text:
We're Only in It for the Money

We're Only in It for the Money is the third album by American rock band the Mothers of Invention, released on March 4, 1968, by Verve Records. As with the band's first two efforts, it is a concept album, and satirizes left- and right-wing politics, particularly the hippie subculture, as well as the Beatles' album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. It was conceived as part of a project called No Commercial Potential, which produced three other albums: Lumpy Gravy, Cruising with Ruben & the Jets, and Uncle Meat.

We're Only in It for the Money encompasses rock, experimental music, and psychedelic rock, with orchestral segments deriving from the recording sessions for Lumpy Gravy, which was previously issued by Capitol Records as a solo instrumental album by bandleader/guitarist Frank Zappa and was subsequently reedited by Zappa and released by Verve; the reedited Lumpy Gravy was produced simultaneously with We're Only in It for the Money and is the first part of a conceptual continuity, continued with the reedited Lumpy Gravy and concluded with Zappa's final album Civilization Phaze III (1994).

Background
While filming Uncle Meat, Frank Zappa recorded in New York City for a project called No Commercial Potential, which ended up producing four albums: We're Only in It for the Money; a revised version of Zappa's solo album Lumpy Gravy; Cruising with Ruben & the Jets; and Uncle Meat, which served as the soundtrack to the film of the same name, which finally saw a release in 1987, albeit in incomplete form.

Zappa stated, "It's all one album. All the material in the albums is organically related and if I had all the master tapes and I could take a razor blade and cut them apart and put it together again in a different order it still would make one piece of music you can listen to. Then I could take that razor blade and cut it apart and reassemble it a different way, and it still would make sense. I could do this twenty ways. The material is definitely related."

As the recording sessions continued, the Beatles released their acclaimed album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. In response to the album's release, Zappa decided to change the album's concept to parody the Beatles album, because he felt that the Beatles were insincere and "only in it for the money". The Beatles were targeted as a symbol of Zappa's objections to the corporatization of youth culture, and the album served as a criticism of them and psychedelic rock as a whole.

Recording
Recording for We're Only in it for the Money began on March 6, 1967, with the basic tracking of "Who Needs the Peace Corps?" at TTG Studios which was then under the title of "Fillmore". The working title was inspired by a series of performance the Mothers of Invention held at the Fillmore Auditorium, finishing a day prior to the recording session. Zappa would then inaugurate a three-day recording stint at Capital Studios to record Lumpy Gravy from March 14-16, 1967. The band returned to New York in the following week, where Zappa became acquainted to then Cream guitarist Eric Clapton during an acoustic guitar led jam at his home. The band subsequently spent from April to June rehearsing and gigging locally in support of their previous album Absolutely Free, which released on May 26, 1967. Popular contemporaries such as guitarist Jimi Hendrix, and singer-songwriter Essra Mohawk, joined the Mothers of Invention during their New York shows.

In July, band member Ray Collins had left the Mothers before the New York recording sessions took place, but later rejoined when the band was recording the doo-wop songs that formed the album Cruisin' with Ruben & the Jets. Gary Kellgren was hired as an engineer for the project, and subsequently wound up delivering whispered pieces of dialogue that linked segments of We're Only in It for the Money. During the recording sessions, Verve requested that Zappa remove a verse from the song "Mother People". Zappa complied, but reversed the recording and included the backwards verse as part of the dialogue track "Hot Poop", concluding the album's first side, but this would be removed by Verve themselves on subsequent represses of their own. Also censored on all copies was the Lenny Bruce reference in "Harry, You're A Beast", and a spoken segment of "Concentration Moon" in which Kellgren called the Velvet Underground "as shitty a group as Frank Zappa's group".

Primary recording sessions ran from July until September 1967 at Mayfair Studios in New York. During this period of work on the album, the band recorded at a continuous rate, only taking breaks on the weekends. While the Jimi Hendrix Experience occupied Mayfair Studios on July 19 and 20, to record "The Stars That Play with Laughing Sam's Dice", the band worked on and executed ideas for the cover art for We're Only in it for the Money. Hendrix would make an appearance in the Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band mock cover, blending in with the cardboard cutouts of other major figures. Weekday work was only halted again on August 4, when Bob Dylan booked the studio to mix and press an acetate disc of "Too Much Of Nothing". A majority of the basic tracks would be finished in August, and September was spent mostly overdubbing onto the basic recordings. On September 4, the Velvet Underground, who the Mothers of Invention then detested, entered the studio's second recording space with Tom Wilson, the band's previous producer, to record their sophomore album, White Light/White Heat. Both bands did however co-operate in the studio, and Zappa even suggested to Velvet Underground front-man Lou Reed that he record himself stabbing a cantaloupe with a wrench in the band's song "The Gift". The Mothers of Invention halted work on September 22 to pursue what is considered to be their first European tour, before returning to Apostolic Studios, also in New York, from October 3-8 in order to finish the album off, with final overdubs and mixing occurring.

While recording We're Only in It for the Money, Zappa discovered that the strings of Apostolic Studios' grand piano would resonate if a person spoke near those strings. The "piano people" experiment involved Zappa having various speakers improvise dialogue using topics offered by Zappa. Various people contributed to these sessions, including Eric Clapton, Rod Stewart and Tim Buckley, who Zappa became familiar with after a concert in December 1966. The "piano people" voices primarily consisted of Motorhead Sherwood, Roy Estrada, Spider Barbour, All-Night John (the manager of the studio) and Louis Cuneo, who was noted for his laugh, which sounded like a "psychotic turkey".

During the production, Zappa experimented with recording and editing techniques which produced unusual textures and musique concrète compositions; the album featured abbreviated songs interrupted by segments of dialogue and unrelated music which changed the continuity of the album. Segments of orchestral music included on the album came from a solo orchestral album by Zappa previously released by Capitol Records under the title Lumpy Gravy in 1967. MGM claimed that Zappa was under contractual obligation to record for them, and subsequently Zappa re-edited Lumpy Gravy, releasing a drastically different version on Verve Records, after the release of We're Only in It for the Money. The artwork of Lumpy Gravy identified it as "phase 2 of We're Only in It for the Money", while We're Only in It for the Money was identified in its artwork as "phase one of Lumpy Gravy", alluding to the conceptual continuity of the two albums.

For some pressings of the album, MGM censored several tracks without Zappa's knowledge, involvement or permission. On the song "Absolutely Free", the line "I don't do publicity balling for you anymore" was edited by MGM to remove the word "balling", changing the meaning of the sentence. Additionally, on "Let's Make the Water Turn Black", the line "and I still remember Mama, with her apron and her pad, feeding all the boys at Ed's Cafe" was removed. Zappa later learned that this line was censored because an MGM executive thought that the word "pad" referred to a sanitary napkin, rather than a waitress's order pad. The Kellgren dialogue segment in "Concentration Moon" was also re-edited, making it seem that he was calling the Velvet Underground "Frank Zappa's group." Zappa later declined to accept an award for the album upon being made aware of the censorship, stating "I prefer that the award be presented to the guy who modified this record, because what you're hearing is more reflective of his work than mine."

Themes
In his lyrics for We're Only in It for the Money, Zappa speaks as a voice for "the freaks—imaginative outsiders who didn't fit comfortably into any group", according to AllMusic writer Steve Huey. Subsequently, the album satirizes hippie culture and left-wing politics, as well as targeting right-wing politics, describing both political sides as "prisoners of the same narrow-minded, superficial phoniness."

Zappa later stated in 1978, "hippies were pretty stupid. ... the people involved in [youth] processes ... are very sensitive to criticism. They always take themselves too seriously. So anybody who impugns the process, whether it's a peace march or love beads or whatever it is – that person is the enemy and must be dealt with severely. So we came under a lot of criticism, because we dared to suggest that perhaps what was going on was really stupid."

Another element of the album's lyrical content came from the Los Angeles Police Department's harassment and arrests of young rock fans, which made it difficult for the band to perform on the West Coast, leading the band to move to New York City for better financial opportunities. Additionally, Zappa made reference to comedian Lenny Bruce; the song "Harry, You're A Beast" quotes Bruce's routine "To Is A Preposition, Come Is A Verb".

The song "Flower Punk" parodies the garage rock staple "Hey Joe", and depicts a youth going to San Francisco to become a flower child and join a psychedelic rock band. Additionally, the track makes a reference to "Wild Thing", one of the songs that defined the counterculture of that period. The rhythmic pattern of "Flower Punk" is complex, consisting of 4 bars of a fast 5 (2–3), followed by 4 bars of 7 (2–2–3).

Packaging

Zappa's art director Cal Schenkel and Jerry Schatzberg photographed a collage for the album cover, which parodied the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Zappa spent US$4,000 on the photo shoot, which he stated was "a direct negative" of the Sgt. Pepper album cover. "[Sgt. Pepper] had blue skies ... we had a thunderstorm." Jimi Hendrix, a friend of Zappa, took part in the photo shoot.

Zappa phoned Paul McCartney, seeking permission for the parody. McCartney told him that it was an issue for business managers,  but Zappa responded that the artists themselves were supposed to tell their business managers what to do. Nevertheless, Capitol objected, and the album's release was delayed for five months. Verve decided to package the album with inverted cover artwork, placing the parody cover as interior artwork (and the intended interior artwork as the main sleeve) out of fear of legal action. Zappa was angered over the decision; Schenkel felt that the Sgt. Pepper parody "was a stronger image" than the final released cover. In recent years, the album has been reissued with the intended front cover.

Release
The album was released on March 4, 1968, by Verve Records. It peaked at number 30 on the Billboard 200.

In 1984, Zappa prepared a remix of the album for its compact disc reissue and the vinyl box set The Old Masters I. The remix reinstated audio that had been censored by Verve, as well as the original "Mother People" verse. It also featured new rhythm tracks recorded by bassist Arthur Barrow and drummer Chad Wackerman. Zappa would later do the same with Cruising with Ruben & the Jets, stating "The master tapes for Ruben and the Jets were in better shape, but since I liked the results on We're Only in It for the Money, I decided to do it on Ruben too. But those are the only two albums on which the original performances were replaced. I thought the important thing was the material itself."

Lumpy Gravy was also remixed by Zappa, but not released at the time. After the remixing was announced, a $13 million lawsuit was filed against Zappa by Jimmy Carl Black, Bunk Gardner and Don Preston, who were later joined by Ray Collins, Art Tripp and Motorhead Sherwood, increasing the claim to $16.4 million, stating that they had received no royalties from Zappa since 1969.

Zappa would later prepare a CD of the original stereo mix for release by Rykodisc in 1995. Unlike the remix, this retained the censorship applied to "Concentration Moon," "Harry You're a Beast" and "Mother People" on the original releases.

The audio documentary box set The Lumpy Money Project/Object chronicles the production of We're Only in It for the Money, including the orchestral version of Lumpy Gravy, a 1968 mono mix of We're Only in It for the Money and 1984 remixes of We're Only in It for the Money and the reedited Lumpy Gravy album, as well as additional material from the original recording sessions.

Reception and legacy
Barret Hansen praised the album in an April 1968 review for Rolling Stone. He felt it was the most "advanced" rock album released up to that date, though not necessarily the "best"; he compared Zappa with the Beatles, and felt that the wit and sharpness of Zappa's lyrics was more intelligent, but unless one were to adopt a utilitarian view, he would not deny the beauty of the Beatles' music. He concluded that while the initial listening may be significantly profound, due to the reliance on shock, subsequent listening may be reduced in value; and he returns to a comparison with the Beatles, in which he feels that Zappa has the greater musical genius, but is less comfortable to listen to.

AllMusic writer Steve Huey wrote, "the music reveals itself as exceptionally strong, and Zappa's politics and satirical instinct have rarely been so focused and relevant, making We're Only in It for the Money quite possibly his greatest achievement." Robert Christgau gave the album an A, writing, "With bohemia permanent and changed utterly, this early attack on its massification hasn't so much dated as found its context. Cheap sarcasm is forever." In 2012, Uncut described the album as a "satirical psych-rock gem".

It was voted number 343 in the third edition of Colin Larkin's All Time Top 1000 Albums (2000). As of 2015, the album was ranked number 297 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time. Additionally, Rolling Stone ranked the album number 77 in its August 1987 article, "The Top 100: The Best Albums of the Last Twenty Years". It is also included in the book 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die along with the Mothers' first release, Freak Out!.

In 2005, the U.S. National Recording Preservation Board included We're Only in It for the Money in the National Recording Registry, calling it "culturally, historically, and aesthetically significant" and "a scathing satire on hippiedom and America's reactions to it".

Personnel

 * The Mothers Today / The Mothers Yesterday
 * Frank Zappa – guitar, piano, lead vocals & editing
 * Billy Mundi – drums, vocal, yak & black lace underwear
 * Bunk Gardner – all woodwinds, mumbled weirdness
 * Roy Estrada – electric bass, vocals, asthma
 * Don Preston – retired
 * Jimmy Carl Black – Indian of the group, drums, trumpet, vocals
 * Ian Underwood – piano, woodwinds, wholesome
 * Euclid James "Motorhead" Sherwood – road manager, soprano & baritone saxophone, all purpose weirdness & teen appeal (we need it desperately)
 * Suzy Creamcheese (Pamela Zarubica) – telephone
 * Dick Barber – snorks

 * Also
 * Gary Kellgren – creepy whispering
 * Dick Kunc – cheerful interruptions
 * Eric Clapton – has graciously consented to speak to you in several critical areas
 * Spider – wants you to turn your radio around

 * Uncredited
 * Charlotte Martin – voice on "Are You Hung Up?"
 * Vicki Kellgren – telephone
 * Dave Aerni – guitars on "Nasal Retentive Calliope Music"
 * Paul Buff – drums, bass, organ, saxes on "Nasal Retentive Calliope Music"
 * Ronnie Williams – backwards voice on "Let's Make the Water Turn Black"
 * Bob Stone – engineer on 1984 remix
 * Arthur Barrow – bass on 1984 remix
 * Chad Wackerman – drums on 1984 remix

 * Production:
 * Frank Zappa – composer, arranger, producer
 * Sid Sharp – conductor of orchestral segments
 * Jerrold Schatzberg – photography
 * Tiger Morse – fashions
 * Cal Schenkel – plaster figures & all other artwork
 * Tom Wilson – executive producer
 * Nifty, Tough & Bitchen Youth Market Consultants for Bizarre Productions – packaging concept
 * Gary Kellgren – engineer for two months of basic sessions at Mayfair Studios
 * Dick Kunc – record & re-mix engineer for the final months of recording at Apostolic Studios

title: We're Only in It for the Money


text:
United Nations Special Commission

United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) was an inspection regime created by the United Nations to ensure Iraq's compliance with policies concerning Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction after the Gulf War. Between 1991 and 1997 its director was Rolf Ekéus; from 1997 to 1999 its director was Richard Butler.

Summary
United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) was an inspection regime created with the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 in April 1991 to oversee Iraq's compliance with the destruction of Iraqi chemical, biological, and missile weapons facilities and to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency's efforts to eliminate nuclear weapon facilities all in the aftermath of the Gulf War. The UNSCOM inspection regime was packaged with several other UN Security Council requirements, namely, that Iraq's ruling regime formally recognize Kuwait as an independent state and pay out war reparations for the destruction inflicted in the Gulf War, including the firing of Kuwaiti oil supplies and destruction of public infrastructure. Until the UN Security Council saw that Iraq's weapons programs had been aborted and Iraqi leaders had allowed monitoring systems to be installed, the UN's aforementioned sanctions would continue to be imposed on Iraq.

The commission found corroborating evidence that Rihab Rashid Taha, an Iraqi microbiologist educated in England, had produced biological weapons for Iraq in the 1980s. The destruction of proscribed weapons and the associated facilities was carried out mainly by Iraq, under constant supervision by UNSCOM.

Inspectors withdrew in 1998, and disbanded the following year amid allegations that the United States had used the commission's resources to spy on the Iraqi military. Weapons inspector Scott Ritter later stated that Operation Rockingham had cherry-picked evidence found by the United Nations Special Commission; evidence, he says, that was later used as part of the casus belli for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The successor of the United Nations Special Commission was the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission.

History
The United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) was headed by Rolf Ekéus and later Richard Butler. During several visits to Iraq by the United Nations Special Committee (UNSCOM), set up after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait to inspect Iraqi weapons facilities, weapons inspectors were told by Rihab Rashid Taha that the al-Hakam germ warfare center was a chicken-feed plant. "There were a few things that were peculiar about this animal-feed production plant," Charles Duelfer, UNSCOM's deputy executive chairman, later told reporters, "beginning with the extensive air defenses surrounding it."

1991–1995
The powers given to UNSCOM inspectors in Iraq were: "unrestricted freedom of movement without advance notice in Iraq"; the "right to unimpeded access to any site or facility for the purpose of the on-site inspection...whether such site or facility be above or below ground"; "the right to request, receive, examine, and copy any record data, or information...relevant to" UNSCOM's activities; and the "right to take and analyze samples of any kind as well as to remove and export samples for off-site analysis".

Acceptance of the intrusion of the UNSCOM's inspectors on the part of the Iraqi regime was slow coming. But with the threat of punitive military action looming from the international community, and particularly the U.S., Saddam Hussein begrudgingly allowed UNSCOM's inspectors into the country to begin their work.

From August 1991 the U.S. government made a Lockheed U-2 reconnaissance aircraft available to UNSCOM. The imagery was analysed by U.S. analysts, but the volume of imagery exceeded analysis capacity. With UNSCOM authority, Scott Ritter and some other UNSCOM weapons inspectors also regularly took Lockheed U-2 imagery to Israel for analysis. Iraq protested about the supply of such information to Israel.

Between 1991 and 1995, UN inspectors uncovered a massive program to develop biological and nuclear weapons. A large amount of equipment was confiscated and destroyed. Iraq by and large refused to cooperate with UNSCOM and its inspections as mandated by UN SC Res. 687 until June 1992, ten months after deadline, at which time the Iraqi government submitted "full, final and complete reports" on all of its weapons of mass destruction programs. These reports, however, were found to be incomplete and deficient, and at the same time UN inspectors were subjected to harassment and threats on the part of the Iraqi regime.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 699 was also passed in 1991, declaring that Iraq was responsible for all funding of UNSCOM's inspections in Iraq.

In 1995, UNSCOM's principal weapons inspector Dr. Rod Barton showed Taha documents obtained by UNSCOM from Israel that showed the Iraqi government had just purchased 10 tons of growth media from a British company called Oxoid. Growth media is a mixture of sugar, proteins and minerals that allows microscopic life to grow. It is used in hospitals, where swabs from patients are placed in dishes containing growth media for diagnostic purposes. Iraq's hospital consumption of growth media was just 200 kg a year; yet in 1988, Iraq imported 39 tons of it.

Shown this evidence by UNSCOM, Taha admitted to inspectors that she had grown 19,000 litres of botulism toxin; 8,000 litres of anthrax; 2,000 litres of aflatoxins, which can cause liver cancer; clostridium perfringens, a bacterium that can cause gas gangrene; and ricin, a castor bean derivative which can kill by inhibiting protein synthesis. She also admitted conducting research into cholera, salmonella, foot and mouth disease, and camel pox, a disease that uses the same growth techniques as smallpox, but which is safer for researchers to work with. It was because of the discovery of Taha's work with camel pox that the US and British intelligence services feared Saddam Hussein may have been planning to weaponize the smallpox virus. Iraq had a smallpox outbreak in the 1970s and UNSCOM scientists believe the government would have retained contaminated material.

UNSCOM learned that, in August 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Taha's team was ordered to set up a program to weaponize the biological agents. By January 1991, a team of 100 scientists and support staff had filled 157 bombs and 16 missile warheads with botulin toxin, and 50 bombs and five missile warheads with anthrax. In an interview with the BBC, Taha denied the Iraqi government had weaponized the bacteria. "We never intended to use it," she told journalist Jane Corbin of the BBC's Panorama program. "We never wanted to cause harm or damage to anybody." UNSCOM found the munitions dumped in a river near al-Hakam. UNSCOM also discovered that Taha's team had conducted inhalation experiments on donkeys from England and on beagles from Germany. The inspectors seized photographs showing beagles having convulsions inside sealed containers.

1996
The al-Hakam germ warfare center, headed by the British-educated Iraqi biologist Dr. Rihab Rashid Taha, was blown up by UNSCOM in 1996. According to a 1999 report from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, the normally mild-mannered Taha exploded into violent rages whenever UNSCOM questioned her about al-Hakam, shouting, screaming and, on one occasion, smashing a chair, while insisting that al-Hakam was a chicken-feed plant.

Iraq charged that the commission was a cover for US espionage and refused UNSCOM access to certain sites, such as Baath Party headquarters. Although Ekéus has said that he resisted attempts at such espionage, many allegations have since been made against the agency commission under Butler, charges which Butler has denied. Within the UN establishment in Iraq, UNSCOM was not without its critics, with the UN's humanitarian staff informally calling the inspectors 'UN-Scum'. In return, the UN's humanitarian staff were called "bunny-huggers".

Also in 1996, the Iraqi ruling regime agreed to the terms of United Security Council Resolution 986, an oil-for-supplies agreement in which Iraq was allowed to sell $2 billion worth of oil every six months as a ways to purchase supplies for its increasingly impoverished and malnourished population. This agreement also allowed the UN to oversee the use and management of oil revenues, and to see that some of the funds went to pay war reparations and for the work of UNSCOM in Iraq during this period. The distribution of supplies purchased with oil revenues was also to be supervised by UN inspectors to ensure fair and equal distribution throughout the Iraqi population.

1998 Airstrikes
On the evening of 15 December 1998 the Security Council convened to consider two letters from weapons inspectors. The IAEA report by Mohamed El Baradei stated that Iraq "has provided the necessary level of cooperation to enable... [our] activities to be completed efficiently and effectively". The UNSCOM report, authored by Richard Butler, deplored the restrictions, lack of disclosure, and concealment. While conceding that "[i]n statistical terms, the majority of the inspections of facilities and sites under the ongoing monitoring system were carried out with Iraq's cooperation," his letter listed a number of instances where unspecificed "undeclared dual-capable items" had been discovered, and where inspections had been held up so that buildings could be cleared of sensitive material.

Since Operation Desert Fox had already begun at the time of the meeting (just hours after the inspectors had been evacuated), the Security Council debated about who was to blame for the military action, rather than whether they should authorize it. The Iraqi representative said:

"I speak to you now while rockets and bombs are falling on the cities and the villages of Iraq... At a time when the Security Council... was discussing [the] reports..., and before the Council reached any conclusion on this subject, the United States and Britain launched their attack against Iraq. The two Powers requested a suspension of the informal meeting of the Security Council and their pretext for aggression was that one of the two reports – the UNSCOM report – emphasized the lack of full cooperation by Iraq with UNSCOM... Time and again we have warned against the partiality and lack of objectivity of the United Nations Special Commission... The UNSCOM Executive Chairman singled out in his report yesterday five incidents out of a total of 300 inspection operations... The exaggerated uproar about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is nothing but a great lie."

The Russian ambassador added:

"We believe that although there are certain problems..., the current crisis was created artificially... On the night of 15 December this year, [Butler] presented a report that gave a distorted picture of the real state of affairs and concluded that there was a lack of full cooperation on the part of Iraq. That conclusion was not borne out by the facts. Without any consultations with the Security Council, Richard Butler then evacuated the entire Special Commission staff from Iraq. At the same time, there was an absolutely unacceptable leak of the report to the communications media, which received the text before the members of the Security Council themselves... It is symbolic that precisely at the time when Richard Butler... was attempting to defend the conclusions reached in his report, we were informed about the strike against Iraq, and the justification for that unilateral act was precisely the report which had been presented by the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission."

The view of the Council was split, with several countries placing the responsibility on Iraq. The United States declared that "Iraq's policy of unremitting defiance and non-compliance necessitated the resort to military force". The United Kingdom stated that the objectives of the action were "to degrade Iraq's capability to build and use weapons of mass destruction, and to diminish the military threat Iraq poses to its neighbours. The targets chosen, therefore, are targets connected with his military capability, his weapons of mass destruction and his ability to threaten his neighbours."

1999: End of UNSCOM
In December 1999, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1284, replacing UNSCOM with the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, also known as UNMOVIC. Four countries – among them Russia, France and China – abstained from voting on Res. 1284, which led the Iraqi regime to reject the resolution because they saw the resolution as a way for the UN to claim Iraq as a "protectorate".

UNSCOM's intention of identifying and eliminating Iraqi weapons programs resulted in numerous successes, illustrating the "value of a system approach to biological arms verification". But the overall effect of the UN sanctions on Iraqi in the 1990s had some negative effects on the Iraqi people. Graham-Brown (2000) and Halliday (1999) argued the sanctions caused malnutrition rates among Iraqis to increase and infant mortality rates to soar, exacting a heavy toll on ordinary Iraqi civilians not part of Saddam's patrimonial "shadow state". However, research by Dyson nd Cetorelli (2017) demonstrated that claims of a rise in infant mortality rates and malnutrition rates among Iraqi civilians due to sanctions were due to manipulation of a 1999 UNICEF survey by Saddam's regime, noting that comprehensive surveys after 2003 found no evidence that UN sanctions caused a rise in child mortality rates.

Allegations of CIA infiltration of UNSCOM
Evidence that UNSCOM had been used by US intelligence to penetrate Iraqi security and track President Saddam Hussein's movements emerged in January 1999. An investigation by The Washington Post claimed that CIA engineers, working as UN technicians, installed equipment to spy on Iraqi sites without Butler's knowledge, and that this explained the unidentified "burst transmissions" that had been noted by the inspectors.

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter later accused some UNSCOM personnel of spying, and also alleged that the purpose of the spying was to target Saddam in the bombing. Butler, on the other hand, denied allegations that foreign intelligence agencies "piggybacked" UNSCOM and questioned the factual accuracy of several of Ritter's statements.

Ritter on Iraq's WMDs after 1998
In June 1999, Ritter said:

When you ask the question, "Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?" the answer is "NO!" It is a resounding "NO". Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is "no" across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability.

Butler resigned 1999
Butler resigned from UNSCOM on 30 June 1999.

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

title: United Nations Special Commission


text:
Just war theory

The just war theory (bellum iustum) is a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition, of military ethics that aims to ensure that a war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. It has been studied by military leaders, theologians, ethicists and policymakers. The criteria are split into two groups: jus ad bellum ("right to go to war") and jus in bello ("right conduct in war"). The first group of criteria concerns the morality of going to war, and the second group of criteria concerns the moral conduct within war. There have been calls for the inclusion of a third category of just war theory (jus post bellum) dealing with the morality of post-war settlement and reconstruction. The just war theory postulates the belief that war, while it is terrible but less so with the right conduct, is not always the worst option. Important responsibilities, undesirable outcomes, or preventable atrocities may justify war.

Opponents of the just war theory may either be inclined to a stricter pacifist standard (proposing that there has never been nor can there ever be a justifiable basis for war) or they may be inclined toward a more permissive nationalist standard (proposing that a war need only to serve a nation's interests to be justifiable). In many cases, philosophers state that individuals do not need to be plagued by a guilty conscience if they are required to fight. A few philosophers ennoble the virtues of the soldier while they also declare their apprehensions for war itself. A few, such as Rousseau, argue for insurrection against oppressive rule.

The historical aspect, or the "just war tradition", deals with the historical body of rules or agreements that have applied in various wars across the ages. The just war tradition also considers the writings of various philosophers and lawyers through history, and examines both their philosophical visions of war's ethical limits and whether their thoughts have contributed to the body of conventions that have evolved to guide war and warfare.

In the twenty-first century there has been significant debate between traditional just war theorists, who largely support the existing law of war and develop arguments to support it, and revisionists who reject many traditional assumptions, although not necessarily advocating a change in the law.

Ancient Egypt
A 2017 study found that the just war tradition can be traced as far back as to Ancient Egypt. Egyptian ethics of war usually centered on three main ideas, these including the cosmological role of Egypt, the pharaoh as a divine office and executor of the will of the gods, and the superiority of the Egyptian state and population over all other states and peoples. Egyptian political theology held that the pharaoh had the exclusive legitimacy in justly initiating a war, usually claimed to carry out the will of the gods. Senusret I, in the Twelfth Dynasty, claimed, "I was nursed to be a conqueror...his [Atum's] son and his protector, he gave me to conquer what he conquered." Later pharaohs also considered their sonship of the god Amun-Re as granting them absolute ability to declare war on the deity's behalf. Pharaohs often visited temples prior to initiating campaigns, where the pharaoh was believed to receive their commands of war from the deities. For example, Kamose claimed that "I went north because I was strong (enough) to attack the Asiatics through the command of Amon, the just of counsels." A stele erected by Thutmose III at the Temple of Amun at Karnak "provides an unequivocal statement of the pharaoh's divine mandate to wage war on his enemies." As the period of the New Kingdom progressed and Egypt heightened its territorial ambition, so did the invocation of just war aid the justification of these efforts. The universal principle of Maat, signifying order and justice, was central to the Egyptian notion of just war and its ability to guarantee Egypt virtually no limits on what it could take, do, or use to guarantee the ambitions of the state.

India
The Indian Hindu epic, the Mahabharata, offers the first written discussions of a "just war" (dharma-yuddha or "righteous war"). In it, one of five ruling brothers (Pandavas) asks if the suffering caused by war can ever be justified. A long discussion then ensues between the siblings, establishing criteria like proportionality (chariots cannot attack cavalry, only other chariots; no attacking people in distress), just means (no poisoned or barbed arrows), just cause (no attacking out of rage), and fair treatment of captives and the wounded.

In Sikhism, the term dharamyudh describes a war that is fought for just, righteous or religious reasons, especially in defence of one's own beliefs. Though some core tenets in the Sikh religion are understood to emphasise peace and nonviolence, especially before the 1606 execution of Guru Arjan by Mughal emperor Jahangir, military force may be justified if all peaceful means to settle a conflict have been exhausted, thus resulting in a dharamyudh.

East Asian
Chinese philosophy produced a massive body of work on warfare, much of it during the Zhou dynasty, especially the Warring States era. War was justified only as a last resort and only by the rightful sovereign; however, questioning the decision of the emperor concerning the necessity of a military action was not permissible. The success of a military campaign was sufficient proof that the campaign had been righteous.

Japan did not develop its own doctrine of just war but between the 5th and the 7th centuries drew heavily from Chinese philosophy, and especially Confucian views. As part of the Japanese campaign to take the northeastern island Honshu, Japanese military action was portrayed as an effort to "pacify" the Emishi people, who were likened to "bandits" and "wild-hearted wolf cubs" and accused of invading Japan's frontier lands.

Ancient Greece and Rome
The notion of just war in Europe originates and is developed first in ancient Greece and then in the Roman Empire.

It was Aristotle who first introduced the concept and terminology to the Hellenic world that called war a last resort requiring conduct that would allow the restoration of peace. Aristotle argues that the cultivation of a military is necessary and good for the purpose of self-defense, not for conquering: "The proper object of practising military training is not in order that men may enslave those who do not deserve slavery, but in order that first they may themselves avoid becoming enslaved to others" (Politics, Book 7).

In ancient Rome, a "just cause" for war might include the necessity of repelling an invasion, or retaliation for pillaging or a breach of treaty. War was always potentially nefas ("wrong, forbidden"), and risked religious pollution and divine disfavor. A "just war" (bellum iustum) thus required a ritualized declaration by the fetial priests. More broadly, conventions of war and treaty-making were part of the ius gentium, the "law of nations", the customary moral obligations regarded as innate and universal to human beings.

Christian views
Christian theory of the Just War begins around the time of Augustine of Hippo The Just War theory, with some amendments, is still used by Christians today as a guide to whether or not a war can be justified. War may be necessary and right, even though it may not be good. In the case of a country that has been invaded by an occupying force, war may be the only way to restore justice.

Saint Augustine
Saint Augustine held that individuals should not resort immediately to violence, but God has given the sword to government for a good reason (based upon Romans 13:4). In Contra Faustum Manichaeum book 22 sections 69–76, Augustine argues that Christians, as part of a government, need not be ashamed of protecting peace and punishing wickedness when they are forced to do so by a government. Augustine asserted that was a personal and philosophical stance: "What is here required is not a bodily action, but an inward disposition. The sacred seat of virtue is the heart."

Nonetheless, he asserted, peacefulness in the face of a grave wrong that could be stopped by only violence would be a sin. Defense of one's self or others could be a necessity, especially when it is authorized by a legitimate authority:"They who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill.'"While not breaking down the conditions necessary for war to be just, Augustine nonetheless originated the very phrase itself in his work The City of God:

"But, say they, the wise man will wage Just Wars. As if he would not all the rather lament the necessity of just wars, if he remembers that he is a man; for if they were not just he would not wage them, and would therefore be delivered from all wars."

Augustine further taught: "No war is undertaken by a good state except on behalf of good faith or for safety."

J. Mark Mattox writes,"In terms of the traditional notion of jus ad bellum (justice of war, that is, the circumstances in which wars can be justly fought), war is a coping mechanism for righteous sovereigns who would ensure that their violent international encounters are minimal, a reflection of the Divine Will to the greatest extent possible, and always justified. In terms of the traditional notion of jus in bello (justice in war, or the moral considerations which ought to constrain the use of violence in war), war is a coping mechanism for righteous combatants who, by divine edict, have no choice but to subject themselves to their political masters and seek to ensure that they execute their war-fighting duty as justly as possible."

Isidore of Seville
Isidore of Seville writes: "Those wars are unjust which are undertaken without cause. For aside from vengeance or to fight off enemies no just war can be waged."

Peace and Truce of God
The medieval Peace of God (Latin: pax dei) was a 10th century mass movement in Western Europe instigated by the clergy that granted immunity from violence for non-combatants.

Starting in the 11th Century, the Truce of God (Latin: treuga dei) involved Church rules that successfully limited when and where fighting could occur: Catholic forces (e.g. of warring barons) could not fight each other on Sundays, Thursdays, holidays, the entirety of Lent and Advent and other times, severely disrupting the conduct of wars. The 1179 Third Council of the Lateran adopted a version of it for the whole church.

Saint Thomas Aquinas
The just war theory by Thomas Aquinas has had a lasting impact on later generations of thinkers and was part of an emerging consensus in Medieval Europe on just war. In the 13th century Aquinas reflected in detail on peace and war. Aquinas was a Dominican friar and contemplated the teachings of the Bible on peace and war in combination with ideas from Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Saint Augustine and other philosophers whose writings are part of the Western canon. Aquinas' views on war drew heavily on the Decretum Gratiani, a book the Italian monk Gratian had compiled with passages from the Bible. After its publication in the 12th century, the Decretum Gratiani had been republished with commentary from Pope Innocent IV and the Dominican friar Raymond of Penafort. Other significant influences on Aquinas just war theory were Alexander of Hales and Henry of Segusio.

In Summa Theologica Aquinas asserted that it is not always a sin to wage war, and he set out criteria for a just war. According to Aquinas, three requirements must be met. Firstly, the war must be waged upon the command of a rightful sovereign. Secondly, the war needs to be waged for just cause, on account of some wrong the attacked have committed. Thirdly, warriors must have the right intent, namely to promote good and to avoid evil. Aquinas came to the conclusion that a just war could be offensive and that injustice should not be tolerated so as to avoid war. Nevertheless, Aquinas argued that violence must only be used as a last resort. On the battlefield, violence was only justified to the extent it was necessary. Soldiers needed to avoid cruelty and a just war was limited by the conduct of just combatants. Aquinas argued that it was only in the pursuit of justice, that the good intention of a moral act could justify negative consequences, including the killing of the innocent during a war.

Renaissance and Christian Humanists
Various Renaissance humanists promoted Pacificist views.

 * John Colet famously preached a Lenten sermon before Henry VIII, who was preparing for a war, quoting Cicero "Better an unjust peace rather than the justest war."
 * Erasmus of Rotterdam wrote numerous works on peace which criticized Just War theory as a smokescreen and added extra limitations, notably The Complaint of Peace and the Treatise on War (Dulce bellum inexpertis).

A leading humanist writer after the Reformation was legal theorist Hugo Grotius, whose De jura belli ac pacis re-considered Just War and fighting wars justly.

First World War
At the beginning of the First World War, a group of theologians in Germany published a manifesto that sought to justify the actions of the German government. At the British government's request, Randall Davidson, Archbishop of Canterbury, took the lead in collaborating with a large number of other religious leaders, including some with whom he had differed in the past, to write a rebuttal of the Germans' contentions. Both German and British theologians based themselves on the just war theory, each group seeking to prove that it applied to the war waged by its own side.

Contemporary Catholic doctrine
The just war doctrine of the Catholic Church found in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 2309, lists four strict conditions for "legitimate defense by military force:" The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church elaborates on the just war doctrine in paragraphs 500 to 501, while citing the Charter of the United Nations:
 * The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave and certain.
 * All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.
 * There must be serious prospects of success.
 * The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

Pope John Paul II in an address to a group of soldiers said the following: "Peace, as taught by Sacred Scripture and the experience of men itself, is more than just the absence of war. And the Christian is aware that on earth a human society that is completely and always peaceful is, unfortunately, an utopia and that the ideologies which present it as easily attainable only nourish vain hopes. The cause of peace will not go forward by denying the possibility and the obligation to defend it."

Russian Orthodox Church
The War and Peace section in the Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church is crucial for understanding the Russian Orthodox Church's attitude towards war. The document offers criteria of distinguishing between an aggressive war, which is unacceptable, and a justified war, attributing the highest moral and sacred value of military acts of bravery to a true believer who participates in a justified war. Additionally, the document considers the just war criteria as developed in Western Christianity to be eligible for Russian Orthodoxy; therefore, the justified war theory in Western theology is also applicable to the Russian Orthodox Church.

In the same document, it is stated that wars have accompanied human history since the fall of man, and according to the gospel, they will continue to accompany it. While recognizing war as evil, the Russian Orthodox Church does not prohibit its members from participating in hostilities if there is the security of their neighbours and the restoration of trampled justice at stake. War is considered to be necessary but undesirable. It is also stated that the Russian Orthodox Church has had profound respect for soldiers who gave their lives to protect the life and security of their neighbours.

Just war tradition
The just war theory, propounded by the medieval Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas, was developed further by legal scholars in the context of international law. Cardinal Cajetan, the jurist Francisco de Vitoria, the two Jesuit priests Luis de Molina and Francisco Suárez, as well as the humanist Hugo Grotius and the lawyer Luigi Taparelli were most influential in the formation of a just war tradition. The just war tradition, which was well established by the 19th century, found its practical application in the Hague Peace Conferences (1899 and 1907) and in the founding of the League of Nations in 1920. After the United States Congress declared war on Germany in 1917, Cardinal James Gibbons issued a letter that all Catholics were to support the war because "Our Lord Jesus Christ does not stand for peace at any price... If by Pacifism is meant the teaching that the use of force is never justifiable, then, however well meant, it is mistaken, and it is hurtful to the life of our country."

Armed conflicts such as the Spanish Civil War, World War II and the Cold War were, as a matter of course, judged according to the norms (as established in Aquinas' just war theory) by philosophers such as Jacques Maritain, Elizabeth Anscombe and John Finnis.

The first work dedicated specifically to just war was the 15th-century sermon De bellis justis of Stanisław of Skarbimierz (1360–1431), who justified war by the Kingdom of Poland against the Teutonic Knights. Francisco de Vitoria criticized the conquest of America by the Spanish conquistadors on the basis of just-war theory. With Alberico Gentili and Hugo Grotius, just war theory was replaced by international law theory, codified as a set of rules, which today still encompass the points commonly debated, with some modifications.

Just-war theorists combine a moral abhorrence towards war with a readiness to accept that war may sometimes be necessary. The criteria of the just-war tradition act as an aid in determining whether resorting to arms is morally permissible. Just-war theories aim "to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable uses of organized armed forces"; they attempt "to conceive of how the use of arms might be restrained, made more humane, and ultimately directed towards the aim of establishing lasting peace and justice".

The just war tradition addresses the morality of the use of force in two parts: when it is right to resort to armed force (the concern of jus ad bellum) and what is acceptable in using such force (the concern of jus in bello).

In 1869 the Russian military theorist Genrikh Antonovich Leer theorized on the advantages and potential benefits of war.

The Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin defined only three types of just war.

"But picture to yourselves a slave-owner who owned 100 slaves warring against a slave-owner who owned 200 slaves for a more 'just' distribution of slaves. Clearly, the application of the term 'defensive' war, or war 'for the defense of the fatherland' in such a case would be historically false, and in practice would be sheer deception of the common people, of philistines, of ignorant people, by the astute slaveowners. Precisely in this way are the present-day imperialist bourgeoisie deceiving the peoples by means of 'national ideology' and the term 'defense of the fatherland' in the present war between slave-owners for fortifying and strengthening slavery."

The anarcho-capitalist scholar Murray Rothbard (1926-1995) stated that "a just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination. A war is unjust, on the other hand, when a people try to impose domination on another people or try to retain an already-existing coercive rule over them."

Jonathan Riley-Smith writes: The consensus among Christians on the use of violence has changed radically since the crusades were fought. The just war theory prevailing for most of the last two centuries—that violence is an evil that can, in certain situations, be condoned as the lesser of evils—is relatively young. Although it has inherited some elements (the criteria of legitimate authority, just cause, right intention) from the older war theory that first evolved around AD 400, it has rejected two premises that underpinned all medieval just wars, including crusades: first, that violence could be employed on behalf of Christ's intentions for mankind and could even be directly authorized by him; and second, that it was a morally neutral force that drew whatever ethical coloring it had from the intentions of the perpetrators.

Criteria
The just war theory has two sets of criteria, the first establishing jus ad bellum (the right to go to war), and the second establishing jus in bello (right conduct within war).

Jus ad bellum

 * Competent authority: Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. "A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (e.g. Hitler's regime) or deceptive military actions (e.g. the 1968 US bombing of Cambodia) are typically considered as violations of this criterion. The importance of this condition is key. Plainly, we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine justice. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice".
 * Probability of success: According to this principle, there must be good grounds for concluding that aims of the just war are achievable. This principle emphasizes that mass violence must not be undertaken if it is unlikely to secure the just cause. This criterion is to avoid invasion for invasion's sake and links to the proportionality criteria.  One cannot invade if there is no chance of actually winning.  However, wars are fought with imperfect knowledge, so one must simply be able to make a logical case that one can win; there is no way to know this in advance. These criteria move the conversation from moral and theoretical grounds to practical grounds. Essentially, this is meant to gather coalition building and win approval of other state actors.
 * Last resort: The principle of last resort stipulates that all non-violent options must first be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. Diplomatic options, sanctions, and other non-military methods must be attempted or validly ruled out before the engagement of hostilities.  Further, in regard to the amount of harm—proportionally—the principle of last resort would support using small intervention forces first and then escalating rather than starting a war with massive force such as carpet bombing or nuclear warfare.
 * Just cause: The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot, therefore, be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."

Jus in bello
Once war has begun, just war theory (jus in bello) also directs how combatants are to act or should act:

 * Distinction: Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction. The acts of war should be directed towards enemy combatants, and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances that they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no legitimate military targets, committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against civilians or prisoners of war (POWs), and attacking neutral targets. Moreover, combatants are not permitted to attack enemy combatants who have surrendered, or who have been captured, or who are injured and not presenting an immediate lethal threat, or who are parachuting from disabled aircraft and are not airborne forces, or who are shipwrecked.
 * Proportionality: Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. Combatants must make sure that the harm caused to civilians or civilian property is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a legitimate military objective. This principle is meant to discern the correct balance between the restriction imposed by a corrective measure and the severity of the nature of the prohibited act.
 * Military necessity: Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of military necessity. An attack or action must be intended to help in the defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a legitimate military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.
 * Fair treatment of prisoners of war: Enemy combatants who surrendered or who are captured no longer pose a threat. It is therefore wrong to torture them or otherwise mistreat them.
 * No means malum in se: Combatants may not use weapons or other methods of warfare that are considered evil, such as mass rape, forcing enemy combatants to fight against their own side or using weapons whose effects cannot be controlled (e.g., nuclear/biological weapons).

Ending a war: Jus post bellum
In recent years, some theorists, such as Gary Bass, Louis Iasiello and Brian Orend, have proposed a third category within the just war theory. Jus post bellum concerns justice after a war, including peace treaties, reconstruction, environmental remediation, war crimes trials, and war reparations. Jus post bellum has been added to deal with the fact that some hostile actions may take place outside a traditional battlefield. Jus post bellum governs the justice of war termination and peace agreements, as well as the prosecution of war criminals, and publicly labelled terrorists. The idea has largely been added to help decide what to do if there are prisoners that have been taken during battle. It is, through government labelling and public opinion, that people use jus post bellum to justify the pursuit of labelled terrorist for the safety of the government's state in a modern context. The actual fault lies with the aggressor and so by being the aggressor, they forfeit their rights for honourable treatment by their actions. That theory is used to justify the actions taken by anyone fighting in a war to treat prisoners outside of war.

title: Just war theory


text:
Talk of the Nation

Talk of the Nation (TOTN) is an American talk radio program based in Washington D.C., produced by National Public Radio (NPR) that was broadcast nationally from 2 to 4 p.m. Eastern Time. It focused on current events and controversial issues.

The show began broadcasting in November 1991. It was hosted by Neal Conan from late 2001 to June 27, 2013, the program's last day on air. Each episode featured guests discussing current affairs. Past regular hosts have included John Hockenberry, Ray Suarez, and Juan Williams. On Fridays Ira Flatow hosted Science Friday, with discussion topics from science and technology. The program invited listeners to pose questions for the guest host or hosts by telephone or e-mail.

On March 29, 2013, NPR announced that it would cease production of TOTN at the end of June, replacing it with an expanded version of Here and Now, an NPR/WBUR-FM co-production.

Science Friday continued as an independent show.

Format
TOTN began with a look ahead to the upcoming topics. Then the regular five-minute NPR newscast occurred. After the newscast, the show generally spent from 30 minutes to the entire show discussing the main topic. If discussion on that topic petered, or if the guests had to leave, then shorter news interviews similar to those found on the NPR news-magazines of five to ten minutes aired. Sometimes these shorter segments took calls, but often they did not. More controversial issues may have had guests and take calls the entire hour.

One hour's topics did not carry into the next hour. This is because many stations carried only one hour of the program. In addition, the host delivered a concluding "This is Talk of the Nation from NPR News" as a cue to stations that wish to cut away to local programming before the scheduled break.

To coordinate the choice of interviewees across all NPR programs such as Morning Edition, All Things Considered, and Tell Me More, NPR set up a "dibs list" system around 2005, whereby the first show to declare interest in a particular guest can "reserve" that person.

Hosts
Hosts included John Hockenberry (1991–1992), Ray Suarez (1993–1999), Juan Williams (2000–2001), and Neal Conan (2001–2013). Ira Flatow served as host of Science Friday since 1991.

Guest hosts on the show included: Alison Stewart, Ira Glass, Mary Louise Kelly, John Donvan, and Tony Cox.

From 2001 to 2013, TOTN had only two executive producers: Leith Bishop, and more recently, Sue Goodwin.

Audience
In September 2010, Talk of the Nation was aired on 328 public radio stations, and had a weekly audience of 3.2 million and an AQH share of 605,700.

As of March 2013, TOTN was airing on 407 stations to what host Neal Conan said was "the largest audience in the program's history". In the final segment of the show's final episode, Conan noted the program had an audience of "more than 3.6 million ... each week. That puts Talk of the Nation in the top 10 of all talk shows in the country."

Cancellation
On March 29, 2013, NPR and WBUR announced that Talk of the Nation would cease production and that NPR would replace it with a two-hour version of Here and Now.

According to NPR executives, "the unusual move ... to replace Talk of the Nation with WBUR's Here & Now, which is carried by not even half as many stations across the country, is partly in response to long-voiced demands by member stations calling for more robust news coverage during the workday. The number of public radio listeners sags markedly between Morning Edition and All Things Considered." Partnering with WBUR to expand Here and Now is considered a "more pragmatic approach to expanding [mid-day] news coverage" than Day to Day (2003–2009), an earlier NPR attempt at such a program, which had been produced in collaboration with Slate.

The final broadcast of the program was on June 27, 2013.

title: Talk of the Nation


text:
Talk:History of France

History of France does not begin with Cro-Magnons
wikipedia don't write sciience fiction please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.168.89.151 (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC) how come everyone has commented in the early 2000s is anyone there--2601:47:2:2B0:1123:26B2:B04A:930C (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC) From the article:

 * wut?? 2601:47:2:2B0:1123:26B2:B04A:930C (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * what language does france speek 216.21.220.220 (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * what does that mean 216.21.220.220 (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 * The History of France goes back to the arrival of the earliest human being in what is now France.

This statement patently ludicrous, but also plainly incorrect. The History of France no more begins with the earliest human being's arrival to present-day France's geographical region than the United State's history begins with the forming of our solar system's sun. --65.95.204.18 (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

More readable
Nice article - how about some headers to make it more readable? "Roman Era", "Napoleonic Era", "Fifth Republic", etc.

 * Well, you could do it yourself... ;-) but since you ask nicely... -- Tarquin 23:44 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC) urg, on second thoughts, it's going to be a pain, the paragraph breaks don't match up to breaks in dynasties, etc.... needs further thought & a history book to crib headings from

Wow, this article needs serious work. I'll put it on my to do list. john 21:02 29 May 2003 (UTC)

I join those clamoring for an editor to work with this article. The section of the "July Monarchy" is written as if translated literarily from the French. Historian (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it does have problems, and I tried to fix the section on the July monarchy by trimming details and adding more useful citations. The text was originally based on an old French textbook which is not easily available to the English language Wikipedia audience. Rjensen (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggested Template Changes, Article Mergers and overall Presentation
The Template entry "Ancién Régime" seems to me to be too restrictive, and the separate articles Ancien Régime and France under the Ancien Régime could perhaps be merged.

I am confused about why the Third Republic gets its own entry on the template, but the Second Empire does not. Perhaps the whole template might be better if it supplied subcategories directly, like French Fourth Republic and French Fifth Republic under "Modern France", French Renaissance or Valois Dynasty and Bourbon Dynasty under "Ancien Régime", and Restoration, July Monarchy, Second Republic and Second Empire unter the entry "Nineteenth Century".

If the purpose of History of France page is to give a general overview of the question, while sending people to other Main Pages for the specific periods, then it seems to me that some sections on this page need to have brief descriptions written (one paragraph) and others need to have material removed or incorporated into the main pages they link to. The History of France page could also absorb Mid-nineteenth century France. NYArtsnWords 20:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I do think Ancien Régime should be merged with France under the Ancien Régime, I'm not sure about the other proposed changes, however. Unfortunetaly much of our history of France content is from the 1911 Britannica. Back then political history was utterly dominant, and all of history was neatly divided into eras by what government was in power. Today we realize that cultural, economic, and social history are just as important as political, and a broader periodization is thus important. If we title an article French Fifth Republic we are going to end up with a page that focuses on the political evolution of the state. If we title it Modern France, we will hopefully get a full article on the development of France in the modern era.

 * My ideal is the History of Britain series, which has a group of well defined and lengthy articles covering all manner of history. I think the current division of the history of France is alright. The 3rd Republic gets its own section because it lasted 70 years, while the Restoration, Second Republic, Second Empire, were all far shorter and can be dealt with in one article. We could use a better name than Mid-nineteenth century France, but I couldn't think of one. What we really need are some women, that do away with the Britannica content and present a series of equal quality to our British history one. - SimonP 21:05, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * To try to improve one area of this I have nominated Modern France at COTW, perhaps that could provide us with at least one more decent article in this series. - SimonP 21:15, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * As per your suggestions, I modified my changes to the template to better reflect both sides of the issue, while nevertheless (provisionally) allowing readers to find their way through the different pages. Ideally, everything on the top half of the template should treat history and culture in the broad sense, while everything in the dynasty and regime section should concentrate specifically on the political regimes.  This is -- of course -- a longterm project.  Mid-nineteenth century France...hmmm?  I think France in the nineteenth century would be better.  On a side note, July Monarchy and House of Orleans need to be merged. -- NYArtsnWords 21:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The new template seems like a fair compromise. Creating a France in the nineteenth century that covers the "long nineteenth century" from 1789 to 1914 could work well. We could also easily have an entire article covering 1789 to 1815, and also have a short 19th century one covering 1815 to 1914. France in modern times would then cover 1914 to present. - SimonP 04:50, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * The long nineteenth century sounds good. I wonder if a Early Modern France would better cover the Renaissance and the Ancien Régime articles, or if it's better to leave well enough alone?   On a side note, the middle ages and renaissance articles could use maps showing the territorial expansion of France. -- NYArtsnWords 05:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of having an Early Modern France, as we could start building an early modern series, similar to the Middle Ages series. For Britain we have a general Early Modern Britain article and a specific one on the English Renaissance, which focuses on the culture of the era. Thus we could keep French Renaissance and Ancien Regime as separate articles, but rename France under the Ancien Régime to Early Modern France and have it point to the subarticles. - SimonP 13:41, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * This page has some public domain maps of France in the Middle Ages. - SimonP 14:04, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Good job on the early modern page. If the Template:History of France still seems too busy, I imagine we could cut all the dynastic and politcal regimes and place them all on the Template:Governments of France, and then add that as a second template to all relevent pages.  But it depends on what helps people find what they are looking for easily, especially non-experts.  We can leave it for a while and see what people have to say. -- NYArtsnWords 17:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * hello are you still on wikipedia after over 10 years also yes i agree 2601:47:2:2B0:1123:26B2:B04A:930C (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This isn't an article...
It's an outline masquerading as an article. It is in serious need of prose. --Richard 01:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

 * As the first paragraph of History of France says, the article has been broken up into a series of articles: France in the Middle Ages, Early Modern France, France in the nineteenth century, France in the twentieth century. Repeating -- on this page -- what is already included on those pages is pointless. --NYArtsnWords 01:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

 * You may think so but consider the following articles ... History of the United States, History of Mexico. Those also have significant "daughter" articles.  The History of the United States article is a summary of the more detailed "daughter" articles.  Also consider History of Spain, History of Germany.  Nuff said?
 * --Richard 03:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

 * It seems to me that spending one's time writing summaries of other articles (which are already, at times, summaries) is counterproductive for two reasons: (1) wikipedia contributors should be putting their efforts into making the detailed "daughter" articles better; (2) new contributors may expand the summaries beyond all measure (ignoring the existence of the "daughter" articles), bringing the History of France page back to the 53+ kb hulk is was before the subpages were pulled out of it. If some prose is absolutely necessary, it should not be to the detriment of the subpages. --NYArtsnWords 14:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Do you see any value to consistency of treatment across similar articles in Wikipedia? If so, what do you perceive to be the standard approach for "History of Country X" articles?

 * --Richard 19:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

 * It is still worthwile having good articles for the main countries history article, if people want a quick overview of a country's history rather than having to looking through many "daughter" articles --Astrokey 44 11:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * As a practical matter, what would you say should be the appropriate length of summaries on "History of Country X" articles? I notice, for example, that the History of the United States article is peppered with expand-section tags, even on sections that have detailed subpages.  As I see it, the problem is that some collaborators will always find the summaries lacking and will always add and expand them... until the main page is nearly as long as the subpages.  This will require constant monitoring.

 * On a more philosophical level: at what point does a summary of a summary of a summary become pointless abstraction? What level of abstraction from detailed historical articles is unworthy of an encyclopedia?

 * Finally, I find it frustrating to spend so much time on summaries (can't people scan a long article?) when there are countless articles that need new content: this is where enterprising scholars should be spending their energies (for example, the Economic history of France page is grossly deficient on 19th and 20th centuries, and has nothing on the Middle Ages).

 * So if you want them, let the summaries come... but let's not focus solely on them --NYArtsnWords 15:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Well various general articles are at wikipedia like Human history. I think it may actually discourage people from editing the sub-pages if they find the general article on a topic is in poor condition. I agree that it would be good to expand the daughter articles, but at least the main one should be a half decent article with a few pictures. The US history article is probably about the right length now, probably should remove the expand notices. If the info is expanded, the detail can be moved off to the relevant sub-article similar to how info is moved off from a main country article when it gets too long. --Astrokey 44 13:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * i dont care 2601:47:2:2B0:1123:26B2:B04A:930C (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

French History Userbox
Seeing all the UK history userboxes, I decided to make a French history one... -- NYArtsnWords 02:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Fleur de Lis as a Monarchist symbol
It is not an accurate representation of the Republic of France, it has never been adopted by any of the french republics and is present on the coat of arms of the house of Bourbon. I think both fleur de lis on the French History stub which appears on many pages should be excluded as they are a misrepresentation of the Republic of France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.12.76 (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Muslim tensions
On several grounds I want to express my profound indignation upon reading this section of the article History of France. I found it racist - either impliedly or expressly - misleading and disinformative.

"At the close of the Algerian war, hundreds of thousands of Muslims, including some who had supported France (Harkis), settled permanently to France, especially to the larger cities where they lived in subsidized public housing, and suffered very high unemployment rates". Following wars of independence, as a result of decolonisation, hundreds of thousands of North Africans - traditionally muslims (observant and non-observant alike) migrated to France due to the high demand for industrial labour. The specific reference to Algerians, Harkis and muslims is subjective and misleading.

"In October 2005, the predominately Arab-immigrant suburbs of Paris, Lyons, Lille, and other French cities erupted in riots by socially alienated teenagers, many of them second- or third-generation immigrants". The suburbs of France's major cities are populated majoritively by French citizens, regardless of being what it is described as "second or third generation immigrants". Furthermore, the reference to "Arab-immigrant" is subjective, inaccurate, intemporal and impliedly racist.

"Traditional interpretations say these race riots were spurred by radical Muslims, unemployed youth, or children of African polygamists. Another view states that the riots reflected broader problem of racism and police violence in France".

The Renseignement Généraux indicated that in view of the information it gathered, these riots - here referred to as "race riots" - were not spurred by religious fundamentalists. Additionally, the reference to "children of African polygamists" is inaccurate, misleading and impliedly racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPhnx (talk • contribs) 13:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

 * I would like to see a source for these assertions about 'Traditional interpretations' - the only source cited seems (from the abstract) to be arguing the exact opposite. What are the sources for these 'traditional' views, how exactly can they be 'tradition', and how widespread are they? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

History of religion in France???
There are some paragraphs discussing religion, that is: the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and the French state. It should be split into a separate article. This one is too long anyways.Ernio48 (talk) 06:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Update §6 'Revolutionary France (1789–1799)'
The old version of section 6 appeared at points unclear, incomplete, unchronological or incoherent. With the help of a recent (2014) study of the French Revolution (TFR) I’ve constructed a clear, complete, chronological, coherent and concise story. I've preserved the sourced and relevant parts from the old version. Some parts of the old version could not be preserved, which I'll explain here (for old §6.1.3 through §6.1.6 sentence by sentence). If people still wish to add aspects to this updated version, please do so, but please clearly and with reference to sources.

Old §6.1.1 '..feudalism'
 * 'The Assembly abolished the…illegal': vague, unsourced. Main lines of abolitions and reforms are included in the updated version of the article. If people wish to add aspects to it, please do so, but please clearly and with reference to sources.
 * '…Système International d'Unités…': less relevant for this summarizing article on the main lines of TFR.

Old §6.1.2 'Royal family..'
 * 'Factions within the Assembly…own right': vague, no dates, no sources. What we do know about factions as being relevant for this summarizing article on the main lines of TFR: see below by old §6.1.3 sentence 2. If relevant aspects still need to be added, please do so, but please clearly and with reference to sources.
 * 'The Legislative Assembly consisted…those factions': unsourced. What we do know about factions as relevant for this summarizing article: see below by old §6.1.3 sentence 2.
 * 'Early on, the King…Clergy': vague, therefore not relevant enough.

Old §6.1.3 'Factionalism..'  1. 'Fractured': unsourced. 'Factions' is vague. 'Dangerous' is vague: in what sense and for whom and why dangerous? What we do know of groups/factions in Assembly or Convention: see next sentence. 2. Vague ('democr. Republic'); relevance of the sentence is unclear. What we do know of the 'factions' Montagnards, Girondins, Jacobins, la Plaine in Assembly or Convention, as having relevance for this summarizing article, is in the new version included in subsections 'War…1791', 'Bloodbath…92', 'War…spring 93', 'Showdown…May 93', 'Counter-revolution…(Oct.93)'. 3. Vague ('tension', 'conflicting'). 4. Vague (more repressive than what? 'Siding'?). Unbalanced, thus irrelevant (we don't hear the program of Girondins). 5. Vague (which crises?). Unbalanced (what did other parties say of the crises?). 6,7,8,9. Unbalanced, see 4 and 5. 10. Vague/undefined ('Reign of Terror'), unsourced ('governed France'). 11. Irrelevant ('possibly'). 12. Unsourced ('fall', 'rescind'). What actually did happen on 10 Aug 1792 is written in the new version of the article. 13–16. I think the updated summarizing article on the main lines of TFR can do well without most of those (sometimes vague) details. The fact of ex-king Louis being tried, convicted and executed is mentioned in the new version, with wikilink to the extensive main article on that topic. 17. Vague, thus unclear. 18. Vague, date is missing. 19. Vague ('radicals'). Incorrect: massacre was on 2 Sep not 10 Aug, see new version. 20. ‘…did not tolerate the massacres’: vague, suggestive, uncorroborated, biased. The text tried to discriminate between a ('good') party that 'did not tolerate' opposed to other ('bad') parties that 'did tolerate'. But even as 'not tolerate' can mean several things (did not approve? not appreciate? tried to stop it?), no underpinning is presented for any of such assertions discriminating between two or more parties/factions. See new version of the article, events of 2 Sep 1792: neither Gir nor Mont tried to stop them. 21. Suggestive/vague: there's no previous mentioning of 'dictatorial power'. Marat was indicted April 93, see new version, but as for those other two accused: vague (when is 'later'?), relevance unclear.

Old §6.1.4 'Execution Louis..'  1–4: Main points on 10 Aug 1792 and Louis killed are in the new version, further details on that, like in these old sentences 1–4, are to be found in wikilinked ‘main articles’. 1. 'taken by insurgents…': unsourced. 5. Is preserved in the article's new version. 6. Vague (no date, 'depend, Commune, insurrect'), unsourced. 7,8. Vague, no date, unsourced. 9. Is in the new version. 10. Incorrect. See new, sourced, version. 11. Vague ('the ideology..') 12. Vague. 13. Vague (no date, why riot?), incorrect (Jacobin ≠ sans-culotte). 14. Unsourced ('coup'). 15. Vague, unsourced ('became effective centre..'). Unlikely (sans-culottes in government). See clear, sourced facts about Aug–Sep 1792 now in the new version. 16. Vague.

Old §6.1.5 'Reign of Terror'  1. 'Starting Sep 1793': unbalanced/unsourced, historians' opinions on this differ. 2. Corrected the 'twelve': initially they were nine. 3. Vague, unsourced ('Jacobins centralized..') 4. Unsourced. 5. Vague ('ultra-radicals', 'moderates'), unsourced ('Robespierre had..'). 6. Vague, unsourced ('support eroded') 7. Vague, undefined ('Therm. Reaction'). The clear and sourced facts about 27 July 1794 are included in the new version of the article. 8. Preserved in the article 9. Unsourced: 'export revolution'. 9+10+11: unsourced: 'a coalition (was formed)'. 12. Unclear ('a coup said… and called…': coups can't speak). Vague ('radicalized'). 13. Unsourced ('invasion forces were defeated') 14. Unsourced ('Rhineland..'). The fact about Belgium is preserved in the article. 15+16. Are preserved in the article.

Old §6.1.6 'Directory'  1–4: The essentials of the new structure (Directory) are preserved in the article; further details are to be found in the wikilinked main articles. 5. Vague ('nation', 'wounds') 6. Vague 7. Vague ('failure of First Coalition', 'possibility'), unsourced ('vanished') 8. Vague ('arbitrary', 'disquiet'). See clear, relevant facts in updated new version. 9. Vague ('atrocities', 'parties' etc.), unsourced ('impossible'). 10. Very unclear. 11. Vague ('disregarded the terms..', 'elections against them', 'resorted to the sword') 12. Vague ('the war'), unsourced. 13. Interpretation ('driven to rely'), unsourced ('desired war'). 14. Is preserved in the new version of the article. 15+16. Vague (First Republic). Off-place: things happening after the Nov 1799 coup belong in next section 'Napolonic France'. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Trial of the Dantonists (1794)
On 5 February 1794, in a speech before the Convention, Robespierre identified some "internal enemies" within France. "One of those factions" – and everyone in the Convention understood that he was adressing the Dantonists – "induces us to weakness"; the other one  – the Hébertists – to excesses. (In: Noah Shusterman – The French Revolution. Faith, Desire, and Politics. Routledge, London and New York, 2014. Chapter 8 (p. 204–234): The Reign of Terror. (Presently I can't give the exact page number, because presently I only have the Dutch translation of the book in my house.)) --Corriebertus (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090103204905/http://www.iearn.hu/balkans/bpeople/zrinyi.htm to http://www.iearn.hu/balkans/bpeople/zrinyi.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of France. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628215323/http://www.questia.com/read/58600747 to https://www.questia.com/read/58600747

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Fragment in the lead
Within the final paragraph of the lead, there is a sentence "The Free France movement that took over the colonial empire, and coordinated the wartime Resistance." This is a subject without a predicate. I don't know enough about the history of france to make a change, but I would suggest either replacing "that" with "then", or removal of the word "and" and its preceding comma. Horse Battery (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to follow up
On my revert , Do not revert again without discussion. Izno (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) When making the argument that "here is some text on this one page that indicates I'm right", subsequently arguing that "this one page is neither policy nor guideline" does not support your case and in fact argues against it.
 * 2) On the point that in this case the one page says one thing, you are trivially/clearly misinterpreting the intent of that page. As such, no, you are incorrect: p/page is for singular page citations, and pp/pages is for multi-page citations. You are welcome to consult with Help talk:CS1 if you do not believe now 2 editors on the point. If you do not believe it is sufficiently clear at Help:CS1, you should  take it up at that page's talk page.
 * 3) On CITEVAR, that defends whole styles. A whole style in context of that policy is "Harvard", "MLA", "CS1", "CS2", and etc. It  extend to sub-elements of that style that you are in fact using incorrectly. It decidedly does not extend to specific formats per RFC in recent years.
 * Already addressed this at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No,, you did not. Separately, if you believe the discussion there is sufficient to defend your decision making here, feel free to copy-paste it and I will respond. I'm not going to have a discussion in two locations, and since it is not particular to me but instead the article, I'm not going to have it on my talk page.
 * Certainly, what you wrote there does not defend your reverts here, given what I said just above. Izno (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To your points:
 * Nonsense. That Help:CS1 is neither guideline, nor policy, is a fact. The person who appeals to it for basing their actions is the one who has to "defend their case" in some other way. Someone arguing against it, need only refer to guideline or policy (as I did); if on top of that, the original reference, neither guideline nor policy, was used incorrectly, it's fair to point that out, which I did.
 * Not misinterpreting anything. It's perfectly common for editors to use one of p. or pp. params for pages. I see nothing wrong with changing them on an individual basis to improve a page, but systemic changes of this nature which cause no other substantive improvement to the page are not supported by policy. You may be right that someone should take it up at Help:CS1 and improve the doc, but I'm already past my quota wrt how many words I feel like devoting to such a minuscule point, so I don't think I'll be addressing that for the time being. Would be good if someone did, though.
 * Wrt CITEVAR, yes it applies to styles, but I believe I originally said something about MOS:VAR as well (or should have) which includes the particular case of multiple valid ways to do something, and not arbitrarily switching among them.
 * This kind of change executed as part of an AWB run is okay, imho, when there are specific improvements to the article that accompany it; I believe there's a guideline that says something about that wrt AWB or perhaps bots in general. That was not that case this time, it was just a run hitting any article with citations with 'p.' and 'pp.' and applying the fixes on this page was inappropriate. As far as "reverting without discussion", it was the original editor's redo after a revert that was inappropriate, as was yours, but at least you started a discussion, simultaneous to the one I started on your TP. Dontcha just love it, when someone who reverts without discussion, leaves a message about not reverting without discussion? (Based on our xRR rules, it can be an effective technique, unfortunately.) Finally, I do agree with having the discussion in one place, but since we were writing simultaneously and I saw it as behavioral (BRD) it seemed to me a UTP was the right place. Would've been the other editor's TP had they continued a 3rd time, but since you jumped in, it ended up there.
 * However, all these param-alias changes are just minor annoyances in the grand scheme of things, and I just wish people would stick to policy and guidelines, as well as observing BRD and other best practices. Now, I've got other things to do. If the two of you want it this way that much, fine; I'm done here. Next time, though, can we discuss first, and revert later?  Thanks, and happy editing. Mathglot (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * is an error. It should use pages. That is not a CITEVAR issue; it's just a mistake that should be fixed. Fixing errors is not in the scope of CITEVAR. [Edited to add: I have found and fixed a few dozen more such errors, along with multiple citation template errors. Errors are not style.] – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons WP:3RR and more generally WP:EW and WP:Consensus is the way it is is because sometimes things can be resolved by edit (summary). Much of the time, that doesn't work of course. That's maybe why Goszei reverted. Maybe it's because he didn't know better. (I cannot read minds and don't care to on here. Too many pathological editors. :)
 * Yes, you are misinterpreting what the uses of those parameters are (irrespective of why the wording in question on Help:CS1 is the way it is). As for "perfectly common" -> WP:OSE. Many editors do not do X correctly. When you (general) see that, you fix that and move on, whether it's parameters like this or someone using navbox as a sidebar (cough campaignbox cough). That's why the change in question is in AWB's general changes list (it wasn't made specifically by Goszei): AWB can see that someone did something wrong here and took a shot at cleaning it.
 * MOS:VAR still doesn't protect the wrong way, it protects multiple acceptable ways to indicate something. The template guidance subsequently indicates (or tries to, perhaps badly or in such a way that you particularly were able to misinterpret it) the acceptable way to have page X or pages Y and Z in a CS1/2 template. That said, MOS:VAR doesn't broadly apply to citations because we already have CITEVAR. (For better or worse; I know that SMC was considering a general WP:Variation in style some time ago to collect our *VARs, as these are not the only two.)
 * You're looking for WP:COSMETIC. This change was not cosmetic, however. It meaningfully and correctly changed some page uses to pages uses where appropriate, which has a subsequent change in the appearance of the article. (And trust me, if this edit were not correct, we would have heard about it at WT:AWB a time ago.) Izno (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Missing or ambiguous full citations
I have marked a few short refs with "full citation needed" (search for that text in the article to find them). This tag means either that a short citation, like "Carpentier 2000", has been provided without a matching full citation, or that a short citation, like "Doyle 2001", matches more than one full citation.

In the former case, add the full source in the appropriate place. In the latter case, add "a" and "b" after the year value in both the short and full citations in question. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Chronology of Forms of Government Not Clear
The Third Republic is indicated to have ended in 1914 and it is not indicated what came after. Apparently the Fourth Republic began in the 1940s. The article should give a concise chronology of the various political periods, i.e., republics, empires, monarchies. WmDKing (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:History of France


text:
Talk:We're Only in It for the Money

Flower Punk and punk subculture?
The "lyrical themes" section seems to imply that the title of the song "Flower Punk" refers to a punk in the punk rock subculture sense of the word. This isn't even possible since no such culture existed in 1968, and even if you could argue that something similar did, it would not have been referred to as "punk" as that term didn't emerge until the mid-70s. I think this should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.47.127 (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A Few Words About Packaging
I'm not exactly sure how you would word it, or add it to the main body of the article , so , I'll leave these observances HERE , and the powers that be , can use or abuse this information to their hearts content … or not.

The original issue - like Sgt. Pepper - also came with an insert sheet of cut outs. ( Frank's beard, mustache , and a strand of long hair , a Mothers group photo "standee" , two badges ( a nipple and a photo of one of the record company executives. ), and a distorted dollar bill featuring Billy's belly in place of a president.

Of interest, is the interior notes , even after the mandated change , the notes still refer to the now "outer sleeve" as the gatefold , and the now "gatefold" as the front cover!

It should also be noted, it's not just the front of Sgt.Pepper that got parodied … the band against a yellow background parodies Pepper's gatefold ( Roy Estrada is even cradling his legs like Paul McCartney. ) , and the band against a red background with one member facing the opposite way - the back cover of Pepper - is also parodied. "Motorhead" is the forward facing Mother - in the McCartney position - holding a blank piece of paper. And, whereas as the Mothers hands do not spell out anything - The Beatles hands spell out "love" - Frank is making a hand gesture , which is either "peace" or "up yours" depending on your country of origin. 75.104.174.177 (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Who is depicted?
A list of the people depicted in the Sgt Pepper parody group photo would be of interest. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Yes indeed. But only if the list is available in some reliable source. Otherwise it would be wp:original research, alas. Do we have such a source? Hope we do. - DVdm (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:We're Only in It for the Money


text:
Henry Vane

Henry Vane is the name of:
 * Sir Henry Vane the Elder (1589–1655), English courtier, father of Henry Vane the Younger
 * Sir Henry Vane the Younger (1613–1662), statesman, Puritan, Governor of Massachusetts Bay, son of Henry Vane the Elder
 * Henry Vane, 1st Earl of Darlington (1705–1758), PC (c. )
 * Henry Vane, 2nd Earl of Darlington (1726–1792), British peer
 * Henry Vane-Tempest (1771–1813), to 1793 known as Henry Vane
 * Henry Vane, 2nd Duke of Cleveland (1788–1864), British peer, politician and army officer
 * Henry Vane, 9th Baron Barnard (1854–1918), British peer and Senior Freemason
 * Henry Vane, 12th Baron Barnard (born 1959)
 * John Vane, 11th Baron Barnard (1923–2016), full name Harry John Vane
 * Henry Cecil Vane (1882–1917), son and heir apparent of Henry Vane, 9th Baron Barnard of Raby Castle

title: Henry Vane