text:
Catholicos of All Armenians

The Catholicos of All Armenians (Ամենայն Հայոց Կաթողիկոս) is the chief bishop and spiritual leader of Armenia's national church, the Armenian Apostolic Church, and the worldwide Armenian diaspora. The Armenian Catholicos (plural Catholicoi) is also known as the Armenian Pontiff (Վեհափառ, Vehapar or Վեհափառ Հայրապետ, Vehapar Hayrapet) and by other titles. According to tradition, the apostles Saint Thaddeus and Saint Bartholomew brought Christianity to Armenia in the first century. Saint Gregory the Illuminator became the first Catholicos of All Armenians following the nation's adoption of Christianity as its official religion in 301 AD. The seat of the Catholicos, and the spiritual and administrative headquarters of the Armenian Church, is the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, located in the city of Vagharshapat.

The Armenian Apostolic Church is part of the Oriental Orthodox communion. This communion includes the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, and the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church.

The current Catholicos is Karekin II.

Other names
The Catholicos is often referred to both by the church and the media as the Armenian Pontiff. Historically, the Catholicos was known in English and other languages as the Armenian Patriarch or the Patriarch of Armenia, and sometimes as the Patriarch of Etchmiadzin (or Echmiadzin) to distinguish from the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople and the Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem. To distinguish from the Catholicos (or Patriarch) of Cilicia, historically based in Sis and now in Lebanon, he may be referred to as the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin. To underscore his supremacy over other patriarchs, the Catholicos is sometimes referred to in English as the Armenian Pope.

title: Catholicos of All Armenians


text:
Talk:Hisabetsu buraku

This is from the Library of Congress, Country Studies.

The copyright notice says: "Information contained in the Country Studies On-Line is not copyrighted and thus is available for free and unrestricted use by researchers. As a courtesy, however, appropriate credit should be given to the series."

It will need editing, and there is more text available that could be added. I hope this is OK, I've not added text from a source like this before - let me know if I've done it wrong!

sannse 20:12 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Sure it is. In fact, many articles have been adapted from Library Congress already. See History of Japan -- Taku 23:57 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Are the hisabetsu buraku the same as the burakumin? If so, perhaps the articles should be unified. --FOo

Yeah, they are. We should merge it to burakumin. -- Taku 00:09 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Hisabetsu buraku


text:
V2

The V-2 rocket was a German early ballistic missile of World War II.

V2 or V-2 may also refer to:

Vehicles, craft, and ships

 * Soviet submarine V-2
 * V2, a prototype of the Panzer VIII Maus tank
 * USS V-2, a 1924 Barracuda-class submarine of the United States Navy
 * ARA Veinticinco de Mayo (V-2), an aircraft carrier in the Argentine Navy from 1969 to 1997
 * Culver V-2, a two-seat cabin monoplane
 * Fokker V.2, a German fighter aircraft prototype
 * MIT EAD Airframe Version 2, the first ion wind airplane
 * Voyager 2 spacecraft
 * Dragon V2, a commercial spacecraft being developed for astronaut crew transport
 * LNER Class V2, a British railway steam locomotive class
 * NER Class V2, a class of British steam locomotives (later redesignated class Z)

Engines

 * Curtiss V-2, an American eight-cylinder aircraft engine
 * Kharkiv model V-2, a Soviet twelve-cylinder tank engine
 * V-twin engine, a two-cylinder engine

Biology

 * V2 receptor, a protein that acts as receptor for arginine vasopressin
 * Maxillary nerve, (V2), the second division of the trigeminal nerve
 * Visual Area 2 of the Visual Cortex

Science and technology

 * V2 word order, the verb-second word order of Germanic languages and other languages
 * Velocity 2 (V2 speed), aircraft safe-takeoff speed
 * V2, one of six precordial leads in electrocardiography
 * Parameter describing the azimuthal anisotropy in heavy-ion collisions
 * V-2 trailer, a mobile ground-controlled approach radar system element

The arts

 * "V-2 Schneider", a mostly instrumental piece on the 1977 David Bowie album Heroes
 * V2 (album), second studio album (1978) by punk rock band the Vibrators
 * "V2" (song), a single by That Petrol Emotion
 * V2: Dead Angel, a 2007 Finnish film

Businesses and products

 * V2 Records, a record label founded by Richard Branson
 * V2 Radio, a radio station set up as a local successor to the UKRD Group station in Sussex
 * V2.fi, a Finnish gaming and entertainment-oriented website
 * Byte (service), a short-form video hosting service formerly known as "v2"
 * Hanlin eReader V2, an ebook reader
 * V2, a brand of electronic cigarettes made by VMR Products

Other

 * Vatican II or Second Vatican Council (1962 - 1965)
 * V2, Antigua & Barbuda's International Telecommunication Union prefix
 * V2 Institute for the Unstable Media, a Rotterdam-based new media research institute
 * ITU-T V.2, a telecommunications recommendation
 * V2, a boss character from the video game Ultrakill

title: V2


text:
Talk:Housewife

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 8 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maoyi.95.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Loulou 1010. Peer reviewers: EliDays.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Other use of the term
Reading my relatives letters and memoirs from WW2, a 'housewife' is used by them to mean some sort of cleaning implement. They are dead now, so I can't ask them, but it was not a scrubbing brush, nor a polishing cloth, but something along those lines. Does anyone know more specifically what a 'housewife' is in this context? It was obviously a term in general use at the time. ixo (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

2003
I'm confused, how's a link to a book (without mentioning anything about it) that seems to be just a piece of fundie propaganda more relevant than a link to the Wikipedia article on marriage? -- Timo Honkasalo 20:26 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

 * I added a link to marriage

I resent anyone using biggoted terminology to describe people of the Christian faith as "fundies". I stay at home, I love raising my kids and being there for my family. There are many out there who do...get over it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.26.130 (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for making this page somewhat uglier, but I was somewhat uncomfortable with some of the phrasing - boys now learn home economics and the like, and the idea of a life as a homemaker is a little old-fashioned: today it's more likely to be a few years. Martin

The rise in unemployment in the western world has led to a rise in the number of men without permanent employment who choose to carry out this role, often because their wives/female partners have greater earning power than they do.

Please indentify source for claiming there is a trend of men choosing homemaking roles due to being unemployed. Since unemployment has been falling over the past century, you might look for another cause and effect relationship.

 * Nod. Was just copying text from househusband :) Martin

- I removed the apron link, the person who put it there obvioulsy has little experience about household chores if he thinks apron is central to domestic hygiene. I also removed the wall of 1.03 million yen and 1.30 million yen link as the article is rather peculiar stub, and google doesn't produce anything about the subject. I'm also going to remove the link to the book, unless someone can give a good reason why it should be there. --- Timo Honkasalo

If you search google in Japanese, you can get plenty of information about 103万円・130万円の壁. I know the title of that article looks odd but it is a real thing in Japan. -- Taku 19:12 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

 * To my disgrace, my knowledge of Japanese is restricted to the about 30 words I've learned in my Kendo practice. But since you seem already to have some knowledge on the subject, why not flesh out the article a bit. Right now, it tells practically nothing. --- Timo Honkasalo 14:52 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes, I should put more definitelly. Please just give me more time. I am doing research now. Wrong information is worse then absense of information. -- Taku 16:19 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

 * question is, what do English-speaking reporters call it (whatever it is) when they report on it? I somehow doubt they use the given name... :-/ Martin

I have same question and don't know the answer -:) -- Taku 23:10 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

--

I strongly disapprove the sentence Men are increasingly adopting the role of homemaker. Unless someone will take care of finding a more twisted but proper and accurate sentence to express this, I will just remove the sentence as being strongly misleading. a WikiWomen
 * I agree, this sort of statement desperatly needs a cite ("According to a research, Men are increasingly adopting the role of homemaker.." would sound more valid (in a junk science newspaper way...)) but I think we should think of a replacement for that statement... -- Rotem Dan 17:59 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * even better, in country xxx, according to the study from institute yyy, the number of hours men spent cleaning water closets and bathrooms during a year in 1960 and in 2000, compared to equivalent hours per women.
 * lol :) -- Rotem Dan 20:41 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the refactoring. :-)

an F for feminidiots - where the hell did $138K salary come from?
I am talking about this nonsense: "As of May 2007, the average annual salary of a housewife in the U.S, if correlated to the total cost of outsourcing each element of his or her work to an external contractor, would be approximately $138,000.[2] Working mothers would earn $85,876 annually for the "mom job" portion of their work, in addition to their actual "work job" salary." Use your head, folks! Nowadays there is any number of women who are unemployed and desperately looking for work. Some are even homeless. Well, do you REALLY think that hiring one of them as a full-time 40 hours per week visiting housekeeper is going to cost $138K per year? I mean, people, helloooo! Keep it off the books and you can probably do it for $10K or so, and no need to do waste money on the "full time" aspect either. 76.24.104.52 (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Agreed, if you took my salary, added a chef's salary for the food I cook, a network engineer for when I fix my PC, a car mechanic for the work I do on my car and taxi driver for when I drive my girlfriend somewhere, I would be a millionaire. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

, I agree with the two editors above that this paragraph does not warrant inclusion. It's not a case of "I don't like it". The argument is simply flawed. If you look at that article, it claims that the housekeeper performs work that is worth USD 138k a year. But nobody is going to hire a full-time housekeeper for $138k a year. Most families don't even earn that much. See this page for more analysis. I feel this kind of bloated figure is sensationalist and not worthy of inclusion in the article. Banedon (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

 * You're misunderstanding the argument. It's just applying a figure to the work housewives are doing to make its economic value more palpable. Nowhere is it said or implied that housewives would actually realistically be paid this. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

 * As argued above, and in the link I provided, the economic value of the work housewives do is not anywhere near $138k / year. If you have a realistic figure calculated by some other method other than "parcel the job out into subtasks, calculate the salary for the subtasks, then total the result", please share it. Banedon (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

 * That's your POV, and that of sexist society (patriarchy, in feminist lingo) in general; you're begging exactly the question. Basically, you are still saying "I don't like/believe it". You are nitpicking, without actually showing that a superior method exists. Economic value is extremely hard to rate unbiasedly, anyway. In fact, I must point out that there is no objective, inherent value to things or activities. It's all about what people are willing to pay. (Some people may be willing to pay millions for a bucket of piss because they consider it a work of art. Others may be unwilling to pay anything for a ton of gold because they consider it completely useless. A humble, poorly paid activity such as trash collection or care for the sick and elderly, and even a completely unpaid activity such as organising a self-help group – or, you know, a productive activity on Wikipedia – is extremely important for society, while the actual value of the job of a highly-paid entertainer, monarch, lobbyist, top exec, lawyer, stock trader or banker to society is much more questionable.) This is the notorious dichotomy between what somebody earns vs. what they actually deserve to be paid.
 * Let's just keep in mind that a housewife is frequently close to "always on duty" (even virtually around the clock, if she's got children to care for), has no days off, tends to work longer hours than most other people, and needs diverse skills. Even actually replacing all of those tasks with hired household servants (nanny, cook, maid, etc.) is more expensive than you seem to realise (of course, the argument is that these servants are still underpaid because society undervalues work considered typical of women). And ultimately, your whole argument is pointless because Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia can report that feminists have made this argument without endorsing (or criticising) it (it would be different if we were using Wikipedia's own voice); if you don't like it going unchallenged, find criticisms published in reliable sources. (No anti-feminist blogs.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's sourced. Did you actually read the link I gave you? Before you say it, that is not an anti-feminist blog. Banedon (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Self-published criticism is irrelevant. Nor are the precise figures relevant to the point – such a calculation will necessarily always be very approximate. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As a compromise, I'll remove the part where the figures are given. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Self-published is fine if the author is an authority, and Professor Dutch is an authority on pseudoscience. I'm changing the source to a better one, and debating whether to include the figures and the criticism of it as well. Your thoughts on that? Banedon (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with the inclusion of both the figures and the criticism.
 * However, I still think that the figures as such are not very important, as they are only very rough guesstimates. They may well be somewhat inflated consciously, or their inflatedness be tolerated, to reinforce the point didactically and polemically, for shock effect, so to say, since an accurate figure can probably never be provided anyway (I've found no more accurate figures anywhere, in any case). Just as a quick back-of-the-envelope (or rather, mental) calculation, and without going into more involved issues regarding method and assumptions, from this source, I conclude that a figure of close to 100 hours per week (not just 40, as the IP above assumes!), which may mean up to roughly 5,000 hours per year, is considered realistic, and even assuming a relatively modest hourly wage (BTW, as I've pointed out and the IP missed as well, you'd need not only a housekeeper but a nanny too), an annual salary in excess of $100,000 (the figure strongly varies between the sources I've found) doesn't sound extremely inflated to me, and it would definitely add up to a handsome figure in any case. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As Professor Dutch argued, that kind of six-figure number is ridiculous. Hourly rates charged by e.g. cleaning services take into account downtime when nobody is looking for cleaners. Just imagine what would happen if, in a divorce settlement of a couple one of whom is a housewife, the judge decided to award the majority of the assets to the husband on the grounds that the husband is only earning $50k / year while the wife can now earn $100k / year performing homemaking work for other people. We would never see housewives complaining they are getting shortchanged in this kind of settlement. If the figures are to be included in the article, it would have to be in the form "Various sources claim housewives do work valued at ___. This has been criticized because ___". Emphasis on the criticism, because the calculations are pseudoscientific. Banedon (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality
changed However, in today's society (at least in the Western World), this oppression has ended to. However, in today's society (at least in the Western World), more options are available. as I think the former violates neutrality and the latter is more accurate Tydoni (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

women should be the bread winner since it is proven they are smarter than us men —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.237.142.5 (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * in my experience there is no difference in intelligence between women and men it varies from person to person but their gender doesn't affect it
 * Tydoni (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Terrible Lack of Sources
I just challenged some unsourced material on "Feminist Critique" and I actually did it because i believe one or two of the claims actually DO have verifiable sources, but the rest is garbage and thus must be removed. Even in the second paragraph where it says "Some feminists, as well as some non-feminist economists" is a terrible appeal to the numbers mixed with an appeal to authority because the by saying that some feminists and economists, it sounds like lots of "authorities" (appeal to the numbers and to authorities, a conflated logical fallacy) are making this claim and then only a single author and her co author are cited as the many authorities. If there are sources for this claim, it would at least help not to justify this conflated appeal to large numbers of authorities but to provide those of us who are interested in more sources to read, which I think is a great idea. If anyone knows good sources for this material, please cite it, but please don't add third-rate websites or other sources. since this section is about feminist critique, prominent feminists (those who have published work that has been widely read by their feminist peers, like all good peer reviews) are the best sources for the critique, as would be the critics of the critics. But please, let's insure the sources themselves are good, no third-rate website from some propaganda site because this does not help further the cause of feminism. only good, disciplined research can battle all the misinformation that eventually bites everyone in the butt in the end anyways. I will try to find some sources, but being only a amateur follower of feminism, I may not come up with sources more experienced and scholarly students of feminism might bring. Skaaii (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. Now I'm really not experienced in editing articles, but this does not seem to be a true, fact based article. In particular I note the 'What a homemaker does' section. Remembering everyone's birthdays? Really, that is hardly a task that is specific to a homemaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.81.228 (talk) 15:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Homemaker in the Simple English Wikipedia
"Homemaker" has content which could usefully be included here. (Adding an "Expand" template has not worked.)--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Additions to the Housewife Page
I would like to update and add to this page to reflect the important and unique role stay-at-home women play in our society. I would especially like to focus on the impact housewives have on their children's future, as well as their impact on the overall economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbarczak (talk • contribs) 05:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Rename article Homemaker?
Since homemaker is the broader term and this article does discuss male homemakers somewhat, can we rename it homemaker and have housewife redirect to it?JaneSwifty (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is better not to rename it; one reason is that homemaker it primarily a North American concept and another that most of the content relates to societies or periods before "homemaker" came into common use.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

 * I like Homemaker better too. I'm actually somewhat offended by housewife. TeeVeeed (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Homemaker is the preferable term, but if the article is renamed then it will need some substantial revision + the article Stay-at-home dad will need to be merged with it too. Banedon (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As said above, homemaker is a North American concept. It would not fit a broader worldview. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Housewife" is factually wrong--the "house" is not the "spouse".Tachypaidia (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Sweden
Why not translate some information about the housewives of Sweden? (Expand + language is not obsolete)--Johnsoniensis (talk) 03:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Awful structure
Many of the sections can be combined, split, or simply left out. The section "Songs about the housewife's lot" is useless and frankly could be done without. "Notable women who were housewives" is far too vague and would be very hard to source. Its relevance is also debatable. Throughout the article there is stuff on history, which is spread between "History", "Housewives by country" and even "Sociology and economics". The "History" section itself is just one long line of text without any subheaders. Right now it's really tough to read. Sad, since Stay-at-home dad has such a good structure. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Dubious tag
As pointed out by an IP,, the housewives in China section is self-contradictory. The section cites no sources, hence the tag (outright removal also an option). Banedon (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

2017
In the beginning of the article the definition used for a "housewife" or "stay at home mother" seems to be close paraphrasing of the sources definition. A few words were added in between almost the same exact text as the source used. Although it was an appropriate citation of the source and the link was accurate, the paraphrasing was too similar. Also, the paragraphs including the roles of housewives in different countries are too different in lengths. The United Kingdom section does not compare to the lengthy section about the United States. -Jessica.moore75 (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Overly restrictive definition of housewife
The term "housewife" has been used both as a synonym for stay-at-home moms as well as to refer to childless wives who are not employed, other then in the job of taking care of the home. I was able too find a number of references via Google to the term housewife being used to refer to childless stay-at-home wives. We need to expand this article to include such wives  in the definition inion. Secondly, we need to include the attitudes for and against the concept of housewives. This includes the views of certain feminists past or present that looked down on housewifery to at least some degree. It also includes the "in the kitchen, barefoot, and pregnant" types who believe all wives should be housewives not working wives whenever possible. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"Stay" at home is misnomer
The prefix "stay" has a deprecating connotation: (a) commanded to "stay", as a command given to a dog, (b) a lack of freedom of movement. An "at-home" parent is not confined to quarters, but has substantially liberty--more so than an "at work" parent. An at-home parent may may visit friends and family as wanted; take excursions to the park, to the library, to museum, special events, et. al. This stands is stark contrast to an "at-work" parent where the employer owns one's time, and such visits require allocated leave time (if available) and by an employer's approval; otherwise, absence can be grounds for dismissal. We do not speak of "stay-at-work" parents; no reason (actually far less reason) to speak of "stay-at-home." For correctness, brevity and respect, simply "at-home" is proper. Tachypaidia (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

United Kingdom
This page could use information on housewives in the United Kingdom. I am currently working on this. (Loulou 1010 (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)).

I have made edits to the United Kingdom section of this page by creating sections for the 13th-15th centuries and 19th-20th centuries. Information discusses women's role in politics, within their households, and society. Loulou 1010 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this article about housewives or about working wives?
So much of this article is dedicated to giving facts and figures related to how many wives work outside the home (see Housewife in particular), that the focus of it has shifted away from housewifery, and instead onto two-income families and working wives. I accept that many housewives historically and presently do work outside the home, but this article is not meant to be about that based on the title. The focus has become unclear, so I'm tagging the article to raise the issue. I propose a split, especially the creation of a two-income family article. -- Netoholic @ 23:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be difficult to split up the article as suggested; the income of the households where there are housewives would be difficult to research given that social patterns vary so much within countries and between different countries.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Self-employed
Re "* Worldwide // ** The nature of a housewife’s role means there are few if any notable housewives. The ones listed below are all notable for other activities, by the nature of these other activities they are not housewives: Politicians, teachers, authors and athletes, among others, are careers and as such these are career women." The addition of one editor's opinion is inappropriate. If this section is unsatisfactory there should be a discussion about it on this Talk page.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: "* Worldwide // ** None if those listed below since every one of these was employed in a profession. The nature of the role means there a few if any notable housewives. " The information about these women will be found in their own articles and they are likely to have been housewives during some parts of their lives. Other editors have decided this listing is useful but I have no opinion about that. Like all articles this is a work of collaboration.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Not all housewives are stay-at-home mothers
The intro says that stay-at-home mother is a synonym for housewife, except not all housewives are mothers as the term is used in the real world. I can find references to childless housewives, sometimes known simply as stay-at-home wives. Given this, I think "stay-at-home mom" should be a subtopic of housewife and the debate about the the pro and cons of choosing to be a stay-ay-home mom of very young children (not of school age) can be discussed there, especially as it relates to whether such children turn out better if those who have a mom who works full time with the kids in daycare or under a nanny's care.Notcharliechaplin (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Rename to homemaker
The main article for this profession is homemaking. I do not see a reason to have a specifically gendered article name. Thoughts?--User:Namiba 15:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This has been proposed before: see Talk:Housewife.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

History section
While this section is well-written, i am concerned that it focuses on only the western world, even though the article seems to be about housewives "around the world." Does anyone have any suggestions as to how this can be improved? Then we can find sources, since the section is mostly unsourced. Drew Stanley (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge with "Stay-at-home mother"
The term 'housewife' is limited, outdated and potentially offensive. The article should be merged with the more generic/modern term 'Stay-at-home mother', including to mirror the article 'Stay-at-home father'. Alby585 (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Housewife


text:
Algebraic element

In mathematics, if $L$ is an extension field of $K$, then an element $a$ of $L$ is called an algebraic element over $K$, or just algebraic over $K$, if there exists some non-zero polynomial $g(x)$ with coefficients in $K$ such that $g(a) = 0$. Elements of $L$ that are not algebraic over $K$ are called transcendental over $K$.

These notions generalize the algebraic numbers and the transcendental numbers (where the field extension is $C/Q$, with $C$ being the field of complex numbers and $Q$ being the field of rational numbers).

Examples

 * The square root of 2 is algebraic over $Q$, since it is the root of the polynomial $g(x) = x^{2} − 2$ whose coefficients are rational.
 * Pi is transcendental over $Q$ but algebraic over the field of real numbers $R$: it is the root of $g(x) = x − π$, whose coefficients (1 and −$\pi$) are both real, but not of any polynomial with only rational coefficients. (The definition of the term transcendental number uses $C/Q$, not $C/R$.)

Properties
The following conditions are equivalent for an element $$a$$ of $$L$$:
 * $$a$$ is algebraic over $$K$$,
 * the field extension $$K(a)/K$$ is algebraic, i.e. every element of $$K(a)$$ is algebraic over $$K$$ (here $$K(a)$$ denotes the smallest subfield of $$L$$ containing $$K$$ and $$a$$),
 * the field extension $$K(a)/K$$ has finite degree, i.e. the dimension of $$K(a)$$ as a $$K$$-vector space is finite,
 * $$K[a] = K(a)$$, where $$K[a]$$ is the set of all elements of $$L$$ that can be written in the form $$g(a)$$ with a polynomial $$g$$ whose coefficients lie in $$K$$.

To make this more explicit, consider the polynomial evaluation $$\varepsilon_a: K[X] \rightarrow K(a),\, P \mapsto P(a)$$. This is a homomorphism and its kernel is $$\{P \in K[X] \mid P(a) = 0 \}$$. If $$a$$ is algebraic, this ideal contains non-zero polynomials, but as $$K[X]$$ is a euclidean domain, it contains a unique polynomial $$p$$ with minimal degree and leading coefficient $$1$$, which then also generates the ideal and must be irreducible. The polynomial $$p$$ is called the minimal polynomial of $$a$$ and it encodes many important properties of $$a$$. Hence the ring isomorphism $$K[X]/(p) \rightarrow \mathrm{im}(\varepsilon_a)$$ obtained by the homomorphism theorem is an isomorphism of fields, where we can then observe that $$\mathrm{im}(\varepsilon_a) = K(a)$$. Otherwise, $$\varepsilon_a$$ is injective and hence we obtain a field isomorphism $$K(X) \rightarrow K(a)$$, where $$K(X)$$ is the field of fractions of $$K[X]$$, i.e. the field of rational functions on $$K$$, by the universal property of the field of fractions. We can conclude that in any case, we find an isomorphism $$K(a) \cong K[X]/(p)$$ or $$K(a) \cong K(X)$$. Investigating this construction yields the desired results.

This characterization can be used to show that the sum, difference, product and quotient of algebraic elements over $$K$$ are again algebraic over $$K$$. For if $$a$$ and $$b$$ are both algebraic, then $$(K(a))(b)$$ is finite. As it contains the aforementioned combinations of $$a$$ and $$b$$, adjoining one of them to $$K$$ also yields a finite extension, and therefore these elements are algebraic as well. Thus set of all elements of $$L$$ that are algebraic over $$K$$ is a field that sits in between $$L$$ and $$K$$.

Fields that do not allow any algebraic elements over them (except their own elements) are called algebraically closed. The field of complex numbers is an example. If $$L$$ is algebraically closed, then the field of algebraic elements of $$L$$ over $$K$$ is algebraically closed, which can again be directly shown using the characterisation of simple algebraic extensions above. An example for this is the field of algebraic numbers.

title: Algebraic element


text:
Talk:Association football/Archive 1

Canadian football
Unsure how to classify Canadian Football. It is similar to the version played in the United States, but there are some rules differences -- 12 men instead of 11, different field dimensions. Would it go under "American Football" anyway, with the differences noted (as was done with College Football)?

 * I would put Canadian football in its own category. The rules differences between college football and the NFL are minor, but the differences with Canadian football are signficant enough that, while it clearly belongs in the same family as American football, the play of the game is really quite different (three downs versus four on the one hand, and lack of motion penalties and other offensive benefits on the other, create a game where posession changes hands rapidly, teams score rapidly, and overall the flow of the game is just different).  One way to approach this would be to put Canadian and American football under the same family of "Gridiron" football.

Arena football
Where does arena football go? Also it is most similar to American football.

Soccer?
Why does the article 'football' have to be about soccer, with a small list at the top to go to other forms of football?? Soccer isn't the only form of football, so why doesn't all this information go in 'soccer' and this article only be a list of different forms of soccer? If nobody else does, I will soon fiddle around with the football articles, so that the article for soccer is at soccer, not football. - Mark Ryan

 * The reason is that the game called "soccer" in the US and Canada is called "football" in almost every other country in the world. It's important to remember that Wikipedia is aiming to be an international encyclopedia, and as such, it won't always follow American conventions. --Stephen Gilbert

Disambiguation
If ever there was a case for a disambiguation page, this is it. This article starts with a coy list of many many kinds of football before going off into a detailed description of one of them. Ortolan88

 * I suggest putting the first few paragraphs of this on a page called Games called football and starting this article off by saying something like.

 * There are many games called football played throughout the world. For the vast majority of the world, football refers to the sport originally codified in England as association football and known in the USA as soccer ...... and then concentrate on this game.

 * Mintguy 15:11 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)
 * BUMP

 * I think the football article should only be a disambiguation page, the "rest of the article" should go into what most English speakers would call "soccer". We can have a note in both places emphasizing that most of the world uses the terms football or fútbol for soccer, while only the American or Canadian minority thinks non-spherical balls should be involved. And remember, "it takes leather balls to play rugby!" :-) --Uncle Ed 19:40 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

So I created a football games article listing all the different games I could find which SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE ever called "football".

If the football article is going to be primarily about soccer -- or what the British call "Association football" -- then we need a disambiguation page.

Still, it's jarring for Americans at least to look up "football" and find "soccer" has taken over the spot. Can't Brazilians and the various Spanish speakers accept the English term for their beloved game, when reading an English-language encyclopedia? --Uncle Ed 20:10 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

 * I would agree, Ed, it is jarring for people in Canada, Ireland and elsewhere that other sports exist that are also called football. (In fact jarring is a polite term. Many would find the assumption that football must of course mean soccer both arrogant and presumptious.) The fact is many many people use or would understand soccer as refer to association football.

Re your earlier comments, I would agree with one minor change. I generally used to think that most of the world calls soccer 'football' but the more I research it, the more I find soccer used. (Contrary to Mintguy's claim, it isn't a word just used in America. It is used also in Canada, in parts of South America, in Britain, in Ireland, by many Europeans (especially when the speak in english) ) So instead of saying most of the world, a more accurate term would be much of the world. But there is no earthly way we can allow 'football' to be 'used' exclusively to refer to soccer. Millions and millions and millions of people use it to refer to other sports (Gaelic football, American football, Canadian football, Australian Rules football, Rugby football). When I hear the word 'football', I think of gaelic football, a sport I used to play. My American partner thinks of American football when I say football. My father, a rugby fan, used to think of rugby if you said football. An Aussie friend of mine would think of Australian Rules, etc. That is why the best solution is to use the title Football (soccer) so that the f-word is used for those who presume it means association football, while 'soccer' clarifies what form of football the article is about. But logic suggests simply 'football' is a non-starter. JTD 20:38 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

JTD, I like the idea of putting soccer into football (soccer) rather than football. I am giving my 'team' a 'time-out' so go ahead and 'score' all you want with name changes and redirects. I'll look in again tomorrow or the next day. (All I want is peace.) --Uncle Ed 20:51 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

 * This is such a major debate that I hope you will be able to find room in the article for the famous Bill Shankly quote! Deb 22:17 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

 * Can't we put it under Association football? Please?  It just sounds wrong at the moment. Bagpuss 00:40 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Excuse me these seems to be something happening here. Mav specifically said on the talk:list of footballers page
 *  would like to see what Mintguy has for the history he is working on first. Until then we can turn Football (soccer) into a redirect to Football and change all the links meaning to go to soccer into . --mav

 * It was just a suggestion and lord knows that what I say is not looked-upon as gospel around here. So just because I said it doesn't mean it has to be followed. --mav 00:49 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

 * As soccer is a widely recognised term, it was the most obvious way of clarifying what sport this page referred to.
 * Using 'football' in the title enabled people who referred to the sport by that name to recognise it;
 * Using soccer enabled people who knew it by that name to recognise it;
 * Using both together ensured that people who understood 'football' to refer to another sport were not misled or confused by simply using 'football' on its own. Football (soccer) is the clearest most unambiguous way of clarifying what this page is about. After a discussion that ran over a couple of days (and late late nights/early mornings) all but one person agreed with this approach, hence the name. JTD

I specifically asked should I rename and was told to go ahead to. I have adapted the text on the article page and a related page to explain the structure. Mintguy's contribution can easily be added in and further adjustments made. JTD 00:52 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

 * It sounds so crap, though. Can I be a late vote for association football (where I nearly moved it anyway before discovering the big discussion)?  I don't care what Mintguy found on Google, it's a perfectly understandable term (though personally when asked to specify I like to say "the game where the foot comes into contact with the ball") - the reason it doesn't pop up much is that when you're writing about the game you don't feel the need to give it a two-word term. Anyhow, we can redirect from soccer, so what's the problem?

 * I do agree, by the way, with those who say we need a disambiguation page, and it should probably take the main football page. Bagpuss 01:01 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

 * So you want the page under the least known name? In the earlier discussion on this and the archived page, [Association football] was almost immediately dropped as too obsure for international readers. Football was to ambiguous. Soccer was only used in some places and so not everyone would recognise it, according to Mintguy, and it is a good point to be taken on board. Combining them both is the only way to produce a workable page on this sport that could be recognised, without sending the two fingers to all other 'footballs' by saying 'its our name. You can shag off and call your sport something else. JTD

 * Least known? It'd surprise me if that's true.  Okay, I saw your mini-survey below and being in Canada at the moment I can't try a British survey.

 * Hmm, just had a short check and the Australian national site calls it soccer and the Irish one calls it football. My natural reaction is still that association football is "what it's called".  I can't really see the problem with putting the sport under a lesser known, but correct name and redirecting other stuff there, but I think I may have to admit association football isn't as widely known as I thought and that "soccer" isn't just American.

(continued below)

 * Just to confuse matters, the Australian players union is the Australian Professional Footballers Association. One of my arugments for keeping the page where it was. Mintguy

 * I had expected places with more than one football to use "association", but it seems not, they just say "football" and somehow avoid getting too confused. A large number of articles linked to association football, though. Oh, I'm continuing my argument aren't I.  I said I wasn't going to do that.  I'd best go home or I'll be here all night.

 * Final note - naming conventions say use the most common names in preference to being technically correct, so association football is kind of hit for six there. Football (soccer) is, I suppose, a natural result of the Wikipedia rules. Bagpuss

 * It's kind of growing on me. LOL. There is an advantage in that you can use the pipe trick to link it, as in football (soccer) will come out as football. Mintguy

 * I don't know how many times to indent this now. You've got a point there.  The pedant in me is now crying out for football (association), but I let him celebrate the millennium in the right year, so perhaps he'll be nice to me now.  Heck, leave it where it is. Now I really am going. I'll see where we stand tomorrow. Bagpuss

 * (continued) Darn it, I still want it under the right title and football (soccer) is a really awkward way of putting it. We have an article called rugby football after all.

 * By the way, could you say where your last inverted comma is meant to be. I'm trying to figure out whether or not you told me to "shag off". Bagpuss

Shared history
To what article should my contributions to the shared history of the sport called football be added pray tell? Mintguy

 * Let's see the contributions first then we can figure that out. It may be best to have it under a 'History of' daughter article. --mav

 * Daughter of which page?

Football could be Mintguy's general discussion of the history of all football-type games, and each modern offshoot of the family could be linked to as and when they crop up in the general history. It can also go into great detail about how the usage of the word "football" has evolved over the years, and how it has ended up being used differently in certain countries. I find disambiguation pages that are just lists of links terribly boring, I must admit. A historical overview gives just as much opportunity to link to related articles, and is a lot more interesting to boot. -- Oliver P. 01:18 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)
 * I agree (I think). Football should be a historical overview of how the various games evolved. There should probably be a disambig block at the top, though, to catch people who don't want to wade through the history to find a link to the kind they want. Tuf-Kat

That's what I favour. Mintguy

If it an article on the shared history of a sport called football it should be in an article called football. But this article isn't about the shared history of football, it is about one branch and that is clarified in the name.

BTW, I did a check around with some friends that were around here visiting my flatmate. OK so it was an Irish sample, but the responses were interesting.

Of 8 people:

 * 1) Association football - 0 (one response was, 'what the hell is that?' )
 * 2) Football - 2 (general response: ' which football?')
 * 3) Soccer - 3 (general response: 'that's what its called, isn't it?')
 * 4) Football (soccer) - 3 (general response: 'well I suppose people abroad will know what it is that way') JTD 01:24 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

 * BTW JTD as you were the prime instigator of all this nonsense, I hope you intend to fix all the links. Mintguy

As a note of interest: Ed turned Football games into an article earlier today (it was a redirect). People might want to take a look at that. --Camembert

First of all, I was not the 'prime instigator'. Plenty of people had problems with this page 'claiming' ownership of the word 'football'. As to it being 'nonsense' that is simply a reflection on your inability to accept that there is a problem, that users of this page agreed with the problem, and that they agreed on a solution that involved qualifying the name 'football' to indicate which code of football. Just because your arguments were not accepted, that your 'google' searches backfired, showing how widespread the word 'soccer' is used and that a quick glances through 'football' produced references to various codes (contrary to your assertion, and your insistence that the total number of references to 'football' of course meant soccer) doesn't give you the right to snidely ridicule other people's opinions as nonsense. I expected a serious debate on the issue, not burying your head in the sand, repeating the same mantra, ignoring everyone else's opinion and then dismissing everyone else's view as 'nonsense'. I have agreed with your proposition that not everyone would recognise the term 'soccer' which is why I resisted some people's idea simply to rename the page [list of soccer players]. It would be nice if you showed the same maturity and willingness to work with people. JTD 01:42 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

 * Er.. pardon me for upsetting you. I have not once in this debate lowered myself to personal insults. I didn't call anyone's views nonsense, never, not once. The use of nonsense above was meant as a flippant remark on the moving around of pages. You're the one who's moved the pages all over the place are you not? My google argument has far from backfired. 47 of the top 100 sites listed under football are for 'soccer'(spit). The list of players page had been moved to 'association football' which I demonstrated was a little used term, which is why I moved it. I demonstrated the use of 'football' without any qualifiers to mean 'soccer'(spit) internationally. That was my argument plain and simple, what kind of a bolt from the blue were you expecting me to come up with? Mintguy

Yeah. It an excellent site. That actually would be the logical place to add in Mintguy's history of footballing codes. JTD

 * It links to association football rather than here, though. Bagpuss (who is going to let this lie in a bit)

Good googily moogily!
Any discussion or history common to all forms of football belong on the page entitled, simply, football. Currently, that page seems to be entitled football games. There's no need for a page by entitled football games.

Football should not redirect to this page. A page entitled simply football, should be a general page, not a page devoted only to one specific form of football, as it seems to be now. The word "football" does not mean only the sport sanctioned by FIFA. Nor does it mean only the sport sanctioned by the NFL. It means both, and it means a number of other poplular sports, too.

As an American whose favorite sport is that form of football that is sanctioned by FIFA, I've been involved in more "Is it 'football' or is it 'soccer'" discussions than I care to remember. The expression "been there, done that" comes to mind for some reason. I decided many years ago that such discussions are pointless. My real concern is whether it's "pointy-ball" or "the beautiful game".

The only reason I'm commenting here is that this is an encyclopedia, and terminology is important. Usage of words in an encyclopedia should not be based on who takes offense to what, or who thinks that a word belongs to them when it doesn't. The page entitled simply football should not be about any specific sport. It should be about those things that all the sports known as football have in common. Cheers Bluelion 04:00 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

I agree, Bluelion. Until a few days ago this football page was all about soccer, with every other football code being told in effect to 'shag off and call yourself {some other name} football', ie, American football, Gaelic football. And it has been the mother of all rows to get Mintguy to accept that soccer cannot claim the word football for itself. That's why this page is now called [Football (soccer)], to make sure that people know that its contents is exclusively concerned with the branch of football often called soccer. But Minyguy ain't happy, as you can see in the above quotes. Even though everyone else could see a problem, and just about everyone else thought [Football (soccer)] was the best way to clarify what the accompanying article is about, Mintguy regards the whole issue as in his words 'nonsense'. In his view, the entire world means soccer when they say 'football' and this page should reflect that. Which I think is, to paraphrase a common expletive, cow manure. JTD 05:34 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

 * JTD. You are continually misrepresenting my views. Stop it. The only time I used the word 'nonsense' was above and it was a flippant remark about shuffling pages to-and-fro, I could have used the word 'malarky', or 'business', or any number of synonyms, it was not intended to infer that your views or anyone else 's views were nonsense. I am not ignorant to the fact the othe people use the word football for their own local sport. My point which is undeniable is that for the vast majority of the world's population, and for the vast majority of native and non-native English speakers, the word football unqualified means soccer (spit). Just as for the majority of the world Tennis means 'lawn tennis' and not 'Royal tennis' or Table tennis. Furthermore you are again misrepresenting the truth - I was not alone in opposing the word 'soccer' as the name of this sport. TheAnome, Ams80, Pcb21, Stephen Gilbert, Alan Peakall, WojPob and Dhum Dhum all expressed their view that a move to a page called soccer was unacceptable. A number of people also expressed support on my page but did not wish to get involve in the row. After the fact Bagpuss has come along and expressed his negative views about the word soccer. So don't try to falsify the fact by saying it was me versus the world. I have grudgingly accepted the move  to this page as a compromise - now get off my back.

Ohh you still haven't answered my question of whether you are going to fix all the links? Mintguy

Violence
This has a bad side, as groups of fanatics have often caused disturbances and sometimes tragedies (see hooligans and Football War).

Redirect
Hey, when you guys are finished rowing, would it be all right to REDIRECT football to my football games disambiguation page? I'm not going to do it, unless Mintguy agrees -- because if I take a side then I'm not allowed to be a heavy-handed sysop and protect any pages. --Uncle Ed 16:26 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

 * Ed. You have my blessing for anything you want to do as long as football (soccer) doesn't end up at soccer and that the article football isn't just a simple disambiguation block, because I intend to add a long piece about the muddled history of all codes of football. I think it better to have a single article on this rather than having partisan pieces at each sport saying this was the first X, and that was the first Y. I spent a couple of hours at the library today trying to fill in some gaps in what I have already written. Mintguy

 * I'd say move football games to football.

 * Since we seem pretty much settled here, I think I'll go and fix some links. Bagpuss

Other pages
I'm just going to air a concern here, in that I hope this isn't the thin edge of the wedge and the we don't start moving Football World Cup, Football War, Total Football, Socrates (football player), Anderlecht (football club), List of football teams, Norwegian Football League teams, German Football League Teams, Italian Football League Teams, Dutch Football League teams, Brazilian national football team, English national football team, English Football League teams, South African Football League teams, Italian Football League Teams/Serie A, Football League Trophy and Paralympic Football etc.. Mintguy

Expected outcome
I'm not sure I understand what, if anything, has been settled, but I know what I as a fascinated reader would like to have:
 * an article distinguishing all the names of the different sports that anyone ever called "football" (currently football games)
 * an article about the history of these various sports
 * an article on what Americans call "soccer" -- currently football (soccer)
 * an article on what Americans call "football" (see American football)
 * a whole bunch of other articles on the various non-soccer, non-American-rules football games

 * 1) I wrote football games as a neutral disambiguation page.
 * 2) Mintguy is, I believe, writing material for a history of football article.
 * 3) We need to settle on a mutually agreeable name for the football (soccer) article.
 * 4) I guess there's no naming objection to American football

A real big question is what the football article should contain:
 * a redirect to the, ahem "soccer" article at football (soccer)
 * disambiguation info, like what's currently in football games
 * something else (please specify)

--Uncle Ed 17:47 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

 * From Disambiguation:

 * If a disambiguating page is merited, it can be as simple as a bullet list of specific articles with links and perhaps a brief one-line description of each (saving details for the specific articles), or it might have some explanatory text of its own if differences need to be explained, or if there is interesting history of the term itself independent of the specific topics. If each of the topics themselves only has a sentence or two, it may be simpler just to put all of them together in one article.

 * So it would be entirely reasonable to have Mintguy's stuff under football, which is what I'd favour. Leaving it as a redirect would render the entire exercise of moving it pointless. Bagpuss

Intro
Hey, Mintguy. I like how the intro's going. The previous one was a little dry. Bagpuss

Redirect changed
I changed the redirect from Football, since no one else seems to want to do it. We could write a book about the naming controversy, which is at least a century old. (Actually, I'm working on the book ) Cheers Bluelion 23:47 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Edits about the name
News article from Friday December 17, 2004.

Soccer will officially become football in Australia next year after the Australian Soccer Association (ASA) announced on Thursday it will change its name to Football Federation Australia (FFA). The move would bring Australia into line with the majority of other countries which call the sport football. Canada, the United States and New Zealand are among the few countries that call the sport soccer in their organisational name. Robert

I accept that soccer is called "football" by most people in the world. However, it is not usually called that in Australia, and the ordinary usage of people will not be changed by edict from the ASA. It is not true to imply that it is now called football in Australia. Avalon 05:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Interestingly a number of media outlets now refer to the sport as "football", however, yes, any change will come gradually, if at all. BTW, it is no longer the ASA, it is now the FFA. Regardless of what the sport is called where, the name is not a big issue. It seems to have taken up an inordinate amount of space on both the page previously and in this talk page. People just need to accept the reality that the sport is known by different names in different places (and sometimes within the same place). --Daveb 06:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

JTD - please explain your last edit.

 * 1) As some people call the sport 'soccer' (even though a minority) I thought it important to put it in the opening line, making it clear that it is the minority name. That way, from the opening everyone (soccerites, footballites) knows from line one what the article is about. It simply a logical change that recognises what you say (and I accept it) is the dominance of the word 'football' while informing others that the other word used is 'soccer'.
 * 2) The line where you blamed the US for spreading the name soccer (apart from opening the threat of WWIII with irate Americans who might take offence - they might set George W. Bush on you, or even worse force you to listen to one of his meandering speeches!) is quite inaccurate. I was talking to someone in the FAI on Wednesday who is a friend of mine and the issue of why Ireland calls the sport soccer a lot of the time was raised. He said it seems to date back as far as the sport was played in Ireland, which is long long before anyone on this side of the Atlantic was aware of 'americanisms' or had direct access to TV, sports coverage. (Back then even Coca Cola wasn't available in Ireland!) I actually never knew the US called it soccer until you mentioned it. John mentioned how when the Irish soccer team were going to play in the US in 1994, one question the FAI had to find out was 'what do they call the game in the US?' So the name soccer in Ireland owes nothing to the US whatsoever and almost certainly came from the UK. Nor is there any evidence that it came to Australia via the US. Today we have US 'culture' on our TV screens, in our newspapers, etc. But when the name 'soccer' became widespread US culture wasn't as dominant. Jerry Springer was just a nightmare in the future. The parents of the actors in 'Friends' hadn't been born. Until the 1960s if not later, the dominant external cultural influence on states like Ireland and Australia was Britain. By the 1960s, in fact decades earlier, the word 'soccer' was widespread in both Ireland and Britain. My father's generation, who were born in the 1930s, called it that, while the Gaelic Athletic Association's infamous ban on 'foreign games' (already gone generations) banned 'soccer'. And that ban was introduced over one hundred years ago.

 * So your speculation on the origins of the 'soccer' name in terms of international usage being due to American cultural influences is almost certainly far wide of the mark. It had to have come from Britain, perhaps through the colonial governing class. In any case, you risked cheesing off some readers by appearing to cast their cultural gifts to the world in a disparaging light. You and I on this side of the Atlantic probably share a mutual 'attitude' towards American's cultural 'gifts' to mankind, but in this case (certainly in terms of how the name 'soccer' became common in Ireland & Australia) the evidence suggests America is 'innocent'.

(Question: how did America get the 'soccer' name? Here's a thought. If it passed to two 'Old Commonweath' states (Ireland & Australia), might it have gone, through the same British colonial governing class and their servants to a third, Canada, and from there spread to the US? It is just a thought.)

My only other change was to fill a missing word in the top line. I presumed the missing word was 'popular'. I've been out of Wiki a few minutes so I didn't get a chance to type this explanation before I got your message. I don't think the changes changed the overall meaning; one just put the alternative name where it needed to be, in the first line. The other just removed a rather provocatively worded and on the basis of my own knowledge, inaccurate claim with a simple factual statement. Most people call the sport 'football'. A minority call it 'soccer'. Good text, BTW, and I think calling it [football (soccer)] rather than [football] or [soccer] is the right compromise. At some stage, someone was going to query the use of football. This way, before more information on the game is put on Wiki, we have a set way to refer to it that should make everyone able to follow what it is about. JTD 04:48 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

 * It's undeniable that the US culture is making the name more widespread. (Google lists football under soccer for example). I wasn't suggesting it invented the word, far from it as the second sentence in the article demonstrates. As the word soccer is in the title of this page and the usage of the term is explained in the second sentence it seemed unnecessary to put a parenthesised comment just after the article definition when it's clear we're talking about the game you call soccer. Re: 'popular' I had the word order wrong when I added the word team to the text I had already written so I'd put "team most popular" instead of "most popular team" so thanks for fixing that. Mintguy .. ohh also I think "(sometimes also called soccer in some nations)" is a bit unweildy. Mintguy

(sometimes called "soocer") would be sufficient. It is sometimes called "soccer" even in England, which is where the word "soccer" came from.

In partial answer to the question of how Americans got the word soccer. The answer is that the word came from England, and many Americans were at first reluctant to use it. It is used out of neccessity. Bluelion 10:04 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Bluelion -I like your edits. I've been unable to find out when the Aussie associations started using the word soccer. I've left a message on an 'Australin soccer' forum but haven't had any answer. Mintguy

title: Talk:Association football/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire

Untitled
It's debatable whether this move I've just made - from "Georgiana Spencer" to "Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire" - is strictly in line with the naming conventions. Since she was married twice, a good case could be made for listing her under her maiden name. However, since the publication of Amanda Foreman's prize-winning biography, I believe most people will know her by this title, and that is why I've made the move (although of course there's still a redirect at "Georgiana Spencer".Deb 21:10 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

 * IIRC, Georgiana wasn't married twice. The Duke, however, remaried after G's death and his second wife was, in fact, married twice.  Perhaps this is the source of the confusion? BellyOption (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Weird language
The article says her son never married and "died without issue". What the hell does that mean? Does it mean he didn't have any kids? If it means he didn't have any kids, then surely the article should say that in plain English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.5.253.175 (talk) 06:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The language is perfectly plain English and its meaning is completely comprehensible to anyone who has ever read biography or done research in history. And please sign your posts. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I could understand that easily! I do believe it is a formal way of saying he died without children. --92.21.70.138 (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Missing details
There seem to be lots of details missing from this article - like the fact that Georgiana wrote a novel, and also that she was the head of the fashionable Devonshire House Set, who created their own 'slanguage', which had an influence on literature. There also doesn't seem to be any mention of her eye troubles, or her illegitimate child who was farmed out to be raised elsewhere, or that she was a leader of fashion. I think these are probably important details to mention, will try to find references. - A New User 9 May 07

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.69.192.136 (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

How did she die? There isn't much mention about her death and what happened right after. -- An Unregistered User —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.91.102.132 (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

She wrote at least two novels, in fact. There've been recent editions of two by Jonathan Gross: , 1773, and , 1779. I've only read the latter (it's not great, but not awful; see my review among other reviews findable on the Web; mine is way down the page linked).

The novels at Amazon: Emma and The Sylph

At archive.org: The Sylph volume I The Sylph volume II Note these are both Google Books scans, but only one is reachable via a typical search *at* Google Books. I could not find  at archive.org; at Google, a three-volume 1773 edition is represented by three scans which may be all three volumes, or may not, and there are also two scans representing a two-volume 1787 edition. None has a preview associated, and given that archive.org doesn't have them, I'm guessing maybe the scans aren't actually in the Google Books system yet.

I also agree with the original commenter that the article is needlessly vague about the very things that made her famous - her strong support, early in his career, for the eventual prime minister who was also father of her daughter; the scandals in her marriage; her central role in London Society. I get the impression that the article was started from the peerage project and then augmented (timidly) with her life in its own right, rather than started from her life and augmented with peerage stuff.

Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com not a registered Wikipedian, and not at a library where I could usefully edit this article at present 97.113.62.157 (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Corrected a fact
Georgiana was never divorced from her husband. I have updated the entry on her and Earl Grey to reflect that. Also added some other information, which may or may not be useful. A New User

Move?
Should the article be at Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire? john k 03:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not think so, Mr. Kenney, for the surnames of the wives of peers usually are not mentioned, except in genealogical records. --Anglius 01:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe it suffices well her to be at Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire. Why is any of her surnames needed in the heading??? 217.140.193.123 1 July 2005 10:38 (UTC)

It was more an effort to maintain consistency with other articles on peeresses than anything else. If we're going to move her back, I'd prefer that we come to some consensus on naming policy for peeresses, in general. (It should be noted that some peeresses, at least, are known by their married surname from the time before they inherited the title.) john k 1 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)

Let's see. Am I correct in believing that there is consensus and a STATED policy that male peers are basically firstname surname, ordinal title peeragename. ???  If so, then a peeress suo jure should also be firstname surname, ordinal title peeragename. (Is this already a policy?) Then, a nice thing to distinguish between peeresses suo jure and for example her daughter-in-law, the wife of the successor, would be a policy to deny the "surname" from peeresses by marriage: firstname, feminizedtitle peeragename. Regarding peeresses by marriage who are famous already before husband's accession (is that a small number of women?), some of them apparently used the feminized courtesy title. Mostly only those whose husbands got ennobled after a career (both known by husband's surname) are the relevant group of persons whose famousness is both by husband's surname and later by husband's peerage. Well, my suggestion for those is that they get here the policy of "firstname, feminizedtitle peeragename" as heading, and the text explains the names in different stages of life, AND a redirect links from page Mrs "firstname surname". It's just too bad if someone wants the husband's surname - anyway the USED names of those persons are a mess of developments, because, after all, it changed when the husband got peerage, and it also had changed (though usually not from a famous one) when the woman married and took the husband's surname. 217.140.193.123 1 July 2005 20:45 (UTC)

We distinguish suo jure peeresses from ordinary peeresses by use of the ordinal. Personally, I don't see as it matters so long as we have a redirect. But I'd suggest proposing it on the names and titles page rather than trying to do it on a one by one basis. john k 1 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)

Note that the majority of links to this page are still coming via the old title. Deb 2 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)

Relationship to Diana, Princess of Wales
Some sources state that Diana is descended from her; some state that Diana is descended from her brother. This article doesn't make it clear: near the top of the article, it mentions a niece, then that Diana is a descendent - is she a descendant of her or the niece? Can someone please clarify the exact relationship between the subject and Diana, including how many generations apart the two aristocratic women were.Werdnawerdna (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you go to RootsWeb and do a search on the two names, you'll find the lineage laid out in great detail. --Michael K. Smith (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The History Channel (article here) declares that Georgiana is an ancestor of Diana. They're usually pretty accurate, but not infallible. Everything is infallible. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Relationship to Marie Antoinette in Debts?
Why is there a sentence about Georgiana's "natural relationship" underneath the gambling a debts section? Surely there is a more suitable place for this information, like under biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.119.176.119 (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Actions of the Duke of Devonshire after Georgiana's death
I have removed the comment which said that the Duke set up a mistress after his marriage to Bess Foster. There is no evidence for this.

In Amanda Foreman's biography of Georgiana, it is stated that shortly before their marriage, the Duke and Bess made friends with a Mrs Spencer, a young woman who had married an impecunious rake from the Churchill side of the Spencer family. After the marriage, Georgiana's daughter Harryo remarked that her father's phaeton was seen outside Mrs Spencer's door every day 'sometimes past 8'. However, according to Foreman "the Duke did not live long enough for Mrs Spencer to become a serious threat".

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

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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --09:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency
The first line of the section 'Georgiana Cavendish in popular culture' contradicts an earlier statement in the section 'Husband and Children' regarding Sheridan's 'School for Scandal'. Which is correct the movie 'The Duchess' implies it is the first statement. Can someone clarify? The article on School for Scandal does not mention Georgiana at all. --Gramscis cousinTalkStalk 10:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"a daughter" Cavendish?
Hi, in the Husband and Children section, there is a reference to [a daughter] Cavendish. I think this should be taken out; I am fairly certain that little G was her first surviving child, and this is supposed to be about her surviving children, as the miscarriages she had were noted previously. I am going to remove it. Sassy molassy (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"raped by her husband"
Also in the Husband and Children section is a line about Georgiana being raped by the Duke because of her affair with Grey. I find no reference to a rape in Foreman's book; this seems like a spicy detail taken from the movie rather than an actual fact, and I think it should be removed. Sassy molassy (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

New file File:Georgiana (Spencer), Duchess of Devonshire by Sir Joshua Reynolds.jpg
Recently the file File:Georgiana (Spencer), Duchess of Devonshire by Sir Joshua Reynolds.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it.Although there are many portraits in the article, this one shows her as a child circa 1759-1761 and so may have particular use. Dcoetzee 12:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Duchess (2008) "played by"
The "Film Portrayal" section says "The Duchess (2008), played by Anna pimentel" when in fact Keira Knightly played Georgiana in that movie. I have corrected this. --TheEldris (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Georgiana?
What is the justification for the pronunciation "jor-JAY-nə" ? I know the recent Kiera Knightley film uses this, but I always thought the name was pronounced "jor-jee-ahna" Redcliffe maven (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In Amanda Foremans biography, Georgiana Duchess of Devonshire, she explains that the Dukes family (the Cavendishes) all had "a peculiar drawl which marred their speech - they pronounced her name 'George-ayna'." (P30) Thornpip (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

2016 expansion and revision
I submitted an edit of expansion and revision to the article on 17 June 2016. I took care to do so most accordingly. If there is issue(s) to address, please inform me so that I may do so. Hpfan1 (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

New poem by Georgiana discovered
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/english/news/unlocking-private-life-georgiana-duchess-devonshire-through-her-poetry 78.149.219.14 (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Gainsborough painting reproduction
I have a reproduction of the painting. Grannie gave it to Grandad as a gift. 141.164.115.142 (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Which Lady Spencer?
Which Lady Spencer is being referred to in the third paragraph of 'Early life and family': Georgiana, then Lady Spencer, or her mother Margeret, Countess Spencer? A.D.Hope (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


text:
User:Rboatright/sandbox

I'm playing with formatting code here. Feel free to ignore me.

Ma sh riqu'l-A dh kár
Decimal 7841 gives "&#7841", 7841	=	ạ 7842	=	Ả 7843	=	ả 7844	=	Ấ 7845	=	ấ 7846	=	Ầ 7847	=	ầ 7848	=	Ẩ 7849	=	ẩ 7850	=	Ẫ 7851	=	ẫ 7852	=	Ậ 7853	=	ậ 7854	=	Ắ 7855	=	ắ 7856	=	Ằ 7857	=	ằ 7858	=	Ẳ 7859	=	ẳ 7860	=	Ẵ 7861	=	ẵ 7862	=	Ặ 7863	=	ặ 7864	=	Ẹ 7865	=	ẹ 7866	=	Ẻ 7867	=	ẻ 7868	=	Ẽ 7869	=	ẽ 7870	=	Ế 7871	=	ế 7872	=	Ề 7873	=	ề 7874	=	Ể 7875	=	ể 7876	=	Ễ 7877	=	ễ 7878	=	Ệ 7879	=	ệ 7880	=	Ỉ 7881	=	ỉ 7882	=	Ị 7883	=	ị 7884	=	Ọ 7885	=	ọ 7886	=	Ỏ 7887	=	ỏ 7888	=	Ố 7889	=	ố 7890	=	Ồ 7891	=	ồ 7892	=	Ổ 7893	=	ổ 7894	=	Ỗ 7895	=	ỗ 7896	=	Ộ 7897	=	ộ 7898	=	Ớ 7899	=	ớ 7900	=	Ờ 7901	=	ờ 7902	=	Ở 7903	=	ở 7904	=	Ỡ 7905	=	ỡ 7906	=	Ợ 7907	=	ợ 7908	=	Ụ 7909	=	ụ 7910	=	Ủ 7911	=	ủ 7912	=	Ứ 7913	=	ứ 7914	=	Ừ 7915	=	ừ 7916	=	Ử 7917	=	ử 7918	=	Ữ 7919	=	ữ 7920	=	Ự 7921	=	ự 7922	=	Ỳ 7923	=	ỳ 7924	=	Ỵ 7925	=	ỵ 7926	=	Ỷ 7927	=	ỷ 7928	=	Ỹ 7929	=	ỹ 7930	=	Ỻ

title: User:Rboatright/sandbox


text:
Talk:History of African music

Anybody want to tackle this? How true is it? -- Zoe

title: Talk:History of African music