text:
Talk:Royal we

History tidied
It only contained some discussion of poor examples that had been removed, and lots of 'fwappling' about how to do links - it's all in this talk page's history if you have lots of time to waste ! Sorry, but 'Be Bold' is an accepted principle, even on article pages, let alone talk pages !

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Better Example ?
I would even consider removing "In agreement with the Imperial Duma We have thought it well ..." as possibly being genuine plural, (a bit like 'My husband and I' could lead Queen Elizabeth II to use 'we' as a real plural) or maybe just poor Russian -> English translation ? "We thought it Our duty of conscience to facilitate for Our people the closest union possible ..." may be a better example from the same reference.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation
Capitalisation is sometimes used to indicate PM - should that be mentioned in the article ?

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move: Pluralis majestatis → Majestic plural
According to Naming conventions (use English). FilipeS (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Done. FilipeS (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's pluralis MAIESTATIS, not maJestatis... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.205.114.10 (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Both spellings are defensible. FilipeS (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

'''

Genesis 1:26
I'm curious as to whether this well-known text should be included as an early example of a majestic plural.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness....

There is, after all, no office higher than "God." :) Pine (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

 * The word translated in that passage as "God" is itself a plural, Elohim (אלהים). There is some tradition of a "grand plural" in Hebrew, but I am not enough of a linguist to go into it for this article. 72.49.66.68 (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I am wondering about this too. Lomacar (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Three verses later, the same speaker uses the singular "I," which implies that the speaker's usage of "us" and "our" in 1:26 refers to more than just himself.
 * Whoever/whatever the other beings were supposed to be exactly is lost to us now. The text is one of many in the Torah that support the view that Judaism was likely monolatrous at the time it was written.  DavidGC (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

 * For readers of the Christian Bible, Hebrews 1:2, John 1:3, Colossians 1:15-16, and 1st Corinthians 8:6 pretty well imply that Genesis 1:26 refers to Jesus, being the one 'through whom all things were created' . Proverbs 8:22 and 23 also refer to an ancient being who 'was the first of all creation', 'at God's side when he made the Earth' (PR 8:27). So, this line of thinking, of another being by God's side who created the universe with him, is quite well established in both the Hebrew and Christian Greek scriptures. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Caesarean
I was taught as a child that the plural of majesty descended from the days of multiple Roman emperors: one emperor officially spoke for himself and his colleague(s), whether present or a thousand miles away. This practice was imitated by successors with other titles. It ought to be possible to document this.8-\ J S Ayer (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Interesting. I would like to know whatever the origins and earliest usages are (and how widespread it is in various cultures) Lomacar (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

 * It was used in Latin before the imperial period; by Cicero, for example. Anarchangel23 (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Correction Needed
"In pluralis maiestatis a speaker refers to him or her self in other than the first person and may be implicitly using the third person plural for the plurality they represent. "

But "we" is first person--first person plural, to be exact, not third personal plural (which is "they" in English) as stated in the article. Bicoastalguy (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"The Royal We" is also a song by "Silversun Pickups". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.134.2 (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

We are not amused
Michael Nelson's Queen Victoria and the Discovery of the Riviera Gives the following specifics:

[Alick] Yorke has gone down in history as the man to whom the Queen said 'We are not amused.' Alick was once sitting next to a German to whom he told a slightly risqué story. The German laughed so loudly that that the Queen asked Yorke to tell her what had caused the laughter. Alick repeated the story. 'We are not amused', replied the Queen.

The source is given as Mallet (ed), Life with Queen Victoria, p xiii. Amazon shows this as published by John Murray (1968), ISBN 0-7195-1783-4.

Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed
I typed "The Royal We" into the search box looking for the Silversun Pickups song, and instead ended up here. I know I won't be the only one to run into that problem, so someone needs to do something about it. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I took care of it. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The patronizing "we"
This isn't nosism. Perhaps it should not be here.Ordinary Person (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC) 05:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Is "Patronizing We" even the right thing to call it? I feel like it's frequently used as a perfectly innocent/neutral grammatical device, such as "how are we doing today?" or in other pleasantries. I almost want to call it "the arbitrary we." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanHakimi (talk • contribs) 23:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Move to nosism
I think that because this article covers several examples of using 'we' to refer to a single individual, and itself explains that in general terms this is the phenomenon of nosism, then we ought to move the article to that more general title and reword the opening lines accordingly. The royal we is a prominent example of nosism, but our sections on each different example are short enough that it makes sense for them all to appear together. The only problem with doing that is that the current title doesn't properly reflect the topic of the article, which could best be remedied by moving it. 82.32.184.4 (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. The current wording suggests all described usages are instances of the majestic plural, which is plain wrong. The word nosism isn't even defined anywhere, the article just uses it (as a heading, but not in the intro) as if it were an everyday expression. The introduction only speaks of the majestic plural and the reader is led to assume incorrectly that nosism is just a synonym for majestic plural, not a superordinate concept, and that all these examples, including people with tapeworms, are majestic plurals. Shouldn't the intro cover everything the article is about? Looks like a sloppy move/merge job.--88.73.17.3 (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Henry II and the Investiture Controversy
"Its first recorded use was in 1169[citation needed] when King Henry II, hard pressed by his barons over the Investiture Controversy, assumed the common theory of "divine right of kings," that the monarch acted conjointly with the deity. Hence, he used "we" as "God and I...," or so the legend goes. (See Rolls Series, 2.12)"

 * This is what I always assumed the deeper meaning of this phrase to be (that is, "God and I"). Where would we put it in? Are there any more sources of people using it like this? Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Having been to the British Library Rolls Series (Humanities Reading Room 1), the reference given for where to find this information doesn't relate to any standard cataloguing that I can tell. If this is true (and bear in mind that the Investiture Controversy was ultimately ended by the Concordat of Worms in 1122, coupled with the fact that Henry II didn't come to the throne until 1154), then I'm not sure how it all fits together. However, instead of deleting it, I would rather like to know whether there is a truth in this that I'm missing, as I'm researching the use of English pronouns! Certainly, the British royal motto 'Dieu et mon droit' (effectively the 'royal we') originates in a battle cry from Richard I in 1198, which then became the official motto of the English, then later British, Monarchy from 1340 under Edward III. However, as all English royalty around this time spoke Norman French (parliament wasn't opened for the first time in English until 1362), and seeing as the concept of the divine right of kings dates back at least to Egyptian times, it should seem odd that the first recorded use of the royal we either in English or at all was in 1169.

Anyone know anything of this?!

Hashamyim (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I have just tagged this reference with failed verification, on two grounds. First, I cannot find a self-reference to the king in the cited pages (156-161) anyway; but even if I could, unless it explicitly says that the king is calling himself "we" because he is acting with the deity, then the explanation is unsourced speculation. --ColinFine (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Author's We
The "author's we" is used in university lectures too, not just literature. It's really more of an "academic" or "scientific" we. And it also has nothing to do with brevity specifically, it just indicates that the reader and author should be reaching the same logical conclusion. ie. the author could include all the necessary steps for a proof and still use "we". I have no idea where to get more information on this but it seems like what is there is original content. 69.223.181.229 (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See Nosism. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

19th century British passport message
Using copperplate script and ex-officio imperious WE (or maybe it refers to his plurality of titles) 7617 We, Archibald Philip Earl of Rosebery, Viscount Rosebery, Viscount Inverkeithing, Baron Primrose and Dalmeny in the Peerage of Scotland, Baron Rosebery in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, a  Baronet of Nova Scotia, a Member of Her Britannic Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council,  a Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, &c., &c., &c., Request and require in the Name of Her Majesty, all those to whom it may concern to allow William Alfred Rae Wood (British Subject) traveling on the Continent to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford him every assistance and protection of which he may stand in need. Given at the Foreign Office London the 8 day of September 1893. [signature] Roseberry Signature of the Bearer W.A.R. Wood --Pawyilee (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

 * "Principle" (not "Principal")? Really? —Tamfang (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Hm! "Baron Primrose and Dalmeny in the Peerage of Scotland" – Baron is (was) not a peerage title in Scotland; the correct title is Lord (of Parliament). Don't know why one would list that title anyway, which was created along with Viscount Rosebery. Similarly Viscount Inverkeithing was created along with Earl of Rosebery. —Tamfang (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Other miscellaneous uses
Nothing in this section adds to the subject. Either they're not examples of the majestic plural at all and therefore not on-topic, or they fall into a category already discussed and therefore not miscellaneous, or they're utterly trivial instances from popular media which could be multiplied indefinitely but not at all informatively. It ought to be cut. 192.91.173.42 (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Judaism is not western
I've moved the bit about Elohim to 'non-western' usage. 87.246.103.137 (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

"Western Usage" -> "English Usage"
The section titled "Western Usage" seems to be exclusively about English usage. How about we title it appropriately? — Josh Roby (talk • contribs) 02:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Am not a big fan of the Western / Non-Western division tbh. I would suggest just grouping by polity, or if you have to, region, then polity. The non-Western royal pronouns aren't always plural either (eg Chinese where it's singular, but uniquely royal), which makes "the royal we" a bit irrelevant, but I see there was already a whole discussion about that title. Conflatuman (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

If anyone fixes up the historical references in the future, it would be worth noting that the 'royal we' was familiar in ancient Greece as well, as in Aeschylus Persians 228-230, a line spoken by the Persian queen: ταῦτα δ᾽, ὡς ἐφίεσαι, πάντα θήσομεν θεοῖσι τοῖς τ᾽ ἔνερθε γῆς φίλοις, εὖτ᾽ ἂν εἰς οἴκους μόλωμεν, "when we (=I) return to the palace, we (=I) will perform for the gods and my dear ones beneath the earth all those rites which you recommend. Tritaaptya (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

You vs. Thou
In Middle English and Early Modern English the second person singular was 'thou'. The modern from 'you' developed from the custom of addressing (usually noble) people using the plural. Isn't that a special form of Majestic Plural? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.253.61.122 (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

 * I suspect that the two are indeed related, but don't know. Maybe some study of pronouns or (grammatical) number will explain. -- Hoary (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Majestic plural → Royal we – Simply a matter of WP:COMMONNAME. Extended statistics below While Royal "we" is fine as a redirect, I don't think it's the best title; compare to singular they. BDD (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

(The JSTOR results certainly look like an anomaly, but I don't know how to explain them.) While searches for either term include some irrelevant results (particular in the Books search, which includes instances where the two words happen to be next to each other in prose), I note that many of the "majestic plural" results also use "royal we," but not vice versa. Along with the greater prevalence of the latter in all searches, I believe this comprehensively demonstrates that "royal we" is the more common term for this topic. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Support. Personally, this is the first time I've ever heard the term "majestic plural", while "royal we" is fairly common. The explicit search results above seem to support this. I also agree with the precedent expressed by Singular they, that we should not have quote marks in the title. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support move. Much shorter title and more direct/to the point. This is how people will be searching for this.  -WPGA2345-  Talk 21:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. See this ngram. Ich weiß dass nicht (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2013 (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.

Requested move 2014

 * 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: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 01:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Royal we → pluralis maiestatis – Or pluralis majestatis? The current English title looks awkward at best, commonly used or not. I think a Latin term is more appropriate and also commonly used in books. (I'm not certain about [pretentious] news articles.) Other non-English Wikipedia articles use the Latin phrase. Perhaps English Wikipedia can? George Ho (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Using Google Books, Royal We gets 25,000+ results, but the results include royal as end of one sentence and We as start of another. Add "Latin", and you get 1,510 results. However, if you want to search for either proposed title, maiestatis gets 12,000+, and majestatis gets 8,000+. 71 news articles use "royal we", but I added Latin to skim down results. Royal We results 2,100 pages, but it also includes sentences that use royal and we differently. majestatis includes many German articles, unfortunately. maiestatis includes many foreign-language articles.

Using Bing News, maiestatis results 17 articles. 29 articles use majestatis. royal we supposedly results 14,000+, but you can't get pass 114 results. Add Latin and you narrow down to 1,400+, but you still can't pass 10th page. --George Ho (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support "Royal we" is a jokey title not used in encyclopedic sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean the i or the j, in ictu oculi? --George Ho (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably with i, but either. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Comment: Isn't it a big strange to only look for uses in Latin? Relatively few people speak Latin. We've heard of the "royal we" many times, but we don't personally recall ever seeing either of these Latin variants before. To us, it seems clear that the so-called "jokey" English phrase is the common name (in English). —BarrelProof (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I never heard of "royal we" (or remember it) until now. Who phrases "royal we" more often? There must be other meanings to this Latin phrase besides "majestic plurality". --George Ho (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's an WP:ENGVAR issue? That expression is commonly used. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Per WP:COMMONNAME: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. [...] When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." royal we is most common but problematic by the looks of it and easily judged negatively. But you can prove me wrong. --George Ho (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything especially inaccurate or ambiguous about the phrase "royal we". IIO suggests that it's informal, but I think it's simply vernacular. People familiar with Latin have been considering things written in English to be somewhat vulgar for a long time, but Vatican II has come and gone and the Latin Mass is mostly a historical curiosity these days. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

From Google Scholar: maiestatis results 460+; majestatis, 1,000+. royal we, I wouldn't know out of 4,000+; eliminating port results 3,000+. Eliminating some words may decrease results much, but eliminating phrases does very little. --George Ho (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:UE would seem to favor the current title. I also see nothing that disproves this as the common name, regardless of how many different stats you've spat out. -- Calidum  04:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Will WP:DIVIDEDUSE apply? --George Ho (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but I strongly suspect that "royal we" is the most common term used by English speakers, and I suspect that to be especially true for American English. Please note that I have not actually opposed this move. I hesitate to disagree with IIO on such a topic, and it seems possible that there are regional differences. WP:COMMONALITY is also desirable. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Would it be better to just merge this article into Nosism? —BarrelProof (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * was split from this article last year. I don't think it's a good idea at this moment. Besides, two topics are distinct enough, but "nosism" isn't proven notable yet. --George Ho (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems unfortunate. Is that really a neologism? What's the etymology? I note that it appears at Wordsmith.org (and that "royal we" is given there as a synonym – with no mention of Latin equivalents). But the example use is from 1996, which does seem rather WP:RECENT. The term unfortunately doesn't seem to be in the three dictionaries that I checked. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I added pluralis modestiae—no, I did not copy-and-paste—into list of Latin phrases (P). It may translate to "plural of modesty"; I don't know the simple definition of the phrase. --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Nosism" is not a neologism. See this source. It also currently appears as an archaic entry in Merriam-Webster online. It's old, not new – just rare. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Oppose. As BarrelProof pointed out, "the royal we" is certainly in common use. See this ngram for proof that it has always been used to some extent, and increasingly over the past 40-50 years. The results are more striking in American English, but hold up in British English as well. And to allay In ictu's concerns about register, here are several reference works which use "the royal we":  . It's used regularly in scholarly works as well. Dohn joe (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Your ngram results seem even more striking if you drop "the" from "the royal we" (although I suppose I have generally seen it to include the "the"). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I added the "the" to help cut down on false positives (as George notes above, plain "royal we" picks up hits where "royal" ends one sentence and "We" begins the next.) This still happens a bit even with my ngram, but not so much. Dohn joe (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: while I'm not a native English speaker, I've heard the phrase "royal 'we'" countless times. So it comes as a surprise to me that it's not (near-)universally recognized among native speakers. Of course, it's just anecdotal evidence so it only counts as a "weak oppose", I suppose. No such user (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the native speakers in this discussion at least do in fact recognize it. Dohn joe (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH. And to confirm, "royal we" is the common name in British English these days. Today Latin is little used and understood even less here. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * George Ho As far as I can tell you do not come from a country with a monarchy and I am baffled as to why you would propose this move, Please do searches on issues like WP:UCRN before proposal.
 * Propose Royal We, The whole part of the façade of the whole (POV) royal nonsense is the hyped aggrandisation of some, sometimes, all two ordinary folk. Grammatically speaking the pompous "We" should be capitalised whether we commoners like it or not.  i know my place.  gregkaye  ✍ ♪  23:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

 * Strong oppose any violation of WP:UE, such as the current proposal. If the current title in fact is unacceptable, I'd counterpropose Royal "we" if need be. (Though I do prefer leaving it as is.) Red Slash 00:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, "royal we" is the common name. SnowFire (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The current English title looks awkward at best, commonly used or not. To me, it doesn't look particularly awkward. ¶ I think a Latin term is more appropriate and also commonly used in books. The established Latin name for something is more appropriate in English than is a nonce English name for it. That doesn't seem to apply here. I don't see evidence that the Latin name is commoner. ¶ Other non-English Wikipedia articles use the Latin phrase. I daresay they do, but I'm not aware of a principle by which the name used for something in various languages should be the name used for it in another language. ¶ This is a strange proposal: none of the arguments presented for it seems to have any merit. The only quasi-reason I can think up for it would go something like: "the suitable term to describe a pompous archaism is a pompous archaism", but I haven't seen that suggested and have no reason to think that it's WP policy. Therefore oppose. ¶ That said, I don't know why WP needs an article on this in addition to the article on "nosism": the former is merely an unremarkable variety of the latter. (Also, I'm surprised by the seeming lack of discussion of any possible connection between "Nosism" and T–V distinction.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as "royal we" is the common name, and we also have singular they. The current title is not "awkward" or "jokey". Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2014 (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.

Reflexive "ourselves" or "ourself"
In current-day English when we use the second or third person plural in lieu of the singular, we use a reflexive pronoun that ends with "self" rather than "selves": Can anyone provide a quality citation that indicates whether If so, please modify the article to incorporate it. 𝕃eegrc (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Instead of "thou gave it to thyself" we say "you gave it to yourself" not "you gave it to yourselves". (In older English, "you" used to be plural only and there was no "yourself".)
 * Instead of "he/she gave it to him/herself" we say "they gave it to themself" not "they gave it to themselves". (In older English (and some would argue currently too), "they" used to be plural only and there was no "themself".)
 * "I gave it to myself" royally becomes "we gave it to ourself" or "we gave it to ourselves"?

Royal we from the bible
In Ezra 4:18 King Artaxerxes uses a royal we when he says "The letter you sent us has been read and translated in my presence." Ezra 4:18 NIV. This book was written in 537 B.C. So this conflicts with the reference article where it states "There is no evidence of the poetic device being used until 4AD". Me274 (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Chinese section
I think the entire paragraph on China needs some citations to back up the claims. Specifically:

(1) the various claims on pronouns in imperial China; I expect references exist but not sure where

(2) the claim that this practice spread to the rest of Asia -- this feels speculative

(3) the claim that this practice was ended by the Communists -- this feels very speculative and possibly untrue.

DrIdiot (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

 * The entire Chinese section seems irrelavant to this page. This page is about using "we" instead of "I" to refer to oneself. The Chinese section talks about how Chinese monarchs using different pronouns, but those pronouns do not mean "we" in the first place. Betty (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"Nosism" is considered archaic.
"Nosism", as used in the introductory paragraph, is considered archaic and/or exceedingly rare by most sources, e.g.: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nosism https://www.thefreedictionary.com/nosism https://www.lexico.com/definition/nosism

Many dictionaries lack the word; some consider it a neologism or a misspelling, e.g.: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/ https://www.collinsdictionary.com/submission/5614/nosism https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nosism

The word itself is a peculiar combination of the Latin base "nos" and the Greek-derived English suffix -ism.

It is, as noted in those few sources that do provide a definition, generally considered indicative of conceit or egotism; and that applies to all self-referential uses of plural forms by an individual (as distinct from uses where an individual is speaking or writing as a representative of a group). An example is https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890540114000182 where the author, with neither coauthors nor acknowledgement of contributions, uses "we" no less than 78 times, "our" 5 times (including in the abstract and footnotes), and "us" 4 times in a 9-page article (barely 8 pages if the publisher's heading and the bibliography are excluded). The rationalization about academic use elsewhere on the talk page certainly doesn't apply to the abstract and footnotes of this example, where the author is simply making assertions.

"Nosism" is, as noted in definitions, archaic; "the royal we" is generally used to describe the practice whether or not the user is royalty: https://grammarist.com/usage/royal-we/ https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/the-royal-we https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-royal-we.htm

Given the archaic/rare use, I'd prefer to see the sentence about "nosism" elided or replaced by the factual statement that the term "the royal we" includes usage by people other than royalty. If "nosism" is retained, at minimum it should be noted that that term is both rarely used and archaic, and that "the royal we" is in fact used to describe the practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.43.57 (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Royal We = 'God and I'?
Mediaeval kings claimed to be appointed by God. I always thought of the Royal we as a verbal reminder to subjects of the Divine right of kings, Dieu et mon droit etc. Is there a source which confirms this? Crawiki (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

contradiction
The first paragraph under "Western usage" states that "William Longchamp is credited with its introduction to England in the late 12th century, following the practice of the Chancery of Apostolic Briefs" However, the Chancery of Apostolic Briefs was not established until the late 15th century, according to its wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3020:F03:E00:F44B:88AB:FBA4:2033 (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Clarification
Is there a reason as to why the “We” in the headline is in a different font as opposed to italicized/in quotes? I'm not very well versed in wiki praxis, so is that just how it's done? MamboWiking (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

"Royal you" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Royal you and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rusalkii (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Royal we


text:
John Blow

John Blow (baptised 23 February 1649 – 1 October 1708) was an English composer and organist of the Baroque period. Appointed organist of Westminster Abbey in late 1668, his pupils included William Croft, Jeremiah Clarke and Henry Purcell. In 1685 he was named a private musician to James II. His only stage composition, Venus and Adonis (ca. 1680–1687), is thought to have influenced Henry Purcell's later opera Dido and Aeneas. In 1687, he became choirmaster at St Paul's Cathedral, where many of his pieces were performed. In 1699 he was appointed to the newly created post of Composer to the Chapel Royal.

Early life and education
Blow was probably born in the village of Collingham in Nottinghamshire. The parish registers at Newark record the baptisms of Blow and of his brother and sister, the marriage of his parents, and the burial of his father. The register of Lambeth degrees notes that in 1677, on taking his doctorate, Blow said that his birthplace was 'the faithful borough of Newark'. As he was baptised on 23 February 1649, he was likely born only a short while before. As a boy, he was selected as a chorister of the Chapel Royal, and distinguished himself by his proficiency in music.

Blow composed several anthems at an unusually early age, including Lord, Thou hast been our refuge, Lord, rebuke me not and the so-called "club anthem", I will always give thanks, the last in collaboration with Pelham Humfrey and William Turner, either in honour of a victory over the Dutch in 1665, or more probably simply to commemorate the friendly intercourse of the three choristers.

Early career
In 1668, he was an organist at Westminster Abbey. He composed a two-part setting of Robert Herrick's "Goe, perjur'd man", written at the request of Charles II to imitate Giacomo Carissimi's "Dite, o cieli". In 1674, he was made a gentleman of the Chapel Royal and Master of the Children of the Chapel Royal.

Marriage and family
In September 1673, Blow married Elizabeth Braddock. She died in childbirth ten years later. Two of his sons died, but there were also three daughters, who survived him.

Advance to court
Blow, who by 1678 was a doctor of music, was named in 1685 one of the private musicians of James II. Between 1680 and 1687, he wrote his only stage composition of which any record survives, the Masque for the entertainment of the King, Venus and Adonis. In this, Mary Davis played the part of Venus. Lady Mary Tudor, her daughter by Charles II, appeared as Cupid.

In 1687, Blow became choirmaster (or Master of the Choristers) at St Paul's Cathedral. In 1690 he built a house for himself in Hampton. (Blow also owned eight other houses in the vicinity of Westminster Abbey). The Hampton house was demolished in 1799. It was on the site of the present-day house known as Beveree in the High Street.

In 1695 he was elected organist of St Margaret's, Westminster, and is said to have resumed his post as organist of Westminster Abbey, from which in 1679 he had retired or been dismissed to make way for Purcell. In 1700, he was appointed to the newly created post of Composer to the Chapel Royal.

Blow died on 1 October 1708 aged 59 at his house in Broad Sanctuary. He is buried in Westminster Abbey.

Music
Blow wrote fourteen services and 30 odes for royal celebrations, 50 secular song-like pieces and more than a hundred anthems.

In addition to purely ecclesiastical music and his relatively well-known masque Venus and Adonis, Blow's works include Great sir, the joy of all our hearts, an ode for New Year's Day 1682, similar compositions for 1683, 1686, 1687, 1688, 1689, 1693 (?), 1694 and 1700; odes, and the like, for the celebration of St Cecilia's Day for 1684, 1691, 1695 and 1700; for the coronation of James II, two anthems, Behold, O God, our Defender and God spake sometime in visions; some harpsichord pieces for the second part of Henry Playford's Musick's handmaid (1689); Epicedium for Queen Mary (1695) and Ode on the Death of Purcell (1696).

In 1700 he published his Amphion Anglicus, a collection of pieces of music for one, two, three and four voices, with a figured bass accompaniment. This includes a setting for voice and continuo of the poem The Self Banished by Edmund Waller.

Legacy and honours

 * Collingham John Blow Primary School, Nottinghamshire, is named after him.
 * Commissioned by the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, Arthur Bliss composed Meditations on a Theme by John Blow in 1955 based on Blow's verse anthem "The Lord is my Shepherd".
 * The tercentenary of his death was marked by BBC Radio 3 and Westminster Abbey: the weekly broadcast of choral evensong was made by the choir of Westminster Abbey, live from the Abbey, and consisted of music mostly by him, and by his near contemporaries.

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

title: John Blow


text:
Talk:Slippery When Wet

Untitled
In case anyone wants the source for Jon not wanting to put Prayer on the album... well, I can't give you a written source :). It was on either VH1's Behind The Music: Bon Jovi, or on a Jon Bon Jovi biography on TV. I will sign a sworn statement in blood that Jon said it, if neccissary ;). nknight 16:15 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

If you can't find a written source, you can cite where you saw it as a reference. Make sure you get the right show though ;) Naysie 00:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

 * he mentioned it on kimmel 10 mar 2024, in the course of pitching his new documentary.
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NeIA91Xh4U
 * i suspect it is covered in said doc as well. 2601:19C:527E:56C0:AEEE:2139:8A30:1E4F (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hugh McDonald?
"Hugh McDonald - rumoured to play all bass parts."

Is there any basis or research for this rumour?

--Thorns Among Our Leaves 23:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

wtf?
why was the original cover banned? not like u can see her titties or anything.24.144.137.244 14:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

 * 17 years later and i'm asking the same thing. seems par for the course for a cover of that period.  2601:19C:527E:56C0:AEEE:2139:8A30:1E4F (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Contradictions
The section on the naming of the album contradicts the same section in the Bon Jovi article. Both require citation and references. Naysie 00:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity
Could perhaps do with a link to the article about The Commodores' number one of the same name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.127.65 (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Bon Jovi proposal
I have proposed the creation of a WikiProject Bon Jovi here. If you would like to join or give input, please comment there. Thanks!  Toa   Nidhiki  05  19:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Genre change
Hard rock should be first.108.81.33.59 (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do the genres keep switching around and deleting? This album is heavier than most glam albums, Hard Rock should be first then glam.108.81.33.59 (talk) 03:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

 * Please locate a published review which says that the album is more hard rock than metal. Wikipedia requires that the editors use verifiable facts, not facts that are personal opinions. Try looking for a book or magazine article about the album. Binksternet (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Slippery When Wet


text:
Talk:Idea

Idealism vs materialism
Sorry, it has been a few years since I have thought about the conventions of wikipedia article editing and talk pages, so this is likely not how I'm supposed to do it, but shouldn't this passage be given a qualifier, considering it is not fact, but rather the the definition of idealism as opposed to materialism?

"Ideas embody the prototypes of objects and concepts of reality, driving civilization and governing the institutions of social life support, culture, spirituality, ideas carry a semantic weight, thus filling and motivating the purpose of the personality's existence with a special meaning." Alex parsimoniae (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Idea
Ideas generate from a human body’s brain from what he receives inputs from his six senses.in all the senses images (sight sence) plays an important role in his ideas. Then the area he belongs,his life views, his thearies.. all becomes ideas.ideas are classified into two. 1) good ideas Ideas that are harmful to him /her and to the other living beings 2) bad ideas Ideas that are harmless to him/she and to other living beings Anooj v a (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Should I ax the "adventitious v innate" and "semantics" after salvaging Sam Johnson by moving it into philosophy?
If I hear no objection, I'm slimming down the section on adventitious v. innate, adding it as a postscript to the Kant section (since "adventitious v. innate ideas" are a minor riff on Kant's "concept v. idea" that do not appear to be part of a major current and appear to derive from ephemeral secondary and tertiary sources as opposed to philosophical primary sources). Also I think we should ax the semantics section, and--even though he's not a major I don't personally mind--move Samuel Johnson up into the Philosophers section. Be back in a few days to see if there are any dissenters on this rearrangement.ThomasMikael (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Idea


text:
Secret society

A secret society is an organization about which the activities, events, inner functioning, or membership are concealed. The society may or may not attempt to conceal its existence. The term usually excludes covert groups, such as intelligence agencies or guerrilla warfare insurgencies, that hide their activities and memberships but maintain a public presence.

Definitions
The exact qualifications for labeling a group a secret society are disputed, but definitions generally rely on the degree to which the organization insists on secrecy, and might involve the retention and transmission of secret knowledge, the denial of membership or knowledge of the group, the creation of personal bonds between members of the organization, and the use of secret rites or rituals which solidify members of the group.

Anthropologically and historically, secret societies have been deeply interlinked with the concept of the Männerbund, the all-male "warrior-band" or "warrior-society" of pre-modern cultures (see H. Schurtz, Alterklassen und Männerbünde, Berlin, 1902; A. Van Gennep, The Rites of Passage, Chicago, 1960).

A purported "family tree of secret societies" has been proposed, although it may not be comprehensive.

Alan Axelrod, author of the International Encyclopedia of Secret Societies and Fraternal Orders, defines a secret society as an organization that:
 * is exclusive
 * claims to own special secrets
 * shows a strong inclination to favor its members.

Historian Richard B. Spence of the University of Idaho offered a similar three-pronged definition: Spence also proposes a sub-category of "Elite Secret Societies" (composed of high-income or socially influential people) and notes that secret societies have a frequent if not universal tendency towards factionalism, infighting, and claiming origins older than can be reliably documented. Spence's definition includes groups traditionally thought of as secret societies (Freemasons and Rosicrucians) and other groups not so traditionally classified such as certain organized crime cabals (the Mafia), religious groups (Order of Assassins and Thelema) and political movements (Bolsheviks and Black Dragon Society).
 * The group's existence is usually not kept secret, but some beliefs or practices are concealed from the public and require an oath of secrecy and loyalty to learn.
 * The group promises superior status or knowledge to members.
 * The group's membership is in some way restrictive, such as by race, sex, religious affiliation, or invitation only.

Historian Jasper Ridley argues that Freemasonry is, "the world's most powerful secret Society".

The organization "Opus Dei" (Latin for "Work of God") is portrayed as a "secret society"  of the Catholic Church. Critics such as the Jesuit Wladimir Ledóchowski sometimes refer to Opus Dei as a Catholic (or Christian or "white") form of Freemasonry. Other critics label Opus Dei as "Holy Mafia" or "Santa Mafia" as the organisation is connected with various questionable practises including intense "brainwashing" of its members to exploit labor force as well as the direct involvement of members in severe crimes such as baby-trafficking in Spain under the dictator Francisco Franco.

Politics
Because some secret societies have political aims, they are illegal in several countries. Italy (Constitution of Italy, Section 2, Articles 13–28) and Poland, for example, ban secret political parties and political organizations in their constitutions.

Colleges and universities
Many student societies established on university campuses in the United States have been considered secret societies. Perhaps one of the most famous secret collegiate societies is Skull and Bones at Yale University. The influence of undergraduate secret societies at colleges such as Harvard College, Cornell University, Florida State University, Dartmouth College, Emory University, the University of Chicago, the University of Virginia, Georgetown University, New York University, and Wellesley College has been publicly acknowledged, if anonymously and circumspectly, since the 19th century.

British universities have a long history of secret societies or quasi-secret clubs, such as The Pitt Club at Cambridge University, Bullingdon Club at Oxford University, the Kate Kennedy Club, The Kensington Club and the Praetorian Club at the University of St Andrews, and the 16' Club at St David's College. Another British secret society is the Cambridge Apostles, founded as an essay and debating society in 1820. Not all British universities host solely academic secret societies; both The Night Climbers of Cambridge and The Night Climbers of Oxford require both brains and brawn.

In France, Vandermonde is the secret society of the Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers.

Notable examples in Canada include Episkopon at the University of Toronto's Trinity College, and the Society of Thoth at the University of British Columbia.

Secret societies are disallowed in a few colleges. The Virginia Military Institute has rules that no cadet may join a secret society, and secret societies have been banned at Oberlin College from 1847 to the present, and at Princeton University since the beginning of the 20th century.

Confraternities in Nigeria are secret-society-like student groups within higher education, some of which have histories of violence and organized crime. The exact death toll from confraternity activities is unclear. One estimate in 2002 was that 250 people had been killed in campus cult-related murders in the previous decade, while the Exam Ethics Project lobby group estimated that 115 students and teachers had been killed between 1993 and 2003.

The Mandatory Monday Association is thought to operate out of a variety of Australian universities including the Australian Defence Force Academy. The Association has numerous chapters that meet only on Mondays to discuss business and carry out rituals.

The only secret society abolished and then legalized is that of The Philomaths, which is now a legitimate academic association founded on a strict selection of its members.

Internet
While their existence had been speculated for years, Internet-based secret societies first became known to the public in 2012 when Cicada 3301 began recruiting from the public via Internet-based puzzles. The goals of the society remain unknown, but it is believed to be involved in cryptography.

By location
The following contemporary and historic secret societies formed in Africa, by country:

Cameroon

 * Ekpe

Ghana

 * Simo

Guinea

 * Poro
 * Sande society

Ivory Coast

 * Poro
 * Sande society

Liberia

 * Crocodile Society
 * Poro
 * Sande society

Mali

 * Simo

Nigeria

 * Ekpe
 * Nze na Ozo
 * Ogboni
 * Confraternities in Nigeria

Sierra Leone

 * Crocodile Society
 * Leopard Society
 * Poro
 * Sande society
 * Simo

South Africa

 * Afrikaner Broederbond
 * Afrikanerbond

Zimbabwe

 * Nyau

China
Secret societies played a major role in Chinese affairs for centuries. They were a key aspect of the Anti-Qing sentiments of the 20th century. After the collapse of the Qing Dynasty, they were tacitly supported by and actively collaborated with the Nationalist government. Having played prominent roles in history, they were targeted by the anti-secret society campaigns of the newly established government of the People's Republic of China during the 1950s. Examples of Chinese secret societies include:

 * Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists
 * Hai San Secret Society
 * Red Lanterns
 * Red Spear Society
 * Tiandihui, Society of the Heaven and the Earth
 * Yellow Sand Society
 * White Lotus
 * Heavenly Kingdom of Everlasting Satisfaction

India
Secret societies in India include:

 * Paramahansa Mandali
 * Abhinav Bharat
 * The Society of the Deads

Japan
Secret societies in Japan include:
 * Black Dragon Society
 * Double Leaf Society
 * Gen'yōsha
 * Green Dragon
 * Sakurakai or Cherry Blossom Society

Malaysia
Secret societies in the Malaysia include:

 * Ang Soon Tong
 * Ghee Hin Kongsi
 * Wah Kee

Philippines
Secret societies in the Philippines include:
 * La Liga Filipina
 * Katipunan

Singapore

 * Ang Soon Tong
 * Ghee Hin Kongsi
 * Salakau
 * Wah Kee

Australia
Secret societies in Australia include:

 * Mandatory Monday Association
 * Freemasonry
 * Odd Fellows
 * Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes
 * Tong

Europe
Several secret societies existed across Europe, including: Other organizations are listed by country.
 * Ancient Order of Freesmiths (Freischmiede)
 * Freemasonry
 * Templars of Honor and Temperance
 * Rosicrucianism

Albania

 * Black Society for Salvation
 * Secret Committee for the Liberation of Albania

Bulgaria

 * Bulgarian Secret Central Revolutionary Committee
 * Bulgarian Secret Revolutionary Brotherhood
 * Bulgarian Secret Central Revolutionary Committee
 * Macedonian Youth Secret Revolutionary Organization

Finland

 * Aurora Society
 * Ordo Templi Orientis
 * Valhallaorden

France

 * Association of the Polish Youth "Zet"
 * Bourbaki group
 * La Cagoule
 * Carbonari
 * Compagnons du Devoir
 * Company of the Blessed Sacrament
 * Ellinoglosso Xenodocheio
 * Hiéron du Val d'Or
 * Order of the Solar Temple
 * Priory of Sion
 * Société Angélique
 * Society of the Rights of Man

Germany

 * Ancient Order of Freesmiths
 * Association of the Polish Youth "Zet"
 * Germanenorden
 * Illuminati
 * Order of the New Templars
 * Ordo Templi Orientis
 * Thule Society
 * Tugendbund
 * United Ancient Order of Druids

Greece

 * Epsilon Team
 * Ethniki Etaireia
 * Ordo Templi Orientis

Ireland

 * Defenders
 * Hellfire Club
 * Irish Republican Brotherhood
 * Molly Maguires
 * Royal Arch Purple
 * Whiteboys

Italy

 * Carbonari
 * Fascio Operaio
 * Knights of the Apocalypse
 * Propaganda Due

Poland

 * Association of the Polish Youth "Zet"
 * Ordo Templi Orientis
 * Zarzewie

Portugal

 * Carbonária
 * Military Order of Christ

Russia

 * Association of the Polish Youth "Zet"
 * Lyubomudry
 * Ordo Templi Orientis
 * Petrashevsky Circle
 * Secret Macedonian-Adrianople Circle
 * Southern Society of the Decembrists
 * Union of Prosperity
 * Union of Salvation

Serbia

 * Black Hand
 * Main Board for Serb Liberation
 * Ordo Templi Orientis
 * Serbian secret organization in eastern Bosnia
 * White Hand

Spain

 * The Disinherited
 * Mano Negra (Black Hand)
 * Order of the Solar Temple
 * Ordo Templi Orientis
 * Society of the Exterminating Angel
 * Spanish Military Union

United Kingdom

 * A∴A∴
 * Bullingdon Club
 * Calves' Head Club
 * Cambridge Apostles
 * Confederacy
 * Gormogons
 * 5 Hertford Street
 * Hellfire Club
 * Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn
 * The Horseman's Word
 * Molly Maguires
 * National Action
 * The Night Climbers of Cambridge
 * The Night Climbers of Oxford
 * Nordic League
 * Odd Fellows
 * Odin Brotherhood
 * Order of Chaeronea
 * Order of Druids
 * Order of Free Gardeners
 * Ordo Templi Orientis
 * Royal Antediluvian Order of Buffaloes
 * The 16' Club
 * The School of Night
 * Scotch Cattle
 * Sealed Knot
 * Tong
 * United Ancient Order of Druids

Canada
Secret societies in Canada that are non-collegiate include:

 * Fenians
 * Freemasonry
 * Hunters' Lodges
 * Independent Order of Odd Fellows
 * Ku Klux Klan
 * Order of the Solar Temple
 * Ordo Templi Orientis
 * P.E.O. Sisterhood
 * Tong
 * Tong

United States
Secret societies in the United States that are non-collegiate include:

 * Abakuá
 * Fenians
 * Freemasonry
 * Hunters' Lodges
 * Knights of Columbus
 * Knights of the Golden Circle
 * Knights of Liberty
 * Ku Klux Klan
 * Molly Maguires
 * Odd Fellows
 * Order of the Star Spangled Banner
 * The Order of the Third Bird
 * Tong

Mexico

 * Feminine Brigades of St. Joan of Arc

Cuba

 * Abakuá

Brazil

 * Shindo Renmei

Opposition
The Catholic Church strongly opposed secret societies, especially the Freemasons. It did relent somewhat in the United States and allowed membership in labor unions and the Knights of Columbus, but not the Masons. Some Christian denominations continue to forbid their members from joining secret societies in the 21st century. For example, the Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist Connection and Seventh-day Adventists.

title: Secret society


text:
Talk:Walter Sickert

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Assessment

You artist-types never want an infobox, so this is basically a B.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 18:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
Awaiting evidence, removed from article:
 * Cornwell turned to mitochondrial DNA testing - a more modern, though not exact method, to associate Sickert to within the same 1 percent of the population at the time as Jack the Ripper.

Hmm, "not exact method" indeed. I don't know of any sample of DNA for either Jack the Ripper or Sickert. At this point, all Jack the Ripper theories are like who wrote Shakespeare theories, entertaining excursions based on other than factual evidence. Ortolan88

Also removed the following astonishingly broad assertion:
 * She also adds that; like other serial killers, he would have continued to commit additional murders for as long as he was capable or desired to.

Replaced with:
 * She also believes that he may have committed other murders.

The removed sentence is POV out the wazoo. Ortolan88

---

The last edit, supposedly for POV, added inaccurate statements (the claim that it was a fact that DNA was "matched" -- something Cornwell's DNA experts don't even claim) and added more statements in favor of Cornwell's theory without statements disputing hers. These articles can't be neutral unless each claim has both sides addressed. It seems pretty clear to me that it was an attempt by a Cornwell supporter to slip in things in her favor.

Merging with text from the Patricia Cornwell entry
We've had two separate articles focusing on Cornwell's theory against Walter Sickert for some time, and they have separate information and differences. I'm moving the bulk of the text from the section on Patricia Cornwell to here, to be incorporated on this page so we don;t have two places going off on their own. I'll merge later or if someone else wants to they can tackle it:

--

She contends Sickert had the psychological profile of a killer. She asserts that he was unable to have intercourse because his penis was disfigured at birth or through some accident. The killings coincide with the marriage of Sickert's close friend, which she claims provided the spark which exacerbated his awareness of his purported disabilities and ignited a latent anger.

Cornwell cites Sickert's artistic genius as useful for crafting the Ripper's letters, disguising handwriting and varying sketching styles. She also feels that the letters contain specific information related to crimes, and as such are unlikely to be from any other than the Ripper. She also points to Sickert paintings, some of which show women in prostrate poses Cornwell claims are similar to victims at their crime scenes.

In recent speeches, Cornwell says that new evidence has come to light since her book. Paper manufacture experts now assert that reams of paper supposedly used by Jack the Ripper to write several letters to Scotland yard and paper purchased by Sickert's mother bear the same small-press watermark. She also claims that there are matches in the cutter's marks, which are a result of the rough cutting of each quire (or small package) for packaging. A 'quire' was usually of 24 sheets.

All in all, Cornwell claims that the Ripper wrote hundreds of letters and killed almost that many people over the years. She blames almost every unsolved murder that happened in the London area from 1885 until his death on the Ripper, whom she asserts must be Sickert.

Ripperologists and other critics of her theory point out that most, if not all, of the Ripper letters are considered hoaxes by all other authorities, so trying to prove that Sickert wrote one or more of them doesn't prove that he killed anyone. The evidence she claims supports the idea that Sickert had a disfigured penis also supports the more accepted theory that he had a fistula in his anus. Details in the letters and supposedly seen in the paintings she claims only the killer would know were published in newspapers and a book released in France. Sickert could have easily gotten ahold of the book in question, as he also lived in France off and on. In fact, evidence shows that he was probably in France on the nights of several of the Ripper murders.

Critics also note that Cornwell admits that she did not have a theory about the murders until about a year before her book came out and is convinced that the first name mentioned to her as a possible suspect must be the one who really did it. They note that, unlike authors of popular crime fiction, criminal investigators generally don't get to pick the person whodunnit before they do the research.

-- DreamGuy 01:39, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * Why should this fantasy in the head of Cornwell be on the Walter Sickert page? This page should have only the minimum information regarding the Ripper theory, much the same as some of the other "fantastic" suspects such as Lewis Carroll or the Duke of Clarence I propose expanding List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects and perhaps renaming, so that it covers these individuals including the above three I mentioned earler in greater detail. [unregistered user 80.43.205.224] - Turkey

 * The problem with moving it to the JtR suspect page is that it was all moved out of these because it went into far too much detail and violated NPOV by devoting too much time to what's a minor theory in Ripperology. Most of the info on Ripper theories that went into great details were moved to the pages for the individual involved. The problem with putting this on the Patricia Cornwell page is that Sickert has attracted several different Ripper theories over the years, not just Cornwell's. There are also the Stephen Knight and Jean Overton-Fuller theories to consider. It makes sense to put them all in one place, and since they all focus on Sickert, that's the logical place for them. If you think that it overshadows everything else in Sickert's life you could expland that part of his article. I do know that if you try to move it to the JtR suspects page it'll just get moved back. DreamGuy 21:14, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * This is Wikipedia not Ripperpedia. This kind of unsubstantiated theorizing does not belong in a serious biography. IT most certainly belongs on the Cornwell page as she is the author of this garbage. If someone wrote a book that said that Queen Victoria was Jack the Ripper and managed to sell a few hundred thousands copies despite the theory being entirely speculative, do you seriously think that there should be a paragraph on the Queen Victoria page that page devoted to the theory? Should we have a paragrapgh on the George W. Bush page about the theory that he is actually a Reptilian Humanoid because David Icke reckons he is and has managed to sell a few thousand books? [unregistered user] - aka Turkey

Cornwell is NOT the sole author of this garbage, as if you had bothered to read this page you would have found out. At least five different authors I can think of off the top of my head link him as either being the Ripper or supporting him. You can't move it all to the Cornwell page because she didn't come up with the idea in general or most of the theories. Sickert's alleged connection to the Ripper murders is one of the most noteworthy things about his life, and pretty mention every modern reference to him as a painter mentions the fact that he has been named as a suspect. Several of his biographers believe he wrote the Ripper letters and/or killed people. The information (as well as the criticism of these theories) belong here. Now go register or actually read my previous comments (or even the article itself) before you go jumping into a ill-informed rant like you run the place. DreamGuy 23:27, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * "Cornwell is NOT the sole author of this garbage" - so you admit it IS garbage!?
 * No. It shouldn't ALL be moved into the Cornwell page. Cornwell's own preposterous claims should be on her page just as David Icke's preposterous claims should be on his page and not the various people he claims are reptiles. This information should be placed in List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects. You say that this information was moved from there because it took up too much room. Looking at the history it looks like this detailed information was moved from Jack the Ripper because it took up too much room, but since then List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects has been created. I have just checked the size of this page it is 17.5k, just over half the size of the optimum Wikipedia article, so there is plenty of room there for this information. - Turkey

 * Now that it looks like you actually bothered to register, you might try signing your posts. Yes, the list of proposed suspects page was created, again (as it was it's on separate page at one point, then brought into the main article, then split back out), but it's not overall space that's the main concern (17.5K), but the amount of space given to each suspect on that page compared to each other. That's why more in depth coverage was moved to articles about the suspect. Your opinion that the accusations are garbage is noted, but then that pretty much proves that you are way biased and have no business telling other people about how encyclopedia articles are written. The various theories about Sickert being the Ripper or an accomplice should all be on his article, not spready out willy nilly across the site. The accusations are the most notable parts of his life, and if they didn't kept being brought back up Sickert would have slipped into obscurity long ago. The only reason there have been exhibita of his art recently was to play off of the publicity that Cornwell's book gave him. One more time: if you feel that the Ripper information overshadows the rest of his life, then you go add more info about the rest of his life, don;t you try to remove other information just because you are all pissed off. Get a grip and try acting responsibly. DreamGuy 09:56, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * They were moved to articles about the suspects BEFORE List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects was created. It now makes sense to put that information back, certainly for those people who are highly speculative suspects i.e. Lewis Carroll, Prince Eddy and Walter Sickert, why blacken their biographies with theories that have already been proved wrong? - Turkey

 * The question of proving wrong is one of opinion, not fact. You consider the theories all garbage, but that's your opinion. Wikipedia is a place for objectively discussing notable things about people, not to force your opinion on others. Some of the items were moved out of the Jack the Ripper article before the new page on suspects was created, some after. The consistent goal is to take in-depth discussion of theories to the pages for each suspect, not to throw them all on one page. Wikipedia articles are not solely biographies, they are for discussing all notable aspects of that person, and the fact that they were each named as suspects are some of the most notable things about them. Contrast that with, say, the Lewis Carroll page where the accusation was less notable, but a summary still exists. To even claim that people should not "blackening" biographies shows that you have no understanding of the NPOV policy or how debates are handled at all. Please excuse yourself from the articles under debate until you read up on Wikipedia policies. DreamGuy 11:10, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

 * Please desist from condescending remarks. I have not been forcing any opinion on anyone anywhere. You appear to be doing that. I have only edited one article related to this subject and that was the Patricia Cornwell page. I have been reinstating the information about her book and you have been reverting it. It is as plain as the nose on your face that information that had little foundation in fact belongs on the page of the author and not on the page of the man whose name she is trying to blacken. you accusing me of violating NPOV. Please explain in what way (by reverting a page to a state that I didn't even initiate) I am doing that? IVoteTurkey 12:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ripper and Sickert
Ok this is my position - I believe that this page is far too heavily weighted towards the allegations about Sickert being Jack the Ripper. There is far too much information on this page for what is supposed to be a serious biographical piece about him. The Ripper allegations are almost universally discounted by both serious Ripperologists and biographers of Sickert. Indeed Wikipedia user JohnK has pointed out the Columbia encyclopaedia and the Encyclopaedia Britannica do not contain any mention of the Ripper allegations. I contend therefore this this information should be placed elsewhere and that this article should contain a brief mention of these allegations but link to some other place where this information is covered in more depth. It has been agreed (for the moment) that the Patricia Cornwell article should remain as a host of the information surrounding her book and her allegations. The question therefore remains what to do about the other allegations and discoveries of other authors and researchers. It seems to me that the obvious place to put this information is list of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects which would probably have a tendency to duplicate this information anyway. Now I hope we can continue this discussion without it descending into insults - I do not like being accused of being a - "newbie with an obvious bias" or "rude" or "snotty" or of "breaking the three revert rule"  (I have proven that I haven't) "vandalism" or any of the other things. All I have done is re-instate the details of Patricia Cornwell's book on her page and to have asked for that page to be protected when someone kept deleting it. I have not made any other edits on this subject - indeed I have not attempted to change anything on this article in particular because I was trying to achieve agreement through discussion before doing anything that might upset people. IVoteTurkey 10:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, you are a newbie, you have demonstrated an obvious bias by claiming on many talk pages that anything that "blackens" a person's name should not be in an encyclopedia, you have clearly been rude (which you yourself apparently agreed because you apologized for it), and you were busy reverting posts with no discussion. So, if you don't like having those things pointed out to you, don't do those things.

 * Now, regarding your arguments above, you have made these same arguments on just about every talk page that deals with Jack the Ripper suspects now. Your attempt to force all discussion of any Jack the Ripper suspect theories onto one page has been soundly rejected by a large number of editors. That simply is not going to happen.

 * As discussed on the Talk:Patricia Cornwell page, at some point we'll be moving most of the Ripper information off this page but leaving a summary, much like I did earlier on the Lewis Carroll page, but probably longer because there are more theories and books to mention. The reason it hasn't happened yet is we are trying to come to an agreement on the Cornwell page about the best way to do it. That was stalled after you had to make more snide remarks and yet again suggest moving everything about every Ripper suspect to one page, even though that had been rejected by everyone except you mutliple times. We'd probably already be done if it weren't for your obstinance. DreamGuy 18:21, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

DreamGuy - I despair- I really do. Please note that the above post by myself was made on December 8. This was before a consensus had been reached about what to do with the Sickert information. I made the above post after you said the following on the Talk:Patricia Cornwell page - "Discussing fate of Sickert article (whether it duplicates info as currently and as proposed as a compromise above, sweeps it all under the rug and refuses to mention anything at all, or something else) on that talk page instead of here. " - I replied on that page by saying that I agreed with your proposal - and I immediately (check the timestamps) came to this page to kick off the discussion as suggested by you, by stating my position. I was suprised to find that the discussion didn't move to this page at all but continued on that page. IVoteTurkey

In the above paragraph you accuse me of "claiming on many talk pages that anything that "blackens" a person's name should not be in an encyclopedia" - I challenge you to find anywhere where I have said any such thing. I haven't. It's certainly not something I believe. You are misrepresenting me and not for the first time. IVoteTurkey

So far as well as well as misrepresenting me numerous times you have consistently directed disparaging, condescending and rude language towards me. You have threatened to ban me, you have accused me of "vandalism", of breaking the three revert rule and of breaching NPOV. These charges are false. In the hope that we might be able to bury the hatchet I made an apology although I don't really have anything to apologise for other than somehow managing to irritate you. You have ignored that apology. You have not reciprocated and apologise for making a false claim against me. On your userpage you say something like "all round good guy", I'm afraid I am beginning to doubt that - please don't let me lose faith in your ability to live up to this epithet. Will you now accept my apology and shake hands and apologise for making false claims against me? IVoteTurkey 23:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I am an all around good guy, but not to people who abuse me and this encyclopedia. I stand behind my complaints against you and wish you would focus on what's good for this site instead of your ego. Drop it, move on and play straight, or you just end up reconfirming what I've said about your actions all along. DreamGuy 09:06, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * I believe that Cornwell also says that the paper used on the "Ripper letters" has been matched with the same batch of hand-cut sheets as used by Sickert in letters to his mother. This examination was carried out by a "forensic paper expert". Is this an exact science? Should this be referred to in the article? -Streona (talk) 06:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't think we want to go into the details too much here. As I recall, she claimed that the Oppenshaw letter was linked to a batch of paper used by Sickert, but I think the science was far from exact. However, you can find the discussions online easily enough. Paul B (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Other articles now exist and ready for Jack the Ripper information from this page
Two new articles exist that were created to cover the bulk of the Jack the Ripper information currenlt on this page. Portrait of a Killer covers Cornwell's claims and Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories covers the parts where he is helping out the royal/Masons/whomever in a coverup. Most of the JtR material on this page can be moved and merged (as needed) with the appropriate article with summaries left behind here. I'll eventually get around to it myself if nobody else jumps on it. DreamGuy 20:17, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Disappointing
This article is very disappointing and almost an embarrassment to Wikipedia. It beggars belief that it is almost entirely concerned with the suggestion that Sickert was Jack the Ripper and has little to say about his life and his works. No-one seriously believes this to be the case. A new biography of Sickert by Matthew Sturgis is published this week and has received good reviews, I've just read the review in the Sunday Times. In the book Sturgis only covers the Ripper connection in an appendix and apparently completely demolishes the theory. I would suggest that this article should give the subject similar treatment. Jooler 10:40, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * If you'd read the comments above, you'll note that several people had complained, and that after much discussion I created two new articles so that the bulk of the Ripper information could be moved elsewhere. Instead of doing a drive-by snipe at the article, perhaps you'd actually read the discussion and help make the changes, especially since the people who would raised such a huge fuss previously can't be bothered to help? DreamGuy 18:44, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Walter Sickert's maternal grandfather
Walter Sickert's sister was Helena Swanwick, and biographical material about her mentions that their mother Eleanor was the illegitimate daughter of a Cambridge don (a Fellow of Trinity College) and an Irish dancer. Furthermore this grandfather privately acknowledged paternity but broke with her again when she announced plans to marry Walter and Helena's father Oswald Sickert, and he wrote her out of his will. After this grandfather's death, his sister helped financially support Eleanor, out of a sense of obligation towards her niece. Walter and Helena also had a great-aunt named Anne Sheepshanks.

Putting all this together, is it possible that the grandfather in question was Richard Sheepshanks?? He had an unmarried sister named Anne who inherited a great deal of money from him (after his death she donated £12,000 to Trinity College, a very large sum at the time), and had been elected a Fellow of Trinity College in 1817.

If anyone out there has one of the Sickert biographies handy (Cornwell's book, or Matthew Sturgis Walter Sickert - A Life), or access to Helena Swanwick's 1935 autobiography I Have Been Young, it would be interesting to find out if there was indeed such a family connection.

I just was listening to Cornwell's book and she does confirm that Richard Sheepshanks was Elenor's father. I'll add the reference.--dahlej

Painting in Southwark Art Collection
I have removed the following line which, standing alone with no context, is merely puzzling: "Artist Mark Wallinger conjectured that Sickert had known and seen his subject of Sick Doctor prior to death, and rendered from a photograph an image otherwise too macabre." Although properly sourced (to The Observer, 19 March 2000), this is problematical, as the painting, apparently of Sickert's personal physician,  dates from 1929, by which time painting from photographs was Sickert's standard procedure. I've not been able to get a look at the Observer article and the passage's meaning is unclear--how and why would the image have been otherwise too macabre? Ewulp (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Nationality
I have changed the lead from "born in Munich, Germany" to "English", and have described his birthplace, migration and change of nationality in Training and early career. This is based on the following sources:

"English painter. Born in Munich, of Danish and Anglo-Irish descent, he came to England from Dieppe in 1868 and remained cosmopolitan all his life."

"German, 19th – 20th century, male. Active from 1866 active and naturalised in England. Born 31 May 1860, in Munich; died 22 January 1942, [...] In 1868, following the annexation by Germany of Schleswig-Holstein, the Sickerts moved to England, where the entire family secured British nationality."

"British painter, printmaker, teacher, and writer of German birth."

 * User:Verbcatcher or others: Walter Sickert is currently assigned to Category:Artists from the Kingdom of Bavaria, which is for artists who were citizens, subjects or nationals of the Kingdom of Bavaria. Is this correct? Masato.harada (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Walter Sickert. 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/20131029200115/http://www.islington.gov.uk/islington/history-heritage/heritage_lhc/lhc_collections/Pages/specialcollections.aspx to http://www.islington.gov.uk/islington/history-heritage/heritage_lhc/lhc_collections/Pages/specialcollections.aspx

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) 02:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Sickert and Anatomist John Hunter
Whenever I note that the three crows in Sickert's "Ennui" self-portrait constitute a murder, a retired librarian deletes it. A flick or group of crows is called a murder. The same editor also deletes any content edits related to the thematic similarities between Sickert's "Ennui" and Jackson's famous portrait of 18th century anatomist John Hunter, whose life story inspired the fictitious Dr. Jekyll. Nicole Karam (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. You have to provide independent, reliable sources for you additions, otherwise they will be, quite properly, removed. The former occupation of the editor who is following Wikipedia policy in removing your edits is utterly irrelevant to this discussion, please do not stoop to ad hominem attacks on others. Railfan23 (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The male figure in Ennui is not a self-portrait. The model is 'Hubby', his real name unrecorded, an alcoholic who posed for several of Sickert's paintings at the time. Sickert used to pay the fees to Hubby's 'missus', so that Hubby wouldn't immediately take the money and do the obvious with it, but once Hubby started turning up too drunk to work and just disrupted the studio, Sickert dropped his acquaintance. The female figure is Marie Hayes, Sickert's charlady at the time. The stuffed birds under the glass dome are obviously a bit too colourful to be crows. https://www.tate.org.uk/art/research-publications/camden-town-group/walter-richard-sickert-ennui-r1133434 Sickert was abroad in France when most of the Whitechapel murders of 1888 were committed. Almost twenty years later, when he was living at 6 Mornington Crescent, he believed or purported to believe his landlady's tale that a previous lodger in that room was Jack the Ripper (every landlady in London in 1888 was convinced that one of her lodgers was Jack the Ripper), and he painted a gloomy picture of his room and titled it 'Jack the Ripper's Bedroom'. There is literally no chance that the Whitechapel murderer ever lived in Camden Town. He was obviously local to Whitechapel. Nor does any sane person seriously imagine that Sickert had anything to do with the murderer's crimes or even knew anything about them. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

'Jack the Ripper' section is growing again - 2024
Reading this talk page and the history for the article about Walter Sickert, it appears to have gone through waves of editors trying to expand it with information about allegations that Sickert was Jack the Ripper, followed by other editors deleting the information or moving it elsewhere. The claim has largely been dismissed, yet the article still now contains a large section documenting it.

I propose:

-	the article should focus on the facts about Sickert, a major figure in British art

-	the article should contain a brief mention in the section titled 'Jack the Ripper' that there are several claims, with a link to the article Jack the Ripper suspects and hidden text pointing editors planning any further expansion to that page

-	all the text in the current 'Jack the Ripper' section following the second paragraph ending with 'his accomplice' should be merged into Jack the Ripper suspects.

What do others think? Masato.harada (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes to this. At this point Sickert may be better known to the general public for being framed (mainly by fiction writers) as Jack the Ripper than for being an important British artist, so we need to keep a line or two to address this, but the current level of detail seems unwarranted. The recent bit about the alleged Blanche painting is especially silly. According to a source cited, the title of the painting Portrait of Walter Sickert as Jack the Ripper is the invention of the painting's owner, Johann Naldi, who has just published a book about it. From the bit of face seen in the painting the man could just as well be Patrick Macnee, Ian McKellen, Norman Wisdom, Ken Dodd, Matt Smith, or somebody remotely similar. Even if we accept that the painting is by Blanche (uncertain), and that it depicts Sickert (speculative), this is evidence of what?? The spamming of this material by SPAs here and in Jack the Ripper suspects and in Jack the Ripper in fiction and in Patricia Cornwell looks to me like a publicity campaign. Ewulp (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Masato.harada (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Walter Sickert


text:
Special Region of Yogyakarta

The Special Region of Yogyakarta is a province-level special region of Indonesia in southern Java. It is a semi-enclave that is surrounded by on the landward side by Central Java Province to the west, north, and east, but has a long coastline on the Indian Ocean to the south.

Co-ruled by the Yogyakarta Sultanate and the Duchy of Pakualaman, the region is the only officially recognized diarchy within the government of Indonesia. The city of Yogyakarta is a popular tourist destination and cultural center of the region. The Yogyakarta Sultanate was established in 1755 and provided unwavering support for Indonesia's independence during the Indonesian National Revolution (1945–1949). As a first-level division in Indonesia, Yogyakarta is governed by Sultan Hamengkubuwono X as the governor and Duke Paku Alam X as the vice governor. With a land area of just 3,170.65 km2, it is the second-smallest province-level entity of Indonesia after Jakarta.

History
In Javanese, it is pronounced, and named after the city of Ayodhya in Javanese-Hindu mythology. The Dutch name of the Special Region is Djokjakarta.

The Sultanate has existed in various forms through prehistory and survived through the rule of the Dutch and the 1942 invasion of the Dutch East Indies by the Japanese Empire. In August 1945 Indonesia's first president, Sukarno proclaimed the independence of the Indonesian Republic, and by September of that year, Sultan Hamengkubuwono IX and Duke Sri Paku Alam VIII had sent letters to Sukarno expressing their support for the newly born nation of Indonesia, in which they acknowledged the Yogyakarta Sultanate as part of the Indonesian Republic. The Sunanate of Surakarta did the same, and both of the Javanese kingdoms were awarded special status as special regions within the Indonesian Republic. However, due to a leftist anti-royalist uprising in Surakarta, the Sunanate of Surakarta lost its special administrative status in 1946 and was absorbed into the province of Central Java.

Yogyakarta's overwhelming support and the Sultan's patriotism were essential in the Indonesian struggle for independence during the Indonesian National Revolution (1945–1949). The city of Yogyakarta became the capital of the Indonesian Republic from January 1946 to December 1948 after the fall of Jakarta to the Dutch. Later, the Dutch also invaded Yogyakarta causing the Indonesian Republic's capital to be transferred again to Bukittinggi in West Sumatra on 19 December 1948. In return for Yogyakarta's support, the declaration of Special Authority over Yogyakarta was granted in full in 1950 and Yogyakarta was given the status of a Special Administrative Region, making Yogyakarta the only region headed by a monarchy in Indonesia.

The Special Region was struck by a 6.3-magnitude earthquake on 27 May 2006, killing 5,782 people, injuring approximately 36,000, and leaving 600,000 people homeless. The region of Bantul suffered the most damage and deaths.

Geography
The Special Region is located near the southern coast of Java, surrounded on three sides by the province of Central Java, and with the Indian Ocean on the south side. The population at the 2010 Census was 3,457,491 people, which then increased to 3,668,719 at the 2020 Census; the official estimate for mid-2023 was 3,736,489 (comprising 1,849,540 males and 1,886,950 females). It has an area of 3,170.65 km2, making it the second-smallest area of the provinces in Indonesia, after the Jakarta Capital Region. Along with surrounding areas in Central Java, it has some of the highest population densities of Java.

Mount Merapi is located to the immediate north of the city of Yogyakarta and Sleman Regency. It is the most active volcano in Indonesia and has erupted regularly since 1548. It last erupted in October–November 2010, killing and injuring many people and temporarily displacing approximately 100,000 residents.

Geo-heritage sites
Indonesia has several geo-heritage sites in the Yogyakarta Special Region. It has been declared by the Geological Agency of the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources. The sites consist of nine sites: Eocene limestone in Gamping (Sleman Regency), pillow lava in Berbah (Sleman), pre-historic volcanic sediment in Candi Ijo, Prambanan (Sleman), dunes in Parangtritis Beach (Bantul Regency), Kiskendo cave, and former manganese mining site in Kleripan (Kulonprogo regency), the prehistoric volcano in Nglanggeran (Gunungkidul regency), Wediombo-Siung beaches (Gunungkidul) and Bioturbasi site in Kalingalang (Gunungkidul). The most unusual one is pillow lava in Berbah (Sleman) which is a big, rough black rock that lies on the bank of the narrow Dengkeng River. The prehistoric volcano in Nglanggeran (Gunungkidul Regency) has already been developed as a tourist destination.

Governor and legislature
According to Act No. 22 of 1948 (which is also the basis of Act No. 3 of 1950 on the formation of DIY), the Head and Vice Head of the Special Region are appointed by the president from the descendants of the ruling family in the region before Indonesian independence with the conditions of "skill, honesty, and loyalty, and keeping in mind the customs of the area." Thus, the Head of the Special Region, until 1988, was automatically held by the reigning Sultan of Yogyakarta, and the Vice Head of the Special Region, until 1998, was automatically held by Prince Paku Alam who was on the throne. The nomenclature of the Governor and Vice Governor of the Special Region has only been used since 1999 with the issuance of Act No. 22 of 1999. Since 2012, the mechanism for filling the positions of Governor and Vice Governor of DIY is regulated by Act No. 13 of 2012 on the Uniqueness of the Special Region of Yogyakarta.

The province has a regional legislature, the Special Region of Yogyakarta Regional House of Representatives, which as of the 2024 election has 55 members. The largest party in the legislature is the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle.

Administrative divisions
The Special Region of Yogyakarta (provincial level) is subdivided into four regencies (kabupaten) and one city (kota), and divided further into districts (kapanewon or kemantren in the city of Yogyakarta) and villages (rural kalurahan or urban kelurahan, doublet); these are listed below, with their areas and their population at the 2000, 2010 and 2020 Censuses, with their present estimates, as of mid-2023.

The Special Region forms one of Indonesia's 84 national electoral districts to elect members to the People's Representative Council. The Yogyakarta S.R. Electoral District consists of all of the 4 regencies in the province, together with the city of Yogyakarta, and elects 8 members to the People's Representative Council.

Language
Aside from the Indonesian language, the Javanese language is also designated as the official language of the Special Region of Yogyakarta under Yogyakarta Special Region Regulation Number 2 of 2021.

Religion
The majority of the population is Muslim, which is 92.94%, the rest are Catholic Christians 4.45%, then Protestant Christians 2.42%, Buddhists 0.08%, Hindus 0.09%, Confucianism and others 0.02%.

Transport
Yogyakarta is served by Adisutjipto International Airport and Yogyakarta International Airport, the latter being opened for minimum operations in late April 2019 and fully operational starting late March 2020. There are two main railway stations: Lempuyangan Station and Yogyakarta railway station.

Yogyakarta is considered one of the major hubs that link the west–east main railway route in Java island. Yogyakarta Station is the main train station located in the center, and Lempuyangan Station is the second train station in the city. The two stations have their schedule to and from other cities on Java island. The Prambanan Express commuter rail service operates west of Yogyakarta Station across Kulonprogo Regency to Purworejo, and KAI Commuter Yogyakarta Line electric commuter rail system operates from east of the station to Surakarta. To the south, in the Bantul region, is the Giwangan bus station, one of the largest bus stations in Indonesia. The Yogyakarta metropolitan centre is surrounded by a ring road.

In 2008, the government of the Special Region of Yogyakarta launched a bus rapid transit system, the Trans Jogja, which connects places in and around Yogyakarta City, including the airport and the Prambanan temple. Today, Trans Jogja has reached other points in the south side of the city.

Education
Yogyakarta is home to more than 100 institutions of higher education in Indonesia, the highest number of higher education institutions of any province in Indonesia. Hence, Yogyakarta earned its nickname "Kota Pelajar" (The City of Students).

Yogyakarta is the home of the first established state university in Indonesia, the Gadjah Mada University.

The Special Region is also the home of the first established private university in Indonesia, the Islamic University of Indonesia, which was founded in 1945. The Indonesia Institute of Arts, the first-established university in fine arts, is also in the region. Other large universities include Yogyakarta State University, Sunan Kalijaga State Islamic University, Sanata Dharma University, Muhammadiyah University of Yogyakarta, and the University of Atma Jaya Yogyakarta.

Sister relationships
Yogyakarta Special Region has signed a sister province relationship or friendly ties agreement with the region/state:

 * 🇯🇵 Kyoto Prefecture, Japan
 * 🇺🇸 State of California, United States
 * 🇰🇷 Gyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea
 * 🇦🇹 Tyrol, Austria
 * 🇹🇭 Chiang Mai Province, Thailand

title: Special Region of Yogyakarta


text:
Sachsenhausen (disambiguation)

Sachsenhausen may refer to several places in Germany:

 * Sachsenhausen (Frankfurt am Main), a city district of Frankfurt am Main, Hesse
 * Sachsenhausen (Oranienburg), a city district of Oranienburg, Brandenburg
 * Sachsenhausen concentration camp, a detention and extermination facility (1936–1945) in Oranienburg, Brandenburg
 * Sachsenhausen (Thuringia), a municipality in the Weimarer Land, Thuringia
 * Sachsenhausen (Waldeck), a city district of Waldeck, Hesse

Sachsenhausen may also refer to:

 * Sachsenhausen, the German name for Săsăuş village, Chirpăr Commune, Sibiu County, Romania

title: Sachsenhausen (disambiguation)