text:
Rosicrucianism

Rosicrucianism is a spiritual and cultural movement that arose in early modern Europe in the early 17th century after the publication of several texts announcing to the world a new esoteric order. Rosicrucianism is symbolized by the Rosy Cross or Rose Cross. There have been several Rosicrucian (or Rosicrucian-inspired) organizations since the initial movement was founded, including the Order of the Golden and Rosy Cross (1750s–1790s), the Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia (1865–present), and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (1887–1903).

History
Between 1610 and 1615, two anonymous manifestos appeared in early modern Germany and soon after were published throughout Europe. The Fama Fraternitatis Rosae Crucis (The Fame of the Brotherhood of the Rosy Cross) was circulated in manuscript among German occultists since about 1610, and published at Cassel in 1614. Johannes Valentinus Andreae has been considered the possible author of the work. A literal reading narrates the travels and education of "Father Brother C.R.C." and his founding of a secret brotherhood of similarly prepared men. Names, numbers, and other details have Qabalistic allusions, in which the cognoscenti of that era were well-versed. The Confessio Fraternitatis (The Confession of the Brotherhood of RC), published in Frankfurt in 1615, responded to confusions and criticisms and elaborated the matter further. Many were attracted to the promise of a "universal reformation of mankind" through a science "built on esoteric truths of the ancient past", which, "concealed from the average man, provide insight into nature, the physical universe, and the spiritual realm", which they say had been kept secret for decades until the intellectual climate was ready to receive it. The manifestos elaborate these matters extensively but cryptically in terms of Qabalah, Hermeticism, alchemy, and Christian mysticism, subjects whose methods, symbolism, and allusions were ardently studied by many intellectuals of the period.

In 1617 a third anonymous volume was published, the Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz. In his posthumously published autobiography, Johann Valentine Andreae acknowledged its origin in a romantic fantasy that he wrote before he was 16 years old (1602), among other likewise forgotten juvenilia, and which he elaborated in response to the Fame and Confession, and said of it that "the Chymical Wedding, with its fertile brood of monsters, a ludibrium which surprisingly some esteem and explicate with subtle investigations, is plainly futile and betrays the vanity of the curious" (Nuptiae Chymicae, cum monstrorum foecundo foetu, ludibriu, quod mireris a nonullis aestimatum et subtili indagine explicatum, plane futile et quod inanitatem curiosorum prodat). He called Rosicrucianism a "ludibrium" (a lampoon or parody) during his lifetime, in writings advocating social and religious reform through a sectarian Christian organization of his design. Some scholars of esotericism suggest that Andreae disowned Rosicrucianism to shield his clerical career from the wrath of the religious and political institutions of the day. "[I]t is clear from his "Turris Babel", "Mythologia Christiana", and other works, that he considered the manifestos a reprehensible hoax." This augmented controversies as to whether they were a hoax, whether the "Order of the Rosy Cross" existed as described in the manifestos, or whether the whole thing was a metaphor disguising a movement that really existed, but in a different form.

The promise of a spiritual transformation at a time of great turmoil, the manifestos influenced many figures to seek esoteric knowledge. Seventeenth-century occult philosophers such as Michael Maier, Robert Fludd, and Thomas Vaughan interested themselves in the Rosicrucian worldview. In his work "Silentium Post Clamores" (1617), Meier described Rosicrucianism as having arisen from a "primordial tradition", saying "Our origins are Egyptian, Brahminic, derived from the mysteries of Eleusis and Samothrace, the Magi of Persia, the Pythagoreans, and the Arabs".

In later centuries, many esoteric societies claimed to derive from the original Rosicrucians. The most influential of these societies was the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, which derived from Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia and counted many prominent figures among its members. The largest is the Rosicrucian Order, AMORC, a multinational organization based in Rosicrucian Park, San Jose, California, US. Paul Foster Case, founder of the Builders of the Adytum as a successor to the Golden Dawn, published The true and invisible Rosicrucian Order, elaborating the Qabalistic basis and interpretation of the Fame and Confession.

Origins
Between 1614 and 1617, three anonymous manifestos were published, first in Germany and soon after throughout Europe: the Fama Fraternitatis RC (The Fame of the Brotherhood of RC, 1614), the Confessio Fraternitatis (The Confession of the Brotherhood of RC, 1615), and the Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosicross anno 1459 (1617). The Fama Fraternitatis presents the legend of a German doctor and mystic philosopher referred to as "Father Brother C.R.C." (later identified in a third manifesto as Christian Rosenkreuz, or "Rose-cross"). The year 1378 is presented as being the birth year of "our Christian Father," and it is stated that he lived 106 years. After studying in the Middle East under various masters, possibly adhering to Sufism, he was unable to spread the knowledge he had acquired to prominent European scientists and philosophers. Instead, he gathered a small circle of friends/disciples and founded the Rosicrucian Order (this can be deduced to have occurred around 1407).

During the lifetime of C.R.C., the order was said to comprise no more than eight members, each a doctor and "all bachelors of vowed virginity." Each member undertook an oath to heal the sick without accepting payment, to maintain a secret fellowship, and to find a replacement for himself before he died. Three such generations had supposedly passed between c. 1500 and c. 1600: a time when scientific, philosophical, and religious freedom had grown so that the public might benefit from the Rosicrucians' knowledge, so that they were now seeking good men.

Reception
The manifestos were, and continue to be, not taken literally by many but rather regarded either as hoaxes or as allegorical statements. They state: "We speak unto you by parables, but would willingly bring you to the right, simple, easy, and ingenuous exposition, understanding, declaration, and knowledge of all secrets."

The first Rosicrucian manifesto was influenced by the work of the respected hermetic philosopher Heinrich Khunrath, of Hamburg, author of the Amphitheatrum Sapientiae Aeternae (1609), who was in turn influenced by John Dee, author of the Monas Hieroglyphica (1564). The invitation to the royal wedding in the Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz opens with Dee's philosophical key, the Monas Hieroglyphica symbol. The writer also claimed the brotherhood possessed a book that resembled the works of Paracelsus. Adam Haslmayr a friend of Karl Widemann wrote him a letter about Rosicrucian people who revealed the Theophrastiam 24 December 1611.

In his autobiography, Johann Valentin Andreae (1586–1654) claimed that the anonymously published Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosenkreutz was one of his works, and he subsequently described it as a ludibrium. In his later works, he makes alchemy an object of ridicule and places it along with music, art, theater, and astrology in the category of less serious sciences. According to some sources, his role in the origin of the Rosicrucian legend is controversial. But according to others, it was generally accepted.

Rosicrucian Enlightenment

In the early 17th century, the manifestos caused excitement throughout Europe by declaring the existence of a secret brotherhood of alchemists and sages who were preparing to transform the arts and sciences, and religious, political, and intellectual landscapes of Europe. Wars of politics and religion ravaged the continent. The works were re-issued several times, followed by numerous pamphlets, favorable or otherwise. Between 1614 and 1620, about 400 manuscripts and books were published which discussed the Rosicrucian documents.

The peak of the "Rosicrucianism furore" was reached when two mysterious posters appeared on the walls of Paris in 1622 within a few days of each other. The first said "We, the Deputies of the Higher College of the Rose-Croix, do make our stay, visibly and invisibly, in this city (...)", and the second ended with the words "The thoughts attached to the real desire of the seeker will lead us to him and him to us."

The legendary first manifesto, Fama Fraternitatis Rosae Crucis (1614), inspired the works of Michael Maier (1568–1622) of Germany; Robert Fludd (1574–1637) and Elias Ashmole (1617–1692) of England; Teophilus Schweighardt Constantiens, Gotthardus Arthusius, Julius Sperber, Henricus Madathanus, Gabriel Naudé, Thomas Vaughan and others. Rosicrucianism was associated with Protestantism (Lutheranism in particular).

In Elias Ashmole's Theatrum Chimicum britannicum (1650) he defends the Rosicrucians. Some later works impacting Rosicrucianism were the Opus magocabalisticum et theosophicum by George von Welling (1719) – of alchemical and paracelsian inspiration – and the Aureum Vellus oder Goldenes Vliess by Hermann Fictuld in 1749.

Michael Maier was appointed Pfalzgraf (Count Palatine) by Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor, King of Hungary and King of Bohemia. He also was one of the most prominent defenders of the Rosicrucians, clearly transmitting details about the "Brothers of the Rose Cross" in his writings. Maier made the firm statement that the Brothers of R.C. existed to advance inspired arts and sciences, including alchemy. Researchers of Maier's writings point out that he never claimed to have produced gold, nor did Heinrich Khunrath or any of the other "Rosicrucianists". Their writings point toward a symbolic and spiritual alchemy, rather than an operative one. In a combination of direct and veiled styles, these writings conveyed the nine stages of the involutive-evolutive transmutation of the threefold body of the human being, the threefold soul and the threefold spirit, among other esoteric knowledge related to the "Path of Initiation".

In his 1618 pamphlet, Pia et Utilissima Admonitio de Fratribus Rosae Crucis, Henrichus Neuhusius wrote that the Rosicrucians departed for the east due to European instability caused by the start of the Thirty Years' War. In 1710, Sigmund Richter, founder of the secret society of the Golden and Rosy Cross, also suggested the Rosicrucians had migrated eastward. In the first half of the 20th century, René Guénon, a researcher of the occult, presented this same idea in some of his works. Arthur Edward Waite, an eminent author of the 19th century, presented arguments contradicting this idea. It was in this fertile field of discourse that many Rosicrucian societies arose. They were based on the occult, inspired by the mystery of this "College of Invisibles".

Some modern scholars, for example Adam McLean and Giordano Berti, assume that among the first followers of the Rose Cross there was also the German theologian Daniel Cramer, who in 1617 published a bizarre treatise entitled "Societas Jesus et Rosae Crucis Vera" (The True Society of Jesus and the Rosy Cross), containing 40 emblematic figures accompanied by biblical quotations.

The literary works of the 16th and 17th centuries were full of enigmatic passages containing references to the Rose Cross, as in the following (somewhat modernized):

"For what we do presage is not in grosse, For we are brethren of the Rosie Crosse; We have the Mason Word and second sight, Things for to come we can foretell aright."

The idea of such an order, exemplified by the network of astronomers, professors, mathematicians, and natural philosophers in 16th-century Europe promoted by such men as Johannes Kepler, Georg Joachim Rheticus, John Dee and Tycho Brahe, gave rise to the Invisible College. This was the precursor to the Royal Society founded in 1660. It was constituted by a group of scientists who began to hold regular meetings to share and develop knowledge acquired by experimental investigation. Among these were Robert Boyle, who wrote: "the cornerstones of the Invisible (or as they term themselves the Philosophical) College, do now and then honour me with their company..."; John Wilkins and John Wallis, who described those meetings in the following terms: "About the year 1645, while I lived in London (at a time when, by our civil wars, academical studies were much interrupted in both our Universities), ... I had the opportunity of being acquainted with divers worthy persons, inquisitive of natural philosophy, and other parts of human learning; and particularly of what hath been called the New Philosophy or Experimental Philosophy. We did by agreements, divers of us, meet weekly in London on a certain day and hour, under a certain penalty, and a weekly contribution for the charge of experiments, with certain rules agreed amongst us, to treat and discourse of such affairs..."

Rose-Cross Degrees in Freemasonry

According to Jean Pierre Bayard, two Rosicrucian-inspired Masonic rites emerged toward the end of 18th century, the Rectified Scottish Rite, widespread in Central Europe where there was a strong presence of the "Golden and Rosy Cross", and the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, first practiced in France, in which the 18th degree is called Knight of the Rose Croix.

The change from "operative" to "speculative" Masonry occurred between the end of the 16th and the beginning of the 18th century. Two of the earliest speculative Masons for whom a record of initiation exists were Sir Robert Moray and Elias Ashmole. Robert Vanloo states that earlier 17th century Rosicrucianism had a considerable influence on Anglo-Saxon Masonry. Hans Schick sees in the works of Comenius (1592–1670) the ideal of the newly born English Masonry before the foundation of the Grand Lodge in 1717. Comenius was in England during 1641.

The Gold und Rosenkreuzer (Golden and Rosy Cross) was founded by the alchemist Samuel Richter who in 1710 published Die warhhaffte und vollkommene Bereitung des Philosophischen Steins der Brüderschaft aus dem Orden des Gülden-und Rosen-Creutzes (The True and Complete Preparation of the Philosopher's Stone by the Brotherhood from the Order of the Golden and Rosy Cross) in Breslau under the pseudonym Sincerus Renatus in Prague in the early 18th century as a hierarchical secret society composed of internal circles, recognition signs and alchemy treatises. Under the leadership of Hermann Fictuld the group reformed itself extensively in 1767 and again in 1777 because of political pressure. Its members claimed that the leaders of the Rosicrucian Order had invented Freemasonry and only they knew the secret meaning of Masonic symbols. The Rosicrucian Order had been founded by Egyptian "Ormusse" or "Licht-Weise" who had emigrated to Scotland with the name "Builders from the East". In 1785 and 1788 the Golden and Rosy Cross group published the Geheime Figuren or "The Secret Symbols of the 16th and 17th century Rosicrucians".

Led by Johann Christoph von Wöllner and General Johann Rudolf von Bischoffwerder, the Masonic lodge (later: Grand Lodge) Zu den drei Weltkugeln (The Three Globes) was infiltrated and came under the influence of the Golden and Rosy Cross. Many Freemasons became Rosicrucianists and Rosicrucianism was established in many lodges. In 1782 at the Convent of Wilhelmsbad the Alte schottische Loge Friedrich zum goldenen Löwen (Old Scottish Lodge Friedrich at the Golden Lion) in Berlin strongly requested Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg and all other Freemasons to submit to the Golden and Rosy Cross, without success.

After 1782, this highly secretive society added Egyptian, Greek, and Druidic mysteries to its alchemy system. A comparative study of what is known about the Gold and Rosenkreuzer appears to reveal, on the one hand, that it has influenced the creation of some modern initiatory groups and, on the other hand, that the Nazis (see The Occult Roots of Nazism) may have been inspired by this German group.

According to the writings of the Masonic historian E.J. Marconis de Negre, who together with his father Gabriel M. Marconis is held to be the founder of the "Rite of Memphis-Misraim" of Freemasonry, based on earlier conjectures (1784) by a Rosicrucian scholar Baron de Westerode and also promulgated by the 18th century secret society called the "Golden and Rosy Cross", the Rosicrucian Order was created in the year 46 when an Alexandrian Gnostic sage named Ormus and his six followers were converted by one of Jesus' disciples, Mark. Their symbol was said to be a red cross surmounted by a rose, thus the designation of Rosy Cross. From this conversion, Rosicrucianism was supposedly born, by purifying Egyptian mysteries with the new higher teachings of early Christianity.

According to Maurice Magre (1877–1941) in his book Magicians, Seers, and Mystics, Rosenkreutz was the last descendant of the Germelshausen, a German family from the 13th century. Their castle stood in the Thuringian Forest on the border of Hesse, and they embraced Albigensian doctrines. The whole family was put to death by Landgrave Conrad of Thuringia, except for the youngest son, who was then five years old. He was carried away secretly by a monk, an Albigensian adept from Languedoc, and placed in a monastery under the influence of the Albigenses, where he was educated and met the four Brothers later to be associated with him in the founding of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood. Magre's account supposedly derives from oral tradition.

Around 1530, more than eighty years before the publication of the first manifesto, the association of cross and rose already existed in Portugal in the Convent of the Order of Christ, home of the Knights Templar, later renamed Order of Christ. Three bocetes were, and still are, on the abóboda (vault) of the initiation room. The rose can clearly be seen at the center of the cross. At the same time, a minor writing by Paracelsus called Prognosticatio Eximii Doctoris Paracelsi (1530), containing 32 prophecies with allegorical pictures surrounded by enigmatic texts, makes reference to an image of a double cross over an open rose; this is one of the examples used to prove the "Fraternity of the Rose Cross" existed far earlier than 1614.

Modern groups
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, various groups styled themselves Rosicrucian. The diverse groups who link themselves to a "Rosicrucian Tradition" can be divided into three categories: Esoteric Christian Rosicrucian groups, which profess Christ; Masonic Rosicrucian groups such as SRIA, Societas Rosicruciana; and initiatory groups such as the Golden Dawn and the Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis (AMORC).

Esoteric Christian Rosicrucian schools provide esoteric knowledge related to the inner teachings of Christianity.

The Rosicrucian Fellowship, 1909 at Mount Ecclesia (groundbreaking for first building: 1911). Teachings present the 'mysteries', in the form of esoteric knowledge, of which Christ spoke in Matthew 13:11 and Luke 8:10. The Fellowship seeks to prepare the individual through harmonious development of mind and heart in a spirit of unselfish service to mankind and an all-embracing altruism. According to it the Rosicrucian Order was founded in 1313 and is composed of twelve exalted Beings gathered around a thirteenth, Christian Rosenkreuz. These great adepts have already advanced far beyond the cycle of rebirth. Their mission is to prepare the 'whole wide world' for a new phase in religion, which includes awareness of the inner worlds and the subtle bodies, and to provide safe guidance in the gradual awakening of man's latent spiritual faculties during the next six centuries toward the coming Age of Aquarius.

Several Russians of a mystical mind took advantage of the Edict of Toleration of religion in 1905 to form or resurrect what they considered the ancient forms of esoteric Orders. These were the new Rosicrucians. Their inspired mentors compiled volumes of mystic philosophy which they combined with their personal notions of what the ancient Orders were, and so formed groups. The three principal neo-Rosicrucian Orders of early Soviet Russia were Emesh Redivivus, the Orionist-Manicheans, and the Lux Astralis. Due to suppression by the Soviets they had disbanded by 1933.

According to Masonic writers, the Order of the Rose Cross is expounded in a major Christian literary work that molded the subsequent spiritual beliefs of western civilization: The Divine Comedy (ca. 1308–1321) by Dante Alighieri.

Other Christian-oriented Rosicrucian bodies include:
 * Lectorium Rosicrucianum, 1924
 * Archeosophical Society, 1968

Freemasonic Rosicrucian bodies providing preparation either through direct study and/or through the practice of a symbolic initiatory journey.
 * Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, 1801
 * Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia, 1866
 * Societas Rosicruciana in Canadiensis, 1876

Initiatory groups which follow a degree system of study and initiation include:
 * The Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis (AMORC), incorporated in the U.S. in 1915

Related groups
Many of these groups generally speak of a linear descent from earlier branches of the ancient Rosicrucian Order in England, France, Egypt, or other countries. However, some groups speak of a spiritual affiliation with a true and invisible Rosicrucian Order. Note that there are other Rosicrucian groups not listed here. Some do not use the name "Rosicrucian" to name themselves. Some groups listed have been dissolved or are no longer operating.

title: Rosicrucianism


text:
Talk:Censorship under fascist regimes

Serious expansion, or recommend for AfD
This article needs to be expanded considerably. Going just by the article's title, "regimes" implies more than one. As it stands, the article should be called "Censorship in Fascist Italy." I recommend an overhaul or otherwise a fresh start. --Impaciente 09:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The text on Italian censorship is evidently only a merely essential description of some of the aspects in which it was operated. Many themes could be developed, and other ones added. But the article should perhaps find those eventual common elements of censorship in recalled regimes, and this I think could come with greater advantage from a comparison, if someone can add something about Germany, Spain and any other eventual regimes. The use that in english is made of the word "fascism" is more general than the italian sense, and refers to any "similar" dictatorship. In this sense, I wonder if this article could be unified with the one requested for censorship in communist regimes.

The potential content could be infinitive (and the potential interest even wider), so maybe a consensus could be achieved on how to complete the article, and in which directions eventually better point our focus. This would also allow us to render it organically. Any suggestion appreciated.

About NPOV, that will certainly be the most delicate rule to follow, I would note that about dictatorships we should not stop at the easy partition: "dictator said this - oppositors said that", usually being both sides non neutral by definition. But a specific consensus on the point would be helpful, as well. --Gianfranco

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

title: Talk:Censorship under fascist regimes


text:
Talk:Directed set

Why not use ≤ for the partial order? -- Miguel

Well, I want to make the real numbers into a directed set by directing them towards a number x0, and then the notation ≤ would clash with the ordinary order of the reals. Ideally, we would have a separate symbol, such as a round less-that symbol, or a less-than symbol with a tilde underneath. AxelBoldt

I extended the page to include the notion of a directed subset, that appears quite frequently in order theory. I leaft the rest as it was. In a first change I made an error that is now corrected. -- Markus (no login)

I added the condition that a directed set should be nonempty. This is often forgotten, but should be there: many of the convenient properties of directed sets are false without it. For instance, take the statement that in a compact space, every net (= map from a directed set) has a convergent subnet. This is only true if you insist that a directed set must be nonempty. Another reason to build nonemptiness into the definition is that it makes the following true: a directed set is a preordered set A in which every finite subset has an upper bound. (This is perhaps the best definition of directed set.) By induction, this is equivalent to saying that every subset of cardinality 0 or 2 has an upper bound. The "cardinality 0" part says that A contains an element, i.e. is nonempty. The "cardinality 2" part says that for all a, b, there exists c bigger than both a and b. -- Tom (no login)

preorder and base of filters
As you allude to "(partial) orders", you could mention that a refexive and transitive relation is called a preorder.

For the type of preorder occuring here, I knew the terminology of "right filtering preorder".

Concerning limits, I knew them rather defined in terms of bases of filters instead of directed sets. Note that given a directed set A, you have canonically associated a base of filters (the set of all elements "bigger than" x, where x runs through A ; for a left filtering relation these are just the "balls of radius x"), but the converse is not true. MFH 23:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

right filtering
The definition at the top says that a directed set is a "right filtering preorder". If "right filtering" is a general term, there should be a link to a definition. I'm not sure where to look for one. Also, right at the top is a description of how, starting with a and b with a ≤ b, you can create a sequence with a ≤ b ≤ c ≤ d …. Since c, d, … can all be equal to b, this statement holds for any preorder, and doesn't seem the least bit interesting. I'm removing it. Dfeuer 18:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Directed set


text:
Chrysoberyl

The mineral or gemstone chrysoberyl is an aluminate of beryllium with the formula BeAl2O4. The name chrysoberyl is derived from the Greek words χρυσός chrysos and βήρυλλος beryllos, meaning "a gold-white spar". Despite the similarity of their names, chrysoberyl and beryl are two completely different gemstones, although they both contain beryllium. Chrysoberyl is the third-hardest frequently encountered natural gemstone and lies at 8.5 on the Mohs scale of mineral hardness, between corundum (9) and topaz (8).

An interesting feature of its crystals are the cyclic twins called trillings. These twinned crystals have a hexagonal appearance, but are the result of a triplet of twins with each "twin" oriented at 120° to its neighbors and taking up 120° of the cyclic trilling. If only two of the three possible twin orientations are present, a V-shaped twin results.

Ordinary chrysoberyl is yellowish-green and transparent to translucent. When the mineral exhibits good pale green to yellow color and is transparent, then it is used as a gemstone. The three main varieties of chrysoberyl are: ordinary yellow-to-green chrysoberyl, cat's eye or cymophane, and alexandrite. Yellow-green chrysoberyl was referred to as "chrysolite" during the Victorian and Edwardian eras, which caused confusion since that name has also been used for the mineral olivine ("peridot" as a gemstone); that name is no longer used in the gemological nomenclature.

Alexandrite, a strongly pleochroic (trichroic) gem, will exhibit emerald green, red and orange-yellow colors depending on viewing direction in partially polarised light. However, its most distinctive property is that it also changes color in artificial (tungsten/halogen) light compared to daylight. The color change from red to green is due to strong absorption of light in a narrow yellow portion of the spectrum, while allowing large bands of more blue-green and red wavelengths to be transmitted. Which of these prevails to give the perceived hue depends on the spectral balance of the illumination. Fine-quality alexandrite has a green to bluish-green color in daylight (relatively blue illumination of high color temperature), changing to a red to purplish-red color in incandescent light (relatively yellow illumination). However, fine-color material is extremely rare. Less-desirable stones may have daylight colors of yellowish-green and incandescent colors of brownish red.

Cymophane is popularly known as "cat's eye". This variety exhibits pleasing chatoyancy or opalescence that reminds one of the eye of a cat. When cut to produce a cabochon, the mineral forms a light-green specimen with a silky band of light extending across the surface of the stone.

Occurrence
Chrysoberyl forms as a result of pegmatitic processes. Melting in the Earth's crust produces relatively low-density molten magma which can rise upwards towards the surface. As the main magma body cools, water originally present in low concentrations became more concentrated in the molten rock because it could not be incorporated into the crystallization of solid minerals. The remnant magma thus becomes richer in water, and also in rare elements that similarly do not fit in the crystal structures of major rock-forming minerals. The water extends the temperature range downwards before the magma becomes completely solid, allowing concentration of rare elements to proceed so far that they produce their own distinctive minerals. The resulting rock is igneous in appearance but formed at a low temperature from a water-rich melt, with large crystals of the common minerals such as quartz and feldspar, but also with elevated concentrations of rare elements such as beryllium, lithium, or niobium, often forming their own minerals; this is called a pegmatite. The high water content of the magma made it possible for the crystals to grow quickly, so pegmatite crystals are often quite large, which increases the likelihood of gem specimens forming.

Chrysoberyl can also grow in the country rocks near to pegmatites, when Be- and Al-rich fluids from the pegmatite react with surrounding minerals. Hence, it can be found in mica schists and in contact with metamorphic deposits of dolomitic marble. Because it is a hard, dense mineral that is resistant to chemical alteration, it can be weathered out of rocks and deposited in river sands and gravels in alluvial deposits with other gem minerals such as diamond, corundum, topaz, spinel, garnet, and tourmaline. When found in such placers, it will have rounded edges instead of sharp, wedge-shape forms. Much of the chrysoberyl mined in Brazil and Sri Lanka is recovered from placers, as the host rocks have been intensely weathered and eroded.

If the pegmatite fluid is rich in beryllium, crystals of beryl or chrysoberyl could form. Beryl has a high ratio of beryllium to aluminium, while the opposite is true for chrysoberyl. Both are stable with the common mineral quartz. For alexandrite to form, some chromium would also have had to be present. However, beryllium and chromium do not tend to occur in the same types of rock. Chromium is most common in mafic and ultramafic rocks in which beryllium is extremely rare. Beryllium becomes concentrated in felsic pegmatites in which chromium is almost absent. Therefore, the only situation where an alexandrite can grow is when Be-rich pegmatitic fluids react with Cr-rich country rock. This unusual requirement explains the rarity of this chrysoberyl variety.

Alexandrite
The alexandrite variety displays a color change dependent upon the nature of ambient lighting. Alexandrite results from small scale replacement of aluminium by chromium ions in the crystal structure, which causes intense absorption of light over a narrow range of wavelengths in the yellow region (520–620 nm) of the visible light spectrum. Because human vision is most sensitive to green light and least sensitive to red light, alexandrite appears greenish in daylight where the full spectrum of visible light is present, and reddish in incandescent light which emits less green and blue light. This color change is independent of any change of hue with viewing direction through the crystal that would arise from pleochroism.

Alexandrite from the Ural Mountains in Russia can be green by daylight and red by incandescent light. Other varieties of alexandrite may be yellowish or pink in daylight and a columbine or raspberry red by incandescent light.

Stones that show a dramatic color change and strong colors (e.g., red-to-green) are rare and sought-after, but stones that show less distinct colors (e.g. yellowish green changing to brownish yellow) may also be considered "alexandrite" by gem labs such as the Gemological Institute of America.

According to a popular but controversial story, alexandrite was discovered by the Finnish mineralogist Nils Gustaf Nordenskiöld (1792–1866), and named alexandrite in honor of the future Emperor of All Russia Alexander II Romanov. Nordenskiöld's initial discovery occurred as a result of an examination of a newly found mineral sample he had received from Perovskii, which he identified as emerald at first. The first emerald mine had been opened in 1831. However, recent research suggests that the stone was discovered by Yakov Kokovin.

Alexandrite 5 carat and larger were traditionally thought to be found only in the Ural Mountains, but have since been found in larger sizes in Brazil. Other deposits are located in India (Andhra Pradesh), Madagascar, Tanzania and Sri Lanka. Alexandrite in sizes over three carats are very rare. Today, several labs can produce synthetic lab-grown stones with the same chemical and physical properties as natural alexandrite. Several methods can produce flux-grown alexandrite, Czochralski (or pulled) alexandrite, and hydrothermally-produced alexandrite. Flux-grown gems are fairly difficult to distinguish from natural alexandrite as they contain inclusions that seem natural. Czochralski or pulled alexandrite is easier to identify because it is very clean and contains curved striations visible under magnification. Although the color change in pulled stones can be from blue to red, the color change does not truly resemble that of natural alexandrite from any deposit. Hydrothermal lab-grown alexandrite has identical physical and chemical properties to real alexandrite.

Some gemstones falsely described as lab-grown synthetic alexandrite are actually corundum laced with trace elements (e.g., vanadium) or color-change spinel and are not actually chrysoberyl. As a result, they would be more accurately described as simulated alexandrite rather than "synthetic". This alexandrite-like sapphire material has been around for almost 100 years and shows a characteristic purple-mauve colour change, which does not really look like alexandrite because there is never any green.

History Of Alexandrite Gemstones
Named after Czar Alexander II, who is noted for emancipating Russia’s serfs, alexandrite had largely been depleted in Russia by the 1890s due to extensive mining. A global rediscovery sparked renewed interest in this remarkable gem, often referred to as a “second-chance stone.”

The color of alexandrite can vary by origin and sometimes helps identify imitations. Generally, the highest quality stones, predominantly green, are found in Africa. Indian alexandrite typically exhibits blue or grassy-green hues in daylight, whereas Sri Lankan stones lean towards yellowish-green. Sri Lankan alexandrites are often larger but tend to have a weaker color change, displaying a softer purple at night.

Given the rarity of the true “alexandrite effect” today, choosing a stone often boils down to personal preference between its colors in different lights—whether one favors the “emerald by day” or “ruby by night” appearance. For instance, Madagascan alexandrite might appear more brownish than purplish in incandescent light. Ultimately, the beauty of alexandrite is subjective, emphasizing that its allure truly lies in the eye of the beholder.

Cymophane
Translucent yellowish chatoyant chrysoberyl is called cymophane or cat's eye. Cymophane has its derivation also from the Greek words meaning 'wave' and 'appearance', in reference to the haziness that visually distorts what would normally be viewed as a well defined surface of a cabochon. This effect may be combined with a cat eye effect. In this variety, microscopic tubelike cavities or needle-like inclusions of rutile occur in an orientation parallel to the c-axis, producing a chatoyant effect visible as a single ray of light passing across the crystal. This effect is best seen in gemstones cut in cabochon forms perpendicular to the c-axis. The color in yellow chrysoberyl is due to Fe3+ impurities.

Although other minerals such as tourmaline, scapolite, corundum, spinel and quartz can form "cat's eye" stones similar in appearance to cymophane, the jewelry industry designates these stones as "quartz cat's eyes", or "ruby cat's eyes" and only chrysoberyl can be referred to as "cat's eye" with no other designation.

Gems lacking the silky inclusions required to produce the cat's eye effect are usually faceted. An alexandrite cat's eye is a chrysoberyl cat's eye that changes color. "Milk and honey" is a term commonly used to describe the color of the best cat's eyes. The effect refers to the sharp milky ray of white light normally crossing the cabochon as a center line along its length and overlying the honey-colored background. The honey color is considered to be top-grade by many gemologists but the lemon yellow colors are also popular and attractive. Cat's eye material is found as a small percentage of the overall chrysoberyl production wherever chrysoberyl is found.

Cat's eye became significantly more popular by the end of the 19th century when the Duke of Connaught gave a ring with a cat's eye as an engagement token; this was sufficient to make the stone more popular and increase its value greatly. Until that time, cat's eye had predominantly been present in gem and mineral collections. The increased demand in turn created an intensified search for it in Sri Lanka.

title: Chrysoberyl


text:
Talk:1940

The Great Dictator
Removed:

 * Charlie Chaplin presents his movie The Great Dictator, a sad parody of Adolf Hitler and nazism.

C'mon, I'm sure it's a significant movie, but amongst the top few events of the year? Was it even the most significant movie of 1940? According to IMDB's ratings, The Philadelphia Story and His Girl Friday are more highly rated, and "The Letter" won the Oscar for that year (not that Oscars are much of a guide to a film's quality :) ). I think it's also safe to say that Charlie Chaplin wasn't alone in not much liking Hitler by 1940 either.  --Robert Merkel

Year page layout
I have put a general comment on year layout on my talk page, particularly on the way year by topic is dealt with. There are three different variants and I would like agreement to standardise. BozMo(talk)
 * [ See Talk:1950. -Wikid77 13:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)]

Year in topic paragraph
As per discussion at WikiProject_Years the year in topic paragraph is scheduled to be deleted as it largely duplicates the links in the top box, and is not consistent with other year. Any objections should be made on that page please --BozMo|talk 19:36, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Colin Tremain
I've removed this recent entry from the article:

" October 17 - LINE DANCING is born - COLIN TREMAIN enters the world! =="

A google search on Colin Tremain seems to show that there is actually a British Masters line dance competitor by that name. However, the entry is problematic - a) if 1940 is indeed the year of birth, this would belong under births, not events b) style of wording is not encyclopedic c) appropriateness of entry for this page at all is questionable.  This edit was the single contribution for an anon user so far as of the time I moved the entry. LiniShu 03:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * There is no article for Colin Tremain, so he doesn't belong on the article at all. Information yes (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction
Lascaux and 1940 contradict regarding the date the caves were discovered, they say 12 September, and 1 November respectively. - cohesion ★ talk 07:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

says 12 September. - cohesion ★ talk 07:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * a quick google search yeilds only sites that take their information from wikipedia claiming 1 November, while many others claim 12 September. I'll make the change. --Someones life 19:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Format
[ See Talk:1950. -Wikid77 13:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)]

Comics
I'm wondering if the release dates of Comics as i.e: "More Fun Comics #52 issues the first Spectre comic." should be in this list? This irrelevant information, especially when compared to what else happened in that year, especially as i.e. the release of Charlie Chaplins "The Great Dictator", was deemed not significant enough for this list! If there is no opposing voice, I will therefore delete all these entries in 2 days.noclador 08:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Best team?
The Chicago Bearsbest fucking team in america, in what will become the most one-sided victory in National Football League history, defeat the Washington Redskins 73-0 in the 1940 Super Bowl.

I don't know how much of that is NPOV. I can tell that "best fucking team in america" is POV, but "one-sided victory"?

I'm new to wikipedia, and this just caught my eye. I don't know exactly what to remove, and what to put there. Laser Dude 23:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It should not be included at all. Year articles are only for internationally notable events. Jim Michael (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by 67.173.140.234
I don't have time to go through them all right now but a quick glance at the recent edits by 67.173.140.234 look like nothing but vandlism. Names have been changes, nationalities altered, etc. I didn't check everything but I suspect all of it is just bollocks. Might want to check into this - Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.175.212.135 (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Actually the vandalism came from, which is a school IP. I have reverted it. Winston365 (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and I apologize to 67.173.140.234. As I said I did not have enough time earlier to check the vandalism thoroughly and was in a hurry. I did not want to forget as many changes had been made so I left this note. Again, sorry for my confusion as to the IP the vandalism came from. 209.175.212.135 (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

November 17th Con Ed Bomb
This entry needs a country and city identified - Wiki is read by the whole english-speaking world, so stop this US provincialism (the entry itself is rather dubious if "the Great Dictator" is not judged significant enough to be here) 154.5.60.205 (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:BruceLeecard.jpg
File:BruceLeecard.jpg is non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:BruceLeecard.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  08:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Neville chamberlain1921.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Neville chamberlain1921.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Linda Gray.jpg

1940 Palm Sunday and Saint Patrick's Day
"2391: Palm Sunday and Saint Patrick's Day will coincide for the first time since 1940"

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_millennium#24th_century Aiden3.14152654 (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 * This happens exactly when Easter is on March 24. So far, the only such years since 1583 were 1799 and 1940. In the 3rd millennium, this will occur in 2391, 2475, 2543, 2695, 2847, 2915, and 2999. GTrang (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:1940


text:
User:Gerald Squelart

Newbie here! I hope I can contribute...

My work so far: Hmmm, I'm not doing much, but hey, little+little=not so little!
 * User:Gerald Squelart :-)
 * Vangelis
 * Tetromino
 * Pyramid
 * The Alan Parsons Project

title: User:Gerald Squelart


text:
User:Gimbo

Student living in the London Borough of Harrow, United Kingdom.

welcome, gimbo --User:clasqm

title: User:Gimbo


text:
User:Greg Lindahl

A former contributor to Wikipedia, driven off by the deletionistas.

My homepage may be found at:

http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/

In 2011 I edited this page, and User:Susmuffin reverted it in 2019. Please don't do that again.

title: User:Greg Lindahl


text:
User talk:Hank Ramsey

Let's talk!

Introduction
Greetings. You have reached my User Talk page. This introductory section has some stuff that may be useful for you to know about me, and what I write here.

If this is your first visit, please be sure to read at least the first part of this introduction. (You're doing good so far.) The coherence of the prose will rapidly deteriorate, and you'll know when it's time to move on.

Very important: Please make edits only in the "Your Comments" section, or in a new section of your own creation, when appropriate. If you do create a new section, please try to give it a meaningful name, so we'll both be able to remember what the hell it was about, at least until next week. Please don't mess with the other sections, if you can possibly avoid it. That's my stuff. Not that I don't want your construction criticisms.

Also very important: Please excuse any intemperate language I may use here. I intend it only for humorous effect. Do not take offense, especially if you're not sure it's really directed at you. Maybe it isn't. Assume that as the default. Even if you're sure it is directed at you, please still don't take offense. I'm just trying to be funny. I really do respect everybody here, including you. I don't really think you're stupid, or venal, or any of those other things I may say or imply. Misguided, maybe. Not those other things. Besides, what I'm reacting to is your on-line persona, anyhow, not the real you. I'm sure in real life you're a wonderful person. Me, too. At least that's what everyone tells me. But enough false modesty. I do try carefully to avoid intemperate language elsewhere. Sometimes, I may slip up. If you're here because you think I've slandered you elsewhere, please forgive me. I'm sure I was just joking. Well, okay, maybe not. Sometimes I do lose my cool. If so, I apologize. But still feel free to add a complaint here if you think I've been unfair or impolite.

Eventually I may get around to adding a list here of people to whom the above statment does not apply. If you are on the list, then whatever I said, I meant every word of it. Jack. In fact, I was probably so angry at you I couldn't think of the insulting language I really wanted to use. So assume the worst. Think of the very worst thing you think I could have said about you, and consider it said. And that goes double. You idiot. And I could care less what you think, so don't post any complaints or comments here, cause I won't read 'em. Got that? You imbecile. But, again, please be sure it's really you on the list. Otherwise, the above statement still applies.

If you find any typos or spelling errors in any of my stuff, please be sure to let me know by leaving a message here. WAIT! STOP! DO NOT DO THIS! I AM ONLY JOKING! You knew that, right? I knew you did. I don't think you're stupid (see above). But remember, that one was easy. Other times it's gonna be harder for you to tell. I joke a lot. So it may sound like I'm being serious when really I'm not. In fact, the more serious I sound, the less serious I'm likely to be. Actually, I'm hardly ever serious. Life it too short for that, you know.

Warning: Most of the stuff on this page is really, really boring. You've probably noticed that already. But it's not just this introductory stuff, it's all the rest, too. To tell the truth, even I find most of it boring. I think at one time I actually thought everything I put here was really interesting, but now I just don't know. Plus, I used to think a lot of it was really funny. Now it just seems... sad. Pitiable. Even... pathetic. Yet you're still reading. Why do you suppose that is?

You may have noticed that my user name is actually my real name. It's not some really neat nickname that makes me seem mysterious or formidable. It's really lame, but too late to change. If you try to find me in real life by searching on this name, be warned that I have a lot of cousins with the very same name. Really. Please don't annoy them by mistake. Come to think of it, could be that this is not my real name at all. Suppose I just made it look like a real name. It's someone's real name, just not my real name. You'll never know, will you? So please don't try to look me up with this fake name and annoy some complete stranger. So maybe my real name actually makes me seem mysterious and formidable. Huh, that would be cool!

You may be wondering what any of this has to do with anything. I can't answer that. But I do know this: by reading this far you have learned something deeply troubling about me. And also about yourself. Exactly what, I'm not sure. But something. Something deep. Something troubling. Something deeply troubling. Perhaps we both just have way too mch time on our hands. That might be it.

Does any of this make sense? (Hey, it's late.) I need to stop this before you decide I'm crazy... (No, I need to stop this before I really DO go crazy.)

By the way, I've had trouble logging in lately, so I've been editing with an anonymous ip id. I'm not even sure if the ip is constant or not. I know, I need to fix this. But actually, I kind of like using an anonymous ip id. It makes me seem mysterious and formidable. Sort of like a secret agent, maybe. You know, "They've given you a numbah, and taken waaaay your name." Dum-dee-doo-dee-doo-dee, dum-dee-doo-dee-doo-dee, etc. Anyway, here's the Talk page for one of my ip ids: User_talk:63.224.35.238, if it's of any use to you. I can't imagine what that would be, but yah nevah know.

Old Stuff
Here is some really, really old stuff. I should probably just delete it.

Pretty good article on the Solar system. I'll check it with care :) AstroNomer

MtG: It's not only the missing 'US' but also the notion that the US is somehow more worth mentioning than other countries. I bet there are dozens of countries with MtG Championships. --Yooden

Re MtG: I don't know anything about whether there are national championships outside the U.S. I do know that the original author did mentioned the (presumed U.S.) national championship. I do not believe this was because the author thought the U.S. was "more worth metioning than other countires", but rather because the author was not well-informed about championships in other countries. If there are indeed national championships in other countries, they should be mentioned, either individually or collectively. Actually, it is quite possible that the original text may have been intended as a collective reference to national championships in many countries. It was your assumption that it was a reference to a U.S. championship which I followed in adding the clarification. - Hank Ramsey

 * I rarely hear a Merkin talking about 'Nation' and meaning something else. Maybe I am wrong in this case.
 * You don't have to be informed. If would have written it, I would not have mentioned only the Germna Championship. It just doesn't make sense in an international forum.

Actually, Americans use the term "nation" often in reference to other countries and to countries in general. When the term is used in reference to the U.S., either a definite article ("the nation") or a possessive pronoun ("our nation") is generally used.

Also, I think it is entirely appropriate for Wikipedia to include information that refers to specific countries or regions, including (but of course not limited to) the U.S.

The current solution seems to be just fine, thanks Gareth.

Edit War Veterans for Truth
I think editors not only have an obligation to be fair to other editors, they have an obligation to be fair to the subject. A wiki is a collaboration, not a competition. Of course everyone has a POV, but they don't have to inject it into the article. It takes effort to avoid that, but it can be done. I believe a group of editors can create a neutral article, even if they have strong opposing POVs. But even one uncooperative editor can effectively obstruct the process. The wiki paradigm just doesn't deal very well with this problem. And my impression is that the arbitration process doesn't help much. I suspect the only effective solution is to allow multiple versions of articles on controversial subjects. Not with the idea that they would be intended to present multiple POVs, but rather that they would be competing efforts to produce a single NPOV article. The readers could then judge which version meets their needs. Some would probably prefer an article heavily biased to their own POV. But editors wanting to create a NPOV article would have an opportunity to do so, and readers looking to find one would be the judges of their success. Eventually those with less success achieving NPOV would wither, I suspect. In the current scenario, there is only one article, which leads to a struggle for control. Not that the failure to achieve NPOV is necessarily deliberate, you understand. It's just that people (on all sides) ofter have diffculty seeing (much less overcoming) their biases.

What I'm really concerned about here are not edits so much as tactics, specifically reverts. Reverts are bad because successive reverts produce unproductive edit wars. Its much better to make corrective edits (as judiciously as possible) rather than reverts. There's at least a possibility that a process of successive corrective edits will converge. One of our current editors seems to make a practice of reverting all but trivial changes, not because of specific objections, but because of a general principle that the existing text is somehow a sacrosanct "consensus", and any changes (other than his own) must be pre-screened on the Talk page. This just doesn't seem reasonable to me.

I also do have problems with some of the objections being made. If you object to something contributed by an editor from another POV that you disagree with, it's generally more helpful to edit or add new material to balance it, rather than just doing a revert. Sometimes it will be possible to combine the two contributions into a balanced expression. In other cases, it is simply better to include both points. But just blocking contributors with other POVs by doing reverts is unproductive, and inevitably produces annoyance.

Your Comments
...go here. Or start a new section if appropriate.

SBVT Wars
I tried to help out with the SBVT article. They had huge POV problems. They really needed my help. They obviously didn't want it. It didn't take me long to conclude that trying to work with them was a TOTAL waste of my time. To be fair, it was a big waste of their time, too. But that didn't seem to be an issue for them.

Here's my farewell message on the SBVT Talk page (slightly edited for clarity), which pretty much sums it up:

 * Note: The following is not so much intended as a criticism of others, or a justifcation of my own actions, as an explanation of my perceptions and reactions. It describes how I honestly, if erroneously, viewed things at the time, and view the situation now. It explains where I'm coming from and why I'm going. It is not intended to give offense to anyone, and if it does, I apologize.

Wolfman et al., I'll try to be brief. I came to this wikipedia page thinking it might be a good place to centralize and organize the essential information about the SBVT controversy, on both sides. A wiki is a good medium for tracking current events (at least in theory) because it allows information from multiple sources to be assimilated quickly. I knew there might be issues with edit warfare, but I hoped for the best. Looking at the SBVT article, it was immediately obvious that the section on the allegations regarding Kerry's 1st Purple Heart needed work. It was completely inadequate, mainly because it did not sufficiently address the eyewitness testimony of William Schachte. This wasn't really a surprise. The existing write-up had probably been written before the Schachte interview had come out. It had appeared only a few days earlier, and had been largely buried by the mainstream media. I guessed the editors might be unaware of it. Anyway, there was clearly work to be done. I wrote up some stuff and put it in. It was immediately reverted. I was told that my edit was "too big" (even though I was just getting started), and should be moved to a sandbox for discussion. I did that. Then I was told it was too big for discussion and needed to be broken down into smaller chuncks. I did that. Finally there were objections to the factual content of my additions, as being "minor details" or "irrelevant" or "superfluous". There were also innumerable challenges to content that seemed argumentative to me, and clearly from an anti-SBVT POV. Since at this point I was only addressing what the SVBT was alleging, and making clear this was just their side of the story, I was a little surprised by all the resistance I was getting.

Around this time I tried a fairly small edit, and it was also reverted immediately. Now I was told that, since there was a "consensus" among the editors about the existing text, any significant edits needed pre-approval on the Talk page (although some other editors seemed to feel free to make their own edits without prior discussion). Meanwhile I tried to work through the objections. The resistance was fierce. Much of it seemed to me to have the effect, if not intent, of trying to exclude inconvenient facts. Even though I was basically just trying to report a summary of who Schachte was and what he had said, there seemed to be an extreme concern about excluding or rebutting facts that might remotely give any kind of credibility to the SBVT allegations. Understand that I have no problem with other editors making additions to adequately represent the other side. I would try to do it myself if they didn't, in order to achieve a balanced NPOV presentation. But it seemed to me that the resistance from the other editors was effectively preventing the SBVT allegations and evidence from being treated in any adequate way. Meanwhile, as I'm trying to slog through all the objections they're throwing up, I find the other editors off putting in this ridiculous speculation from Zaladonis about why Schachte might be mixed up about the dates. Somehow their edits seem to require no prior approval. And funny thing, they all seem to support the same POV.

From there it was all downhill. It became clear to me that the process was going nowhere. One of the editors had made it clear he intended to exercise a veto over any additions he didn't agree with. As I had seen him in action, I didn't doubt it. And I knew he wasn't going to agree to anything. I was clearly wasting my time. There was absolutely no point in continuing. Take a look at the section on the 1st Purple Heart issue. Totally inadequate, and obviously anti-SBVT POV. Too bad. Not surprising, given wiki vulnerability to edit warriors, but disappointing.

Early on there was this edit war over the NPOV tag. I wasn't involved, just an incredulous bystander. I couldn't believe what was going on. Eventually one side won (guess who). But keepng the tag out doesn't change the fact that the article lacks NPOV. And it's so obvious that the tag is hardly necessary. You're fooling no one but yourself.

I seem to be repeating myself. And obviously I have failed to be brief. Why am I wasting more time on this? Lord knows. But I feel compelled to add a discussion of this thing about my refusing to supply evidence. Here's how I remember it:

I had proposed an introductory paragraph for the 1st PH section. It briefly introduced the award and the thrice wounded reassignment that depended on it, followed by a summary of the allegations made by the SBVT. In response I got a bunch of objections from one editor. The 3 wound thing wasn't "relevant", etc. Then there were this series of questions challenging my summary of the allegations, leading to demands for evidence. At first I was confused, thinking he wanted proof of the allegations. I tried to explain that this was just a summary of what the allegations were. The evidence, on both sides, would be presented in later paragraphs. Eventually I realized that he was questioning whether these were actually the allegations.

This just floored me. I believed that I had given a simple, straight-forward summary of the SBVT allegations on this issue, which would be immediately recognized and accepted by anyone, on either side of the issue, who had even the most basic understanding of the controversy. I couldn't believe this editor lacked such understanding. I asked if he really believed I was misrepresenting the SBVT allegations. He said he didn't know one way or the other. Again, I found this unbelievable. Here is this guy, aggressively asserting editorial control over an article on a subject about which he is self-admittedly ignorant of the most basic facts. I still find this very hard to believe, although I'm finally starting to think it might be possible. At the time I thought it just couldn't be true. Still, I did in fact respond to the request for evidence. I said: Read O'Neill's book. I guess I could have given him a link to amazon.com. In fact, I was pretty sure I could easily have found him some on-line links, to excerpts from the book at the Washington Times, interviews with O'Neill, etc.

Yes, I could easily have found those links. But so could he! With Google I did not doubt that he could have found those links in less time than it took him to ask me for them. So my just reading his demand, let alone complying with it, was a waste of my time. I know I'm making an assumption here, but I'm pretty sure he could have found those links for himself at least as quickly as I could have found them for him. I was just not prepared to waste more of my time to do that. Granted, it wouldn't have been a lot of time. But, you know, it adds up. It had already added up a lot. And I was convinced that this was just one more obstacle that he would be creating in an unending stream. After this there would be another, and another, and another. I asked if anyone else doubted that I had accurately summarized the allegations. I thought if no one backed him up, he might back off. No such luck. So I abandoned attempting to make progress on the introduction, and moved on to the section about Schachte and his account, as already described. I thought that would be easy. We were dealing with simple facts, all documented in Schachte's MSNBC interview. How hard could it be to get agreement? Well, you know the rest.

So, finis. 63.224.35.238 04:30, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, Wolfman felt he had to respond:

I had a very simple reason for asking. SBVT has been intentionally vague. That's the essence of a smear. Throw loose, unspecific charges around with a hefty dose of innuendo. For example, look at the first ad. Out of the 15 statements made, only 2 could possibly be refuted. Because the others had no specific content: things like 'you couldn't count on John Kerry'. Well, this article is not going to play that game. Fine, let's report the allegations, but what are they exactly? Get it on record for this article. That way, I can gather evidence as to a specific allegation. How can we even talk about something like "a falsified report" until you tell me which report, filed where, and what it supposedly said. If you can't show me that, ok then. Let's still report the general charge, to which we can the report that it can't possibly be rebutted because no specific allegation was made. See for example how we handled Letson's lie allegation. We simply stated he did not say what the supposed lie is. Is that so hard? Is that too much to ask? Is that being obstructionist? Well then, I guess I'm just an obstructionist. Wolfman 06:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, I find it sad that you would rather spend an hour writing some detailed sob story about how oppressed you are than spend 5 minutes just documenting the wording you wanted to insert. I have looked back over this entire lengthy conversation, thinking that perhaps I had been out of line. But no, I stand by every comment I made and stance I took. Fare thee well anon ip.Wolfman 07:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

FOLLOWING REPLY IS A DRAFT IN PROGRESS:

Wolfman, I am not surprised that you "stand by every comment [you] made and stance [you] took". I have no doubt that you do. I don't expect anyone else to waste their time reviewing your behaviour, but I am confident that any reasonable person who did so would readily understand my frustration. You think I wrote "some detailed sob story about how oppressed [I am]". Again you've missed my point. My issue is not "oppression". My issue is the prevention of improvement of the wikipedia article. This is not about me. It's not about you. (Ok, maybe it is about you, partly.) But it's mainly about the quality of the article. This is supposed to be acolaboration, not a competition. You just don't seem to get that.

You claim that SBVT has been "intentionally vague", which is "the essence of a smear", referring to their first ad. That was a 30-second television spot. It referrred not only to the 1st Purple Heart incident but to many other SBVT allegations as well. It could not possibly have provided adequate detail in the little amout of time available. Which is why they also produced a full-length book to explain their charges in detail. They permitted their book to be widely excerpted, and gave numerous media interviews responding to any questions about their allegations. If you had made the slightest effort to educate yourself about the controversy you would not have objected to my summary of the allegations. Or perhaps you would have objected, but you could have done so with specifics that could be responded to.

Note
This account was used by a legitimate Wikipedia editor who contributed before February 2002, and was subsequently taken over by a sockpuppet of the North Carolina Vandal (see the creation log for this account). This was possible because the account was abandoned by its original owner after Wikipedia converted to phase II software (which became [[MediaWiki) in late January 2002. Since the only way for the original user with this name to gain access to this account is by developer intervention, this account should remain indefinitely blocked. I have chosen to preserve the user and user talk pages as they were before the North Carolina Vandal gained access to this account for historical reasons, with a note leading to this talk page section on the user page, and the categories to denote the status of the account. The previous contents of this talk page can be found here. [[User:Graham87|Graham]] 87 08:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Solitaire for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Solitaire is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Solitaire until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hank Ramsey


text:
User:Hardpack

E-mail pl@sdf.lonestar.org

title: User:Hardpack


text:
User talk:H.W. Clihor

Thanks for your offer, but my lack-of-contactability is somewhat deliberate. Too many things to do, not enough time; from past experience I'd rather work on fresh Wikipedia articles than use it on philosophical discussion.

If I may suggest, your questions would probably be more appropriate on the Talk subpage of the respective pages that interest you. Many of them have a link labeled as below:

Talk (this one points back here, but others lead to the right location)

Following this and raising your issues on the Talk page would be unobjectionable to anyone, I would think, not just compulsive editors like myself.

If the page hasn't got a /Talk link on it, you can add one easily by editing that page and inserting the following code at the bottom:

/Talk

Having done so and then saving, you will be presented with a link at the bottom of that page, followed by a question mark, the clicking of which will instigate the Talk for you to begin.

Oh, and welcome to Wikipedia. -- Paul Drye

 * I don't really have any specific advice. Try reading some other articles, and see how they look. When you get time, you also might want to glance through the Wikipedia's list of frequently asked questions

As always, thanks again. I will.

title: User talk:H.W. Clihor


text:
User:Ian~enwiki

Ian Gray

Edinburgh born resident of Seattle, WA, USA.

Yoga teacher, blues guitarist, Sanskrit scholar, who writes software for a living ('cos the other stuff doesn't pay).

I promise to improve the stuff on Yoga here. I have been adding biographies of blues artists.
 * And been doing a top notch job too ... User:GWO

title: User:Ian~enwiki


text:
Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats

Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats (1939) is a collection of whimsical light poems by T. S. Eliot about feline psychology and sociology, published by Faber and Faber. It serves as the basis for Andrew Lloyd Webber's 1981 musical Cats.

Eliot wrote the poems in the 1930s and included them, under his assumed name "Old Possum", in letters to his godchildren. Eliot tried to persuade the poet Ralph Hodgson to illustrate the poems but failed. They were collected and published in 1939, with cover illustrations by the author, and quickly re-published in 1940, illustrated in full by Nicolas Bentley. They have also been published in versions illustrated by Edward Gorey (1982), Axel Scheffler (2009) and Rebecca Ashdown (2014).

Contents
The contents of Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats, along with the names of the featured cats where appropriate, are:
 * "The Naming of Cats"
 * "The Old Gumbie Cat" (Jennyanydots)
 * "Growltiger's Last Stand"
 * "The Rum Tum Tugger"
 * "The Song of the Jellicles"
 * "Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer"
 * "Old Deuteronomy"
 * "(Of) The Awefull Battle of the Pekes and the Pollicles (Together with Some Account of the Participation of the Pugs and the Poms and the Intervention of the Great Rumpus Cat)"
 * "Mr. Mistoffelees"
 * "Macavity: The Mystery Cat"
 * "Gus: The Theatre Cat"
 * "Bustopher Jones: The Cat about Town"
 * "Skimbleshanks: The Railway Cat"
 * "The Ad-dressing of Cats"
 * "Cat Morgan Introduces Himself" (added in the 1952 edition)

Adaptations
In 1954, English composer Alan Rawsthorne set six of the poems in a work for speaker and orchestra entitled Practical Cats, which was recorded soon afterwards, with the actor Robert Donat as the speaker. At about the same time another English composer, Humphrey Searle, composed another narrated piece based on the poems, using flute, piccolo, cello and guitar. This work, Two Practical Cats, consists of settings of the poems about Macavity and Growltiger.

The best-known musical adaptation of the poems is Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical Cats, which was premiered in the West End of London in 1981 and on Broadway in 1982. It became the longest-running Broadway show in history until it was overtaken by another musical by Lloyd Webber, The Phantom of the Opera. As well as the characters found in the book, Cats introduces several additional characters from Eliot's unpublished drafts, most notably Grizabella. The musical was adapted into a direct-to-video film in 1998. A feature film adaptation of Cats was released on 20 December 2019. As of December, 2019, the feature film's production cost was $100 million but only grossed $38.3 million globally, yielding an approximate $70 million loss.

Cultural references
In the film Logan's Run, Logan and Jessica meet an old man in the ruins of the United States Senate Chamber during their search for Sanctuary. The Old Man has many cats and refers to the poem "The Naming of Cats", explaining that each cat has three names: one common, one fancy and one that only the cat knows. Later the Old Man refers to one cat in particular, "Gus", short for "Asparagus", and goes on to recite parts of "Macavity: the Mystery Cat".

The British rock band Mungo Jerry derived their name from the book's poem "Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer".

The Tombs, a bar and restaurant in Washington, D.C., is named after the fictional establishment mentioned in the poem "Bustopher Jones: The Cat About Town".

Comparable work
On 5 June 2009, The Times revealed that in 1937 Eliot had composed a 34-line poem entitled "Cows" for the children of Frank Morley, a friend who, like Eliot, was a director of the publishing company Faber and Faber. Morley's daughter, Susanna Smithson, uncovered the poem as part of the BBC Two programme Arena: T.S. Eliot, broadcast that night as part of the BBC Poetry Season.

General references

 * Larsen, Janet Karsten (1982) "Eliot's Cats Come Out Tonight", Christian Century. May 5, 1982, p. 534.
 * Larsen, Janet Karsten (1982) "Eliot's Cats Come Out Tonight", Christian Century. May 5, 1982, p. 534.

title: Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats


text:
User:SimonP

If you want to learn something more about me, there is an article on me at Simon Pulsifer.

title: User:SimonP