text:
Talk:Get Carter

The recent changes to plot
I wanted to get people's opinions on the recent changes to the plot by a few IP addresses, mostly 87.127.153.231. Do people think Glenda's death is an important plot point? I would tend to think not, nothing really hinges on it except to show the brutality and callousness of the men's actions, but as she is mentioned several times in the plot maybe it would be best to say how she dies for the sake of continuity. I suppose she is one of the people Jack takes revenge on because she's implicated, but it seems her death is unintentional. It's not clear whether Jack intended to do something else with her later or if he was using her as evidence or a bargaining chip.

Secondly, do people here think that mentions of what car Glenda drives is relevant material for the plot section? See these additions:

"He is rescued by Glenda driving a 1968 Sunbeam Alpine Roadster sports car," then; "Jack put Glenda in the car boot (trunk) of her Sunbeam car and drives off to find Albert." Then later on; "Before they escape, the London gangsters push the Sunbeam into the river, with Glenda still in the car boot (trunk)." I tend again to think it's not, if we start on that we have to list every car driven by every character in the film. Surely the London gangsters' Jaguar is as iconic as Glenda's sunbeam? And 3 mentions of the same car seems excessive. I would like to remove this info from the plot. I was thinking about having a section on the cars used in the film, I've idenitified them all now, but not sure how it would sit in the article. It's outside the MOS guidlines for film.

I'm asking other people's thoughts because I don't want to get proprietorial here, but I don't think these edits add much to the article. I'll agree to including a note on Glenda's death but apart from that I'd like to remove them. So what do others think? Kaleeyed (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the points you're making are valid and since you've contributed so much to this article, I think you reserve the right to make sure that the plot summary is up to scratch; I tend to find plot sections are rather magnetic to over-elaborate detail. I know some of the articles I wrote when I was new here had rather long plot summaries, but now, I almost try and make them the shortest section. Bob talk 18:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree too - Glenda's death is not an important plot point, even though it illustrates the kind of casual callousness for which the film is famous. I don't think the men knew she was in the boot of the car, and Carter wasn't in the least bit bothered about her death. He was probably planning on it somehow anyway. A brief mention of her death will do just fine, I think. I also don't think the cars are important enough to mention in the plot section - a separate section would be interesting, but not essential. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

 * OK, I'm going to cut it back down to size then! :-) I deliberately tried last time to get it down to the basic outline, but then people come along and add things they think are important, I mean nothing wrong with that, but then it gets- bloated.  Obviously some major fan of the Sunbeam out there.

 * I did actually start looking at the cars ages ago and wondering what they were all are. I think they're interesting, and each one says something about the occupants.  Most fascinating is the mysterious Land Rover with an Alsatian (police dog?) in it, that appears to observe Carter at the start, then appears at the end when the police arrive to arrest Kinnear in it.  Some people see this as a blooper, I think it's not, Hodges is making a very important but unspoken point here about the close relationship between the criminals and the police.  He said he didn't want to play this up too much in the film because he had a lot of assistance from the Newcastle police in making the film and he didn't want to annoy them.  But this is a subtle dig.  Also, although the cars we tend to remember are the Jaguar, the Sunbeam and the Rolls,  the only car Carter drives is a Ford Cortina, a mass market car, unshowy, practical and anonymous, an everyman's car, perfect for an assassin.  Anyway, I don't think a section on the cars would really fit into the article, but I find it amazing how much significance everything in the film has, Hodges really thought of everything. Kaleeyed (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible plot additions?
I'm no expert on this film (just a fan!). On watching the film a few times there appears to be some (minor) plot themes not covered in the article:

That Doreen is Jacks daughter, or Jacks thinks she could be his daughter. I can't 100% remember why I think this is inferred but may explain his rage at Doreen being in the film.

Jack _is_ concerned at Glenda's death - not because he cares about her, but because his plan was to kill her in Kinnear's garden with drugs to frame him. He then has to use Margaret for the same purpose.

Perhaps these areas are covered in the book - however I think there is enough left open in the film to make the above the triggers for Jacks actions in the bigger plot.

Also is there a scene which explains why Doreen takes part in the pornographic film? The current text just says 'forced', but is this force physical, emotional, financial or is she tricked into it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ghoti (talk • contribs) 10:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Hi 2ghoti. Thanks for your interest.  Here's my thoughts.  Firstly Doreen's parentage, whilst an interesting point, is not I think a suitable addition to the plot.  This is because whether she is or isn't Carter's daughter really has no bearing on the outcome of the film.  I think his rage is explained by his words to Glenda; "You didn't know her name?  Well it's Carter! That's my name! And her father was my brother, and he was murdered last Sunday."  This is about family.  Doreen is family, the same way Frank was.  Carter's family name has been disrespected, knowingly, by Eric and Kinnear.  I think he would have behaved the same whether or not Doreen is his child.  But his real motivation is speculation that's up for discussion, and therefore does not belong in the plot.  The plot should just say very plainly what happens and how the action moves along, not go into detail about character's inner motivations.  And we are focussing on the film plot, not the book here.  Anything additional that's discussed in the book could either go in the Production section or belongs in the article on Jack's Return Home.

 * Jack never says what his plans for Glenda are, are you talking about what happens in the novel? Again, we can only focus on what is in the plot of the film here, and Jack's plans for Glenda are never discussed, so they can't be included in the plot.

 * In terms of Doreen's involvement in the porn film, there is no explanation of why she takes part, I have already added to the plot everything that is evident from the film, Albert only says Doreen was 'pulled' by Eric, it is difficult to say what this entailed, but it sounds like what would today be called grooming. In the film she looks extremely uncomfortable throughout and tries to force Albert away from her when he comes up to her on the bed.  We don't know the circumstances so it's difficult to go into more detail than that.

 * Hope this helps. Kaleeyed (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your reply, agree probably not suitable for plot section, but where else? Section titled 'screen play' or 'adaption'? There is also the clever way that later scenes and dialogue make clear earlier ones to keep the viewer both in suspense and attentive.  This method of telling the story isn't in the article at the moment.

 * Agree that Jacks plans are never made clear in the dialogue, I haven't read the book so don't know what it says there. In the film he deliberately keeps Glenda locked in the boot for a future use (or keep her out of the way) while he sorts out other people and finds out information. The future use he planned could be planting her dead body to frame Kinnear - she has strong links to Kinnear so her presence would look 'normal' to the police - given she has been kidnapped it would seem logical he would use her for that (in the whole film he uses people for his own ends without any remorse). When the car gets pushed into the water with Glenda in the boot the camera lingers on Jack looking thoughtful, I think he isn't concerned at her dying but peeved that his hasty plan has been partly spoilt. He then uses Margaret. I accept the above can be seen as 'original research' so completely ineligible for wikipedia :-)

 * This is what I love about the film - there is a lot more going on in it, some things partly explained, other things left to the viewer to think about.

Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ghoti (talk • contribs) 17:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot introduce speculation. Anywhere. WP:NOR. Leaky  Caldron  16:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The current version of this article says "it is later implied that Doreen is Jack's daughter", which I guess is referring to Keith's lines that "Frank said you were a shit and he was bloody well right. You even screwed his wife, didn't you? The poor bastard didn't even know if the kid was his." This may be an inappropriate level of analysis for the plot summary, though. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Location
The film is obviously iconic - time has proved that - but it is wrong! If you read the book, which I did in the early 70's, you will realise that the actual location is Scunthorpe. To get to his destination from London, he changes trains at Doncaster. This would not happen if he was travelling to Newcastle. Scunthorpe was a steel town then. This is very instrumental to the plot. I grew up in Scunthorpe in the 60's and recognise the places described. And for the record, in the book it was a single barrelled shotgun - not double. Scunthorpe has little going for it, so it is a pity that Newcastle stole this Clive Addy Get carter - the original book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.6.72 (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 20 August 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: IAR Not moved, WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 07:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Get Carter → Get Carter (1971 film)
 * Get Carter (disambiguation) → Get Carter - There is also a 2000 film also called Get Carter. This means that the 1971 film is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 31.52.4.146 (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Oppose. The logic is flawed. The 1971 film is a well-known film.  The 2000 film was an obscure remake, notable mainly for Mr Stallone's incorrect pronunciation of the English name "Doreen".  There is a disambiguation page Get Carter (disambiguation).--  Toddy1 (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Proposal is nonsense and adheres to no rules (other stuff with a name is not a primary topic barrier). The original film clearly has more long-term significance. To the IP continually making these poorly thought-out move requests, I urge you to read the guidelines a little better. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I've started a thread at ANI about this IP editor about their RMs.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – a poor requested move by an IP address who has a history of disruptive moves. There is also a 2000 film also called Get Carter. This means that the 1971 film is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A flawed logic that has no credibility and goes against guidelines and policy. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv.   17:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Get Carter. 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/20121008035228/http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/podcasts/transcripts/british_film_posters.asp to http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/podcasts/transcripts/british_film_posters.asp

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) 07:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Jack's Assassination
As Jack is walking along the shoreline, he is shot in the head with a sniper rifle by the hitman.

This omits the crucial plot detail: just before collapsing from the rifle shot, Jack brings the gun in his hand up to the level of his shoulder, with the muzzle pointed behind and away from him, as if preparing to hurl the weapon into the sea. In the action, we might suppose, as well as his feeling sick to the stomach over the whole business; there may even have been the seed of an intention to renounce violence itself. Nuttyskin (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's certainly an interpretation, but since that's not explicit, it should just remain matter-of-fact. Bob talk 19:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Besides, I always assumed he was about to throw the gun into the sea simply to dispose of evidence. Given his behaviour throughout the film there's nothing to suggest he's all of a sudden renounced violence. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Phil Daniels quote
There is an editor indiscriminately deleting anything from WP:DAILYMAIL1. I seems like he thinks deprecated and deleted mean the same thing, and hasn't read the discussion, or chooses to ignore it. In particular this part of the summary:

if there are topics where it might be a reliable source, then better sources (without its disadvantages) should also exist and can be used instead.

This emphasizes finding other sources to use instead of The Daily Mail, but no such effort is being made to find replacements, the editor is deleting indiscriminately like a robot. In this particular case he has removed praise from actor Phil Daniels who considers Get Carter one of the greatest British films, without which other influential British films would not exist.

Perhaps someone can find another source for this, because the editor who deleted is clearly more interested in deleting anything related to The Daily Mail than anything else, even if it means removing the good faith efforts of other editors and ultimately dis-improves the article. -- 109.76.137.4 (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Deleting anything from the Daily Mail seems a sensible policy, as I think the plan was originally for this article to gain Good Article status, and a Mail quote won't be considered reliable - I've had a look at the quote, it's not really one worth losing any sleep over anyway. Bob talk 22:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

 * I disagree that this kind of indiscriminate deleting is even close to sensible policy, but if it was what was wanted they could have a robot do it, but WP:DAILYMAIL1 is a discussion with plenty of nuances and it urges replacement where possible. Skepticism of the Daily Mail is reasonable, but this kind of deleting and disrupting stable articles is not.
 * It is not merely the quote in isolation but also the fact that Phil Daniels is saying it, and put it right at number 1 on his list. This isn't a case where the Daily Mail can be replaced, and it shouldn't be dismissed with a disingenuous claim that the Daily Mail can never be used for anything. -- 109.78.203.194 (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Good Article review was in 2012 which predates the recommendations against using the Daily Mail (2017 and 2019). The quote has been in the article unmolested since at least 2012.(I didn't go back further, the Phil Daniels article is from 2011). Although on the website DailyMail.com the article is from The Mail on Sunday a different newspaper from the same publisher (and disreputable in quite a different way). -- 109.78.203.194 (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Old bad stuff in Wikipedia articles should be removed - "but we've used the terrible source for years!" is a reason to remove it, not keep it.
 * If you don't have a good source for a claim, it should not be in Wikipedia. WP:BURDEN - which is hard policy - says The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. I'm challenging that this claimed quote ever happened. Can you provide a source that meets WP:RS to verify this claim? If not, it shouldn't be in.
 * If you want to argue that the Daily Mail is actually a good source, then WP:RSN is where you need to go to get this broad general consensus, reached in 2017 and ratified in 2019, overturned - an article talk page isn't the place - David Gerard (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm saying deprecated does not mean delete indiscriminately and does not mean "should not be used or trusted for any claim" which you continue to disingenuously claim, when WP:DAILYMAIL1 does not say that. The guideline says "remove/replace them as appropriate" and I see no effort being made to replace. I don't think the guideline WP:DAILYMAIL1 trumps writing good articles. I'm saying this article from the The Mail on Sunday and this quote from Phil Daniels are not replaceable. I'm saying it is a strange decision to disrupt stable articles with indiscriminate deletes.
 * Get Carter is a classic and Phil Daniels is legend, it is a real shame to have his praise removed from the article for no good reason. -- 109.78.203.194 (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds like "no I don't" - David Gerard (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

These indiscriminate deletes are being discussed. In one such discussion The Mail on Sunday was brought up. There does not seem to be a ban on the Mail on Sunday. -- 109.78.222.21 (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Per WP:RSN, dailymail.co.uk literally turns out not to be a reliable source for the contents of the actual newspapers. MOS not being literally the Daily Mail does not somehow make it an RS - it's still a low-quality tabloid, and a dubious source for what is fundamentally a decorative claim.
 * Your previous stated reason was - literally - Get Carter is a classic and Phil Daniels is legend - that's not a reason to add a decorative claim to an article. If on an assumption of good faith you meant that seriously, then you fail at competence - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 * I have again restored the WP:STATUSQUO. I would welcome comments from an objective third party. -- 109.79.181.181 (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

 * I strongly suggest WP:RSN at this point. WP:STATUSQUO is an essay; WP:RS is a widely-accepted guideline, and WP:V is policy - David Gerard (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * David Gerard doesn't understand the meaning of the word deprecated, and is on a bizarre crusade against the Daily Mail, to the point were he is willing to massively overreach what WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:DAILYMAIL2 recommend, and even insists on deleting reference to the Mail on Sunday which is a whole separate newspaper from the Daily Mail. The vandalism he has done to this article is one tiny example of his many many lazy and disruptive edits. -- 109.77.213.49 (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Despite assertions that the Mail on Sunday "should not be used or trusted for any claim" the question is far from decided. There is a very long ongoing discussion on the matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_Mail_on_Sunday -- 109.78.207.89 (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

IMDB votes
This article includes IMDB votes which are not normally allowed because they are unreliable WP:RS and WP:USERGENERATED. Was there a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to make an exception? I see no previous discussion about it. It is a low quality source but the text claims that Steve Chibnall mentioned the IMDB score in his book, so maybe there is reason to make an exception. (I'm not convinced the IMDB votes are notable. If someone was trying to use the scores to make a point about gender, and even if it was rewritten to make that point clearer I'm still not convinced it is notable.) -- 109.77.213.49 (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Chibnail himself made the point that less than 6% of IMDB votes represented female viewers. Dimadick (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Could you please clarify. Are you saying that because it was mentioned by Chibnail that you think it is notable?
 * I think that despite his mention it is still not notable but maybe people want to make an exception and keep it.
 * It might at first seem notable that a very high percentage of IMDB votes are from men, but (IMDB votes are not particularly notable to begin with and) according to Wired 70% of reviewers on the site are men anyway. Any supposed significance in the particular gender disparity of the reviews of this film, would be misleading if not put in the context that the site already skews heavily male.
 * Do editors want to say this film has a very male fanbase or that it is unpopular with women? If so maybe there is a better clearer way to make that point? -- 109.77.213.49 (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Initial UK television screenings
Main article states Chibnall has established that the film was shown on LWT in 1976 and 1980 "in a bowdlerised version" (which edited out Britt Ekland's phone sex scene). It was also screened in 1979, either by the BBC or, more likely given its prior showing by fellow UK independent TV company, Yorkshire Television. This screening definitely included the Ekland phone sex scene. I can’t be certain of the precise date, but it will most likely have been a Saturday in June of 1979. I’d welcome any further clarification by anyone with a more exact memory than me. 92.238.220.14 (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Get Carter


text:
Yvoir

Yvoir (Uwar) is a municipality of Wallonia located in the province of Namur, Belgium.

On 1 January 2006 the municipality had 8,450 inhabitants. The total area is 56.84 km2, making it a population density of 149 inhabitants per km2.

The municipality consists of the following districts: Dorinne, Durnal, Evrehailles, Godinne, Houx, Mont, Purnode, Spontin and Yvoir.

Sport
Yvoir was the host city of the 1975 UCI Road World Championships

Healthcare
Yvoir hosts the Mont-Godinne site of the CHU UCLouvain Namur university hospital, serving as teaching hospital for the University of Louvain.

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

title: Yvoir


text:
Talk:Cayley–Dickson construction

Inventor?
Cayley is surely Arthur Cayley, 1821-1895, Dickson must be Leonard Dickson, 1874-1954.

But who invented it, and why is it called Cayley-Dickson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.19.189 (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2003

Multiplication formula
In the (german, transl. from russian) book of Kantor and Solodownikow, I found the following formula for the multiplication of pairs: $$(a,b)(c,d) = (ac - d^* b,da + bc^* )$$ which is different from the formula given here. How to decide which one describes the Cayley-Dickson construction correctly? --J"org Knappen
 * Found it out: The two formulæ are æquivalent -- JKn.
 * The argument for equivalence was wrong, thus the problem still remains -- JKn
 * They generate isomorphic structures (identical up to signs of bases). Taking i, k, l as (0, 1), (0, 1), (0, 1) resp. and the others by analogy, the K-S formula generates the standard basis (ij=k, etc.) on $$\mathbb{H}$$ (the Wikipedia formula gives ij=-k) but nonstandard on $$\mathbb{O}$$ (il=(0,i) where the Wikipedia formula gives il=(0,-i)=-li). I rattled off a quick Python script to generate the sedenion multiplication tables for the two formulas and it turns out the table in Sedenion is that generated by the K-S formula. The two tables are identical except that the one has opposite sign to the other off the leading diagonal, row and column; equivalently, replacing all the non-1 units with their negatives.
 * The inductive proof is fairly easy (RTP: $$x*_Wy=-x*_{KS}y, \pm 1 \neq (x = (a,b)) \neq (y = (c,d)) \neq \pm 1$$. Assumption: this holds for the previous level (i.e. for x=a, y=c, etc. Method: each of a, b, c, d can be 0, 1 or another complex unit from the previous level, etc.,)
 * Of course, this raises the question: which formulas give the correct algebraic structure? The main conditions are that norms work, that 1 works and that addition distributes over multiplication. These are satisfied by keeping the shape of the formula, but applying three (independent, Abelian) transformations: moving the conjugate operator on the db term (d*b/db*), swapping the order of the terms in the second part (da+bc*/ad+c*b), and moving the conjugate operator between the terms in the second part (da+bc*/da*+bc). This gives 8 isomorphic constructions; the same inductive proof demonstrates that the resulting structures are again equivalent up to replacing some bases with their negatives. Yet more isomorphic structures are available, however, by using different formulæ for the construction at different levels. Not that many, though; only 8^n as opposed to 2^(2^n-1) possibilities flipping bases. Which 8^n, and are all different? Uh... wish I could answer that. Not my field. Fun, though. -- EdC 02:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The octonions have two natural bases, $$\{1,i,j,k,l,il,jl,kl\}$$, and $$\{1,i,j,k,l,li,lj,lk\}$$, each of which has a different multiplication table, and therefore needs a different formula for the C-D construction. It becomes more clear if you explicitly interpret the pairs as addition: the formula given in the article means
 * $$(a + lb) (c + ld) = (ac - db^*) + l(a^*d + cb),$$

whereas the K-S formula means
 * $$(a + bl) (c + dl) = (ac - d^*b) + (da + bc^*)l.$$

Thus both variants describe the same object. -- EJ (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

 * A naive derivation (based on a matrix, or operator, approach) gives: $$(ac-bd^*,c^*b+da)$$. If $$F$$ is commutative this coincides with the one in the article, but if $$F$$ is not commutative then this becomes problematic.
 * The rational is based on starting the construction by creating an isomorphism between $$F^2$$ and $$F^2\times F^2$$ as follows
 * $$(a,b)\leftrightarrow\begin{bmatrix}a&-b\\b^*&a^*\end{bmatrix}$$
 * and using usual row-column matrix-matrix multiplication and the conjugation rule $$(ab)^*=b^*a^*$$
 * to get the result
 * $$\begin{bmatrix}a&-b\\b^*&a^*\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}c&-d\\d^*&c^*\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}ac-bd^*&\dotsb\\(c^*b+da)^*&\dotsb\end{bmatrix}$$
 * 77.102.36.170 (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Construction
It isn't clear to me what the notion of construction in this (algebraic) context means. I went to the disambiguation page for construction to find out, but it only lists the geometric sense in which I'm already familiar. Can someone provide some background pointers in this article? 70.250.189.176 (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * construction is just used in its common English sense, i.e. it is something that is constructed or made. So the complex numbers are made from the reals, the quaternions are constructed from the complex numbers, etc.. The article describes how this is done in these cases, for the octonions and the general case.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 10:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that explanation doesn't really fly, for two reasons that I'm aware of:
 * it doesn't distinguish between allowable and unallowable constructions
 * the ordinary sense of the term construction doesn't allow for the "loss" of properties, as is seen here--that is, the Cayley-Dickson construction seems like more of a decomposition than a construction. 70.250.238.188 (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're trying to read too much into it. The word construction to me just means that it is a method for making e.g. complex numbers out of reals. There are many other constructions "allowed", but this one generates a series of algebras with interesting properties so is notable. As for losing properties, when you make complex numbers out of reals the reals do not change, so do not lose properties. You make the complex numbers which have their own properties.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 15:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am trying to read too much into it, but I think it proves my point, that it isn't clear. 70.250.238.188 (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is an encyclopaedia article not a text book chapter, so is far briefer than it could be. If it isn't clear then that's understandable - there are many articles I find not clear as my expertise in their subject area is lacking, and they are too brief to gain an understanding of the subject from. You could follow up the references, or read other related articles - octonion and sedenion cover the particular algebras usually derived from the construction. If you have questions you can ask here or at the reference desk - the reference desk in particular is visited by far more people able to answer mathematical questions at all levels.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 19:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, that's just rude. Why are you getting so defensive?  The article certainly won't get any better if people don't ask questions, right?  I'm not an expert, yes.  Who do you think your audience is?  Experts?  If you re-read my comments, you'll notice that I did consult related articles, and none of them has done a good job of explaining, which is why I asked the question in the first place.  I just think it's kind of backwards to define a finite group from the starting point of an infinite one, and I'd like to find a substantive reason to think I'm wrong (and learn something new).  Unfortunately, this article doesn't help. 70.250.238.188 (talk) 09:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you think that the C-D construction ever defines a finite group. The complex numbers, quaternions, octonions etc. are all infinfite sets. Each algebra has a finite dimension when considered as a vector space over the real numbers (so you need two real numbers co-ordinates to specify a complex number; four to specify a quaternion; eight to specify an octonion etc.) but they all contain an infinite number of members. Each algebra in the sequence contains each of the previous algebras as a sub-algebra. JohnBlackburne is correct - "construction" just means "a method of making"; in this case, it is a method of making a sequence of algebras with certain properties. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why I thought that, but I see now that you both are correct. I'm guessing that it has to do with the "numeral" prefixes distorting my rationality. 70.250.199.181 (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if my comments seemed too terse, but as regards your original query I think we've covered the use of "construction" pretty well. Although all articles should be as accessible as possible this is a fairly obscure topic which mostly arises in the construction of the octonions: It's overkill and a non-obvious way to explain complex numbers and quaternions. It only has these few examples of its use (no-one really cares about the sedenions), all of which are given in the article, so there's not much to add. The way it is presented in these few examples is very straightforward, using basic algebraic properties, so could not be much simplified.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 11:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand well enough to agree that the algebraic description here is pretty good. I'm still not sold on your explanation of construction, but it makes enough sense that I'll leave it alone.  I'm not sure why you feel this construction is overkill, though; I've rarely seen a mathematical observation to be meaningless.  That's why I appreciate the work that's gone into this article.  Thanks.  70.250.199.181 (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Mapping Cayley-Dickson representation of quaternions to 1,i,j,k representation?
I understood the mapping for the complex numbers, (a, b), where a and b are real, corresponds to a complex number a + bi (where a and b are real). However it's not clear to me how (a, b), where a and b are complex, corresponds to a quaternions p + qi + rj + sk (where p, q, r, s are real).

I'm also curious about the inverse map. Is there a canonical or obvious way to represent the 1, i, j, k quaternion bases in terms of pairs of complex numbers? By trial and error, I found that 1 <-> (1, 0) i <-> (i, 0) j <-> (0, 1) k <-> (0, i) seems to satisfy i2 =  j2  =  k2  =  -1 and ij = k, jk = i, ki = j, ji = -k, kj = -i, ik = -j

Should some discussion about mapping and inverse mapping be added to the article?

Dgrinstein (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

 * The most convenient way is to interpret as, which is equivalent to your assignments for i, j and k. (The assignment of 1 to (1,0) is forced.) The article probably ought to mention this. --Zundark (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The 1=(1,0) is not forced if one equates a real number x with the sequence x,0,0,0,. . . and equates the ordered pair (x,y) of two sequences x0,x1,x2,. . . and y0,y1,y2,. . . with the shuffled sequence x0,y0,x1, y1,. . . . In this context, 1=(1,0) and one has, for the basis vectors e0=1, e2k=(ek,0) and e2k+1=(0,ek). Johnwaylandbales (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Split Cayley-Dickson construction
It seems to me (after thinking about it and trying it) that if you replace the formula $$(a, b) (c, d) = (a c - d^* b, d a + b c^*)\,$$ with $$(a, b) (c, d) = (a c + d^* b, d a + b c^*)\,$$, and apply it repeatedly to the reals, you get the split composition algebras (split-complex numbers, split-quaternions, and split-octonions). If this is true, does it appear in any reliable source, as it would tie nicely together how the Cayley-Dickson construction easily zeroes in on the best algebras (the ones that are actually new, instead of being reducible or matrix rings), and with a minor change zeroes in on the remaining ones which, though not the best, still have some nice mathematical properties. (When I try this on the split-complexes, I only get the split-quaternions: so it seems that swapping the sign anywhere along the path from R brings you to the split algebras, while you can only get to the division algebras if you never switch the sign.) Double sharp (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I found a source for this. Double sharp (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * McCrimmon (2004) A Taste of Jordan Algebras looks like a fine reference with History and links to related areas ! — Rgdboer (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does, and it's even available online for free to boot. Double sharp (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The section § 2.9 Forms Permitting Composition on pages 62 and 63 has wrong and misleading assertions. First, Hamilton biquaternions are isomorphic to M(2,C), not to the direct sum of H with itself (which is Clifford’s biquaternions, here split-biquaternions). Next, McCrimmon writes "A subsequent flood of (false!) higher dimensional algebras carried names such as quadrinions, quines, pluquaternions, nonions, tettarions, plutonians. Ireland especially seemed a factory for such counterfeit algebras." Compare this rant with our hypercomplex numbers article. On the other hand, the identification of complex numbers as binarions is spot-on and opens the door to broader use and understanding of the seven real composition algebras. — Rgdboer (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference
The article cites Schafer (1995), yet R. Schafer only wrote 'An introduction to non associative algebras' (1966) to my knowledge. What reference is meant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primetimer (talk • contribs) 14:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Evidently Dover Books republished the 1966 text in 1995:

 * Twenty-nine years did nothing to diminish the book's value. — Rgdboer (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Twenty-nine years did nothing to diminish the book's value. — Rgdboer (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The article also asserts that the General construction was done by Albert in 1942. See octonion algebra for references to Dickson 1927 and Zorn 1931. As this is a popular topic in abstract algebra, there may be editors with more references to contribute. — Rgdboer (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Introduction paragraph (composition property)
The last sentence of the first paragraph seems to suggest that all algebras generated by the Cayley-Dickson construction are composition algebras. However, we learn further down that the sedenions are no longer a composition algebra. Hence, it might be better to change the sentence to something weaker such as "The first four algebras in this sequence are composition algebras frequently used in mathematical physics". I will leave it to someone more knowledgeable to implement this change. 141.5.38.53 (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you reader in Erlangen for noting this fact. Modification has been made. As this Project needs sharp eyes and succinct expression, you are encouraged to register an account and get a User page and Watchlist. — Rgdboer (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cayley–Dickson construction. 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/20030211033505/http://history.hyperjeff.net/hypercomplex.html to http://history.hyperjeff.net/hypercomplex.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This article has been removed as off topic. Hyperjeff had taken it down. — Rgdboer (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Question
Hi. I noticed the article state: The complex conjugate (a, b)* of (a, b) is given by

{\displaystyle (a,b)^{*}=(a^{*},-b)=(a,-b)} {\displaystyle (a,b)^{*}=(a^{*},-b)=(a,-b)} since a is a real number and its conjugate is just a.

This seems to be assuming familiarity with the complex numbers, which are being constructed here. Isn't this circular reasoning? I made an attempt at making a proof which used just the properties described here, with no reference to complex numbers, but I wasn't sure if it would be useful, and it would be original research probably... Thanks for reading. :) JonathanHopeThisIsUnique (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. Still, the construction proceeds in the general fashion that starts with an arbitrary field having the trivial involution for its "conjugation". See, for example, Complex plane for illustration of the point. The section is establishing the binarion stage of the construction. The viewpoint was taken by Hamilton, and built up since then. — Rgdboer (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Abraham Adrian Albert Generalization and the notion of signature
Reading the cited article of Albert(1942) I found that you are changing a sign in the definition. The correct definition published in the Albert paper is: $$(a,b)(c,d) = (ac + \gamma d^* b,da + bc^* )$$. This means that, if you chose $$\gamma=i^2$$ (where $$i$$ is the imaginary unit), then you get the Cayley-Dikson construction. On the other hand, if you chose $$\gamma=1$$, you get a different algebra. This is clear for me in the article. The cited article of Schafer(1954) uses the same definition. Moreover, Albert explicitly states that $$\gamma$$ must be different from zero (this is a necessary condition for his Lema 1). On the contrary, you allows $$\gamma$$ to be zero. And this could be fine because, then, the Albert generalization also includes dual numbers with this choice. Even if I do not see all the consequences at this moment.

In conclusion, with the correct sign, one can understand the Albert generalization in the following way: let $$\gamma_i$$ be equal to one of {-1, 0, 1} for i=1,2,3...n (n any integer). This kind of sequences can be called a signature and can be represented also with the signs {-,0,+} only. Then, complex numbers have signature (-), quaternions have signature (-,-), octonions have signature (-,-,-); sedenions have signature (-,-,-,-), etc. Any Cayley-Dickson algebra has a signature with only negatives. On the other hand, split numbers have signature (+) and there can be also split numbers with split components (for which I do not have a name) with signature (+,+), etc. Moreover, dual numbers have signature (0) and there can be also dual numbers with dual numbers as components, this will have signature (0,0), etc. Finally, there can be also numbers with mixed signatures like (-,+) (which, I think, you call split-quaternions in the article) or numbers with signatures like (+,-,-,-).

As I understand things, Schafer shows that all algebras with signatures - or + (for any length and mixed in any order) are flexible in his 1954 article, and he was aware of this fact.

The inclusion of dual numbers in the Albert generalization could be more controversial. 17:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Crodrigue1 (talk)

What is Zorn(R)
In the section about modified Cayley-Dickson construction, it is said that the split octonions are isomorphic to Zorn(R). There is however no mention of it anywhere in the current version, nor any link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.172.129.12 (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Follow the link:Split-octonion — Rgdboer (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The link has been put in the article for easy reference. — Rgdboer (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Synopsis
As it stands the article is long-winded like a university lecture and repetitive. The synopsis below is suggested as containing important missing information such as propositions with proofs:

The Cayley—Dickson construction is due to Leonard Dickson in 1919 showing how the Cayley numbers can be constructed as a two-dimensional algebra over quaternions. In fact, starting with a field F, the construction yields a sequence of F-algebras of dimension 2n. For n = 2 it is an associative algebra called a quaternion algebra, and for n = 3 it is an alternative algebra called an octonion algebra. These instances n= 1,2 and 3 produce composition algebras as shown below.

The case n = 1 starts with elements (a.b) in F x F and defines the conjugate (a,b)* to be (a*, –b) where a* = a in case n = 1, and subsequently determined by the formula. The essence of the F-algebra lies in the definition of the product of two  elements (a,b) and (c,d):
 * $$(a,b) \times (c,d) \ = \ (ac - d^*b, \ da + bc^*) .$$

Proposition 1: For $$z = (a,b)\ \text{and}\ w = (c,d),$$ the conjugate of the product is $$w^*z^* = (zw)^*.$$
 * proof: $$(c^*,-d)(a^*,-b) = (c^*a^* + b^*(-d),\ bc^*-da)\ =\ (zw)^*.$$

Proposition 2: If the F-algebra is associative and $$N(z)=zz^*,\ \text{then}\ N(zw) = N(z)N(w).$$
 * proof: $$N(zw) = (ac-d^*b, da+bc^*)(c^*a^*-b*d, -da -bc^*)\ =\ (aa^* + bb^*)(cc^* + dd^*)$$ + terms that cancel by the associative property.

— Rgdboer (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Dickson 1919 — Rgdboer (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC) — Rgdboer (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC) — Rgdboer (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Possible extension
The box on the top right should be extended to show the properties of algebras of this type of 32, 64, 128 etc. dimensions. I think that calculations have been made up to 256 dimensions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:747C:5E75:53A5:B945 (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2022
Change 'octonians' in first paragraph of Synopsis to 'octonions' 210.23.160.153 (talk) 05:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ D.Lazard (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cayley–Dickson construction


text:
Talk:Sexual revolution

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cvelmonte.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

First Person Plural?
"The sexual revolution had shifted how we think [...]" Not really proper for an encyclopaedia article, right? Who is "we?" 71.131.133.156 (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Errata
This article contains a simple error in reference to 'the “girls world” decision in 1965'. I don't think that case may be found, instead it should read "Griswold v. Connecticut" (also 1965). The source of the error appears to be spoonerism or typo. --66.217.173.126 (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This is no "end of the revolution"
Why is this section here? We did not stop evolving in the 1980s. That is a ridiculous thing to write.

The sexual revolution is continuing in modern forms which need to be documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizza Lord (talk • contribs) 01:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

 * The AIDS epidemic has been seen sometimes as heralding - not the end, but a reevaluation of casual, free sexuality as a lifestyle. It became untenable to just sleep around with anyone and everyone without any sort of precaution or protection, but this new need for control was still not a return to any old, strict set of repressive morals.83.254.151.33 (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The influence of movies
There's no denying that some currents in moviemaking were influential on discussions around new sexual attitudes, as well as actually reflecting the new liberal mores. But it probably wasn't just Swedish films that were at the head of this. The early French Nouvelle Vague with films such as Jules and Jim and La Chinoise, not to mention the early career of Brigitte Bardot, made a very powerful impact too.

And a U.S. film such as The Wild Angels, even if it wasn't a very ambitious reel, clearly explores themes of free sex and violent revolt against old-style morals. That one was made, and seen by millions, even before the summer of love. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Masturbation template
Regarding diff, totally no worries, I agree with the rationale provided in the edit summary by.

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section
this section ends with the phrase "that's a kind of taboo behaviour technically called "repressive desublimation"." what is this actually referring to? Sex, free sex, or the misconception? can anyone clarify? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone recently added a piece under "Criticism" about British social anthropologist Joseph D. Unwin and his claims that sexual openness, freedom to associate and lack of tight sexual discipline are bound to impair the strength, vigour and creative force of any society. The same chunk, almost verbatim, was added to Sexual abstinence. The book cited, however, was published in 1934, and Unwin died a few years later, so it relates to an age well before what we know as the sexual revolution. The appreciative line by Aldous Huxley about Unwin's work is from a 1946 book which looks too early and too isolated to be relevant, and Huxley is no kind of scientist or cultural historian (indeed he just makes an in blanco gesture declaring that Unwin's book is of the utmost importance and based on a wealth of evidence, bypassing any kind of discussion of the pros and cons of this evidence). Invoking him as a reliable and non-biased source here is like using Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited to support an article about Roman catholicism in modern Britain.

Of course discussion about the sinful and liberated modern world was a topic in the twenties and thirties as well, but the connection to the modern sexual revolution is quite marginal and this insert looks like editorializing. To tie it in with the rest, the editor begins: "Some critics of the sexual revolution and the sexual freedom which it brought claim that the sexual revolution had a negative impact on society and point to the work of J. D. Unwin.". At the very least, you'd like to know who "some critics" are, and whether they are notable several decades later, and per WP:OR and WP:Syn one would also like to see someone other than these "critics" themselves linking their thoughts about the sexual revolution (not about sexual habits in general) with Unwin's ideas. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

 * You're speaking of what added. Feel free to remedy the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, well if it hasn't found considerably better, more relevant (and more recent) sourcing in two or three days time then I figure it should get pulled. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Teenage pregnancy rates
The decrease in teenage pregnancy rates is offered as evidence of the "end of the sexual revolution". This seems a considerable extension of what the sources say (at least the two I was able to view). Increased contraceptive, for example, use may well produce the same result. Rwessel (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sexual revolution. 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/20080504082655/http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/87856.html to http://bailey83221.livejournal.com/87856.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130106211856/http://www.uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/CWLUArchive/vaginalmyth.html to http://www.uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/CWLUArchive/vaginalmyth.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sexual revolution. 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/20130108175637/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/sexual_revolution.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/sexual_revolution.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

It's very bad article
first sexual revolution occurred in Soviet Russia after 1917--Мечников (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Photo Changed
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I am updating the first image associated with the article to one that is more appropriate to the page's topic. Jlbrandt (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the new photo of the buttons from the days of sexual liberation. The photo definitely shows the zeitgeist of the time as discussed in the text of the article. AnaSoc (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Naked News photo
I deleted the Naked News photo of the topless reporter because the photo was taken in 2008, over two decades after the Sexual Liberation Movement had fallen into decline. The photo is not illustrative of the Sexual Liberation movement as described in the article.AnaSoc (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 * I like the new photo of the buttons from the days of sexual liberation. The photo definitely shows the zeitgeist of the time as discussed in the text of the article. AnaSoc (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Chrissymad, regarding this, are you fine with the image that Jlbrandt added? WP:NOTCENSORED is not all that we go by for matters such as these. WP:Offensive material is something we also go by. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

first photo
I deleted the photograph of Marilyn Monroe as it was not relevant to the article. The sexual revolution occurred 1960s-1980s according to the text of the article. Marilyn Monroe was famous in the 1950s. She is not representative of the sexual liberation movement or the sexual revolution as she passed away before it really got underway. I liked the photo contributed by Jlbrandt of the buttons from the movement. Any objections to bringing that one back? AnaSoc (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

back to basics, maybe
The article clearly descends from someone's essay, and was added to by various essayists, so naturally enough still suffers from that origin. I gave it a look, and it seems obvious that the socalled "revolution" is readily divisible into two parts: personal expression (e.g. homosexuality, nonmonogamy) and media expression (e.g. porn). Everything else (e.g. the inevitable pedants who will squawk about examples that fit into both slots) takes up very little space here.

The article is a scattered mess for failing to acknowledge that "two worlds" actuality, and so thrashes wildly from one to the other then back again, trying to cram everything in. As direct outfall of this thrashing, it's difficult (maybe impossible) to impose any sort of historical timeline onto the text.

My strong suggestion is to begin by pushing all the individualistic stuff into one pile, and the media-centric stuff into another. The "chicken-or-egg" details ("did more sex on screen cause more swinging, or was it the other way around?") as well as any awkward highlights can be appended much more easily if there's a sound underlying structure. Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 * Weeb Dingle, regarding the globalize tag you added, read Template:Globalize. The article is U.S.-centric because the sexual revolution is mainly discussed in the context of the United States. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 * I've read your last sentence five times, and still cannot fathom your intent. You seem to be saying "the article is limited because the article is limited," which is certainly the point I intended to make. You don't present the case that "the article is U.S.-centric because the Sexual Revolution largely affected/affects only the United States," which does have potential basis but would need to be supported — and that support would NECESSARILY need to be spelled out in the article, not on the Talk page. Until that is done, I will stand firm on the Globalize header. Weeb Dingle (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Weeb Dingle, you read my last sentence five times and yet you don't understand what I mean, even when pointing you to Template:Globalize? Hmm. Then why don't you provide some WP:Reliable sources here on this talk page showing just how far this article can be globalized. I assure you that it can't be globalized much beyond the United States. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If there's no need to globalize, then Sexual revolution in 1960s United States is redundant and clearly ought to be incorporated here. Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Weeb Dingle, I didn't say that there is no need to globalize; I said that this topic can't be globalized much beyond the United States. I'm only saying that the topic mainly concerns the United States. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

the article needs to be re-titled
The article head makes clear that it is about "sexual revolution," lowercase generic. It does nothing to explore that potential, for instance about the appearances of similar "revolutions" throughout history and across cultures.

The article lede says it instead is about "the Sexual Revolution."

Eithe change the title or change the content. Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:Article titles. And see WP:Requested moves to officially propose a move request. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Dude, do I need to raise the issue of you stalking me all across Wikipedia? Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Do learn how to act properly on this site. You are coming across as immature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

revolution, not liberation
Except for two unfounded claims in the lede (the first weaselled in with an "also" and gratuitous caps) and three appearances about porn, all usage of sexual liberation is in Feminism and sexual liberation. If it's being held up as a "thing" yet somehow undeserving of its own article, then the term ought to be actually defined. Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Feminism and Sexual liberation sections needs some improves for NPOV and missing content issues
Here are the current problems with the section that I see: --108.239.8.149 (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Radical feminism did not embrace sexual liberation quit to the degree that is implied in the article. The fact is that many radical feminists hold the view that due to presence of the patriarchy, that most heterosexual women cannot currently make a truly free and fair decision regarding their sexual agency and that while sexual liberation for heterosexual women is great in theory, it's not, in their view, a practical reality just yet (due to the patriarchy). This is an issue that should be mentioned in the article. We may want to flesh it out even more in a separate article.
 * Sex-positive feminists see themselves as the only feminists fully embracing women's sexual liberation. They largely reject that notion that the patriarchy prevents most heterosexual/bisexual/pan-sexual women these days from making informed and freely consensual sexual choices involving men. Sexual liberation and freedom for women is a key element of sex-positive feminism and as such needs to be included in this article, in a NPOV way of course.
 * It is mentioned that debates have occurred in feminist circles over topics like pornography, BDSM, and female sexuality in general but with no explanation as to what the debates are. There is no reason we can't at least summarize the issues here and if we need to go more in-depth we can have a separate article like I suggested. We can also link separately to topics that already have separate article like "Feminism and pornography".
 * I think it might be beneficial to have a separate article that deals with the issue of sexuality/sexual freedom/woman's sex issue in general and feminism, where we can at least briefly all the different issue relating to feminism and sex, including debates over pornography, sexual liberation/agency, BDSM, and lesbianism. Since some of those topics have their own article already, we can simply summarize them in the new article and include links to the main articles. For the general topic of sexual liberation/freedom/agency, we can discuss the debates in greater detail since that topic is not covered already in it's own article.

no bright ideas here
Thank you for providing some great starting-points. I want the article to be better, but find myself stymied at where to even begin sorting this out. Every time I revisit it, I see mostly a random pile of loosely related topics. Still, I regret my sloth.

It's been awhile (too long): I recall someone saying Kate Millett made the case that "The Sexual Revolution" — always used singularly in the popular imagination, if that's not a total oxymoron — took place 1830-1930, and that 1930-1960 was the counter-revolution where patriarchal sexism reasserted itself, perhaps made stronger by having a unified framework in the overall culture. I must be Google-fuddled at the moment, as I cannot find anything that expands/updates this thought.

The See also list is beginning to bloat up with the WP-endemic inclusion of ever-more-loosely-related articles. There are a few I'll readily pare back; however, the list of Feminist views on... seems out of place in an article that's not primarily (or even secondarily) about feminism.

It does, though, bring up Feminist sex wars, which covers a historically interesting (if brief) era that attempted to resolve differences over "pornography, erotica, prostitution, lesbian sexual practices, the role of trans women in the lesbian community, sadomasochism and other sexual issues." This is mentioned only twice in the present article, two uses of the identical sentence, both devoid of attribution. I'm hoping for a way to expand upon these squibs in proper context. Weeb Dingle (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Businesses capitalizing on increasingly permissive society (needing reference)
The end of the Pornographic film section says "By the mid-1970s and through the 1980s, newly won sexual freedoms were being exploited by big businesses looking to capitalize on an increasingly permissive society, with the advent of public and hardcore pornography," with a reference to "Bannon, Ann. Sexual Revolution (9781560255253)".

However, Ann Bannon is not an author/contributor of that book. And it is not clear which article in the book is referred to.

Is it possible to find the correct reference?

Freud's Insanity
Any reference to Freud's notions of sexuality should be annotated to the effect he was incorrect, and just a deranged and sex-obsessed individual whose bizarre ideas had no scientific basis, and are of no value whatever today. Rather, common sense is correct; the human sexual urge drives only sexual behaviour, and not any other behaviour. 122.151.210.84 (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 * Sounds like a talking point for Talk:Sigmund_Freud. If you decide to make your point there I'd recommend you come with sources, not just your opinion. 137.110.71.210 (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sexual revolution


text:
GHV2

GHV2 (an abbreviation of Greatest Hits Volume 2) is the second greatest hits album by American recording artist Madonna. It was released by Maverick and Warner Bros. Records on November 13, 2001, coinciding with the video album, Drowned World Tour 2001. A follow-up to The Immaculate Collection (1990), GHV2 contains a collection of singles during the second decade of Madonna's career. Madonna mentioned that she only included "songs that I could listen to five times in a row" on it. The album did not contain any new songs, but a promotional single titled "GHV2 Megamix" was released, which contained remixes by Thunderpuss, John Rocks & Mac Quayle and Tracy Young. A promotional remix album was also issued, titled GHV2 Remixed: The Best of 1991–2001.

GHV2 received generally positive reviews from music critics, who deemed it an essential compilation, although some criticized the absence of new material. Commercially, the compilation was successful, peaking at number seven on the US Billboard 200 and was certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). Elsewhere, GHV2 also attained success, reaching the top five in Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom and several other European countries. It was the 14th best-selling album of the year and has sold more than seven million units worldwide.

Background and development
In early September 2001, media reported that Madonna had recorded two songs, "Sex Makes the World Go Round" and "Veronica Electronica", to be included on the forthcoming greatest hits album. The last title was from an unreleased remix album in collaboration with William Orbit. It was also reported that the album would be titled The Immaculate Collection 2. However, both the title and new songs rumors were proven false. After the final show of Madonna's Drowned World Tour on September 15, 2001, MTV News confirmed that the singer had planned to release a greatest hits album in November 2001. On October 4, 2001, Maverick Records eventually announced the track list of GHV2 as well as its official release date. The album coincided with the release of the DVD/VHS video album of the tour.

A sequel to her first greatest hits album, The Immaculate Collection (1990), GHV2 included fifteen singles released during Madonna's second decade in the recording industry, starting from "Erotica" (1992) to "What It Feels Like for a Girl" (2001). Unlike the former release, GHV2 did not feature any new material. In an interview with BBC's Jo Whiley, Madonna spoke about the selection of the tracks stating, "I like 'Fever', alright. But you know, the thing is they had to have listening power for me. I had to be able to listen to them five times in a row and think this is really good, this is a well written song, it's really well produced." She also added that "If you listen to the record, you can really see my evolution as a singer, songwriter, and, more important, a human being." Madonna felt that because it was a "greatest hits", it should only contain previously released hit songs. Several of her popular singles of that period were excluded from the album. Despite being a worldwide number-one hit in 2000, "American Pie" was not included because Madonna had regretted putting it on her eighth studio album, Music (2000). "It was something a certain record company executive twisted my arm into doing, but it didn't belong on the album so now it's being punished... My gut told me not to [put the song on Music], but I did it and then I regretted it so just for that reason it didn't deserve a place on GHV2." she said. Other notable exclusions were "This Used to Be My Playground", "Rain", "I'll Remember" and "You'll See"—all of which had been included on her ballads compilation Something to Remember (1995). "Fever" was included on early test pressings but did not make it onto the final release.

The album was originally titled Greatest Hits: The Second Coming, but Madonna decided to change the name to GHV2 just before it was released as "it's a title you will remember" and also because of "laziness", due to the fact that she had just finished the Drowned World Tour and was about to begin filming Swept Away (2002). The cover picture is from a 2001 photo shoot for InStyle magazine, by Regan Cameron. It was revealed through Madonna's official website, on October 18, 2001. Cameron recalled that they had been given the assignment of shooting Madonna for InStyle and he was nervous. It was shot at Smashbox Studios in Los Angeles and he tried out first with a polaroid. Two of the pictures from the session were used by Madonna, first one showing her with finger on her lips as a promotional photo for the HBO debut of her Drowned World Tour video, and another one showing her with hair in front of her right eye for GHV2. Cameron also contributed artwork for the inner sleeve, which features 600 photographs of Madonna through the years. "GHV2" can also be seen on the cover picture on Madonna's eye. The sleeves also contains Japanese lettering (モヂジラミミヂ), which is the result of typing the letters 'M-A-D-O-N-N-A' on an English keyboard but with the keys re-mapped to their positions on a Japanese kana keyboard. It is pronounced as "Mo-Ji-Ji-Ra-Mi-Mi-Ji".

Release and promotion
In order to promote the album, Madonna's recording company Warner Bros. spent £1 million (£0 million in pounds) on its promotion, to generate excitement in the album without the support of media interviews or TV performances, as Madonna was in Malta filming Swept Away. A company executive said, "There will be no Top of the Pops appearance or interview on Radio One or in Q magazine this time so we want the unusual name to get people thinking about the association between Madonna and GHV2" and to generate extra media interest to compensate for the artist's unavailability to promote the release at the time. However, in December, Madonna made an appearance at the 2001 Turner Prize award ceremony and mentioned that she "had a new record in stores called GHV2".

Madonna's company Maverick Records sent a promotional megamix titled "GHV2 Megamix" to radio stations on October 29, 2001. However, it was limited to airplay, and was never released commercially nor included on GHV2. The songs featured, in chronological order, were "Don't Tell Me", "Erotica", "Secret", "Frozen", "What It Feels Like for a Girl", "Take a Bow", "Deeper and Deeper", "Music" and "Ray of Light". Remixes were produced by Thunderpuss, Johnny Rocks & Mac Quayle and Tracy Young. Chris Cox from Thunderpuss explained, "Basically, they were doing the greatest-hits album... and so they approached actually a couple of different remix entities to take a stab at doing a megamix, and it was kind of a cattle call, actually. They basically liked ours the best and so they put it out." The remix peaked at number five on the Billboard Hot Dance Club Play chart. An accompanying music video for the remix, directed by Dago Gonzalez of Veneno Inc., was compiled of images of Madonna's live performances and previous music videos and premiered on November 2, 2001, through Total Request Live (TRL) and MTV's website. Chuck Taylor from Billboard complimented the remix, saying that "its quite a trip down 80s memory lane from an artist whose continually evolving body of work stands strong—even when summarized in this novel context."

On December 20, 2001, Maverick Records also released a promotional album GHV2 Remixed: The Best of 1991–2001, featuring remixed versions of tracks from GHV2, except "Take a Bow", "Don't Cry for Me Argentina", and "The Power of Good-Bye". Remixes were done by Victor Calderone, Junior Vasquez, BT, Sasha, Timo Maas, and Hex Hector. MTV France listed the remixes on their website for streaming.

Critical reception
The compilation received generally positive reviews from music critics. Music journalist Robert Christgau gave a positive review, stating that Madonna "gleans goodies from the overrated Bedtime Stories and Ray of Light, mixes in the glorious soundtrack-only 'Beautiful Stranger' and the dismal soundtrack-only 'Don't Cry for Me Argentina', and hands it all over to Mirwais for sonic tweaking I'm not interested enough to pin down", while calling it as "an essential package". A writer from the South Wales Echo gave a positive review, saying that GHV2 is "an essential pop album" and "truly immaculate". MusicOMH's Michael Hubbard complimented the inclusion of "Don't Cry For Me Argentina" from Evita and "Beautiful Stranger" from the Austin Powers sequel The Spy Who Shagged Me, saying that they "are worthy inclusions... compiling this collection didn't require much imagination, the end result does the job—the CD is exactly what it says on the tin."

John Aizlewood from The Guardian gave the compilation four out of five stars, stating: "GHV2 is sufficiently confident to avoid remixes or new tracks. Desperate times, however, call for desperate measures". Ian Wade from Dotmusic positively reviewed the compilation saying, "Had GHV2 been released before 1998, it would've been a not much fun bunch of ballads and arsery. Thankfully, for the sake of herself, her fans and mankind in general, Madge had a bit of re-think. [...] GHV2 contains some of the best pop music made by anybody", although he criticized the omission of some singles like "Nothing Really Matters" or "Rain". Cristine Leach from Raidió Teilifís Éireann gave the compilation 4 out of 5 stars, saying that "[Madonna] is still the queen of pop and GHV2 is essential listening. One for the multiple personality in you this Christmas." Dugald Baird from Music Week noted: "the set is something of an anti-climax, although it is an essential purchase for her army of fans".

Giving the album 8 on 10, Alex Needham from NME criticized the compilation's lack of new tracks, and said "while far from immaculate, this is still quite a collection". About GHV2, New Straits Times' Christie Leo commented that "this second volume of greatest hits isn't as immediately accessible as the first. But that's not what this collection is all about. This 14-track set actually provides a more daring glimpse into the inner machinations of the music marketing juggernaut, Madonna". AllMusic writer Stephen Thomas Erlewine gave a mixed review calling it "slightly disappointing", justifying that it was because during the 1990s, Madonna was an album artist. He finished his review saying that "the end result is less than the sum of its parts, even if this is a good way to get all of Madge's 90s hits at once." Sal Cinquemani from Slant Magazine commented that "GHV2 certainly encapsulates the second decade of the performer's boundary-bridging career", but criticized the lack of new material, and its "choppy edits, random sequences and missing links", saying: "the collection doesn't seem to do justice to a career that has always been ahead of the game and focused on the future". Charlotte Robinson from PopMatters criticized its sequencing, stating, "Chronological sequencing would have made it easier to follow the course of Madonna's musical evolution. But would these changes have made GHV2 a significantly better album? Probably not. As it stands, it's the best summary of Madonna's second decade as a performer we're going to get."

Commercial performance
In the United States, the compilation entered at number seven on the Billboard 200 chart on the week dated December 1, 2001, with first week sales of 150,000 copies. It was an improvement from the 113,000 copies sold by her 1995 ballad compilation album, Something to Remember. However, GHV2 also became her lowest debut on the chart since The Immaculate Collection (1990), which debuted on the Billboard 200 at number 32. Every Madonna album had debuted in the top six until GHV2. It was present for a total of 18 weeks on the chart and ranked at number 58 on the Billboard 200 year end chart for 2002. As of October 2016, the album has sold 1,397,000 copies in the region according to Nielsen SoundScan, with an additional 90,000 sold at BMG Music Clubs. Nielsen SoundScan does not count albums sold through clubs like the BMG Music Service. It received a platinum certification from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for shipping over a million copies. In Canada, the album debuted at number 11 on the Canadian Albums Chart, being present in the top 100 for a total of 16 weeks. It was certified platinum by Music Canada (MC) for selling over 100,000 copies.

Even before its release in the United Kingdom, the compilation had broken a record as the album with most shipments before release, with 750,000 copies shipped, overtaking the previous pre-release high of 650,000 copies achieved by Simply Red's compilation album, Greatest Hits (1996). GHV2 debuted at number two on the UK Albums Chart with 88,500 copies, after competing for the top spot with Westlife's third studio album, World of Our Own, with the latter outselling Madonna by two to one in the midweek chart. The album was present for a total of 33 weeks inside the chart, and was certified double platinum by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI). As of June 2019, the compilation has sold 868,500 copies according to the Official Charts Company. GHV2 also debuted at number two, behind Westlife's album in Ireland and Scotland. Across Europe, the compilation reached the top of the chart in Austria, and reaching the top-ten in Belgium (Flanders and Wallonia), France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Spain and Switzerland. On the combined European Top 100 Albums, GHV2 peaked at number three.

GHV2 debuted at number three on the Australia ARIA Charts, and was present for a total of 13 weeks within the top 50. The Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) certified it double platinum for shipment of 140,000 copies. It had moderate performance in New Zealand where it debuted at number eight on the Recorded Music NZ's album chart, and received a gold certification for shipment of 7,500 copies. The album was successful in Japan, where it received a platinum certification from the Recording Industry Association of Japan (RIAJ) for selling over 200,000 copies. GHV2 was the 14th best-selling album of 2001, selling 4.9 million copies worldwide in that year according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). In total GHV2 has sold over seven million copies as of October 2007.

Personnel
Credits adapted from AllMusic.

 * Madonna – vocals
 * John Mauceri – conductor
 * Pat Kraus – mastering
 * Bret Healey – design
 * Kevin Reagan – art direction, design
 * Dan Cadan – liner notes
 * Melody McDaniels – photography
 * Rankin – photography
 * Regan Cameron – photography
 * Herb Ritts	– photography
 * Mark Romanek – photography
 * Patrick Demarchelier – photography
 * Mario Testino – photography
 * David LaChapelle – photography
 * Jean Baptiste Mondino – photography
 * Peter Lindbergh – photography
 * Rosie O'Donnell – photography
 * Steven Meisel – photography
 * Frank Micelotta – photography
 * Gilles Bensimon – photography

title: GHV2


text:
Sedan, Ardennes

Sedan is a commune in the Ardennes department and Grand Est region of north-eastern France. It is also the chef-lieu (administrative centre) of the arrondissement of the same name.

Sedan is notable as the site of two major battles between the armed forces of France and Germany, both of which were won by Germany. The First Battle of Sedan in 1870 sealed the fate of the Second French Empire and paved the way to the foundation of the German Empire, leading to the subsequent annual celebration of "Sedan Day" in Germany. The Second Battle of Sedan in 1940 achieved a decisive breakthrough by Wehrmacht forces in the Battle of France and ultimately led to the collapse of the French Third Republic.

Location
The town is situated about 200 km from Paris, 85 km north-east of Reims, and 10 km south of the border with Belgium. The historic centre occupies a peninsula formed by a bend in the river Meuse. Sedan station has rail connections to Charleville-Mézières, Reims and Longwy. The A34 autoroute links Sedan with Charleville-Mézières and Reims.

History
Sedan was founded in 1424. In the 16th century Sédan was an asylum for Protestant refugees from the Wars of Religion.

Until 1651, the Principality of Sedan belonged to the La Tour d'Auvergne family. It was at that time a sovereign principality. Their representative, Marshal Turenne, was born at Sedan on 11 September 1611. With help from the Holy Roman Empire, it defeated France at the Battle of La Marfée. Immediately after its victory, Sedan was besieged and its prince, Frédéric Maurice de La Tour d'Auvergne, duc de Bouillon, submitted to France. It was annexed to France in return for sparing the prince's life after he became involved in a conspiracy against France.

Sedan was the birthplace of Jacques MacDonald, a general who served in the Napoleonic Wars.

In the 1840s, American composer-pianist Louis Moreau Gottschalk got his start in Europe with a successful concert in Sedan, including the original piece "Souvenir des Ardennes."

During the Franco-Prussian War, on 2 September 1870, French emperor Napoleon III was taken prisoner with 100,000 of his soldiers at the First Battle of Sedan. Due to this victory, which made the unification of Germany possible, 2 September was declared Sedan Day (Sedantag) and a national German holiday in 1871. It remained a holiday until 1919.

Sedan was occupied by the Germans for four years during World War I. On 13 November 1917, the German Crown Prince paraded the 13th Infantry Division over the course of "d'Alsace-Lorraine".

From May 12 to 15, 1940, during World War II, German troops invaded neutral Belgium and crossed the river Meuse by winning the Second Battle of Sedan. The battle allowed them to win the Battle of France by bypassing the Maginot Line, which was the French fortification system, and entrapping the Allied Forces that were advancing east into Belgium, as part of the Allied Dyle Plan strategy.

Castle
Today Sedan is known for its castle, which is claimed to be the largest fortified medieval castle in Europe with a total area of 30000 m2 on seven levels. Construction started in 1424 and the castle's defences were constantly improved over the ages. It is the only remaining part of the once enormous fortifications in and around the town.

Other points of interest

 * Jardin botanique de Sedan
 * Festival médiéval de Sedan in May

Economy
A centre of cloth production, begun under the patronage of Cardinal Mazarin, supported the town until the late nineteenth century.

Sport
CS Sedan Ardennes is based in the town.

Notable people

 * Charles Baudin (1792–1854), admiral
 * Frédéric Brillant (born 1985), professional football player
 * Élise Bussaglia (born 1985), professional football player
 * Pierre Cartier (born 1932), mathematician
 * Jean de Collas (1678–1753), architect
 * Yves Congar (1904–1995), French Dominican theologian and cardinal
 * Robert Debré (1882–1978), physician
 * Michel Fourniret (1942–2021), serial killer
 * Frederick V (1596-1632), Count Palatine and Elector of the Palatinate from 1610 to 1623 and King of Bohemia (as Frederick I) from 1619 to 1620
 * René Guyon (1876–1963), jurist
 * Marie-Jeanne Larrivée Lemière (1733 - 1786), dramatic soprano
 * Étienne-Jacques-Joseph-Alexandre MacDonald (1765–1840), Marshal of France
 * Yannick Noah (born 1960), former professional tennis player
 * Vicomte de Turenne (1611–1675), Marshal of France

Twin towns

 * Eisenach, Germany, since 1991
 * 🇺🇸 Sedan, Kansas

title: Sedan, Ardennes


text:
Andenne

Andenne (Andene) is a city and municipality of Wallonia located in the province of Namur, Belgium.

On January 1, 2006, Andenne had a total population of 25,240. The total area is 86.17 km² which gives a population density of 292 inhabitants per km². The municipality, and the central city, extend on both sides of the river Meuse.

The municipality consists of the following districts: Andenne, Bonneville, Coutisse, Landenne, Maizeret, Namêche, Sclayn, Seilles, Thon-Samson, and Vezin.

History
The city is symbolized by a bear, originating from the legend that saw Charles Martel, while still a child, use a hammer to kill a bear that terrorized the inhabitants.

The Collegiate Church of Saint Begga, located in Andenne, was founded in the 7th century. Andenne is the location of the Château du Moisnil.

Andenne is associated with the Rape of Belgium in 1914, during which between 211 and 225 townspeople were massacred. German troops entered the area on August 18, 1914 but discovered all the bridges into town had been blown to deny them crossing. Construction of a pontoon bridge commenced, and the next day the Germans entered. At first no serious conflicts arose; apart from some German soldiers looting shops, mainly taverns and inns. Civilians were frightened and hid. When the main army arrived the civilians began panicking causing them to be rounded up and forced out into the streets. From there they were taken to the main square, where they were berated for what Belgian soldiers and civilians had done to the German's "brothers". As revenge all were shot, or killed with axes.

One German soldier's diary was discovered near Andenne, stating: "19th August, Our cavalry patrols, we hear, are being shot at in the villages again and again. Several poor fellows have already lost their lives. Disgraceful! An honest bullet in honest battle – yes, then one has shed one’s blood for the Fatherland. But to be shot from an ambush, from the window of a house, the gun barrel hidden behind flowerpots, no, that is not a nice, soldierly death."

Notable individuals

 * Saint Begga (613–693), daughter of Pepin of Landen and mother of Pepin of Herstal. She founded a convent in Andenne of which she was the first abbess. She is buried in the Collegiate Church of Saint Begga in Andenne.
 * Gertrude of Nivelles, (ca.628–659), abbess, who, with her mother Itta, founded the Nivelles Abbey; younger sister of St. Begga.
 * Carl Johan Frederik Jakhelln (1914–1987), Norwegian diplomat and writer
 * Fats Sadi (1927–2009, Huy), jazz musician
 * Cécile de France (born 1975), actress

title: Andenne


text:
Assesse

Assesse is a municipality of Wallonia located in the province of Namur, Belgium.

On 1 January 2006, Assesse had a total population of 6,252. The total area is 78.16 km2 which gives a population density of 80 inhabitants per km2.

The municipality consists of the following districts: Assesse, Courrière, Crupet, Florée, Maillen, Sart-Bernard, and Sorinne-la-Longue.

The village of Crupet is noted for its grotto dedicated to Saint Anthony of Padua, the Crupet Castle, a moated medieval donjon, and its windmills.

Notable people

 * Georges Gilkinet (1971), deputy prime minister.

title: Assesse


text:
Éghezée

Éghezée (Inguezêye) is a municipality of Wallonia located in the province of Namur, Belgium.

On 1 January 2010 the municipality had 15,169 inhabitants. The total area is 102.81 km2, giving a population density of 146.93 inhabitants per km2.

The municipality consists of the following districts: Aische-en-Refail, Bolinne, Boneffe, Branchon, Dhuy, Éghezée, Hanret, Leuze, Liernu, Longchamps, Mehaigne, Noville-sur-Mehaigne, Saint-Germain, Taviers, Upigny, and Waret-la-Chaussée.

title: Éghezée


text:
Fernelmont

Fernelmont (Ferneamont) is a municipality of Wallonia located in the province of Namur, Belgium.

On 1 October 2018, Fernelmont had a total population of 8,007. The total area is 65.61 km$2$ which gives a population density of 122 inhabitants per km$2$.

The municipality consists of the following districts: Bierwart, Cortil-Wodon, Forville, Franc-Waret, Hemptinne, Hingeon, Marchovelette, Noville-les-Bois, Pontillas, and Tillier.

History
The municipality of Fernelmont was officially created on 3 January 1977, during the fusion of the Belgian municipalities, through the fusion of ten former municipalities, which now exist as ten districts within Fernelmont. It was named Fernelmont (Ash Tree Mountain) after a 13th-century castle which was positioned more or less at the centre of the newly created municipality. None of the villages comprising the municipality has ever been called Fernelmont, and the Maison Communale (town hall) is in Noville-les-Bois.

Economy
The municipality includes a "Zone d'Activités Économiques" (Z.A.E. / light industrial zone), south of the village of Noville-les-Bois, designed to accommodate small and medium-sized non-polluting businesses, covering an area of up to 120 hectares. At the end of 2010 the Z.A.E. already covered more than 50 hectares, having welcomed around 100 small and medium-sized enterprises, and slightly more than 800 people were employed in the zone.

Twin city

 * 🇫🇷 Coursac, France

title: Fernelmont


text:
A Certain Sacrifice

A Certain Sacrifice is a 1985 American drama film co-written and directed by Stephen Jon Lewicki and starring Madonna, Jeremy Pattnosh and Charles Kurtz. It was Madonna's first movie, filmed from September 1979 through June 1981, but not released until 1985.

A Certain Sacrifice is an independent-underground art film,   shot on-and-off over two years in New York City on a low-budget of just $20,000. Madonna finished her scenes in late 1980. The video release sold 50,000 copies in its first-week, and the film developed a certain cult status among some of Madonna's fans and collectors by that time.

Plot
Madonna plays the part of Bruna, a Lower East Side resident who lives with three "love slaves" (one woman, one man, and one trans woman). Bruna meets Dashiell (Pattnosh) in the water fountain in Washington Square Park and the two "fall in love". Bruna later tells her lovers she does not need them anymore, resulting in them attacking her sexually. Later, Bruna is raped by Raymond Hall (Kurtz) in a bathroom at a coffee shop. To exact retribution, Bruna enlists her love slaves and Dashiell to abduct the rapist. They dress up as prostitutes and lure him into a limousine. They lead him to a theatre where a Satanic sacrifice is performed. Dashiell later wipes Raymond's blood all over Bruna.

Cast

 * Jeremy Pattnosh as Dashiel
 * Madonna as Bruna
 * Charles Kurtz as Raymond Hall
 * Kate Magill as Susan Porter
 * Timmy Leight as The Landlady
 * Michael Dane as Transvestite Slave
 * Russell O. Lome as Male slave
 * Angi Smit as Female slave
 * Joseph Pattnosh as Father
 * Ann Pattnosh as Mother
 * John Joseph Pattnosh as Young David
 * Chuck Varesko as Narrator

Production and development
A Certain Sacrifice is a Super 8 film. It was made on a low-budget between $12,000 to $20,000. The film marks the acting debut of Madonna and the directorial debut of Stephen Jon Lewicki, an aspiring filmmaker. Various authors have regarded the movie as an underground art film.

Despite Madonna's second thoughts about having participated in this movie, Lewicki had nothing but compliments for her. One of his oft-repeated stories was how he "discovered" Madonna and was amazed that she hand-wrote a three-page letter for a part that did not even pay. She was only paid $100, only because she was short on her apartment rent and Lewicki paid to help out. In Christopher Andersen's 1991 biography, Madonna Unauthorized, Lewicki stated: "That woman has more sensuality in her ear than most women have anywhere on their bodies".

Actor Jeremy Pattnosh wrote and performed several songs in the film, including: "Certain Sacrifice" and "Screamin' Demon Lover". Years later, in a 2000 Channel 4 documentary on Madonna's early years (titled Madonna: Naked Ambition), her Breakfast Club bandmate Dan Gilroy recalled: "I did not like that fellow who made A Certain Sacrifice, I felt he was using them big-time [...] it needed a laugh-track, something".

Release and reception
Madonna tried to buy the rights from director Stephen Jon Lewicki, offering him $5,000 which later upped to $10,000. Unsuccessful, she then attempted to ban the film from being seen. Stephen Lewicki invited her to view it; Madonna was reportedly unhappy with the result. According to Lewicki, she had an expression of horror on her face and screamed "Fuck you" as she stormed out of his apartment.

The release caused some controversy in the press at the time, due to film's sexually explicit and violent content, obtaining a R rating. Writing for The Wall Street Journal, Julie Salamon expressed: [...] Kind of a long MTV video with thinly developed themes of sadomasochism and ritual violence". Dennis Hunt from Los Angeles Times referred to the "tawdry drama", but saw Madonna an "adequate actress" who has several semi-nude scenes, further saying "she does her best acting in the scene following a rape". Editor Victor Lenore described the movie a "psychosexual fantasy, arty and cheap, that mixed thriller suspense, neogothic terror and softcore porn". Spartanburg Herald-Journal's Joe Saitzman said is a basic home movie quality, the sound unbelievably bad, and the script nonexistent. Despite most viewers labeled the film a failure, it also developed a certain cult status among Madonna's audiences and collectors at that time. The film was released in Italy in 1985. In 1986, there were theatrical midnight screenings in the U.S.

Home video
In 1985, A Certain Sacrifice was released on video to capitalize Madonna's fame. The retail price was $49.95. Edited in a one-inch video to further visually obscure it, the video release sold more than 50,000 copies in its first-week. According to Billboard in 1985, Virgin Video, a joint venture of two independent distributors, had plans to distribute over one million copies of the home video by the end of 1985. Critics said that Madonna's appearance in the film was the only reason it sold well, while Mark Bego commented it was purchased by hard-core Madonna devotees only.

Shortly after the video release, Lewicki received significant criticisms of "exploiting" Madonna's image, which he responded, "If people say that, I don't mind". He previously commented, "hope the videocassette makes lots of money". Biographer J. Randy Taraborrelli claims the film made Lewicki a "millionaire" in 1985. Lewicki subsequently claimed that he deserved the financial success that came afterward, because he had taken a risk by casting an unknown Madonna, and the money he put into the movie. Saitzman referred to the release: "It must be one of the most amateur, technically atrocious student films ever to be marketed", and added Madonna shouldn't have worried to have prevent the film's release, while called an irony from her part.

title: A Certain Sacrifice


text:
Floreffe

Floreffe (Florefe) is a municipality of Wallonia located in the province of Namur, Belgium.

On 1 January 2012 the municipality had 7,883 inhabitants. The total area is 38.89 km2, giving a population density of 203 inhabitants per km2.

The municipality consists of the following districts: Floreffe, Floriffoux, Franière, and Soye.

In 1977, the newly expanded (thus newly adjoining) municipality of Profondeville was given Lakisse, an area in the southeast of the original Floreffe.

Floreffe is best known as the location of Floreffe Abbey, founded in the 12th century and suppressed during the French Revolution.

Notable people

 * Joseph Hanse (1902–1992), Belgian linguist

Twin towns

 * 🇮🇹 Prata di Pordenone, Italy

title: Floreffe


text:
Fosses-la-Ville

Fosses-la-Ville (Fosse-li-Veye) is a city and municipality of Wallonia located in the province of Namur, Belgium.

On January 1, 2018, Fosses-la-Ville had a total population of 10,449. The total area is 63.24 km2 which gives a population density of 165 inhabitants per km2.

The municipality consists of the following districts: Aisemont, Fosses, Le Roux, Sart-Eustache, Sart-Saint-Laurent, and Vitrival.

Main sights

 * Collegiate church of Saint-Feuillen, rebuilt in the 18th century. It has maintained a Romanesque tower from the 10th century.
 * Chapelle Sainte-Brigide, a small sanctuary built by Irish monks, dedicated to Brigid of Kildare

Twin towns

 * 🇫🇷 Orbey, France
 * 🇮🇹 Robecco sul Naviglio, Italy

title: Fosses-la-Ville


text:
Gesves

Gesves (Djeve) is a municipality of Wallonia located in the province of Namur, Belgium.

The municipality consists of the following districts: Faulx-les-Tombes, Gesves, Haltinne, Mozet, and Sorée. It also includes the hamlets of Gramptinne, Goyet (site of glacial remnants of Neanderthals), Haut-Bois, and Strud (site where fossil of Strudiella devonica, a Late Devonian insect, was discovered).

On 1 January 2006 the municipality had 6,321 inhabitants. The total area is 64.92 km2, giving a population density of 97 inhabitants per km2. On 1 December 2019, the population had grown to 7,246 inhabitants (3,612 men and 3,634 women), representing a growth of 14.63% over the course of 13 years.

title: Gesves


text:
Jemeppe-sur-Sambre

Jemeppe-sur-Sambre (Djimepe-so-Sambe) is a municipality of Wallonia located in the province of Namur, Belgium.

On 1 January 2006, the municipality had 17,990 inhabitants. The total area is 46.80 km2, giving a population density of 384 inhabitants per km².

The municipality consists of the districts of: Balâtre, Ham-sur-Sambre, Jemeppe-sur-Sambre, Mornimont, Moustier-sur-Sambre, Onoz, Saint-Martin (including the hamlet of Villeret), and Spy.

The Spy Cave, among the most significant Paleolithic sites in Europe, is located in the municipality. The medieval Balâtre Castle is in the village of Balâtre, and Mielmont Castle is in Onoz.

title: Jemeppe-sur-Sambre