text:
Okinawan language

The Okinawan language (沖縄口, ウチナーグチ,, ) or Central Okinawan is a Northern Ryukyuan language spoken primarily in the southern half of the island of Okinawa, as well as in the surrounding islands of Kerama, Kumejima, Tonaki, Aguni and a number of smaller peripheral islands. Central Okinawan distinguishes itself from the speech of Northern Okinawa, which is classified independently as the Kunigami language. Both languages are listed by UNESCO as endangered.

Though Okinawan encompasses a number of local dialects, the Shuri–Naha variant is generally recognized as the de facto standard, as it had been used as the official language of the Ryukyu Kingdom since the reign of King Shō Shin (1477–1526). Moreover, as the former capital of Shuri was built around the royal palace, the language used by the royal court became the regional and literary standard, which thus flourished in songs and poems written during that era.

Today, most Okinawans speak Okinawan Japanese, although a number of people still speak the Okinawan language, most often the elderly. Within Japan, Okinawan is often not seen as a language unto itself but is referred to as the Okinawan dialect (沖縄方言) or more specifically the Central and Southern Okinawan dialects (沖縄中南部諸方言). Okinawan speakers are undergoing language shift as they switch to Japanese, since language use in Okinawa today is far from stable. Okinawans are assimilating and accenting standard Japanese due to the similarity of the two languages, the standardized and centralized education system, the media, business and social contact with mainlanders and previous attempts from Japan to suppress the native languages. Okinawan is still kept alive in popular music, tourist shows and in theaters featuring a local drama called, which depict local customs and manners.

Pre-Ryukyu Kingdom
Okinawan is a Japonic language, derived from Proto-Japonic and is therefore related to Japanese. The split between Old Japanese and the Ryukyuan languages has been estimated to have occurred as early as the 1st century AD to as late as the 12th century AD. Chinese and Japanese characters were first introduced by a Japanese missionary in 1265.

Pre-Satsuma
was a much more popular writing system than kanji; thus, Okinawan poems were commonly written solely in or with little kanji. Okinawan became the official language under King Shō Shin. The Omoro Sōshi, a compilation of ancient Ryukyuan poems, was written in an early form of Okinawan, known as Old Okinawan.

Post-Satsuma to annexation
After Ryukyu became a vassal of Satsuma Domain, kanji gained more prominence in poetry; however, official Ryukyuan documents were written in Classical Chinese. During this time, the language gradually evolved into Modern Okinawan.

In 1609, the Ryukyu Kingdom was colonized by the Satsuma Domain in the south of Japan. However, Satsuma did not fully invade the Ryukyu in fear of colliding with China, which had a stronger trading relationship with the Ryukyu at the time.

Japanese annexation to end of World War II
When Ryukyu was annexed by Japan in 1879, the majority of people on Okinawa Island spoke Okinawan. Within 10 years, the Japanese government began an assimilation policy of Japanization, where Ryukyuan languages were gradually suppressed. The education system was the heart of Japanization, where Okinawan children were taught Japanese and punished for speaking their native language, being told that their language was just a "dialect". By 1945, many Okinawans spoke Japanese, and many were bilingual. During the Battle of Okinawa, some Okinawans were killed by Japanese soldiers for speaking Okinawan.

Language shift to Japanese in Ryukyu/Okinawa began in 1879 when the Japanese government annexed Ryukyu and established Okinawa Prefecture. The prefectural office mainly consisted of people from Kagoshima Prefecture where the Satsuma Domain used to be. This caused the modernization of Okinawa as well as language shift to Japanese. As a result, Japanese became the standard language for administration, education, media, and literature.

In 1902, the National Language Research Council (国語調査委員会) began the linguistic unification of Japan to Standard Japanese. This caused the linguistic stigmatization of many local varieties in Japan including Okinawan. As the discrimination accelerated, Okinawans themselves started to abandon their languages and shifted to Standard Japanese.

American occupation
Under American administration, there was an attempt to revive and standardize Okinawan, but this proved difficult and was shelved in favor of Japanese. General Douglas MacArthur attempted to promote Okinawan languages and culture through education. Multiple English words were introduced.

Return to Japan to present day
After Okinawa's reversion to Japanese sovereignty, Japanese continued to be the dominant language used, and the majority of the youngest generations only speak Okinawan Japanese. There have been attempts to revive Okinawan by notable people such as Byron Fija and Seijin Noborikawa, but few native Okinawans know the language.

Outside of Japan

The Okinawan language is still spoken by communities of Okinawan immigrants in Brazil. The first immigrants from the island of Okinawa to Brazil landed in the Port of Santos in 1908 drawn by the hint of work and farmable land. Once in a new country and far from their homeland, they found themselves in a place where there was no prohibition of their language, allowing them to willingly speak, celebrate and preserve their speech and culture, up to the present day. Currently the Okinawan-Japanese centers and communities in the State of São Paulo are a world reference to this language helping it to stay alive.

Classification
Okinawan is sometimes grouped with Kunigami as the Okinawan languages; however, not all linguists accept this grouping, some claiming that Kunigami is a dialect of Okinawan. Okinawan is also grouped with Amami (or the Amami languages) as the Northern Ryukyuan languages.

Dialect of the Japanese language
Since the creation of Okinawa Prefecture, Okinawan has been labeled a dialect of Japanese as part of a policy of assimilation. Later, Japanese linguists, such as Tōjō Misao, who studied the Ryukyuan languages argued that they are indeed dialects. This is due to the misconception that Japan is a homogeneous state (one people, one language, one nation), and classifying the Ryukyuan languages as such would discredit this belief. The present-day official stance of the Japanese government remains that Okinawan is a dialect, and it is common within the Japanese population for it to be called 沖縄方言 or 沖縄弁, which means "Okinawa dialect (of Japanese)". The policy of assimilation, coupled with increased interaction between Japan and Okinawa through media and economics, has led to the development of Okinawan Japanese, which is a dialect of Japanese influenced by the Okinawan and Kunigami languages. Japanese and Okinawan only share 60% of the same vocabulary, despite both being Japonic languages.

Dialects of the Ryukyuan language
Okinawan linguist Seizen Nakasone states that the Ryukyuan languages are in fact groupings of similar dialects. As each community has its own distinct dialect, there is no "one language". Nakasone attributes this diversity to the isolation caused by immobility, citing the story of his mother who wanted to visit the town of Nago but never made the 25 km trip before she died of old age.

The contemporary dialects in Ryukyuan language are divided into three large groups: Amami-Okinawa dialects, Miyako-Yaeyama dialects, and the Yonaguni dialect. All of them are mutually unintelligible. Amami is located in the Kagoshima prefecture but it belongs to the Ryukyuan group linguistically. The Yonaguni dialect is very different in phonetics from the other groups but it comes closest to the Yaeyama dialect lexically.

Its own distinct language
Outside Japan, Okinawan is considered a separate language from Japanese. This was first proposed by Basil Hall Chamberlain, who compared the relationship between Okinawan and Japanese to that of the Romance languages. UNESCO has marked it as an endangered language.

Sociolinguistics
UNESCO listed six Okinawan language varieties as endangered languages in 2009. The endangerment of Okinawan is largely due to the shift to Standard Japanese. Throughout history, Okinawan languages have been treated as dialects of Standard Japanese. For instance, in the 20th century, many schools used "dialect tags" to punish the students who spoke in Okinawan. Consequently, many of the remaining speakers today are choosing not to transmit their languages to younger generations due to the stigmatization of the languages in the past.

There have been several revitalization efforts made to reverse this language shift. However, Okinawan is still poorly taught in formal institutions due to the lack of support from the Okinawan Education Council: education in Okinawa is conducted exclusively in Japanese, and children do not study Okinawan as their second language at school. As a result, at least two generations of Okinawans have grown up without any proficiency in their local languages both at home and school.

Vowels
The Okinawan language has five vowels, all of which may be long or short, though the short vowels and  are quite rare, as they occur only in a few native Okinawan words with heavy syllables with the pattern  or, such as  m e nsōrē "welcome" or  t o nfā. The close back vowels and  are truly rounded, rather than the compressed vowels of standard Japanese.

Consonants
The Okinawan language counts some 20 distinctive segments shown in the chart below, with major allophones presented in parentheses. The only consonant that can occur as a syllable coda is the archiphoneme. Many analyses treat it as an additional phoneme, the moraic nasal, though it never contrasts with or.

The consonant system of the Okinawan language is fairly similar to that of standard Japanese, but it does present a few differences on the phonemic and allophonic level. Namely, Okinawan retains the labialized consonants and  which were lost in Late Middle Japanese, possesses a glottal stop, features a voiceless bilabial fricative  distinct from the aspirate , and has two distinctive affricates which arose from a number of different sound processes. Additionally, Okinawan lacks the major allophones and  found in Japanese, having historically fronted the vowel  to  after the alveolars, consequently merging  tsu into  chi,  su into  shi, and both  dzu and  zu into  ji. It also lacks as a distinctive phoneme, having merged it into.

Bilabial and glottal fricatives
The bilabial fricative has sometimes been transcribed as the cluster, since, like Japanese,  allophonically labializes into  before the high vowel , and  does not occur before the rounded vowel. This suggests that an overlap between and  exists, and so the contrast in front of other vowels can be denoted through labialization. However, this analysis fails to take account of the fact that Okinawan has not fully undergone the diachronic change →  →  as in Japanese, and that the suggested clusterization and labialization into  is unmotivated. Consequently, the existence of must be regarded as independent of, even though the two overlap. Barring a few words that resulted from the former change, the aspirate also arose from the odd lenition of  and, as well as words loaned from other dialects. Before the glide and the high vowel, it is pronounced closer to , as in Japanese.

Palatalization
The plosive consonants and  historically palatalized and affricated into  before and occasionally following the glide  and the high vowel :  →  chiri "fog", and   →  chura- "beautiful". This change preceded vowel raising, so that instances where arose from  did not trigger palatalization:  →  kī "hair". Their voiced counterparts and  underwent the same effect, becoming  under such conditions:  →  nnaji "eel", and  →  nukujiri "saw"; but  →  kagin "seasoning".

Both and  may or may not also allophonically affricate before the mid vowel, though this pronunciation is increasingly rare. Similarly, the fricative consonant palatalizes into  before the glide  and the vowel, including when  historically derives from :  →  shikē "world". It may also palatalize before the vowel, especially so in the context of topicalization: dushi →  dusē or dushē "(topic) friend".

In general, sequences containing the palatal consonant are relatively rare and tend to exhibit depalatalization. For example, tends to merge with  ( myāku →  nāku "Miyako");  has merged into  and  ( →  rū ~  dū "dragon"); and  has mostly become  ( shui →  sui "Shuri").

Flapping and fortition
The voiced plosive and the flap  tend to merge, with the first becoming a flap in word-medial position, and the second sometimes becoming a plosive in word-initial position. For example, rū "dragon" may be strengthened into  dū, and  hashidu "door" conversely flaps into  hashiru. The two sounds do, however, still remain distinct in a number of words and verbal constructions.

Glottal stop
Okinawan also features a distinctive glottal stop that historically arose from a process of glottalization of word-initial vowels. Hence, all vowels in Okinawan are predictably glottalized at the beginning of words ( → ami "rain"), save for a few exceptions. High vowel loss or assimilation following this process created a contrast with glottalized approximants and nasal consonants. Compare →  wa "pig" to  wa "I", or  →  nni "rice plant" to  →  nni "chest".

Moraic nasal
The moraic nasal has been posited in most descriptions of Okinawan phonology. Like Japanese, (transcribed using the small capital ) occupies a full mora and its precise place of articulation will vary depending on the following consonant. Before other labial consonants, it will be pronounced closer to a syllabic bilabial nasal, as in  nma "horse". Before velar and labiovelar consonants, it will be pronounced as a syllabic velar nasal, as in  bingata, a method of dying clothes. And before alveolar and alveolo-palatal consonants, it becomes a syllabic alveolar nasal, as in  kanda "vine". In some varieties, it instead becomes a syllabic uvular nasal. Elsewhere, its exact realization remains unspecified, and it may vary depending on the first sound of the next word or morpheme. In isolation and at the end of utterances, it is realized as a velar nasal.

Orthography

The Okinawan language was historically written using an admixture of kanji and hiragana. The hiragana syllabary is believed to have first been introduced from mainland Japan to the Ryukyu Kingdom some time during the reign of king Shunten in the early thirteenth century. It is likely that Okinawans were already in contact with hanzi (Chinese characters) due to extensive trade between the Ryukyu Kingdom and China, Japan and Korea. However, hiragana gained more widespread acceptance throughout the Ryukyu Islands, and most documents and letters were exclusively transcribed using this script, in contrast to in Japan where writing solely in hiragana was considered "women's script". The Omoro Sōshi (おもろさうし), a sixteenth-century compilation of songs and poetry, and a few preserved writs of appointments dating from the same century were written solely in Hiragana. Kanji were gradually adopted due to the growing influence of mainland Japan and to the linguistic affinity between the Okinawan and Japanese languages. However, it was mainly limited to affairs of high importance and to documents sent towards the mainland. The oldest inscription of Okinawan exemplifying its use along with Hiragana can be found on a stone stele at the Tamaudun mausoleum, dating back to 1501.

After the invasion of Okinawa by the Shimazu clan of Satsuma in 1609, Okinawan ceased to be used in official affairs. It was replaced by standard Japanese writing and a form of Classical Chinese writing known as kanbun. Despite this change, Okinawan still continued to prosper in local literature up until the nineteenth century. Following the Meiji Restoration, the Japanese government abolished the domain system and formally annexed the Ryukyu Islands to Japan as the Okinawa Prefecture in 1879. To promote national unity, the government then introduced standard education and opened Japanese-language schools based on the Tokyo dialect. Students were discouraged and chastised for speaking or even writing in the local "dialect", notably through the use of "dialect cards" (方言札). As a result, Okinawan gradually ceased to be written entirely until the American takeover in 1945.

Since then, Japanese and American scholars have variously transcribed the regional language using a number of ad hoc romanization schemes or the katakana syllabary to demarcate its foreign nature with standard Japanese. Proponents of Okinawan tend to be more traditionalist and continue to write the language using hiragana with kanji. In any case, no standard or consensus concerning spelling issues has ever been formalized, so discrepancies between modern literary works are common.

Syllabary
Technically, they are not syllables, but rather morae. Each mora in Okinawan will consist of one or two kana characters. If two, then a smaller version of kana follows the normal sized kana. In each cell of the table below, the top row is the kana (hiragana to the left, katakana to the right of the dot), the middle row in rōmaji (Hepburn romanization), and the bottom row in IPA.

Grammar
Okinawan follows a subject–object–verb word order and makes large use of particles as in Japanese. Okinawan retains a number of Japonic grammatical features also found in Old Japanese but lost (or highly restricted) in Modern Japanese, such as a distinction between the terminal form (終止形) and the attributive form (連体形), the genitive function of が ga (lost in the Shuri dialect), the nominative function of ぬ nu (cf. Japanese: の no), as well as honorific/plain distribution of ga and nu in nominative use.

One etymology given for the -un and -uru endings is the continuative form suffixed with uri ("to be; to exist", cf. Classical Japanese: 居り wori): -un developed from the terminal form uri; -uru developed from the attributive form uru, i.e.:
 * kachuru derives from kachi-uru;
 * kachun derives from kachi-uri; and
 * yumun ("to read", cf. Japanese: 読む yomu) derives from yumi + uri.

A similar etymology is given for the terminal -san and attributive -saru endings for adjectives: the stem suffixed with さ sa (nominalises adjectives, i.e. high → height, hot → heat), suffixed with ari ("to be; to exist; to have", cf. Classical Japanese: 有り ari), i.e.:

 * takasan ("high; tall", cf. Japanese: 高い takai) derives from taka-sa-ari;
 * achisan ("hot; warm", cf. Japanese: 暑い atsui) derives from atsu-sa-ari; and
 * yutasaru ("good; pleasant", cf. Japanese: 豊かな yutakana "abundant; plentiful") derives from yuta-sa-aru.

Nouns (名詞)
Nouns are classified as independent, non-conjugating part of speech that can become a subject of a sentence

Pronouns (代名詞)
Pronouns are classified the same as nouns, except that pronouns are more broad.

Adverbs (副詞)
Adverbs are classified as an independent, non-conjugating part of speech that cannot become a subject of a sentence and modifies a declinable word (用言; verbs, adverbs, adjectives) that comes after the adverb. There are two main categories to adverbs and several subcategories within each category, as shown in the table below.

Verbs (動詞)
Verbs are classified as an independent, conjugating part of speech that shows movements. The conclusive form ends in ん (n).

Adjectives (形容詞)
Adjectives are classified as an independent, conjugating part of speech that shows property or state. The conclusive form ends in さん (san).

(存在動詞)
存在動詞 are classified as an independent, conjugating part of speech that shows existence or decision of a certain thing. やん (yan) attaches to a substantive.

Adjectival verbs (形容動詞)
Adjectival verbs are classified as an independent, conjugating part of speech that shows the state of existence of events. やん (yan) attaches to words that shows state.

Syntax
The basic word order is subject–object–verb.

Okinawan is a marked nominative language (with the accusative being unmarked) that also shows minor active–stative variation in intransitive verbs relating to existence or emergence. In existence or emergence verbs, the subject may be optionally unmarked (except for pronouns and proper names, which must be marked with ga), and marked human subjects cannot use ga anymore, but rather always with the often-inanimate marker nu.

In Kanji
人間ー誰ん生まりやぎーなー自由やい、また、胴大切に思ゆる肝とぅ胴守らんでぃる肝ー、誰やてぃんゆぬ如授かとーるむんやん. 人間ー元からいー矩ぬ備わとーくとぅ、互ーに兄弟やんでぃる考ーさーに事に当たらんだれーならん. (without ruby)

ーんまりやぎーなーやい、また、にゆるとぅらんでぃるー、やてぃんゆぬかとーるむんやん. ーからいーぬわとーくとぅ、ーにやんでぃるーさーににたらんだれーならん. (with ruby)

Transliteration
''Ninjinō tā n 'nmariyagīnā jiyu yai, mata, dū tēshichi ni umuyuru chimu tu dū mamurandiru chimō, tā yatin yunugutu sajakatōru mun yan. Ninjinō mūtu kara īka ni nu sunawatōkutu, tagē ni chōdēyandiru kangēsā ni kutu ni atarandarē naran.'' (UDHR Article 1)

title: Okinawan language


text:
Saul Lieberman

Saul Lieberman (שאול ליברמן, May 28, 1898 – March 23, 1983), also known as Rabbi Shaul Lieberman or, among some of his students, the Gra"sh (Gaon Rabbeinu Shaul), was a rabbi and a Talmudic scholar. He served as Professor of Talmud at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (JTSA) for over 40 years, and for many years was dean of the Harry Fischel Institute in Israel and also president of the American Academy for Jewish Research.

Early life
Born in Motal, near Pinsk, Russian Empire (now Belarus), he studied at the Orthodox yeshivot of Malch, Slobodka, and Novardok, where he was ordained at age 18. While studying at the Slobodka yeshiva, he befriended Rabbis Yitzchak Ruderman and Yitzchak Hutner, both of whom would become leaders of great Rabbinical seminaries in America.

In the 1920s he attended the Kyiv Gymnasium and University of Kyiv, and, following a short stay in Palestine, continued his studies in France. In 1928, he settled in Jerusalem. He studied Talmudic philology and Greek language and literature at the Hebrew University.

Career
After completing his master's degree at Hebrew University, he was appointed lecturer there in Talmud in 1931 or 1932. The position was terminated in 1937 due to poor enrollment. He also taught at the Mizrachi Teachers Seminary, and from 1935 was dean of the Harry Fischel Institute for Talmudic Research in Jerusalem.

In 1940, he was invited both by Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner to teach in the Orthodox Yeshiva Chaim Berlin, and by the Jewish Theological Seminary of America to serve as professor of Hellenism and Jewish literature. Lieberman chose the offer by JTS. Lieberman's decision was motivated by a desire to "train American Jews to make a commitment to study and observe the mitzvot." In Chaim Dalfin's Conversations with the Rebbe (LA: JEC, 1996), pp. 54–63, Prof. Haim Dimitrovski relates that when he was newly hired at JTSA, he asked Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson of Lubavitch whether he should remain in the Seminary, and the response was "as long as Lieberman is there." In 1949, he was appointed dean, and in 1958 rector, of the Seminary's rabbinical school.

Lieberman died on March 23, 1983, while flying to Jerusalem for Passover.

Work
In 1929, Lieberman published Al ha-Yerushalmi, in which he suggested ways of emending corruptions in the text of the Jerusalem Talmud and offered variant readings to the text of the tractate of Sotah. This was followed by: a series of text studies of the Jerusalem Talmud, which appeared in Tarbiz; by Talmudah shel Keisaryah (1931), in which he expressed the view that the first three tractates of the order Nezikin in the Jerusalem Talmud had been compiled in Caesarea about the middle of the fourth century C.E.; and by Ha-Yerushalmi ki-Feshuto (1934), a commentary on the treatises Shabbat, Eruvin, and Pesahim of the Jerusalem Talmud (this was the first volume of a series that was never finished). His preoccupation with the Jerusalem Talmud impressed him with the necessity of clarifying the text of the tannaitic sources (rabbis of the first two centuries of the common era), especially that of the Tosefta, on which no commentaries had been composed by the earlier authorities (Rishonim), and to whose elucidation few scholars had devoted themselves in later generations.

He published the four-volume Tosefeth Rishonim, a commentary on the entire Tosefta with textual corrections based on manuscripts, early printings, and quotations found in early authorities. He also published Tashlum Tosefta, an introductory chapter to the second edition of M. S. Zuckermandel's Tosefta edition (1937), dealing with quotations from the Tosefta by early authorities that are not found in the text.

Years later, Lieberman returned to the systematic elucidation of the Tosefta. He undertook the publication of the Tosefta text, based on manuscripts and accompanied by brief explanatory notes, and of an extensive commentary called Tosefta ki-Fshuṭah. The latter combined philological research and historical observations with a discussion of the entire talmudic and rabbinic literature in which the relevant Tosefta text is either commented upon or quoted. Between 1955 and 1973, ten volumes of the new edition were published, representing the text and the commentaries on the entire orders of Zera'im, Mo'ed and Nashim. Furthermore, in 1988, three volumes were published posthumously on the order of Nezikin, including tractates Bava Kama, Bava Metzia, and Bava Basra. The entire set was republished in the 1990s in thirteen volumes, and again in 2001 in twelve volumes.

In Sifrei Zuta (1968), Lieberman advanced the view that this halakhic Midrash was in all likelihood finally edited by Bar Kappara in Lydda.

Other books of his were Sheki'in (1939), on Jewish legends, customs, and literary sources found in Karaite and Christian polemical writings, and Midreshei Teiman (1940), wherein he showed that the Yemenite Midrashim had preserved exegetical material which had been deliberately omitted by the rabbis. He edited a variant version of Midrash Debarim Rabbah (1940, 19652). In his view that version had been current among Sephardi Jewry, while the standard text had been that of Ashkenazi Jewry. In 1947 he published Hilkhot ha-Yerushalmi which he identified as a fragment of a work by Maimonides on the Jerusalem Talmud in a similar vein as the Rif is to the Babylonian Talmud. Lieberman also edited the hitherto unpublished Tosefta commentary Hasdei David by David Pardo on the order Tohorot; the first part of this work appeared in 1970.

His two English volumes, Greek in Jewish Palestine (1942) and Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (1950), which also appeared in a Hebrew translation, illustrate the influence of Hellenistic culture on Jewish Palestine in the first centuries C.E.

A number of his works have appeared in new and revised editions. Lieberman served as editor in chief of a new critical edition of Maimonides' Mishneh Torah (vol. 1, 1964), and as an editor of the Judaica series of Yale University, where he worked closely with Herbert Danby, the Anglican scholar of the Mishnah. He also edited several scholarly miscellanies. He contributed numerous studies to scholarly publications as well as notes to books of fellow scholars. In these he dwelt on various aspects of the world of ideas of the rabbis, shed light on events in the talmudic period, and elucidated scores of obscure words and expressions of talmudic and midrashic literature.

He also published a heretofore unknown Midrashic work that he painstakingly pieced together by deriving its text from an anti-Jewish polemic written by Raymond Martini, and various published lectures of Medieval Rabbis. Lieberman's work was published while he headed Machon Harry Fishel.

Jacob Neusner, a leading scholar of the history of rabbinic Judaism, criticized the bulk of Lieberman's work as idiosyncratic in that it lacked a valid methodology and was prone to other serious shortcomings (see Sources below). However, ten years earlier, in an article published shortly after his death, Lieberman strongly criticized Neusner's lack of scholarship in the latter's translation of three tractates of the Yerushalmi. Meir Bar-Ilan, Lieberman's nephew, accused Neusner of being biased against Lieberman due to "a personal issue."

Paradox in affiliation
Perhaps because he was so deeply involved in the Seminary, Lieberman was often accused (esp. post-mortem) of being on the very right wing of Conservative Judaism. Personally fully observant of Halacha, he would not pray in a synagogue which did not have separate seating for men and women. Lieberman insisted that all services at the Seminary's Stein Hall, where he prayed daily, have a mechitzah even though the great majority of Conservative synagogues did not. Additionally, Lieberman saw to it that the Seminary synagogue in which he prayed used an Orthodox prayer book, rather than siddurim produced by the Rabbinical Assembly.

Lieberman clause
The Lieberman clause is a clause included in a ketubah (Jewish wedding document), created by and named after Saul Lieberman, that stipulates that divorce will be adjudicated by a modern bet din (rabbinic court) in order to prevent the problem of the agunah, a woman not allowed to remarry religiously because she had never been granted a religious divorce. It was first introduced in the 1950s by rabbis in Judaism's Conservative movement.

Personal life
The Chazon Ish, Rabbi Avrohom Yeshaya Korelitz was a first cousin. Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky and Rabbi Joseph Soloveitschik were both his first cousins once removed.

Lieberman married Rachel Rabinowitz in 1922. She was the daughter of Rabbi Laizer Rabinowitz, the rabbi of Minsk, and granddaughter of Yerucham Yehuda Leib Perelmann. They moved to Mandatory Palestine in 1927, but she died three years later, in 1930.

Lieberman studied at Hebrew University and received a Masters degree in Talmudic studies and ancient Palestiniology.

He remarried in 1932, to Judith Berlin (August 14, 1904 – 1978), a daughter of Rabbi Meir Berlin (Bar-Ilan) – leader of the Mizrachi (Religious Zionism) movement; granddaughter of the Netziv; and niece of Rabbi Baruch Epstein. Judith Lieberman studied at Hunter College and then at Columbia University under Professor Moses Hadas and Professor Muzzey. From 1941, she served as Hebrew principal and then as dean of Hebrew studies of Orthodox Shulamith School for Girls in New York, the first Jewish day school for girls in North America. Among her publications were Robert Browning and Hebraism (1934), and an autobiographical chapter which was included in Thirteen Americans, Their Spiritual Autobiographies (1953), edited by Louis Finkelstein.

The Liebermans had no children.

Awards and honors

 * In 1957, Lieberman was awarded the Bialik Prize for Jewish thought.
 * In 1971, he was awarded the Israel Prize for Jewish Studies.
 * In 1976, he received the Harvey Prize of the Haifa Technion.

He was an honorary member of the Academy of the Hebrew Language, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a fellow of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

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

title: Saul Lieberman


text:
Mobile workstation

A mobile workstation, also known as a desktop replacement computer (DTR) or workstation laptop, is a personal computer that provides the full capabilities of a workstation-class desktop computer while remaining mobile. They are often larger, bulkier laptops or in some cases 2-in-1 PCs with a tablet-like form factor and interface. Because of their increased size, this class of computer usually includes more powerful components and a larger display than generally used in smaller portable computers and can have a relatively limited battery capacity (or none at all). Some use a limited range of desktop components (DToM) to provide better performance at the expense of battery life. These are sometimes called desknotes, a blend of "desktop" and "notebook", though the term is also applied to desktop replacement computers in general. Other names being monster notebooks or musclebooks in reference to muscle cars.

Origins
The forerunners of the mobile workstation were the portable computers of the early to mid-1980s, such as the Portal R2E CCMC, the Osborne 1, Kaypro II, the Compaq Portable and the Commodore Executive 64 (SX-64) computers. These computers contained the CPU, display, floppy disk drive and power supply all in a single briefcase-like enclosure. Similar in performance to the desktop computers of the era, they were easily transported and came with an attached keyboard that doubled as a protective cover when not in use. They could be used wherever space and an electrical outlet were available, as they had no battery.

The development of the laptop form factor gave new impetus to portable computer development. Many early laptops were feature-limited in the interest of portability, requiring such mobility-limiting accessories as external floppy drives or clip-on trackball pointing devices. One of the first laptops that could be used as a standalone computer was the EUROCOM 2100 based on Intel's 8088 CPU architecture, it duplicated the functionality of the desktop models without requiring an external docking station.

The development of the modern mobile workstation came with the realization that many laptops were used in a semi-permanent location, often remaining connected to an external power source at all times. This suggested that a market existed for a laptop-style computer that would take advantage of the user's reduced need for portability, allowing for higher-performance components, greater expandability, and higher-quality displays. Mobile workstations are also often used with a port replicator, to full enjoy the desktop comfort.

Design features
Modern mobile workstations generally perform better than traditional laptop-style computers as their size allows the inclusion of more powerful components. The larger body means more efficient heat-dissipation, allowing manufacturers to use components that would otherwise overheat during normal use. Furthermore, their increased size allows for more modularity, which allows for a greater expandability and features, as well as larger and brighter displays. However, these advantages generally come at a price premium, with many computers in this class costing as much as two desktop computers with similar specifications.

Using a laptop form factor, however, mobile workstations still often suffer from limitations similar to those of more mobile laptops. They usually lack the ability to accept standard PCIe expansion cards, somewhat limiting their expandability. While mobile workstations can offer better cooling than other laptops, they rarely dissipate heat efficiently enough to allow for high-end desktop-class components, and thus may not reach the same performance levels as desktop computers.

Mobile workstations computers are, with a few exceptions, difficult to upgrade compared to desktop computers, with many of their major components (such as the display) integral to the design of the machine, and others (such as the CPU and GPU) often being hard to access and replace. A small segment of mobile workstations do not include a battery as a standard feature, while some do not include ExpressCard support. They have the same limitations on serviceability as laptops, and can rarely use identical components to a desktop computer.

title: Mobile workstation


text:
Uppsala General Catalogue

The Uppsala General Catalogue of Galaxies (UGC) is a catalogue of 12,921 galaxies visible from the northern hemisphere. It was first published in 1973. The catalogue includes essentially all galaxies north of declination -02°30' and to a limiting diameter of 1.0 arcminute or to a limiting apparent magnitude of 14.5. The primary source of data is the blue prints of the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (POSS). It also includes galaxies smaller than 1.0 arcminute in diameter but brighter than 14.5 magnitude from the Catalogue of Galaxies and of Clusters of Galaxies (CGCG).

The catalogue contains descriptions of the galaxies and their surrounding areas, plus conventional system classifications and position angles for flattened galaxies. Galaxy diameters are included and the classifications and descriptions are given in such a way as to provide as accurate an account as possible of the appearance of the galaxies on the prints. The accuracy of coordinates is only what is necessary for identifications purposes. The catalogue was edited by Peter Nilson, at the time Doctor of Astronomy and a researcher at Uppsala, who had already published some essays about the history of his science; a couple of years later he left his career as a professional astronomer behind and became a full-time writer, novelist and essayist, although the relationship of humans to space and cosmology, and the history of science, would remain powerful themes in his later writing.

Addendum
There is an addendum to the catalogue called Uppsala General Catalogue Addendum which is abbreviated as UGCA.

title: Uppsala General Catalogue


text:
Talk:St John's College, Cambridge

Nobel Prizes?
The article originally said that ten Nobel prize winners attended John's.... I can only find information and references about eight (as is claimed by the John's College homepage). I've altered this until someone can prove the original figure correct.

--CharlesRCD

 * I can't actually find any mention on any pages in www.joh.cam.ac.uk - can you provide a link? That could then be a reference within the article in case anyone queried it. The Stumo (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure where you looked, but the first couple of pages which I found were College website - biographical archive history page and (less specifically) Admissions guide - Life at the College. I've added the first of these as a reference on the Wikipedia page.  David Biddulph (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have edited the page again, after discovering that Fred Sanger is the only Cambridge alumnus to have won two Nobel Prizes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieRCD (talk • contribs) 21:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone's put it back to ten... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.237.185 (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When? The most recent change which I can see in that area is Charlie's change from eight to nine prizes (still 8 winners) on 3rd Oct.  David Biddulph (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was reverted back almost instantly. By the time I returned to the page, it was back to nine, which is the correct number. User:CharlieRCD
 * When was the change? I don't see anything in the history, & I've been back through the previous edits back to when you changed it from Eight to Nine on 3rd Oct.  Did I miss something?  David Biddulph (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

St. vs St
In some ways this is very pernickety but its probably just worth discussing. St. John's College should technically be written as St John's College (i.e. without the full stop).

I think the grammar convention is that a word that is abbreviated but keeps its final letter, as in Saint -> St or Doctor -> Dr don't have a full stop but words which lose their final letter do, as in approximate -> approx. . Also 'St John's College' is actually the name of the college, it's at the top of the official webpage.

I was reading Isaac Newton/The first 15 years as Lucasian professor and St John's College is mentioned and is in red as the page doesn't exist. My question is, what's the best way to resolve this? Should I copy the contents of the St. John's entry to the St John's entry and then redirect the second to the first?

This also applies to the other Cambridge colleges named after saints, St Catharine's and St Edmund's.

(The above reads a little bit like I'm staking a claim to the above and that I must be the person who changes this. It's not supposed to read like that, if you think it should be changed its probably best to just change it rather than try and explain to me what I should do.)

Ams80 01:41 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * This is correct in Commonwealth English (but in case anyone argues, note that the rules are different in American English) Rnt20 19:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I am a student at John's and I feel I should point out that although tour guides often say the Bridge of Sighs is named after the famous bridge in Venice due to resemblance, they don't look alike at all. The only similarity is that they are both covered bridges. About a month ago I went to Venice and crossed the Bridge of Sighs and found there to be little or no resemblance. I don't claim to know the origin of the name of the Bridge of Sighs in John's, but I will try to find out. Owen, 21st Sept 2004

 * A member of the British royal family noted that the bridge looked like the Bridge of Sighs in Venice, and the name was then taken for the bridge in Cambridge Rnt20 19:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added Thomas Nashe as one of the literary alumni of St Johns, is this OK?

Changed Johns to 3rd largest after Trinity and Homerton. Trinity has ~1100 undergrads and postgrads, Homerton has 1050, Johns has ~900

College Motto
I've asked the College for an authoritative translation of "souvent me souvient" (which doesn't look like 'remember me often' to me). roundhouse 00:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

 * "Souvient" is the third-person plural conjugation of "souvenir", which means "to remember". The "me" before it is an object pronoun, meaning "remember me". And "souvent" means "often". So it seems fine to me. ugen64 01:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I am not convinced, given these facts, that we get "remember me often" (which seems an odd motto). The College have replied, authoritatively, that google yields both meanings, arising no doubt from the 2 versions which alternate on this page. roundhouse 08:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Christ's College, Cambridge (same motto) gives 'I often remember'. This seems to me to be much more likely to be correct. roundhouse 10:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The current master of Christ's College, Prof Malcom Bowie (French Literature) states confidently that the motto should be translated as "I often remember" and not "Remember me often". "Often it is remembered unto me" is the literal translation apparently, which renders better as "I often remember", or "Often I remember". Since this is mediaeval french, a modern french interpretation on the words is certainly not appropriate. LeBofSportif 14:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, as a native french speaker, I can confirm you that it univoquely mean "I often remember", and the form is actually very modern french. A francophone not aware that it is middle french would certainly think it is just french, albeit may be bit old fashioned, just like you have variations that appears over 50 years time.

Also I do not think the form "it is remembered unto me" would be more adequate - though here my doubt would lie in the english part which I am not sure to master well enough - as this form would seem as a passive act, whereas "I often remember" would be a decisive act of will to remember, and whose meaning is implicitly embeded in choosing this as a statement

Now what do you often remember is where the doubt lies. I would imagine that such a volontary declamation of rememberance is both an abidance to the fact that something is built through time, and of which we are only the temporary executors, and a form of hommage to filiation, but I am just getting over myself here, and this would need to be confirmed by other means !

 * Well done. roundhouse 15:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I believe the "I often remember" is best understood in the context of Henry IV's motto, "Remember me" or "Forget me not". Henry IV had a motto of something like "souvereign" which some people interpret to just mean sovereign, but this is unsatisfactory. More likely, it is an old french word for the flower "Forget me not" which Henry IV had on his crest I think. I am doing this from memory, but I can check book sources if there is still dispute over the motto. LeBofSportif 17:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Giving a talk on the history of the College, Professor Boyd (an authority on these matters) stated that the motto meant 'I often remember'. This matches the interpretation used in Christ's College. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.182.232 (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

 * A variant that I heard was that it was a pun - both the meanings 'Remember me often' and 'I often remember' should be read from it. This was from a modern French speaker, so I cannot be certain of the accuracy. The Stumo (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fisher
Any particular reason for "Saint" being in parentheses? Fisher was canonised in 1935 with Saint Thomas More as one of the English martyrs; it's normal practice to use brackets. I've removed them - please leave a note here if you disagree. Squeezeweasel 20:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Cocktail
Since a cursory google search turned up nothing, can anyone provide more information on the "red boy" cocktail? are these equal proportions? a more detailed recipe would be great... 72.209.70.84 22:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC) - oops, wasn't logged in HunterAmor 15:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed assets valuation
Does someone have a citation for the fixed assets valuation? 500 billion seems like rather a lot... 86.14.227.200 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please post new items at the bottom of the page. The figure in the article is £500m, not £500b. A source for this might be the Cambridge University Reporter, Vol CXXXVIII, Special Issue 11, “Accounts of the Colleges” (12 February 2008), which is available in printed form only. — Richie 11:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Classification
I've reclassified this as a C-Class article. I think the major thing that's standing in the way of it being B-Class is a lack of references, particularly within the History section. Mrh30 (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In light of recent changes, I think a reappraisal might be in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieRCD (talk • contribs) 18:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(I rearranged the above and restored the signature for CharlieRCD to make it clearer who said what) The Stumo (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Sir Nevill Francis Mott.jpg
The image File:Sir Nevill Francis Mott.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --08:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

May Ball
The reference for the assertion that Time magazine rated St Johns May Ball as the 7th best party in the World appears to be a student newspaper from 2007, which itself cites no sources. Is this a verifiable claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.213.35 (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree; I think it should be removed as a claim. I'm a graduate of John's and it is one of those factoids that is bandied around incessantly, but I've had a look through the Time archives and there is no mention of anything of the sort; there doesn't seem to have ever been a list compiled of that name. Unless anyone can provide a primary source, then I will delete this claim, and maybe make mention of it in the May Ball section as an unverified claim, or even a common misconception.  instantn00dle 12:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be another attempt at generating publicity for the May Ball using this claim. The anonymous IP provides three purported sources , but they all just repeat what Time magazine allegedly said. Hearsay. What is required is a primary source, i.e. in which year, issue and page of Time magazine this list appeared. — Richie 22:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Motto
The Info-box translates the college motto as "I often remember". I'm not an expert at Old French, but surely "Souvent me Souvient" means "They often remember me"? Unless anyone objects, I'll change it. Hallucegenia (talk) 09:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Discussed above. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Courses / Programs
Wouldn't it be better if the article actually talked about what is being taught in this "college" rather than the typical British self-centered BS?! Is it just another club where wealthy British aristocrats and noblemen sit on leather chairs drinking tea and reading newspaper while making racist remark regarding the rest of the world or is it a business school?! engineering school?! law? economics? or is it a medical school? graduate? undergraduate? or may be it is a research institution?! yeah right 175.139.16.64 (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

St John's College is, as the article states, a constituent college of the University of Cambridge. Primarily teaching is done outside the college, by the academic departments of the university, which is why it is not covered in this article. Details of subjects can be found on the University of Cambridge main article. Of the subjects offered by the university, students applying for the subjects listed here - http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/subjects-st-johns - may apply to St John's. St John's is not a 'college' in the American style (think of it as a residential hall, if you're too dim witted to read the Cambridge article). The University of Cambridge teaches a broad range of courses, covering all of the subject areas you have listed, and offers education to undergraduate, mature undergraduate and postgraduate students. As part of the university, John's is extremely active in academic research. I think that covers all of your ignorance - aside from the xenophobic remarks you made, which I shall dignify with no response other than mockery and condemnation. --WDaws (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Can't help but notice the first idiot's IP address is from Malaysia, not the US! Dear 2nd idiot, do an IP-to-location search before making assumptions. 23.243.153.4 (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't help but notice that the third idiot made the assumption that because an American style of university was discussed, it meant the second idiot was assuming the first idiot was actually from that country... ;-) Ðiliff    «»  (Talk)  10:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on St John's College, Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060925004705/http://www.queens.cam.ac.uk/default.asp?MIS=864 to http://www.queens.cam.ac.uk/default.asp?MIS=864
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927004418/http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/chapel_and_choir/choir/ to http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/chapel_and_choir/choir/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927004437/http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/admissions/graduate_admissions/finances/scholarships/ to http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/admissions/graduate_admissions/finances/scholarships/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110927004718/http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/chapel_and_choir/bicentenary_2007 to http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/chapel_and_choir/bicentenary_2007/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110606210533/http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/press/dpp/2007021501 to http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/press/dpp/2007021501

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

File:St John's College Chapel, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:St John's College Chapel, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 28, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-07-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

May Ball bans
I have removed the sentence about the five male undergraduates banned from attending the SJC May Ball in June 2016. The editor adding the content first added it prominently to the history section and then, copy-pasting sensationalist headlines, prominently to the student life section. A more careful summary by me of the 2016 update in the Telegraph was reverted by this editor. The headlines were sensationalist and undue, and no context was provided. Could the editor explain why he thinks this content had any value and why he thinks incidents like this deserve to be mentioned? The story came out in a student newspaper "The Tab" and was picked up by the Telegraph (and the Mirror) but not the Cambridge News. If there was more general context to this topic, perhaps it would merit being mentioned; at present that does not seem to be the case. Mathsci (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

 * The Tab also runs stories like this. The 2016 Telegraph article links to an article about a named individual from Queens College, Oxford that could not be reported on wikipedia, because it would be an obvious BLP violation. The banning of the Wyvern's "jelly party" by the Master and Fellows of Magdalene College is not mentioned on wikipedia. It has been reported in the press. Mathsci (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

 * What matters is the most reliable source to publish the incident. In this case an internationally reliable paper, the Telegraph, published the story not just once, but furthermore a followup. This makes the story fulfil the notability and reliability criterion and should be included. In fact, this text is the only referenced text in the entire section of five paragraphs, and so following WP:RS we should first turn our attention to other text in this section. For example, another paragraph in this section describes how the College chef (named in violation of WP:BLP) oversees the intercollegiate Stewards' Cup. I think that we should first remove such unsourced information about the out-of-work activities of the College chef, rather than the only referenced text in the entire section that was twice featured in the international press. There are many other sections of text in the same section that are unsourced, trivial, and read like a College prospectus.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The (unnamed) drinking society is banned by the college and prohibited from having meetings on university or college property. The present content concerns five individuals and a student sub-culture which has very little to do with the functioning of St John's College. The source of this particular story is The Tab as indicated in the subsequent local and national newspaper reports. (There was also a report in the Daily News of India, but it was riddled with inaccuracies.) I still don't think this story merits being included in the article on St John's College, which concerns permanent aspects of the college. Incidents involving drunken or unruly students are not a recent phenomenon; they do not seem to have found their way into other wikipedia articles on academic institutions. In addition, apart from the link lad culture, I can find no information on wikipedia about drinking societies or "swap" parties. As your account seems to have been created with the main purpose of adding content about this very specialised topic, are you intending to write a wikipedia article on "student drinking societies" and "swap parties"? Mathsci (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your general comments. The other information in the article is publicly available and easy to verify on the college's website, in their handbook/prospectus or the college magazine. It gives an anodyne, neutral and informative description of the college and was possibly edited by students. Mathsci (talk) 09:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The allegation made by talk that my account is a main purpose created for editing articles solely about drinking societies is not true. In fact out of all my edits only 5% relate to drinking societies, and those are only for this sentence in the St Johns article. I would therefore suggest that User talk:Mathsci withdraw this allegation and apologize for making it. Putting forward ad hominem allegations with no evidence detracts from any credibility that User talk:Mathsci has for taking part in this discussion, that I would also suggest that User talk:Mathsci now withdraws from.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your editing conforms to WP:SPA fairly closely. Your very first edit was problematic. Mathsci (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * (User talk:Mathsci) is making serious accusations and needs to provide definitive evidence of WP:SPA. Referring to a edit of (User talk:77LmTA6knQ6) out of hundreds does not comprise WP:SPA . Please refer to WP:SPA and either provide proof or return to a discussion about this current page on the basis of facts.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As no evidence of WP:SPA is forthcoming and (User talk:Mathsci) has withdrawn from the discussion I have reverted the text to the agreed version.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 09:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Evidently you are an individual with an axe to grind; a WP:POINT to make, which is why in your very first edit you inserted exactly the same scare quotes in the most prominent place you could find in the article. Instead of adding balanced content, you have preferred to revert to the shrill language of gutter journalism, with scare quotes and no context at all. Indeed it seems that any attempt to provide context—the nature of these university social events, their banning by colleges, their occurrence far from the established colleges—is not to your liking. You prefer to add WP:UNDUE content to shock the reader. There are four individuals involved in this minor event (it is, even if their conduct in private and in a drunken state was poor) who have just started their third year as undergraduates. Your purpose here has been to single them out amongst undergraduates in Cambridge. Given your insistence on not representing their interests properly, I suspect that is a BLP violation. Please read the Varsity article below, written by a female Johnian who knows one of those concerned, to understand the possible problems. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am grateful that (User talk:Mathsci) has dropped the accusation against (77LmTA6knQ6) of WP:SPA because it is not true, and await an apology. (User talk:Mathsci) has now accused (77LmTA6knQ6) of WP:POINT. This is a serious allegation so needs proper evidence. Examining WP:POINT it is not clear which of the examples (User talk:Mathsci) accuses (77LmTA6knQ6) of, and the evidence for that. Please would (User talk:Mathsci) make this clear with strong evidence, or withdraw the allegation and apologize for making it, so that we can return to sorting out the St Johns page.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As no evidence of WP:POINT is forthcoming and (User talk:Mathsci) has withdrawn from the discussion I have reverted the text to the agreed version.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I also don't think we can be confident of the reporting in the national press. In the established university student magazine Varsity, a female third year undergraduate reading English at St John's has given her views on the incident and its aftermath. She has also described the reporting and misreporting in the national press, particularly the misleading headlines. Mathsci (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Nothing has changed in this discussion. The content here is highly inappropriate for the article. It was never a serious news story, just recycled student news; it does not represent in a balanced way student life in St John's Colllege. The inclusion of the material is undue and not neutral. Two IPs have removed it; the last one said it had no relevance and at this stage I agree with that IP. All the reasons have already been outlined above. Undergraduate misbehaviour is not new. It has been present in all higher educational institutions since their creation in every country. In this case 4 undergraduates, now in their third year, behaved poorly on one drunken evening. It seems to have happened outside the academic term and not on university or college property (Sesame, long since shut down). As revealed in the Varsity article above, these undergraduates have probably now learnt their lesson. The reinsertion of this material seems to be an attempt to villify those 4 individuals. That appears to be a BLP violation. The editor including this material has been warned before about his disruptive editing here and now is repeating that conduct with their edit warring. This seems to be an example of WP:POINT; and also probably WP:NOTHERE. Mathsci (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Mathsci has previously made allegations against 77LmTA6knQ6 further up this talk page but never provided any evidence. Before we continue the discussion can we assume that Mathsci has now withdrawn these allegations? We then need to remember that what is important is WP:VNT. Following this established wikipedia policy what matters is the most reliable source to publish the incident. In this case an internationally reliable paper, the Telegraph, published the story not just once, but furthermore a followup. This makes the story fulfill the notability and reliability criterion and should be included. In fact, this text is the only referenced text in the entire section of five paragraphs, and so following WP:RS we should first turn our attention to other text in this section. Mathsci claims that "it was never a serious news story", "it does not represent in a balanced way student life in St John's Colllege", "Undergraduate misbehaviour is not new", "it has been present in all higher educational institutions since their creation in every country", "these undergraduates have probably now learnt their lesson". To avoid being WP:OR each of these needs a citation from an external source please, and even more reliable than the Telegraph, otherwise they cannot be considered as valid points. Please refer to WP:SOURCES as to what constitutes a valid source. WP:BLP is not an issue here because the article does not mention the names of the individuals involved, so conforms with WP:BIO1E. 77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your editing on wikipedia at the moment consists of (a) edit warring (b) WP:IDHT (stubborn refusal to recognise a student newspaper story which has become irrelevant) and (c) WP:SPA, this unencyclopedic content seems now to be your main interest. In those circumstances, isn't your account just a classic example of WP:NOTHERE? Certainly, even without future reversions, your account could be blocked since all you do is try to edit war this undue material into an otherwise anodyne and neutral article. That indicates your own WP:POV. I do think BLP is an issue, because real life identities could easily leak out at any stage. You have no idea about that and you obviously don't care. Mathsci (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please would Mathsci provide evidence of 77LmTA6knQ6 edit warring. This is a serious allegation so needs proper evidence. Previous allegations against 77LmTA6knQ6 made by Mathsci have never been followed by evidence and withdrawn, and in fact in August 2016 Mathsci had an arbcom judgement against them for "belittling other editors with different skills". Please would Mathsci provide hard evidence for each allegation or withdraw them so that editors can return to focus on the page at hand.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's obvious from looking at your contributions or the edit history of this page: they make it clear that you have been edit warring and are essentially a single purpose account. Your edits could be reviewed at WP:AN3 if that's what you want. Mathsci (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As discussed on 15 October 2016 there is no evidence that 77LmTA6knQ6 is a single user account. Mathsci needs to present evidence or should move on with the editing of this page. Regarding the page, the remaining issue brought up by Mathsci is WP:BLP, and whether the names of the people involved will be included in the article. According to WP:BIO1E because the identities of the individuals is not mentioned there is no problem, so we only need to return to consider WP:BLP if the names of those involved are included in the article in the future by an editor. If there are any other objections to the paragraph under discussion please raise them now.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 10:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Yes you are an WP:SPA evidently WP:NOTHERE to improve wikipedia. It's clear from your edit history: just disruption. Your first edit made clear the purpose of your account and you have stuck to that, POV-pushing out-of-date and undue recycled student tittle-tattle. Your only interest in academic institutions seems to be negative. This content does not fit with the article. In due course, when I am less busy, you will be reported on WP:AN3 for slow edit-warring on this content. Mathsci (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be sensible to focus here solely on the paragraph at hand. Right now no objections to the paragraph have been raised that have been mutually agreed by the Editors so the consensus is to retain the paragraph as it was.77LmTA6knQ6 (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the content. It was about the private lives of 5 individuals (events now buried in the mists of time), nothing to do with the college. The initial content you created was composed purely from scare headlines. You claimed that it was properly sourced. But it came (indirectly) from a student newspaper (The Tab). You refused to add context. Presumably you wanted to make it look as if this was not a private event (held in the Sesame restaurant) and had something to do with the college. The link was tenuous. You refused to add context about the college, the university or the undergraduate culture of swap-dinners, which was completely unexplained. I tried to improve that; but from the outset I felt the material was non-neutral (your extreme POV) and inappropriate, because there was no direct relation to the college as an established academic institution. The content was completely at odds with the rest of the article. It stuck out like a sour thumb and had no place there. That is why it has been removed. Why do you think it should be permanently in the article? Your responses here have not addressed that point. Please observe WP:BRD before attempting to restore this content, which seems to be malicious content about 5 individuals: they behaved inappropriately when drunk but not to the extent it warrants being described on wikipedia; and their identities are not necessarily protected—you have no idea what could leak out. This content does not improve the article and cannot be described as encyclopedic. You seem to want to WP:OWN it. Mathsci (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on St John's College, Cambridge. 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/20110927004149/http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/library/biographical/bioghistory/ to http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/library/biographical/bioghistory/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://collegestuddedmarsh.com/St%20Johns.html

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) 12:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:St John's College, Cambridge


text:
Wikipedia:What it thinks it is

This article describes:

 * How to track self claims, self-references, and self-links in Wikipedia articles
 * Guidelines on adding self-claims, etc, to Wikipedia articles
 * Links to some attempts to compile lists of self-claims, etc

There are wider philosophical question of whether Wikipedia can think, and whether the Wikipedia community can be said to comprise a group mind. They are quietly swept under the carpet here... mind the bump.

Self-references on Wikipedia
It is easy to track what wikipedia contributors think wikipedia is using this Google Search. You can track what the wider world thinks wikipedia is using Googlism. Using Wikipedia itself, one can view the Wikipedia article to see what the writers of that article think it is. One can also see all the articles that link to the Wikipedia article.

The official Wikipedia policy on what wikipedia is and is not can be found at About and What Wikipedia is not. If this policy is inaccurate, then the policy could be changed, or Wikipedia could be changed - this can be discussed at the appropriate talk page.

Guidelines on adding self-references
Mention of Wikipedia in articles contains some guidelines for those considering adding self-references to Wikipedia articles, or correcting or deleting those that already exist in an article.

We have to exercise care when adding references to Wikipedia to Wikipedia articles, as they effect itself and our aim of becoming an encyclopedia. The same applies to mentions of the Wiki process, mentions of Wikipedians, or mentions of events on Wikipedia. There are various concerns:

 * 1) Is the reference pro-Wikipedia? It may not be neutral, and Wikipedians may have a systemic bias.
 * 2) Is the reference anti-Wikipedia? If you have a grudge against Wikipedia, that's fine, but better taken elsewhere - to your personal website, for example.
 * 3) Is the reference the result of Wikipedia-obsession?  Say, by a Wikipediholic?  Excessive mentions of Wikipedia may give an over-inflated mention of Wikipedia's importance - again, not neutral.

These are basically not problems in the Wikipedia, user, and talk namespaces, though of course Wikipedia is not a soapbox, even there.

Examples of Wikipedia self-claims
Wikipedia might be a World Brain prototype as well as a WikiWiki process relying on consensus. For some, it is a Homepage where users fall victims of computer addiction and become Wikipediholics. It could be seen as being a collection of A body of debates about itself, a whole set of Wikipedia:Brilliant prose, but also as a continuous flame war and always a bit of vandalism at any given time (due to Plagiarism which we should discourage, or copyrights issues). There is always a dark side in any success, and Wikipedia might be a real cluster fuck. But some people believe that's probably what explains why the Statistics show Wikipedia is just getting Bigger and bigger!

Incredibly, Wikipedia is censored in China ! Some think this is rather curious, since is not only an encyclopedia, or a Cyberspace for librarians, or a idiom dictionary, or Lists on just about everything, but also an incredible Encyclopedic Network in many languages, a melting pot of very diverse authors. Many discussions go on on Mailing lists or in the Embassies or naturally on Meta-Wikipedia where many decisions are taken.

How can I help Wikipedia think about itself?
Please update our collaboratively compiled list of Wikipedia self-references on meta-Wikipedia at What wikipedia thinks it is (edit this page).

You can see the French take on this subject in the other languages link above. Other languages may have similar pages.

See also:
 * Mention of Wikipedia in articles
 * Mention of wiki in articles
 * itself
 * What Wikipedia is
 * What wikipedia thinks it is
 * meta:Wikipedia:Mention of wiki in articles
 * What Wikipedia claims to be
 * meta:Wikipedia:Mention of Wikipedia in articles

--

May 2003
 * Wikipedia thinks it is not censored
 * Wikipedia thinks it is censored.

title: Wikipedia:What it thinks it is


text:
User talk:Peterteo76

Back today, gone tomorrow ... wikipedia has sure improved alot since my last entry. :)

Hi, this is peterteo76 from Singapore ! Just testing with this first posting ... I'll be back.

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit How does one edit a page and experiment at Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

title: User talk:Peterteo76


text:
Isabella Beeton

Isabella Mary Beeton ( Mayson; 14 March 1836 – 6 February 1865), known as Mrs Beeton, was an English journalist, editor and writer. Her name is particularly associated with her first book, the 1861 work Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management. She was born in London and, after schooling in Islington, north London, and Heidelberg, Germany, she married Samuel Orchart Beeton, an ambitious publisher and magazine editor.

In 1857, less than a year after the wedding, Beeton began writing for one of her husband's publications, The Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine. She translated French fiction and wrote the cookery column, though all the recipes were plagiarised from other works or sent in by the magazine's readers. In 1859 the Beetons launched a series of 48-page monthly supplements to The Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine; the 24 instalments were published in one volume as Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management in October 1861, which sold 60,000 copies in the first year. Beeton was working on an abridged version of her book, which was to be titled The Dictionary of Every-Day Cookery, when she died of puerperal fever in February 1865 at the age of 28. She gave birth to four children, two of whom died in infancy, and had several miscarriages. Two of her biographers, Nancy Spain and Kathryn Hughes, posit the theory that Samuel had unknowingly contracted syphilis in a premarital liaison with a prostitute, and had unwittingly passed the disease on to his wife.

The Book of Household Management has been edited, revised and enlarged several times since Beeton's death and is still in print as at 2016. Food writers have stated that the subsequent editions of the work were far removed from and inferior to the original version. Several cookery writers, including Elizabeth David and Clarissa Dickson Wright, have criticised Beeton's work, particularly her use of other people's recipes. Others, such as the food writer Bee Wilson, consider the censure overstated, and that Beeton and her work should be thought extraordinary and admirable. Her name has become associated with knowledge and authority on Victorian cooking and home management, and the Oxford English Dictionary states that by 1891 the term Mrs Beeton had become used as a generic name for a domestic authority. She is also considered a strong influence in the building or shaping of a middle-class identity of the Victorian era.

Early life, 1836–1854
Isabella Mayson was born on 14 March 1836 in Marylebone, London. She was the eldest of three daughters to Benjamin Mayson, a linen factor (merchant) and his wife Elizabeth ( Jerrom). Shortly after Isabella's birth the family moved to Milk Street, Cheapside, from where Benjamin traded. He died when Isabella was four years old, and Elizabeth, pregnant and unable to cope with raising the children on her own while maintaining Benjamin's business, sent her two elder daughters to live with relatives. Isabella went to live with her recently widowed paternal grandfather in Great Orton, Cumberland, though she was back with her mother within the next two years.

Three years after Benjamin's death Elizabeth married Henry Dorling, a widower with four children. Henry was the Clerk of Epsom Racecourse, and had been granted residence within the racecourse grounds. The family, including Elizabeth's mother, moved to Surrey and over the next twenty years Henry and Elizabeth had a further thirteen children. Isabella was instrumental in her siblings' upbringing, and collectively referred to them as a "living cargo of children". The experience gave her much insight and experience in how to manage a family and its household.

After a brief education at a boarding school in Islington, in 1851 Isabella was sent to school in Heidelberg, Germany, accompanied by her stepsister Jane Dorling. Isabella became proficient in the piano and excelled in French and German; she also gained knowledge and experience in making pastry. She had returned to Epsom by the summer of 1854 and took further lessons in pastry-making from a local baker.

Marriage and career, 1854–1861
Around 1854 Isabella Mayson began a relationship with Samuel Orchart Beeton. His family had lived in Milk Street at the same time as the Maysons—Samuel's father still ran the Dolphin Tavern there—and Samuel's sisters had also attended the same Heidelberg school as Isabella. Samuel was the first British publisher of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin in 1852 and had also released two innovative and pioneering journals: The Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine in 1852 and the Boys' Own magazine in 1855. The couple entered into extensive correspondence in 1855—in which Isabella signed her letters as "Fatty"—and they announced their engagement in June 1855. The marriage took place at St Martin's Church, Epsom, in July the following year, and was announced in The Times. Samuel was "a discreet but firm believer in the equality of women" and their relationship, both personal and professional, was an equal partnership. The couple went to Paris for a three-week honeymoon, after which Samuel's mother joined them in a visit to Heidelberg. They returned to Britain in August, when the newlyweds moved into 2 Chandos Villas, a large Italianate house in Pinner.

Within a month of returning from their honeymoon Beeton was pregnant. A few weeks before the birth, Samuel persuaded his wife to contribute to The Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine, a publication that the food writers Mary Aylett and Olive Ordish consider was "designed to make women content with their lot inside the home, not to interest them in the world outside". The magazine was affordable, aimed at young middle class women and was commercially successful, selling 50,000 issues a month by 1856. Beeton began by translating French fiction for publication as stories or serials. Shortly afterwards she started to work on the cookery column—which had been moribund for the previous six months following the departure of the previous correspondent—and the household article. The Beetons' son, Samuel Orchart, was born towards the end of May 1857, but died at the end of August that year. On the death certificate, the cause of death was given as diarrhoea and cholera, although Hughes hypothesises that Samuel senior had unknowingly contracted syphilis in a premarital liaison with a prostitute, and had unwittingly passed the condition on to his wife, which would have infected his son.

While coping with the loss of her child, Beeton continued to work at The Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine. Although she was not a regular cook, she and Samuel obtained recipes from other sources. A request to receive the readers' own recipes led to over 2,000 being sent in, which were selected and edited by the Beetons. Published works were also copied, largely unattributed to any of the sources. These included Eliza Acton's Modern Cookery for Private Families, Elizabeth Raffald's The Experienced English Housekeeper, Marie-Antoine Carême's Le Pâtissier royal parisien, Louis Eustache Ude's The French Cook, Alexis Soyer's The Modern Housewife or, Ménagère and The Pantropheon, Hannah Glasse's The Art of Cookery Made Plain and Easy, Maria Rundell's A New System of Domestic Cookery, and the works of Charles Elmé Francatelli. Suzanne Daly and Ross G. Forman, in their examination of Victorian cooking culture, consider that the plagiarism makes it "an important index of mid-Victorian and middle-class society" because the production of the text from its own readers ensures that it is a reflection of what was actually being cooked and eaten at the time. In copying the recipes of others, Beeton was following the recommendation given to her by Henrietta English, a family friend, who wrote that "Cookery is a Science that is only learnt by Long Experience and years of study which of course you have not had. Therefore my advice would be compile a book from receipts from a Variety of the Best Books published on Cookery and Heaven knows there is a great variety for you to choose from."

The Beetons partly followed the layout of Acton's recipes, although with a major alteration: whereas the earlier writer provided the method of cooking followed by a list of the required ingredients, the recipes in The Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine listed the components before the cooking process. Beeton 's standardised layout used for the recipes also showed the approximate costs of each serving, the seasonality of the ingredients and the number of portions per dish. According to the twentieth-century British cookery writer Elizabeth David, one of the strengths of Beeton's writing was in the "clarity and details of her general instructions, her brisk comments, her no-nonsense asides". Margaret Beetham, the historian, sees that one of the strengths of the book was the "consistent principle of organisation which made its heterogeneous contents look uniform and orderly", and brought a consistent style in presentation and layout. Whereas Daly and Forman consider such an approach as "nothing if not formulaic", Hughes sees it as "the thing most beloved by the mid Victorians, a system".

During the particularly bitter winter of 1858–59 Beeton prepared her own soup that she served to the poor of Pinner, "Soup for benevolent purposes"; her sister later recalled that Beeton "was busy making [the] soup for the poor, and the children used to call with their cans regularly to be refilled". The recipe would become the only entry in her Book of Household Management that was her own. After two years of miscarriages, the couple's second son was born in June 1859; he was also named Samuel Orchart Beeton. Hughes sees the miscarriages as further evidence of Samuel's syphilis.

As early as 1857 the Beetons had considered using the magazine columns as the basis of a book of collected recipes and homecare advice, Hughes believes, and in November 1859 they launched a series of 48-page monthly supplements with The Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine. The print block for the whole series of the supplements was set from the beginning so the break between each edition was fixed at 48 pages, regardless of the text, and in several issues the text of a sentence or recipe is split between the end of one instalment and the beginning of the next.

The Beetons decided to revamp The Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine, particularly the fashion column, which the historian Graham Nown describes as "a rather drab piece". They travelled to Paris in March 1860 to meet Adolphe Goubaud, the publisher of the French magazine Le Moniteur de la Mode. The magazine carried a full-sized dress pattern outlined on a fold-out piece of paper for users to cut out and make their own dresses. The Beetons came to an agreement with Goubaud for the Frenchman to provide patterns and illustrations for their magazine. The first edition to carry the new feature appeared on 1 May, six weeks after the couple returned from Paris. For the redesigned magazine, Samuel was joined as editor by Isabella, who was described as "Editress". As well as being co-editors, the couple were also equal partners. Isabella brought an efficiency and strong business acumen to Samuel's normally disorganised and financially wasteful approach. She joined her husband at work, travelling daily by train to the office, where her presence caused a stir among commuters, most of whom were male. In June 1860 the Beetons travelled to Killarney, Ireland, for a fortnight's holiday, leaving their son at home with his nurse. They enjoyed the sightseeing, although on the days it rained, they stayed inside their hotel and worked on the next edition of The Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine. Beeton was impressed with the food they were served, and wrote in her diary that the dinners were "conducted in quite the French style".

In September 1861 the Beetons released a new, weekly publication called The Queen, the Ladies' Newspaper. With the Beetons busy running their other titles, they employed Frederick Greenwood as the editor.

Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management and later, 1861–1865
The complete version of Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management, consisting of the 24 collected monthly instalments, was published on 1 October 1861; it became one of the major publishing events of the nineteenth century. Beeton included an extensive 26-page "Analytical Index" in the book. Although not an innovation—it had been used in The Family Friend magazine since 1855—Hughes considers the index in the Book of Household Management to be "fabulously detailed and exhaustively cross-referenced". Of the 1,112 pages, over 900 contained recipes. The remainder provided advice on fashion, child care, animal husbandry, poisons, the management of servants, science, religion, first aid and the importance in the use of local and seasonal produce. In its first year of publication, the book sold 60,000 copies. It reflected Victorian values, particularly hard work, thrift and cleanliness. Christopher Clausen, in his study of the British middle classes, sees that Beeton "reflected better than anyone else, and for a larger audience, the optimistic message that mid-Victorian England was filled with opportunities for those who were willing to learn how to take advantage of them". The food writer Annette Hope thinks that "one can understand its success. If ... young ladies knew nothing of domestic arrangements, no better book than this could have been devised for them."

The reviews for Book of Household Management were positive. The critic for the London Evening Standard considered that Beeton had earned herself a household reputation, remarking that she had "succeeded in producing a volume which will be, for years to come, a treasure to be made much of in every English household". The critic for the Saturday Review wrote that "for a really valuable repertory of hints on all sorts of household matters, we recommend Mrs Beeton with few misgivings". The anonymous reviewer for The Bradford Observer considered that "the information afforded ... appears intelligible and explicit"; the reviewer also praised the layout of the recipes, highlighting details relating to ingredients, seasonality and the times needed. Writing in The Morning Chronicle, an anonymous commentator opined that "Mrs Beeton has omitted nothing which tends to the comfort of housekeepers, or facilitates the many little troubles and cares that fall to the lot of every wife and mother. She may safely predict that this book will in future take precedence of every other on the same subject." For the 1906 edition of the book, The Illustrated London News's reviewer considered the work "a formidable body of domestic doctrine", and thought that "the book is almost of the first magnitude".

Samuel's business decisions from 1861 were unproductive and included an ill-advised investment in purchasing paper—in which he lost £1,000—and a court case over unpaid bills. His hubris in business affairs brought on financial difficulties and in early 1862 the couple had moved from their comfortable Pinner house to premises over their office. The air of central London was not conducive to the health of the Beetons' son, and he began to ail. Three days after Christmas his health worsened and he died on New Year's Eve 1862 at the age of three; his death certificate gave the cause as "suppressed scarlatina" and "laryngitis". In March 1863 Beeton found that she was pregnant again, and in April the couple moved to a house in Greenhithe, Kent; their son, who they named Orchart, was born on New Year's Eve 1863. Although the couple had been through financial problems, they enjoyed relative prosperity during 1863, boosted by the sale of The Queen to Edward Cox in the middle of the year.

In the middle of 1864 the Beetons again visited the Goubauds in Paris—the couple's third visit to the city—and Beeton was pregnant during the visit, just as she had been the previous year. On her return to Britain she began working on an abridged version of the Book of Household Management , which was to be titled The Dictionary of Every-Day Cookery. On 29 January 1865, while working on the proofs of the dictionary, she went into labour; the baby—Mayson Moss—was born that day. Beeton began to feel feverish the following day and died of puerperal fever on 6 February at the age of 28.

Beeton was buried at West Norwood Cemetery on 11 February. When The Dictionary of Every-Day Cookery was published in the same year, Samuel added a tribute to his wife at the end:

"Her works speak for themselves; and, although taken from this world in the very height and strength, and in the early days of womanhood, she felt satisfaction—so great to all who strive with good intent and warm will—of knowing herself regarded with respect and gratitude."

Legacy
In May 1866, following a severe downturn in his financial fortunes, Samuel sold the rights to the Book of Household Management  to Ward, Lock and Tyler (later Ward Lock & Co). The writer Nancy Spain, in her biography of Isabella, reports that, given the money the company made from the Beetons' work, "surely no man ever made a worse or more impractical bargain" than Samuel did. In subsequent publications Ward Lock suppressed the details of the lives of the Beetons—especially the death of Isabella—in order to protect their investment by letting readers think she was still alive and creating recipes—what Hughes considers to be "intentional censorship". Those later editions continued to make the connection to Beeton in what Beetham considers to be a "fairly ruthless marketing policy which was begun by Beeton but carried on vigorously by Ward, Lock, and Tyler". Those subsequent volumes bearing Beeton's name became less reflective of the original. Since its initial publication the Book of Household Management  has been issued in numerous hardback and paperback editions, translated into several languages and has never been out of print.

Beeton and her main work have been subjected to criticism over the course of the twentieth century. Elizabeth David complains of recipes that are "sometimes slapdash and misleading", although she acknowledges that Prosper Montagné's Larousse Gastronomique also contains errors. The television cook Delia Smith admits she was puzzled "how on earth Mrs Beeton's book managed to utterly eclipse ... [Acton's] superior work", while her fellow chef, Clarissa Dickson Wright, opines that "It would be unfair to blame any one person or one book for the decline of English cookery, but Isabella Beeton and her ubiquitous book do have a lot to answer for." In comparison, the food writer Bee Wilson opines that disparaging Beeton's work was only a "fashionable" stance to take and that the cook's writing "simply makes you want to cook". Christopher Driver, the journalist and food critic, suggests that the "relative stagnation and want of refinement in the indigenous cooking of Britain between 1880 and 1930" may instead be explained by the "progressive debasement under successive editors, revises and enlargers". David comments that "when plain English cooks" were active in their kitchens, "they followed plain English recipes and chiefly those from the Mrs Beeton books or their derivatives". Dickson Wright considers Beeton to be a "fascinating source of information" from a social history viewpoint, and Aylett and Ordish consider the work to be "the best and most reliable guide for the scholar to the domestic history of the mid-Victorian era".

Despite the criticism, Clausen observes that "'Mrs. Beeton' has ... been for over a century the standard English cookbook, frequently outselling every other book but the Bible". According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term Mrs Beeton became used as a generic name for "an authority on cooking and domestic subjects" as early as 1891, and Beetham opines that "'Mrs. Beeton' became a trade mark, a brand name". In a review by Gavin Koh published in a 2009 issue of The BMJ, Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management was labelled a medical classic. In Beeton's "attempt to educate the average reader about common medical complaints and their management", Koh argues, "she preceded the family health guides of today". Robin Wensley, a professor of strategic management, believes that Beeton's advice and guidance on household management can also be applied to business management, and her lessons on the subject have stood the test of time better than some of her advice on cooking or etiquette.

Following the radio broadcast of Meet Mrs. Beeton, a 1934 comedy in which Samuel was portrayed in an unflattering light, and Mrs Beeton, a 1937 documentary, Mayston Beeton worked with H. Montgomery Hyde to produce the biography Mr and Mrs Beeton, although completion and publication were delayed until 1951. In the meantime Nancy Spain published Mrs Beeton and her Husband in 1948, updated and retitled in 1956 to The Beeton Story. In the new edition Spain hinted at, but did not elucidate upon, on the possibility that Samuel contracted syphilis. Several other biographies followed, including from the historian Sarah Freeman, who wrote Isabella and Sam in 1977; Nown's Mrs Beeton: 150 Years of Cookery and Household Management, published on the 150th anniversary of Beeton's birthday, and Hughes's The Short Life and Long Times of Mrs Beeton, published in 2006. Beeton was ignored by the Dictionary of National Biography for many years: while Acton was included in the first published volume of 1885, Beeton did not have an entry until 1993.

There have been several television broadcasts about Beeton. In 1970 Margaret Tyzack portrayed her in a solo performance written by Rosemary Hill, in 2006 Anna Madeley played Beeton in a docudrama, and Sophie Dahl presented a documentary, The Marvellous Mrs Beeton, in the same year.

The literary historian Kate Thomas sees Beeton as "a powerful force in the making of middle-class Victorian domesticity", while the Oxford University Press, advertising an abridged edition of the Book of Household Management, considers Beeton's work a "founding text" and "a force in shaping" the middle-class identity of the Victorian era. Within that identity, the historian Sarah Richardson sees that one of Beeton's achievements was the integration of different threads of domestic science into one volume, which "elevat[ed] the middle-class female housekeeper's role ... placing it in a broader and more public context". Nown quotes an unnamed academic who thought that "Mrs Beetonism has preserved the family as a social unit, and made social reforms a possibility", while Nicola Humble, in her history of British food, sees The Book of Household Management  as "an engine for social change" which led to a "new cult of domesticity that was to play such a major role in mid-Victorian life". Nown considers Beeton

"... a singular and remarkable woman, praised in her lifetime and later forgotten and ignored when a pride in light pastry ... were no longer considered prerequisites for womanhood. Yet in her lively, progressive way, she helped many women to overcome the loneliness of marriage and gave the family the importance it deserved. In the climate of her time she was brave, strong-minded and a tireless champion of her sisters everywhere."

title: Isabella Beeton


text:
User:Peterteo76

Introduction: Born 1976 in Singapore. Education in Catholic High, Nanyang JC, and National University of Singapore. Have been working since then ...

title: User:Peterteo76


text: User:Davidme~enwiki

title: User:Davidme~enwiki