text:
Talk:War of Jenkins' Ear

[Untitled]
Are historians agreed as to whether or not his ear actually was cut off by the Spanish? --Dante Alighieri 07:38 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The spanish forces in Catagena de indias were 3.600 men (3000 spanish and 600 indian archers)men and not 6.000.

Reciprocal link and/or reference needed to The War of Jennifer's Ear article of Wikipedia due to the allusion
Said article - "The War of Jennifer's Ear is the name given to a 1992 controversy in United Kingdom politics, between the opposition Labour Party and the governing Conservative Party. The name is an allusion to the War of Jenkins' Ear, an actual armed conflict of the 18th century."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Jennifer%27s_Ear — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Apostrophe question
Is it Jenkins's Jenkins' or Jenkin's? It appears to be in there 3 times. I know they're all the same thing, but shouldn't an effort be made to regularize usage, &c?

According to Apostrophe it would be Jenkins's --207.177.67.214 02:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It seems very odd to see the 's' missing at the end. Alpheus 10:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

 * It should be Jenkins's. Jenkins' would be used if more than person named Jenkins had lost their ear. Jenkin's would be used if one person named Jenkin (no s at the end) had lost his ear. There is near universal incorrect use in Wikipedia of apostrophe of possession in words that denote a singular entity in possession of something when that word ends in s. I'll change it. At least I try (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how to change the title.At least I try (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Your assertion is wrong: either form is correct. However, in spoken English the preference is not to add an additional 's' because that makes it more difficult to pronounce. If we have a few consistent contemporary sources we can use whatever form they do, but until someone produces them, we'll stick with the long standing version. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge?
Merge the two - absolutely merge. Bubba73 (talk), 03:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The two Jenkins ear war articles should be merged - and their sardonic tones should be maintained. A strange war with a strange name. A real oddity of history! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Provocateur (talk • contribs) 1 August 2006

 * The only difference in the title is the type of apostrophe. Bubba73 (talk), 15:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

 * War of Jenkins’ Ear
 * War of Jenkins' Ear

 * Merge. Obviously two articles on the same subject. Make War of Jenkins’ Ear a REDIRECT to War of Jenkins' Ear --Grstain | Talk 18:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I haven't read them carefully. Is there any material in one that needs to go into the other?  Bubba73 (talk), 18:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge Anagnorisis  00:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Then someone needs to do it. I don't think that I'm knowledgeable enough about the history of the war to do it.  I'm only in it because a couple of the battles of it took place near here.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I did the merge of what was in the two articles. I also added a number of places where we citations, particularly to suppose motivations attributed to various parties' actions.Lisamh 17:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Just read the article and the phrase "in 1738 Jenkins exhibited his pickled ear to the House of Commons, whipping up war fever against Spain" is totally brilliant. War over an ear. Lol. LordHarris 18:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Dont merge: I suggest to read the article: ""Guerra de la oreja de Jenkins"" in Wikipedia in Spanish

Declaration of War
States that Walpole declared war. But the Prime Minister has no such power, only the monarch. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That was George II, and as the wiki article on him notes, "As king, he exercised little control over policy in his early reign, the government instead being controlled by Great Britain's first de facto Prime Minister, Sir Robert Walpole."... The situation was a lot like now, I think. One talks about Tony Blair, not Elizabeth II, invading Iraq, for example.

Furius (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Map
The map on this page needs to be changed. It isn't in English. --User:Wikipedian1234 February 18th, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 00:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Jenkins' Ear
I removed a reference to Jenkins' Ear being the cause of the war. It wasn't, territorial and trading disputes were. The issue of Jenkins' Ear was just held up as an example of the popular mood in Britain at the time and it became something of a cause celebre. However the incident had in fact taken place in 1731, seven years before he appeared before parliament to testify about his mistreatment and eight before war actually broke out.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Where is it now?
Does anyone know where the ear is now? British Museum? Public Record Office? House of Commons Library?

Well, this is un-cited anecdote, but FWIW--when I was a child in Jacksonville, Florida, c.1958, a girl brought for show & tell or something, a human ear, which was a family heirloom.She said it was Jenkins' ear. It was brown, and a a tad shriveled; I held it in my hand. It was undoubtedly a genuine human ear; I can still recall the tiny white hairs on it. Whether it was actually Jenkins', I cannot say with any veracity.

Wow, human ear? That was some show & tell ! I just brought rocks and frogs, mostly. Gulbenk (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

King George's War
What is the relationship between this war and King George's War? It seems they're at least close enough there should be mutual references. Papercrab (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

 * They overlap with each other (and with the War of the Austrian Succession) in an ill-defined and messy way. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it really that ill-defined? The War of Jenkins' Ear was the Anglo-Spanish war fought between 1739 and 1749.  King George's War was the Anglo-French war between 1744 and 1748, as fought in the American colonies.  The War of the Austrian Succession was a broader European War from 1740 to 1748, which came to incorporate the War of Jenkins' Ear and of which King George's War was a part. john k (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

British military on the mainland?
I recently found several sources in my own family that claim that one of my ancestors -- a Huguenot living in London whose grandfather had come there from France -- arrived in America as part of a British regiment involved in the War of Jenkins' Ear. There aren't many published histories of that war, and none that are recent, but it seems clear that British military activity -- by troops from Great Britain, that is -- was confined to the Caribbean. The invasion of Georgia was by Spanish forces and was met by colonial troops already resident in Georgia. The guy I'm interested in, however, almost certainly showed up first on the Chesapeake, in either Virginia or Maryland. And it's entirely possibly he was part of a "routine" military deployment, or maybe a replacement of one regiment by another. Does anyone here know whether any British units were deployed to the mainland colonies as part of the war effort, perhaps as part of contingency planning? (Assuming anyone had the time to think that far ahead.) Or can you point me to a more detailed history of units of British regulars in the war? --Michael K. Smith (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Title change
I changed the title, because -- as was evident from the text of the article itself -- the name attributed to the war was detracting from an examination of the proper causes and progress of the war itself. The name is by no means contemporary -- it was not used at the time, nor for more than a hundred years afterwards, but was invented by the Victorian historian Thomas Carlyle. The Jenkins incident, colorful though it was, had virtually nothing to do with the actual outbreak of war. Parliamentary discussions in 1738-1739 record a great deal about the different payments to be made to various parties as a result of the Convention, but nothing at all about Mr. Jenkins. The adoption of Carlyle's frivolous epithet leads to a great deal of discussion in the article about matters which are unrelated to the war, and which should be relegated to a footnote (if mentioned at all). With Mr. Jenkins out of the way, a good deal more might be said about the actual friction between England and Spain which led to the declaration of war by Walpole's government. RandomCritic (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I’m all in favour of WP:Bold but did you not think it might be an idea to propose this on the talk page first and marshal your arguments that Anglo-Spanish War is the common name for the conflict before making such a radical move?

 * I agree with you that the Jenkins incident wasn’t especially critical in the ultimate march to war, and it was not a direct cause of the war, (although I believe reports of the case in the press, along with similar cases, did inflame British public opinion – and had some bearing on the ultimate decision to declare war). If I remember right the article used to incorrectly suggest that the war was declared because of the Jenkins incident, which it no longer does.

 * However in spite of this – the War of Jenkins’ Ear is the name by which the conflict is known to such an extent that the Spanish refer to it by the same name. How this came about is besides the point with regard to the naming of the article.

 * I also find your argument a bit strange. The title of the article or the section about Jenkins doesn’t prohibit you from adding additional information about the non-Jenkins build-up to the war. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was interested to read RandomCritic's assertion that it was Thomas Carlyle who popularised/invented the term War of Jenkins' Ear. If this is accurate, it would be a valuable addition to the article. I have done my own research, and have found the exact quote in History of Friedrich II vol XI, chap VI (and "Jenkins/Jenkins' Ear"scattered throughout). I have thus edited the reference in to the opening paragraph of the article, line referenced. If anyone knows of an earlier literary reference, please make a re-edit.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC))

Georgia Inaccuracy
The following statement in the Georgia subparagraph is not exactly true: "Border clashes between Florida and Georgia continued for the next few years, but there were no further offensive operations on the American mainland by either nation." Oglethorpe lead a less well know attempt to take Augustine in 1743, but this also failed. Shortly after that attempt, he sailed home to England to face some charges of a jealous subordinate, was acquitted, but never returned to the Georgia colony. The statement is therefore inaccurate. Unless there is an objection made on this discussion, I'll update that paragraph in a week or two. DanQuigley 03:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Explanation for not valid source Jenkins Ear War
David Casado Rabanal (Madrid, 1954). Degree at Universidad Complutense de Madrid in Information Sciences, in Political Sciences and in Sociology, is currently the press manager of the Museum of America in Madrid. He is editor of the weekly review of National Association of Finantial Advisors. Former manager of Diario del Júcar newspaper (Diario 16), and redactor in the Review of Cultural Information. He has been press manager of the Provincial government of Jaen, press manager of the Queen Sofía National Museum, and colaborator, redactor and publisher of several newspapers and reviews. He is considereed an expert in Spanish modern history, and in European naval policy during the XVIII century.

Casado Rabanal, David (2009). La Marina Ilustrada. Sueño y Ambición de la España del XVIII. Ediciones Antigona. ISBN 978-84-92531-06-6. ^ Casado Rabanal, p. 250-251: [Guerra de la Oreja de Jenkins]...España, a cambio, se obliga a intervenir en la guerra de Sucesión de Austria (1741-1748) a la vez que avivaba su enfrentamiento contra los británicos, que dentro del marco de la mencionada "Guerra de la Oreja de Jenkins", que para España se llamó "del Asiento", ya habían saqueado la ciudad panameña de Portobelo, sitiado Cartagena de Indias y atacado otros puertos de la costa venezolana. El que resultará ser el primer gran conflicto colonial de envergadura contra los británicos terminará no obstante, con una clara victoria para las armas españolas, ya que gracias a las espléndidas fortificaciones defensivas de las plazas americanas y a la sostenida intendencia que proporciona nuestra recuperada marina mercante y de guerra, España podrá finalmente contener la ofensiva británica y resultar victoriosa en América Translation: [Jenkins Ear War]...Spain, in exchage, forces herself to intervene in the Austrian Sucession War (1741) at the same time that bitters her confrontation agaisnt the British, who whitin the frmae of the already discussed "Jenkins Ear War", that in Spain was known as "del Asiento", had already looted the Panamanian city of Portobelo, sieged Cartagena de Indias and attacked a number of ports in the coast of Venezuela. This, which turned to be the first great colonial conflict agaisnt the British, will end nevertheless in a clear victory for the Spanish arms, given that thanks to the splendid defensive fortresses in the american cities, and thanks to the sustained supplying provided by our renewed merchant and military navies, Spain will manage finally to hold the British offensive and to result victorious in America. Now, please stop destroying my contribution. If you think this source is not valid, then you must explain clearly to me and to a (not-English) moderator why. Watching your log of contributions I am starting to suspect what is the real problem here, and it is not my source, I am not the biased one. Regards, Miguel.

 * Thanks for the translation, but obviously you're not a "moderator", whatever that's supposed to be, or you'd understand that all Wikipedias operate a policy called "verifiability". In the English-language Wikipedia that means we use (primarily) English sources; in the article we have three English sources which say one thing, and one Spanish source which says something else; we go with the weight of the three English sources. Bias would be attributing undue weight to a single source making an exceptional claim, so the real problem most assuredly lies with you and your IP meat/sockpuppets. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Sorry but you don't understand. I will explain you again: Spanish source and English sources are not contradictory, you can add 100 more sources in the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle and I can add 100 Spanish sources more in the very same Aix-La-Chapelle. Aix-La-Chapelle is the treaty that ends the Austrian Sucession War and by extension hostilities between Spain and Great Britain. Casado does not neglect at any moment Aix-La-Chapelle, nor claims anything agaisnt Aix-La-Chapelle, does not enter in contradiction with the English sources, and therefore there is nothing to discuss about the verifiability. Military result of War of Jenkins Ear, which is the topic of this article, is what he talks about. And he doesn't make any exceptional claim, what he does is to state an obvious fact that is implicit in the very same article, only looking at the number of loses of each side, and status quo ante bellum reached when British attacks were repelled, de result of the most significant battle in the conflict by a longshot, and the fact that Britain failed in all its goals in America. Please, provide a source that states that Britain won the war, that result was unconclusive or that Spain didn't win, and then your point about contradictory sources will be right. I have provided a valid source and you are reverting my contribution based on your own biased, ilogical and dogmatic point of view. In the Falklands War article it appears status quo ante bellum and on the top of it, it appears British Victory. It is the same if in the Spanish Wikipedia an Argentine deletes British Victory and leaves status quo ante bellum and then he ads 1, 2, 3, 10 sources in the status quo ante bellum note, and says that that British victory claims are not valid and in the Spanish wikipedia because Spanish sources must prevail.
 * In the World War I article, there appear Treaty of Versailles, Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine, Treaty of Trianon, and Treaty of Sèvres, and all this does not prevent the words "allied victory" appearing in the section of the result. Is the same if in the German wikipedia somebody deletes allied victory and ads 20 sources to each one of the treaties, and then he claims that allied victory is not a valid claim because it enters in contradicton with all the other sources that he provides and in German wikipedia there must prevail german sources. It is ridiculous and something typical from a biggot.
 * But it seems that in your mind "status quo ante bellum" or "treaty of X" are reason enough to avoid typing "X victory" only when Britain is in the loser side.-Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.48.27 (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Drop the incivility, you're already on very shaky ground using sockpuppets as it is.
 * Sources agree that the military result of this conflict was inconclusive so that is what Wikipedia reflects: Apart from a few treasure ships, Spain didn't lose anything to Britain, but Spain didn't gain much at British expense. Britain didn't gain much at Spanish expense, but apart from a few captured French merchant ships Britain didn't lose anything to Spain either.
 * The difference seems to be in the historiography: Spanish popular history apparently presents this as some sort of glorious victory solely because Spain succeeded in not losing Cartagena. English language sources (try checking those cited in the article instead of lazily challenging me to provide some) look at the wider picture and do not describe this as a victory for either side. From the British perspective it was simply a "war of smash and grab raids" (Lawrence); sometimes they succeeded (Porto Bello, Manilla), sometimes they didn't (Santiago de Cuba, Cartagena) - no big deal. The Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle was returned things to the way they were, but settled nothing. It only lasted six years before the Seven Years War, which is seen as a continuation of the War of Austrian Succession; there is no doubt about who came out on top there.
 * Your example of the Falklands War is poor. First it was a concerted attempt to grab territory, unlike Vernon's raids on Carribbean ports, and secondly for Argentina there were significant consequences (political upheaval, loss of military projection power, and further economic woe) when it lost every battle, unlike Britain which was stronger in 1748. The other examples don't even make sense.
 * All in all this is a pretty terrible article - unbalanced weighting of different sections, lack of sources especially in sections relating to Spanish successes, and the inaccuracy of some of the information presented. This needs to be dealt with.
 * Also, this discussion doesn't belong on my talk page - I'm moving this to the article talk page.Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, your source is contradicting the other sources by suggesting that one side came out ahead of another at the end of the war. Since it is outweighted numerically (and to a lesser extent because it is not in English) it is not included. The history of specific battles is described within the article and those sections speak for themselves; linked articles accurately describe the outcomes. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

 * I don't know what a sockpuppet is.
 * The intention of Spain was not gaining anything to Britain expense, but to protect its colonial posessions, which managed to do. The intention of Great Britain was to take, at least partially, and divide the Spanish colonial posessions in Central America (Batista González), they failed with huge losses in men and assets. What did the British win at the expense of Argentina in the Falklands War? Nothing, simply retaining the islands as Spain did with her colonial posessions, consequences for the enemy can be better or worse, but it doesn't affect the result of the military engagement. According your logic, the concept of pyrrhic victory would not exist, or it should even be classified as a defeat. As far as I know winning all the battles is not a must for winning the war, or maybe the allies won all the battles in the WWII? It is an utterly absurd claim. You are expressing your personal opinions and views, which are not relevant. I am providing you with a source, and you don't do the same thing. This does not appear in the Spanish popular historiography, because among other things, if 99,9% of British never heard of this war, at least 90% of Spaniards never heard about it either. Don't invent arguments based on prejudices, which in your case seems to be much more numerous than your sources. Spain didn't "succeeed in not losing Cartagena", Spain defeated the British at Cartagena. Not a big deal? A fleet of 30.000 men and more than 100 vessels was not a big deal? And supposedly, I am the biased one? So you are claiming, if I understand, but I have to be wrong, that the siege of Cartagena, was not an attempt of taking and retain Cartagena? This is indeed, a exceptional claim that would need many sources. And yes, I agree that this article must be improved, but not by you if possible, or we can expect some British victory claim one of these days-Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.48.27 (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

 * You don't know what a sockpuppet is? You were a "moderator" earlier.
 * Falklands: - if neither side has a net gain or loss then it's inconclusive, but if one is a net loser then clearly there is a difference.
 * There are three (four until you deleted it) sources cited in the article against the result. I am not expressing an opinion, I'm explaining what they say - including the fact that some historians consider the attacks on the Spanish Main as "smash and grab raids". If you don't believe me read them. Or go away.
 * There might be a general point to be made that articles on wars should not have specifc "defeat"/"victory"/"draw" results and should point to specific articles on treaties or a section on consequences. Battles are easier to describe in this way, but winning one or two battles, as the Spanish did, did not make the war a "victory". Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

 * No, I don't know what is that thing that you accuse me constantly to use, which is another evidence of your character. I never claimed that I was a moderator, I typed we need a moderator, which obviously you don't want, for obvious reasons.
 * I already explained to you my view on your multiple references to Aix-La-Chapelle, I wont go again on it, read my previous comments or go away.
 * Falklands: another utterly absurd claim from your side. If somebody attacks me and tries to take my wallet, and I manage to defend myself and to keep my wallet, until the attacker withdraws with the face smashed, I won. My goal, to keep my wallet on my pocket prevailed over his, to take my wallet away. It doesn't matter how serious the injuries of the attacker are.
 * From the Wikipedia, victory: Victory (from Latin victoria) is a term, originally applied to warfare, given to success achieved in personal combat, after military operations in general or, by extension, in any competition. Success in a military campaign is considered a strategic victory, while the success in a military engagement is a tactical victory.
 * From the Wikipedia, defeat: the opposite of victory. That is, unsuccess military operations in general. Unsucces in military campaign is a strategic defeat, while unsucces in a military engagement is a tactical defeat.
 * Spain repells British attack on overall, causes heavy losses, retains 100% of her American possesions, suffers much lesser damages than Britain. Britain fails in overall goals, heavy losess both human and material, fails to gain 1 squared meter of Spanish possesions, fails to interrupt Spanish commerce, fails to attack Panama, fails to gain free commerce in America, fails to change a bit the Spanish attitude. Status quo ante bellum. Cartagena de Indias: Spanish tactical victory, British tactical defeat. War of the Jenkins Ear: Spanish strategic victory, British strategic defeat. This is a fact, and you can't hide it with cheap philosopy about defeat/victory/draw. I am providing a valid and documented source that only states what is an obvious fact. According your contribution logs it seems that you are not so relativist when dealing with British victories.-Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.48.27 (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

 * If you'd been wiki-stalking properly you'd have seen I asked for a third opinion several hours ago. I imagine the contribution below is a result of that (correct me if I'm wrong User:Cdtew).
 * Now let's look at your example. Let's change it a bit: (a) You see someone on your patch and cut their ear off, then they try to take your wallet, you successfully keep hold of your wallet and give them a bloody nose, but they kick you a few times whilst also fighting off one of your friends. (b) You all back away for a few minutes, then the guy you punched comes back and beats both of you up, takes both your wallets and keeps beating you up, on and off, for the next 75 years. That's more like what happened between 1740 and 1815. At the end of (a) we have status quo ante and by the end of (b) the other guy has won. The sources support this and that is what Wikipedia reflects. Your point of view is interesting and you might even find a few sources which vaguely support it, but nothing like as strongly as the references cited here. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL at the end the biggot couldn't hold anymore and came out, this is the kind of thing that I was expecting to read from you. It took to much for my initial guess, I must confess. I don't want to go on the personal feelings, but believe me, I am honest when I say that I very much envy Captain Julio León Fandiño, what a great pleasure must have been to cut that ear off, only to to see Vernon's fleet and crew in the botton of the sea a few years later. And that commemorative medals man, LOL. Did I told you that I personally uploaded them to the Wikipedia a few years ago after one of my multiple visits to the Madrid Naval Museum? They are too good, it was a pitty that nnobody knew about them. It will stay like that here, but believe me, the Spanish wiki will be a different story. Regards-Miguel
 * "Story" sums it up. Anyway, you'd better paddle yourself and your POV back over to the Spanish wikipedia, I expect you'll find we're all "biggots" over here, if that is the what we are for referring to reliable sources. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

So, Miguel, you're admitting to socking for User:Avieso, who uploaded File:"Toma" de Cartagena por Vernon.jpg and File:Medalla Lezo y Vernon.jpg, both of which are found in the Battle of Cartagena de Indias article? Sockpuppeting is the use of multiple accounts or IP's by the same editor to edit the encyclopedia. Sounds like a job for WP:SPI...  Cdtew  (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OH, Ok, somebody at the end explained me what is sockpuppeting, thank you. Not really, I don't do it, at least not on purpose. I uploaded the pictures from my account Avieso a few years ago, when I used it and I used to leave in Madrid, and I was frequent user. I don't use my account since years ago, I don't even remember the password. Unfortunatelly for job reasons I didn't have anymore time to use it, today is an exception this is why I have so much energy. I don't even leave in Spain since years ago, my company sent me overseas, like in the old times! My IP changes often, because I am using a wireless net from an office, each time I switch on my laptop the IP changes, it has nothing to do with some kind of sockpuppeting conspiracy (that Wiki-Ed supports), this is why also I try to sign always with my name. By the way, with my last comment I was just joking a little bit with Wiki-Ed, he seems all the time angry. My only interest is the History, and particulary the military history of Spain, therefore frequently I face Patriot Englishmen like Wiki-Ed, it also happens with Moroccans. No source that contradicts their dogmas is valid, believe me, usually I don't waste time, but today as I said I am full of energy. This is the story of our discussion. I only provide valid sources and data,and never try to impose a personal bias on my contributions, otherwise it would be to cheat myself.--Regards Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.48.27 (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion
Here's my two cents (or my thoughts on the matter, for our Spanish friend). I've reviewed sources on this war in English, French, and have read translated Spanish sources. I see no need to label this war as a victory for either side, because truthfully, this conflict didn't end with any sort of finality until 1763. The brief respite Spain and Britain had from war lasted a mere 6 years, at which point the two were back at each others' throats, including the rest of the European powers. I understand Miguel's point that a complete defense is a victory in a sense, but I also encourage us to look at the non-military goals Spain and England had:
 * First, there was the prevention of English smuggling on the Spanish Main. The Spanish failed to accomplish this, as smuggling continued to occur at large rates well into the late 18th century.
 * Second, England wanted to retain the Asiento, which England did, but for what? The War of the Austrian Succession resulted in the Asiento being worthless at best, and England gave it up two years after Aix-la-Chappelle.  Spain retained Cartagena, but Portobelo was destroyed.
 * Third, the English eventually won the right to trade on the Spanish Main.

All around, I think the current infobox stating "Status quo ante bellum" says it best. Really, it should also include "Treaty of Madrid", which fully resolved the issues raised on the war. I will also note that over on the Spanish Wikipedia, this article stated the War resulted in a Status Quo ante bellum as late as April 2013. Then, IP editor 213.98.71.110 added "spanish military victory" to the result box. Clearly, the article passed a rigorous featured article process on the Spanish wikipedia in September 2006 without indicating the war was a "Spanish victory" of any sort. It does mention that the war was an English "defeat" in the american theater, but that's a finer point. See that version here. I'd say if not calling it "Spanish victory" was sufficient for our companions over at es.wikipedia, then it should be good for us.

As a final note, the Spanish Wikipedia article infobox cites as its sole support for the "spanish victory" contention -- you guessed it, Casado. See here.  Cdtew  (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Hi, yes, you guessed it, I modified it in the Spanish Wikipedia, and it seems that it will remain like that there unless sources claiming the opposite are presented, since the valid source that I provided was originally writen in Spanish and everybody can check it, and nobody can say that it is not a valid source, because it is, and there was not, and probably there is not going to be controversy at all. Is there any rula that forbiddes to use the same reference in different wikipedias? I don't think so. But here, my point is that I read with a lot of interest your comments, I can agree or disagree, but it is not the key question, the key question is not what I think or what you think, is that I provide a valid source that does not enter in contradiction with the English sources. It is not that I think that it was a Spanish victory, which I do, it is that I provide a source. English sources, as Spanish sources, state that the Treaty of Aix-La-Chapelle formally ended the military engagement between Spain and Great Britain, but it was indirectly, since this treaty marks the end of the Austrian Succession War. This is not related with the military result of the engagement between Spain and Britain in America (Jenkins Ear War). The goal of Spain was not to end the British smugglering in the Caribbean, this goal was not related to the war at all from Spanish side, the goal of Spain was to defend her possessions in the Caribbean from the British attack, it was Britain that unilaterally declared war on Spain after the incident of the ear of the poor Jenkins. And the goal of Britain was simply to obtain control of key commercial cities in the Caribbean (they thought in La Habana and later in Cartagena) in order to supress the Spanish domination, hold control in the Caribbean, and freely engage in commerce with all the area. They spectacularly failed in America as a matter of fact (J E War). A different thing is what they obtained regarding other goals in other places, as a result of the end of the Austrian Sucession War.  As you provided a third view I will respect that, even I don't agree. But the Spanish wikipedia will be a different story. Valid sources are not the ones that fit with what each one of us think should be the best. Regards-Miguel  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.48.27 (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, the source I provide was first published in 2009, therefore it is impossible that somebody had quoted it in 2006. Unless you say that, lets say, books published after 1950 or whatever the specific date that fits better to support your point of view are not valid. -Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.48.27 (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Miguel, you are perfectly allowed to use the same source on both EN and ES wikipedia; I was merely pointing out that, prior to your edits to both the EN and ES wikipedia, both articles were in agreement that there was no "spanish victory". Now, in an effort to conciliate, I would be willing to add British military defeat to the War of Jenkins Ear article, but leave the status quo ante bellum language therein.  I think that would also accurately portray the outcome of the war.  Let me know if this is something you'd find consensus with me in.   Cdtew  (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the point that is being missed by our sockpuppet Spanish friend is that from the British perspective this war was not restricted to the Caribbean where, admittedly, British military victories were outnumbered by defeats (as covered by linked articles on specific battles). English language sources, looking at the bigger picture, treat the war against France, Spain et al as inconclusive, which is reflected in the result box for the article on the War of Austrian Succession. The fact that the Spanish were victorious in a particular battle should be reflected, the fact that the overall war was a draw should also be reflected. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, and disagree. The British had a more metropolitan view of the war, especially after 1741, being so intimately involved in the Continental war.  But, on the other hand, the actual War of Jenkins' Ear, from an encyclopedic standpoint, is limited really to Anglo-Spanish conflict in the Spanish Main and Antilles, with some spillover into the Atlantic (see Voyage of the Glorioso). So, from that perspective, I think it's safe to say that Britain suffered military defeat (also, 3/4 of your land forces being destroyed due to disease and casualties during a siege being fairly significant).  I don't, however, consider it a "Spanish military victory", because malaria did more to defeat the English than did Spanish force of arms; additionally, Spain lost its goal of preventing British interference in its colonies.  So, that being said, I think it may be best to segregate the conflicts for encyclopedic purposes and acknowledge the British took it on the nose in this one.  Also, British failures in the Caribbean caused Walpole's defeat at home...  Cdtew  (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Take it easy Wiki-Ed, there are worse things than being involuntary sockpuppeting, such as being voluntarely a stubborn patriot. It makes no sense to call something "War of Jenkins Ear" and then to state that actually, that entity was some kind of plasma that didn't exist, and that all the whole thing was just melt into a bigger confrontation with France and Spain. The war of Jenkins Ear can be a branch of a wider conflict, but it is a specific branch in which Britain was defeated. It has own entity, and there are books dedicated specifically to it.
 * Cdtew I agree with your proposal of adding British military defeat and of course to leave the status quo ante bellum, because my point, since the beginning is that they are totally different things. A treaty or a status quo is a consequence of the result of a military engagement. But in the War of the Jenkins Ear article, what is missing, is just that, the result of the military engagement itself. --Miguel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.48.27 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If we're going down that route and ringfencing it within a particular theatre then we would also need to change the dates (i.e. 1739 to 1742). I'm not convinced that this is supported by sources (I haven't seen many that cover it in any great detail anyway), but Cdtew's proposal would be logical and as a compromise would save me endlessly reverting stubborn 'patriotic' Spaniards fiddling with this article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

There, I've implemented what I believe is a workable compromise based on the War of 1812 article's result scheme. Miguel, I hope you'll find this satisfactory, as it gives a more thorough explanation of what occurred; Wiki-Ed, I hope you also concur. As far as ringfencing, I think it ought merely be partially fenced -- by acknowledging that this is a war which later became merely a theatre (and an inactive theatre at that) of a larger conflict is the messy truth. For all intents and purposes, the war "raged" until 1748, when a treaty ended its hostilities. There being no formal truce until 1748 (as evidenced by, for instance, the 1748 Spanish invasion of Brunswick Town, in the Province of North Carolina), 1748 is a fine date on which to rest the end of the war. The "War of Jenkins' Ear" very much was exclusively an American conflict, except for instances of assaults on convoys to Europe or Asia from the Spanish Main.  Cdtew  (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Date George II authorized "reprisals" against Spain
The article says "on 10 July 1739 King George II authorized the Admiralty Board to seek maritime reprisals against Spain." It has no source citation for that.

The king's two orders are actually dated 15 June 1739. See Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series: America and West Indies, 1739, ed. K. G. Davies [London: HMSO, 1994]): Documents 215, 215i. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.236.227 (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Added. If you have any more references then please let us know. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction to "Jenkins's Ear"
As discussed by Alpheus and others above, "Jenkins's" is the more correct spelling and is the one used in most reliable sources. Does anyone mind that change to the name of the page? Moonraker (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that simple. Different sources use different conventions. Some prefer the additional S, some don't. I haven't been able to find a contemporary source - I think that would be the best way to decide in this case. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean you haven't found a historical source that uses the correct punctuation? Perhaps. But should we be forced to watch for a historical source when the question here is grammatical? No. "Jenkins' Ear" implies that multiple people named Jenkins lost an ear. Obviously, that's not correct. It should be Jenkins's. If, however, you're looking for a source about the punctuation, there are plenty. Any Google search of how to correctly punctuate a singular possessive ending in s will tell you it should be Jenkins's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.34.120 (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Familiarise yourself with how Wikipedia works before commenting. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Actually, multiple sources claim that the additional s is either optional or omitted under certain circumstances. clpo13(talk) 21:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

2nd Attack on La Guaira problem
"After a fiercy defense of governor Gabriel José de Zuloaga troops, the commodore Knowles having suffered 97 killed and 308 wounded over three days, decided to retire west before sunrise on 6 March. [....] On 28 March, he sent his smaller ships to cruise off Puerto Cabello, and once his main body had been refitted by forces of governor Zuluaga, went to sea again on 31 March." Are governor Zuloaga and governor Zuluaga the same person? If so, why would he be fiercely fighting Knowles on the 6th, then "refitting" him three weeks later? Could use some clarification by someone with a good source.Tomseattle (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

 * O Hai, I just fixed this problem in *2019*. Introduced by this edit August 2015. Maybe more of that editor's edits should be reviewed. I guess not only do people not read the talk pages, but don't really read the article! (yourself excepted) Shenme (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on War of Jenkins' Ear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160504211438/http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/parliamentary-archives/archives-practical/archives-faqs/records-frequently-asked-questions/ to http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/parliamentary-archives/archives-practical/archives-faqs/records-frequently-asked-questions/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Not ear but Jenkins.
"At a favourable moment, when English traders were urging a renewal of aggressive war against Spain, earless Jenkins was exhibited in the House of Commons" Samuel Eliot Morison "The Oxford History of the American People" (1965) OUP, p155 194.207.86.26 (talk)
 * Are you suggesting an addition, or a change? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)]
 * I've added a mention of this fact, with source, to the article. Thanks, IP user. Carlstak (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Carlstak. And thanks IP. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Governor Spotswood
What became of Governor Spotswood’s remains? What was the name of the vessel he was on? Who was the ship’s Captain? Was there a ship’s log?

gjkenner@verizon.net 2600:1003:B105:FCC6:7D2C:1A87:CF2F:9BD3 (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bayes' theorem which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:War of Jenkins' Ear


text:
Chancre

A chancre is a painless genital ulcer most commonly formed during the primary stage of syphilis. This infectious lesion forms around 21 days after the initial exposure to Treponema pallidum, the gram-negative spirochaete bacterium causing syphilis, but can range from 10 to 90 days. Without treatment it may persist for two to six weeks before healing. Chancres transmit syphilis through direct physical contact. These ulcers usually form on or around the anus, mouth, penis and vulva.

Chancres are also associated with the African trypanosomiasis (sleeping sickness), surrounding the area of the tsetse fly bite.

Similarities with chancroid

Similarities between the conditions chancre and chancroid:
 * Both originate as pustules at the site of inoculation, and progress to ulcerated lesions
 * Both lesions are typically 1–2 cm in diameter
 * Both lesions are caused by sexually transmissible organisms
 * Both lesions typically appear on the genitals of infected individuals

Differences from chancroid

 * Chancres can occur in the pharynx as well as on the genitals. Not to be confused with condylomata lata, which is seen in secondary syphilis.

Etymology
The word "chancre" means "little ulcer" in Old French. Related to the English "canker", they both come from the Latin cancer, meaning "crab", which is a translation from the Greek word καρκίνος (karkínos), also meaning "crab".

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

title: Chancre


text:
PAC

Pac or PAC may refer to:

Military

 * Rapid Deployment Force (Malaysia), an armed forces unit
 * Patriot Advanced Capability, of the MIM-104 Patriot missile
 * Civil Defense Patrols (Patrullas de Autodefensa Civil), Guatemalan militia and paramilitary group

Geography

 * Pac, Albania, a village in Bytyç

Aviation

 * IATA code PAC Albrook "Marcos A. Gelabert" International Airport in Panama City, Panama
 * Pacific Aerospace Corporation, New Zealand, manufacturer of aircraft:
 * PAC 750XL
 * PAC Cresco
 * PAC CT/4
 * PAC Fletcher
 * Pakistan Aeronautical Complex, aerospace manufacturer
 * Polar Air Cargo airline, Purchase, New York, US

Business

 * Panasonic Avionics Corporation, produces equipment and services for in-flight entertainment etc.
 * Peruvian Amazon Company, a former rubber company
 * Planned Amortization Class, a type of collateralized mortgage obligation
 * Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento, an investment plan in Brazil

Education

 * Panasonic Academic Challenge, a US national competition
 * Postgraduate Applications Centre, Ireland
 * Prince Alfred College, Australia
 * Professionals' Academy of Commerce, an accounting school in Pakistan
 * Peres Academic Center, a private college in Israel

Politics

 * Anti-Corruption Party (Partido Anti-Corrupción), Honduras
 * Armed Proletarians for Communism (Proletari Armati per il Comunismo), a former Italian group
 * Pan Africanist Congress, South Africa
 * Partido Acción Ciudadana (disambiguation), several political parties in Latin America
 * Peoples' Aman Committee, a criminal gang and welfare group associated with the Pakistan Peoples Party
 * Political action committee, U.S. political fundraiser
 * Political Affairs Committee (British Guiana)
 * Polish American Congress
 * Public Accounts Committee (India)
 * Public Accounts Committee (Malaysia)
 * Public Accounts Committee (United Kingdom)
 * Public Affairs Committee (Malawi)

Other organizations

 * Padiglione d'Arte Contemporanea, a museum in Milan, Italy
 * Pedorthic Association of Canada
 * Provincial Armed Constabulary (India)
 * Public assistance committee, former UK institutions for assisting the poor

People

 * Pac (wrestler) (born 1986), English professional wrestler
 * Pac (family), of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania
 * Tupac Shakur or Pac, 2Pac (1971–1996), American rapper

Biology and medicine

 * Physician assistant, certified, commonly abbreviated in the USA as PA-C
 * Plasma aldosterone concentration
 * Post-abortion care
 * Pre-anesthesia checkup
 * Premature atrial contraction, a cardiac dysrhythmia
 * Photoactivated adenylyl cyclase, a light-sensitive protein
 * Proanthocyanidin, a type of flavanol
 * Pulmonary artery catheterization

Computing and industrial

 * Pacifica Coin, see List of TCP and UDP port numbers
 * Perceptual Audio Coder, a lossy audio compression algorithm
 * Pin Array Cartridge, an integrated circuit packaging type
 * Probably approximately correct, in machine learning
 * Presentation–abstraction–control, in software architecture
 * Programmable Automation Controller; see Computer appliance
 * Proxy auto-config, a web browser technology

Other science and technology

 * Perturbed angular correlation
 * Polyaluminium chloride, less effective than aluminium chlorohydrate for water treatment
 * Porting Authorisation Code, to transfer mobile phone numbers
 * Pseudo algebraically closed field (PAC field), in mathematics
 * Powdered activated carbon, used in electrochemical regeneration
 * Pure and Applied Chemistry, the official monthly journal of IUPAC

Sports

 * Pennsylvania Athletic Conference, former name of the Colonial States Athletic Conference, an NCAA Division III collegiate athletic conference located in Pennsylvania, United States
 * Pioneer Athletic Conference, a high school athletic conference located in Pennsylvania, United States
 * Presidents' Athletic Conference, an NCAA Division III collegiate athletic conference located in the Appalachian region of the United States
 * Pocket Athletic Conference, a high school athletic conference located in Indiana, United States

Other uses

 * Pan Asian Coalition, faction in the computer game Battlefield 2142
 * Parent-Adult-Child, a model in transactional analysis
 * Perfect authentic cadence, in music
 * Performing arts center
 * Providence Anime Conference, 2008

title: PAC


text:
Tavern

A tavern is a type of business where people gather to drink alcoholic beverages and be served food such as different types of roast meats and cheese, and (mostly historically) where travelers would receive lodging. An inn is a tavern that has a license to put up guests as lodgers. The word derives from the Latin taberna whose original meaning was a shed, workshop, stall, or pub.

Over time, the words "tavern" and "inn" became interchangeable and synonymous. In England, inns started to be referred to as public houses or pubs and the term became standard for all drinking houses.

France
From at least the 14th century, taverns, along with inns and later cabarets, were the main places to dine out. Typically, a tavern offered various roast meats, as well as simple foods like bread, cheese, herring and bacon. Some offered a wider variety of foods, though it would be cabarets and later traiteurs which offered the finest meals before the restaurant appeared in the 18th century. Their stated purpose, however, was to serve wine (not beer or cider, which had other outlets) and they were so disreputable that women of any standing avoided them.

After 1500, taxes on wine and other alcoholic beverages grew increasingly more burdensome, not only because of the continual increase in the level of taxation but also because of the bewildering variety and multiplicity of the taxes. This chaotic system was enforced by an army of tax collectors. The resultant opposition took many forms. Wine growers and tavern keepers concealed wine and falsified their methods of selling it to take advantage of lower tax rates. The retailers also refilled their casks secretly from hidden stocks. Wine merchants stealthily circumvented inspection stations to avoid local import duties. When apprehended, some defrauders reacted with passive resignation, while others resorted to violence. Situated at the heart of the country town or village, the tavern was one of the traditional centers of social and political life before 1789, a meeting place for both the local population and travelers passing through and a refuge for rogues and scoundrels. Taverns symbolized opposition to the regime and to religion.

Taverns sometimes served as restaurants. In Paris, the first restaurant in the modern sense of the term was founded in 1765. However, the first Parisian restaurant worthy of the name was the one founded by Beauvilliers in 1782 in the Rue de Richelieu, called the Grande Taverne de Londres.

Émile Zola's novel L'Assommoir ('The Tavern', 1877) depicted the social conditions typical of alcoholism in Paris among the working classes. The drunk destroyed not only his own body, but also his employment, his family, and other interpersonal relationships. The characters Gervaise Macquart and her husband Coupeau exemplified with great realism the physical and moral degradation of alcoholics. Zola's correspondence with physicians reveals that he used authentic medical sources for his realistic depictions in the novel.

Germany
A common German name for German taverns or pubs is Kneipe. Drinking practices in 16th-century Augsburg, Germany, suggest that the use of alcohol in early modern Germany followed carefully structured cultural norms. Drinking was not a sign of insecurity and disorder. It helped define and enhance men's social status and was therefore tolerated among men as long as they lived up to both the rules and norms of tavern society and the demands of their role as householders. Tavern doors were closed to respectable women unaccompanied by their husbands, and society condemned drunkenness among women, but when alcohol abuse interfered with the household, women could deploy public power to impose limits on men's drinking behaviour.

United Kingdom
Taverns were popular places used for business as well as for eating and drinking – the London Tavern was a notable meeting place in the 18th and 19th centuries, for example. However, the word tavern is no longer in popular use in the UK as there is no distinction between a tavern and an inn. Both establishments serve wine and beer/ale. The term 'pub' (an abbreviation of 'public house') is now used to describe these houses. The legacy of taverns and inns is now only found in the pub names, e.g. Fitzroy Tavern, Silver Cross Tavern, Spaniards Inn, etc. The word also survives in songs such as "There is a Tavern in the Town".

The range and quality of pubs varies wildly throughout the UK as does the range of beers, wines, spirits and foods available. Most quality pubs will still serve cask ales and food. In recent years there has been a move towards "gastro" pubs where the menu is more ambitious. Originally, taverns served as rest stops about every fifteen miles and their main focus was to provide shelter to anyone who was traveling. Such taverns would be divided into two major parts – the sleeping quarters and the bar. There is generally a sign with some type of symbol, often related to the name of the premises, to draw in customers. The purpose of this is to indicate that the establishment sells alcohol and to set it apart from the competition.

Scandinavia
Scandinavia had very high drinking rates, which led to the formation of a powerful prohibition movement in the 19th century. Magnusson (1986) explains why consumption of spirits was so high in a typical preindustrial village (Eskilstuna) in Sweden, 1820–50. An economic feature of this town of blacksmiths was the Verlag, or outwork production system, with its complex network of credit relationships. The tavern played a crucial role in cultural and business life and was also the place where work and leisure were fused. Heavy drinking facilitated the creation of community relationships in which artisans and workers sought security. Buying drinks rather than saving money was a rational strategy when, before adjustment to a cash economy, it was essential to raise one's esteem with fellow craftsmen to whom one could turn for favors in preference to the Verlag capitalist.

Greece
A restaurant in Greece is commonly known as a taverna. Their history begins in Classical times, with the earliest evidence of a taverna discovered at the Ancient Agora of Athens; the style remains the same to this day. Greek tavernes (plural of taverna) are the most common restaurants in Greece. A typical menu includes portion dishes, or small dishes of meat and fish, as well as salads and appetizers. Mageirefta is the menu section that includes a variety of different casserole cooked dishes every day. The other choices are mainly prepared roasted (tis oras) or fried. Orektika (appetizers) include small dishes of Greek sauces, alifes, usually eaten on bites of bread. Tavernes offer different kinds of wines and retsina in barrels or in bottles, ouzo or tsipouro, with beer and refreshments being a recent addition. In Byzantine times, tavernes were the place for a social gathering, to enjoy a meal, live music and friendly talk with a drink accompanied by small variety dishes (mezes).

Former Yugoslavia
In former Yugoslavia, the kafana serves food and alcoholic beverages.

Czech Republic & Slovakia
The most frequent Czech translation of tavern or pub is "hospoda". It comes out from hospodář (landlord) and is also close to hostitel (host), host (guest) and hostina (dinner, banquet). And also to Russian gospodin (master, lord, sir) and, not to forget, to hospitality. Traditionally, "hospoda" or "hostinec" were full-fledged facilities, providing lodging, meals and drink, an inn. In modern times, the meaning of the word has a bit narrowed. Nevertheless, it is used colloquially to denote both traditional restaurants where people go to eat, and bars, where people mainly go to drink and socialize. "Hospoda" is nowadays a very widespread but only colloquial word, while "hostinec" or "pohostinství" were often official names of such establishment in the 20th century, now a bit obsolete. "Hospoda" could be with meals served or without, typically with tapped beer. (This term is not used for wine bars.) As drinking beer is an important part of the Czech culture, inviting to "hospoda" generally means: "let's go and have a drink together, let's meet, chat, and socialize…". It is often equipped with a TV, billiards table, darts etc. Pubs serve both local regulars as well as excursionists, tourists and other guests.

Establishments specialized primarily in the consumption of beer (beer bars) are called "výčep" ("výčap" in Slovak), expressively "nálevna", or "pajzl" (from German Baisel, originally from Jidish). "Knajpa" (from German) is an expressive word, and "krčma" is rather archaic in Czech. The word "taverna" (from Italian) is understood as a foreign term for establishment from South-European cultures, especially Greek or Italian.

In Moravia, especially South Moravia, this social role is rather fulfilled by "wine cellars".

Slovak language prefers the word "krčma" as a neutral colloquial term for pubs and restaurants. It is an old panslavic word.

Iraq
One of the earliest references to a tavern is found in the Code of Hammurabi.

Europe

 * Bennett, Judith M. Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women's Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600 (Oxford University Press, 1996)
 * Brennan, Thomas. Public Drinking and Popular Culture in Eighteenth Century Paris (1988),
 * Clark, Peter. The English Alehouse: A Social History, 1200–1800 (1983).
 * Unger, Richard W. Beer in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (U of Pennsylvania Press, 2004)
 * Yeomans, Henry. Alcohol and moral regulation: Public attitudes, spirited measures and Victorian hangovers (Bristol University Press, 2014) online

title: Tavern


text:
Bar (establishment)

A bar, also known as a saloon, a tavern or tippling house, or sometimes as a pub or club, is an establishment retail business that serves alcoholic beverages, such as beer, wine, liquor, cocktails, and other beverages such as mineral water and soft drinks. Bars often also sell snack foods, such as crisps or peanuts, for consumption on their premises. Some types of bars, such as pubs, may also serve food from a restaurant menu. The term "bar" refers to the countertop where drinks are prepared and served, and by extension to the overall premises.

The term derives from the metal or wooden bar (barrier) that is often located along the length of the "bar". Over many years, heights of bars were lowered, and high stools added, and the brass bar remains today.

Bars provide stools or chairs that are placed at tables or counters for their patrons. Bars that offer entertainment or live music are often referred to as "music bars", "live venues", or "nightclubs". Types of bars range from inexpensive dive bars to elegant places of entertainment, often accompanying restaurants for dining.

Many bars operate a discount period, designated a "happy hour" or discount of the day to encourage off-peak-time patronage. Bars that fill to capacity sometimes implement a cover charge or a minimum drink-purchase requirement during their peak hours. Bars may have bouncers to ensure that patrons are of legal age, to eject drunk or belligerent patrons, and to collect cover charges. Such bars often feature entertainment, which may be a live band, vocalist, comedian, or disc jockey playing recorded music.

Patrons may sit or stand at the counter and be served by a bartender. Depending on the size of a bar and its approach, alcohol may be served at the bar by bartenders, at tables by servers, or by a combination of the two. The "back bar" is a set of shelves of glasses and bottles behind the counter. In some establishments, the back bar is elaborately decorated with woodwork, etched glass, mirrors, and lights.

History

There have been many different names for public drinking spaces throughout history. In the colonial era of the United States,  taverns were an important meeting place, as most other institutions were weak. During the 19th century saloons were very important to the leisure time of the working class. Today, even when an establishment uses a different name, such as "tavern" or "saloon" or, in the United Kingdom, a "pub", the area of the establishment where the bartender pours or mixes beverages is normally called "the bar".

The sale and/or consumption of alcoholic beverages was prohibited in the first half of the 20th century in several countries, including Finland, Iceland, Norway, and the United States. In the United States, illegal bars during Prohibition were called "speakeasies", "blind pigs", and "blind tigers".

Legal restrictions
Laws in many U.S. states prohibit minors from entering a bar, such as California. In the UK, minors are permitted to be in a bar, though there are very few bars that do not also serve food. In many jurisdictions, if those under legal drinking age are allowed to enter, as is the case with pubs that serve food, they are not allowed to drink; in the U.S., there are 8 states where children may drink in a pub if accompanied by their parents. In some jurisdictions, bars cannot serve a patron who is already intoxicated. Cities and towns usually have legal restrictions on where bars may be located and on the types of alcohol they may serve to their customers. Some bars may have a license to serve beer and wine, but not hard liquor. In some jurisdictions, patrons buying alcohol must also order food. In some jurisdictions, bar owners have a legal liability for the conduct of patrons who they serve (this liability may arise in cases of driving under the influence which cause injuries or deaths).

Many Islamic countries prohibit bars as well as the possession or sale of alcohol for religious reasons, while others, including Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, allow bars in some specific areas, but only permit non-Muslims to drink in them.

Types
A bar's owners and managers choose the bar's name, décor, drink menu, lighting, and other elements which they think will attract a certain kind of patron. However, they have only limited influence over who patronizes their establishment. Thus, a bar originally intended for one demographic profile can become popular with another. For example, a gay or lesbian bar with a dance or disco floor might, over time, attract an increasingly heterosexual clientele, or a blues bar may become a biker bar if most its patrons are bikers. Bars can also be an integral part of larger venues. For example, hotels, casinos and nightclubs are usually home to one or several bars. Other types of bar are including:

 * A cocktail lounge is an upscale bar that is typically located within a hotel, restaurant or airport.
 * A full bar serves liquor, cocktails, wine, and beer.
 * A wine bar is a bar that focuses on wine rather than on beer or liquor. Patrons of these bars may taste wines before deciding to buy them. Some wine bars also serve small plates of food or other snacks.
 * A beer bar focuses on beer, particularly craft beer, rather than on wine or liquor. A brew pub has an on-site brewery and serves craft beers.
 * "Fern bar" is an American slang term for an upscale or preppy (or yuppie) bar.
 * A music bar is a bar that presents live music as an attraction, such as a piano bar.
 * A dive bar, often referred to simply as a "dive", is a very informal bar which may be considered by some to be disreputable.
 * A non-alcoholic bar is a bar that does not serve alcoholic beverages.
 * A strip club is a bar with nude entertainers.
 * A bar and grill is also a restaurant.

Some persons may designate either a room or an area of a room as a home bar. Furniture and arrangements vary from efficient to full bars that could be suited as businesses.

Entertainment
Bars categorized by the kind of entertainment they offer:
 * Arcade bars, in which the bar have video games on cabinets and consoles
 * Blues bars, specializing in the live blues style of music
 * Comedy bars, specializing in stand-up comedy entertainment
 * Dance bars, which have a dance floor where patrons dance to recorded music. Typically, if a venue has a large dance floor, focuses primarily on dancing rather than seated drinking, and hires professional DJs, it is considered to be a nightclub or discothèque rather than a bar.
 * Karaoke bars, with nightly karaoke as entertainment
 * Music bars, specializing in live music (i.e. concerts). Piano bars are one example.
 * Drag bars, which specialize in drag performances as entertainment
 * Salsa bars, where patrons dance to Latin salsa music
 * Sports bars, which are furnished with sports-related memorabilia and theming, and typically contain a large number of televisions used to broadcast major sporting events for their patrons.
 * A tiki bar offers a fully immersive and entertaining environment, including tropical cocktails, tiki carvings, exotica music, a dark, windowless space with light fixtures lending a soft glow, and nautical brick-a-brac that hints at romantic travels to exotic lands.
 * Topless bars, where topless female employees dance or serve drinks. In India, these bars are called dance bars, which is distinct from the type of "dance bar" discussed above.

Patrons
Bars can categorized by the kind of patrons who frequent them:
 * Biker bars, which are bars frequented by motorcycle enthusiasts and (in some regions) motorcycle club members.
 * Cop bars, where off-duty law enforcement agents gather.
 * College bars, usually located in or near universities, where most of the patrons are students
 * Gay bars, where gay men or women dance and socialize
 * Hipster bars, where hipsters are the patrons of this bar
 * Lesbian bars
 * Neighborhood bars, a bar that most of the patrons know each other; it is generally close to home and is frequented regularly
 * Sailor bars, usually located in waterfront areas near commercial docks or naval bases
 * Singles bars where (mostly) unmarried people of both sexes can meet and socialize
 * Sports bars, where sports fans gather to cheer on their favorite teams with other like-minded fans. Sports bars generally have a dozen or more televisions, in order to display simultaneous games or sports
 * Women's bars

Bar (counter)
The counter at which drinks are served by a bartender is called "the bar". This term is applied, as a synecdoche, to drinking establishments called "bars". This counter typically stores a variety of beers, wines, liquors, and non-alcoholic ingredients, and is organized to facilitate the bartender's work.

Counters for serving other types of food and drink may also be called bars. Examples of this usage of the word include snack bars, sushi bars, juice bars, salad bars, dairy bars, and ice cream sundae bars.

Australia
In Australia, the major form of licensed commercial alcohol outlet from the colonial period to the present was the pub, a local variant of the English original. Until the 1970s, Australian pubs were traditionally organised into gender-segregated drinking areas—the "public bar" was only open to men, while the "lounge bar" or "saloon bar" served both men and women (i.e. mixed drinking). This distinction was gradually eliminated as anti-discrimination legislation and women's rights activism broke down the concept of a public drinking area accessible to only men. Where two bars still exist in the one establishment, one (that derived from the "public bar") will be more downmarket while the other (deriving from the "lounge bar") will be more upmarket. Over time, with the introduction of gaming machines into hotels, many "lounge bars" have or are being converted into gaming rooms.

Beginning in the mid-1950s, the formerly strict state liquor licensing laws were progressively relaxed and reformed, with the result that pub trading hours were extended. This was in part to eliminate the social problems associated with early closing times—notably the infamous "six o'clock swill"—and the thriving trade in "sly grog" (illicit alcohol sales). More licensed liquor outlets began to appear, including retail "bottle shops" (over-the-counter bottle sales were previously only available at pubs and were strictly controlled). Particularly in Sydney, a new class of licensed premises, the wine bar, appeared; there alcohol could be served on the proviso that it was provided in tandem with a meal. These venues became very popular in the late 1960s and early 1970s and many offered free entertainment, becoming an important facet of the Sydney music scene in that period.

In the major Australian cities today there is a large and diverse bar scene with a range of ambiences, modes and styles catering for every echelon of cosmopolitan society.

Canada
Public drinking began with the establishment of colonial taverns in both the U.S. and Canada. While the term changed to Public house especially in the U.K., the term Tavern continued to be used instead of Pub in both the U.S. and Canada. Public drinking establishments were banned by the Prohibition of alcohol, which was (and is) a provincial jurisdiction. Prohibition was repealed, province by province in the 1920s. There was not a universal right to consume alcohol, and only males of legal age were permitted to do so. "Beer parlours" were common in the wake of prohibition, with local laws often not permitting entertainment (such as the playing of games or music) in these establishments, which were set aside for the purpose solely of consuming alcohol.

Since the end of the Second World War, and exposure by roughly one million Canadians to the public house traditions common in the UK by servicemen and women serving there, those traditions became more common in Canada. These traditions include the drinking of dark ales and stouts, the "pub" as a social gathering place for both sexes, and the playing of games (such as darts, snooker, or pool). The tavern became extremely popular during the 1960s and 1970s, especially for working-class people. Canadian taverns, which can still be found in remote regions of Northern Canada, have long tables with benches lining the sides. Patrons in these taverns often order beer in large quart bottles and drink inexpensive "bar brand" Canadian rye whisky. In some provinces, taverns used to have separate entrances for men and women. Even in a large city like Toronto, separate entrances existed into the early 1970s.

Canada has adopted some of the newer U.S. bar traditions (such as the "sports bar") of the last decades. As a result, the term "bar" has come to be differentiated from the term "pub", in that bars are usually 'themed' and sometimes have a dance floor. Bars with dance floors are usually relegated to small or Suburban communities. In larger cities bars with large dance floors are usually referred to as clubs and are strictly for dancing, Establishments that call themselves pubs are often much more similar to a British pub in style. Before the 1980s, most "bars" were referred to simply as "tavern".

Often, bars and pubs in Canada will cater to supporters of a local sporting team, usually a hockey team. There is a difference between the sports bar and the pub; sports bars focus on TV screens showing games and showcasing uniforms, equipment, etc. Pubs will generally also show games but do not exclusively focus on them. The Tavern was popular until the early 1980s, when American-style bars, as we know them today became popular. In the 1990s imitation British- and Irish-style pubs become popular and adopted names like "The Fox and Fiddle" and "The Queen and Beaver" reflect naming trends in Britain. Tavern or pub-style mixed food and drink establishments are generally more common than bars in Canada, although both can be found.

Legal restrictions on bars are set by the Canadian provinces and territories, which has led to a great deal of variety. While some provinces have been very restrictive with their bar regulation, setting strict closing times and banning the removal of alcohol from the premises, other provinces have been more liberal. Closing times generally run from 2:00 to 4:00 a.m.

In Nova Scotia, particularly in Halifax, there was, until the 1980s, a very distinct system of gender-based laws that were in effect for decades. Taverns, bars, halls, and other classifications differentiated whether it was exclusively for men or women, men with invited women, vice versa, or mixed. After this fell by the wayside, there was the issue of water closets. This led to many taverns adding on "powder rooms"; sometimes they were constructed later, or used parts of kitchens or upstairs halls if plumbing allowed. This was also true of conversions in former "sitting rooms", for men's facilities.

Italy

In Italy, a "bar" is a place more similar to a café, where people go during the morning or the afternoon, usually to drink a coffee, a cappuccino, or a hot chocolate and eat some kind of snack such as sandwiches (panini or tramezzini) or pastries. However, any kind of alcoholic beverages are served. Opening hours vary: some establishments are open very early in the morning and close relatively early in the evening; others, especially if next to a theater or a cinema, may be open until late at night. Many larger bars are also restaurants and disco clubs. Many Italian bars have introduced a so-called "aperitivo" time in the evening, in which everyone who purchases an alcoholic drink then has free access to a usually abundant buffet of cold dishes such as pasta salads, vegetables, and various appetizers.

Poland

In modern Polish, in most cases a bar would be referred to as pub (plural puby), a loan from English. Polish puby serve various kinds of alcoholic drinks as well as other beverages and simple snacks such as crisps, peanuts or pretzel sticks. Most establishments feature loud music and some have frequent live performances. While Polish word bar can be also applied to this kind of establishment, it is often used to describe any kind of inexpensive restaurant, and therefore can be translated as diner or cafeteria. Both in bary and in puby, the counter at which one orders is called bar, itself being another obvious loanword from English.

Bar mleczny (literally 'milk bar') is a kind of inexpensive self-service restaurant serving wide range of dishes, with simple interior design, usually opened during breakfast and lunch hours. It is very similar to Russian столовая in both menu and decor. It can be also compared to what is called greasy spoon in English-speaking countries. Bary mleczne rarely serve alcoholic beverages.

The term bar szybkiej obsługi (lit. 'quick service restaurant') also refers to eating - not drinking - establishments. It is being gradually replaced by the English term fast food. Another name, bar samoobsługowy may be applied for any kind of self-service restaurant. Some kinds of Polish bar serve only one type of meal. An example are restaurants serving pasztecik szczeciński, a traditional specialty of the city of Szczecin. It can be consumed at the table or take-out.

Spain
Bars are common in Spain and form an important part in Spanish culture. In Spain, it is common for a town to have many bars and even to have several lined up on the same street. Most bars have a section of the street or plaza outside with tables and chairs with parasols if the weather allows it. Spanish bars are also known for serving a wide range of sandwiches (bocadillos), as well as snacks called tapas or pinchos.

Tapas and pinchos may be offered to customers in two ways, either complementary to order a drink or in some cases there are charged independently, either case this is usually clearly indicated to bar customers by display of wall information, on menus and price lists. The anti-smoking law has entered in effect January 1, 2011 and since that date it is prohibited to smoke in bars and restaurants as well as all other indoor areas, closed commercial and state owned facilities are now smoke-free areas.

Spain is the country with the highest ratio of bars/population with almost six bars per thousand inhabitants, three times UK's ratio and four times Germany's. The meaning of the word 'bar' in Spain, however, does not have the negative connotation inherent in the same word in many other languages. For Spanish people a bar is essentially a meeting place, and not necessarily a place to engage in the consumption of alcoholic beverages. As a result, children are normally allowed into bars, and it is common to see families in bars during week-ends of the end of the day. In small towns, the 'bar' may constitute the very center of social life, and it is customary that, after social events, people go to bars, including seniors and children alike.

United Kingdom
In the UK, bars are either areas that serve alcoholic drinks within establishments such as hotels, restaurants, universities, or are a particular type of establishment which serves alcoholic drinks such as wine bars, "style bars", private membership only bars. However, the main type of establishment selling alcohol for consumption on the premises is the pub. Some bars are similar to nightclubs in that they feature loud music, subdued lighting, or operate a dress code and admissions policy, with inner city bars generally having door staff at the entrance.

'Bar' also designates a separate drinking area within a pub. Traditionally many pubs had two or more bars – very often the public bar or tap room and the saloon bar or lounge, where the decor was better and prices were sometimes higher. The designations of the bars varied regionally. In the last two decades, many pub interiors have been opened up into single spaces, which some people regret as it loses the flexibility, intimacy, and traditional feel of a multi-roomed public house.

One of the last dive bars in London was underneath the Kings Head Pub in Gerrard Street, Soho. It closed in 2004.

United States
In the United States, legal distinctions often exist between restaurants and bars, and even between types of bars. These distinctions vary from state to state, and even among municipalities. Beer bars (sometimes called taverns or pubs) are legally restricted to selling only beer, and possibly wine or cider. Liquor bars, also simply called bars, also sell hard liquor.

Bars are sometimes exempt from smoking bans that restaurants are subject to, even if those restaurants have liquor licenses. The distinction between a restaurant that serves liquor and a bar is usually made by the percentage of revenue earned from selling liquor, although increasingly, smoking bans include bars as well. In most places, bars are prohibited from selling alcoholic beverages to go, and this makes them clearly different from liquor stores. Some brewpubs and wineries can serve alcohol to go, but under the rules applied to a liquor store. In some areas, such as New Orleans and parts of Las Vegas and Savannah, Georgia, open containers of alcohol may be prepared to go. This kind of restriction is usually dependent on an open container law. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, bars may sell six-packs of beer "to-go" in original (sealed) containers by obtaining a take-out license. New Jersey permits all forms of packaged goods to be sold at bars, and permits packaged beer and wine to be sold at any time on-premises sales of alcoholic beverages are allowed.

During the 19th century, drinking establishments were called saloons. In the American Old West the most popular establishment in town was usually the Western saloon. Many of these Western saloons survive, though their services and features have changed with the times. Newer establishments have sometimes been built in Western saloon style for a nostalgic effect. In American cities there were also numerous saloons, which allowed only male patrons and were usually owned by one of the major breweries. Drunkenness, fights, and alcoholism made the saloon into a powerful symbol of all that was wrong with alcohol. Saloons were the primary target of the Temperance movement, and the Anti-Saloon League, founded in 1892, was the most powerful lobby in favor of Prohibition. When Prohibition was repealed, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked the states not to permit the return of saloons.

Many Irish- or British-themed "pubs" exist throughout United States and Canada and in some continental European countries.

As of May, 2014, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania had the most bars per capita in the United States.

Former Yugoslavia
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia, modern bars overlap with coffeehouses and larger ones are sometimes also nightclubs. Since the 1980s, they have become similar in social function to the bars of Italy, Spain and Greece, as meeting places for people in a city.

In fiction
Bars are a popular setting for fictional works, and in many cases, authors and other creators have developed imaginary bar locations that have become notable, such as the bar for Cheers, Cocktails and Dreams bar in the film Cocktail (1988), the Copacabana bar in the crime film Goodfellas, the rough and tumble Double Deuce in Road House (1989), The Kit Kat Klub in Cabaret, the Korova Milk Bar in the dystopian novel and film adaptation of A Clockwork Orange, the Mos Eisley cantina-bar in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (1977), and the Steinway Beer Garden from the crime-themed video game Grand Theft Auto IV.

title: Bar (establishment)


text:
United States Secretary of the Army

The secretary of the Army (SA or SECARMY) is a senior civilian official within the United States Department of Defense, with statutory responsibility for all matters relating to the United States Army: manpower, personnel, reserve affairs, installations, environmental issues, weapons systems and equipment acquisition, communications and financial management.

The secretary of the Army is nominated by the president of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate. The secretary is a non-Cabinet-level official, subordinate to the secretary of Defense. This position was created on September 18, 1947, replacing the secretary of war, when the Department of War was split into the Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force.

On May 28, 2021, Christine Wormuth was sworn in as the 25th (and current) secretary of the Army, the first woman to serve in the role.

Roles and responsibilities
The Army senior leadership consists of two civilians; the secretary of the Army and the under secretary of the Army—and two military officers of four-star rank—the chief of staff of the United States Army and the vice chief of staff.

The secretary of the Army is in effect the chief executive officer of the Department of the Army, and the chief of staff of the Army works directly for the secretary. The secretary presents and justifies Army policies, plans, programs, and budgets to the secretary of defense, other executive branch officials, and to the congressional Defense Committees. The secretary also communicates Army policies, plans, programs, capabilities, and accomplishments to the public. As necessary, the secretary convenes meetings with the senior leadership of the Army to debate issues, provide direction, and seek advice. The secretary is a member of the Defense Acquisition Board.

The secretary of the Army has several responsibilities under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including the authority to convene general courts-martial.

Office of the Secretary of the Army
The Office of the Secretary of the Army is composed of the under secretary of the Army, the assistant secretaries of the Army, the administrative assistant to the secretary, the general counsel of the Department of the Army, the inspector general of the Army, the chief of legislation, and the Army Reserve Forces Policy Committee. Other offices may be established by law or by the secretary of the Army. No more than 1,900 Army officers on the active-duty list may be assigned or detailed to permanent duty in the Office of the Secretary of the Army and on the Army staff.
 * Under Secretary of the Army
 * Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology)
 * Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)
 * Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller)
 * Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, Energy and Environment)
 * Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
 * General Counsel of the Army
 * Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army
 * Inspector General of the Army

Each civilian has a military counterpart, as shown in the diagram below. Thus, for example, the Army G-1 has a defined responsibility to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), the ASA (M&RA).

Chronological list of secretaries of the Army
Kenneth Claiborne Royall, the last secretary of war, became the first secretary of the Army when the National Defense Act of 1947 took effect. Gordon Gray was the last Army secretary to hold the Cabinet status, which was henceforth assigned to the secretary of defense.

Prior military service is not a requirement, but several have served in the United States armed forces. Secretary Stone (1989-1993) is the only holder to serve in the military outside of the United States.

title: United States Secretary of the Army


text:
Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services

The Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services (DARS) was a Texas state agency that was part of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The agency worked with Texans with disabilities and children with developmental delays to improve the quality of their lives and to enable their full participation in society.

The agency was headquartered at 4800 North Lamar Boulevard in Austin.

Former Sub-agencies:
 * Division for Rehabilitation Services (DRS) provides programs to help people with disabilities prepare for, find, and maintain employment.
 * Office for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services (DHHS) works in partnership with people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing to eliminate societal and communication barriers.
 * Division for Blind Services (DBS) assists blind or visually impaired individuals and their families.
 * Early Childhood Intervention (ECI) Services, a statewide program for families with children ages three or younger with disabilities and developmental delays.
 * Division for Disability Determination Services (DDS), funded entirely through the Social Security Administration (SSA), makes disability determinations for Texans with severe disabilities who apply for Social Security Disability Insurance and/or Supplemental Security Income.

As of September 1, 2016, DARS was dissolved by an act of the sunset commission. The Sunset Commission periodically reviews the performance of State/public agencies and institutions, recommending revisions—and terminations. The Texas Workforce Commission assumed the following programs
 * Vocational Rehabilitation Services
 * Blind & Visually Impaired Services
 * Criss Cole Rehabilitation Center
 * Independent Living Services for Older
 * Individuals Who Are Blind
 * Business Services - Vocational Rehabilitation
 * Providers’ Resources - Vocational Rehabilitation
 * Business Enterprises of Texas
 * Rehabilitation Council of Texas
 * Service Animal Information

And the Health and Human Services Department retained the following Programs
 * Autism Program
 * Blind Children's Vocational Discovery & Development Program
 * Blindness Education, Screening & Treatment Program
 * Comprehensive Rehabilitation Services
 * Deaf & Hard of Hearing Services
 * Disability Determination
 * Early Childhood Intervention Program
 * Independent Living Services


text:
User talk:Tombleak

Greetings! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you have questions or doubts of any sort, do not hesitate to post them on the Village Pump, somebody will respond ASAP. Other helpful pages include: Have fun! --Jiang 07:59 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * Welcome, newcomers
 * How does one edit a page
 * Manual of style
 * Naming conventions

title: User talk:Tombleak


text:
User talk:Draconis~enwiki

Greetings! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Helpful pages include: Have fun! --Jiang 08:06 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * Welcome, newcomers
 * How does one edit a page
 * Manual of style
 * Naming conventions

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Draconis. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Draconis~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Draconis~enwiki