text:
Ouija

The Ouija, also known as a Oujia board, spirit board, talking board, or witch board, is a flat board marked with the letters of the Latin alphabet, the numbers 0–9, the words "yes", "no", and occasionally "hello" and "goodbye", along with various symbols and graphics. It uses a planchette (a small heart-shaped piece of wood or plastic) as a movable indicator to spell out messages during a séance. Participants place their fingers on the planchette, and it is moved about the board to spell out words. The name "Ouija" is a trademark of Hasbro (inherited from Parker Brothers), but is often used generically to refer to any talking board.

Spiritualists in the United States believed that the dead were able to contact the living and reportedly used a talking board very similar to a modern Ouija board at their camps in the U.S. state of Ohio in 1886 to ostensibly enable faster communication with spirits. Following its commercial patent by businessman Elijah Bond on 1 July 1890, the Ouija board was regarded as an innocent parlor game unrelated to the occult until American spiritualist Pearl Curran popularized its use as a divining tool during World War I.

Paranormal and supernatural beliefs associated with Ouija have been criticized by the scientific community and are characterized as pseudoscience. The action of the board can be most easily explained by unconscious movements of those controlling the pointer, a psychophysiological phenomenon known as the ideomotor effect.

Mainstream Christian denominations, including Catholicism, have warned against the use of Ouija boards, considering their use Satanic practice, while other religious groups hold that they can lead to demonic possession. Occultists, on the other hand, are divided on the issue, with some claiming it can be a tool for positive transformation, while others reiterate the warnings of many Christians and caution "inexperienced users" against it.

Etymology
The popular belief that the word Ouija comes from the French (oui) and German (ja) words for yes is a misconception. In fact, the name was given from a word spelled out on the board when medium Helen Peters Nosworthy asked the board to name itself. When asked what the word meant, it responded "Good Luck."

Precursors

One of the first mentions of the automatic writing method used in the Ouija board is found in China around 1100 AD, in historical documents of the Song dynasty. The method was known as fuji "planchette writing". The use of planchette writing as an ostensible means of necromancy and communion with the spirit-world continued, and, albeit under special rituals and supervisions, was a central practice of the Quanzhen School, until it was forbidden by the Qing dynasty.

Talking boards
As a part of the spiritualist movement, mediums began to employ various means for communication with the dead. Following the American Civil War in the United States, mediums did significant business in allegedly allowing survivors to contact lost relatives. Use of talking boards was so common by 1886 that news reported the phenomenon taking over the spiritualists' camps in Ohio. The Ouija was named in 1890 in Baltimore, Maryland by medium and spiritualist Helen Peters Nosworthy.

Commercial parlor game
Charles Kennard, the founder of Kennard Novelty Company, claims to have invented the board with his business partner, Elijah Bond, who patented it with help from his sister-in-law, spiritualist and medium Helen Peters Nosworthy. The local patent office at first refused a patent. Bond and Nosworthy then traveled to Washington, D.C. where they were also denied a patent until the chief patent officer asked the board to spell out his name, which it did. In 1901, an employee of Bond, William Fuld, took over the talking board production under the name "Ouija."

Scientific investigation
The Ouija phenomenon is considered by the scientific community to be the result of the ideomotor response. Michael Faraday first described this effect in 1853, while investigating table-turning.

Various studies have been conducted, recreating the effects of the Ouija board in the lab and showing that, under laboratory conditions, the subjects were moving the planchette involuntarily. A 2012 study found that when answering yes or no questions, Ouija use was significantly more accurate than guesswork, suggesting that it might draw on the unconscious mind. Skeptics have described Ouija board users as "operators". Some critics have noted that the messages ostensibly spelled out by spirits were similar to whatever was going through the minds of the subjects. According to professor of neurology Terence Hines in his book Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (2003):

"The planchette is guided by unconscious muscular exertions like those responsible for table movement. Nonetheless, in both cases, the illusion that the object (table or planchette) is moving under its own control is often extremely powerful and sufficient to convince many people that spirits are truly at work ... The unconscious muscle movements responsible for the moving tables and Ouija board phenomena seen at seances are examples of a class of phenomena due to what psychologists call a dissociative state. A dissociative state is one in which consciousness is somehow divided or cut off from some aspects of the individual's normal cognitive, motor, or sensory functions."

Some involuntary movements are known as "Automatism".

This correlates with the ideomotor phenomenon because both rely on unconscious movement. The difference is that the ideomotor phenomenon is based on the idea that just the idea that something can happen tricks the brain into doing it. For example, thinking about not moving the planchette leads to the possibility of the planchette moving, which then makes someone unconsciously move the planchette.

Ouija boards were already criticized by scholars early on, being described in a 1927 journal as vestigial remains' of primitive belief-systems" and a con to part fools from their money. Another 1921 journal described reports of Ouija board findings as 'half truths' and suggested that their inclusion in national newspapers at the time lowered the national discourse overall.

Religious responses
Since early in the Ouija board's history, it has been criticized by several Christian denominations. The Catholic Church in the Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly forbids any practice of divination which includes the usage of Ouija boards. Catholic Answers, a Roman Catholic Christian apologetics organization, claims that "The Ouija board is far from harmless, as it is a form of divination (seeking information from supernatural sources)."

In 2005, Catholic bishops in the Chuuk State of the Federated States of Micronesia called for the boards to be banned and warned congregations that they were talking to demons when using Ouija boards. In a 1995 pastoral letter, The Dutch Reformed Churches encouraged its communicants to avoid Ouija boards, as it is a practice "related to the occult". The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod forbids its faithful from using Ouija boards as a violation of the Ten Commandments.

In 2001, Ouija boards were burned in Alamogordo, New Mexico, by fundamentalist groups as "symbols of witchcraft". Religious criticism has expressed beliefs that the Ouija board reveals information which should only be in God's hands, and thus it is a tool of Satan. A spokesperson for Human Life International described the boards as a portal to talk to spirits and called for Hasbro to be prohibited from marketing them.

These religious objections to use of the Ouija board have given rise to ostension type folklore in the communities where they circulate. Cautionary tales that the board opens a door to evil spirits turn the game into the subject of a supernatural dare, especially for young people.

Literature
Ouija boards have been the source of inspiration for literary works, used as guidance in writing or as a form of channeling literary works. As a result of Ouija boards' becoming popular in the early 20th century, by the 1920s many "psychic" books were written of varying quality often initiated by Ouija board use.

 * Emily Grant Hutchings claimed that her novel Jap Herron: A Novel Written from the Ouija Board (1917) was dictated by Mark Twain's spirit through the use of a Ouija board after his death
 * Pearl Lenore Curran (1883–1937), alleged that for over 20 years she was in contact with a spirit named Patience Worth. This symbiotic relationship produced several novels, and works of poetry and prose, which Pearl Curran claimed were delivered to her through channelling Worth's spirit during sessions with a Ouija board, and which works Curran then transcribed
 * Much of William Butler Yeats's later poetry was inspired, among other facets of occultism, by the Ouija board
 * In late 1963, Jane Roberts and her husband Robert Butts started experimenting with a Ouija board as part of Roberts' research for a book on extra-sensory perception. According to Roberts and Butts, on 2 December 1963, they began to receive coherent messages from a male personality (an "energy personality essence no longer focused in the physical world") who eventually identified himself as "Seth", culminating in a series of books dictated by "Seth"
 * In 1982, poet James Merrill released an apocalyptic 560-page epic poem titled The Changing Light at Sandover, which documented two decades of messages dictated from the Ouija board during séances hosted by Merrill and his partner David Noyes Jackson. Sandover, which received the National Book Critics Circle Award in 1983, was published in three volumes beginning in 1976. The first contained a poem for each of the letters A through Z, and was called The Book of Ephraim. It appeared in the collection Divine Comedies, which won the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry in 1977. According to Merrill, the spirits ordered him to write and publish the next two installments, Mirabell: Books of Number in 1978 (which won the National Book Award for Poetry) and Scripts for the Pageant in 1980.

Aleister Crowley
Aleister Crowley had great admiration for the use of the ouija board and it played a passing role in his magical workings. Jane Wolfe, who lived with Crowley at Abbey of Thelema, also used the Ouija board. She credits some of her greatest spiritual communications to use of this implement. Crowley also discussed the Ouija board with another of his students, and the most ardent of them, Frater Achad (Charles Stansfeld Jones): it is frequently mentioned in their unpublished letters. In 1917 Achad experimented with the board as a means of summoning Angels, as opposed to Elementals. In one letter Crowley told Jones:

"Your Ouija board experiment is rather fun. You see how very satisfactory it is, but I believe things improve greatly with practice. I think you should keep to one angel, and make the magical preparations more elaborate."

Over the years, both became so fascinated by the board that they discussed marketing their own design. Their discourse culminated in a letter, dated 21 February 1919, in which Crowley tells Jones,

"Re: Ouija Board. I offer you the basis of ten percent of my net profit. You are, if you accept this, responsible for the legal protection of the ideas, and the marketing of the copyright designs. I trust that this may be satisfactory to you. I hope to let you have the material in the course of a week."

In March, Crowley wrote to Achad to inform him, "I'll think up another name for Ouija." But their business venture never came to fruition and Crowley's new design, along with his name for the board, has not survived. Crowley has stated, of the Ouija Board, that

"There is, however, a good way of using this instrument to get what you want, and that is to perform the whole operation in a consecrated circle, so that undesirable aliens cannot interfere with it. You should then employ the proper magical invocation in order to get into your circle just the one spirit you want. It is comparatively easy to do this. A few simple instructions are all that is necessary, and I shall be pleased to give these, free of charge, to any one who cares to apply."

Others

 * Roland Doe used a Ouija board, which the Catholic Church stated led to his possession by a demon
 * Dick Brooks, of the Houdini Museum in Scranton, Pennsylvania, uses a Ouija board as part of a paranormal and seance presentation
 * G. K. Chesterton used a Ouija board in his teenage years
 * Around 1893, he had gone through a crisis of scepticism and depression, and during this period Chesterton experimented with the Ouija board and grew fascinated with the occult
 * Bill Wilson, the co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous, used a Ouija board and conducted seances in attempts to contact the dead
 * Early press releases stated that Vincent Furnier's stage and band name "Alice Cooper" was agreed upon after a session with a Ouija board, during which it was revealed that Furnier was the reincarnation of a 17th-century witch with that name. Alice Cooper later revealed that he just thought of the first name that came to his head while discussing a new band name with his band
 * Former Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi claimed under oath that, in a séance held in 1978 with other professors at the University of Bologna, the "ghost" of Giorgio La Pira used a Ouija to spell the name of the street where Aldo Moro was being held by the Red Brigades
 * According to Peter Popham of The Independent: "Everybody here has long believed that Prodi's Ouija board tale was no more than an ill-advised and bizarre way to conceal the identity of his true source, probably a person from Bologna's seething far-left underground whom he was pledged to protect"
 * The Mars Volta wrote their album Bedlam in Goliath (2008) based on their alleged experiences with a Ouija board
 * According to their story (written for them by a fiction author, Jeremy Robert Johnson), Omar Rodriguez Lopez purchased one while traveling in Jerusalem. At first the board provided a story which became the theme for the album. Strange events allegedly related to this activity occurred during the recording of the album: the studio flooded, one of the album's main engineers had a nervous breakdown, equipment began to malfunction, and Cedric Bixler-Zavala's foot was injured. Following these bad experiences the band buried the Ouija board
 * In the murder trial of Joshua Tucker, his mother insisted that he had carried out the murders while possessed by the Devil, who found him when he was using a Ouija board
 * In London in 1994, convicted murderer Stephen Young was granted a retrial after it was learned that four of the jurors had conducted a Ouija board séance and had "contacted" the murdered man, who had named Young as his killer. Young was convicted for a second time at his retrial and jailed for life
 * E. H. Jones and C. W. Hill, whilst prisoners of the Turks during the First World War, used a Ouija board to convince their captors that they were mediums as part of an escape plan

In popular culture

Ouija boards have figured prominently in horror tales in various media as devices enabling malevolent spirits to spook their users.

In the 1960 supernatural horror film 13 Ghosts the family Zorba plays the game "Ouija, the mystifying oracle."

Episodes of Lost in Space ("Ghost in Space" (1966)) and The Waltons ("The Ghost Story" (1974)) have spirit boards as part of their plots.

A Ouija board is an early part of the plot of the 1973 horror film The Exorcist. Using a Ouija board the young girl Regan makes what first appears to be harmless contact with an entity named "Captain Howdy." She later becomes possessed by a demon.

Based on Ouija Board, a song and album of the name, Ojah Awake, by Osibisa, was released in 1976.

The 1986 film Witchboard and its sequels center on the use of Ouija. The 1991 film And You Thought Your Parents Were Weird features use of a Ouija board in an important early scene. What Lies Beneath (2000) includes a séance scene with a board. Paranormal Activity (2007) involves a violent entity haunting a couple that becomes more powerful when the Ouija board is used.

Aparichithan (The Stranger) is a 2004 Indian Malayalam-language horror film. The plot centers around a Ouija board and spiritualism.

Another 2007 film, Ouija, depicted a group of adolescents whose use of the board causes a murderous spirit to follow them. In 2011, The Ouija Experiment portrayed a group of friends whose use of the board opens, and fails to close, a portal between the worlds of the living and the dead. The 2012 film I Am Zozo follows a group of people that run afoul of a demon, based on Pazuzu, after using a Ouija board. The 2014 film Ouija features a group of friends whose use of the board prompts a series of deaths. A 2016 prequel, Ouija: Origin of Evil, also features the device.

Romancham (Goosebumps) is a 2023 Malayalam-language horror-comedy film. The plot involves several bachelors from Bangalore who improvise a Ouija board from a Carrom game.

The British singer Morrissey released a controversial single titled "Ouija Board, Ouija Board" in 1989. The lyrics and the video of the song mockingly play with the idea of supernaturally contacting dead persons.

The rap group Bone Thugs-n-Harmony referenced Ouija on their Horrorcore albums Creepin on ah Come Up and E. 1999 Eternal, having been inspired by seeing the board at Toys "R" Us.

Jeremy Gans' nonfiction book, The Ouija Board Jurors: Mystery, Mischief and Misery in the Jury System, based on an article he wrote for the University of Melbourne, recounts an incident in which four jurors sought the help of a Ouija board during a double murder trial, both for guidance and to relieve the stress precipitated by the brutal images of evidence.

The National Geographic show Brain Games Season 5 episode "Paranormal" clearly showed the board did not work when all participants were blindfolded.

The sitcom Steptoe and Son in Series 8 Episode 6, includes a scene with a Ouija board where Harold briefly fools Albert into believing that they are in contact with the ghost of Adolf Hitler.

Ouija boards appear in the video game Phasmophobia as an item investigators can use to communicate with the ghost, although using it can prove dangerous.

Ouija Board ( ওইজা বোর্ড ) is a Bangladeshi television drama directed by Humayun Ahmed and starring Bipasha Hayat, Shila Ahmed , Al Monsoor , Dilara Zaman , Abul Hayat and others.

title: Ouija


text:
Parker Brothers

Parker Brothers (known by Parker outside of North America) was an American toy and game manufacturer which in 1991 became a brand of Hasbro. More than 1,800 games were published under the Parker Brothers name since 1883. Among its products were Monopoly, Clue (licensed from the British publisher and known as Cluedo outside of North America), Sorry!, Risk, Trivial Pursuit, Ouija, Aggravation, Bop It, Scrabble (under a joint partnership with Milton Bradley in the United States and Canada), and Probe. The trade name became defunct with former products being marketed under the "Hasbro Gaming" label with the logo shown on Monopoly games.

History
Parker Brothers was founded by George Swinnerton Parker. Parker's philosophy deviated from the prevalent theme of board game design; he believed that games should be played for enjoyment and did not need to emphasize morals and values. He created his first game, called Banking, in 1883 when he was 16. Banking is a game in which players borrow money from the bank and try to generate wealth by guessing how well they could do. The game includes 160 cards which foretell their failure or success. The game was so popular among family and friends that his brother, Charles Parker, urged him to publish it. George approached two Boston publishers with the idea, but was unsuccessful. Not discouraged, he spent $40 to publish 500 sets of Banking. He eventually sold all but twelve copies, making a profit of $100.

Parker founded his game company, initially called the George S. Parker Company, in his hometown of Salem, Massachusetts in 1883. When George's brother Charles joined the business in 1888, the company's name was changed to its more familiar form. In 1898 a third brother, Edward H. Parker, joined the company. For many years, George designed most of the games himself, and wrote all the rules. Many games were based on important events of the day: Klondike was based on the Klondike Gold Rush, and War in Cuba was based on the impending Spanish–American War.

The game industry was growing, and the company was becoming very profitable. In 1906, Parker Brothers published the game Rook and it became the bestselling game in the country. During the Great Depression, a time when many companies went out of business, Parker Brothers released a new board game called Monopoly. Although the company had originally rejected the game in 1934, they decided to publish it the next year. It was a success, and the company had difficulty keeping up with demand. The company continued to grow throughout the next several decades, producing games including Cluedo (released as Clue in North America), Risk, and Sorry!

Parker Brothers marketed its first jigsaw puzzle in 1887. Parker also produced children's puzzles, as well as the Climax, Jig-A-Jig, Jig Wood, and Paramount lines. According to Jigsaw Puzzles: An Illustrated History and Price Guide, by Anne D. Williams, Parker Bros. closed the Pastime line in the 1950s and their die-cut puzzles were phased out in the late 1970s.

Even after George Parker's death, the company remained family-owned until 1968 when General Mills purchased the company. After this, Parker Brothers produced the first Nerf ball. In the UK during the 1970s, Parker Brothers sold the rights of some games to the games division of Palitoy (also a General Mills company), and produced a variety of releases such as Escape from Colditz. In 1977, the company built its headquarters in Beverly, Massachusetts.

The company began to produce electronic versions of their popular board games in the late 1970s and early 1980s. At this time, the company ventured into the toy market with the electronic action figure, Rom the Spaceknight, in 1979. Although the toy proved a failure, the licensed comic book published by Marvel Comics ran for years after the toy was discontinued. They also produced video games for various systems during the early 1980s, with home ports of many popular arcade games such as Konami's Frogger, Nintendo's Popeye, Gottlieb games such as Q*bert and Reactor, and the first video games based on the Star Wars films such as The Empire Strikes Back, Jedi Arena, Death Star Battle, and more.

In early 1983, Parker Brothers spent US$15 million establishing a book publishing branch; their first titles featured the American Greetings franchises, Care Bears and Strawberry Shortcake. The branch published twelve titles by February 1984; sales of these books totaled 3.5 million units. Parker Brothers also operated a record label around the same time; one of its releases, based on Coleco's Cabbage Patch Kids and involving Tom and Stephen Chapin titled Cabbage Patch Dreams, was certified Gold by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in July 1984.

In 1985, General Mills merged the company with their subsidiary Kenner; this new company, Kenner Parker Toys Inc., was acquired by Tonka in 1987. In 1988, Parker Brothers struck a deal with Martindale/Gilden Productions to develop television game shows, such as Boggle.

Tonka, including Parker Brothers, was bought in 1991 for about $516 million by Hasbro which also owned the Milton Bradley Company. Following the acquisition, Parker Brothers continued to have its corporate offices in Beverly, but production of the games were moved to Milton Bradley's headquarters in East Longmeadow. In 1998, Parker Brothers and Milton Bradley were consolidated at the new Hasbro Games campus (based in the former address of Parker Brothers' headquarters) to merge together and form Hasbro Games. Milton Bradley and Parker Bros. subsequently turned into two separate brands of Hasbro before being retired in 2009 in favor of the Hasbro brand.

Some games published

 * Aggravation
 * Authors
 * Bop It
 * Cluedo
 * Gambler
 * Jack Strauss
 * Mansion of Happiness
 * Merlin
 * Monopoly
 * Ouija
 * Peter, Peter, Pumpkin Eater
 * Pente
 * Ping Pong
 * Probe
 * Risk
 * Scrabble
 * All The King's Men (Board Game)
 * Sorry!
 * Tiddlywinks
 * Touring

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

title: Parker Brothers


text:
Talk:Kanishka

Untitled
What country was he King of? RickK

Kanishka ruled the Kushan Empire whose boundaries are not certain but included modern Pakistan, modern Afghanistan, parts of Tibet and Central Asia, and parts of Northern India.

Readers might be interested to know that the majority of Kushan scholars believe the date of Kanishka to be solved. There are full references on my discussion:

www.kushan.org/essays/chronology/kanishka.htm

Note I hold a minority position.

Robert

Kanishka was a Jat King of Kaswan clan
Kaswan or Kuswan or Kasuan is a gotra of Jats in Rajasthan and Haryana in India. The word Kaswan is 'XWN' of Tocharian language meaning 'King'. The Taxila Ladle Copper inscription bears this as 'Kaswin' word. In Mahabharata also there is mention of a country named 'Kuswan' which was situated in the north of Mansarovar lake.

Presently Kaswan Jats are living in about 300 villages of Bikaner, Churu and Ratangarh areas. They were rulers in Sindh. Raja Kharwel has mentioned in an article about their rule in 2nd century of Vikram samvat - ‘Hathi Gumpha and three other inscriptions’ (page 24) in Sanskrit as under:

“Kusawanam Kshetriyanam cha Sahayyatavatan prapt masik nagaram”.

This means that the city of 'Masik' was obtained with the help of 'Kuswa' Kshatriyas

According to historian Bhim Singh Dahiya the correct name for Kushans in India is Kasuan, the present Kaswan clan of Jats of Rajasthan and Haryana. This title remains in use by  Jat clan indicates their possibility of ancestral lineage from Kushans.

James Legge : A RECORD OF BUDDHISTIC INGDOMS, (Being an Account by the Chinese Monk Fa-Hien of his Travels in India and Ceylon (A.D. 399-414), in Search of the Buddhist Books of Discipline Translated and annotated with a Corean recension of the Chinese text)

mentions in chapter XII about the rule of Kanishka in foot note-4 that “Kanishka appeared, and began to reign, early in our first century, about A.D. 10. He was the last of three brothers, whose original seat   was in Yueh-she, immediately mentioned, or Tukhara.”

He further mentions in footnote-6 that “This king was perhaps Kanishka himself, Fa-hien mixing up, in an inartistic way, different legends about him. Eitel suggests that a relic of the old name of the country may still exist in that of the Jats or Juts of the present day. A more common name for it is Tukhara, and he observes that the people were the Indo-Scythians of the Greeks, and the Tartars of Chinese writers, who, driven on by the Huns (180B.C.), conquered Transoxiana, destroyed the Bactrian kingdom (126 B.C.), and finally conquered the Punjab, Cashmere, and great part of India, their greatest king being Kanishak (E. H., p. 152).” As per above discussion it is clear that the Kushan ruler Kanishka was a Jat. It is proposed accordingly to included this fact in the History Kanishka in this article. burdak 04:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

He was a Jat ruler of Kaswan clan🔥 Prerit Tushir (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Concern about the so-called "Clan of Kanishka"
I am very concerned about the recent addition of the section called the "Clan of Kanishka." I don't know of any convincing historical evidence that Kanishka was a Jat and this addition certainly does not prove it. As far as I am concerned it remains a hypothesis or theory at best and, until more evidence is produced, I don't think this section should remain. I have, therefore, added the following label to this section  John Hill 07:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

John

Perhaps you could provide some verifiable evidence, that Kaniska was not a Jat

Ravi Chaudhary 20:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ravi Chaudhary: perhaps you should provide some verifiable evidence that Kanishka was not a chamar as chamars of Kaniswan clan claim him to be the first dalit king who was Buddhist

Anonymous 18:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

He was a Jat king of Kaswan clan. I have sources Tushir 25 (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

sources cited for "Clan of Kanishka"
Hi John Hill, After your note to verify sources about the clan of Kanishka I further searched books with me and put more references at appropriate places in the article on clan of Kanishka's section. All references lead to the same fact that Kanishka was Kaswan Jat and it can not be anything else. Apart from literature and inscriptions the biggest evidence is that Kaswan clan is in Jats as on today in Rajasthan. Majoritry of them are in Churu district in Rajasthan. So as I am from that area and have first hand information about them. If there is any evidence otherwise, as Ravi Chaudhary has said, it may be placed for discussion.

About the origin of Kushans I take from Wikipedia article on Kushan which is as under -

 * "Chinese sources describe the Guishuang (Ch: 貴霜), i.e. the "Kushans", as one of the five aristocratic tribes of the Yuezhi (Ch: 月氏), a loose confederation of Indo-European peoples. The Yuezhi are also generally considered as the easternmost speakers of Indo-European languages, who had been living in the arid grasslands of eastern Central Asia, in modern-day Xinjiang and Gansu, possibly speaking versions of the Tocharian language, until they were driven west by the Xiongnu in 176–160 BCE. The five tribes constituting the Yuezhi are known in Chinese history as Xiūmì (Ch: 休密), Guishuang (Ch: 貴霜), Shuangmi (Ch: 雙靡), Xidun (Ch: 肸頓), and Dūmì (Ch: 都密).

 * The Yuezhi reached the Hellenic kingdom of Greco-Bactria, in the Bactrian territory (northernmost Afghanistan and Uzbekistan) around 135 BCE, and displaced the Greek dynasties there, who resettled in Indus basin (in present day Pakistan) in the western part of the Indo-Greek Kingdom.

 * In the following century, the Guishuang (Ch: 貴霜) gained prominence over the other Yuezhi tribes, and welded them into a tight confederation under yabgu (Commander) Kujula Kadphises. The name Guishuang was adopted in the West and modified into Kushan to designate the confederation, although the Chinese continued to call them Yuezhi."

According to Thakur Deshraj the Shivi gotra Jats of Shivaliks and lower reaches of Lake Manasarowar left this area after the war of Mahabharata and migrated to Uttar Kuru. Some of them settled in Punjab in the area known as 'Yadu ki Dung', some settled in Kashmir and the rest moved far north up to Siberia.

The Krishna vanshi people in Sanskrit were called 'Karshney' and 'Karshniya'. Karshniya or Kasaniya is a gotra of Jats found in Rajasthan. These Krishna vanshi people in China were known as Kushan or Yuezhi.

Bhim Singh Dahiya has established that Kushan or Yuezhi were Jats. There were two branches of Yuezhi people. One of the branches was called 'Ta-Yuezhi' which means 'The great Jats'. The other branch was 'Siao-Yuezhi' which means 'The little Jats'. The Greek historian Herodotus has written Massagetae for Ta-Yuezhi and Thyssagetae for Siao-Yuezhi. The Yuezhi people inhabited the Outer Mongolia and Gansu province of China. burdak 03:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Mr. Burdak's comments above
Dear Mr. Burdak: I have just now discovered the comments you wrote last November (above). You have given us a number of references and you say Bhim Singh Dahiya "has established that Kushan or Yuezhi were Jats." This will, I suspect, be a total surprise to most scholars involved in the field of Kushan history. I would have no argument with you if you had stated that Bhim Singh Dahiya has proposed a hypothesis that Kushans were Jats. But "established" that this is so? I would like to see the evidence (if there is any real evidence).

Most scholars admit that the evidence is still not strong enough to be definite about the family connections or even the original language of the Kushans, although there is developing a fairly general consensus that they were either "Tocharian" or related to them. Many, many theories have been proposed - but none have been generally accepted as yet.

You also claim to have some personal knowledge that you think strengthens the case that Kushans were from the Kaswan clan of Jats. I wish you would detail this so everyone can consider it properly - or do you expect us, once again, to have to take what you say as the Truth?

Finally, it is not up to me to prove Kanishka or the Kushans were NOT Jats, but up to you and your colleague Mr. Chaudhari to prove that they were. If you could do this convincingly, it would have far-reaching implications for South and Central Asian history. By the way, in your scheme of things, do the Yuezhi come first and then become Jats, or do the Jats come first and the Yuezhi derive from them?

I would suggest that the most likely connection between the Yuezhi and the Jats is that some of the Yuezhi, after they conquered Gandhara, may have mixed with the Punjabis of the time, and some modern Jats may well be partially descended from the Yuezhi conquerors (just as some of them are likely to be part Greek, part Persian, part Hun, part Mughal, and/or part English, and so on). But to say that Kushans WERE Jats is, I think, going too far and I would certainly need to see a well-argued case with solid evidence before I could even take it as a serious theory.

There is no point me trying to summarize the huge amount of literature available which indicates that the Yuezhi were related to one or the other group of people. I suggest you both go and read as much of it as you can and, then, after you have studied it carefully, try to present your case about the identification of the Kushans as Jats. John Hill 09:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

material moved from main page
--218.186.8.10 07:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)--218.186.8.10 07:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)--218.186.8.10 07:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Kanishka was a Kushan of Yuezhi ethnicity. He probably spoke an Indo-European language related to Tocharian, and he used the Greek script in his inscriptions.
 * Layan Kanishka Asiri Wijekoon

Kanishka was the successor of Vima Kadphises, as demonstrated by an impressive geneaology of the Kushan kings, known as the Rabatak inscription. A number of legends about Kanishka were preserved in Buddhist religious traditions. Along with the Indian king Ashoka, the Indo-Greek king Menander I (Milinda), and Harshavardhana, he is considered by Buddhists to have been one of the greatest Buddhist kings.

Kanishka's era is now generally accepted to have begun in 127 CE on the basis of Harry Falk's ground-breaking research. Kanishka's era was used as a calendar reference by the Kushans for about a century, until the decline of the Kushan realm.

But i am Sirlankan.buddist.

 * http://lakbima.lk/images/sflag.gif Layan Kanishka Asiri Bandara Wijekoon.

 * http://www.kanishka.beeplog.com
 * http://www.asiri3com.hi5.com
 * http://www.asiri3com.beeplog.com
 * http://www.asiri3com.spaces.live.com
 * http://www.layan-asiri-wijekoon.]]blogspot.com

 * asiri3com@gmial.com

Links to Kamsa?
Is there any established link with king Kamsa? Wiki-uk (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Statue in the Mathura Museum - photo request
Could someone make a picture of the large statue of Kanishka in the Mathura Museum and upload it on Wiki Commons? Wiki-uk (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

mis-map
In the map showing the conquests of Kanishka the Pandya kingdom is marked at the wrong place.The title should be Chera Kingdom. The Pandya kingdom with its capital at Madurai is to the east of Chera Kingdom and to the south of CHOLA Kingdom.Bksatyanarayana 07:14, 27 May 2012

kANISHKA WAS NOT A TURK
Please can someone explain me, why it is written here that Kanishka was a turk????? Turks had no presence in the kushan empire and only 500 years later they migrated from mongolia to central asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2028:149:1781:249E:D99A:FD60:D2D1 (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Don't see anything about that in the article now, except something in footnote 1... AnonMoos (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Jesus as Kanishka's spiritual advisor?!
''"At the time of Kanishka's coronation and when the Kushana Dynasty's first gold coin was minted, Yuz Asaf was the spiritual advisor to the king." '' None of this is sourced. The Wiki link to "Yuz Asaf" leads to various Islamic legends about Jesus, who apparently survived the crucifixion and escaped to Kashmir. Nowhere did I find any sources for there being a "Yuz Asaf" as an advisor to Kanishka. Not surprising, as it would've been pretty difficult for him - he would've been over 120 years old at that point. The comments on this blog post: https://tibettalk.wordpress.com/2007/09/01/the-lost-years-of-jesus-in-tibet/ suggest this is based on a Kanishka coin depicting the Buddha. But no, it's actually Jesus, somehow. Considering this, I removed the sentence. 83.240.10.150 (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Jan Pospisil

 * Good call -- I agree with the removal. utcursch | talk 13:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, 83.240.10.150.  JimRenge (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kanishka. 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/20090817052335/http://www.bpmurphy.com/COTW/week2.htm to http://www.bpmurphy.com/COTW/week2.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.trincoll.edu/classes/relg254pics/relg254pics/class3/if000000.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Call the Manual of Style police
Why does this article (along with other Kushan-related articles) almost have more images and templates than text? I'm sure there are better ways to show these details without making the eyes of its readers bleed due to its messiness. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Kanishka
ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF BUDDHA STUPA: AN OVERVIEW OF TEXTUAL NARRATIVES http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/archaeological/PDF/8_V7_19.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.216.71.236 (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kanishka


text:
Monopoly game

Monopoly game may refer to:

Games

 * Monopoly (game), a popular board game created in the early 20th century
 * Monopoly (game show), a 1990 American television game show based on the board game
 * Monopoly (video game), any one of more than a dozen video game adaptations of the board game
 * The Monopoly Game 2, a Japanese video game from 1995 for the Super Famicom
 * Monopoly: The Card Game, a card game loosely based on the board game

Music

 * Monopoly Game, a 1998 recording by the Toshiko Akiyoshi Jazz Orchestra featuring Lew Tabackin

title: Monopoly game


text:
Marine Corps Air Station El Toro

Marine Corps Air Station El Toro was a United States Marine Corps Air Station located next to the community of El Toro, near Irvine, California.

Before it was decommissioned in 1999, it was the 4682 acre home of Marine Corps Aviation on the West Coast. Designated as a Master Jet Base, its four runways (two of 8000 ft and two of 10000 ft) could handle the largest aircraft in the U.S. military inventory. While it was active, all U.S. Presidents in the post-World War II era landed in Air Force One at this airfield. The El Toro "Flying Bull" patch was designed by Walt Disney Studios in 1944. It survived virtually unchanged until the close of the Air Station.

Following its decommissioning the site was used as a filming location, including the test track for the United States version of the BBC's Top Gear franchise. About 1300 acre of land originally taken by the air station was converted into a large recreational center, the Orange County Great Park, while the rest was re-zoned for residential and commercial development.

History
In May 1942, Lieutenant Colonel William Fox was directed to select the sites for all of the Marine Corps' West Coast air stations. Fox sought the most expeditious and low cost option and thus chose the already existing airports of El Centro, Mojave and Santa Barbara. For the fourth station, he chose land that had previously been looked at by the U.S. Navy for a blimp base. The Marine Corps gave the owner of the land, a farmer named James Irvine Sr., $100,000 for 4000 acre including 1600 acre designated for a blimp base. Construction of MCAS El Toro began on 3 August 1942 on land previously owned by the Irvine Company. The company greatly resisted the station's construction at this site, which at the time contained the largest lima bean field in North America, which was the company's prime source of revenue. The name "El Toro" came from the nearby small community of El Toro, now incorporated as Lake Forest, which in 1940 only had a population of 130 people.

The base headquarters was established on 4 November 1942, and the first landing occurred in late November when Major Michael Carmichael, flying from Camp Kearny, was forced to make an emergency landing among the construction equipment. The runways and taxiways were completed by 1 December 1942, and all squadron hangars were complete by 15 January 1943. Barracks and officer's quarters were ready by 20 January. January 1943 also saw the first operational units arriving at MCAS El Toro. First aboard were Marine Aircraft Group 41 and VMF-113. They were followed later in the month by VMSB-142, VMF-224, VMSB-231 and VMSB-232, who were returning from fighting during the Battle of Guadalcanal in order to re-organize, re-equip and train. The station was formally commissioned on 17 March 1943, with Colonel Theodore B. Millard as the first commanding officer. Soon after its opening, MCAS El Toro was handling the largest tactical aerodrome traffic on the Pacific Coast.

Already the largest Marine Corps air station on the West Coast, in 1944, funds were approved to double its size and operations. By the end of 1944, the base was home to 1,248 officers and 6,831 enlisted personnel.

In 1950, El Toro was selected as a permanent Master Jet Base for the Fleet Marine Force, Pacific. To support this new role, the aviation infrastructure at El Toro was expanded significantly. For most of the ensuing years, El Toro served as the primary base for Marine Corps west coast fighter squadrons. During the 1960s, many US Marines left for and returned from the Vietnam War at El Toro MCAS. In 1958, Marine Corps Air Station Miami was closed which brought the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing to El Toro.

During the presidency of Richard Nixon, MCAS El Toro was used for flights to and from his "Western White House" at San Clemente, California. On 9 August 1974, after resigning the Presidency in the wake of the Watergate scandal, Richard and Pat Nixon flew from Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland to El Toro aboard VC-137C SAM 27000.

The land originally surrounding the base was mostly used for agricultural purposes when it first opened, but in the late 1980s and early 1990s, residential development began in the area; most of it was directly in the path of the base's runways, which proved to be a major problem as the constant loud noise produced by jets and helicopters passing overhead was very irritating to those living in the area. Few desired to move there because of this, causing the new neighborhoods to struggle.

In 1993, MCAS El Toro was designated for closing by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission and all of its activities were to be transferred to Marine Corps Air Station Miramar. The station officially closed on 2 July 1999.

Environmental remediation
Before the site could be developed for civilian use, the Department of the Navy (which oversees both the Navy and the Marine Corps) was required to perform environmental remediation to clean up contaminated soil on the site. The contamination was caused by volatile organic compounds (VOCs), primarily industrial solvents that had been used over the years for purposes such as degreasing, paint stripping, and the cleaning of aircraft.

Over the years, the VOCs had seeped into the groundwater, resulting in a plume of contaminated groundwater extending for three miles (5 km) to the west of the station. In July 2005, the Department of the Navy's Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Program Management Office (PMO) issued a public notice stating that the cleanup of the contaminated soil was complete. The cleanup of the groundwater is being handled by the Irvine Desalter Project, a project of two local water authorities that has financial backing from the Navy and the State of California.

Conversion proposals
The closing of MCAS El Toro ignited a political firestorm over the eventual fate of the facility. With the existing infrastructure, some favored converting the base into an international airport. Those favoring the new airport tended to come from northern Orange County (desiring the convenience of a closer airport), and from areas in Newport Beach that are within the arrival and departure noise zones surrounding John Wayne Airport (hoping to close that airport in favor of the new one at El Toro).

Those against the airport proposal were largely residents of the cities in the immediate vicinity of El Toro, such as Irvine, Lake Forest, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Dana Point, and Mission Viejo, where residents were alarmed at the idea of the aircraft noise. The cities opposed to the airport created a joint powers authority, the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority (ETRPA), to oppose the project. They were joined in the effort by grassroots organizations that collected record numbers of signatures on petitions to place anti-airport initiatives on the ballot and raised funds for the election campaigns. This faction lobbied strongly in favor of other uses for the property. The city of Irvine sought to annex the property for park and related uses.

In November 1994, voters passed Measure A, designating the property's land use to commercial aviation in the Orange County General Plan. A March 1996 ballot measure attempted to overturn Measure A, but failed. Since that time, the county released reports recommending conversion of El Toro into a commercial airport.

The battle between pro-airport and anti-airport groups dominated Orange County politics for much of the late 1990s and early 2000s. From 1994 to 2001, $80 million in county and city funds was spent on campaigning for both sides. Airport proposals were defeated in two hotly contested ballot initiatives, and further challenges took place in the courts. A series of demonstration commercial flights from the airport in June 1999 generated less noise than the former military flights, but resulted in much public outcry due to the use of different flight paths from the military, and incessant circling over nearby cities to line up for another approach. Eventually the airport opponents prevailed, and in March 2002, the Department of Defense announced that it would sell the land to private interests to be developed into Orange County Great Park.

While many county residents were not persuaded of the need for a larger airport, regional transportation planners insisted that the county must share in handling a greater portion of the millions of passengers traveling by air in Southern California.

Sale
The Department of the Navy hired the General Services Administration and Los Angeles-based Colliers International to assist in the sale of MCAS El Toro. Colliers branded the project as Heritage Fields combining the long-standing history of the base and what the future of the base will be to the community and the generations to come. An online auction was conducted and in February 2005, the final bid of $650 million was accepted for the four parcels of land comprising the former MCAS El Toro. The auction winner was Heritage Fields LLC, a joint venture between Lennar and several other firms. Development plans for the 3724 acre site include residential, golf, commercial, R&D, and schools. 1375 acre of the site will be dedicated to the Great Park. A ceremony to formally transfer ownership of the property to Heritage Fields LLC was held on 29 August 2005.

Accidents and incidents

 * 19 November 1958: An F4D Skyray fighter jet overshoots the runway and is struck by a southbound San Diegan. Train No. 74 hits the F4D at 75 miles (121 km)-per-hour. All three locomotive units and cars #3430, #3165, #3144, #1399, #3100, #3094, #3082 derail after hitting the F4D. No fatalities and only a few injuries result.
 * On 25 June 1965, a U.S. Air Force Boeing C-135A bound for Okinawa crashed just after takeoff at MCAS El Toro, killing all eighty-four on board.
 * On 23 Jan 1967, two Douglas A-4 Skyhawk jets were wing-tipping on approach. Pilot Frank Gambelli had lost his radio in a rainstorm, and he was wing-tipping with Pilot James Powell over Leisure World on approach. Visibility was practically zero. The two jets collided and both pilots ejected. Pilot Powell ejected safely, but was thrown into the side of a building when his parachute caught on the top of the building and was slammed into it and died. Pilot Gambelli landed next to St. Nicholas Catholic Church just at the end of service. GSgt H.W. Oviatt raced out of the church and took pilot Gambelli back to the base. The wreckage of the jets crashed onto two buildings in Leisure World, killing four people on the ground.
 * On 30 July 1970, a Lockheed Martin KC-130F of VMGR-352 crashed and burned during a maximum effort landing, killing 4 of 5 crewmen on board.
 * On 6 June 1971, a midair collision occurred between Hughes Airwest Flight 706 Douglas DC-9 jetliner and a Marine Corps F-4B Phantom being flown to MCAS El Toro, claiming 50 lives. The DC-9, with 44 passengers and 5 crew members aboard, impacted into a remote canyon approximately three miles north of Duarte, California along with one of the crew members of the fighter whose wreckage was found in another canyon approximately .75 miles southeast of the DC-9's crash site. One of the Marines in the fighter survived the accident.
 * On 4 July 1986, 21-year-old Marine Lance Corporal, Howard Foote Jr., an aviation mechanic at El Toro, took an A-4 Skyhawk on an unauthorized 90-minute joyride over southern California. Foote, an accomplished glider pilot, was despondent after learning that due to a medical condition, he would never be able to fly in the Marines. He landed the aircraft safely and was subsequently discharged under less than honorable conditions after serving $4 1/2$ months in confinement.
 * On 12 Feb 1987, a CH-46E helicopter from HMM-764, MAG-46 crashed, shortly after takeoff, into a steep, brush-covered ridge between Bell and Trabuco canyons. All three crewmembers on board, Major Dudley Urban, Major William Anderson, and Staff Sergeant Bradley Baird, died in the crash.
 * On 24 April 1988, Marine Corps Colonel Jerry Cadick, then commanding officer of MAG-11, was performing a tactical aerial demonstration at the MCAS El Toro Air Show before a crowd of 300,000 when he crashed his F/A-18 Hornet at the bottom of a loop that was too close to the ground. The aircraft was in a nose-high attitude, but still carrying too much energy toward the ground when it impacted at more than 300 mi/h. Col. Cadick was subjected to extremely high G-forces that resulted in his face making contact with the control stick and sustaining serious injury. He broke his arm, elbow and ribs, exploded a vertebra and collapsed a lung. Col. Cadick survived and retired from the Marine Corps. The crashed F/A-18 remained largely intact but was beyond repair.

 * On 22 January 1991, Marine Corps Colonel James Sabow apparently committed suicide amid allegations of base corruption, specifically using military aircraft for personal use. His family and friends denied he committed suicide and pointed out that Col. Sabow had pledged to fight the charges against him just minutes before his death in phone conversations with other officers. According to a 1996 lawsuit by his family, Sabow was murdered because he threatened to expose an authorized covert operation at El Toro involving some of his fellow officers, CIA-sponsored airlifts to Central and South America, running arms and drugs.
 * On 2 May 1993, during the 1993 MCAS El Toro airshow, an F-86 Sabre crashed on the runway after failing to pull out of a vertical loop. The F-86 pilot, James A. Gregory, died on impact. No one was hurt on the ground. The airshow continued. Normally the F-86 performed with a MiG-15, but the pilot of the MiG-15 was ill that day and the F-86 was doing a solo run.

Notable events

 * The MCAS El Toro Air Show took place annually from the 1950s until 1997. It featured the U.S. Navy Blue Angels, as well as the USAF Thunderbirds. The Air Show also featured new aircraft that were coming into active service, such as the B-2 stealth bomber. Other displays featured military vehicles. The show also had a large gathering of vendors of military items and memorabilia. The final Air Show in 1997 drew an estimated two million visitors.
 * MCAS El Toro was regularly used for flight operations by Special Air Missions during President Richard Nixon's term in office, in support of the "Western White House," Nixon's home at San Clemente. The final Nixon flights were, first, when he landed there upon resigning the White House in 1974, and again, after his death in 1994, when his body was flown to California for burial. He flew both times in his Air Force One, SAM 27000.
 * In 2006, an abandoned F/A-18 hangar in Irvine California was sealed to create, in effect, a giant pinhole camera, and a panoramic print of the El Toro Air Station was formed on a light-sensitive muslin cloth measuring 111 feet wide, 32 feet high. Under the direction of Laguna Beach photographer Jacques Garnier, the image, known as "The Great Picture," was originally produced as part of the Legacy Project - a photographic and historical record of the base before being transformed into what is now the Orange County Great Park. This is believed to be the largest photographic image ever taken by a camera.
 * From 2005 to 2012, depending on the year, there were small air shows, fireworks, family New Year's Eve (the balloon dropped at 9 pm) and other events related to Growing the Park, at the Great Park, the new name for the site.

title: Marine Corps Air Station El Toro


text:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/vote

Vote at "summary and votes" (approval voting - vote for as many options as you like). For discussion of how these votes should be taken in the future, see vote. The seven options are:

 * 1) Make Day Month Year MoS policy
 * 2) Keep Month Day, Year as MoS policy
 * 3) Day Month for date titles, allow both Month Day, Year and Day Month Year
 * 4) Allow both Month Day, Year and Day Month Year
 * 5) Use yyyy-MM-dd RFC 3339 format internally and allow logged in users to have it reprocessed to their preferred format
 * 6) Month Day for date titles, allow both Month Day, Year and Day Month Year
 * 7) Make Year month day UTC MoS policy
 * 8) Put a moratorium on the subject for at least 6 months.
 * 9) Remove dates from the Wikipedia.
 * 10) Make the Dayth of Month,  Year  MoS policy

'''Note: This vote is currently declared pending. Several users have pointed out problems with the process used and the options as they are currently set up. Automatic conversion options will also have to be explored in further detail. In the meantime, the current Manual of Style (dates and numbers) should be used, but keep in mind that MoS is not policy, so please try to accommodate others when editing.'''

A new vote will possibly be set up in mid-July, unless a consensus solution can be found.

Usage of different formats
This is just a summary of what publications/countries use which format, to save repetition in the summary below

 * Month Day, Year (current documented standard)
 * Chicago Manual of Style has announced that 15th edition will "doubtlessly" revert to Month Day, Year format recommendation.
 * Standard in U.S.
 * Used by The Guardian (UK), The Sun (UK), The Times (UK), Encarta (US), Encyclopedia Britannica (US, formerly UK), Columbia Encyclopedia (US), New York Times (US) ... most US-based news/encyclopedic publications use this style
 * Google example: "21 June": 562,000 hits. "June 21": 1,780,000 hits. "21st June": 73,700 hits. "June 21st": 146,000. Most web pages use US style (most web pages are US-based, and a greater proportion of US citizens have web access)

 * Day Month Year
 * Standard in Europe, Australia, Canada (traditionally), ... (majority of English-speaking world, particularly including english as a second language)
 * Used in New Scientist (uk), Daily Telegraph (uk), BBCi (uk), the CIA Factbook (us), The Economist's Manual of Style (uk), ...
 * Preferred by some US style guides (esp. in prose): Chicago Manual of Style (but see above), Fowler's Modern English Usage (says Tarquin), Garner's Modern American Usage, The Elements of Style
 * Fowler's Modern English Usage shows this as OUP (its publisher) house style, but does not otherwise take a position.

 * Year Month Day
 * Standard in Portugal, Sweden, Japan, Korea, China, Canada (in government communication).

 * Year Day Month
 * Not used anywhere

 * the Dayth of Month Year
 * Usually only spoken, not written.

Summary and votes
(approval voting)

N.B.: the Manual of Style is not mandatory. However, copyeditors will change entries to match the manual of style.

- who says who is a copy editor? - if it not mandatory, then it is not mandatory. If copyeditors will change it, then that makes it a mandatory style. The above claim is a contradiction in terms.

 * Make Day Month Year MoS policy
 * + having two numbers separated by a word is marginally easier to mentally parse (according to The Elements of Style)
 * + Datebot should make changeover easy.
 * + is the system used by most countries in the world and most wiki users outside the US.
 * + Is a logical order, with the units in progression of increasing size
 * - hard data? (On an eMac, dd/mm/yy is the default in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Switzerland and the UK. mm/dd/yy is only default for the US, and yy/mm/dd is default in Portugal and Sweden)
 * -as more international contributors join wiki, they are going to want to use the international rather than the US dating system
 * - Requires change to thousands of articles (are any of the above benefits worth the trouble?)
 * - requires US editors (current majority) to work in form not natural to them
 * - some regard this position as "micro-management"

 * Votes for: (28):
 * Tarquin
 * Martin
 * sannse
 * Bagpuss
 * Oliver P.
 * JTD
 * Arwel (I prefer "express no preference" - use whichever you want)
 * Matthew Mayer (though proper date markup would be better)
 * Catherine
 * DanKeshet
 * Patrick
 * cferrero
 * Dramatic
 * Chris Q
 * mkrohn
 * Egil
 * Tom Peters
 * Infrogmation
 * James F.
 * User:anthere
 * Dante Alighieri (a US editor),
 * Nohat
 * goatasaur
 * Seanos (it's not the USopedia) <---The validity of this vote is contested.
 * Paul
 * Fonzy
 * Jeff
 * MPF

 * Keep Month Day, Year as MoS policy
 * + appears to be most common in web publications around the world
 * + NB: the Manual of Style is not mandatory. However, copyeditors will change entries to match the manual of style
 * + Doesn't require any changes of current articles
 * - Is an illogical, and therefore confusing order, with the smallest unit sandwiched between two larger units, not in unit size progression
 * - Is not used by the majority of english speakers in the world, so requires non-US wiki editors to work in form they ordinarily would not use
 * - as wiki grows, the majority of contributors may come from outside the US and not agree to use US dating system, preferring international dating system
 * hard data on what "majority of English speakers" or "majority of non-US wiki editors" uses? (On an eMac, dd/mm/yy is the default in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Switzerland and the UK. mm/dd/yy is only default for the US, and yy/mm/dd is default in Portugal and Sweden)
 * - could make wikipedia appear US-focused, rather than international
 * - some regard this position as "micro-management"

 * Votes for (23):
 * Taku
 * Ortolan88
 * Stephen C. Carlson (date markup may be best long term)
 * DanKeshet
 * The Cunctator
 * Zoe
 * Jazz77
 * Eloquence
 * Arthur
 * Lorenzarius
 * PMelvilleAustin (Month Day is used in Chinese)
 * John Owens (even though I'm a 2003.05.23 kind of guy when it's just me)
 * Lou I
 * Nanobug
 * Pizza Puzzle (Why say 7th of March when its quicker to say March 7th?)
 * Notheruser
 * Fred Bauder
 * Adam Bishop (even though Day-Month is the "Canadian" way, I always just use Month-Day)
 * Timwi (why change something already kind of established?)
 * Minesweeper (I prefer "express no preference" below)
 * Menchi (It's the more commonly existing form on WP, and it's not incorrect, just regional)
 * Wik (I agree with Menchi, it's already de facto standard)
 * Jiang USA Number 1 Woo hoo!!!!!
 * [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]]

 * Encourage Day Month Year  (change date articles to Day Month but make no policy for article text)
 * + Less troublesome than using datebots
 * + Allows editors to work in form natural to them
 * + consistent with spelling policy
 * - links to redirects will remain common
 * - Could lack of consistency appear unprofessional or hinder reading?

 * Votes for (14):
 * Stan Shebs
 * sannse
 * Zundark
 * Enchanter
 * Chris Q
 * Taku
 * Toby
 * Tom Peters
 * Martin
 * the Epopt
 * User:anthere
 * Tim Starling
 * Andy G
 * Paul

 * Allow both Month Day, Year and Day Month Year, express no preference
 * + Doesn't require any changes of current articles
 * + Allows editors to work in form natural to them
 * + Consistent with policy on tolerating U.S./British spelling differences
 * + Respectful of world-wide indigenous cultural usages.
 * + Less Eurocentric (a good point, perhaps, on this New Years Day, March 4, 2003, according to the Tibetan Lunar calendar).
 * + Less US-centric
 * - not clear what date articles will be titled
 * - Many links to redirects
 * - Could one form end up being "official" even though no preference claime, since can't redirect to both dateforms? Could both link to yyyy-MM-dd and be RFC 3339 complient. Would also then accomidate those who want RFC 3339 option.
 * - Could lack of consistency appear unprofessional or hinder reading?
 * - Could it lead to edit wars in different segments of Wikipedia where users will try to enforce one style over the other? (see PageHistory:10 Rillington Place for an example)

 * Votes for (26):
 * Kingturtle
 * Bagpuss
 * Tannin
 * Enchanter
 * Arthur
 * Derek Ross
 * The Cunctator
 * Toby Bartels
 * AxelBoldt
 * mav
 * FearÉIREANN
 * Arwel
 * the Epopt
 * jimfbleak
 * SimonP
 * User:anthere
 * Tim Starling
 * Tiles
 * Deb
 * Cordyph
 * Minesweeper
 * The Anome
 * Kpjas
 * Paul - low turnout and weak mandate for enforcement...
 * Ryan_Cable
 * Jiang - if we dont adopt this one, we need to change our spelling policy too!
 * [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]]
 * Philip Baird Shearer

 * Use yyyy-MM-dd RFC 3339 format internally and allow logged in users to have it reprocessed to their preferred format
 * + Worldwide standard for computers.
 * + Is a logical order, with the units in progression of decreasing size; particularly logical when combined with times yyyy-MM-dd hh.mm:ss
 * + allegedly natural for readers.
 * + Ability to link to articles like December 2002 where appropriate.
 * + Date articles can be titled according to preferences.
 * + Easy for all RFC 3339 using language wikipedias, to link to date pages without having to understand other languages.
 * + Allows support for people who don't know what the Gregorian calendar is.
 * ± Editors have to think.
 * - Requires extra processing on server.
 * - Requires changes to all current articles.
 * - Very unnatural for all contributors contribributing to pages other than on computers and mathematics (what the heck does 2003-07-02 mean?)
 * - Unclear what default settings would be and what preferred formats won't apply to the average researcher who comes here through a search engine -- what do they see? (Majority readers' format: MM/dd/yyyy, or unambiguous format: yyyy-MM-dd?)
 * - extra load on the database and parser, which would slow down wikipedia still further (fatal flaw?)
 * - rarely used. (On an eMac, dd/mm/yy is the default in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Switzerland and the UK. mm/dd/yy is only default for the US, and yy/mm/dd is default in Portugal and Sweden)

 * Votes for (20):
 * Dramatic
 * Jeandré
 * SCCarlson (as long as it is reprocessed to preferred format)
 * mkrohn
 * Kaihsu
 * John Owens (well, we can dream)
 * Tom Peters
 * Angela
 * cprompt (Browser language settings could determine default for anon. users)
 * James F.
 * the Epopt
 * كسيپ Cyp 19:11 209 Karka 02 (Darian)
 * Phil Bordelon
 * Dante Alighieri (external standards are a Good Thing)
 * ☮ Eclecticology
 * Nohat
 * User:( (2nd choice would be "allow both" above)
 * Rotem Dan (Hey, that was my idea! ;)
 * Gorm
 * Ryan_Cable

 * Keep Month Day standard, allow both Month Day, Year and Day Month Year in entries, preferring format appropriate to majority editor/readership
 * + Doesn't require any changes of current articles
 * + Allows editors to work in form natural to them
 * + consistent with spelling policy
 * + Natural for readers, depending on how well majority of editors match the preferences of majority of readers
 * ± Majority wins on popular entries
 * - Many links to redirects (~50%)
 * - U.S form may end up being "official" even though no preference claimed
 * - Could lack of consistency appear unprofessional or hinder reading?

 * Votes for (4):
 * The Cunctator
 * AxelBoldt
 * Tim Starling
 * John Owens
 * Jiang

 * Make year-month-day UTC MoS policy (ie, no-one is forced to use it, but copyeditors will be changing other formats to it). This is the ISO 8601 and Internet standard RFC 3339 format. One could add a static UTC clock too.
 * + External standard
 * - not clear what date articles will be titled
 * - Unusual and numeric
 * - ambiguous when referring to dates between 10 and 99 (unless leading zeros are prefaced)
 * - confusing and unintuitive when referring to BC dates
 * - what do we use where only day+month is given? (eg "Christmas is celebrated on 25 December")
 * - ISO standard is purely for numerical dates, not for spelt out months
 * - rarely used (On an eMac, dd/mm/yy is the default in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Switzerland and the UK. mm/dd/yy is only default for the US, and yy/mm/dd is default only in Portugal and Sweden)

 * Votes for (4):
 * Mac
 * WMC
 * Tom Peters
 * The Anome

 * Put a moratorium on the subject for at least 6 months. Use whatever people want in the meantime. (presumably by this you mean that copyeditors shouldn't change dates?? -- Yup. That's what I mean.)

 * + people get back to the real task of writing an encyclopedia
 * + allows people to get used to this approach to dates and see whether it works in practice, possibly paving the way to its use as a consensus solution.
 * ± people stop talking about the subject for a while
 * - only postpones the discussion

 * Votes for (5):
 * Danny
 * mav
 * fonzy
 * the Epopt
 * The Anome

 * Remove dates from the Wikipedia. For far too long has the tyranny of linear time ruled over us all. Advanced theoretical physics suggests that all events happen simultaneously. All dates are, therefore, spurious, and should be eliminated.

 * + its wacky good fun
 * + people who are bad at remembering dates will appreciate it
 * - its a really stupid idea

 * Votes for (1):
 * كسيپ Cyp


text:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 3

 * Standard in U.S. (majority of current audience)

If our audience is English speakers, which was my impression, then the US. is not the majority of the current audience. Am I misunderstanding something?
 * When they say "current audience", they presumably mean "current readership" rather than "intended audience". Understood that way, the argument is less strong. AxelBoldt 21:17 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

 * Ok, do we have stats on what proportion of the current readership is US? Martin

I'm chipping in late here, but here's my opinion: we should keep the current standard of Month Day, Year, and edit anything that is in some other form to match that form. In other words, we should continue as we are. Any change is not worth the hassle it will cause, and I honestly don't see what the benefits are. I'm not convinced that the Month Day, Year format is only standard in the US - I just looked at two very different UK newspapers (The Sun and The Guardian) and both give today's date as "March 3 2003". --Camembert

 * That's a good point. Guardian articles also use month/day, from a quick sample of a few of their pages, so it's not just their header. Well there you go, we started off this debate being surprised at US style guides supporting "international" usage, and now we find some UK newspapers supporting "American" usage. (I note that the daily telegraph is sticking to day/month, though... ;-) Martin

From the Guardian style guide:

January 1 2000 (no commas) It is occasionally alleged that putting month before date in this way is an "Americanisation"; in which case it should be pointed out that this has been our style since the first issue of the Manchester Guardian on May 5 1821

...and similarly the Times style guide:

dates  Monday, April 18, 1994 (never 18th April)

--rbrwr

Newspapers generally use the same standard date format, largely to do with their filing system for past editions, in which previously newspapers were bound together by month, not date. For the ease of staff engaged in filing large piles of newspapers in the days before papers were microfilmed and when the work was done in poor lighting in old buildings, it was long ago decided that most British and Irish newspapers would place the keyword first, which in the case of filing was the month. (A small number of newspapers, notably the Daily Telegraph refused to follow that rule, even if it caused more eyestrain for their unfortunate library staff, on the basis that it did not want to look like it was copying the US.) Newspaper dating of no relevance whatsoever to this debate. We don't use newspaper fonts, newspaper layout, newspaper graphics or anything. Their dating system is irrelevent and does not in any case mean that their readers followed that system, because they didn't.

It is an unambiguous fact that most of the world uses dd/mm/yy, not mm/dd/yy. Even computers change dating systems depending on where in the world the computer is used. On my computer only one country in the world is shown as mm/dd/yy, the US. (More show up as yy/mm/dd (2) than mm/dd/yy (1).) Dates are written as dd/mm/yy and spoken as the second of March, not March 2. JtdIrL 01:39 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * So why didn't they file by year first? lysdexia 02:02, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * But remember, we are talking about Month, not mm. 01/04/03 is ambiguous, but January 4, 2003 is understandable by all English speakers. There is no significant difference between the understandability of 4 January 2003 and January 4, 2003, and clarity is our main goal. (And I don't think anybody is suggesting we use 4th January 2003 or 4th of January 2003 or January the 4th, 2003, so how it is spoken is not really relevant.) Nanobug 12:57 29 May 2003 (UTC)

I'm looking at the "Encourage Day Month Year " option and the "Keep Month Day standard, allow both Month Day, Year and Day Month Year in entries, preferring format appropriate to majority editor/readership" option. Are these supposed to be parallel? If so, should this be made more clear? If not, where are their parallel opposites? (I'm hoping so.) -- Toby 07:14 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * I originally created parallel "Encourage" options, but nobody (except, briefly, Tannin) voted for "Encourage Month Day", so I scrapped that option. The "Keep Month Day standard, allow..." was created by The Cunctator. I guess the options are pretty much parallel, though more by accident than design... Martin

So "Encourage ..." is a vote to change (or not change) only the article titles, but to have no MoS policy for article text? -- Toby 11:17 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

 * That's how I would interpret it. Martin

In my quest for issues on which we actually agree, I'd like to add something along the following lines to the article:

 * Avoid using multiple date formats in the same article - this can confuse readers.

I know that Tannin would disagree with this idea, idea, but would peoplewould support consistency within individual articles, even if consistency across the whole of wikipedia is more controversial? Thanks. Martin

 * Providing that the month was spelled out, I doubt that it would confuse readers, although it might annoy some of the more pedantic, but I would be quite happy to make dates consistent within individual articles and probably have done so in the past. -- Derek Ross

 * No, that's OK with me, Martin. In general, it is poor style to mix and match within an individual entry. It's only when you hit complex passages where you need to mention four or five dates in a single para that we need to allow a little extra slack. Tannin

 * Could you give some examples? Martin

Article Titles
There's a lot of discussion over what the articles should be called: 11 February (with a redirect from February 11), or February 11 (with a redirect from 11 February).

I'd like to suggest a way of making more people happy on this. I think that if we have the articles at 11 February, then if people visit February 11 they should not see the "redirected from" text. After all, nobody should ever be changing these redirects to point anywhere else!

This obviously requires changes to the #REDIRECT code, and possibly these "silent redirects" could only be made by sysops. However, I think that'd make people a lot more willing to compromise. I'd be perfectly happy to have month day as article titles, provided that making a link to day month didn't result in an ugly "redirected from" text at the top of the page.

 * 1) REDIRECT-SILENT February 11

Martin 13:44 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

"(redirect from 11 February)." doesn't look ugry at all. What is wrong with that? -- Taku 02:01 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

 * It implies that the link has been made to the wrong place, like a mispelling, and it unnecessarily draws attention to the inner workings of wikipedia. That's fine for normal redirects (because one wants to draw attention to it so that the reader can change the redirect if sie likes) bu I think it's inferior for date redirecs. Martin

 * I agree it is very ugly and IMO has led to a tendency for people to go out of their way to make direct links instead of using perfectly valid redirects. I admit to doing to too. The biggest problem is that "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." is replaced with the ugly "Redirected from.... " so the article doesn't look right. An older version of the software had the "Redirected from ...." statement above where the interlanguage links now go. If that were done with small font then IMO there would be much less resistance for people to use redirects and Wikipedians wouldn't be wasting so much damn time arguing about nomenclature. --mav 11:04 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

I've just noticed that 66.159.210.12 (contribs talk page) is making changes to pages so dates fit the Date Month Year format, rather than Month Date, Year. I must admit, I was rather annoyed by this until I came to this page and saw that the policy now reads "February 11 or 11 February" for dates. This is a change in policy - it used to be universally "February 11" - indeed the first of the voting options above says "Keep Month Day, Year as MoS policy (status quo)". Why was this changed, and why shouldn't I change it back? I liked it better the way it was before, and judging from the above, so do lots of other people. --Camembert

 * Actually, forget that - it's not worth getting into an argument (or discussion) over. In fact, one of the reasons I supported keeping the status quo (which isn't the status quo any more, if you see what I mean) was that this didn't seem a subject worth arguing over. I'll leave the above comment here in case anybody else is interested by it, but this is me beating a retreat from this discussion. (and apologies if I sound a bit grumpy, I'm just feeling a little... well, grumpy :) --Camembert

 * Ack, I didn't mean to be changing policy - just trying to clarify which bits are controversial, and which not. IE, nobody has a problem with 10th century BC! I'll fix this - sorry to have given you a shock... Martin

 * Thanks for clearing that up Martin, and my apologies: I probably over-reacted a bit. I'm happier now (easily satisfied, I guess... ;) --Camembert

So what is the position now? Are we able to use [10 December] rather than automatically [December 10]? I must say I would much prefer to do this. I use dd/mm/yy in absolutely everything I write (newspaper articles, briefing documents, books, notes, etc), with the sole and solitary exception of on wikipedia so I would enthusiastically abandon mm/dd/yy (with the hope of never having to use the infernal thing ever again!). STÓD/ÉÍRE 21:10 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

First of all, manual of style has no authority but simple advisory therefore you can write an article in whatever way you like. -- Taku 23:12 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

 * Taku, Wikipedia is meant to be a professional organised, communal encylopædia. That means everyone should show sufficient respect for the rules agreed by people, not say 'too hell with everyone else. I'm doing it my way. If you do it that way, Wikipedia will soon be reduced to an unreadable amateurish joke. STÓD/ÉÍRE

Second of all, with the date redirects in place, you can write the way you want -- and in my arrogant opinion, you should. All articles I create or edit will be in the standard form -- the one you like -- from now on. --the Epopt 01:22 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

I've added (and to a degree implemented) a suggestion for handling early years. Separate articles for very early years serve no useful purpose IMHO. The cutoff years have been chosen based upon the frequency of existing articles. It could be argued that they should be moved significantly upwards (i.e. cutoff for decades at 1 BC, for instance). -- Egil 15:34 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)

 * This has been discussed at Timeline standards, where we currently have: "Note: Years prior to 2000 BC should redirect to the relevant century page. Years prior to 1 AD should redirect to the relevant decade page. This is due to the inaccuracies of dates in this time period, and the comparatively reduced number of important historical events". Been discussed briefly in Wikipedia talk:Timeline standards. Martin

 * Sounds reasonable, although my review of what is in Wikipedia right now indicated that the switch to centuries could well happen before 2000 BC. I've spent a few hours implementing the redirects and copyedits to handle the limits I mention here, and leave to others to do more. -- Egil 09:23 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

And another thing.. wouldn't it be more neutral/less US/euro centric/etc. to use CE and BCE instead of AD and BC? -- Kimiko 15:24 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

 * This conversation comes up every now and again, and never gets anywhere other than raising tempers. :) Generally, we follow typical English-language usage by not using AD at all and using BC for years prior to 1. CE is redundant, and the benefits of BCE over BC are disputed. A massive attempt to change existing uses of BC to BCE would be very much frowned upon, but new usage of BCE ought not to be rejected. As with British vs American spelling, it would be preferable to be consistent within any given article. --Brion 17:38 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

 * I can only second that. I sometimes enjoy being PC and try to be NPOV, so BCE really has its merits. But everyone understands BC, and there are myriads of BCs already. Is it too far fetched to pretend that BC is also an abbreviation for "Before Common era" or something like that? -- Egil 18:03 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

BC is universally understood. BCE isn't to many many people internationally who don't use it. And there is no point making up a phoney meaning for BC. We don't write Before Christ in articles and most people already know what it means. STÓD/ÉÍRE 18:42 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

 * Okay. It was just something that occurred to me. I can live with either. If it is something that keeps coming up, better leave it at least on the talk page. -- Kimiko 21:24 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Apostrophe in years
Moved from Village pump

Does anyone have a Fowler's to hand? When I say "foobar had started by the 1920s", do I write "1920's" or "1920s"? Cgs

 * 1920s. Or (subject to the linking/overlinking discussion abouve, of course, 1920s. Tannin

 * having two numbers which are not seperated by a word is substantially easier to mentally parse

Oh? What's the source for this? Martin


text:
Talk:Jasper Tudor

Page name
At what point does it become appropriate to revert to 'Jasper Tudor' as the title of this article ? Most of the contributors to this discussion favour this. Gwedi elwch (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * According to Requested moves, User:Zacwill shouldn't have moved the article without discussion in 2015 because there had been previous discussion. However, it's too late now to undo that move, because the title has been in place for a long time. To move it now, you'd need to request a single page move. Please note that talk page threads are supposed to thread in date order, new comments should go at the bottom of the thread, not the top. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Having read the discussion below, I cannot understand how the article on Jasper Tudor is still entitled - Jasper Tudor, 1st Duke of Bedford. Like many of the contributors below I consider it preferable to entitle the article simply 'Jasper Tudor'. Adding 'Duke of Bedford' suffers from the defect identified by Loren below - he is almost never referred to as 'Duke of Bedford' in the secondary sources. Adding 'Earl of Pembroke' suffers from the defect that he was ultimately promoted to Duke of Bedford. Of course these titles should be referred to in the article, but there is no reason why they should be referred to in the title of the article. Gwedi elwch (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Jasper Tudor is more commonly referred to as Earl of Pembroke, probably because he didn't receive the dukedom until late in life and well after the major accomplishments of his life. So I wonder if would be better to list him that way? -- Loren

 * For what it's worth, I'd rather see him back at Jasper Tudor, where he started. There's no rule that says peerages have to be included in an article's title, not if the person is better known just by their name. Deb 11:55 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I've moved him back to plain old Jasper Tudor, simply because there were so many links to him by this name, and none at all under "Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford". Deb 19:09 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Jasper Tudor is just about never referred to as "Jasper Tudor, Ist Duke of Bedford." As stated above, if a title has to be included than "Earl of Pembroke" is the usual choice, although "Jasper Tudor" would be preferable, more conventional, and in line with wikipedia's naming policy of using the most familiar name. Would there be any strong objections to renaming the article accordingly? Enaidmawr 19:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Moved without discussion - moved back. WP:COMMONNAMES gives precedence to common usage over standardization. If you think Jasper Tudor is not common enough to qualify, then make your argument. Agricolae (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

 * People with titles, specially high titles, should be, and allways are, referred to with them next to their names. I tried to move it to Jasper Tudor, 1st Duke of Bedford, but it can't be done. LoveActresses (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Did you bother even to read what I said? They are NOT always referred to with their title, unless "the Conqueror" is the title of the first Norman king of England.  As to whether the SHOULD, that is a separate question, but the current naming standards say otherwise. Go Read the Cited Page WP:COMMONNAME.  Please EDUCATE YOURSELF rather than just presenting your personal opinion as the way things should or are done. Agricolae (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

 * YOU educate yourself, and got talk like that to your mother: I've never seen a holder of a title not be mentioned with it, and I've seen dozens. LoveActresses (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

 * What? Having seen important people makes your opinion more valid? I don't care if you once stood 6 feet away from the Queen of Denmark, your opinions are still just your opinions. I don't care what you've seen: this is not a ballroom, it's an encyclopedia. Agricolae (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

 * No!... How can you interpret what I said that way? When I said I've seen dozens I wasn't referrinf to the holders themselves but to thr articles about them, I've seen them, lot's of them!... LoveActresses (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Oh, and the mentioned "ten commandments" say nothing about titles of nobility, so, it's just YOUR personal opinion. And, if you don't have the sense or the sensibility to know how things go better and stick to rules like a nobrainer, too bad. How can / how could wikipedia exclude titles and high titles? Do that to people in my country and you'll see what's better. LoveActresses (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's see, William the Conqueror; Cnut the Great; Edward, the Black Prince (by the way, ODNB just names his article Edward - no titles at all: this is not a practice unique to Wikipedia, nor unknown in a title-conscious nation); Lord Byron; Margaret Thatcher; William Pitt the Younger; I could go on. "It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English." (from WP:NCROY).  How could Wikipedia exclude high titles?  By not using them - it is that simple, no trick to it, you just leave them out.  What would happen in your country is entirely irrelevant because Wikipedia need not conform to the obscure social norms of every country where it can be read.

 * Just to be clear, there are two issues here. The first is whether the name of Jasper Tudor is common enough to override the formulaic naming you prefer.  That is the kind of thing that can be discussed here.  You can even make a formal request for a move to formalize the process.  A separate issue is that this had already been discussed here, and a consensus reached that the name should be just Jasper Tudor.  To then ignore this consensus and change the page name without further discussion, based on your own preference, is entirely inappropriate. Any controversial page move should be discussed first.  The fact that it had been discussed and decided differently makes your change inherently controversial.  It is incumbent on you to respect other editors enough to not assume your personal opinions are more important that a consensus already reached. I reverted it, not because you were clearly wrong in your opinion (I think you are, but could perhaps be convinced otherwise), but because you ignored a consensus already reached and just changed the name. Agricolae (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

 * I didn't ignore the consensus because I didn't know there was one in the first place, I couldn't have known about a previous discussion, and checking every single discussion page is rather unusual. I didn't know, but now I do. As for the above mentioned cases, they're simply exceptions to the generality of the cases. Why? Because, due to their celebrity they became known by some names instead of the formal titles, as it's mentioned on WP:COMMONNAME. I can even provide you another, Dai Llewellyn, more famous as such as a socialite than as the Baronet he was. Only then titles are ignored, by not being forbidden and for being the use of articles and editors. Jasper Tudor isn't better known as "the" Jasper Tudor, he's not that big. LoveActresses (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Any time you change the name of a page you should check whether the name has been discussed. Look, I know you are new at this and that there is a rather steep learning curve, but that is no excuse for running roughshod over policies and established consensus. That it never occurred to you to look IS the problem, "I couldn't have known about the previous discussion" is just wrong. Had you investigated the policies regarding moving pages before you did it, you would have known to look. As to the specific question at issue, your own definition of what constitutes a special case seems to be at odds with the that of others. This is not a question unique to this page - there are those who favor standardization at the expense of convenience, and those who favor convenience at the expense of standardization. The result is an uncomfortable mix, with both sides not liking some of the outcomes. The other perspective is, how likely is someone to be looking for a man named Jasper Tudor who is not "the" Jasper Tudor? If someone is the only notable person of that name, why is it necessary to specify that it is the Jasper Tudor who was Earl of Whatnot, rather than some other hypothetical Jasper Tudor nobody is going to search for anyhow? Had I gone to Wikipedia looking for this particular guy, I would have typed two words in the search window - Jasper Tudor: not his title, not his other title, not that he was 1st or 22nd or whatever he was, but Jasper Tudor, full stop. Agricolae (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

 * In any moves I've made I've allways taken in consideration similar pages, allways. Less to none possibility to mistake. But sometimes it happens. LoveActresses (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Beside, when we move we see the talk page, and I've rarelly seen anything on it. Unless it's the new talk page. LoveActresses (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, in most cases nothing has been discussed. It tends to lull one into not checking, but you should always check, even if the move seems obvious to you. The fact is, you never know when someone is going to disagree with anything you do here. It is best to be proactive, look before you leap, prepare your arguments to make them well, based on policy and not just personal opinion, and not to take offense when contradicted. Agricolae (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Bosworth
In terms of the Bosworth material here, I've always heard that it was the Earl of Oxford who was responsible for the Lancastrian victory there. Does anyone else have any idea? john k 18:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Illegitimate children section
ADDITIONAL NOTE ON WELSH GENEALOGIES. The AHRC Project on P.C. Bartrum’s Welsh Genealogies (2010): Marchudd 13 & Marchudd 13A, Welsh Department, Aberystwyth University. This genealogical table shows Jasper Tudor with one illegitimate daughter, Helen, who married William Gardiner of London. It does not show any children for Helen and it does not show any other illegitimate child of Jasper Tudor. If this Bartram table rests on Welsh sources independent of Tonge and Dugdale these may provide further support for Jasper's paternity of Ellen / Helen. Gwedi elwch (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I have now redrafted this section so that it reflects the sources. As a result of considering Tonge's 1530 Visitation of the North, I consider that there is a reliable source for claiming Ellen as an illegitimate child of Jasper Tudor. The Visitation was carried out under a warrant of King Henry VIII and it would have been a rather brave Prior who asserted, without a fair degree of confidence, descent from a bastard child of Jasper Tudor, the King's great-uncle - and as a result claimed to be entitled to impale Jasper's arms (albeit with a bend sinister to denote bastardy), in particular since Jasper's own arms incorporated the royal arms of England. My next comment is now of historical interest only. Gwedi elwch (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This section is seriously defective.

(1) For the supposed illegitimate daughter JOAN, there is NO reliable / verifiable source. The only cited "source" is (footnote 21) the website 'Find a Grave', which itself cites no sources. This is hopeless. Footnote 20 correctly states that William Dugdale's Baronage of England page 242 only lists Helen as an illegitimate daughter and fails to mention Joan.

(2) For the supposed illegitimate daughter Helen, it would be possible to cite William Dugdale’s Baronage of England as a source. But note that (a) this dates only to 1676 - there is no earlier source; (b) Jasper Tudor's will makes no mention of any illegitimate daughters; (c) even Dugdale does not mention the supposed mother Myfanwy ferch Dafydd. Dugdale simply reports Jasper as ‘leaving no other issue than one illegitimate Daughter, called Ellen, who became the Wife of William Gardner, Citizen of London’, a statement based on a book of a contemporary of Dugdale’s.Dugdale is not a very secure source - but even based on Dugdale this section requires serious pruning.

Gwedi elwch (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This section needs to be cleaned up. There are far too many dates which clutter the sentences and confuse the reader.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

 * The changes by user:LoveActresses turn out to have been made by a sockpuppet of user:G.-M. Cupertino. As the edit were added with only one unreliable source I have reverted out the changes. -- PBS (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I added back in the reference to both Jasper Tudor's daughters. Until someone can find evidence that refutes the claim simply stating, "It is unsupportable" is not enough for a removal. Virgosky (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Legitimate Children
As far as I know he had no children by marriage, though it says differently here. If he had had a son by his wife during the marriage (as the page says), this son would at least have inherited his father's earldom if not the dukedom.--92.226.142.201 (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Arms
"Jasper Tudor bore the arms of the kingdom, with the addition of...". Given that his father's arms are at Owen Tudor on what basis did Jasper Tudor use the arms of the kingdom? Avalon (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * as one of the half-brothers of King Henry VI. I think it was granted to him by the king.--92.226.142.201 (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This needs serious sourcing.
It provides very few indeed.

For example the unsubstantiated claims that he had 'considerable military expertise' and 'tactical awareness' etc. Of course he may well done; but who says/

Basket Feudalist 15:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jasper Tudor


text:
Talk:Night

Planning significant updates
I have nominated this article for the Core Contest. Large sections of it are completely un-sourced. My plan is to organize the article as below and begin rewriting according to reliable sources.

 * 1) Astronomy
 * 2) On Earth
 * 3) Beyond Earth
 * 4) Biology
 * 5) Culture
 * 6) History and technology
 * 7) In art
 * 8) In folklore

Feedback is welcome, and if others are interested in improving this article, feel free to ping me and I can post my bibliography as I take notes, Rjjiii  (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Night


text:
Sound system

Sound system may refer to:

Technology Media

 * Sound reinforcement system, a system for amplifying audio for an audience
 * High fidelity, a sound system intended for accurate reproduction of music in the home
 * Public address system, an institutional speech-reinforcement or public safety announcement system
 * Shelf stereo, a compact sound system for personal use
 * Amplifier

Arts and entertainment

 * Sound system (DJ), a group of disc jockeys performing together
 * Sound system (Jamaican), a group of disc jockeys, engineers and MCs playing ska, rocksteady or reggae music
 * Sound System Records, an Australian record label
 * LCD Soundsystem, an American rock band
 * Sound System (album), by The Clash
 * Sound System: The Final Releases, a 2021 EP by Bad Gyal
 * Sound-System (album), by Herbie Hancock
 * Soundsystem (311 album), 1999
 * "Sound System", a song by Operation Ivy

title: Sound system


text:
St John Passion (disambiguation)

St John Passion or, in Latin, Passio Domini Nostri Iesu Christi secundum Ioannem (The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to John), refers to the Passion of Christ as told in chapters 18 and 19 of the Gospel of John.

It also may refer to compositions based on that text:
 * Passio Secundum Johannem by Johann Walter (c. 1530), published in Neu Leipziger Gesangbuch, p. 227ff
 * Passio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi secundum Johannem (1557) by Cipriano de Rore
 * Passio Secundum Johannem (1580) by Orlande de Lassus
 * Historia der Passion und des Leidens unseres einigen Erlösers und Seligmachers Jesu Christi (1593) by Leonhard Lechner
 * Passio Secundum Johannem by Teodoro Clinio (1595)
 * St. John Passion (1605) by William Byrd
 * Johannes Passion  (1643) by Thomas Selle
 * Johannes-Passion (1666) by Heinrich Schütz
 * Passio Secundum Johannem by Alessandro Scarlatti
 * St John Passion (1724) by Johann Sebastian Bach
 * Johannes Passion, 11 settings among Georg Philipp Telemann's Passions (1725–1765)
 * Johannes-Passion, attributed to Georg Friedrich Händel
 * Johannes-Passion by Georg Gebel 1748
 * Johannes Passion, several settings among Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach's Passions (1772–1788)
 * Passio (Passio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi secundum Joannem, 1982) by Arvo Pärt
 * Johannes-Passion (2000) by Sofia Gubaidulina
 * St John Passion (2008) by James MacMillan

title: St John Passion (disambiguation)