text:
Talk:Amtrak

FRA Administrator on Amtrak BOD
I just updated the Board of Directors section to include the list of directors as documented on the Amtrak website. The previous edit included a bullet point for FRA administrator Sarah E. Feinberg, but the linked page doesn't mention anything about being an alternate on the board, nor anything about the Amtrak board at all so I removed it. Is there any documentation for this?

Additionally, this US Code section mentions 10 total board members: the President of Amtrak, the Secretary of Transportation, and 8 other appointees. So it would seem we are missing a listed member and yet the Amtrak page only lists 9 members. - Overturn 91 (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Railroad categories
Regarding this revert, Amtrak may be a railroad owner, but it is not a railroad by itself. For example Kyle Railroad is a railroad that is owned by a certain company with a different name. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Amtrak is absolutely a railroad. It owns tracks in several states, owns its own rolling stock, and perhaps most importantly hires its own engineers and conductors. Whether Amtrak should be in the various state categories is a different question. Those categories tend to be pretty broad. I tend to think that under our current practice it should. Although Amtrak neither owns nor leases track in Montana, for example, it runs trains there and employs people. In addition to being categorized, it's listed as a passenger carrier in List of Montana railroads. Mackensen (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

 * What Mackensen said. Amtrak is a self-operating railroad, not merely an owner that contracts others to operate on its tracks, nor a company that operates on others' tracks exclusively. They do operate over other railroads' lines, but that is as another railroad. And they operate on their own lines. They are a railroad themselves. oknazevad (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Amtrak IS a railroad, not a railway owner, king regards, M R T R A I N S 2 2 7 14:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change
— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC) -I (User Dscsd21) plan to add a section about how Amtrak is contributing to climate change, and how climate change is effecting Amtrak under the labor issues section of the article by 11/2/2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dscsd21 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Suggest change to Lead?
From

 * The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak (/ˈæmtræk/) (reporting marks AMTK, AMTZ), is the national passenger railroad company of the United States.

To

 * Amtrak (/ˈæmtræk/) (reporting marks AMTK, AMTZ), is the Trade name of the "National Railroad Passenger Company" of the United States.

Why

 * The subject of the article is Amtrak, and people know the corporation by the Trade Name.

How

 * I like any changes to be considered by other users before implementation; and I think input from others and the opinions and insights of others are important and part of the revision process..

Flibbertigibbets (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

 * The current phrasing is pretty standard when a company's legal name and trade name/branding are different. The company is the subject, not the name, which is how the proposed phrasing reads. It's better the way it is now. oknazevad (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

 * Thanks, that the kind of stuff I need to know before I make an edit.Flibbertigibbets (talk) Flibbertigibbets (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Canadian Pacific shareholding
With the April 2023 merger of Canadian Pacific into CPKC, presumably its shareholding in Amtrak was included. The most recent cite I could find was from 2015, so while the shareholding was probably included, until a reliable source can be found to confirm, suggest we just leave it as CP. Shuistur (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

1970s: The Rainbow Era
The previous version had several glaring inaccuracies about the Chicago termini which I've corrected in my edit:

JonRoma (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No trains were relocated from LaSalle St. Station. The only intercity trains remaining there on May 1, 1971 were those of the Rock Island, which did not join Amtrak.
 * Grand Central Station had been closed in 1969, so it was not a factor on Amtrak Day.
 * Randolph St. Station was a commuter-only station, and was unaffected by Amtrak's formation.
 * North Western Station (now Ogilvie) became commuter-only on Amtrak Day because none of the intercity trains using that station were made part of the Amtrak system map. There were thus no trains to relocate; they simply died.
 * Central Station's trains were not relocated to Union Station until the first departures on March 6, 1972. The routing, which is still used to this day, involves a tedious journey that includes a back-up move.

Relating to the redirect page of the Rail Passenger Service Act
Hello there, I would like to use this section of the talk page to inform anyone that is interested that I have just made changes to the page Rail Passenger Service Act in where I converted it from a redirect page to a normal article, as well as adding it to the Article rewrite category. The reasoning for these changes is because I am of the firm belief that the Rail Passenger Service Act would be better served with it's own standalone article rather than to redirecting to a brief summery on the Amtrak page. So if anyone is interested in either creating this article, or wish to revert it, please do so. I am just make making this announcement to both generate discussion on it and inform the people that would most care about the changes (as the last edit made to the redirect page was in 2011). The redirect link used on the page has been preserved in the "See also" category for currently existing information of the act. That is all for this announcement and thank you all for your time.

SonicDJM (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Strange sentence under History
At the beginning of the history section, one sentence reads "Nearly 42 million passengers used railways as primary transportation." Is this Per Year? In Total? Would someone mind clarifying? Hugtrain (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Amtrak


text:
Talk:Masaki Kobayashi

And time goes by, so swiftly now...
Odd how much my idea of what makes an acceptable entry has changed in the last two years: Here's a bit I cut myself, which I added two years ago. No word on whether the film Kwaidan--or its director--influenced the name given for Keyser Soze's lawyer in The Usual Suspects. ... Similar removals at John Sayles. ^_^ Koyaanis Qatsi 02:58 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In the reference I don't see anything about Kobayashi refusing to fight. It merely says he refused to become an officer. JC114.172.214.148 (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Machine translation
The portion of this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaki_Kobayashi#Provenance is a machine translation from Japanese and doesn't make much sense.

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

title: Talk:Masaki Kobayashi


text:
Ambulatory Patient Group

Ambulatory Patient Group (APG) is a classification system for outpatient services reimbursement developed for the American Medicare service by the Health Care Financing Administration. It classifies patients into nearly 300 pathology groups rather than the 14,000 of the International Classification of Diseases.

The APG system is similar to the diagnosis-related groups (DRG), which apply to inpatient care rendered by a hospital.

title: Ambulatory Patient Group


text: User talk:81.203.88.185

title: User talk:81.203.88.185


text:
APG

APG may refer to:

 * Aberdeen Proving Ground, a United States Army installation in Aberdeen, Maryland
 * Phillips Army Airfield (IATA code), the airfield of the above
 * Aboriginal Provisional Government, Indigenous Australian independence movement
 * Alkyl polyglycoside, a class of surfactants
 * Ambulatory Patient Group
 * André-Pierre Gignac (born 1985), French footballer
 * Android Privacy Guard, an implementation of Pretty Good Privacy for the Android operating system
 * Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, a collaboration of botanists, publishing classification systems of flowering plants
 * Annealed pyrolytic graphite, a thermally conductive form of synthetic graphite
 * Anterior Pituitary Gland, an endocrine gland
 * APG Airlines, a French airline based in Cannes.
 * APG (pension fund), a Netherlands-based pension fund established under the Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP
 * Arc Pair Grammar
 * Artist Placement Group, an art group founded in 1966.
 * Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering, the FATF-style regional body for the Asia and Pacific region
 * Aspley Guise railway station, from its National Rail code
 * Assists per game, in basketball
 * Associated petroleum gas
 * Association of Professional Genealogists
 * Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies
 * Austrian Power Grid, Austrian electric power transmission company
 * Automated Password Generator, a software generating password
 * Automatic platform gate, a safety facility preventing awaiting passenger falling from station platform to rail tracks
 * Philippines AirAsia (ICAO code)

title: APG


text:
User:Anakolouthon

anakolouthon.
maybe someday.

title: User:Anakolouthon


text:
User talk:Anakolouthon

Welcome here :-) -- Youssefsan
 * :-D thank you! -a

Congrats on your first article. :) It looks very good too. - Hephaestos 08:13 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anakolouthon


text:
Defender of the Faith (disambiguation)

Defender of the Faith (Latin: Fidei defensor, Fidei defensatrix; French: Défenseur de la Foi) is a phrase used as part of the full style of many English and later British monarchs and other monarchs and heads of state.

Defender of the Faith  or Defenders of the Faith may also refer to:

Arts and entertainment

 * Defenders of the Faith, a 1984 album by Judas Priest
 * Defender of the Faith (play), by Stuart Carolan
 * "Defender of the Faith", a short story by Philip Roth from the 1959 collection Goodbye, Columbus
 * Defenders of the Faith (Dungeons & Dragons), an optional rulebook for the game

Other uses

 * Defenders of the Faith (Puerto Rico), a Christian denomination
 * Ansar Dine (Arabic, 'defenders of the faith'), a militant Islamist group in Mali

title: Defender of the Faith (disambiguation)


text:
Honor system

An honor system, trust system or honesty system is a way of running a variety of endeavors based on trust, honor, and honesty.

The honor system is also a system granting freedom from customary surveillance (as to students or prisoners) with the understanding that those who are so freed will be bound by their honor to observe regulations (e.g. prison farms may be operated under the honor system), and will therefore not abuse the trust placed in them.

Education
The first honor system in America was penned by Thomas Jefferson at the College of William and Mary, Jefferson's alma mater. In some colleges, the honor system is used to administer tests unsupervised. Students are generally asked to sign an honor code statement that says they will not cheat or use unauthorized resources when taking the test. As an example, at Vanderbilt University students taking examinations are required to sign and include the following pledge: "On my honor as a student I have neither given nor received aid on this examination". Any student caught in violation of the Honor Code is referred to the Honor Council which investigates and determines the appropriate action, which can range from failing the course to expulsion from the university.

At the University of Virginia a student taking an examination is also required to sign a pledge not to give or receive aid and there is one penalty for transgression of the honor code, dismissal from the university. Texas A&M also has an Honor System which states, Aggies do not lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those who do. This is listed at the beginning of all tests. Any student that does not follow the code is remanded to the Honor council so they can determine the severity of the case and how the student should be punished or if expulsion is necessary. The students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill also maintain a student-run honor system. Students maintain the integrity of the university by pledging not to cheat, steal or lie. Unlike the University of Virginia, the honor system at Chapel Hill allows for different sanctions, ranging from probation to expulsion. A single-sanction Honor Code exists at the Virginia Military Institute, where a "drum out" ceremony is still carried out upon a cadet's dismissal.

Retail

Some supermarket chains allow customers to scan their own groceries with handheld barcode readers while placing them in their own carts (see self-checkout). While the system gives customers the ability to place groceries in their bags without paying, and customers can be randomly audited, participating supermarkets have reported that this experimental system has not increased the amount of shoplifting.

In some countries, farmers leave bags of produce beside the road outside their houses with prices affixed. Passers-by pay by leaving cash in a container. In Ireland, New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom this is called the honesty box system. In other countries, small unmanned stores are run, where customers are able to enter, obtain what they need, and pay the bill in a secure container.

Public health
During the COVID-19 pandemic, as many people have received their vaccines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidance that fully-vaccinated people no longer had to wear face masks. Many places relied on an honor system to trust that people who were not vaccinated continued to wear face masks.

Public transport
Various public transport systems are ungated and operate on an enforced honour system. Random inspections are made but there is no systematic means of ensuring that everyone has paid. If a Revenue protection inspector finds a person indeed lacks the proper ticket, the passenger gets a Penalty fare or some other legal consequence, which may even be arrest.

title: Honor system


text:
Chimney sweep

A chimney sweep is a person who inspects then clears soot and creosote from chimneys. The chimney uses the pressure difference caused by a hot column of gas to create a draught and draw air over the hot coals or wood enabling continued combustion. Chimneys may be straight or contain many changes of direction. During normal operation, a layer of creosote builds up on the inside of the chimney, restricting the flow. The creosote can also catch fire, setting the chimney (and potentially the entire building) alight. The chimney must be swept to remove the soot.

In Great Britain, master sweeps took apprentices, typically workhouse or orphan boys, and trained them to climb chimneys. In the German States, master sweeps belonged to trade guilds and did not use climbing boys. In Italy, Belgium, and France climbing boys were used.

The occupation requires some dexterity, and carries health risks.

History
The Tudors in England had established the risk of chimneys and an ordinance was created in 1582 both controlling materials (brick and stone rather than plastered timber) and requiring chimneys to be swept four times per year to prevent the build-up of soot (which is highly flammable). Any chimney fire could be fined 3 shillings and 4 pence.

With the increased urban population that came with the age of industrialisation, the number of houses with chimneys grew apace and the services of the chimney sweep became much sought-after.

Buildings were higher than before and the new chimneys' tops were grouped together. The routes of flues from individual grates could involve two or more right angles and horizontal angled and vertical sections. The flues were made narrow to create a better draught, 14in by 9in (36 × 23 cm) being a common standard. Buckingham Palace had one flue with 15 angles, with the flue narrowing to 9in by 9in (23 × 23 cm). Chimney sweeping was one of the more difficult, hazardous, and low-paying occupations of the era, and consequently has been derided in verse, ballad, and pantomime.

The first mechanical sweeper was invented by George Smart in 1803 but was resisted in the UK and the US. Joseph Glass marketed an improved sweeping machine in 1828; he is credited with being the inventor of the modern chimney sweep's brush. In the northern US, whites gave up the trade and employed black sweep-boys from the South. After regulation finally took hold in 1875 in the UK and the turn of the century in the US, the occupation became romanticized in popular media.

Great Britain
Boys as young as four climbed hot flues that could be as narrow as 81 square inches (9 × 9 inches or 23 × 23 cm). Work was dangerous and they could get jammed in the flue, suffocate or burn to death. As soot is carcinogenic, and as the boys slept under the soot sacks and were rarely washed, they were prone to chimney sweeps' carcinoma. From 1775 onward, there was increasing concern for the welfare of the boys, and Acts of Parliament were passed to restrict, and in 1875 to stop this usage. Lord Shaftesbury, the philanthropist, led the later campaign.

Chimneys started to appear in Britain around 1200 (with the oldest extant example of a chimney in Britain being in the keep of Conisbrough Castle in Yorkshire, dating from 1185 AD ), when they replaced the open fire burning in the middle of the one room house. At first there would be one heated room in the building and chimneys would be large. Over the next four hundred years, rooms became specialized and smaller and many were heated. Sea coal started to replace wood, and it deposited a layer of flammable creosote in the inside surface of the flue, and caked it with soot. Whereas before, the chimney was a vent for the smoke, now the plume of hot gas was used to suck air into the fire, and this required narrower flues. Even so, boys rarely climbed chimneys before the Great Fire of London, when building regulations were put in place and the design of chimneys was altered. The new chimneys were often angular and narrow, and the usual dimension of the flue in domestic properties was 9 in by 14 in. The master sweep was unable to climb into such small spaces himself and employed climbing boys to go up the chimneys to dislodge the soot. The boys often 'buffed it', that is, climbed naked, propelling themselves by their knees and elbows which were scraped raw. They were often put up hot chimneys, and sometimes up chimneys that were alight in order to extinguish the fire. Chimneys with sharp angles posed a particular hazard. These boys were apprenticed to the sweep, and from 1778 until 1875 a series of laws attempted to regulate their working conditions, and many firsthand accounts were documented and published in parliamentary reports. From about 1803, there was an alternative method of brushing chimneys, but sweeps and their clients resisted the change, preferring climbing boys to the new humane sweeping machines. Compulsory education was established in 1870 by the Elementary Education Act 1870 but it was a further five years before legislation was put in place to license chimney sweeps and finally prevent boys being sent up chimneys.

Climbing boys
Seven-flue Stack 1834.png, designed to show the contrast between mechanical sweeping and children sweeping chimneys.• A. a hearth served by vertical flue, a horizontal flue, and then a vertical rise having two right-angled bends that were difficult for brushes.

• B. a long straight flue (14in by 9in) being climbed by a boy using back, elbows, and knees.

• C. a short flue from a second floor hearth. The climbing boy has reached the chimney pot, which has a diameter too small for him to exit that way.

• E. shows a disaster. The climbing boy is stuck in the flue, his knees jammed against his chin.

• G. How a flue could be straightened to make it sweepable by mechanical means

• H. A dead climbing boy, suffocated in a fall of soot that accumulated at the cant of the flue.]] The climbing boys, and sometimes girls, were technically called chimney sweeps' apprentices, and were apprenticed to a master sweep, who, being an adult, was too large to fit into a chimney or flue. He would be paid by the parish to teach orphans or paupers the craft. They were totally reliant on him: they or their guardians had signed papers of indenture, in front of a magistrate, which bound them to him until they were adults. It was the duty of the Poor Law guardians to apprentice as many children of the workhouse in their care as possible, so as to reduce costs to the parish. The master sweep had duties: to teach the craft and its mysteries, to provide the apprentice with a second suit of clothes, to have him cleaned once a week, allow him to attend church, and not send him up chimneys that were on fire. An apprentice agreed to obey his master. Once his seven-year-long apprenticeship was completed he would become a journeyman sweep, and would continue to work for a master sweep of his choice. Other apprentices were sold on to the sweep, or sold by their parents. Prices ranged from 7 shillings to 4 guineas.

It was generally agreed that six was a good age to train a boy. Though Lord Shaftesbury once encountered one of the age of four, they were considered to be too weak. A master sweep would have many apprentices, who would start the morning by roaming the streets calling out "Soot -Oh, Sweep" or another cry to let the house-owners know they were around; this would remind the owners of the dangers of un-swept chimneys. When engaged, the master sweep would fix a cloth over the fireplace, and the climbing boy would take off his boots and any excess clothes, then get behind it. The flue would be as tall as the house and twist several times, and its dimensions would be 14in by 9in. He would pull his cap down over his face and hold a large flat brush over his head, and wedge his body diagonally in the flue. Using his back, elbows, and knees, he would shimmy up the flue in the manner of a caterpillar and use the brush to dislodge loose soot, which would fall over him and down to the bottom, and a scraper to chip away the solid bits, as a smooth chimney was a safe chimney. Having reached the top he would slide back down at speed back to the floor and the soot pile. It was now his job to bag up the soot and carry it back to the master sweep's cart or yard.

Soot was valuable and could be sold for 9d a bushel in 1840. An apprentice would do four or five chimneys a day. When they first started they scraped their knees and elbows, so the master would harden up their skin by standing them close to a hot fire and rubbing in strong brine using a brush. This was done each evening until the skin hardened. The boys got no wages but lived with the master, who fed them. They slept together on the floor or in the cellar under the sacks and the cloth used during the day to catch the soot. This was known as "sleeping black". The boy would be washed by the mistress in a tub in the yard; this might happen as often as once a week, but rarely. One sweep used to wash down his boys in the Serpentine. Another Nottingham sweep insisted they washed three times a year, for Christmas, Whitsun, and the Goose Fair. Sometimes, a boy would need to be persuaded to climb faster or higher up the chimney, and the master sweep would light either a small fire of straw or a brimstone candle, to encourage him to try harder. Another method to stop him from "going off" (asphyxiating) was to send another boy up behind him to prick pins into his buttocks or the soles of his feet.

Chimneys varied in size. The common flue was designed to be one and a half bricks long by one brick wide, though they often narrowed to one brick square, that is 9 in by 9 in or less. Often the chimney would still be hot from the fire, and occasionally it would actually be on fire. Careless climbing boys could get stuck with their knees jammed against their chins. The harder they struggled the tighter they became wedged. They could remain in this position for many hours until they were pushed out from below or pulled out with a rope. If their struggling caused a fall of soot they would suffocate. Dead or alive, the boy had to be removed and this would be done by removing bricks from the side of the chimney. If the chimney was particularly narrow the boys would be told to "buff it", that is to do it naked; otherwise they just wore trousers and a shirt made from thick rough cotton cloth.

Health and safety concerns
The conditions to which these children were subjected caused concern and societies were set up to promote mechanical means for sweeping chimneys and it is through their pamphlets that we have a better idea of what the job could entail. Here a sweep describes the fate of one boy: After passing through the chimney and descending to the second angle of the fireplace the Boy finds it completely filled with soot, which he has dislodged from the sides of the upright part. He endeavours to get through, and succeeds in doing so, after much struggling as far as his shoulders; but finding that the soot is compressed hard all around him, by his exertions, that he can recede no farther; he then endeavours to move forward, but his attempts in this respect are quite abortive; for the covering of the horizontal part of the Flue being stone, the sharp angle of which bears hard on his shoulders, and the back part of his head prevents him from moving in the least either one way or the other. His face, already covered with a climbing cap, and being pressed hard in the soot beneath him, stops his breath. In this dreadful condition he strives violently to extricate himself, but his strength fails him; he cries and groans, and in a few minutes he is suffocated. An alarm is then given, a brick-layer is sent for, an aperture is perforated in the Flue, and the boy is extracted, but found lifeless. In a short time an inquest is held, and a Coroner's Jury returns a verdict of "Accidental Death".

These however were not the only occupational hazards that chimney sweeps suffered. In the 1817 report to Parliament, witnesses reported that climbing boys suffered from general neglect, and exhibited stunted growth and deformity of the spine, legs, and arms, which were thought to be caused by being required to remain in abnormal positions for long periods of time before their bones had hardened. The knees and ankle joints were the most affected. Sores and inflammation of the eyelids that could lead to loss of sight, were slow in healing because the boy kept rubbing them. Bruises and burns were obvious hazards of having to work in an overheated environment. Cancer of the scrotum was found only in chimney sweeps so was referred to as Chimney Sweep Cancer in the teaching hospitals. Asthma and inflammation of the chest were attributed to the fact that the boys were out in all weathers.

Chimney sweeps' carcinoma, which the sweeps called soot wart, did not occur until the sweep was in his late teens or twenties. It has now been identified as a manifestation of scrotal squamous cell carcinoma. It was reported in 1775 by Sir Percival Pott in climbing boys or chimney sweepers. It is the first industrially related cancer to be found. Potts described it: It is a disease which always makes it first attack on the inferior part of the scrotum where it produces a superficial, painful ragged ill-looking sore with hard rising edges ... in no great length of time it pervades the skin, dartos and the membranes of the scrotum, and seizes the testicle, which it inlarges [sic], hardens and renders truly and thoroughly distempered. Whence it makes its way up the spermatic process into the abdomen.

He also comments on the life of the boys: The fate of these people seems peculiarly hard ... they are treated with great brutality ... they are thrust up narrow and sometimes hot chimnies, [sic] where they are bruised burned and almost suffocated; and when they get to puberty they become ... liable to a most noisome, painful and fatal disease.

The carcinogen was thought to be coal tar, possibly containing some arsenic.

There were many deaths caused by accidents, frequently caused by the boy becoming jammed in the flue of a heated chimney, where he could suffocate or be burned to death. Sometimes a second boy would be sent to help and, on occasions would suffer the same fate.

Regulation
In 1788, the Chimney Sweepers Act 1788 (long title: An Act for the Better Regulation of Chimney Sweepers and their Apprentices) was passed, to limit a sweeper to six apprentices, at least 8 years old, but lacked enforcement. It introduced the Apprenticeship Cap badge. The Act had been partially inspired by the interest in climbing boys shown by Jonas Hanway, and his two publications The State of Chimney Sweepers' Young Apprentices (1773) and later Sentimental History of Chimney Sweeps in London and Westminster (1785). He asserted that while Parliament was exercised with the abolition of slavery in the new world it was ignoring the slavery imposed on climbing boys. He looked to Edinburgh, Scotland, where sweeps were regulated by the police, climbing was not allowed and chimneys were swept by the Master Sweep himself pulling bundles of rags up and down the chimney. He did not see how climbing chimneys could be considered a valid apprenticeship, as the only skill obtained was that of climbing chimneys, which did not lead to future employment. Hanway advocated that Christianity should be brought into the boys' lives and lobbied for Sunday Schools for the boys. The Lords removed the proposed clause that Master Sweeps should be licensed, and before civil registration, there was no way that anyone could check if a child was actually eight.

In the same year, David Porter, a humane master sweep, sent a petition to Parliament, and in 1792 published Considerations of the Present State of Chimney Sweepers with some Observations on the Act of Parliament intended for their Relief and Regulation. Though concerned for the boys' welfare he believed that boys were more efficient than any of the new mechanical cleaning machines. In 1796 a society was formed for Bettering the Conditions of the Poor, and they encouraged the reading of Hanway's and Porter's tracts. They had influential members and royal patronage from George III. A Friendly Society for the Protection and Education of Chimney-Sweepers' Boys had been established in 1800.

In 1803, it was thought by some that a mechanical brush could replace a climbing boy (the Human brush), and members of the 1796 society formed The London Society for Superseding the Necessity for Employing Climbing Boys; they ascertained that children had now cleaned flues as small as 7in by 7in, and promoted a competition for a mechanical brush. The prize was claimed by George Smart for what, in effect, was a brush head on a long segmented cane, made rigid by an adjustable cord that passed through the canes.

The Chimney Sweepers Act 1834 contained many of the needed regulations. It stated that an apprentice must express himself in front of a magistrate that he was "willing and desirous". Masters must not take on boys under the age of fourteen. The master could only have six apprentices and an apprentice could not be lent to another master. Boys under fourteen who were already apprenticed must wear brass cap badges on a leather cap. Apprentices were not allowed to climb flues to extinguish fires. Street cries were regulated. The act was resisted by the master sweeps, and the general public believed that property would be at risk if the flues were not cleaned by a climbing boy.

Also that year building regulations relating to the construction of chimneys were changed.

The Chimney Sweepers and Chimneys Regulation Act 1840 made it illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to sweep chimneys. It was widely ignored. Attempts were made in 1852 and 1853 to reopen the issue, another enquiry was convened and more evidence was taken. There was no bill. The Chimney Sweepers Regulation Act 1864, c. 37, tightened controls significantly, by authorizing fines and imprisonment for master sweeps who were ignoring the law, giving the police the power of arrest on suspicion and authorizing Board of Trade inspections of new and remodelled chimneys. Lord Shaftesbury was a main proponent of the Act.

In February 1875 a twelve-year-old boy, George Brewster, was sent up the Fulbourn Hospital chimneys by his master, William Wyer. He stuck and smothered. The entire wall had to be pulled down to get him out and although he was still alive, he died shortly afterward. There was a coroner's inquest which returned a verdict of manslaughter. Wyer was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. Lord Shaftesbury seized on the incident to press his campaign again. He wrote a series of letters to The Times and in September 1875 pushed another bill through Parliament which finally stopped the practice of sending boys up chimneys.

The Chimney Sweepers Act 1875 required chimney sweepers "to be authorized by the police to carry on their businesses in the district", thus providing the legal means to enforce all previous legislation.

United States

The history of sweeping in the United States varies little from that in the United Kingdom. Differences arise from the nature of housing and the political pressures. Early settler houses were built close together out of wood, so when one burnt it spread quickly to neighbouring properties. This caused the authorities to regulate the design of flues. From an early date, fire wardens and inspectors were appointed.

Sweeping of the wide flues of these low buildings was often done by the householder himself, using a ladder to pass a wide brush down the chimney. In a narrow flue, a bag of bricks and brushwood would be dropped down the chimney. But in longer flues climbing boys were used, complete with the tradition of coercion and persuasion using burning straw and pins in the feet and the buttocks. Sweeping was not a popular trade. During the eighteenth century the employment of African-American chimney sweeps spread from the south to the north. African-American sweeps faced discrimination and were accused of being inefficient and starting fires. It was claimed that there were fewer fires in London where chimneys were swept by white boys than in New York City. As in the UK, Smart's sweeping machine was available in the US shortly after 1803, but few were used. Unlike the UK, there were no societies formed to advocate for the climbing boys. In fact, the contemporary novel Tit for Tat went so far as to deny the black slave chimney sweeps' hardships by claiming that they had it easier than the London chimney sweeps.

Sweeps' festivals
The London boys had one day's holiday a year, the first of May (Mayday). They celebrated by parading through the streets, dancing and twisting with Jack in the Green, merging several folk traditions. There is also a Sweeps' Festival in Santa Maria Maggiore in Italy, and in Rochester in Kent where the tradition was revived in 1980.

Good luck omen

 * In Great Britain it is considered lucky for a bride to see a chimney sweep on her wedding day. Many modern British sweeps hire themselves out to attend weddings in pursuance of this tradition.
 * In Germany, Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, and Estonia, chimney sweeps still wear the traditional all-black uniform with a black or white hat. It is considered good luck to rub or grasp one of your buttons if you pass one in the street.
 * As a lucky symbol, depictions of chimney sweeps are a popular New Year's Day gift in Germany; either as small ornaments attached to flower bouquets or candy, e.g. marzipan chimney sweeps. Their traditional uniform is an all black suit with golden jacket buttons and a black top hat.

Today

Today, chimney sweeps are still operating, as venting systems for coal, heating oil, natural gas, and wood- and pellet-burning appliances need to be maintained. There is a greater understanding of the dangers of flue deposits and carbon monoxide and gases from combustion. The standard chimney brush is still used, along with more modern tools (such as vacuum cleaners, cameras, and special chimney cleaning tools). Most sweeps are done from the bottom of the chimney, rather than the top, to prevent the dispersion of dust and debris and because it is safer for the chimney sweep to do the sweeping from this position. Inspection may be done from the bottom or top, or both if accessible. Chimney sweeps often encounter a range of unexpected objects in chimneys ranging from dead birds to tools, notes, love letters, and other pieces of ephemera.

Most modern chimney sweeps are professionals, and are usually trained to diagnose and repair hazards along with maintenance such as removal of flammable creosote, firebox and damper repair, and smoke chamber repair. Some sweeps also offer more complicated repairs such as flue repair and relining, crown repair, and tuckpointing or rebuilding of masonry chimneys and cement crowns.

In the United States, the two trade organizations that help to regulate the industry are the Chimney Safety Institute of America and The National Chimney Sweep Guild. Certification for chimney sweeps are issued by two organizations: Certified Chimney Professionals and The Chimney Safety Institute of America, which was first to establish certification and requires sweeps to re-test every three years or demonstrate the commitment to education by earning CEUs through CSIA or the National Fireplace Institute to bypass the test. Certification for chimney sweeps who reline chimneys are issued by Certified Chimney Professionals and the Chimney Safety Institute of America. CEU credits may be obtained from these organizations and regional associations as well as private trainers.

In the United Kingdom Chimney Sweeping is unregulated however many sweeps have organised themselves into trade associations including the Association of Professional Independent Chimney Sweeps, the Guild of Master Chimney Sweeps, and The National Association of Chimney Sweeps. As well as offering support to members they provide training and representation to DEFRA and other interested parties.

title: Chimney sweep


text:
Talk:20th Century Studios

20th Century Studios films released by Walt Disney Pictures from Diary of a Wimpy Kid in 2021 to Night at the Museum Kahmunrah Rises Again in 2022
Home Sweet Home Alone, which was released on November 12, 2021, and it became the first and only film released by 20th Century Studios on Disney+, as subsequent projects were transferred over to Walt Disney Pictures. However, Night at the Museum: Kahmunrah Rises Again became 20th Century Studios' fourth and last film released by Walt Disney Pictures before subsequent projects were transferred back to 20th Century Studios just like the Hulu original films. Animation134 (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Distribution
The lead statement is incorrect. To start off, the Deadline source doesn't even say this. It says: Post-merger, Fox Searchlight, now re-branded Searchlight Pictures, enjoys a lot of autonomy in the Disney empire, greenlighting pics they know and operating their own distribution, publicity and marketing teams. 20th Century Studios (which recently dropped the Fox) was melded into the bigger Disney fold, fusing all its operations. Nowhere in that paragraph does it indicate that 20th Century films are being distributed by Disney, only that its operations were merged into Disney and that Searchlight would retain its autonomy. Secondly, this is not correct, as evidenced by Disney's press releases and the fact that none of 20th's films even credit Disney at the end (unlike Marvel and Lucasfilm productions). I brought this issue up at Talk:Ron's Gone Wrong back in January, but since then I've observed an uptick in editors trying to change this on several other articles (Free Guy, Avatar 2, Dark Phoenix, New Mutants, and most recently Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes). InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: I've dug up an RfC from back in 2019 about this. That discussion was about films distributed by Fox before its rebranding as 20th Century Studios, but the consensus should still apply. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, a fifth reason, Box Office Mojo still lists all 20th Century Studios as being distributed (domestically, at least) by 20th Century Studios, not Disney. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 20th Century Studios will be Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion pictures is betterly correct. 94.41.222.150 (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Despite no mention of it for the end credits of each film, 20th Century Studios films are indeed distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures (through Walt Disney Pictures, but as a silent distributor of 20th Century's films) (even the BBFC source indicates this for example: https://www.bbfc.co.uk/release/the-first-omen-q29sbgvjdglvbjpwwc0xmde5odax)
 * However, when i looked up at the BBFC website, it says that 20th's films are distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures (although credited in my country, Britain, as Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures UK rather than Buena Vista International UK).
 * So whatever the outcome of the "Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" tag expected to appear in future 20th Century's films, i think it could happen but not soon enough i guess. SolshineBenie (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We are going by what sources say and what the poster billing block say. This IP is hell bent on changing all recent 20th Century films.  Mike  Allen   17:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to acknowledge about that now but I'm not so sure about that to be honest with you. SolshineBenie (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that 20th Century films are distributed by Disney. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to apologise for bringing personal opinions about it at 4:48am last night. But anyway, why no prove of it? SolshineBenie (talk) 07:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Compare the end credits of a Disney, Marvel, or Lucasfilm film, versus a 20th Century or Searchlight film. Do a Ctrl+F search for "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" and/or "Walt Disney Studios". As of last month, Disney continues to make a distinction between Disney and 20th/Searchlight films in their release calendar sent to the press. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I see now. I have also notice on that file that one of 20th's film was one of the first to read: "For the purposes of United Kingdom copyright,

20th Century Studios and TSG Entertainment Finance LLC was the owner of copyright in this film, immediately after it was made." SolshineBenie (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Another Distribution Kerfufle again...
Look I know there has been edit wars alot about Disney distrubuting 20th Century stuff but I just don't understand. Even the pages say "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures distributes and markets the films produced by 20th Century Studios" yet no one removed it and the previous person said it is incorrect and even the movies 20th does never mention "Distrubuted by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures" so for every movie 20th does are we not gonnna mention Disney at all its as if people still think 20th Century is a seperate studio instead of being owned by Disney. NakhlaMan (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, we're not going to mention Disney. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Any reason why? NakhlaMan (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the four five reasons I very clearly outline in the section above . InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Examples for introduction
I revised the list of examples to use the list of franchises from an article. It's basically the same as the list of franchises from before. And rather than list out every single individual movie and television show, I picked a single example for each: Titanic (highest-grossing movie of all time for 12 years as well as an Academy Award for Best Picture winner) and The Simpsons (the longest running scripted American television show of all time and it was also mentioned in the title of the article). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Note that the article only mentions Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope because the other Star Wars movies in the original six films were already sold to Disney as part of Lucasfilms, but I used the broader "six films" for the introduction because the list of examples isn't about the acquisition. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What is not on the list is Anastasia (1997) because it is not particularly notable from the standpoint of box office numbers, awards, or being a significant franchise. I mention this movie specifically because someone keeps adding it back and refuses to discuss it. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Pinging a few people who have edited this article or participated on the talk page previously. I'm hoping to get some consensus on the list. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that Anastasia doesn't need to be on the list. Your revised list was fine. Mediafan200 (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just pick the most notable from List of highest-grossing films and List of highest-grossing media franchises. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on a "highest-grossing" criteria, we should list these franchises:
 * first six Star Wars movies: billions (well over any threshold we set)
 * X-Men: $6.9 billion
 * Ice Age: $6.42 billion
 * Avatar: $5.78 billion
 * The Simpsons: $4.9 billion (only TV franchise that makes the list of highest-grossing media franchises)
 * Planet of the Apes: $2.27 billion
 * As far as films go, Titanic and The Sound of Music are both in the top 10 for inflation-adjusted box office. Cleopatra "only" made $421 million adjusted for inflation so I think it misses the cut. (I checked every movie listed in the cited Independent article.)
 * Comparing that to Special:Permalink/1181570167, it suggests we should:
 * remove Die Hard, Alien, Predator, Independence Day, and Kingsman
 * add The Sound of Music
 * Digging a bit deeper, the worldwide box office for several additional franchises:
 * Die Hard: $1,440,546,330
 * Alien: $1,352,383,883
 * Independence Day: $1,207,082,826
 * Kingsman: $951,151,686
 * Home Alone: $914,762,040
 * Predator: $443,164,018
 * None of those are even close to Planet of the Apes so I'm content to leave them off the list. I'd suggest we agree on a minimum box-office cut-off. I'd suggest $2B if we want the above more compact list or $1B if we want to include several additional franchises. I'm fine with either approach. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * $2B for franchises and maybe $400m + Academy Award for Best Picture win or nomination for non franchise films? Mediafan200 (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not include nominations as any part of the criteria, especially because the number of nominees has varied over time and started increasing significantly in 2009. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think box office is the easiest, most accurate, and most objective criterion we can use. To keep the lead brief and emphasize only the most notable properties, I agree with keeping the cut-off at $2B. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Anastasia was a box office hit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B088:E846:A587:4BA0:BE75:C28A (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like we have consensus for a $2B cut-off. That gets two very notable movies that also won best picture into the introduction so I don't think we need to quibble over additional criteria. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You should add Family Guy, since the franchise made $3.8 Billion. 23.245.47.124 (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source for this? It's not mentioned in List of highest-grossing media franchises. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to chime in and say that I agree with what was settled upon here. The metrics were fairly established and keeps the introduction from being too oversaturated with examples from the studio's film library. Something like this can be used as a framework on other similar studio articles. Well done! That being said, I rewrote the line mentioning Titanic and The Sound of Music  to keep it more concise while maintaining the gist of their nobility. I also removed The Simpsons because that is a television series produced by sister unit 20th Television Animation, not 20th Century Fox/Studios. Even the Independent article delineates that. Only the 2007 film was released by the film studio. ~ Jedi94  ( Want to tell me something? ) 05:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2024
Editoman (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC) I want to put in the owners part News Corporation (1985-2013) 21st Century Fox (2013-2019) The Walt Disney Company (2019-present)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The article lede and the History section already mention all of those companies. RudolfRed (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:20th Century Studios


text:
Talk:Wild haggis

Separate species?
The article refers to both Haggis scotticus and Haggis scoticus. Presumably these are the long-left and long-right variants, but which is which?

Varlaam (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

 * You'll have to first catch and then ask them - preferably before cooking! I think the Latin adjectival form is "scottus" or "scotius", but I'm not sure. Roger (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a spelling error on the part of whoever edited the article. Booger-mike (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The best source in the article, King et al., says scoticus, and I've gone with that. (The Kelvingrove citation under the pic doesn't give any scientific name.)
 * I've also found some, though fewer, mentions of Haggis scottii. However, I've been unable to locate a formal description under either name, nor indeed the identity of a taxonomic authority, and so cannot settle the question of priority. Further research into the literature is needed. Narky Blert (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Haggis is rodent type mammal that has both fur and feathers and is not a fictional creature !!!

Haggis you eat is something completely different(sheep stomach) from the small rodent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2C0F:F4C0:20B3:D4E0:452A:F964:F529:70ED (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wild haggis


text:
Data General RDOS

The  Data General RDOS (Real-time Disk Operating System) is a real-time operating system released in 1970. The software was bundled with the company's popular Nova and Eclipse minicomputers.

Overview
RDOS is capable of multitasking, with the ability to run up to 32 tasks (similar to the current term threads) simultaneously on each of two grounds (foreground and background) within a 64 KB memory space. Later versions of RDOS are compatible with Data General's 16-bit Eclipse minicomputer line.

A cut-down version of RDOS, without real-time background and foreground capability but still capable of running multiple threads and multi-user Data General Business Basic, is called Data General Diskette Operating System (DG-DOS or now—somewhat confusingly—simply DOS); another related operating system is RTOS, a Real-Time Operating System for diskless environments. RDOS on microNOVA-based "Micro Products" micro-minicomputers is sometimes called DG/RDOS.

RDOS was superseded in the early 1980s by Data General's AOS family of operating systems, including AOS/VS and MP/AOS (MP/OS on smaller systems).

Commands
The following list of commands are supported by the RDOS/DOS CLI.

 * ALGOL
 * APPEND
 * ASM
 * BASIC
 * BATCH
 * BOOT
 * BPUNCH
 * BUILD
 * CCONT
 * CDIR
 * CHAIN
 * CHATR
 * CHLAT
 * CLEAR
 * CLG
 * COPY
 * CPART
 * CRAND
 * CREATE
 * DEB
 * DELETE
 * DIR
 * DISK
 * DUMP
 * EDIT
 * ENDLOG
 * ENPAT
 * EQUIV
 * EXFG
 * FDUMP
 * FGND
 * FILCOM
 * FLOAD
 * FORT
 * FORTRAN
 * FPRINT
 * GDIR
 * GMEM
 * GSYS
 * GTOD
 * INIT
 * LDIR
 * LFE
 * LINK
 * LIST
 * LOAD
 * LOG
 * MAC
 * MCABOOT
 * MDIR
 * MEDIT
 * MESSAGE
 * MKABS
 * MKSAVE
 * MOVE
 * NSPEED
 * OEDIT
 * OVLDR
 * PATCH
 * POP
 * PRINT
 * PUNCH
 * RDOSSORT
 * RELEASE
 * RENAME
 * REPLACE
 * REV
 * RLDR
 * SAVE
 * SDAY
 * SEDIT
 * SMEM
 * SPDIS
 * SPEBL
 * SPEED
 * SPKILL
 * STOD
 * SYSGEN
 * TPRINT
 * TUOFF
 * TUON
 * TYPE
 * VFU
 * XFER

Antitrust lawsuit
In the late 1970s, Data General was sued (under the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts) by competitors for their practice of bundling RDOS with the Data General Nova or Eclipse minicomputer. When Data General introduced the Data General Nova, a company called Digidyne wanted to use its RDOS operating system on its own hardware clone. Data General refused to license their software and claimed their "bundling rights". In 1985, courts including the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against Data General in a case called Digidyne v. Data General. The Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear Data General's appeal, although Justices White and Blackmun would have heard it. The precedent set by the lower courts eventually forced Data General to license the operating system because restricting the software to only Data General's hardware was an illegal tying arrangement.

In 1999, Data General was taken over by EMC Corporation.

title: Data General RDOS


text:
Talk:Twelve Tables

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aquazi, Fyoliveira1, Drewleach. Peer reviewers: Colonial1896, Mattygardiner50, Fyoliveira1, Drewleach.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): UhOhSpaghettio378. Peer reviewers: Maugrin, AgardW40.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
How tall and wide were the Twelve Tables?

Wasn't there some law or prophecies in Rome that fell from the sky (shields)? Maybe they were twelve. Anyway, that's what I expected when finding the article? -- Error

 * The incident with shields falling from the sky had to do with Mars, king Numa Pompilius, and the Salii priesthood. Mars made a shield fall from the sky that had a prophecy for the future greatness of Rome written on it, supposedly.  The king had eleven matching shields made and used them to found the Salian priesthood.  This took place well before the Twelve Tables, which were made during the Republican period.  -- IHCOYC

The translations seem to be too literal to be of interest to the average reader. . . I don't have access to a full translation of the Twelve Tables, but if someone who does wants to revise, that would be nice. UnDeadGoat 23:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 * On removing the comparison to Wikipedia: I am not one of those who believes that encyclopedic is a synonym for dull, but since I made the comparison in the first place I will let others decide whether or not it should be reinstated. I would like to note that the most important part of the reason for the comparison was omitted from the comment field when the comparison was removed: "bring forward for public discussion any additions or subtractions which seemed desirable". Rick Norwood 14:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

sesterces??
I do not understand where the word sesterces in the translation comes from. I don't see the word in the in the latin, and suspect it is anachronistic. I think the first sestertii were silver coins worth 2.5 asses minted after the sack of Syracuse during Punic War I (eg. Crawford 44/7).

Lex Aternia Tarpeia of 454 BC apparently provides value conversions from the traditional oxen and sheep to asses (100 asses = 1 oxen, 10 asses = 1 sheep, 1 as is a pound of bronze; see, eg, wikipedia aes rude) (Cicero De Republica II 60). The twelve tables are older than this, so I think these should these numbers should refer to oxen or sheep.

This law in turn was followed by the Lex Iulia Papiria of 430 BC which re-tariffed the bronze to such an extent that the use of cattle was discontinued (Livy.4.30.3).

Curtius 00:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

More, but easy-to-understand info?
I suggest that under each of the rules, there should be some explanation as to why some people believe it was passed and possibly some more explanation about the tablets and how they were found and what else is known about them. I also suggest that there be a *remove hyperlinks* option. The hyperlinks can get very agitating when someone is trying to write a report. I suggest having all hyperlinks in a special spot on the bottom and the top of the article. Snick! 23:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nietzsche quote?
Hi, I was just wondering if there are any interested Classics scholars here, Nietzsche alludes to the Twelve Tables (Genealogy II 5) saying "si plus minusve secuerunt, ne fraude esto", 'if they have cut off more or less, let that not be considered a crime'. This is meant to be in Table 3, section 6. Is this an omission? 131.111.200.200 (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

odd vandalism
Why in the world is someone vandalizing the article on the Twelve Tables, of all things!? Granted, I don't get vandalism in any case, but on such an obscure article!? FeygeleGoy/פֿײגעלע גױ (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually by schoolboys who have been assigned this topic for homework. They vent their dislike of study in this manner. Only my vile prejudice suggests that they are American youths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:2217:F300:8D4F:D1D9:1CDE:4926 (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

"Foreigner"?
The article has the translation of "Adversus hostem aeterna auctoritas esto" as "Against a foreigner, the right of property is valid forever". Now, I can't exactly brag with my knowledge of Latin, but all definitions of the word "hostem"/"hostis" I can find seem to indicate that it means "enemy" (of the state), rather than "foreigner"; which also seems more congruent with its etymological descendant "hostile". Furthermore, "auctoritas" seem to be a more general term for various legal titles, rather than some more specific property right. Shouldn't the translation read "Against enemies of the state, legal titles are valid forever", or is it just me? --Dolda2000 (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, but maybe it has something to do with the mindset of the early Republic. To them, all non-citizens were enemies. 202.72.183.38 (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, but this is supposed to be an older meaning of the word. Lat. hostis is related to English guest and Russian gost' "guest"- both meanings can be derived from "foreigner." It is also generally believed that auctoritasis used in an archaic sense here. As well as aduorsus!
 * Skara B  15:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Table 2 - Civil procedure?
The translation in the external links section seems to show that Table Two is "Concerning Judgements and Thefts" but you'd never know it from the article which has an obscure excerpt labeled "Civil procedure". It seems more like criminal procedure rather than civil to me, but maybe someone who knows more about it could look into it. It's also interesting that law 6 on that table provides for detecting a thief "by means of a dish and a girdle" with various conjectures on what that meant, such as that it was a type of superstitious ordeal (likeliest explanation IMO). Is there any wikipedia article that talks about the dish and girdle method? Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

anachronistic use of word 'corn'
In Table VIII the word "segetem" has been translated as "corn". Corn is a New World crop, and therefore seemingly cannot be the correct translation. I only had a few years of Latin many years ago, but looking around in various online translators/dictionaries/etc., it seems as though the word is a generic word for any crop of field grains. This has led me to be suspicious of the quality of these translations. Almost all of these fragments and associated translations were posted up at once in May, 2003, by a user who has far more background in these areas than I do, but no sources were cited. Has anyone who has studied very early Latin verified the accuracy of these translations? mooingpolarbear (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Outside the united states, Corn refers to grain generally, rather than specifically to maize as it does in America. CRATYLUS22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.114.33 (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

deleted section
Moving the recently deleted section here for future reference/discussion. Excerpts from the Twelve Tables or The Lex Talio

TABLE I (Civil procedure)===

 * Si in ius vocat, ito. Ni it, antestamino. Igitur em capito.

If someone is called to go to court, he has to go. If he does not go, a witness should be called. Only then should he be captured.

 * Si calvitur pedemve struit, manum endo iacito. Si morbus aevitasve vitium escit, iumentum dato. Si nolet, arceram ne sternito.

If he shirks or flees, he should be captured. If illness or old age is an impediment, let him be given acarriage. If he does not want it, it should not be covered.

 * Adsiduo vindex adsiduus esto. Proletario iam civi quis volet vindex esto.

Only a landowner should be surety for another landowner. But any citizen can be surety for aproletarian.

 * Rem ubi pacunt, orato. Ni pacunt, in comitio aut in foro ante meridiem caussam coiciunto. Com peroranto ambo praesentes. Post meridiem praesenti litem addicito. Si ambo praesentes, solis occasus suprema tempestas esto.

When parties have made an agreement, announce it. If they do not agree, they shall state their case in theForum before noon. They shall plead together in person. After noon, let the judge pronounce. If both are present, the case shall end at sunset.

TABLE II (Civil procedure)===

 * ...morbus sonticus... aut status dies cum hoste... quid horum fuit unum iudici arbitrove reove, eo dies diffensus esto. Cui testimonium defuerit, is tertiis diebus ob portum obvagulatum ito.

Serious illness... or else a day appointed with an enemy; ... if any of these is an impediment for the judge or any party, on that day proceedings must end. One who seeks the testimony from an absent person should wait before his doorway every third day.

TABLE III (Debt)===

 * Aeris confessi rebusque iure iudicatis XXX dies iusti sunto.

1. In case of an admitted debt or of awards made by a court, 30 days shall be allowed for payment.

 * Post deinde manus iniectio esto. In ius ducito. Ni iudicatum facit aut quis endo eo in iure vindicit, secum ducito, vincito aut nervo aut compedibus XV pondo, ne maiore aut si volet minore vincito. Si volet suo vivito, ni suo vivit, qui eum vinctum habebit, libras faris endo dies dato. Si volet, plus dato.

After then, the creditor can lay hands on him and haul him to court. If he does not satisfy the judgement and no one is surety for him, the creditor may take the defendant with him in stocks or chains with a weight of no more than 15 lbs. (or less if he desires). The debtor may live on his own resources if he wishes. If he does not wish to live on his own resources, the man who has him bound must give him a pound of wheat a day. If he wants to he may give more.

 * Tertiis nundinis partis secanto. Si plus minusve secuerunt, se fraude esto.

On the third market day, (creditors) may cut pieces. If they take more than they are due, they do so with impunity.

 * Adversus hostem aeterna auctoritas esto.

Against a foreigner, the right of property is valid forever.

TABLE IV (Parents and children)===

 * Cito necatus insignis ad deformitatem puer esto.

If a child is born with a deformity he shall be killed.

 * Si pater filium ter venum duit, filius a patre liber esto.

If a father sells his son into slavery three times, the son shall be free of his father.

TABLE V (Inheritance)===

 * Si intestato moritur, cui suus heres nec escit, adgnatus proximus familiam habeto. Si adgnatus nec escit, gentiles familiam habento.

If a person dies intestate without heirs, the nearest [male] kinsman shall inherit. If there is no near [male] kinsmen, his clansmen shall inherit.

 * Si furiosus escit, adgnatum gentiliumque in eo pecuniaque eius potestas esto.

If someone goes mad, his nearest [male] kinsman shall have authority over his property.

TABLE VI (Property)===

 * Cum nexum faciet mancipiumque, uti lingua nuncupassit, ita ius esto.

When someone makes bond or conveyance and announces it orally, right shall be given.

 * Tignum iunctum aedibus vineave sei concapit ne solvito.

No one must displace beams from buildings or vineyards.

TABLE VII (Real Property)===
 * Viam muniunto ni sam delapidassint, qua volet iumento agito.

[A property owner must] build a road [if there is a right-of-way]; if they become dilapidated, passersby can drive their beasts where ever they want.

 * Si aqua pluvia nocet… iubetur ex arbitrio coerceri.

If runoff [from someone else's property] does damage, he shall be made to fix it by the judge.

TABLE VIII (Torts)===

 * Qui malum carmen incantassit…

Those who have incanted an "evil song"... (interpreted by Cicero as slander, in De re publica, Book IV)

 * Si membrum rupsit, ni cum eo pacit, talio and esto.

If one has maimed another and does not buy his peace, there be retaliation in kind.

 * Manu fustive si os fregit libero, CCC, si servo, CL poenam subito si iniuriam faxsit, viginti quinque poenae sunto.

Someone who breaks another's bone by hand or club must pay 300 sesterces; for a slave, 150; if he has done simple harm against another, 25.

 * Qui fruges excantassit… neve alienam segetem pellexeris

Someone who kills crops with a spell, or another's corn…

 * Patronus si clienti fraudem fecerit, sacer esto.

If a patron defrauds his client, let him be outlawed.

 * Qui se sierit testarier libripensve fuerit, ni testimonium fatiatur, inprobus intestabilisque esto.

If one has been called to witness, or hold the scales, unless he gives his testimony, let him be dishonoured and incapable of further testimony.

 * Si telum manu fugit magis quam iecit, arietem subicito.

If an object flies unaimed from your hand rather than aimed [and causes injury], you will owe a ram.

TABLE IX (Constitutional principles)===

 * Privilegia ne irroganto.

4. Private laws (that is, laws against one individual) will not be proposed.

It is forbidden to propose laws against one single individual.

TABLE X (Funeral regulations)===

 * Hominem mortuum in urbe ne sepelito neve urito.

No dead man may be cremated nor buried in the City.

 * Qui coronam parit ipse pecuniave eius honoris virtutisve ergo arduitur ei…

When a man wins a crown, or his slave or cattle win a crown for him,…

 * Neve aurum addito. At cui auro dentes iuncti escunt. Ast in cum illo sepeliet uretve, se fraude esto.

No one must add gold (to a funeral pyre). But if his teeth are held together with gold, and are buried or burnt with him, it shall be disconsidered.

TABLE XI (Marriage)===

 * Conubia plebi cum patribus sanxerunt.

Marriages between plebeians and patricians are prohibited.

Men in the army may not wed until training is complete.

TABLE XII (Crimes)===

 * Si servo furtum faxit noxiamve noxit.

If a slave has committed theft or harm…

 * Si vindiciam falsam tulit, si velit is… tor arbitros tris dato, eorum arbitrio… fructus duplione damnum decidito.

Someone who has brought a false claim shall be brought before three judges, and shall pay a double penalty or be sent to death if he cannot do the time.

--Quadalpha (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Thanks. It would be useful to replace this confusingly presented mass with a clearer list of the laws. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. I normally copy across such things, but clearly I didn't. Agree with Cynwolfe. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem, I think, is that we don't have a clear list of the laws but only various testimonia. We could probably give a few examples, citing where they come from, looking at a few linguistic issues, and in general doing a better job of presenting them. I will probably get around to doing that at some point, but do feel free to start without me, or implement other ideas! --Quadalpha (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course Quadalpha is right, it is stated in the article. The section shoudn't have been removed in the first place, it's one of the main parts of the article; if anything, it shoud be given a separate article. 46.186.34.99 (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Dating the Twelve Tables
First off, the Twelve Tables were originally etched or cut from the outermost layers of wood (that is, the boles) from a very large tree (such as an oak), and not until much later, replaced with a series of sheets of copper. That gives us physical limits as to the size of the Twelve Tables. Anybody who has worked with copper has an idea how thick the sheets of copper were.

As for an actual age, there have been a number of scholarly publications that note how the letters R and S were interchangeable in Old Latin, especially in terms relating to "witness" being an independent third party (testis < tertis). I wish I could remember which publication that was. The main page of this article could be improved tremendously by mentioning which publication that was. In short, tertius ("third") and "testis" ("witness") were interchangeable because the letters R and S were interchangeable. The final suffix didn't contribute as much meaning to the word as its root did. Languages tend change with time, just like DNA changes. In the earliest days of Old Latin, there was a strong similarity to Proto-Italic. When people sought to corroborate their version of the facts underlying a particular legal issue, they went and got third party witnesses to appear before the magistrate. Even the word "tribunal" has been touted as being, originally,  a functionary with authority to receive statements (usually oral statements) from a third position. In any case, there have been many studies connecting TESTIS with TERTIUS. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

 * Please cite a source for any of these claims.

 * R and S were not interchangeable. Intervocalic S eventually became R in most environments in Latin (rhotacism), which is a completely different thing. The comment about suffixes is simply incorrect. Eponymous-Archon (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Citing Livy
Someone has cited 'Livy 2002'. Obviously Livy did not publish anything in 2002, so I'm guessing this is meant to be a citation of a 2002 edition of Livy. Does anybody know the actual citation of the original (e.g. Liv. 49.41.7 or something)? Catobonus (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

New Sources For Twelve Tables Information
Greenidge, A. H. J. “The Authenticity of the Twelve Tables.” The English Historical Review, vol. 20, no. 77, 1905, pp. 1–21., www.jstor.org/stable/549168.

Steinberg, Michael. “The Twelve Tables and Their Origins: An Eighteenth-Century Debate.” Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 43, no. 3, 1982, pp. 379–396., www.jstor.org/stable/2709429.Copy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewleach (talk • contribs) 19:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Better sources needed
There are numerous references to Crystalink as a source in this article, yet it is not a good source (and the text citing it generally shows it). That material should be replaced/improved. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Confusing language
I fail to understand this passage:

Although faced with many issues, the Twelve Tables provided a premature understanding of some key concepts such as justice, equality, and punishment. While these ideas were not fully understood,...

Why "premature"? Who did not understand what: the Tables or the ideas expressed there? -> Please fix it if you understand what is meant here. Zezen (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

the twelve tables
hello bros — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.8.145.140 (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Twelve Tables
Do the Twelve Tables support the cause for the plebeians,who are Roman common people,or the Patricians,Roman noblemen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.147.226.67 (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

What about Table III?
The text under the heading of Table III appears to be a general description of the Twelve Tables, containing nothing specifically about Table III. Is this some kind of editing error (text from elsewhere in the article moved here by mistake)? Did we ever have a description specifically of Table III? 2607:FEA8:12A2:5A00:0:0:0:C559 (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Evaluation of article
Overall, this article gives details needed to identify the laws expected of Roman citizens during this time. In particular, tables V, VI, and X are laws particular to women. Table V shows how, even in majority age, women are still expected to remain under guardianship. This table alone shows how little rights Roman women had at this point, having to constantly be under watch by men. Table VI brings a contradicting law when compared to table V. If a women is to live with a man she is not married to for a year, she will be considered his wife. A women must be under constant guardianship by a man, so this makes it very simple for a man to keep a women in his home for a year. Lastly, table X brings to light the way that women were viewed during this time. It presents women as obnoxious and uneducated, stating that, at a funeral, no women should "lacerate their faces" "tear their cheeks with their nails" or "utter loud cries bewailing the dead." This makes the assumption that most women would do these types of things at funerals and places all women into this group. This article contains many of the common laws followed during this time, but the laws restricting women seem to show much about their treatment at this time. All of the content in this article seems to be up to date. Also, the article gets straight to the point and makes it simple for the reader to get the basic details of the Twelve Tables and allows a person to quickly understand the topic of the article. The article does not reference as many sources as expected for this type of topic, but the sources referenced still give the main idea of the article and allow people to understand the information given. There definitely could be more images in the article but the two images that are present help tie to the article as a whole. The article's talk section mainly discusses possible improvements to the article and doesn't seem to be used too often. Mattlimoli (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Bronze or copper?
These are not the same. Which was it? I go for bronze, copper would no withstand long exposure to the elements. 2001:8003:2217:F300:8D4F:D1D9:1CDE:4926 (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Twelve tables
Written down is 450-451 bCE. 1.36.57.252 (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Twelve Tables


text:
User talk:Mirks

Hi and welcome, newcomer. Although I appreciate your registering for a user account, if you continue to vandalize pages you will be banned. Please look at the Manual of Style if you wish to make worthwhile contributions, as it will prove invaluable to your editing in the future. Thanks, and I hope you enjoy the 'pedia! -- goatasaur

If you want to play. See how things work around here, without upsetting people or vandalizing pages uses sandbox Theresa knott 04:55 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi Mirks, regarding Coat of Arms of Victoria, it's not necessary to put in placeholder text - in fact, it is detrimental, because it changes the link color from red to blue, even though there is no genuine article in place. If you want to inform people that it will be created shortly, you can use Talk:Coat of Arms of Victoria. Cheers, Cyan 21:34, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi Mirks. Please don't reupload images which have been decided to be deleted. (Images for deletion) Thanks Dysprosia 06:32, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mirks


text:
Talk:A Theory of Justice

Original Principles
I'm reading/researching Rawls at the moment, and I must say that some of this article while generally fair is technically somewhat sloppy. For example, in as much as the sentence "Rawls specifically excludes Freedom of Contract" is taken to imply that Rawls said "...and, by the way, freedom of contract isn't counted as an inalienable natural right", or some such thing - and that's how I read it - it's simply not true. Freedom of Contract doesn't (to my eyes - prepared to stand corrected) get any mention at all, so I suppose is "specifically excluded" in that it isn't specifically included. Whether this is what Rawls meant to say is the subject of some debate - see Horacio Spector's "A contractarian approach to unconscionability", note 56, which cites some of the academic literature on this point. I have basically deleted the oringal summary and replaced it with an extract from Rawls' actual book, which has the benefit of being not only more accurate, but shorter! ElectricRay 23:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * In the chapter "Two Principles of Justice," he writes, "Of course, liberties not on the list, for example, the right to own certain kinds of property (e.g.) means of production) and freedom of contract as understood by the doctrine of laissez-faire are not basic; and so they are not protected by the priority of the first principle." It seems clear to me that he is specifically excluding freedom of contract.--Blackmagicfish (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree - Rawls clearly excludes it from the list of liberties he thinks would be enacted as a result of of his argument. It's wrong to say "It is a matter of some debate whether freedom of contract can be inferred to be included among these basic liberties", especially without sourcing it. I'm removing it. Aquamonkey (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal Interests or Personal Circumstances?
I would like to consider proposing an edit to the statement that Rawls' veil of ignorance was intended to eluicidate a "judgment [that] would not be clouded by knowledge of our own personal interests."

The way I read this was that Rawls was trying to excise personal interests from the consideration of people when attempting to formulate the principles of justice in a fair community. This is contradictory with settled economic theory and, indeed, the idea of democracy - which assumes you should be allowed to vote entirely based on your personal interests), and I don't think Rawls' philosophy intended to make that claim.

Consider this from P 11 from A Theory of Justice:

 * They are the principles that rational and free persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamentals of the terms of their association. These principles are to regulate all further agreements; they specify the kinds of social co-operation that can be entered into and the forms of government that can be established. This way of regarding the principles of justice I shall call fairness.

Rawls clearly contemplates they should be based on a concept of self interest, but that personal circumstances would not be known, rather than personal interests. This might seem like a finnicky point - but I was led by the Wikipedia article to completely misunderstand Rawls' position based on it.

I have made the edit; just wanted to explain my reasons. ElectricRay 22:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * This is another far-too-late response, but no, Rawls does indeed mean the veil of ignorance to exclude knowledge of personal interests as well as personal circumstances. For Rawls, everyone has a conception of the good - a rational plan of how her life would go best. But the decision in the original position is made in ignorance of what exactly my conception of the good is: I know I have one, and therefore that I have some personal interests; but I don't know what they are. That's why the goods to be distributed by whatever system of justice is chosen are primary goods: all-purpose means which will help achieve any conception of the good. Cheers, Sam Clark 18:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

1999 revision
I never heard that the book was revised in 1999. Anyone able to support this claim or deliver sources? And I'd be highly interested in what the changes were. --denny vrandečić 16:42, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * Amazon have the edition I assume is being referred to:[], published (in paperback) in 1999, which says revised edition on the cover. As for what was changed, I have no idea, although the amazon description says " The author has now revised the original edition to clear up a number of difficulties he and others have found in the original book..".Silverfish 17:03, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I just wonder, if the 1999 edition is actually the 1975 revised edition, because I don't know if the 1975 changes were ever introduced in the english text or if they were only part of the translations - that is, was there a 1975 revised english edition actually? Or is the 1999 edition a second revision? I looked at Amazons description and didn't get any wiser on this. But thanks for the info. --denny vrandečić 20:59, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * The 1999 version is a fully revised 2nd edition, incorporating but going beyond the 1975 revisions. Cheers, Sam Clark 19:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

2 paras cut from 'Original Position'
I cut two paragraphs, as they just don't seem to flow with the rest of the article, or be as well written, or even make much sense. Please feel free to reinsert them if you don't agree: -- Nickj 05:07, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One major problem for Rawls' criticisms of the utilitarians can be formulated as follows. Rawls' main criticism of the utilitarian is that the theory is focused on the concept of the 'impartial observer'. However, his theory on 'justice as fairness', is itself based on a very similar notion. Justice as fairness derives its own justification from the 'veil of ignorance' which, through its impartiality will safeguard the standard of moral decision making.

However, it can be argued that the utilitarian stance is in a better position than Rawls' criticism of it for the following reason: Rawls seeks to ground his theory of justice in an altogether abstract model of impartiality, to safeguard his justifications and the 'fairness' of his theory. Utilitarianism seeks to ground its impartiality within the system in the actual contingent application of the theory; working from this to the more abstract concepts of 'moral utility', dispositionalism, and concepts of desire and preferences. Therefore, far from achieving its desired result, Rawls' criticism of utilitarianism seems only to make utilitarianism more, rather than less plausible.

Utilitarianism
Not a big deal but I changed the last line in the 2nd Prinicple for accuracy. It now reads,"Rawls does not justify the suffering some people for the greater benefit of others (something many versions of utilitarianism seem to validate)." Rule Utilitarianism would seem to mostly avoid the problem and there are other more nuanced versions which would at the very least leave it an open question.--Jsn4 04:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Focus on Utilitarianism
I think the focus on utilitarianism in this piece is in general misplaced. Although Rawls does provide to my mind fairly conclusive arguments against utilitarianism, I don't think that's either his main purpose or the most interesting thing about theory of justice. Bearing in mind his earlier work on political obligation, it seems to me the main task of theory is to give an account of how it is that the restrictions on freedom which any state or society implies are justified. The original position and the principles derived from it, if they are compelling, are compelling because they show that we would rationally accept particular rules governing the distribution of the benefits of social cooperation absent any distribution of those benefits at all, and so in effect absent any coercion. We would freely agree to Rawls' society: that's what matters, I think. Because of this, I'd like to alter the article, so as to remove the emphasis on utilitarianism as philosophical motivation. I'll probably do this piecemeal over the next week or so, so if anyone has any objections, could they say so fairly sharpish. RobJubb 16:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC).

Second principle
uhh someone has swapped a. and b. of the second principle for some reason and has failed to sawp the explanation below.

Yeah, I did, when I re-wrote the whole thing last winter, because that's the way round they're supposed to be. The difference principle should b) of the second principle, and, also, at some point, someone's removed the bit saying that a) - fair equality of opportunity - is lexically priorRobJubb 23:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm late to this, and in any case it's been put back, but (a) difference principle and then (b) fair equality of opportunity is the way round Rawls puts them, despite the lexical priority of (b) over (a). Cheers, Sam Clark 19:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

- It hasn't been corrected yet. Whatever their order, equality of opportunity comes before the difference principle lexically. --Maxcanada (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Rawls' project
Hi. This:

 * Rawls' primary objective in A Theory of Justice is to provide a solution to the problem of political obligation...

seems to me to be pretty clearly mistaken. Rawls says next to nothing about political obligation in A Theory of Justice: the closest he comes is a brief discussion of civil disobedience, and the few index entries to 'political obligation' mostly lead to discussions of the obligations of people who hold political office, not of citizens in general. Rawls' project is to work out what justice requires in the organisation of society (rough answer: fair distribution of primary goods), not to explain why we should obey authority. I'd like to change the article to reflect this, but I'd like some input here first. Cheers, Sam Clark 16:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe there should be some mention on his beliefs about civil disobedience. To "work out what justice requires in the organisation of society" as you say, wouldn't there need to be a sense of moral responsibilty to obey the law? Hence, wouldn't there need to be a universal repect for society's law? Rawls' Theory of Fair Play would mean we should obey authority in order to allow a "fair distribution of primary goods". Do you see what i mean? 82.18.226.22 14:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed up this short opening passage to be truer to what Rawls says about his theory in ToJ - the problem of obligation, and of justification, rises to prominence in Political Liberalism, but I don't think it's right to describe the central concern of ToJ as being about political obligation. Lorenking (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

First principle
I was just wondering whether the first principle should be taken from p.266 of the revised edition, considering that on p53, where the current wording in this article is taken from, says "the final version of the two principles is given in sec46...".

I'm not a Rawls expert, so I'm not going to change this myself. But maybe someone can change the wording of the first principle to read: "Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all" (p266, revised edition).
 * I agree, this edit sounds much better, and more like what Rawls was going for!Stayhomegal (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

(Sometimesthinking 13:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

remove "Secondary Sources" warning?
The Wikipedia "sources warning" appears at the start of this entry: "This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources. (January 2008)"

... but this doesn't seem justified by either the subject matter, or the present state of the article.

First, the criticisms and clarifications discussed in the article are now all appropriately sourced (I've just inserted some additional reference information for several of these); and

Second, the restriction on primary sources and "sources affiliated with the subject" seems a bit odd when (i) the primary source in question is the book that the article is about, and when the referenced articles are either (ii) the author's own elaborations and responses to criticisms, or (iii) the major published works that are either critical of the author's approach, or that make constructive contributions to the author's research programme.

Can we go ahead and remove the sources warning now? Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorenking (talk • contribs) 15:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed unsourced comment
The result is both hypothetical and ahistorical. It is hypothetical because, the agreement of parties is under hypothetical conditions only. In reality they may not reach the same agreement. The principles of justice are what would be agreed upon if people were in the hypothetical situation of the original position.

It is ahistorical because such agreement has never been, derived in the real world outside of carefully limited experimental exercises.

I just removed this from the wiki, for three reasons.

A) I don't think it's true. B) It's POV C) It wasn't cited sufficiently.

Someone reversed my edit, stating lots more of the article hadn't been cited and could be removed on the same grounds. So I'd like this paragraph to either be removed, or this warning to reappear on the page please. 86.176.44.184 (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thin Theory of The Good and Priority of Liberty
I'm in a class right now that is mostly Rawlsian, and my professor emphasized heavily The Thin Theory of the Good, and The Priority of Liberty. I added in a sentence for each to this page, but if my edits do not flow well or need more clarification, please feel free to let me know :)Stayhomegal (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The lead is incorrect.
My edit was reverted. I suggest the reverting editor go back and reread Rawls's first chapter; particularly the first paragraph of section three therein. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Your edit was reverted because it was inaccurate. A Theory of Justice is specifically about distributive justice, not "Social institutions" in general (a ridiculous idea). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Just got done reading this book front to cover for a class. This page has a lot of things wrong, especially the opening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.134.235.163 (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

robert nozick - a passing mention? some notes on "influence and reception"
hey everyone, just your neighbourhood nozickian passing through this rawlsian neck of the woods.

I couldn't help but notice that nozick gets but a passing mention on the page, despite the fact that rawls is very often taught alongside nozick in a "rawls v nozick" fashion. I think this is a bit of a disservice to the criticism section, as nozick's book dedicated entire sections to refutations of rawls arguments, and spawned a whole academic debate in its own right.

this section could do with some improvements I think. all the names are here - you got mills in there, sen, gerry cohen, okin, all the big ones. the section on mills is especially good...but the rest are a bit disjointed and left wanting. going from sandel, to okin, to arrow / harsanyi seems a bit random to me. it would be better if we could organise these more clearly, where each paragraph is dedicated to one clear sustained criticism. for example:

-start w/ the libertarian critiques of rawls; headed by nozick, maybe some minor critiques from other econ libs of the time.

-now the feminist response, okin and the likes

-the marxist response, headed by gerry cohen

-and the postcolonial critique, headed by mills

doesn't have to be exactly like this obviously, but you get the idea. I'm really not an expert on rawls tbh but this section is super important imo as rawls spawned a huge debate in political philosophy that we're still having on campuses everywhere, so characterising all sides of this debate clearly is imperative.

I may return to this at a later date, but right now more focused on nozick. I'll get a bit more done on that project then maybe look more into rawls after. Meikkon (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:A Theory of Justice