text:
Talk:Sabbatai Zevi

Sourceless Marker
While specific statements are not references, the bibliography and other links seem relatively complete. Perhaps the template could be more specific, or removed altogether? Calaf 03:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree on the "relatively complete." There are some good references, and a lot of non-referenced statements. Overall, it is OK, because it started from a good base at the Jewish Encylopedia, as stated in the "References" section. The marker does not bother me one way or the other.
 * warshy 17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The account is not encyclopedic; I have done extensive editing to reduce the tone of hagiography. Quotes should still be sourced; it's not enough to say it was "mostly" taken from the Jewish Encyclopedia.--Parkwells (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Turkish encryption
Following Turkish encryption is found in the original Shabbatai Zvi article, which contains important information about the Donmeh cult.

Hi, my family is an Turkish-Tatar family. I think Sabbetai is a turkic name, orginally from tatar. Sabbetai may be from Karaim or khazarian origin?????

 * Our article contains no such text. Even if it did, such text would have to be deleted. This is the English language Wikipedia encyclopedia, thus our contributions are always in the English language. If there is some information in a Turkish-language article that you would like to add, you must first translate it into English. I personally would love to see some more information on the Donmeh, and any information you can provide (in English) would be most welcome! RK

Book
According to the book "The Messiah of Turkey" by Aubrey Ross, there were still many followers of Zevi living in Turkey in 2002 and they included senior politicians. See the review in Ha'Aretz: -- bdm

Adjectives
This article seems to use various adjectives which allows no room for anything but an extremely negative point of view. Not that he deserves any respect, but it does seem that this article takes every chance it has to deride Zevi, which may decrease its scholarly value. Presenting the information in a less opinionated language would surely increase its efficacy.

The article appears biased: the implication throughout is that Zevi was a charlatan, with no discussion to what extent he may actually have believed his own claims. Deipnosophista 21:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Category
IZAK, your latest category change strikes me as wrong. Yes Zevi lived in the Ottoman Empire, but no not in Palestine or any part of the Empire that later became Palestine, as far as I can see from skimming his biography. I'm not removing this category change because I'm not %100 sure, but I will remove it after doing a thorough check - or maybe you should yourself. --Woggly 08:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You were right, I was wrong. Apologies. --Woggly 08:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

English Millenarianism
Sabbatai's father, who as the agent of an English house was in constant touch with English people, must have frequently heard of these expectations and, himself strongly inclined to believe them, must naturally have communicated them to his son, whom he almost deified because of his piety and cabalistic wisdom.

This comes across as conjecture compounded with speculation. Is there any evidence that Sabbatai learned about Millenarianism from his father? Josh Cherry 17:29, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Agree that it was speculative and deleted it - no source given.--Parkwells (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Parkwells, and welcome to the turf,

First of all, I don't think you read my addendum to this discussion section that follows below. I have now rewritten the original paragraph above you removed and reinserted it in the appropriate section of the main article. The entry is very correctly and very importantly referring to English Millenarianism, and the fact that Sabbatai's father, among his other successful commercial activities, was also the agent of an English house in Smyrna, makes a direct, personal, human connection between Sabbatai and English Millenarianism. As for sources, the note mentions two of the most important sources for any discussion of Sabbatai Zevi, Graetz and Scholem, and points to the very important divergence between them. The direct quote from Graetz will be brought up in due time, but the fact that Scholem purposefuly chose to argue with it and against it in his major work on the subject, also points to the fact that the careful historical detail is important and accurate, and carries with it, furthermore, some weight.--warshytalk 18:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

English Millenarianism
To Josh Cherry:

Your observation is a very good beginning, IMVHO.

I believe there is at this point no concrete or reliable historical evidence that Mordecai Zevi did ever teach his son anything about English Millenarianism.

As you point out, in the manner it is articulated, this sentence is currently no more than mere "conjecture compounded with speculation."

I also think it is impossible to ascertain from this historical distance if SZ as an individual did ever learn anything specific about English Millenarianism, and from whom. But, if the previous paragraph is correct in its assertions, then the conclusion is warranted, in my view, that there was some sort of direct influence from English Millenarianism on the phenomenon of Jewish Messianism in the 17th century, of which SZ is perhaps the major expression.

As far as I know, such mutual influences have not been sufficiently studied or written about to this date. SZ's case would be but one instance of these possible influences. A very important and telling instance, to be sure. However, the main historical work on SZ to this date, denies quite emphatically that such influences had any importance. I am referring primarily to Gershom Scholem's extensive, massive English tome on SZ. I believe, from my readings and research so far, that Scholem is mistaken on this crucial point, as well as on many others regarding the significance of the phenomenon of Jewish Messianism in the 17th century.

Is there any interest, on your part, or on any other person's part, in continuing this discussion here? --Warshy 15:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Corrected an image
I uploaded another copy of the image used for Shabbatai Tzvi as a prisoner in Abydos. The one that was there was a duplicate of Former followers of Shabbatai do penance for their support of him.--◀Pucktalk▶ 06:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggest another redirect
How might one create a new re-direct? I read an essay and found many references to "Sabbatai Sevi", but Wikipedia came up empty on this topic. There is already a re-direct from "Sabbatai Sebi", so is it possible to add one more?
 * Done. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * All you have to do is start a new article with the name you want, then type "#REDIRECT name of article redirecting to" --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Play
Martin Sherman's play "Messiah" addresses this phenomenon at length from the POV of a Polish Jewish woman pilgrim. (Can't find a substantive link but thought someone might want to add the info the the main page

Istanbul?
Wasn't this great city, notwithstanding its being ruled by the Ottomans since 1453, known as Constantinople until 1930?

 * This is the previous editing I had done on the main article page regarding this issue. This edit is on the section called "In Salonica", line 6:

 * Istanbul (which was still known in the Christian West at that time as Constantinople),

 * I believe the note above is more precise historically, since for non-Christian residents of the Ottoman Empire at the time of Shabtai Tzvi (residents like himself, who spoke Arabic as their main language of communication), the capital city of the empire must certainly have been known as Istanbul, not Constantinople. In light of the above, I believe the previous title should stand, with the addition of the parenthesis note as written above. warshy 13:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

 * As this is the English Wikipedia I have corrected to Constantinople, which was the term used in English at the time. Deipnosophista 21:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

edit
"long awaited" by nature can not be npov. Rabbis have many different views of the messiah. Rabbi Hillel for example held there will be no future messiah for Israel. Similar views are shared by Yeshayahu Leibowitz.

 * Who said anything "by nature"? what the heck is "npov"? "Long awaited" here refers to the context of overall messianism, and more specifically Converso messianism in the period, and to the fact that this was indeed the first massive and encompassing messianic movement in Judaism since the beginning of Christianity. I will revert it, unless you respond to these arguments.
 * warshy 11:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"rabbi" refer to the Joseph Solovietchik argument for this. Maybe call him a cleric. 203.214.137.16 22:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I said that Scholem brings evidende to the fact that he was an ordained rabbi before he started his kabbalistic speculations and that I have the quote, just have to put it in footnote form. If you go back to the history of the page you will see the Scholem citation. Who cares about Soloveitchik on this matter? Since when is he a historian? I will revert likewise, unless I see any compelling argument otherwise.
 * warshy 11:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision - Jewish ritual only?
Circumcision is a very common practise in Islam among the boys and men, and a circumcisor perform this on the males at either during infancy, childhood or adulthood. So, what makes this a Jewish ritual and different to Muslims?

 * Well, good question, why not? For one, because it is supposedly described in the book of Genesis (17; 15-27), the very first one of the Hebrew Bible, and Jews supposedly have been performing that same ritual, at the same 'age' in which it is performed by Abraham on Isaac, since that "time," uninterruptedly. Why do Muslims perform the ritual, and where in their scripture is it performed? My impression is that from the age in which it is performed by Muslims, it may come from the same source, as it was performed by Abraham on Ishmael at the age of thirteen. So it may be a Muslim ritual too, for different reason and at a different age, in addition to being undoubtedly a Jewish one.
 * warshy 20:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Which skirts the point. The article says that the Donmeh practise Jewish rituals such as circumcision.  Since circumcision is also a Moslem ritual, and it's not unknown for Moslems to circumcise their sons in early infancy, how is this a Jewish practise, and therefore evidence of a continued Jewish tradition?  It's a good question, and if we don't get an answer within a few weeks it would probably be best to take that out of the article. -- Zsero 23:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't know if you are the original person asking the question above, but I think it is safe to assume you are. Before taking out anything we would have to ask how the Donmeh view their practice, as coming from Muslim law or as coming from the Hebrew Bible commandments. I did not skirt the question at all, since you did not specify what sentence had promtpted your question to begin with. But my answer still stands anyhow, because I gave you the sources of the practice among Jews, whereas you are only speaking in generalities. You did not give the sources and/or reasons for the Muslim practice, neither the common age at which it is practiced. The only thing you said is that it is "not unknown." I am asking for KNOWN facts before you dismiss my answer as squirting the point. How common is the circucisiion practice among Muslims in early childhood? Furthermore, Jews perform it, if health conditions permit, on the eigth day of life. The precise eigth day, as prescribed in scripture, is very different from a generic "early childhood." How common is it for Muslims to peform the practice on the eigth day of life of the boy? And again, before dismissing or deleting anything, we would have to know if the Donmeh also perform the practice on the eigth day of life, which would definitely identify it as Hebrew/Jewish, regardless even of their views. Regards,
 * warshy 13:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your assumption is not at all safe. Why didn't you check the history, and save yourself the risk of assuming? -- Zsero 15:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Check what history? I believe I have read much more historical material regarding Shabtai Tzvi and the Donmeh than you can dream even exist. But that is immaterial here. I have provided sources and logical evidence for what I am asserting so far, and you have not provided one iota of verifiable facts up to this point. But furthermore, the one arguing for change is you, not me, and therefore the onus of any proof regarding this matter is on YOU, not on me. Unless you can substantiate your position with sources and citations, as I have done, there does not seem to remain anything else for us discuss here.
 * warshy 19:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahem. Check the history of this page, before making assumptions about who wrote what. -- Zsero 19:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

about his conversion to islam
from God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Hitchens, Christopher:
 * Summoned to the vizier's palace, and allowed to make his way from prison with a procession of hymn-singing supporters, the Messiah was very bluntly asked if he would agree to a trial by ordeal. The archers of the court would use him as a target, and if heaven deflected the arrows he would be adjudged genuine. Should he refuse, he would be impaled. If he wished to decline the choice all together, he could affirm himself to be a true muslim and be allowed to live.

is this really how it happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.74.137 (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, at least according to what I've read in this book. -- AFriedman  (talk)  03:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

He climbed to the top of the Reichstag and set off holy sparks from the roof!

 * Hello AFriedman,

 * If you believe what you say above, I thought I'd ask you: a) do you believe the conversion description as given in the book you cite immediately above this last expression of admiration (which I haven't read)? and, b) if you do (I am not sure I do), what were his reasons (in your view) for adopting the choice/course of action he did (true and declared conversion, supposedly)? Thanks, --warshytalk 19:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this sequence of events re: Zvi's conversion may be about the best we can reconstruct, even if I'm not sure the accounts themselves were completely faithful to what actually happened. The book in question was written by a professor of physics at Bogazici University in Turkey, who also wrote a number of other books about Turkish subjects. According to the author's own description of how he conducted research for the book, he spent quite a long time poring through reputable and often difficult-to-find sources such as the original historical documents. He also traveled to many of the locations mentioned in the book, in search of firsthand evidence of Sabbateanism--especially evidence that the historians were unable to find. Since John Freely is a professional academic at a major Turkish university, I would expect him to have a sense of what would constitute a reputable scholarly source.

Even if the events in question did not happen per se, I really do think Shabbetai converted to Islam under threat of death. The Ottoman Sultan would have had this type of power over Shabbetai, and it would be in the Sultan's interest to weaken the movement by killing or discrediting its leader. The Jews were already incompletely integrated into the Ottoman Empire, and the movement was a growing force that seemed to be posing a threat to the Sultan's power. In fact, Shabbetai had to be exiled to a more remote place (the one in Albania) because years after the conversion, the Sultan was still threatened by his not-fully-Islamic behavior as palace gatekeeper. Even as a professed Muslim and a prisoner of the Sultan, Shabbetai (who was under tremendous scrutiny in the palace) was continuing to semi-openly practice many aspects of Judaism and promote his highly original ideas. In Shabbetai's letters (quoted by John Freely), he expressed resignation to the fact that he needed to convert to Islam. This reveals that he was not completely comfortable with the choice he was forced to make. However, he was not the only Jew who made this type of choice in a similar situation. Some of the Sabbateans were recent descendants of the Crypto-Jews of Spain, who are not vilified by Jewish tradition. From a Jewish perspective, the Crypto-Jews are mostly viewed as people who did what they needed to do to survive and were courageous in continuing to practice Judaism in Spain. I don't understand why there is this seeming double standard for Shabbetai, especially since Islam (unlike Christianity) is not considered idolatry from a Halakhic (Jewish legal) perspective. The principle of pikuach nefesh (that most Jewish laws do not apply in a situation where life is threatened) is normally quite permissive about halakha, including (I believe) all or nearly all the places where Islamic law would be different from Jewish law. Although Jewish law encourages resistance to a persecuting enemy, I'm not convinced the Ottoman Sultan was such an enemy. He was certainly less of an enemy than the Spanish government, since nearly all the Jews (Shabbetai being a conspicuous exception, for obvious reasons) were allowed to live in relative peace in the empire. So I don't view Shabbetai's conversion to Islam as an act of cowardice or a betrayal of the Jewish people.

John Freely's book does not describe Shabbetai's conversion, or the Donmeh's continued connection to Judaism and Jewish traditions, with the negativity that other sources seem to. His tone is essentially neutral with regard to whether Shabbetai and the Sabbateans "ought to be" Jewish or Muslim. I was very happy to see this, because it helped me think about his post-conversion life in a different light. I was glad to read that as soon as Shabbetai converted to Islam, he basically picked an influential but very idiosyncratic and in some circles disreputable Whirling Dervish to be his mentor. (That person's name slips my mind right now, and would be important to add to the article.) This was Shabbetai being pure Shabbetai, and not someone who was so afraid of the Sultan that he was pretending to be someone else. Even the ultimate threat, the threat of death, could not kill that part of him. Perhaps Shabbetai felt that the Judaism and Islam of his time were too rigid and lifeless--Judaism too saddened by its long history of defeats to reinvent itself and shine outside the walls of the ghetto; Islam too closed to ideas from other groups to fully comprehend what Judaism could still achieve. I see Shabbetai as someone who used his supreme knowledge of classical Judaism (and later Islam) to break the classical traditions and develop a more free-wheeling and improvisational way of being. Shabbetai certainly seemed to follow the mantra of the jazz musician Duke Ellington, "It's better to be a number one yourself than a number two somebody else"--even when faced with some of the most venerable traditions and powerful people in the world. You may want to read this passage about the jazz musician Charlie Parker, which basically describes what I think of Shabbetai Tzvi. Had Shabbetai chosen to die when the Sultan told him to convert, he would no longer have been himself. Yet Shabbetai seems to have found a kindred spirit in the facet of Islam he embraced, an Islam that was blissfully antinomian like he was and very different from the violent fundamentalism that Westerners usually hear about nowadays.

I think it's problematic that many Jews have such a one-dimensional view of Muslims, who are more than 1 billion people with each one unique. It's also problematic that many Muslims have such a one-dimensionally negative view of Jews. In the meantime, members of the more progressive movements of Judaism--the movements that are most willing to break doors by associating with Gentiles and cross boundaries when it comes to Jewish law--too often lack the initiative to bring Judaism to their own children, let alone to the many places where it is quite desired and least expected. The state of much of Judaism today is like a song by Bruce Springsteen called Radio Nowhere: "This is Radio Nowhere, is there anybody alive out there?" If the old ideas do not awaken these people, perhaps a new approach is needed. The Jews of the Enlightenment, in their desire to fit into the Gentile world, seem to have obscured a certain vital Jewish spark by confusing modernism with Gentileness. Yet the world outside the eighteenth-century Jewish ghetto is Jewish and not just Gentile--one need only learn about Christianity, Islam or countless other subjects to recognize some of what our predecessors in that world have wrought. This is why the Jewish people are special, and is a narrative that progressive Jewish movements can use when teaching people to be both proud members of their people and proud citizens of the world. Shabbetai Tsvi is only one part of the rich and largely unexplored tapestry modern Jews can use as a reference point. If we can clean off the dirt our predecessors covered him with, I think there is greatness underneath. -- AFriedman  (talk)  14:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Great answer! And much better than anything I was expecting!

 * I promise I will study your reply above very carefully in the days and weeks ahead, until I can absorb at least part of the new sources you suggest, that are as yet unfamiliar to me. The first one being of course Freely's book, of which I had never heard until you referred to it first. Let me just point out off the bat that we are in complete agreement here regarding the currents views of Judaism on SZ, and I am very glad I asked the question and you answered the way you did. As for the historical reasons for this rather distorted view of this important historical development, I want to point out also that it is due in no small part to the rather negative view of the subject in general and of SZ in particular by Gershom Scholem in his major work on the subject that is referred to in the main article. My own views and study of the subject started from Scholem's work, which I have studied carefully, in rather particular detail over many years. Have you read the work? There are many wrong and distorted views of the historical phenomenon there, but the work is still considered the "ultimate history" of the subject as far as contemporary Jewish historiography is concerned. Thanks again for a carefully thought out and well written, richly substantiated reply. As I said, I need to go back and get myself much more familiar with your own sources, before we can continue this rather fruiful conversation here. Regards, --warshytalk 15:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't had time to read Scholem's book, but I'll probably get to it sooner or later and will let you know when I do. Freely's book, FYI, is much more concise and is written for a popular audience. I'm not surprised Scholem would have a negative view of Zvi, given that he inherited the Jewish party line about Zvi. I inherited the same party line--for example, my elderly grandmother can't imagine why a modern person would have such a high opinion of Zvi. But I am skeptical of that point of view, because the people who pass it on mostly aren't thinking about the other ways of viewing the phenomenon. I haven't heard anyone else ask whether Shabbetai's conversion would have been justified by pikuach nefesh, for example, and I still can't get a convincing answer of why not. I also haven't seen this interpretation of Shabbetai as a supremely original thinker who defied the boundaries, not only for himself but for the Jewish people, and blazed his own path. BTW, I also think the Rabbanites used similar tactics of intellectual suppression against the Karaites. See the article about Anan ben David, which incorporates text from the Jewish Encyclopedia that basically slanders him and his movement. But anyway, I look forward to continuing this discussion. -- AFriedman  (talk)  18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Well, for one, he wasn't just an individual acting on pikuach nefesh when he 'converted.' He was the expected Messiah/King of the Jews, and the extant negative accounts also have detailed descriptions of how contemporary Jews in various parts of Europe and the Mediterranean 'worshipped' him as such, as a mystical true "Messiah." But you'll see all that when you read Scholem's major work on the subject. If you want to save yourself sometime, you really don't need to read the whole work. Just read Scholem's own entry on SZ on the Encyclopaedia Judaica from Jerusalem, published in the '80s of the past century, and even available now online, I believe. I have a printed out copy of this summary of his own major work, written by Scholem himself, in a pocket book format. Most of insights I have gathered on the subject I first glimpsed them just by reading this encyclopedic summary written by Scholem himself; but reading it very carefully, with a critical historic frame of mind, and mostly reading in between the lines, if you catch my drift, reading what he's really implying by his very detailed biased descriptions, but is consciously/purposely avoiding to state and recognize openly. For example, that this was a major diplomatic/geo-political event at the heart/capital of the Ottoman Empire in the 17th century, and not just a whimsical attempt by a "crazy" individual impostor, as he clearly states. I have ordered Freely's book already, and I am also looking forward to continuing this conversation once I have at least skimmed through it with my own eyes once. --warshytalk 22:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Where is the Scholem Encyclopedia Judaica account? Re: the fact that Shabbetai was an ostensible Messiah, IMO he was in deep trouble as soon as his messianic movement began, more or less whatever he did. Even by the standards of a supposed Messiah, the expectations of Shabbetai were especially unrealistic, since his particular movement took off when he was alive and predicted he would accomplish great miracles in a specific year as a living man. The messianic movements of Jesus and Rabbi Schneerson, by comparison, are based on the men in question being dead. So what people expect to see is more similar to what they will see, since a dead man won't disappoint the way a living man can. (A book we're both familiar with, Chizzuk Emunah, goes into detail about how the former messianic movement, when closely examined, is actually quite incoherent as a narrative, something I think many people realize but few people address. However, it certainly has much better sound bytes than Judaism, and in practice, the "New Covenant" is a set of teachings that people can live by--perhaps even more than the "Old Covenant" with its onerous restrictions on human life.)  In Shabbetai's case, the messianic movement seemed to have the immediate benefit of giving Shabbetai a certain license for his eccentricities, license he needed in order to be an accepted member of society at all. This may have given Shabbetai some sort of cognitive dissonance about whether or not he believed he was the messiah--especially after consulting a learned man such as Nathan of Gaza who was telling him he was.

As for Shabbetai's dilemma about death vs. conversion, I'm not convinced death would have been a better option. Either way, Shabbetai and the movement would have lost and Judaism would have felt yet another disappointment. Furthermore, the spirit of Sabbateanism was to use new energies to break old patterns--celebrating the ancient fast days as feast days, for example, and committing "holy sins." It was already part of the Sabbatean liturgy to pray that this new Messiah, Shabbetai, would not meet the fate of his predecessor Jesus. Shabbetai's choice of conversion over death was certainly a break in the standard pattern. However, I would like to read Scholem's take on this.

It is noteworthy that the Dervishes were able to appreciate Shabbetai's unique talents and their actual capabilities, rather than dismissing him as a madman or a heretic or loading him with unreasonable expectations. Once Rabbinic Judaism began to gain a clear upper hand, non-Sabbatean Jews also accepted certain Sabbatean ideas on their own terms, to quite interesting effect. For example, even the Besht acknowledged the importance of joy in Jewish practice (why hasn't most of Progressive Judaism followed suit? Might improve synagogue attendance)--and I wonder if other aspects of Sabbateanism also remain disconnected from the people that could bring them new life. The specific concept I had in mind was the "holy sinner," which doesn't seem to have been explored by a progressive Jewish movement too rationalistic to venerate a particular person as the Messiah. The "holy sinner" is an indigenously, perhaps quintessentially Jewish idea that allows for a remarkable flexibility of observance and, if planted in the right type of mind, might grow into some very interesting views of the world at large and the role of Judaism within it. To me, it seems as though this idea might be a natural fit for a variety of Progressive Jewish narratives. Reform Judaism and Renewal Judaism seem to me like obvious places for a "holy sinner," but I wonder if even neo-Karaism could pull this off if its proof text is the Book of Esther (read on the assumption that Esther violates many of the laws when she becomes Queen of Persia, yet is still a positive role model for the Jewish people. How come?  Lots of ways to interpret these passages if you're a Karaite). Anyway, just some thoughts. -- AFriedman  (talk)  05:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Scholem's Encyclopaedia Judaica entry
I had written/recommended before "Scholem's own entry on SZ on the Encyclopaedia Judaica from Jerusalem, published in the '80s of the past century..." It was first published in 1972. But I have now published in the main article the correct bibliographic reference for this entry, which was republished as you can see, in 2007. I just went to the library yesterday and xeroxed the 20 pages again. I have also finished reading Freely's book above, and I am soon adding it to the references. I am also going to write here some observations about this book. warshytalk 23:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Review/comments on Freely's book
As I said, I have finished reading/digesting Freely's book The Lost Messiah: In Search of the Mystical Rabbi Sabbatai Sevi (2001). I bought it first some half a year ago, follwoing AFriedman's published link to the book on Amazon.com above. I had not heard about the book before Friedman's note here.

Overall, I believe the book is usefull and it is a good contribution to the study of the field, if nothing else, as a consolidator of the current status of knowledge. Any serious student of the phenomenon will have to delve first into Scholem's major work on it, given in the main article references here. But Scholem's book was written in the 40's and 50's of last century in Hebrew first (first Hebrew edition published in 1957), and it's English translation, with Scholem's review/approval was first published in 1973. Scholem's summary of a lifetime of study of the subject was first published in the Encyclopaedia Judaica in 1972, also now updated in the references here according to the section above on this page.

So I think we can surmise that Scholem's last own word on the subject was written around 1970. He passed away in 1982. Freely's book is a summary of his own research on the subject for some 40 years, apparently, and it was finally published in 2001. So Freely's view comes some 30 years after Scholem's, and it is seemingly the last published view on the phenomenon that I know of.

It is a pity the book does not have any notes and does not point directly to any sources, except in the "Select Bibliography" and the Index at the end. For example, I cannot be sure if Freely saw himself this source given in his bibliography:

- Carpi, Solomon Joseph, The History of Sabbatai Sevi, ed. Nachum Brull (Vilna, 1879)

Or that he just quoting and summarizing what Scholem says about this source. That is because he does not say in what langauge the source/book is written at all. From scouring Scholem's book more than a dozen times to understand this source, it seems to me it must have been written/published in Hebrew. But Freely does not clarify the matter.

Or another "primary" source much quoted and referred to by both Scholem and Freely: Baruch of Arezzo's account of Shabbetai Zvi's story. Baruch of Arezzo's account is cited directly by Freely more than a dozen times, but as far as I can see it is not part of Freely's select bibliography at the end. What version of Arezzo's account did Freely see or study? Or are all these citations just unacknowledged quotes of Scholem's own quotes?

Until these basic questions about his sources can be elucidated a little better, the only thing I think can be said about Freely's book is that it is maybe a good consolidator of the current status of knwoledge on the subject, and of the important 17th century ["contemporary'] sources that have to be consulted by current students of the subject. How reliable is it as a serious source of analysis on the subject on its own is a question that is still open in my mind, until basic "primary sources" questions as the ones above can be answered. warshytalk 17:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I don't know about the uncited sources, but I think Freely's book was intended for a popular rather than scholarly audience.  This isn't his field of scholarship.  If you'd like, other people might find it helpful if you posted this review on some of the WikiProjects above and on articles about John Freely.  Also, the book itself is probably notable and may deserve an article in its own right, which I don't have time to make.  I do feel that our knowledge of this subject is still distorted by overreliance on a single source--Scholem.  Scholem's book was quite comprehensive and some of his findings were fascinating, but IMO there are many ways to retell this story.  Condensing Scholem's thousand-page tome into a 200-page travelogue accessible to both Jews and non-Jews, which Freely did, was certainly an accomplishment in my opinion.  -- La comadreja  formerly AFriedman  RESEARCH   (talk)  13:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome back La comadreja and I hope you're all wikirecovered and wikihealthy ;) Looks like you are. I agree with all your points above, and especially with the point about overreliance on a quite distorted single source for the history of the phenomenon. I am working on this primarily, but the "source" we are alluding to is quite an institution in itself in the world of Jewish schollarship and learning today and it is not easy to challenge. It can only be challenged, if at all, from a very sound and solidly constructed material base. Who knows how far one can get when this is not his or hers main occupation or livelihood? Thanks for being an otter here. Regards, warshytalk 14:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You too, welcome back. Warshy, that's one of the reasons I changed my name specifically to La comadreja. Weasels will fight animals much larger than they are and if they were scholars, they wouldn't be afraid to be amateurs taking on Scholem. If we try to make sense in our arguments, the fact that we have a different view than Scholem can only help, not hurt. I've heard that it's not uncommon for scholars who are becoming established in a field to challenge one of the leading authorities on one of their more famous points. I also think that part of modern people's problems with Shabbetai could be a general skepticism and disdain for people who are eccentric, especially if they have what would be considered a diagnosable mental illness. Unfortunately, this skepticism and disdain hurts many people who, for whatever reason, can't or won't conform but could be very productive and valuable under a different set of expectations. Do you have an unrelated day job or other primary responsibilities that are separate from this project? Do you have an academic background? What got you interested in the project you had mentioned earlier? Also, have you been to Wikiversity? That's the Wikimedia Foundation project for, among other things, original research. IMO it could use a nice essay about Shabbetai or some other subject in Jewish history. -- La comadreja  formerly AFriedman  RESEARCH  (talk)  16:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have an academic background in History but I don't work on the field. I work in IT support. I have been reading and researching Scholem for many years, and the glaring shortcomings of his narrow (kabbalistic, mystical) view on the phenomenon of 17h century messianism jumped to my eyes when I first looked at it. I believe the phenomenon is much wider and it has a very solid material historical basis, not only mystical or 'ethereal.' I promise I will look into the Wikiversity project you work on, with some more time. The problem is that in this changing world the variety of new mediums can be very distracting. You spend more time trying to understand and master the technological aspects of the medium than on straight historical research and writing. The technological medium in the end can easily eclipse the historical subjet... warshytalk 17:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The Jewish people were very disappointed in Shabbetai's time with a number of events that happened to them, and they were looking for "out of the box" answers. Shabbetai's movement reminds me of the Native American Ghost Dance, a Native American religious/spiritual/"messianic" movement that appeared when Europeans were conquering the American West and promised Native American sovereignty. It also reminds me of the "Bible of Hell" from William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. If you don't understand, I'd be happy to explain further--they are 2 separate analogies.

My own Wikiversity work is actually in biology, but the Research link in my signature is for all fields. Wikiversity has plenty of space for your thoughts that would fall under Original Research on this wiki, and I'm working on continuing to develop the research facilities over there. I've been to real-life Wikimedia conferences, and there might be some in Ann Arbor. Do you have access to the library of a major university? -- La comadreja  formerly AFriedman  RESEARCH  (talk)  17:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I have very easy phyisical access to the libraries of the University of Michigan, but not academic access to match yet. Working on this. I am also working on a basic research article to publish on the subject we are talking about here, and when time comes to do it, in 3 or 4 months, I will look at your online 'facility' as a possible venue for publishing it. warshytalk 18:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hope you can get the academic access. BTW, Wikiversity also hosts drafts of articles, which is the stage that some of my Wikiversity research is in. It also works as a brainstorm space for your thoughts. -- La comadreja  formerly AFriedman  RESEARCH  (talk)  19:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

AMIRAH?
From the article, in the section about Nathan of Gaza: "At this point also his followers appeared to start using for him the title of AMIRAH, which is a Hebrew acronym for the phrase "Our Lord and King, his Majesty be exalted" (Adoneinu Malkeinu Yarum Hodo)." A reference is not cited. There's no sign of this detail in the original Jewish Encyclopedia article, but this detail seems to have been part of this article for several years now. Does anyone have any idea where this detail came from? --Brasswatchman (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, this detail is described in detail in the Scholem book (look at the bibliography), and also in the Freely book discussed above, which hasn't even made it to the bibliography in the main page yet. I did not bother adding specific references since most of the details in the main article here don't have yet references. If you want I can check these two sources and add the references needed. Did not look to me there were that many people interested in the subject here... Regards, warshytalk 19:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I'll take your word for it. Like I said, I just get curious about random little facts sometimes. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. --Brasswatchman (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

CONVERSION
The lead of the article says Zevi was forced to convert to Islam by the sovereign. The detailed description given later in the article says his conversion was done as a ruse. In any case he doesn't show the heroic defiance shown by a mother and her seven sons at the time of the Maccabees, all tortured to death because they would not submit to the king's command to take just one little bite of pork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.200.100 (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sabbati and Sarah/Simon Magus and Helen
I found the section of the article on Sabbatai's wife Sarah to be very similar to the story about Simon Magus and his wife Helen. I think that adding a sentence or two making the connection would improve the article. It doesn't have to imply that this proves him to be a false messiah.Pete Hardy (talk) 13:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The new source added to the lead
The argument made based on the new source added must first be squared with the argument made based on all the sources already existent in the article.

Shabbetai was arrested in Constantinople on February 6, 1666, and after a long imprisonment in a special fortress in Galippoli, where he still received visits from the leaders of this followers, the conversion occurred only on September 16, 1666. And this is how Gershom Scholem had summarized the research on the matter of the conversion:"Since the Turkish archives from this period were destroyed by fire, no official Turkish documents about the movement and the proceedings in this case have survived, and reports from Jewish and Christian sources in Constantinople are conflicting."

Scholem, Gershom. "Shabbetai Ẓevi." Encyclopaedia Judaica. Ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. 2nd ed. Vol. 18. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 340-359. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 23 Dec. 2014. (This is among the sources already in the article for the section on the conversion.) warshy (¥¥) 15:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

birth date
Many sources such as the Jewish Encyclopedia and Britannica say his birth date was July 23, 1626. I assume this is on the Julian calendar. However, per Conversion between Julian and Gregorian calendars for that year we should be adding 10 days to get the Gregorian date, which would make that August 2, not August 1. Hebcal computes the 9th of Av, 5386 to be August 1 (with the caveat that it doesn't do a Julian conversion), so something is off here. — howcheng  {chat} 18:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * For a more updated discussion of his presumed birth date (since both the character and the precise dates in this tale are all enveloped in deep layers of pure legend), you should see the Encyclopedia Judaica article on him written by Gershom Scholem, or Scholem's magnum opus on the character. Both are referenced in detail in the main article's references and bibliography. warshy (¥¥) 19:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Even John Freely's book on the character, also referenced in the bibliography, contains updated discussions both of his date of birth, and of the date and location of his presumed death. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 19:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but would you mind summarizing? I'm only asking because this article was included on WP:Selected anniversaries/August 1 as a birth listing, and I was simply verifying that it was supposed to be there. What I need to know is: is it accurate if we list him on that day? Thanks. — howcheng  {chat} 00:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the quote from Freely's book, page 9, following Scholem to the letter: "Sabbatai's own testimony gives the date of his birth as the Ninth of Ab in the Hebrew year 5386 - 1 August 1626 in the Gregorian calendar. ... The Ninth of Ab fell on Sabbath in 5386." Is that enough for your verification, or should I bring Scholem's lengthy discussion of the subject, that nonetheless comes to the same conclusion? Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 23:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 01:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hebrew spelling
says that the correct spelling of 'Sabbatai' in Hebrew is שַׁבְּתַי (translit: šbty), without an aleph before the yodh, but this contradicts both the articles contents, transliterations, and also cognate translations in other language Wikis for this article.

The transliterations for his name in the article also include Shabbeṯāy Ṣeḇī, with an 'ā', indicating an aleph, as apposed to an 'á' indicating a short vowel. The cognate articles for fellow Semitic language Arabic also writes the name with an aleph as شبتاي (translit: šbtʾy). The Persian article, likely a direct descendant from Ottoman Turkish spelling, writes his name as شبتای (translit: šbtʾy).

Under 'Early life and education' it says "His name literally meant the planet Saturn, and in Jewish tradition "The reign of Sabbatai" (The highest planet) was often linked to the advent of the Messiah." The word for the planet Saturn in Hebrew is spelled שַׁבְּתַאי (translit: šbtʾy), not שַׁבְּתַי (translit: šbty). It includes an aleph. This is the article for the planet Saturn on Hebrew language Wikipedia, and it is spelled שַׁבְּתַאי (translit: šbtʾy).

In fact, even the Hebrew-language wiki for this article spells Sabbatai Zevi's name as שַׁבְּתַאי (translit: šbtʾy) throughout the article. For example: "שבתאי צבי לא הציג שום הוכחות הלכתיות להיותו משיח האמת של העם היהודי, טען בתוקף יעקב ששפורטס." The word for his followers, the Sabbateans, is also spelled שבתאיים (translit: šbtʾyym), again with an aleph. For exmaple: "גרעינים שבתאיים נסתרים וגלויים שרדו במזרח אירופה עד אמצע המאה ה-18, אז הופיעה בפולין התנועה הפרנקיסטית שגררה את מרבית השבתאים הנסתרים. לאחר התנצרות הפרנקיסטים ב-1759 גוועה השבתאות באירופה. גם בבלקן, בטורקיה ובאיטליה, מעוזיהם האחרונים של השבתאים, גוועה השבתאות עד לאמצע המאה ה-18, אך רעיונות בעלי מוטיבים שבתאיים, דוגמת "עברה לשמה" ו"העלאת הניצוצות" הוסיפו להימצא במוקד של מספר פולמוסים מאוחרים יותר."

I think it should be pretty decisive that his name is spelled with an aleph as שַׁבְּתַאי, not שַׁבְּתַי. — LissanX (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, why don't you look at the Hebrew Wikipedia article (https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%99_%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%99), which is planly called שבתי צבי, and opens with the name with nikkud, שַׁבְּתַי צְבִי.
 * You appear to be much more proficient than me in quoting foreign languages on WP, but you are apparently not a native Hebrew speaker. The difference and confusion stems from two modes of spelling in Hebrew, one with the vowel marks, and the other without the vowel marks. When vowel marks are used, the correct spelling is given above in the Hebrew Wikipedia. When vowel marks are not used, then an Aleph is added to indicate the missing vowel. I will still check, when I can, the Hebrew version of Scholem's book to see how he dealt with the issue, but for the time being the Hebrew wiki will suffice, I believe. Thank you for all your research above. warshy (¥¥) 19:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response . I am aware of the niqqud diacritic Patach indicating the vocalization of a "full" aleph without writing in the consonant. Arabic also has a comparable diacritic known as Alif Khanjariyyah, which could potentially be used to write شبتاي (Hebrew שבתַאי) as شبتٰي (Hebrew שבתַי). The thing is, both are used to contract the word and the writing of the aleph creates a non-contracted, "fully" spelled out form. — LissanX (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the fully spelled out form (ktiv maleh) in Hebrew is the "non-contracted" form of the name. There is no discussion about that. But in the article the Hebrew name is being spelled out with nekudot, and in that form the correct spelling is usually without the Aleph. As I said, I will still look in the Hebrew version of Scholem's book to see how he dealt with the issue, but as for the correct spelling of the name with nekudot, I will leave it as it right now in the English article. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 23:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the fully spelled out form (ktiv maleh) in Hebrew is the "non-contracted" form of the name. There is no discussion about that. But in the article the Hebrew name is being spelled out with nekudot, and in that form the correct spelling is usually without the Aleph. As I said, I will still look in the Hebrew version of Scholem's book to see how he dealt with the issue, but as for the correct spelling of the name with nekudot, I will leave it as it right now in the English article. Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 23:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

A word on Singer?
at least in the bibliography! 69.206.162.159 (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC) "What are you talking about? Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 17:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Spelling of first name of author Clodfelter
Good afternoon fellow Wikipedians - Recently I made this edit to this article, correcting the first name of the author of the cited book Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 1500–1999 from Michael to Micheal. Shortly thereafter, my edit was undone. The spelling of Clodfelter's first name can be verified at the publisher's website, among other on-line sources. My preference would be for someone else to review this edit so as to not give the appearance of edit-warring.

Thanks to all for their contributions, and happy holidays. KConWiki (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Hello,
 * Thanks for explaining this here. I don't have time to really check it, and this source is not particularly important for the overall article, in my view. If you vouch for this unusual spelling of his name, I will go and undo my own revert, back to your original correction. Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc;">(¥¥) 20:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I undid my own revert, back to your correction of the spelling of the name. I even did click on your link after that, and verified that you are correct. Thank you for your contributions and happy holidays, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc;">(¥¥) 20:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, and have a nice holiday season. KConWiki (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

So called "influence" of "English millenarianism"
Given that we don't have any information that Sabbatai even had contact with English people during his formative years, let alone that he spoke English, or knew of esoteric English millenarian elucubrations, putting this entirely speculative (based on basically nothing) section in "Personal History" seems very disingenous. At the very most, it is speculation. -- 190.195.146.6 (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The first to point out this very important connection was the famous Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz. And the reason he did that, and subsequent historians continued to point this out (including the Jewish Encyclopedia original source for this page), is the fact that his father owed his rise in economic status (and the financial wealth that he did, while his sons were growing up), to being the local agent and/or broker for English trade companies. This is all also well documented by Graetz, and more recently in the economic history of Izmir by Goffman.
 * It is reasonable to assume that his father did speak some English, or that he could somehow communicate pretty successfully with his English employers. As for Shabbatai himself, we don't know for sure how many languages (and which languages) he could speak, but those may have included some English too. But his own knowledge of the English language is not even necessary for Graetz's very probable assumption that his father did hear about the growing expectations for the Messiah in England during the English Civil War period. warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc;">(¥¥) 01:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sabbatai Zevi


text:
Ide (fish)

The ide (Leuciscus idus), or orfe, is a freshwater fish of the family Cyprinidae found in larger rivers, ponds, and lakes across Northern Europe and Asia. It has been introduced outside its native range into Europe, North America, and New Zealand. It is a popular ornamental fish, usually kept in outdoor ponds in temperate regions from which it often escapes.

Etymology
The name "ide" is from Swedish id, originally referring to its bright colour (compare the German dialect word Aitel, a kind of bright fish and Old High German Eit, funeral pyre, fire). The alternative name "orfe" derives from German Orf, through the Latin orphus meaning a "sea fish" or "sea perch", which in turn derives from the Greek orphōs. The generic name Leuciscus is derived from the Greek word leykiskos, which means "white mullet".

Subspecies
The two recognised subspecies of the ide are:

 * L. i. idus (Linnaeus) the nominate subspecies
 * L. i. oxianus (Kessler, 1877) from central Asia

Description
The ide is a rather plump, sturdily built fish with a deep body, although not especially so. The peduncle of the caudal fin is thick. When they are small, ide have dark backs and silvery sides, but older fish develop a golden sheen along the flanks. At all ages, the eye is yellow and the pectoral fin and anal fin are reddish in colour. The dorsal fin has three spines and 8-11 soft rays, the anal fin has three spines and 8 - 11 soft rays, while the caudal fin has 19 rays. It has 47 vertebrae. It is distinguished from other European members of the genus Leucsicus by the lateral line having 56-58 scales; 3.5-5.3 pharyngeal teeth, in having a terminal mouth, and branching in 8% of the dorsal rays and 10% of the anal rays. They grow to 25–50 cm in length and the normal weight range is 0.5–1.5 kg and they seldom attain weights over 2.0 kg. The European rod-caught record is 5.5 kg. Reports have been made of ides attaining total lengths around 100 cm and weights of 8 kg.

Distribution
The ide is native to Europe and western Asia from the rivers draining into the North Sea east through southern Scandinavia and eastern Europe to the Caspian Sea drainage and the River Lena. As a popular ornamental fish, it was introduced to Great Britain in 1874 and is now widespread in England and Wales, but only has a localised distribution in Scotland. It was introduced into France and from there and Germany was introduced as an ornamental fish into the Netherlands.

Outside of Europe, the ide was first taken to the United States of America in 1877, when live specimens were imported by the United States Fish Commission to be intentionally stocked in US waters, and this was subsequently done by state agencies, too; the species also spread through escapes from commercial and government ponds. It has now been reported from nine states, but its status in the United States remains uncertain as many records are old and of a few individuals and the species apparently has either failed to establish self-sustaining populations or has been eradicated.

The ide was illegally imported into New Zealand as eggs, sometime in the 1980s. Fish were subsequently released between 1985 and 1986 in no less than eight and possibly as many as 13 sites north of Auckland. Ide probably did not last very long in at least seven of the sites where releases occurred, the outcome in most of the other sites is unknown, and at least one of the release sites remains unknown. Ide likely persist in the wild in at least one site within New Zealand.

Habitat and ecology
Ide occur in schools in the clear pools of larger rivers, ponds, and lakes, but they may move to deeper waters during the winter before moving into shallow fresh water to spawn in the spring. The species is also found in the Baltic Sea, which has a lower salinity than most seas, and in Sweden, the fish spend the first year of their lives in rivers before joining the more mature fish as they migrate downstream into the Baltic Sea during the summer. The fish then return to the rivers in the autumn, where they remain close to the mouths and in the lower reaches throughout the winter.

The ide reaches sexual maturity at 3–5 years of age, and once it has attained total length, which varies from 22 cm to 43 cm, although in cooler waters, it may first breed as late as 7 years of age. It spawns in shallow water in the spring, soon after the ice has melted in the colder parts of its range. Some populations are migratory and ascend rivers and streams to spawn, but others also spawn in shallow parts of lakes and sea inlets. Eggs are usually laid among gravel or on emergent vegetation. Spawning normally lasts for 3–4 days, during which the fish are very active. Each female spawns only once a season, but during spawning, she mates with several males and the males gather at spawning grounds, where they follow ripe females. The females may lay as few as 15,000 and as many as 250,000 eggs, which are about 2 mm in diameter and pale yellow in colour, in a season. The eggs hatch in 1–2 weeks, the young fry being 8–10 mm long. The actual incubation period of eggs varies depending on the water temperature, at 18.5-22.0 °C, incubation takes about 5 days, with the optimal temperature for embryonic development being in the range of 12-18 °C.

The typical prey of the ide is larval and adult insects, snails, and other benthic invertebrates for smaller fish, but larger individuals can be piscivorous, with common roach and common bleak being commonly taken. The smaller fish, larvae, and juveniles occupy a wide variety of shoreline habitats to feed, and they leave the shore areas and move into deeper waters as they grow larger. Smaller ide are sociable and join mixed shoals of other cyprinids, but the larger adult fish form smaller, single-species groups, which patrol what are believed to be regular routes. The ide prefers clear, warmer water, and is not as tolerant of eutrophication as some related species. Ide spawn in running water, so the obstruction of rivers by dams and other man-made objects can negatively affect this fish.

Human uses
As an ornamental fish, the ide is usually referred to as the orfe, and the main variety kept is the golden orfe, which is golden or orange in colour with some black spots on its neck, near the head. Also, a much less common blue variety is known as the blue orfe. As they grow quite large, they are not considered to be suitable for indoor aquaria, and they recommended to be kept outside as a shoal in a pond. They require better-oxygenated water than koi or goldfish, but can be kept in association with these species. Golden orfe were very popular as an ornamental pond fish until koi became readily available in the 1960s.

In their native range, they are popular as a quarry for anglers; in eastern Europe, the ide is regarded as edible and is prized as a food fish, and are netted and sold commercially along the Danube. In more northern parts of the range, though, they are not regarded as a desirable food fish. They are also fished for as coarse fish in the United Kingdom, but there they tend to be localised to commercial fisheries or to sites where they have been introduced.

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

title: Ide (fish)


text:
User:Doug Pardee/Working

Eiffel Eiffel is an object-oriented (OO) programming language which emphasizes the production of robust software. Many find its syntax to be reminiscent of Pascal. Eiffel is a compiled language, strongly statically typed, with automatic memory management (typically implemented by  garbage collection).

Created in 1987, Eiffel is a mature OO language with development systems available from four different suppliers. Despite this maturity and a generally excellent reputation among those who are familiar with the language, Eiffel has failed to gain much interest from software developers. The reasons for this lack of interest are unclear, and are a topic of frequent discussion within the Eiffel community.

Hello World in Eiffel
class HELLO_WORLD creation make feature make is do print ("Hello, world!%N") end end

Notable features and characteristics
At first glance, Eiffel appears to be quite ordinary. Aside from the statements and declarations associated with Design by Contract™, there is little that is remarkable in the Eiffel syntax. Nevertheless, Eiffel has a number of unusual aspects, many of which are reflected by what is absent from the Eiffel syntax.

Guiding principles
Analysis, design, and implementation language: Eiffel is not just an implementation language. Eiffel can be used to specify an analysis-level object model, which can be elaborated into a design-level object model, to which implementation code can be added to achieve a running program. In recent years, graphical analysis and design systems such as UML have overshadowed the analysis and design specification aspects of Eiffel, despite the graphical languages' requirement for translation between the design language and the implementation language and vice versa.

Reliance on development systems: Eiffel attempts to move as much work as possible from the programmer to the development system and automated tools. The effects of this principle are most obvious when compared against the C++ language. C++ has restrictions on forward references to save the compiler from the effort of making one additional pass over the source code; Eiffel makes the extra pass. C++ requires the programmer to provide a separate header file; Eiffel extracts the header information directly from the main class file. C++ puts the programmer in charge of releasing memory allocations when they are no longer needed; Eiffel has automatic memory management (typically garbage collection). The Java language is very similar to Eiffel in these respects.

Preference for declarative rather than imperative: Eiffel code tends to have more declarative statements and fewer imperative instructions than code in most other languages. To some extent, this stems from the expression of analysis and design concepts within the code, and the reliance upon the development system rather than the programmer.

Exactly one way to do anything: in stark contrast to Perl's philosophy of there is more than one way to do it, Eiffel follows Bertrand Meyer's Principle of Uniqueness: "The language design should provide one good way to express every operation of interest; it should avoid providing two." This philosophy eases the strain on the automated tools which Eiffel relies upon. However, many programmers dislike the restraint on stylistic expression that results from Eiffel's lack of syntactic sugar; some have described Eiffel programming as "bondage and discipline".

Problem solution only: an Eiffel program contains only that coding which is necessary to solve the problem at hand. Bookkeeping code, optimization hints to the compiler, and system assembly instructions (include, import, etc.) are not present in Eiffel.

Only one compile-time warning message: a program either is correct or it is not. In theory, Eiffel has only one warning message at compile-time, generated when the class is referencing code which has been declared obsolete by its author. In practice, however, most Eiffel implementations do have a few other warning messages.

Lexical and syntax
Case insensitive: like Ada, Eiffel is not case-sensitive. Keywords and identifiers can be written in any combination of upper and lower case. The tokens MaKe and make and MAKE all refer to the same identifier. Coding style standards, however, generally prescribe the use of all-capitals for class names, all lower-case for variables and method names, and initial capitals for constants. Keywords are normally written in all lower-case except for the reserved identifiers—True, False, Void, Current, Precursor, and Result—which are conventionally written with initial capitals. The style standards generally discourage the use of CamelCase, recommending instead the use of underscores between the words in an identifier.

Optional semicolons: Eiffel's syntax can be parsed without requiring end-of-statement markers. The use of semicolons as statement terminators or as statement separators is left to the discretion of the programmer. Putting a semicolon in or leaving one out will make no difference except in the unusual case where the following statement starts with a left parenthesis. Most Eiffel programmers choose to omit semicolons except when putting multiple statements on a line.

Proportional font: Unlike most programming languages, Eiffel is not normally displayed in a monospaced typeface. The recommended display style is to use a proportional typeface. Keywords are displayed in bold, user-defined identifiers and constants are displayed in italics. Standard upright (roman) style is used for comments, operators, and punctuation marks. This is essentially the same concept as syntax coloring which has become very popular in IDEs for many languages, except that Eiffel's recommendations also extend to print media.

Strict ordering of syntactical elements: Eiffel generally requires that sections and clauses appear in a specific order. Some programmers find the very notion to be onerous, but it does not seem to be at all controversial among the actual users of the language.

Type system
Strong static typing: like most compiled programming languages, Eiffel is statically typed. In contrast to some statically typed programming languages which permit indiscriminate casting, Eiffel provides no way to circumvent the typing.

Value types with value semantics: the question of whether value types should be implemented with value semantics or with immutables is a subject of considerable debate. Smalltalk uses immutables; Java uses immutables for non-primitive value types but value semantics for primitives. Eiffel uses value semantics for all value types, as does the more recent C# language.

Eiffel performs automatic conversion to and from references when needed; C# calls these operations boxing and unboxing. C# does not permit direct operations on boxed value objects—they can only be unboxed—but Eiffel allows full access to the reference object. This is an important distinction—the boxed objects in C# are immutable and thus continue to be value objects, where Eiffel converts them to sharable, mutable reference objects. Theoretical arguments would favor the C# approach, while Eiffel's approach provides some practical advantages.

Unified type system: Eiffel does not distinguish between primitive types and other types, as C++ and Java do. All types in Eiffel are classes. All Eiffel types are descendants of the base type ANY, with the exception of GENERAL which is the parent type of ANY.

Enumerations: Eiffel provides a simple form of enumerations based on the INTEGER type. Because all enumerations in Eiffel are fundamentally of type INTEGER, these do not have even the relatively primitive type-safety of the  types in C and C++. This lack of type-safety is unusual considering the strict type-safety that Eiffel enforces elsewhere.

Generic types: one of the problems that a statically typed OO language encounters is that of providing general-purpose container classes that are type-safe relative to the values that they store. Genericity is an elegant solution to the problem. It can also be used in other situations where an object must hold a reference to an object of a type known only to the client, and then return that reference to the client. The most well-known form of genericity is the  in C++; Java will be getting genericity in version 1.5. Many C++ programmers find the  syntax to be verbose and clumsy; in contrast, Eiffel's syntax for genericity is quite simple (as is Java's).

Eiffel's genericity is restricted to the ability to parameterize a class based on types; C++ and Java also allow individual functions to be parameterized, but Eiffel has no functions which are not object methods. C++ allows parameterization on values as well as types, primarily used for setting sizes of statically allocated arrays; Eiffel does not have statically allocated arrays and does not provide this kind of genericity (neither will Java). Eiffel allows the actual generic parameter type to be a value type, as does C++, but Java will not.

Eiffel allows a formal generic parameter to be specified to be of a particular class, or a subclass thereof. This constrained genericity allows the generic class to access the methods and features of objects of a generic type. Constrained genericity is not available in C++ but will be available in in Java.

Arrays: there is no special syntax for defining arrays nor for accessing elements of an array. An array is simply an instance of the generic collection class ARRAY[G], and access is made through ordinary method calls. This is similar to the ArrayList class in Java, if ArrayList could hold primitives such as "int". Some Eiffel compilers provide specialized optimizations for array access. Many programmers who are new to Eiffel find the absence of a special array syntax to be almost unthinkable, but in practice arrays are not used as much as lists and other collection types.

Pure object orientation
All data is contained in objects: Perhaps uniquely among the OO languages, Eiffel requires that all data be associated with an object. There are no "static" data items in Eiffel. Objects that need to be shared among all instances of a class (and its subclasses) can be created as once functions, which return the same value on the second and subsequent calls as they did on the first call.

All methods are associated with objects: As with data items, Eiffel requires that all methods be associated with an object. There are no "static" methods in Eiffel.

No main method: there is no special syntax for a "main program" in Eiffel. When compiling a system, the developer specifies which class, and which constructor of that class, will initially be executed.

C is used for non-OO operations: any non-OO coding—especially code that must be "close to the machine"—is expected to be done in C, and Eiffel provides a straightforward interface to the C routines through external methods. Eiffel tends to be quite closely connected to C in any event; three of the four Eiffel compilers translate the Eiffel source into C code rather than into object code.

Overloading
Operator overloading: Eiffel allows classes to define implementations for operators. In addition, new operators (called free operators in Eiffel) can be defined. However, this is not full operator overloading because each defined operator can take only a single operand type.

No method overloading: methods cannot be  overloaded by the declared argument types, as they can in C++ and Java. Each method must have a unique name.

Constructors
Constructors are explicitly named: constructors in Eiffel are ordinary methods that have been designated as creation features. They have standard method name.

Constructors can also be used as ordinary methods

Visibility (access) control
Explicit exporting: access control in Eiffel is accomplished by listing the specific classes which are permitted to use a method, attribute, or constructor—this is referred to as exporting. All subclasses of the named classes are also granted access. The default export is to {ANY} which is public access. Exporting to the current class gives the same effect as "protected" access in C++. Since there is no equivalent of Java packages in Eiffel, there is no equivalent of Java's default access.

Private access is different: although it might appear that exporting a method or variable to "{NONE}" would be the same as  access in C++ or Java, it is quite different. The  access modifier indicates that the method or variable can be accessed by any object of the same class, but not of a subclass. The Eiffel export to "{NONE}" indicates that the method or variable can be accessed only by the current object, either in the current class or a subclass, but not by any other object even if of the same class.

Exporting of constructors: access control can be different for construction and ordinary use of the method.

Statements vs. expressions
Statements and expressions are different: In contrast to most members of the curly brace family of programming languages, Eiffel does not permit expressions to be used as statements, nor statements to be used as expressions.

Routines and functions are different: Accordingly, a method which returns a value can only be used in expressions, while a method which does not return a value can only be invoked by method call statements.

Command/Query Separation: The philosophy that expressions and statements are fundamentally different in nature is expanded into the concept of Command-Query Separation (CQS). Under CQS, a query method (a function which returns a value) must not change the state of the object, while a command method will change the state of the object but will not return a value. CQS is strongly recommended for Eiffel programming, but is not actually enforced by the Eiffel system.

Universal access: a function with no arguments is not written with the empty parentheses that are characteristic of the curly brace family. On the surface this seems like a minor syntax point, but by eliminating the parentheses it no longer matters to the client if the value is provided by a variable or by a function with no arguments, because the syntax is identical. This provides an important bit of implementation hiding.

Publicly accessible attributes and information hiding

Imperative statements
Six imperative statements: Eiffel has only six basic executable statements: assignment, object creation, method call, conditional, iteration, and choice (case).

Left side of assignment restricted: Perhaps uniquely among the OO languages, Eiffel does not permit storing into member variables of other objects. The assignment statement can only change the value of a member variable of the current object, or a local variable of the current method. All changes to other objects must be accomplished by calls to methods of that object. Direct access to member variables of other objects is "read only" in Eiffel.

Only one type of loop: the only iteration statement in Eiffel is the from...until statement, which evaluates the termination condition at the beginning of the loop. There is no "while" statement, no "do...until" nor "do...while", and no "for" loop.

Loop statement does not include step instruction: the iteration (loop) statement in Eiffel is unusual in that it does not provide a field or clause which will step the loop. The programmer must explicitly code the appropriate stepping statement within the loop. For example: from i := 0 until i >= 10 loop my_array.put (0, i) i := i + 1 end

Strictly structured coding: Eiffel's procedural coding is strictly structured. There are no Eiffel statements for terminating a loop early, nor for exiting a method early.

Design by Contract™
Disciplined exceptions

Inheritance
Implementation inheritance

Multiple inheritance

Anchored types and covariance

Eiffel genesis
Eiffel was originally developed by Bertrand Meyer and his company Interactive Software Engineering (ISE). It closely follows Dr. Meyer's work in Object Oriented Software Construction, Second Edition. Eiffel differs from most popular languages in several ways.

The goal of the language, libraries, and programing methods is to create reliable, reusable software modules. It supports multiple inheritance, genericity, polymorphism, and encapsulation. Its most important contribution to software engineering is Design by Contract, in which assertions, preconditions, postconditions, and class invariants are used to assist in assuring program correctness without sacrificing efficiency.

Eiffel also offers multiple class inheritance. Many people (such as the designers of Java) have objections to multiple inheritance. The Eiffel implementation of multiple inheritance, in the opinion of its supporters, successfully meets these objections.

Eiffel's design is closely based on OOP theory, with less influence from other paradigms or support for legacy code. The language has formal support for abstract data types. In accordance with Self Documentation, a software text should be able to reproduce its design documentation from the text itself. Eiffel accomplishes this by using a formalized implementation of the Abstract Data Type.

Eiffel Studio, an integrated development environment for Eiffel, offers an object-oriented interface for software engineering. However, many programmers disliked it because it was very different from user interfaces for other integrated development environments.

Specifications and standards
The official language specification for Eiffel is Eiffel: The Language, first edition, second printing (ETL2), but that book is reportedly out of print. Bertrand Meyer is working on a new version of the Eiffel language specification, but no completion date is available (as of early 2003). In the interim, ISE has made a significant subset of ETL2 available online.

The specifications for the Eiffel language and its basic libraries are nominally under the control of the Nonprofit International Consortium for Eiffel (NICE). Although NICE has sporadically worked on improving the specifications for the basic library classes, it has done little with the language itself aside from ratifying ETL2 and a few changes which already had appeared in the available development systems. In June 2002 ISE submitted the Eiffel language to the European Computer Manufacturers Association (ECMA) for standardization, a move which effectively deposed NICE as the standards body for the language proper.

title: User:Doug Pardee/Working


text:
HMS Canopus (1897)

HMS Canopus was a pre-dreadnought battleship of the British Royal Navy and the lead ship of the Canopus-class battleship. Intended for service in Asia, Canopus and her sister ships were smaller and faster than the preceding Majestic-class battleships, but retained the same battery of four 12 in guns. She also carried thinner armour, but incorporated new Krupp steel, which was more effective than the Harvey armour used in the Majestics. Canopus was laid down in January 1897, launched in October that year, and commissioned into the fleet in December 1899.

Canopus served in the Mediterranean Fleet upon commissioning until 1903, when she was decommissioned for refitting. In 1905, she was sent to East Asia, but the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance that year rendered her presence in Asian waters unnecessary. She instead returned to Britain and served with several fleet commands in British waters, including the Atlantic Fleet, the Channel Fleet, and finally the Home Fleet. Another short deployment to the Mediterranean followed in 1908–1909. Upon returning to Britain, she was placed in reserve.

At the beginning of the First World War in August 1914, she was mobilised for service in the South America Station, where she patrolled for German commerce raiders. She was involved in the search for the German East Asia Squadron of Vice Admiral Maximilian von Spee. Too slow to follow Admiral Sir Christopher Cradock's cruisers, she missed the Battle of Coronel in November 1914, where Cradock was defeated. Moored at Port Stanley as a defensive battery, she fired the first shots of the Battle of the Falklands in December, which led Spee to break off the attack before being chased down and destroyed by Admiral Doveton Sturdee's battlecruisers.

Canopus was transferred to the Mediterranean in early 1915 for the Dardanelles Campaign. She participated in major attacks on the Ottoman coastal fortifications defending the Dardanelles in March 1915, but the British and French fleets proved incapable of forcing the straits. After the Gallipoli Campaign ended with the withdrawal of Allied forces in January 1916, Canopus patrolled the eastern Mediterranean, but saw no further action. She was removed from service in April 1916 and was converted into a barracks ship in early 1918. After the war, the ship was broken up in 1920.

Design

Canopus and her five sister ships were designed for service in East Asia, where the new rising power Japan was beginning to build a powerful navy, though this role was quickly made redundant by the Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1902. The ships were designed to be smaller, lighter and faster than their predecessors, the Majestic-class battleships. Canopus was 421 ft long overall, with a beam of 74 ft and a draft of 26 ft. She displaced 13150 LT normally and up to 14300 LT fully loaded. Her crew numbered 682 officers and ratings.

The Canopus-class ships were powered by a pair of 3-cylinder triple-expansion engines, with steam provided by twenty Belleville boilers. They were the first British battleships with water-tube boilers, which generated more power at less expense in weight compared with the fire-tube boilers used in previous ships. The new boilers led to the adoption of fore-and-aft funnels, rather than the side-by-side funnel arrangement used in many previous British battleships. The Canopus-class ships proved to be good steamers, with a high speed for battleships of their time—18 kn from 13500 ihp—a full two knots faster than the Majestics.

Canopus had a main battery of four 12 in 35-calibre guns mounted in twin-gun turrets fore and aft; these guns were mounted in circular barbettes that allowed all-around loading, although at a fixed elevation. The ships also mounted a secondary battery of twelve 6 in 40-calibre guns mounted in casemates, in addition to ten 12-pounder guns and six 3-pounder guns for defence against torpedo boats. As was customary for battleships of the period, she was also equipped with four 18 in torpedo tubes submerged in the hull, two on each broadside near the forward and aft barbette.

To save weight, Canopus carried less armour than the Majestics—6 in in the belt compared to 9 in—although the change from Harvey armour in the Majestics to Krupp armour in Canopus meant that the loss in protection was not as great as it might have been, Krupp armour having greater protective value at a given weight than its Harvey equivalent. Similarly, the other armour used to protect the ship could also be thinner; the bulkheads on either end of the belt were 6 to 10 in thick. The main battery turrets were 10 in thick, atop 12 in barbettes, and the casemate battery was protected with 6 in of Krupp steel. Her conning tower had 12 in thick sides as well. She was fitted with two armoured decks, 1 and 2 in thick, respectively.

Service history

Canopus's keel was laid down at Portsmouth Dockyard on 4 January 1897. The ship was launched on 12 October 1897, and completed on 5 December 1899. She was named after the ancient city of Canopus, Egypt, where the Battle of the Nile took place. Canopus was commissioned by captain Wilmot Fawkes at Portsmouth on 5 December 1899 for service in the Mediterranean Fleet. Captain Harry Seawell Niblett was appointed in command in November 1900, and she underwent a refit at Malta from December 1900 to June 1901. In May 1902 she visited Palermo to attend festivities in connection with the opening of an Agricultural Exhibition by King Victor Emmanuel, and the following month saw her visiting Larnaka. Captain Philip Francis Tillard was appointed in command on 1 December 1902, and she ended her Mediterranean service in April the following year, and paid off into the Reserve at Portsmouth on 25 April 1903. While in reserve, Canopus was given an extensive refit by Cammell Laird at Birkenhead that lasted from May 1903 to June 1904. Returning to the commissioned Reserve at Portsmouth, she was rammed by the battleship HMS Barfleur (1892) in Mount's Bay during manoeuvres on 5 August 1904, suffering slight damage.

Canopus returned to full commission on 9 May 1905 and relieved the battleship HMS Centurion (1892) on the China Station. She had reached Colombo, Ceylon on her outbound voyage when the United Kingdom and Japan ratified a treaty of alliance. The alliance meant that the United Kingdom could have a reduced presence on the China Station and battleships were no longer required there, so Canopus was recalled from Colombo in June 1905 and thus was the only Canopus-class battleship which did not serve on the China Station. Upon her return to the United Kingdom, Canopus began service in the Atlantic Fleet on 22 July 1905. In January 1906 she transferred to the Channel Fleet and later that year was fitted with fire control. On 10 March 1907, she transferred to the Portsmouth Division of the Home Fleet at Portsmouth, where she was reduced to a nucleus crew in May 1907 and underwent a refit between November 1907 and April 1908. Her refit completed, Canopus commissioned on 28 April 1908 for service in the Mediterranean Fleet. In December 1909, she was reduced to service in the 4th Division, Home Fleet, undergoing a refit at Chatham Dockyard from July 1911 to April 1912 during this service. In May 1912 she went into reserve at the Nore to serve as the parent ship for the 4th Division, Home Fleet. In 1913 and 1914 she was stationed at Pembroke Dock in Wales as part of the 3rd Fleet. The ships of the 3rd Fleet, though on the active list, were effectively in reserve, as they had small caretaker crews that would be completed only in the event of war.

First World War
After the First World War broke out in August 1914, Canopus was commissioned on 7 August 1914, for service in the 8th Battle Squadron in the Channel Fleet, under the command of Captain Heathcoat Grant. She was detached from that duty on 21 August 1914 to operate from the Cape Verde-Canary Islands Station to support the cruiser squadron there. In early September, her sister ship HMS Albion (1898) relieved her and Canopus transferred to the South America Station to become guard ship there and provide support to the cruiser squadron of Rear Admiral Christopher Cradock. While en route, Canopus nearly encountered the German light cruiser SMS Karlsruhe off Brazil, but the German ship intercepted British radio signals before Canopus could locate her.

South Seas Station
Canopus departed the Abrolhos Rocks on 8 October 1914 to assist Cradock's ships in searching for the German East Asia Squadron of Vice Admiral Maximilian von Spee, which was en route to the South Atlantic from the Far East. Canopus arrived at Stanley in the Falkland Islands on 18 October 1914, where she took up guard ship and escort duties. Cradock had initially intended to take Canopus with his squadron, which consisted of the armoured cruisers HMS Good Hope (1901) and HMS Monmouth (1901), the light cruiser Glasgow and the auxiliary cruiser HMS Otranto, but her late arrival, coupled with the fact that she required an overhaul upon arriving in the Falklands, forced Cradock to proceed without her. In addition, Canopus could make no more than 12 kn, which would have made it difficult for Cradock to force the East Asia Squadron into battle. Cradock ordered Canopus to join him when possible, though he intended to use her only to protect his colliers. On 27 October, Cradock detached his light cruiser HMS Glasgow (1909) to Coronel to gather intelligence, and the next day ordered Canopus to bring the colliers to the Juan Fernández Islands, where his squadron would replenish its fuel. Glasgow arrived in Coronel on 31 October, but departed too early on 1 November to receive an order from the First Sea Lord that Cradock should not risk engaging Spee's squadron without Canopus.

Canopus was still some 300 nmi south of Cradock when he encountered Spee's squadron, and the German ships were faster than the British cruisers, preventing Cradock from rejoining Canopus. In the ensuing Battle of Coronel, the East Asia Squadron sank both of Cradock's armoured cruisers and damaged Glasgow; by the time Cradock was defeated, Canopus was still 250 nmi away. Glasgow and Otranto escaped to the south and rendezvoused with Canopus. Spee broke off the pursuit of the fleeing British ships when he became aware that Canopus was in the area, writing the following day that, "against this ship, we can hardly do anything. If they had kept their forces together we should most likely have come off second best." Shortly after news of the battle reached Britain, the Royal Navy ordered all naval forces in the region to consolidate; this included the remnants of Cradock's command, along with the armoured cruisers HMS Defence (1907), HMS Carnarvon, and HMS Cornwall (1902). In addition, a pair of battlecruisers—HMS Invincible (1907) and HMS Inflexible (1907)—were detached from the Grand Fleet to hunt down and destroy Spee's squadron.

Canopus and Glasgow returned to Stanley, arriving there on 8 November 1914; they immediately proceeded to join the British warships concentrating off the River Plate. Canopus was ordered to return to the Falklands and place herself in Stanley to guard the port on 9 November. She arrived three days later, and began to make preparations for the defence of the harbour. At Stanley, Canopus's crew set up defences against an attack by Graf Spee. Canopus herself was beached in the mudflats in a position that allowed her to cover the entrance to the harbour and have a field of fire landward to the southeast; to reduce her visibility, her topmasts were struck and she was camouflaged. An observation post was established ashore on high ground and connected to the ship by telephone, allowing Canopus to use indirect fire against approaching ships. Some of her 12-pounder guns and a detachment of seventy Royal Marines were put ashore to defend Stanley and its environs. On 25 November, Canopus intercepted a radio message that indicated that Spee's squadron had rounded Cape Horn, though the message was erroneous; Spee actually made the passage on the night of 1–2 December. By 4 December, Canopus's crew had completed their preparations.

On 7 December, the main British squadron, commanded by Vice Admiral Doveton Sturdee, arrived in Stanley and began coaling, with the intention of departing two days later to search for Spee. Instead, on the morning of 8 December, the German squadron arrived off Stanley; at 07:50, lookouts aboard Canopus raised the alarm. Shortly after 09:00, by which time the German cruisers—SMS Gneisenau and SMS Nürnberg (1906)—had approached to within 11000 yd, Canopus fired two salvos, both of which fell short. Observers stated that fragments from the second salvo hit one of Gneisenau's funnels, though according to modern historians, including Robert Gardiner and Randal Gray, Hew Strachan, and Paul Halpern, Canopus made no hits with either salvo. Under fire from Canopus and spotting the tripod masts of Sturdee's battlecruisers, Spee called off his force's planned attack on the Falklands. At 09:31, Canopus ceased firing, as the Germans had begun to withdraw. Sturdee's battlecruisers, much faster than Spee's ships, eventually caught and destroyed the East Asia Squadron, with the exception of the light cruiser SMS Dresden (1907), which was able to outrun the British pursuers. Canopus, still moored in the mud, remained behind at Stanley and missed the rest of the battle. Canopus left the Falklands on 18 December 1914 to return to her South American Station duties at the Abrolhos Rocks.

Dardanelles campaign

In February 1915, Canopus transferred to the Mediterranean to take part in the Dardanelles campaign. On 2 March 1915, she took part in the second attack on the Ottoman Turkish entrance forts at the Dardanelles. During this operation, she led the 4th Sub-Division, which also included the pre-dreadnoughts HMS Cornwallis (1901) and HMS Swiftsure (1903). Canopus and Swiftsure were tasked with suppressing the guns in the fortress at Dardanus while Cornwallis would engage minor batteries at Intepe and Erenköy. Canopus and Swiftsure entered the straits at 13:20 and closed to within 1000 yd of the north shore, where at 14:20 they opened fire at the fortress on the other side of the straits, some 7500 yd away. The ships fired for about two hours before the Ottomans inside Dardanus returned fire at 16:15, which they did quite accurately, straddling Canopus quickly and scoring a hit on her quarterdeck that damaged a wardroom. A second shell knocked down her topmast and a third holed her after funnel, exploded, and rained fragments on two of her boats.

The heavy Ottoman fire forced Canopus and Swiftsure to withdraw from their bombardment position, though this placed them in range of the guns at Erenköy as well, while those at Dardanus could still engage them. Cornwallis, having silenced the guns at Intepe, started shelling Erenköy, while Canopus and Swiftsure kept their fire on Dardanus. The Ottomans repeatedly straddled the three battleships, but being further out in the strait, they had more room to manoeuvre and so avoided any direct hits. By 16:40, the guns at Dardanus fell silent, allowing all three ships to concentrate their fire at Erenköy, where the batteries were quickly neutralised. The three ships then withdrew, seemingly having achieved their objective, though that night, when destroyers and minesweepers tried to clear the minefields blocking the straits, they were met with very heavy fire and were forced to withdraw. During the third landings on 4 March 1915, she demonstrated off the Aegean coast to keep Ottoman ground forces tied down.

She covered the bombardment of the forts by the superdreadnought HMS Queen Elizabeth (1913) on 8 March, and covered minesweepers attempting to sweep in minefields off Kephes on 10 March. During the operation on the 10th, she, the protected cruiser HMS Amethyst (1903), and several destroyers covered a force of minesweepers. Canopus attempted to destroy the searchlights for the Ottoman coastal guns but failed to knock them out. As a result, when the minesweepers tried to clear the mines, they came under intense fire and had to retreat, one of them striking a mine in the chaos. She also took part in the major attack on the Narrows forts on 18 March 1915. During the 18 March attack, a fleet of British and French warships—including Queen Elizabeth and the battlecruiser Inflexible—would attempt to suppress the forts in daylight, allowing the minesweepers to finally clear the fields unmolested by Ottoman fire. The British ships initially succeeded in inflicting heavy damage on the fortresses, but the battleship HMS Agamemnon (1906) and then Inflexible began taking serious damage from the coastal batteries. The French battleships also began to take damage, and the battleship FRENCH BATTLESHIP Bouvet struck a mine and exploded.

The French ships began to retreat, but Canopus and the other British battleships continued the bombardment. Shortly thereafter, Inflexible struck a mine and was badly damaged but managed to withdraw. The battleships Irresistible and HMS Ocean (1898) also struck mines and both sank, forcing the British to break off the attack. After that attack, Canopus and protected cruiser HMS Talbot (1895) escorted the damaged Inflexible from Mudros to Malta on 6 April. In heavy weather and with Inflexible nearly foundering, Canopus had to take the crippled battlecruiser under tow, stern first, during the last six hours of the voyage on 10 April. Returning to the Dardanelles, Canopus took part in the blockade of Smyrna and covered a diversionary attack on Bulair during the main landings on 25 April 1915. She supported Anzac forces ashore in May, including during a strong Ottoman counterattack on 19 May. When her sister ship Albion became stranded on a sandbank off Gaba Tepe under heavy fire on 22–23 May 1915, Canopus towed her free. On 25 May, Canopus withdrew to Mudros and while leaving the Dardanelles, encountered the German U-boat SMU U-21 (Germany), which went on to sink the battleship HMS Triumph (1903) later that day. Canopus then underwent a refit at Malta from May to June 1915.

Fate
After the Dardanelles campaign ended with the evacuation of Allied forces from Gallipoli in January 1916, Canopus was assigned to the British Eastern Mediterranean Squadron, where she served until she returned to the United Kingdom in April 1916. Canopus arrived at Plymouth on 22 April 1916, then paid off at Chatham to provide crews for antisubmarine vessels. She remained at Chatham until April 1916, undergoing a refit there later in 1916, having her eight main-deck 6-inch (152 mm) guns replaced by four on the battery deck and her 12-pounder and 3-pounder guns replaced by light antiaircraft weapons in 1917, and becoming an accommodation ship in February 1918. Canopus was placed on the disposal list at Chatham in April 1919. She was sold for scrapping on 18 February 1920 and arrived at Dover on 26 February 1920 to be scrapped.

title: HMS Canopus (1897)