despite Janeway previously declaring that the Protostar crew would be disavowed if they were caught, she personally leads Chakotay, The Doctor and Wesley Crusher to rescue them. As civil war breaks out on Solum, just like it did in the future that the Diviner came from, Gwyn asks Janeway for help in saving her homeworld which would be taking sides and thus violating the Prime Directive. Rather than staying out of it like the Federation did in the Diviner's future, Janeway instantly agrees to help, having been reminded that boldness isn't only for the young.
 * In "Ouroboros, Part I," Voyager and the Protostar engage Asencia's forces to buy time for the Protostar crew to enact their plan. While the battle results in the defeat of Asencia and the favorable end of the civil war, the Federation's direct role is minimal, limited primarily to Voyager and the Protostar engaging Asencia's fleet which is in the middle of launching to attack every major Federation outpost across three quadrants. Like in "Brink," the forces sent to the ground who take direct part in Asencia's defeat are non-Starfleet personnel. In the following episode, Janeway leads official first contact between the Federation and the Vau N'Akat which Gwyn had previously tried and failed to establish.

Strange New Worlds

 * In "Strange New Worlds", the first episode of season one of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, Captain Pike reveals the Enterprise to a society that has reverse engineered a matter-anti-matter reactor as a weapon after witnessing the Battle near Xahea. However, the Federation Council could not address how the weapon was created because the Battle near Xahea was classified information, which prevented them from charging Pike with violating General Order 1. The Federation Council is also considering renaming General Order 1 as the Prime Directive, which Captain Pike says will "never stick".
 * In "Among the Lotus Eaters," Pike orders the removal of a radioactive asteroid from the surface of the planet Rigel VII. Spock argues that they are violating the Prime Directive, but Pike counters that the asteroid's effects were stunting the growth of the local civilization and as such, they are merely setting things right rather than interfering which Spock concedes is a logical argument.

Picard

 * In "Vox," Geordi La Forge mentions that Starfleet had raised the wrecked saucer section of the USS Enterprise-D off of the surface of Veridian III following the events of Star Trek Generations in order to avoid breaking the Prime Directive due to the pre-warp civilization living in the star system. This allowed La Forge the chance to spend twenty years secretly rebuilding the ship.

Films

 * In the feature film Star Trek: Insurrection, Picard violates orders to protect the rights of a planet's population when he feels an admiral is breaking the Prime Directive.
 * In the feature film Star Trek Into Darkness, Captain Kirk violates the prime directive by saving Spock's life while attempting to stop an active volcano that threatens the native inhabitants, and then by exposing the Enterprise to those inhabitants. As punishment, Kirk is removed from command of the Enterprise and demoted to first officer instead. Initially, his punishment was to be sent back to Starfleet Academy, but Admiral Pike intervened on Kirk's behalf. The subsequent actions of Khan Noonien Singh lead to Kirk being reinstated soon afterwards.

Criticism
The Prime Directive has been criticized in-universe because of the inconsistencies in which it is applied. In the TOS episodes "Friday's Child," "For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky," "The Cloud Minders," "The Apple," "The Return of the Archons," "Space Seed" and "A Taste of Armageddon," the crew of the Enterprise either interferes with laws or customs of alien worlds or outright colonizes an alien planet to achieve a Federation objective, to save the lives of the crew, or to better the lives of the inhabitants.

Out-of-universe criticisms focus on the above problems; that the Prime Directive is simply a plot device and is manipulated by the writers. Janet D. Stemwedel points out a potential conflict between the anti-colonialist intentions of the Federation and the "ethical project of sharing a universe" which would require "a kind of reciprocity — even if your technological attainment is quite different, it means recognizing you are owed the same moral consideration." Stemwedel writes, "If your concern is not to change the natural behavior or development of alien citizens at any cost, your best bet is to stay at home rather than to explore new worlds." Ars Technica asked lawyers to comment on the Prime Directive and other Star Trek legal issues. Criticism included interpreting the Prime Directive as a product of the Cold War environment in which Roddenberry wrote, as well as indicating that enforcement would be lacking.

Temporal Prime Directive
The "Temporal Prime Directive" is a fictional guideline for time travelers (from the past or future) from interfering in the natural development of a timeline.

In the TNG episode "A Matter of Time", Picard compares the Prime Directive to a possible Temporal Prime Directive: "'Of course, you know of the Prime Directive, which tells us that we have no right to interfere with the natural evolution of alien worlds. Now I have sworn to uphold it, but nevertheless I have disregarded that directive on more than one occasion because I thought it was the right thing to do. Now, if you are holding on to some temporal equivalent of that directive, then isn't it possible that you have an occasion here to make an exception, to help me to choose, because it's the right thing to do?'"

As 31st-century time traveler Daniels revealed to Captain Jonathan Archer in the Star Trek: Enterprise episode "Cold Front", as time travel technology became practical, the Temporal Accords were established sometime before the 31st century, to allow the use of time travel for the purposes of studying history, while prohibiting the use of it to alter history.

As revealed in the Star Trek: Discovery episode "Face the Strange," the Temporal Prime Directive is still in effect in the late 32nd century.

title: Prime Directive


text:
Scotch broth

Scotch broth is a soup originating in Scotland. The principal ingredients are usually barley, stewing or braising cuts of lamb, mutton or beef, root vegetables (such as carrots, swedes, or sometimes turnips), and dried pulses (most often split peas and red lentils). Cabbage and leeks are often added shortly before serving to preserve their texture, colour and flavours. The proportions and ingredients vary according to the recipe or availability. Scotch broth has been sold ready-prepared in tins for many years.

History
In the early 19th-century cookery book A New System of Domestic Cookery by Maria Rundell, "Scotch Mutton Broth" is made with mutton neck, skimmed and simmered around an hour before good-quality cuts of bone-in mutton are trimmed of their fat and added to the soup. After several hours, soup vegetables are added—turnips, carrots and onion—and simmered until just tender; finally, pre-soaked Scotch barley is added. The soup is served with a garnish of fresh parsley.

According to Christian Isobel Johnstone, the mutton could be served on the side as a bouilli with caper sauce, parsley and butter, pickled cucumbers, or nasturtiums (edible flowers) with mustard and vinegar.

Ingredients
The main ingredients are barley, stewing lamb or mutton, and root vegetables like swedes, potatoes, turnip and carrot. Dried beans are another common addition, as are cabbage and leeks, which can be added in later stages of cooking.

title: Scotch broth


text:
Corn soup

Corn soup is a soup made of corn, typically sweetcorn. Initially popular only in corn-producing areas of the world, the dish is now widespread because of greater corn distribution. Typical ingredients are corn cut from the cob, water, butter and flour, with salt and pepper for seasoning. Additional ingredients vary by region, and may include eggs.

Native Americans
Corn, being a staple crop for many Native American tribes has led to corn soup being a primary food among them. M. R. Harrington reported that 1908 hulled-corn soup onno'kwǎ' was the most popular dish for the Seneca Indians (Native Americans). He also stated, "[s]eldom do the Indians, pagan or Christian, meet for any function [...] without a kettle of onno'kwǎ', hot and savory, to regale the crowd". The soup was served at religious events, the people getting a ladleful every time they encircled the kettle.

List of corn soup dishes
Several types of soups are prepared using corn as a primary ingredient.
 * Cream of corn soup and creamed corn soup
 * Sweet corn soup
 * Corn crab soup
 * Chinese sweet corn soup (yumigeng or sumigeng)
 * Dried (Indian) corn soup
 * Patasca - Peruvian corn and meat soup
 * Pozole - mexican corn soup
 * Tibetan style corn soup (Ashom Tang)
 * Suam na mais
 * Ginataang mais
 * Chicken Corn Soup (A Pennsylvania Dutch soup with hard-boiled egg whites instead of noodles)

title: Corn soup


text:
User talk:Brooke Vibber/Maps and images for Wikipedia

Brion, your map of EU is very good but it has one mistake: Crete is signed as Cyprus. In fact Cyprus lays east from Crete.

Filemon, pl.wiki

 * Errr, quite right. Oops! Fixed; the map now actually extends far enough east to include Cyprus (and the whole of Turkey), and Crete is recolored to match the rest of Greece. Thanks for the catch! (If you think the map is now too big for an inline image, replace it with the smaller version. eg, ) I can include something bigger than the current map as a link as well if desired.) --BV

Hi, Brion. The South America map is also great, except for Kolombio and Venezuelo. I would fix it myself, but I don't know how. Danny

 * Oops! Thanks for the catch; should be fixed now. --Brion VIBBER

Hello there Brion, I've added English names to your Europe map and I'd just like to point out a tiny glitch I found: the Shetland Islands were coloured green (for Norway) instead of beige for the UK. I've fixed it in the maps I uploaded, but you may want to change it in the template. -Scipius

 * Thanks, the template's now fixed. The German and Esperanto versions will need to be done as well at some point. (I don't have the file for eo with me at the moment, and I didn't do the de labeling.) --Brion VIBBER

-

The German and Esperanto European maps still show Serbia & Montenegro as Yugoslavia. According to the German and Esperanto Wiki artcles the name of the new nation in Esperanto is Serbio kaj Montenegro and German Serbien und Montenegro. --hoshie

Hi Brion, could you update the empty European map (without country names) to include Madeira, Azores, Canary Islands, Guadaloupe, Martinique, Guayana and Réunion? Someone did it on the german image that I translated, but I think it would be nice to have it on all languages. -- Stw | Talk 14:54, 2004 May 9 (UTC)


text:
Clam soup

Clam soup is a soup prepared using clams as a primary ingredient. Clam soup can be prepared as a thin, broth- or cream/milk-based soup and as a thicker, chowder-style soup. In Japan, hot miso soup prepared with clams is believed by some to be a cure for the hangover.

Overview
Clam soup is prepared using clams as a main ingredient. Additional ingredients can include carrot, celery, onion and other vegetables, vegetable broth or stock or other types of broths and stocks (such as fish stock) seasonings and spices, salt and pepper. Fresh or canned clams can be used to prepare the dish. Clam chowder is a well-known clam soup, but not all clam soups are chowders or have the thick consistency that chowders typically possess.

In Japan, hot miso soup with clams is a traditional cure for the hangover. Clams possess high levels of ornithine, an amino acid that some Japanese people believe serves to reduce levels of stress, and "helps improve liver function—including detoxifying harmful substances like alcohol." A canned clam soup product named "Power of 70" claims to cure hangovers.

Clam chowder
Clam chowder is a clam soup prepared as a chowder, typically using a cream base. Several varieties of clam chowder exist. Manhattan clam chowder is a tomato-based soup prepared with vegetables and clams, but lacks cream or milk.

Jaecheop-guk
Jaecheop-guk is a clear Korean soup made with small freshwater clams called jaecheop (재첩, Corbicula leana). It is a local specialty of the Gyeongsang Province where jaecheop are harvested, such as the lower reaches of Nakdong River, and river basins around Gimhae, Myeongji, Eumgung, and Hadan counties as well as places near the Suyeong River in Busan and the Seomjin River.

title: Clam soup