text:
Wikipedia talk:History standards/Archive2

HI JHK, I agree with the standards with one possible reservation. For ease of use, especially among people with less background in history, i can see a case for using the most familiar names. What immediately comes to mind are the "Greats": Catherine, Frederick, Peter. Perhaps there is some way to include the appelation in the title of the article. (On the other hand, I do like uniformity too.) Other than that, I think it's great. Now we can get to work on history being factual--or have you missed some of user:H.J.'s latest claims in Talk:Warmia. Danny
 * Oh -- I agree on Great, although I think that's a losing battle. If people search, though, and the article has "the Great" in the first line, it'll still come up! JHK

- I am for continued use of BC and AD. The CE -Common Era is a term, that was used in communist countries because they frouned on referring to Christ.

On names the most widely used names should also be used in wikipedia and the country or better countries ruled, should be mentioned. Mentioning Sigismund III of Poland alone is misleading, because he was called Sigismund (III) Vasa. He was the son of the king of Sweden and king of Sweden himself, as well as his sons, who remained titled king of Sweden. The same for August the Strong. While he was known as August the Strong of Poland, he was however the Holy Roman Empire elector of Saxony.

If people were officially called Hedwig of Anjou and Saint Hedwig, they should remain that. While most writers do stick to that, Polish language writers refer to her as Jadwiga, which is fine in Polish language writings. But when she becomes Jadwiga of Poland in 2002 in the English language wikipedia, that even goes against the here stated rules, which say to use English.

I do not like the term, "Henry of the HRE" at all, but I do like the now used "Henry, Holy Roman Empeor.

I really like the nicknames that were given to the famous people. They definately need to be listed. They are much easier remembered by their nickname, 'the Great', 'the Fat', 'Irontooth' etc.

We should adher to some sort of conformity rule, but at the same time be very flexible. It is obvious that people of different countries refer to one and the same person in very different ways.

I do not agree on making everyone and everyplace English language. Apparently even former Americans agreed to leaving Martin van Buren 's name alone. They did not turn him into 'Martin of Buren'. That is unfortunately what happened and happens to a lot of people written up in wiki.

As long as different names and different countries ruled by one and the same person are mentioned in the article, I can work with whatever name is assigned to him by wikipedians. user:H.J.

Clarifications to user:H.J. and Toby:

 * The saint thing was decided a long time ago, I think (I wasn't in on this) the "St." was left off because some people are saints in one church and not another -- hence the table of saints. I think Jadwiga was listed as she is because there is also a Hedwig who is a different person.

 * I'd like to see the earlier discussion, but at this point my argument is that if people are generally known, in English, with the "Saint" prefix but don't have last names, then we're better off using it. (And "Saint", not "St.", although the latter is a reasonable redirect.) — Toby

 * An additional comment on "Saint": If the Catholics think that somebody is a saint and the Orthodox disagree, or vice versa, either way say "Saint" if that's how they're known. We're not judging that somebody is holy or that there is such a thing as holiness to begin with (I certainly don't believe so). We're simply noting that somebody is best known by the title "Saint". — Toby 13:45 Jul 26, 2002 (PDT)

 * English is the language of this wikipedia. Sometimes, English is the language most commonly used (for example, English-language History texts NEVER say 'Bernsteinstrasse', so we use 'Amber Road' -- what people who are looking for more information would look under.  By the same token, we say "Casimir" reather than using the Polish equivalent, because that's what English speakers normally use.  On the other hand, the kings of Portugal whom we could call Peter, if we followed this rule unthinkingly, are instead called Pedro, because that's the norm.  Generally, I think that the people most familiar with what English-speakers call a subject should make the call, and that means putting personal preferences aside sometimes for the sake of clarity.  (BTW, I do this myself with the Carolingians -- although I normally think of Charles the Great -- what he was called in the 19th c.-- as Karl der Grosse, the entry is under Charlemagne, because that's what English speakers everywhere are most familiar with.  I make up for it by using Lothar rather than Lothair and Odo rather than Eudes, because the trend really is moving that way and I'm a Germanist ;-)

 * I'm glad to see you getting away with the German names that are probably closer to what they used themselves. As I said, I'm not going to fight for this one; familiar English names are OK. The important thing is to have redirects (or disambiguation pages in ambiguous cases) for all likely accidental links, and listing in the article of all names likely to be searched for. — Toby

 * Family names ARE important, but not appropriate for the title of an article. Also, family names of rulers and nobles aren't usually used (in English, at least) as surnames.  So we Don't say Ludwig II Wittelsbach of Bavaria -- He's Louis II of Bavaria.  For the first line of an article, I would suggest Name (language variations), dates.  Then, in the next section - usiually the biographical precis, I would say something like, "a member of the Wittlesbach ruling house..."  For Sigismund, you could even say, Swedish -born King of Poland, Sigismund was a member of the Swedish Vasa dynasty...

 * I agree with you here, so I'll just let user:H.J. answer this one ^_^. — Toby

 * The non-linking thing is a pet peeve of mine. I think that, by creating a link, you're begging for an article.  Potentially, lots of people should have articles.  The reality is that history is full of younger children and wives who only have first names.  we may have dates for them, and we may be able to trace their family trees, but that's genealogy, not biography or history.  If this is all we have, then the article is the biographical equivalent of a dictionary entry -- and wikipedia is not a dictionary!  Also, sometimes we get this type of entry for someone who did nothing important (that we know about, at least), and the name really should be used for someone else who was demonstrably more important, or about whom we know more.

 * It seems fundamentally antiWikipedian ^_^ not to create spontaneous links; I second Eclecticology's argument. If you, a historian typically writing about your own field, know that no interesting encyclopædia article could ever be written about somebody, then by all means, leave off the link. But I, who have no idea, will want to include it in those cases where I venture into history. Then if you, knowing better, remove the link, I won't complain. But I don't want a policy that expects me to know that a reasonable encyclopædia article could be written before including the link; the default should be to make the link and, as Eclecticology says, thus vote for the article to be written. — Toby

Anyway, I just thought some of your concerns should be addressed. JHK

 * Thanks. — Toby Bartels, Friday, July 19, 2002

JHK, I agree with all this.

Only a note on the Jadwiga=Hedwig switch by wikipedia. There is a St.Hedwig of Andechs, which was the first Hedwig to have been canonized and there is St.Hedwig ,which wiki renamed to St.Jadwiga of Poland. As it is demonstrated with St.Adalbert of Prague and many other names, people are specifically named for a previous person. Now to make St. Hedwig into St. Jadwiga next thing you would want to change St. Hedwig Cathedrale in Berlin, especially established for the Silesian people who moved to Berlin and Brandenburg, and all other St.Hedwig churches for that matter, into St. Jadwiga.

Problems are also created by changing the 'von' to 'of'. All genealogists keep the 'von' as part of a name. These people are registered as 'von so and so', or 'van' or 'de' or 'de la' and that way people centuries later can still trace that person where they came from and what country they were connected to. In can be written just like this : Wernher von Braun, of Wirsitz or : Oda von Stade, of Stade, Germany. This is how I see it written many English language publications.

But like I wrote, I am alright with whatever, as long as there are mentionings somewhere in wiki. user:H.J.
 * Here's the general rule in English for names -- we don't translate them. By this I mean that "Schmidt" and "Müller" are generally left as they are, rather than translating them to "Smith" and "Miller."  Obviously, this isn't always true -- sometimes people anglicized their own names, and other times, the authorities did it for them.  But, if you look at the earlier discussion, you'll see that last names, even with prepositions like 'von', 'van', 'de', de la', remain that way because they are part of their last names.  BUT, what you seem to misunderstand is which names are last names that have historical meaning (most do, but especially the ones that mean "of somewhere"), versus names that meant something at the time.  To take your example of Martin van Buren -- when he was alive, it would have been ridiculous for his contemporaries to have thought of him as Martin of Buren -- the name had by then solidified into a cohesive "van Buren."  But in the case of someone like Otto von Braunschweig, "von Braunschwieg" isn't really his name, it's more part of a formal title or reference to his family holdings.  In such cases, we DO translate, so that in English he's Otto of Brunswick.  Hildegard von Bingen is Hildegard of Bingen -- the "of Bingen" is a description, not part of her name.  I think this is also true in other languages -- in German, Matin van Buren stays the same, but Eleanor of Aquitaine is Eleanor von Aquitaine...hope this makes things clearer!  (Oh -- and the Hedwig-Jadwiga thing was actually researched, if I remember correctly, and we went by what was in the Catholic Encyclopedia.  The Church names themselves SHOULD NOT be changed, because we leave those as is -- like we don't translate Notre Dame de Paris into Our Lady of Paris -- BUT, the articles should make clear that the churches in question are dedicated to St. Hedwig or Jadwiga of Poland, and linked back to her.  JHK

 * Excellent points! The key point to remember is that surnames surnames are a relatively recent invention that in general application relates to the development of literacy.  In the middle ages the vast majority of the population were completely illiterate.  But, like Wikipedia, they had to develop disambiguators if several men named John lived in the same village.  Thus John Miller, John Cooper and John Smith milled grain, made barrels and shod horses respectively.  Place names were another disambiguator as were looks and patronymics.  The fact that a father often taught his trade to his son did contribute to these disambiguators becoming family names.  Eclecticology, Friday, July 19, 2002

 * And mother to daughter — hence, for example "Baxter" (the feminine of "Baker"). — Toby 06:43 Jul 21, 2002 (PDT)

There was some voting and posting of mixed opinions here lately. What will we do with it? Jeronimo

There seems to be widespread agreement on points 1, 2, and 3. I say that we move everything above the new proposed standards to an archive, list these accepted standards as official, and list the others as tentative. The official standards can be rewritten and clarified as discussed in the mixed opinions, and the mixed opinions themselves can be kept for the tentative standards. Of course, Julie can also rewrite those if she finds the mixed opinions convincing. — Toby 06:31 Aug 3, 2002 (PDT)

So much attention has been deferred to setting the standards. Popularizing the current standards is also a crucial way to improve them and preventing users putting arbitary or sometimes their own standards when naming the nobles, which completely defeat our purpose. I have created a page Charles to start out. If usage of common personal names of noblity (like Charles, Louis, Frederick, Alphonso, Edward, George, Ferdinand, Francis, etc.) can be regulated by creating pages of the same kind, other users will follow those rules. IMO most users care more about the article than the nomenclature as long as they know which monarch or noble it talks about. KT2

 * Yeah, neat KT2. This looks like the way to go. user:sjc

For kings of England, the numbering began anew with the Norman Conquest. Thus, Saxon "Edward"s don't have numbers, and the first Norman "Edward" was "Edward I". Our article titles thus identify the Saxon "Edward"s by cognomen, in violation of these standards.

I won't go on about it here! This is just to tell you that there is discussion at Talk:List of British monarchs.

— Toby 02:24 Sep 29, 2002 (UTC)

The Monarchs who reigned over part or all of the British Isles presided over kingdoms that changed in terms of name, geography and political structure. It is necessary, I presume to reflect these variations in their title (eg, Henry VIII of England, George I of Great Britain, George IV of the United Kingdom), as they were different kingdoms, not the same one with a different name. Some have suggested that all kings and queens be called of England which to me seems absurd, as England as a kingdom ceased to exist in 1707, and the Irish and the Scottish would be none to happy to be told that their kings after that date should be described on Wikipedia as 'english'. Any observations? JTD 21:34 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

 * This seems reasonable enough to me. All I ask is that redirects are made to assist those that are less informed to find and link to the correct articles. And instead of making the incorrect page titles orphan redirects they should be linked on a talk page (orphan redirects are invisible to the outside world). Otherwise somebody looking for "George I of England" on Google will not find our article on George I of Great Britain and we will miss the opportunity to inform them. --mav

Good point, Mav. I'm still getting the hang of using Wikipedia, so I'm still learning how to use the system. What is the best way to achieve this, and avoid orphaning pages?

 * Just make a list of links to redirects on the monarch's talk page of the other possible titles that a person might look for. For example, on the talk page for George I of Great Britain we could list George I of England and George I of the United Kingdom. (talk pages are open to Google). --mav

 * this stuff arose from talk:Anne Windsor - see that page for more

We have a major problem over how to refer to members of a Royal Family other than monarchs. Do we use (i) surnames or (ii) titles? What happens if a personal surname is different to a Royal House name? (eg, Princess Anne's pre-marital surname, as confirmed by Buckingham Palace on the occasion of both her marriages isn't Windsor but Mountbatten-Windsor but Wiki has her as Anne Windsor, a name she never used, isn't correct and which many people won't apply to her.)

To create a clear template for how we should solve this, I've the following suggestion: Apply what could be called the Three Generation Rule. (REASON: such royals are widely known and so recognised almost exclusively by name or title)
 * First Generation Royals. Children & siblings of A monarch (not just the present monarch!) should be referred to by title where they have one, or 'Prince/Princess of [country]' where they have no formal title, for example;
 * Charles, Prince of Wales
 * Andrew, Duke of York
 * Anne, Princess Royal
 * Margaret, Princess of the United Kingdom (daughter of George VI, sister of Elizabeth II)
 * Beatrice, Princess of the United Kingdom (daughter of Queen Victoria, sister of Edward VII)
 * Philip (or spanish version), Prince of the Asturias (or Crown Prince of Spain)
 * Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark
 * Joakim, Prince of Denmark
 * Willem Alexander, Crown Prince of the Netherlands

(REASON: such royals are less well known but again are known largely by name/title. Using a surname would be confusing as many would have different surnames, not just the like of Windsor.)
 * Second Generation Royals descended only from the present monarch should be referred to by title if they have one, by Royal House name (eg, Windsor, etc)  if they don't, for example:
 * Princess Beatrice of York
 * Princess Eugenie of York
 * Eloise Sophie Beatrix Laurence, Countess of Orange-Nassau
 * Princess Anne's children have no title, an almost unique situation. They are universally known by their father's surname of Phillips, so a degree of flexibility is required here, but as I say they do SEEM unique.''

It could if people agree be applied to Second General Royals of any past monarch; for example, ''But how many grandchildren of long dead monarchs are likely to crop up on Wikipedia? In any case, they are ALREADY going to cause problems, as their births predated the change of the Royal House name to Windsor, so if they were put here as Beatrice Windsor, (a) that would be wrong, (b) if we called Andrew's daughter as merely 'Beatrice Windsor' (as some people want to do now) we'd be producing all sorts of complexities.''
 * Princess Beatrice of Edinburgh (grand-daughter of Queen Victoria)
 * Princess Victoria of Connaught (grandaughter of Queen Victoria)

Where a minor royal is unambiguously identified by a clear surname, that could be used. For example By using a Royal House name, we would be using the name most people would associate with a monarchy. In Britain, that would be Windsor.)
 * Other Royals. The Royal House name should be used, for example:
 * The Earl of Ulster referred to by Royal House (in this case, Windsor)
 * Viscount Linley as David Linley.

(REASON: Such royals are hardly known, and rarely by title. But as they may have a different and almost totally unknown surname, using the Royal House name may be the most straight-forward way).

If in doubt, just put in Royal House name as surname, with a note on the talk page. Someone in Wiki will know. It isn't fail-proof but it does produce a name that would be easily recognised by the average Wikipedia user.

It is just a suggestion. We currently have numerous people adding in royal references using different structures, then others changing the names to follow the structure they use. Some royals seem to change their names weekly on wiki, so one standard set of rules is needed. This is my proposal. Any opinions? JTD 01:15 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid so - just a few little niggles. For a start, as you mentioned, Princess Anne's children do have a surname - Phillips - so they can't also be called Windsor, as you seem to be suggesting (or maybe you didn't mean that...)  (And, by the way, "Lindley" is "Linley", but that's just me being pedantic.)  My only real concern is that there will be a need for disambiguation on many of these pages.  I can say this without being accused of nit-picking, because 'twas I who created Prince William of Wales (the article, that is) without at the time considering the possibility that there might have been a previous one, which I think there was.  So we need to be extra careful.  But as long as there are plenty of redirects, I think your suggestions are broadly acceptable. Deb 20:11 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your observation. Anne's children are unusual as they have no title, but are mentioned in the media by their father's (Anne's ex-husband's) surname, so that complicates it. Yeah, I guessed I had David's surname wrong but I was too tired to rummage through my files to check. (I've now changed it, and made some minor additions to the Three Generation Rule. As for Prince William, the only other William in recent history I can think of is William of Gloucester. I don't know of any other William of Wales, though one might crop up. In which case, we would have to deal with that crisis, but I think on balance it may be quite a while (possibly many years) if at all before it arises. Most Wiki references will probably be to senior royals (past and present) and most will be pretty straight-forward, as they either became monarchs (and so are referred to as such; William if the monarchy still exists and he is still alive will become king, possibly as King William V) or will be known by name and title (Duke of Clarence, York, Connaught, etc). For example, among the descendants of Queen Victoria listed in the family tree in Harold Nicolson's King George V, there are two Beatrices (a third with Prince Andrew's daughter). One would be called 'Beatrice, Princess of the United Kingdom), the other would be Beatrice, Princess of Edinburgh, both clearly distinguishable from Beatrice, Princess of York, Andrew's daughter. I know it is complex but I think it is probably more workable than always using a surname (which usually is the wrong one, being mixed up with the Royal House name!), when that will throw up names that few (not even the person being written about) but the writer of the article would ever recognise. And just using references to the United Kingdom would cause confusion between all three generations of Beatrice, for example. JTD 22:27 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

 * I'll look into previous Williams. I just want to make one more comment, which is this - When I first started contributing to the British history pages (nearly a year ago now - aaah), it wasn't anticipated that we would go into the depth we have done now - for example, it wasn't expected that we would cover minor nobles or every single queen consort.  However, time has revealed a determination on the part of many people to make wikipedia a complete and utter history of everything.  I can't quarrel with that, but it does mean that disambiguation becomes more of a problem, one which I feel you may be in danger of underestimating.  But let's carry on with these standards, anyway, and see how it goes. Deb 22:46 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

 * I think there needs to be a bit more thought about "Beatrice". She has no "York" title: her title (with the style of "HRH") is as "Beatrice, Princess of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland", and she is the daughter of the Duke "of York". Popularly, she is known as "Princess Beatrice" and further identified, if necessary, as "of York", which functions here as a surname surrogate rather than as a title.  I would favor naming her article "Beatrice of York" (easily linked to, easily found, doesn't include a false title), or if necessary, "Princess Beatrice of York" (less easily linked to, and includes a partial but familiar title), or. correctly, "Beatrice, Princess of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland" (not easily linked to, but includes an accurate title). The one alternative that is NOT very good is the one she is under now: "Beatrice, Princess of York".  She's not a "Princess of York", though she's a "Princess" and she's "of York".  The problem is more acute for (hypothetical) daughters of a Prince of Wales: "Hermione, Princess of Wales" is necessarily the wife of a Prince of Wales, while "Princess Hermione of Wales" is a viable shorthand alternative for a daughter who more fully would be "HRH Princess Hermione of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland". -- Someone else 23:13 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

I get your point. As daughters of a prince they are princesses automatically. Royalty use the title linking them to their father's title. Hence William is officially named in Court Circulars as Prince William of Wales. SImilarly Beatrice is referred to as Princess Beatrice of York as indeed was the current queen, who was known as Princess Elizabeth of York. I think it is important to clarify that they were a 'Princess' or 'Prince' in a title; monarchs we know so well we don't have to state it. Hence my reference to Princess of York which I agree isn't technically correct. The alternative is to include 'Princess' before the name, as in 'Princess Beatrice of York'. 'Beatrice of York' is workable, but it doesn't indicate clearly a royal status; non-royals in the middle ages were sometimes called [x] of [y], which might add some confusion. But I can certainly live with 'Beatrice of York', but I do feel some sort of clarification of royal status in the title would help, if we can agree on a methodology. Otherwise, I think the general idea of the Three Generation Rule is the best way of dealing with the general 'royal problem'. JTD 23:45 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)

 * I think "Princess Beatrice of York" is quite reasonable. You're right that it has the benefit of being familiar, and since it doesn't make up a title, "Princess of York", I'm happy . I'll move her to there, and you can see if there's some general rule here that belongs in the "3-generation policy statement". -- Someone else 23:52 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC) (Another advantage: It doesn't have a comma in the title of the article)

The overall consensus seems to be that the Three Generation Rule is the best solution to the issue of how to refer to royals on Wikipedia. Deb, Mav, Someone Else and Oliver Pereira have all agreed with it. So far no-one has voiced any opposition to the principle, merely practical issues as to its implementation in isolated individual cases. Indeed some people have already begun to use it, or adapt existing pages to follow it. I think the overall consensus is clear. We simply have to implement it.

On final point: there has been some dispute as to what is the correct surname for British royals, to be referred to in the opening line of a biog on them. I checked with Buckingham Palace for clarification. The surname of all the Queen's children and her descendants is Mountbatten-Windsor not Windsor as many presume. That doesn't effect any title headings used, as under the THREE GENERATION RULE if there is no title or recognised alternative surname, we simply should use the Royal House (ie, Royal Family) name which is Windsor. But inside the article, if we are giving a surname, it should be MW, not simply Windsor, for all direct descendants of Queen Elizabeth. (It doesn't apply to Princess Margaret's descendants or anyone else's, just Elizabeth's). I've put a stub on defining Royal House so what we could do is in the case of any member of the British Family is add in the line of the Royal House of Windsor after their full name. That way, the title of the article will cover their most recognised name, the opening line will name them and give a separate surname if they have one, while the above addition will link them into the Royal Family, so it should cover all aspects of their complicated nomenclature. JTD 20:41 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

 * I very much agree with this later addendum. It makes no sense for an author to append a surname that is seldom or never used by a person just because that author "feels" that everyone should have a surname. (I think The Princess Royal has used her surname just once, in registering her marriage...) This comes up repeatedly not just with the House of Windsor but with Hohenzollerns, etc. -- Someone else 23:12 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

I'm going to put this suggestion on the Wiki list to see are there any problems, but so far it seems workable, usable and sensible. JTD 23:33 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes, it's me again. I wonder if we could have a bit more flexibility on the "Other Royals" front?  For a start, the Earl of Ulster - perhaps not the best example, but a valid one - IS normally known as the Earl of Ulster.  I'm not even sure what his other names are.  So I don't see why he has to be called whatever-it-is Windsor, Earl of Ulster.  (Mind you, I haven't checked the Court Circular recently to see how they refer to him.)  There's also a fundamental difference between the children of male royals and the children of females.  Prince Michael of Kent's children are known by the surname Windsor, but his sister, Princess Alexandra, took her husband's surname when she married, so her children are James and Marina Ogilvy.  Had her husband been given a title (as the Earl of Snowdon was), her children would inherit a title through him, not through her.Deb 18:52 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

Absolutely, I'm open to any ideas. Very minor royals are a problem, though I suppose as they are more likely to have surnames than senior royals, we could rely on surname or on title. Maybe we should stick totally to title. That might solve everything. I have made changes to the structure as suggestions have come in. The Other Royals seems to be the big problem. Maybe unless we know what someone's surname really is, we simply put their first names following by 'of the [Royal House] of [House of Windsor|Windsor] in the text and use title in the headline. Is that workable, do you think? JTD 19:45 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

 * Um...it just seems a bit OTT. I think, if in doubt, we'll simply have to get you to check with the palace again.  I'm not joking -- I'm all for calling people by their "proper" names (except for "Bonnie Prince Charlie"). Deb 22:20 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

It is an absolute nightmare, isn't it. But then I suppose what are the chances of the Earl of Ulster, etc cropping up on Wiki? BTW, another Wiki problem, calling women by their pre-marital name. It just dawned on me - former Irish President and ex-UN Commissioner on Human Rights Mary Robinson is defined as just that, MR. But technically, we should be using her maiden name, Mary Bourke. Except that nobody (possibly not even Mary herself!) would find herself as that on Wiki. The same is true with her presidential successor, Mary McAleese. I'm a friend of hers and even I don't know what her pre-marital name is. How many people know Laura Bush's maiden name? (But then even saying 'maiden name' is offensive to some, even though it is widely used outside America, never with its previous meanings, but simply the easy term for 'pre-marital' which sounds clinically 'pc', which itself is reason enough in many people's eyes never to use 'pre-marital'!) God, the job of sorting out names, eh! JTD 22:39 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

 * I've never felt that women should be exclusively listed under their maiden names, and I'm surprised to learn that it's a rule (are you sure?). If you're talking about the "queens", that's a different kettle of fish.  They fall into two categories: those who were already royal, eg. Catherine of Aragon, Alexandra of Denmark, etc, in which case they continue to be called by their original names, even though they were queens of England/Britain.  That's simply because they don't have a unique title - there have been various Queen Catherines, Queen Alexandras, etc, and there's no other way of differentiating.  Queens don't, as far as I know, take their husband's surname.  Then there are the queens who weren't royal to start with, eg. Elizabeth Woodville.  Same applies there - there are zillions of Queen Elizabeths, which is why history books call her Queen Elizabeth Woodville or just plain Elizabeth Woodville.  Princesses of Wales go by the same rules.  However, other women of historical interest can be called whatever we like.  I wouldn't think of putting Lady Caroline Lamb under "Lady Caroline Ponsonby", for example. Tell me if I'm missing something.Deb 17:45 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)


text:
Lisa Guerrero

Lisa Coles Guerrero (born April 9, 1964) is an American journalist, actress, former sportscaster, artist, and model. Since 2006, Guerrero has been an investigative correspondent for the nationally syndicated newsmagazine Inside Edition.

Early years
Guerrero was born in Chicago, Illinois, to Walter Coles, an American of English descent, and Lucy Guerrero, who was from Chile. Guerrero spent her childhood living in San Diego, California, and Huntington Beach, California. In 1972, when she was aged eight, her mother died of lymphoma cancer. Lisa is a graduate of Edison High School in Huntington Beach, California which is located in Orange County.

Early career and acting roles
Guerrero began her show business career in the 1980s as a cheerleader for the Los Angeles Rams, after which she became entertainment director for the Atlanta Falcons and New England Patriots. In the 1990s, she starred in Aaron Spelling's Sunset Beach as the female jewel thief Francesca Vargas. She also guest-starred on Frasier (as Joanne, the woman Frasier meets in the airport and follows onto a plane in the Season 4 finale "Odd Man Out" and Season 5 premiere "Frasier's Imaginary Friend"), Cybill, George Lopez and In the Heat of the Night.

In 1992, Guerrero, billed under her given name Lisa Coles, made a brief appearance in the superhero film Batman Returns. Guerrero's character, credited as "Volunteer Bimbo", tells the film's villain, Penguin (Danny DeVito), that he is the coolest role model a young person could have. The Penguin retorted by saying that she's the hottest young person a role model could have.

In 1997, she became a sports anchor on Los Angeles' KCBS-TV, and later on KTTV.

Fox Sports
In 1999, Lisa Guerrero moved to the Fox Network, where she participated in shows such as Sports Geniuses, Fox Overtime, Fox Extra Innings, and the Toughman competition shows. Guerrero travelled to Egypt to tape the special Opening the Tombs of the Golden Mummies, and was the first female host of the San Diego Chargers magazine-style television show. Guerrero also co-hosted The Best Damn Sports Show Period, alongside Tom Arnold, John Salley, John Kruk and Michael Irvin.

Monday Night Football
In 2003, she left The Best Damn Sports Show Period to join ABC's Monday Night Football  as a sideline reporter. Guerrero was fired from the Monday Night Football team after one season. Two decades later, Guerrero revealed in her book that she had suffered a miscarriage while on the air at MNF.

Playboy
Guerrero was the celebrity cover model in the January 2006 issue of Playboy magazine, billed on the cover as "The Best Damn Sports Beauty".

Fifteen years later, Guerrero hosted the Secrets of Playboy. The show won the Critics Choice Award for Best Crime and Justice Show in 2022. Her in-studio sit down interviews with the survivors earned critical praise.

Inside Edition
On June 15, 2006, Guerrero became a correspondent on the TV news magazine Inside Edition. She later became the show's chief investigative correspondent and has worked on undercover stories and investigative reports. In 2011, she won the National Headliner Award for Best Investigative Report, beating Anderson Cooper for her undercover exposé on air duct cleaning scams.

Guerrero was nominated for a Prism Award for her story on the dangers of alcohol and boating. She was also nominated for a Genesis Award nomination for her investigation into horse slaughter farms in Florida.

In total, Guerrero has won over 35 national journalism awards and honors since becoming Inside Edition's chief investigative correspondent in 2010.

Acting
Guerrero has appeared in numerous TV and film projects throughout her forty-year career, including a starring role in Aaron Spelling's Sunset Beach, guest starring on Frasier, The George Lopez Show, In the Heat of the Night, and a recurring role in TNT's television drama series Southland. She appeared in Batman Returns and was also featured in the Bennet Miller's film starring Brad Pitt Moneyball.

Guerrero and her then-husband, retired baseball pitcher Scott Erickson, made an independent film titled A Plumm Summer (2007). Guerrero played the lead role and was also credited as executive producer. Guerrero also co-hosted VH1's game show The World Series of Pop Culture. In 2010, Guerrero hosted the first live webcast of the 82nd Academy Awards red carpet for Oscar.com, integrating viewers' questions from Facebook into celebrity interviews. In January 2012, Guerrero hosted Shooting Stars: Salute to Service, a reality competition show on the Velocity channel.

In total, Lisa has appeared in 18 film and television projects.

Author
Guerrero wrote a memoir titled Warrior: My Path to Being Brave which was published by Hachette Books in January 2023.

Guerrero previously wrote the book, Jewelry For Your Table, a how-to crafts treatise on table setting, published in 2016.

She has occasionally written a blog for the Los Angeles Times sports section and HuffPost.

Personal Life
Guerrero was married to Scott Erickson from 2004 through 2019. In her 2023 book, Warrior, Guerrero revealed that an unplanned pregnancy early in her relationship with Erickson ended in a miscarriage, suffered while she was on the sideline reporting for Monday Night Football.

Self

 * Inside Edition (2009–present) Chief Investigative Correspondent
 * Secrets of Playboy (2022) Host
 * Hell's Kitchen (2014) Dining room guest
 * Shooting Stars: Salute to Service (2012) Host
 * The John and Ken Show (2010) Guest
 * Dr. Phil (2010) Guest
 * Live From the Red Carpet: 82nd Academy Awards Oscar.com (2010) Host
 * E! True Hollywood Story (1 episode, 2009)
 * Headline News (2008–present) Guest
 * E! News (2008–present) Guest
 * Inside Edition (2007–2008) West Coast correspondent
 * World Series of Pop Culture (8 episodes, 2006) Commentator
 * The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch (1 episode, 2006)
 * Weekends at the DL (1 episode, 2005)
 * Madden NFL 2006 (2005) (VG) (voice)
 * Beyond the Glory (1 episode, 2005)
 * Monday Night Football (16 episodes, 2003) Sideline Reporter
 * Jimmy Kimmel Live! (1 episode, 2003)
 * The Best Damn Sports Show Period (2001–2002) TV series
 * Sexiest Bachelor in America Pageant (2000) TV co-host
 * Southern California Sports Report (2000) TV series host
 * Sports Geniuses (2000) TV series co-host
 * Extra (1994) TV series co-anchor
 * Wild West Showdown (1994)

Actress

 * In the Heat of the Night (1 episode, 1990)
 * Matlock (1 episode, 1991)
 * Batman Returns (1992)
 * Love Potion No. 9 (1992)
 * Seinfeld (1 episode, 1994)
 * Cybill (1 episode, 1996)
 * Fire Down Below (1997)
 * Frasier (2 episodes, 1997)
 * Sunset Beach (1998–1999, 86 episodes) Francesca Vargas
 * George Lopez (episode "Feel the Burn", 2003) Linda Lorenzo
 * Today You Die (2005)
 * A Plumm Summer (2007)
 * Winged Creatures (2008)
 * Victorious (pilot, 2010)
 * Southland (2010-2011)
 * Moneyball (2011)

Producer

 * A Plumm Summer (2007)

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

title: Lisa Guerrero


text:
Talk:Acura

Advertisement slipped into this article?

 * "Norm Reeves Acura of Mission Viejo is set to open the largest Acura dealership on the West Coast of the U.S. in early May 2008."

What does this have to do with the history of Acura in late 90s? Orb nsc (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Acuras are assembled in America, where Hondas are assembled in Japan"

 * I take issue with this statement. In my experience, some Honda models are assembled in the US, slight variations are assembled in Canada, and the same goes for Acura, some of which I know have been assembled in Japan. Truth be told, I believe that the statement should be omitted unless someone is willing to provide a comprehensive list of vehicle sources.
 * -- sugarfish 19:26 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * It's definitely incorrect, so I took it out. I've owned two Hondas, and both were made in the USA (an Accord from Marysville, Ohio, and a Civic from East Liberty, Ohio). -- Arteitle 06:36 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * The Acura NSX, RL, RSX, TSX, Integra, Vigor and 1st generation TL were all built in Japan. The rest in the US or Canada. Inspire97 06:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I realize this is an old comment, but did anyone actual go to a Acura dealership? Acuras are made in Japan, period.  As far as I know, they always have been. And, there are several Honda plants in the US.  Either way, this is an old comment chain.  Should be archived.  --Fcsuper (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger needed
It would be more informative to merge the articles on the Acura models back to the articles on the original Honda models. The only exception might be the TSX, since a domestic version of the Accord is often also sold domestically.

New CSX
Can someone with chart skills update the chart at the bottom to include the newly released CSX. --bigjarom 08:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Possible Copyright Violation?
Found an article with remarkable similarity on another web site:

http://auto.moldova.org/auto/eng/24/47/

Note the article for Acura TL on top and the article about Acura at the bottom are both very similar to the ones we have.

I have a feeling they lifted from us. But can anyone verify?

Sure; I wrote some of the original verbiage a year or so ago. ("Consistent performance-based reputation," for instance.) They lifted it. Mjl0509 19:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Time line
Could someone update the timeline (in model years). It is incomplete and innacurate in some places (i.e. 2006). I'm going to place it on the list in the Wikiproject Automobiles.Bok269 22:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I updated the timeline a little bit. I didn't see a problem with 2006.  I'm in the US so I used the EPA Fuel Economy guide  and Kelley's Blue Book  as references.  I took out all years up to 1986.  The EPA site shows the Legend debuting in 1987 and the Integra in 1988, but the KBB site shows both debuting in 1986, so I left it at that for now.  What both agreed on was that the TL replaced the Vigor in 1995, not 1996, so the Acura TL article may need to be updated as such.  Finally, I moved CL from Large to Mid size as it was based on the Accord (a little smaller, even).  --Vossanova 17:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

2006 isn't inaccurate, only incomplete. There are many more models sold. Bok269 14:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Such as..? --Vossanova o< 16:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I added the RDX for 2007. I couldn't find any other models, in the US, Canada, Mexico, or China.  Do they sell Acuras anywhere else? --Vossanova o< 17:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you were referring to the template - I didn't even notice the Timeline section of the article! Actually, I would suggest that the section be deleted entirely, and just leave the template chart. --Vossanova o< 15:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation on Big 3
Someone want to cite the idea that Acura might need to rethink its strategy? I realize that the RL hasn't sold well, but let's make sure we aren't using weasel words...Mjl0509 02:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Next NSX
"And while the slow-selling NSX was discontinued in December 2005, Acura has promised a redesigned model sometime in 2007-2009, currently known only as the Honda HSC."

Honda never stated that the HSC was the next NSX, and in fact it wasn't. The NSX has been promised to have a V-10 engine, while the HSC had a V-6. I will remove the last part that mentions the HSC. --Cirilobeto 22:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Opinion
The line "Before Acura, automobiles from Japan were primarily economical and were seen as reliable above all else" should be removed. This is only manufacturers' goal, or at the very least, only opinion of an opinion.

This issue has been resolved. Archive this and other comments regarding completed tasks? Fcsuper 20:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Acura, Lexus and Infinity are just highly priced Honda, Toyota and Nissan. I agree, their cars are great, but not that great that I would pay premium price for one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.136.109.106 (talk) 18:49, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Strange Claim
"With the Acura brand, Honda is credited with being the first to tap into a market for luxury Japanese cars outside Japan."

This doesn't make sense, given the Lexus division of Toyota. MShonle 21:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What doesn't make sense about this? Acura was in the market 3 years before Lexus. --Blaklite 01:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

formatting issue
There appears to be a formatting issue in the Vehical History section. Either the image is incorporated better or it should be removed. --Fcsuper 17:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Photo of Modified Acura
I fail to understand what the purpose of this photo of this highly-customized vehicle serves. I propose its removal.LorenzoB (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the name "Acura"
It would be nice to mention what the name means and where it comes from F15x28 (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Acura. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120313012706/http://www.sandiegometro.com/2001/feb/roadtest.html to http://www.sandiegometro.com/2001/feb/roadtest.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Acura. 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/20140611113225/http://www.honda.com/newsandviews/local_news_content/%5B5147d%5D_Honda_2012_Digital_FactBook.pdf to http://www.honda.com/newsandviews/local_news_content/%5B5147d%5D_Honda_2012_Digital_FactBook.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111023349/http://hondanews.com/channels/corporate-headlines/releases/american-honda-december-sales-up-25-5-percent to http://www.hondanews.com/channels/corporate-headlines/releases/american-honda-december-sales-up-25-5-percent
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131204195428/http://autotest.pro:80/kody-oshibok/item/8-kody-oshibok-acura to http://autotest.pro/kody-oshibok/item/8-kody-oshibok-acura

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Acura. 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 2021 Acura ILX Price, Review, Release and Performance tag to https://www.releasetopcars.com/2021/10/2021-acura-ilx-price-review-release-and.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130306041512/http://world.honda.com/news/2013/c130128Sales-Production-Result/index.html to http://world.honda.com/news/2013/c130128Sales-Production-Result/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140104212637/http://hondanews.com/channels/corporate-headlines/releases/honda-sets-all-time-december-sales-record-to-earn-2nd-best-annual-sales-total-for-american-honda-acura-light-trucks-post-best-year-in-brand-history to http://hondanews.com/channels/corporate-headlines/releases/honda-sets-all-time-december-sales-record-to-earn-2nd-best-annual-sales-total-for-american-honda-acura-light-trucks-post-best-year-in-brand-history
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://autotest.pro/kody-oshibok/item/8-kody-oshibok-acura

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) 08:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Acura. 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/20070922225931/http://world.honda.com/news/2007/c070718Mid-Year-CEO-Speech/ to http://world.honda.com/news/2007/c070718Mid-Year-CEO-Speech/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091016112403/http://world.honda.com/news/2008/c081217Year-End-CEO-Speech/ to http://world.honda.com/news/2008/c081217Year-End-CEO-Speech
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120723041408/http://hondanews.com/channels/149/releases/94c18aa3-0c51-3936-fcc0-ff004c34bbe7 to http://www.hondanews.com/channels/149/releases/94c18aa3-0c51-3936-fcc0-ff004c34bbe7

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) 15:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Acura


text:
Joanna Glass

Joanna McClelland Glass (born October 7, 1936) is a Canadian playwright. She was born in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and became an American citizen in 1962. She has aided in the expansion of Canadian Theatre from 1970 to the present.

Life
Glass was born on October 7, 1936, in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. She was born as Joan Ruth McClelland. She was involved with theatre during high school. She moved to Calgary to work in a radio station.

Plays

 * 1972, Canadian Gothic
 * 1972, American Modern
 * 1975, Artichoke
 * 1980, To Grandmother's House We Go
 * 1983, Play Memory
 * 1989, Yesteryear
 * 1993, If We Are Women
 * 2004, Trying
 * 2008, Palmer Park
 * 2010, Mrs. Dexter and Her Daily

Novels

 * 1975, Reflections on a Mountain Summer (Knopf)
 * 1984, Woman Wanted (St. Martin's)

title: Joanna Glass


text:
Adam Guettel

Adam Guettel (born December 16, 1964) is an American composer-lyricist of musical theater and opera. The grandson of musical theatre composer Richard Rodgers, he is best known for his musical The Light in the Piazza, for which he won the Tony Award for Best Original Score and the Tony Award for Best Orchestrations.

Early years
Guettel was born on December 16, 1964, to film executive Henry Guettel and writer/composer Mary Rodgers, daughter of famed composer Richard Rodgers, and was raised on the Upper West Side of New York City. He performed as a boy soprano soloist in operas including Pelléas et Mélisande and The Magic Flute, both at the Metropolitan Opera and the New York City Opera, and in another production of Pelléas with the Santa Fe Opera. He was also slated to play Amahl in the film remake of Gian Carlo Menotti's "Amahl and the Night Visitors". He later claimed that he ended his career as a boy soprano at age 13, by faking that his voice was changing; he turned to music composition soon afterward. He attended Phillips Exeter Academy, School Year Abroad (SYA France), Interlochen Center for the Arts and graduated from Yale University in 1987.

Career
His early works include 1996's Floyd Collins, Love's Fire, and Saturn Returns (which was recorded as Myths and Hymns). Guettel's music was almost immediately characterized by its complexity and chromaticism. His major influences include Igor Stravinsky, Maurice Ravel, Claude Debussy, Benjamin Britten, and Stevie Wonder. Stephen Sondheim has referred to Guettel's work as "dazzling." Guettel's songs have been recorded by such artists as Audra McDonald and Brian d'Arcy James. He also contributed original scores to several documentary films, including Arguing the World and Jack: The Last Kennedy Film. In 1999, he performed a concert evening of his own work at New York's Town Hall.

In 2004, Guettel contributed vocals to Jessica Molaskey's P.S. Classics album Make Believe, dueting with Molaskey on his grandfather's song "Glad To Be Unhappy." After six years working on the project, Guettel's musical The Light in the Piazza opened on Broadway in 2005. The show, which starred Victoria Clark and Kelli O'Hara, met with mixed critical notices, but on June 5, 2005, Adam Guettel won the Tony Award for Best Original Score and the Tony Award for Best Orchestrations.

He spent much of the period from 2005 to 2007 working on a musical adaptation of The Princess Bride with original screenwriter William Goldman. As of January 2007, Guettel had written the music for ten songs for the project. An orchestral suite from the score was performed at the Hollywood Bowl in November 2006, and Lincoln Center conducted a workshop of Bride in January 2007. The project was abandoned when Goldman reportedly demanded 75 percent of the author's share, even though Guettel was writing both the music and the lyrics.

In summer 2007, Guettel composed incidental music for a production of Anton Chekhov's play Uncle Vanya at the Intiman Playhouse in Seattle, Washington.

In July 2009, the Signature Theatre of Arlington, Virginia, commissioned Guettel to write a new musical for their 2011-2012 season, under the auspices of their American Musical Voices Project. Currently in the works, this will be a musical adaptation of the Danny Boyle film Millions. Other current projects include an opera based on the short stories of Washington Irving and the opera, The Invisible Man, commissioned by the Houston Grand Opera.

In 2019, Guettel's score for Aaron Sorkin's play To Kill A Mockingbird was nominated for a Tony Award.

In January 2023, Atlantic Theater Company announced an eight-week world premiere production of Guettel's adaptation of Days of Wine and Roses, with music, lyrics, and orchestrations by Guettel, book by Craig Lucas (Guettel's collaborator on The Light in the Piazza, almost 20 years previously), and direction by Michael Greif. The production starred Kelli O'Hara and Brian D'Arcy James and was the first full production of a new musical by Guettel since Piazza. Days of Wine and Roses moved to Broadway, premiering on January 6, 2024 for a 16 week run.

Another major aspect of Guettel's career is his work as a teacher. Since 1995, he has taught masterclasses and seminars in musical theatre performance and songwriting, considering this to be an important complement to his work as a composer. He has led such classes at DePauw University, DePaul University, New York University, Pace University, Harvard University, Yale University, Princeton University, Emerson College, Elon University, The Boston Conservatory, Southern Methodist University, Syracuse University, Wagner College and many others.

Guettel received an honorary doctorate from Lehman College in 2007.

Family
Guettel is the son of composer, author and Juilliard School chairman Mary Rodgers, who died on June 26, 2014, and grandson of legendary musical theater composer Richard Rodgers. His father, Henry Guettel (died October 7, 2013), was a film executive and was the executive director of the Theatre Development Fund.

When Guettel took up music composition in his mid-teens, he was encouraged by his family. His mother said that she offered him advice for around a year, "After that, he was so far beyond anything I could ever have dreamed of, I just backed off." Richard Rodgers, who died when Guettel was 15, overheard an early composition, said he liked it and asked him to play it louder. Guettel has qualified the compliment, noting that "He was literally on his deathbed on the other side of the living-room wall." In his high school and collegiate years and into his early twenties, Guettel worked as a rock and jazz musician, singing and playing bass, before realizing "that writing for character and telling stories through music was something that I really loved to do, and that allowed me to express love."

Influences
In an interview, Guettel stated a portion of his influences that included I. M. Pei, Louis Kahn, Vincent Scully, Jane Jacobs, Igor Stravinsky, Stevie Wonder, Adam de la Halle, Harry Nilsson, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Björk, Erich Wolfgang Korngold, Benjamin Britten, William Inge, Stephen Sondheim, Jody Williams, and Marvin Gaye.

title: Adam Guettel


text:
User:Raymond G Barnstead

Founder and President The Raymond G Barnstead Institute Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Notable Quote: "I am a good product" 1967

title: User:Raymond G Barnstead


text:
Talk:Primary election

Editing needed
Some sections, especially those relating to primaries are not in idiomatic English and/or need tense changes or updating.

Despite what said in 2006 Israel is still not mentioned. Mcljlm (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Primary election


text:
561 BC

The year 561 BC was a year of the pre-Julian Roman calendar. In the Roman Empire, it was known as year 193 Ab urbe condita. The denomination 561 BC for this year has been used since the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe for naming years.

Events

 * Croesus becomes king of Lydia (or 560 BC).
 * All eight solar system planets, including the now redefined dwarf planet Pluto, fall into planetary alignment.

Deaths

 * Alyattes, king of Lydia (or 560 BC)
 * Zedekiah, king of Judah

title: 561 BC


text:
Stephen Leacock Memorial Medal for Humour

The Stephen Leacock Memorial Medal for Humour, also known as the Stephen Leacock Medal for Humour or just the Leacock Medal, is an annual Canadian literary award presented for the best book of humour written in English by a Canadian writer, published or self-published in the previous year. The silver medal, designed by sculptor Emanuel Hahn, is a tribute to well-known Canadian humorist Stephen Leacock (1869–1944) and is accompanied by a cash prize of $25,000 (CAD). It is presented in the late spring or early summer each year, during a banquet ceremony in or near Leacock’s hometown of Orillia, Ontario.

The medal is one of the oldest literary prizes in Canada, and is the only one awarded to a work of humour. It has been awarded every year since 1947 with the exception of 1959 when it was reported that no worthy entries had been submitted.

History
The Stephen Leacock Associates, the non-profit organising body behind the award, was founded in 1946 by a loose group of Leacock’s friends and supporters. Although administered and presented separately, in early years the award was announced as part of the Governor General's Awards announcements,  later moving to a separate announcement.

Each year the Associates’ board of directors appoints a panel of suitable judges from around the country, and also commissions readers who rank and select from submitted works a long list of ten books, which is later narrowed to a short list of three books (previously five). The shortlist is typically announced in early May. In 1990, for the only time in the award's history they did not whittle the initial longlist down to a shortlist, but simply announced a shortlist of ten books which were all considered for the final award.

The cash prize began in 1970, as a $2,500 award co-sponsored by Manulife Insurance and the Hudson's Bay Company. The following decades saw gradual increases in the amount of the prize under a number of sponsors, reaching its current value of $15,000 in 2009, sponsored by the TD Bank Financial Group. As of 2018, both remaining shortlist authors each receive cash prizes of $3,000.

In 1969 the Associates established a quarterly newsletter called The Newspacket to commemorate the centenary of the author’s birth. The publication prints excerpts from nominated books, and is itself a showcase for Canadian humour writing. The Newspacket has been published irregularly in recent years.

In 1977 the group established an annual Student Award for Humour, which honours and encourages young Canadian writers from secondary and post-secondary levels with recognition and cash prizes for the top three.

Organization
The Leacock Award is ceremonially led by a past winner or nominee, who holds the honorary title "Mayor of Mariposa". The duties of this position include giving a speech at the awards ceremony, and representing the Leacock Foundation in other public appearances including McGill University's annual Leacock Lecture. Held by Dan Needles until 2018, the position was taken over by Drew Hayden Taylor in 2019 and renamed "Grand Chief of Mariposa" to reflect Taylor's First Nations heritage.

The Medal
The medal, cast in silver and designed by Canadian sculptor Emanuel Hahn, is two inches (5.08 cm) in diameter and approximately 0.125 inches (.32 cm) thick. It weighs 3.125 ounces (88.59 g).

On the obverse is a profile of Stephen Leacock’s head and the dates of his lifespan (1869–1944). The words "Stephen Leacock Memorial Medal Founded 1946" are worked around the perimeter.

The reverse side features the words "Orillia “The Sunshine Town”  Award for Canadian Humour". A jolly face represents the sun resting on waves, and the latitude and longitude of Orillia, Ontario, Canada, appear in small figures at the top. Two small fish swim beneath the waves, and two large mosquitoes are depicted — one on the sun, the other in the water. Below the design, there is room for the winner’s name and date to be inscribed, and below that a small maple leaf emblem.


text:
605 BC

The year 605 BC was a year of the pre-Julian Roman calendar. In the Roman Empire, it was known as year 149 Ab urbe condita. The denomination 605 BC for this year has been used since the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe for naming years.

Events

 * Battle of Carchemish: Crown Prince Nebuchadnezzar defeats the allied armies of Egypt and former Assyria, securing the Babylonian conquest of Assyria (approximate date).
 * Battle of Hamath: Nebuchadnezzar II defeats the remainder of the Egyptian army after the Battle of Carchemish.
 * Nebuchadnezzar II succeeds his father Nabopolassar as king of Babylonia.

Deaths

 * Nabopolassar, founder of the Neo-Babylonian Empire

title: 605 BC


text:
568 BC

The year 568 BC was a year of the pre-Julian Roman calendar. In the Roman Empire, it was known as year 186 Ab urbe condita. The denomination 568 BC for this year has been used since the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe for naming years.

Events

 * Amtalqa succeeds his brother Aspelta as king of Kush.

Deaths

 * Pittacus of Mytilene, one of the Seven Sages of Greece
 * Aspelta, king of Kush

title: 568 BC