text:
Sussex Archaeological Society

The Sussex Archaeological Society is an organisation dedicated to researching and preserving the history and archaeology of the English counties of East Sussex and West Sussex. It manages six historic sites, including Lewes Castle and Fishbourne Roman Palace.

History
The discovery in 1845 of remains of Lewes Priory during the construction of the Brighton, Lewes and Hastings Railway sparked interest in the county's history and in the formation of an archaeological society. On 18 June 1846 a meeting was convened by Mark Antony Lower, William Henry Blaauw and William Figg at County Hall in Lewes at which the Sussex Archaeological Society was formally established.

In 1864 the Society appointed its first curator and librarian, and in 1866 the first museum catalogue was compiled. Having rented space in Castle Lodge, the Society later acquired Barbican House, which continues to house its museum and library.

Activities
The Sussex Archaeological Society organises excavations, talks and conferences on the archaeology and history of Sussex and offers research facilities at its library. Its chief executive is currently Andrew Edwards.

As well as supervising excavations in Sussex, it also publishes the Sussex Archaeological Collections and an annual report, and administers the Long Man of Wilmington. It manages six historic properties and museums, which are open to the public:

 * Fishbourne Roman Palace
 * Lewes Castle and Barbican House Museum
 * Anne of Cleves House, Lewes
 * Michelham Priory
 * Marlipins Museum, Shoreham-By-Sea
 * The Priest House, West Hoathly

In 2006 the Society began an archeological investigation in the Tide Mills area, which, according to the Newhaven Local & Maritime Museum, would include not only the tide mill but also a record of the entire East Beach site, comprising the mills, railway station, nurses home, Chailey Heritage Marine Hospital, Newhaven Seaplane Base, holiday homes and the Newhaven Marconi Radio Station.

In 2020 the society received a £250,000 grant from the National Lottery Heritage Fund to cover costs during the Covid-19 pandemic. It also received £323,800 from the British government's Culture Recovery Fund in 2021.

Notable members
• William Henry Blaauw, antiquarian and historian

• George Slade Butler, lawyer and antiquarian

• Garth Christian, journalist and writer

• John George Dodson, politician

• Peter Ladson Drewett, archaeologist and author

• Walter Hindes Godfrey, architect and historian

• Henry Andrade Harben, barrister and politician

• James Henry Hurdis, artist

• Philip Mainwaring Johnston, architect and historian

• Mark Antony Lower, historian and teacher

• John Manley, archaeologist and author

• Katherine Maud Elizabeth Murray, biographer and educationalist

• Rev. Frederick Spurrell, clergyman and archaeologist

• Mark Aloysius Tierney, historian

• Rev. Charles Watts Whistler, clergyman and writer

• Lewis Pinhorn Wood, artist

Publications
The Society has published an official journal, Sussex Archaeological Collections, annually since 1848 with a few gaps. The current editor is Jaime Kaminski.

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

title: Sussex Archaeological Society


text:
Talk:Insult

Proposed merger from Comeback (return insult)
We have problems with tone and reliability of references over at Comeback (return insult), and neither that article nor this one are overly long. What would people say to merging that article into this one? —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I made the article Comeback (return insult) because I first thought that wikipedia does not have an article like this. I don't really know anything about merging, but when we actually do it with this article, do you mean just to put the article into sections? 987li (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merging means that we would take the content that we can use from the Comeback article and put it into this one somewhere, then redirect the comeback article here so that readers are sent here automatically. Have a look at WP:MERGE for details on what this entails. I'm afraid that when we merge we should probably trim out content referenced to unreliable sources such as Yahoo Answers, though. (Not to say that their content is false, just that it doesn't pass Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources, which are fairly strict.) Let me know if you have more questions, and I'll do my best to answer. Regards —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Support merge - Yahoo answers is not a reliable source and can't be used for references. Consequently, there's actually very little at the article that can be merged here. Most of it is poorly written original research. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, now the only way to have the page not get deleted is to find a source that isn't on Yahoo answers (which most of them are to ask about how to create a comeback) or that shows examples of witty and clever comebacks, but now sources must be showing what exactly a comeback is, which very few websites have. 987li (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Really you should be looking at academic sources, for which a normal web search isn't going to be very useful. Have a look at this Google Books search and this Google Scholar search for a start. The Scholar results are pretty good, but it looks like most of the Books results are guides to creating comebacks rather than scholarly works. We could use those "how-to" books for a couple of examples, possibly, but it's not the main thing we should be using. One example I did find from Google Books was this one: . There are more if you look on Scholar. Best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

When are we going to merge it?987li (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Merge done. There was already more information on comeback in this article than in the comeback stub.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  18:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Technical meaning

 * "Insult" is used in technical and scientific writing to refer to harm inflicted by a specific mechanism, e.g., chemical insult, radiological insult, fatigue insult, and the like. In most cases the insult depends on exposure intensity, temperature, time, and protection (e.g., shielding, distance from source).

Removed form the article. It there a chance to write something encycklopedic (with proper refernces) on the technical usage of the term? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverse situation
It there a term for when damning commentary is really complimentary? I'm asking specifically with regard to this: —Pawyilee (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Pawyilee@undefined "Praising with faint damns" All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC).

Redirects

 * Flout, Flouts, Flouted and Flouting

any better target? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC).

Schwarzkopf quote
This was deleted. It was widely seen in American media (and probably elsewhere), and it is hard to imagine a more biting (and apt) repartee of military and political incompetence by an enemy. We are discussing a military rout that anyone should have seen coming. It was completely avoidable: Saddam Hussein had every opportunity to evacuate Kuwait, and anyone who did not see the enemy buildup along the border and near the shore as sure to win, and that Saddam Hussein had no meaningful allies and no rational defense of holding onto Kuwait. There was no sneak attack after an enemy giving assurances that none was forthcoming.

As General Norman Schwarzkopf described Saddam Hussein as an opponent: "As far as saying whether Saddam Hussein is a great military strategist, he is neither a strategist, nor is he schooled in the operational arts, nor is he a tactician, nor is he a general, nor is he a soldier. Other than that he is a great military man; I want you to know that."

Basically, Saddam Hussein did none of what one would expect of a competent senior officer, who might even specialize in one of those areas at the expense of others. It is hard to see this insult topped in relevance and accuracy. If there should be a military disaster bigger in scale as a failure that gets a similar set of causes and no obvious necessity for the defeat or inevitability of such, then that insult could supplant this one. There have been plenty of military blunders in the past. Napoleon and even Hitler had strokes of genius as well as catastrophic choices made in desperation. I am not going to fault the losing side for losing to overwhelming force. (The quote that I remember faulted Saddam Hussein as a politician and a statesman, too, so that would be better if available.

The analysis is obvious: Saddam Hussein failed at every level of relevance in a military activity in an effort that had no justification as an objective.

Improvement is always an objective at Wikipedia, and nobody expects it to be static. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbrower2a (talk • contribs)

I am sorry you are upset that I reverted your contribution here. As I said in my edit summary. we do not need real life examples. If we start listing real life examples people will start adding all their favorite quotes from real life and movies and the article will become bloated. Furthermore, I simply do not see this example as adding to the understanding of what an insult is. Your justification above seems to be based on Saddam Hussein had it coming and Schwarzkopf nailed it. Perhaps so, but that does not mean it goes here. It is already listed at Saddam Hussein which is where it does belong. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Feelings? No. One of a kind, and not so much to be added to as replaced when a better example appears. This one at least involves two notable figures in history. If anyone's feelings were hurt it would have been those of Saddam Hussein at the time. My feelings? I have no personal stake in the argument. A real insult is more appropriate than one from fictional literature, and one involving two highly-notable characters in a historical context is far better than some insult involving non-notable persons.Pbrower2a (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Formal section confusing.
Does anyone know what this means? “ The flyting was a formalized sequence of literary insults: invective or flyting, the literary equivalent of the spell-binding curse, uses similar incantatory devices for opposite reasons”.Can we find a way to simplify or replace this?Any help would be appreciated. Coolman2932 (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I replaced the whole section with forms of insults for entertainment. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I personally think your version of the replaced section is better, good job! Coolman2932 (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Jocular Exchange and Transivist Quarrel?
What does Jocular Exchange and transivist quarrel even mean?I’d delete that section if I knew what to replace it with.Any help would be appreciated. Coolman2932 (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Added History
I have added a History to the text because I think it may add a needed level of detail both for examples of Insults and information about the history of them. Feel free to edit/add more because I think there is likely much more room for more historical examples. - TragicPower — Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

 * I also added "Unintentional Insults" before for more examples. TragicPower (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Insult


text:
Talk:Double-entry bookkeeping

This article has become way to complicated
New discussion should be at the end of a talk page, not the beginning. I have moved it to the end. Greensburger (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Anybody who doesn't know the different between "to" and "too" must be kept far away from anything having to do with debits and credits. They can't be trusted with "two," let alone with the question of which direction the two might be headed.

 * I have some minor quibbles with the article, but overall it is measured, trustworthy, and accurate. My congratulations to whoever wrote it.

 * Complexity is not one of its shortcomings.

 * David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This article has become way to complicated
Double entry bookkeeping is not complicated. Do you want to explain a process or do you want to explain double entry and how it works. This article should be easy to read for the non accountant, but I feel it has become too technical using words non financial people would not understand. What you think? NilssonDenver (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree
It needs to fit with the more general Bookkeeping page. Some initial thoughts on improvements might include :

I don't think the "traditional Method" is very common. I know it doesn't form part of the UK Accounting Institute's syllabus (ICAEW). It might be better to have this as a seperate article or something to make the main double entry article more concise.

The accounting equation should include also include something about : Opening Equity + (income/gains) - (expenditure/losses) = Closing equity. A lot of book keeping is about income and expenditure. For non accountants these are also easier concepts to understand than assets/liabilities/equity. There could be a better explanation about how double entry relates to income and expenditure.

I'd shorten the books of prime entry section, so it dealt with one or two examples of debits and credits. The detail of each book prime entry book, could then be kept seperately.

I think it would be helpful to explain a little about Dr/Cr being opposite sides of the equation, which means when presenting them they always have oppposite mathematical signs (one positive, one negative).

If i have some time, i might try to do a major edit of this. I've not done such a thing before. I understand i should put it on my own pages first so it can be viewed / commented. I think it makes sense that all the information included should be somewhere on wikipedia - so i wouldn't delete something unless it was duplicated. Could someone direct me to any other guidance on how to go about doing this?

(TomEspley (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC))

 * If you wish to create a page in user space it's just like any other page - in this case you would create User:TomEspley/Double-entry bookkeeping system, then copy the entire article from the article to the new page. I would also add at the top of the existing article - a Template:under construction - use the comment field to explain what is happening. Remember to make a note the date of the version you are starting on, when it become time to copy and paste back the revised article, you will first have to check on what subsequent edits were made while you have been working on the user copy, and if those edits need to be incorporated into the article.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The content of this article is largely redundant with Debits and credits
The Debits and credits article is in much better shape as well. Cfn137 (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Move "Traditional Method" to a separate article?
Tom's remark that the "Traditional Method" is not very common and does not form part of the UK Accounting Institute's syllabus (ICAEW) suggests that either:
 * 1. the Traditional Method was once widely used, but is now obsolete, or
 * 2. the Traditional Method was never widely used and was proposed in a book years ago that is now mostly forgotten.

The reference cited for the Traditional Method was printed in India, which suggests that maybe it was not widely used outside of India. If it was never widely used, then a one sentence historical footnote is all it merits in Wikipedia. There have been many thousands of failed proposals that are not worth mentioning. If it was once widely used, still taught in a few places such as India, but is now largely forgotten elsewhere, then I agree with Tom's suggestion that the Traditional Method should be briefly described in a new separate article. Greensburger (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the only difference between the two methods are the rules used to determine the effects of a debit or credit in a given account. Assets are real accounts, liabilities and capital accounts are personal accounts, and expense and income accounts are nominal accounts. Furthermore, there is an assumption that nominal accounts are closed at the end of an accounting cycle by transfer to the owners' capital accounts. I don't think the "traditional approach" is either obsolete or forgotten, because there is no need to choose one system over the other. Cfn137 (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

trebit
How does that work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.200.117 (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

a CLEAR AID to remember the normal balance of accounts
At my college at least, everyone was taught a simple mnemonic for remembering the normal balance of accounts.

You remember it as aid and clear. This is for proprietorships, so they stand for assets, drawings and expenses on the Dr. side and capital, liabilities and revenue on the revenue side. It sounds like it's kind of dumb and not so intuitive that it'll help you remember, but it was surprisingly effective in helping people remember the normal balance of these elements, as well as what were the elements in a sole proprietorship to begin with. The way the "American Approach" was presented in this article in which each element must be memorized on its own is not how I've ever seen it. Everyone at my school seemed to learn the accounts in the context of grouping them together, learning the normal balance of each account and then remembering that posting to the normal side of an account increases it. That is, all accounts with a normal debit balance (assets, drawings and expenses) are increased by debits, while those with credit balances are increased by credits.

However, I don't know how well-known this or widespread this learning method is, and thus decided to bring it up in the talk page to get a feel for its notability and whether it should be included.

Gn341ram (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I think a useful mnemonic for normal balances would be worthy of inclusion, if there is a verifiable source. At least, that's my opinion, I'm not aware of any Wikipedia standards for such things. Is this printed in a textbook you could reference? Ivanvector (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 * It seems to show up on edu websites in various forms, but I can't really find a real academic source on it. My old accounting textbooks don't mention it. One power point presentation references this book: http://www.amazon.com/Financial-Accounting-9th-Walter-Harrison/dp/0132751127 - in their version they cite the mnemonic as Common Stock and Capital instead of just capital and Revenues and Retained Earnings instead of just revenues. However, since I don't own a copy of that text book to verify, but the website that cited it was an edu website, is it still citable? Still another problem with this source is that it is only a power point slide and does not actually contain the words (or spelling of) "Aid / Clear." A google search shows that the mnemonic is known in very different parts of the country, but there aren't that many results. It may have something to do with not knowing exactly what to search for. So perhaps this should have to remain off wikipedia for the time being. I did, however, come across the quite amusing acronym of "DEAD" meaning "Debits increase Expenses, Assets and Drawings." On a forum, one teacher said she tells her students that the Balance Sheet is where you get your ALE (Assets = Liabilities + Equity). In fact, there seems to be so many mnemonics, not one of them in particular is noteworthy.

Gn341ram (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 * I'd have to agree with you then. If there were one or a few mnemonics that were definitely taught in a broad range of accounting schools, I'd say include them, but it does seem like there are lots and lots that only a handful of people know from anecdotes. Personally I was never taught one. Some of these are fun though! Ivanvector (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

What you've got, and where it comes from
Would it be correct to say that double entry bookkeeping not only records what you've got (as in simple bookkeeping), but also where it comes from? To me, struggling to get my head around DEB, this makes it understandable. The article introduction seems to describe accounting tricks and mechanics rather than what DEB is fundamentally all about - being able to record where the money has come from. I got this idea from watching a 3 minute video Basic Principles Of Double Entry Bookkeeping on YouTube here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-HK4qSz6cA 92.29.118.69 (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The video is a pretty simplistic explanation, but it is correct at a high level for assets and liabilities/equity. The analogy starts to fall apart when you get into income and expenses, and closing entries. You might find the article on debits and credits useful. Ivanvector (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Who invented it?
This article "So, Who Invented Double Entry Bookkeeping? Luca Pacioli or Benedikt Kotruljević?" suggests an earlier inventor - is it correct? If so perhaps one could update the article? I also recall a story about the Ummayyad dynasty's accounts using double entry book-keeping, apparently a form of 'secret knowledge'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgrazebrook (talk • contribs) 12:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Croatian invention
whether or not one considers the "invention" of double-entry bookkeeping to have occurred in ancient Muslim cultures ("an accounting system that applied a form of double-entry bookkeeping") or to have originated in Florence or Genoa in medieval times, there is no evidence or indication in the article that double-entry bookkeeping was invented in Croatia, only that Cotrugli was (one of) the first to document the system which was already in use throughout the region at the time. Please do not add Category:Croatian inventions back to this article as it is a miscategorization. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Double-entry bookkeeping system. 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/20110818055709/http://acct.tamu.edu/smith/ethics/pacioli.htm to http://acct.tamu.edu/smith/ethics/pacioli.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Were we all wrong?
It seems that for centuries historians dealing with economy got it totally wrong!

According to the speculations of Mr Parker double entry bookkeeping was already flawlessly up and running in the early-medieval Middle East. What all this fuss about Pacioli, then? Magnagr (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

This part is all wrong. For god's sake, get a bookkeeper or an accountant to fix it. You must know someone.
"In a normally credited account (an asset account, as opposed to a liability or equity account), debit to an account is an decrease in the total quantity of money or financial value, and a credit is a increase in that amount or value; these meanings reverse themselves when the account is normally debited. For example, a sale of $100 might require four entries: a $100 credit to an account called "Cash", which is an asset; a $100 debit to an account called "Revenue", which is a type of equity account and thus increases when it's debited; a $85 credit to the equity account "Revenue", which decreases it; and a $85 debit to Cost of Goods Sold, which is an expense account, which is a type of equity account. "

1) An asset account has a debit normal balance ... it is normally debited, not normally credited.

2) An asset account is increased by a debit, not by a credit.

3) If you sell something for $100 cash, the Cash account would be debited $100. Asset accounts are increased with debits, not credits.

4) A revenue account is increased by a credit, not by a debit. If you earn $100 revenue by selling something, you would credit a revenue account $100.

5) "Equity" is not increased when it is debited; it is increased when it is credited.  Besides, an expense account has a different normal balance (debit) than does equity (credit).  So you shouldn't treat an expense as if it is equity.

6) If you sell something for $100, you would increase revenue by $100. Okay.  But why would you also try to decrease revenue by $85????  How did you lose revenue by selling that item for $100????  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:9006:7A97:20B5:FB81:C4C9:3FB3 (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of an oversimplified entry but it is correct. Normally you would debit cost of goods sold against a credit to an inventory asset, not revenue. But equity accounts are not expense accounts, revenue is not an asset, and ... yeah you're right, this is all kinds of bad. If nobody has already I'll take a look. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Books of Accounts: ambiguous to wrong
In what I've learned in the United States, a "nominal ledger account" is a temporary account (whose balance is zeroed-out at the end of the year), as opposed to a real ledger account, which is a permanent account (whose balance is carried over into next year). When using that sense of "nominal ledger account", much of the Books of Accounts section is wrong. For example, it is not only nominal ledger accounts that can be used in double-entry bookkeeping, so can real ledger accounts.

In fact, much of the Books of Accounts section is wrong even using the Traditional/British approach discussed in this very same Wikipedia article, just a bit above the section in question. The Traditional/British approach says there are 3 types of accounts: real, personal ,and nominal. And all 3 of those types can be used in double-entry bookkeeping. From the Traditional/British approach section ...

"Transactions are entered in the books of accounts by applying the following golden rules of accounting: 1. Real account: Debit what comes in and credit what goes out. 2. Personal account: Debit the receiver and credit the giver. 3. Nominal account: Debit all expenses & losses and credit all incomes & gains[ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:9006:7A97:8104:58C7:E201:96BC (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2020

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Double-entry bookkeeping system → Double-entry bookkeeping – Reverse the redirect, per WP:CONCISE. 94.21.238.148 (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request. — Nnadigoodluck 🇳🇬 14:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The WP:FIRSTSENTENCE starts "Double-entry bookkeeping" (not ..."system") and there really is no need to say "system" everywhere. I changed The first sentence at single-entry bookkeeping to follow suit, but it just seems logical to prefer the shorter title. We don't have bookkeeping system or or Category:Bookkeeping systems for example, and Momentum accounting and triple-entry bookkeeping (to which redirects) manages without "system". We do have  but it targets Accounting software. 94.21.238.148 (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Support - sensible change and a modest improvement. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: A very sensible suggestion, per the nominator and Ivanvector. See also the similar discussion at Talk:Single-entry bookkeeping system, which ideally should be merged with this one. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As nom, I'd support the discussions being merged: I couldn't do that when listing them as technical requests. I guess it would require User:Ivanvector's consent as he has not commented at the other one. 94.21.238.148 (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Support. Clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2020 (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.

Ancient India double entry
This sentence is not accurate: ''The Italian system has similarties with the older Indian "Jama–Nama" system which had debits and credits in a reverse order. B. M. Lall Nigam claims that the Italian merchants likely learned the method from their interaction with ancient Indian merchants from the sea trade.[3]'' When was that influence? Roman, medieval, modern? In the book quoted is written:  "One unsubstantited is that double entry originated in India prior to Greek and Roman times in the form of the Bahi Khata system of bookkeeping still practised in most parts of India among the unincorporated entreprise. Indian traders took this system to Italy and from there double entry spread throughout Europe.

What is a Drawing account?
Section Debits and credits refers twice to a Drawing account without ever giving a definition. --RedViking20200702 (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a record of withdrawals, like if the owner takes money out of the business accounts for personal use. I added a wikilink to 'Withdrawal' in the article. MrOllie (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

History section
This section misinterprets what references say. The claim that "Double-entry bookkeeping was firstly pioneered by the Romans and in the Jewish community of the early-medieval Middle East." is wrong. Here is source []. Parker does not say that Jewish community pioneered double entry bookkeeping. Rather what he says is that Islamic societies had sophisticated accounting system and it possibly influence Italians, trough Jewish intermediates, and contributed to development of Double-entry bookkeeping. Scorgie in another article [] elaborated on this and states that "The evidence  presented  by  Goitein  [1966a]  revealed  that  Medieval  Jewish  merchants  and  bankers  in  Old  Cairo  made  up  accounts  which  had   a  bilateral  form  and  that  their  use   of  this  form   predated  that  of  the  Italians  and  other  Europeans. " However he says that "However  the  evidence  accumulated  to  date  does  not  permit  a  case  to  be made  which  answers  Parker's  Question,    i.e.,  is  it  possible  to  assert  that  accounting  methods  in  the  Moslem  Empire  were  directly  influential  in  the  development  of  accounting  in  Italy? ".(p6)

Finally Christopher Nobes wrote the following article [], where he criticized earlier research and states that "Finally, there  is  still  no  evidence  that  double  entry  was first developed outside Italy. At present, it still seems that it was Italians  who  were  the  authors  of  the  earliest  surviving  records kept  as  full  double-entry  systems;  Italians  who  wrote  the  earliest surviving descriptions of double entry; and, above all, it is insets of Italian records that the gradual evolution of the elements of  double  entry,  towards  a  full  system,  can  be  seen  in  the  13th and 14th centuries."(p6)

As such I am gonna remove those claims, as they are unsupported, and mainstream sources still regard Italians as Inventors.

Another problem is the claim that "However, the double-entry accounting method was said to be developed independently earlier in Korea during the Goryeo dynasty (918–1392) when Kaesong was a center of trade and industry at that time. The Four-element bookkeeping system was said to originate in the 11th or 12th century". I've found the following article which elaborates on it []. This is up-to-date article published in academic journal. On page 107 they say that while some authors state that Korean method date back to 11th to 13th century there is no direct evidence for it. The earliest evidence is from 1780s. DMKR2005 (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Need explanation of WHY double entry bookkeeping was invented
There's nothing on this page on why double entry bookkeeping was even invented, it just assumes the reader knows the purpose for it. It also has no comparison with past systems prior to it. We don't need a massive discussion discussing everyone who claims to have come up with it. Ergzay (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Double-entry bookkeeping


text:
Saturday Night (musical)

Saturday Night is a 1955 musical with music and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim, and a book by Julius J. Epstein, based on the play, Front Porch in Flatbush, written by Epstein and his brother Philip.

The first professional musical written by Stephen Sondheim, Saturday Night was intended to open on Broadway in 1955; however, after the sudden death of its lead producer, the show was shelved. Sondheim then went on to make his professional premiere in 1957, as the lyricist for West Side Story.

Following a student production, Saturday Night was staged at the Bridewell Theatre, London in 1997 and then in Chicago in 1999 and Off-Broadway in 2000. The musical also ran in the West End in 2009.

Background
Saturday Night was scheduled to open in the 1954-55 Broadway season. Announcements of the production appeared in The New York Times, and auditions were held in mid-1955, following some revisions to the music brought about by backers' auditions. In the summer of 1955, it appeared that Saturday Night would be Sondheim's musical debut on Broadway that fall. However, in August 1955, lead producer Lemuel Ayers died, leaving the production with little morale and even less cash. The production was scrapped, and the musical material shelved.

The show nearly made it to Broadway in 1960, after Jule Styne decided to revive it after working with Sondheim on Gypsy. However, during the audition process, Sondheim halted proceedings due to feeling that his compositional level had outstripped what he had written six years previously. Although a handful of songs from the musical have appeared in revues and on Sondheim compilation albums, the score as a whole went unperformed until 1997.

Productions
The Stephen Sondheim Society supported the first ever fully staged performance of the musical at the University of Birmingham, having been given permission to stage the show by Sondheim himself. The production was overseen by Professor Stephen Banfield who, also with permission from Sondheim, orchestrated the show for full band from the existing piano scores. Unfortunately, Sondheim was unable to attend but sent his best wishes to all involved. It was then repeated, in a concert version, the following year at the Bridewell Theatre, London, with Sondheim in attendance. During the post-show Q & A session, one of the members of The Stephen Sondheim Society asked Mr. Sondheim if he would now allow the show to be performed publicly. He agreed to think about it having previously always said 'no!' and Carol Metcalfe, Artistic Director of The Bridewell Theatre, immediately volunteered to stage it. Directed by Carol Metcalfe and Clive Paget, Saturday Night opened at the Bridewell Theatre on December 17, 1997 and closed on January 24, 1998 after 38 performances. The leading role of Gene Gorman was played by Sam Newman. A cast recording was made, distributed by First Night (UK) and RCA Victor (US).

Following that production, the show had its US premiere with the Pegasus Players in Chicago. It opened at the O'Rourke Center for the Performing Arts, Truman College, Chicago, on May 19, 1999 and closed on July 18, 1999. Gary Griffin directed, with choreography by Marc Robin. Sondheim wrote two new song/scenes, "Delighted, I'm Sure" and "Montana Chem". The original book was edited by Sondheim, and there were new orchestrations by Jonathan Tunick. The copyright date for "Delighted, I'm Sure" is 1954 by Sondheim. The other songs have copyright dates from 1973 (Tribute show) to 1999 (Chicago production) and are all by music publishers.

The New York premiere was at the Off-Broadway Second Stage Theatre on February 17, 2000, where it ran until March 26, 2000, for 45 performances. The Second Stage production was directed and choreographed by Kathleen Marshall, and featured David Campbell (Gene), Lauren Ward (Helen), Natascia Diaz (Florence), Christopher Fitzgerald (Bobby), Andréa Burns (Celeste) & Clarke Thorell (Hank). This production won the Drama Desk Award for Outstanding Lyrics. A recording was made with this original New York cast, released on June 20, 2000 by Nonesuch (ASIN: B00004TG64).

When asked his reaction to seeing Saturday Night performed in New York after 40 years, Sondheim replied, "I don't have any emotional reaction to Saturday Night at all — except fondness. It's not bad stuff for a 23-year-old. There are some things that embarrass me so much in the lyrics — the missed accents, the obvious jokes. But I decided, Leave it. It's my baby pictures. You don't touch up a baby picture — you're a baby!"

Magnormos produced the Australasian premiere of Saturday Night in Melbourne in 2003, directed by the company's founder Aaron Joyner. It was first presented at Chapel Off Chapel, and then at the newly opened Federation Square, the first work of musical theatre performed in The Edge theatre. It had successful reviews and was a sell-out. In 2010 Saturday Night was the first musical in Magnormos' A Sondheim Triptych to celebrate the composer's 80th birthday, and it became the first musical theatre piece to perform in the Elisabeth Murdoch Hall, Melbourne Recital Centre.

Primavera Productions produced the first UK revival at the fringe Jermyn Street Theatre in London, running from February 10, 2009 through March 14, 2009; this was the UK premiere of the revised Off-Broadway score. The musical then opened in the West End on March 25, 2009 through April 11 at the Arts Theatre. Directed by Tom Littler, with Musical Direction by Tom Attwood, and the cast included Helena Blackman, David Ricardo-Pearce, David Botham, Charlie Cameron, Lee Drage, Lloyd Gorman, Joanna Hickman, Joanna Hollister, Kevin Millington, David Osmond, Nick Trumble and Harry Waller.

In October 2011 the Signature Theatre in Arlington County, Virginia presented a concert staging of Saturday Night in its MAX Theatre. The production, directed by Matthew Gardiner, starred Geoff Packard as Gene, Susan Derry as Helen, Eleasha Gamble as Florence/Dakota, William Beech as Bobby, and Tracy Lynn Olivera as Celeste.

In November 2014 the York Theatre Company (New York City) presented a concert staging of Saturday Night as part of its Musicals in Mufti series. The cast included Andrew Keenan-Bolger, Lindsay Mendez, and Ben Fankhauser.

Plot synopsis
In 1929 in Brooklyn, New York, middle-class bachelor friends are restless on several Saturday nights because they have no dates. Gene, who works in a menial position in a Wall Street brokerage, has dreams of the exciting society life to be found in Manhattan, while his friends are content to stay in the neighborhood. Gene meets Helen, who is crashing a party (as is Gene). He schemes to "get rich quick", but his plan backfires and he barely escapes jail.

Musical numbers
Note:From the Second Stage Production

Overture - Orchestra
 * Act I
 * "Saturday Night" - Ted, Artie, Ray, Dino
 * "Class" - Gene, Hank, Celeste, Bobby, Artie, Ted, Dino
 * "Delighted I'm Sure" - Celeste, Mildred, Hank, Bobby, Ted, Artie, Ray, Dino
 * "Love's a Bond" - Vocalist
 * "Isn't It?" - Helen
 * "In the Movies" - Ted, Artie, Ray, Dino, Hank, Celeste, Mildred
 * "Exhibit A" - Bobby
 * "A Moment With You" - Vocalist, Gene, Helen
 * "Saturday Night" (reprise) - Ted, Artie, Ray, Dino
 * Gracious Living Fantasy - Gene & The Gang
 * "Montana Chem" - Ted, Artie, Ray, Dino, Hank, Celeste
 * "So Many People" - Helen, Gene
 * "One Wonderful Day" - Celeste, Hank, Bobby, Mildred, Florence, Ted, Artie, Ray, Dino
 * Act II
 * Entr'acte - The Orchestra
 * "Saturday Night" (reprise) - Ted, Artie, Ray, Dino
 * "I Remember That" - Hank, Celeste
 * "Love's a Bond" Blues - Dakota Doran
 * "All for You" - Helen
 * "That Kind of a Neighborhood" - Hank, Celeste, Mildred, Florence, Bobby, Ted, Artie, Ray, Dino
 * "What More Do I Need?" - Gene, Helen, Hank, Celeste, Mildred, Florence, Bobby, Ted, Artie, Ray, Dino, Clune, Lieutenant
 * "One Wonderful Day" (reprise) - The Company

title: Saturday Night (musical)